Terry muses on the sin of gluttony.
Gluttony (an ugly name for an ugly sin) seems to be a stealthy sin, like sloth. It's easy to ignore it, to rationalize it away, especially by focusing not on gluttony itself but on being fat. And, as we all know, there are only two deadly sins in this culture: smoking and being fat. (Well, maybe three if you include failing to recycle.)
But gluttony is everywhere in our society. The Catholic Encyclopedia quotes St Thomas as giving five species of gluttony: wanting to eat too soon, too expensively, too much, too eagerly, or too daintily.
Omnipresent vending machines and snack shops offer us plenty of opportunities to eat "too soon." Food is cheap and plentiful in our society; it's easy to eat "too much." Rushed meals and the neglect of the family dinner hour tempt us to eat "too eagerly," wolfing down food while we do something else. Screwtape gives us a famous example of another way gluttony is expressed in our society, in delicacy:
While working your hardest, quite rightly, on other fronts, you must not neglect a little quiet infiltration in respect of gluttony.... They ought to be made to think themselves very knowing about food, to pique themselves on having found the only restaurant in the town where steaks are 'properly' cooked. What begins as vanity can then be gradually turned into habit. But, however you approach it, the great thing is to bring him into the state in which the denial of any one indulgence — it matters not which, champagne or tea, sole colbert or cigarettes — 'puts him out,' for then his charity, justice, and obedience are all at your mercy. Mere excess in food is much less valuable than delicacy. Its chief use is as a kind of artillery preparation for attacks on chastity. C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters, Chapter 17
Is it possible to be overly delicate with regard to the healthiness of food? I'm thinking of a birthday party I attended recently, where one of the children's mothers made a huge production of declining the punch because it had artificial coloring. Now, I know that there are some kids who are honestly sensitive to artificial colors, and if her kid has that senstivity of course she should decline. (A phone call to the hostess ahead of time, or a thermos in her own purse, might have also been a good idea.) But if he didn't, was it really necessary to make such a huge deal about it?
Is there a place for wanting to prepare food well, and with delicious, wholesome ingredients, without falling into delicacy? Perhaps this is where detachment comes in, to be able to eat with a smile whatever is set before you, whether it be handmade pasta with freshly grated Parmigiano-Reggiano or Velveeta and elbow macaroni.
This is also where fasting comes in. Our society wants to feast constantly without fasting. If you fast for the sake of your arteries or waistline, that's okay. But if you fast for the sake of your soul, there's something wrong with you.
A constant feast becomes boring. The palate becomes dull, and more and more exotic and tasty treats are required. If you have a latte every morning, then it becomes no big deal, and only the triple mocha will be a real treat.
From an English Dominican site:
To someone who eats primarily food prepared commercially, the taste of ‘plain or home cooked’ food is bland, dull, unexciting. Where’s the pizzazz? Look at the cereal aisle in the store, everything, except wheatabix and cornflakes, are improved, flavour-enhanced, jazzed up. Oatmeal, surely that’s a wholesome, natural food, right? Now there are oatmeal bars in London and New York... the standard order is for Oatmeal with raisins, maple syrup and other added flavours. A far cry from the plain bowl of salted porridge.
Fasting sharpens our appreciation of the good things God gives us -- we're easier to please -- and helps us break our attachment to them.
Finally, Screwtape is certainly not the first writer to note the link between gluttony and impurity. Our society equates gluttony with being fat -- if you don't get fat, then gluttony isn't a problem -- in fact, you're considered lucky to be able to eat whatever you want and not gain weight. It's kind of like a culinary contraceptive mentality -- the desire to have sex whenever you want without any consequences; to eat all you want and not get fat.
"in fact, you're considered lucky to be able to eat whatever you want and not gain weight.." You must have seen me coming. I am one slim pig.
Nicely written post, btw..I love the "culinary contraceptive mentality" line.
Wanna hear something I think is way ruder than the artificial coloring refusal (though I agree with you about that too?) My sister threw a birthday/ 10th wedding anniversary party (for herself/husband, but it really wasn't a gift-grub thing, so I don't think it was tacky) a few years ago. She had all these hors d'oeuvre type things including meats I think even though she is a vegetarian.
