the following/upcoming event will not do bad to someone who's been gad, neither good to someone who's been bad

in the Lating the tense is Present - non facit, does not do, but I chose Future for the translation

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 23 mins (2009-12-01 15:30:53 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

oops, corrections:
the following/upcoming event will NEITHER do bad to someone who's been GOOD, NOR good to someone who's been bad.


--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 26 mins (2009-12-01 15:33:44 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

and meseems I jumbled the eventus thing: it's rather "exit, outcome", or even "success", depending on the broader context, than "event"

The subsequent outcome does not make evil a deed of one who was good, nor good a deed of one who was evil.

This seems to be the sense, although the grammar is odd. 'Eventus sequens' must be subject nominative, with 'actum malum' and '[actum] bonum' being the direct objects of 'facit' and 'qui erat bonus' and 'qui erat malus' being descriptive relative clauses. But one would expect a construction 'Eventus sequens non facit actum malum eius qui erat bonus, nec bonum eius qui erat malus'. Perhaps an 'eius' (or 'illius' or other equivilent) has fallen out.

As above.
Eventus (acc plural) sequens, following events, in accord with events.
qui erat bonus, he who was good
non facit actum malum doesn't do good (does no evil
... and so on for the other bit.
With respect, I can't quite see how Danya's suggestion fits the Latin

In ST I-II, Q. 20.5, Aquinas speaks directly about the consequences of a action: "an event following [i.e., a consequence] does not make an act bad which was good, nor good which was bad."

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 30 mins (2009-12-01 15:38:14 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

wasn't enough room for "bad" and here's the full reference address:

http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/ebe/ebe_01aquinaseuthanasi...

and the section in which this quotation appears:

Aquinas also states that the appropriation of property, which is per se morally permissible, becomes an evil if the action includes the defining circumstance of the appropriated property being "another's."65 Here, a good action is changed to an evil action due to one of its circumstances. How is the present case to be considered? Does the attendant circumstance of the hastening of the patient's death due to the administration of palliative medication change the species of the action from good to evil? What role do foreseen concomitant consequences play in defining the specific nature of an action?

In ST I-II, Q. 20.5, Aquinas speaks directly about the consequences of a action: "an event following [i.e., a consequence] does not make an act bad which was good, nor good which was bad."66 On the specific issue of foreseen consequences of an action, Aquinas merely states, "If it is foreseen, it is clear that it adds to the goodness or malice."67 Aquinas does not assert that foreseen consequences can change the specific nature of an action from good to evil. But, they can make a good action better or an evil action worse.