Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It seems that the species of gluttony are unfittingly distinguished by Gregory who says (Moral. xxx, 18): "The vice of gluttony tempts us in five ways. Sometimes it forestalls the hour of need; sometimes it seeks costly meats; sometimes it requires the food to be daintily cooked; sometimes it exceeds the measure of refreshment by taking too much; sometimes we sin by the very heat of an immoderate appetite"---which are contained in the following verse: "Hastily, sumptuously, too much, greedily, daintily."

For the above are distinguished according to diversity of circumstance. Now circumstances, being the accidents of an act, do not differentiate its species. Therefore the species of gluttony are not distinguished according to the aforesaid.

Objection 2: Further, as time is a circumstance, so is place. If then gluttony admits of one species in respect of time, it seems that there should likewise be others in respect of place and other circumstances.

Objection 3: Further, just as temperance observes due circumstances, so do the other moral virtues. Now the species of the vices opposed to the other moral virtues are not distinguished according to various circumstances. Neither, therefore, are the species of gluttony distinguished thus.

On the contrary, stands the authority of Gregory quoted above.

I answer that, As stated above (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"---i.e. costly food; as regards its quality, he seeks food prepared too nicely---i.e. "daintily"; and as regards quantity, he exceeds by eating "too much."

Secondly, the inordinate concupiscence is considered as to the consumption of food: either because one forestalls the proper time for eating, which is to eat "hastily," or one fails to observe the due manner of eating, by eating "greedily."

Isidore 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 (1.2, Question 72, Article 9).

Articulus 4

Argumentum 1

Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod inconvenienter species gulae distinguantur a Gregorio, qui, XXX Moral., dicit.

Quinque modis nos gulae vitium tentat, aliquando namque indigentiae tempora praevenit; aliquando lautiores cibos quaerit; aliquando quae sumenda sunt praeparari accuratius appetit; aliquando in ipsa quantitate sumendi mensuram refectionis excedit; aliquando ipso aestu immensi desiderii aliquis peccat.

Et continentur in hoc versu, praepropere, laute, nimis, ardenter, studiose.

Praedicta enim diversificantur secundum diversas circumstantias.

Sed circumstantiae, cum sint accidentia actuum, non diversificant speciem. Ergo secundum praedicta non diversificantur species gulae.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, sicut tempus est quaedam circumstantia, ita et locus.

Si ergo secundum tempus una species gulae accipitur, videtur quod, pari ratione, secundum locum et alias circumstantias.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, sicut temperantia observat debitas circumstantias, ita etiam et aliae virtutes morales. Sed in vitiis quae opponuntur aliis virtutibus moralibus non distinguuntur species secundum diversas circumstantias. Ergo nec in gula.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est verbum Gregorii inductum.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, gula importat inordinatam concupiscentiam edendi.

In esu autem duo considerantur, scilicet ipse cibus qui comeditur, et eius comestio. Potest ergo inordinatio concupiscentiae attendi dupliciter. Uno quidem modo, quantum ad ipsum cibum qui sumitur. Et sic, quantum ad substantiam vel speciem cibi, quaerit aliquis cibos lautos, idest pretiosos; quantum ad qualitatem, quaerit cibos nimis accurate praeparatos, quod est studiose; quantum autem ad quantitatem, excedit in nimis edendo. Alio vero modo attenditur inordinatio concupiscentiae quantum ad ipsam sumptionem cibi, vel quia praevenit tempus debitum comedendi, quod est praepropere; vel quia non servat modum debitum in edendo, quod est ardenter.

Isidorus vero comprehendit primum et secundum sub uno, dicens quod gulosus excedit in cibo secundum quid, quantum, quomodo et quando.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod corruptio diversarum circumstantiarum facit diversas species gulae propter diversa motiva, ex quibus Moralium species diversificantur. In eo enim qui quaerit lautos cibos, excitatur concupiscentia ex ipsa specie cibi in eo vero qui praeoccupat tempus, deordinatur concupiscentia propter impatientiam morae; et idem patet in aliis.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod in loco et in aliis circumstantiis non invenitur aliud differens motivum pertinens ad usum cibi, quod faciat aliam speciem gulae.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod in quibuscumque aliis vitiis diversae circumstantiae habent diversa motiva, oportet accipi diversas species vitiorum secundum diversas circumstantias.

Sed hoc non contingit in omnibus, ut dictum est.