For food destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eats with offense.
All Commentaries on Romans 14:20 Go To Romans 14
Thomas Aquinas
AD 1274
1132. After presenting a reason to show that we should not set a stumbling block before our neighbor by eating all foods indiscriminately [n. 1122], the Apostle now shows how certain foods can be clean and unclean. In regard to this he does two things. First, he states which things are clean of their very nature, saying: Everything, indeed, which can pertain to man’s food is clean, namely, of its very nature, because of its very nature it does not have the power to defile a man’s soul, as it says in Mt (15:11): "Not what goes into the mouth defiles a man"; and in I Tim (4:4): "Everything created by God is good." But certain things were declared unclean under the Law not of their nature but by reason of what they signified, as is clear in Lev (11:2ff). But Christ even removed this uncleanness by fulfilling the figures of the Old Law. Hence it was said to Peter: "What God has cleansed, you must not call common," i.e., unclean (Ac 10:15). Secondly [n. 1133], when he says, but it is wrong, he shows how some food can become unclean for a man, namely, it stains his soul to eat it; and this in two ways: first, when a person by eating all food indiscriminately puts a stumbling block before his neighbor; secondly, when he eats food contrary to his conscience [v. 22b; n. 1138]. 1133. In regard to the first he does three things: first, he shows what is evil in taking food, saying: Although all things are by their nature good, nevertheless, it is wrong for anyone to make others fall by what he eats: "Woe to the world for stumbling blocks" (Mt 18:7). Secondly, he shows what is good in eating foods of this sort, saying: It is good not to eat meat or drink wine, the first of which seems to be the principal food and the second the principal drink. 560 He says that it is good to abstain from these either to tame the desires of the flesh, as it says in Eph (5:18): "Do not get drunk with wine, for in that is debauchery," or even to make a man more apt for contemplating spiritual things: "I have thought to deprive myself of wine, that I might give my mind to wisdom" (Ec 2:3). But this is not what the Apostle intends to say here, but that it is good not to use these, if they are a stumbling block to the brethren. This is apparent from what he says: or do anything that makes your brother stumble. What I say, I say not only about wine and meat, namely, that it is good not to use them, but I say it of any other food; your brother is upset, i.e., disturbed about you, as if you were acting unlawfully. By this his peace is disturbed or he sees a stumbling block, i.e., is tempted to fall into sin; wherefore, his righteousness is injured or is weakened, i.e., begins at least to wonder whether what is done is lawful, so that his spiritual joy is lessened. 1135. But since it is lawful to use these foods, if one must abstain from using them for fear of putting a stumbling block before his neighbor, then by the same token it seems that one should abstain from all lawful things which are not necessary for salvation, as righteousness, peace and spiritual joy are necessary. So it seems that it is not lawful for a man to demand his due for fear of putting a stumbling block before his neighbor. The answer is that if the stumbling block [scandal] proceeds from the weakness or ignorance of those scandalized on account of it, then to avoid this scandal a man should abstain from lawful things, if they are not necessary for salvation. For this is scandal of little ones, which the Lord commands us to avoid: "See that you do not despise one of these little ones" (Mt 18:10). But if scandal of this sort arises from the malice of those 561 scandalized, such scandal is Pharisaical and the Lord taught that it should be ignored. Hence, to avoid scandal of this sort, it is not necessary to abstain from lawful things. But yet in regard to scandal of little ones, it should be noted that to avoid it, a person is bound to postpone the use of lawful things, until this scandal can be removed by explaining one’s conduct. But if the scandal still remains after such an explanation, then it would seem to proceed not from ignorance or from weakness but from malice, so that it will now be Pharisaical scandal. 1136. Thirdly, he rejects an excuse. For someone might say: Although my neighbor may be scandalized at my eating all foods indiscriminately, yet to profess my faith, which tells me that it is lawful, I will use food indiscriminately. But the Apostle rejects this reasoning, saying: You, who would use all foods indiscriminately, have the faith, through which it is clear that it is lawful to use these foods. This faith is good and praiseworthy, but keep it between you and God, Whom such faith pleases: "God is well pleased with faith and meekness" (Sir 18:14). As if to say: It is not fitting to manifest your faith by an outward work, when this becomes a stumbling block to your neighbor. 