A Poll About Health

[Aloysius]

I just want to see how everyone on fartmass votes in this poll. Obviously gluttony is to be avoided, but what exactly does that entail? please note: I'm only asking what is morally obligatory... that doesn't mean people cannot go above/beyond that it's just a question of whether something is sinful or evil.

a man can be very fat without being gluttonous and/or weak and not have it hinder his vocation in life unless his vocation in life requires intense physical labor... is he morally allowed to do that or is he under some moral obligation to try to become healthier?

do we have a moral obligation to try to prolong our lives as long as possible? it seems to me that we do not, within reason.

what say you?

[CatherineM]

I have a goal of trying to live as long and as healthy and happy a life as I am capable of. That was not always the case. I was very hard on my body when I was young. After some devastating injuries, I gained a lot of weight. It has been a long climb out of the hole I put myself in. I won't judge others, but what I did was certainly not in God's plan, and I took it up in reconciliation, and hope to able to slowly atone by the healthier life I live now.

[Aloysius]

but do you hold that to be a moral obligation on all humans, or just a moral obligation for yourself? you said it was not in God's plan for you to live like that (if you were really "hard" on your body, sounds like gluttony was involved anyway, which means it was objectively sinful), but assuming your living did not actually include gluttony, perhaps that type of living is suitable to someone else.

G.K. Chesterton and St. Thomas Aquinas were both massively fat men. It did not get in the way of Gilbert's vocation as a writer, journalist, husband, or father. It did not get in the way of Aquinas's vocation as a theologian.

I say that if your vocation is to be a parent, you are morally obligated to try to keep your health up so that you live at least until the 18th year of your youngest child's life (impossible to accurately gauge, but do your best), that's your moral obligation to your health... but it is a blessing to see one's children's children unto as many generations as possible, so that would all be icing on the cake.

In my estimation, what you did was only sinful if it involved gluttony or it interfered with your vocation in life. Of course, that might mean any number of things depending upon what you believe God is calling you to do. God was not calling G.K. Chesterton to run a marathon, but he might call someone to run a marathon. The person he calls to run a marathon would be sinning if he harmed his health to the point of being unable to do so. Perhaps God was calling you to live a healthier lifestyle, but I think God called Chesterton to live a much different lifestyle and he was perfectly within his rights to be a huge man in that way and did not sin (unless he was gluttonous, and I cannot speak for the man on that issue because I simply do not know if, when, or how he may have ever given into the sin of gluttony)

[BeenaBobba]

That's a really good question, Al. You know, I'm undecided on this one, though I think that people should try to take care of their bodies. Most people feel better about themselves when they like how they look, and of course, they also feel more energetic and well when they're healthy and fit. Since our bodies were created by God, it makes sense to take care of them as well as possible. On the other hand, I don't necessarily think that means we all have to be health fanatics. I think we should all strive to make healthy choices in life, as it also sets a good example for the next generation.

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1491973' date='Apr 3 2008, 04:03 PM']G.K. Chesterton and St. Thomas Aquinas were both massively fat men. It did not get in the way of Gilbert's vocation as a writer, journalist, husband, or father. It did not get in the way of Aquinas's vocation as a theologian.[/quote]

Speaking of Chesterton and St. Thomas, you're right to say we can't judge them for being obese. For all we know, they could have had health problems that caused them to gain weight. Plus, some obese people are actually addicted to food, and addiction can lower (or remove) culpability.

[cmotherofpirl]

Currently the world is a bit off kilter when it comes to our body: we treat our food and bodies seriously and our sins and souls casually.
If our bodies are on loan from God to house our souls while we are on earth, then it behooves use to take good care of these "loaners". However spending your day at the gym to get those perfect abs or eating like a pig in front of the TV are both wrong. Moderation in ALL things.

[dairygirl4u2c]

well, some people tend to their body too much. don't forget the other ones, who tend to it too little... all the obese people out there.

some of those options are hard to decipher, cause people have varying ideas as to what gluttony means. "over eating" can mean being fat and still eating a lot, it can mean eating too much in one sitting, it can mean eating too much in a phase time interval like several days.

i don't think you could extend gluttony to not eating less when you're fat while you're eating normally. metabolism would pretty much changes things here.
but, if eating less meant losing weight, it could also mean eating normal but when you're fat and should be eating less, so that could be over eating too.

