Chicago prelate: Let gay and divorced Catholics take part

[JimR-OCDS]

Then I guess it depends on how you feel about Canon Law.

Meat abstinence on all Fridays except where the bishops have allowed another form of penance. Lent = no exceptions.

1. Wherefore, we ask, urgently and prayerfully, that we, as people of God, make of the entire Lenten Season a period of special penitential observance. Following the instructions of the Holy See, we declare that the obligation both to fast and to abstain from meat, an obligation observed under a more strict formality by our fathers in the faith, still binds on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday. No Catholic Christian will lightly excuse himself from so hallowed an obligation on the Wednesday which solemnly opens the Lenten season and on that Friday called “Good” because on that day Christ suffered in the flesh and died for our sins.

There are circumstances where a person is not required to observe the abstinence of meat on Friday’s during Lent. The Bishops ask us to not take the obligation lightly, but its not a grave offense, otherwise no Catholic could violate the obligation,

For a sin to be grave, the Catechism specifies the conditions of mortal sin;

1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."131

1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother."132 The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.

A person who is ill, is not required to abstain from meat during Lent.

If it were a grave offense against God, no Catholic could eat meat in Fridays during Lent, period.

Jim

 

[nodito]

A person who is ill, is not required to abstain from meat during Lent.

If it were a grave offense against God, no Catholic could eat meat in Fridays during Lent, period.

Jim

The offense is in disobeyeing the Church, which Christ instituted. Abstinence is not a moral command, it is a practice that the Church instituted for our benefit. The Church can therefore declare that Catholics are no longer bound to follow it on Fridays outside of Lent.

From Pope Paul VI’s Paenetenimi:

The time of Lent preserves its penitential character. The days of penitence to be observed under obligation through-out the Church are all Fridays and Ash Wednesday, that is to say the first days of “Grande Quaresima” (Great Lent), according to the diversity of the rite. Their substantial observance binds gravely [Norm II §1, emphasis added].

A comparable example might be Mass attendance. Catholics are obliged to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation. To fail to attend is grave matter. There is no obligation is you are ill or taking care of someone who is ill or if it is impossible to attend.

 

[ProVobis]

The Bishops ask us to not take the obligation lightly, but its not a grave offense, otherwise no Catholic could violate the obligation,

During Lent, it is grave matter if you’re healthy enough to abstain. During other times, some other form of penance is still required on Friday if bishops allow it. And AFAIK most countries do allow it.

So what makes you think violation of Canon Law is not grave matter?

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

No its not a sin.

You must have full knowledge for a sin to be mortal.

If its Monday and you think its Friday and eat meat, its not mortal because you did not have full knowledge, but were confused.

Jim

Yes, the person had full knowledge because they knew that it was a mortal sin to eat meat on Friday yet did it anyway. This is because he has violated his conscience as it says in my catechism,
“*A man commits a sin if he acts against the dictates of his conscience. *
Conscience is nothing more than the law, applied to particular cases. In acting against our conscience therefore, we disobey the law even if we are under a mistake. For instance, if a man eats meat on a Thursday, thinking it to be a Friday, he commits a sin.”

 

[JimR-OCDS]

nodito

The offense is in disobeyeing the Church, which Christ instituted. Abstinence is not a moral command, it is a practice that the Church instituted for our benefit.

Really ? Abstinence from meat on Fridays was proclaimed as Penance at the end of the last Crusade, as penance offered to God to keep the Holy Land Free.

It wasn’t for our benefit, although sacrifice does help strengthen us spiritually, if done for the right reason.

The Church can therefore declare that Catholics are no longer bound to follow it on Fridays outside of Lent.

Wonderful !

Those poor souls burning in hell for all eternity, because they were born before Vatican II and ate meat on a Friday.

From Pope Paul VI’s Paenetenimi:

A comparable example might be Mass attendance. Catholics are obliged to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation. To fail to attend is grave matter. There is no obligation is you are ill or taking care of someone who is ill or if it is impossible to attend.

Oh so you want to change the discussion from abstinence of meat during Lent to the obligation to attend Mass ?

Jim

 

[nodito]

Oh so you want to change the discussion from abstinence of meat during Lent to the obligation to attend Mass ?

Jim

I’m arguing they are comparable obligations. You wrote:

A person who is ill, is not required to abstain from meat during Lent. If it were a grave offense against God, no Catholic could eat meat in Fridays during Lent, period.

But this is not true for other grave offenses against God, such as not attending Mass, and so your logic fails.

 

[graciew]

Hi Graciew, of course you can ask. I think even he realizes everyone is not going to agree on everything but even Pope Francis seems to want us to dialogue in brotherhood and sisterhood while striving to keep the Golden Rule in mind. As an outsider looking in, it even seems to me that dialogue is part of the synod.

