Is it wrong to enjoy creation? Almost

[e_c]

Many people don’t have a clue what the “nada” doctrine is. Those who learn it on this Earth we call saints. Everyone else learns it in Purgatory. It is the core “practical” spiritual message of the Gospel: Spurn everything for the love of God, delighting only in Him. (“Nada,” Spanish for “nothing,” as in “nothing but God.”

This is a glittering generality nowadays. People don’t typically understand what this actually means “on the ground” in day to day life, at least completely. It means MORE than “not sinning.” What it means is a systematic destruction of the satisfaction of one’s appetites for created things for their own sake. In other words, if you are enjoying some created thing for a reason other than that you have found God in it, you aren’t quite there yet. Anything that is not leading you to God must be given up insofar as possible, at least until it can do its rightful job. You know that it is a well ordered pleasure (in this sense) when its experience immediately raises your heart and mind to God, and you enjoy Him more than the created thing you are experiencing.

The appetites are not bad, nor are they seeking something bad. The problem is that what they are seeking is not for the greater purpose of delighting in God. Put plainly, “worldly” enjoyment is an aberration of the true purpose of the pleasures of created things. If you eat chocolate just because you like the taste of chocolate, and not because the taste helps you to encounter God, it is an attachment that will have to be purged in order to reach spiritual perfection. If you say it’s for health reasons, well, that may be (if you live in the Middle Ages or something), but if the same thing could be accomplished with the same ease by a bitter medicine, would you still go for the chocolate? “Yes, it tastes good!” And there we have it. The heart is divided… It can’t be wholly in love with God, because it wants to enjoy a creature for its own sake.

This is an officially HARD TEACHING. If you are freaking out right now, you can begin to understand why his brother Carmelites threw St. John of the Cross in a jail cell. You can also see the logic behind Paul’s (…and Christ’s…) teaching on celibacy as well as understand the contempt that many people have for it. And such hissy fits really just prove the depth of one’s individual attachments and the lameness of attachment in general. Once one realizes he must become detached from the enjoyment of created pleasures, the thought process may look something like this: “Oh, well I’m not that attached… I can go without it whenever I want.” Then, once/if he realizes this is dishonest and misunderstands that the project is not about some individual pleasure but ALL pleasures that are not leading directly to God, he may say, “Okay, I will give up at least this kind of pleasure for a time and then I will be able to have it back soon enough, once I can enjoy God through it.” After he sees the proof of the depth of his attachment by that statement, he might say, “I think I do enjoy God through all these things, I just need to become more aware of that.” This is certainly laughable… An enjoyment of God is just not able to be missed.

The craziest thing is that many people also (rightly) state that they can lose such attachments in purgatory. The problem is that purgatory is a terrible experience - much worse than the experience of detaching oneself now - and there is no merit accrued to us after death. So we have the choice of light suffering for glory or heavy suffering for no glory. Which makes more sense?

Finally, one will hopefully be inclined to resign and to pick up his cross each day, denying himself (his appetites) in everything he can while still doing his duty. We are, after all, to renounce EVERYTHING for His sake.

People will want to say, “It’s not a sin to drink a Coke for pleasure!” Indeed, it is not a sin. But to frame it this way is just another mark of attachment… We do not become saints merely by avoiding sin, but by going above and beyond “right and wrong” and into the realm of “imperfect and perfect.” Put another way, did your best friend become such by simply not offending you, or was there something more to it? Does he just want to do what he is obliged to do, or does he want to enjoy you all the time?

For most people, to close out every single selfish pleasure at once would occasion at least one of three things - pride at taking on such a project, despair once one encounters the extreme difficulties, or bitterness over the lack of worldly consolations. (If you are happy that you can’t close out the whole world because you would be occasioning sin in yourself, then this is yet further proof of attachment…) So, instead it is better for most to ween themselves off the world, and to be sad about their weakness in needing such a slow pace.

Friendship, because it is incorporated into charity, deserves its own separate discussion.

Commence the torrent of excuses, complaints, and theological backflips to try to get out of this. (Also, re-read the part in bold and the title of the thread.)

