Authors/Thomas Aquinas/Summa Theologiae/Part IIb/Q148

From The Logic Museum

Jump to: navigation, search
Q147 Q149



Latin English
IIª-IIae q. 148 pr. Deinde considerandum est de gula. Et circa hoc quaeruntur sex. Primo, utrum gula sit peccatum. Secundo, utrum sit peccatum mortale. Tertio, utrum sit maximum peccatorum. Quarto, de speciebus eius. Quinto, utrum sit vitium capitale. Sexto, de filiabus eius. Question 148. Gluttony 1. Is gluttony a sin? 2. Is it a mortal sin? 3. Is it the greatest of sins? 4. Its species 5. Is it a capital sin? 6. Its daughters
IIª-IIae q. 148 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod gula non sit peccatum. Dicit enim dominus, Matth. XV, quod intrat in os, non coinquinat hominem. Sed gula est circa cibos, qui intrant in hominem. Cum ergo omne peccatum coinquinet hominem, videtur quod gula non sit peccatum. Objection 1. It would seem that gluttony is not a sin. For our Lord said (Matthew 15:11): "Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man." Now gluttony regards food which goes into a man. Therefore, since every sin defiles a man, it seems that gluttony is not a sin.
IIª-IIae q. 148 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, nullus peccat in eo quod vitare non potest. Sed gula consistit in immoderantia cibi, quam non potest homo vitare, dicit enim Gregorius, XXX Moral., quia per esum voluptas necessitati miscetur, quid necessitas petat, et quid voluptas suppetat, ignoratur; et Augustinus dicit, X Confess., quis est, domine, qui aliquantulum extra metas necessitatis cibum non sumit? Ergo gula non est peccatum. Objection 2. Further, "No man sins in what he cannot avoid" [Ep. lxxi, ad Lucin.]. Now gluttony is immoderation in food; and man cannot avoid this, for Gregory says (Moral. xxx, 18): "Since in eating pleasure and necessity go together, we fail to discern between the call of necessity and the seduction of pleasure," and Augustine says (Confess. x, 31): "Who is it, Lord, that does not eat a little more than necessary?" Therefore gluttony is not a sin.
IIª-IIae q. 148 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, in quolibet genere peccati primus motus est peccatum. Sed primus motus sumendi cibum non est peccatum, alioquin fames et sitis essent peccata. Ergo gula non est peccatum. Objection 3. Further, in every kind of sin the first movement is a sin. But the first movement in taking food is not a sin, else hunger and thirst would be sinful. Therefore gluttony is not a sin.
IIª-IIae q. 148 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod Gregorius dicit, XXX Moral., quod ad conflictum spiritualis agonis non assurgitur, si non prius intra nosmetipsos hostis positus, gulae videlicet appetitus, edomatur. Sed interior hostis hominis est peccatum. Ergo gula est peccatum. On the contrary, Gregory says (Moral. xxx, 18) that "unless we first tame the enemy dwelling within us, namely our gluttonous appetite, we have not even stood up to engage in the spiritual combat." But man's inward enemy is sin. Therefore gluttony is a sin.
IIª-IIae q. 148 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod gula non nominat quemlibet appetitum edendi et bibendi, sed inordinatum. Dicitur autem appetitus inordinatus ex eo quod recedit ab ordine rationis, in quo bonum virtutis moralis consistit. Ex hoc autem dicitur aliquid esse peccatum quod virtuti contrariatur. Unde manifestum est quod gula est peccatum. I answer that, Gluttony denotes, not any desire of eating and drinking, but an inordinate desire. Now desire is said to be inordinate through leaving the order of reason, wherein the good of moral virtue consists: and a thing is said to be a sin through being contrary to virtue. Wherefore it is evident that gluttony is a sin.
IIª-IIae q. 148 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod id quod intrat in hominem per modum cibi, secundum suam substantiam et naturam, non coinquinat hominem spiritualiter, sed Iudaei, contra quos dominus loquitur, et Manichaei opinabantur quod aliqui cibi immundos facerent, non propter figuram, sed secundum propriam naturam. Inordinata tamen ciborum concupiscentia hominem spiritualiter coinquinat. Reply to Objection 1. That which goes into man by way of food, by reason of its substance and nature, does not defile a man spiritually. But the Jews, against whom our Lord is speaking, and the Manichees deemed certain foods to make a man unclean, not on account of their signification, but by reason of their nature [Cf. I-II, 102, 6, ad 1]. It is the inordinate desire of food that defiles a man spiritually.
