 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
sdtrojan
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jul 12th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 9 |
| First Name: | Eric | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13th, 2008 02:13 am |
|
"It is incontrovertible that to eat or drink for the mere pleasure of the experience, and for that exclusively, is likewise to commit the sin of gluttony"
Well, if this is the case then isn't every time I have a slice of cake or a few cookies for desert gluttonous? since cookies don't offer any real nourishment value, I eat them because I like the taste.
Or another example- I'm going to a bar tonight with my friend. I definately plan on NOT getting drunk, but I may have a drink or two- since my body is not technically in need of alcohol, and I may not be thirsty- would this be a sin in itself?
It just doesnt' seem right to think that eating a cookie or having a margarita would be a sin. Now EXCESSIVE use I can see...but eating a desert, by the above quoted logic, would constitute a sin?
What say you?
Thanks
Eric
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2072 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13th, 2008 02:35 am |
|
Hmmm. By your logic, Eric, you had better not turn on the television tonight for fear of actually enjoying the entertainment it offers. You had better not speak to your friends or join them in a game or other activity for fear that you will be a social glutton. You had better not have relations with your wife, either, for obvious reasons.
But this is not what gluttony is about, and it is not what sin is about. Gluttony has to do with excessive food taken for pleasure’s sake alone. A good meal is not sinful if it is not excessive; neither is a serving of dessert. God gave you these things to sustain the life he gave you, and to make it worthwhile for you to sustain it, he added pleasure. In the same way, anything pleasurable is given by God for your enjoyment, not to entice you to sin. It is your tendency to excess that brings on the sin, not God’s providence.
David
|
|
|
sdtrojan
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jul 12th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 9 |
| First Name: | Eric | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13th, 2008 02:53 am |
|
it's not my logic that says that eating a cookie is a sin. Exactly the opposite, my thinking says its absurd to think that eating a few cookies or drinking a margarita(or any drink for that matter) for any reason OTHER than survival would constitute a sin.
But it seems by my quote from Catholic Encyclopedia that this example WOULD be a sin, which causes me great concern because I believe that that Catholic Church CANNOT be wrong about anything. This is why it's causing me concern and anxiety- I don't want to disagree with the Church about ANYTHING.
"It is incontrovertible that to eat or drink for the mere pleasure of the experience, and for that exclusively, is likewise to commit the sin of gluttony"- this quote doesn't mention anything about excessive use. It just addresses pleasure..I eat cookies for the pleasure of the taste of them, not because I'm hungry. By the Church's logic- this is a sin...and I don't agree with it..That is why I'm concerned as I have full faith in the Church. Maybe I'm just understanding it's teaching on this issue is wrong? ...
Wouldn't even ONE cookie or piece of cake be considered "excessive" since it gives no real nutritional value? But eating a few cookies and considering that a sin seems RIDICULOUS.
Eric
|
|
|
sdtrojan
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jul 12th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 9 |
| First Name: | Eric | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13th, 2008 03:11 am |
|
On the above Post I meant:
By the Church's logic- IT SEEMS TO ME THAT this is a sin...and I don't agree with that..That is why I'm concerned as I have full faith in the Church. Maybe I'm just understanding it's teaching on this issue is wrong? ...
|
|
|
BodRod
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | Apple Valley, California USA |
| Posts: | 812 |
| First Name: | Cliff | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Raised an SDA, then Generic Christian, finally at home with ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13th, 2008 04:14 am |
|
sdtrojan wrote:
Well, if this is the case then isn't every time I have a slice of cake or a few cookies for desert gluttonous? since cookies don't offer any real nourishment value,......
That would be the dryest, most dusty cake or cookie ever!!! I hope you have some coffee or water to go with it!!! 