 

[Vico]

…

Catechism of the Catholic Church on this topic is:

1472 To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the “eternal punishment” of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the “temporal punishment” of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.

1863 Venial sin weakens charity; it manifests a disordered affection for created goods; it impedes the soul’s progress in the exercise of the virtues and the practice of the moral good; it merits temporal punishment. Deliberate and unrepented venial sin disposes us little by little to commit mortal sin. However venial sin does not break the covenant with God. With God’s grace it is humanly reparable. "Venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and consequently eternal happiness."134

While he is in the flesh, man cannot help but have at least some light sins. But do not despise these sins which we call “light”: if you take them for light when you weigh them, tremble when you count them. A number of light objects makes a great mass; a number of drops fills a river; a number of grains makes a heap. What then is our hope? Above all, confession.135

2407 In economic matters, respect for human dignity requires the practice of the virtue of temperance, so as to moderate attachment to this world’s goods; the practice of the virtue of justice, to preserve our neighbor’s rights and render him what is his due; and the practice of solidarity, in accordance with the golden rule and in keeping with the generosity of the Lord, who "though he was rich, yet for your sake . . . became poor so that by his poverty, you might become rich."190​

 

[e_c]

Catechism of the Catholic Church on this topic is:

1472 To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the “eternal punishment” of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the “temporal punishment” of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.

1863 Venial sin weakens charity; it manifests a disordered affection for created goods; it impedes the soul’s progress in the exercise of the virtues and the practice of the moral good; it merits temporal punishment. Deliberate and unrepented venial sin disposes us little by little to commit mortal sin. However venial sin does not break the covenant with God. With God’s grace it is humanly reparable. "Venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and consequently eternal happiness."134

While he is in the flesh, man cannot help but have at least some light sins. But do not despise these sins which we call “light”: if you take them for light when you weigh them, tremble when you count them. A number of light objects makes a great mass; a number of drops fills a river; a number of grains makes a heap. What then is our hope? Above all, confession.135

2407 In economic matters, respect for human dignity requires the practice of the virtue of temperance, so as to moderate attachment to this world’s goods; the practice of the virtue of justice, to preserve our neighbor’s rights and render him what is his due; and the practice of solidarity, in accordance with the golden rule and in keeping with the generosity of the Lord, who "though he was rich, yet for your sake . . . became poor so that by his poverty, you might become rich."190​

Thanks!

Yes - all sin implies attachment. BUT, attachment does not imply sin. Listen to Teresa of Avila on her own growth in prayer: “I had some attachments left, which were not wrong in themselves, but were enough to spoil everything.” Nothing imperfect can enter Heaven - we must be completely perfect. If it doesn’t happen in this life, it must happen in the next.

 

[Vico]

Thanks!

Yes - all sin implies attachment. BUT, attachment does not imply sin. Listen to Teresa of Avila on her own growth in prayer: “I had some attachments left, which were not wrong in themselves, but were enough to spoil everything.” Nothing imperfect can enter Heaven - we must be completely perfect. If it doesn’t happen in this life, it must happen in the next.

And it is an exercise of temperance to fast and abstain that*** liberates*** us, as taught by Pope Paul VI:

True penitence, however, cannot ever prescind from physical asceticism as well. Our whole being in fact, body and soul, (indeed the whole of nature, even animals without reason, as Holy Scripture often points out)(46) must participate actively in this religious act whereby the creature recognizes divine holiness and majesty. The necessity of the mortification of the flesh also stands clearly revealed if we consider the fragility of our nature, in which, since Adam’s sin, flesh and spirit have contrasting desires.(47) This exercise of bodily mortification-far removed from any form of stoicism does not imply a condemnation of the flesh which sons of God deign to assume.(48) On the contrary, mortification aims at the “liberation”(49) of man, who often finds himself, because of concupiscence, almost chained(50) by his own senses. Through “corporal fasting”(51) man regains strength and the “wound inflicted on the dignity of our nature by intemperance is cured by the medicine of a salutary abstinence.”(52)

Nevertheless, in the New Testament and in the history of the Church—although the duty of doing penance is motivated above all by participation in the sufferings of Christ-the necessity of an asceticism which chastises the body and brings it into subjection is affirmed with special insistence by the example of Christ Himself.(53)

w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-vi_apc_19660217_paenitemini.html

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

Many people don’t have a clue what the “nada” doctrine is. Those who learn it on this Earth we call saints. Everyone else learns it in Purgatory. It is the core “practical” spiritual message of the Gospel: Spurn everything for the love of God, delighting only in Him. (“Nada,” Spanish for “nothing,” as in “nothing but God.”

