Presumption
PRESUMPTION
As it relates to the mind, is a supposition formed before examination. As it relates to the conduct or moral action, it implies arrogance and irreverence. As it relates to religion in general, it is a bold and daring confidence in the goodness of God, without obedience to his will. Presumptious sins must be distinguished from sins of infirmity, or those failings peculiar to human nature, Ecc 6:2; 1Jn 1:8-9; from sins done through ignorance, Luk 12:48; and from sins into which men are hurried by sudden and violent temptation, Gal 6:1. The ingredients which render sin presumptuous are, knowledge, Joh 15:22; deliberation and contrivance, Pro 6:14. Psa 36:4; obstinacy, Jer 44:16. Deu 1:13; inattention to the remonstrances of conscience, Act 7:51; opposition to the dispensations of Providence, 2Ch 28:22; and repeated commission of the same sin, Psa 78:17. Presumptuous sins are numerous; such as profane swearing, perjury, theft, adultery, drunkeness, sabbath- breaking, &c. These may be more particularly considered as presumptuous sins, because they are generally committed against a known law, and so often repeated.
Such sins are most heinous in their nature, and most pernicious in their effects. They are said to be a reproach to the Lord, Num 15:3; they harden the heart, 1Ti 4:2; draw down judgments from heaven, Num 15:31; even when repented of, are seldom pardoned without some visible testimony of God’s displeasure, 2Sa 12:10. As it respects professors of religion, as one observes, they sin presumptuously,
1. when they take up a profession of religion without principle;
2. when they profess to ask the blessing of God, and yet go on in forbidden courses;
3. when they do not take religion as they find it in the Scriptures;
4. when they make their feelings the test of their religion, without considering the difference between animal passions and the operations of the Spirit of God;
5. when they run into temptation;
6. when they indulge in self- confidence and self-complacency;
7. when they bring the spirit of the world into the church;
8. when they form apologies for that in some which they condemn in others;
9. when professing to believe in the doctrines of the Gospel, they live licentiously;
10. when they create, magnify, and pervert their troubles;
11. when they arraign the conduct of God as unkind and unjust.
See R. Walker’s Ser. vol. 1: ser. 3; South’s Ser. vol. 7: ser. 10, 11, and 12; Tillotson’s Ser. ser. 147; Saurin’s Ser. ser. 11. vol. 1: robinson’s translation; Bp. Hopkins on the Nature, Danger, and Cure of Presumptuous sins.
See his works.
Fuente: Theological Dictionary
presumption
As a capital vice, the desire to undertake what is above one’s capacity. It is a consequence of pride which makes one overestimate one’s abilities and blinds one to one’s deficiencies. It leads one to expect graces and favors without doing anything to obtain them, and even when acting so as to deserve the contrary, as when one does evil presuming that forgiveness is assured.
Fuente: New Catholic Dictionary
Presumption
(Lat. praesumere, “to take before”, “to take for granted”).
Presumption is here considered as a vice opposed to the theological virtue of hope. It may also be regarded as a product of pride. It may be defined as the condition of a soul which, because of a badly regulated reliance on God’s mercy and power, hopes for salvation without doing anything to deserve it, or for pardon of his sins without repenting of them. Presumption is said to offend against hope by excess, as despair by defect. It will be obvious, however, to one who ponders what is meant by hope, that this statement is not exact. There is only a certain analogy which justifies it. As a matter of fact we could not hope too much, assuming that it is really the supernatural habit which is in question.
Suarez (“De spe”, disp. 2a, sect. 3, n. 2) enumerates five ways in which one may be guilty of presumption, as follows: by hoping to obtain by one’s natural powers, unaided, what is definitely supernatural, viz. eternal bliss or the recovery of God’s friendship after grievous sin (this would involve a Pelagian frame of mind); a person might look to have his sins forgiven without adequate penance (this, likewise, if it were based on a seriously entertained conviction, would seem to carry with it the taint of heresy); a man might expect some special assistance from Almighty God for the perpetration of crime (this would be blasphemous as well as presumptuous); one might aspire to certain extraordinary supernatural excellencies, but without any conformity to the determinations of God’s providence. Thus one might aspire to equal in blessedness the Mother of God; finally, there is the transgression of those who, whilst they continue to lead a life of sin, are as confident of a happy issue as if they had not lost their baptismal innocence.
The root-malice of presumption is that it denies the supernatural order, as in the first instance, or travesties the conception of the Divine attributes, as in the others. Theologians draw a sharp distinction between the attitude of one who goes on in a vicious career, precisely because he counts upon pardon, and one whose persistence in wrongdoing is accompanied, but not motivated, by the hope of forgiveness. The first they impeach as presumption of a very heinous kind; the other is not such specifically. In practice it happens for the most part that the expectation of ultimate reconciliation with God is not the cause, but only the occasion, of a person’s continuing in sinful indulgence. Thus the particular guilt of presumption is not contracted.