____________________
Gratias agamus Domino Deo nostro.
|
|
|
JillD
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Visalia, California USA |
| Posts: | 765 |
| First Name: | Jill | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | heathen, EvFree, Messianic, LC-MS, Catholic 2007 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13th, 2008 04:23 am |
|
I think you're forgetting that most every food, at least every food I can think of at the moment, does have some nutritional value. Chocolate has been found to be good for your heart. Cookies contain flour which has vitamins and minerals and energy value. Alcohol, in moderation, has been found to be good for you. Can you think of any food or drink item which truly has not a bit of useful ingredients? I do enjoy eating a cookie more than eating a Brussel sprout, but does that make eating the cookie bad??
Now if I eat 12 cookies... Or, if I eat 100 Brussel sprouts.... Either way. Gluttony.
(I confess already! I've done that!!! Guess which one.)
Jill
____________________
"I praise you, for I am wondrously made. Wonderful are our works! My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret." Ps 139
"Guard me, O Lord, from the hands of the wicked; preserve me from violent men." Ps 140
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2072 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13th, 2008 05:19 am |
|
sdtrojan wrote:It's not my logic that says that eating a cookie is a sin.… But it seems by my quote from Catholic Encyclopedia that this example WOULD be a sin.
OK, but you didn’t explain this the first time around. And you didn’t tell us where you got the quote. So I had to assume it was your thinking. (By the way, now that you have clarified things, it gives me a chance to check your source and see for myself what it says. So now, in what follows, I can give you a more informed assessment.)
Actually, the quote is correct, but your reasoning from it is faulty. Because, as others in this thread have pointed out, all foodstuffs, even the most “unnecessary” ones like cookies, have some nutritional value.
Furthermore, if you read the quoted sentence carefully, it is speaking of an exclusive desire for “the mere pleasure of the experience.” The author is clearly thinking in terms of the ancient Roman orgies, where people would gorge themselves with dainties, then induce vomiting to empty their stomachs so they could go back for more. In other words, he is speaking of excess, not the mere desire to eat a cookie because it tastes good. As I pointed out, pleasure is inherent in eating because this is what God wants us to do: eat so that we will live.
Otherwise, by the same reasoning, one should not indulge in sex or watching television, because it too could be pleasurable. Pleasure in itself is not sinful. It is the inordinate desire for pleasure that is sinful.
Once again, I believe that the statement you cite, taken in context — including the context of Catholic moral theology whence it arose — is correct. It is somewhat elliptical, but together with the context it makes sense.
And by the way, it is not the Church that is wrong if an individual author misstates something; it is only the author who has it wrong. So even if you stay with the idea that the statement you cite is wrong, it is not Church doctrine because the author does not speak for the Church. He can only give his own interpretation. If he has been accorded a certain authority because he has studied the issue and others see him as usually right, this can be taken into account. But according to Catholic doctrine, the only person who can speak for the Church in general is the pope, and that only under special conditions.
Other than that, I think you do understand the moral principle in gluttony. It’s just that the statement you read threw you because it didn’t state things the way you expected. You have to remember that those words were written about 100 years ago by somebody who was educated differently from you and lived in an environment where the standards of speech were different from what you are used to.
David
|
|
|
Tina in Ashburn
Member
| Joined: | Mon May 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | Ashburn, Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 281 |
| First Name: | Tina | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Cradle Roman Catholic, Ukranian Catholic, presently practicing as Roman Latin ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13th, 2008 02:09 pm |
|
Eric
Seconding other responses here
"for the mere pleasure of the experience" means exactly what it says: doing something for "EXCLUSIVE" pleasure only, with no other possible objective.
This has a lot to do with intemperance [excess] but this teaching is also a prohibition for pure selfish self-indulgence.
Pleasure in and of itself is not a sin, anymore than having money is a sin. Its the ATTACHMENT to the pleasure that we are asked to avoid, just like we are told that LOVE of money is wrong, not money itself.
