Pride

Passages

Every passage tagged with this emotion in the Vela corpus. Search the body text, narrow by source or register, click through to a book’s profile to see how the passage sits with the rest of the work.

Page 97 of 174 · 20 per page

• From Collected Essays (1998)

  It spoke of the progress which had taken place in the world in the last few years and stated that this progress per mitted one to hope fo r the general abolition of the colonial system and the total and universal end of racial discr imination, and ended: "Our conference, which respects the cul tures of all countries and appreciates their contributions to the prog ress of civilization, engages all black men in the defense, the illus trati on, and the dissemination throughout the world of the national values of their peopl e. We, black writers and art ists, proclaim our brotherhood toward all men and expect of them ( <nous attendom d'eux') the manifestation of this same brotherhood toward our peop le." When the applause in which the last words of this document were very nearly drowned had ended, Diop pointed out that this was not a declaration of war; it was, rather, he said, a declaration of love-f or the culture, European, which had been of such importance in the history of mankind. But it had been very keenly felt that it was now necessary fo r black men to make the effort to define thems elves au lieu d'etre toujours dejini par les autr es. Black men had resolved "to take their desti nies into their own hands." He spoke of plans fo r the setting up of an international association fo r the dissemination of black cultur e and, at five-twenty-two, Dr. Price -Mars offi cially closed the conference and opened the floor to the au dience fo r the Euro-African dialogu e. Someone, a Eur opean, addressed this question to Aime Cesaire: How, he asked, do you explain the fact that many Eur opeans -as well as many Africans, bien entendu- reject what is referred to as Eur opean cult ure? A European himself, he was far from certain that such a thing as a Eur opean cultur e existed. It was possi ble to be a European without accepting the Greco-Roman tradition. Neither did he believe in race. He wanted to know in what, exactly, this Negro-African cul ture consisted and, more, why it was jud ged necessary to save it. He ended, somewhat vaguely, by saying that, in his opin ion, it was human values which had to be preserved, hum an needs which had to be respected and expressed. This admirable but quite inadequate psychologist precipi tated something of a storm. Diop tried to answer the first part 168 NOBODY KN OWS MY NA ME of his question by pointing out that, in their attitudes toward their cultur es, a great diversity of viewpoint s also obtained among black men. Then an enormous, handsome, extremely impr essive black man whom I had not remarked before, who was also named Cesaire, stated that the conte mporary crisis of black cultures had been brought about by Europe's nine teenth-and twentieth-century attempts to impose their cul ture on other peoples.

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  On the contrary, Falsehood is contrary to truth. Now a heretic is one who devises or follows false or new opinions. Therefore heresy is opposed to the truth, on which faith is founded; and consequently it is a species of unbelief. I answer that, The word heresy as stated in the first objection denotes a choosing. Now choice as stated above ([2399]FS, Q[13], A[3]) is about things directed to the end, the end being presupposed. Now, in matters of faith, the will assents to some truth, as to its proper good, as was shown above (Q[4], A[3]): wherefore that which is the chief truth, has the character of last end, while those which are secondary truths, have the character of being directed to the end. Now, whoever believes, assents to someone’s words; so that, in every form of unbelief, the person to whose words assent is given seems to hold the chief place and to be the end as it were; while the things by holding which one assents to that person hold a secondary place. Consequently he that holds the Christian faith aright, assents, by his will, to Christ, in those things which truly belong to His doctrine. Accordingly there are two ways in which a man may deviate from the rectitude of the Christian faith. First, because he is unwilling to assent to Christ: and such a man has an evil will, so to say, in respect of the very end. This belongs to the species of unbelief in pagans and Jews. Secondly, because, though he intends to assent to Christ, yet he fails in his choice of those things wherein he assents to Christ, because he chooses not what Christ really taught, but the suggestions of his own mind. Therefore heresy is a species of unbelief, belonging to those who profess the Christian faith, but corrupt its dogmas. Reply to Objection 1: Choice regards unbelief in the same way as the will regards faith, as stated above. Reply to Objection 2: Vices take their species from their proximate end, while, from their remote end, they take their genus and cause. Thus in the case of adultery committed for the sake of theft, there is the species of adultery taken from its proper end and object; but the ultimate end shows that the act of adultery is both the result of the theft, and is included under it, as an effect under its cause, or a species under its genus, as appears from what we have said about acts in general ([2400]FS, Q[18], A[7]). Wherefore, as to the case in point also, the proximate end of heresy is adherence to one’s own false opinion, and from this it derives its species, while its remote end reveals its cause, viz. that it arises from pride or covetousness.

