FIRST ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 148, Art. 1]

Whether Gluttony Is a Sin?

Objection 1: It would seem that gluttony is not a sin. For our Lord

said (Matt. 15:11): "Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a

man." Now gluttony regards food which goes into a man. Therefore,

since every sin defiles a man, it seems that gluttony is not a sin.

Obj. 2: Further, "No man sins in what he cannot avoid" [*Ep. lxxi, ad

Lucin.]. Now gluttony is immoderation in food; and man cannot avoid

this, for Gregory says (Moral. xxx, 18): "Since in eating pleasure

and necessity go together, we fail to discern between the call of

necessity and the seduction of pleasure," and Augustine says

(Confess. x, 31): "Who is it, Lord, that does not eat a little more

than necessary?" Therefore gluttony is not a sin.

Obj. 3: Further, in every kind of sin the first movement is a sin.

But the first movement in taking food is not a sin, else hunger and

thirst would be sinful. Therefore gluttony is not a sin.

_On the contrary,_ Gregory says (Moral. xxx, 18) that "unless we

first tame the enemy dwelling within us, namely our gluttonous

appetite, we have not even stood up to engage in the spiritual

combat." But man's inward enemy is sin. Therefore gluttony is a sin.

_I answer that,_ Gluttony denotes, not any desire of eating and

drinking, but an inordinate desire. Now desire is said to be

inordinate through leaving the order of reason, wherein the good of

moral virtue consists: and a thing is said to be a sin through being

contrary to virtue. Wherefore it is evident that gluttony is a sin.

Reply Obj. 1: That which goes into man by way of food, by reason of

its substance and nature, does not defile a man spiritually. But the

Jews, against whom our Lord is speaking, and the Manichees deemed

certain foods to make a man unclean, not on account of their

signification, but by reason of their nature [*Cf. I-II, Q. 102, A.

6, ad 1]. It is the inordinate desire of food that defiles a man

spiritually.

Reply Obj. 2: As stated above, the vice of gluttony does not regard

the substance of food, but in the desire thereof not being regulated

by reason. Wherefore if a man exceed in quantity of food, not from

desire of food, but through deeming it necessary to him, this

pertains, not to gluttony, but to some kind of inexperience. It is a

case of gluttony only when a man knowingly exceeds the measure in

eating, from a desire for the pleasures of the palate.

Reply Obj. 3: The appetite is twofold. There is the natural appetite,

which belongs to the powers of the vegetal soul. In these powers

virtue and vice are impossible, since they cannot be subject to

reason; wherefore the appetitive power is differentiated from the

powers of secretion, digestion, and excretion, and to it hunger and

thirst are to be referred. Besides this there is another, the

sensitive appetite, and it is in the concupiscence of this appetite

that the vice of gluttony consists. Hence the first movement of

gluttony denotes inordinateness in the sensitive appetite, and this

is not without sin.

_______________________

Summa Theologica, Part II-II (Secunda Secundae) Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province · 第 884 / 1128 题