On "secret opinions"

The denominationally-confused Reverend Cavendish has just published his latest Sunday Sermon, and it reveals that while railing against gluttony in public, he issued a secret opinion that supported gluttons. He says that he has always been against gluttony, and that he was merely clarifying what constituted gluttony.

Reverend Cavendish's original public statements against gluttony seem unequivocal, but all the time he was privately splitting hairs in order to neutralize them. Yet he claims there "is really no contradiction between the two":

The 2006 Cavendish Encyclical Contra Gluttony:
It is the excessive desire for food that typifies gluttony, for we must not forget that over-consumption of food necessarily leads to its withholding from the needy.
The 2007 “Secret Opinion” on the Encyclical:
Since the sin of gluttony applies when over-consumption deprives the needy of food, “excessive desire for food” only applies to those foods that the needy might crave. So it is gluttony to eat too many staple foods and other products sold at the Piggly-Wiggly, but never gluttony to eat too many gourmet items that the masses do not crave, such as products that arrive from Harry and David, or items bought at Whole Foods.

The 2006 Cavendish Encyclical Contra Gluttony:
Gluttony applies not just to food, but also to resources. Indeed, the United States consumes over 25% of the world’s resources, despite being less than 5% of world population.
The 2007 “Secret Opinion” on the Encyclical:
St. Thomas Aquinas defined one of the five aspects of gluttony as studiose or “eating too daintily.” For this reason, if you have to drive somewhere, it is Godly not to mince around in a Prius, but rather one should eschew daintiness and make sure you have a vehicle that can go off-road, like a Hummer that has been upgraded to 1000 HP.

The 2006 Cavendish Encyclical Contra Gluttony:
Remember that associating with gluttons disgraces your family. This is the message of the Book of Proverbs 28:7: “He who keeps the law is a discerning son, but a companion of gluttons disgraces his father.”
The 2007 “Secret Opinion” on the Encyclical:
For this reason, if your friends run the risk of consuming too much, like at a keg party or an auction for lucrative government contracts, it is important to drain the keg yourself or arrange to be awarded a no-bid contract prior to the auction, thus keeping yourself from becoming a “companion of gluttons.”

This seems like casuistry, but he claims to be being consistent:

Others have claimed to see contradictions between the two documents, but I remind them that that the Encyclical and the “Secret Opinion” were intended for different audiences. Of course, the theologically literate are better able to understand the nuances of my “Secret Opinion” than the hoi polloi.

I imagine that if we wait for Alberto Gonzales' memoirs, a similar justification might be found.