Conferences on the Virtues
By Fr. Bruno Cocuzzi, ocd
Number 14
The bad habit that is
opposed to the Virtue (good habit) of Temperance is Gluttony. It is one of the seven CAPITAL SINS, and it
is defined as The inordinate appetite for and taking food and nourishing
drink for the sake of the sense of delight they offer. The very fact that food and drink is sought
as a means of providing pleasure rather than a means of sustaining life and
health is what makes it a disorder grave enough to merit it being numbered
among the chief, or capital, sins. It
is total disorder and contrary to right reason when enjoyment of the pleasure
to be derived is the exclusive reason for eating and drinking. Obviously, there can be an admixture of the
good and proper motive and the improper and sinful motive, and the “morality” of
individual instances of eating or drinking must take those motives into
consideration.
Often one starts out
eating and drinking for the purpose of maintaining life and health, but easily
falls into a minor form of gluttony by going back for another “helping” because
it “tastes so good.” (Mea culpa, mea
culpa, mea maxima culpa). On the other
hand, there can be occasions when one “overeats” for reasons other than to
derive pleasure from food. Persons
under “stress” may tend to overeat, especially when the stress is emotional or
psychological. Another example would be
for social reasons. In our culture we
tend to interact and experience ‘fellowship” best and most often around the
dinner table. The longer we linger
there for good and honest motives (as at a Banquet) the more likely we are to
overeat. And we always feel obliged to
offer visitors that drop in at odd hours some kind of “refreshment.” And what about “carbohydrate addiction”
which very likely creeps up on its poor “victim” unawares, probably the result
of the emotional and psychological stress we mentioned above?? Thus, we can say that all gluttony is
overeating, but not all overeating is gluttony. If there is a fault involved in “social overeating” as I have
described it, it would be that of a want due “austerity.”
My textbook speaks also
of certain “refinements” to the sin of gluttony, that is, certain factors that
“embellish” the exclusive motive of seeking pleasure. For example, overeating at the strangest hours of the day or night,
eating only “gourmet” foods or foods “exotically” seasoned. Still another would be the “manner” in which
one eats, to wit, voraciously, as if food were going out of style.
And finally, the sin of
gluttony can also be accompanied by serious sins of another kind, grave
violations of one or more of the Ten Commandments. E.g., when one is prepared to steal in order to gratify the vice
of gluttony, when overeating gravely harms one’s health, when it renders one incapable
of fulfilling one’s obligations to employer and family, when it causes
inability to pay one’s honest debts or causes one to dissipate the family’s
resources, when it causes one to violate all the “penitential days”
described by the Church, when it causes scandal, etc.
The Virtue of Sobriety…
The second of the Subjective
Parts of the Virtue of Temperance is Sobriety. The name is derived from the word “sober,” obviously, and when
that word is used in its most general sense, it indicates the opposite of
“light-headed,” or “flippant,” etc.
Thus, it is apropos to use it to designate that freedom from or absence
of that “light-headedness” which derives from the good use of intoxicating
liquors. It is, therefore, the good
habit of moderation in the desire and use of intoxicating beverages.
Sobriety is a special,
that is, a distinct, virtue, because it preserves “due measure” in an area
wherein the “due measure” is difficult to maintain. Also it is special because of its necessity in maintaining the “use
of reason,” which is what distinguishes the “human being” and confers
inestimable dignity upon him. It
differs, therefore, from Abstinence, which preserves moderation in the use of
food and nourishing drink in so far as their delightful taste easily lead to
excess and the harm resulting therefrom.
Sobriety preserves moderation in the use of certain beverages in so far
as their ability to induce a very pleasurable “high” easily leads to excess and
the far greater harm resulting (or which could result) from diminished use, or
even total loss, of reason. There is,
however, a fringe effect of that “pleasurable high” which one derives from the
state of “intoxication,” that that is that it can relieve “pain,” notably
emotional or psychological pain. Thus,
it (the state of intoxication) easily appears to many as something good and
desirable, and that the “good effects” derived justify running the risk of
potential harm resulting from diminished control of one’s faculties. The harm we are speaking of is not merely
“physical” harm. It is first and
foremost “moral” harm. Given the wounds
inflicted upon human nature by Original Sin, when a person is intoxicated, the
concupiscenses of the flesh powerfully assert themselves, and can easily
overcome the feeble restraint available from the clouded reason and the
severely weakened will. The likelihood
of falling into sin, therefore, is substantially increased.
For the reasons just
mentioned, it follows that there are individuals who are under a greater
obligation to cultivate the virtue of “sobriety” than others. Or rather, it is “more fitting” that they do
so. My textbook has this to say: Although sobriety befits everyone, since
everyone ought to avoid disturbance of mind, it is especially befitting certain
individuals for special reasons: (a) where there is a greater need to keep the
concupiscenses in check: (1) in adolescents, because of the ardor
of youth. (2) in women, because they
become more vulnerable and tend to suffer more bitter and enduring consequences
when resistance to concupiscence is removed, (b) where there is greater need
for self-control because of one’s status or office: (3) the elderly, because
of their duty to advise and be and example to others, (4) those who “govern”
others because wisdom is especially needed in guiding their subjects. This is especially true for those who are
spiritual guides of others.
As it was helpful to
speak of the sins opposed to fasting and abstinence, it is likewise helpful to
speak briefly about the “sin” opposed to sobriety, namely, drunken-ness. Although drunken-ness is a “state” of being,
and not a deed, the same word has been used to designate the “habit” of abuse
of alcohol, and is defined as voluntary excess in taking intoxicating drink
for the sake of some pleasurable effect.
Just as we said above
that not all overeating is gluttony, we can also say that not all voluntary
taking of intoxicating liquor to excess is the “vice” of alcohol abuse. The formal motive of seeking pleasure for
its own sake is what distinguishes those vices which Temperance and its
allied virtues are meant to overcome.
