Question IV: On incontinence

Incontinence, indeed, in its universality extends to all vices; nevertheless it is a special vice opposed to Temperance — namely to that potential part of it which is continence, and which is opposed to the passions by bridling them, lest they rush in.

Hence incontinence in this sense consists in a lapse into unbridled passion, and therefore the intemperate man sins more gravely than the incontinent, as Aristotle says, 7 Eth. cap. 8; D. Thomas, art. 3: for the intemperate man sins from habit, but the incontinent from passion.

But the incontinence of concupiscence is more typical than that of anger. First, because the movement of concupiscence is wholly according to sense; but the movement of anger participates somewhat in reason. Second, because the movement of anger follows more the complexion of the body on account of the swiftness of the motion of the choler, which tends to anger; whence from the irascible the irascible are more frequently born, than from the concupiscent the concupiscent. Third, because anger seeks to act manifestly; but concupiscence seeks hiding places. Fourth, because concupiscence acts with delight; but the angry man as if from a certain sadness. So S. Thomas, art. 4, from Aristotle, 7 Eth. cap. 6. D. Bonaventure, p. p. Centil. sect. 18, makes incontinence a daughter of vainglory, and describes it thus: Incontinence is the will, by conforming itself, desiring to be praised by those who are evil.