 Question 147 of Summa Theologica Secunda Secundae, triates 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 Secundae, triates on the cardinal virtues, the virtue of temperance. By St. Thomas Aquinas. Translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Question 147 of Fasting in 8 Articles We must now consider Fasting, under which head there are 8 points of inquiry. First, whether fasting is an act of virtue. Second, of what virtue is it the act? Third, whether it is a matter of precept. Fourth, whether anyone is excused from fulfilling this precept. Fifth, the time of fasting. Sixth, whether it is requisite for fasting to eat but once. Seventh, the hour of eating for those who fast. Eighth, the meats from which it is necessary to abstain. First article, whether fasting is an act of virtue. Objection 1. It would seem that fasting is not an act of virtue. For every act of virtue is acceptable to God. But fasting is not always acceptable to God, according to Isaiah 58.3. Why have we fasted, and thou hast not regarded? Therefore fasting is not an act of virtue. Objection 2. Further, no act of virtue forsakes the mean of virtue. Now fasting forsakes the mean of virtue, which in the virtue of abstinence takes account of the necessity of supplying the needs of nature. Whereas by fasting something is retrenched therefrom. Else those who do not fast would not have the virtue of abstinence. Therefore fasting is not an act of virtue. Objection 3. Further, that which is competent to all, both good and evil, is not an act of virtue. Now such is fasting, since everyone is fasting before eating. Therefore fasting is not an act of virtue. On the contrary, it is reckoned together with other virtuous acts, in 2 Corinthians 6 verses 5 and 6, where the apostle says, in fasting, in knowledge, in chastity, etc. I answer that an act is virtuous through being directed by reason to some virtuous good. Translators note, virtuous comes from the Latin word onestum. Now this is consistent with fasting, because fasting is practiced for a threefold purpose. First, in order to bridle the lusts of the flesh, wherefore the apostle says, in 2 Corinthians 6 verses 5 and 6, in fasting, in chastity, since fasting is the guardian of chastity. For according to Jerome, Venus is cold when cherries and bakus are not there. That is to say, lust is cooled by abstinence in meat and drink. Secondly, we have recourse to fasting in order that the mind may arise more freely to the contemplation of heavenly things. Hence it is related, in Daniel chapter 10, that he received a revelation from God after fasting for three weeks. Thirdly, in order to satisfy for sins, wherefore it is written in the prophet Joel 2 verse 12, be converted to me with all your heart, in fasting and in weeping and in mourning. The same is declared by Augustine in a sermon, his sermon 72. Fasting cleanses the soul, raises the mind, subjects one flesh to the spirit, renders the heart contrite and humble, scatters the clouds of concupiscence, quenches the fire of lust, kindles the true light of chastity. Reply to Objection 1. An act that is virtuous generically may be rendered vicious by its connection with certain circumstances. Hence the text goes on to say, Behold in the day of your fast your own will is founded. And a little further on in Isaiah 58 verse 4. You fast for debates and strife and strike with the fist wickedly. These words are expounded by Gregory in his pastoral rule 319 as follows. The will indicates joy and the fist anger. In vain, then, is the flesh restrained if the mind allowed to drift to inordinate movements berekt by vice. And Augustine says in the same sermon that Fasting loves not many words, deems wealth superfluous, scorns pride, commends humility, helps man to perceive what is frail and paltry. Reply to Objection 2. The mean of virtue is measured not according to quantity, but according to right reason as stated in Ethics 2.6. Now reason judges it expedient on account of some special motive for a man to take less food than would be becoming to him under ordinary circumstances, for instance in order to avoid sickness, or in order to perform certain bodily works with greater ease, and much more does reason direct this to the avoidance of spiritual evils and the pursuit of spiritual goods. Yet reason does not retrench so much from one's food as to refuse nature its necessary support. Thus Jerome says, It matters not whether thou art along or a short time in destroying thyself, since to afflict the body immoderately, whether by excessive lack of nourishment, or by eating or sleeping too little, is to offer a sacrifice of stolen goods. Translators note, the quotation is from the Corpus of Canon Law, the chapter Non Mediocriter De Consecrationibus. Gratian there ascribes the quotation to Saint Jerome, but it is not to be found in the Saint's works. In like manner, right reason does not retrench so much from a man's food as to render him incapable of fulfilling his duty. Hence Jerome says in the same reference, Rational man forfeits his dignity if he sets fasting before chastity or night watchings before the well-being of his senses. Reply to Objection 3, The fasting of nature, in respect of which a man is said to be fasting until he partakes of food, consists in a pure negation, wherefore it cannot be reckoned a virtuous act, such as only the fasting of one who abstains in some measure