Thus, it is possible to have legitimate reasons for taking alcohol in
quantities sufficient to deprive one of the use of reason.
My textbook points out
that deprivation of the use of reason is not itself essentially evil, but
indifferent. It only becomes evil when
sought without a just and serious reason.
After all, we do deprive ourselves of the use of reason when we go to
sleep, and we wouldn’t dream (no pun intended) of saying that the necessary,
concomitant loss of consciousness if evil.
Sleep, also, is a gift of God for our physical and psychological
well-being. One clear illustration of
this truth is found in the practice of using certain anesthetics on patients
undergoing surgery that put them into a deep sleep.
But we are talking about
the loss or diminishment of the use of reason by reason of taking alcoholic
drink, and it is important to know that there are some good reasons to take
“some” alcohol, even though one runs the risk of not observing moderation. There is a certain “cheerfulness” that is
generated by moderate amounts of alcoholic beverages that is experienced
without a concomitant impairment of the use of reason, and this is admissible
as a means of overcoming sadness and melancholy. Drinking in moderation also has the good and desirable effect of
helping one to relax after a day of stressful work. It helps to stimulate genial conversation and fellowship at
social gatherings. Some find that it
gives them the courage to confront difficult situations. It can even, as St. Paul tells us, be good
for the stomach and for one’s general health.
In moderation alcohol is a sedative which helps one to fall asleep,
especially when worries or concerns agitate the mind. These would be lawful benefits sought after to counterbalance and
outweigh the risk of imbibing to excess.
Because both food and
intoxicating drink play such a major role in our western culture as a means of
facilitating social interaction and the celebration of festive events, it
never, or hardly ever, enters our minds that when we sit down to eat or take
and alcoholic drink with others that we are putting ourselves into the occasion
of sin, remote or near as the case may be.
Actually, we are talking only about ‘the matter” for sin, one of the
three requisites, all of which must be met before a sin can be imputed. [The other two are deliberation (knowledge
and reflection) and free consent of the will.]
Perhaps another reason would be that it is difficult for us to be
convinced that God really cares about and is really offended by my abuse
of food or alcohol. Perhaps, again, the
reason why He does care and is offended is that we, being
fashioned in His image and likeness, are “damaging” that image. So that, even when we are not aware of nor
reflect on (and therefore would be unable freely to consent to) some conduct
that, objectively speaking, is sinful matter, the damage to God’s image in us is
already done, and objectively speaking, He is offended. What I am leading up to is that formal
reason why a person takes or uses alcohol or any other substance that can
diminish or deprive one of the use of reason must be taken into consideration
before one can determine whether there is indeed “matter” for sin in that
conduct. To help us discern whether or
not such “matter” is present, I will again quote from my textbook:
On the use of Narcotics
(morphine, opium, cocaine, chloroform, ether, etc.) whether to alleviate pain
or to deaden sense: since loss of the
use of reason may result and great harm may be done to one’s health, it is
helpful to keep in mind:
1) Use that is transitory (temporary) and in
such small amounts that the only effect produced is the restoration of one’s
strength and the quieting of one’s nerves, is altogether licit.
2) Use in greater amount or frequency than the
above, if used solely for the pleasure it brings, or to satisfy one’s craving
for it caused by repeated use would be:
gravely illicit if notable harm would be done to life and
health; somewhat (leviter) illicit if the damage is slight, or the
shortening of one’s life thereby is certainly not notable.
3) Use in that quantity that the senses are deadened
and a temporary loss of reason results without a sufficient reason is
gravely sinful, as in the case of drunken-ness: for a proportionately grave reason of necessity or usefulness,
however, it is licit, such as to block extremely intense pain or in major
surgical procedure, so that the patient would be able to endure it.
4) Use in time of impending death so that the
dying person may be deprived of reason and die without the feeling of pain is
gravely illicit, not only if the moribund is not prepared to die, and so
it would be deprived of the opportunity to repent and to escape the danger of
incurring eternal punishment, but also when the dying person is properly
prepared for death, because he/she would be deprived of the opportunity to
merit and to perfect one’s readiness to die and so notably increase [the degree
of] his/her heavenly glory. [In both of
these instances] a sufficient reason to permit such use does not exist. When there is danger that the dying person
would not return to consciousness, [such use] would also be the equivalent of
shortening his/her life.
For the sake of our
general knowledge and for the purpose therefore of being able properly to
instruct others (counseling the doubtful and instructing the ignorant are two
of the Spiritual Works of Mercy), a few more comments need to be made
concerning the imputability of “sins” committed while in a state of
intoxication.
When in a state of total
intoxication, only those sins would be imputed (to the same extent as if
committed in full possession of one’s faculties) that are clearly foreseen and
consented to before one begins voluntarily to induce the total
intoxication. If the intoxication is
involuntary, or if one is aware in a general way of his/her greater likelihood
to fall into sin when totally intoxicated, the sins would be lacking the
requisites to make them gravely sinful.
When the state of
intoxication is partial or incomplete and no possibility or likelihood of
falling into sin in that state was foreseen, any wrongdoing in that state would
automatically be less than gravely sinful because the faculties of deliberation
and consent would be seriously impaired.
Till next time, when I
begin to treat of the Virtues of Chastity & Modesty, in union with prayers.
* * * * * * * * * * *
MISSION
STATEMENT: This web site was created for the purpose of completing the work of
Fr. Bruno Cocuzzi, O.C.D. These conferences may be reproduced for private use
only. Publication of this material is forbidden without permission of the
Father Provincial for the Discalced Carmelites, Holy Hill, 1525 Carmel Rd.,
Hubertus, WI 53033-9770.