|
Objection 1: It seems that prodigality is not a sin. For the
Apostle says (1 Tim. 6:10): "Covetousness is the root of
all evils." But it is not the root of prodigality, since this is
opposed to it. Therefore prodigality is not a sin.
Objection 2: Further, the Apostle says (1 Tim.
6:17,18): "Charge the rich of this world . . . to give
easily, to communicate to others." Now this is especially what
prodigal persons do. Therefore prodigality is not a sin.
Objection 3: Further, it belongs to prodigality to exceed in giving
and to be deficient in solicitude about riches. But this is most
becoming to the perfect, who fulfil the words of Our Lord (Mt.
6:34), "Be not . . . solicitous for tomorrow," and (Mt.
19:21), "Sell all thou hast, and give to the poor."
Therefore prodigality is not a sin.
On the contrary, The prodigal son is held to blame for his
prodigality.
I answer that, As stated above (Article 1), the opposition
between prodigality and covetousness is one of excess and deficiency;
either of which destroys the mean of virtue. Now a thing is vicious
and sinful through corrupting the good of virtue. Hence it follows
that prodigality is a sin.
Reply to Objection 1: Some expound this saying of the Apostle as
referring, not to actual covetousness, but to a kind of habitual
covetousness, which is the concupiscence of the "fomes" [FS,
Question 81, Article 3, ad 2], whence all sins arise. Others
say that he is speaking of a general covetousness with regard to any
kind of good: and in this sense also it is evident that prodigality
arises from covetousness; since the prodigal seeks to acquire some
temporal good inordinately, namely, to give pleasure to others, or at
least to satisfy his own will in giving. But to one that reviews the
passage correctly, it is evident that the Apostle is speaking
literally of the desire of riches, for he had said previously (1
Tim. 6:9): "They that will become rich," etc. In this sense
covetousness is said to be "the root of all evils," not that all
evils always arise from covetousness, but because there is no evil that
does not at some time arise from covetousness. Wherefore prodigality
sometimes is born of covetousness, as when a man is prodigal in going
to great expense in order to curry favor with certain persons from whom
he may receive riches.
Reply to Objection 2: The Apostle bids the rich to be ready to
give and communicate their riches, according as they ought. The
prodigal does not do this: since, as the Philosopher remarks
(Ethic. iv, 1), "his giving is neither good, nor for a good
end, nor according as it ought to be. For sometimes they give much to
those who ought to be poor, namely, to buffoons and flatterers,
whereas to the good they give nothing."
Reply to Objection 3: The excess in prodigality consists chiefly,
not in the total amount given, but in the amount over and above what
ought to be given. Hence sometimes the liberal man gives more than the
prodigal man, if it be necessary. Accordingly we must reply that
those who give all their possessions with the intention of following
Christ, and banish from their minds all solicitude for temporal
things, are not prodigal but perfectly liberal.
|
|