Articulus 3 Article 3 Utrum usus vini totaliter sit illicitus Whether the use of wine is altogether unlawful? Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod usus vini totaliter sit illicitus. Sine sapientia enim non potest aliquis esse in statu salutis, dicitur enim Sap. VII, neminem diligit Deus nisi qui cum sapientia inhabitat; et infra, IX, per sapientiam sanati sunt quicumque placuerunt tibi a principio. Sed usus vini impedit sapientiam, dicitur enim Eccle. II, cogitavi abstrahere a vino carnem meam, ut transferrem animam meam ad sapientiam. Ergo potus vini est universaliter illicitus. Objection 1: It would seem that the use of wine is altogether unlawful. For without wisdom, a man cannot be in the state of salvation: since it is written (Wis 7:28): God loveth none but him that dwelleth with wisdom, and further on (Wis 9:19): By wisdom they were healed, whosoever have pleased Thee, O Lord, from the beginning. Now the use of wine is a hindrance to wisdom, for it is written (Eccl 2:3): I thought in my heart to withdraw my flesh from wine, that I might turn my mind to wisdom. Therefore wine-drinking is altogether unlawful. Praeterea, apostolus dicit, Rom. XIV, bonum est non manducare carnem et non bibere vinum, neque in quo frater tuus offenditur aut scandalizatur aut infirmatur. Sed cessare a bono virtutis est vitiosum, et similiter fratribus scandalum ponere. Ergo uti vino est illicitum. Obj. 2: Further, the Apostle says (Rom 14:21): It is good not to eat flesh, and not to drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother is offended or scandalized, or made weak. Now it is sinful to forsake the good of virtue, as likewise to scandalize one’s brethren. Therefore it is unlawful to make use of wine. Praeterea, Hieronymus dicit quod vinum cum carnibus post diluvium est dedicatum, Christus autem venit in fine saeculorum, et extremitatem retraxit ad principium. Ergo, tempore Christianae legis, videtur esse illicitum vino uti. Obj. 3: Further, Jerome says that after the deluge wine and flesh were sanctioned: but Christ came in the last of the ages and brought back the end into line with the beginning. Therefore it seems unlawful to use wine under the Christian law. Sed contra est quod apostolus dicit, I ad Tim. V, noli adhuc aquam bibere, sed modico vino utere, propter stomachum tuum et frequentes infirmitates. Et Eccli. XXXI dicitur, exultatio animae et cordis vinum moderate potatum. On the contrary, The Apostle says (1 Tim 5:23): Do not still drink water, but use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake, and thy frequent infirmities; and it is written (Sir 31:36): Wine drunken with moderation is the joy of the soul and the heart. Respondeo dicendum quod nullus cibus vel potus, secundum se consideratus, est illicitus, secundum sententiam domini dicentis, Matth. XV, nihil quod intrat in os, coinquinat hominem. Et ideo bibere vinum, secundum se loquendo, non est illicitum. Potest tamen illicitum reddi per accidens. Quandoque quidem ex conditione bibentis, qui a vino de facili laeditur, vel qui ex speciali voto obligatur ad vinum non bibendum. Quandoque autem ex modo bibendi, quia scilicet mensuram in bibendo excedit. Quandoque autem ex parte aliorum, qui ex hoc scandalizarentur. I answer that, No meat or drink, considered in itself, is unlawful, according to Matt. 15:11, Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man. Wherefore it is not unlawful to drink wine as such. Yet it may become unlawful accidentally. This is sometimes owing to a circumstance on the part of the drinker, either because he is easily the worse for taking wine, or because he is bound by a vow not to drink wine: sometimes it results from the mode of drinking, because to wit he exceeds the measure in drinking: and sometimes it is on account of others who would be scandalized thereby. