Accordingly, circumstances are related to acts in both these ways.  For some circumstances that have a relation to acts, belong to the agent otherwise than through the act; as place and condition of person; whereas others belong to the agent by reason of the act, as the manner in which the act is done. ________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 7, Art. 2]

Whether Theologians Should Take Note of the Circumstances of Human
Acts?

Objection 1:  It would seem that theologians should not take note of the circumstances of human acts.  Because theologians do not consider human acts otherwise than according to their quality of good or evil.  But it seems that circumstances cannot give quality to human acts; for a thing is never qualified, formally speaking, by that which is outside it; but by that which is in it.  Therefore theologians should not take note of the circumstances of acts.

Obj. 2:  Further, circumstances are the accidents of acts.  But one thing may be subject to an infinity of accidents; hence the Philosopher says (Metaph. vi, 2) that “no art or science considers accidental being, except only the art of sophistry.”  Therefore the theologian has not to consider circumstances.

Obj. 3:  Further, the consideration of circumstances belongs to the orator.  But oratory is not a part of theology.  Therefore it is not a theologian’s business to consider circumstances.

On the contrary, Ignorance of circumstances causes an act to be involuntary, according to Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 24) and Gregory of Nyssa [Nemesius, De Nat.  Hom. xxxi.].  But involuntariness excuses from sin, the consideration of which belongs to the theologian.  Therefore circumstances also should be considered by the theologian.

I answer that, Circumstances come under the consideration of the theologian, for a threefold reason.  First, because the theologian considers human acts, inasmuch as man is thereby directed to Happiness.  Now, everything that is directed to an end should be proportionate to that end.  But acts are made proportionate to an end by means of a certain commensurateness, which results from the due circumstances.  Hence the theologian has to consider the circumstances.  Secondly, because the theologian considers human acts according as they are found to be good or evil, better or worse:  and this diversity depends on circumstances, as we shall see further on (Q. 18, AA. 10, 11; Q. 73, A. 7).  Thirdly, because the theologian considers human acts under the aspect of merit and demerit, which is proper to human acts; and for this it is requisite that they be voluntary.  Now a human act is deemed to be voluntary or involuntary, according to knowledge or ignorance of circumstances, as stated above (Q. 6, A. 8).  Therefore the theologian has to consider circumstances.