IIª-IIae q. 148 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, vitium gulae non consistit in substantia cibi, sed in concupiscentia non regulata ratione. Et ideo si aliquis excedat in quantitate cibi non propter cibi concupiscentiam, sed aestimans id sibi necessarium esse, non pertinet hoc ad gulam, sed ad aliquam imperitiam. Sed hoc solum pertinet ad gulam, quod aliquis, propter concupiscentiam cibi delectabilis, scienter excedat mensuram in edendo. Reply to Objection 2. As stated above, the vice of gluttony does not regard the substance of food, but in the desire thereof not being regulated by reason. Wherefore if a man exceed in quantity of food, not from desire of food, but through deeming it necessary to him, this pertains, not to gluttony, but to some kind of inexperience. It is a case of gluttony only when a man knowingly exceeds the measure in eating, from a desire for the pleasures of the palate.
IIª-IIae q. 148 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod duplex est appetitus. Unus quidem naturalis, qui pertinet ad vires animae vegetabilis, in quibus non potest esse virtus et vitium, eo quod non possunt subiici rationi. Unde et vis appetitiva dividitur contra retentivam, digestivam, expulsivam. Et ad talem appetitum pertinet esuries et sitis. Est autem et alius appetitus sensitivus, in cuius concupiscentia vitium gulae consistit. Unde primus motus gulae importat inordinationem in appetitu sensitivo, quae non est sine peccato. Reply to Objection 3. The appetite is twofold. There is the natural appetite, which belongs to the powers of the vegetal soul. On these powers virtue and vice are impossible, since they cannot be subject to reason; wherefore the appetitive power is differentiated from the powers of secretion, digestion, and excretion, and to it hunger and thirst are to be referred. Besides this there is another, the sensitive appetite, and it is in the concupiscence of this appetite that the vice of gluttony consists. Hence the first movement of gluttony denotes inordinateness in the sensitive appetite, and this is not without sin.
IIª-IIae q. 148 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod gula non sit peccatum mortale. Omne enim peccatum mortale contrariatur alicui praecepto Decalogi. Quod de gula non videtur. Ergo gula non est peccatum mortale. Objection 1. It would seem that gluttony is not a mortal sin. For every mortal sin is contrary to a precept of the Decalogue: and this, apparently, does not apply to gluttony. Therefore gluttony is not a mortal sin.
IIª-IIae q. 148 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, omne peccatum mortale contrariatur caritati, ut ex supra dictis patet. Sed gula non opponitur caritati, neque quantum ad dilectionem Dei, neque quantum ad dilectionem proximi. Ergo gula nunquam est peccatum mortale. Objection 2. Further, every mortal sin is contrary to charity, as stated above (Question 132, Article 3). But gluttony is not opposed to charity, neither as regards the love of God, nor as regards the love of one's neighbor. Therefore gluttony is never a mortal sin.
IIª-IIae q. 148 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, Augustinus dicit, in sermone de Purgatorio, quoties aliquis in cibo aut potu plus accipit quam necesse est, ad minuta peccata noverit pertinere. Sed hoc pertinet ad gulam. Ergo gula computatur inter minuta, idest inter venialia peccata. Objection 3. Further, Augustine says in a sermon on Purgatory [Cf. Append. to St. Augustine's works: Serm. civ (xli, de sanctis)]: "Whenever a man takes more meat and drink than is necessary, he should know that this is one of the lesser sins." But this pertains to gluttony. Therefore gluttony is accounted among the lesser, that is to say venial, sins.
