Therefore
it seems
that the fixing of the ninth hour should not form part of the
commandment to fast.
that the fixing of the ninth hour should not form part of the
commandment to fast.
Summa Theologica
For
precepts are not given about works of supererogation which are a matter
of counsel. Now fasting is a work of supererogation: else it would have
to be equally observed at all places and times. Therefore fasting is
not a matter of precept.
Objection 2: Further, whoever infringes a precept commits a mortal sin.
Therefore if fasting were a matter of precept, all who do not fast
would sin mortally, and a widespreading snare would be laid for men.
Objection 3: Further, Augustine says (De Vera Relig. 17) that "the
Wisdom of God having taken human nature, and called us to a state of
freedom, instituted a few most salutary sacraments whereby the
community of the Christian people, that is, of the free multitude,
should be bound together in subjection to one God. " Now the liberty of
the Christian people seems to be hindered by a great number of
observances no less than by a great number of sacraments. For Augustine
says (Ad inquis. Januar. , Ep. lv) that "whereas God in His mercy wished
our religion to be distinguished by its freedom and the evidence and
small number of its solemn sacraments, some people render it oppressive
with slavish burdens. " Therefore it seems that the Church should not
have made fasting a matter of precept.
On the contrary, Jerome (Ad Lucin. , Ep. lxxi) speaking of fasting says:
"Let each province keep to its own practice, and look upon the commands
of the elders as though they were laws of the apostles. " Therefore
fasting is a matter of precept.
I answer that, Just as it belongs to the secular authority to make
legal precepts which apply the natural law to matters of common weal in
temporal affairs, so it belongs to ecclesiastical superiors to
prescribe by statute those things that concern the common weal of the
faithful in spiritual goods.
Now it has been stated above [3482](A[1]) that fasting is useful as
atoning for and preventing sin, and as raising the mind to spiritual
things. And everyone is bound by the natural dictate of reason to
practice fasting as far as it is necessary for these purposes.
Wherefore fasting in general is a matter of precept of the natural law,
while the fixing of the time and manner of fasting as becoming and
profitable to the Christian people, is a matter of precept of positive
law established by ecclesiastical authority: the latter is the Church
fast, the former is the fast prescribed by nature.
Reply to Objection 1: Fasting considered in itself denotes something
not eligible but penal: yet it becomes eligible in so far as it is
useful to some end. Wherefore considered absolutely it is not binding
under precept, but it is binding under precept to each one that stands
in need of such a remedy. And since men, for the most part, need this
remedy, both because "in many things we all offend" (James 3:2), and
because "the flesh lusteth against the spirit" (Gal. 5:17), it was
fitting that the Church should appoint certain fasts to be kept by all
in common. In doing this the Church does not make a precept of a matter
of supererogation, but particularizes in detail that which is of
general obligation.
Reply to Objection 2: Those commandments which are given under the form
of a general precept, do not bind all persons in the same way, but
subject to the requirements of the end intended by the lawgiver. It
will be a mortal sin to disobey a commandment through contempt of the
lawgiver's authority, or to disobey it in such a way as to frustrate
the end intended by him: but it is not a mortal sin if one fails to
keep a commandment, when there is a reasonable motive, and especially
if the lawgiver would not insist on its observance if he were present.
Hence it is that not all, who do not keep the fasts of the Church, sin
mortally.
Reply to Objection 3: Augustine is speaking there of those things "that
are neither contained in the authorities of Holy Scripture, nor found
among the ordinances of bishops in council, nor sanctioned by the
custom of the universal Church. " On the other hand, the fasts that are
of obligation are appointed by the councils of bishops and are
sanctioned by the custom of the universal Church. Nor are they opposed
to the freedom of the faithful, rather are they of use in hindering the
slavery of sin, which is opposed to spiritual freedom, of which it is
written (Gal. 5:13): "You, brethren, have been called unto liberty;
only make not liberty an occasion to the flesh. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether all are bound to keep the fasts of the Church?
Objection 1: It would seem that all are bound to keep the fasts of the
Church. For the commandments of the Church are binding even as the
commandments of God, according to Lk. 10:16, "He that heareth you
heareth Me. " Now all are bound to keep the commandments of God.
Therefore in like manner all are bound to keep the fasts appointed by
the Church.
Objection 2: Further, children especially are seemingly not exempt from
fasting, on account of their age: for it is written (Joel 2:15):
"Sanctify a fast," and further on (Joel 2:16): "Gather together the
little ones, and them that suck the breasts. " Much more therefore are
all others bound to keen the fasts.
Objection 3: Further, spiritual things should be preferred to temporal,
and necessary things to those that are not necessary. Now bodily works
are directed to temporal gain; and pilgrimages, though directed to
spiritual things, are not a matter of necessity. Therefore, since
fasting is directed to a spiritual gain, and is made a necessary thing
by the commandment of the Church, it seems that the fasts of the Church
ought not to be omitted on account of a pilgrimage, or bodily works.
Objection 4: Further, it is better to do a thing willingly than through
necessity, as stated in 2 Cor. 9:7. Now the poor are wont to fast
through necessity, owing to lack of food. Much more therefore ought
they to fast willingly.
On the contrary, It seems that no righteous man is bound to fast. For
the commandments of the Church are not binding in opposition to
Christ's teaching. But our Lord said (Lk. 5:34) that "the children of
the bridegroom cannot fast whilst the bridegroom is with them [*Vulg. :
'Can you make the children of the bridegroom fast, whilst the
bridegroom is with them? ']. " Now He is with all the righteous by
dwelling in them in a special manner [*Cf. [3483]FP, Q[8], A[3]],
wherefore our Lord said (Mat. 28:20): "Behold I am with you . . . even
to the consummation of the world. " Therefore the righteous are not
bound by the commandment of the Church to fast.
I answer that, As stated above ([3484]FS, Q[90], A[2]; [3485]FS, Q[98],
AA[2],6), general precepts are framed according to the requirements of
the many. Wherefore in making such precepts the lawgiver considers what
happens generally and for the most part, and he does not intend the
precept to be binding on a person in whom for some special reason there
is something incompatible with observance of the precept. Yet
discretion must be brought to bear on the point. For if the reason be
evident, it is lawful for a man to use his own judgment in omitting to
fulfil the precept, especially if custom be in his favor, or if it be
difficult for him to have recourse to superior authority. on the other
hand, if the reason be doubtful, one should have recourse to the
superior who has power to grant a dispensation in such cases. And this
must be done in the fasts appointed by the Church, to which all are
bound in general, unless there be some special obstacle to this
observance.
Reply to Objection 1: The commandments of God are precepts of the
natural law, which are, of themselves, necessary for salvation. But the
commandments of the Church are about matters which are necessary for
salvation, not of themselves, but only through the ordinance of the
Church. Hence there may be certain obstacles on account of which
certain persons are not bound to keep the fasts in question.
