FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: At what point does gluttony start?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
I've always liked food more than others. I've recently realized that I commit the sin of gluttony all the time (I'd say 3x/day but I east way more often than that).

Are there any works about gluttony put forth by the Church or saints?

Any help will be appreciated, thank you.
Catholic Encyclopedia:

.... too soon, too expensively, too much, too eagerly, too daintily. Clearly one who uses food or drink in such a way as to injure his health or impair the mental equipment needed for the discharge of his duties, is guilty of the sin of gluttony. 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.
(11-08-2011, 10:10 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: [ -> ]Catholic Encyclopedia:

.... too soon, too expensively, too much, too eagerly, too daintily. Clearly one who uses food or drink in such a way as to injure his health or impair the mental equipment needed for the discharge of his duties, is guilty of the sin of gluttony. 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.

I've seen that. I was hoping for more specific guidelines.
Gluttony is an odd thing to me, because I don't see how the qualifier can be "eating for the sake of eating."  Or eating to enjoy.  If that was the case, candy, pop, beer and anything you don't need to ingest would be a sin to. 

Because how many of you eat a piece of candy because you're hungry?  Or drink a beer because you're dehydrated (joking aside)?  And what about the "wanting" of a food?  Like when you sit down and all of a sudden you're like "I'd really like a cracker with a piece of cheese right now" or "I'd really like to have a cup of apple juice right now."  You've just been gluttonous of gluttony is qualified by eating to enjoy or for the sake of itself.  In fact, if that's really what gluttony is then we should all just eat a little bit, wait until we're near fainting and eat a little bit more.  Just eat enough to stay alive. 

I always thought that gluttony was about overindulgence.  Like, eating past the point of satiation purposefully and with the intention of eating just for the sake of eating.  Because we've all overate before but I don't think we're glottonous every time we overeat, are we?  Sometimes it's just an accident. 
I've read that Aquinas said that gluttony becomes sinful when you are willing to sin to get food.  That doesn't cover the basis of temperence in how much we eat though.
(11-09-2011, 03:22 PM)drummerboy Wrote: [ -> ]I've read that Aquinas said that gluttony becomes sinful when you are willing to sin to get food.  That doesn't cover the basis of temperence in how much we eat though.

That seems almost too vague.

I've always seen gluttony the same way I see mental sins.  Throughout the course of the day you will find yourself with an unwelcome thought.  Once you recognize that to continue this thought with consent would be to sin, you have to put on the breaks and stop thinking about it.  Same thing with food and drink.  when in the course of eating or drinking, we will reach a point where to have more would be to an abuse to our bodies- at this point, we have to decide not to sin.  If we continue to eat or drink, then we've sinned.
This is really confusing. Nobody can agree on where gluttony starts.

Maybe it's better to be on the safe side and not eat snacks at all.
(11-09-2011, 03:27 PM)Servire Deo Wrote: [ -> ]This is really confusing. Nobody can agree on where gluttony starts.

Maybe it's better to be on the safe side and not eat snacks at all.

You're right that it is very confusing.  An NO priest might tell you that gluttony isn't even a sin anymore, but depending on the trad priest you get he might tell you to go Ghandi and eat a piece of rice each day for the rest of your life.

To not eat snacks at all I don't think is the answer.  Gluttony is commonsensical.  It's about having too much.

That said, if you want to eliminate your snacks, do it as a penance, not as the status quo.  I don't really snack that much anyways, but snacks per se are fine.  In fact, snacks can very healthy if you are hungry but not hungry enough for a meal.
(11-09-2011, 03:37 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-09-2011, 03:27 PM)Servire Deo Wrote: [ -> ]This is really confusing. Nobody can agree on where gluttony starts.

Maybe it's better to be on the safe side and not eat snacks at all.

You're right that it is very confusing.  An NO priest might tell you that gluttony isn't even a sin anymore, but depending on the trad priest you get he might tell you to go Ghandi and eat a piece of rice each day for the rest of your life.

To not eat snacks at all I don't think is the answer.  Gluttony is commonsensical.  It's about having too much.

That said, if you want to eliminate your snacks, do it as a penance, not as the status quo.  I don't really snack that much anyways, but snacks per se are fine.  In fact, snacks can very healthy if you are hungry but not hungry enough for a meal.

This is good advice.  I think it depends on the individual.  Maybe some guy might get really turned on by some renaissance nude painting, may be another not so much( I know, odd example).  But if you're full, stop eat or don't eat.  I think that's the most fundamental point.  I recently noticed my gluttony habits as well, and it usually involved me eating when not hungry, or tking  asecond helping even though I was full. And old saying is teh best diet is to say no to a second plate.
(11-09-2011, 03:22 PM)drummerboy Wrote: [ -> ]I've read that Aquinas said that gluttony becomes sinful when you are willing to sin to get food.  That doesn't cover the basis of temperence in how much we eat though.
So if one steals a brownie, and does not need it, it is gluttony?
I would call this just stealing.
Pages: 1 2 3