———————————–
SLATER, Manual of Moral Theology (New York, 1908); RICKABY, Moral Teaching of St. Thomas (London, 1896); ST. THOMAS, Summa (Turin, 1885); BALLERINI, Opus Theol. Morale (Prato, 1899).
JOSEPH F. DELANY Transcribed by Herman F. Holbrook O most sacred Heart of Jesus, I place my trust in thee.
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIICopyright © 1911 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, June 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., CensorImprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia
Presumption (1)
(IN CANON LAW)
A term signifying a reasonable conjecture concerning something doubtful, drawn from arguments and appearances, which by the force of circumstances can be accepted as a proof. It is on this presumption our common adage is based: “Possession is nine points of the law”. Presumption has its place in canon law only when positive proofs are wanting, and yet the formulation of some judgment is necessary. It is never in itself an absolute proof, as it only presumes that something is true. Canonists divide presumption into; (1) presumption of law (juris), or that which is deduced from some legal precept or authority expressed in law or based upon precedents or similarities, and (2) presumption of a judge or man (judicis or hominis), when the law is silent on the subject and an opinion must be formed according to the way that circumstances and indications would affect a prudent man or judge.
There are several sub-varieties of presumption of law. Thus, it is called presumption of law alone (juris tantum) when a thing is judged to be so until the contrary is proved. Hence the legal formulæ: “Everyone is presumed innocent until his guilt is proved”; “Once bad always bad” (i. e. in the same species of ill-doing, if amendment is not certain); “What is known in a remote place is known in a neighbouring place”, and others similar. It is denominated presumption juris et de jure, when the law so strongly supports the presumption that it is held to be certain in judicial proceedings. Against such a presumption no proofs are admitted except the evident truth. Thus, goods described in the inventory made by a guardian are presumed to belong to the possessions of the deceased, nor would the later testimony of the guardian himself to the contrary ordinarily be admitted. As to the presumption judicis or Hominis, it is called (a) vehement, when the probability is very strongly supported by most urgent conjectures. Thus, a birth would be held illegitimate, which took place eleven months after a husband’s decease. A vehement presumption is considered equivalent to a full proof in civil causes of not too great importance. As to whether it should have sufficient effect in criminal causes to produce the condemnation of an accused person, canonists do not agree. It is termed (b) probable, when it arises from less urgent and only less probable conjectures and indications. Such presumption is looked on as merely a semi-proof, unless it be sustained by public rumour, in which case it is held as sufficient proof. Finally, it is denominated (c) rash, or temerarious, if it rests on insufficient conjectures or scarcely probable arguments. Such presumption is to be entirely rejected as a proof.
The foundation of these legal presumptions is to be sought in the natural conclusions drawn from the ordinary happenings of common life and the consideration of the motives that usually sway men in given circumstances. The general rules are thus formulated: “What is natural is presumed to be in the person or case in question”; “Change is not to be presumed”; “Presumption is to be formed from the favourable side”. As to effects, when there is question of presumption juris, it abstracts from the necessity of proof; not so presumption hominis. A judge can follow the first in civil cases even when doubt remains, not so the second. The former places the burden of proof on the adversary, but the latter does not. Finally, the first is considered of itself equivalent to proof, while the second needs corroboration from something extraneous to itself.
———————————–
TAUNTON, The Law of the Church (New York, 1906), s. v. Presumption; FERRARIS, Bibliotheca canonica, VI (Rome, 1890), s. v. Prœsumptio.
WILLIAM H. W. FANNING. Transcribed by Douglas J. Potter Dedicated to the Immaculate Heart of the Blessed Virgin Mary
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIICopyright © 1908 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, CensorImprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York
Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia
Presumption
as it relates to the mind, is a supposition formed before examination. As it relates to the conduct or moral action, it implies arrogance or irreverence. As it relates to religion in general, it is a bold and daring confidence in the goodness of God, without obedience to his will.
