Quote

Bodily exercise is profitable, but spiritual exercise is beneficial above all.

I buffet my body and make it my slave, so that I who preach to others am not disqualified.

Both of those statements came from St. Paul the Apostle. He is talking about the primacy of spiritual discipline over physical FITNESS, but also about the subjugation of the physical body because lusts and passions run wild no matter what "shape" one is in.

Yes, keeping healthy is important. Again, St. Paul: No man ever hated his body, but nourishes and cares for it.

However, "healthy" by necessary standards and "healthy" by today's humanistic fitness-obsessed standards are two TOTALLY different things.

Exercise of the body OUTSIDE of the context of exercise of the soul is vain, useless and ultimately will lead one to care more about their physical life than their soul.

Exercise of the flesh should ALWAYS be as part of disciplining and mortifying the flesh so it is under your control as you obey Almighty God.

Otherwise, it's like encouraging an unbroken horse to run... no matter how often you feed him and then let him run around, he will never be controllable. He has to be broken and brought under your command first.

A rightly-trained horse was once more important to a gentleman, soldier or knight than even a weapon, and all the other Catholic attitudes are like weapons we can never wield rightly if our "horse" (our flesh) is wild and unmanageable.

So are you saying all physical exercise either to be in shape or to be strong, is vain and sinful?

Are you condemning sports?

Ask St. John Vianney, St. Francis of Assisi or hundreds of other saints where bodily fitness ranked in the grand scheme of things.

And who is saying otherwise? Did i say that physical fitness should be a very important priority?

The question was whether it is allowable/permissible to workout for fitness/strength or not.

You also make no disctinction between religious/clerical persons and lay.

I already said i believe religious persons shouldn't "workout".

Speaking about religious people, what do you say about this:

I've always considered keeping fit as good stewardship of our bodies, temples of the Holy Ghost.  As long as it doesn't become an issue of vanity, it's certainly important for one's health.  That said, I never need to go out and "exercise", as I am extremely active and running up and down hills moving sheep, hauling hay bales, carrying lambs, milking, mucking, setting up fences, pasture walking, etc.  provide plenty of exercise.  As a chronic insomniac, I can often only sleep if I am completely worn out physically.  Most people do not have such opportunities.

I've always considered keeping fit as good stewardship of our bodies, temples of the Holy Ghost.  As long as it doesn't become an issue of vanity, it's certainly important for one's health.  That said, I never need to go out and "exercise", as I am extremely active and running up and down hills moving sheep, hauling hay bales, carrying lambs, milking, mucking, setting up fences, pasture walking, etc.  provide plenty of exercise.  As a chronic insomniac, I can often only sleep if I am completely worn out physically.  Most people do not have such opportunities.

This.

I also sleep best if a get a certain minimum of exercise -- enough to wear me out a bit, or at least take the edge off my energy.

And this whole thread illustrates that the modern lifestyle is a problem. Sitting in front of a computer all day is NOT sufficient to take basic care of one's body (maintain ideal weight, keep heart in good shape, etc.)

So many people have office or "white collar" jobs. I'm one of them. That's why I moved to the country so I could do more things outside. When you live on a city plot, it's too easy to stay inside all the time. Unless you obsess about your landscaping or have a small garden, there's simply nothing to do outside. (Barring a few sports in your backyard or something like that). You can drive somewhere, but how often are you really going to do that? Are you going to get in the car EVERY DAY? Even cycling is optional -- it doesn't HAVE to be done so it's easy to skip it.

Let's put it this way -- I do lawn care for my mother-in-law. She actually has several "yards" that add up to a good part of an acre. I use the riding mower, then a push mower, and finally a weedwhacker. It takes about 2 to 2 1/2 hours to do the whole thing. Her yard looks gorgeous when I'm done! I enjoy doing it because I can make it so clean in just a couple hours. Here, I have to spend a couple hours every day for a week -- and I'm still not "done".

If I lived in a house like that, I'd simply have a LOT less to do outside. I know that for a fact, because I used to own a house in the city for about 3 1/2 years.

In that 3 1/2 years I removed every non-productive tree & bush by hand (no chainsaw), had a big garden every year, planted a half-dozen fruit trees, dug a huge pit for compost, etc. By the time we moved, I had run out of stuff to do! In fact, I had my eye set on my next-door-neighbor's huge oak tree. I was actually VERY tempted to declare war (as it were) and start trimming the branches that hung over my property line. She (the next-door neighbor) would have hated me. It's probably good that we moved when we did! :)

Under the fifth commandment, we have a grave obligation to take care of our bodies and physical health.

Well before he Council, Catholic schools and universities had athletics and physical fitness programs.

One shouldn't let scruples run their life.

Under the fifth commandment, we have a grave obligation to take care of our bodies and physical health.

Well before he Council, Catholic schools and universities had athletics and physical fitness programs.

One shouldn't let scruples run their life.

Yea, of course.

So why aren't more people specifically ganging up against what Stephen Francis said?

Here's what he said again:

Exercise of the body OUTSIDE of the context of exercise of the soul is vain, useless and ultimately will lead one to care more about their physical life than their soul.

I also read somewhere that St. Pius X himself recommended men, and even women too, to exercise, and that he himself lifted weights.

I don't know whether that was true, but i did read it.

The concept of sterile exercise (physical exertion for the sake of health alone) is a rather modern development, I think.

People used to walk everywhere, or they rode horses. Something like 90% of the population was involved in agriculture to some degree. There were no computers, and a heck of a lot less "desk jobs".

Fr. Wolfgang Goettler (a German SSPX priest) apparently had an old-fashioned attitude towards exercise: "You want some work to do? I'm sure you could help out in the orchard or something..."

He couldn't understand why 1 or 2 seminarians wanted to make use of the weight room.

I pretty much have the same attitude. I'd rather do productive work AND get some exercise, than just run in place on a treadmill or something.

People involved in agriculture (or those who have land) don't get Gym memberships :)

So long as it isn't an obsession or in order to stir the passions, there is no reason why a woman shouldn't work out.  Preferable to going to the gym or using an exercise CD is exercise that comes from everyday activities.  Lift toddlers instead of weights, work in the garden, scrub the floor or tub by hand...but few women live on farms or work such that they get sufficient exercise.  We drive everywhere, use the elevator, the "Swivel Sweeper," buy our food instead of plant, grow, harvest and preserve it.  A healthy woman bears more children and has energy to raise them, unlike one who is unfit, unhealthy.  I'd think husbands would be supportive of wives who keep in shape.