Gluttony and Eating for Pleasure Alone

  • Thread starter Thread starter MysticMissMisty
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MysticMissMisty

Guest
Salvete, omnes!

(First of all, please forgive if this is posted in the wrong place!)

I do believe I am thoroughly confused about what constitutes gluttony.

On reading posts both here and on the New Advent site (including the Catholic Encyclopedia entry), it seems that a common thread running throughout discussions of the subject is that eating outside ofthe purpose for which God created it, i.e., to sustain the body, is sinful.

Others on this particular forum have stated, though, that eating solely for pleasure is not necessarily sinful but that gluttony constitutes an inordinate desire for food such that it becomes a priority over spiritual matters of greater import (the “their god being their bellies” scenario).

So, which is it?

If the first scenario is the case, this would make such things as snacking for the mere pleasure of, say, enjoying the sweetness of something a sin.

Furthermore, if gluttony falls into such a scenario (going against God’s design for eating), should not such things as snacking be considered not even a venial but a mortal sin as masturbation (ugh, hate even writing the word, but it was the example that came to mind as I saw a post along similar lines before I wrote this one!), since masturbation is considered sinful because it takes pleasure beyond that for which God ordained sexual intercourse?

Indeed, I saw another “gluttony” post on here which cited the New Advent material I’m thinking of as I write this one and there was little response to counter it. So, does this mean that the first scenario is actually the correct (or at least a correct) one? If not, I would like to see some counterclaims, though, I think, by necessity, these counterclaims would also have to deal with the issue of the Church considering such things as masturbation a mortal sin on grounds of going against God’s design.

Before I considered gluttony in the above light, I’d, especially as a Protestant, always argued that, while the primary purpose of eating is, in fact, to sustain the body, it wouldn’t necessarily offend God to eat outside of that purpose, unless it was going against the health of the body in some way. I would’ve even argued that God would have rejoiced in our pleasure at this kind of eating, if we did so in a spirit of thanksgiving. However, the masturbation issue (and others like it that use the design argument) would seem to counter this assertion.

I mean, intuitively, they still seem to me rather different situations, though I can’t seem precisely to put my finger on why. Masturbation seems perhaps somehow more closely connected with sex for procreation than does eating for pleasure and gluttony. But, intellectually, it’s still hard for me to make any real/practical distinction. Is there really any to be made?

Again, as an ignorant Protestant looking into the possibility of becoming Catholic, bear with me when I ask a further question: Has the Church authoritatively (here, I mean “infallibly” either through Pope or council) established the “doctrine” (for lack of a better word), first, of what I called the “design” argument above, i.e., that nothing should be done apart from specifcally what God designed it for? Furthermore, has she authoritatively condemned masturbation, either for some other reason or on the “design” grounds with which we are dealing here? Bringing it back around to my original topic, has the same been established for the definition of “gluttony”?

Maximas gratias vobis! 🙂

P.S. I honestly feel as ifI’ve used the “m”-word fr too often in this post. Let it be know that I truly have no desire to offend anyone!
 
Jesus asked for and ate a piece of fish after his resurrection, when his glorified body certainly didn’t need the sustenance. Eating for pleasure is not intrinsically sinful, but of course it might be different for individuals (people who have eating disorders, etc - and we should make a reasonable effort to take care of our bodies, which are temples). This is different from using sex outside of its designed purpose, which is always intrinsically sinful. St. Paul says that whoever sins sexually sins against his own body. I don’t have my Bible or Catechism in front of me, so I’m sure others will have more elaborate things to say.
 
This is a really interesting topic. I asked a priest about it, I hope I relay what he says without too much error.

Basically the pleasure when we feel when we eat, before the fall of man (Adam and Eve and all that) this pleasure was ordered, and was a pleasure that put humans in full communion with God. To eat was to be close to God, to enjoy the food. The very sensation of pleasure is a very important part of eating given to us by God.

Because now our feelings are tainted by original sin, even though baptism wipes this, we are prone to fall into disordered relationships with our bodies again and again if we don’t stick close to the sacraments, prayer etc… This includes disordered relationships with food.

