A discussion with my Atheist Cousin about Gluttony and Provers 23:2

[dandingo]

So my cousin sends me an email / Google+ message about Gluttony and the Church allowing Gluttons to marry within the Church. We love to stir the pot with each other on religion and politics and it’s very ‘competitive’ so needless to say, I need some good rebuttals. His wife is a non-practicing Jew and I believe they’ll be raising their kids Liberal Jewish. I just got married so I’m guessing this is his motivation. Here’s his message:

*John the Baptist condemned it as a sin. Saint Thomas Aquinas condemned it in all its forms. It was a reason the Sodomites were condemned to be destroyed by God. The book of Proverbs suggests you put a knife to your own throat should you want for it (23:2). Saint Gregory the Great spelled it out so there was no way to wriggle out of whether it was a sin or not.

So why do Christians allow gluttonous people to marry in their churches?*

Proverbs 23:2 - and put a knife to your throat if you are a man given to appetite.

The first thing that comes to my mind is that ‘given to appetite’ could mean so many things, including money, power, etc. Also, I hate using the ‘It’s the Old Testament so you’d have to ask a Jew’ argument.

I may be completely wrong and if it is referring to food, please help. Needless to say, that’s why I come here to hear from the masters. If anyone can help with rebuttals, I would really appreciate it!

 

[MarcoPolo]

If sinners can’t marry, no one can. What does he think is special about the sin of gluttony that has to do with not marrying?

p.s. I don’t think it’s healthy to “stir the pot” regarding religion with someone. Give a sober answer, but if you get some snarky rebuttal all the time, the conversation will go nowhere. I absolutely would not bother with someone whose intention it was to try to “trap” me instead of to pursue the truth, whatever it may be. You neither should be seeking to stir the pot, in my humble opinion.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Suppose the Church said that gluttonous people could not marry. What sort of criteria do you suppose could be used? There are lots of reasons that a person can be overweight other than gluttony.

How would we determine if someone is gluttonous?

 

[mab23]

The Church allow all sinners to marry - as long as it falls between a valid marriage

and hopefully they will see that its a sin and work to stop it

I commend you for debating him - its a good way to learn how to debate and who knows you may convert him

as long as your strong in faith and not in danger of going the other way

 

[robwar]

I am not following the logic here. What does gluttony have to do with marriage? You could sub in a number of"sins" here. what is the point he is trying to make? You should have a leg up if he is coming up with this sort of logic.

 

[CatholicTrekkie]

I agree with previous posters. This is terrible logic on his part. Why is gluttony an impediment to the Sacrament of Matrimony? If it is because gluttony is a sin, then ask how any sin is an impediment to the Sacrament of Marriage? If sinners can’t marry, then every marriage instituted by the Church is invalid.

 

[Garyjohn2]

You don’t have to be perfect in order to marry.

This doesn’t make sense.

 

[Hokomai]

Far be it from me, a non-believer, to argue against anyone’s atheist cousin, but there are much better arguments against the Church’s opposition to civil marriage for homosexuals than the one cited here.

As I understand it, the Church does teach that gluttons cannot marry. Assuming that ‘glutton’ means someone who habitually sins in a grave way and intends to continue to do so, they are not in what the Church considers a ‘state of grace’. So while they could marry, the marriage would be without sacramental effect until the person involved repented of their gluttony, and became, therefore, not a glutton.

The issues here are whether there is such a thing as grace, and sin, and whether the one ‘blocks’ the other, and whether any of these beliefs gives the right to the Church to influence public policy against allowing people who do not have those beliefs to marry. The Church, in my view, is wrong, but the debate is not helped by atheists failing to understand the Church’s actual position. And the reverse, of course!

 

[CatholicTrekkie]

Far be it from me, a non-believer, to argue against anyone’s atheist cousin, but there are much better arguments against the Church’s opposition to civil marriage for homosexuals than the one cited here.

As I understand it, the Church does teach that gluttons cannot marry. Assuming that ‘glutton’ means someone who habitually sins in a grave way and intends to continue to do so, they are not in what the Church considers a ‘state of grace’. So while they could marry, the marriage would be without sacramental effect until the person involved repented of their gluttony, and became, therefore, not a glutton.

The issues here are whether there is such a thing as grace, and sin, and whether the one ‘blocks’ the other, and whether any of these beliefs gives the right to the Church to influence public policy against allowing people who do not have those beliefs to marry. The Church, in my view, is wrong, but the debate is not helped by atheists failing to understand the Church’s actual position. And the reverse, of course!

Neither the OP nor his cousin said anything about homosexual marriage, much less civil marriage.