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  OF PRIDE (EIGHT ARTICLES)We must next consider pride, and (1) pride in general; (2) the first man’s sin, which we hold to have been pride. Under the first head there are eight points of inquiry: (1) Whether pride is a sin? (2) Whether it is a special vice? (3) Wherein does it reside as in its subject? (4) Of its species; (5) Whether it is a mortal sin? (6) Whether it is the most grievous of all sins? (7) Of its relation to other sins; (8) Whether it should be reckoned a capital vice? Whether pride is a sin?Objection 1: It would seem that pride is not a sin. For no sin is the object of God’s promise. For God’s promises refer to what He will do; and He is not the author of sin. Now pride is numbered among the Divine promises: for it is written (Is. 60:15): “I will make thee to be an everlasting pride [Douay: ‘glory’], a joy unto generation and generation.” Therefore pride is not a sin. Objection 2: Further, it is not a sin to wish to be like unto God: for every creature has a natural desire for this; and especially does this become the rational creature which is made to God’s image and likeness. Now it is said in Prosper’s Lib. Sent. 294, that “pride is love of one’s own excellence, whereby one is likened to God who is supremely excellent.” Hence Augustine says (Confess. ii, 6): “Pride imitates exaltedness; whereas Thou alone art God exalted over all.” Therefore pride is not a sin. Objection 3: Further, a sin is opposed not only to a virtue but also to a contrary vice, as the Philosopher states (Ethic. ii, 8). But no vice is found to be opposed to pride. Therefore pride is not a sin. On the contrary, It is written (Tob. 4:14): “Never suffer pride to reign in thy mind or in thy words.” I answer that, Pride [superbia] is so called because a man thereby aims higher [supra] than he is; wherefore Isidore says (Etym. x): “A man is said to be proud, because he wishes to appear above (super) what he really is”; for he who wishes to overstep beyond what he is, is proud. Now right reason requires that every man’s will should tend to that which is proportionate to him. Therefore it is evident that pride denotes something opposed to right reason, and this shows it to have the character of sin, because according to Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv, 4), “the soul’s evil is to be opposed to reason.” Therefore it is evident that pride is a sin.

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  Again. The most important thing in a virtue, is the due end: because the character of goodness is derived chiefly from the end. Consequently where the end is higher, even if a man be somewhat remiss in his act, his act will be more virtuous: thus, if one man proposes to go a long way for the sake of a virtuous good, and another, to go a short way, he who proposes to do the greater thing for the sake of virtue will deserve the greater praise; although he may make slower progress on the way. And if a man do something for God, he offers that act to God: but if he does it by vow, he offers God not only his act, but even his very power to act. Hence he clearly purposes to offer God something greater. Therefore his act will be more virtuous by reason of the greater good intended, although another man may appear to be more fervent in the execution. Besides. The will that precedes the act remains virtually for the whole time that the act is carried on, and makes it praiseworthy, even when a man, while he is performing an action, no longer thinks of the purpose for which he began the action: thus, a man who undertakes a journey for God, need not think actually of God at every stage of his way. Now, it is clear that a man who vowed to do a thing, willed to do so more inflexibly than one who simply proposed to do it: since not only willed he to do it, but he willed so to strengthen himself lest he should fail to do it. Accordingly, this intention of the will renders praiseworthy the execution of the vow by reason of a certain inflexibility, even where the will is not actually directed to the deed, or is directed negligently. Therefore that which is done by vow is more praiseworthy than what is done without a vow: other things, however, being equal. CHAPTER CXXXIX THAT NEITHER MERITS NOR SINS ARE EQUALIT is clear from what has been said that neither all good deeds, nor all sins, are equal. For a counsel is only about a greater good. Now, counsels in the divine law, are about poverty, continence and the like, as stated above. Hence these things are better than the use of marriage, and the possession of earthly goods: and yet with these one may live a virtuous life, if one keep within the bounds of reason, as we have proved. Therefore acts of virtue are not all equal.

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  I answer that, As stated above ([3620]AA[2],5, ad 1) pride may be considered in two ways; first in itself, as being a special sin; secondly, as having a general influence towards all sins. Now the capital vices are said to be certain special sins from which many kinds of sin arise. Wherefore some, considering pride in the light of a special sin, numbered it together with the other capital vices. But Gregory, taking into consideration its general influence towards all vices, as explained above (A[2], OBJ[3]), did not place it among the capital vices, but held it to be the “queen and mother of all the vices.” Hence he says (Moral. xxxi, 45): “Pride, the queen of vices, when it has vanquished and captured the heart, forthwith delivers it into the hands of its lieutenants the seven principal vices, that they may despoil it and produce vices of all kinds.” This suffices for the Reply to the First Objection. Reply to Objection 2: Pride is not the same as vainglory, but is the cause thereof: for pride covets excellence inordinately: while vainglory covets the outward show of excellence. Reply to Objection 3: The fact that envy, which is a capital vice, arises from pride, does not prove that pride is a capital vice, but that it is still more principal than the capital vices themselves. OF THE FIRST MAN’S SIN (FOUR ARTICLES)We must now consider the first man’s sin which was pride: and (1) his sin; (2) its punishment; (3) the temptation whereby he was led to sin. Under the first head there are four points of inquiry: (1) Whether pride was the first man’s first sin? (2) What the first man coveted by sinning? (3) Whether his sin was more grievous than all other sins? (4) Which sinned more grievously, the man or the woman? Whether pride was the first man’s first sin?Objection 1: It would seem that pride was not the first man’s first sin. For the Apostle says (Rom. 5:19) that “by the disobedience of one man many were made sinners.” Now the first man’s first sin is the one by which all men were made sinners in the point of original sin. Therefore disobedience, and not pride, was the first man’s first sin. Objection 2: Further, Ambrose says, commenting on Lk. 4:3, “And the devil said to Him,” that the devil in tempting Christ observed the same order as in overcoming the first man. Now Christ was first tempted to gluttony, as appears from Mat. 4:3, where it was said to Him: “If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.” Therefore the first man’s first sin was not pride but gluttony. Objection 3: Further, man sinned at the devil’s suggestion. Now the devil in tempting man promised him knowledge (Gn. 3:5). Therefore inordinateness in man was through the desire of knowledge, which pertains to curiosity. Therefore curiosity, and not pride, was the first sin.