Some of her friends (and not the closest friends either) ordered a pizza because they couldn't find enough they liked!! To her house, during the party! So what is that, gluttony at the expense of charity?
Thoughtful piece, very interesting. Got me to thinking of a possible common thread of these sins- in that Gluttony, like Lust, drives one to want "too much, too soon and too eagerly" and causes one to lose appreciation of what is good.
And, like sin itself, such desire lead to destruction. I've read that Greek writers sometimes spoke of "opsophagos"- those who liked fish so much, they grabbed it hot off the plate and sometimes choked to death trying to eat it all before anyone else could have a bite.
Great post, Peony. Thank you. And I'll bet Professor Luse is thin as a rail. :-)
D's mom (can we call you Mama Chirp?) -- I'm willing to give the mom of the artifical coloring story some benefit of the doubt, though I think it was, at the very least, poor planning of her to wait until the tiny guests were all seated to start loudly proclaiming that the Punch Wouldn't Do (neither would Sprite). Her moppet was also seated at the farthest inside table of the narrow room, so not only did the hostess have to drop everything and go rummaging in the fridge but had to hand in the special request (in an open cup) over the heads of all the other little boys -- an awkward production. If this were a legitimate need, a word when cake was announced (or even at the time of the invitation) would have been thoughtful. But if it was just a preference, come on, 4 oz of Froot Punch is not going to kill your kid's chance to get into Stanford in 14 years....
Now your story about the pizza -- that takes it game, set, and match! Especially when the hostess went out of her way to provide food for non-vegetarian people whose tastes were different from her own.
Good, GOOD topic. I am learning finally to confess it as a sin, which it is.
Although it is a response to past cruelty, or a learned compensation for anxiety, or a bad habit, it is first and foremost a sin, and I can't tell you what a relief it was to realize that. I don't have to solve the unlying problem, I have to offer up the desire and the appetite and my fallen nature and join it with His. So much clearer a path!
Excellent post! In food writing I think about this a lot, especially when I have to deal with one of these effetes who periodically pop up in the world of food (although not as often as one might imagine - I bet that daintiness is more common among the gymnasium dwelling set than among the foodie set). There are always questions of priorities on foodstuffs: is it really possible to indulge in fresh truffles and not slip into gluttony (the answer is "yes" by the way)?
A few weeks ago, we got out of the house and dh took us out to breakfast at Denny's. Now I have been cooking all from scratch. I had a "slim slam" which is pancakes with strawberries, a slice of ham and an egg beater. I felt so ashamed of myself for this huge plate of food that literally would sustain me for a day. Since we moved here, I have been almost rationing food due to being snowed in. The couple times we have gone out, I literally have felt very sad at the self indulgence.
Even before this though, when we would go to other people's homes for let's say lunch, we would, ask the kids if they would like a sandwich, their kids would answer "can I have two to start?" This ia a foreign concept to me. I was raised that you do not have a right to eat all the food in the house simply because there is enough, or because you "feel hungry" because it is greedy. My 4 year old is growing through a growth spurt and I keep finding him in the pantry. We fight each day because I get very upset because he simply is not starving.
I'm going to make myself hugely unpopular here by pointing out a few things. The mother who made a fuss about food coloring was guilty of rudeness to her host, not of excessive delicacy. (She might, of course, have been playing that classic yuppie game, I'm A Better Mother Than You Are, but there's no reason to speculate as to her motives.) The guests who ordered a pizza to be delivered to the party were likewise ungrateful and ungracious, not overly picky. (In either case, there would have been no wrong if they had merely not eaten or drunk what was offered.) If Pansy didn't want pancakes and ham, why did she order them? Denny's will give you a box to carry home your leftovers; I can't imagine eating cold pancakes, but cold ham is eminently useful in the kitchen. (As for fighting with a four-year-old who's having a growth spurt, I'd rethink that. If there's no junk food in your house, then you can rely on the child to stop eating when he isn't hungry anymore. Pestering children about food causes obesity, it doesn't prevent it.) Catholics occasionally go into a gluttony jag and frequently tip over into Puritanism. By the way, though it's scarcely germane, I eat twice a day and eat no sugar or flour, so my defense of desserts is at any rate not self-serving. And remember that beating yourself up about everything you eat is very likely scrupulosity.