Food and drink have nutritional value, sex has love and procreative value, playing games and visiting friends has all kinds of positive social values as well as helping us to grow emotionally and spiritually. However, through selfishness we can derail these purposes with objectives of pure pleasure that serves no one else or any other purpose than our own selfish indulgence.
It is true that most gluttonous behavior is almost always known by its excess, but it is possible to sin without excess when one is completely devoid of any intent but pure selfishness. This is not for the scrupulous. I think you have to be a pretty icky person to be this selfish! So don't misinterpret me here to go off and second-guess everything you do in fear of perfectly good pleasures.
The Jansenists took this wrong interpretation and ran with it. This heretical train of thought is why certain other faiths teach that dancing, drinking, playing cards, even wearing colorful clothing or having beautiful art are sinful practices. Its a heresy because it ignores the fact that God wants us to be happy and enjoy licit pleasurable things. God created pleasure and happiness, who are we to disdain it? [This line of thinking is also related to scrupulosity and "self-flagellation" of constant fault-finding with oneself.]
God commanded us to rest and think of Him on the seventh day, and re-create ourselves. Because of this we know that good and Godly pleasure is approved and healthy for Man.
The Catholic Church teaches us that it is all about intention and misuse. There's nothing wrong with dancing! But it is wrong when it leads us to sin or creates a sinful environment - then, you must avoid it. There's nothing wrong with alcohol unless it leads you to sin, so if you are an alcoholic, you must avoid it and any situation that would lead you to weaken. We take great pleasure in enjoying the Internet and spending time on this Forum - but if it gets in the way of our duties, and leads to intemperate wastes of time, then it isn't pleasing to God.
This good reasoning is why we are taught detachment. If we can attain detachment, we can avoid so many other pitfalls, focus on God, and be ready for heaven. Food is necessary but when we eat it in a way that is self-seeking and leads us into sin, we'd better stop.
____________________
Tina
Arlington Diocese
|
|
|
Free
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 28th, 2007 |
| Location: | Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 208 |
| First Name: | Jane | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Presbyterian, Gnostic, non-denominational, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13th, 2008 06:39 pm |
|
Agreeing with the other views, I'd like to add that God COULD have given us an appetite for a meal only ONCE a day, but instead he gave us an appetite for SEVERAL times a day. I often thank him for that, because eating to satisfy an appetite is definitely pleasurable, and God knows it and planned it that way. He so willingly stoops to give us all good things. Amazing that he designed us with taste buds and a sense of smell so that we could appreciate his goodness in what we eat and drink through those faculties. He COULD have designed us with feeding tubes directly into our stomachs that didn't involve the sense of taste or the sense of smell. Then we would never have experienced the delightful crunch from some foods that pleases both the palate and the sense of hearing, or the eluctable smoothness and coldness of sweet ice cream.
My point is to remind myself and maybe others to thank God for his goodness to us in giving us the pleasures of eating and drinking, as well as for the necessity of meeting our needs with foods that nourish and sustain. It's a both/and kind of thing once again!
Now I'm going to go peel and eat a nice, crisp raw carrot, and follow it up with some smooth, cold vanilla ice cream That will sustain me for awhile, and give me some God-given pleasure. And at suppertime, I can do it all over again!
|
|
|
BodRod
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | Apple Valley, California USA |
| Posts: | 812 |
| First Name: | Cliff | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Raised an SDA, then Generic Christian, finally at home with ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13th, 2008 08:08 pm |
|
I don't think we should blame God for our weaknesses and/or bad habits.
____________________
Gratias agamus Domino Deo nostro.
|
|
|
Candlemass
Member
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | Hudson, Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 465 |
| First Name: | Mark | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic, AOG, Baptist, non - denominational, Anglican, RCC for life! |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13th, 2008 11:46 pm |
|
Sounds like Puritain reasoning to me, if it's fun or pleasurable it's gotta be sin! 
____________________
"For I the blind who once could see, the bell tolls for me!"
|
|
|
Current time is 08:52 pm | |
|
|
|
|
|