1137. But this seems to be contradicted by something he said above (10:10): "Man believes with his heart and so is justified; and he confesses with his lips and so is saved." Therefore, it does not seem to be enough to keep the faith in your heart between yourself and God, but it should be manifested by confessing it before one’s neighbor. The answer is that among the matters of faith some have not been perfectly manifested by the Church, as in the early Church it had not been perfectly declared to men that Jewish converts were not bound to observe the practices of the Law, and as in 562 37 Cf. Augustine, De libero Arbitrio, book 3, ch. 21. the time of Augustine the Church had not yet declared that the soul was not transferred from the parent.37 Hence, in cases of this kind it is enough for a man to keep his faith between himself and God. Nor should he manifest his faith, if it scandalizes his neighbor, except perhaps among those who have to decide about the faith. But certain things of faith have already been determined by the Church. In such matters it is not enough to keep your faith between yourself and God, but one should confess it before his neighbor, no matter what scandal might arise, because doctrinal truth must not be set aside on account of scandal, just as Christ did not set aside the truth of His teaching just because the Pharisees were scandalized, as it says in Mt (15:12ff). It should also be noted that although in such matters a person should manifest his faith by oral confession, he is not required to manifest it by performing the outward work. Thus, if someone hold by faith that the use of marriage is licit, he is not required as a manifestation of his faith to use. It. And so it is also not required of those who have correct faith, that they manifest their faith by the use of foods. For they could manifest it by word. 1138. Then when he says, happy is he, he shows how the use of foods becomes unclean for certain persons from the fact that it is against their conscience. In regard to this he does three things [nn. 1139, 1140]: first, he shows what is good in this matter, in order, namely, that a person not have remorse of conscience from something he does not do. Hence, he says: Happy is he who has no reason to judge himself, i.e., whose conscience neither chides nor condemns him for what he approves to be done. 563 This, of course, supposes that he approves with right faith that which is to be done. But if he uses a false opinion in approving something to be done, say if he deems it a service to God to kill Christ’s disciples, as it says in Jn (16:2), he is not excused just because he does not judge himself in this matter. Indeed, he would be happier if his conscience were to rebuke him on this point, because he would thereby have been restrained more from sin. But we should understand that the Apostle is speaking here of lawful things. For it pertains to man’s glory that his conscience not rebuke him: "Our glory is this, the testimony of our conscience" (I Cor 1:12); "My heart does not reproach me for any of my days" (Jb 27:6). 1139. Secondly, he shows what is evil in this matter, namely, that one acts against his conscience. Hence he says: But he who has doubts, i.e., has the false opinion that he must discriminate among foods, if he eats, namely, food which he regards as unlawful, is condemned, because so far as in him lies, he has the will to do what is unlawful; and so, "because he sinned, he is self-condemned" (*** 3:110. 1140. Thirdly, he assigns the cause of what he had said, saying: because he does not act from faith; therefore, he is condemned. Here faith can be taken in two ways: in one way of faith as a virtue; in another way, so that conscience is called faith. These two meanings differ only as particular and universal. For what we hold by faith universally, for example, that the use of foods is lawful or unlawful, conscience applies to a deed performed or to be performed. It is said, therefore, that he who eats and distinguishes is condemned, because this is not from faith but against faith, i.e., against a truth of faith and against the conscience of the eater: "Without faith it is impossible to please God" (Heb 11:6). That this is a 564 sufficient reason for condemnation is shown when he says: Whatever does not proceed from faith is sin. From this it seems that, as a Gloss says, "The entire life of unbelievers is sin," just as the entire life of believers is meritorious, inasmuch as it is directed to the glory of God, as it says in I Cor (10:31): "Whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God." 1141. But it should be noted that the believer’s relation to good differs from the unbeliever’s relation to evil. For there is nothing of condemnation in a person who has living faith, as was said above (8:1). But in the unbeliever along with his unbelief is the good of his nature. Therefore, when an unbeliever does something good from the dictate of reason and does not refer it to an evil end, he does not sin. However, his deed is not meritorious, because it was not enlivened by grace. This is what a Gloss says: "Nothing is good without the supreme good, i.e., no good is meritorious without God’s grace, and where knowledge of eternal life and unchangeable truth is lacking, which knowledge comes by faith, virtue in the best behavior is false, inasmuch as it is not referred to the end of eternal happiness. But when an unbeliever does something from the fact that he is an unbeliever, it is clear that he sins." Hence when a Gloss says: "Every deed which is not from faith is a sin," it must be understood in the following way: Everything against faith or against conscience is a sin, and if it is seems of its nature to be good, as when a pagan in honor of his gods preserves virginity or gives an alms, he sins by this very fact: "To the corrupt and unbelieving nothing is pure; their very minds and consciences are corrupted" (*** 1:15).
