Monday, December 28, 2020

Gluttons For Punishment

 


This week's post comes to you from A Simple Man as guest poster. As for me, I'm spending Christmas with more time for my wife and family, thanks to Simple Man! I hope you enjoy his guest post this week. Happy New Year to all my readers! I shall return with the next installment of When Strangers Come Knocking on Monday, January 4, 2021.---Introibo

Gluttons For Punishment by A Simple Man

A familiar season of festivities has returned to America. As of this writing [November 30, 2020], I have a bunch of leftovers from the Thanksgiving meal still within my refrigerator. I know that I am not the only one facing this “difficulty”, seeing as how nearly two hundred million pounds worth of turkey will end up being thrown away. (Source: LaMagna, Maria. “Drowning in leftovers? This is how much food Americans waste at ThanksgivingMarketWatch, published Nov. 25, 2016) As 2019 USDA statistics show, to the 2.4 million households suffering from food insecurity, seeing all of that wasted food can be akin to watching a man drown while they die of thirst.


It’s become a proverbial punchline regarding how obese America is compared to the rest of the developed world (even though the increase in overweight or obese people is a global phenomenon, America is the proverbial king of the hill in terms of quantity, no pun intended), and the statistical data to support this observation is immense. Anecdotal examples, I’m sure, will abound about this increased prevalence for many readers, seeing as how in these days it’s become a mark of poverty to be overweight, while it’s considered a mark of wealth and affluence to be trim and fit. Whether it be due to the nature of food production, dietary changes relative to past ages, a more sedentary lifestyle in general, or a simple reflection of material abundance, it could be argued that gluttony is America’s favorite sin.


What is gluttony?
Per the Catholic Encyclopedia, from the Latin gluttire (to swallow, to gulp down), it is “the excessive indulgence in food and drink.” That seems so simple, does it not, for something that is numbered among the capital vices (otherwise known as the capital sins, of which the classical enumeration gives Pride, Avarice, Lust, Sloth, Envy, Anger, and finally Gluttony)? Yet, how would one classify an excessive indulgence? When there is a true occasion for making merry (for Christ implicitly acknowledged as much to the scribes and Pharisees in response to their criticism that he ate and drank with publicans and sinners: “…Can the children of the marriage fast as long as the bridegroom is with them? As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast.” – Mark 2:19), do the standards for what counts as an excessive indulgence change? It is this matter (and more) which we shall investigate.


First, we shall quote a few selections from St. Thomas Aquinas on the matter, citing Question 148 of the Second Part of the Second Part of the Summa Theologiae, which deals exclusively with gluttony (all punctuation and spelling is as cited):

-          From Article 1, Whether gluttony is a sin?I answer that, Gluttony denotes, not any desire of eating and drinking, but an inordinate desire. Now desire is said to be inordinate through leaving the order of reason, wherein the good of moral virtue consists: and a thing is said to be a sin through being contrary to virtue. Wherefore it is evident that gluttony is a sin.”

·         Reply to Objection 2: “As stated above, the vice of gluttony does not regard the substance of food, but in the desire thereof not being regulated by reason. Wherefore if a man exceed in quantity of food, not from desire of food, but through deeming it necessary to him, this pertains, not to gluttony, but to some kind of inexperience. It is a case of gluttony only when a man knowingly exceeds the measure in eating, from a desire for the pleasures of the palate.”

-          From Article 2, Whether gluttony is a mortal sin?I answer that, As stated above (Article 2), the vice of gluttony properly consists in inordinate concupiscence. Now the order of reason in regulating the concupiscence may be considered from two points of view. First, with regard to things directed to the end, inasmuch as they may be incommensurate and consequently improportionate to the end; secondly, with regard to the end itself, inasmuch as concupiscence turns man away from his due end. Accordingly, if the inordinate concupiscence in gluttony be found to turn man away from the last end, gluttony will be a mortal sin. This is the case when he adheres to the pleasure of gluttony as his end, for the sake of which he contemns God, being ready to disobey God's commandments, in order to obtain those pleasures. On the other hand, if the inordinate concupiscence in the vice of gluttony be found to affect only such things as are directed to the end, for instance when a man has too great a desire for the pleasures of the palate, yet would not for their sake do anything contrary to God's law, it is a venial sin.”

