Part III (Secunda Secundae) Part 214 (1/2)
_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.