So humans have all sorts of disordered relationships with food. Gluttony is a good example, but constant dieting and obsessing over every bite can be just as sinful and damaging. So to have an ordered relationship with food, a good place to start is to thank God for it, and keep God in mind each time we eat. To enjoy food is to give thanks.

I do not think snacks and sweets are bad. Even if they are unnecessary to our nutrition, they are very necessary to our well being in other ways, and God has given us this gift. Examples include when we all share a birthday cake, what pleasure! And this brings so many people together. Same goes for any feast… the pleasure of eating helps us commune with others and God. And sometimes a snack or treat just lifts our mood, this is also a gift. The best way to stop eating turning into a sin is to turn our mind to God and thanks him each time we eat.

But actually, the point being, the primary aim of food is not actually to sustain the body, but to help us be close to God. To treat food as though it is merely fuel is to miss part of the mystery of God’s creation.
 
Here’s my $0.02, FWIW:

I will begin by addressing your question regarding… we’ll call it impurity, as it is described in Bible, and because you’re clearly bothered by the term “masturbation.”

The Church has always affirmed by tradition the doctrine that impurity is a gravely disordered act. The Church teaches that for an act to be good, in the fullest sense of the word, it must be complete. That is, the act must complete that end for which is was intended, both in meaning and in purpose. The meaning of human sexuality is unitive love, and the purpose of it is the co-creation of life, which is the fruit of all unitive love.

These same ends may be said to be true also of the consumption of food, but in a lesser way. The meaning of eating is again unitive love. However, it is a less perfect image of the unitive love of God than the sexual act is. In the sexual act, two co-equal partners are coming together in an act of free, mutual self-giving, and also mutual else-receiving. In the consumptive act, two unequal competitors are coming together in an act of exclusive else-receiving, and non-free exclusive self-giving.

Moreover, the purpose of the acts are also the same, but to different orders of magnitude. In the sexual act, an entirely new life springs forth in the womb of the woman. In the consumptive act, renewed life springs forth in the body of the consumer.

Considering how similar these acts are in both meaning and purpose, it is natural, then, that these should be considered as analogously relating. Indeed, within the life of the Church, these two acts are intimately intertwined. When the Catholic approaches the Eucharist, the immediate act is that of consumption. It is very one-sided, as the Lamb has been sacrificed to renew life with us, who consume Him. But the Eucharistic celebration is also an image of the Bridal chamber, wherein Christ comes to us, His Bride, as a co-equal, mutual self-giver, and we are expected to give ourselves to Him as wholly as He has given Himself to us, and we are to receive Him in as much as He is ready to receive us. And in this mutual exchange of self-giving love between us and our Redeemer, a new life springs forth within our bodies, the life of the Holy Spirit, Divine Life within us, just as Divine Life sprung forth within the womb of Mary in her Spouse, the Holy Spirit, came to her in her bridal chamber.

So, the question we must then render is how gluttony offends against the meaning and purpose of consumption. Aquinas defines 5 ways one can commit the sin of gluttony:

Regarding the food consumed:
  1. Substance or Specie: By an inordinate desire for “sumptuous” or costly food (i.e., desiring to only eat the finest foods, like lobster, or steaks, etc.).
  2. Quality: By an inordinate desire for “dainty” food, or food prepared too nicely (i.e., desiring only to eat at fine dining restaurants where the food prepared is like a piece of art on your plate).
  3. Quantity: By an inordinate desire to eat excessively, or “too much” (I think this is pretty self explanatory, it’s what people typically think of when speaking of gluttony).
Regarding the actual consumption of food:
4) Haste/Impatience: By an inordinate desire to eat hastily (immediately), or at whenever one gets the inkling (i.e., too impatient to wait for the normal eating hour, as in a family or cultural paradigm).
5) Greed/Voraciousness: By an inordinate desire to eat quickly, or “greedily” and so fails to respect due etiquette (i.e., stuffing your face).
 