[Justin86]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1491888' date='Apr 4 2008, 02:36 AM']I just want to see how everyone on fartmass[/quote]
lol, was that a typo or intentional?

Makes me think of multiple bursts of methane gas collecting in my anus before exploding outward in one loud blast.

This is not madness...THIS...IS...[i]FARTMASS[/i].

Edited April 3, 2008 by Justin86

[picchick]

I think that as we have a moral obligation to be stewards of the earth, that means to take the best care that we can of our body. If you can afford to eat right, then eat right. That doesn't mean you can't indulge once in a while but you need to treat your body as a temple of the Holy Spirit. Some people cannot afford fresh fruits and vegetables. That is why I say, the best care that you can afford. We should also teach our children to take care of their bodies, (brush your teeth, exercise, all that good stuff)

[Adrestia]

[quote name='BeenaBobba' post='1491985' date='Apr 3 2008, 02:28 PM']Speaking of Chesterton and St. Thomas, you're right to say we can't judge them for being obese. For all we know, they could have had health problems that caused them to gain weight. Plus, some obese people are actually addicted to food, and addiction can lower (or remove) culpability.[/quote]


What if they did struggle with gluttony? We all have weaknesses.

[b]2 Corinthians 12:5-10
[/b] About this person I will boast, but about myself I will not boast, except about my weaknesses. Although if I should wish to boast, I would not be foolish, for I would be telling the truth. But I refrain, so that no one may think more of me than what he sees in me or hears from me because of the abundance of the revelations. Therefore, that I might not become too elated, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, an angel of Satan, to beat me, to keep me from being too elated. Three times I begged the Lord about this, that it might leave me, but he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for power is made perfect in weakness." I will rather boast most gladly of my weaknesses, in order that the power of Christ may dwell with me. Therefore, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and constraints, for the sake of Christ; for when I am weak, then I am strong.

IHMO, we are morally obliged to make healthy choices to the best of our ability.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1491973' date='Apr 3 2008, 02:03 PM']but do you hold that to be a moral obligation on all humans, or just a moral obligation for yourself? you said it was not in God's plan for you to live like that (if you were really "hard" on your body, sounds like gluttony was involved anyway, which means it was objectively sinful), but assuming your living did not actually include gluttony, perhaps that type of living is suitable to someone else.

G.K. Chesterton and St. Thomas Aquinas were both massively fat men. It did not get in the way of Gilbert's vocation as a writer, journalist, husband, or father. It did not get in the way of Aquinas's vocation as a theologian.

I say that if your vocation is to be a parent, you are morally obligated to try to keep your health up so that you live at least until the 18th year of your youngest child's life (impossible to accurately gauge, but do your best), that's your moral obligation to your health... but it is a blessing to see one's children's children unto as many generations as possible, so that would all be icing on the cake.

In my estimation, what you did was only sinful if it involved gluttony or it interfered with your vocation in life. Of course, that might mean any number of things depending upon what you believe God is calling you to do. God was not calling G.K. Chesterton to run a marathon, but he might call someone to run a marathon. The person he calls to run a marathon would be sinning if he harmed his health to the point of being unable to do so. Perhaps God was calling you to live a healthier lifestyle, but I think God called Chesterton to live a much different lifestyle and he was perfectly within his rights to be a huge man in that way and did not sin (unless he was gluttonous, and I cannot speak for the man on that issue because I simply do not know if, when, or how he may have ever given into the sin of gluttony)[/quote]
Looks like the debate table has turned into a health forum - lol

I picked the fourth choice, though it's not perfectly clear what you're asking, and your set-up seems a bit loaded.
The fact is that people natural have different body builds, and some people are naturally fat by no fault of their own, just as others are naturally skinny. You can't necessarily judge one's gluttony or health by how big he is.
Chesterton was a big man, but from the photos I've seen he didn't appear disgustingly obese. And I was of the impression that St. Thomas Aquinas was more stout and strong than obese.
I'm not aware that either of them actually tended toward gluttony, and while they were both great and brilliant men, this doesn't necessarily mean that every single aspect of their lives was perfect and above reproach.

