Bishops saying we can eat meat on Lenten fridays due to the COVID-19

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

twf:

The OP probably doesn’t realize this… but here in Canada, meat abstinence is NEVER obligatory on the Fridays of Lent. Never. Nothing to do with COVID-19. Every Friday of Lent, for the past several decades, Canadian Catholics have every right to eat steak, with a side of burgers, wrapped in bacon. Every right. No sin. No issue. Period. Of course, if you do so, you are expected to perform some other penance in lieu.

How do they justify this? Canada is one of the wealthiest countries in the world and there is no question of not being able to obtain non-meat nutritious food.

Australia hasn’t obliged abstaining from meat on the Fridays of Lent apart from Good Friday, for many years as well. I think because it had become a novelty through modern times that no longer captured the spirit of the rule.

I’m so traditionalist that I squeak, and I do not think the obligation should bind under pain of mortal sin. So many people are utterly clueless about this obligation, or even what penance is. Do they really comprehend what is significant about not eating meat on Friday?

If it were my decision to make, I would characterize it more as a loving invitation, to unite some small suffering (if you can even call it that) to the sufferings of Christ, and to offer this as a token of expiation for one’s sins.

 

[Emeraldlady]

HomeschoolDad:

HomeschoolDad:

twf:

The OP probably doesn’t realize this… but here in Canada, meat abstinence is NEVER obligatory on the Fridays of Lent. Never. Nothing to do with COVID-19. Every Friday of Lent, for the past several decades, Canadian Catholics have every right to eat steak, with a side of burgers, wrapped in bacon. Every right. No sin. No issue. Period. Of course, if you do so, you are expected to perform some other penance in lieu.

How do they justify this? Canada is one of the wealthiest countries in the world and there is no question of not being able to obtain non-meat nutritious food.

Australia hasn’t obliged abstaining from meat on the Fridays of Lent apart from Good Friday, for many years as well. I think because it had become a novelty through modern times that no longer captured the spirit of the rule.

I’m so traditionalist that I squeak, and I do not think the obligation should bind under pain of mortal sin. So many people are utterly clueless about this obligation, or even what penance is. Do they really comprehend what is significant about not eating meat on Friday?

If it were my decision to make, I would characterize it more as a loving invitation, to unite some small suffering (if you can even call it that) to the sufferings of Christ, and to offer this as a token of expiation for one’s sins.

That was a headspin of a comment. Does it have the character of a ‘loving invitation’ if you see people as clueless fools?

 

[tafan2]

I’m so traditionalist that I squeak, and I do not think the obligation should bind under pain of mortal sin

Well, observing required days of penance is one if the oh receipts if the Church. Not following a precept if the Church is grave matter. Which makes sense, as the Church teaches “indispensable minimum in prayer and moral effort in the growth of God and neighbor”. In other words, the bare minimum of what we need to do as Catholics.

 

[twf]

How do the US bishops justify dispensing meat abstinence on non-Lenten Fridays? Where do you draw the line?
Of course, every Friday remains a day of penance… and many Catholics around the world choose to abstain on every Friday regardless of the local rules.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

I’m so traditionalist that I squeak, and I do not think the obligation should bind under pain of mortal sin

Well, observing required days of penance is one if the oh receipts if the Church. Not following a precept if the Church is grave matter. Which makes sense, as the Church teaches “indispensable minimum in prayer and moral effort in the growth of God and neighbor”. In other words, the bare minimum of what we need to do as Catholics.

But does not the Church ultimate have authority over her own precepts? To be able to mitigate their binding force, if she judges it opportune? Another of the precepts is to support the Church with one’s means. The Church does not tell us how much, or when, or in what manner.

How do the US bishops justify dispensing meat abstinence on non-Lenten Fridays? Where do you draw the line?

I don’t know. Personally, I think the US bishops gave American Catholics too much credit for being able and willing to choose their own penances. Put another way — how many Catholics do you know, who eat meat on Friday, yet consciously do some other penance of equal rigor in its place? (Yes, I know, you’d have to interview everybody…)

Of course, every Friday remains a day of penance… and many Catholics around the world choose to abstain on every Friday regardless of the local rules.

And that is the first and best choice.

 

[tafan2]

But does not the Church ultimate have authority over her own precepts? To be able to mitigate their binding force, if she judges it opportune? Another of the precepts is to support the Church with one’s means. The Church does not tell us how much, or when, or in what manner.

Of course the Church has that authority. What did I write that implied otherwise. They are called Precepts if the Church after all.

 

[po18guy]

Suggestion. Correct the thread title to read: “Bishops dispense the faithful from the requirement to abstain from meat on Lenten Fridays”

That is what they have done, a sign of mercy given via their authority as the Ordinary of the Diocese.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

But does not the Church ultimate have authority over her own precepts? To be able to mitigate their binding force, if she judges it opportune? Another of the precepts is to support the Church with one’s means. The Church does not tell us how much, or when, or in what manner.