IIª-IIae q. 148 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod Gregorius dicit, in XXX Moral., dominante gulae vitio, omne quod homines fortiter egerunt, perdunt, et dum venter non restringitur, simul cunctae virtutes obruuntur. Sed virtus non tollitur nisi per peccatum mortale. Ergo gula est peccatum mortale. Objection 4.On the contrary, Gregory says (Moral. xxx, 18): "As long as the vice of gluttony has a hold on a man, all that he has done valiantly is forfeited by him: and as long as the belly is unrestrained, all virtue comes to naught." But virtue is not done away save by mortal sin. Therefore gluttony is a mortal sin.
IIª-IIae q. 148 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, vitium gulae proprie consistit in concupiscentia inordinata. Ordo autem rationis concupiscentiam ordinantis dupliciter tolli potest. Uno modo, quantum ad ea quae sunt ad finem, prout scilicet non sunt ita commensurata ut sint proportionata fini. Alio modo, quantum ad ipsum finem, prout scilicet concupiscentia hominem avertit a fine debito. Si ergo inordinatio concupiscentiae accipiatur in gula secundum aversionem a fine ultimo, sic gula erit peccatum mortale. Quod quidem contingit quando delectationi gulae inhaeret homo tanquam fini propter quem Deum contemnit, paratus scilicet contra praecepta Dei agere ut delectationes huiusmodi assequatur. Si vero in vitio gulae intelligatur inordinatio concupiscentiae tantum secundum ea quae sunt ad finem, utpote quia nimis concupiscit delectationes ciborum, non tamen ita quod propter hoc aliquid faceret contra legem Dei, est peccatum veniale. I answer that, As stated above (Article 1), the vice of gluttony properly consists in inordinate concupiscence. Now the order of reason in regulating the concupiscence may be considered from two points of view. First, with regard to things directed to the end, inasmuch as they may be incommensurate and consequently improportionate to the end; secondly, with regard to the end itself, inasmuch as concupiscence turns man away from his due end. Accordingly, if the inordinate concupiscence in gluttony be found to turn man away from the last end, gluttony will be a mortal sin. This is the case when he adheres to the pleasure of gluttony as his end, for the sake of which he contemns God, being ready to disobey God's commandments, in order to obtain those pleasures. On the other hand, if the inordinate concupiscence in the vice of gluttony be found to affect only such things as are directed to the end, for instance when a man has too great a desire for the pleasures of the palate, yet would not for their sake do anything contrary to God's law, it is a venial sin.
IIª-IIae q. 148 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod vitium gulae habet quod sit peccatum mortale inquantum avertit a fine ultimo. Et secundum hoc, per quandam reductionem, opponitur praecepto de sanctificatione sabbati, in quo praecipitur quies in fine ultimo. Non enim omnia peccata mortalia directe contrariantur praeceptis Decalogi, sed solum illa quae iniustitiam continent, quia praecepta Decalogi specialiter pertinent ad iustitiam et partes eius, ut supra habitum est. Reply to Objection 1. The vice of gluttony becomes a mortal sin by turning man away from his last end: and accordingly, by a kind of reduction, it is opposed to the precept of hallowing the sabbath, which commands us to rest in our last end. For mortal sins are not all directly opposed to the precepts of the Decalogue, but only those which contain injustice: because the precepts of the Decalogue pertain specially to justice and its parts, as stated above (Question 122, Article 1).
IIª-IIae q. 148 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod, inquantum avertit a fine ultimo, contrariatur gula dilectioni Dei, qui est super omnia sicut finis ultimus diligendus. Et secundum hoc solum gula est peccatum mortale. Reply to Objection 2. In so far as it turns man away from his last end, gluttony is opposed to the love of God, who is to be loved, as our last end, above all things: and only in this respect is gluttony a mortal sin.
IIª-IIae q. 148 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod illud verbum Augustini intelligitur de gula prout importat inordinationem concupiscentiae solum circa ea quae sunt ad finem. Reply to Objection 3. This saying of Augustine refers to gluttony as denoting inordinate concupiscence merely in regard of things directed to the end.
IIª-IIae q. 148 a. 2 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod gula dicitur virtutes auferre non tam propter se, quam etiam propter vitia quae ex ea oriuntur. Dicit enim Gregorius, in pastorali, dum venter ingluvie tenditur, virtutes animae per luxuriam destruuntur. Reply to Objection 4. Gluttony is said to bring virtue to naught, not so much on its own account, as on account of the vices which arise from it. For Gregory says (Pastor. iii, 19): "When the belly is distended by gluttony, the virtues of the soul are destroyed by lust."