Furthermore, I think your understanding of the Sacrament of Matrimony is flawed. The Church does not see sin, even habitual sin as an impediment to marriage: vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3X.HTM
Wikipedia confirms this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_marriage#Conditions_for_a_Valid_Sacramental_Marriage

The only requirements for a valid sacramental marriage are:

1. 
   *]The spouses are free to marry (meaning, they aren’t bound by a previous marriage, by holy orders, or by a vow of chastity)
   *]They freely exchange consent
   *]They intend to marry for life
   *]There are two witnesses and a proper minister
   
   If I am wrong on this account, please let me know, with reference to the proper Church documents.
   
   However, while it is not definitvely required that you be in a state of grace in order to receive the Sacrament, it is preferable for spiritual reasons to enter into the marriage starting in a state of grace. Hence why most priests will give confession to the couple on the day before their wedding, usually sometime after the rehearsal or whenever convenient.

 

[Della]

If someone hides a gross sin from his/her marriage partner before marriage, one s/he intends to keep on doing after marriage, then their marriage may not be valid. I don’t know how one could hide being gluttonous from a potential spouse, but if s/he could, it might be grounds for appealing for an annulment if the gluttony interferes with the marriage. This could be said of any of the capital sins.

As for homosexuals attempting marriage in the Church, it is not possible because the material of marriage, being of opposite sexes (as well as the other criteria already posted in the thread), would be an automatic impediment.

 

[dandingo]

I really appreciate all of the responses. They all helped me formulate an excellent response, which I believe has worked. He argued a bit and then turned the tide and started talking about everyday things and how the family’s doing. Thanks again!

 

[Della]

I really appreciate all of the responses. They all helped me formulate an excellent response, which I believe has worked. He argued a bit and then turned the tide and started talking about everyday things and how the family’s doing. Thanks again!

 

[Hokomai]

Neither the OP nor his cousin said anything about homosexual marriage, much less civil marriage.

Furthermore, I think your understanding of the Sacrament of Matrimony is flawed. The Church does not see sin, even habitual sin as an impediment to marriage: vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3X.HTM
Wikipedia confirms this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_marriage#Conditions_for_a_Valid_Sacramental_Marriage

The only requirements for a valid sacramental marriage are:

1. 
   *]The spouses are free to marry (meaning, they aren’t bound by a previous marriage, by holy orders, or by a vow of chastity)
   *]They freely exchange consent
   *]They intend to marry for life
   *]There are two witnesses and a proper minister
   
   If I am wrong on this account, please let me know, with reference to the proper Church documents.
   
   However, while it is not definitvely required that you be in a state of grace in order to receive the Sacrament, it is preferable for spiritual reasons to enter into the marriage starting in a state of grace. Hence why most priests will give confession to the couple on the day before their wedding, usually sometime after the rehearsal or whenever convenient.

1. 
   Hmmm. I was not talking about the validity of the marriage, but what I understand to be the Catholic teaching about sacramental effect. How can sacramental grace be received by someone in a state or grave sin?

 

[CatholicTrekkie]

Hmmm. I was not talking about the validity of the marriage, but what I understand to be the Catholic teaching about sacramental effect. How can sacramental grace be received by someone in a state or grave sin?

Hmmm, you bring up a good question. Perhaps my own understanding is lacking in this area. If someone could correct or educate me on this, I more than welcome it.

I do know (as I’m sure you probably know) that one should not receive the Eucharist unless in a state of grace.

Furthermore, being in a state of mortal sin necessarily means that you have no grace within you, for mortal sin is a total rejection of God.

I think there is a distinction between the validity of a sacrament and the receiving of the grace from that sacrament. I believe (I could be wrong on this) that, in order for a Sacrament to be validly imparted, the receiver of the Sacrament is not strictly required to be in a state of grace, i.e. not in a state of mortal sin (except in the case of Holy Communion). Now that I think of it however, the very nature of a Sacrament is a sharing in the grace of God.

Ok, I think I got it. A Sacrament imparts grace on a person, however, a person can reject the grace of a sacrament for one reason or another. This is not to imply, however, that a Sacrament imparts grace in only one instance in time. The Sacrament continually imparts grace on a person, which can be accepted or rejected at any point in time. That is to say, though perhaps at the time of institution of the Sacrament of Matrimony you reject its grace by being in a state of mortal sin, you can later on receive the grace from this Sacrament by repenting.

Now, I could be wrong about this. If I am, someone please correct my understanding. I don’t want to be wrong about something as important as sacramental grace .