·         Reply to Objection 2: “In so far as it turns man away from his last end, gluttony is opposed to the love of God, who is to be loved, as our last end, above all things: and only in this respect is gluttony a mortal sin.”

-          From Article 3, Whether gluttony is the greatest of sins?I answer that, The gravity of a sin may be measured in three ways. First and foremost it depends on the matter in which the sin is committed: and in this way sins committed in connection with Divine things are the greatest. From this point of view gluttony is not the greatest sin, for it is about matters connected with the nourishment of the body. Secondly, the gravity of a sin depends on the person who sins, and from this point of view the sin of gluttony is diminished rather than aggravated, both on account of the necessity of taking food, and on account of the difficulty of proper discretion and moderation in such matters. Thirdly, from the point of view of the result that follows, and in this way gluttony has a certain gravity, inasmuch as certain sins are occasioned thereby.”

·         Reply to Objection 3: “The glutton intends, not the harm to his body, but the pleasure of eating: and if injury results to his body, this is accidental. Hence this does not directly affect the gravity of gluttony, the guilt of which is nevertheless aggravated, if a man incur some bodily injury through taking too much food.”

 

Next, we shall turn to St. Alphonsus Liguori (1696 – 1787), founder of the Redemptorists; beatified by Pope Pius VII in 1816, canonized by Pope Gregory XVI in 1839, and proclaimed a Doctor of the Church by Pope Pius IX in 1871, St. Alphonsus is the patron saint of confessors and moral theologians. His seminal multi-volume work on moral theology is, fittingly enough, the Theologia Moralis, consisting of a series of annotations and commentary on Hermann Busenbaum, S.J.’s theological treatise titled Medulla Theologiae Moralis, summarizing the thoughts and insights of various other moral theologians and theological schools (Cajetan, Navarre, Toledo, Laymann, the Salamancans, et al.) up to that time. It is noteworthy, much like the rest of St. Alphonsus’s works, for threading the golden mean between Jansenist rigorism, strict legalism, and moral laxity, as extolled by Pius IX in his apostolic letter honoring St. Alphonsus as a Doctor.

The version cited shall be the 2017 publication of Volume I by Mediatrix Press, translated from the Latin by Ryan Grant. For the sake of readability, the precise (and numerous) citations that St. Alphonsus refers to have been largely redacted. All other punctuation, formatting, and spelling is as cited.

DUBIUM V
On Gluttony

ARTICLE I
What is Gluttony?

73. ̶  “Resp. Gluttony is a disordered appetite for food and drink, and it is opposed to abstinence and is committed in five ways: 1) if one were to eat before it is time; 2) If it is exceedingly exquisite. 3. If it is more than just. 4) If he eats voraciously. 5) If it is prepared very exquisitely…

Thus it is resolved:

“1. Gluttony by its nature is only a venial sin, because none of these modes is precisely opposed to the love of God or neighbor. (Note here proposition 8 condemned by Innocent XI, "to each [recte eat] and drink even to satiety only on account of desire is not a sin." Nevertheless, one may use delectation to take food or drink for health of the body [ASM’s note: delectation is pleasure or delight; in this context, it is referring to the pleasurable sensation one may feel when eating food which is nonetheless taken for sustenance as its primary end.], as the Salamancans teach…in fine, from St. Augustine).

“2. Hence it is probable what Navarre, Toledo, etc., teach, and what Laymann says is not opposed, that, provided scandal and other things are removed, it is only a venial sin to fill oneself with food and drink even to vomiting; and that also, if anyone would vomit so that he could drink again and again, Sa and many others, on the verb comedere [eating], think it would be a mortal sin. […] (To eat or drink even to vomiting is probably only venial of its nature, unless scandal were present, or notable harm to health, as the authors commonly say…Moreover, one who vomits what he has eaten by his own will so that he could eat or drink again, would hardly be excused froma [recte from a] mortal sin since this seems to involve a great deformity…).