Presumptuous sins must be distinguished from sins of infirmity, or those failings peculiar to human nature (Ecc 7:20; 1Jn 1:8-9); from sins done through ignorance (Luk 12:48); and from sins into which men are hurried by sudden and violent temptation (Gal 6:1). The ingredients which render sin presumptuous are knowledge (Joh 15:22), deliberation and contrivance (Pro 6:14; Psa 36:4), obstinacy (Jer 44:16; Deu 1:13), inattention to the remonstrances of conscience (Act 7:51), opposition to the dispensations of Providence (2Ch 28:22), and repeated commission of the same sin (Psa 78:17). Presumptuous sins are numerous, such as profane swearing, perjury, theft, adultery, drunkenness, Sabbath-breaking, etc. These may be more particularly considered as presumptuous sins, because they are generally committed against a known law, and are so often repeated. Such sins are most heinous in their nature and most pernicious in their effects. They are said to be a reproach to the Lord (Num 15:3); they harden the heart (1Ti 4:2); draw down judgments from heaven (Num 15:31); and even when repented of, they are seldom pardoned without some visible testimony of God’s displeasure (2Sa 12:10). As respects professors of religion, one observes, they sin presumptuously
(1) when they take up a profession of religion without principle;
(2) when they profess to ask the blessing of God and yet go on in forbidden courses;
(3) when they do not take religion as they find it in the Scriptures;
(4) when they make their feelings the test of their religion, without considering the difference between animal passion and the operations of the Spirit of God;
(5) when they run into temptation;
(6) when they indulge in self-confidence and self-complacency;
(7) when they bring the spirit of the world into the Church;
(8) when they form apologies for that in some which they condemn in others;
(9) when, professing to believe in the doctrines of the Gospel, they live licentiously;
(10) when they create, magnify, and pervert their troubles;
(11) when they arraign the conduct of God as unkind and unjust. See Walker, Sermons, vol. 1, ser. 3; South, Sermons, vol. 7:ser. 10, 11, 12; Tillotson, Sermons, ser. 147; Saurin, Sermons, vol. 1, ser. II; Goodwin, On the Aggravations of Sin; Fuller, Works; Paley, Sermons; Bishop Hopkins, On the Nature, Danger, and Cure of Presumptuous Sins.
Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
Presumption
General references
Exo 5:2; Exo 14:11-12; Exo 17:7; Num 15:30; Num 16:41; Num 21:5; Deu 29:19-20; 1Ki 20:28; 1Ki 22:24; Job 15:25; Psa 19:13; Psa 131:1; Pro 18:12-13; Pro 25:6-7; Isa 5:18-25; Isa 10:15; Isa 14:13-14; Isa 28:14-18; Isa 28:22; Isa 29:15-16; Isa 29:20; Isa 45:9-10; Isa 58:3; Isa 65:5; Jer 23:34; Mat 4:5-7; Luk 4:9-11; Deu 6:16; Luk 12:18-20; Luk 14:7-11; Luk 18:11-12; Rom 1:32; Rom 9:20-21; 1Co 10:9-12; 2Th 2:3-4; Jas 4:13-15; 2Pe 2:10-11
Instances of:
– Satan, when he said to Eve, »Ye shall not surely die«
Gen 3:1-5
– Builders of Babel
Gen 11:4
– Abraham, in questioning about Sodom
Gen 18:23-32
– Moses, in upbraiding Jehovah
Num 11:11-15; Num 11:22
– Nadab and Abihu
Lev 10:1-2
– Israelites:
b In ascending to the top of the hill against the Amalekites
Num 14:44-45
b Murmuring at Meribah
Exo 17:2; Exo 17:7
b In reviling God
Mal 1:6-7; Mal 1:12; Mal 3:7-8; Mal 3:13
– Korah, Dathan, and Abiram
Num 16:3
– Saul:
b In sacrificing
1Sa 13:8-14
b Sparing the Amalekites
1Sa 15:3; 1Sa 15:9-23
– Men of Beth-Shemesh
1Sa 6:19
– Uzzah, in steadying the ark
2Sa 6:6-7
– David’s anger at Uzzah’s death
2Sa 6:8
– David, in numbering Israel
2Sa 24:1-17
– Jeroboam
1Ki 13:4
– Ben-Hadad
1Ki 20:10
– Uzziah
2Ch 26:16
– Sennacherib
2Ch 32:13-14
– Job:
b In cursing the day of his birth
Job 3
b Reproved by Eliphaz
Job 4
– Jonah
Jon 4:1-8
– Peter:
b In objecting to Jesus’ statement that He must be killed
Mat 16:21-23; Mar 8:32
b In reflecting on His knowledge when He asked, amid a throng, who touched Him
Luk 8:45
b In objecting to Jesus washing his feet
Joh 13:8
b In asking Jesus, »What shall this man do?«
Joh 21:20-22
– The disciples:
b In rebuking those who brought little children to Jesus
Mat 19:13; Mar 10:13-14; Luk 18:15
b In their indignation at the anointing of Jesus
Mat 26:8-9; Mar 14:4-5; Joh 12:5
– Reproving Jesus
Joh 7:3-5
– James and John, in desiring to call down fire on the Samaritans
Luk 9:54
– Those who reviled Jesus
Mat 27:42-43; Mar 15:29-32
– Theudas
Act 5:36
– Sons of Sceva
Act 19:13-14
– Diotrephes
3Jn 1:9 Blasphemy; Mocking; Pride