Why Candy is a Moral Sin

  • Thread starter Thread starter to_build_up
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

to_build_up

Guest
From my understanding, non-abortive artificial contraception is wrong in the eyes of the Church because:

A. It separates the procreative function from the unitive.
and
B. It is a grave matter.

Because of this, it is against natural law, because natural law requires the natural means to be united with the natural ends. Artificial birth control destroys this union.

However, by that logic I would argue that candy separates the same natural law. Clearly, the mouth was designed for eating to provide nutritional value for the body, just as the genitals provide for procreation. In other words, the gentiles create life and the mouth sustains it. Both provide pleasure as a consequence of their intended natural purpose. So if I eat candy solely for my pleasure (and who doesn’t?), then I have unyoked the purpose of eating (nutrition) from the associated pleasure (good taste). The only difference, then is that sex is a grave matter, and eating is not.

But if eating sustains life just as sex creates it, are they not closely tied? Considering the many laws in Scripture showing the importance of proper eating to God, it would seem to be as important to God as sex. So why is candy morally OK, while non-abortive contraception is a mortal sin? They both equally violate the natural law in exactly the same way.

Your counter-arguments, please…🙂
 
Candy is not a mortal sin
the birth control pill or a condom is not a mortal sin
a gun is not a mortal sin
these are morally neutral objects

actions are sinful, not objects used in those actions and actions are performed by people with various motives. Some know what all the outcomes of their action will be, some do not due to ignorance, willful or not, or to stubborn refusal to admit the consequences, or because the consequences have not been fully studied.

The taste for candy, for anything sweet, is part of natural law, it is built into our nature because it assisted our ancestors in distinguishing safe from harmful potential foods in nature, as bitterness is more often the sign of a poisonous plant. And breast milk, the perfect food for baby humans, is naturally sweet, much sweeter than cows milk, so that sugar in some form has to be added to it to make suitable artificial formula for infants.

So you hypothesis that a taste for candy is not rooted in natural law is false at the outset, therefore your theory based on that premise fails as well.
 
puzzleannie said:
Candy is not a mortal sin
the birth control pill or a condom is not a mortal sin
a gun is not a mortal sin
these are morally neutral objects

actions are sinful, not objects used in those actions and actions are performed by people with various motives. Some know what all the outcomes of their action will be, some do not due to ignorance, willful or not, or to stubborn refusal to admit the consequences, or because the consequences have not been fully studied.

The taste for candy, for anything sweet, is part of natural law, it is built into our nature because it assisted our ancestors in distinguishing safe from harmful potential foods in nature, as bitterness is more often the sign of a poisonous plant. And breast milk, the perfect food for baby humans, is naturally sweet, much sweeter than cows milk, so that sugar in some form has to be added to it to make suitable artificial formula for infants.

So you hypothesis that a taste for candy is not rooted in natural law is false at the outset, therefore your theory based on that premise fails as well.
Click to expand...
I don’t know PuzzleAnnie. I’m looking at my Kit Kat bar with a bit more suspicion now…😉
 
Possibly the most ridiculous thread I have ever seen on CAF, I guess people will dream up anything to try and justify sin.

You may be eating candy just for the pleasure it gives you but it still provides the body with sustenance, the candy is not separated from that function just because it is not the reason you are eating it. The nutritional value of the candy remains and is passed on to the body regardless of what your motivation for eating it is.

Artificial contraception on the other hands prevent the natural purpose of the marital act by preventing it from ever been procreative.

Nothing is separating the eating of candy from the effect of providing nutrition to the body, artificial contraception however does physically remove the procreative element from the marriage act.
 
puzzleannie said:
The taste for candy, for anything sweet, is part of natural law, it is built into our nature because it assisted our ancestors in distinguishing safe from harmful potential foods in nature, as bitterness is more often the sign of a poisonous plant. And breast milk, the perfect food for baby humans, is naturally sweet, much sweeter than cows milk, so that sugar in some form has to be added to it to make suitable artificial formula for infants.

So you hypothesis that a taste for candy is not rooted in natural law is false at the outset, therefore your theory based on that premise fails as well.
Click to expand...
Candy is rooted in natural law, but so is sexual pleasure.
The OP has an interesting argument. I don’t really agree with it, but I’d have to think about it more.

