Eating meat a mortal sin?

[CSUNGerrie]

I am sure this has been asked a billion times but I wasnt able to find the threat after searching.

Anyway, I know this cafeteria catholic who is saying that in some early Catechism it states that eating meat on friday is a mortal sin. Is this true?

If it is not true (which I expect it isnt) what part of the catechism does he think says this?

 

[Church_Militant]

I found these 2 links up in the Ask An Apologist forum and they look very good.

• Where can I find a history of Friday abstinence from meat?
• ** Must Catholics abstain from meat byproducts?**

You might also point him to the following from the Baltimore Catechism

****Q. 285. What are sins committed without reflection or consent called?
**** A. Sins committed without reflection or consent are called material sins; that is, they would be formal or real sins if we knew their sinfulness at the time we committed them. Thus to eat flesh meat on a day of abstinence without knowing it to be a day of abstinence or without thinking of the prohibition, would be a material sin.
** Q. 286. Do past material sins become real sins as soon as we discover their sinfulness?
** A. Past material sins do not become real sins as soon as we discover their sinfulness, unless we again repeat them with full knowledge and consent.

BTW, remind him that the first condition for mortal sin is that it be a grave matter and you’ actually have to work at it or that to happen in this case but then it become a matter of intention.

 

[Bookcat]

Paul VI notes “Their substantial observance binds gravely”…

(so a “substantial” break…is grave matter…which seems from at least some good sources not to mean a single instance…)

(and in the US one is not obliged on Fridays outside lent or Good Friday to abstain from meat)

 

[Tietjen]

I am sure this has been asked a billion times but I wasnt able to find the threat after searching.

Anyway, I know this cafeteria catholic who is saying that in some early Catechism it states that eating meat on friday is a mortal sin. Is this true?

If it is not true (which I expect it isnt) what part of the catechism does he think says this?

Pope Paul VI did away with the requirement of abstaining from meat on non-Lenten Fridays (It is still required during Lent). In place of abstaining from meat on non-Lenten Fridays, we as Catholics have been asked by Pope Paul VI to replace abstinence by some other sacrifice of their own choosing. The problem arises that many within the Church forget this part of the “compromise” and often no form of sacrifice is offered up. Traditionally, we Catholics, view this sacrifice as a obligation toward penance in remembrance that our Lord sacrificed Himself on Friday and in some small way we wish to offer up a sacrifice, in the form of penance, with and to Him. Some Catholics, such as myself, find it easier to continue to abstain from meat rather than find an alternative. Others, have chosen things like serving the poor in some way, visiting the ill, or giving something up that they enjoy each Friday.

I believe that prior to Pope Paul VI’s decision to change the requirement and as to the degree of sin which comes into play (mortal sin vs. venial sin) it is not so much in the actual eating of meat; rather, it’s in the disobedience of those Catholics who willingly/knowing decided to partake of meat on Fridays prior to Vatican II. The Church required Catholics prior to Vatican II to abstain and as we see today in other areas (attending Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation, etc), some Catholics refuse. Therein lies the mortal sin… disobediance to the Church’s authority.

 

[Bookcat]

Pope Paul VI did away with the requirement of abstaining from meat on non-Lenten Fridays (It is still required during Lent).

This is not quite the case. Universally the abstainence from meat is retained by Paul VI and Canon Law. But conferences of Bishops are permitted to adjust things for their area of the world…which has happened in many places in regards to the meat outside of Lent.

 

[CSUNGerrie]

Thanks for all the replies. I am still a bit confused. Was it a mortal sin to eat meat on Fridays outside of lent during some time in Church history? And did the Cathechism teach this?

 

[Bookcat]

Thanks for all the replies. I am still a bit confused. Was it a mortal sin to eat meat on Fridays outside of lent during some time in Church history? And did the Cathechism teach this?

Yes I believe it was in the past grave matter (one needs full knowledge and complete consent or course…not some accident) (thus would be a mortal sin) to at least some extent. To disobey the laws of abstinence …at least in a grave sense…would be grave matter for mortal sin. ourladyswarriors.org/faith/bc3-35.htm (Local US old Balt. Cat)

As to now…it still binds gravely “substantually” …in the US on the Fridays of Lent and Good Friday …(ash wed) see Pope Paul VI doc Pentaminii (mispelled).