This is a glittering generality nowadays. People don’t typically understand what this actually means “on the ground” in day to day life, at least completely. It means MORE than “not sinning.” What it means is a systematic destruction of the satisfaction of one’s appetites for created things for their own sake. In other words, if you are enjoying some created thing for a reason other than that you have found God in it, you aren’t quite there yet. Anything that is not leading you to God must be given up insofar as possible, at least until it can do its rightful job. You know that it is a well ordered pleasure (in this sense) when its experience immediately raises your heart and mind to God, and you enjoy Him more than the created thing you are experiencing.

The appetites are not bad, nor are they seeking something bad. The problem is that what they are seeking is not for the greater purpose of delighting in God. Put plainly, “worldly” enjoyment is an aberration of the true purpose of the pleasures of created things. If you eat chocolate just because you like the taste of chocolate, and not because the taste helps you to encounter God, it is an attachment that will have to be purged in order to reach spiritual perfection. If you say it’s for health reasons, well, that may be (if you live in the Middle Ages or something), but if the same thing could be accomplished with the same ease by a bitter medicine, would you still go for the chocolate? “Yes, it tastes good!” And there we have it. The heart is divided… It can’t be wholly in love with God, because it wants to enjoy a creature for its own sake.

This is an officially HARD TEACHING. If you are freaking out right now, you can begin to understand why his brother Carmelites threw St. John of the Cross in a jail cell. You can also see the logic behind Paul’s (…and Christ’s…) teaching on celibacy as well as understand the contempt that many people have for it. And such hissy fits really just prove the depth of one’s individual attachments and the lameness of attachment in general. Once one realizes he must become detached from the enjoyment of created pleasures, the thought process may look something like this: “Oh, well I’m not that attached… I can go without it whenever I want.” Then, once/if he realizes this is dishonest and misunderstands that the project is not about some individual pleasure but ALL pleasures that are not leading directly to God, he may say, “Okay, I will give up at least this kind of pleasure for a time and then I will be able to have it back soon enough, once I can enjoy God through it.” After he sees the proof of the depth of his attachment by that statement, he might say, “I think I do enjoy God through all these things, I just need to become more aware of that.” This is certainly laughable… An enjoyment of God is just not able to be missed.

The craziest thing is that many people also (rightly) state that they can lose such attachments in purgatory. The problem is that purgatory is a terrible experience - much worse than the experience of detaching oneself now - and there is no merit accrued to us after death. So we have the choice of light suffering for glory or heavy suffering for no glory. Which makes more sense?

Finally, one will hopefully be inclined to resign and to pick up his cross each day, denying himself (his appetites) in everything he can while still doing his duty. We are, after all, to renounce EVERYTHING for His sake.

People will want to say, “It’s not a sin to drink a Coke for pleasure!” Indeed, it is not a sin. But to frame it this way is just another mark of attachment… We do not become saints merely by avoiding sin, but by going above and beyond “right and wrong” and into the realm of “imperfect and perfect.” Put another way, did your best friend become such by simply not offending you, or was there something more to it? Does he just want to do what he is obliged to do, or does he want to enjoy you all the time?

For most people, to close out every single selfish pleasure at once would occasion at least one of three things - pride at taking on such a project, despair once one encounters the extreme difficulties, or bitterness over the lack of worldly consolations. (If you are happy that you can’t close out the whole world because you would be occasioning sin in yourself, then this is yet further proof of attachment…) So, instead it is better for most to ween themselves off the world, and to be sad about their weakness in needing such a slow pace.

Friendship, because it is incorporated into charity, deserves its own separate discussion.

