Author Topic: Is having ice cream, cookies, soda, cakes, chocolate, chips etc. sinful? (Read 1657 times)

Disputaciones · « **on:** August 11, 2015, 01:17:47 PM »

Since eating and drinking for pleasure only is sinful, and since the purpose to eat and drink is to nourish the body, isn't having all these things sinful, even in moderation, since they're all bad for you and don't fulfil the ends of eating and drinking? They're all fattening and provide almost no nutritional benefits at all. They don't nourish the body and their appeal is only taste, not their calories or adverse health effects.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #1 on:** August 11, 2015, 01:21:47 PM »

While they are certainly not absolutely necessary to nourish the body, good, aka tasty, food (taken in moderation) can lift one's spirits ... whereas bland unappetizing food can bring you down. There's a passage in Sacred Scripture about how wine brings joy to the heart of man. Same can be said of food. Again, all within limits and with due moderation. Our Lord answered the Pharisees at one point by asking how the Apostles could fast when the Bridegroom was among them.

Tiffany · « **Reply #2 on:** August 11, 2015, 01:24:29 PM »

They do provide nutritional benefits as far as sugar and calories. We often have better choices as far as nutrition but they do provide calories and sugar for our brain.

Disputaciones · « **Reply #3 on:** August 11, 2015, 01:59:24 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

While they are certainly not absolutely necessary to nourish the body, good, aka tasty, food (taken in moderation) can lift one's spirits ... whereas bland unappetizing food can bring you down. There's a passage in Sacred Scripture about how wine brings joy to the heart of man. Same can be said of food. Again, all within limits and with due moderation. Our Lord answered the Pharisees at one point by asking how the Apostles could fast when the Bridegroom was among them.

Healthy foods can be made to be very tasty, but these sorts of things are pure taste and no health benefits.

Wine in moderation is actually GOOD for the body, but not these sorts of things.

I know these things can give you other benefits not having to do with health though. Lifting your spirits, like you said.

Matto · « **Reply #4 on:** August 11, 2015, 02:22:17 PM »

This thread reminds me of what an SSPX priest told about the sin of gluttony. I asked him when was gluttony a mortal sin and he told me for it to be a mortal sin you had to eat so much that it made you sick.

ClarkSmith · « **Reply #5 on:** August 11, 2015, 02:44:54 PM »

IN Sin Revisited, Solange Hertz describes three forms of gluttony:

1. The first one consists in eating whenever we please. This might mean often or seldom, ahead of time or later, never or simply constantly nibbling between meals. Habitually indulged in, this form of gluttony quite predictably disposes its victim to restlessness and dissatisfaction with his state in life. It feeds instability.

2. The second form is being choosy about what we eat. In the world this might win us an international reputation as a gourmet, or simply as a weight-watcher, depending on whether our eye is on the menu or the calories, in other words, whether we are motivated by sensuality or vanity. There is no more refined form of gluttony than dieting from motives of pride. The dazzling authority on haute cuisine could fall into this category, but so might also the dear little old lady who insist on turning the host’s kitchen upside down looking for a piece of dry toast, or the health fanatic who will consume only roots, berries and spring water. It’s hardly surprising that this particular type of gluttony breeds covetousness, because its victims are orientated always to looking for something they haven’t got at the moment. It’s directly opposed to the perfect abnegation of Christ, who told his disciples to “Eat such things as are set before you” (Luke 10:9).

3. The third type of gluttony is usually the one we think of as gluttony proper: eating as much as we want. Its victims are more likely to be fat, I suppose, and therefore more in evidence. Because there’s a limit to what the stomach will hold, the Fathers tell us this one by a kind of inner necessity leads most directly into lust and sɛҳuąƖ impurity, the next capital vice after gluttony. They were fond of quoting the prophet Ezechiel, who revealed that Sodom fell into the unbridled license with which her name became synonymous as a result of “fulness of bread and abundance” (16:49). No one with eyes could fail to see the relation between the glutting affluence of modern society and the so-called sɛҳuąƖ revolution.

Disputaciones · « **Reply #6 on:** August 11, 2015, 02:58:25 PM »

Quote from: Matto

This thread reminds me of what an SSPX priest told about the sin of gluttony. I asked him when was gluttony a mortal sin and he told me for it to be a mortal sin you had to eat so much that it made you sick.

The catholic encyclopedia entry on gluttony says it's very hard to commit a mortal sin of gluttony, or that it rarely is mortal.