In any case, I take issue with the notion that one should only take care of his body to the minimum required to "fulfill his vocation in life" (whatever you mean by that).
Even if one is not a gluttonous eater, I would say if a person is obese or extremely weak due to lazy avoidance of exercise on his part, this is no better morally, and could be regarded as a sin of sloth. (I'm not speaking, of course, of where someone's inactivity or weakness is the result of illness, injury, or old age)
Most saints have frowned on a lifestyle of soft indulgence and inactivity.
Even the intellectual orders of monks were required to pull their own weight by physical labor.

The Church regards the human body as a temple of the Holy Spirit, and one's body should be treated accordingly. If you had a beautiful cathedral, you wouldn't do only the bare minimum of upkeep to keep it standing, subject it to careless abuse, and let it fall into disrepair on the grounds that it will eventually crumble to dust (the ultra-handsome) anyway. Same with the body.

I'm not saying everybody has to be a gym rat or athlete, but to neglect one's health without serious reason, or avoid healthy exercise seems hardly part of a virtuous life.

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='tgoldson' post='1492267' date='Apr 3 2008, 10:32 PM']What if they did struggle with gluttony? We all have weaknesses.[/quote]

Yeah, exactly. I agree with you there.

Out of curiosity, I looked up [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluttony#cite_note-1"]gluttony[/url] on Wikipedia, and apparently, St. Thomas wrote a bit about it. Here's a summary of what he wrote:

[quote]Early Church leaders (e.g., Thomas Aquinas) took a more expansive view of gluttony (Okholm 2000), arguing that it could also include an obsessive anticipation of meals, and the constant eating of delicacies and excessively costly foods.[2] He went so far as to prepare a list of five ways to commit gluttony, including:
[list]
[*][i]Praepropere[/i] - eating too soon
[*][i]Laute[/i] - eating too expensively
[*][i]Nimis [/i]- eating too much
[*][i]Ardenter[/i] - eating too eagerly
[*][i]Studiose[/i] - eating too daintily
[/list][/quote]

[jeffpugh]

I chose the third one: avoid gluttony and be as healthy as you can afford to be. Why? because you body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, it makes you feel good, and we're setting an example for others. On the other hand, there are those who take it too far and try and live forever by eating healthy and exercising. I think that is just as wrong as sloth and gluttony, because the former is an act of pride, thinking that we can live forever by our own standards. Many people are lost in that mind-frame today. It's sad, but it's a natural longing for us, and instead of turning to Christ, they turn to whatever is being marked out there.

[goldenchild17]

I'd say we don't have the requirement to prolong our life as long as we can, but we are forbidden from doing anything to shorten it if there is no good reason to do so. It says as much in Fr. Jone's Moral Theology, but I can't quote from it until I can go and pull it back out.

[SanctitasDeo]

I tend to agree with picchick and Socrates. I don't think that being unhealthy is a terribly great sin, but our bodies are temples, and we should treat them as well as we can.

Eating healthily and exercising makes one happier and more able to do the Lord's work.

[Everything in Moderation]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1492014' date='Apr 3 2008, 04:18 PM']Currently the world is a bit off kilter when it comes to our body: we treat our food and bodies seriously and our sins and souls casually.
If our bodies are on loan from God to house our souls while we are on earth, then it behooves use to take good care of these "loaners". However spending your day at the gym to get those perfect abs or eating like a pig in front of the TV are both wrong. Moderation in ALL things.[/quote]
I couldn't agree more.

[picchick]

I also want to add that part of the reason that health care is so expensive is because the world has become so unhealthy. If we tried to prevent some of the preventable health problems like Type 2 diabetes (largely because of obesity), cardiomyopathy (also because of obesity and a high fat diet), and cancers (smoking) it would lower some of the costs. Much of the cost is also the waste of supplies but I think that if we lived healthier and tried to take care of our bodies a little bit more, we would be helping our fellow neighbor who might not be able to afford health care now.

[Aloysius]

there are lots of reasons that health-care costs are so enormous, and to me these are systematic reasons and nothing else: the system is broken, the system drives up costs, the system devalues money so that poor people can no longer afford basic medical care, et cetera. to me it's like insisting upon taking someone out to dinner, and then complaining the whole time about how much the meal costs. the system insisted upon building itself up in this manner and it has no right to then tell us what we can and cannot do with our lives based upon how much stress it puts on that system.

but that's beside the point. Socrates, how is the question loaded? I felt I gave accurate descriptions of each poll option... is there some other way you would have worded your option? did you feel I painted your option in an unfair light? I worded my own option as fairly as I worded every other option in my estimation, hence the question is not loaded.

