 Question 169 of Summa Theologica Secunda Secunde. Triatis on the Cardinal Virtues, The Virtue of Temperance. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Summa Theologica Secunda Secunde. Triatis on the Cardinal Virtues, The Virtue of Temperance. By St. Thomas Aquinas. Translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Question 169 of Modesty and the Outward Apparel in two articles. We must now consider modesty as connected with the outward apparel, and under this head there are two points of inquiry. First, whether there can be virtue and vice in connection with outward apparel. Second, whether women sin mortally by excessive adornment. First article. Whether there can be virtue and vice in connection with outward apparel. Objection one. It would seem that there cannot be virtue and vice in connection with outward apparel. For outward adornment does not belong to us by nature, wherefore it varies according to different times and places. Hence Augustine says on Christian Doctrine 312 that among the ancient Romans it was scandalous for one to wear a cloak with sleeves and reaching to the ankles, whereas now it is scandalous for anyone hailing from a reputable place to be without them. Now according to the philosopher in Ethics 2.1, there is in us a natural aptitude for the virtues. Therefore there is no virtue or vice about such things. Objection two further. If there were a virtue and vice in connection with outward attire, excess in this matter would be sinful. Now excess in outward attire is not apparently sinful, since even the ministers of the altar use most precious vestments in the sacred ministry. Likewise it would not seem to be sinful to be lacking in this, for it is said in praise of certain people in Hebrews 1137. They wandered about in sheepskins and in goatskins. Therefore it seems that there cannot be virtue and vice in this matter. Objection three further. Every virtue is either theological or moral or intellectual. Now an intellectual virtue is not conversant with matter of this kind, since it is a perfection regarding the knowledge of truth. Nor is there a theological virtue connected therewith, since that has God for its object. Nor are any of the moral virtues enumerated by the philosopher in Ethics 2.7 connected with it. Therefore it seems that there cannot be virtue and vice in connection with this kind of attire. On the contrary, honesty pertains to virtue. Now a certain honesty is observed in the outward apparel. For Ambrose says, and on the duties of the clergy 119, the body should be bedecked naturally and without affectation, with simplicity, with negligence rather than nicety, not with costly and dazzling apparel but with ordinary clothes so that nothing be lacking to honesty and necessity, yet nothing be added to increase its beauty. Therefore there can be virtue and vice in the outward attire. I answer that. It is not in the outward things themselves which man uses that there is vice, but on the part of man who uses them immoderately. This lack of moderation occurs in two ways. First, in comparison with the customs of those among whom one lives, where for Augustine says in Confessions 3.8, those offenses which are contrary to the customs of men are to be avoided according to the customs generally prevailing so that a thing agreed upon and confirmed by customer law of any city or nation may not be violated at the lawless pleasure of any, whether citizen or foreigner. For any part which harmonizes not with its whole is offensive. Secondly, the lack of moderation in the use of these things may arise from the inordinate attachment of the user, the result being that a man sometimes takes too much pleasure in using them either in accordance with the custom of those among whom he dwells or contrary to such custom. Hence Augustine says, and on Christian Doctrine 3.12, we must avoid excessive pleasure in the use of things for it leads not only wickedly to abuse the customs of those among whom we dwell, but frequently to exceed their bounds so that whereas it lay hidden, while under the restraint of established morality it displays its deformity in a most lawless outbreak. In point of excess, this inordinate attachment occurs in three ways. First, when a man seeks glory from excessive attention to dress, insofar as dress and such like things are a kind of ornament. Hence Gregory says, in his homily forty on the Gospel, there are some who think that attention to finery and costly dress is no sin. Surely if this were no fault, the word of God would not say so expressly that the rich man who has tortured in hell had been clothed in purple and fine linen. No one forsooth seeks costly apparel, such namely as exceeds his estate, save for vain glory. Secondly, when a man seeks sensuous