CathMomof7 · « **Reply #7 on:** August 11, 2015, 03:43:33 PM »

My priest gave an excellent sermon on this during this past Lent!

He talked about eating so much that we burst because we cannot restrain ourselves. But he also talked about being picky and overly concerned about what we eat.

We don't just eat to survive. Food is the center of life and conversation and socialization. It's how we connect and share and thrive.

There is nothing worse than preparing a beautiful dinner out of love only to have a person pick at it for fear of gaining an pound or because venison is "yucky."

Sometimes, nothing is better than talking to your 6 year old about her day while sharing a Frosty. :)

Matthew · « **Reply #8 on:** August 11, 2015, 03:45:13 PM »

Quote from: ClarkSmith

IN Sin Revisited, Solange Hertz describes three forms of gluttony:

1. The first one consists in eating whenever we please. This might mean often or seldom, ahead of time or later, never or simply constantly nibbling between meals. Habitually indulged in, this form of gluttony quite predictably disposes its victim to restlessness and dissatisfaction with his state in life. It feeds instability.

2. The second form is being choosy about what we eat. In the world this might win us an international reputation as a gourmet, or simply as a weight-watcher, depending on whether our eye is on the menu or the calories, in other words, whether we are motivated by sensuality or vanity. There is no more refined form of gluttony than dieting from motives of pride. The dazzling authority on haute cuisine could fall into this category, but so might also the dear little old lady who insist on turning the host’s kitchen upside down looking for a piece of dry toast, or the health fanatic who will consume only roots, berries and spring water. It’s hardly surprising that this particular type of gluttony breeds covetousness, because its victims are orientated always to looking for something they haven’t got at the moment. It’s directly opposed to the perfect abnegation of Christ, who told his disciples to “Eat such things as are set before you” (Luke 10:9).

3. The third type of gluttony is usually the one we think of as gluttony proper: eating as much as we want. Its victims are more likely to be fat, I suppose, and therefore more in evidence. Because there’s a limit to what the stomach will hold, the Fathers tell us this one by a kind of inner necessity leads most directly into lust and sɛҳuąƖ impurity, the next capital vice after gluttony. They were fond of quoting the prophet Ezechiel, who revealed that Sodom fell into the unbridled license with which her name became synonymous as a result of “fulness of bread and abundance” (16:49). No one with eyes could fail to see the relation between the glutting affluence of modern society and the so-called sɛҳuąƖ revolution.

There are FIVE forms of Gluttony.

P
L
A
N
S

Praepropere - eating outside mealtimes
Laute - Eating too rich of foods
Ardenter - Eating quickly and eagerly
Nimis - Eating too much
Studiose - Being too picky

Nadir · « **Reply #9 on:** August 11, 2015, 05:18:46 PM »

Quote from: Matto

This thread reminds me of what an SSPX priest told about the sin of gluttony. I asked him when was gluttony a mortal sin and he told me for it to be a mortal sin you had to eat so much that it made you sick.

You cannot have sinful and non-sinful gluttony. Gluttony is a sin per se.

But of the items mentioned in the title: ice cream, cookies, soda, cakes, chocolate, chips, all of them can be of some benefit. It would depend on how, when and why they are eaten. Are they part of a meal?
How much of them do you eat?
Do you eat too much of them?

On the health side what ingredients have they? Of course home-made is always the best. You decide what goes in and how much of it.

Just because something is pleasurable doesn't make it sinful.

Nadir · « **Reply #10 on:** August 11, 2015, 07:52:57 PM »

Quote from: Disputaciones

The catholic encyclopedia entry on gluttony says it's very hard to commit a mortal sin of gluttony, or that it rarely is mortal.

Not when I looked. Do you have a reference for that?

You only have to look around you to know that many folk are gluttonous.

wallflower · « **Reply #11 on:** August 11, 2015, 08:28:54 PM »

Quote from: Matto

This thread reminds me of what an SSPX priest told about the sin of gluttony. I asked him when was gluttony a mortal sin and he told me for it to be a mortal sin you had to eat so much that it made you sick.

See, that's interesting. We would assume that means that one ate so much they got sick immediately with nausea or vomiting and such. Yet so many millions are SICK today from the junk they are eating, it's just more of a slow death. It's not always immediate. In my mind, if a person knows better, and most have some level of consciousness that junk food is not good for them, then it MUST be sinful to some degree.

