Gluttony

344. On the use of morphine.¹ For lessening pains and for putting the senses to sleep, physicians now frequently use diverse means; and indeed morphine is ordinarily applied for lessening pains, but other "narcotics" also serve for putting the senses to sleep. The question is asked concerning their effects and concerning their liceity.

1. The effects which the use of morphine produces are diverse according to the diverse quantity which is taken. What is said here concerning morphine is also valid concerning opium, cocaine, and other remedies of this kind.

a. Drunk in a great quantity, in the same way as poison, it induces death; taken in a lesser quantity it causes stupor of the senses and privation of the use of reason, which effect indeed differs in nothing from drunkenness; finally, if a very moderate quantity is taken, it serves for quieting the nerves and restoring strength.

b. Injections of morphine, which are made under the skin in small quantity, serve for lessening pains and produce a certain pleasure that is by no means slight. But if those subcutaneous injections are repeated in greater quantity for a notable time, they gravely harm the health of the body, notably shorten life, and moreover provoke a vehement craving for morphine, which can be overcome with greater difficulty than drunkenness itself and can scarcely be cured except in hospitals erected for this end. Nevertheless these malignant effects are not caused except from the use of a greater quantity repeated rather often; a few injections, and those moderate, scarcely harm the body or the soul in any way.

¹ Cf. Olfers, l. c., p. 103 f. Capellmann, l. c., p. 41 ff.

345. 2. From these things, as regards the liceity of this use, the following are now gathered.

a. A use of morphine so slight that it produces no other effect except restoration of strength and quieting of the nerves is manifestly licit.

b. A moderate use of morphine, even without a just cause, applied only for calming the craving for it, does not exceed venial sin, since it does not gravely harm health nor cause a notable shortening of life; but to use morphine in that quantity and frequency such that notable detriment to health and life follows from it is a grave sin.

c. The use of morphine applied in such a quantity that the senses are put to sleep and privation of the use of reason follows:

a. without a just cause is a grave sin, equally as drunkenness arising from the drinking of wine;

b. from a proportionately grave cause of necessity or utility is licit, e.g. that the sick man in a surgical operation may permit himself without resistance to the hands of the surgeon, or that the sick man may not feel sharp pains;

c. in the article of death is illicit not only if the dying man is not yet disposed for dying well, but even if he has been duly disposed for death, because there is not a sufficient reason for depriving a dying man of the use of reason, unless a fall into sin is to be feared; since indeed at that time the use of reason is of such great utility that it cannot be compensated by any temporal advantage. For the dying man would lack the merits which he could gain both from pains patiently tolerated and from acts of perfect conformity with the divine will and of other virtues.

Gluttony is the inordinate indulgence in food or drink. The use of food and drink should be regulated by temperance according to right reason. As a standard right reason will be guided by the necessities of bodily health and strength, interpreted in a wide sense, and the uses of the society in which one lives. Inordinateness will come in if through appetite we anticipate the proper time for taking refreshment, or demand too exquisite dishes, or indulge in excess, or devour our food voraciously, or require too great care in the preparation of food, paying a chef as much as all the other servants put together.

Gluttony is of itself a venial sin, but it becomes mortal if it leads to violating precepts, such as those of fasting and abstinence, which bind under grave sin, or if it seriously injures health, or if it makes a man unfit to pursue his ordinary avoca- tions, or if eating and drinking become the end for which a man lives, whose God is his belly,¹ or if it causes complete loss of reason through drunkenness.

¹ Phil. iii 19.

Complete drunkenness which deprives a man of the use of reason, so that he cannot distinguish between what is right and wrong, is a mortal sin, for St Paul numbers it among those vices which exclude from the kingdom of God.¹ The malice of this sin does not consist merely in the depriving one’s self of the use of reason, for it is allowed to do that for a good cause, but in the depriving one’s self of the use of reason in such an unnatural way by the inordinate use of drink for a considerable time during which the recovery of the use of reason is out of one’s power, and without any just cause. Theologians more commonly teach that if there were a sufficient cause, it would not be morally wrong to make a man drunk as a substitute for the use of chloroform, or in order to counteract the effect of poison.

To drink to excess but not so as to be perfectly drunk is only a venial sin per se, but it may become mortal on account of the serious harm done thereby to one’s own health, or the spending in drink of money which is required for the support of one’s family or the payment of one’s creditors, or on account of grave scandal caused by such a sin, or on account of other sins to which it gives rise.

¹ Gal. v 21.

If a man could be prevented from committing a more serious sin, as murder, for example, in no other way except by making him drunk, many theologians teach that this would not be unlawful. For very probably I may induce another who is determined to commit some grave crime to be content with doing something which is less bad. Under such circumstances, to persuade another to do what is a less evil is a good action.¹

¹ St Alphonsus, 2, n. 57.

Bad actions committed in drink are imputable to the agent if they were foreseen in some confused way, for they are voluntary in their cause. The same must be said of blasphemy, indecent language, and other sins of word which retain their objective malice even when said by a drunken man. Mere abuse of others, inasmuch as nobody cares what a drunken man says, would not be sinful. However, when sins in word are committed in drink, there is so: nething wanting to them for their full and proper signification, and so, if blasphemy, for example, were punished by ecclesiastical censure or reservation, these would not be incurred for blasphemy uttered while drunk.

Morphia may be given to ease pain, and brandy to strengthen a sick person, even though they cause loss of reason. This follows from what has been said and from the principle of a double effect. It is not lawful to administer such medicines in order to deprive a dying man of the use of reason, so that he may die while unconscious. The time just before death is very precious; a sinner may then be reconciled with God and save his soul; one who is in the state of grace may very much increase his merit by a good use of that time. Euthanasia then, in this sense, is unlawful; it is virtually shortening a man’s life.

The terrible evil of drink should be combated by all the means, spiritual and temporal, which are at the disposal of the Christian. The general means which may be used are especially the frequent reception of the sacraments, the avoiding of dangerous companions and the occasions of sin, the cultivation of modes of taking innocent recreation while not at work either at home or outside, the joining of Catholic temperance societies whose members encourage each other by mutual example, and the taking of the pledge if its nature and obligations be properly understood.

I. Notion. Gluttony, taken generally, is the inordinate appetite either for food or non-intoxicating drink, or for intoxicating drink.

II. Division. Gluttony, taken generally, comprises gluttony strictly so called, or excess in eating and drinking, and drunkenness.

III. Gluttony strictly so called. 1. Notion. Gluttony strictly so called, or excess in eating and drinking, as has already been said, is the inordinate appetite for food or non-intoxicating drink; it is opposed to abstinence.

2. Morality. Gluttony per se, i.e., insofar as it is opposed to abstinence, is venial. The reason is that it involves excess in a thing indifferent in itself. It becomes mortal, for example, if someone gravely harms his health, if from gluttony he becomes unequal to sustaining his family or paying his debts (St. Alphonsus, V, 73).

Corollary I. Gluttony is not a grave sin even when someone eats or drinks to the point of vomiting. It is doubted whether those sin gravely who purposely vomit what they have taken, so that they may eat and drink again. Several affirm it, because that seems to involve great deformity against rational nature. But gluttony by reason of itself is never forbidden under mortal sin; nor is it clearly seen that by a deformity greater only in degree another species of sin is introduced.

Corollary II. The eating of human flesh or blood seems to be a grave sin. For an act of this kind, at least according to common estimation, redounds upon the person of the deceased, and therefore is opposed to observance, insofar as this virtue extends itself in some way to all; moreover, that it is gravely opposed is clear from the very nature of this act. The contrary must be said if someone eats human flesh from necessity.

IV. Drunkenness. 1. Notion. Drunkenness is the inordinate appetite for intoxicating drink; it is opposed to sobriety.

2. Division. Drunkenness is distinguished:

a) Into perfect and imperfect, according as reason is wholly or not wholly disturbed.

b) Into direct and indirect. It is direct when the intoxicating act, insofar as it is such, is intended as an end or is assumed as a means by which another end is obtained. Otherwise it is indirect.

3. Morality. a) Perfect and direct drunkenness is a grave sin, at least if it is induced for a notable time. This is clear: 1. from Sacred Scripture, which excludes drunkards from heaven;¹ 2. from reason; for a grave disorder is contained in an act which induces deprivation of the actual use of reason, indeed even of the proximate faculty of using reason for every sudden necessity; a deprivation, I say, which subsists in so unnatural a manner (St. Alphonsus, V, 75, 76). Now the unnatural manner consists in this, that the lower powers operate without reason directing them.² Therefore the malice of drunkenness is not found precisely from the deprivation of the actual use of reason - for this also has place in sleep - but from the said deprivation subsisting in such a manner. Nevertheless, according to most authors drunkenness is not mortal "if it deprives one of reason for a short time. But La Croix says that a long time seems to be one hour" (St. Alphonsus, V, 75). But this observation is of lesser importance, because a slight duration of drunkenness commonly cannot be foreseen.

b) Perfect and indirect drunkenness likewise is per se gravely illicit; but for a proportionate cause it is licit, if the end cannot be obtained by a more harmless means. The reason for the former is that it is per se gravely illicit to posit a cause from which a gravely evil effect will follow, such as the deprivation of the use of reason while the lower powers are operating. The latter follows from what was said concerning a cause with a double effect (St. Alphonsus, V, 76; cf. St. Thomas, I-II, q. 88, a. 5, ad 1; II-II, q. 150, a. 3, ad 3).

c) Imperfect and direct drunkenness of itself is only venial, because in it the lower powers are not simply deprived of the guidance of reason. It can become mortal, for example, on account of harms to the family that will follow, on account of foreseen blasphemies, on account of grave scandal that will arise, etc.

Likewise, imperfect and indirect drunkenness is per se venial; for a just cause it is licit, if the end cannot be obtained by a more harmless means.

d) Finally, alcoholism, as it is called, must be very greatly condemned, since it harms the health of the body, gradually dulls the mind, incites to venereal things, extinguishes religious and moral sentiments, and takes away the happiness and prosperity of the family. Add that alcoholics not rarely beget children who are prone to venereal things, labor under abnormal affections, or are even exposed to the danger of mental deficiency. Hence the remedies, concerning which we shall speak under VI, should be diligently inculcated upon those given to alcoholism.

Corollary I. With the required conditions posited, it is licit to make oneself drunk to expel disease, or to lessen grave pains to be undergone in a surgical operation. The reason is that the act of drinking is not chosen insofar as it is intoxicating, but insofar as it is healing. I said, "with the required conditions posited," because to lessen pains a more natural means can commonly be used just as safely, and therefore must be used in preference to drunkenness, for example, ether taken by inhalation. Driving away melancholy does not constitute a sufficient cause (St. Alphonsus, V, 76, q. 1; cf. St. Thomas, cited place).

It is disputed whether it is licit for someone to make himself drunk in order to avoid death with which another threatens him unless he becomes drunk. Several affirm it, but with St. Alphonsus (V, 76, q. 2) it seems this must be denied, because evils are not to be done that goods may come. But in the hypothesis posited the act of drinking is evil. The reason is that the act of drinking is evil when it has no other effect than drunkenness; and this obtains in the case, because immunity from death is not an effect of the act of drinking itself.

Corollary II. For a grave cause it is licit to give another an occasion of making himself drunk; likewise it is licit to induce another to drunkenness so that he may be impeded from a greater evil, for example, from homicide (St. Alphonsus, V, 77; II, 57). These things will be further explained and proved in the treatise on charity.

Corollary III. Sins committed in drunkenness are imputed according to what was said in n. 60. By most authors insults against men are excepted, because they are usually reckoned as nothing. The contrary seems to be said of blasphemies, because the honor of God seems to demand that they be forestalled; likewise the contrary must be said of obscene words, by reason of scandal, and of defamation of one's neighbor, by reason of the harm that will arise (St. Alphonsus, V, 78).

¹ Gal. 5:21.

² This does not happen of itself in sleep or after the use, for example, of morphine; besides, sleep deprives one only of the use of reason, but not of the proximate faculty of using it, because a sleeping person can immediately be aroused from sleep.

V. The daughters of gluttony are: 1. dullness of mind; 2. foolish merriment; 3. much talking; 4. buffoonery; 5. uncleanness of body (St. Thomas, II-II, q. 148, a. 6; St. Alphonsus, V, 74).

VI. Remedies of gluttony, especially of drunkenness. 1. Consider its very evil effects. 2. Flee occasions. 3. Exercise sobriety, even by sometimes withdrawing from the appetite things which are licit. Especially let heavy drinkers be advised to enroll in a society instituted for promoting sobriety.¹ Let habitual drunkards be required to abstain entirely from intoxicating liquor, because moderate use is morally impossible for them.

On the use of chloroform, morphine, etc., consult the treatise on charity toward oneself.

¹ Societies of this kind have more than once been approved by the Holy See and enriched with indulgences (cf. Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 6 May 1914; 12 June 1914).

The predominant individual motives for sin are as numerous as the different characters of those addicted to sin, and hence it is impossible to classify them. The predominant general motives for sin, on the contrary, can be assigned according to the principal goods that most often move or repel with wills of all who commit sin, as follows: (a) goods of the soul, such as praise and honor, inordinately pursued (the vice of pride); (b) goods of the body, inordinately desired (the views of lust and gluttony); (c) goods that are external, unduly loved (the vice of avarice); (d) one’s own good, not sufficiently wished (the vice of sloth); (e) the neighbor’s good, not suffiviently desired (the vices of envy and anger).

The Sins Opposed to Abstemiousness.—(a) The sin of deficiency in the matter of food is self-starvation. This is the sin of those who are martyrs to fashion, who in order to have a frail figure follow a diet (e.g., denying oneself all substantial food to reduce obesity) that undermines their constitutions and leaves them a prey to disease. It is also the sin of those who from unwise zeal for rigorous fasting deprive themselves of the necessaries of life, or eat what their stomachs rebel against. This sin does not differ from suicide or bodily injury treated above (see 1566 sqq., 1857 sqq.). “It is the same thing to kill yourself by slow degrees as to kill yourself in a moment. And he who kills himself by fasting is like one who offers God a sacrifice from stolen property” (St. Jerome).

(b) The sin of excess in food is gluttony. There is no sin in desiring food or in taking food with satisfaction, for the Author of nature has willed that such an essential act as eating should be pleasurable, and it is a fact that digestion and health suffer when food is taken without appetite or a peaceful frame of mind. But the glutton goes to excess by the inordinate and unreasonable enjoyment he takes in feeding himself.

Ways of Committing Gluttony.—There are many ways of committing gluttony, but they can all be reduced to two heads.

(a) Gluttony in food is excess in the substance, quantity, or quality of the things eaten. The gourmet is extremely fastidious about the substance of his food; he must have the most dainty or costly or rare viands, and nothing else will satisfy him. Cannibalism seems to be lawful in extreme necessity, but it is not lawful to kill human beings in order to eat them. The gorger or gourmand may not be particular about the kind of food that is given him, but he desires a large quantity, more than is good for him. The epicure is too hard to please as to quality; even when there is no festal occasion, he must have a great variety of foods and they must be most carefully prepared, so that he may get the utmost joy of the palate. We should not class among gluttons, however, those who require special foods or special cooking for a good reason, as when health or hard work forces one to observe a strict diet.

