{
  "id": "a_pzwinp5o",
  "oid": 165470,
  "revision": 1,
  "revision_oid": 165471,
  "work": "orthodoxy",
  "edition": "pg16769-r1",
  "title": "The qualification in 'venial'",
  "anchors": [
    {
      "unit": "CH07.P032",
      "oid": 188,
      "role": null,
      "edition": "pg16769-r1",
      "paragraph": "CH07.P032",
      "exact": "generally a very venial one.",
      "start": 57,
      "end": 85,
      "prefix": "titution: aristocracy is a sin; ",
      "suffix": " It is merely the drift or slide",
      "url": "/orthodoxy/pg16769-r1/CH07.P032#char=57,85"
    }
  ],
  "body_markdown": "'Venial' softens the accusation without withdrawing it: the pomposity remains a moral fault, even when Chesterton treats its ordinary manifestations indulgently. His qualifying 'generally' also prevents the sentence from acquitting every abuse committed under aristocratic authority. The following definition concerns an easy social slide into self-importance and praise of power, not an exhaustive classification of political injustice.\n\nThe terminology should not be mistaken for the theological proposition that pride is always a slight sin. In *Summa theologiae* II–II, question 162, article 5, Aquinas regards pride as mortal in its kind because it refuses subjection to God; he nevertheless allows that initial movements of pride can be venial when they precede rational judgment and lack consent. Chesterton's conversational allowance for common pomposity is not identical to that precise criterion. The comparison clarifies both the theological resonance of his word and the looseness of his usage. Inspected text: English Dominican translation, second revised edition (1920), of Aquinas's thirteenth-century *Summa*. [II–II, q. 162, a. 5, response](https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3162.htm#article5).",
  "sources": [
    {
      "url": "https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3162.htm#article5",
      "title": "Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, II–II, question 162, article 5: Whether pride is a mortal sin?",
      "locator": "Article 5, response, especially final sentence; English Dominican translation, second revised edition, 1920",
      "exact": null
    }
  ],
  "citations": [],
  "external_references": [
    {
      "url": "https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3162.htm#article5",
      "title": "II–II, q. 162, a. 5, response"
    }
  ],
  "limits": [
    "This is a contextual comparison, not proof that Chesterton intended a technical Thomistic classification."
  ],
  "metadata": {
    "run": "chapter-07-restart-2026-11-07",
    "paragraph_investigator": "P032",
    "task": [
      {
        "approach": "Biblical references",
        "question": "How does calling social deference a sin relate to James's condemnation of respect of persons?"
      },
      {
        "approach": "Theological contextualization",
        "question": "What does the qualification 'generally a very venial one' imply, and how does it compare with a theological account of pride?"
      }
    ],
    "model": "gpt-6.1-sol"
  },
  "content_sha256": "sha256:e6b263b3c3536e023eb01869f5ad6cf5fe6b892df06a608d98be17ea5e812398",
  "created_at": "2026-11-07T18:08:03Z",
  "is_current": true,
  "url": "/a/a_pzwinp5o",
  "revision_path": "/a/a_pzwinp5o/r/1",
  "cited_by": []
}