Aquinas 50-52 And 71

In Questions 50-52 and 71 by Aquinas, he discusses habits and how a habit is a “disposition of a subject which is in a state of potentiality either to a form or operation” (ST I-II, q.50, a. 1). Based on this definition, it shows how people are morally responsible for their habits because even though it is a disposition, it has the potential to form the habit, but it has not actually happened yet without the person’s choice. That’s an important thing to remember because sometimes habits become so customary to do that people do not think they are voluntary sins, but in all actuality they are because the person chose to act on that disposition. When reading the Inferno, it seemed that most of these were in Hell because of their habitual choices, although most of them believed it was because of one choice. Examples of this would be the lustful who only made one bad choice to
give into lust or how when Dante is talking to them they describe a single time in which they sinned: “And that you may take back news of me, know that I am Bertran de Born, he who gave the young king the bad encouragements. I made father and son revolt against each other” (Canto 28, p.
439, line 133). In Q. 71, Article 3, Aquinas discusses how an act can surpass a habit in goodness or badness: “Now it has been shown from the very nature of act and habit, that act surpasses habit both in goodness and in badness” even though a habit lasts longer than an act. Can one act send someone to Hell or did these people have habits that led to the serious act? A habit cannot be formed by the single power of an act, so for some of the people it seems that possibly lesser acts were committed, which led to the habit, which then led to the serious act being committed. This can be the case when it comes to simony, flatters and hypocrites; not a single act landed them into Hell, but multiple acts, which caused a habit landed them in Hell. There is still another circumstance in which it seems possible that a single act landed him into Hell, which is the case with the Franciscan who stopped living in vice and became a Franciscan, but then by giving fraudulent counsel he ended up in Hell, even though he believed that he would be
absolved. It seems due to ignorance that the Franciscan truly believed he would receive absolution, but at his death he realized his sad fate: “He must come down among my slaves, because he gave the fraudulent counsel, since when, until now, I have been at his locks; for he cannot be absolved who does not repent, nor can one repent and will together, because of the contradiction, which does not permit it” (Canto 27, p. 423, line 115). The Franciscan chose to go against what is right because he believed there would be absolution, even if he had a virtuous habit, which shows how an act can exceed habit, but can a single act send someone into Hell?