• From The Well of Loneliness (1928)

  Never was rider more proud or more happy than Stephen, when first she and Raftery went a-hunting; and never was youngster more wise or courageous than Raftery proved himself at his fences; and never can Bellerophon have thrilled to more daring than did Stephen, astride of Raftery that day, with the wind in her face and a fire in her heart that made life a thing of glory. At the very beginning of the run the fox turned in the direction of Morton, actually crossing the big north paddock before turning once more and making for Upton. In the paddock was a mighty, upstanding hedge, a formidable place concealing timber, and what must they do, these two young creatures, but go straight at it and get safely over — those who saw Raftery fly that hedge could never afterwards doubt his valour. And when they got home there was Anna waiting to pat Raftery, because she could not resist him. Because, being Irish, her hands loved the feel of fine horse-flesh under their delicate fingers — and because she did very much want to be tender to Stephen, and un- derstanding. But as Stephen dismounted, bespattered and di- shevelled, and yet with that perversive look of her father, the 62 THE WELL OF LONELINESS words that Anna had been planning to speak died away before they could get themselves spoken — she shrank back from the child; but the child was too overjoyed at that moment to perceive it. 4 Happy days, splendid days of childish achievements; but they passed all too soon, giving place to the seasons, and there came the winter when Stephen was fourteen. On a January afternoon of bright sunshine, Mademoiselle Duphot sat dabbing her eyes; for Mademoiselle Duphot must leave her loved Stévenne, must give place to a rival who could teach Greek and Latin —she would go back to Paris, the poor Mademoiselle Duphot, and take care of her ageing Maman. Meanwhile, Stephen, very angular and lanky at fourteen, was standing before her father in his study. She stood still, but her glance kept straying to the window, to the sunshine that seemed to be beckoning through the window. She was dressed for riding in breeches and gaiters, and her thoughts were with Raftery. “Sit down,’ said Sir Philip, and his voice was so grave that her thoughts came back with a leap and a bound; ‘ you and I have got to talk this thing out, Stephen.’ ‘What thing, Father?’ she faltered, sitting down abruptly. ‘ Your idleness, my child. The time has now come when all play and no work will make a dull Stephen, unless we pull our- selves together.’ She rested her large, shapely hands on her knees and bent forward, searching his face intently. What she saw there was a quiet determination that spread from his lips to his eyes. She grew suddenly uneasy, like a youngster who objects to the rather unpleasant process of mouthing.

• From Fragments (7)

  From the end of the world thou hast just returned, And an ivory-hilted sword hast thou earned, A sword which is all overlaid with gold, A magnificent prize for thy labors bold. Which by Babylon's men was given to thee ; For thou from their troubles thine allies didst free. Thou slewest a royal warrior, a man To be five ells tall lacking only a span. 67 Lyric Songs of the Greeks ALCAEUS' ARMORY (40) Its whole large hall with bronze is brightly beaming, Its roof bedecked with flashing helmets gleaming, Grim tools of war. White crests of horses' hair Nod at their tops, a treasured pride to wear For warriors on their heads. Upon each wall The pegs by flashing greaves are hidden all. Against swift darts a brazen bulwark strong, And by new linen corslets, and a throng Of curved shields and of Chalcidian blades, Tunics, and belts, and other warlike aids. These can we not forget and e'er must heed, Since once we undertook this martial deed. LESSER MARTIAL FRAGMENTS THE STATE'S TOWER OF STRENGTH (41) A tower of strength for every state, So are its mighty warriors great. DEATH IN BATTLE (42) Who dies in war. His lot is fair. 68 Alcaeus THE TERROR OF THE ENEMY (43) They crouched before him as small birds do, When an eagle suddenly comes in view. A PRAYER FOR VICTORY (44) Immortal gods, we pray that ye Grant to us the victory. THE GOD OF WAR (45) Thee, Ares, we revere. Through whom comes murderous fear. ACHILLES (46) Achilles, thou who dost command O'er those who dwell in the Scythian land. AJAX (47) O Ajax, gallant scion of Cronos' royal son, Achilles only greater fame than thou hast won. 69 Lyric Songs of the Greeks HELEN AND THETIS (48) To Priam and all his sons a bitter end Because of evil deeds the gods did send. O Helen, thou didst cause their ire, Which sacred Troy laid low with fire. Not like to thee that beauteous maiden was, Led homeward by the son of Aeacus From Nereus' halls to Chiron's home. Whither all blessed gods had come. Invited guests, they to the wedding thronged, For which the noble Peleus' heart had longed. The blissful union with the maid. Who was the fairest Nereid. Within a year the hero of greatest might Was bom, who knew the tawny steeds to guide. But, battling for Helen in the fray, Phrygians and city ruined lay. TO CASTOR AND POLLUX (49) Come hither, ye mighty sons of Zeus And Leda; Olympus leave behind. Your flashing home. With gladsome mind. Castor and Pollux, appear to us. 70 Alcaeui Ye who traverse the whole expanse Of the earth and over the spacious seas On your swift-footed steeds, ye save with ease All men whom to meet chill Death did chance. On the tops of the well-benched ships ye leap, Gleaming afar in the murky night. As ye land on its cables ye bring a light