IIª-IIae q. 148 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod gula sit maximum peccatorum. Magnitudo enim peccati ex magnitudine poenae consideratur. Sed peccatum gulae est gravissime punitum, dicit enim Chrysostomus, Adam incontinentia ventris expulit a Paradiso; diluvium quod fuit tempore Noe, ipsa fecit; secundum illud Ezech. XVI, haec fuit iniquitas Sodomae, sororis tuae, saturitas panis, et cetera. Ergo peccatum gulae est maximum. Objection 1. It would seem that gluttony is the greatest of sins. For the grievousness of a sin is measured by the grievousness of the punishment. Now the sin of gluttony is most grievously punished, for Chrysostom says [Hom. xiii in Matth.]: "Gluttony turned Adam out of Paradise, gluttony it was that drew down the deluge at the time of Noah." According to Ezekiel 16:49, "This was the iniquity of Sodom, thy sister . . . fulness of bread," etc. Therefore the sin of gluttony is the greatest of all.
IIª-IIae q. 148 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, causa in quolibet genere est potior. Sed gula videtur esse causa aliorum peccatorum, quia super illud Psalmi, qui percussit Aegyptum cum primogenitis eorum, dicit Glossa, luxuria, concupiscentia, superbia sunt ea quae venter generat. Ergo gula est gravissimum peccatorum. Objection 2. Further, in every genus the cause is the most powerful. Now gluttony is apparently the cause of other sins, for a gloss on Psalm 135:10, "Who smote Egypt with their first-born," says: "Lust, concupiscence, pride are the first-born of gluttony." Therefore gluttony is the greatest of sins.
IIª-IIae q. 148 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, post Deum, homo debet seipsum maxime diligere, ut supra habitum est. Sed per vitium gulae homo infert sibi ipsi nocumentum, dicitur enim Eccli. XXXVII, propter crapulam multi obierunt. Ergo gula est maximum peccatorum, ad minus praeter peccata quae sunt contra Deum. Objection 3. Further, man should love himself in the first place after God, as stated above (Question 25, Article 4). Now man, by the vice of gluttony, inflicts an injury on himself: for it is written (Sirach 37:34): "By surfeiting many have perished." Therefore gluttony is the greatest of sins, at least excepting those that are against God.
IIª-IIae q. 148 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod vitia carnalia, inter quae computatur gula, secundum Gregorium, sunt minoris culpae. On the contrary, The sins of the flesh, among which gluttony is reckoned, are less culpable according to Gregory (Moral. xxxiii).
IIª-IIae q. 148 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod gravitas alicuius peccati potest considerari tripliciter. Primo quidem, et principaliter, secundum materiam in qua peccatur. Et secundum hoc, peccata quae sunt circa res divinas sunt maxima. Unde secundum hoc, vitium gulae non erit maximum, est enim circa ea quae ad sustentationem corporis spectant. Secundo autem, ex parte peccantis. Et secundum hoc, peccatum gulae magis alleviatur quam aggravatur. Tum propter necessitatem sumptionis ciborum. Tum etiam propter difficultatem discernendi et moderandi id quod in talibus convenit. Tertio vero modo, ex parte effectus consequentis. Et secundum hoc, vitium gulae habet quandam magnitudinem, inquantum ex ea occasionantur diversa peccata. I answer that, The gravity of a sin may be measured in three ways. First and foremost it depends on the matter in which the sin is committed: and in this way sins committed in connection with Divine things are the greatest. From this point of view gluttony is not the greatest sin, for it is about matters connected with the nourishment of the body. Secondly, the gravity of a sin depends on the person who sins, and from this point of view the sin of gluttony is diminished rather than aggravated, both on account of the necessity of taking food, and on account of the difficulty of proper discretion and moderation in such matters. Thirdly, from the point of view of the result that follows, and in this way gluttony has a certain gravity, inasmuch as certain sins are occasioned thereby.
