It’s precisely BECAUSE smoking is worse that it’s sinful. Smoking has no benefits of any kind, whereas junkfood does in fact provide some nutrients to you and keep you alive. And junkfood in moderation doesn’t harm your health at all, whereas there isn’t any such thing as a ‘safe’ level of smoking.
Smoking is NOT a sin. Like other drugs, it only becomes sinful if “abused.” Look it up in the Catechism of the Catholic Church for further clarification.
What about foods and drinks with artificial sweeteners (e.g. diet coke, no calorie mints)? These are being consumed simply for the pleasure of it and have no nutritional value whatsoever.
Then, what about candy that is sweetened with artificial sweeteners. They do not hydrate the body. They don’t have any nutritional value. One would eat them solely for the pleasure of it. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that, but according to the logic of a few here, it would be wrong.
There is not a candy in existence that is non-caloric so, yes, they too will have some nutritive value . So using the extremely unlikely for the majority of us scenario of being lost in the woods and only having “diet” or “sugar free” candies, they can indeed keep us alive until we are rescued.
OK, then what about tasting some citric acid:There is not a candy in existence that is non-caloric so, yes, they too will have some nutritive value . So using the extremely unlikely for the majority of us scenario of being lost in the woods and only having “diet” or “sugar free” candies, they can indeed keep us alive until we are rescued.
Not only that but the latest “research” on chocolate is saying that having some in moderation is good for you if you consume the higher cocoa content ones. There are some great phytonutrients in the darker chocolates, so not only can you enjoy that chocolate bar, you are doing some good for your body! And if you want to say something like those none-chocolate candies that are sugar free are non-nutritive, there are still calories in them and some, like the hard candies, help some with a dry cough
Brenda V.
(not directed at you, but at “the logic of a few here”)
)I think we all agree with the fact that it isn’t sinful to eat low calory deserts or drink diet coke, but it’s interesting to see where your logic takes you, to gain a deeper understanding of the issue.(not directed at you, but at “the logic of a few here”)
God created us to be able to experience pleasure. He could have created us to eat without pleasure. After all, we breathe without pleasure. One of the remarkable characteristics of human beings is just how much pleasure we derive out of so many different things.
Is it sinful to smell flowers? Is it sinful to watch a sunset or a waterfall? Is it sinful to listen to Choral Treasure? (OK, I snuck that one in!
The problems come from excess, imbalance.
All the pleasures I was referring to are ones that are not inherently sinful in themselves. Eating, drinking, smelling, hearing, reading a poem etc have no moral component attached to them. They are in a different realm than those acts which do have a moral component, such as contraception. In the realm of sex, I would say that sex during time of infertility is exactly like eating something with limited nutritional value, and yet the Church has no problem with sex during time of intertility.
I don’t see the need to justify drinking diet coke. There is nothing inherently immoral about it. It is either harmless, or at the worst, it could involve some obsessive behavior (drinking 12 cans a day, for example), in which case, again, the problem is in excess and imbalance.
Nice thoughts! I’ll have to think about what you said.