* Praepropere - eating too soon
* Laute - eating too expensively
* Nimis - eating too much
* Ardenter - eating too eagerly
* Studiose - eating too daintily

notice that doesn't include 'eating too unhealthily'. so long as someone doesn't do any of the above, if someone still gets fat but it doesn't interfere with his vocation in life, I feel it is not sinful. even if in the long run that shortens his potential lifespan. it is an important distinction to me that it be his [i]potential[/i] lifespan... ie it is not accurate to say someone is killing themselves if they are simply shortening their [i]potential[/i] lifespan.

oh, and it was my understanding that in Aquinas's lifetime there was a joke about him sitting down at a round table to discuss Islam and it had to be cut into the shape of a Muslim crescent so that he could fit at the table. clearly an exaggeration, but not an exaggeration about a slightly stocky guy but about someone who was clearly overweight.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1495409' date='Apr 9 2008, 06:29 AM']but that's beside the point. Socrates, how is the question loaded? I felt I gave accurate descriptions of each poll option... is there some other way you would have worded your option? did you feel I painted your option in an unfair light? I worded my own option as fairly as I worded every other option in my estimation, hence the question is not loaded.

* Praepropere - eating too soon
* Laute - eating too expensively
* Nimis - eating too much
* Ardenter - eating too eagerly
* Studiose - eating too daintily

notice that doesn't include 'eating too unhealthily'. so long as someone doesn't do any of the above, if someone still gets fat but it doesn't interfere with his vocation in life, I feel it is not sinful. even if in the long run that shortens his potential lifespan. it is an important distinction to me that it be his [i]potential[/i] lifespan... ie it is not accurate to say someone is killing themselves if they are simply shortening their [i]potential[/i] lifespan.

oh, and it was my understanding that in Aquinas's lifetime there was a joke about him sitting down at a round table to discuss Islam and it had to be cut into the shape of a Muslim crescent so that he could fit at the table. clearly an exaggeration, but not an exaggeration about a slightly stocky guy but about someone who was clearly overweight.[/quote]
The question itself wasn't loaded, so much as as your explanation, though I may be reading too much into it. You seem to pit the idea that we need keep our bodies only at the bare minimum of health to do our duties against the idea that we must do all in our ability try to live as long as we possibly can. I think there's a HUGE range between these two extremes.

If you read overmy earlier posts, you'll notice I never said being fat was itself a sin. Some people are fat not out of gluttony or laziness, but by genetic disposition. How fat St. Thomas was is really beside the point. He could well have been genetically prone to fatness.

About St. Thomas and unhealthy eating, it should be noted that somethings were different in his time than ours.
1) Dietary science had not developed to the point it is now, so there was not as much of a concept of "healthy" vs. "unhealthy" eating. Dietary concerns were generally more about quantity and scarcity.
2) Modern "junk food" was not available in medieval times, and food was generally healthier. The 13th century man simply did not have the option of living on a diet of McDonalds, soda pop, chips, and twinkies.
Even sugar was not widely available in medieval Europe, and sweets were regarded as dainties and delicacies. St. Thomas might well consider a diet of excessive sweets and treats to be a sin of Laute or Studiose.
And eating to the point of damaging one's health would surely be Nimis.

Also, a medieval man didn't have the option of living the completely sedentary lifestyle made possible by modern technology. He couldn't spend a workday sitting at a computer, drive a car everywhere, and spend his free time sitting in front of the tube or on the net. And anyone who would spend his day in such physical inactivity would likely be regarded as slothful.

My main point is that I believe it is wrong to willingly let one's health go to pot, and the body deserves more respect than that as a gift of God and temple of the Holy Spirit. And I think St. Thomas would agree.
Exactly where one draws the line is subjective, but I don't think it's good to seek only a bare minimum of health to keep going.
But then maybe we're actually in agreement, and I'm just somewhat misunderstanding your point.

[-I---Love]

hahaha Aloysius, I am glad to see that I have influenced you and that you are not ready to settle for your own answer quite yet

Edited April 10, 2008 by -I---Love