(b) Gluttony in eating is excess as to the time or manner of taking food. There is excess about the time when a person is over-eager about the dinner bell, eats before or oftener than he should, or lingers too long at table. There is excess about the manner when a person eats greedily, hurriedly, or selfishly, rushing at his food like a tiger, bolting it like a dog, or depriving others like a pig.

The Sinfulness of Gluttony.—(a) Gluttony is a mortal sin when it is so serious as to turn man away from his end itself, making him prefer his appetite to God. Thus, those sin gravely who are such high livers that they are unable to pay their debts, to the serious detriment of creditors; or who gormandize so much that they can do little work and have to spend most of their time in exercising or taking cures; or whose heavy eating is the occasion of serious sins of anger, impurity, or neglect of religious or other duties. To all these apply the words of St. Paul (Phil., iii. 19): “Whose god is their belly.” To eat until one vomits seems to be a mortal sin, if the vomit is caused by the enormous quantity of food consumed, for such an act seems to be gravely opposed to reason; but there is no grave sin if the vomit is due to the quality of the food or the weakness of the stomach.

(b) Gluttony in itself is a venial sin since it is a disorder about the means, and not a turning away from the end. This happens when one is inordinately fond of gastronomic joys, but is not prepared to sacrifice grave duties for their sakes. Thus, a person who gives too much indulgence to a sweet tooth, or who likes to stuff himself now and then, but who doesn’t disable himself or give scandal by his weakness, sins venially.

Gluttony as a Capital Sin.—(a) The first condition of a capital sin is that it be one of the main sources of evil attraction. This condition is verified of gluttony, for all seek happiness, and gluttony contains one of the ingredients of happiness, namely, pleasure in an unusual degree. Among all sensual delights those of the palate and stomach are admitted to be, along with those of sexual love, the most intense. The first of the three temptations with which Satan assailed Christ was that of gluttony (Matt., iv. 1-4).

(b) The second condition of a capital vice is that it be the final or motive cause of a large crop of sins. This condition is also verified in gluttony, since the greedy man is so in love with his pet vice that in order to pamper it he is ready to suffer various kinds of evils which he should not permit. Evils of soul that are caused by gluttony are: heaviness in the mind, for an overloaded stomach unfits the mind to reflect on higher things or to consider the duty of moderation in rejoicing, in words or in acts (Ecclus., ii. 3); absurd mirth in the will, a feeling of security and gladness and unrestraint, for the glutton thinks only of his present contentment and does not consider the evils of his sin; loquacity in word, for his mental faculties being dulled and his will hilarious the glutton gives free rein to his tongue, often sinning by detraction, betrayal of secrets, contumely, and blasphemy (Prov., X. 19); levity in act, for the glutton wishes to give vent to his animal spirits, and he does so by unbecoming jokes and clownishness. Evils of body due to gluttony are dirtiness and disease: the glutton is often filthy in his manner of eating, his breath is fetid, he is much occupied with natural necessities, excretion and exgurgitation, and he suffers from gout or indigestion or one of the numerous other maladies that are the price of overindulgence.

What is gluttony? - Gluttony is opposed to abstinence, and is the inordinate appetite of food and drink. Inordinate, namely if food and drink harms health; for their proximate end is the conservation of life and health, according to necessity and fittingness. S. Th. 2. 2. q. 141, a. 6. According to necessity, of body and mind; according to fittingness, and thus it will not be inordinate to prepare a sumptuous banquet to celebrate a feast, to honor friends. Inordinate furthermore, if it is not taken fittingly. And this disorder is committed in five ways: 1. if you eat before the time; 2. if things are too exquisite; 3. if more than is right; 4. if voraciously; 5. if too delicately.

Gluttony from its genus is a venial sin, because it is not gravely opposed to charity toward God or neighbor. It can become mortal under multiple respects: 1. Against charity toward God, by constituting one's end and blessedness in it. 2. Against charity toward oneself, by reason of grave harm of soul or body, if someone, for example, thereby becomes unfit for functions which he is bound under mortal sin to fulfill, or notably harms health. 3. Against charity toward neighbor, against piety and justice, as happens when nobles given over to gluttony gravely oppress subjects, dissipate goods necessary for the family, contract debts which they are unequal to paying. 4. By reason of scandal, if a cleric, for example, publicly indulges in feasting and drinking bouts. 5. When on account of gluttony someone transgresses the precepts of the Church, e.g., by eating flesh-meat on a day of abstinence, by eating several times in a day to satiety on a fast day, by not hearing Mass on a Sunday because of feasting. 6. By reason of perfect drunkenness, concerning which something will be said immediately. S. Th. 2. 2. q. 148; L. 73; E. M.

Resolves: "To eat or drink up to vomiting is probably only venial from its genus, unless there is scandal (namely grave), or notable harm to health, as they more commonly say.... But those who voluntarily vomit what they have taken, so that they may eat and drink again, are scarcely excused from mortal sin; for this seems to involve great deformity. Thus probably." L. 73. And indeed others probably deny this, because there is had there only avidity of delight in foods, which from its genus is venial, unless another species of sin accedes. But there is scarcely doubt that it is licit by eating or drinking or otherwise to bring about vomiting, if it is judged to be healthful. For then it has the account of medicine. It is judged mortal to feed on human flesh and blood, both because it is against the piety owed to the dead, and because it is against the instinct of nature, unless it is done for the sake of medicine, or another just cause, e.g., extreme hunger. Laymann, l. 3, s. 4, n. 3; Diana, tr. 5, de Scand., r. 76.

What are the daughters of gluttony? - They are the following, which from their genus are venial, but become mortal when they are gravely opposed to another virtue; namely, on the part of the soul: 1. dullness of mind or stupidity, born from crapulence, concerning the consideration of spiritual goods; 2. inept joy, which moves to shameful acts; 3. much-speaking; 4. scurrility in words and gestures; 5. on the part of the body, uncleanness, vomiting, and emission of seed. S. Th. l. c., a. 6; q. 15; L. 74.

If someone has received a depraved book lent by another to be read, can he restore it to the owner? - R. Negatively, unless prudent fear of some grave inconvenience persuades otherwise. This flows of its own accord from the obligation of impeding the sins of others by reason of charity, when this can be done without grave inconvenience. But it is to be judged a grave inconvenience if you fear grave quarrels, blasphemies, hatreds, and other things of this sort from the owner.

180. • Gluttony is the disordered appetite of food or drink.

The vice is committed chiefly in five ways: 1. if you eat before the time; 2. if things too exquisite; 3. if more than is fair; 4. if voraciously; 5. if things prepared with greater industry. These are contained in the following verse:

Too soon, richly, too much, ardently, studiously.

It is venial sin from its genus. But it becomes grave if it gravely harms health, or if it renders someone inept for duties. He sins who eats or drinks to satiety on account of pleasure alone ⁴, as is established from the 8th proposition condemned by Innocent XI; yet of itself it does not exceed venial. - Thus commonly.

⁴ He eats or drinks on account of pleasure alone who positively excludes the further ends of the operation. For otherwise, from St. Thomas (Contra Gentiles, book 3, ch. 26, nos. 6, 7), delectation which follows a good operation is good and licitly desired; but from the general principle, an operation is good if its intrinsic ends, whether immediate or mediate, are not positively excluded, although there is no need at all expressly to intend them or to think about them while acting.

The daughters of gluttony are drunkenness, concerning which more fully soon, dullness of mind, buffoonery, much-speaking, and uncleanness of any genus.

Remedies: to consider the worst effects of gluttony as to body and soul; - to mortify the flesh, especially in bodily refection; - frequently to remember death, or the soon future corruption of the body. - See St. Lig., no. 74.

538. (A) Notion. (a) Gluttony is the inordinate appetite of eating or drinking, and therefore is opposed to the virtue of temperance. That inordination can happen especially in five ways:

¹ St. Thomas, II-II, q. 148; De Malo, q. 14; Nat. Alexander, op. cit., 1081-1110; Jaugey, De quatuor virt. card., 1876, p. 569-574; Ball. P., n. 716-735.

"Too hastily, sumptuously, too much, ardently, daintily."

Sumptuously or daintily, when, namely, more exquisite foods or drinks are sought, or ones prepared too delicately; - too much, when someone exceeds as to quantity, or beyond the appetite of nature; - too hastily, if someone anticipates the due time, or eats or drinks more often than is fitting; - ardently, when someone takes food too eagerly.

(b) The effects which often flow from intemperance (and which are commonly called the daughters of gluttony) are: foolish joy, which provokes a less honorable kind of joking; much-speaking, or too much garrulity, by which secrets are frequently manifested; scurrility, or immoderation in words and external acts transgressing the just limits of honorableness; dullness of mind, which renders a man less apt for the contemplation of truth, and for actions which require the attention of reason and the moderation of prudence; a certain propensity to lust: "Do not be drunk with wine, in which is luxury."²

² Eph. 5:18.

539. (B) The malice of gluttony. (a) To perceive moderate delectation in food and drink is no sin; for the author of nature joined delectation to foods, that we may use them gladly for preserving bodily health; therefore he who takes delectable food delectably, and consents to this delectation, is not to be blamed, provided that he avoids every excess (above, n. 191). Yet it is more perfect affectively to renounce this delectation, and to take food only on account of an honorable and supernatural end, according to that saying of the Apostle:³ "Whether you eat, or drink, or do anything else, do all things unto the glory of God." See above, n. 155-157, 195.

³ 1 Cor. 10:31. This indeed is said concerning things sacrificed to idols, but can be extended to any eating whatever.

(b) But gluttony, insofar as it is an immoderate appetite of food or drink, is a sin⁴ slight of itself, which nevertheless becomes mortal, when someone so clings to delectation that he is prepared to transgress a grave precept rather than renounce it.

⁴ That gluttony is a sin is clear from the condemnation of this proposition (8) by Innocent XI, March 2, 1679: "To eat and drink even to satiety on account of pleasure alone is not a sin, provided it does not harm health." (Denzing., n. 1025; Viva, on this proposition.)

Thus those gravely sin who place supreme happiness in food and drink, whose God therefore is the belly; who, in order to satisfy gluttony, do not pay debts, knowingly gravely harm their own health, or render themselves unfit to fulfill offices obliging under grave obligation. Apart from these or similar excesses, gluttony is indeed a sin, as opposed to right reason, but a light one, because it does not import a grave disorder.

540. (C) Remedies against gluttony. (a) To keep before the mind that food and drink are not the end of man, but only a means for repairing strength, whereby we may be better able to labor for God. Likewise to think about the depraved consequences which follow from gluttony, about diseases of the body, accelerated death, dullness of memory and talent, etc. (b) The incentives to this vice are to be avoided, namely foods too delicate, seasoned exquisitely, frequent banquets especially with those who are accustomed to indulge intemperance; and therefore generally common foods are to be used, which are more beneficial for health. (c) In banquets themselves, temperance is to be carefully cultivated, and something is to be withdrawn especially from those things which are sweeter to the palate.

These things indeed the Wise Man commends in many places: "Do not be in the banquets of drinkers, nor in the feasts of those who bring meats to eat, because those vacant for drinking and giving contributions will be consumed¹... Exultation of soul and heart is wine drunk moderately... much wine drunk makes irritation, and anger, and many ruins."²

¹ Prov. 23:20-21.

² Eccli. 30:36-38.

64. (B) Gluttony also, as the mother of luxury, is altogether to be moderated; for by abundant use of meats and wine, by frequent and sumptuous banquets and feasts, concupiscence blazes up. Many remain chaste as long as they are sober; but as soon as they indulge in banquets, and especially in wine and alcoholic liquors, they miserably slide into vices of the flesh. In reality sensuality and pleasure are akin; moreover, from abundant food and drink the mind is weighed down and begins to think about carnal things; soon concupiscence blazes up, the genitals are excited, and venereal delectation is ardently sought. Wherefore St. Paul says:² "Be not drunk with wine, wherein is luxury." - Concerning the means of overcoming gluttony and drunkenness, however, it was said above, nn. 540, 552.

² Eph. 5:18.

V. GLUTTONY. —Gluttony (gula) is an inordinate desire for earthly goods in general and food and drink in particular.³⁷ Man is expected to use food and drink according to right reason. Inordinate use of these things (as if they were an end in themselves), degrades him to the level of the brute. Besides this grosser form of gluttony (voracitas, ingluvies, ebrietas), there is a more refined though equally sinful variety, which consists in craving for food and drink solely for the pleasure they give and making them the principal object of one's thoughts and desires (cupedia). This epicurean gourmandise (sybaritism), like the grosser forms of gluttony, confuses the end with the means. Saint Paul says of those addicted to it that their "God is their 38 belly."

³⁷ Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 148, art. 1: "Gluttony does not denote every appetite for eating and drinking, but an inordinate one. An appetite is called inordinate because it departs from the order of reason, in which the good of moral virtue consists. But something is called a sin because it is contrary to virtue. Hence it is manifest that gluttony is a sin." 33 Phil. III, 19; cfr. Rom. XVI, 18.

A very common form of gluttony is drunkenness (ebrietas). Complete drunkenness (ebrietas perfecta) temporarily deprives man of the use of his highest prerogatives —reason and free-will. Voluntarily to put one- self into this condition is, as a rule, mortally sinful. Sins committed in the state of drunkenness are morally imputable (voluntarium in causa) unless indeed one could truthfully claim, like Noé, that he knew not the strength of wine. To drink to excess, but not so as to lose the use of reason, is per se a venial sin, but may become mortally sinful per accidens, e. g., on account of serious harm to one's health, grave scandal, neglect of important duties, or when a man knows that excessive drinking is for him a proximate occasion of grievous sin.

The sinful character of intemperance in all its forms is evident from the consequences to which this vice leads. It involves a senseless destruction of food and drink, of which others may stand in need, and injures both body and soul by exciting the animal appetites, especially lust, blunting the moral judgment, warping the finer sensibilities, and ultimately destroying all interest in spiritual things.³⁹

³⁹ Cfr. Gen. XXV, 29-34; Is. V, 11, 22; Am. VI, 6; Prov. XX, 1; XXIII, 29-35; Eph. V, 18. —St. Augustine, Confessiones, X, c. 31, n. 44: "Although health is the reason for eating and drinking, dangerous pleasure attaches itself like a handmaid and often tries to go before, so that what I say or wish to do for the sake of health may be done for its sake. Nor is the measure of each the same, for what is enough for health is too little for pleasure." —Ibid., n. 47: "Placed amid these temptations, therefore, I certainly strive daily against the desire for eating and drinking; for this is not something I can decide to cut off once and never touch again. Thus the reins of the throat must be held with measured relaxation and restraint. And who is there, Lord, who is not carried a little beyond the bounds of necessity? Whoever he is, he is great; let him magnify Your name. But I am not he, because I am a sinful man." (Migne, P. L., XXXII, 798, 799). —Cfr. Ps.- Augustine, Append. Serm., 294 (al. 231 de Temp.), n. 2-3 (P. L., XXXII, 2304). —St. Bernard, Epist., II, n. 10: "How can one who is filled daily with the husks of swine hunger or thirst for Christ? You cannot drink at the same time the chalice of Christ and the chalice of demons. Pride is the chalice of demons; detraction and envy are the chalice of demons; gluttony and drunkenness are the chalice of demons. When these have filled either your mind or your belly, Christ finds no place in you." (Migne, P. L., CLXXXII, 85). — Terence, Eunuch., IV, 5, 6: "Sine Cerere et Libero [Baccho] friget Venus." —Ovid, Rem. Am., 805 sqq. —Seneca, Epist., 95, 23: "Innumerabiles esse morbos non miraberis: coquos numera." 40 Cfr. Gen. XIX, 32 sqq.; Prov. XXXI, 4. —Homer, Odyssey, IX, 360 sqq; Iliad, VI, 258 sqq. —Horace, Carm., Ill, 21, 9 sqq.—A. Egger, Der Klerus und die Alkoholfrage, 4th ed., Freiburg 1909. —Jos. Keating, S.J., The Drink Question, London 1914. —Austin O'Malley, The Cure of Alcoholism, St. Louis 1913.