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod sapientia potest haberi dupliciter. Uno modo, secundum modum communem, prout sufficit ad salutem. Et sic non requiritur ad sapientiam habendam quod aliquis a vino omnino abstineat, sed quod abstineat ab immoderato usu vini. Alio modo, secundum quendam perfectionis gradum. Et sic requiritur in aliquibus, ad perfecte sapientiam percipiendam, quod omnino a vino abstineant, secundum conditiones quarundam personarum et locorum. Reply Obj. 1: A man may have wisdom in two ways. First, in a general way, according as it is sufficient for salvation: and in this way it is required, in order to have wisdom, not that a man abstain altogether from wine, but that he abstain from its immoderate use. Second, a man may have wisdom in some degree of perfection: and in this way, in order to receive wisdom perfectly, it is requisite for certain persons that they abstain altogether from wine, and this depends on circumstances of certain persons and places. Ad secundum dicendum quod apostolus non simpliciter dicit bonum esse abstinere a vino, sed in casu in quo ex hoc aliqui scandalizantur. Reply Obj. 2: The Apostle does not declare simply that it is good to abstain from wine, but that it is good in the case where this would give scandal to certain people. Ad tertium dicendum quod Christus retrahit nos a quibusdam sicut omnino illicitis, a quibusdam vero sicut ab impedimentis perfectionis. Et hoc modo retrahit aliquos a vino studio perfectionis, sicut et a divitiis et aliis huiusmodi. Reply Obj. 3: Christ withdraws us from some things as being altogether unlawful, and from others as being obstacles to perfection. It is in the latter way that he withdraws some from the use of wine, that they may aim at perfection, even as from riches and the like. Articulus 4 Article 4 Utrum sobrietas magis requiratur in maioribus personis Whether sobriety is more requisite in persons of greater standing? Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod sobrietas magis requiratur in maioribus personis. Senectus enim excellentiam quandam homini praestat, unde et senibus reverentia et honor debetur, secundum illud Levit. XIX, coram cano capite consurge, et honora personam senis. Sed apostolus specialiter senes dicit esse ad sobrietatem exhortandos, secundum illud Tit. II, senes, ut sobrii sint. Ergo sobrietas maxime requiritur in excellentioribus personis. Objection 1: It would seem that sobriety is more requisite in persons of greater standing. For old age gives a man a certain standing; wherefore honor and reverence are due to the old, according to Lev. 19:32, Rise up before the hoary head, and honor the person of the aged man. Now the Apostle declares that old men especially should be exhorted to sobriety, according to Titus 2:2, That the aged man be sober. Therefore sobriety is most requisite in persons of standing. Praeterea, episcopus in Ecclesia excellentissimum gradum habet. Cui per apostolum indicitur sobrietas, secundum illud I ad Tim. III, oportet episcopum irreprehensibilem esse, unius uxoris virum, sobrium, prudentem, et cetera. Ergo sobrietas maxime requiritur in personis excellentibus. Obj. 2: Further, a bishop has the highest degree in the Church: and the Apostle commands him to be sober, according to 1 Tim. 3:2, It behooveth . . . a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, etc. Therefore sobriety is chiefly required in persons of high standing. Praeterea, sobrietas importat abstinentiam a vino. Sed vinum interdicitur regibus, qui tenent summum locum in rebus humanis, conceditur autem his qui sunt in statu deiectionis, secundum illud Prov. XXXI, noli regibus dare vinum; et postea subdit, date siceram moerentibus, et vinum his qui amaro animo sunt. Ergo sobrietas magis requiritur in excellentioribus personis. Obj. 3: Further, sobriety denotes abstinence from wine. Now wine is forbidden to kings, who hold the highest place in human affairs: while it is allowed to those who are in a state of affliction, according to Prov. 31:4, Give not wine to kings, and further on (Prov 31:6), Give strong drink to them that are sad, and wine to them that are grieved in mind. Therefore sobriety is more requisite in persons of standing. Sed contra est quod apostolus, I ad Tim. III, dicit, mulieres