“3. There is hardly any doubt that one may eat or drink or otherwise create vomit if it were judged healthy. [ASM’s note: for example, if vomiting were induced to expel spoiled food or a toxic substance that was unwittingly ingested.]

“4. Meanwhile, intemperance is considered a mortal sin by the circumstance and great disorder in these cases: a) if anyone for the sake of gluttony would violate a fast of the Church; b) If anyone from gluttony became noticeably inept for the functions to which he is held under pain of mortal sin; c) If someone would gravely harm his health, noticing it, otherwise if only lightly, e.g. if fevering he would increase his illness from a draft of water; d) If feastings and drinking parties were continually held so that he would have as a God his belly; e) If someone drank to perfect drunkenness, on which we will speak below; f) If someone would eat human flesh or blood from pure gluttony, both because it is repugnant to the piety due to the dead and because it is against the instinct abhorrent to nature. It will be excused if it were done for the sake of medicine [ASM’s note: For hundreds of years, peaking in the 16th and 17th centuries, Europeans routinely engaged in “medical cannibalism”, using organic material from mummies, corpses removed from graves, or freshly executed criminals for their concoctions, elixirs, and tinctures. (Source: Dolan, Maria. “The Gruesome History of Eating Corpses as MedicineSmithsonian Magazine, published May 6, 2012.], or for another just cause, e.g. extreme famine from a siege, still therein one is not held to so preserve life…

74. ̶  “5. The daughters of gluttony are also venial of their nature, on the side of the soul. 1. Sluggishness of the mind, or stupidity born from intemperance, e.g. that one could not pray, etc., which becomes a mortal sin when someone from voluntarily eating or drinking in a disordered fashion became inept to understand or furnish those things which are necessary for salvation, or which are due from an office, or other things held under grave sin…

“2. Inept joy, through which not every disorder is understood which follows the sin, but those which move one to obscene songs, foul acts, dances, or dishonest group dancing, etc. and it becomes mortal when it induces another to consent, or mortal delectation, ordered to it. Ibid.

“3. Loquaciousness. [ASM’s note: This refers to extreme or excessive chattiness, the character of which is self-centered, immodest, or unseemly.]

“4. Scurrility, which differs from inept joy and loquaciousness, because it is in the appetite, the former is in words, this is in words and deed; and it is always called dishonesty, although per se, so long as scandal is removed, it is a venial sin, e.g. to say scurrilous things, or to sing, or to break wind, etc. from levity to excite laughter; still it will be a mortal sin if it would become the cause of venereal delectation [i.e. sexual impurity]…

“On the side of the body, uncleanliness, vomit, and the effusion of seed [i.e. onanism]. The last, if it were voluntary, will be a mortal sin. […]” – Moral Theology, Volume I, p. 474-477  

To summarize, the following general principles can be taken from St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus on the matter of gluttony:

1)      Of its nature, the inordinate and excessive desire for food and drink is a venial sin.

2)      However, the effects of gluttony can render it mortal (it renders you unable to perform the duties applicable to your state in life, perhaps because you are put into a stupor; you intentionally violate the precepts of the Church or harm your health; it excites you or others to perform scandalous or immoral actions, especially of a sexual kind; and so on).

3)      What may be considered excessive intake of food for some may not be to others, according to their circumstances (someone has a much faster metabolism, which means they must eat more often as a matter of biological necessity; your profession may require a higher caloric intake than average, such as a laborer or athlete; and so on).

4)      If utilized for the sake of one’s health and not for the sake of pure gluttony, food and drink or even vomiting are acceptable, save for that which is prepared or taken in an immoral or obscene way (the example utilized by St. Alphonsus was the eating of human flesh or blood, since even if it could be excused, it would still betray a potentially inordinate attachment to one’s own life).


Now, how can such a vice be combatted?


