Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It seems that covetousness is not a spiritual sin. For spiritual sins seem to regard spiritual goods. But the matter of covetousness is bodily goods, namely, external riches. Therefore covetousness is not a spiritual sin.

Objection 2: Further, spiritual sin is condivided with sin of the flesh. Now covetousness is seemingly a sin of the flesh, for it results from the corruption of the flesh, as instanced in old people who, through corruption of carnal nature, fall into covetousness. Therefore covetousness is not a spiritual sin.

Objection 3: Further, a sin of the flesh is one by which man's body is disordered, according to the saying of the Apostle (1 Cor. 6:18), "He that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body." Now covetousness disturbs man even in his body; wherefore Chrysostom (Hom. xxix in Matth.) compares the covetous man to the man who was possessed by the devil (Mk. 5) and was troubled in body. Therefore covetousness seems not to be a spiritual sin.

On the contrary, Gregory (Moral. xxxi) numbers covetousness among spiritual vices.

I answer that, Sins are seated chiefly in the affections: and all the affections or passions of the soul have their term in pleasure and sorrow, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. ii, 5). Now some pleasures are carnal and some spiritual. Carnal pleasures are those which are consummated in the carnal senses---for instance, the pleasures of the table and sexual pleasures: while spiritual pleasures are those which are consummated in the mere apprehension of the soul. Accordingly, sins of the flesh are those which are consummated in carnal pleasures, while spiritual sins are consummated in pleasures of the spirit without pleasure of the flesh. Such is covetousness: for the covetous man takes pleasure in the consideration of himself as a possessor of riches. Therefore covetousness is a spiritual sin.

Reply to Objection 1: Covetousness with regard to a bodily object seeks the pleasure, not of the body but only of the soul, forasmuch as a man takes pleasure in the fact that he possesses riches: wherefore it is not a sin of the flesh. Nevertheless by reason of its object it is a mean between purely spiritual sins, which seek spiritual pleasure in respect of spiritual objects (thus pride is about excellence), and purely carnal sins, which seek a purely bodily pleasure in respect of a bodily object.

Reply to Objection 2: Movement takes its species from the term "whereto" and not from the term "wherefrom." Hence a vice of the flesh is so called from its tending to a pleasure of the flesh, and not from its originating in some defect of the flesh.

Reply to Objection 3: Chrysostom compares a covetous man to the man who was possessed by the devil, not that the former is troubled in the flesh in the same way as the latter, but by way of contrast, since while the possessed man, of whom we read in Mk. 5, stripped himself, the covetous man loads himself with an excess of riches.

Articulus 6

Argumentum 1

Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod avaritia non sit peccatum spirituale. Vitia enim spiritualia videntur esse circa spiritualia bona. Sed materia avaritiae sunt bona corporalia, scilicet exteriores divitiae.

Ergo avaritia non est peccatum spirituale.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, peccatum spirituale contra carnale dividitur. Sed avaritia videtur esse peccatum carnale, sequitur enim corruptionem carnis; ut patet in senibus, qui propter naturae carnalis defectum in avaritiam incidunt.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, peccatum carnale est per quod etiam corpus hominis deordinatur, secundum illud apostoli, I ad Cor. VI, qui fornicatur in corpus suum peccat. Sed avaritia etiam hominem corporaliter vexat, unde et chrysostomus, Marc. V, comparat avarum daemoniaco, qui in corpore vexatur. Ergo avaritia non videtur esse peccatum spirituale.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod Gregorius, XXXI Moral., computat avaritiam vitiis spiritualibus.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod peccata praecipue in affectu consistunt.

Omnes autem affectiones animae, sive passiones, terminantur ad delectationes et tristitias, ut patet per philosophum, in II ethic..

Delectationum autem quaedam sunt carnales, et quaedam spirituales. Carnales quidem delectationes dicuntur quae in sensu carnis complentur, sicut delectationes ciborum et venereorum, delectationes vero spirituales dicuntur quae complentur in sola animae apprehensione. Illa ergo peccata dicuntur carnalia quae perficiuntur in carnalibus delectationibus, illa vero dicuntur spiritualia quae perficiuntur in spiritualibus delectationibus, absque carnali delectatione. Et huiusmodi est avaritia, delectatur enim avarus in hoc quod considerat se possessorem divitiarum. Et ideo avaritia est peccatum spirituale.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod avaritia circa corporale obiectum non quaerit delectationem corporalem, sed solum animalem, prout scilicet homo delectatur in hoc quod divitias possideat. Et ideo non est peccatum carnale. Ratione tamen obiecti, medium est inter peccata pure spiritualia, quae quaerunt delectationem spiritualem circa obiecta spiritualia, sicut superbia est circa excellentiam; et vitia pure carnalia, quae quaerunt delectationem pure corporalem circa obiectum corporale.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod motus recipit speciem secundum terminum ad quem, non autem secundum terminum a quo. Et ideo vitium dicitur carnale ex hoc quod tendit in delectationem carnalem, non autem ex eo quod procedit ex aliquo defectu carnis.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod chrysostomus comparat avarum daemoniaco, non quia vexetur in carne sicut daemoniacus, sed per oppositum, quia sicut daemoniacus ille de quo legitur Marc. V, se denudabat, ita avarus se superfluis divitiis onerat.