Drunkenness as a habit (ebriositas) is deserving of the severest censure, because it involves waste, destroys family life, creates dissensions, causes crimes and diseases, and entails the physical and moral ruin of individuals, and sometimes of entire nations. "Drunkenness," says Origen, "seduced him whom Sodom had not seduced." 40 Hence the Apostle's admonition: "Be not drunk with wine, wherein is luxury; but be ye filled with the holy Spirit." ⁴¹ VI. ANGER. —Anger (ira, iracundia), broadly speaking, is a craving for vengeance. It is not necessarily sinful, because, to quote St. Thomas, "vengeance may be sought either well or ill." ⁴² a) There is a righteous anger which inveighs against evil and in favor of goodness. Holy Scripture frequently attributes such anger to God. John the Baptist angrily denounced the Pharisees and Sadducees as a "brood of vipers," who "flee from the wrath to come."⁴³ "With anger" (μετ’ ὀργῆς) and grief "for the blindness of their hearts," ⁴⁴ Christ pronounced woe upon the Pharisees,⁴⁵ drove the money changers from the temple and overthrew their tables.⁴⁶ Filled with righteous indignation St. Peter invoked the judgment of God upon Ananias and Saphira,⁴⁷ St. Stephen rebuked the Jews for resisting the Holy Ghost,⁴⁸ and St. Paul upbraided the Athenians.⁴⁹ Righteous anger is no sin, and parents and superiors are justified in reprehending and punishing their children or subjects for a just cause. "If one is angry according to right reason," says the Angelic Doctor, "then to get angry is praise ⁵⁰ worthy." b) To be angry, even for a just cause, becomes sinful when a man loses control of himself and indulges in feelings of hatred or enmity. This is true a fortiori when anger lacks a just cause. Note, however, that as long as anger remains internal, it is as a rule not sinful, but merely a temptation. Only when it vents itself in oaths or blasphemies, or leads to acts of violence and destruction, is it more or less grievously sinful.

⁴¹ Eph. V, 18; cfr. Luke XXI, 34; 1 Pet. V, 8.

⁴² Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 158, art. 1-7.

⁴³ Matth. III, 7.

⁴⁴ Mark III, 5.

⁴⁵ Matth. XXXIII, 13 sqq.

⁴⁶ Matth. XXI, 12.

⁴⁷ Acts V, 3 sqq.

⁴⁸ Acts VII, 51 sqq.

⁴⁹ Acts XVII, 1 6 sqq.

⁵⁰ Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 158, art. 1: "If someone is angry according to right reason, then being angry is praiseworthy." —Cfr. Saint Augustine, Tract, in Epist. loa., VII, n. n: "Love is severe, charity is severe; it is severe in a manner without gall, in the manner of a dove, not of a raven." (Migne, P. L., XXXV, 1235).

Man is bound under pain of mortal sin to keep the mighty passion of anger under control. "Be angry and sin not," says St. Paul, "let not the sun go down upon your anger; give not place to the devil." ⁵¹ The meaning obviously is that man should not permit his anger to ex- ceed the bounds of reason, nor nurse grievances.⁵² St. James says: "Let every man be swift to hear, but slow to speak, and slow to anger ; for the anger of man worketh not the justice of God." ⁵³ VII. SLOTH. —Sloth (acedia) is frequently caused by an abnormal condition of the body. It may be defined as a sluggishness of the soul that makes it dread physical and mental labor in the exercise of virtue. Sloth, as a vice, may be accompanied by great energy of mind and body in matters not pertaining to the spiritual domain. Sloth usually begins with lukewarmness, especially neglect of prayer and religious exercises. It manifests itself:

⁵¹ Eph. IV, 26 sq.

⁵² Cfr. St. Augustine, Enarr. in Ps., 25, s. 2, n. 3 (Migne, P. L., XXXVI, 189): "Although anger creeps upon a Christian from the very human condition and the weakness of mortality which we bear, it must not be held for long or allowed to last into the next day. Cast that anger out of your heart before this visible light sets, lest that invisible light forsake you." (Migne, P. L., XXXVI, 189).

⁵³ Jas. I, 19 sq.

(1) As indifference to virtue and spiritual things (desidia, inertia), accompanied by distraction and neglect of duty and by pleasure in sentimentalities and day-dreaming. The ordinary symptoms of this form of sloth are: mental unrest, frequent change of work or profession, shiftlessness, inconstancy, etc.

(2) As disgust (taedium) for the moral and religious duties which every man is bound to perform. This disgust may develop into positive aversion for Catholic principles and practices and regret of having been received into the Church. At this stage sloth is generally accompanied by loss of courage and results in spiritual and moral decay.

Sloth is a mortal sin whenever it leads to the neglect of duties to which one is obliged sub gravi. The dire consequences of religious indifference are adumbrated in the Apocalypse: "I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot. I would thou wert cold or hot! But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth." ⁵⁴ "Think not that one who falls deeply, strikes bottom at once. Do you wish to learn the cause? For a long time this man was very lukewarm, and as a consequence his soul lost strength unnoticed, while the evil inclinations grew stronger.”⁵⁵

⁵⁴ Apoc. III, 15 sqq.; cfr. Matth. XXV, 26 sqq.—St. Bernard, De Consideratione, II, c. 13: "Idleness, the mother of trifles and the stepmother of virtues, is to be fled." (Migne, P. L., CLXXXII, 756).

⁵⁵ John Cassian, Collationes, VI, 17*

READINGS. —St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 1a 2ae, qu. 84, art. 2 sq. —IDEM, De Malo, qu. 8 sqq. —Th. Slater, S.J., A Manual of Moral Theology, Vol. I, pp. 154 sqq. —O. Zockler, Das Lehrstilck von den sieben Hauptsunden, Munich 1893. —Ph. G. Laborie, Les Pechcs Capitaux, Paris 1908. —A. Tanquerey, Synopsis Theol. Mor. et Pastor., Vol. II, pp. 287 sqq. —Natalis Alexander, De Peccatis (Migne, Theol. Curs., XI, 707-1168). —Paulhan, Les Caractéres, Paris 1903—H. Noldin, S.J.. Summa Theol. Mor., Vol. I, 11th ed., pp. 375 sqq.—Sabetti-Barrett, Comp. Theol. Mor., 22nd ed., pp. 129 sqq. —A. Vermeersch, S.J., Theol. Mor., Vol. I, pp. 418 sqq.

Besides the general consideration of gluttony, certain things concerning drunkenness occur to be said particularly.

— Notion. 1. Gluttony is the inordinate appetite of food and drink. But inordinateness is committed in five ways: 1. By eating before the time; 2. Things too exquisite; 3. More than is just; 4. Voraciously; 5. Things prepared too elaborately; or more briefly, by eating "too hastily, sumptuously, too much, eagerly, studiously" (2, 2, q. 148 art. 4).

This vice is opposed to abstinence.

Excess in food and in drink is called crapula.

Gluttony from its own kind is a sin only venial, because the glutton sins only in the mode by which he refers food and drink to man's good, which truly have an order to that end. Therefore it will be venial to fill oneself with food or drink even to vomiting; venial, to procure vomiting in order to dine or drink again. Crapula becomes mortal by which the law of the Church is violated; which, in grave matter, impedes the duties of one's state; which gravely harms health.

Already above, where pleasure was treated, the reason was given why, among the propositions condemned by Innocent XI, this is found, n. 8: "To eat and drink even to satiety for pleasure alone is not a sin, provided it does not harm health, because the appetite can licitly enjoy its own acts."

It is clear to all that one who procures salutary vomiting does not sin at all (2, 2, q. 150 art. 2).

2. As a capital vice, gluttony begets, in the soul: dullness of mind; foolish gladness, that is, which moves one to sing, say, and do dishonorable things; loquacity; buffoonery. Foolish gladness is in the appetite; loquacity in words; buffoonery in words and gestures: from levity, in order to excite laughter, words are said which are little decent, and uncivil things are done.

But in the body, gluttony begets uncleanness, vomiting, emission of semen; this is not imputed, if it was merely foreseen as naturally going to follow after crapula, without danger of consent.

— You ask whether one sins or not who feeds on human flesh or blood?

Without a just cause of medicine or of appeasing hunger, that is repugnant to the piety owed to the dead. Its guilt is revealed to us by the very instinct of nature, which abhors it. To preserve life in this way is permitted, but not commanded.

— I. Notion. Full drunkenness designates the state of him who, because of drink or a similar cause, is immediately deprived of the use of reason with proximate incapacity of recovering that use. Immediately, I say, insofar as natural sleep is not interposed. With this, moreover, whether naturally or accidentally shaken off, morally the use of reason is restored at once.

During the time in which someone is drunk, the superior faculty is morally suppressed, since it can now direct nothing. Physiology itself teaches us that the drunken man is withdrawn from higher associations and placed under the rule of lower ones. Wherefore this privation of the use of reason is to be assimilated to a certain temporary or reparable mutilation.

II. Morality. As such, the intention or choice of drunkenness will be intrinsically illicit, unless it is morally necessary for the good of the whole, for example, for recovering health.

That also will be illicit which is permitted without a proportionate cause.

And of itself, this sin is grave. "For that a man without necessity render himself powerless to use reason, through which man is ordered toward God and avoids many occurring sins, from the mere pleasure of wine, is expressly contrary to virtue" ¹. That is, he perturbs order in himself who takes away from himself the very principle of ordination, or reason, the directive faculty. And therefore it will be grave if material sins are foreseen, if the necessity is foreseen of having the use of the superior faculty unimpeded; or if, because of the time through which it lasts, there has been a notable unnatural interruption of rational life.

Whether by excessive drink or by some other means you deprive yourself of the use of reason and of proximate capacity to recover it, drunkenness remains specifically the same (contrary to what Lacroix thinks, l. 5, n. 316); but, in the former case, there will accede the sin of gluttony, venial according to itself.

But is drunkenness grave in its whole kind, or does it admit smallness of matter? Several, whom St. Alphonsus alleges without censure, think that drunkenness which deprives of reason for a short time, that is, not beyond an hour, is not mortal. Lehmkuhl ¹, Genicot-Salsmans (2), Noldin (3) think the same; but they do not excuse from grave sin him who, before he is deprived of reason, commits himself to sleep, since sleep does not prevent drunkenness. St. Thomas himself seems to admit smallness of matter. For he uses this formula: "Drunkenness, speaking of itself, is a mortal sin"; and he indicates the reason: "He sins mortally, committing himself to the danger of sin" (4). Therefore if that danger is not present, the alleged reason of grave sin also will be absent (5).

Observe that the gravity of the sin flows not from the quantity of drink but from the effect of drunkenness. Wherefore not even a few drinks are licit by which you know that you are going to be drunk. But a proportionate cause will more easily be able to be present here.

Corollary. Therefore it will be licit to make oneself drunk in order to repel disease, according to the counsels of physicians; and in order to lessen or not feel the bitter pains of a surgical operation or of difficult childbirth, especially since that relief may be useful or even necessary to the safety of the patient himself.

Moreover, what, in an intoxicating drink, lessens pain, and what produces drunkenness, has not yet been able to be defined accurately; nevertheless this seems able to be said: that relief is not sought from full drunkenness itself, or from an adequate cause of drunkenness; which is enough for drunkenness to be considered as merely permitted because of a just cause.

¹ 1, 2, q. 88 art. 5 ad 1.

¹ I, 892. - (2) I, 183. - (3) Princ. 343. - (4) Summa, 2, 2, q. 150 art. 2. - (5) Earlier, St. Thomas had classed even frequent drunkenness, according to itself, among sins venial from their own kind. QQ. De Malo, q. 2 art. 8 ad 3 and q. 7, art. 5 ad 1.

— Concerning the use of morphine. When no particular pains are to be soothed, it is not licit, for cutting off the mere anxieties of agony, to deprive the dying man, for example by the aid of morphine, of sense and reason and thus to hasten the end or terminus of rational life. That cause is not sufficient; and that suppression of reason deprives the sick man of many merits. But if he bears a soul not yet prepared for death, and positive hope of preparation is had, necessary penance is impeded by a wicked crime. Witnesses ought to resist that sin as much as they can.

But if at the same time bitter pains are to be soothed, although, even then, theologians are accustomed to answer with the same severity, we incline toward the more benign side whenever no preparation for death is impeded. For then this cannot be objected, that it is wrong to break off rational life before the hour appointed by divine Providence: for this cessation of rational life is not intended but merely permitted. And since the man is prepared, and pains can indeed be an occasion of merit but also of sin, the cause seems proportionate. Lehmkuhl (1), however, does not excuse the very silence of a witness except when the matter concerns a dying man well prepared, and one who from the continued use of reason is situated in danger of grave sin. Noldin (2) speaks with equal severity. Gen.-Sals. (3) speaks more mildly, rightly warning that morphine then cannot be given without at least the presumed consent of the dying man.

— Another's drunkenness. Another can be made drunk in two ways: either in such a way that he himself has sinned formally, or in such a way that without his own fault he is made drunk.

1. The former mode is certainly illicit, if the other is not already determined toward a greater sin: suppose, toward homicide. But if he has been determined toward a greater evil, the question returns whether or not you can persuade another to a lesser sin. This, when the sin is of another kind, with the more probable opinion we have denied to be licit. Wherefore Laymann ¹, consequently, reproves it. But according to St. Alphonsus (2), Lehmkuhl (3), the more benign opinion is probable, which, for example, Lessius defends, l. 4, c. 34, n. 32.

2. But he who by fraud and without knowing it is induced into drunkenness does not even sin materially, but suffers a physical evil. Therefore, one detained in prison, who has the right of escaping from prison, can of itself employ this as a means of just defense; so can an upright citizen, to impede the vote of an unjust law, or to detect a traitor.

Moreover, more easily, from other grave causes, it is right to place an occasion of drunkenness, even formal drunkenness. Lehmk. l. c. after St. Alph. l. 5, n. 58.

¹ L. 3, n. 4, n. G. - (2) Theol. mor. l. 5, n. 77. - (3) I, 894.

— Imperfect drunkenness, which does not substantially deprive of the use of reason, is a venial fault. Wherefore for a lesser cause, varying according to the very degree of drunkenness, it will be able to be permitted, indeed chosen, for repelling a person's evil.

Therefore, to repel sadness and melancholy, they allow that you drink even to cheerfulness.