As far as the foods mentioned in the OP, I would counter that homemade versions of those foods can and do have nutritional benefits. Not enough for a family to live off them daily, but each has its benefits nonetheless.

Ice cream: Cream and eggs are a good source of animal fat, good for the brain. Add fruit, nuts or chocolate flavors and you get their benefits as well.

Cookies: These can be made of many nutrient dense foods such as oatmeal, dried fruit, nuts, butter/lard.

Soda: I would counter that with naturally flavored water kefir. Bubbly with any flavor you choose to give it.

Cakes: Flour, eggs, butter, milk -- all nutritious.

Chocolate: Dark chocolate is very high in Magnesium, the key mineral. Also antioxidants.

Chips: Potatoes are one of the highest potassium foods available. They are also a great source of the B vitamins.

It's really only today's mass-produced sugar & preservative-laden versions of these foods that are almost completely without merit (Soda being the only one I would consider completely without merit). But we've taken substance out of our lives in every other way, of course we've done it to our food too.

In so far as people are becoming more and more aware of just how perverted these treats have become it does seem like they are opting for more wholesome counterparts whenever they can. But it does take more work to make them at home as opposed to stopping by the corner store, so they get put in their place as true treats to celebrate special occasions. You can't be making this stuff everyday, other than the kefir.

Disputaciones · « **Reply #12 on:** August 12, 2015, 05:59:09 PM »

Quote from: Nadir

Quote from: Disputaciones

The catholic encyclopedia entry on gluttony says it's very hard to commit a mortal sin of gluttony, or that it rarely is mortal.

Not when I looked. Do you have a reference for that?

You only have to look around you to know that many folk are gluttonous.

Sorry, i said it from memory. It doesn't actually say what i wrote but it does give the impression of it. This is the part i had in mind:

Quote

Gluttony is in general a venial sin in so far forth as it is an undue indulgence in a thing which is in itself neither good nor bad. Of course it is obvious that a different estimate would have to be given of one so wedded to the pleasures of the table as to absolutely and without qualification live merely to eat and drink, so minded as to be of the number of those, described by the Apostle St. Paul, "whose god is their belly" (Philippians 3:19). Such a one would be guilty of mortal sin. Likewise a person who, by excesses in eating and drinking, would have greatly impaired his health, or unfitted himself for duties for the performance of which he has a grave obligation, would be justly chargeable with mortal sin.

I find those two examples of mortally sinful gluttony hard to commit and thats why i said what i said.

http://newadvent.org/cathen/06590a.htm

Nadir · « **Reply #13 on:** August 12, 2015, 06:09:36 PM »

Quote from: Disputaciones

This is the part i had in mind:

Quote
Gluttony is in general a venial sin in so far forth as it is an undue indulgence in a thing which is in itself neither good nor bad. Of course it is obvious that a different estimate would have to be given of one so wedded to the pleasures of the table as to absolutely and without qualification live merely to eat and drink, so minded as to be of the number of those, described by the Apostle St. Paul, "whose god is their belly" (Philippians 3:19). Such a one would be guilty of mortal sin. Likewise a person who, by excesses in eating and drinking, would have greatly impaired his health, or unfitted himself for duties for the performance of which he has a grave obligation, would be justly chargeable with mortal sin.

I find those two examples of mortally sinful gluttony hard to commit and thats why i said what i said.

http://newadvent.org/cathen/06590a.htm

Thanks. Where (in what country?) do you live?

Disputaciones · « **Reply #14 on:** August 12, 2015, 07:06:08 PM »

Quote from: Nadir

Quote from: Disputaciones
This is the part i had in mind:

Quote
Gluttony is in general a venial sin in so far forth as it is an undue indulgence in a thing which is in itself neither good nor bad. Of course it is obvious that a different estimate would have to be given of one so wedded to the pleasures of the table as to absolutely and without qualification live merely to eat and drink, so minded as to be of the number of those, described by the Apostle St. Paul, "whose god is their belly" (Philippians 3:19). Such a one would be guilty of mortal sin. Likewise a person who, by excesses in eating and drinking, would have greatly impaired his health, or unfitted himself for duties for the performance of which he has a grave obligation, would be justly chargeable with mortal sin.

I find those two examples of mortally sinful gluttony hard to commit and thats why i said what i said.

http://newadvent.org/cathen/06590a.htm

Thanks. Where (in what country?) do you live?

Why?