Chapter 127 — That no food is in itself sinful for one to take

Even as sex may be made use of without sin, so also may food, if the order of reason be observed. And a thing is done according to the order of reason when it is directed in a befitting manner to its due end. Now, the end due to the consumption of food is the preservation of the body by nourishment. Therefore, one may partake of any food that is adapted to this purpose. Therefore, no food is in itself sinful for one to take.

Again. It is not in itself sinful to use a thing that is not evil in itself. Now, no food is evil by nature, because everything is good in its nature, as we have proved above. (Ch. 7.) A certain food may, however, be bad for a certain person, as being harmful to the well-being of his body. Therefore, no food, considered as a thing of such and such a nature, is sinful for one to take: but it may be sinful if one use it unreasonably, so as to injure one’s health.

Moreover. To put a thing to the use for which it is intended is not, in itself, a sin. Now, plants are intended for animals; of animals, some are intended for others; and all things are intended for man, as we have already proved. (Ch. 22.) Therefore, it is not sinful in itself to make use of either plants or of the flesh of animals, whether for food or for any other purpose useful to man.

Besides. The defect of sin spreads from the soul to the body, and not vice versa, because sin is a disorder of the will. Now food concerns the body immediately, and not the soul. Therefore, the consumption of food cannot be sinful in itself, except insofar as it is contrary to rectitude of the will. This happens in one way through incompatibility with the end for which food is taken: for instance, when a man partakes of a food injurious to his health for the sake of the pleasure afforded thereby, whether on account of the kind of food or by reason of the quantity consumed. In another way, this may happen through the food being inconsistent with the condition either of the consumer or of those among whom he lives: for instance, if a man be so fastidious about his food as to go beyond his means, or singularize himself by not conforming to the manner of food customary to those around him. In a third way, this may happen if certain foods are forbidden by law for some special reason: thus, in the old law, certain foods were prohibited on account of their signification, and in Egypt it was forbidden of old to eat beef, lest agriculture should be hindered. Or again because certain regulations forbid the use of certain foods for the taming of the flesh.

Hence our Lord said: Not what goes into the mouth defiles a man (Matt 15:11). Again it is said: Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience (1 Cor 10:25). And again: Everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving (1 Tim 4:4).

Hereby we refute the error of those who say the use of certain foods is illicit in itself, of whom St. Paul says: In later times some will depart from the faith . . . who forbid marriage and enjoin abstinence from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving (1 Tim 4:1–3).

Since, then, the use of food and sex is not unlawful in itself, and can be unlawful only as leaving the order of reason, and since external possessions are necessary for the consumption of food, the rearing of children, support of the family, and other bodily needs, it follows that neither is the possession of wealth unlawful in itself, if the order of reason be observed. In such a way, namely, that man possess justly what he has; that he does not place the end of his will in it; and that he use it aright, for his own and others’ good. Hence the Apostle condemns not the rich, but lays down for them a definite rule for the use of riches, when he says: For the rich in this world, charge them not to be haughty, nor to set their hopes on uncertain riches . . . to do good, to be rich in good deeds, liberal and generous (1 Tim 6:17–18). Again, it is said: Blessed is the rich man who is found blameless, and who does not go after gold, nor hopes in money and treasures (Sir 31:8).

Hereby we also refute the error of those who, as Augustine states, most arrogantly styled themselves ‘apostolics,’ because they admitted to their community neither married men, nor possessors of property, such as are in the Catholic Church, as well as monks, and clerks in great number. The reason why these are heretics is because they sever themselves from the Church, and consider that those are without hope who use these things which they themselves lack. (Augustine, On Heresies, ch. 40.)