Anyway I’m assuming by your example that in the realm of faith, you mean the Catholic Church as the one. It’s not difficult for me to understand why some believe it to be. Btw though I actually know families whose frig is an open door. But I’m gathering from your post that you do allow your sons’ friends to eat at the table with you after they have greeted both you and your husband? And as you said the best of all is when they return! Amen to that. You must be a good cook! But isn’t that what one does when they come to Mass? They spend the first part greeting and worshiping. But then are told they are not supposed to eat with you. So some might not come back if they’re hungry but don’t get to taste the food. I hope that sorta helps in some way in understanding me. But I’ll be the first to admit I can be complex. Sometimes frankly I’m not sure I even always understand myself! But in any case God bless!

Thank you,Sy!
Yes, it is the only faith I know and no,I m not a good cook. Just simple home made meals,but yes,they taste good!
Our home is not perfect,with its lights and shadows. We would not have made it without Him.

I do understand what you are saying though .And how you would feel accepted walking different places. And I do respect you,I really do. And your hunger.

The thing is you are not an outsider,Sy,we are brothers in this story…

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I’m arguing they are comparable obligations. You wrote:

But this is not true for other grave offenses against God, such as not attending Mass, and so your logic fails.

A person is still required to keep the Lord’s Day holy, even if they can’t make it to Mass.

Failure to abstain from meat on a Friday because one forgot it was Friday or some other reason, is not a grave offense which brings mortal sin.

Deliberately ignoring abstinence when you know its Friday during Lent, can be a grave offense, but then, Protestants and others are exempt from this sin, so it isn’t like supporting abortion or euthanasia.

Jim

 

[Beircheart]

The unfortunate fence to be straddled is the perfection of God’s creation on one side, in this case the insolubility of marriage, and how best to minister that ideal to a fallen world on the other. My sense is that the perfect vision, the insolubility of marriage, isn’t the problem but that the “times” have rendered the annulment process antiquated, unduly cumbersome, and no longer the most effective manner to deal with the very real world issue of divorce.

It may be a better approach to retain all the theological teachings of the church while revamping annulment into being a special form of conciliatory penance requiring some appropriate time period (6 mo. to a yr.?) of theological study, introspection, celibacy, spiritual direction, regular class/meeting attendance, a special extension of marriage prep all churches already are doing, or whatever (just thinking out loud here.).

 

[on_the_hill]

Those poor souls burning in hell for all eternity, because they were born before Vatican II and ate meat on a Friday.

Yes. Yes they are.

 

[Rau]

Yes. Yes they are.

You may believe this, but cannot know this. Only the Lord judges souls, and he does not publish his decisions.

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

A person is still required to keep the Lord’s Day holy, even if they can’t make it to Mass.

Failure to abstain from meat on a Friday because one forgot it was Friday or some other reason, is not a grave offense which brings mortal sin.

Deliberately ignoring abstinence when you know its Friday during Lent, can be a grave offense, but then, Protestants and others are exempt from this sin, so it isn’t like supporting abortion or euthanasia.

Jim

That is correct. As nodito said, this is a discipline of the Church that we are commanded to follow in the precepts of the Church under pain of mortal sin. Since it is a Church discipline, those outside the Church are not bound to obey under pain of sin. If a Catholic intentionally breaks the abstinence under normal circumstances (no illness, meat not need for the duties of one’s state of life,…), it is a mortal sin.

 

[graciew]

It may be a better approach to retain all the theological teachings of the church while revamping annulment into being a special form of conciliatory penance requiring some appropriate time period (6 mo. to a yr.?) of theological study, introspection, celibacy, spiritual direction, regular class/meeting attendance, a special extension of marriage prep all churches already are doing, or whatever (just thinking out loud here.).

Beircheart, I like this idea a lot. It is something at least I could help concretely carry out here. We ll tell the priest to see if we can adapt it to our reality in the Parrish.
Having no idea about annulment sincerely , it may be awesome to bring it also nto our service till maybe one day becomes full throttle.
It is a way of concrete service. Love it. Many thanks,it has been great help for me!

 

[JimR-OCDS]

That is correct. As nodito said, this is a discipline of the Church that we are commanded to follow in the precepts of the Church under pain of mortal sin. Since it is a Church discipline, those outside the Church are not bound to obey under pain of sin. If a Catholic intentionally breaks the abstinence under normal circumstances (no illness, meat not need for the duties of one’s state of life,…), it is a mortal sin.

However, according to this article, in the US, the USCCB have removed the obligation on all Fridays.

In 1966, the bishops of the United States issued a “Pastoral Statement on Penance and Abstinence” in which they removed the obligation for American Catholics to abstain from meat on all Fridays of the year. (The bishops said that on the Fridays during the season of Lent, they were preserving the tradition of abstinence from meat “confident that no Catholic Christian will lightly hold himself excused from this penitential practice.”)