• From Under the Banner of Heaven (2003)

  “My brother David and I used to sneak up here every chance we got when we were kids,” says DeLoy Bateman. “Seemed like the only place where the religion couldn’t control us.” DeLoy is perched at the edge of this mountaintop, staring down at the town where he was born and raised. It’s the end of July, and the temperature is 104 degrees Fahrenheit in the shade. DeLoy—who seems oblivious to the withering heat even though he is wearing long polyester pants, a long-sleeved shirt, and the religion’s trademark long underwear—is an apostate from the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and has no respect for its new prophet, Warren Jeffs, but he still resides in this xenophobic community, smack in the middle of town, and doubts that he’ll ever live very far away. DeLoy no longer practices plural marriage. The second of his two wives moved out and now lives in St. George; her kids have remained with DeLoy in Colorado City, and she comes to visit them every week. “Since I don’t believe in what the religion teaches anymore,” he explains, “I just can’t justify polygamy.” And it isn’t merely the fundamentalist religion that DeLoy has abandoned—he announces that he’s done with religion, period. Unlike most who have rejected the teachings of the FLDS Church, he didn’t convert to mainline Mormonism, or another branch of Christianity, or some New Age faith. DeLoy has become an atheist. He no longer believes in God. It hasn’t been an easy transformation. “My whole life, I’ve had this need to believe in something,” he says. “I’ve wanted answers to why we were put here, just like everybody else. The religion provided those answers. And there is so much else that’s good about it. The truth is, everything I ever learned came from this religion. It made me what I am. And I’m proud of what I am. This religion is in my blood. I mean, heck, look at me.” Holding his arms out from his sides, palms forward, DeLoy looks down at what he’s wearing, and takes stock with a self-deprecating snort: “Even though I don’t believe anymore, I’m still wearing the garment—the sacred long underwear. I try not to wear it, but I just can’t seem to leave it off, even on hot summer days like this. For some reason not wearing it just doesn’t feel right. I feel naked.” He laughs again, then adds, “That ought to tell you something about the power of this religion.” DeLoy returns his gaze to the orderly grid of homes and fields at the base of the mountain. “It’s hard for outsiders to accept, but there is so much that’s positive about this town. The people that live in those houses down there, they’re extremely hardworking. And strong. Yeah, I’m real attached to Colorado City. . . .

• From Under the Banner of Heaven (2003)

  Fifty-four-year-old Tom Green is a fat, bearded man with a receding hairline, thirty-two children, and five wives (he has married at least ten different women all told, but the other five have left him). The oldest of his current wives is twenty-two years younger than he is; the youngest is twenty-nine years younger. Home for the gigantic Green family has long been a collection of decrepit trailers plunked down on ten acres of desert in Juab County’s desolate Snake Valley, way out toward the Nevada line, a hundred miles from the nearest paved road. Green has modestly christened this little kingdom Greenhaven. Unlike most polygamists, who conscientiously avoid outside scrutiny, Green has an insatiable thirst for publicity. He and his wives have opened their lives to numerous print journalists and have eagerly appeared on such television shows as Judge Judy, Jerry Springer, Queen Latifah, Sally Jessy Rafael, and Dateline NBC. They decided to seek this media attention, Green explained in a public statement, after he woke up one morning and “heard a voice say to me, ‘Don’t hide your light under a bushel, but let your light so shine before men so that they will see your good words and glorify your Father in Heaven.’ I told my wives what I had heard and that I understood from it that God wanted us to be an example that plural marriage can work. . . . We are not ashamed of our beliefs, and we are certainly not ashamed of our family. . . . We just want people to realize that polygamists are not a threat, we are not fanatics, we are not criminals.” Unfortunately for Tom Green, Juab County attorney David O. Leavitt—the younger brother of Utah governor Mike Leavitt—happened to turn on his television one night in 1999 to see Green boasting of his young wives on Dateline NBC. Although Leavitt had long known about Green’s polygamous colony out in the west desert, until he saw Green holding forth in prime time, he’d had no intention of prosecuting him. As a child Leavitt had had friends who were the offspring of polygamists, and his own great-grandfather had married a plurality of wives. In 1993, when Leavitt was fresh out of law school and working as a public defender, he’d even defended a polygamist, and won, by arguing that the religious freedom guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution overruled state laws criminalizing plural marriage.