 

[EricFilmer]

As I understand it, the Church does teach that gluttons cannot marry. Assuming that ‘glutton’ means someone who habitually sins in a grave way and intends to continue to do so, they are not in what the Church considers a ‘state of grace’. So while they could marry, the marriage would be without sacramental effect until the person involved repented of their gluttony, and became, therefore, not a glutton.

Hmmm. I was not talking about the validity of the marriage, but what I understand to be the Catholic teaching about sacramental effect. How can sacramental grace be received by someone in a state or grave sin?

I think there is a distinction between the validity of a sacrament and the receiving of the grace from that sacrament. I believe (I could be wrong on this) that, in order for a Sacrament to be validly imparted, the receiver of the Sacrament is not strictly required to be in a state of grace, i.e. not in a state of mortal sin (except in the case of Holy Communion). Now that I think of it however, the very nature of a Sacrament is a sharing in the grace of God.

Ok, I think I got it. A Sacrament imparts grace on a person, however, a person can reject the grace of a sacrament for one reason or another. This is not to imply, however, that a Sacrament imparts grace in only one instance in time. The Sacrament continually imparts grace on a person, which can be accepted or rejected at any point in time. That is to say, though perhaps at the time of institution of the Sacrament of Matrimony you reject its grace by being in a state of mortal sin, you can later on receive the grace from this Sacrament by repenting.

Based on my understanding of the sacrament of marriage, CT, you have given a correct assessment.

Hokomai, aside from your initial statement “…the Church does teach that gluttons cannot marry” (i.e., the Church does not actually teach that) what you have presented is also in keeping with my understanding of how the sacramental principle works in this situation.

According to Canon Law, Catholics have a right to the sacraments, but the Church presents certain conditions which must be met for a person to get married (and CT gave the basic outline in #9, although I think a couple of other things need to be added to the source material, such as “intention of fidelity”). Generally speaking, being in a state of grace is highly recommended before making marriage vows, but not a requirement for the sacrament to be valid and licit. The sacramental bond of marriage can still be created between the husband and wife, but does not become a channel of the sacramental grace of marriage until the person goes to confession and is restored to a state of grace.

And to give this notion some additional affirmation, consider this: if being in a state of grace was a requirement for a valid marriage then annulment investigations would examine whether or not the bride and/or groom was in a state of grace when making their vows. But annulment investigations do not (and I have assisted various parishes with several annulment investigations over the past few years, so I’m speaking from experience). In terms of sin, such investigations are only interested in sins which have a direct bearing on the requirements for a marriage to be valid (for example, if the groom was not in a state of grace because he already had another wife on the side [and there was no annulment] but he kept this secret from his new bride and the priest; in this case, the groom seeking a new marriage is not only the sin of adultery, but also a “prior bond” issue preventing a valid marriage).

 

[CatholicTrekkie]

Based on my understanding of the sacrament of marriage, CT, you have given a correct assessment.

Hokomai, aside from your initial statement “…the Church does teach that gluttons cannot marry” (i.e., the Church does not actually teach that) what you have presented is also in keeping with my understanding of how the sacramental principle works in this situation.

According to Canon Law, Catholics have a right to the sacraments, but the Church presents certain conditions which must be met for a person to get married (and CT gave the basic outline in #9, although I think a couple of other things need to be added to the source material, such as “intention of fidelity”). Generally speaking, being in a state of grace is highly recommended before making marriage vows, but not a requirement for the sacrament to be valid and licit. The sacramental bond of marriage can still be created between the husband and wife, but does not become a channel of the sacramental grace of marriage until the person goes to confession and is restored to a state of grace.

And to give this notion some additional affirmation, consider this: if being in a state of grace was a requirement for a valid marriage then annulment investigations would examine whether or not the bride and/or groom was in a state of grace when making their vows. But annulment investigations do not (and I have assisted various parishes with several annulment investigations over the past few years, so I’m speaking from experience). In terms of sin, such investigations are only interested in sins which have a direct bearing on the requirements for a marriage to be valid (for example, if the groom was not in a state of grace because he already had another wife on the side [and there was no annulment] but he kept this secret from his new bride and the priest; in this case, the groom seeking a new marriage is not only the sin of adultery, but also a “prior bond” issue preventing a valid marriage).

Ah, thank you for your help. That was very informative.

 

[Nita]

Based on my understanding of the sacrament of marriage, CT, you have given a correct assessment.

Hokomai, aside from your initial statement “…the Church does teach that gluttons cannot marry” (i.e., the Church does not actually teach that) what you have presented is also in keeping with my understanding of how the sacramental principle works in this situation.

