|
Objection 1: It seems that covetousness is not a spiritual sin.
For spiritual sins seem to regard spiritual goods. But the matter of
covetousness is bodily goods, namely, external riches. Therefore
covetousness is not a spiritual sin.
Objection 2: Further, spiritual sin is condivided with sin of the
flesh. Now covetousness is seemingly a sin of the flesh, for it
results from the corruption of the flesh, as instanced in old people
who, through corruption of carnal nature, fall into covetousness.
Therefore covetousness is not a spiritual sin.
Objection 3: Further, a sin of the flesh is one by which man's
body is disordered, according to the saying of the Apostle (1 Cor.
6:18), "He that committeth fornication sinneth against his own
body." Now covetousness disturbs man even in his body; wherefore
Chrysostom (Hom. xxix in Matth.) compares the covetous man to the
man who was possessed by the devil (Mk. 5) and was troubled in
body. Therefore covetousness seems not to be a spiritual sin.
On the contrary, Gregory (Moral. xxxi) numbers covetousness among
spiritual vices.
I answer that, Sins are seated chiefly in the affections: and all
the affections or passions of the soul have their term in pleasure and
sorrow, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. ii, 5). Now some
pleasures are carnal and some spiritual. Carnal pleasures are those
which are consummated in the carnal senses---for instance, the
pleasures of the table and sexual pleasures: while spiritual pleasures
are those which are consummated in the mere apprehension of the soul.
Accordingly, sins of the flesh are those which are consummated in
carnal pleasures, while spiritual sins are consummated in pleasures of
the spirit without pleasure of the flesh. Such is covetousness: for
the covetous man takes pleasure in the consideration of himself as a
possessor of riches. Therefore covetousness is a spiritual sin.
Reply to Objection 1: Covetousness with regard to a bodily object
seeks the pleasure, not of the body but only of the soul, forasmuch as
a man takes pleasure in the fact that he possesses riches: wherefore it
is not a sin of the flesh. Nevertheless by reason of its object it is
a mean between purely spiritual sins, which seek spiritual pleasure in
respect of spiritual objects (thus pride is about excellence), and
purely carnal sins, which seek a purely bodily pleasure in respect of a
bodily object.
Reply to Objection 2: Movement takes its species from the term
"whereto" and not from the term "wherefrom." Hence a vice of the
flesh is so called from its tending to a pleasure of the flesh, and not
from its originating in some defect of the flesh.
Reply to Objection 3: Chrysostom compares a covetous man to the man
who was possessed by the devil, not that the former is troubled in the
flesh in the same way as the latter, but by way of contrast, since
while the possessed man, of whom we read in Mk. 5, stripped
himself, the covetous man loads himself with an excess of riches.
|
|