In 2011, the Catholic bishops of England and Wales restored year-round Friday abstinence as the rule for those countries. The U.S. bishops have not done so, although in their 1966 statement, people were strongly encouraged to adopt such a practice on their own. (“Among the works of voluntary self-denial and personal penance which we especially commend to our people for the future observance of Friday, even though we hereby terminate the traditional law of abstinence binding under pain of sin … we give first place to abstinence from flesh meat. We do so in the hope that the Catholic community will ordinarily continue to abstain from meat by free choice as formerly we did in obedience to church law.”) thebostonpilot.com/opinion/article.asp?ID=174369

So, the Bishops are holding to the tradition, but have terminated the law of abstinence under the pain of sin.

Jim

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

However, according to this article, in the US, the USCCB have removed the obligation on all Fridays.

So, the Bishops are holding to the tradition, but have terminated the law of abstinence under the pain of sin.

Jim

Yes, in the United States, the Bishops have received dispensation from the law to abstain on all Fridays, but the obligation under pain of sin remains for Lenten Fridays. As it says on EWTN, “**During Lent **abstinence from meat on Fridays is obligatory in the United States as elsewhere, and it is sinful not to observe this discipline without a serious reason (physical labor, pregnancy, sickness etc.).” The Holy Season of Lent

 

[JimG]

The unfortunate fence to be straddled is the perfection of God’s creation on one side, in this case the insolubility of marriage, and how best to minister that ideal to a fallen world on the other. My sense is that the perfect vision, the insolubility of marriage, isn’t the problem but that the “times” have rendered the annulment process antiquated, unduly cumbersome, and no longer the most effective manner to deal with the very real world issue of divorce.

It may be a better approach to retain all the theological teachings of the church while revamping annulment into being a special form of conciliatory penance requiring some appropriate time period (6 mo. to a yr.?) of theological study, introspection, celibacy, spiritual direction, regular class/meeting attendance, a special extension of marriage prep all churches already are doing, or whatever (just thinking out loud here.).

So, do you view the endpoint of this process as the issuance of a declaration of nullity?

 

[on_the_hill]

You may believe this, but cannot know this. Only the Lord judges souls, and he does not publish his decisions.

Sorry. I meant it to be sarcastic but didn’t have time to finish the post.

If anyone in the history of Christianity has been condemned to Hell for a sin so minor as eating meat on a day of fasting and abstinence I might reconsider my being a Catholic.

 

[Demetra2]

Please explain to me how standing fast on the commandments of Almighty God and the teachings of Jesus are considered “unsustainable”.
If the Gospel, the Bible and the comandments are not sustainable, the Christianity is nonexistent. There is no middle ground. There is truth, and there is heresy. Period.

Yes, the word unsustainable is worrisome. The truth of Jesus has been sustainable for over 2000 years. Does this priest think we are not up to the challenge of facing and living the truth?

 

[holyrood]

We do let them take part, they’re not barred from normal Church activities. That doesn’t mean we can overlook sinful behavior if they chose to engage in it; and we’re certainly not going to rewrite Church Doctrine just to be more “inclusive,” or to make our horrendously immoral culture ‘happy’.

Agreed.

I’m one of those divorced Catholics. I don’t feel marginalized at all, and I get tired of the implication that if the Church actually has or speaks of or enforces, any moral teaching at all, that THAT is the problem, and somehow alienating people. Isn’t this like saying the NFL is alienating those who like to use golf clubs to shoot for a hole in one?

No, people are alienated if they choose to ignore and break the moral code and rules and then blame someone else instead of themselves. Or those who fail to understand what the church really teaches. We do not have any right to do anything we like and insist that everyone, including the Catholic Church, approve and condone.

 

[phil19034]

Not all were on auto-pilot, but most followed what the priests told them, without question or understanding.

I recall mothers who called the rectory to see if they could still serve a meal made with meat, after they forgot it was Friday.

They were often told no it would be a mortal sin.

Really ?

Thank God for Vatican II.

Jim

Eating meat on Friday WAS a mortal sin. The question is why was it…? It was a mortal sin because we are supposed to (and still are) do penance on Fridays. Before Vatican II, penance was assigned to us… we refrained from meat on Fridays.

After Vatican II, in the United States (and in some other places) the Bishops allowed us to select our own penance for Fridays. However, now, almost no one does penance on Fridays, even though it’s still required.

Your understanding of pre Vatican II American is a little out of balance. I would suggest reading the following book from the Ignatius Press, it’s very informative:

American Church: The Remarkable Rise, Meteoric Fall, and Uncertain Future of Catholicism in America amzn.to/1Mz98AG

God Bless