Not sure to what extent it was binding in the past…(ie if one had to break it substantually…) it may have been different than it is today…

 

[E.E.N.S]

Pope Paul VI did away with the requirement of abstaining from meat on non-Lenten Fridays (It is still required during Lent). In place of abstaining from meat on non-Lenten Fridays, we as Catholics have been asked by Pope Paul VI to replace abstinence by some other sacrifice of their own choosing. The problem arises that many within the Church forget this part of the “compromise” and often no form of sacrifice is offered up. Traditionally, we Catholics, view this sacrifice as a obligation toward penance in remembrance that our Lord sacrificed Himself on Friday and in some small way we wish to offer up a sacrifice, in the form of penance, with and to Him. Some Catholics, such as myself, find it easier to continue to abstain from meat rather than find an alternative. Others, have chosen things like serving the poor in some way, visiting the ill, or giving something up that they enjoy each Friday.

I believe that prior to Pope Paul VI’s decision to change the requirement and as to the degree of sin which comes into play (mortal sin vs. venial sin) it is not so much in the actual eating of meat; rather, it’s in the disobedience of those Catholics who willingly/knowing decided to partake of meat on Fridays prior to Vatican II. The Church required Catholics prior to Vatican II to abstain and as we see today in other areas (attending Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation, etc), some Catholics refuse. Therein lies the mortal sin… disobediance to the Church’s authority.

This. ^

 

[Bookcat]

Just checked an old Moral Theology Manual from the period…it says that they did bind gravely (for mortal sin)…but that slight violations were venial sins.

 

[neophyte]

Thanks for all the replies. I am still a bit confused. Was it a mortal sin to eat meat on Fridays outside of lent during some time in Church history? And did the Cathechism teach this?

The sin was in being disobedient to the legitimate authority of the Church.

 

[journierman]

Therein lies the mortal sin… disobediance to the Church’s authority.

Yup that is the key to understanding this from an “outsiders” perspective.

 

[Catholicdeacon]

Anyway, I know this cafeteria catholic who is saying that in some early Catechism it states that eating meat on friday is a mortal sin. Is this true?

If it is not true (which I expect it isnt) what part of the catechism does he think says this?

The act of eating meat is not intrinsically evil, however, it is not the act of eating meat that caused the grave sin but the act of, willfully ignoring and disobeying the authority of the Church to “bind and loose”. In other words if your mother tells you not to eat a cookie, and you dis obey her, the sin is not on the eating act but in your disobedience.

Viva Cristo Rey!!

Catholic Deacon

 

[CSUNGerrie]

Interesting. Thank you all for your replies. However, now I am confused about something else. If this was something that was taught in the Cathechism at one point, then why is it no longer required? It makes the church look like it contradicts itself in teaching that one should not eat meat on Fridays and then teaching that it is ok outside of non lenten Fridays.

I feel like it opens up the possibility in others mind that the church will change its position on X or Y or Z… afterall, they did it on this meat eating requirement.

Please help me understand how this does not contradict the church’s teaching authority. How can something be good for one generation but not for another?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Interesting. Thank you all for your replies. However, now I am confused about something else. If this was something that was taught in the Cathechism at one point, then why is it no longer required? It makes the church look like it contradicts itself in teaching that one should not eat meat on Fridays and then teaching that it is ok outside of non lenten Fridays.

I feel like it opens up the possibility in others mind that the church will change its position on X or Y or Z… afterall, they did it on this meat eating requirement.

Please help me understand how this does not contradict the church’s teaching authority. How can something be good for one generation but not for another?

Disciplines can change.

Originally, giving up meat was a real sacrifice for most people. Often it meant people had very little to eat.

But in modern times, not only is meat easily found and (relatively) affordable, many more people are ‘vegetarian’ and don’t eat meat at all --so giving up meat on a Friday is not a sacrifice for THEM. And many people LIKE fish (not me, bleah) so having fish on Friday is not a sacrifice for THEM.

And so the US bishops have allowed (in the U.S.) that instead of the UNIVERSAL NORM (that means that outside the U.S., the NORM, unless other countries likewise petition for an indult) of no meat on ANY FRIDAY, that in the U.S. since 1966 Catholics OUTSIDE LENT FRIDAYS may CHOOSE A PENANCE. They are encouraged to choose something MEANINGFUL.

Lots of us keep to the Friday abstinence (especially if, like me, you really like meat and really don’t care much for fish or eggs or the standard ‘vegetarian’ fare, so it really is a sacrifice!) but plenty of people choose other penances.

Really it is because what was a sacrifice for most people at one time is no longer a sacrifice for many.

 

[CSUNGerrie]

Oh I see. So your saying the act of offering up a sacrifice hasnt changed even though the specific sacrifice has. This makes a lot of sense. Thank you Tantum!