— Signs of perfect drunkenness (probable but not infallible) are given as these: If someone does not remember what he said, did, how or when he was led home; if he has done altogether unusual things, for example, contrary to custom has spoken shameful things, has disturbed the house, beaten his wife, etc. Cf. Lessius, l. 4, c. 3, n. 30; Lehmk. I, 892.

But as long as he continues to discern between evil and good, a man is not yet judged to be perfectly drunk, although he bears his imagination somewhat disturbed, his tongue stammers, his feet totter, his eyes see double, the house seems to turn around for him, vomiting follows. Since quite many then think that a grave sin has been committed by them, they are prudently to be untaught this.

— Subjective guilt. Quite many are excused from grave sin, because they did not notice the danger of drunkenness, and they were seized by wine, whether, going out into the air, they then first experienced its force, or whether they judged prudently enough that they could still tolerate a little draught without harm. But, after contrary experience, this excuse is taken away from them.

— Evils committed in drunkenness are imputed in their culpable cause, if, as sufficiently connected, they were foreseen and remained evils. Thus insults, in circumstances where they rather move laughter, lack the force of injuring or their own effect, and therefore cease to be true insults.

What is to be said concerning blasphemies! Some excuse drunken persons from the sin of blasphemy, because it is of the nature of blasphemy that it be uttered knowingly. Thus Vasquez ¹, the Salmanticenses (2); and, if the blasphemies are not extraordinary, but middling and common, Gobat (3). Most judge them guilty, because the objective signification is preserved in the words: thus Sanchez; or because drunk persons preserve true concepts in such a way that the whole essence of material blasphemy is preserved: thus Ballerini on Gury, I, 183, note 6.

A distinction seems to us to have to be used. Often drunken persons utter blasphemies almost mechanically and without advertence to the signification: when those standing by observe this, not only subjective but also objective signification seems to perish. But if, having been corrected in this way, they assail God with insults, the insult will remain imputable in the cause, if it was at least confusedly foreseen.

Nevertheless it will always be wrong to provoke drunken persons to blasphemies. For if you have directly provoked them, you seem to blaspheme through them as through an instrument: which is gravely to be blamed; if only indirectly, at least venial irreverence toward God will subsist, whose name is usurped in a vain and rather hateful way. Cf. Laymann, l. 1, tr. 4, c. 9 n. 3, and our Questions concerning Religion, n. 169.

¹ In 1, 2, disp. 76, n. 11. - (2) Tr. 25, c. 2, n. 30.31. - (3) Opera moralia, tr. 5, c. 19, n. 34-39. - (4) Decal. l. 1, c. 16, n. 44.

— Remedies. The healing of a drunken man, or of one who is frequently made drunk, is judged very difficult and laborious. And already St. Augustine inveighs against such persons with very grave words. (Cf. ep. 29, n. 5, P. L. 33,116; sermon 151, P. L. 38, 816). And a resolution of temperance or moderate drinking often remains ineffective for them, so that only complete abstinence from intoxicating liquor establishes hope of health. Wherefore those certainly are to be praised who, for this cause, establish and govern societies called temperance societies, and voluntarily, without any personal necessity, abstain from every alcoholic drink, so that they can draw by their own example others who need such a remedy ¹. Moreover, there exist in various regions, for example in Switzerland, special institutes where drunkards are treated by a scientific method. Concerning the conquering of drunkenness and immoderate drinking of alcohol, cf. Noldin, Princ. 347. 348.

¹ Concerning the reason and opportunity of complete abstinence, cf. writings by P. Lehmkuhl, S.I. in Linzer Quartalschrift, 1917, p. 97 ff. and 1918, p. 13 ff.; and by R. P. Prummer, O. Pr., 1917, p. 322 ff.

425. Below, in the treatise on the virtue of temperance, there will be a fuller discussion of this vice, and especially of that species of it which is called drunkenness. Here the following things are briefly noted.

Notion. Gluttony, voracity, greediness, daintiness, gastrimargy, is the disordered appetite of eating and drinking. This disorder can occur in five ways, "too soon, sumptuously, too much, ardently, studiously," namely with respect to:

a) the substance of food, that is, by seeking excessively sumptuous foods;

b) quantity, that is, by devouring too much food with detriment to health;

c) quality, that is, by seeking foods prepared or seasoned too delicately and expensively; this is the same as to exceed studiously in eating and drinking;

d) the manner of taking, that is, to eat or drink too voraciously and greedily or ardently;

e) time, that is, when someone anticipates the time of eating or eats and drinks longer or more often than is fitting, which is the same as too soon.

426. Malice. Gluttony from its genus is a venial sin.^85a The reason is that the disorder found in it is not so great that it destroys charity. Accidentally, however, gluttony becomes a grave sin, namely a) by reason of grave bodily harm, if namely someone on account of greediness gravely injures bodily health; b) by reason of grave harm to the soul, if namely on account of gluttony a man neglects grave duties of his state.⁸⁶ Concerning those gluttons it is said: "Whose God is their belly" (Phil. 3, 19).

Voluntarily to indulge gluttony even unto vomiting is held by some to be a venial sin,⁸⁷ but Wigandt⁸⁸ deservedly says: "Such gluttons, who pour in so that they may pour out; drink so that they may vomit; vomit so that again they may drink immoderately, lest they seem conquered, but conquerors, scarcely seem able to be excused from mortal sin, both of scandal, and against love of oneself, and because through that vomiting, as being most violent, they gravely injure the stomach and health."

^85a Cf. S. theol. 2, 2, q. 148, a. 2.

⁸⁶ Cf. S. Thomas, De malo q. 14, a. 2.

⁸⁷ Cf. S. Alph., Theol. mor. l. 5, n. 73.

⁸⁸ Trib. confess. tr. 5, exam. 3, n. 70.

427. Daughters of gluttony. Five daughters of gluttony are enumerated:

1. Dullness of mind, according to the old saying: "A full belly does not study willingly." Almost the whole force of a gluttonous man is consumed in the digestion of food taken and in the delectation during the taking itself, so that such a man gradually becomes unfit for fixing the sharpness of the mind on a spiritual work.

2. Foolish gladness. Amid cups and banquets joys are often sought which are not only foolish but also indecent.

3. and 4. Much-speaking and buffoonery, that is, disorder both in words and in exterior acts; this chiefly happens in that species of gluttony which is drunkenness.

4. Uncleanness, "which can be considered either according to the disordered emission of any superfluities whatever, vomit and other excretions, or specially as to the emission of semen."⁸⁹

⁸⁹ S. theol. 2, 2, q. 148, a. 6.

428. Remedies against gluttony are: 1. Consideration of the evil consequences which are wont to follow from gluttony: illnesses of the body, acceleration of death, dullness of mind, contempt inflicted by good men, etc.

2. Flight from occasion, especially if it concerns an intoxicating drink. 3. Exercise of temperance, insofar as any superfluous delectations whatever in food and drink are strongly rejected.

¹²⁶⁴

¹²⁶⁴ Eßgier, Schlemmerei, gloutonnerie, gourmandise [greediness in eating, gluttony].

667. To abstinence, which is a moral virtue inclining one to the moderate use of foods according as right reason or faith shall have determined, there is opposed the vice of gluttony, concerning which we have already treated certain things above, I, n. 425, among the capital vices, and which can be defined: an inordinate appetite for eating and drinking.¹²⁶⁵ According to St. Gregory¹²⁶⁶ and St. Thomas,¹²⁶⁷ inordination in the use of food and drink can occur in five ways, which are contained in this verse:

Too soon, too richly, too much, too eagerly, too fastidiously.

Too soon, if someone anticipates the due time for eating, especially if someone eats or drinks more often than is proper. In this manner those boys and girls sin who eat sweets throughout almost the whole day.

Too richly, if someone takes excessively costly food or drink. In this manner those sin who spend money beyond their station on preparing sumptuous banquets, for example, if a man of the lowest condition without a just cause buys and drinks "Champagne" wine.

Too much, if someone eats beyond his appetite, especially even unto vomiting. In this manner not only did the ancient Romans sin, who after an ample consumption of food excited themselves to vomiting by means of some instrument so that they could begin eating again, but also those modern gluttons who eat such rich and abundant foods that afterward they need diverse medicines to accomplish the digestion of the food and to wash away the accumulated bad humors.

Too eagerly, if someone takes food too greedily. In this manner those sin who cast themselves upon food like swine, greedily devouring it.

Too fastidiously, if someone seeks foods too delicately seasoned and prepared. In this manner those sin who excessively love foods prepared with much pepper and other strong seasonings. For from foods of this kind not only is bodily health injured, but the sensual appetite is also customarily aroused.

Five effects or daughters of gluttony are enumerated by St. Thomas,¹²⁶⁸ namely:

Unseemly mirth, by which a man rejoices in those things which, all the circumstances having been considered, are not of themselves fitted to cause any pleasure according to the judgment of right reason. Hence we see the gluttonous spending much time on their own recreation, but negligently performing the duties of their state.

Loquacity and scurrility. The gluttonous man, whose god is his belly, seeks carnal pleasures inordinately, but flees those things which are arduous; hence, omitting strenuous labor, he seeks distractions among men, and thereupon spends his time in vain conversations and even in scurrilous jokes.

Dullness of mind. Already an old adage says: "A full belly does not gladly study." For fumes ascend from a full stomach into the brain, so that the intellect is then unable to exercise strenuous activity.

Uncleanness, "which can be considered either according to the inordinate emission of any superfluities whatsoever, or especially as regards the emission of seed."¹²⁶⁹ For how will the gluttonous man, dulled in mind, weakened in will, wholly given to his belly, be able to overcome temptations of lust aroused by immoderate foods?

The malice of gluttony of itself, that is, abstraction being made from its evil effects just enumerated and from the scandal not rarely arising (especially if a cleric is addicted to it), is a venial sin.¹²⁷⁰ The reason is that excess in a thing otherwise lawful, such as the taking of food and drink, is of itself only a venial sin. Accidentally, gluttony can become a mortal sin,¹²⁷¹ for example, if it gravely harms health, if it renders a man unfit for fulfilling the duties of his state, if it causes scandal, etc. In practice, let the confessor be solicitous not so much to judge concerning the grave culpability of gluttony as vigorously to counsel efficacious remedies.

He who takes delectable food delectably is not indeed at once to be accused of the sin of gluttony, since the Creator Himself attached pleasure to the taking of food; nevertheless, one must attend to proposition 8 condemned by Innocent XI: "To eat and drink unto satiety for pleasure alone is not a sin, provided it does not injure health, because the natural appetite can lawfully enjoy its acts."¹²⁷²

The remedies against gluttony were already indicated above, I, n. 428, where there was discussion of the capital sins.

¹²⁶⁵ Cf. S. theol. 2, 2, q. 148, a. 1.

¹²⁶⁶ Moral. l. 30, c. 13.

¹²⁶⁷ L.c. a. 4.

¹²⁶⁸ L.c. a. 6.

¹²⁶⁹ Ib.

¹²⁷⁰ Cf. St. Thomas, l.c. aa. 2 and 3; St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 5, n. 73.

¹²⁷¹ Cf. above, I, n. 426.

¹²⁷² Denzinger, n. 1158.

St. Thomas, II-II, q. 153 and 148.

505. Lust is the inordinate appetite of venereal things, which of itself is mortal, as will be said in the treatise on Temperance. Since the appetite of lust is most vehement, it follows that it most greatly impedes the use of the higher powers, that is, of the intellect and will, because it distracts power from them and moves toward objects opposed to reason.

From lust many vices arise. - For:

a) In the intellect it produces 1. blindness of mind in the consideration of the end and its goodness, or alienation from thinking of heavenly things; 2. precipitation in counsel and deliberation concerning the choice of means; 3. inconsideration in judgment concerning things to be done which are unbecoming to one's state or person; 4. inconstancy in commanding the execution of judgment, or in good proposals. Hence it especially overturns prudence.

b) In the will it produces, concerning the end: 5. love of self as to the delight of the flesh, which it inordinately seeks; 6. hatred of God, insofar as he prohibits the desired delight; concerning means: 7. affection for the present age, that is, too great a love of the present life on account of its pleasures; and 8. horror and despair of the future age, that is, of spiritual goods, because while someone is too much detained by carnal delights, he does not care to arrive at spiritual ones, but is wearied by them and despises them.¹

¹ Further there arise "certain inordinate exterior acts, and especially those pertaining to speech. In this there is something inordinate in four ways. In one way on account of the matter, and thus base speeches are placed: because from the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks ... the lustful, whose heart is full of base concupiscences, easily break forth into base words. Secondly, on the part of the cause: for since lust causes inconsideration and precipitation, the consequence is that it makes one break forth into words lightly and inconsiderately spoken, which are called scurrilous. Thirdly, as to the end: for since the lustful person seeks delight, he orders his words to delight; and thus he breaks forth into playful words. Fourthly, as to the meaning of the words, which lust perverts on account of the blindness of mind which it causes; and thus he breaks forth into foolish speeches, namely, when with his words he prefers the delights which he seeks to any other things whatever." II-II, q. 153, a. 5, ad 4.

506. Gluttony is the inordinate appetite of food and drink, which is only venial, unless, by reason of its effect, it brings grave harm to body or soul, for example, to health, or to the use of reason, or to virtue if it is the cause of grave sin (cf. treatise on Temperance).

From gluttony many vices arise. - Gluttony through the immoderate taking of food or drink produces a disturbance of the lower part and thus impedes reason, and consequently those things which ought to be directed by reason. Hence it produces 1. in the soul: a) as to reason, whose sharpness is dulled by immoderation of food and drink: dullness of mind or stupidity as to speculative things; - b) as to the appetite, which, with the helm of reason lulled to sleep, is inordinately affected: inept joy, or a wandering and uncomposed joy concerning those things which, according to the judgment of right reason, are not apt to cause any delight; - as to exterior acts: c) loquacity, by which man cannot restrain words; and d) scurrility, by which he cannot restrain or compose exterior gestures; - 2. in the body, however, it produces uncleanness, that is, the inordinate emission of any superfluities whatever (especially of seed): for although vomiting after superfluous eating is useful, nevertheless it is vicious that someone should subject himself to this necessity by immoderate food or drink.

S. Th. II-II, q. 148.

977. Gluttony (gourmandise; gulzigheid) is an inordinate appetite or use of food or drink, insofar as it gives delight.

1. It is an inordinate appetite, that is, exceeding the order of right reason. The mode of reason in taking food is that a man take what is useful for right life and health, namely what is necessary or fitting for good health and for a proper disposition of mind. Therefore to seek delight from food more than is fitting, or to adhere to it as to an end, is inordinate.¹

¹ Gula is said from the throat, through which food passes to the stomach. - Proposition 8 of Innocent XI is condemned: "To eat and drink even to satiety, for pleasure alone, is not a sin, provided it does not harm health; because natural appetite can licitly enjoy its own acts." Cf. Luke 21:34; see above, p. 885.

2. It concerns food or drink, namely drink which is not intoxicating. If the excess is about food or non-intoxicating drink, it is called gluttony in the strict sense, crapula, or commessation; but if it is about intoxicating drink, it is drunkenness.

