fake sugar a sin?


Just a random thought going through my head that im sure people can help me with… I understand that lust is bad because you are trying to seperate pleasure from the act of re-production. (among other reasons that its bad)

My head just continued that analysis though and wouldn’t that make diet soda, low-fat foot, etc serious sins? You are gaining pleasure without nutrition… you are gaining pleasure without getting full or as full as you should?

Obviously gluttony is a problem, but I wouldn’t consider a single diet coke gluttinous, but maybe it is.


…that would kind of leave diabetics and those on restricted diets high and dry, wouldn’t it?


I’ve asked a similar question before. I figured that eating something like sugar candy would be gluttonous, since it serves no reasonable purpose other than to stimulate the taste buds.

The general consensus was that I was being scrupulous. I’m still not sure what the logic was behind that.

  1. Gluttony is overeating. Eating something because it tastes good is not gluttony.

  2. If eating fake sugar is a sin because in eating it you “are gaining pleasure without nutrition,” then eating real sugar would be a sin too. Neither is.


Nor would anyone else on the planet. Perhaps it’s time to find a new hobby.


Food is a legitimate source of pleasure, AS WELL AS nutrition, as long as we don’t overindulge to the point of causing weight- or diet-related health problems.

Remember Christ himself was accused of being a glutton, because he didn’t fast often. So he obviously took pleasure in his food, and it’s not like they didn’t have cakes and sweets in his time too!


Eating real sugar obviously wouldn’t because it has calories. The calories give you energy. Fake sugar is taste without anything else.


maybe you shouldn’t comment if you don’t have anything nice or worthwhile to add…

I am trying to better understand the often heard statement that God created pleasure to guide people’s actions and trying to obtain the pleasure apart from the intended action is wrong. From what I can gather God never made a calorie-free sweet indulgent substance that allows people to eat and drink more than they would otherwise.


The Opening Poster sounds like a gentle and kind soul, and I think this cutting and sarcastic response is uncharitable, Oak. Why post at all if only to respond like this? I don’t understand the purpose of your response.:confused: It sounds mean to me.


Too much of (almost) anything is bad. Even diet sodas. Did you know drinking excessive amounts of diet Coke (or most soft drinks) can lead to increased levels of uric acid. This can lead to kidney stones and gout.


I honestly can’t see how artificial sweeteners could be sinful. It’s OK to take pleasure in food, we just have to avoid gluttony. It might be a good idea for you, though, to discuss this with your priest, just to get a better, and official, understanding of the issue. All we can give you are opinions. :slight_smile:


I agree, it’s better to eat natural foods in my opinon. Also too much regular sugar is bad for you. But it’s hard to be perfect. I think all pop is basically empty calories. It depletes your body.


Alcohol is also empty calories. 7 calories per gram. No nutrition. Everything in moderation! Nutritionists often quote the 80/20 rule: If 80% of what you eat is good, healthy food, don’t worry so much about the other 20%.

So, if you see me in the supermarket with ice cream, that’s my 20% :wink:


LOL :smiley:


Uhm, beer and wine are health tonics, Paramedic.


So you say. What studies are you referring to? And in what quantities?


Lots of 'em, plus anecdotal evidence. They are good for me!:smiley: They cheer me up!:thumbsup:


Now, now, Sailboat, everything in moderation! :smiley:


Wait a minute here…time out, let me get this straight…

Some of you folks are saying that artificial sweeteners are sinful because it is the good taste without any benefit to the body?

So, in your opinion, if I put Splenda in my Iced Tea, that is sinful, but I can run down to the bakery and stuff my face with an eclair and that is just dandy?

It makes little sense. I wouldn’t call it scrupulous, however. The rule of thumb is moderation. The eclair is far worse for your body than the Iced Tea with Splenda. So wouldn’t doing damage to your body be more sinful than using a sweetener in your Iced Tea?

By the way, I’ve visited the provincial houses of many religious orders, every one of them has splenda on the table.


I have run into this question before and it is a perfectly valid one to ask.

The version I have heard is sugarless chewing gum. The point is that if one objects to contraception on the grounds that it thwarts the purpose of sex (having children), Then why is chewing sugarless gum and spitting it out, which which thwarts the purpose of eating (nutrition) acceptable?

I have not tangled with the objection much, but off the top of my head I would say the answer lies in the unitive/procreative purpose of sex, and that it is grave matter while chewing gum is not, but I’ll let others take a whack at it.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.