IIª-IIae q. 148 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod illae poenae magis referuntur ad vitia quae sunt consecuta ex gula, vel ad gulae radicem, quam ad ipsam gulam. Nam primus homo expulsus est de Paradiso propter superbiam, ex qua processit ad actum gulae. Diluvium autem et poena Sodomorum sunt inducta propter peccata luxuriae praecedentia, ex gula occasionata. Reply to Objection 1. These punishments are to be referred to the vices that resulted from gluttony, or to the root from which gluttony sprang, rather than to gluttony itself. For the first man was expelled from Paradise on account of pride, from which he went on to an act of gluttony: while the deluge and the punishment of the people of Sodom were inflicted for sins occasioned by gluttony.
IIª-IIae q. 148 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod ratio illa procedit ex parte peccatorum quae ex gula oriuntur. Non autem oportet quod causa sit potior, nisi in causis per se. Gula autem non est causa illorum vitiorum per se, sed quasi per accidens et per occasionem. Reply to Objection 2. This objection argues from the standpoint of the sins that result from gluttony. Nor is a cause necessarily more powerful, unless it be a direct cause: and gluttony is not the direct cause but the accidental cause, as it were, and the occasion of other vices.
IIª-IIae q. 148 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod gulosus non intendit suo corpori nocumentum inferre, sed in cibo delectari, si autem nocumentum corporis sequatur, hoc est per accidens. Unde hoc non directe pertinet ad gravitatem gulae. Cuius tamen culpa aggravatur si quis corporale detrimentum incurrat propter immoderatam cibi sumptionem. Reply to Objection 3. The glutton intends, not the harm to his body, but the pleasure of eating: and if injury results to his body, this is accidental. Hence this does not directly affect the gravity of gluttony, the guilt of which is nevertheless aggravated, if a man incur some bodily injury through taking too much food.
IIª-IIae q. 148 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod inconvenienter species gulae distinguantur a Gregorio, qui, XXX Moral., dicit. Quinque modis nos gulae vitium tentat, aliquando namque indigentiae tempora praevenit; aliquando lautiores cibos quaerit; aliquando quae sumenda sunt praeparari accuratius appetit; aliquando in ipsa quantitate sumendi mensuram refectionis excedit; aliquando ipso aestu immensi desiderii aliquis peccat. Et continentur in hoc versu, praepropere, laute, nimis, ardenter, studiose. Praedicta enim diversificantur secundum diversas circumstantias. Sed circumstantiae, cum sint accidentia actuum, non diversificant speciem. Ergo secundum praedicta non diversificantur species gulae. Objection 1. It seems that the species of gluttony are unfittingly distinguished by Gregory who says (Moral. xxx, 18): "The vice of gluttony tempts us in five ways. Sometimes it forestalls the hour of need; sometimes it seeks costly meats; sometimes it requires the food to be daintily cooked; sometimes it exceeds the measure of refreshment by taking too much; sometimes we sin by the very heat of an immoderate appetite"--which are contained in the following verse: "Hastily, sumptuously, too much, greedily, daintily." For the above are distinguished according to diversity of circumstance. Now circumstances, being the accidents of an act, do not differentiate its species. Therefore the species of gluttony are not distinguished according to the aforesaid.
IIª-IIae q. 148 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, sicut tempus est quaedam circumstantia, ita et locus. Si ergo secundum tempus una species gulae accipitur, videtur quod, pari ratione, secundum locum et alias circumstantias. Objection 2. Further, as time is a circumstance, so is place. If then gluttony admits of one species in respect of time, it seems that there should likewise be others in respect of place and other circumstances.
IIª-IIae q. 148 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, sicut temperantia observat debitas circumstantias, ita etiam et aliae virtutes morales. Sed in vitiis quae opponuntur aliis virtutibus moralibus non distinguuntur species secundum diversas circumstantias. Ergo nec in gula. Objection 3. Further, just as temperance observes due circumstances, so do the other moral virtues. Now the species of the vices opposed to the other moral virtues are not distinguished according to various circumstances. Neither, therefore, are the species of gluttony distinguished thus.
IIª-IIae q. 148 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est verbum Gregorii inductum. On the contrary, stands the authority of Gregory quoted above.