Commence the torrent of excuses, complaints, and theological backflips to try to get out of this. (Also, re-read the part in bold and the title of the thread.)

I shudder to think what your post might do to those battling scrupulosity. So it’s “almost,” sort-of wrong to enjoy a candy bar unless you’re eating it to encounter God? And if one is somehow successful in purging all such attachments - that is, doing things for purposes other than to encounter God - then one immediately falls into pride at doing so? I was taught that your qualifier of “almost” doesn’t buy you anything. Actions are binary: they are either sinful or not sinful. “Almost” gets you into “white lie” territory. I’ll have to check what my confessor says when confess that I had a cheeseburger because it appealed to me and did not therein encounter God.

 

[truetofaith]

Many people don’t have a clue what the “nada” doctrine is. Those who learn it on this Earth we call saints. Everyone else learns it in Purgatory. It is the core “practical” spiritual message of the Gospel: Spurn everything for the love of God, delighting only in Him. (“Nada,” Spanish for “nothing,” as in “nothing but God.”

This is a glittering generality nowadays. People don’t typically understand what this actually means “on the ground” in day to day life, at least completely. It means MORE than “not sinning.” What it means is a systematic destruction of the satisfaction of one’s appetites for created things for their own sake. In other words, if you are enjoying some created thing for a reason other than that you have found God in it, you aren’t quite there yet. Anything that is not leading you to God must be given up insofar as possible, at least until it can do its rightful job. You know that it is a well ordered pleasure (in this sense) when its experience immediately raises your heart and mind to God, and you enjoy Him more than the created thing you are experiencing.

The appetites are not bad, nor are they seeking something bad. The problem is that what they are seeking is not for the greater purpose of delighting in God. Put plainly, “worldly” enjoyment is an aberration of the true purpose of the pleasures of created things. If you eat chocolate just because you like the taste of chocolate, and not because the taste helps you to encounter God, it is an attachment that will have to be purged in order to reach spiritual perfection. If you say it’s for health reasons, well, that may be (if you live in the Middle Ages or something), but if the same thing could be accomplished with the same ease by a bitter medicine, would you still go for the chocolate? “Yes, it tastes good!” And there we have it. The heart is divided… It can’t be wholly in love with God, because it wants to enjoy a creature for its own sake.

This is an officially HARD TEACHING. If you are freaking out right now, you can begin to understand why his brother Carmelites threw St. John of the Cross in a jail cell. You can also see the logic behind Paul’s (…and Christ’s…) teaching on celibacy as well as understand the contempt that many people have for it. And such hissy fits really just prove the depth of one’s individual attachments and the lameness of attachment in general. Once one realizes he must become detached from the enjoyment of created pleasures, the thought process may look something like this: “Oh, well I’m not that attached… I can go without it whenever I want.” Then, once/if he realizes this is dishonest and misunderstands that the project is not about some individual pleasure but ALL pleasures that are not leading directly to God, he may say, “Okay, I will give up at least this kind of pleasure for a time and then I will be able to have it back soon enough, once I can enjoy God through it.” After he sees the proof of the depth of his attachment by that statement, he might say, “I think I do enjoy God through all these things, I just need to become more aware of that.” This is certainly laughable… An enjoyment of God is just not able to be missed.

The craziest thing is that many people also (rightly) state that they can lose such attachments in purgatory. The problem is that purgatory is a terrible experience - much worse than the experience of detaching oneself now - and there is no merit accrued to us after death. So we have the choice of light suffering for glory or heavy suffering for no glory. Which makes more sense?

Finally, one will hopefully be inclined to resign and to pick up his cross each day, denying himself (his appetites) in everything he can while still doing his duty. We are, after all, to renounce EVERYTHING for His sake.

People will want to say, “It’s not a sin to drink a Coke for pleasure!” Indeed, it is not a sin. But to frame it this way is just another mark of attachment… We do not become saints merely by avoiding sin, but by going above and beyond “right and wrong” and into the realm of “imperfect and perfect.” Put another way, did your best friend become such by simply not offending you, or was there something more to it? Does he just want to do what he is obliged to do, or does he want to enjoy you all the time?

