This may sound silly

[SugarMagnolia]

I can’t believe this is an argument. The Pope is a grown man. He knows how much food he needs to eat to be sufficiently nourished. He enjoyed his pizza. That’s all there is to it. He enjoyed it so much he ate too much of it.

Pleasure doesn’t automaticaly equal sin.

 

[misstherese]

No, he ate it because he was hungry and he gained weight because pizza isn’t all that healthy. He can enjoy pizza. It’s only when that is the only reason the person is eating it, risking their health. It’s mostly the quantity that constitutes gluttony, not quality.

 

[SugarMagnolia]

So you just said “pizza isn’t all that healthy” and that gluttony is when enjoyment is “the only reason a person is eating it, risking their health.” So the Pope was risking his health by eating a lot of pizza. Unless you’re going to argue that he was hungry and there were no other sources of food. Or that he didn’t know that pizza was unhealthy. But I believe the Pope had plenty of healthy food available to him. And I believe he’s intelligent enough to know that pizza is not a healthy food.

You didn’t address my point about desert. Since deserts like cake, candy and ice cream sundaes are unhealthy foods, anyone who eats even one bite is a glutton according to your definition of sin. I suppose everyone who gives their children an Easter basket full of candies is also a sinner.

 

[misstherese]

No. I’m not talking about eating unhealthy over long periods of time. I’m talking about stuffing your face in one sitting. This isn’t about unhealthy vs. healthy food. At least that’s not what I’m trying to get at.

Someone smarter than me can answer this question easily. That would be St. Thomas Aquinas.

Gluttony denotes inordinate concupiscence in eating. Now two things are to be considered in eating, namely the food we eat, and the eating thereof. Accordingly, the inordinate concupiscence may be considered in two ways. First, with regard to the food consumed: and thus, as regards the substance or species of food a man seeks “sumptuous”—i.e. costly food; as regards its quality, he seeks food prepared too nicely—i.e. “daintily”; and as regards quantity, he exceeds by eating “too much.”

There is a way for someone to sin by gluttony by the quality of the food, that is, if it’s prepared too nicely or the person is over particular about it. They can also sin if it’s costly, luxurious food. And of course, the person can eat too much in one sitting which would also be gluttony as I mentioned previously.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

There is a way for someone to sin by gluttony by the quality of the food, that is, if it’s prepared too nicely or the person is over particular about it.

St Thomas was from a different time. The overeating still applies but the rest is somewhat irrelevant.

Spices and cooking techniques are game changers. We can turn just about anything into something amazing.

I bought a $2 a pound steak (chuck) last time my parents visited, my father thought it was an expensive cut (T-bone). I make copycat Olive Garden and Panera soup by the gallon…some are quite healthy but would be insanely expensive to buy. One can make mock caviar from tapioca and I’ve heard it’s quite good for those who like that sort of thing.

St. Thomas lived in a time where you couldn’t control oven temperature, there weren’t cooking thermometers, silicone bakeware, clear class bakeware, nice perfectly heated oven tops, little spices and little knowledge into food science. Animals were bred to be multipurpose. You didn’t have a flock of roasting hen breeds vs laying hen breeds. They were all the same…some might be set aside but they were genetically meant to do it all.

Nice food was costly in every instance and food that looked and tasted good was hard to prepare. Not so today. I could just as well cook the aforementioned steak badly as I could prepare it to taste like an expensive cut. I could just as well make a soup that tasted cheap as one that tasted like an expensive restaurant one.

Things are very, very different today.

 

[misstherese]

I’m not disagreeing. I would say being “over particular” would go along the lines of not feeling satisfied or content with what’s given, especially if someone makes the food for you. Or if in a restaurant, being picky about the food not being to your liking. I know St. Therese would would never voice her opinion about what food she liked, always accepting what was given.

Same for “too luxurious”. I know a saint around that time giving some religious a hard time for eating different types of beans that weren’t hard to find, but were sought after for their splendid taste and uniqueness. I’d say adding spices and salts and such to make it taste better is fine. But there’s always a line to cross, especially when fresh basil is $3 for like 2 leaves.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

I’m not disagreeing. I would say being “over particular” would go along the lines of not feeling satisfied or content with what’s given, especially if someone makes the food for you. Or if in a restaurant, being picky about the food not being to your liking. I know St. Therese would would never voice her opinion about what food she liked, always accepting what was given.

Same for “too luxurious”. I know a saint around that time giving some religious a hard time for eating different types of beans that weren’t hard to find, but were sought after for their splendid taste and uniqueness. I’d say adding spices and salts and such to make it taste better is fine. But there’s always a line to cross, especially when fresh basil is $3 for like 2 leaves.

But again you’re trying to define something that is undefinable. It’s up to each person to decide where the line is. Saffron is the most expensive spice in the world but its AOK to use it to make St. Lucy’s bread. Often me being able to make it varies from year to year.

 

[misstherese]

Simply giving examples to help explain my thought is not trying to set a hard line for everyone to follow. For me fresh basil is expensive, so it would probably be crossing the line. But for those who can grow it fresh themselves, that’s fine. It’s different for everyone which is why it’s important for them to discern where the line is themselves. I think we’re on the same page but maybe misunderstanding each other.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

Simply giving examples to help explain my thought is not trying to set a hard line for everyone to follow. For me fresh basil is expensive, so it would probably be crossing the line. But for those who can grow it fresh themselves, that’s fine. It’s different for everyone which is why it’s important for them to discern where the line is themselves. I think we’re on the same page but maybe misunderstanding each other.

But expensive Basil isn’t inherently sinful. For a wealthy person, that’d be fine, too. You just can’t set a price and say “nope, it’s sinful after this”

 

[misstherese]

Again, not what I said. You’re taking my words and making it sound like I’m making new rules or something. If the person can afford it (without having to skimp on other things) if they can grow it themselves, that’s great. Gluttony, in the sense I’m talking about, is only committed when the food is a luxury or something that is out of their range.

Basil obviously is not inherently sinful. It depends on the person’s circumstances.

 

[pianistclare]

That’s not the definition of gluttony at all.
Gluttony is FAR MORE SERIOUS than splurging.
Gluttony is over-consumption to the point of being grotesque about it. Like greed, it recalls EXCESS.
Not spending more than you probably should on things you like. That’s mismanagement of money. ONly sinful of your family suffers as a result.

Gorging onself is gluttony.