Reply to Objection 2: In children there is a most evident reason for
not fasting, both on account of their natural weakness, owing to which
they need to take food frequently, and not much at a time, and because
they need much nourishment owing to the demands of growth, which
results from the residuum of nourishment. Wherefore as long as the
stage of growth lasts, which as a rule lasts until they have completed
the third period of seven years, they are not bound to keep the Church
fasts: and yet it is fitting that even during that time they should
exercise themselves in fasting, more or less, in accordance with their
age. Nevertheless when some great calamity threatens, even children are
commanded to fast, in sign of more severe penance, according to Jonah
3:7, "Let neither men nor beasts . . . taste anything . . . nor drink
water. "
Reply to Objection 3: Apparently a distinction should be made with
regard to pilgrims and working people. For if the pilgrimage or
laborious work can be conveniently deferred or lessened without
detriment to the bodily health and such external conditions as are
necessary for the upkeep of bodily or spiritual life, there is no
reason for omitting the fasts of the Church. But if one be under the
necessity of starting on the pilgrimage at once, and of making long
stages, or of doing much work, either for one's bodily livelihood, or
for some need of the spiritual life, and it be impossible at the same
time to keep the fasts of the Church, one is not bound to fast: because
in ordering fasts the Church would not seem to have intended to prevent
other pious and more necessary undertakings. Nevertheless, in such
cases one ought seemingly, to seek the superior's dispensation; except
perhaps when the above course is recognized by custom, since when
superiors are silent they would seem to consent.
Reply to Objection 4: Those poor who can provide themselves with
sufficient for one meal are not excused, on account of poverty, from
keeping the fasts of the Church. On the other hand, those would seem to
be exempt who beg their food piecemeal, since they are unable at any
one time to have a sufficiency of food.
Reply to Objection 5: This saying of our Lord may be expounded in three
ways. First, according to Chrysostom (Hom. xxx in Matth. ), who says
that "the disciples, who are called children of the bridegroom, were as
yet of a weakly disposition, wherefore they are compared to an old
garment. " Hence while Christ was with them in body they were to be
fostered with kindness rather than drilled with the harshness of
fasting. According to this interpretation, it is fitting that
dispensations should be granted to the imperfect and to beginners,
rather than to the elders and the perfect, according to a gloss on Ps.
130:2, "As a child that is weaned is towards his mother. " Secondly, we
may say with Jerome [*Bede, Comment. in Luc. v] that our Lord is
speaking here of the fasts of the observances of the Old Law. Wherefore
our Lord means to say that the apostles were not to be held back by the
old observances, since they were to be filled with the newness of
grace. Thirdly, according to Augustine (De Consensu Evang. ii, 27), who
states that fasting is of two kinds. one pertains to those who are
humbled by disquietude, and this is not befitting perfect men, for they
are called "children of the bridegroom"; hence when we read in Luke:
"The children of the bridegroom cannot fast [*Hom. xiii, in Matth. ],"
we read in Mat. 9:15: "The children of the bridegroom cannot mourn
[*Vulg. : 'Can the children of the bridegroom mourn? ']. " The other
pertains to the mind that rejoices in adhering to spiritual things: and
this fasting is befitting the perfect.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the times for the Church fast are fittingly ascribed?
Objection 1: It would seem that the times for the Church fast are
unfittingly appointed. For we read (Mat. 4) that Christ began to fast
immediately after being baptized. Now we ought to imitate Christ,
according to 1 Cor. 4:16, "Be ye followers of me, as I also am of
Christ. " Therefore we ought to fast immediately after the Epiphany when
Christ's baptism is celebrated.
Objection 2: Further, it is unlawful in the New Law to observe the
ceremonies of the Old Law. Now it belongs to the solemnities of the Old
Law to fast in certain particular months: for it is written (Zech.
8:19): "The fast of the fourth month and the fast of the fifth, and the
fast of the seventh, and the fast of the tenth shall be to the house of
Judah, joy and gladness and great solemnities. " Therefore the fast of
certain months, which are called Ember days, are unfittingly kept in
the Church.
Objection 3: Further, according to Augustine (De Consensu Evang. ii,
27), just as there is a fast "of sorrow," so is there a fast "of joy. "
Now it is most becoming that the faithful should rejoice spiritually in
Christ's Resurrection. Therefore during the five weeks which the Church
solemnizes on account of Christ's Resurrection, and on Sundays which
commemorate the Resurrection, fasts ought to be appointed.
On the contrary, stands the general custom of the Church.
I answer that, As stated above ([3486]AA[1],3), fasting is directed to
two things, the deletion of sin, and the raising of the mind to
heavenly things. Wherefore fasting ought to be appointed specially for
those times, when it behooves man to be cleansed from sin, and the
minds of the faithful to be raised to God by devotion: and these things
are particularly requisite before the feast of Easter, when sins are
loosed by baptism, which is solemnly conferred on Easter-eve, on which
day our Lord's burial is commemorated, because "we are buried together
with Christ by baptism unto death" (Rom. 6:4). Moreover at the Easter
festival the mind of man ought to be devoutly raised to the glory of
eternity, which Christ restored by rising from the dead, and so the
Church ordered a fast to be observed immediately before the Paschal
feast; and for the same reason, on the eve of the chief festivals,
because it is then that one ought to make ready to keep the coming
feast devoutly. Again it is the custom in the Church for Holy orders to
be conferred every quarter of the year (in sign whereof our Lord fed
four thousand men with seven loaves, which signify the New Testament
year as Jerome says [*Comment. in Marc. viii]): and then both the
ordainer, and the candidates for ordination, and even the whole people,
for whose good they are ordained, need to fast in order to make
themselves ready for the ordination. Hence it is related (Lk. 6:12)
that before choosing His disciples our Lord "went out into a mountain
to pray": and Ambrose [*Exposit. in Luc. ] commenting on these words
says: "What shouldst thou do, when thou desirest to undertake some
pious work, since Christ prayed before sending His apostles? "
With regard to the forty day's fast, according to Gregory (Hom. xvi in
Evang. ) there are three reasons for the number. First, "because the
power of the Decalogue is accomplished in the four books of the Holy
Gospels: since forty is the product of ten multiplied by four. " Or
"because we are composed of four elements in this mortal body through
whose lusts we transgress the Lord's commandments which are delivered
to us in the Decalogue. Wherefore it is fitting we should punish that
same body forty times. or, because, just as under the Law it was
commanded that tithes should be paid of things, so we strive to pay God
a tithe of days, for since a year is composed of three hundred and
sixty-six days, by punishing ourselves for thirty-six days" (namely,
the fasting days during the six weeks of Lent) "we pay God a tithe of
our year. " According to Augustine (De Doctr. Christ. ii, 16) a fourth
reason may be added. For the Creator is the "Trinity," Father, Son, and
Holy Ghost: while the number "three" refers to the invisible creature,
since we are commanded to love God, with our whole heart, with our
whole soul, and with our whole mind: and the number "four" refers to
the visible creature, by reason of heat, cold, wet and dry. Thus the
number "ten" [*Ten is the sum of three, three, and four] signifies all
things, and if this be multiplied by four which refers to the body
whereby we make use of things, we have the number forty.
