Cette explication a été rejetée par St-Thomas d'Aquin. Son principal défaut, c'est qu'elle ne distingue pas péché véniel et péché mortel. Il n'y aucune place pour le graduation du châtiment. Selon cette argumentation, toute offense, aussi petite soit-elle (même vénielle), mériterait une peine infinie parce qu'elle atteint la dignité d'un Être infini. Aussi, une créature finie ne peut pas subir une peine infinie en intensité. Seule la durée peut être infinie. C'est abordé dans l'article donné précédemment par John L qui résume la conception thomiste de l'Enfer. Voici l'extrait pertinent.

The first objection given above to the doctrine of hell is an obvious one, and Aquinas offers several replies to it in a number of different discussions. The weakest reply that he mentions is sometimes given as the standard defence for the traditional view of hell—for example by Jonathan Kvanvig, who asserts, “According to defenders of the traditional view, punishment deserved is also a function of the status of the individual onehas wronged, and they argue that all wrongdoing constitutes a wrong against God, and that wronging God is as bad a thing as anyone could do—they are infinitely bad thereby justifying an infinite punishment.” If, as Kvanvig holds, this reply is the principal defence for the traditional doctrine of hell, its weakness would cast doubt on the intellectual respectability of the doctrine and its upholders. In fact, Aquinas himself effectively criticises this reply in the Commentary on the Sentences, where he asserts that “properly speaking, the punishment corresponds to the degree of departure from the order of justice that is found in the sin that is punished, rather than to the dignity of the person against whom the sin offends; for on the later supposition, any sin at all would be rewarded by a punishment of infnite intensity. His argument for sins not deserving a punishment that corresponds to the dignity of the person against whom they offend is that venial sins, which come under the heading of “any sins whatsoever,” deserve and receive a limited rather than an unlimited punishment; but if sin as such deserves infinite punishment because it offends against the infinite God, they should deserve and receive an unlimited punishment. He also points out that created beings, since they are finite, cannot be subjected to a punishment of infinite intensity.”

Soutenir le Forum Catholique dans son entretien, c'est possible. Soit à l'aide d'un virement mensuel soit par le biais d'un soutien ponctuel. Rendez-vous sur la page dédiée en cliquant ici. D'avance, merci !