There will not be any diet plans prescribed here.
Not only am I not a nutritionist nor a dietician, everyone has different physiological needs, notwithstanding the disorders which one may be suffering from (Celiac disease, diabetes, lactose intolerance, etc.). However, since gluttony is a vice born of our fallen human nature, there are spiritual remedies to pursue, as the Church has revealed.

1)      Prayer: No improvement in the spiritual life can come without it. The moment a hunger pang arrives when you know you don’t need to eat, offer a prayer to our Lord. Request the intercession of our Lady and the many saints who attained to holiness through the ascetic life. “It is in view, then, of these sins, and others of the same sort, and of others again more trifling still, which consist of offenses in words and thought (as the Apostle James confesses, "In many things we offend all"), that we need to pray every day and often to the Lord, saying, "Forgive us our debts," and to add in truth and sincerity, "as we forgive our debtors." ”– St. Augustine, The Enchiridion, chapter 78

2)      Mortification: Even on days where fasts and abstinence aren’t prescribed, pursue them anyway. Temptations are to be resisted as one in battle, and no improvement can be had if your battles are never fought. Witness the example of the monastic orders, borne by the Rules of St. Benedict or St. Francis of Assisi. Witness the example of countless saints who mortified their members and desires so that they could truly live as though it were only Christ living through them. “Be on your guard when you begin to mortify your body by abstinence and fasting, lest you imagine yourself to be perfect and a saint; for perfection does not consist in this virtue. It is only a help; a disposition; a means though a fitting one, for the attainment of true perfection.” – St. Jerome, in his letter to Celantia, as cited in the Catholic Encyclopedia’s entry on “Asceticism

Even in the midst of the various celebrations occurring at this time of year in America, remember the season of Advent. Recall that, as we prepare for the coming of our Lord at Christmas, the priests wear purple vestments to remind us that the days are still dark; St. John the Baptist is still, as ever, preparing the way of the Lord. Let us have recourse to his intercession and that of our Lady, along with that of all the other saints, that we may obtain the graces from God to conquer our weakened flesh, which – no matter how much it devours or consumes – will never be satisfied by the things of this world.

But in the meantime, it definitely wouldn’t hurt to avoid the buffet line.


31 comments:

  1. Is it true that the Church disliked snacks during the Middle Ages?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon5:39
      To the best of my knowledge and belief, snacks were never frowned upon unless during a penitential season, such as Lent.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  2. Cannibalism is one of the most terrifying things... I wonder what the reccomended course of action is if one is in danger of succumbing to it (such as in a siege or mountain plane crash, where you can't just remove yourself from the company of other humans)?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rockchicanna,
      It is never allowed to directly kill another innocent human life. A healthy person can last a few days without food. If no food is found and people are getting weak, split up. This way there is no chance of harming another. If someone dies because of an underlying condition or old age, it is not sinful to eat a corpse when absolutely necessary to survive.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. "...it is not sinful to eat a corpse when absolutely necessary to survive." Tastes like chicken! Sorry, I couldn't resist. Happy New Year, everybody.

      Delete
    3. @anon6:39
      Your joke was in bad taste! (Sorry, I couldn't resist either!).

      Happy New Year!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  3. Thanks, ASM. The subject of gluttony is an interesting one, and you have answered a lot of questions about it.

    In that vein, I am thinking about fasting...self imposed fasting is definitely a good and pious practice, but it can be tough for persons who have certain metabolic conditions, anemia, hypoglycemia, and the like.
    I am somewhere in that category, but I can pretty much observe the Eucharistic fast and regular days of Church-prescribed F&A. And being over 59 and not a big eater anyway, I am not scrupulous about taking something at off-times so as not to become faint.
    But I really admire the deep fasting that some better and stronger souls undertake. God bless them for their will and perseverance -
    I know some eat only lightly of bread and milk, others fast on juice and water! That is a commitment to mortification that I wish I could make.
    Around the end of summer I read of a recommendation for a 40 day fast and 15 decade Rosary for the restoration of peace and charity in the world, ending on election day. I did fulfill the Rosary, but, as I suspected, when I tried the fast, it didn't last (pardon the rhyme).
    I do hope Our Lord and Our Lady look with favor on the prayers and sacrifices of all those who took part in the Novena, and still continue to.