3. It concerns these insofar as they give delight, and so it is directly opposed to abstinence.

978. Species of gluttony. - There are five modes according to which gluttony can be committed: too soon, sumptuously, too much, ardently, and too carefully. These are not distinct species in the strict sense, but diverse modes arising from diverse motives opposed to abstinence.

For the inordination can be on the part of the food itself, if one seeks food more delicate or more costly than is fitting, and then he eats sumptuously; or if he seeks food prepared too carefully and tastily, and then he eats too carefully; or if he seeks too much food, and then he eats too much. It can also be on the part of the taking of food, if one takes it before or outside the due time, and then he eats too soon; or if he takes it voraciously and too avidly, and then he eats ardently.

There can also be other modes, by reason of an added species of sin; for example, to eat human flesh from a beastly appetite. This, however, is not illicit if it is done as medicine or from another just cause in extreme hunger; yet it is never licit to kill a man for this purpose.

979. Crapula is of itself a venial sin from its kind, even if it proceeds to vomiting, because it is merely an excess in the appetite for a thing indifferent. This remains true even if someone provokes vomiting so that he may eat or drink again, unless there is grave scandal, or unless this is a sign that he delights in food as in a final end.

Accidentally, however, it can be mortal:

1. If delight in food is held as a final end, explicitly or implicitly; for example, if one is ready to sin mortally, by stealing or in another way, for the sake of delight in food.

2. If one causes grave harm to health.

3. If one renders himself unfit for a grave office.

4. If one becomes unable to pay debts, or dissipates the goods of the family.

5. If through crapula he violates fasting or abstinence.

6. If it is the cause of another grave sin or of grave scandal; for example, if clerics publicly frequent banquets.

980. Observations. - 1. Gluttony taken broadly, insofar as it also includes drunkenness, is a capital vice.

2. The sins of gluttony are not among the greatest. This is so not from the matter, for sins about divine things are graver; nor from the side of the sinner, because they are alleviated by the necessity of food and by the difficulty of discerning and moderating what is suitable. Yet from the side of the effect they can have great magnitude, insofar as they are the occasion and accidental cause of many sins.

V. Gluttony is a capital vice. - A capital vice is a sin from which others arise according to the account of final cause, insofar as it has a most appetible end, whence from the appetite for it man is excited in manifold ways to sin. But that end is very appetible in which there is some condition of happiness; but delight pertains to happiness. Whence gluttony, which is concerned with the principal delights, namely of touch, is a capital sin.

Food indeed is a means to an end, namely to the conservation of life; but because this end, which cannot be conserved without food, is most appetible, thence food itself also is most appetible. Moreover and chiefly, it is appetible on account of delight.⁴

⁴ St. Thomas, II-II, q. 148, a. 5; Quaestiones disputatae de Malo, 14, a. 5.

This is to be understood of gluttony taken in the broad sense, which also comprehends drunkenness.

VI. Gluttony has five daughters. - St. Gregory, Morals, book 31, c. 45 (or 17), enumerates five daughters of gluttony. For gluttony, through the immoderate taking of food or drink, produces a disturbance of the inferior part of man, and thus impedes reason and consequently those things which ought to be directed by reason.

Hence a) it produces in the soul: 1. as to reason, whose keenness is dulled from immoderation of food and drink: dullness of mind, that is, stupidity as to speculative things; 2. as to the appetite, which, the helm of reason being lulled to sleep, is inordinately affected: foolish joy, or wandering and uncomposed joy, by which man rejoices concerning those things which according to the judgment of right reason are not naturally apt to cause delight; as to external acts: 3. many words, by which man cannot restrain words; and 4. scurrility, that is, a certain jesting arising from defect of reason, which cannot restrain or compose external gestures; b) but in the body it produces 5. uncleanness, that is, the inordinate emission of any superfluities, especially of semen; for although vomiting is useful, for example, after superfluous eating, nevertheless it is vicious that someone subject himself to this necessity through immoderate food or drink.⁵

⁵ St. Thomas, II-II, q. 148, a. 6; Quaestiones disputatae de Malo, 14, a. 4.

Nor does it stand in the way that the aforesaid sins are not means for procuring the delight of gluttony, and thus are not desired for the sake of gluttony, nor that gluttony is not their final cause. Nevertheless they are means to gluttony in this sense, that man subjects himself to them and accepts them, provided that he may obtain the delight of gluttony. For the gluttonous man does not hesitate to incur foolish joy, many words, uncleannesses, etc., provided that he obtains the end of gluttony, that is, the delight of food and drink.

This also holds concerning certain sins which arise from lust or anger.

VII. Remedies against gluttony. - The principal remedies are customarily enumerated as the following:

1. to beware of the incitements of gluttony, such as seasonings or delicate foods, and not to mingle oneself with the gluttonous;

2. to grow accustomed to common foods, not to eat or drink outside the time of refection, sometimes to fast, or at least at table to subtract something from one's own will; to set for oneself the measure of foods;

3. to meditate upon the examples of Christ poor, fasting in the desert, thirsting on the cross; the vileness of those things which are desired; and the basenesses and miseries which greediness carries with it;

4. to pray to God before approaching the table.

5. There are various kinds of medical treatment to which we can scarcely have recourse without exposing ourselves to serious evil consequences. Such is the use of cocaine, morphine, and even in special cases of alcohol. The drugs in themselves are useful, but they often lead to evil results. Now in the use of all such drugs as are apt to be beneficial in one way and injurious in another, we must ever be guided by the rules formerly explained concerning evil indirectly willed, or rather permitted to result, while good results are directly willed or intended. If the Doctor is satisfied that a dose of morphine or an application of cocaine will do more good than harm, he can, of course, prescribe or apply it. Still in such matters he must remember that the good effect is but temporary, while its pernicious consequences, especially when habits are thus contracted, are likely to be permanent and cumulative. Besides, the good results affect the body only, the evil often affect body and soul. Many a wreck in health and morals has been caused by imprudent recourse to dangerous treatment, where a little more patience and wisdom would have been equally efficient in curing the bodily ailment, without any deleterious consequences. If once a patient becomes a slave to the morphine or cocaine habit, the only cure is to cut off all the supply of the drug either at once or, at any rate, by daily diminution. To leave him free control of the poison is to co-operate in his self-destruction.

(b) For the same reason, the physician should not prescribe such doses of morphine or other anæsthetics as will render the patient unconscious at a time when he ought to be preparing to meet his Judge. This would be not kindness but cruelty. A little suffering more in this life may save much suffering in the next. If a Catholic priest, on being called to a patient’s bedside, finds that the family’s physician has been so inconsiderate, he cannot help protesting against employing such a man in Catholic families.

St. Alphonsus, III, 366-375; ed. G., I, p. 622; H. Ap., VIII; authors cited at the beginning; Krose, Selbstmord, Erg.-Hefte, 90 and 91; Hauviller, du Suicide; Tanquerey, II, p. 123; Linz. Quart. Schr., 1909, p. 55; Willems, III, p. 251.

St. Thomas, 2.2, q. 150; St. Alphonsus, V, 75; ed. G., II, p. 759; H. Ap., VIII, n. 4; Antonelli, de Alcoolismo (Med. past., II, n. 113); Noldin, I, n. 340, who cites many authors; Willems, III, p. 257.

757. Definition. Drunkenness, insofar as it is a vice, can be defined: a vice causing inordinate drinking and from it a violent deprivation of the use of reason. - Insofar as it is an act, it is voluntary excess in drink even to violent deprivation of the use of reason.

Several things concur to constitute drunkenness: a) immoderate drinking; - b) relaxation of the nerves; - c) deprivation of the use of reason, and indeed a deprivation so bestial that the lower powers exercise completely entire dominion; - d) finally, absence of a sufficient cause that may render such deprivation of reason honorable, so that this immoderate drinking is truly done from pleasure. Therefore the malice of drunkenness consists in this, that a man without cause deprives himself of the faculty of using his reason, although he is awake, or awakened.

Therefore it makes no difference whether someone first drinks immoderately, but afterward commits himself to natural sleep: that man stains himself with drunkenness, because he deprives himself of the ready power of using his reason if he is roused from sleep. Yet it would be less grave if someone by a medicine impeded the effect of the drink.

Division. 1. Drunkenness is called perfect or full, if it totally takes away the use of reason.

The signs of this perfect drunkenness are: a) If someone cannot distinguish between the licit and the illicit. - b) If he does not remember things said or done in drunkenness. - c) If he does things entirely unusual, as if contrary to custom he speaks shameful things, disturbs the household, beats his wife, etc.

2. But it is called imperfect or half-full, if it does not totally take away the use of reason, but only clouds it.

Only imperfectly drunk is he judged to be who is still able to discern between good and evil, although the imagination is somewhat disturbed, or vomiting follows, the tongue stammers, the feet totter, the eyes see double things, or the house seems to turn around, etc. (V, 78, 7 and 8).

758. Principles. I. Perfect drunkenness is a sin mortal from its whole genus. This is established from the words of the Apostle (1 Cor., 6, 10): Neither drunkards ... shall possess the kingdom of God. And reason supports it: for drunkenness deforms the image of God, insofar as it casts man down into the condition of beasts, by taking away the moderation of the senses and fitting governance (H. Ap., VIII, 4). Cf. 2.2, q. 150, a. 2.

It was said: from its genus; for drunkenness is not mortal if it deprives one of reason for a short time.

Most authors say that a long time seems to be one hour; some judge that a half-hour can no longer be called a short time (Tanquerey, II, n. 542, note). Besides, in practice, scarcely is there given a deprivation of the use of reason prolonged for so short a time only.

II. Imperfect drunkenness is of itself a venial sin; for it is not gravely opposed to right reason.

Yet often it is mortal by accident, namely by reason: 1. of scandal that, for example, a priest would give, even if he were imperfectly drunk only once, or a father of a family, if often; 2. of a wicked intended end, as if someone were to drink in order to excite more vehement lust in himself; 3. of harm that he brings upon health or family; 4. of grave sadness that he creates for wife, children, parents, etc. Confer n. 759, q. 2.

Corollaries. 1. He who directly intends drunkenness sins: because he wills something evil.

2. He who induces, invites, or compels someone to drink copiously, even under pretext of courtesy, sins, except the case in which moderation is preserved in quantity, although the drink is more liberal (V, 77).

3. He who induces someone into drunkenness, so that the latter may be turned away from committing a greater sin, rather probably does not sin: because he urges toward a lesser evil (cf. n. 509, 2).

4. He who foresees that he truly will be drunk in these or those circumstances, and notwithstanding this does not avoid such company, commits sin. - Likewise, he who during drinking plainly adverts to the danger of drunkenness, and nevertheless still goes on drinking.

5. Sometimes it is licit to take a great quantity of intoxicating drink, even if drunkenness is foreseen as about to follow.

Here, however, a multiple distinction is needed:

a) If this is done to drive away a grave disease, for example typhus, cholera, it is licit. Reason: the immediate effect of the drink is acceleration of the blood, from which the intended end is obtained (V, 76, q. 1).

b) If it is done so as not to feel pains in a surgical operation, likewise it is licit; for such drink of itself has a soporific power, from which the proportionate intended effect arises. Besides, since there is no one who does not permit in the same circumstances the use of chloroform, ether, or opium, it is not seen why the aforesaid manner of acting should be prohibited of itself. See also what will be said n. 761.

c) If finally immoderate drinking is applied to expel ordinary sleeplessness, common sadness, or to soften ordinary pains, it is not licit: because what is intended does not have proportion with the evil that is permitted. Besides, other remedies are present. Yet it would be licit to drink even to hilarity, if sadness had to be driven away.

Note. Sometimes they use chloroform to mitigate pains in childbirth. This remedy is licitly applied if the pains are foreseen as truly intolerable, especially if chloroform is administered in an interrupted manner, and analgesia, as they say, does not become total (Capellmann-Bergmann, ed. 16, p. 58; Ami du Cl., 1910, p. 16 and 1088).

759. Questions. Q. 1. Whether it is licit for someone to make himself drunk in order to avoid death, which another threatens him with unless he becomes drunk?

Resp. A twofold opinion is given: The first (which is that of St. Alphonsus, V, 76, q. 2; l. El. qq. ref., 56) denies that this is licit. For liberation from death (i.e. an act of the will on the part of him who must desist from inflicting death) will intervene only after the fact of completed drunkenness on the part of the other. Therefore the prerequisites under the heading of the indirect voluntary do not fit. Besides, the use of reason of itself is not ordered to the life of the body, but to preserving the integrity of the soul. Thus also Cajetan, the Salmanticenses, and others.

The other opinion (which is that of Lessius, Bonacina, and recent authors) affirms. Reason: the use of reason is ordered to the good of the whole. Hence, for conservation of the whole, man can permit deprivation of the use of reason. Besides, copious drinking of wine, besides deprivation of reason, produces another effect (namely liberation from death to be inflicted) equally immediately. Hence the principles of the indirect voluntary do not stand in the way.

Q. 2. Whether and how evils committed in drunkenness are imputed?

Resp. They are imputed to the drunk man unto fault, according to the measure of advertence and voluntariness that is found in the cause, or in the act of making himself drunk. Hence a) If drunkenness is involuntary, the evils that follow from it will not be imputable unto fault. b) If it is semi-voluntary, they cannot be imputed unto grave fault. c) If it is voluntary, grave evils will be imputed unto grave fault, provided they were foreseen, whether distinctly, or at least confusedly. "Hence those evils are reputed foreseen which drunkards ordinarily are accustomed to commit, or which someone from other drunken bouts has known himself to commit before; and also all sins to which he knows himself prone. For since in drunkenness, with the use of reason lost, nature necessarily operates, it will easily break forth into the vices to which it is inclined. But, on the contrary, other evils that happen by chance are not reputed foreseen" (H. Ap., VIII, 8).

Note. Several authors say that evils of the mouth, such as insults, blasphemies, and perjuries, are not imputed; because those words, uttered by a man lacking the use of reason, are purely material, as if they were uttered by a parrot; nor consequently do they have formal malice. "I accede to this opinion," says St. Alphonsus (H. Ap., l.c.), "concerning insults against men: because truly, when those are uttered by a drunk man, they are not held as dishonoring, provided he does not reveal some infamous crime; but not concerning perjuries and blasphemies, because these, although materially uttered, are always injurious to God; and if they are not voluntary in act, they are voluntary in the cause."

760. Practical Rules. 1. Young men and fathers of families who are held by the vice of drunkenness are to be corrected and reproved with grave words. Let the confessor insist opportunely, let him insist inopportunely, that they become temperate and conquerors of themselves. Let him place before their eyes the inconveniences, sins, and innumerable crimes of which alcoholism exists as the perpetually flowing origin and source. - 2. Let him prudently and moderately promote all those things that have as their end propagating associations either of abstinence or of temperance. For complete abstinence has restored many men healthy to themselves and to their family. Cf. the little works that set forth the necessity or utility of abstinence.