• From Under the Banner of Heaven (2003)

  created a city that rivaled Chicago. Unlike Chicago, moreover, Nauvoo was no mere city; it was a theocratic principality, with Joseph at its head, possessing sovereign rights and powers unique not only in Illinois but in the entire nation. These special rights were granted in a highly unusual charter passed without fanfare by the Illinois General Assembly in December 1840—a time when the state was eager to attract hardworking settlers who would contribute to the economy and sympathy for the Mormons was running high because of their expulsion from Missouri. As an unintended consequence, Illinois set Joseph up as de facto emperor of his own autonomous city-state. He had himself officially anointed “King, Priest, and Ruler over Israel on Earth.” He commanded a well-armed and rigorously disciplined militia, the Nauvoo Legion, which boasted nearly half as many men as the entire American Army at the time, and then, eager for still more military power, he petitioned the U.S. Congress for authorization to establish a one- hundred-thousand-man fighting force under his personal control. Congress thought better of granting this latter request, but Joseph was on a roll nevertheless. Which probably came as no surprise to the prophet, because he believed that his was the Lord’s One True Church and he was being guided by the hand of God. Secure in this knowledge, and eager to extend his influence to the whole country, in January 1844 Joseph announced his candidacy for president of the United States. * Although historians are in unanimous agreement that Joseph “had a snowball’s chance in hell” of winning the November election, as the Jacksonian scholar Robert Remini phrased it, it is not clear whether Joseph himself shared this view. Already, after all, he’d accomplished much more than anyone could have imagined when he’d incorporated his peculiar new church in Palmyra fourteen years earlier. Joseph took the presidential campaign quite seriously, in any case, dispatching 586 of his most capable and persuasive missionaries— including ten members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles—to all twenty-six states and Wisconsin Territory in order to drum up support for his run at the nation’s highest office. An argument can be made that Joseph ran for president because he had come to believe that it was the only way his Saints were ever going to gain state

• From Enchanted: Erotic Bedtime Stories for Women (Erotic Fiction) (2006)

  As soon as the words were out she felt a flash of terror. Had she really just said that? And when had she stepped out of the protective shelter of her mouse hole? It didn’t matter. She would never give in to him, and he would eventually be forced to leave her with his tail between his legs, unsuccessful and humiliated. This thought made her smile. Cat was smiling, too, thinking, just when it seemed that all the mice were docile little fools, ready to submit to anything put before them, he finds this little gem. Why, she was exactly what he had been searching for his entire life. And to think that he had nearly avoided her, at the advice of the many other cats who had rejected her. “Bitchy,” they all called her! What fools! As exquisite as she was, it was to be expected that she would instinctively want a cat that was willing to put up a fight for her. He recognized this because he came from that same species of animal as she, who prefer a struggle before mating. He needed to continually prove his right to possess his partner, while she needed a mate that was worthy of her and unafraid. Through instinct he knew that they both felt these things, though he also knew that she did not fully understand them yet. Cat stepped closer to Mouse and lightly brushed her hair to one side. She felt his warm breath on her face as he murmured, “How shall we put it to the test?” She sucked in her breath and held it. A thought or two crossed her mind but she remained silent. She was utterly stumped. “Perhaps a kiss,” he suggested finally, after allowing her thoughts to wander a bit. She sighed in relief. All she had to do was withstand one kiss without swooning over him. She was certain that she could do that. How sweet it was going to be to send him packing after he did his damnedest to impress her with his best kiss. She nearly chuckled at the thought. He looked in her eyes and saw the amusement there. So she was already congratulating herself on her victory, was she? Good. He needed to catch her off guard. But he warned himself to be careful. She was one-of-a-kind in their world, and he was not about to let her get away. Confident now, Mouse tilted her head back in anticipation of Cat’s kiss, all the while looking expectantly into his eyes. He stared back at her while his lips hovered directly above hers for what seemed like an eternity. An uncertainty came into her eyes, and suddenly she was impatient. Was he going to do it or not? What kind of a simpleton says he’s going to kiss you and then doesn’t do it? His lips remained so close that they were almost brushing hers. “Well,” he finally whispered, “where would you like it?”

• From History of the Christian Church: The Complete Set of Eight Volumes (1858)

  II. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians was written in the summer or autumn of the same year, 57, from some place in Macedonia, shortly before the author’s intended personal visit to the metropolis of Achaia.1141 It evidently proceeded from profound agitation, and opens to us very freely the personal character and feelings, the official trials and joys, the noble pride and deep humility, the holy earnestness and fervent love, of the apostle. It gives us the deepest insight into his heart, and is almost an autobiography. He had, in the meantime, heard fuller news, through Titus, of the state of the church, the effects produced by his first Epistle, and the intrigues of the emissaries of the Judaizing party, who followed him everywhere and tried to undermine his work. This unchristian opposition compelled him, in self-defence, to speak of his ministry and his personal experience with overpowering eloquence. He also urges again upon the congregation the duty of charitable collections for the poor. The Epistle is a mine of pastoral wisdom.