 

[Rascalking]

For what it’s worth, I simply cannot imagine God being so petty as to condemn people to hell for eating meat.

Why are so many people eerily looking for reasons to condemn others?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

For what it’s worth, I simply cannot imagine God being so petty as to condemn people to hell for eating meat.

Why are so many people eerily looking for reasons to condemn others?

Sweetie, nobody is looking to condemn others.

And God is not petty.

It is not ‘eating meat’ that is wrong (because we can eat meat on other days). It is disobedience to lawful authority.

Now, you can disagree that the Church has lawful authority and feel that its ‘rules’ are man-made, and if you feel that way well, all we can do is keep pointing out 2000 years of history AND the guarantee of the Holy Spirit on our ‘side’.

But (and I am NOT saying that this is true of you personally and I am not recommending people who feel this way ‘leave’). . .IF a person can’t wrap his (or her) mind around the need for obedience (not ‘blind’ obedience but informed obedience, meaning we look up ‘why’ and make sure we know what we’re talking about), that person needs to do a lot of praying and soul searching as to what that person is ‘doing’ in WHATEVER ‘faith’ he or she is claiming.

I mean, if I were a card-carrying Democrat who voted for nobody but Republicans, and who, on every single platform that Democrats were promoting ‘shot them down’ with disagreements, why on earth would I ‘remain’ a card-carrying Democrat? Because ‘daddy’ was one? Because it doesn’t matter what being a Democrat is, I just want to be one because I feel it makes me ‘look good’, or they give better fund raisers, or even because deep down I want to topple them 'from the inside?" Well, there are those (and more) reasons, but they’re really kind of silly reasons to be something that I truly despise and ‘reject’ while claiming to ‘embrace.’ And this is just a 'political question. One’s faith is so much more important. We really need to be informed and to make a proper decision, not base this on silly or even evil ‘justifications’, IMO.

 

[Rascalking]

Sweetie, nobody is looking to condemn others.

And God is not petty.

It is not ‘eating meat’ that is wrong (because we can eat meat on other days). It is disobedience to lawful authority.

Now, you can disagree that the Church has lawful authority and feel that its ‘rules’ are man-made, and if you feel that way well, all we can do is keep pointing out 2000 years of history AND the guarantee of the Holy Spirit on our ‘side’.

But (and I am NOT saying that this is true of you personally and I am not recommending people who feel this way ‘leave’). . .IF a person can’t wrap his (or her) mind around the need for obedience (not ‘blind’ obedience but informed obedience, meaning we look up ‘why’ and make sure we know what we’re talking about), that person needs to do a lot of praying and soul searching as to what that person is ‘doing’ in WHATEVER ‘faith’ he or she is claiming.

I mean, if I were a card-carrying Democrat who voted for nobody but Republicans, and who, on every single platform that Democrats were promoting ‘shot them down’ with disagreements, why on earth would I ‘remain’ a card-carrying Democrat? Because ‘daddy’ was one? Because it doesn’t matter what being a Democrat is, I just want to be one because I feel it makes me ‘look good’, or they give better fund raisers, or even because deep down I want to topple them 'from the inside?" Well, there are those (and more) reasons, but they’re really kind of silly reasons to be something that I truly despise and ‘reject’ while claiming to ‘embrace.’ And this is just a 'political question. One’s faith is so much more important. We really need to be informed and to make a proper decision, not base this on silly or even evil ‘justifications’, IMO.

I don’t like it when people call me sweetie without taking me on a few dates first. Free for dinner tonight?

It’s just my opinion. Obedience aside, Church dogma aside, I just can’t imagine that eating meat on a Friday-regardless of church rules, is on par with murder and child molestation for one way tickets to hell.

 

[Bookcat]

It’s just my opinion. Obedience aside, Church dogma aside, I just can’t imagine that eating meat on a sunday-regardless of church rules, is on par with murder and child molestation for one way tickets to hell.

Friday of Lent…not Sunday

Steak on Sunday is recommended (if in keeping with health)

(and remember it is only a “substantial” breaking of this discipline that is grave matter…)

There are various “grave matters” but yes some are more grave than others…

but all of which can potentially be a “ticket to hell”…but some tickets are first class and others are coach…but all get you there.

 

[Rascalking]

Friday of Lent…not Sunday

Steak on Sunday is recommended (if in keeping with health)

(and remember it is only a “substantial” breaking of this discipline that is grave matter…)

There are various “grave matters” some more grave than others…

but all of which can potentially be a “ticket to hell”…but some tickets are first class and others are coach…but all get you there.

My bad. It was just changed to Friday. Thanks.