Each fast of the Ember days is composed of three days, on account of
the number of months in each season: or on account of the number of
Holy orders which are conferred at these times.
Reply to Objection 1: Christ needed not baptism for His own sake, but
in order to commend baptism to us. Wherefore it was competent for Him
to fast, not before, but after His baptism, in order to invite us to
fast before our baptism.
Reply to Objection 2: The Church keeps the Ember fasts, neither at the
very same time as the Jews, nor for the same reasons. For they fasted
in July, which is the fourth month from April (which they count as the
first), because it was then that Moses coming down from Mount Sinai
broke the tables of the Law (Ex. 32), and that, according to Jer. 39:2,
"the walls of the city were first broken through. " In the fifth month,
which we call August, they fasted because they were commanded not to go
up on to the mountain, when the people had rebelled on account of the
spies (Num. 14): also in this month the temple of Jerusalem was burnt
down by Nabuchodonosor (Jer. 52) and afterwards by Titus. In the
seventh month which we call October, Godolias was slain, and the
remnants of the people were dispersed (Jer. 51). In the tenth month,
which we call January, the people who were with Ezechiel in captivity
heard of the destruction of the temple (Ezech. 4).
Reply to Objection 3: The "fasting of joy" proceeds from the
instigation of the Holy Ghost Who is the Spirit of liberty, wherefore
this fasting should not be a matter of precept. Accordingly the fasts
appointed by the commandment of the Church are rather "fasts of sorrow"
which are inconsistent with days of joy. For this reason fasting is not
ordered by the Church during the whole of the Paschal season, nor on
Sundays: and if anyone were to fast at these times in contradiction to
the custom of Christian people, which as Augustine declares (Ep. xxxvi)
"is to be considered as law," or even through some erroneous opinion
(thus the Manichees fast, because they deem such fasting to be of
obligation)---he would not be free from sin. Nevertheless fasting
considered in itself is commendable at all times; thus Jerome wrote (Ad
Lucin. , Ep. lxxi): "Would that we might fast always. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether it is requisite for fasting that one eat but once?
Objection 1: It would seem that it is not requisite for fasting that
one eat but once. For, as stated above [3487](A[2]), fasting is an act
of the virtue of abstinence, which observes due quantity of food not
less than the number of meals. Now the quantity of food is not limited
for those who fast. Therefore neither should the number of meals be
limited.
Objection 2: Further, Just as man is nourished by meat, so is he by
drink: wherefore drink breaks the fast, and for this reason we cannot
receive the Eucharist after drinking. Now we are not forbidden to drink
at various hours of the day. Therefore those who fast should not be
forbidden to eat several times.
Objection 3: Further, digestives are a kind of food: and yet many take
them on fasting days after eating. Therefore it is not essential to
fasting to take only one meal.
On the contrary, stands the common custom of the Christian people.
I answer that, Fasting is instituted by the Church in order to bridle
concupiscence, yet so as to safeguard nature. Now only one meal is
seemingly sufficient for this purpose, since thereby man is able to
satisfy nature; and yet he withdraws something from concupiscence by
minimizing the number of meals. Therefore it is appointed by the
Church, in her moderation, that those who fast should take one meal in
the day.
Reply to Objection 1: It was not possible to fix the same quantity of
food for all, on account of the various bodily temperaments, the result
being that one person needs more, and another less food: whereas, for
the most part, all are able to satisfy nature by only one meal.
Reply to Objection 2: Fasting is of two kinds [*Cf. A[1], ad 3]. One is
the natural fast, which is requisite for receiving the Eucharist. This
is broken by any kind of drink, even of water, after which it is not
lawful to receive the Eucharist. The fast of the Church is another kind
and is called the "fasting of the faster," and this is not broken save
by such things as the Church intended to forbid in instituting the
fast. Now the Church does not intend to command abstinence from drink,
for this is taken more for bodily refreshment, and digestion of the
food consumed, although it nourishes somewhat. It is, however, possible
to sin and lose the merit of fasting, by partaking of too much drink:
as also by eating immoderately at one meal.
Reply to Objection 3: Although digestives nourish somewhat they are not
taken chiefly for nourishment, but for digestion. Hence one does not
break one's fast by taking them or any other medicines, unless one were
to take digestives, with a fraudulent intention, in great quantity and
by way of food.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the ninth hour is suitably fixed for the faster's meal?
Objection 1: It would seem that the ninth hour is not suitably fixed
for the faster's meal. For the state of the New Law is more perfect
than the state of the Old Law. Now in the Old Testament they fasted
until evening, for it is written (Lev. 23:32): "It is a sabbath . . .
you shall afflict your souls," and then the text continues: "From
evening until evening you shall celebrate your sabbaths. " Much more
therefore under the New Testament should the fast be ordered until the
evening.
Objection 2: Further, the fast ordered by the Church is binding on all.
But all are not able to know exactly the ninth hour.
Therefore it seems
that the fixing of the ninth hour should not form part of the
commandment to fast.
Objection 3: Further, fasting is an act of the virtue of abstinence, as
stated above [3488](A[2]). Now the mean of moral virtue does not apply
in the same way to all, since what is much for one is little for
another, as stated in Ethic. ii, 6. Therefore the ninth hour should not
be fixed for those who fast.
On the contrary, The Council of Chalons [*The quotation is from the
Capitularies (Cap. 39) of Theodulf, bishop of Orleans (760-821) and is
said to be found in the Corpus Juris, Cap. Solent, dist. 1, De
Consecratione] says: "During Lent those are by no means to be credited
with fasting who eat before the celebration of the office of Vespers,"
which in the Lenten season is said after the ninth hour. Therefore we
ought to fast until the ninth hour.
I answer that, As stated above ([3489]AA[1],3,5), fasting is directed
to the deletion and prevention of sin. Hence it ought to add something
to the common custom, yet so as not to be a heavy burden to nature. Now
the right and common custom is for men to eat about the sixth hour:
both because digestion is seemingly finished (the natural heat being
withdrawn inwardly at night-time on account of the surrounding cold of
the night), and the humor spread about through the limbs (to which
result the heat of the day conduces until the sun has reached its
zenith), and again because it is then chiefly that the nature of the
human body needs assistance against the external heat that is in the
air, lest the humors be parched within. Hence, in order that those who
fast may feel some pain in satisfaction for their sins, the ninth hour
is suitably fixed for their meal.