similiter pudicas, sobrias, et cetera. Et Tit. II dicitur, iuvenes similiter hortare ut sobrii sint. On the contrary, The Apostle says (1 Tim 3:11): The women in like manner, chaste . . . sober, etc., and (Titus 2:6) Young men in like manner exhort that they be sober. Respondeo dicendum quod virtus habet habitudinem ad duo, uno quidem modo, ad contraria vitia quae excludit, et concupiscentias quas refrenat; alio modo, ad finem in quem perducit. Sic igitur aliqua virtus magis requiritur in aliquibus duplici ratione. Uno modo, quia in eis est maior pronitas ad concupiscentias quas oportet per virtutem refrenari, et ad vitia quae per virtutem tolluntur. Et secundum hoc, sobrietas maxime requiritur in iuvenibus et mulieribus, quia in iuvenibus viget concupiscentia delectabilis, propter fervorem aetatis; in mulieribus autem non est sufficiens robur mentis ad hoc quod concupiscentiis resistant unde, secundum Maximum Valerium, mulieres apud Romanos antiquitus non bibebant vinum. Alio vero modo sobrietas magis requiritur in aliquibus utpote magis necessaria ad propriam operationem ipsorum. Vinum autem immoderate sumptum praecipue impedit usum rationis. Et ideo senibus, in quibus ratio debet vigere ad aliorum eruditionem; et episcopis, seu quibuslibet Ecclesiae ministris, qui mente devota debent spiritualibus officiis insistere; et regibus, qui per sapientiam debent populum subditum gubernare, specialiter sobrietas indicitur. I answer that, Virtue includes relationship to two things, to the contrary vices which it removes, and to the end to which it leads. Accordingly a particular virtue is more requisite in certain persons for two reasons. First, because they are more prone to the concupiscences which need to be restrained by virtue, and to the vices which are removed by virtue. In this respect, sobriety is most requisite in the young and in women, because concupiscence of pleasure thrives in the young on account of the heat of youth, while in women there is not sufficient strength of mind to resist concupiscence. Hence, according to Valerius Maximus among the ancient Romans women drank no wine. Second, sobriety is more requisite in certain persons, as being more necessary for the operations proper to them. Now immoderate use of wine is a notable obstacle to the use of reason: wherefore sobriety is specially prescribed to the old, in whom reason should be vigorous in instructing others: to bishops and all ministers of the Church, who should fulfill their spiritual duties with a devout mind; and to kings, who should rule their subjects with wisdom. Et per hoc patet responsio ad obiecta. This suffices for the Replies to the Objections. Quaestio 150 Question 150 De ebrietate Drunkenness Deinde considerandum est de ebrietate. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor. We must now consider drunkenness. Under this head there are four points of inquiry: Primo, utrum ebrietas sit peccatum. (1) Whether drunkenness is a sin? Secundo, utrum sit peccatum mortale. (2) Whether it is a mortal sin? Tertio, utrum sit gravissimum peccatorum. (3) Whether it is the most grievous sin? Quarto, utrum excuset a peccato. (4) Whether it excuses from sin? Articulus 1 Article 1 Utrum ebrietas sit peccatum Whether drunkenness is a sin? Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod ebrietas non sit peccatum. Objection 1: It would seem that drunkenness is not a sin. Omne enim peccatum habet aliud peccatum sibi oppositum, sicut timiditati audacia, et pusillanimitati praesumptio opponitur. Sed ebrietati nullum peccatum opponitur. Ergo ebrietas non est peccatum. For every sin has a corresponding contrary sin, thus timidity is opposed to daring, and presumption to pusillanimity. But no sin is opposed to drunkenness. Therefore drunkenness is not a sin. Praeterea, omne peccatum est voluntarium. Sed nullus vult esse ebrius, quia nullus vult privari usu rationis. Ergo ebrietas non est peccatum. Obj. 2: Further, every sin is voluntary. But no man wishes to be drunk, since no man wishes to be deprived of the use of reason. Therefore