IIª-IIae q. 148 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, gula importat inordinatam concupiscentiam edendi. In esu autem duo considerantur, scilicet ipse cibus qui comeditur, et eius comestio. Potest ergo inordinatio concupiscentiae attendi dupliciter. Uno quidem modo, quantum ad ipsum cibum qui sumitur. Et sic, quantum ad substantiam vel speciem cibi, quaerit aliquis cibos lautos, idest pretiosos; quantum ad qualitatem, quaerit cibos nimis accurate praeparatos, quod est studiose; quantum autem ad quantitatem, excedit in nimis edendo. Alio vero modo attenditur inordinatio concupiscentiae quantum ad ipsam sumptionem cibi, vel quia praevenit tempus debitum comedendi, quod est praepropere; vel quia non servat modum debitum in edendo, quod est ardenter. Isidorus vero comprehendit primum et secundum sub uno, dicens quod gulosus excedit in cibo secundum quid, quantum, quomodo et quando. I answer that, As stated above (Article 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 quantity, 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."
IIª-IIae q. 148 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod corruptio diversarum circumstantiarum facit diversas species gulae propter diversa motiva, ex quibus moralium species diversificantur. In eo enim qui quaerit lautos cibos, excitatur concupiscentia ex ipsa specie cibi in eo vero qui praeoccupat tempus, deordinatur concupiscentia propter impatientiam morae; et idem patet in aliis. Reply to Objection 1. The corruption of various circumstances 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.
IIª-IIae q. 148 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod in loco et in aliis circumstantiis non invenitur aliud differens motivum pertinens ad usum cibi, quod faciat aliam speciem gulae. Reply to Objection 2. Place and other circumstances include no special motive connected with eating, that can cause a different species of gluttony.
IIª-IIae q. 148 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod in quibuscumque aliis vitiis diversae circumstantiae habent diversa motiva, oportet accipi diversas species vitiorum secundum diversas circumstantias. Sed hoc non contingit in omnibus, ut dictum est. Reply to Objection 3. In all other vices, whenever different circumstances correspond to different motives, the difference of circumstances argues a specific difference of vice: but this does not apply to all circumstances, as stated above (I-II, 72, 09).
IIª-IIae q. 148 a. 5 arg. 1 Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod gula non sit vitium capitale. Vitia enim capitalia dicuntur ex quibus alia oriuntur secundum rationem causae finalis. Sed cibus, circa quem est gula, non habet rationem finis, non enim propter se quaeritur, sed propter corporis nutritionem. Ergo gula non est vitium capitale. 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.
IIª-IIae q. 148 a. 5 arg. 2 Praeterea, vitium capitale aliquam principalitatem habere videtur in ratione peccati. Sed hoc non competit gulae, quae videtur esse secundum suum genus minimum peccatorum, utpote plus appropinquans ad id quod est secundum naturam. Ergo gula non videtur esse vitium capitale. Objection 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 in respect of its genus, is apparently the least gluttony is not a capital vice.
IIª-IIae q. 148 a. 5 arg. 3 Praeterea, peccatum contingit ex hoc quod aliquis recedit a bono honesto propter aliquid utile praesenti vitae, vel delectabile sensui. Sed circa bona quae habent rationem utilis, ponitur unum tantum vitium capitale, scilicet avaritia. Ergo et circa delectationes videtur esse ponendum unum tantum vitium capitale. Ponitur autem luxuria, quae est maius vitium quam gula, et circa maiores delectationes. Ergo gula non est vitium capitale. Objection 3. Further, sin results from a man forsaking the food 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 lust, which is a greater vice than gluttony, and is about greater pleasures. Therefore gluttony is not a capital vice.
IIª-IIae q. 148 a. 5 s. c. Sed contra est quod Gregorius, XXXI Moral., computat gulam inter vitia capitalia. On the contrary, Gregory (Moral. xxxi, 45) reckons gluttony among the capital vices.