• From Under the Banner of Heaven (2003)

  wives, but she was the strong one. She told the other wives to stand up for their rights and to think for themselves. And she set an example by refusing to go along with Allen’s demands. She told him in no uncertain terms that she didn’t want him doing things with his brothers. And the brothers blamed her for that, for keeping their family apart. The Lafferty boys didn’t like Brenda, because she got in their way.” Brenda was the second oldest of seven children raised by LaRae, a schoolteacher, and Jim Wright, an agronomist. Born in Logan, Utah, Brenda moved with her family to Ithaca, New York, when she was just a year old, in order for her father to obtain his doctorate at Cornell University. Jim and LaRae pined for the wide-open country of the Rocky Mountain West, but upstate New York was not without appeal, and there was a major attraction just up the road from Ithaca: Palmyra, the birthplace of their LDS faith. As soon as he received his Ph.D., however, Jim moved his family back to the West—to Twin Falls, Idaho, an agricultural town forty miles north of the Utah state line, where Brenda enjoyed a storybook childhood. “She was outgoing, full of life, and had a lot of personality,” says her older sister, Betty Wright McEntire. “Brenda was just real fun. We were best friends.” Popular, active in school government, and a member of the drill team, Brenda was an ambitious student who excelled at almost everything she tried. She was also beautiful, in the wholesome, all-American farm-girl idiom: in 1980 she was first runner-up in the Miss Twin Falls Pageant. After graduating from high school with honors, Brenda enrolled at the University of Idaho, where she was elected president of her sorority. “But,” says her mother, “that wasn’t the kind of life she wanted to lead, so she came back home to Twin Falls and went to the College of Southern Idaho for two years, then transferred to Brigham Young University.” While attending BYU, Brenda joined a “young adult ward”—an LDS student congregation—where she met Allen Lafferty. “Allen wasn’t a student, but for some reason he started attending that student ward in Provo,” LaRae explains. “He had a lot of charisma, they hit it off, and they just started going together.” “When Brenda started going out with Allen, I was out of the country, on a mission in Argentina,” her sister Betty says. “But she wrote to me every week, and I could tell she was pretty serious about this guy. She’d dated a lot of boys

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  [69] Again, those who rule others well are more worthy of praise than those who act well under others’ direction. This applies to the field of all arts and sciences. In the speculative sciences, for instance, it is nobler to impart truth to others by teaching than to be able to grasp what is taught by others. So, too, in matters of the crafts, an architect who plans a building is more highly esteemed and paid a higher wage than is the builder who does the manual labour under his direction; also, in warfare the strategy of the general wins greater glory from victory than the bravery of the soldier. Now the ruler of a multitude stands in the same relation to the virtuous deeds performed by each individual as the teacher to the matters taught the architect to the buildings, and the general to the wars. Consequently, the king is worthy of a greater reward if he governs his subjects well than any of his subjects who act well under him. [70] Further, if it is the part of virtue to render a man’s work good, it is, it seems, from greater virtue that one does greater good. But the good of the multitude is greater and more divine than the good of one man. Wherefore the evil of one man is sometimes endured if it redounds to the good of the multitude, as when a robber is killed to bring peace to the multitude. God Himself would not allow evils to be in the world were it not for the fact that He brings good out of them for the advantage and beauty of the universe. Now it belongs to the office of the king to have zealous concern for the good of the multitude. Therefore a greater reward is due to the king for good ruling than to the subject for acting according to rule. [71] This will become clearer if considered in greater detail. For a private person is praised by men, and his deed reckoned for reward by God, if he helps the needy, brings peace to those in discord, rescues one oppressed by a mightier; in a word, if in any way he gives to another assistance or advice for his welfare How much the more, then, is he to be praised by men and rewarded by God who makes a whole province rejoice in peace, who restrains violence, preserves justice and arranges by his laws and precepts what is to be done by men?

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  I answer that, Sin can exist in a subject in two ways: first of all by actual guilt, and secondly by affection. As to guilt, all sins are in the demons; since by leading men to sin they incur the guilt of all sins. But as to affection only those sins can be in the demons which can belong to a spiritual nature. Now a spiritual nature cannot be affected by such pleasures as appertain to bodies, but only by such as are in keeping with spiritual things; because nothing is affected except with regard to something which is in some way suited to its nature. But there can be no sin when anyone is incited to good of the spiritual order; unless in such affection the rule of the superior be not kept. Such is precisely the sin of pride—not to be subject to a superior when subjection is due. Consequently the first sin of the angel can be none other than pride. Yet, as a consequence, it was possible for envy also to be in them, since for the appetite to tend to the desire of something involves on its part resistance to anything contrary. Now the envious man repines over the good possessed by another, inasmuch as he deems his neighbor’s good to be a hindrance to his own. But another’s good could not be deemed a hindrance to the good coveted by the wicked angel, except inasmuch as he coveted a singular excellence, which would cease to be singular because of the excellence of some other. So, after the sin of pride, there followed the evil of envy in the sinning angel, whereby he grieved over man’s good, and also over the Divine excellence, according as against the devil’s will God makes use of man for the Divine glory. Reply to Objection 1: The demons do not delight in the obscenities of the sins of the flesh, as if they themselves were disposed to carnal pleasures: it is wholly through envy that they take pleasure in all sorts of human sins, so far as these are hindrances to a man’s good.

