Fridays, Meat, And Lent

[Slappo]

So a vegetarian gets a pass? And what of the people that love fish...where's the penance there?

 

Yes they both "get a pass" if you want to call it as such. The vegitarian is still abstaining from eating meat and so is the person that eats fish instead of meat. It just isn't as difficult for them since they are used to it or eat fish rather than meat. In the spirit of the season of lent being a season of penance, the vegitarian and fish lover ought to do more than just abstain from meat on Friday's and fast on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday, but their obligations stipulated by Canon Law are met by doing the bare minimum.

[PhuturePriest]

Yes they both "get a pass" if you want to call it as such. The vegitarian is still abstaining from eating meat and so is the person that eats fish instead of meat. It just isn't as difficult for them since they are used to it or eat fish rather than meat. In the spirit of the season of lent being a season of penance, the vegitarian and fish lover ought to do more than just abstain from meat on Friday's and fast on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday, but their obligations stipulated by Canon Law are met by doing the bare minimum.

 

My Bishop said that since vegetarians do not eat meat, there is no sacrifice for them on Fridays during Lent, so they should abstain from something else to make it more of a sacrifice.

[Nihil Obstat]

My Bishop said that since vegetarians do not eat meat, there is no sacrifice for them on Fridays during Lent, so they should abstain from something else to make it more of a sacrifice.

While they probably 'should', Slappo is right in saying that their obligation is fulfilled simply by doing the minimum required, which in this case is simply abstaining from meat.

[Slappo]

Didacus, this occurred with his wife, not friends   I think speculating on the situation without the "wife" fact is just asking for trouble.  The spousal relationship makes a HUGE difference.

 

I intentionally left the poll and topic broader than my particular situation.

 

If anything, being presented the meal in your own house with family that are Catholic would be even more of a reason to abstain from the meal than if you were presented the meal in a situation where you are guest at another's house and may cause serious offense to the host and hostess by refusing to eat.

[Papist]

CHAPTER II.

 

Days of Penance

 

Can.  1249 The divine law binds all the Christian faithful to do penance each in his or her own way. In order for all to be united among themselves by some common observance of penance, however, penitential days are prescribed on which the Christian faithful devote themselves in a special way to prayer, perform works of piety and charity, and deny themselves by fulfilling their own obligations more faithfully and especially by observing fast and abstinence, according to the norm of the following canons.

 

Can.  1250 The penitential days and times in the universal Church are every Friday of the whole year and the season of Lent.

 

Can.  1251 Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.

 

Can.  1252 The law of abstinence binds those who have completed their fourteenth year. The law of fasting binds those who have attained their majority, until the beginning of their sixtieth year. Pastors of souls and parents are to ensure that even those who by reason of their age are not bound by the law of fasting and abstinence, are taught the true meaning of penance.

 

Can.  1253 The conference of bishops can determine more precisely the observance of fast and abstinence as well as substitute other forms of penance, especially works of charity and exercises of piety, in whole or in part, for abstinence and fast.

 

 

The Church realized, that for some, abstaining from meat is not a sacrifice(i.e. not an act of penance). Centuries ago meat was the main substance of meals, and a day without meat was a sacrifice. Today, this is no longer true, which is reflected in Canon Law.  I personally abstain Fridays year round, but there are situations that in lieu of being rude I eat the meal containing meat and do an act of penance in place. Also, I only eat a small portion. 

[franciscanheart]

I just want to say how disappointed I am that I can't see who voted for each of the options. To the 15 of you who said no, YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING. :wall:

[Nihil Obstat]

I just want to say how disappointed I am that I can't see who voted for each of the options. To the 15 of you who said no, YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING. :wall:

From someone who did not vote, I think it is unfortunate that you do not seem willing to accept that some people's critical thinking may have led them to different conclusions from yourself.

[Autumn Dusk]

I intentionally left the poll and topic broader than my particular situation.

 

If anything, being presented the meal in your own house with family that are Catholic would be even more of a reason to abstain from the meal than if you were presented the meal in a situation where you are guest at another's house and may cause serious offense to the host and hostess by refusing to eat.