761. Notions. From the poppy is extracted opium, which, among other principles, contains morphine. Opium, when it is smoked, and morphine, when it is injected beneath the skin, possess the following properties: a) if the quantity is very small, they soften pain, from the fact that they act upon the nerves; b) if the quantity is increased, they procure a state of narcosis, in which all things are affected with a certain sense of particular satisfaction and pleasure; c) if the quantity is great, death is induced. - Opium and morphine, insofar as they deprive one of the use of reason, bring grave harms to health if someone often uses them: namely, the powers are diminished, the body is broken, memory is weakened, sexual appetite is excited, indeed even perverted, harm is brought to the protoplasm (Forel, Quest. sex., c. VIII), the moral sense vanishes, the will is dulled, indeed life is shortened. Many, from an unbridled desire of pleasure, come to this point, that, laboring under an invincible mania, they are driven as if necessarily to the use of these things. Physicians, in treating the sick, use morphine much; some also, whether by their own action, or in order to satisfy sick persons asking it, by help of morphine procure euthanasia, that is, a placid and tranquil death. Cf. Antonelli, II, 129. Therefore let the following principles stand:

I. As regards those not sick. 1. They do not sin who use morphine or opium in a quantity so very small that it serves rather for the quieting of the nerves. Yet let them beware of frequent use. - 2. They sin venially who, with the quantity increased, without sufficient cause apply these remedies; but mortally, who bring grave harm upon themselves from these things, even if narcosis is not present: a fortiori, if without cause they should deprive themselves of the use of reason.

II. As regards the sick. It is licit for them to use morphine, in the same cases and under the same conditions under which it is not prohibited to deprive oneself of the use of reason for procuring goods of great moment for oneself.

III. As regards the dying. 1. It does not seem illicit, in the case in which they suffer great pains, to lull dying persons for a time. - 2. But it is gravely illicit, for those not prepared for a Christian death, even if great torments are present, to administer morphine in such a way that they die while lulled: the reason is evident. - 3. Likewise, even for those well disposed, it seems prohibited under grave sin to procure such relief. The reason is: on the one side, pains are of themselves felt less in agony; on the other, such deprivation of the use of reason is a certain shortening, imposed upon the sick person, of spiritual life, which life then is especially necessary, or at least salutary. Besides, very often we are ignorant whether the dying person is truly well prepared. Since these things are so, we judge that deprivation of spiritual life at such a moment is not compensated by the temporal good (tranquillity) procured for the dying person by help of morphine. Therefore it belongs to the priest to resist the attempts of physicians. Yet he can tolerate it as regards those dying persons who otherwise would be in danger of sinning gravely again. Cf. Lehmkuhl, I, 892; Noldin, I, 343; Ami du Cl., in various articles, 1900, 1902, 1905, 1908. Cf. also, for the contrary opinion, Wouters, Nederl. Kath. Stemmen, 1911, bl. 348; Collat. Brugenses, 1911, p. 412.

Note. As regards the cultivation and commerce of opium, several Decrees of the Holy Office exist. See A. S. S., 24, p. 506; Canon. Contemp., vol. 15, p. 424, and especially Ami du Cl., 1908, p. 689.

243. • Drunkenness is the immoderate use of drink up to the unnatural privation of reason. - Thus commonly.¹

Perfect drunkenness, namely reaching even to the privation of reason, is a grave sin of itself. This is established 1° from reason; for voluntarily to deprive oneself of the use of reason, by disturbing it in a violent and unnatural mode, at least without a grave cause, is without any doubt gravely repugnant to rational nature. For man thus casts himself down to the state of brutes and defiles the image of God in himself.²

This is established 2° from Sacred Scripture:³ Nor drunkards ... will possess the kingdom of God. - And Isaiah:⁴ Woe to you who rise in the morning to pursue drunkenness. ... Moreover the particle woe in Sacred Scripture denotes a most grave evil.

But more probably drunkenness is of itself only a venial sin if it is imperfect. I say: of itself; because very often by accident it is mortal, namely by reason either 1) of scandal, which for example a priest would give, even if he were imperfectly drunk only once, or a father of a family if often; or 2) of the depraved end intended, as if someone should drink to excite in himself more vehement lust; or 3) of damage to be brought upon health or family; or 4) of grave sadness caused to wife, children, or parents; or 5) of other sins of which drunkenness is the voluntary cause, as we shall say presently at n. 245, q. 5°.

244. Questions. - Quaer. 1° What are the signs of perfect drunkenness?

Resp. The following are adduced, namely: 1° not knowing how to distinguish good from evil; 2° not remembering words said or deeds done in drunkenness; 3° doing things altogether unusual, which namely would never otherwise be done with a sound mind, ... etc. - But certain signs are not: hesitation of the tongue, staggering of the feet, the sight of objects doubled, or of objects turning themselves in a circle.¹

Quaer. 2° Is it licit to make oneself drunk for expelling illness?

Resp. The affirmative opinion of St. Alphonsus² seems sufficiently probable, indeed more probable, in the case in which the drink is taken and is suitable for opposing the cause of the illness; for then privation of reason, as happening by accident and indirectly, can licitly be permitted, just as it is licit for a mother to take a drug directly tending to preserve her own life, although the expulsion of the fetus happens indirectly (n. 474, II). Hence it will be licit for you to take a notable amount of generous wine, for example of Champagne, to expel cholera once heat has been restored to the viscera, although you foresee that from it you are to be made drunk; or of the drink called "Whiskey," that the poison introduced by the bite of a serpent may be opposed. St. Thomas³ adds that a drink necessary for health cannot be called immoderate.

Omitting the question whether drunkenness is licit for undergoing a surgical operation, which today scarcely pertains to practice, since other easier means are available for that end, concerning these means:

Quaer. 3° Is the use of opium, ether, chloroform, and similar things licit for this end?

Resp. Affirmatively, since the primary power of these is soporific or sedative of the nerves, not intoxicating. Yet dangers must be avoided.

245. • Quaer. 4° Is it licit to induce someone to drunkenness, that he may be turned away from a greater evil?

Resp. St. Alphonsus:⁴ "The affirmative opinion seems sufficiently probable (not improbable, H. A. Tr. VIII, 7) to me and to other learned men consulted by me, whether the drunkenness be material or formal, because of the reason that it is licit to induce another to a lesser evil, that he may be prevented from a greater one."

Quaer. 5° Are all evils done in drunkenness imputable?

Resp. 1° Negatively, if they were not foreseen, not even in a confused way; because whatever things were not foreseen must be held wholly involuntary.

Resp. 2° Affirmatively, for the opposite reason, if they were foreseen, at least as to evils of deed, whether of commission or of omission.

I said: at least as to evils of deed; for as to evils of the mouth, or words, or even deeds merely contumelious, probably they are not imputable if they are uttered against men, since according to common estimation they are judged to inflict no contumely. Yet otherwise if they are uttered against God, as blasphemies, etc. ... because these things are intrinsically evil, and therefore tend to the contumely of the divine honor; but otherwise, as having been foreseen, they are voluntary in the cause itself. Thus St. Alphonsus, who in H. A. rejects the contrary opinion, while in the Work he does not dare to call it improbable.¹

246. Resolves. - 1° They sin gravely who, drinking by day and night, knowingly expose themselves to the danger of drunkenness. Likewise those who by command or counsel induce others to drunkenness; or who provoke to equal draughts when the danger of drunkenness has been foreseen.

2° They sin gravely who, knowing through experience that they are made drunk in these or those associations, nevertheless spend time in them. Likewise those who, while drinking, advert to the danger of drunkenness and nevertheless continue to drink.

3° They also sin gravely who drink so much that drunkenness must follow, although they commit themselves to sleep before they are deprived of senses and reason, because in sleep they do not have proximate power for the use of reason; besides, the thing is evil of itself.

4° Nor are they excused from grave sin who, under pretext of the custom of the fatherland, or of good affection, or of civility, press and as it were necessitate guests to drink even to the danger of drunkenness; otherwise, however, if only more liberal drink is offered and proposed more often, yet in moderate quantity.

5° They do not sin gravely of themselves who are so strong, and so accustomed to wine, that they are never made drunk, even if they drink more largely than others, unless they so exceed temperance that grave detriment of health can rightly be feared (those mighty at drinking).

1451. - The dangers of taverns are: 1) drunkenness, and the disorders which ordinarily accompany drunkenness (see n. 243); 2) play, and the sins which are accustomed to arise from play; 3) neglect of prayer, of the obligation of Mass, indeed even of the Paschal precept; 4) lust; 5) quarrels, beatings, indeed, especially among us, homicides.

1452. Questions. - Query 1° Can a tavern-goer render this occasion remote by abstaining from excesses, without entirely leaving the tavern?

Resp. "If the tavern-goer," says Berardi, "frequents the tavern without grave necessity, and if from a vice too inveterate he has contracted a great passion for drinking excessively, then in no way can he have hope of rendering this occasion remote without total separation. Indeed it is necessary besides to desert those companions who are accustomed to turn aside to the tavern, and sometimes, especially in the beginning of conversion, it will not be enough to wish to desert the companions, but it will also be necessary to place oneself in the impossibility of complying with their invitations: which can be done by handing over to the wife the money as soon as it has been earned; for thus, destitute of money, he is compelled to repel every temptation of turning aside to the tavern."

Query 2° Are there any causes which render this occasion of the tavern necessary?

Resp. Affirm., namely the necessity of one's own craft, e.g. because someone is a driver, broker, merchant, brewer, etc. (26) p. 421.

1466. - I. Certain occasions of drunkenness. The principal are: taverns and drinking-houses; - companions and friends given to this vice; - certain special days, whether of the week or of the year, as the day on which the weekly wage is accustomed to be paid to workers; the Fourth of July; the day designated annually by the Government for public giving of thanks; the first of the year; Carnival; Easter; Monday of Easter and Pentecost; the feast of St. Patrick; days fixed for political elections; - certain fairs; - festivities which come under the name of picnics, excursions, etc.; - the day on which Baptism is conferred on an infant; - banquets or nuptial feasts; - vigils beside the bodies of the dead (wakes); - funerals.

Capital sins are so called because they are as it were the heads or fountains of other sins. Hence they should be called vices rather than properly sins, if they are considered in general.

Seven are enumerated, namely: 1st. Pride; 2nd. Avarice; 3rd. Lust; 4th. Envy; 5th. Anger; 6th. Sloth; 7th. Gluttony. But how fittingly all sins are reduced to seven heads St. Thomas explains excellently, 1-2, q. 84, art. 4.

We shall say very few things here about the individual capital sins, but we shall carefully indicate the places of St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus to which recourse must be had for a fuller exposition of the doctrine.

Pride is the disordered love of one's own excellence, and is distinguished into perfect, or complete and consummated in its own genus, and imperfect. It is called perfect when a man so stands in himself and is pleased with himself that he is in the disposition of gravely transgressing the law rather than obeying the commands of superiors. But this, by that very fact, always includes mortal sin in itself. In other cases it is called imperfect, and then of itself it is accustomed to introduce only venial sin. From pride proceed ambition, vain glory, presumption, boasting, ostentation, and hypocrisy. - Cf. St. Thom. 2-2, q. 162; and QQ. DD. De Malo, qq. 8 and 9.

Avarice is the disordered appetite of temporal goods. It is opposed to justice or to liberality. If the former, it will easily issue into mortal sin, namely as often as it impels one to grave injustice toward the neighbor. - If the latter, of itself it will produce only venial sins. For the rest, excessive affection toward earthly things can impel, and indeed is accustomed to impel, into other even grave sins. From avarice also proceed hardness of heart toward the miserable, disquiet of soul, perfidy, deceit, etc. - Cf. St. Thom. 2-2, q. 118; and QQ. DD. De Malo, q. 13.

Lust is the disordered appetite of a venereal thing. Lust is a grave sin from its whole genus; but this is to be understood if venereal delectation is deliberate in itself and directly willed. But if it is only indirectly voluntary, it sometimes admits smallness of matter, as will be said more fully below where the sixth precept of the Decalogue is treated.

Blindness of mind, inconsideration, inconstancy, hatred of God, languor of faith, indeed even loss of faith, are effects of lust. - Cf. St. Thom. 2-2, qq. 153 and 154; and QQ. DD. De Malo, q. 15.

Envy is sadness concerning the good of another, insofar as it is judged as one's own evil, or at least as one's lesser good. To it is reduced joy concerning the evil of another, which is judged an increase of one's own good. Envy is directly against charity, and from its genus, although not from its whole genus, imports grave sin. From envy proceed detraction, calumny, whispering, contumely, etc. - Cf. St. Thom. 2-2, q. 36; and QQ. DD. De Malo, q. 10.

Anger is the kindling of the soul, and a disordered motion against someone or something; or it is a disordered appetite of vengeance. Irascibility is the habit of anger. Anger is mortal from its genus, if it is an appetite of vengeance; but venial, if it is only a disordered motion of the soul. - Anger generates indignation, rancor, shouting, insults, blasphemies, etc. - Cf. St. Thom. 2-2, q. 158; and QQ. DD. De Malo, q. 12. - St. Alphonsus, nn. 80 and seq.

Sloth in general sounds the same as laziness; but more strictly it is torpor of mind and weakness of will, from which distaste for spiritual things flows because of the labor and trouble attached to them. - If it is so great that grave obligations are omitted from it, it must be held grave; if otherwise, it is to be judged slight. Torpor, wandering of the mind, nausea in prayer, etc., are the fruits of sloth. Cf. St. Thom. 2-2, q. 35; and QQ. DD. De Malo, q. 11. - St. Alphonsus, n. 84.

Gluttony is the disordered appetite of food or drink, and from its genus it is nothing but venial sin. But it becomes grave if it gravely harms health, or if it renders someone unfit for duties. - From gluttony come drunkenness, about which more fully presently, dullness of mind, buffoonery, much speaking, and uncleanness of every kind. Cf. St. Thom. 2-2, q. 148 and 150; and QQ. DD. De Malo, q. 14. - St. Alphonsus, nn. 74 and seq.

Note. - It would perhaps be very fitting to consult St. Thomas concerning sobriety. Sobriety is especially concerned with drink having the power of making drunk. For sobriety preserves measure: "and therefore," says the Angelic Doctor, 2-2, q. 149, a. 1, "it especially assigns to itself that matter in which it is especially praiseworthy to preserve measure. But of this kind is drink capable of making drunk, because its measured use contributes much and a moderate excess harms much, because it impedes the use of reason more than excess of food." And ibid. ad 3: "although measure is required in all things, nevertheless sobriety is not properly said in all things, but in those things in which measure is especially necessary." Now then, "it pertains to moral virtue to preserve the good of reason against those things by which it can be impeded. And therefore," he says ibid. a. 2, "where a special impediment of reason is found, there it is necessary that there be a special virtue for removing it. But intoxicating drink has a special account of impeding the use of reason, insofar as namely it disturbs the brain by its fumes. And therefore ... a special virtue is required, which is sobriety." And although "food and drink commonly can impede the good of reason, by absorbing it through immoderation of delectation, ... drink capable of making drunk impedes according to a special account." Would that also the following words of the Angelic Doctor were noted by some: "in all drinks capable of making drunk there is one and the same account of impeding the use of reason. And thus that diversity of drinks is related accidentally to virtue." Ibid. ad 3. No food or drink, speaking according to itself, is illicit. Yet drink can be rendered illicit by accident, either "because by wine [a man] is easily harmed, or because by a special vow he is obliged not to drink wine," or "from the manner of drinking, because namely he exceeds measure in drinking," or "on the part of others who are scandalized by this." Ibid. art. 3. To the objection that the use of wine is totally illicit, because it impedes wisdom without which someone cannot be in the state of salvation, the Angelic Doctor responds: "Wisdom can be had in two ways. In one way according to the common mode, insofar as it suffices for salvation. And thus it is not required for having wisdom that someone altogether abstain from wine, but that he abstain from the immoderate use of wine. In another way according to a certain degree of perfection. And thus it is required in some persons, for perceiving wisdom perfectly, that they altogether abstain from wine, according to the conditions of certain persons and places." ad 1. But for women and young people, if we regard proneness to pursuing bodily pleasures, "for old men in whom reason ought to flourish for the instruction of others, and for Bishops or any ministers of the Church who with devout mind ought to insist upon spiritual offices, and for kings who by wisdom ought to govern the subject people, sobriety is specially enjoined." Ibid. a. 4. - Cf. the places to be cited at n. 148 from St. Thom. 1-2, q. 88, a. 5, ad 1; 2-2, q. 150, a. 2.