from food for a reasonable purpose. Hence the former is called natural fasting, Translators note literally the fast of fasting. While the latter is called the fastest fast, because he fasts for a purpose. Second article, whether fasting is an act of abstinence. Objection 1, you would see that fasting is not an act of abstinence. For Jerome, commenting on Matthew 17 verse 20, this kind of devil says, To fast is to abstain not only from food, but also from all manner of lusts. Now this belongs to every virtue. Therefore fasting is not exclusively an act of abstinence. Objection 2, further, Gregory says in a Lenten homily, his homily 16 on the Gospel that the Lenten fast is a tithe of the whole year. Now paying tithes is an act of religion, as stated above in question 87 article 1. Therefore fasting is an act of religion and not of abstinence. Objection 3, further, abstinence is a part of temperance, as stated above in question 143 and question 146 article 1.3 reply. Now temperance is condivided with fortitude, to which it belongs to endure hardships and this seems very applicable to fasting. Therefore fasting is not an act of abstinence. On the contrary, Isidore says in his etymologies 619 that fasting is frugality of fair and abstinence from food. I answer that habit and act have the same matter. Wherefore every virtuous act about some particular matter belongs to the virtue that appoints the mean in that matter. Now fasting is concerned with food, wherein the mean is appointed by abstinence. Wherefore it is evident that fasting is an act of abstinence. Reply to Objection 1, properly speaking fasting consists in abstaining from food, but speaking metaphorically it denotes abstinence from anything harmful and such especially is sin. We may also reply that even properly speaking fasting is abstinence from all manner of lust since as stated above in article 1 first reply an act ceases to be virtuous by the conjunction of any vice. Reply to Objection 2, nothing prevents the act of one virtue belonging to another virtue insofar as it is directed to the end of that virtue as explained above in question 32 article 1 second reply as well as in question 85 article 3. Accordingly there is no reason why fasting should not be an act of religion or of chastity or of any other virtue. Reply to Objection 3, it belongs to fortitude as a special virtue to endure not any kind of hardship but only those connected with the danger of death. To endure hardships resulting from privation of pleasure of touch belongs to temperance and its parts and such are the hardships of fasting. Third article, whether fasting is a matter of precept. Objection 1, you would seem that fasting is not a matter of precept 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 all men. Objection 3 further, Augustine says in On the True Religion 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 greater number of observances no less than by a greater number of sacraments. For Augustine says in his letter 55 that whereas God in his mercy wished a 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 in his letter 71 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 wheel in temporal affairs so it belongs to ecclesiastical superiors to prescribe by statute those things that concern the common wheel of the faithful in spiritual goods. Now it has been stated above in article 1 that fasting is useful as a toning 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. Therefore 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 insofar as it is useful to some end. Therefore, 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 according to James 3 verse 2 and because the flesh lusteth against the spirit according to Aglations 5.17, which is 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 super-arrogation 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 counsel 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 in Galatians 5.13. You, brethren, have been called unto liberty. Only make not liberty an occasion to the flesh. Fourth article. 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 Luke 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 in Joel 2.15. Sanctify a fast. And further on in Joel 2.16. Gather together the little ones and them that suck the breasts. Much more, therefore, are all others bound to keep 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 admitted 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 Corinthians 9 verse 7. Now the poor are want 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 in Luke 5 verse 34 that the children of the bridegroom cannot fast, whilst the bridegroom is with them. Now he is with all the righteous by dwelling in them in a special manner. Therefore our Lord said in Matthew 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 in the Parse Prima Secunde Question 90, Article 2, as well as in Question 98, Articles 2 and 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 that the precept to be binding on a person in whom, for some special reason, there is something incompatible with the 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 fulfill the precept, especially if custom be in his favor, or if it be difficult for him to have recourse to a 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, verse 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, in his homily 30 on the Gospel of Matthew, who