I believe with all this in mind, Saint Josemaria said that if a person hasn´t practised in some form a mortification while eating a meal, then they are eating as a pagan.
I'm going to make myself hugely unpopular here
Yes you are. I did not say I didn't want the Slim Slam breakfast. Of course I wanted it, who wouldn't? I said since we stopped going out to eat once a week, and had not been for a very long time, it really did not occur to me what a piggy I was being and how most restaurants serve enourmous portions of food that can feed someone for at least a day. FWIW,I rarely finish my meals anyway and make a point of taking home half a meal (not breakfasts though) to have something to look forward to. But that is neither here nor there nor was it my point at all.
(As for fighting with a four-year-old who's having a growth spurt, I'd rethink that. If there's no junk food in your house, then you can rely on the child to stop eating when he isn't hungry anymore. Pestering children about food causes obesity, it doesn't prevent it.)
No I will not rethink that! (The few obese family members I have known were the ones who were given without any training about nutrition and prudence). I did not say anything at all about obesity and since you must have traversed my kitchen, then you know I do not keep junk food around. My four year old is eating carrot sticks, apples, homeade baked goods and attempting to drink all the juice when we have it. The problem is sincere gluttony. My four year old simply is not allowed to eat all the food I have allotted for a week or a month simply because he wants to. We are on a budget here and there are periods when it may not even be possible to get new groceries. Besides that, if you had a decent meal, you simply are not hungry. I will not encourage eating out of boredom.
Look, it's your funeral. I don't care what you feed your children, although I confess I would be surprised to see a four-year-old actually consume all the food that would be sufficient to feed a family of six for a month, or even for a week. Talented child, that. I never keep junk food, either, and I've never, in twenty years of motherhood, seen a child come to any harm by eating apples, carrots, nuts, and homemade bread. I don't get your point any more than you do - are you objecting to the portion size, or to the restaurant, or to your not having foreseen that the meal would be more than you wanted? Or are you indulging in the kind of delicacy that Lewis describes in Screwtape, of making a show of your modest requirements by complaining of the amount of food served you? Really, I have no wish at all to quarrel with Peony, or even with you; but if you imagine that I am abashed by the shrill reproaches of someone who habitually indulges in hysterical hyperbole, you're quite mistaken. If you don't want to see comments that argue with you, you might want to tag your comments boxes "Adulation Only, Please".
I agree with the idea of the contraceptive mentality spilling over into the culinary area. I think of that whenever I see articles about WOW chips and their ilk. (Perhaps people would reconsider contraception if the consequences were as immediately felt as those which can befall the person who munches out on WOW Doritos...)
warning - graphic comment. read at your own risk!
Reading about the emotional and psychological consequences of contraception, I kept running into references to the vomitorium.
This was a custom in decadent times just before the fall of the Roman empire. Hosts would serve huge quantities of food delicacies, and the guests would induce vomiting between courses to 'make room' for the next course.
I think there really is a connection between food gluttony and lust.
However, we do need to be aware that God created our bodies with a capacity for enjoyment, and there is nothing sinful about a reasonable and moderate (or even occasionally immoderate with a celebration that calls for such) consumption of delicious food. Catholics are not Puritans, and that makes things a lot harder over all!
I seem to have wandered into the wrong blog. First of all, I am a Fat Person who deserves to be locked up in a concentration camp and starved to death. I have recently undertaken regular exercise and lost a little weight, but I really stink at fasting. But I don't indulge in tasty foods, I just eat what's convenient and don't pay much attention to it. Since I work full time and am the single parent of a teenager, I don't have a lot of leisure to think about food. I don't believe in food that has been deprived of its natural properties, like artificial sweeteners and decaffeinated coffee. That is the culinary equivalent of artificial contraception. What really annoys me is people who make an idolatry of food. They surround themselves with elaborate dietary laws and imagine that they are more righteous than the rest of us who eat whatever is handy. Then they try to begrudge us what little pleasures we can wrest from an unfeeling world by accusing us of gluttony because we eat flour or sugar or flavored oatmeal or hamburgers or whatever. "Let not him who abstains pass judgement on him who eats." Get off my case. We will all die and stand before the judgement seat of God. We will be judged by our faith and charity, not by the contents of our dinner plate.