Drunkenness is a voluntary excess in drink unto disturbance of reason, whether this is done from or with pleasure, or without pleasure. But it is divided into perfect and imperfect. The first is had when the use of reason is altogether taken away, so that the drunk man is incapable of acting morally; but the other is that by which the mind is indeed disturbed, yet still has the power to discern between good and evil.

But many others, following St. Thomas, define the vice of drunkenness as: superfluous drink without necessity and from the pleasure of wine alone unto deprivation of the use of reason.

Perfect drunkenness is always a mortal sin, but imperfect drunkenness of itself is only venial. The reason for the first is gathered both from the consent of theologians and the estimation of God-fearing men, and because to deprive oneself of the use of reason in a violent and unnatural way, and indeed in such a way that it cannot immediately be recovered, gravely repugns rational nature; and finally because in the Scriptures, for example, I Cor. vi, 10, drunkards are excluded from the kingdom of God. But the reason for the second is both because there is no grave disordering as long as one can act morally, and because the consent of theologians so holds. - Cf. St. Thom. 2-2, q. 150, art. 2. - St. Alphonsus, n. 75. But St. Thomas speaks thus, 1-2, q. 88, a. 5, ad 1: "Concerning drunkenness it must be said that according to its own account it has this, that it is a mortal sin. For that a man without necessity renders himself unable to use reason, through which man is ordered to God and avoids many sins that occur, from the pleasure of wine alone, is expressly contrary to virtue. But that it is venial sin happens on account of a certain ignorance or infirmity, for instance when a man does not know the strength of wine or his own weakness, whence he does not think that he will be made drunk: for then drunkenness is not imputed to him as sin, but only overabundance of drink. But when he is frequently made drunk, he cannot be excused through this ignorance, without his will seeming to choose rather to suffer drunkenness than to abstain from superfluous wine, whence the sin returns to its own nature." Therefore the drunk man is guilty of a twofold disordering according to St. Thomas: by drinking wine from pleasure alone; and by drinking from excess unto the loss of the use of reason without any motive which would justify even the account of excessive drink. Cf. Baller., tr. 4, n. 381, seq. - Azor., l. 7, c. 33, q. 5. - Lessius, lib. 4, c. 3, d. 3, n. 13. - Dicastillo, lib. 1, disp. 3, d. 11, n. 104.

You Will Resolve. 1st. It is lawful to use any liquors whatever, as medicine for driving away diseases, for example, typhus, even if drunkenness is foreseen as going to follow, provided nevertheless that it is not directly intended, and the salvation of the soul is not placed in danger. It is required namely 1st. that drunkenness follow only indirectly, and 2nd. that no danger be present that the sick man die without reception of the sacraments. Cf. St. Thom. 2-2, q. 150, a. 2, ad 3. - St. Alphonsus, n. 76. St. Thomas speaks thus: "When someone drinks much according to the counsel of medicine ... the drink is not reputed superfluous." l. c.

2nd. The same seems able to be said of those of our country who take a great quantity of liquor in order to expel or restrain the poison which they have drawn from the bites of serpents; for drunkenness, if any follows in such a case, would be said to have followed only indirectly. In this case it is not taken from the pleasure of wine alone nor without necessity.

3rd. It can never be lawful to assume drunkenness as a means for obtaining some effect, however good, because evils are not to be done that goods may come. But if a great quantity of liquor were taken, not indeed for violent deprivation of the use of reason, but for relaxing and thus soothing the nerves, so that from this some surgical operation may be done more easily, it does not appear why this would be illicit, since it is said to be lawful to use opium or ether for performing similar operations.

4th. Those mothers or nurses are altogether to be condemned who, for quieting the tears of children, use alcoholic or opiated drinks, and thus from the first age introduce an evil custom into them.

5th. A fortiori doctors are to be condemned who recur to the same remedy in order to provoke the sick to gladness or to lessen pains of the body; for those acting thus, although perhaps they can be excused from the sin of drunkenness, because they procure it only indirectly, nevertheless certainly introduce an evil custom into the sick if they recover; or, if they die, expose them to the danger of eternal damnation.

6th. Certainly they sin gravely who by command, counsel, or provocation induce others to drunkenness, or induce them to drink with foresight of future drunkenness: something which here and there is done under the vain pretext of friendship or civility.

7th. Likewise he who drinks to excess in order to free himself from the death which another threatens against him does not drink from the pleasure of wine alone or without cause; hence it is not sin.

Question 1. What must be said concerning the promise not to drink (the pledge) as it is accustomed to be made among us?

Response. Although a promise of this kind is good in itself, and, as daily experience establishes, offers an excellent remedy for amending the life of many, nevertheless the practice of receiving it is not without difficulties. For if it is said openly, what theologically speaking is certainly true, namely that violation of that promise is no sin or only venial sin, it will scarcely not happen that the whole efficacy of the remedy vanishes. But from the other side, if nothing is said, many and grave sins will be perpetrated from an ill-formed conscience; since there are many who judge violations of that promise to be graver sins than perfect drunkenness. Therefore much prudence and discretion is needed in receiving promises of this kind. - Wherefore, if there are those who doubt concerning the quantity of that obligation and inquire about it, or if they are not so untaught that they can easily grasp an explanation, or are not drawn to liquors by an utterly mad and ruined love, it will be useful, indeed necessary, to explain to them what the nature of that promise is; for since this is not a vow, but only a purpose manifested to a priest, it cannot of itself oblige under grave sin. But in the other hypothesis perhaps it would be better to say nothing, and to bear oneself permissively concerning those grave sins which would follow; for the lessening of drunkenness will be a sufficient reason for permitting them. - Cf. Irish Ecclesiastical Record, May 1883, pp. 338 and seq.

Question 2. What must be said concerning those sodalities recently instituted for extirpating the vice of drunkenness?

Response. That they are very good and are preferred by many apostolic laborers to the other remedy which consists in the promise not to drink. The reason is that these more recent remedies, while from one side they foster piety more, which is the beginning of every true conversion, from the other side offer no occasion of new sins. The Fathers of the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore indeed alluded to these remedies in the following words: "Since monstrous scandals arise from excessive drinking, we exhort pastors, and beseech them by the bowels of Jesus Christ, that they put every zeal into eliminating the vice of drunkenness. To this end, we judge worthy of praise the zeal of those faithful who abstain from every ardent liquor in order to decline more safely the danger of excesses. But those who spontaneously enter a society among themselves, so that by mutual examples of virtues they may help and strengthen one another, ought first of all to employ those aids which Christ the Lord left in the Church, by which human vices are amended and infirmity is sustained; and by prayer, frequent reception of the sacraments, and other exercises of piety, to obtain heavenly aid for themselves, and to trust not in themselves, nor in their purposes, but in God, without whom human effort profits nothing." But the Fathers of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, speaking more explicitly, say: "The societies which come under the name of 'Catholic Union for promoting Total Abstinence' and 'Sacred Thirst,' we acknowledge as worthy of great praise; for they are governed by a truly Catholic spirit, and seek the necessary strength not so much in firmness of their own will as in the power of prayers and of the sacraments. Moreover it is known that the Head of the whole Church and Vicar of Christ on earth has more than once enriched them with his apostolic blessing and with the indulgences of the Church. Therefore we also exhibit to the same the signs of our benevolence, and that they may flourish the more, we commend them to the paternal care of all our priests, that they may not only add courage to them but also always show them the Catholic path." Cf. Conc. Plen. Balt. II, nn. 470 and seq.; and Conc. Plen. Balt. III, nn. 260 and seq.

Very recently special spiritual graces in favor of the faithful enrolled in societies of Temperance or Abstinence from intoxicating drink were conceded by the Supreme Pontiff Pius X on 21 May 1914 - namely: indulgences both plenary and partial, and also an altogether singular favor by virtue of which all Masses which are applied by any priest whatsoever for the soul of some deceased member can assist that soul as if they had been celebrated at a privileged altar. These graces were granted by the Supreme Pontiff wishing to show his more favorable will toward the aforesaid Societies and to find their Members more eager in advancing so salutary a purpose. - Acta Apost. Sed., v. VI, p. 309.

Question 3. Is it lawful to induce someone to drunkenness so that he may be turned away from a greater evil?

Response. Affirmatively, if drunkenness is only material to him; because a material evil can be permitted for a grave cause. Thus commonly against Collet, Concina, etc. But they more commonly deny it if drunkenness is formal; because evils are not to be done that goods may come: nevertheless St. Alphonsus, n. 77, admits the opposite opinion as probable with several others, "because it is lawful to induce another to a lesser evil so that he may be impeded from a greater." For when someone can be deterred from perpetrating a greater evil by no other means, to persuade the lesser evil has the account of good. See below n. 185. Q. 5th.

Note. - 1st. Habitual excessive drink produces enormous harms for the individual, the family, and society. It harms the health, fortune, and morals of individuals: domestic peace departs from the family, horrible crimes are committed, reason itself day by day becomes degenerate and more vicious.

Personal remedies: for all to avoid the occasions of this sin and those persons and assemblies by whom temperance is violated; to acquire strength by exercise of this virtue and of Christian mortification, and by consideration of motives both natural and supernatural by which men may become stronger against the vice of drunkenness, finally by petition of divine aid. - Dictionnaire de Theol. Cath., under the word Gourmandise.

2nd. The use of morphine, chloroform, and other medicines bringing exile of reason must be ruled by these general principles. The use of morphine, etc., for calming grave pains by soothing the senses is permitted in surgical operations, in more difficult births, and in general when there is a just cause. The use of morphine, etc., taken habitually induces an unquenchable thirst, to which follows unfitness for performing grave duties, and servitude under the medicine itself: such use is gravely prohibited; indeed doctors sin gravely who so frequently prescribe these things to the sick that there is proximate danger of inducing this habit or desire for morphine. The use of morphine which does not bring with it this danger but only a lessening of pains is not illicit of itself. The use of morphine, etc., inducing the loss of the exercise of reason for a long time without cause is certainly a grave sin.

The use of morphine, etc., employed with the dying without their consent so that they may remain in a state of semi-wakefulness is a grave sin and against natural right: such use in those circumstances, that is, with one dying, is gravely illicit when he is not prepared by the sacraments for dying, nor is it lawful for him to consent to it. If he is prepared and there is no danger of falling into grave sin, doctors are to be deterred from employing these means. But what if the pains are most bitter and extraordinary, for example, if someone is burned by slow fire in a conflagration, and cannot be removed from the flames themselves, because, say, he is held by the beams of the house? Is it lawful in this case, when there is no danger of falling into a state of sin, without the consent of the dying man so to soothe his senses that he will remain in fainting until death? It is not lawful: because he has a right to acquire enormous merits. What if he himself wishes it, or if there is danger of falling into grave sin? In those most difficult circumstances let the priest assist him with every help and exhortation so that he may suffer the pains bravely. If at last the sacred minister himself fears, let him be silent; indeed it does not seem altogether certainly prohibited so to soothe the senses, because in the case, morally speaking, he is a prepared sick man: to this indeed he is bound, but it is not clear that he is bound to acquire greater merits. It is his right: but whether a grave obligation rests upon him, this is not evident. Cf. Villada, Cas., v. 3, p. 309. Lehmkuhl speaks more severely, n. 892, ed. 11a.

3rd. Nor does artificial sleep seem illicit, by which, induced by medicinal injections, a woman giving birth does not fully perceive the pains of birth. During this state, so it is reported, she is not deprived of the use of the senses; afterward, however, she is said not to remember those things which then happened, and the sleep is called twilight. Moreover we affirm that if the woman in that state is duly protected, if the doctor is prudent, if care is applied so that nothing harmful happens either to the woman or to the fetus, the matter is done licitly. But another thing would have to be said if these conditions were not verified.

THIS vice is opposed to Abstinence, which is an integral part of Temperance. It is defined by D. Bonaventure p. 5. Cent. sect. 25. and in Opusc. declaratorio term. Theologiae: and in Diaeta, tit 1. cap. 8. Gluttony is an immoderate love of eating. To this vice also drinking belongs, insofar as it is a part of nourishment, and in this sense it is defined by the holy Doctor: Gluttony is an immoderate love of nourishment. Under another aspect, however, drinking, insofar as it exceeds unto insanity, pertains to drunkenness, as Tanner notes disp. 3. quaest. 3. dub. 3., and D. Bonaventure here.

The holy Doctor notes, second, four differences of Gluttony from D. Isidore lib. 2. sent. cap. 42.: What, How much, When, and How. What pertains to the thing itself: When, if one desires it before the lawful time: How much, is referred to immoderacy: How, if one desires it too eagerly.

According to D. Gregory lib. 30. moral. cap. 13. there are five differences, comprehended in this verse:

Praepropere, laute, nimis, ardenter, studiose.

PRAEPROPERE pertains to taking food before the proper time: Laute pertains to the substance of the food, when namely it is in itself precious and delicate: Nimis has regard to the quantity of food. Ardenter is considered on the side of the appetite. Studiose, on the side of cognition. Isidore comprehends these two last differences under the one that is the fourth manner.

The five daughters of Gluttony are, namely, Inept Joy, Buffoonery, Uncleanness, Much-Talking, and Dulness of mind, or of sense, in understanding.

INEPT joy is a will exciting lust in taste through exterior sports, and afterward excited by it.

BUFFOONERY is a will exciting the lust of taste through carnal words, and afterward moved in it.

UNCLEANNESS is a will desiring lust in taste continuously through excessive taking of food to itself.

MUCH-TALKING is a will, by a multiplication of words, intending to preserve lust in taste.

DULNESS of mind is a will of preserving the lust of one's own flesh, absorbed, despising to understand spiritual things. The same D. Thomas has art. 5. and 6.

According to Isidore in Deuter. cap. 16. there are two daughters of Gluttony: Comessation in food, and Drunkenness in drink. Comessatio is called Castrimargia, as the holy Doctor notes in Diaeta, tit. 1. cap. 8. It is called Castrimargia from Castro and Mergo, because it plunges all things into the castle of the belly. Drunkenness is called as it were extra-Bria; for Bria was anciently the name of a cup, which was the measure of drink: See the holy Doctor, and there you will read outstanding things.