says that the disciples who are called children of the bridegroom were as yet of 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 Psalm 130 verse 2, as a child that is weaned is towards his mother. Secondly, we may say with Jerome 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 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, we read in Matthew 9 verse 15 The children of the bridegroom cannot mourn. The other pertains to the mind that rejoices in adhering to spiritual things and this fasting is befitting the perfect. Fifth article whether the times for the church fast are fittingly ascribed. Objection one it would seem that the times for the church fast are unfittingly appointed. For we read in Matthew chapter 4 Christ began to fast immediately after being baptized. Now we ought to imitate Christ according to 1 Corinthians chapter 4 verse 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 two 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 in Zechariah 819. 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 three further according to Augustine 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 in articles one and three 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 especially 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 according to Romans 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 4,000 men with seven loaves which signify the New Testament year as Jerome says in his commentary on the Gospel of Mark. 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 in Luke 6 verse 12 that before choosing his disciples our Lord went out into a mountain to pray and Ambrose in his exposition on the Gospel of Luke commenting on these words says what shouldest thou do when thou desirest to undertake some pious work since Christ prayed before sending his apostles with regard to the forty days fast according to Gregory in his homily 16 on the Gospel 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 wherefor 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 in on the Christian faith two sixteen 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 translators note 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 one Christ needed not baptism for his own sake but in order to commend baptism to us where for 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 two 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 as is reported in Exodus chapter 32 and that according to Jeremiah 39 verse 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 onto the mountain when the people had rebelled on account of the spies as recounted in Numbers chapter 14 also in this month the temple of Jerusalem was burnt down by Nabakur Donozer Jeremiah chapter 52 and afterwards by Titus in the seventh month which we call October Godalias was slain and the remnants of the people were dispersed as recounted in Jeremiah chapter 51 in the tenth month which we call January the people who were with Ezekiel in captivity heard of the destruction of the temple as recounted in Ezekiel chapter 4 reply to objection three the fasting of joy proceeds from the instigation of the Holy Ghost who is the spirit of liberty where for 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 if anyone were to fast at these times in contradiction to the custom of Christian people which as Augustine declares in his letter 36 is to be considered as law or even through some erroneous opinion thus the manachese 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 in his letter 71 would that we might fast always sixth article whether it is requisite for fasting that one eat but once objection one it would seem that it is not requisite for fasting that one eat but once for as stated above in article 2 fasting is an act of the virtue of abstinence which observes do 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 two further just as man is nourished by meat so is he by drink where for drink breaks the fast 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 three 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 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 one 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 two fasting is of two kinds 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 saved 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 and also by eating immoderately at one meal reply to objection three 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 seventh article whether the ninth hour is suitably fixed for the faster's meal objection one 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 in Leviticus 23 verse 32 it is a Sabbath and 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 two 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 three further fasting is an act of the virtue of abstinence as stated above in article two 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 ethics two six therefore the ninth hour should not be fixed for those who fast on the contrary the Council of Chalons 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 in articles one three and five 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 humours 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 according to John 1930 because those who fast by punishing their flesh are conformed to the passion of Christ according to Galatians 524 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 Romans 1312 the