Each of these fails to regard the proper attention one ought to give to the meaning and purpose of eating. An inordinate desire for sumptuous, dainty, or excessive food fails to respect the purpose of food as sustenance. Note, the sin here is not desiring sumptuous, dainty, or even excessive food (regarding excessive food, one might imagine the situation of someone recovering for prolonged starvation and being in need of excessive amounts of food). The sin is the inordinate desire for such foods. One may consume such foods while maintaining a proper respect for the purpose of food as sustenance, but when these things become a preoccupation or an expectation, then the desire for them has become inordinate, and therefore sinful.

An inordinate desire to eat hastily or greedily fails to respect the meaning of food as a unitive act. Until now, I have only spoken of the unitive nature of this act as regards the relationship between the consumer and the one being consumed. However, food plays two other significant roles in human society, both of which are unitive in nature. The first is that such food is a gift from God, and recognition of that gift through humble and thankful reception of it helps to draw us into a deeper relationship with God. The second is that mealtime is a typical human activity, normally at set times throughout the day, not simply as a time to eat, but also a time to commune. Food brings family and friends together.

In eating hastily one fails to respect, in a particular way, the communal nature of the activity, and offends against the community with whom the dinner normally takes place. Moreover, as throughout history, certain customs and rituals develop around meal times, which differ from culture to culture, which generally revolve around either giving thanks to God for the gifts received, or for taking time to respect the sacrifices that were made to make the meal possible. In eating hastily (i.e., before the customary meal times), one offends against such thanksgivings and respects.

In eating speedily, or greedily, one offends against the cultural etiquettes, as well as a certain level of respect for the gifts and sacrifices made of the food, in similar manner as eating hastily. But again, there are reasonable instances wherein one may virtuously eat hastily and/or speedily. It is not the desire or act in itself that is sinful, but the inordinate desire to do so.

So, how does all of this pertain to snacking? Well, one would have to ask the following questions: Do I have an inordinate desire for a particular quality of snack? Do I have an inordinate desire for a particular presentation of the snack? Do I have an inordinate desire to eat excessive amounts of the snack? Do I have an inordinate desire to snack before mealtime (and thus ruin my appetite)? Do I have an inordinate desire to eat this snack greedily?

And also, does my snacking respect the unitive meaning of food (i.e., do I still thank God for it, am I snacking with a group of friends around a board game, etc.)? And, does my snacking respect the sustenance purpose of food (i.e., am I snacking because I’m hungry, or am I snacking because I do it habitually)?

I can see plenty of scenarios where there’s absolutely nothing wrong with snacking, and indeed actually quite good.
 
MrSnaith said:
Each of these fails to regard the proper attention one ought to give to the meaning and purpose of eating. An inordinate desire for sumptuous, dainty, or excessive food fails to respect the purpose of food as sustenance. Note, the sin here is not desiring sumptuous, dainty, or even excessive food (regarding excessive food, one might imagine the situation of someone recovering for prolonged starvation and being in need of excessive amounts of food). The sin is the inordinate desire for such foods. One may consume such foods while maintaining a proper respect for the purpose of food as sustenance, but when these things become a preoccupation or an expectation, then the desire for them has become inordinate, and therefore sinful.

An inordinate desire to eat hastily or greedily fails to respect the meaning of food as a unitive act. Until now, I have only spoken of the unitive nature of this act as regards the relationship between the consumer and the one being consumed. However, food plays two other significant roles in human society, both of which are unitive in nature. The first is that such food is a gift from God, and recognition of that gift through humble and thankful reception of it helps to draw us into a deeper relationship with God. The second is that mealtime is a typical human activity, normally at set times throughout the day, not simply as a time to eat, but also a time to commune. Food brings family and friends together.

In eating hastily one fails to respect, in a particular way, the communal nature of the activity, and offends against the community with whom the dinner normally takes place. Moreover, as throughout history, certain customs and rituals develop around meal times, which differ from culture to culture, which generally revolve around either giving thanks to God for the gifts received, or for taking time to respect the sacrifices that were made to make the meal possible. In eating hastily (i.e., before the customary meal times), one offends against such thanksgivings and respects.

