On the Bodies of the Damned

Question 5

On the bodies of the damned

Then there were questions about the bodies of the damned. And about this there were three questions:

first, whether the bodies of the damned are incorruptible;

second, whether they rise with their deformities;

third, whether they will be punished in hell by bodily worm and bodily weeping.

Article 1

Whether the bodies of the damned are incorruptible

To the first we proceed thus. It seems that the bodies of the damned will not be incorruptible.

Obj. 1: For a body cannot be incorruptible except through its nature, as a celestial body; or through the grace of innocence, as the body of man in his first state; or through glory, just as the body of Christ after the Resurrection. But none of these apply to the bodies of the damned. Therefore, the bodies of the damned will not be incorruptible.

Obj. 2: If it is said that they will be incorruptible by a decree of divine justice so that they might be punished perpetually, then to the contrary: perpetual punishment is not due to a fault except inasmuch as the fault has something of perpetuity. But perpetuity of fault is not on the part of the body but on the part of the will, which perpetually chooses to remain in sin. (Cf. Aquinas, In II Sent. d. 42, q. 1, a. 5; ST I-II.87.3.) Therefore, divine justice does not require the body to be punished eternally.

Obj. 3: The body is not punished for the sin of the soul except inasmuch as it is an organ of the soul committing sin. But in some acts of the soul there can be mortal sin, in which acts the body does not share, as is clear in spiritual sins. Therefore, if someone is damned for those only, perpetual punishment would not be due to his body.

Obj. 4: Just as someone is damned on account of the sin of transgression, so also on account of the sin of omission. But the body does not at all cooperate in omission. Therefore, perpetual punishment is not due to it in all the damned, and thus neither does divine justice require the bodies of the damned to be incorruptible. Therefore, it remains that they are corruptible.

On the contrary: A cause having been removed, the effect is removed. (Cf. Aquinas, Commentary on Aristotle’s On Interpretation, bk. 1, lect. 14, nn. 186–89.) But after the resurrection the motion of heaven will cease, (Albert the Great, In IV Sent., d. 43 A, a. 1, ad 6, 30:503a.) which is the cause of corruption in bodies. (Cf. Aristotle, On Generation and Corruption 2.10, 336a15–337a33.) Therefore, corruption will cease, (Cf. Aquinas, In II Sent. d. 2, q. 2, a. 3; Aristotle, Physics 8.1, 250b14–15.) and thus the bodies of the damned will not be corruptible.

I answer that the bodies of the damned will be incorruptible, although passible. Yet the first and principal cause of incorruption is divine justice, which will conserve the bodies of the damned in perpetual punishments. But the secondary, and as it were contributory, cause will be the resting of the motion of heaven, by which no action or passion pertaining to the changing of nature will be able to be in bodies. Hence also the bodies of the damned will not suffer from fire by the passion of nature, by which the nature of the human body would be changed from its nature, but will suffer by the passion of the soul, just as an organ of sense suffers by receiving a likeness of a sensible quality from a sensible thing.

Reply Obj. 1: It must be said that that objection proceeds from an insufficient division: for here there is a different cause of incorruption than the three touched upon in the objection, namely, a decree of divine justice. However, it can be said that they will be incorruptible in some way even through nature, namely, inasmuch as the natural principle of corruption is removed, namely, the motion of heaven.

Reply Obj. 2: It must be said that sin has from the soul, not from the body, both the character of fault and of perpetuity. Hence, just as the body is punished for sin inasmuch as it is an instrument of sin having the character of fault from the soul, so it ought to be punished perpetually inasmuch as it is an instrument of sin which has perpetuity from the will.

Reply Obj. 3: It must be said that the principal reason why the body is punished for the sin of the soul is not that it is an instrument of the soul committing, but more that it is an essential part of the man who commits: for properly speaking, it is man who sins through the soul. And for this reason, if only the soul were to be punished, he who has sinned would not be punished, namely, the man. Nor, nevertheless, is it true that there is some act of man in the present life in which the body does not share. For even though the body does not share in acts of the intellective part as an instrument of the act, nevertheless it shares as representing the object, because the object of the intellect is a phantasm, like color seen, as is said in the third book of On the Soul. (Aristotle, On the Soul 3.7, 431a14–15; 431b2.) Yet there is no phantasm without a bodily organ, and thus it is clear that we use the body in some way both in understanding and in other acts of the soul.

Reply Obj. 4: It must be said that someone is not damned for the sin of omission because something is done, but because that which ought to have been done is omitted. Yet it ought to have been done both by the soul and by the body, inasmuch as the body shares in the acts of the soul. And thus, the sin of both transgression and omission pertain to body and soul in the same way.

Article 2

Whether the bodies of the damned will rise with their deformities

To the second we proceed thus. It seems that the bodies of the damned will rise without deformities.