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  To desire to be as God according to likeness can happen in two ways. In one way, as to that likeness whereby everything is made to be likened unto God. And so, if anyone desire in this way to be Godlike, he commits no sin; provided that he desires such likeness in proper order, that is to say, that he may obtain it of God. But he would sin were he to desire to be like unto God even in the right way, as of his own, and not of God’s power. In another way one may desire to be like unto God in some respect which is not natural to one; as if one were to desire to create heaven and earth, which is proper to God; in which desire there would be sin. It was in this way that the devil desired to be as God. Not that he desired to resemble God by being subject to no one else absolutely; for so he would be desiring his own ‘not-being’; since no creature can exist except by holding its existence under God. But he desired resemblance with God in this respect—by desiring, as his last end of beatitude, something which he could attain by the virtue of his own nature, turning his appetite away from supernatural beatitude, which is attained by God’s grace. Or, if he desired as his last end that likeness of God which is bestowed by grace, he sought to have it by the power of his own nature; and not from Divine assistance according to God’s ordering. This harmonizes with Anselm’s opinion, who says [*De casu diaboli, iv.] that “he sought that to which he would have come had he stood fast.” These two views in a manner coincide; because according to both, he sought to have final beatitude of his own power, whereas this is proper to God alone. Since, then, what exists of itself is the cause of what exists of another, it follows from this furthermore that he sought to have dominion over others; wherein he also perversely wished to be like unto God. From this we have the answer to all the objections. Whether any demons are naturally wicked?Objection 1: It would seem that some demons are naturally wicked. For Porphyry says, as quoted by Augustine (De Civ. Dei x, 11): “There is a class of demons of crafty nature, pretending that they are gods and the souls of the dead.” But to be deceitful is to be evil. Therefore some demons are naturally wicked. Objection 2: Further, as the angels are created by God, so are men. But some men are naturally wicked, of whom it is said (Wis. 12:10): “Their malice is natural.” Therefore some angels may be naturally wicked.

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  Reply to Objection 4: It is true to say that there is a middle time between every two instants, so far as time is continuous, as it is proved Phys. vi, text. 2. But in the angels, who are not subject to the heavenly movement, which is primarily measured by continuous time, time is taken to mean the succession of their mental acts, or of their affections. So the first instant in the angels is understood to respond to the operation of the angelic mind, whereby it introspects itself by its evening knowledge because on the first day evening is mentioned, but not morning. This operation was good in them all. From such operation some of them were converted to the praise of the Word by their morning knowledge while others, absorbed in themselves, became night, “swelling up with pride,” as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. iv, 24). Hence the first act was common to them all; but in their second they were separated. Consequently they were all of them good in the first instant; but in the second the good were set apart from the wicked. Whether the highest angel among those who sinned was the highest of all?Objection 1: It would seem that the highest among the angels who sinned was not the highest of all. For it is stated (Ezech. 28:14): “Thou wast a cherub stretched out, and protecting, and I set thee in the holy mountain of God.” Now the order of the Cherubim is under the order of the Seraphim, as Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. vi, vii). Therefore, the highest angel among those who sinned was not the highest of all. Objection 2: Further, God made intellectual nature in order that it might attain to beatitude. If therefore the highest of the angels sinned, it follows that the Divine ordinance was frustrated in the noblest creature which is unfitting. Objection 3: Further, the more a subject is inclined towards anything, so much the less can it fall away from it. But the higher an angel is, so much the more is he inclined towards God. Therefore so much the less can he turn away from God by sinning. And so it seems that the angel who sinned was not the highest of all, but one of the lower angels. On the contrary, Gregory (Hom. xxxiv in Ev.) says that the chief angel who sinned, “being set over all the hosts of angels, surpassed them in brightness, and was by comparison the most illustrious among them.”

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  I answer that, Two things have to be considered in sin, namely, the proneness to sin, and the motive for sinning. If, then, in the angels we consider the proneness to sin, it seems that the higher angels were less likely to sin than the lower. On this account Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii), that the highest of those who sinned was set over the terrestrial order. This opinion seems to agree with the view of the Platonists, which Augustine quotes (De Civ. Dei vii, 6,7; x, 9,10,11). For they said that all the gods were good; whereas some of the demons were good, and some bad; naming as ‘gods’ the intellectual substances which are above the lunar sphere, and calling by the name of “demons” the intellectual substances which are beneath it, yet higher than men in the order of nature. Nor is this opinion to be rejected as contrary to faith; because the whole corporeal creation is governed by God through the angels, as Augustine says (De Trin. iii, 4,5). Consequently there is nothing to prevent us from saying that the lower angels were divinely set aside for presiding over the lower bodies, the higher over the higher bodies; and the highest to stand before God. And in this sense Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii) that they who fell were of the lower grade of angels; yet in that order some of them remained good. But if the motive for sinning be considered, we find that it existed in the higher angels more than in the lower. For, as has been said [559](A[2]), the demons’ sin was pride; and the motive of pride is excellence, which was greater in the higher spirits. Hence Gregory says that he who sinned was the very highest of all. This seems to be the more probable view: because the angels’ sin did not come of any proneness, but of free choice alone. Consequently that argument seems to have the more weight which is drawn from the motive in sinning. Yet this must not be prejudicial to the other view; because there might be some motive for sinning in him also who was the chief of the lower angels. Reply to Objection 1: Cherubim is interpreted “fulness of knowledge,” while “Seraphim” means “those who are on fire,” or “who set on fire.” Consequently Cherubim is derived from knowledge; which is compatible with mortal sin; but Seraphim is derived from the heat of charity, which is incompatible with mortal sin. Therefore the first angel who sinned is called, not a Seraph, but a Cherub.