night is past 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 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 therefore 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 8th Article whether it is fitting that those who fast should be bitten to abstain from flesh meat, eggs and milk foods Objection 1 it would seem unfitting that those who fast should be bitten to abstain from flesh meat, eggs and milk foods for it has been stated above in Article 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 Proverbs 20 verse 1 wine is a luxurious thing and in Ephesians 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 in the Pars Prima Secundae Question 30 Article 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 in Article 6 fasting was instituted by the church in order to bridle the concupiscence of the flesh with regard to pleasures of touch in connection with food and sex where for 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 the results a greater surplus available for seminal matter which when abundant becomes a great incentive to lust hence the church has bitten those who fast to abstain especially from these foods reply to Objection 1 three things concur in the act of procreation namely heat, spirit and humor wine and other things that heat the body induce 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 where for the prohibition of flesh meat takes precedence in 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 totally 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 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 End of question 147 Read by Michael Shane Craig Lambert, LC Question 148 of Summa Theologica Secunda Secunde Triates 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 Triates on the Cardinal Virtues The Virtue of Temperance by St. Thomas Aquinas Translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province Question 148 of Gluttony in six articles We must now consider Gluttony Under this head there are six points of inquiry First, whether Gluttony is a sin Second, whether it is a mortal sin Third, whether it is the greatest of sins Fourth, its species Fifth, whether it is a capital sin Sixth, its daughters First article, whether Gluttony is a sin Objection one, it would seem that Gluttony is not a sin For our Lord said in Matthew 1511 Not that which goeth into the mouth, defileeth 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 two, further No man sins in what he cannot avoid Now Gluttony is immoderation in food And man cannot avoid this For Gregory says in his commentary on Job 3018 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 in Confessions 1031 Who is it, Lord, that does not eat a little more than necessary? Therefore, Gluttony is not a sin Objection three, 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 in his commentary on Job 3018 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 one That which goes into a 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 As well as the Manaches Deemed certain foods to make a man unclean Not on account of their signification By reason of their nature It is the inordinate desire of food That defiles a man spiritually Reply to Objection two 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 It 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 three 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 what 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 It floats in ordnateness in the sensitive appetite And this is not without sin Second article Whether Gluttony is a mortal sin Objection one 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 two Every mortal sin is contrary to charity As stated above in question 132 article 3 But Gluttony is not opposed to charity Neither as regards the love of God Nor as regards the love of one's neighbor Therefore Gluttony is never a mortal sin Objection three Further Augustine says in a sermon on purgatory 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 On the contrary Gregory says in his commentary on Job 3018 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 in article 1 The vice of Gluttony properly consists in inordinate concupiscence Now the order of reason in regulating the concupiscence May be considered from two points of view First with regard to things directed to the end In as much as they may be incommensurate And consequently improportionate to the end Secondly with regard to the end itself In as much 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 condemns 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 palette 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 in Question 122, Article 1 Reply to Objection 2 Insofar 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 as Gregory says in his Pastoral Rule 319 When the belly is distended by Gluttony The virtues of the soul are destroyed by lust 3rd Article 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 Gluttony turned Adam out of Paradise Gluttony it was that drew down the deluge at the time of Noah And according to Ezekiel 1649 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 Psalm 135 verse 10 Who smote Egypt with their firstborn says Lust, concupiscence, pride are the firstborn 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 in Question 25 Article 4 Now man, by the vice of Gluttony, inflicts an injury on himself For it is written in Ecclesiasticus 3734 