Summa contra Gentiles3.127 Chapter CXXVII. That no food is in itself sinful for one to take

Even as venery, so also food, may be made use of without sin, 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, in its nature, is good, as we have proved above.

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. 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 in so far 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, for the sake of the pleasure afforded thereby, a man partakes of a food injurious to his health, 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: 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 (Matth. xv. 11): Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man. Again it is said (1 Cor. x. 25): Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, eat: asking no questions for conscience’ sake. And again (1 Tim. iv. 4): Every creature of God is good, and nothing to be rejected that is received with thanksgiving.

Hereby we refute the error of those who say the use of certain foods is illicit in itself; of whom St. Paul says (1 Tim. iv. 1-3): In the last times some shall depart from the faith: forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving.

Since, then, the use of food and venery is not unlawful in itself, and can be unlawful only as evading the order of reason; and whereas 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 wise, namely, that man possess justly what he has; that he place not therein the end of his will; that he use it aright, for his own and others’ good. Hence the Apostle (1 Tim. vi. 17, 18) condemns not the rich, but lays down for them a definite rule for the use of riches, when he says: Charge the rich of this world not to be high-minded, nor to trust in the uncertainty of riches... to do good, to be rich in good works, to give easily, to communicate to others. Again it is said (Ecclus. xxxi. 8): Blessed is the rich man that is found without blemish: and that hath not gone after gold, nor put his trust in money nor in treasures.

Hereby we also refute the error of those who, as Augustine states (De Haeres., xl.), 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.