Moreover, this hour agrees with the mystery of Christ's Passion, which
was brought to a close at the ninth hour, when "bowing His head, He
gave up the ghost" (Jn. 19:30): because those who fast by punishing
their flesh, are conformed to the Passion of Christ, according to Gal.
5:24, "They that are Christ's, have crucified their flesh with the
vices and concupiscences. "
Reply to Objection 1: The state of the Old Testament is compared to the
night, while the state of the New Testament is compared to the day,
according to Rom. 13:12, "The night is passed and the day is at hand. "
Therefore in the Old Testament they fasted until night, but not in the
New Testament.
Reply to Objection 2: Fasting requires a fixed hour based, not on a
strict calculation, but on a rough estimate: for it suffices that it be
about the ninth hour, and this is easy for anyone to ascertain.
Reply to Objection 3: A little more or a little less cannot do much
harm. Now it is not a long space of time from the sixth hour at which
men for the most part are wont to eat, until the ninth hour, which is
fixed for those who fast. Wherefore the fixing of such a time cannot do
much harm to anyone, whatever his circumstances may be. If however this
were to prove a heavy burden to a man on account of sickness, age, or
some similar reason, he should be dispensed from fasting, or be allowed
to forestall the hour by a little.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether it is fitting that those who fast should be bidden to abstain from
flesh meat, eggs, and milk foods?
Objection 1: It would seem unfitting that those who fast should be
bidden to abstain from flesh meat, eggs, and milk foods. For it has
been stated above [3490](A[6]) that fasting was instituted as a curb on
the concupiscence of the flesh. Now concupiscence is kindled by
drinking wine more than by eating flesh; according to Prov. 20:1, "Wine
is a luxurious thing," and Eph. 5:18, "Be not drunk with wine, wherein
is luxury. " Since then those who fast are not forbidden to drink wine,
it seems that they should not be forbidden to eat flesh meat.
Objection 2: Further, some fish are as delectable to eat as the flesh
of certain animals. Now "concupiscence is desire of the delectable," as
stated above ([3491]FS, Q[30], A[1]). Therefore since fasting which was
instituted in order to bridle concupiscence does not exclude the eating
of fish, neither should it exclude the eating of flesh meat.
Objection 3: Further, on certain fasting days people make use of eggs
and cheese. Therefore one can likewise make use of them during the
Lenten fast.
On the contrary, stands the common custom of the faithful.
I answer that, As stated above [3492](A[6]), fasting was instituted by
the Church in order to bridle the concupiscences of the flesh, which
regard pleasures of touch in connection with food and sex. Wherefore
the Church forbade those who fast to partake of those foods which both
afford most pleasure to the palate, and besides are a very great
incentive to lust. Such are the flesh of animals that take their rest
on the earth, and of those that breathe the air and their products,
such as milk from those that walk on the earth, and eggs from birds.
For, since such like animals are more like man in body, they afford
greater pleasure as food, and greater nourishment to the human body, so
that from their consumption there results a greater surplus available
for seminal matter, which when abundant becomes a great incentive to
lust. Hence the Church has bidden those who fast to abstain especially
from these foods.
Reply to Objection 1: Three things concur in the act of procreation,
namely, heat, spirit [*Cf. P. I. , Q. 118, A[1], ad 3], and humor. Wine
and other things that heat the body conduce especially to heat:
flatulent foods seemingly cooperate in the production of the vital
spirit: but it is chiefly the use of flesh meat which is most
productive of nourishment, that conduces to the production of humor.
Now the alteration occasioned by heat, and the increase in vital
spirits are of short duration, whereas the substance of the humor
remains a long time. Hence those who fast are forbidden the use of
flesh meat rather than of wine or vegetables which are flatulent foods.
Reply to Objection 2: In the institution of fasting, the Church takes
account of the more common occurrences. Now, generally speaking, eating
flesh meat affords more pleasure than eating fish, although this is not
always the case. Hence the Church forbade those who fast to eat flesh
meat, rather than to eat fish.
Reply to Objection 3: Eggs and milk foods are forbidden to those who
fast, for as much as they originate from animals that provide us with
flesh: wherefore the prohibition of flesh meat takes precedence of the
prohibition of eggs and milk foods. Again the Lenten fast is the most
solemn of all, both because it is kept in imitation of Christ, and
because it disposes us to celebrate devoutly the mysteries of our
redemption. For this reason the eating of flesh meat is forbidden in
every fast, while the Lenten fast lays a general prohibition even on
eggs and milk foods. As to the use of the latter things in other fasts
the custom varies among different people, and each person is bound to
conform to that custom which is in vogue with those among whom he is
dwelling. Hence Jerome says [*Augustine, De Lib. Arb. iii, 18; cf. De
Nat. et Grat. lxvii]: "Let each province keep to its own practice, and
look upon the commands of the elders as though they were the laws of
the apostles. "
__________________________________________________________________
OF GLUTTONY (SIX ARTICLES)
We must now consider gluttony. Under this head there are six points of
inquiry:
(1) Whether gluttony is a sin?
(2) Whether it is a mortal sin?
(3) Whether it is the greatest of sins?
(4) Its species;
(5) Whether it is a capital sin?
(6) Its daughters.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether gluttony is a sin?
Objection 1: It would seem that gluttony is not a sin. For our Lord
said (Mat. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. [3493]FS, Q[102],
A[6], ad 1]. It is the inordinate desire of food that defiles a man
spiritually.
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.
Reply to Objection 3: The appetite is twofold. There is the natural
appetite, which belongs to the powers of the vegetal soul. In 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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether gluttony is a mortal sin?
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.
Objection 2: Further, every mortal sin is contrary to charity, as
stated above ([3494]Q[132], A[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.
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.
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.
I answer that, As stated above [3495](A[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.
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 ([3496]Q[122],
A[1]).
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.
Reply to Objection 3: This saying of Augustine refers to gluttony as
denoting inordinate concupiscence merely in regard of things directed
to the end.
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. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether gluttony is the greatest of sins?
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 Ezech. 16:49, "This was the iniquity of Sodom, thy
sister . . . fulness of bread," etc. Therefore the sin of gluttony is
the greatest of all.
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 Ps.
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.
Objection 3: Further, man should love himself in the first place after
God, as stated above ([3497]Q[25], A[4]). Now man, by the vice of
gluttony, inflicts an injury on himself: for it is written (Ecclus.
37:34): "By surfeiting many have perished. " Therefore gluttony is the
greatest of sins, at least excepting those that are against God.
On the contrary, The sins of the flesh, among which gluttony is
reckoned, are less culpable according to Gregory (Moral. xxxiii).
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.
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.
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.
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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the species of gluttony are fittingly distinguished?
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.
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.
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.
On the contrary, stands the authority of Gregory quoted above.
I answer that, As stated above [3498](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 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. "
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.
Reply to Objection 2: Place and other circumstances include no special
motive connected with eating, that can cause a different species of
gluttony.