By surfiting many have perished Therefore Gluttony is the greatest of sins At least accepting those that are against God On the contrary, the sins of the flesh among which Gluttony is reckoned Are less culpable according to Gregory in his commentary on Job 33 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 in as much 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 route 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 incurs some bodily injury through taking too much food Fourth article Whether the species of Gluttony are fittingly distinguished Objection 1 It seems that the species of Gluttony are unfittingly distinguished by Gregory who says in his commentary on Job 3018 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 measures 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 two 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 in Article 1, Gluttony denotes inordinate concupiscence in eating Now two things are to be considered in eating, namely the food we eat and the eating thereof Accordingly, the inordinate concupiscence may be considered in two ways First, with regard to the food consumed, and thus as regards the substance or species of food a man seeks sumptuous, that is costly food As regards its quality, he seeks food prepared too nicely, that is, 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 Isidor, in On the highest good, 242, 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 in the Parse Prima Secunde, question 72, article 9 Fifth article Whether Gluttony is a capital vice Objection 1 It would seem that Gluttony is not a capital vice For capital vices denote those wents under the aspect of final cause, other vices originate Now food, which is the matter of Gluttony, has not the aspect of end since it is sought not for its own sake but for the body's nourishment Therefore, Gluttony is not a capital vice Objection 2 Further, a capital vice would seem to have a certain preeminence in sinfulness But this does not apply to Gluttony which, in respect of its genus, is apparently the least of sins, seeing that it is most akin to what is according to nature Therefore, Gluttony is not a capital vice Objection 3 Further, sin results from a man forsaking the good of virtue on account of something useful to the present life or pleasing to the senses Now, as regards goods, having the aspect of utility, there is but one capital vice, namely covetousness Therefore, seemingly, there would be but one capital vice in respect of pleasures, and this is lust, which is a greater vice than Gluttony and is about greater pleasures Therefore, Gluttony is not a capital vice On the contrary, Gregory, in his commentary on Job 3145, reckons Gluttony among the capital vices I answer that, as stated above in the Parse Prima Secunde, Question 84, Article 3 A capital vice denotes one from which, considered as final cause, that is, as having a most desirable end, other vices originate Therefore, through desiring that end, men are incited to sin in many ways Now, an end is rendered most desirable through having one of the conditions of happiness, which is desirable by its very nature And pleasure is essential to happiness, according to Ethics 1.8.10.3.7.8 Therefore, the vice of Gluttony, being about pleasures of touch which stand foremost among other pleasures, is fittingly reckoned among the capital vices Reply to Objection 1 It is true that food itself is directed to something as its end, but since that end, namely the sustaining of life is most desirable and whereas life cannot be sustained without food, it follows that food too is most desirable Indeed, nearly all the toil of man's life is directed there too, according to Ecclesiasticus 6.7 All the labour of man is for his mouth Yet Gluttony seems to be about pleasures of food rather than about food itself Wherefore, as Augustine says in On True Religion 53 With such food as is good for the worthless body, men desire to be fed Wherein, namely, the pleasure consists Rather than to be filled, since the whole end of that desire is this, not to thirst and not to hunger, reply to Objection 2 In sin, the end is ascertained with respect to the conversion while the gravity of sin is determined with regard to the aversion Wherefore, it does not follow that the capital sin which has the most desirable end surpasses the others in gravity Reply to Objection 3 That which gives pleasure is desirable in itself And consequently, corresponding to its diversity, there are two capital vices, namely Gluttony and Lust On the other hand, that which is useful is desirable not in itself but as directed to something else Wherefore, seemingly, in all useful things there is one aspect of desirability Hence there is but one capital vice in respect of such things 6th Article Whether five daughters are fittingly assigned to Gluttony Objection 1 It would seem that five daughters are unfittingly assigned to Gluttony to wit Unseemly joy, scurrility, uncleanness, loquaciousness, and dullness of mind as regards the understanding For unseemly joy results from every sin according to Proverbs 2.14 Who are glad when they have done evil and rejoice in most wicked things Likewise, dullness of mind is associated with every sin according to Proverbs 14.22 They err that work evil Therefore, they are unfittingly reckoned to be daughters of Gluttony Objection 2 further The uncleanness which is particularly the result