Mr. Deiterich,
I apologise if you were offended,but I think you misunderstood, Peony's blog was not about the crimes of obesity, but about gluttony. While gluttony certainly can be a reason for obesity, one does not have to be obese to be a glutton.
Americans, IMO are pretty gluttonous as a culture. As someone who was a personal trainer, and someone who has attended Weight Watchers and so on, you hear Americans talk all the time about how they should refrain from eating due to cosmetic or health reasons, but I cannot say I ever heard anyone say they should refrain as a matter of simple discipline and unnecessary overindulgence. I do not think Peony's post was meant to point fingers at anyone as much as to voice some thoughts at a very overlooked discipline.
St. Jerome is fun and enlightening to read. I love his letters; you can peruse them at the New Advent site. He and St. Paula fasted a lot to suppress their other "fleshly urges."
In Letter 22, he describes how the failure of radical fasting to mortify his flesh drove him to learn Hebrew! That torturous exercise did the trick; and as a result, we now enjoy the complete Bible, which he eventually translated from the original languages and compiled into one volume.
Paula, however, not only topped him at catching on to Hebrew, but she outdid him in fasting! (She might have been a little too insistent; she didn't obey even the Pope when he urged her on her sickbed to eat.
She wasn't an anorexic, as many revisionists claim; she was trying to stifle her lustier side!
Christians eschewed bathing back then, too (especially women!?!)--as Jerome put it, bathing feels good and causes women to notice their attractive bodies! That was the theory, anyway.
Let's face it--it's great fun to chow down. The trick is to limit it to now and again, and with company--just like drinking. Is eating primarily social, then, not individual? Obviously, it is the means by which an individual is nourished--and the Bread of Heaven imparts Christ's Divine life to us--but notice He gives Himself individually, in a group context.
The group is one!
Has anybody here seen Babette's Feast, the Best Foreign Film Oscar winner of 1987? It's based on an Isak Dinesen short story, and it's wonderful.
(It's got a lovely portayal of opera as an important sideplot, Elinor, so you all might like it at the Cacc household, if you haven't already seen it).
When I grow up, I'd like to be just like Babette! (Either she or Kiri-San, the emperor's fat old favorite wife in Shogun--but maybe I shouldn't bring up my secret yen for mediocre fiction!) :-O !
I like you people!
I've gotta laugh.
If I'd been you, Pansy--after having been cooped up in the igloo like some modern-day Jack London--I'd have ordered not just the Slim-Slam, but the Grand Slam, the Flim-Flam, the Bam-Bam, and the Wham-Bam-Thank You, Ma'am!
Damn!
What, KTC, no Moon Over My-Hammy?
Interesting thoughts about eating (especially feasting) as primarily social. I've seen Babette's Feast -- how I love that movie. (It's on my DVD wish list!) I was going to say that I, too, wanted to be Babette but without the poverty and exile part -- but duh, if she hadn't experienced that, would she have been moved to make the gesture she did?
Senor Gil, good to see you again! Thanks for the point from St Josemaria.
St. Josemaria's saying about mortification at meals has been mentioned. This is point # 681 in THE WAY, and the full text is: "The day you leave the table without having made some small mortification, you will have eaten like a pagan."
Perhaps this is the discussion in which to call attention to the word "small" in the above point. St. Josemaria is not recommending ostentatious displays of restraint, such as would exemplify not the virtue of temperance but the sin of pride.
Rather, he means things like not using salt when you'd like to, or using just a little LESS salt than you'd like to, or taking just a little less than you otherise would of what you like -- or (ever thought of this one?) actually taking (and eating) a little MORE of what you DON'T like.
In any event, these mortifications should be small enough to go unnoticed and not turn into spiritual exhibitionism.
Also to be borne in mind is point #179 in THE WAY: "Choose mortifications that don't mortify others."