pleasure from excessive attention to dress, insofar as dress is directed to the body's comfort. Thirdly, when a man is too solicitous in his attention to outward apparel. Accordingly, Andronicus reckons three virtues in connection with outward attire. Namely, humility, which excludes the seeking of glory, wherefore he says that humility is the habit avoiding excessive expenditure and parade. Contentment, which excludes the seeking of sensuous pleasure, wherefore he says that contentedness is the habit that makes a man satisfied with what is suitable and enables him to determine what is becoming in his manner of life. According to the saying of the Apostle in 1 Timothy 6.8 Having food, wherewith to be covered, with these let us be content. And simplicity, which excludes excessive solicitude about such things, wherefore he says that simplicity is a habit that makes a man contented with what he has. In the point of deficiency, there may be inordinate attachment in two ways. First, through a man's neglect to give the requisite study or trouble to the use of outward apparel, wherefore the philosopher says in Ethics 7.7 that it is a mark of effeminacy to let one's cloak trail on the ground to avoid the trouble of lifting it up. Secondly, by seeking glory from the very lack of attention to outward attire. Hence Augustine says in his commentary on the Sermon of the Mount 212 that not only the glare and pomp of outward things, but even dirt and the weeds of mourning may be a subject of ostentation, all the more dangerous as being a decoy under the guise of God's service. And the philosopher says in Ethics 4.7 that both excess and inordinate defect are a subject of ostentation. Reply to Objection 1. Although outward attire does not come from nature, it belongs to natural reason to moderate it, so that we are naturally inclined to be the recipients of the virtue that moderates outward raiment. Reply to Objection 2. Those who are placed in a position of dignity, or again the ministers of the altar, are attired in more costly apparel than others, not for the sake of their own glory, but to indicate the excellence of their office or of the divine worship. Wherefore this is not sinful in them. Hence Augustine says in on Christian Doctrine 3.12, Whoever uses outward things in such a way as to exceed the bounds observed by the good people among whom he dwells either signifies something by so doing or is guilty of sin in as much as he uses these things for sensual pleasure or ostentation. Likewise, there may be sin on the part of deficiency, although it is not always a sin to wear coarser clothes than other people. For if this be done through ostentation or pride in order to set oneself above others, it is sin of superstition. Whereas if this be done to tame the flesh or to humble the spirit, it belongs to the virtue of temperance. Hence Augustine says in on Christian Doctrine 3.12, Whoever uses transitory things with greater restraint that is customary with those among whom he dwells is either temperate or superstitious. Especially, however, is the use of coarse raiment befitting to those who by word and example urge others to repentance, as did the prophets of whom the Apostle is speaking in the passage quoted. Wherefore a gloss on Matthew 3.4 says, He who preaches penance wears the garb of penance. Reply to Objection 3. This outward apparel is an indication of man's estate. Wherefore excess, deficiency, and mean therein are referable to the virtue of truthfulness which the philosopher in Ethics 2.7 assigns to deeds and words which are indications of something connected with man's estate. Second Article Whether the adornment of women is devoid of mortal sin Objection 1. He would seem that the adornment of women is not devoid of mortal sin. For whatever is contrary to a precept of the Divine Law is a mortal sin. Now the adornment of women is contrary to a precept of the Divine Law for it is written in 1 Peter 3.3, who's, namely a woman's, adorning, let it not be the outward plating of the hair or the wearing of gold or the putting on of apparel. Wherefore a gloss of Cyprian says those who are clothed in silk and purple cannot sincerely put on Christ. Those who are bedecked with gold and pearls and trinkets have forfeited the adornments of mind and body. Now this is not done without mortal sin. Therefore the adornment of women cannot be devoid of mortal sin. Objection 2 further Cyprian says I hold that not only virgins and widows, but also wives and all women without exception should be amonished that no wise should they deface God's work and fabric, the clay that he hath fashioned, with the aid of yellow pigments, black powders or rouge, or by applying any dye that alters the natural features. And afterwards he adds they lay hands