According to Canon Law, Catholics have a right to the sacraments, but the Church presents certain conditions which must be met for a person to get married (and CT gave the basic outline in #9, although I think a couple of other things need to be added to the source material, such as “intention of fidelity”). Generally speaking, being in a state of grace is highly recommended before making marriage vows, but not a requirement for the sacrament to be valid and licit. The sacramental bond of marriage can still be created between the husband and wife, but does not become a channel of the sacramental grace of marriage until the person goes to confession and is restored to a state of grace.

…

Also, in regards to the sacramental graces accompanying the sacrament of Matrimony, I think the spouse of the unrepentent glutton would receive those sacramental graces even if the glutton didn’t.

 

[Hokomai]

Based on my understanding of the sacrament of marriage, CT, you have given a correct assessment.

Hokomai, aside from your initial statement “…the Church does teach that gluttons cannot marry” (i.e., the Church does not actually teach that) what you have presented is also in keeping with my understanding of how the sacramental principle works in this situation.

According to Canon Law, Catholics have a right to the sacraments, but the Church presents certain conditions which must be met for a person to get married (and CT gave the basic outline in #9, although I think a couple of other things need to be added to the source material, such as “intention of fidelity”). Generally speaking, being in a state of grace is highly recommended before making marriage vows, but not a requirement for the sacrament to be valid and licit. The sacramental bond of marriage can still be created between the husband and wife, but does not become a channel of the sacramental grace of marriage until the person goes to confession and is restored to a state of grace.

And to give this notion some additional affirmation, consider this: if being in a state of grace was a requirement for a valid marriage then annulment investigations would examine whether or not the bride and/or groom was in a state of grace when making their vows. But annulment investigations do not (and I have assisted various parishes with several annulment investigations over the past few years, so I’m speaking from experience). In terms of sin, such investigations are only interested in sins which have a direct bearing on the requirements for a marriage to be valid (for example, if the groom was not in a state of grace because he already had another wife on the side [and there was no annulment] but he kept this secret from his new bride and the priest; in this case, the groom seeking a new marriage is not only the sin of adultery, but also a “prior bond” issue preventing a valid marriage).

Thanks Eric. That seems to resolve it nicely. I did not express myself well. I also found it hard to track down a reference to the blocking if that is the word, of sacramental grace by mortal sin, although the idea was sitting in my ancient brain somewhere, so I must have either read it or been taught it. Is it a Thomist idea?

 

[EricFilmer]

Ah, thank you for your help. That was very informative.

You’re very welcome

Also, in regards to the sacramental graces accompanying the sacrament of Matrimony, I think the spouse of the unrepentent glutton would receive those sacramental graces even if the glutton didn’t.

I would like to think this as well. I don’t think there is a clear teaching from the Church on this, so how God handles this may be one of those mysteries of the faith. One could probably make a theological argument for it either way.

Thanks Eric. That seems to resolve it nicely. I did not express myself well. I also found it hard to track down a reference to the blocking if that is the word, of sacramental grace by mortal sin, although the idea was sitting in my ancient brain somewhere, so I must have either read it or been taught it. Is it a Thomist idea?

You’re very welcome. In terms of your question, unfortunately I’m not sure. Wherever I picked that up, it was several years ago and I don’t recall the source. Alas, I am currently on a trip and will be away from my personal library of theology and sacramental resource books for several days. Perhaps someone else will be able to fill us in.

 

[Nita]

…
I would like to think this as well. I don’t think there is a clear teaching from the Church on this, so how God handles this may be one of those mysteries of the faith. One could probably make a theological argument for it either way.

…

We can look at what the Church does teach and reach conclusions however.

The Church teaches that all the sacraments confer sanctifying grace and specific sacramental grace. From the Council of Trent, Session 7, Canons on the Sacraments in General ( ewtn.com/library/councils/trent7.htm ):
Canon 6. If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law do not contain the grace which they signify, **or that they do not confer that grace **on those who do not place an obstacle in the way, as though they were only outward signs of grace…: let him be anathema."
(cf. Denzinger 849)

Canon 7. If anyone shall say that grace, as far as concerns God’s part,** is not given **through the sacraments always and to all men, even though they receive them rightly, but only sometimes and to some persons: let him be anathema.
(cf. D 850)

The betrothed in the state of grace is not “placing an obstacle in the way” and can therefore be considered to be receiving the sacrament “rightly”.

Being in the state of unrepentent, unconfessed mortal sin would be “placing an obstacle in the way” and would therefore block, in the sinner, the reception of the graces given in the Sacrament of Matrimony – until such time as he/she repents and receives forgiveness in Confession.