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 ([3499]FS, Q[72], A[9]).
__________________________________________________________________
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.
precepts are not given about works of supererogation which are a matter
of counsel. Now fasting is a work of supererogation: else it would have
to be equally observed at all places and times. Therefore fasting is
not a matter of precept.
Objection 2: Further, whoever infringes a precept commits a mortal sin.
Therefore if fasting were a matter of precept, all who do not fast
would sin mortally, and a widespreading snare would be laid for men.
Objection 3: Further, Augustine says (De Vera Relig. 17) that "the
Wisdom of God having taken human nature, and called us to a state of
freedom, instituted a few most salutary sacraments whereby the
community of the Christian people, that is, of the free multitude,
should be bound together in subjection to one God. " Now the liberty of
the Christian people seems to be hindered by a great number of
observances no less than by a great number of sacraments. For Augustine
says (Ad inquis. Januar. , Ep. lv) that "whereas God in His mercy wished
our religion to be distinguished by its freedom and the evidence and
small number of its solemn sacraments, some people render it oppressive
with slavish burdens. " Therefore it seems that the Church should not
have made fasting a matter of precept.
On the contrary, Jerome (Ad Lucin. , Ep. lxxi) speaking of fasting says:
"Let each province keep to its own practice, and look upon the commands
of the elders as though they were laws of the apostles. " Therefore
fasting is a matter of precept.
I answer that, Just as it belongs to the secular authority to make
legal precepts which apply the natural law to matters of common weal in
temporal affairs, so it belongs to ecclesiastical superiors to
prescribe by statute those things that concern the common weal of the
faithful in spiritual goods.
Now it has been stated above [3482](A[1]) that fasting is useful as
atoning for and preventing sin, and as raising the mind to spiritual
things. And everyone is bound by the natural dictate of reason to
practice fasting as far as it is necessary for these purposes.
Wherefore fasting in general is a matter of precept of the natural law,
while the fixing of the time and manner of fasting as becoming and
profitable to the Christian people, is a matter of precept of positive
law established by ecclesiastical authority: the latter is the Church
fast, the former is the fast prescribed by nature.
Reply to Objection 1: Fasting considered in itself denotes something
not eligible but penal: yet it becomes eligible in so far as it is
useful to some end. Wherefore considered absolutely it is not binding
under precept, but it is binding under precept to each one that stands
in need of such a remedy. And since men, for the most part, need this
remedy, both because "in many things we all offend" (James 3:2), and
because "the flesh lusteth against the spirit" (Gal. 5:17), it was
fitting that the Church should appoint certain fasts to be kept by all
in common. In doing this the Church does not make a precept of a matter
of supererogation, but particularizes in detail that which is of
general obligation.
Reply to Objection 2: Those commandments which are given under the form
of a general precept, do not bind all persons in the same way, but
subject to the requirements of the end intended by the lawgiver. It
will be a mortal sin to disobey a commandment through contempt of the
lawgiver's authority, or to disobey it in such a way as to frustrate
the end intended by him: but it is not a mortal sin if one fails to
keep a commandment, when there is a reasonable motive, and especially
if the lawgiver would not insist on its observance if he were present.
Hence it is that not all, who do not keep the fasts of the Church, sin
mortally.
Reply to Objection 3: Augustine is speaking there of those things "that
are neither contained in the authorities of Holy Scripture, nor found
among the ordinances of bishops in council, nor sanctioned by the
custom of the universal Church. " On the other hand, the fasts that are
of obligation are appointed by the councils of bishops and are
sanctioned by the custom of the universal Church. Nor are they opposed
to the freedom of the faithful, rather are they of use in hindering the
slavery of sin, which is opposed to spiritual freedom, of which it is
written (Gal. 5:13): "You, brethren, have been called unto liberty;
only make not liberty an occasion to the flesh. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether all are bound to keep the fasts of the Church?
Objection 1: It would seem that all are bound to keep the fasts of the
Church. For the commandments of the Church are binding even as the
commandments of God, according to Lk. 10:16, "He that heareth you
heareth Me. " Now all are bound to keep the commandments of God.
Therefore in like manner all are bound to keep the fasts appointed by
the Church.
Objection 2: Further, children especially are seemingly not exempt from
fasting, on account of their age: for it is written (Joel 2:15):
"Sanctify a fast," and further on (Joel 2:16): "Gather together the
little ones, and them that suck the breasts. " Much more therefore are
all others bound to keen the fasts.
Objection 3: Further, spiritual things should be preferred to temporal,
and necessary things to those that are not necessary. Now bodily works
are directed to temporal gain; and pilgrimages, though directed to
spiritual things, are not a matter of necessity. Therefore, since
fasting is directed to a spiritual gain, and is made a necessary thing
by the commandment of the Church, it seems that the fasts of the Church
ought not to be omitted on account of a pilgrimage, or bodily works.
Objection 4: Further, it is better to do a thing willingly than through
necessity, as stated in 2 Cor. 9:7. Now the poor are wont to fast
through necessity, owing to lack of food. Much more therefore ought
they to fast willingly.
On the contrary, It seems that no righteous man is bound to fast. For
the commandments of the Church are not binding in opposition to
Christ's teaching. But our Lord said (Lk. 5:34) that "the children of
the bridegroom cannot fast whilst the bridegroom is with them [*Vulg. :
'Can you make the children of the bridegroom fast, whilst the
bridegroom is with them? ']. " Now He is with all the righteous by
dwelling in them in a special manner [*Cf. [3483]FP, Q[8], A[3]],
wherefore our Lord said (Mat. 28:20): "Behold I am with you . . . even
to the consummation of the world. " Therefore the righteous are not
bound by the commandment of the Church to fast.
I answer that, As stated above ([3484]FS, Q[90], A[2]; [3485]FS, Q[98],
AA[2],6), general precepts are framed according to the requirements of
the many. Wherefore in making such precepts the lawgiver considers what
happens generally and for the most part, and he does not intend the
precept to be binding on a person in whom for some special reason there
is something incompatible with observance of the precept. Yet
discretion must be brought to bear on the point. For if the reason be
evident, it is lawful for a man to use his own judgment in omitting to
fulfil the precept, especially if custom be in his favor, or if it be
difficult for him to have recourse to superior authority. on the other
hand, if the reason be doubtful, one should have recourse to the
superior who has power to grant a dispensation in such cases. And this
must be done in the fasts appointed by the Church, to which all are
bound in general, unless there be some special obstacle to this
observance.
Reply to Objection 1: The commandments of God are precepts of the
natural law, which are, of themselves, necessary for salvation. But the
commandments of the Church are about matters which are necessary for
salvation, not of themselves, but only through the ordinance of the
Church. Hence there may be certain obstacles on account of which
certain persons are not bound to keep the fasts in question.