In eating speedily, or greedily, one offends against the cultural etiquettes, as well as a certain level of respect for the gifts and sacrifices made of the food, in similar manner as eating hastily. But again, there are reasonable instances wherein one may virtuously eat hastily and/or speedily. It is not the desire or act in itself that is sinful, but the inordinate desire to do so.

So, how does all of this pertain to snacking? Well, one would have to ask the following questions: Do I have an inordinate desire for a particular quality of snack? Do I have an inordinate desire for a particular presentation of the snack? Do I have an inordinate desire to eat excessive amounts of the snack? Do I have an inordinate desire to snack before mealtime (and thus ruin my appetite)? Do I have an inordinate desire to eat this snack greedily?

And also, does my snacking respect the unitive meaning of food (i.e., do I still thank God for it, am I snacking with a group of friends around a board game, etc.)? And, does my snacking respect the sustenance purpose of food (i.e., am I snacking because I’m hungry, or am I snacking because I do it habitually)?

I can see plenty of scenarios where there’s absolutely nothing wrong with snacking, and indeed actually quite good.
Click to expand...
All right. Here’s a scenario:

It’s just after Hallowqeen. I go to the store to buy some gobstoppers because I haven’t had them in a long time and because I just thought how much I really used to like the flavor. I go home and, at some random time (pick any time), I grab a gobstopper and eat it because I desire the flavor. I am presently sitting alone, say, on the sofa.

Is the above scenario a sinful scenario. I wonder this because,

a) I am consuming for pleasure alone and not necessarily with a view to sustenance or hunger.

b) I am alone. (You seemed to suggest that eating always has to be in a social environment.)

Please note that, when you asked all those questions about inordinate desire, I answered “no” to them all.
 
Gliggle said:
I do not think snacks and sweets are bad. Even if they are unnecessary to our nutrition, they are very necessary to our well being in other ways, and God has given us this gift. Examples include when we all share a birthday cake, what pleasure! And this brings so many people together. Same goes for any feast… the pleasure of eating helps us commune with others and God. And sometimes a snack or treat just lifts our mood, this is also a gift. The best way to stop eating turning into a sin is to turn our mind to God and thanks him each time we eat.
Click to expand...
I had it explained to me that before the fall we would just eat what our bodies needed, no more no less. But, I was thinking about this recently. It would seem like eating ice cream for instance would not be allowed under such a narrow view. Now, The primary purpose of eating is nutrition. So, If you take away the primary purpose of eating, like eating shards of glass for instance, it is going to have a harmful effect on your body. However, ice cream isn’t like eating shards of glass. It does provide some nourishment for your body. It for instance can give your body energy. And, if you were starving on a desert island and all you had to eat was ice cream it could keep you alive. So I think that ice cream and other sweets may not contradict the primary purpose of eating. Rather they add another depth to our eating. Kind of like how one doesn’t need to look at a beautiful painting in order to survive, but it does provide a greater enjoyment to life. So these sweets can provide a certain level of enjoyment that just eating ‘bread alone’ does not. However, they can only be eaten in moderation or they can become counterproductive to health.

…

I think that gluttony is really when we become so addicted to our food that they have control over us, instead of us having power over them. We lose our will to resist them and can not control ourselves in our consumption of them. So we end up over eating. I suppose fasting is a way to help overcome this. In our modern culture we have invented all sorts of addictive foods that make it even harder for us to have self control over our palette. I don’t think its wrong to enjoy your food. I think the problem is when we lose self control and are no longer able to control our appetites. We become controlled by our cravings. This is a battle we all have to face on a daily basis. I know I sure do.

But on the other hand it would be a shame if we were so worried about committing gluttony that we could no longer enjoy our food. The bible talks about feasts and the wedding supper of the Lamb. So obviously food is connected with enjoyment even in the Bible.
 
Jesus said he who sins is a slave to sin. Really, sin is some kind of an addiction. And, an addiction is something that has power over us. Thus, we are not free when we are addicted.

Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who practices sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed". (John 8:34-36)

The good news is if we read what Jesus says carefully is that Jesus is going to set us free from sin and harmful addictions. We don’t have to do it alone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top