Obj. 1: For the resurrection will be effected by divine power, which is most perfect. But to a perfect power belongs a perfect activity and a perfect effect. Therefore, the bodies of those rising will be perfect, and thus the bodies of the damned will rise without deformities.

On the contrary: Those things through which he sins, through these also he is tortured (Wis 11:17). But the damned have sinned through bodies which have deformities. Therefore, their bodies will rise with deformities.

I answer that bodily deformity can be from two sources. One way is from the defect of some member, and such deformity, as it is commonly said, will not be in the bodies of the damned, because all will rise incorrupt (1 Cor 15:52), (Glossa ordinaria, at 1 Corinthians 15:52, 6.348 (PL 191:1691; 114:550).) that is, without the defect of any member, so that thus the whole body may be punished in the reprobate and rewarded in the elect. Another way there can be deformity or defect of the body is from the undue proportion of the parts, just as fever happens from the undue proportion of the humors, and as bulging (Cf. Bonaventure, In IV Sent., d. 44, P. 1, a. 3, q. 1, s.c. 1–2, concl., 4:914–15.) happens from a superabundance of flesh in some part. There is a double opinion about such deformity or defect. For certain men, (Bonaventure, In IV Sent., d. 44, P. 1, a. 3, q. 2, 4:915–17.) speaking about the damnation of the reprobate, say they will not lack such deformities, so that nothing of evil would be lacking for them. Whereas others, (Albert the Great, In IV Sent., d. 44 E, a. 33, 30:586–87.) speaking about the power of the one rousing them, who, just as he founded nature in the work of creation, so he will repair nature in the resurrection, say that the author of nature will remove all the defects which have happened from the vice of nature, such as fever and things of this sort. (But defects which have proceeded from a depraved will shall remain in the reprobate, as stains also are charges of sins). Yet which of these is the more true, Augustine in the Enchiridion on Faith, Hope, and Charity has left in doubt, saying that there ought to be no question concerning the beauty of those whose damnation is certain. (Augustine, Enchiridion 1.92 (CCSL 46:98; PL 40:274–75); Bonaventure, In IV Sent., d. 44, P. 1, a. 3, q. 2, obj. 1, 4:915b.)

Reply Obj. 1: These things being seen, the solution to the objections easily is clear.

Article 3

Whether the bodies of the damned will be punished in hell by bodily worm and bodily weeping

To the third we proceed thus. It seems that the bodies of the damned will be punished by bodily worms and bodily weeping.

Obj. 1: Judith 16:21 says: he will give fire and worm unto their flesh. But a spiritual worm is not given to the flesh but rather to the soul. Therefore, the worm by which the reprobate will be punished will be not only spiritual, but also bodily.

Obj. 2: A certain gloss on Luke 13:28 says that through the weeping (Glossa ordinaria, at Luke 13:28, 5.889 (PL 114:305); cf. Jerome, On Matthew 1, on Matthew 8:12 (CCSL 77:50; PL 26:52).) which the Lord threatens against the reprobate, the true resurrection of bodies can be proven, which would not be if that weeping were only spiritual. Therefore, the bodies of the damned will be punished by bodily weeping.

On the contrary (1): The worm by which the reprobate will be punished is immortal, as Isaiah 66:24 says: their worm shall not die. But no animal except man is made for immortality. (Albert the Great, In IV Sent., d. 43 A, a. 1, 30:497; cf. 1 Cor. 15:39.) Therefore, that worm will not be bodily.

Likewise (2): In bodily weeping a certain release of tears of made. But every finite body from which something is continuously released is at last totally consumed unless some restoration is made. Since, therefore, in the bodies of the damned no restoration is made of what is lost, it seems that the perpetual weeping in them will not be bodily.

I answer that about this Augustine in the twentieth book of On the City of God posits diverse opinions, saying thus: in the punishments of the wicked both the inextinguishable fire and the most lively worm have been explained differently by different men. Some surely have referred both to the mind, others both to the body, others fire to the body and worm to the mind by a figure of speech, which seems to be the more credible. (Augustine, City of God 20.22 (CCSL 48:741; PL 41:694).) Hence, following Augustine, we say that that worm will be spiritual, so that the interior remorse of conscience itself corroding the soul might be called a worm, and similarly the weeping will be spiritual, so that the pain itself might be called weeping. Nevertheless, in some way it can be called bodily weeping even without the emission of tears, so that not only the pain of the soul might be called weeping, but the disposition by which the body is disposed by the soul in pain.

Reply Obj. 1: It must be said that that way of speaking is figurative, and thus we can understand through their flesh the souls of the impious, which were carnal.

Reply Obj. 2: It must be said that bodily weeping in the abovementioned way without the emission of tears suffices to insinuate the truth of resurrection. If, nevertheless, it were held that the worm and weeping were bodily, it could be said that both that worm would be sustained and the loss of tears would be restored by divine power.