on God when they strive to reform what he has formed. This is an assault on the divine handiwork, a distortion of the truth. Thou shalt not be able to see God having no longer the eyes that God made, but those the devil has unmade. With him shalt thou burn on whose account thou art bedecked. But this is not due except to mortal sin. Therefore the adornment of women is not devoid of mortal sin. Objection 3 further Just as it is unbecoming for a woman to wear man's clothes, so it is unbecoming for her to adorn herself inordinately. Now the former is a sin for it is written in Deuteronomy 225, a woman shall not be clothed with man's apparel, neither shall a man use woman's apparel. Therefore it seems that also the excessive adornment of women is a mortal sin. On the contrary, if this were true, it would seem that the makers of these means of adornment sin mortally. I answer that, as regards the adornment of women, we must bear in mind the general statements made above in Article 1 concerning outward apparel, and also something special, namely that a woman's apparel may incite men to lust according to Proverbs 710. Behold, a woman meeteth him in Harlett's attire, prepared to deceive souls. Nevertheless, a woman may use means to please her husband, lest, through despising her, he fall into adultery. Hence it is written in 1 Corinthians 734 that the woman that is married thinketh on the things of the world how she may please her husband. Therefore, if a married woman adorn herself in order to please her husband, she can do this without sin. But those women who have no husband nor wish to have one, or who are in a state of life inconsistent with marriage, cannot without sin desire to give lustful pleasure to those men who see them, because this is to incite them to sin. And if indeed they adorn themselves with this intention of provoking others to lust, they sin mortally, whereas if they do so from frivolity, or from vanity for the sake of ostentation, it is not always mortal, but sometimes venial. And the same applies to men in this respect. Hence Augustine says in his letter 245, I do not wish you to be hasty in forbidding the wearing of gold or costly attire, except in the case of those who being neither married nor wishful to marry should think how they may please God, whereas the others think on the things of the world, either husbands, how they may please their wives, or wives, how they may please their husbands. Except that it is unbecoming for women, though married, to uncover their hair, since the apostle commands them to cover their head. Yet in this case some might be excused from sin, when they do this not through vanity, but on account of some contrary custom, although such a custom is not to be commended. Reply to Objection 1. Asagloss says on this passage, the wives of those who were in distress despised their husbands and decked themselves that they might please other men. And the apostle forbids this. Cyprian is speaking in the same sense, yet he does not forbid married women to adorn themselves in order to please their husbands, lest the latter be afforded an occasion of sin with other women. Hence the apostle says in 1 Timothy 2.9, Women, in ornate, apparel, adorning themselves with modesty and sobriety, not with plaited hair or gold or pearls or costly attire, whence we are given to understand that women are not forbidden to adorn themselves soberly and moderately, but to do so excessively, shamelessly and immodestly. Reply to Objection 2. Cyprian is speaking of women painting themselves. This is a kind of falsification which cannot be devoid of sin. Wherefore Augustine says in his letter 245, To die oneself with paints in order to have a rosier or paler complexion is a lying counterfeit. I doubt whether even their husbands are willing to be sieved by it, by whom alone, that is, the husbands, are they to be permitted but not ordered to adorn themselves. However, such painting does not always involve a mortal sin, but only when it is done for the sake of sensuous pleasure or in contempt of God, and it is to like cases that Cyprian refers. It must, however, be observed that it is one thing to counterfeit a beauty one has not and another to hide a disfigurement arising from some cause such as sickness or the like. For this is lawful since according to the Apostle in 1 Corinthians 12-23 such as we think to be the less honourable members of the body about these we put more abundant honour. Reply to Objection 3. As stated in the foregoering article, outward apparel should be consistent with the estate of the person according to the general custom. Hence, it is in itself sinful for a woman to wear a man's clothes or vice versa, especially since this may be a cause of sensuous pleasure and it is expressly