drunkenness is not a sin. Praeterea, quicumque est alteri causa peccandi, peccat. Si ergo ebrietas esset peccatum, sequeretur quod illi qui alios invitant ad potum quo inebriantur, peccarent. Quod videtur esse valde durum. Obj. 3: Further, whoever causes another to sin, sins himself. Therefore, if drunkenness were a sin, it would follow that it is a sin to ask a man to drink that which makes him drunk, which would seem very hard. Praeterea, omnibus peccatis correctio debetur. Sed ebriis non adhibetur correctio, dicit enim Gregorius quod cum venia suo ingenio sunt relinquendi, ne deteriores fiant si a tali consuetudine evellantur. Ergo ebrietas non est peccatum. Obj. 4: Further, every sin calls for correction. But correction is not applied to drunkards: for Gregory says that we must forbear with their ways, lest they become worse if they be compelled to give up the habit. Therefore drunkenness is not a sin. Sed contra est quod apostolus dicit, Rom. XIII, non in comessationibus et ebrietatibus. On the contrary, The Apostle says (Rom 13:13): Not in rioting and drunkenness. Respondeo dicendum quod ebrietas dupliciter accipi potest. Uno modo, prout significat ipsum defectum hominis qui accidit ex multo vino potato, ex quo fit ut non sit compos rationis. Et secundum hoc, ebrietas non nominat culpam, sed defectum poenalem consequentem ex culpa. Alio modo ebrietas potest nominare actum quo quis in hunc defectum incidit. Qui potest causare ebrietatem dupliciter. Uno modo, ex nimia vini fortitudine, praeter opinionem bibentis. Et sic etiam ebrietas potest accidere sine peccato, praecipue si non ex negligentia hominis contingat, et sic creditur Noe inebriatus fuisse, ut legitur Gen. IX. Alio modo, ex inordinata concupiscentia et usu vini. Et sic ebrietas ponitur esse peccatum. Et continetur sub gula sicut species sub genere, dividitur enim gula in comessationem et ebrietatem, quae prohibet apostolus in auctoritate inducta. I answer that, Drunkenness may be understood in two ways. First, it may signify the defect itself of a man resulting from his drinking much wine, the consequence being that he loses the use of reason. In this sense drunkenness denotes not a sin, but a penal defect resulting from a fault. Second, drunkenness may denote the act by which a man incurs this defect. This act may cause drunkenness in two ways. In one way, through the wine being too strong, without the drinker being cognizant of this: and in this way too, drunkenness may occur without sin, especially if it is not through his negligence, and thus we believe that Noah was made drunk as related in Gen. 9. In another way drunkenness may result from inordinate concupiscence and use of wine: in this way it is accounted a sin, and is comprised under gluttony as a species under its genus. For gluttony is divided into surfeiting and drunkenness, which are forbidden by the Apostle (Rom 13:13). Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut philosophus dicit, in III Ethic., insensibilitas, quae opponitur temperantiae, non multum contingit. Et ideo tam ipsa quam omnes eius species, quae opponuntur diversis speciebus intemperantiae, nomine carent. Unde et vitium quod opponitur ebrietati innominatum est. Et tamen si quis scienter in tantum a vino abstineret ut naturam multum gravaret, a culpa immunis non esset. Reply Obj. 1: As the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 11), insensibility which is opposed to temperance is not very common, so that like its species which are opposed to the species of intemperance it has no name. Hence the vice opposed to drunkenness is unnamed; and yet if a man were knowingly to abstain from wine to the extent of molesting nature grievously, he would not be free from sin. Ad secundum dicendum quod obiectio illa procedit de defectu consequente, qui est involuntarius. Sed immoderatus usus vini est voluntarius, in quo consistit ratio peccati. Reply Obj. 2: This objection regards the resulting defect which is involuntary: whereas immoderate use of wine is voluntary, and it is in this that the sin consists.