of Gluttony would seem to be connected with vomiting according to Isaiah 28.8 All tables were full of vomit and filth But this seems to be not a sin but a punishment Or even a useful thing that is a matter of counsel according to Ecclesiasticus 31.25 If thou hast been forced to eat much, arise, go out, and vomit, and it shall refresh thee Therefore it should not be reckoned among the daughters of Gluttony Objection 3 Isidore, in his questions on Deuteronomy 16, reckons scurrility as a daughter of lust Therefore it should not be reckoned among the daughters of Gluttony On the contrary, Gregory, in his commentary on Job 31.45, assigns these daughters to Gluttony I answer that as stated above in Articles 1, 2, and 3 Gluttony consists properly in an immoderate pleasure in eating and drinking Wherefore those vices are reckoned among the daughters of Gluttony Which are the results of eating and drinking immoderately These may be accounted for either on the part of the soul or on the part of the body On the part of the soul these results are of four kinds First, as regards the reason, whose keenness is dulled by immoderate meat and drink And in this respect we reckoned as the daughter of Gluttony Dullness of sense in the understanding, on account of the fumes of food disturbing the brain Even so, on the other hand, abstinence conduces to the penetrating power of wisdom According to Ecclesiasticus 2.3 I thought in my heart to withdraw my flesh from wine that I might turn my mind to wisdom Secondly, as regards the appetite, which is disordered in many ways by immoderation in eating and drinking As though reason were fast asleep at the helm and in this respect Unseemly joy is reckoned, because all the other inordinate passions are directed to joy or sorrow As stated in Ethics 2.5 To this we must refer the saying of 3rd Esdras 3.20 that Wine gives everyone a confident and joyful mind Thirdly, as regards inordinate words, and thus we have loquaciousness Because as Gregory says in his pastoral rule 3.19 Unless Glutton's were carried away by immoderate speech, that rich man who has stated to have feasted sumptuously every day Would not have been so tortured in his tongue Fourthly, as regards inordinate action, and in this way we have scurrility, that is A kind of levity resulting from lack of reason, which is unable not only to bridle the speech But also to restrain outward behavior Hence a gloss on Ephesians 5.4 Of foolish talking or scurrility Says that Fools call this geniality, that is, Eocolarity, because it is want to raise a laugh Both of these, however, may be referred to the words which may happen to be sinful Either by reason of excess which belongs to loquaciousness Or by reason of unbecomingness which belongs to scurrility On the part of the body, mention is made of uncleanness Which may refer either to the inordinate emission of any kind of superfluities Or especially to the emission of the semen Hence a gloss on Ephesians 5.3 But fornication and all uncleanness says That is, any kind of incontinence that has reference to lust Reply to Objection 1 Joy in the act or end of sin results from every sin, especially the sin that proceeds from habit But the random riotous joy which is described as unseemly arises chiefly from immoderate partaking of meat or drink In like manner, we reply that dullness of sense as regards matters of choice is common to all sin Whereas dullness of sense in speculative matters arises chiefly from gluttony for the reason given above Reply to Objection 2 Although it does one good to vomit after eating too much Yet it is sinful to expose oneself to its necessity by immoderate meat or drink However, it is no sin to procure vomiting as a remedy for sickness if the physician prescribes it Reply to Objection 3 Scorility proceeds from the act of gluttony and not from the lustful act, but from the lustful will Wherefore it may be referred to either vice End of Question 148 Read by Michael Shane Craig Lambert, LC Question 149 of Summa Theologica Secunda Secunde Triates 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 Triates on the Cardinal Virtues The Virtue of Temperance by St. Thomas Aquinas Translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province Question 149 of sobriety in four articles We must now consider sobriety and the contrary vice, namely drunkenness As regards sobriety, there are four points of inquiry First, what is the matter of sobriety? Second, whether it is a special virtue? Third, whether the use of wine is lawful? Fourth, to whom especially is sobriety becoming? First article, whether drink is the matter of sobriety? Objection 1 It would seem that drink is not the matter proper to sobriety, for it is written in Romans 12.3 Not to be more wise than it behooveth to be wise, but to be wise unto sobriety. Therefore sobriety is also about wisdom and not only about drink. Objection 2 further Concerning the wisdom of God, it is written in Wisdom 8.7 that She teaches sobriety and prudence and justice and fortitude, where sobriety stands for temperance. Now temperance is not only about drink, but also about meat and sexual matters. Therefore sobriety is not only about drink. Objection 3 further Sobriety would seem to take its name from measure. Translators note, bria means a measure or a cup. Now we ought to be guided by the measure in all things appertaining to us, for it is written in Titus 2.12 We