IIª-IIae q. 148 a. 5 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, vitium capitale dicitur ex quo alia vitia oriuntur secundum rationem causae finalis, inquantum scilicet habet finem multum appetibilem, unde ex eius appetitu homines provocantur multipliciter ad peccandum. Ex hoc autem aliquis finis redditur multum appetibilis quod habet aliquam de conditionibus felicitatis, quae est naturaliter appetibilis. Pertinet autem ad rationem felicitatis delectatio, ut patet in I et X Ethic. Et ideo vitium gulae, quod est circa delectationes tactus, quae sunt praecipuae inter alias, convenienter ponitur inter vitia capitalia. I answer that, As stated above (I-II, 84, 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.
IIª-IIae q. 148 a. 5 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ipse cibus ordinatur quidem ad aliquid sicut ad finem, sed quia ille finis, scilicet conservatio vitae, est maxime appetibilis, quae sine cibo conservari non potest, inde etiam est quod ipse cibus est maxime appetibilis; et ad hoc fere totus labor humanae vitae ordinatur, secundum illud Eccle. VI, omnis labor hominis in ore eius. Et tamen gula magis videtur esse circa delectationes cibi quam circa cibos. Propter quod, ut Augustinus dicit, in libro de vera Relig., quibus vilis est corporis salus, malunt vesci, in quo scilicet est delectatio, quam saturari, cum omnis finis illius voluptatis sit non sitire atque esurire. Reply to Objection 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 Ecclesiastes 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."
IIª-IIae q. 148 a. 5 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod finis in peccato accipitur ex parte conversionis, sed gravitas peccati accipitur ex parte aversionis. Et ideo non oportet vitium capitale, quod habet finem maxime appetibilem, habere magnam gravitatem. Reply to Objection 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 surpasses the others in gravity.
IIª-IIae q. 148 a. 5 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod delectabile est appetibile secundum se. Et ideo secundum eius diversitatem ponuntur duo vitia capitalia, scilicet gula et luxuria. Utile autem non habet ex se rationem appetibilis, sed secundum quod ad aliud ordinatur. Et ideo in omnibus utilibus videtur esse una ratio appetibilitatis. Et propter hoc circa huiusmodi non ponitur nisi unum vitium capitale. Reply to Objection 3. That which gives pleasure is desirable in itself: and consequently corresponding to its diversity there are two capital vices, namely gluttony and lust. 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.
IIª-IIae q. 148 a. 6 arg. 1 Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod inconvenienter assignentur gulae quinque filiae, scilicet inepta laetitia, scurrilitas, immunditia, multiloquium, hebetudo mentis circa intelligentiam. Inepta enim laetitia consequitur omne peccatum, secundum illud Prov. II, qui laetantur cum male fecerint, et exultant in rebus pessimis. Similiter etiam hebetudo mentis invenitur in omni peccato, secundum illud Prov. XIV, errant qui operantur malum. Ergo inconvenienter ponuntur filiae gulae. Objection 1. It would seem that six daughters are unfittingly assigned 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 Proverbs 2:14, "Who are glad when they have done evil, and rejoice in most wicked things." Likewise dullness of mind is associated with every sin, according to Proverbs 14:22, "They err that work evil." Therefore they are unfittingly reckoned to be daughters of gluttony.
IIª-IIae q. 148 a. 6 arg. 2 Praeterea, immunditia, quae maxime consequitur gulam, videtur ad vomitum pertinere, secundum illud Isaiae XXVIII, omnes mensae repletae sunt vomitu sordium. Sed hoc non videtur esse peccatum, sed poena, vel etiam aliquid utile sub consilio cadens, secundum illud Eccli. XXXI, si coactus fueris in edendo multum, surge e medio et vome, et refrigerabit te. Ergo non debet poni inter filias gulae. Objection 2. Further, the uncleanness which is particularly the result of gluttony would seem to be connected with vomiting, according to Isaiah 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 Sirach 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.
IIª-IIae q. 148 a. 6 arg. 3 Praeterea, Isidorus ponit scurrilitatem filiam luxuriae. Non ergo debet poni inter filias gulae. Objection 3. Further, Isidore (QQ. in Deut. xvi) reckons scurrility as a daughter of lust. Therefore it should not be reckoned among the daughters of gluttony.
IIª-IIae q. 148 a. 6 s. c. Sed contra est quod Gregorius, XXXI Moral., has filias gulae assignat. On the contrary, Gregory (Moral. xxxi, 45) assigns these daughters to gluttony.