I think over-indulging in candy would be a sin. But having one piece for the pleasure of it would be fine.

I think indulging in sex is a sin, but kissing someone because it feels nice would be fine.

One is innocent, one is serious. That’s how I see it anyways. 🙂
 
Interesting thread, I’ve been thinking about candy in the context of the rules about gluttony occasionally for awhile.

Still don’t have it all down neat and orderly.
 
to_build_up said:
But if eating sustains life just as sex creates it, are they not closely tied? Considering the many laws in Scripture showing the importance of proper eating to God, it would seem to be as important to God as sex. So why is candy morally OK, while non-abortive contraception is a mortal sin? They both equally violate the natural law in exactly the same way.

Your counter-arguments, please…🙂
Click to expand...
I think it is purely a difference in the gravity of the matter. If eating candy is overdone it becomes gluttony which is a deadly sin.
 
Not having lifesavers near the checkout lane is a mortal sin and is also a crime against humanity.
 
I don’t think that eating candy is always a sin, although in some circumstances it could be the sin of gluttony. However, I read this a while ago in the Catholic Encyclopedia in the entry for gluttony, and don’t know what to make of it:
It is incontrovertible that to eat or drink for the mere pleasure of the experience, and for that exclusively, is likewise to commit the sin of gluttony.
Click to expand...
I suppose that the author imagined that most things people like to eat have some nutritional value which could justify eating it. But I doubt that sugar-free candy has any nutritional value to speak of – not even calories. Also, I’m aware that this is just an encyclopedia entry, so it isn’t necessarily authoritative like the Catechism would be.
 
A closer analogy would be someone who consumes candy for the taste/sense enjoyment of it, then deliberately vomits afterward to avoid the natural outcomes of eating it…

Margaret
 
Red_Meg said:
A closer analogy would be someone who consumes candy for the taste/sense enjoyment of it, then deliberately vomits afterward to avoid the natural outcomes of eating it…

Margaret
Click to expand...
Hmm interesting point. I think this example would be more compared to abortion though.

Contraception would be like chewing and tasting the candy just for the enjoyment of it, but spitting it out before swallowing it to avoid the consequences of consuming it.
 
to_build_up said:
From my understanding, non-abortive artificial contraception is wrong in the eyes of the Church because:

A. It separates the procreative function from the unitive.
and
B. It is a grave matter.

Because of this, it is against natural law, because natural law requires the natural means to be united with the natural ends. Artificial birth control destroys this union.

However, by that logic I would argue that candy separates the same natural law. Clearly, the mouth was designed for eating to provide nutritional value for the body, just as the genitals provide for procreation. In other words, the gentiles create life and the mouth sustains it. Both provide pleasure as a consequence of their intended natural purpose. So if I eat candy solely for my pleasure (and who doesn’t?), then I have unyoked the purpose of eating (nutrition) from the associated pleasure (good taste). The only difference, then is that sex is a grave matter, and eating is not.

But if eating sustains life just as sex creates it, are they not closely tied? Considering the many laws in Scripture showing the importance of proper eating to God, it would seem to be as important to God as sex. So why is candy morally OK, while non-abortive contraception is a mortal sin? They both equally violate the natural law in exactly the same way.

Your counter-arguments, please…🙂
Click to expand...
Did Jewish tradition allow the eating of candy?🙂

Do you have any examples of early Church teaching that says eating candy is a sin?🙂

And what did the early reformers think of eating candy?🙂

Were the Episcopalians the first to approve eating candy under any circumstances in 1930? 🙂
 
Did anyone notice this thread says “Moral Sin” instead of Mortal Sin?
 
One sin can result in the gaining (or not gaining) of a few pounds of weight.

The other is a matter of the creation of a human being…life itself.

It’s true, they are seperate matters.
 
Red_Meg said:
A closer analogy would be someone who consumes candy for the taste/sense enjoyment of it, then deliberately vomits afterward to avoid the natural outcomes of eating it…

Margaret
Click to expand...
What about one who chooses to chew gum instead of eat candy so that they can enjoy the flavor without the pesky calaries and nutrition?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top