[Footnote 1:  II. ii. 118, 4.]

[Footnote 2:  Ibid., ad. 1.]

[Footnote 3:  Rickaby, Aquinas Ethicus, vol. ii. p. 234.]

It must also be remembered that what would be considered avarice in a man in one station of life would not be considered such in a man in another.  So long as one did not attempt to acquire an amount of wealth disproportionate to the needs of one’s station of life, one could not be considered avaricious.  Thus a common soldier would be avaricious if he strove to obtain a uniform of the quality worn by an officer, and a simple cleric if he attempted to clothe himself in a style only befitting a bishop.[1]

[Footnote 1:  Aquinas, In Orat.  Dom.  Expos., iv.  Ashley gives many quotations from early English literature to show how fully the idea of status was accepted (Economic History, vol. i. pt. ii. p. 389).  On the warfare waged by the Church on luxury in the Middle Ages, see Baudrillard, Histoire du Luxe prive et publique, vol. iii. pp. 630 et seq.]

The avaricious man offended against liberality by caring too much about riches; the prodigal, on the other hand, cared too little about them, and did not attach to them their proper value.  ’In affection while the prodigal falls short, not taking due care of them, in exterior behaviour it belongs to the prodigal to exceed in giving, but to fail in keeping or acquiring, while it belongs to the miser to come short in giving, but to superabound in getting and in keeping.  Therefore it is clear that prodigality is the opposite of covetousness.’[1] A man, however, might commit both sins at the same time, by being unduly anxious to acquire wealth which he distributed prodigally.[2] Prodigality could always be distinguished from extreme liberality by a consideration of the circumstances of the particular case; a truly liberal man might give away more than a prodigal in case of necessity.[3] Prodigality, though a sin, was a sin of a less grievous kind than avarice.[4]

[Footnote 1:  II. ii. 119, 1.]

[Footnote 2:  Ibid., ad. 1.]

[Footnote 3:  Ibid., ad. 3.]

[Footnote 4:  Ibid., art. 3.  ’Per prodigalitatem intelligimus habitum quo quis praeter vel contra dictamen rectae rationis circa pecunias excedit in datione vel consumptione vel custodia; et per illiberalitatem intelligimus habitum quo quis contra dietamen rectae rationis deficit circa pecunias in datione vel consumptione, vel superabundat in acceptione vel custodia ipsarum’ (Buridan, Eth., iv. 3).]