For most people, to close out every single selfish pleasure at once would occasion at least one of three things - pride at taking on such a project, despair once one encounters the extreme difficulties, or bitterness over the lack of worldly consolations. (If you are happy that you can’t close out the whole world because you would be occasioning sin in yourself, then this is yet further proof of attachment…) So, instead it is better for most to ween themselves off the world, and to be sad about their weakness in needing such a slow pace.

Friendship, because it is incorporated into charity, deserves its own separate discussion.

Commence the torrent of excuses, complaints, and theological backflips to try to get out of this. (Also, re-read the part in bold and the title of the thread.)

Your question is as lengthy as a term paper!

My answer is simple. God made the earth for mankind to enjoy. Just keep the Commandments & don’t sin.
Enjoying God’s creation is not sinful!

 

[RPRPsych]

Of course enjoying a Coke is sinful. Every good Catholic knows that Pepsi is the real thing (cf. Genesis 3: 25, CCC 7734). Every time I see someone enjoying Coke, I offer a Mass for them. :tiphat::yup:

 

[Strydersroom]

From my upbringing, many Catholics consider enjoying any sexual pleasure wrong unless it is in the context of a man/woman marriage and open to making a baby. I say that not facetiously but sincerely. This in my opinion is what causes so much guilt and scrupulosity regarding sexual “sins.” Since for most people achieving an orgasm is the most pleasurable thing in the world and the ultimate way to “enjoy creation.”

 

[Vico]

From my upbringing, many Catholics consider enjoying any sexual pleasure wrong unless it is in the context of a man/woman marriage and open to making a baby. I say that not facetiously but sincerely. This in my opinion is what causes so much guilt and scrupulosity regarding sexual “sins.” Since for most people achieving an orgasm is the most pleasurable thing in the world and the ultimate way to “enjoy creation.”

No doubt that is the explanation for the guilt. It is the teaching of the Church for the salvation of souls, Catechism (excerpt from 2352):

“The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.” For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of “the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved.” 139
139 Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Persona humana 9.

 

[Bookcat]

“As for the rich in this world, charge them not to be haughty, nor to set their hopes on uncertain riches but on God who richly furnishes us with everything to enjoy.”

~ Saint Paul - 1 Letter to Timothy 6:17

ewtn.com/v/bible/search_bible.asp

Yes we are to enjoy…and yes in an ordered way as God has given.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Many people don’t have a clue what the “nada” doctrine is. Those who learn it on this Earth we call saints. Everyone else learns it in Purgatory. It is the core “practical” spiritual message of the Gospel: Spurn everything for the love of God, delighting only in Him. (“Nada,” Spanish for “nothing,” as in “nothing but God.”

This is a glittering generality nowadays. People don’t typically understand what this actually means “on the ground” in day to day life, at least completely. It means MORE than “not sinning.” What it means is a systematic destruction of the satisfaction of one’s appetites for created things for their own sake. In other words, if you are enjoying some created thing for a reason other than that you have found God in it, you aren’t quite there yet. Anything that is not leading you to God must be given up insofar as possible, at least until it can do its rightful job. You know that it is a well ordered pleasure (in this sense) when its experience immediately raises your heart and mind to God, and you enjoy Him more than the created thing you are experiencing.

Hold on! I think the Calvinists/Puritans are calling your name! (Are you a born and bred Catholic? My guess is No - am I correct?)

Let’s think about the Incarnation for a few moments here. God became flesh. His mother was a human being. He lived and died in the world. He engaged with sinners. He rode a donkey into Jerusalem. He turned water into wine at a wedding festival so that the guests could continue the festivities. He called his disciples branches on a vine. The Bible is full of natural images, even to describe heaven. Cedars of Lebanon. The most common source of imagery is the earth. Living waters flow from Christ.

Creation is the work of God, full of his Glory, full of him, literally. The “world” is the term I use for day-to-day material pursuits/obligations at the expense of the spirit of God - but only when one acts in a manner that is contrary to God’s teaching and will. When you interact with your neighbor or society responsibly, you are doing God’s work in building the Kingdom of God…on earth. Again, creation itself, is holy as a work of God, as are all of God’s creatures, to be reverenced with joy and devotion as a gift from God, a reflection of his being.

