Reply Obj. 2:  The fact that something appears good in particular to the reason, whereas it is not good, is due to a passion:  and yet this particular judgment is contrary to the universal knowledge of the reason.

Reply Obj. 3:  It is impossible for anyone to have an actual knowledge or true opinion about a universal affirmative proposition, and at the same time a false opinion about a particular negative proposition, or vice versa:  but it may well happen that a man has true habitual knowledge about a universal affirmative proposition, and actually a false opinion about a particular negative:  because an act is directly opposed, not to a habit, but to an act.

Reply Obj. 4:  He that has knowledge in a universal, is hindered, on account of a passion, from reasoning about that universal, so as to draw the conclusion:  but he reasons about another universal proposition suggested by the inclination of the passion, and draws his conclusion accordingly.  Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 3) that the syllogism of an incontinent man has four propositions, two particular and two universal, of which one is of the son, e.g.  No fornication is lawful, and the other, of passion, e.g.  Pleasure is to be pursued.  Hence passion fetters the reason, and hinders it from arguing and concluding under the first proposition; so that while the passion lasts, the reason argues and concludes under the second.

Reply Obj. 5:  Even as a drunken man sometimes gives utterance to words of deep signification, of which, however, he is incompetent to judge, his drunkenness hindering him; so that a man who is in a state of passion, may indeed say in words that he ought not to do so and so, yet his inner thought is that he must do it, as stated in Ethic. vii, 3. ________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 77, Art. 3]

Whether a Sin Committed Through Passion, Should Be Called a Sin of
Weakness?

Objection 1:  It would seem that a sin committed through passion should not be called a sin of weakness.  For a passion is a vehement movement of the sensitive appetite, as stated above (A. 1).  Now vehemence of movements is evidence of strength rather than of weakness.  Therefore a sin committed through passion, should not be called a sin of weakness.

Obj. 2:  Further, weakness in man regards that which is most fragile in him.  Now this is the flesh; whence it is written (Ps. 77:39):  “He remembered that they are flesh.”  Therefore sins of weakness should be those which result from bodily defects, rather than those which are due to a passion.

Obj. 3:  Further, man does not seem to be weak in respect of things which are subject to his will.  Now it is subject to man’s will, whether he do or do not the things to which his passions incline him, according to Gen. 4:7:  “Thy appetite shall be under thee [Vulg.:  ’The lust thereof shall be under thee.’], and thou shalt have dominion over it.”  Therefore sin committed through passion is not a sin of weakness.