_On the contrary,_ stands the authority of Gregory quoted above.
_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), gluttony denotes inordinate concupiscence in eating. Now two things are to be considered in eating, namely the food we eat, and the eating thereof. Accordingly, the inordinate concupiscence may be considered in two ways. First, with regard to the food consumed: and thus, as regards the substance or species of food a man seeks "sumptuous"--i.e. costly food; as regards its quality, he seeks food prepared too nicely--i.e.
"daintily"; and as regards quant.i.ty, he exceeds by eating "too much."
Secondly, the inordinate concupiscence is considered as to the consumption of food: either because one forestalls the proper time for eating, which is to eat "hastily," or one fails to observe the due manner of eating, by eating "greedily."
Isidore [*De Summo Bon. ii, 42] comprises the first and second under one heading, when he says that the glutton exceeds in "what" he eats, or in "how much," "how" or "when he eats."
Reply Obj. 1: The corruption of various circ.u.mstances causes the various species of gluttony, on account of the various motives, by reason of which the species of moral things are differentiated. For in him that seeks sumptuous food, concupiscence is aroused by the very species of the food; in him that forestalls the time concupiscence is disordered through impatience of delay, and so forth.
Reply Obj. 2: Place and other circ.u.mstances include no special motive connected with eating, that can cause a different species of gluttony.
Reply Obj. 3: In all other vices, whenever different circ.u.mstances correspond to different motives, the difference of circ.u.mstances argues a specific difference of vice: but this does not apply to all circ.u.mstances, as stated above (I-II, Q. 72, A. 9).
_______________________
FIFTH ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 148, Art. 5]
Whether Gluttony Is a Capital Vice?
Objection 1: It would seem that gluttony is not a capital vice. For capital vices denote those whence, under the aspect of final cause, other vices originate. Now food, which is the matter of gluttony, has not the aspect of end, since it is sought, not for its own sake, but for the body"s nourishment. Therefore gluttony is not a capital vice.
Obj. 2: Further, a capital vice would seem to have a certain pre-eminence in sinfulness. But this does not apply to gluttony, which, in respect of its genus, is apparently the least of sins, seeing that it is most akin to what is [according to nature].
Therefore gluttony is not a capital vice.
Obj. 3: Further, sin results from a man forsaking the [good] of virtue on account of something useful to the present life, or pleasing to the senses. Now as regards goods having the aspect of utility, there is but one capital vice, namely covetousness.
Therefore, seemingly, there would be but one capital vice in respect of pleasures: and this is l.u.s.t, which is a greater vice than gluttony, and is about greater pleasures. Therefore gluttony is not a capital vice.
_On the contrary,_ Gregory (Moral. x.x.xi, 45) reckons gluttony among the capital vices.
_I answer that,_ As stated above (I-II, Q. 84, A. 3), a capital vice denotes one from which, considered as final cause, i.e. as having a most desirable end, other vices originate: wherefore through desiring that end men are incited to sin in many ways. Now an end is rendered most desirable through having one of the conditions of happiness which is desirable by its very nature: and pleasure is essential to happiness, according to _Ethic._ i, 8; x, 3, 7, 8. Therefore the vice of gluttony, being about pleasures of touch which stand foremost among other pleasures, is fittingly reckoned among the capital vices.
Reply Obj. 1: It is true that food itself is directed to something as its end: but since that end, namely the sustaining of life, is most desirable and whereas life cannot be sustained without food, it follows that food too is most desirable: indeed, nearly all the toil of man"s life is directed thereto, according to Eccles. 6:7, "All the labor of man is for his mouth." Yet gluttony seems to be about pleasures of food rather than about food itself; wherefore, as Augustine says (De Vera Relig. liii), "with such food as is good for the worthless body, men desire to be fed," wherein namely the pleasure consists, "rather than to be filled: since the whole end of that desire is this--not to thirst and not to hunger."
Reply Obj. 2: In sin the end is ascertained with respect to the conversion, while the gravity of sin is determined with regard to the aversion. Wherefore it does not follow that the capital sin which has the most desirable end surpa.s.ses the others in gravity.
Reply Obj. 3: That which gives pleasure is desirable in itself: and consequently corresponding to its diversity there are two capital vices, namely gluttony and l.u.s.t. On the other hand, that which is useful is desirable, not in itself, but as directed to something else: wherefore seemingly in all useful things there is one aspect of desirability. Hence there is but one capital vice, in respect of such things.
_______________________
SIXTH ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 148, Art. 6]
Whether [Five] Daughters Are Fittingly a.s.signed to Gluttony?
Objection 1: It would seem that [five] daughters are unfittingly a.s.signed to gluttony, to wit, "unseemly joy, scurrility, uncleanness, loquaciousness, and dullness of mind as regards the understanding."
For unseemly joy results from every sin, according to Prov. 2:14, "Who are glad when they have done evil, and rejoice in most wicked things." Likewise dullness of mind is a.s.sociated with every sin, according to Prov. 14:22, "They err that work evil." Therefore they are unfittingly reckoned to be daughters of gluttony.
Obj. 2: Further, the uncleanness which is particularly the result of gluttony would seem to be connected with vomiting, according to Isa.