should live soberly and justly and godly. Wear a gloss remarks. Soberly in ourselves. And in 1 Timothy 2.9 Women in decent apparel adorning themselves with modesty and sobriety. Consequently it would seem that sobriety regards not only the interior man, but also things appertaining to external apparel. Therefore drink is not the matter proper to sobriety. On the contrary, it is written in Ecclesiasticus 31.32 Wine taken with sobriety is equal life to men. If thou drink it moderately, thou shalt be sober. I answer that, when a virtue is denominated from some condition common to the virtues, the matter specially belonging to it is that in which it is most difficult and most commendable to satisfy that condition of virtue. Thus fortitude is about dangers of death and temperance about pleasures of touch. Now sobriety takes its name from measure, for a man is said to be sober because he observes the bria, that is the measure. Wherefore sobriety lays a special claim to that matter wherein the observance of the measure is most deserving of praise. Such matter is the drinking of intoxicants because the measured use thereof is most profitable, while immoderate excess therein is most harmful since it hinders the use of reason even more than excessive eating. Hence it is written in Ecclesiasticus 31 verses 37 and 38. Sober drinking is health to soul and body. Wine drunken with excess, raiseth quarrels and wrath and many ruins. For this reason sobriety is especially concerned with drink, not any kind of drink, but that which by reason of its volatility is liable to disturb the brain, such as wine and all intoxicants. Nevertheless sobriety may be employed in a general sense so as to apply to any matter as stated above in question 123 article 2 as well as in question 141 article 2 with regard to fortitude and temperance. Reply to Objection 1. Just as the material wine intoxicates a man as to his body, so too speaking figuratively, the consideration of wisdom is said to be an inebriating draught because it allures the mind by its delight according to Psalm 22 verse 5. My chalice which inebriateth me how goodly it is. Hence sobriety is applied by a kind of metaphor in speaking of the contemplation of wisdom. Reply to Objection 2. All the things that belong properly to temperance are necessary to the present life and their excess is harmful. Wherefore it behooves one to apply a measure in all such things. This is the business of sobriety and for this reason sobriety is used to designate temperance. Yet slight excess is more harmful in drink than in other things wherefore sobriety is especially concerned with drink. Reply to Objection 3. Although a measure is needful in all things, sobriety is not properly employed in connection with all things, but only in those wherein there is most need for a measure. Second article. Whether sobriety is by itself a special virtue. Objection 1. You would seem that sobriety is not by itself a special virtue. For abstinence is considered with both meat and drink. Now there is no special virtue about meat. Therefore neither is sobriety which is about drink a special virtue. Objection 2 further. Abstinence and gluttony are about pleasures of touch as sensitive to food. Now meat and drink combine together to make food since an animal needs a combination of wet and dry nourishment. Therefore sobriety which is about drink is not a special virtue. Objection 3 further. Just as in things pertaining to nourishment, drink is distinguished from meat. So are there various kinds of meats and drinks? Therefore if sobriety is by itself a special virtue, seemingly there will be a special virtue corresponding to each different kind of meat or drink, which is unreasonable. Therefore you would seem that sobriety is not a special virtue. On the contrary, Macrobius reckons sobriety to be a special part of temperance. I answer that as stated above in question 146 article 2. It belongs to moral virtue to safeguard the good of reason against those things which may hinder it. Hence whenever we find a special hindrance to reason, there must needs be a special virtue to remove it. Now intoxicating drink is a special kind of hindrance to the use of reason in as much as it disturbs the brain by its fumes. Therefore in order to remove this hindrance to reason a special virtue which is sobriety is requisite. Reply to Objection 1. Meat and drink are alike capable of hindering the good use of reason by embroiling the reason with immoderate pleasure and in this respect abstinence is about both meat and drink alike. But intoxicating drink is a special kind of hindrance as stated above wherefore it requires a special virtue. Reply to Objection 2. The virtue of abstinence is about meat and drink considered not as food but as a hindrance to reason hence it does not follow that special kinds of virtue correspond to different kinds of food. Reply to Objection 3. In all intoxicating drinks there is one kind of hindrance to the use of reason so that the difference of drinks bears an accidental relation to virtue. Hence this difference does not call for a difference of virtue. The same applies to the difference of meats. Third article. Whether the use of wine is altogether unlawful. Objection 1. You would seem that the use of wine is altogether unlawful. For without wisdom a man cannot be in the state of salvation since it is written in Wisdom 728. God loveth none but him