-- Cacciaguida
Thanks for the good points, Signore Cacciaguida. I've also heard that point explained with the example, "Choose the dessert you don't like."
It seems like those smaller mortifications would also be less intimidating, and therefore easier to practice on a daily basis. Not everyone can run 10 miles a day, but most people can take an extra flight of stairs. Similarly, not everyone can fast on bread and water, but anyone can practice those small acts of self-denial.
In any event, these mortifications should be small enough to go unnoticed and not turn into spiritual exhibitionism.
I am not sure someone else is in the position of saying what is or what is not a mortification for some person. While yes, we are not required to put displays on of hair shirts, soil our faces and wail and moan to show mortifications, mortifications are very personal. This is why they are not standard. As a teen fasted on bread and water every Wednesady and Friday, but I was absolutely taught that NO ONE should ever see that I am fasting or know that is what I am doing, else my reward was granted, and would not be granted later as penance. After I got married this became impossible due top constant nursing and pregnancies. Fact is, fasting on bread and water these days would not be a great act of penance anymore because after so much practice equal to what would be leaving out salt (which btw, is something I have never done is keep a salt shaker around or add salt to cooking, my father was diagnosed with hypertension when I was like 6, so there would be no mortification in denying extra salt at my table), it is easy while for someone else, it would be a bigger mortification.
Taking the stairs is no big deal for someone who stays on the stairmaster 45 minutes a day. Perhaps a small, but uncomfortable mortification for me would be to take away my tea or coffee, whereas that is no big deal to someone else. Anyway,IMO, the type of mortification is individual, and even a small mortification can be exhibitionism.
"Oh no, no salt for me! I am fasting! Whew boy is this hard!"
Yes, Pansy, St Josemaria's point exactly -- that mortifications (for example, those of the table) should be tailored to the individual AND should not be visible to others. You might have someone who's accustomed to severe bread and water fasts, and who strongly prefers coffee to tea. That person might, as a small mortification, choose tea instead of coffee. Like you, I'm not a big salt user, but Cacc gives salt as an example, not a prescription. I could skip the pepper instead, or leave the cheese off my sandwich, or have a couple of extra spears of broccoli. If you're out for a coffee treat with your friends, it would be a little showy to announce "No coffee for me!" But you could choose the latte instead of the triple raspberry mocha.
My thought was that it might be easy to rationalize away taking on big penances as being "too hard." But it's harder to rationalize away the challenge of small, silent acts of mortification. St Josemaria also challenges us to kick it up a notch and make such acts a daily habit.
but Cacc gives salt as an example, not a prescription.
I understand that, I just expanded on that example. I understand what you are saying, and quite frankly, I do not know many people who display food mortifications as exhibitions, at least not for religious reasons.
I just do not think it is right to tell people when you (general "you", not a specific "you") are not that person's spiritual director and have no idea what mortifications that person would make.
You (and this is the specific "you") and I said recently, there are so many ways to be Catholic for different people. IMO, it is not fair to say someone is being prideful in their mortifications because it is a mortification you would not choose, or something that might be a greater mortification for you (general "you" again). That was my original point.
I shuddered at the story about the child and the artificial colors. As parents who struggled to keep the ubiquitous red #3 away from our oldest son during his earliest years, I was sympathetic with the effort of the parent. I just pray that I was able to restrain myself from being too abrupt with other parents and day care over red punch. With a truly hyperactive child (not a PC statement) they can go from placid to uncontrollable in just a few minutes with certain triggers. Red punch was one such trigger for that son. Once in school, it was out of our hands. Both Alicia and I have siblings who had similar behaviors and triggers. Those of our children with such conditions have either developed coping skills or grown out of those behaviors as they became adults.
Patience, it helps teach us patience.
But you started with Gluttony. What an insidious condition. We live in a society that has for years encouraged us toward it. It has been preached about for several generations by wise priests. The book "The seven capitol sins" has a radio address by Archbishop Fulton Sheen from 1939. In it he outlines how our savior suffered on the cross to help us lift ourself from this sin. The Christian fasts, the Pagan diets. As my late mother used to tell me: "Offer it up". It is one of the sacrifices we are called to make.