    I wish a Happy New Year and God's blessings to you, to Intro, and all the commenters on this blog.

    Jannie

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Jannie,

      McHugh, O.P. and Callan, O.P. remark in their 1958 work "Moral Theology" on matters related to fasting that you bring up:

      "465. Partial fulfillment is required of him who cannot make complete fulfillment, only when the part is commanded for its own sake; for that which is commanded by a law is considered by the lawgiver as either an indivisible unit, or as a whole composed of parts that have singly an independent moral value and obligation...(b) If the thing commanded has parts that contribute to the end of the law, he who is able to fulfill only one or more such parts is obliged according to his ability; if it is certain that he can perform even a part, he is bound to that; if it is not certain that he can perform even a part, it would seem that generally he is excused from all. Examples: A cleric who can say some but not all the Hours of his Office, is obliged to say what he can. **A person who can certainly abstain, but who cannot fast, is bound during Lent to abstain.**"

      "2469. The Excellence of Fasting and Abstinence...Abstention from solid or liquid nourishment is not a virtue, however, if practised from purely indifferent or evil motives, for example, merely in order to recover health through diet, or to train for an athletic contest, or to preserve shape and beauty, or to commit suicide, or to simulate virtue, or to profess false doctrines or if carried to extremes. The forty-day fasts of Moses, Elias and of Our Lord are for our admiration, but very few are able to imitate these examples."

      "2470. The Sins Opposed to Abstemiousness.—(a) The sin of deficiency in the matter of food is self-starvation. This is the sin of those who are martyrs to fashion, who in order to have a frail figure follow a diet (e.g., denying oneself all substantial food to reduce obesity) that undermines their constitutions and leaves them a prey to disease. It is also the sin of those who from unwise zeal for rigorous fasting deprive themselves of the necessaries of life, or eat what their stomachs rebel against. This sin does not differ from suicide or bodily injury treated above (see 1566 sqq., 1857 sqq.). "It is the same thing to kill yourself by slow degrees as to kill yourself in a moment. And he who kills himself by fasting is like one who offers God a sacrifice from stolen property" (St. Jerome)."

      That being said, when reviewing sections related to dispensations from ecclesial law, it appears that abstaining from the obligation to fast on account of poor health or medical condition at least requires the permission of the pastor at minimum:

      "527. The pastor can dispense as follows: (a) from the general law concerning feasts of obligation and from the laws of fast and abstinence. The dispensation can be granted either to his own subjects or to strangers, but only for a just reason, in individual instances and for particular individuals or families. The bishop may dispense the whole diocese, but the pastor cannot dispense the whole parish (Canon 1245). [...] 531. The manner of seeking dispensations is as follows: (a) for the usual dispensations (e.g., those from fast, abstinence, observance of feasts, and the vows that may be dispensed by confessors) no particular procedure is required..."

      That being said, per paragraph 533, a dispensation is invalidated by defect of the dispenser, and the example given is "as when they lack jurisdiction"; I'm not sure offhand if supplied jurisdiction in this time of sede vacante applies to obtaining a dispensation from fasting on account of ill health (Introibo might know more).

      Hope this provides some additional clarity.

      Sincerely,

      A Simple Man

      Delete
    2. Jannie,
      A Happy New Year to you! Thank you for making the blog better with your comments! Fasting is a good thing if you can do it without risk to your life and/or health. Those not capable of maintaining a midnight Eucharistic Fast should always avail themselves of the three-hour fast of Pope Pius XII. That is the last binding legislation on the matter.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    3. @Simple Man
      Thank you for the good answer! As far as jurisdiction to dispense from fasting, if a member of the clergy cannot be reached, then "When health or ability to work would be seriously affected, the law does not oblige." Hence, the dispensation would be automatic. (See theologian O'Connell "Outlines of Moral Theology," [1958], pg. 167).