Of course the Church has that authority. What did I write that implied otherwise. They are called Precepts if the Church after all.

You didn’t imply otherwise. I was merely trying to bring out that the Church could, if she so chose, declare failure to abstain not to be sinful, but merely falling short of the mark and rejecting an invitation for greater holiness, rather than a mortal sin. It could be characterized, if the obligation were to be relaxed, kind of like attending daily Mass — you should, we wish you would, it’d be very good for you spiritually, it’s always there for you (at least in normal circumstances, and where a priest is in residence at the church), but no, you don’t absolutely have to.

 

[twf]

I don’t know. Personally, I think the US bishops gave American Catholics too much credit for being able and willing to choose their own penances. Put another way — how many Catholics do you know, who eat meat on Friday, yet consciously do some other penance of equal rigor in its place? (Yes, I know, you’d have to interview everybody… )

Yes, for what it is worth, I also personally wish that meat abstinence was still required on every Friday, and especially Lenten Fridays, here in Canada…I agree with you that people generally need discipline. But hey…not my call to make. Interestingly, and I’m sure many traditionalists are not aware of this, it is my understanding that parts of Latin America had a dispensation from meat abstinence well before Vatican II.

 

[pnewton]

There is a huge difference in that there is only one diocesan bishop in each geographical area for each rite to answer to. One can not choose to follow another diocese. There is also the rather huge difference in that all we are talking about are small changes, and matters of discipline which do not really matter too much.

 

[TMC]

This may be the silliest faux outrage thread yet. There is no doubt that bishops’ have the authority to set disciplines in their dioceses, and many have differing Lenten disciplines already based on local custom or needs. Besides, if anyone really feels the need to feel holier than their bishop, they are free to abstain. No one is coming to your house to shove a pork chop in your mouth.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I’m sure many traditionalists are not aware of this, it is my understanding that parts of Latin America had a dispensation from meat abstinence well before Vatican II.

Would this have been perhaps Argentina, Paraguay, and/or Uruguay? Those countries have massive livestock industries. They eat a lot of meat and they prepare it very, very well. I’ve had the pleasure (Argentinian restaurant stateside, never been to South America). Serbians also eat a lot of meat, and theirs is very good too.

 

[ConcernedConvert]

I agree. Let’s just hope and pray one small change after the other doesn’t occur leading to big differences between diocese.

 

[dochawk]

First, I’ll note that the episcopal pronouncements I read explicitly noted the skyrocketing cost of fish, and shortages of other available foodstuffs, in their diocese.

Those countries have massive livestock industries.

North American fastest was also lightened prior to the rest of the world.

It wasn’t about foodstuffs, but the higher caloric output and dietary needs of workers here.

 

[TK421]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/03/27/coronavirus-lent-meat/

Apparently a few bishops think it’s ok to dispense the no meat obligation. Are they allowed to do so outside of the annunciation and maybe St Joseph? A conservative friend of mine says that they can’t do that.

They are given the power to make a dispensation, yes, among other things. Bishops can do a lot.

 

[catholicwx]

I was not questioning the Bishop’s rights to dispense but was more curious of if there were certain situations such as certain feasts or non-covid medical situations in normal years or if dispensation Is allowed under every circumstance. But that’s interesting that some places like Canada do not do the abstaining as the US does.

 

[TK421]

As far as I know they have a ton of leeway with what they want to do. Bishops generally exercise a lot of restraint.

A dispensation is merely a dispensation is all. It doesn’t necessarily mean most of the faithful in the diocese won’t continue to observe abstinence, it simply means it’s no longer obligatory.

 

[JulianN]

if dispensation Is allowed under every circumstance.

It’s allowed whenever a bishop decides it’s allowed. It’s completely within his purview to make that decision—with no need to justify it.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

Those countries have massive livestock industries.

North American fastest was also lightened prior to the rest of the world.

It wasn’t about foodstuffs, but the higher caloric output and dietary needs of workers here.

I’ve heard that before, and it struck me as kind of odd. “Back in the day”, did people in the US (and North America in general) have to work harder, and was their work more strenuous, than in Europe and other places? How so? I do realize that people in the US work harder and longer than their European counterparts (as do people in many advanced Asian countries) — give an American more free time, and they’ll just go out and get a second job or a “side hustle” (all about the Benjamins, you know…) — but these days, it is largely mental work, or light service-economy work, not backbreaking physical labor.

 

[dochawk]

It’s allowed whenever a bishop decides its allowed. It’s completely within his purview to make that decision—with no need to justify it.

It’s, like, a’know, one of the reasons we keep them around . . .

:crazy_face:

I’ve heard that before, and it struck me as kind of odd. “Back in the day”, did people in the US (and North America in general) have to work harder, and was their work more strenuous, than in Europe and other places? How so?

As I understand it, in large part the difference between land long cleared and more pass farming in Europe and the Mediterranean, and wrestling stumps and rocks in barely cleared and uncleared north America, but I may have the details utterly off.