To NOT do this is to go against God’s will…dancing on the edge of Gnosticism - a death dance at that.

 

[Bookcat]

From my upbringing, many Catholics consider enjoying any sexual pleasure wrong unless it is in the context of a man/woman marriage and open to making a baby. I say that not facetiously but sincerely. This in my opinion is what causes so much guilt and scrupulosity regarding sexual “sins.” Since for most people achieving an orgasm is the most pleasurable thing in the world and the ultimate way to “enjoy creation.”

I understand your not answering as a Catholic - but note this is a discussion of Catholic Moral Teaching and Theology - you are using using Catholic Theological terms but not here correctly.

No that would not be scrupulosity. Scrupulosity is more seeing sin where sin is not.

They would be correct to see sin there - indeed grave sin. Such would not be “enjoying creation” in the way given by God but rather abusing creation in a gravely sinful way contrary to the meaning of human sexuality.

 

[Bookcat]

“As for the rich in this world, charge them not to be haughty, nor to set their hopes on uncertain riches but on God who richly furnishes us with everything to enjoy.”

~ Saint Paul - 1 Letter to Timothy 6:17

ewtn.com/v/bible/search_bible.asp

Yes we are to enjoy…and yes in an ordered way as God has given.

 

[LethalMouse]

If you love God completely you can then ACTUALLY enjoy creation.

Think of it how someone is has a hobby or such. Like my girlfriend who is kind of into flowers.

I see an attractive piece of flora that entertains my eye but for a fleeting moment.

She sees a flower, by name, the species it is connected to, how and when it can bloom and its possible uses from food, medicine, to animal attraction/repel.

She gains not just a eyeball entertained but a fully entertauned brain from eye to cortex. Giving a longer lasting and more wonderous enjoyment of the same thing.

So enjoying creation is not wrong.

Enjoying it without God is incomplete and more like a punishment in and of itself as with God you can multiply that enjoyment infinitely

 

[e_c]

Huzzah! The backpedaling from Calvary! We can do it together.

Except this is an outline of what one must practice if he wants to love God alone, for His own sake, which is what the Gospel calls us to. Very few reach it in this life, but for those who do, what glory awaits them!

FollowChrist34 - You have an incorrect intuition about me. (I am getting this straight from John of the Cross, by the way.)

Everyone - may I call your attention again to the bold and the thread title? No, it is not sin, but it is not perfect. Scrupulosity can’t enter into the equation here, provided that the frame of the question is clear: it is not a question of sin vs. not sin, it is a question of mediocre vs. great.

Can anyone find a serious spiritual treatise (not a “quip”) from a saint that affirms something contrary to what I have presented? I would be very interested.

 

[e_c]

If you love God completely you can then ACTUALLY enjoy creation.

…

So enjoying creation is not wrong.

Enjoying it without God is incomplete and more like a punishment in and of itself as with God you can multiply that enjoyment infinitely

Yes, you’re on to it.

 

[Gilly_flower]

Of course enjoying a Coke is sinful. Every good Catholic knows that Pepsi is the real thing (cf. Genesis 3: 25, CCC 7734). Every time I see someone enjoying Coke, I offer a Mass for them. :tiphat::yup:/QUOTE

Properly schooled Catholics drink RC…

 

[Bookcat]

“As for the rich in this world, charge them not to be haughty, nor to set their hopes on uncertain riches but on God who richly furnishes us with everything to enjoy.”

~ Saint Paul - 1 Letter to Timothy 6:17

ewtn.com/v/bible/search_bible.asp

Yes we are to enjoy…and yes in an ordered way as God has given.

 

[LethalMouse]

RPRPsych;14067836:

Of course enjoying a Coke is sinful. Every good Catholic knows that Pepsi is the real thing (cf. Genesis 3: 25, CCC 7734). Every time I see someone enjoying Coke, I offer a Mass for them. :tiphat::yup:

You sir! You, just won the internet

 

[RPRPsych]

Properly schooled Catholics drink RC…

As long as we don’t enjoy it too much.