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    4. Fasting after Midnight for
      Holy Communion will slowly help you build up the will + strength to fast more.
      Catholics did this every Sunday + Holy Day until 1957.
      God bless -Andrew

      Delete
    5. Andrew,
      I agree that Traditionalists who can do so SHOULD as penance. However, if someone has serious medical reasons, or in order to work they need nourishment, they should avail themselves of the three-hour fast. My late mother was very ill and in her 80s. She could not go longer than 3 hrs without serious risk to her health (and even her life).

      God Bless,
      ---Introibo

      Delete
    6. Hi,
      Is there a recommended book on fasting and when a good Catholic should fast?
      God bless, Cyrus

      Delete
    7. Cyrus,
      I don't know of any such book that is about fasting per se. A good Catholic MUST fast during Lent and the appointed times from age 21-60. You CAN fast as penance whenever you so choose. The mandatory Eucharistic Fast as per Pope Pius XII is for three hours, but, in my opinion, for those who can do so without harm to their health or job performance, they should fast from midnight.

      If any of my readers knows of a good book from pre-V2 on fasting, please let tell me.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  4. Merry and Blessed Christmas and Happy New Year to all !!!
    While traveling out of state with my family many years ago we made plans and pre-purchased tickets to a baseball game at a major league stadium. The seats were in an all you can eat section. I called them and still do “the gluttony seats”. 1st time and last time doing that and we hated it. Why do it in the first place? The cost in dollars. The price of the tickets for “the gluttony seats” as opposed to individual seats and regular meal was the same so we figured why not.
    I can eat what I want and not gain a pound but I still despise gluttony. I also hate to waste food. I will have the same leftovers for days after just not to be wasteful. It is difficult though because even though I try there are others around me who do not care as much and even though I try, I can only eat so much leftovers.
    I did learn a good lesson from the nuns where I attended Catholic grammar school. Even though it was the beginning of the Novus Ordo the sisters still had the vestiges of their faith. When you brought up your tray after lunch the sisters would stand by the garbage and berate you if you were wasteful. It was a good lesson that I carry with me now. And let me add, I can basically eat what I want and not gain a pound. I still despise gluttony and waste.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon4:54
      Your good story is an amazing testimony as to how even a little bit of good Catholic teaching goes a long way!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  5. Forgot to sign that post.
    James

    ReplyDelete
  6. A Simple Man,
    thank you for this timely and well-researched article!

    Being Polish and living in my home country, I guess I belong to a minority of those who would now feel mighty uncomfortable at a 'traditional' Polish Novus Ordo wedding reception. Though I've been invited to such a drinking binge only once in my life (due to some serious family issues going on for years) I've already had enough. Me and my older brother had to literally escape the eating and drinking hall and hide on the terrace where you couldn't smell the vodka and avoid indiscrete questions. I did drink some two or three cups of wine and was beginning to get cheerful, which fortunately, in my case only gives me red cheeks and a dreamy smile, lol. However, the behavior of my Novus Ordo uncle was absolutely disgraceful (not that I expected anything different of him) - he would repeatedly coax my brother into drinking vodka, although he (the uncle) was well-aware that my brother was driving that day! Then came the silly and shameless wedding games and my brother decided that enough's enough; we drove back home in disgust without even tasting the wedding cake. I'm grateful that he did call it quits then because I was beginning to enjoy the party and might have as well done something stupid.

    God Bless You,
    Joanna S.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joanna,
      Glad you liked Simple Man's post. He keeps the blog going well, and gives me the break I need!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  7. Introibo,
    your rest is surely well-deserved, and A Simple Man's work is of great value!
    As for myself and fellow Readers, we shall keep the blog going by our comments.

    I've just realized that my comment above may seem a little off-topic; the reason why I posted this anecdote of mine is how drunkenness, one of the worst facets of gluttony, has been elevated to a quasi-virtue, whereby one the drunkard is seen as friendly, out-going and a good company unless something bad happens because of him or her being intoxicated.
    Sadly, Friday, for the modern society, has gone from being a day of penance for the sake of Our Lord's bitter passion to the much-awaited beginning of weekend, with the usual drinking, partying and enjoying oneself; just another blasphemous laugh aimed at Christ by the Vatican II sect.