Reply to Objection 2: In children there is a most evident reason for
not fasting, both on account of their natural weakness, owing to which
they need to take food frequently, and not much at a time, and because
they need much nourishment owing to the demands of growth, which
results from the residuum of nourishment. Wherefore as long as the
stage of growth lasts, which as a rule lasts until they have completed
the third period of seven years, they are not bound to keep the Church
fasts: and yet it is fitting that even during that time they should
exercise themselves in fasting, more or less, in accordance with their
age. Nevertheless when some great calamity threatens, even children are
commanded to fast, in sign of more severe penance, according to Jonah
3:7, "Let neither men nor beasts . . . taste anything . . . nor drink
water. "
Reply to Objection 3: Apparently a distinction should be made with
regard to pilgrims and working people. For if the pilgrimage or
laborious work can be conveniently deferred or lessened without
detriment to the bodily health and such external conditions as are
necessary for the upkeep of bodily or spiritual life, there is no
reason for omitting the fasts of the Church. But if one be under the
necessity of starting on the pilgrimage at once, and of making long
stages, or of doing much work, either for one's bodily livelihood, or
for some need of the spiritual life, and it be impossible at the same
time to keep the fasts of the Church, one is not bound to fast: because
in ordering fasts the Church would not seem to have intended to prevent
other pious and more necessary undertakings. Nevertheless, in such
cases one ought seemingly, to seek the superior's dispensation; except
perhaps when the above course is recognized by custom, since when
superiors are silent they would seem to consent.
Reply to Objection 4: Those poor who can provide themselves with
sufficient for one meal are not excused, on account of poverty, from
keeping the fasts of the Church. On the other hand, those would seem to
be exempt who beg their food piecemeal, since they are unable at any
one time to have a sufficiency of food.
Reply to Objection 5: This saying of our Lord may be expounded in three
ways. First, according to Chrysostom (Hom. xxx in Matth. ), who says
that "the disciples, who are called children of the bridegroom, were as
yet of a weakly disposition, wherefore they are compared to an old
garment. " Hence while Christ was with them in body they were to be
fostered with kindness rather than drilled with the harshness of
fasting. According to this interpretation, it is fitting that
dispensations should be granted to the imperfect and to beginners,
rather than to the elders and the perfect, according to a gloss on Ps.
130:2, "As a child that is weaned is towards his mother. " Secondly, we
may say with Jerome [*Bede, Comment. in Luc. v] that our Lord is
speaking here of the fasts of the observances of the Old Law. Wherefore
our Lord means to say that the apostles were not to be held back by the
old observances, since they were to be filled with the newness of
grace. Thirdly, according to Augustine (De Consensu Evang. ii, 27), who
states that fasting is of two kinds. one pertains to those who are
humbled by disquietude, and this is not befitting perfect men, for they
are called "children of the bridegroom"; hence when we read in Luke:
"The children of the bridegroom cannot fast [*Hom. xiii, in Matth. ],"
we read in Mat. 9:15: "The children of the bridegroom cannot mourn
[*Vulg. : 'Can the children of the bridegroom mourn? ']. " The other
pertains to the mind that rejoices in adhering to spiritual things: and
this fasting is befitting the perfect.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the times for the Church fast are fittingly ascribed?
Objection 1: It would seem that the times for the Church fast are
unfittingly appointed. For we read (Mat. 4) that Christ began to fast
immediately after being baptized. Now we ought to imitate Christ,
according to 1 Cor. 4:16, "Be ye followers of me, as I also am of
Christ. " Therefore we ought to fast immediately after the Epiphany when
Christ's baptism is celebrated.
Objection 2: Further, it is unlawful in the New Law to observe the
ceremonies of the Old Law. Now it belongs to the solemnities of the Old
Law to fast in certain particular months: for it is written (Zech.
8:19): "The fast of the fourth month and the fast of the fifth, and the
fast of the seventh, and the fast of the tenth shall be to the house of
Judah, joy and gladness and great solemnities. " Therefore the fast of
certain months, which are called Ember days, are unfittingly kept in
the Church.
Objection 3: Further, according to Augustine (De Consensu Evang. ii,
27), just as there is a fast "of sorrow," so is there a fast "of joy. "
Now it is most becoming that the faithful should rejoice spiritually in
Christ's Resurrection. Therefore during the five weeks which the Church
solemnizes on account of Christ's Resurrection, and on Sundays which
commemorate the Resurrection, fasts ought to be appointed.
On the contrary, stands the general custom of the Church.
I answer that, As stated above ([3486]AA[1],3), fasting is directed to
two things, the deletion of sin, and the raising of the mind to
heavenly things. Wherefore fasting ought to be appointed specially for
those times, when it behooves man to be cleansed from sin, and the
minds of the faithful to be raised to God by devotion: and these things
are particularly requisite before the feast of Easter, when sins are
loosed by baptism, which is solemnly conferred on Easter-eve, on which
day our Lord's burial is commemorated, because "we are buried together
with Christ by baptism unto death" (Rom. 6:4). Moreover at the Easter
festival the mind of man ought to be devoutly raised to the glory of
eternity, which Christ restored by rising from the dead, and so the
Church ordered a fast to be observed immediately before the Paschal
feast; and for the same reason, on the eve of the chief festivals,
because it is then that one ought to make ready to keep the coming
feast devoutly. Again it is the custom in the Church for Holy orders to
be conferred every quarter of the year (in sign whereof our Lord fed
four thousand men with seven loaves, which signify the New Testament
year as Jerome says [*Comment. in Marc. viii]): and then both the
ordainer, and the candidates for ordination, and even the whole people,
for whose good they are ordained, need to fast in order to make
themselves ready for the ordination. Hence it is related (Lk. 6:12)
that before choosing His disciples our Lord "went out into a mountain
to pray": and Ambrose [*Exposit. in Luc. ] commenting on these words
says: "What shouldst thou do, when thou desirest to undertake some
pious work, since Christ prayed before sending His apostles? "
With regard to the forty day's fast, according to Gregory (Hom. xvi in
Evang. ) there are three reasons for the number. First, "because the
power of the Decalogue is accomplished in the four books of the Holy
Gospels: since forty is the product of ten multiplied by four. " Or
"because we are composed of four elements in this mortal body through
whose lusts we transgress the Lord's commandments which are delivered
to us in the Decalogue. Wherefore it is fitting we should punish that
same body forty times. or, because, just as under the Law it was
commanded that tithes should be paid of things, so we strive to pay God
a tithe of days, for since a year is composed of three hundred and
sixty-six days, by punishing ourselves for thirty-six days" (namely,
the fasting days during the six weeks of Lent) "we pay God a tithe of
our year. " According to Augustine (De Doctr. Christ. ii, 16) a fourth
reason may be added. For the Creator is the "Trinity," Father, Son, and
Holy Ghost: while the number "three" refers to the invisible creature,
since we are commanded to love God, with our whole heart, with our
whole soul, and with our whole mind: and the number "four" refers to
the visible creature, by reason of heat, cold, wet and dry. Thus the
number "ten" [*Ten is the sum of three, three, and four] signifies all
things, and if this be multiplied by four which refers to the body
whereby we make use of things, we have the number forty.