28:8, "All tables were full of vomit and filth." But this seems to be not a sin but a punishment; or even a useful thing that is a matter of counsel, according to Ecclus. 31:25, "If thou hast been forced to eat much, arise, go out, and vomit; and it shall refresh thee."
Therefore it should not be reckoned among the daughters of gluttony.
Obj. 3: Further, Isidore (QQ. in Deut. xvi) reckons scurrility as a daughter of l.u.s.t. Therefore it should not be reckoned among the daughters of gluttony.
_On the contrary,_ Gregory (Moral. x.x.xi, 45) a.s.signs these daughters to gluttony.
_I answer that,_ As stated above (AA. 1, 2, 3), gluttony consists properly in an immoderate pleasure in eating and drinking. Wherefore those vices are reckoned among the daughters of gluttony, which are the results of eating and drinking immoderately. These may be accounted for either on the part of the soul or on the part of the body. On the part of the soul these results are of four kinds. First, as regards the reason, whose keenness is dulled by immoderate meat and drink, and in this respect we reckon as a daughter of gluttony, "dullness of sense in the understanding," on account of the fumes of food disturbing the brain. Even so, on the other hand, abstinence conduces to the penetrating power of wisdom, according to Eccles.
2:3, "I thought in my heart to withdraw my flesh from wine, that I might turn my mind in wisdom." Secondly, as regards the appet.i.te, which is disordered in many ways by immoderation in eating and drinking, as though reason were fast asleep at the helm, and in this respect "unseemly joy" is reckoned, because all the other inordinate pa.s.sions are directed to joy or sorrow, as stated in _Ethic._ ii, 5.
To this we must refer the saying of 3 Esdr. 3:20, that "wine ...
gives every one a confident and joyful mind." Thirdly, as regards inordinate words, and thus we have "loquaciousness," because as Gregory says (Pastor. iii, 19), "unless gluttons were carried away by immoderate speech, that rich man who is stated to have feasted sumptuously every day would not have been so tortured in his tongue."
Fourthly, as regards inordinate action, and in this way we have "scurrility," i.e. a kind of levity resulting from lack of reason, which is unable not only to bridle the speech, but also to restrain outward behavior. Hence a gloss on Eph. 5:4, "Or foolish talking or scurrility," says that "fools call this geniality--i.e. jocularity, because it is wont to raise a laugh." Both of these, however, may be referred to the words which may happen to be sinful, either by reason of excess which belongs to "loquaciousness," or by reason of unbecomingness, which belongs to "scurrility."
On the part of the body, mention is made of "uncleanness," which may refer either to the inordinate emission of any kind of superfluities, or especially to the emission of the s.e.m.e.n. Hence a gloss on Eph.
5:3, "But fornication and all uncleanness," says: "That is, any kind of incontinence that has reference to l.u.s.t."
Reply Obj. 1: Joy in the act or end of sin results from every sin, especially the sin that proceeds from habit, but the random riotous joy which is described as "unseemly" arises chiefly from immoderate partaking of meat or drink. In like manner, we reply that dullness of sense as regards matters of choice is common to all sin, whereas dullness of sense in speculative matters arises chiefly from gluttony, for the reason given above.
Reply Obj. 2: Although it does one good to vomit after eating too much, yet it is sinful to expose oneself to its necessity by immoderate meat or drink. However, it is no sin to procure vomiting as a remedy for sickness if the physician prescribes it.
Reply Obj. 3: Scurrility proceeds from the act of gluttony, and not from the l.u.s.tful act, but from the l.u.s.tful will: wherefore it may be referred to either vice.
_______________________
QUESTION 149
OF SOBRIETY (In Four Articles)
We must now consider sobriety and the contrary vice, namely drunkenness. As regards sobriety there are four points of inquiry:
(1) What is the matter of sobriety?
(2) Whether it is a special virtue?
(3) Whether the use of wine is lawful?
(4) To whom especially is sobriety becoming?
_______________________
FIRST ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 149, Art. 1]
Whether Drink Is the Matter of Sobriety?
Objection 1: It would seem that drink is not the matter proper to sobriety. For it is written (Rom. 12:3): "Not to be more wise than it behooveth to be wise, but to be wise unto sobriety." Therefore sobriety is also about wisdom, and not only about drink.
Obj. 2: Further, concerning the wisdom of G.o.d, it is written (Wis.
8:7) that "she teacheth sobriety [Douay: "temperance"], and prudence, and justice, and fort.i.tude," where sobriety stands for temperance.
Now temperance is not only about drink, but also about meat and s.e.xual matters. Therefore sobriety is not only about drink.
Obj. 3: Further, sobriety would seem to take its name from "measure"
[*_Bria,_ a measure, a cup; Cf. Facciolati and Forcellini"s _Lexicon_]. Now we ought to be guided by the measure in all things appertaining to us: for it is written (t.i.tus 2:12): "We should live soberly and justly and G.o.dly," where a gloss remarks: "Soberly, in ourselves"; and (1 Tim. 2:9): "Women ... in decent apparel, adorning themselves with modesty and sobriety." Consequently it would seem that sobriety regards not only the interior man, but also things appertaining to external apparel. Therefore drink is not the matter proper to sobriety.
_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ecclus. 31:32): "Wine taken with sobriety is equal life to men; if thou drink it moderately, thou shalt be sober."