    God Bless,
    Joanna S.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joanna,

      Given how common the vice of drunkenness is, it's often treated separately from gluttony in general, as St. Thomas dues in Summa Theologiae, and as St. Alphonsus does in the Theologia Moralis.

      Introibo actually did a post earlier this year on drunkenness specifically: https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2020/08/sobering-thoughts.html

      Sincerely,

      A Simple Man

      Delete
  8. A Simple Man,
    thanks for the clarification!
    I remember reading Introibo's article on drunkenness and would definitely recommend anyone to have a look at it or to revisit it, especially know when the season of Carnival is at hand.

    A Blessed New Year to You, Introibo and all of the Dear Readers and Commenters!

    Joanna S.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thank you for your support during this year
    -Poni

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Poni,
      I'm always glad to support a fellow Traditionalist who does such good work for Christ's One True Church!

      Happy New Year and God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  10. The Church teaches about the possibility of the human body arising through evolution. This explains well your post "Adam and Eve". I have two more questions about this:
    1. Is macroevolution from the point of view of the discoveries of modern science a hypothesis or a proven theory?
    2. Can we accept the emergence of Eve's body through evolution? Genesis says that Eve's body was created from Adam's rib. The Pontifical Biblical Commission teaches about "the special creation of the First Woman from the First Man".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon2:21
      As a former science teacher, I need to first make some terms clear. If you look at any standard or online scientific dictionary a hypothesis is "an educated guess" whereas a theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world." Theories do not become scientific laws. A law is "an observation of a phenomenon that a theory attempts to explain." To give an example, "the law of gravity states that every time you drop an apple, it will fall to the ground. The theory of gravity is the explanation as to why the apple falls to the ground. A law is an observation. A theory is an explanation." This is a classic textbook explanation.

      As to the terms "macroevolution" and "microevolution." Microevolution refers to evolution within species and anything above species evolution would be macroevolution.

      Having defined terms:
      1. Evolution is a theory. While I have a Masters Degree in Science Education, I am not a professional scientist. In my layman’s assessment of the evidence, it makes me skeptical of the neo-Darwinian account and leaves me with a probing agnosticism about the theory.

      2. You are correct that we must believe that the First Woman was created specially from the First Man. We do not have to believe it was a literal rib. Could woman have somehow evolved out of Man? In my opinion (and that's all it is AN OPINION OF A LAYMAN WITHOUT MAGISTERIAL AUTHORITY) I don't see why not, although I'm open to correction and remain agnostic on that point as well.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  11. Hello.

    Since we're on the topic of gluttony, is there any truth from this paragraph from Wikipedia's article on the history of breakfast?

    Here it is:

    Breakfast was under Catholic theological criticism. The influential 13th-century Dominican priest Thomas Aquinas wrote in his Summa Theologica (1265–1274) that breakfast committed "praepropere," or the sin of eating too soon, which was associated with gluttony.[1] Overindulgences and gluttony were frowned upon and were considered boorish by the Catholic Church, as they presumed that if one ate breakfast, it was because one had other lusty appetites as well, such as ale or wine.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To anon@1:02 AM,

      Looking at the article in question (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_breakfast), the footnote references a particular book: Anderson, Heather Arndt (2013). Breakfast: A History. AltaMira Press. ISBN 0759121656. A cursory search of of the author Heather Arndt Anderson shows a specialty in culinary literature, but nothing in the way of their academic pedigree or religious persuasion; however, they appear to be of a left-leaning tilt based on their public social media profile. With that being said, I do not have the book in question to review what evidence they have on hand; however, the Wikipedia article in question appears erroneous in presentation.

      For starters, the Summa does not mention "breakfast" explicitly; when referring to "praepropere" (a Latin adverb meaning 'too hastily or precipitously'), St. Thomas is referring to the eating of food at too soon a time. (A lot of online articles besides Wikipedia on praepropere seem to reference Anderson's book in the same manner, so this appears to be the singular source of the claim.) However, the manner of presentation appears to treat breakfast as something which was deemed intrinsically evil (which would be nonsensical, given allowances made for certain laborers to eat in the morning).