Each fast of the Ember days is composed of three days, on account of
the number of months in each season: or on account of the number of
Holy orders which are conferred at these times.
Reply to Objection 1: Christ needed not baptism for His own sake, but
in order to commend baptism to us. Wherefore it was competent for Him
to fast, not before, but after His baptism, in order to invite us to
fast before our baptism.
Reply to Objection 2: The Church keeps the Ember fasts, neither at the
very same time as the Jews, nor for the same reasons. For they fasted
in July, which is the fourth month from April (which they count as the
first), because it was then that Moses coming down from Mount Sinai
broke the tables of the Law (Ex. 32), and that, according to Jer. 39:2,
"the walls of the city were first broken through. " In the fifth month,
which we call August, they fasted because they were commanded not to go
up on to the mountain, when the people had rebelled on account of the
spies (Num. 14): also in this month the temple of Jerusalem was burnt
down by Nabuchodonosor (Jer. 52) and afterwards by Titus. In the
seventh month which we call October, Godolias was slain, and the
remnants of the people were dispersed (Jer. 51). In the tenth month,
which we call January, the people who were with Ezechiel in captivity
heard of the destruction of the temple (Ezech. 4).
Reply to Objection 3: The "fasting of joy" proceeds from the
instigation of the Holy Ghost Who is the Spirit of liberty, wherefore
this fasting should not be a matter of precept. Accordingly the fasts
appointed by the commandment of the Church are rather "fasts of sorrow"
which are inconsistent with days of joy. For this reason fasting is not
ordered by the Church during the whole of the Paschal season, nor on
Sundays: and if anyone were to fast at these times in contradiction to
the custom of Christian people, which as Augustine declares (Ep. xxxvi)
"is to be considered as law," or even through some erroneous opinion
(thus the Manichees fast, because they deem such fasting to be of
obligation)---he would not be free from sin. Nevertheless fasting
considered in itself is commendable at all times; thus Jerome wrote (Ad
Lucin. , Ep. lxxi): "Would that we might fast always. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether it is requisite for fasting that one eat but once?
Objection 1: It would seem that it is not requisite for fasting that
one eat but once. For, as stated above [3487](A[2]), fasting is an act
of the virtue of abstinence, which observes due quantity of food not
less than the number of meals. Now the quantity of food is not limited
for those who fast. Therefore neither should the number of meals be
limited.
Objection 2: Further, Just as man is nourished by meat, so is he by
drink: wherefore drink breaks the fast, and for this reason we cannot
receive the Eucharist after drinking. Now we are not forbidden to drink
at various hours of the day. Therefore those who fast should not be
forbidden to eat several times.
Objection 3: Further, digestives are a kind of food: and yet many take
them on fasting days after eating. Therefore it is not essential to
fasting to take only one meal.
On the contrary, stands the common custom of the Christian people.
I answer that, Fasting is instituted by the Church in order to bridle
concupiscence, yet so as to safeguard nature. Now only one meal is
seemingly sufficient for this purpose, since thereby man is able to
satisfy nature; and yet he withdraws something from concupiscence by
minimizing the number of meals. Therefore it is appointed by the
Church, in her moderation, that those who fast should take one meal in
the day.
Reply to Objection 1: It was not possible to fix the same quantity of
food for all, on account of the various bodily temperaments, the result
being that one person needs more, and another less food: whereas, for
the most part, all are able to satisfy nature by only one meal.
Reply to Objection 2: Fasting is of two kinds [*Cf. A[1], ad 3]. One is
the natural fast, which is requisite for receiving the Eucharist. This
is broken by any kind of drink, even of water, after which it is not
lawful to receive the Eucharist. The fast of the Church is another kind
and is called the "fasting of the faster," and this is not broken save
by such things as the Church intended to forbid in instituting the
fast. Now the Church does not intend to command abstinence from drink,
for this is taken more for bodily refreshment, and digestion of the
food consumed, although it nourishes somewhat. It is, however, possible
to sin and lose the merit of fasting, by partaking of too much drink:
as also by eating immoderately at one meal.
Reply to Objection 3: Although digestives nourish somewhat they are not
taken chiefly for nourishment, but for digestion. Hence one does not
break one's fast by taking them or any other medicines, unless one were
to take digestives, with a fraudulent intention, in great quantity and
by way of food.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the ninth hour is suitably fixed for the faster's meal?
Objection 1: It would seem that the ninth hour is not suitably fixed
for the faster's meal. For the state of the New Law is more perfect
than the state of the Old Law. Now in the Old Testament they fasted
until evening, for it is written (Lev. 23:32): "It is a sabbath . . .
you shall afflict your souls," and then the text continues: "From
evening until evening you shall celebrate your sabbaths. " Much more
therefore under the New Testament should the fast be ordered until the
evening.
Objection 2: Further, the fast ordered by the Church is binding on all.
But all are not able to know exactly the ninth hour.
Therefore it seems
that the fixing of the ninth hour should not form part of the
commandment to fast.
Objection 3: Further, fasting is an act of the virtue of abstinence, as
stated above [3488](A[2]). Now the mean of moral virtue does not apply
in the same way to all, since what is much for one is little for
another, as stated in Ethic. ii, 6. Therefore the ninth hour should not
be fixed for those who fast.
On the contrary, The Council of Chalons [*The quotation is from the
Capitularies (Cap. 39) of Theodulf, bishop of Orleans (760-821) and is
said to be found in the Corpus Juris, Cap. Solent, dist. 1, De
Consecratione] says: "During Lent those are by no means to be credited
with fasting who eat before the celebration of the office of Vespers,"
which in the Lenten season is said after the ninth hour. Therefore we
ought to fast until the ninth hour.
I answer that, As stated above ([3489]AA[1],3,5), fasting is directed
to the deletion and prevention of sin. Hence it ought to add something
to the common custom, yet so as not to be a heavy burden to nature. Now
the right and common custom is for men to eat about the sixth hour:
both because digestion is seemingly finished (the natural heat being
withdrawn inwardly at night-time on account of the surrounding cold of
the night), and the humor spread about through the limbs (to which
result the heat of the day conduces until the sun has reached its
zenith), and again because it is then chiefly that the nature of the
human body needs assistance against the external heat that is in the
air, lest the humors be parched within. Hence, in order that those who
fast may feel some pain in satisfaction for their sins, the ninth hour
is suitably fixed for their meal.
Moreover, this hour agrees with the mystery of Christ's Passion, which
was brought to a close at the ninth hour, when "bowing His head, He
gave up the ghost" (Jn. 19:30): because those who fast by punishing
their flesh, are conformed to the Passion of Christ, according to Gal.