forbidden in the law in Deuteronomy 22 because the Gentiles used to practice this change of attire for the purpose of idolatrous superstition. Nevertheless, this may be done sometimes without seeing on account of some necessity either in order to hide oneself from one's enemies or through lack of other clothes or for some other similar motive. Reply to Objection 4. In the case of an art directed to the production of goods which men cannot use without sin, it follows that the workmen sin in making such things as directly affording others an occasion for sin. For instance, if a man were to make idols or anything pertaining to idolatrous worship, but in the case of an art, the products of which may be employed by man either for a good or for an evil use, such as swords, arrows, and the like, the practice of such an art is not sinful. These alone should be called arts, wherefor Chrysostom says in his 44th homily on the Gospel of Matthew, the name of art should be applied to those only which contribute towards and produce necessaries and mainstays of life. In the case of an art that produces things which for the most part some people put to an evil use, although such arts are not unlawful in themselves, nevertheless, according to the teaching of Plato, they should be extirpated from the state by the governing authority. Accordingly, since women may lawfully adorn themselves, whether to maintain the fitness of their estate or even by adding something there too in order to please their husbands, it follows that those who make such means of adornment do not sin in the practice of their art, except perhaps by inventing means that are superfluous and fantastic. Hence Chrysostom says that even the shoemakers and clothiers' arts stand in need of restraint, for they have lent their art to lust by abusing its needs and debasing art by art. End of question 169 Read by Michael Shane Craig Lambert, LC Question 170 of Summa Theologica Secunda Secunde Triaties on the Cardinal Virtues The Virtue of Temperance This is the LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Summa Theologica Secunda Secunde Triaties on the Cardinal Virtues The Virtue of Temperance by St. Thomas Aquinas, translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Question 170 of the Precepts of Temperance in two articles. We must next consider the Precepts of Temperance. First, the Precepts of Temperance itself. Second, the Precepts of its parts. First article. Whether the Precepts of Temperance are suitably given in the Divine Law. Objection 1 It would seem that the Precepts of Temperance are unsuitably given in the Divine Law. Because fortitude is a greater virtue than temperance, as stated above, in Question 123, Article 12 and Question 141, Article 8. Now there is no precept of fortitude among the Precepts of the Decalogue, which are the most important among the Precepts of the Law. Therefore, it was unfitting to include among the Precepts of the Decalogue the prohibition of adultery, which is contrary to temperance, as stated above, in Question 154, Articles 1 and 8. Objection 2 further. Temperance is not only about venereal matters, but also about pleasures of meat and drink. Now the Precepts of the Decalogue include no prohibition of a vice pertaining to pleasures of meat and drink, or to any other species of lust. Neither therefore should they include precept prohibiting adultery, which pertains to venereal pleasure. Objection 3 further. In the Lawgiver's intention, inducement to virtue precedes the prohibition of vice, since vices are forbidden in order that obstacles to virtue may be removed. Now the Precepts of the Decalogue are the most important in the Divine Law. Therefore, the Precepts of the Decalogue should have included an affirmative precept directly prescribing the virtue of temperance, rather than a negative precept forbidding adultery, which is directly opposed thereto. On the contrary, stands the authority of Scripture in the Decalogue. Confer Exodus, chapter 20, verses 14 through 17. I answer that, as the Apostle says in 1 Timothy 1.5, the end of the commandment is charity, which is enjoined upon us in the two precepts concerning the love of God and of our neighbour. Therefore, the Decalogue contains those precepts which tend more directly to the love of God and of our neighbour. Now among the vices opposed to temperance, adultery would seem most of all opposed to the love of our neighbour, since thereby a man lays hold of another's property for his own use, by abusing his neighbour's wife. Wherefore, the precepts of the Decalogue include a special prohibition of adultery, not only as committed indeed, but also as desired in thought. Reply to Objection 1. Among the species of vices opposed to fortitude, there is not one that is so