 

But it IS important.  This is not some stranger, as someone pointed out this is your wife, your pregnant wife at that, one flesh and that whole deal.  She made a mistake.    Call the Bishop if you must but eat the meal.

 

 

I just want to say how disappointed I am that I can't see who voted for each of the options. To the 15 of you who said no, YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING. :wall:

 

Same here.....this isn't going out drinking on a Friday night.  

[franciscanheart]

From someone who did not vote, I think it is unfortunate that you do not seem willing to accept that some people's critical thinking may have led them to different conclusions from yourself.

Oh, I accept it in the sense that I am fully aware that I cannot fix ridiculous.

[Nihil Obstat]

Oh, I accept it in the sense that I am fully aware that I cannot fix ridiculous.

Why is it ridiculous? I can see overly harsh, scrupulous, even legalistic, though I would tend to disagree with all three, but not ridiculous. The Church's norms for fasting are fairly clear.

[franciscanheart]

Why is it ridiculous? I can see overly harsh, scrupulous, even legalistic, though I would tend to disagree with all three, but not ridiculous. The Church's norms for fasting are fairly clear.

Tact is also fairly clear -- at least in my mind.

I know at least one other person has said it: eat what is set before you and give thanks to God for the nourishment of your body. The disposition of your heart is of greater importance than your scrupulous following of every law and command.

[Nihil Obstat]

Tact is also fairly clear -- at least in my mind.

I know at least one other person has said it: eat what is set before you and give thanks to God for the nourishment of your body. The disposition of your heart is of greater importance than your scrupulous following of every law and command.

And I accept that this is a perfectly acceptable argument for a Catholic to make. I do not see why that automatically makes the other side of things 'ridiculous'.

I guess I simply do not see what purpose is served by labeling one side of the question as being ridiculous, when several viewpoints on this are clearly worthy of discussion by faithful Catholics. 

[Lil Red]

i think upsetting your pregnant, emotional wife on purpose (who likely has preggo brain) is probably one of the worst things that a husband can do. i still agree with lillabett and mikolbe. sit down, shut up, eat the meal and thank God that someone liked you enough to marry you, bear your children, and provide you with nourishment.

[AnneLine]

I chose not to vote, but I would think the Good Lord, who looks at hearts, would look at the intent of the choices that were made.

 

If someone's choice was based on "YES, I GET TO EAT MEAT!"  it wouldn't hold  much water with me (nor I suspect with the Lord) .... where as, this response, "Well... I wouldn't have chosen this, but Lord you know why I am doing it...," would make sense. 

 

I'm also remembering a point in the Carmelite Rule, which certainly is austere enough, but more-or-less discusses this issue:

 

[17] You are to abstain from meat, except as a remedy for sickness or feebleness. But as, when you are on a journey, you more often than not have to beg your way, outside your own houses you may eat foodstuffs that have been cooked with meat, so as to avoid giving trouble to your hosts. At sea, however, meat may be eaten.

 

Now, I grant you, this question really is about 'within your own house' but as people have pointed out, dealing with a pregnant lady in her own kitchen... the eaters can sometimes be strangers in a strange land.  I'd probably eat it, and choose a separate penance -- or several days of abstinance.... and discuss with my confessor how to handle it the next time if there were a next time.

 

And yes, I do understand the official rubrics, but my understanding is that charity might override in this case.   But I respect any choices made with love and good reasoning.

 

Slappo, prayers for you AND your wife on this one!  And for the little one, too!!!!

 

 

[Debra Little]

Of course not. The three things necessary for something to be a mortal sin are that it must be grave matter, you must have had consent, and you have to know that it is indeed a mortal sin. If you forget then obviously three is out, therefore making no sin, either venial or mortal.

 

thank you.  i still felt bad about eating meat after i recognized my mistake.

poor Jesus.  he has to put up with all us stupid sheep but He loves each

on us individually.  He is awesome!