5:24, "They that are Christ's, have crucified their flesh with the
vices and concupiscences. "
Reply to Objection 1: The state of the Old Testament is compared to the
night, while the state of the New Testament is compared to the day,
according to Rom. 13:12, "The night is passed and the day is at hand. "
Therefore in the Old Testament they fasted until night, but not in the
New Testament.
Reply to Objection 2: Fasting requires a fixed hour based, not on a
strict calculation, but on a rough estimate: for it suffices that it be
about the ninth hour, and this is easy for anyone to ascertain.
Reply to Objection 3: A little more or a little less cannot do much
harm. Now it is not a long space of time from the sixth hour at which
men for the most part are wont to eat, until the ninth hour, which is
fixed for those who fast. Wherefore the fixing of such a time cannot do
much harm to anyone, whatever his circumstances may be. If however this
were to prove a heavy burden to a man on account of sickness, age, or
some similar reason, he should be dispensed from fasting, or be allowed
to forestall the hour by a little.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether it is fitting that those who fast should be bidden to abstain from
flesh meat, eggs, and milk foods?
Objection 1: It would seem unfitting that those who fast should be
bidden to abstain from flesh meat, eggs, and milk foods. For it has
been stated above [3490](A[6]) that fasting was instituted as a curb on
the concupiscence of the flesh. Now concupiscence is kindled by
drinking wine more than by eating flesh; according to Prov. 20:1, "Wine
is a luxurious thing," and Eph. 5:18, "Be not drunk with wine, wherein
is luxury. " Since then those who fast are not forbidden to drink wine,
it seems that they should not be forbidden to eat flesh meat.
Objection 2: Further, some fish are as delectable to eat as the flesh
of certain animals. Now "concupiscence is desire of the delectable," as
stated above ([3491]FS, Q[30], A[1]). Therefore since fasting which was
instituted in order to bridle concupiscence does not exclude the eating
of fish, neither should it exclude the eating of flesh meat.
Objection 3: Further, on certain fasting days people make use of eggs
and cheese. Therefore one can likewise make use of them during the
Lenten fast.
On the contrary, stands the common custom of the faithful.
I answer that, As stated above [3492](A[6]), fasting was instituted by
the Church in order to bridle the concupiscences of the flesh, which
regard pleasures of touch in connection with food and sex. Wherefore
the Church forbade those who fast to partake of those foods which both
afford most pleasure to the palate, and besides are a very great
incentive to lust. Such are the flesh of animals that take their rest
on the earth, and of those that breathe the air and their products,
such as milk from those that walk on the earth, and eggs from birds.
For, since such like animals are more like man in body, they afford
greater pleasure as food, and greater nourishment to the human body, so
that from their consumption there results a greater surplus available
for seminal matter, which when abundant becomes a great incentive to
lust. Hence the Church has bidden those who fast to abstain especially
from these foods.
Reply to Objection 1: Three things concur in the act of procreation,
namely, heat, spirit [*Cf. P. I. , Q. 118, A[1], ad 3], and humor. Wine
and other things that heat the body conduce especially to heat:
flatulent foods seemingly cooperate in the production of the vital
spirit: but it is chiefly the use of flesh meat which is most
productive of nourishment, that conduces to the production of humor.
Now the alteration occasioned by heat, and the increase in vital
spirits are of short duration, whereas the substance of the humor
remains a long time. Hence those who fast are forbidden the use of
flesh meat rather than of wine or vegetables which are flatulent foods.
Reply to Objection 2: In the institution of fasting, the Church takes
account of the more common occurrences. Now, generally speaking, eating
flesh meat affords more pleasure than eating fish, although this is not
always the case. Hence the Church forbade those who fast to eat flesh
meat, rather than to eat fish.
Reply to Objection 3: Eggs and milk foods are forbidden to those who
fast, for as much as they originate from animals that provide us with
flesh: wherefore the prohibition of flesh meat takes precedence of the
prohibition of eggs and milk foods. Again the Lenten fast is the most
solemn of all, both because it is kept in imitation of Christ, and
because it disposes us to celebrate devoutly the mysteries of our
redemption. For this reason the eating of flesh meat is forbidden in
every fast, while the Lenten fast lays a general prohibition even on
eggs and milk foods. As to the use of the latter things in other fasts
the custom varies among different people, and each person is bound to
conform to that custom which is in vogue with those among whom he is
dwelling. Hence Jerome says [*Augustine, De Lib. Arb. iii, 18; cf. De
Nat. et Grat. lxvii]: "Let each province keep to its own practice, and
look upon the commands of the elders as though they were the laws of
the apostles. "
__________________________________________________________________
OF GLUTTONY (SIX ARTICLES)
We must now consider gluttony. Under this head there are six points of
inquiry:
(1) Whether gluttony is a sin?
(2) Whether it is a mortal sin?
(3) Whether it is the greatest of sins?
(4) Its species;
(5) Whether it is a capital sin?
(6) Its daughters.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether gluttony is a sin?
Objection 1: It would seem that gluttony is not a sin. For our Lord
said (Mat. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. [3493]FS, Q[102],
A[6], ad 1]. It is the inordinate desire of food that defiles a man
spiritually.
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.
Reply to Objection 3: The appetite is twofold. There is the natural
appetite, which belongs to the powers of the vegetal soul. In 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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether gluttony is a mortal sin?
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.
Objection 2: Further, every mortal sin is contrary to charity, as
stated above ([3494]Q[132], A[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.
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.
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.
I answer that, As stated above [3495](A[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.
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 ([3496]Q[122],
A[1]).
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.
Reply to Objection 3: This saying of Augustine refers to gluttony as
denoting inordinate concupiscence merely in regard of things directed
to the end.
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. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether gluttony is the greatest of sins?
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 Ezech. 16:49, "This was the iniquity of Sodom, thy
sister . . . fulness of bread," etc. Therefore the sin of gluttony is
the greatest of all.
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 Ps.
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.
Objection 3: Further, man should love himself in the first place after
God, as stated above ([3497]Q[25], A[4]). Now man, by the vice of
gluttony, inflicts an injury on himself: for it is written (Ecclus.
37:34): "By surfeiting many have perished. " Therefore gluttony is the
greatest of sins, at least excepting those that are against God.
On the contrary, The sins of the flesh, among which gluttony is
reckoned, are less culpable according to Gregory (Moral. xxxiii).
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.
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.
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.
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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the species of gluttony are fittingly distinguished?
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.
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.
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.
On the contrary, stands the authority of Gregory quoted above.
I answer that, As stated above [3498](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 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. "
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.
Reply to Objection 2: Place and other circumstances include no special
motive connected with eating, that can cause a different species of
gluttony.
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 ([3499]FS, Q[72], A[9]).
__________________________________________________________________
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.