directly opposed to the love of our neighbour as adultery, which is a species of lust that is opposed to temperance. And yet the vice of daring, which is opposed to fortitude, is want to be sometimes the cause of murder, which is forbidden by one of the precepts of the Decalogue. For it is written in Ecclesiasticus 818, Go not on the way with a bold man lest ye burden thee with his evils. Reply to Objection 2. Glatanny is not directly opposed to the love of our neighbour as adultery is. Nor indeed is any other species of lust, for a father is not so wronged by the seduction of the virgin over whom he has no cannubial right, as is the husband by the adultery of his wife, for he, not the wife herself, has power over her body. Confer 1 Corinthians 7.4. Reply to Objection 3. As stated above in question 122 articles 1 and 4, the precepts of the Decalogue are universal principles of the Divine Law. Hence they need to be common precepts. Now it was not possible to give any common affirmative precepts of temperance, because the practice of temperance varies according to different times as Augustine remarks in On the Good of Marriage 15.7. And according to different human laws and customs. Second article. Whether the precepts of the virtues annexed to temperance are suitably given in the Divine Law. Objection 1. It would seem that the precepts of the virtues annexed to temperance are unsuitably given in the Divine Law. For the precepts of the Decalogue, as stated above in article 1 third reply, are certain universal principles of the whole Divine Law. Now, pride is the beginning of all sin, according to Ecclesiastic as 10.15. Therefore, among the precepts of the Decalogue there should have been one forbidding pride. Objection 2 further. A place before all should have been given in the Decalogue to those precepts by which men are especially induced to fulfill the law, because these would seem to be the most important. Now, since humility subjects man to God, it would seem most of all to dispose man to the fulfillment of the Divine Law. Wherefore, obedience is accounted one of the degrees of humility as stated above in question 161, article 6. And the same apparently applies to meekness, the effect of which is that a man cannot contradict the Divine Scriptures as Augustine observes in on Christian doctrine 2.7. Therefore, it seems that the Decalogue should have contained precepts of humility and meekness. Objection 3 further. It was stated in the foregoing article that adultery is forbidden in the Decalogue because it is contrary to the love of our neighbour. But in ordnateness of outward movements, which is contrary to modesty, is opposed to neighbourly love. Wherefore, Augustine says in his rule, in all your movements let nothing be done to offend the eye of any person whatever. Therefore, it seems that this kind of inordinateness should have also been forbidden by a precept of the Decalogue. On the contrary, suffices the authority of Scripture. I answer that the virtues annexed to temperance may be considered in two ways. First, in themselves. Secondly, in their effects. Considered in themselves, they have no direct connection with the love of God or of our neighbour. Rather, do they regard a certain moderation of things pertaining to man himself. But considered in their effects, they may regard the love of God or of our neighbour. And in this respect, the Decalogue contains precepts that relate to the prohibition of the effects of the vices opposed to the parts of temperance. Thus the effect of anger, which is opposed to meekness, is sometimes that a man goes on to commit murder, and this is forbidden in the Decalogue. And sometimes that he refuses due honour to his parents, which may also be the result of pride, which leads many to transgress Reply to Objection 1. Pride is the beginning of sin, but it lies hidden in the heart, and its inordinateness is not perceived by all in common. Hence there is no place for its prohibition among the precepts of the Decalogue, which are like first self-evident principles. Reply to Objection 2. Those precepts which are essentially an inducement to the observance of the law presuppose the law to be already given, wherefore they cannot be first precepts of the law so as to have a place in the Decalogue. Reply to Objection 3. Inordinate outward movement is not injurious to one's neighbour if we consider the species of the act as our murder, adultery and theft, which are forbidden in the Decalogue, but only as being signs of an inward inordinateness as dated above in Question 168, Article 1, 1st and 3rd replies. End of Question 170 Read by Michael Shane Craig Lambert, L.C. End of Suma Theologica Parts Secunda Secunde Triates on the Cardinal Virtues Prudence, Justice, Fortitude and Temperance