• From The Story of My Experiments with Truth (An Autobiography) (1927)

  I had given the interviewer all this literature and showed him that in India I had said nothing which I had not already said in South Africa in stronger language. I had also shown him that I had had no hand in bringing the passengers of the Courland and Naderi to South Africa. Many of them were old residents, and most of them, far from wanting to stay in Natal, meant to go to the Transvaal. In those days the Transvaal offered better prospects than Natal to those coming in search of wealth, and most Indians, therefore, preferred to go there. This interview and my refusal to prosecute the assailants produced such a profound impression that the Europeans of Durban were ashamed of their conduct. The press declared me to be innocent and condemned the mob. Thus the lynching ultimately proved to be a blessing for me, that is, for the cause. It enhanced the prestige of the Indian community in South Africa and made my work easier. In three or four days I went to my house, and it was not long before I settled down again. The incident added also to my professional practice. But if it enhanced the prestige of the community, it also fanned the flame of prejudice against it. As soon as it was proved that the Indian could put up a manly fight, he came to be regarded as a danger. Two bills were introduced in the Natal Legislative Assembly, one of them calculated to affect the Indian trader adversely, and the other to impose a stringent restriction on Indian immigration. Fortunately the fight for the franchise had resulted in a decision to the effect that no enactment might be passed against the Indians as such, that is say, that the law should make no distinctions of colour or race. The language of the bills above mentioned made them applicable to all, but their object undoubtedly was to impose further restrictions on the Indian residents of Natal. The bills considerably increased my public work and made the community more alive then ever to their sense of duty. They were translated into Indian languages and fully explained, so as to bring home to the community their subtle implications. We appealed to the Colonial Secretary, but he refused to interfere and the bills became law. Public work now began to absorb most of my time. Sjt. Mansukhlal Naazar, who, as I have said, was already in Durban, came to stay with me, and as he gave his time to public work, he lightened my burden to some extent. Sheth Adamji Miyakhan had, in my absence, discharged his duty with great credit. He had increased the membership and added about £1,000 to the coffers of the Natal Indian Congress. The awakening caused by the bills and the demonstration against the passengers I turned to good account by making an appeal for membership and funds, which now amounted to £5,000.

• From The Story of My Experiments with Truth (An Autobiography) (1927)

  Mohanlal Pandya, to remove the crop of onion, from a field which had been, in my opinion wrongly attached. I did not regard this as civil disobedience, but even if it was, I suggested that this attachment of standing crops, though it might be in accordance with law, was morally wrong, and was nothing be in accordance with law, was morally wrong, and was nothing short of looting, and that therefore it was the people’s duty to remove the onion in spite of the order of attachment. This was a good opportunity for the people to learn a lesson in courting fines or imprisonment, which was the necessary consequence of such disobedience. For Sjt. Mohanlal Pandya it was a thing after his heart. He did not like the campaign to end without someone undergoing suffering in the shape of imprisonment for something done consistently with the principles fof Satyagraha. So he volunteered to remove the onion crop from the field, and in this seven or eight friends joined him. It was impossible for the Government to leave them free. The arrest of Sjt. Mohanlal and his companions added to the people’s enthusiasm. When the fear of jail disappears, repression puts heart into the people. Crowds of them besieged the court-house on the day of the hearing. Pandya and his companions were convicted and sentenced to a brief term of imprisonment. I was of opinion that the conviction was wrong, because the act of removing the onion crop could not come under the definition of ‘theft’ in the Penal Code. But no appeal was filed as the policy was to avoid the law courts. A procession escorted the ‘convicts’ to jail, and on that day Sjt. Mohanlal Pandya earned from the people the honoured title of dungli Chor (onion thief) which he enjoys to this day. The conclusion of the Kheda Satyagraha I will leave to the next chapter. 151END OF KHEDA SATYAGRAHAThe campaign came to an unexpected end. It was clear that the people were exhausted, and I hesitated to let the unbending be driven to utter ruin. I was casting about for some graceful way of terminating the struggle which would be acceptable to a Satyagrahi. Such a one appeared quite unexpectedly. The Mamlatdar of the Nadiad Taluka sent me word that, if well-to-do Patidars paid up, the poorer ones would be granted suspension. I asked for a written undertaking to that effect, which was given. But as a Mamlatdar could be responsible only for his Taluka, I inquired of the Collector, who alone could give an undertaking in respect of the whole district, whether the Mamlatdar’s undertaking was true for the whole district. He replied that orders declaring suspension in terms of the Mamlatdar’s letter had been already issued. I was not aware of it, but if it was a fact, the people’s pledge had been fulfilled.