      Let us consider the circumstances: at the time of writing, the local parish would be a significant aspect of any given village or town, and daily Mass was likely more readily available. As such, the Eucharistic Fast was a regular part of daily life; given the close-knit nature of smaller communities, anyone who regularly ate a morning meal (i.e. before morning Mass) would be considered an occasion of scandal, which is likely why St. Thomas (and assumedly other moral theologians) spoke negatively of it. (I would not be surprised if this dimension was missed entirely by secular authors.)

      As this relatively neutral article on the change of breakfast elaborates on (https://www.historyextra.com/period/tudor/how-the-tudors-invented-breakfast/), three reasons are usually identified as the reason for the change in attitude towards breakfast:

      - The Protestant Reformation (which would naturally do away with the Eucharistic Fast by and large, thus removing any moral stigma)

      - The increased availability of food as material prosperity increased allowed for more people to afford three meals instead of the customary two

      - The changing economic conditions and means of employment resulted in changes in meal times, as people by and large transitioned from working the land around their homes to working shifts away from their abode.

      With that being said, any particular attitudes towards breakfast in medieval times should not be taken as blanket condemnations of a morning meal entirely (speaking personally, I usually have only one major meal a day, and the time will vary depending on my work schedule).

      Using the general principles laid down by St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus, breakfast in and of itself is not sinful; however, as with any meal, it can be an occasion for gluttony, at which point it can be either venial or mortal according to the circumstances.

      Sincerely,

      A Simple Man

      Delete
    2. Still don't understand why traditional Catholic Clerics aren't enforcing + preaching the after midnight Holy Communion fast?
      The Eastern Orthodox still fast after Midnight.
      It's embarrassing to talk with an Eastern Schismatic + hear them laugh at the mere 3 hrs from food + 1 hour from liquids fast.
      Pius XII was the beginning of the new world.
      God bless -Andrew

      Delete
    3. Andrew,

      To categorically assert that Pius XII - and he alone - was the "beginning of the new world" goes rather too far, I would say.

      Notwithstanding the practical circumstances behind the change in discipline - as notated in 1953's Christus Dominus (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius12/p12chdom.htm) and 1957's Sacram Communionem (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius12/p12fast.htm) - there's the simple fact that it was promulgated by Pope Pius XII, and as such - being a disciplinary law promulgated by lawful authority - it is binding (and unlike the matters concerning supplied jurisdiction in this day and age, I don't think you can utilize epikeia as a means of supplanting Pius XII's legislation with what was in place before; Introibo is welcome to correct me if I'm mistaken).

      Now by no means does this prohibit one from following the midnight fast (particularly in circumstances where you have morning Mass available). However, it is precisely for such circumstances where the only Mass available is in the afternoon or the evening (among others) that such an allowance was made.

      On a related note, if your Eastern Orthodox acquaintances "laugh" at the differences in disciplinary fasting, then I would inquire as to why the Orthodox are in an ecumenical communion with various other denominations via the World Council of Churches (https://www.oikoumene.org/church-families/orthodox-churches-eastern), which I would consider a far more substantial problem. (When even the Vatican II sect has refused to join the WCC as a member, that should say something!)

      Sincerely,

      A Simple Man

      Delete
    4. I don't have any Eastern Orthodox friends,rather talked with some over past 10 yrs.
      I've brought up the World Council of Churches to them,thanks for the advice though,it may help someone reading this blog.
      Pius XII was the first to destroy multiple apostolic traditions.
      He had no right to demoralize
      blashpheme mutilate + degrade the Blessed Sacrament by allowing 3 hr food 1 hr Holy
      Communion fast.
      God bless -Andrew
      P.S. Bp.Robert Dymek was the first + ONLY Catholic Priest in my life who encouraged + preached the importance of fasting after Midnight for Holy
      Communion.

      Delete