According to Cassian lib. 5. de spiritu Castrimargiae, cap. 2. there are four species. The first is to eat before the proper time, or more often than is fitting, beyond necessity, in the manner of beasts. The second is, with excessive avidity and impetus, to call certain persons, like wolves and hungry dogs. The third, to fill oneself too much. The fourth, too delicately, as the holy Doctor relates de profectu Religiosi lib. 1. cap. 36., where he also sets forth the remedies of gluttony, which see in it; for I do not transcribe them, because they are long and outstanding, contained in that source, which consult.

The holy Doctor asserts lib. 3. Comp. Theol. cap. 27. that Gluttony of its genus is a venial sin, because the appetite of eating, by its nature, is not subject to the dominion of the will, but is in us by nature, which can be in five ways. First, if it is a mere appetite for food, and this is no fault; nor even is the delight following the food a sin, insofar as it is ordered against no defect of the contrary food; for these things are purely natural, in which there is neither merit nor demerit. Second, if to the appetite of necessity there is joined an appetite of delight and pleasure in food, and this is venial sin: Third, if there is there a transgression of a precept, as if one breaks without necessity the fast of the Church, or eats meats forbidden to him under a moral precept. Fourth, when the appetite of eating is with lust, or when it adheres with excessive and formal affection to the delight of food, and this is mortal. Fifth, if it leads into such a habit as makes the whole life of a man assigned to delights of this kind, and this is near to mortal. Almost the same S. Thomas Valencia has disp. 9. quaest. 3. puncto 1., Tannerus disp. 3. quaest. 3. dub. 3.

He hands down in the Confessional, moreover, how the penitent is to be interrogated in confession concerning this vice, according to the three degrees of gluttony. First, if he has stuffed himself, and frequently, and has preferred feasting to the love or delight of God, so that doing any good thing did not delight him. Second, when he is unwilling to fast, or fasts uncleanly, drinking wine before dinner. Third, if he eats so that he may be stronger for sinning. Let him ask also according to the species of gluttony adduced, whether he has sinned too often in them? whether he has used various foods? whether he has sought new ones? precious ones? whether he has eaten harmful things for pleasure, especially in infirmity?

On Gluttony the holy Doctor has outstanding things from the holy Fathers in the Pharetra, lib. 2. cap. 12.

D. Gregory lib. 31. cap. 17. From the belly of gluttony arise inept joy, buffoonery, uncleanness, much-talking, dulness of sense in understanding, and lib. 30. cap. 15: In five ways the vice of Gluttony tempts us. Sometimes need anticipates the times. Sometimes indeed it does not anticipate the time, but seeks finer foods. Sometimes it seeks that whatever is to be taken be prepared more carefully. Sometimes again it accords both with the quality of the foods and the time, but exceeds the measure of refreshment in the very quantity of the foods. And cap. 14: Sometimes indeed what it desires is cheap, and yet by that heat of immense desire it sins the worse. An example of the first is found in Jonathan: of the second in the Israelites: of the third in the sons of Eli: of the fourth in Ezechiel: of the fifth in Esau.

D. Isidore de sum. bono, lib. 2. cap. 43. sent. 8. Let him attend to the punishment of burning riches to whom is the abundance of feasts, whose such poverty there was in hell among the fires, as great as here had been the plenty of feasts.

He adds, moreover, many practical propositions from the Fathers.

D. Gregory in Past. part. 3. cap. 2. admon. 20. Gluttony attends upon those given to it, superfluity of speech, levity of work, and luxury: but the abstinent are often attended by impatience and sadness, and often also by the fault of pride.

D. Bernard in Apol. ad Guliel. Abb. before the middle: Among animals of large bodies nature has given none so small a mouth, in proportion to the size of the body, as to man, which was done for the commendation of temperance and for the detestation of Gluttony. Seneca says: Obeying the belly, we live in the place of animals, not of men. And serm. de convers. ad cler. cap. 12. The pleasure of the throat, which is esteemed so great today, scarcely has the length of two fingers; it does not last except as long as that passage through the gullet lasts, and for that passage Lady Gluttony wills that so many and such great things be prepared for her.

From what has been said I assert, first, that Gluttony is a sin, and indeed mortal, if either one places his end in it, or omits some precept. It is proved from the Fathers adduced. D. Gregory loco ultimo, etc.

The reason of the holy Doctor is, because Gluttony is an inordinate appetite against reason, and if the end is placed in it, it is a grave inordinateness, as happens in every matter, as Valencia admonishes loc. cit., and Tanner, and D. Thomas art. 2. with D. Bonaventure loco citato.

I assert, second, that Gluttony is not the greatest sin. So D. Thomas art. 3. according to D. Gregory lib. 33. moral. cap. 11., saying that carnal vices are of lesser fault; because necessity is admixed to it, as S. Gregory says 30. moral. cap. 28.

Per accidens, however, it is grave enough because of its evil effects, as Ezech. cap. 6. intimates.

I assert that the five species of Gluttony adduced are distinct, even though they seem to be distinguished only from the circumstances. The reason is, because they have different motives in the genus of Gluttony. But moral species are diversified from these. For in the one who seeks delicate foods, concupiscence is excited from the very species of the food. In the one, however, who anticipates the time, he is disordered from impatience of delay. And the same is evident in the others, as Tanner admonishes num. 40. from D. Thom. ad argumenta, and D. Bonaventure locis adductis.

The holy Doctor in speculo animae, cap. 3. admonishes that the anticipation of those who wish to eat at once upon rising from bed, in the manner of brute beasts from bad habit, even without appetite, is grave sin, and can scarcely happen but that it proceeds from a mortal root.

Likewise in frequency he says it can be mortal, whence comessatio is numbered among the works of the flesh excluding from the kingdom of God, cap. 5. ad Galatas.

I assert, fourth, that to feed on human flesh is mortal. For thus they are gravely prohibited Genes. 9. The reason is, because food is ordered to the sustenance of human life, and therefore it ought to be something inferior in body to that which ought to feed on it, as a means to an end. Therefore natural light dictates that nothing nobler than human flesh itself is rightly used for food, as Valencia argues. It is confirmed by Victoria, for the eating of flesh is against the observance due to humankind.

From which both deduce that not even in extreme necessity is it lawful to feed on human flesh, or on the dead, against Cajetan quaest. 148. art. 2. and Tostatus in 6. cap. lib. 4. Regum.

It is proved, because of itself it is intrinsically evil, no less than to have intercourse with brutes for the sake of preserving the species, as D. Thomas indicates art. 4. ad 3. And if it were not such, it would already be lawful in sieges, which is false; for if at any time it was done, it was judged horrible, as Josephus relates lib. 7. de Bello Iudaico, cap. 8., as is had in 4. Reg. 6.

Drunkenness is an excessive drinking of an intoxicating liquor, as I said in the preceding question.

I assert, first, that drunkenness is a sin mortal of its genus.

It is proved, first, by D. Bonaventure in speculo animae, cap. 3. from 5. ad Galat., who numbers drunkenness among the mortal works; and he adds: They who do such things shall not attain the kingdom of God.

Second, he proves it by the reason which D. Thomas also uses here, Tanner d. 3. quaest. 3. deg. num. 49., Valencia d. 9. quaest. 3. puncto 2. and others, and it is indicated by D. Isidore lib. 2. de summo bono, cap. 43. sent. 1. et 2., cited by D. Bonaventure lib. 2. Phar. cap. 12.: for he who, foreseeing the strength of the wine, makes himself drunk with it, voluntarily deprives himself of the use of reason, and consequently exposes himself to the perils of all sins. Hence Ambrose lib. 1. de Abraham, cap. 6. and it is related in 15. quaest. 1. cap. sane, where it is had: We learn drunkenness to be avoided, through which we cannot avoid crimes; for the things which we, being sober, guard against, being ignorant through drunkenness we commit.

The holy Doctor, however, observes ad cap. 2. Ioan. on these words: And when they had drunk, etc. In drunkenness there are three degrees. For the first drunkenness is unto a certain dimming of reason. The second is unto a heaviness and disturbance of the organs and heart. The third unto the subversion of reason. The first is venial, unless perhaps by reason of the person, or office, or time, as in the Levitical Priests it was during the time of their office, Levit. 10. Drunkenness in the second manner is dangerous; whence the Savior says, Lucae 21. Let not your hearts be weighed down with surfeiting and drunkenness. The third, however, is mortal, which he proves from 23. Prou. To whom is woe? whose father is woe? to whom strife? to whom the pit? etc. Do not these linger over wine, and study over cups to be drunk? and from 5. Isa. Woe to you who are mighty at drinking. Woe to you who rise early unto drunkenness.

It is certain, moreover, that when God intimates that there is woe on account of a grave crime, as the holy Fathers and Expositors commonly observe, especially S. Bonaventure in Evang. frequently.

The SAME is proved from D. Basil homil. 14., Ambrosiaster lib. de Elia, et ieiun. cap. 16., Jerome in cap. 5. ad Galat., Chrysostom homil. 57. ad populum Antioch. and homil. 18. in Matth., Augustine serm. 231. and 232. de temp., who all inveigh against drunkenness as a grave sin.

The holy Doctor also OBSERVES in speculo animae, cap. 3. that drunkenness can be without sin, if it was not foreseen invincibly. But if it was foreseen, and other sins follow, they are not excused. Hence also D. Augustine lib. 22. cont. Faustum, cap. 44. excuses Lot from drunkenness. But on this I treated in prima secunda, Tract. 1. disput. de voluntario.

They ask, however: Whether drunkenness for medicine is licit.

Titius, a Catholic, gets himself drunk not rarely; and since for that reason he rather frequently omits hearing Mass on Sunday, and indeed, while drunk, beats his wife, although, when his reason has been recovered, on hearing this he grieves greatly; and since his son, having seized the occasion of his father’s drunkenness, not only omits hearing the commanded Mass but spends the whole Sunday in revelries and games with dissolute companions, Titius, being about to confess, consequently doubts what and in what manner he is bound to confess. Hence it is asked:

1. What sort of sin is drunkenness, and in what does its malice consist?

2. Are the sins of children imputed to their parents?

3. What is to be said concerning the case?

1. What sort of a sin is drunkenness, and in what does its malice consist?

St. Paul enumerates¹ drunkenness among the sins which prevent those who commit them from entering the kingdom of God, and so it is a mortal sin. This should be understood of complete drunkenness, which deprives one of the use of reason, so that he does not know what he is doing and can not distinguish between right and wrong. Partial drunkenness is only a venial sin, unless by reason of scandal or harm done to health or fortune, or some similar extrinsic reason, it becomes a grievous sin.

1 Gal. v. 21.

The malice of drunkenness does not consist merely in voluntarily depriving oneself of reason, for we may do that for a good cause, as we do when we take chloroform. Its malice consists in depriving oneself of the faculty of reason without good cause by yielding to an inordinate appetite for intoxicating drink. Drunkenness not only deprives one of the use of reason but also of the capacity to recover it for a considerable time.

2. Are the sins of children imputable to their parents?

Yes, certainly. “Parents sin gravely if, insofar as it lies in them, they do not take care that their children be imbued with good morals . . . avoid the company of the wicked, observe the commandments of God and the Church, frequent the sacraments, and abstain from sins.”¹

1 Busembaum apud St. Alphonsus, lib. iii, n. 339.

3. Titius committed grave sin every time he got completely drunk so that he did not know what he was doing. We must suppose that he foresaw that he would not be able to hear Mass on the following Sunday when he got drunk, and so he is guilty of mortal sin on this account also. If he knew that he usually beat his wife when he got drunk, he committed sin also on this account, even though he was sorry afterward; his sorrow should have prevented him from getting drunk. If his son was of age to be corrected and compelled to go to Mass and avoid bad company, Titius was obliged to see to this, and he committed grave sin by neglecting his duty and by giving bad example to his son. The sin which he commits is against his obligation as a parent, and the sins of his son are imputable to him under this head; not that the father is guilty of the specific sins committed by his son on account of the father’s neglect. Titius, then, must confess these sins with the number of times that he has been guilty of them.

Titius had heard that voluntary drunkenness is not of itself and necessarily a sin, but only when someone gets himself drunk without necessity. Hence, when by misfortune he had broken his arm and was suffering the greatest pains from it, having no other remedy, he got himself drunk while the doctor who would treat the arm was being summoned. On another occasion, when for several nights he had taken scarcely any sleep, he got himself drunk and was sunk in a profound sleep for twelve hours. When he had also lost his dearest daughter by death and had fallen into great melancholy, he at length extinguished his grief by copious drinking to the point of drunkenness. Finally, when occasions of drunkenness were multiplying gradually and imperceptibly, moved by conscience he approached a confessor, who asks:

1. Is drunkenness intrinsically bad, and in what is its malice to be placed?

2. Is it lawful to make oneself or another drunk?

3. What is to be said concerning the case?

1. Is drunkenness intrinsically evil, and in what is its malice to be placed?

Yes; drunkenness is intrinsically evil, or, in other words, it is inordinate and wrong in itself; it is not wrong merely because it is prohibited. Its malice more probably does not consist in any single element, but in several. It consists in voluntarily depriving oneself of the use of reason for a considerable time by drinking intoxicating liquor to excess without good cause. The malice of drunkenness, then, does not consist merely in depriving oneself of the use of reason; we may do that both naturally in sleep and artificially by using an anesthetic for a good reason. Probably, at least, a man bitten by a poisonous snake may make himself drunk by way of antidote. But without sufficient cause to deprive oneself of man’s noblest attribute by worse than brutish excess in drinking intoxicating liquor is inordinate and wrong.

2. Is it lawful to make oneself or another drunk?

These are disputed questions among theologians. According to St. Alphonsus¹ a man may take intoxicating drink in order to expel bad humors from the body, even though he foresees that the drink will deprive him of the use of reason, but he may not take it to make himself drunk, for that is always intrinsically evil. However, other theologians, in keeping with what was said above, allow a man to make himself drunk for a sufficient reason. The only question will be about the sufficiency of the reason. As to the question whether it is lawful to make another person drunk, St. Alphonsus acknowledges that the opinion is probable according to which one may make another drunk even with his knowledge when it is the only means available to prevent him from committing a still greater sin on which he is determined.²

1 Book v, no. 76.

2 St. Alphonsus, book v, no. 77.

3. The case. Titius had heard of the theological doctrine that drunkenness is not always and necessarily sinful, but only when a man gets drunk without sufficient reason. He applied the doctrine first when he broke his leg and suffered great pain. Having no other remedy at hand, he made himself drunk till the doctor came and set the limb. Titius may be excused for this. On another occasion when he had got scarcely any sleep for several nights, he made himself drunk and slept for twelve hours. Some theologians would excuse Titius from sin in this case also; but it is preferable to say that he should consult a doctor, or take exercise in the fresh air, or adopt some other remedy, as taking drink in excess for sleeplessness would almost certainly lead to abuse, and therefore it must be forbidden.

In taking drink to drown his sorrow for the loss of a dearly loved daughter Titius committed sin. For such spiritual evils spiritual remedies should be used, or at least not such remedies as getting drunk; otherwise terrible abuses would creep in and have to be condoned. The confessor therefore will know what to say to Titius, whose wrong application of a right principle led to abuse in his own case.