IIª-IIae q. 148 a. 6 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, gula proprie consistit circa immoderatam delectationem quae est in cibis et potibus. Et ideo illa vitia inter filias gulae computantur quae ex immoderata delectatione cibi et potus consequuntur. Quae quidem possunt accipi vel ex parte animae, vel ex parte corporis. Ex parte autem animae, quadrupliciter. Primo quidem, quantum ad rationem, cuius acies hebetatur ex immoderantia cibi et potus. Et quantum ad hoc, ponitur filia gulae hebetudo sensus circa intelligentiam, propter fumositates ciborum perturbantes caput. Sicut et e contrario abstinentia confert ad sapientiae perceptionem, secundum illud Eccle. II, cogitavi in corde meo abstrahere a vino carnem meam, ut animum meum transferrem ad sapientiam. Secundo, quantum ad appetitum, qui multipliciter deordinatur per immoderantiam cibi et potus, quasi sopito gubernaculo rationis. Et quantum ad hoc, ponitur inepta laetitia, quia omnes aliae inordinatae passiones ad laetitiam et tristitiam ordinantur, ut dicitur in II Ethic. Et hoc est quod dicitur III Esdrae III, quod vinum omnem mentem convertit in securitatem et iucunditatem. Tertio, quantum ad inordinatum verbum. Et sic ponitur multiloquium, quia, ut Gregorius dicit, in pastorali, nisi gulae deditos immoderata loquacitas raperet, dives ille qui epulatus quotidie splendide dicitur, in lingua gravius non arderet. Quarto, quantum ad inordinatum actum. Et sic ponitur scurrilitas, idest iocularitas quaedam proveniens ex defectu rationis, quae, sicut non potest cohibere verba, ita non potest cohibere exteriores gestus. Unde Ephes. V, super illud, aut stultiloquium aut scurrilitas, dicit Glossa, quae a stultis curialitas dicitur, idest iocularitas, quae risum movere solet. Quamvis possit utrumque horum referri ad verba. In quibus contingit peccare vel ratione superfluitatis, quod pertinet ad multiloquium, vel ratione inhonestatis, quod pertinet ad scurrilitatem. Ex parte autem corporis, ponitur immunditia. Quae potest attendi sive secundum inordinatam emissionem quarumcumque superfluitatum, vel specialiter quantum ad emissionem seminis. Unde super illud Ephes. V, fornicatio autem et omnis immunditia etc., dicit Glossa, idest incontinentia pertinens ad libidinem quocumque modo. I answer that, As stated above (1 and 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 Ecclesiastes 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. appetite, 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 passions are directed to joy or sorrow, as stated in Ethic. ii, 5. To this we must refer the saying of 3 Esdra 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 Ephesians 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 semen. Hence a gloss on Ephesians 5:3, "But fornication and all uncleanness," says: "That is, any kind of incontinence that has reference to lust."
IIª-IIae q. 148 a. 6 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod laetitia quae est de actu peccati vel fine, consequitur omne peccatum, maxime quod procedit ex habitu. Sed laetitia vaga incomposita, quae hic dicitur inepta, praecipue oritur ex immoderata sumptione cibi vel potus. Similiter etiam dicendum quod hebetudo sensus quantum ad eligibilia communiter invenitur in omni peccato. Sed hebetudo sensus circa speculabilia maxime procedit ex gula, ratione iam dicta. Reply to Objection 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. On 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.
IIª-IIae q. 148 a. 6 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod, licet utilis sit vomitus post superfluam comestionem, tamen vitiosum est quod aliquis huic necessitati se subdat per immoderantiam cibi vel potus. Potest tamen absque culpa vomitus procurari ex consilio medicinae in remedium alicuius languoris. Reply to Objection 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.
IIª-IIae q. 148 a. 6 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod scurrilitas procedit quidem ex actu gulae, non autem ex actu luxuriae, sed ex eius voluntate. Et ideo ad utrumque vitium potest pertinere. Reply to Objection 3. Scurrility proceeds from the act of gluttony, and not from the lustful act, but from the lustful will: wherefore it may be referred to either vice.

Notes


  • [[]]
Personal tools