that dwelleth with wisdom. And further on in Wisdom 919. By wisdom they were healed, whosoever have pleased thee, O Lord, from the beginning. Now the use of wine is a hindrance to wisdom for it is written in Ecclesiastic as 2.3. I thought in my heart to withdraw my flesh from wine that I might turn my mind to wisdom. Therefore wine drinking is altogether unlawful. Objection 2 further. The Apostle says in Romans 1421. It is good not to eat flesh and not to drink wine nor anything whereby thy brother is offended or scandalized or made weak. Now it is sinful to forsake the good of virtue as likewise to scandalize one's brethren. Therefore it is unlawful to make use of wine. Objection 3 further. Jerome says that after the deluge wine and flesh were sanctioned, but Christ came in the last of the ages and brought back the end into line with the beginning. Therefore it seems unlawful to use wine under the Christian law. On the contrary, the Apostle says in 1st Timothy 523. Do not still drink water but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thy frequent infirmities. And it is written in Ecclesiastic as 3136. Wine drunken with moderation is the joy of the soul and the heart. I answer that no meat or drink considered in itself is unlawful, according to Matthew 1511. Not that which goeth into the mouth defileeth a man. Wherefore it is not unlawful to drink wine as such. Yet it may become unlawful accidentally. This is sometimes owing to a circumstance on the part of the drinker, either because he is easily the worse for taking wine or because he is bound by a vow not to drink wine. Sometimes it results from the mode of drinking because to wit he exceeds the measure in drinking and sometimes it is on account of others who would be scandalized thereby. Reply to Objection 1. A man may have wisdom in two ways. First, in a general way, according as it is sufficient for salvation. And in this way it is required in order to have wisdom, not that a man abstain altogether from wine, but that he abstain from its immoderate use. Secondly, a man may have wisdom in some degree of perfection. And in this way, in order to receive wisdom perfectly, it is requisite for certain persons that they abstain altogether from wine. And this depends on circumstances of certain persons and places. Reply to Objection 2. The apostle does not declare simply that it is good to abstain from wine, but that it is good in the case where this would give scandal to certain people. Reply to Objection 3. Christ withdraws us from some things as being altogether unlawful and from others as being obstacles to perfection. It is in the latter way that he withdraws some from the use of wine that they may aim at perfection, even as from riches and the like. Fourth article. Whether sobriety is more requisite in persons of greater standing. Objection 1. It seems that sobriety is more requisite in persons of greater standing. For old age gives a man a certain standing, wherefor honor and reverence are due to the old, according to Leviticus 1932. Rise up before the hoary head and honor the person of the aged man. Now the apostle declares that older men especially should be exhorted to sobriety according to Titus 2.2. That the aged man be sober. Therefore sobriety is most requisite in persons of standing. Objection 2 further. A bishop has the highest degree in the church, and the apostle commands him to be sober according to 1 Timothy 3.2. It behooveeth a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, etc. Therefore sobriety is chiefly required in persons of high standing. Objection 3. Further sobriety denotes abstinence from wine. Now wine is forbidden to kings, who hold the highest place in human affairs, while it is allowed to those who are in a state of affliction according to Proverbs 31.4. Give not wine to kings. And further on in Proverbs 31.6. Give strong drink to them that are sad, and wine to them that are grieved in mind. Therefore sobriety is more requisite in persons of standing. On the contrary, the apostle says in 1 Timothy 3.11. The women in like manner, chaste, sober, etc. And in Titus 2.6. Young men in like manner, exhort that they be sober. I answer that. Virtue includes relationship in two things. To the contrary vices which it removes, and to the end to which it leads. Accordingly, a particular virtue is more requisite in certain persons for two reasons. First, because they are more prone to the concupiscences which need to be restrained by virtue, and to the vices which are removed by virtue. In this respect, sobriety is most requisite in the young and in women because concupiscence of pleasure thrives in the young on account of the heat of youth, while in women there is not sufficient strength of mind to resist concupiscence. Hence according to Valerius Maximus, among the ancient Romans women drank no wine. Secondly, sobriety is more requisite in certain persons, as being more necessary for the operations proper to them. Now a moderate use of wine is a notable obstacle to the use of reason, wherefor sobriety is especially prescribed to the old in whom reason should be vigorous in instructing others. To bishops and all ministers of the church who should fulfill their spiritual duties with a devout mind, and to kings who should rule their subjects with wisdom. This suffices for the replies to the objections. End of question 149 Read by Michael Shane Craig Lambert, LC