Eating meat on Fridays, mortal sin, etc

  • Thread starter Thread starter BananaManSuite
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BananaManSuite

Guest
So, I was under the impression until today that I wasn’t supposed to eat meat on Fridays.

We arrived at our host’s house and they offered us some soup with meat in it. It was after midnight by a little and technically Friday. I at first thought “well, I will count it from when I wake up” and then remembered that that might be a sin. Eventually, so as not to be rude, I ate around the meat, but probably still consumed a small amount in the soup.
At the time I was irritated and didn’t really care much.
It turns out that in my diocese, we are not not obligated to abstain from eating meat on Fridays, as per the Bishop’s rules.
But I didn’t know that at the time and was okay with potentially committing a sin by eating the soup anyway, so would this constitute a mortal sin?

Additionally, when traveling abroad to other countries, do I need to observe their days of obligation and abstinence rules even if it’s just a short trip?
 
BananaManSuite said:
It turns out that in my diocese, we are not not obligated to abstain from eating meat on Fridays, as per the Bishop’s rules.
But I didn’t know that at the time and was okay with potentially committing a sin by eating the soup anyway, so would this constitute a mortal sin?
Click to expand...
You can’t commit a sin, much less a mortal sin, by breaking a Church rule that doesn’t actually exist.
Be at peace.

Even if an abstinence rule had somehow existed, in this situation you were forced to try to balance compliance with the rule with eating what was made available to you and you made a good faith effort by eating around the meat in the soup. That would have been sufficient as it showed your intent was to not eat meat.
Additionally, when traveling abroad to other countries, do I need to observe their days of obligation and abstinence rules even if it’s just a short trip?
Click to expand...
No, you continue to be bound by the rules of your own home diocese, wherever you might be in the world.
 
Last edited:
I am pretty sure you follow the rules of the diocese you live in and/or the Eastern Church you belong to.

When invited to supper you eat what is given to you. If there are special concerns regarding allergies or fasting or whatever you let the host know ahead of time to save them from embarrassment. I have suggested to my mom that she “cooks the delicious salmon with granny´s white sauce” on Fridays in Lent when I have visited and she would gladly cook it. Saved her from getting stressed on what to cook, too.
 
Yes as the others say you are ok. But even us who live permanently in England so are bound to do this aren’t under such a dire thing as mortal sin should we come into that situation. If visiting people we can use discretion and chose to say I am sorry I am Catholic and can’t eat meat today or if we think that may cause our host too much trouble and difficulty we may eat the meat soup and chose another penance ourselves. This is especially relevant when traveling so as to not put others to difficulty but would also apply in this case. The point of this is a penance for us, not to be imposing for others, especially non Catholics. If it were me, I’d eat the soup then forgo something I love like salt or alcohol or coffee which would not cause my host any distress or I’d offer to do the dishes or take the rubbish out or stay late or something I hate in penance. It’s a personal thing between you and God. But the church does allow for this, ie not putting others out because of your penance. Of course this is for spontaneous situations, if you invited out in advance you can make plans or advise your host or not go on a Friday if you know your host is not the sort to like religious differences (though you can chose what reason you give - everyone has dietary issues these days) etc. As I say, your call with your conscience ie. God.
 
BananaManSuite said:
But I didn’t know that at the time and was okay with potentially committing a sin by eating the soup anyway, so would this constitute a mortal sin?
Click to expand...
I think deep down you knew it could not possibly be a mortal sin and thus you were “okay” with it.
 
“139. Second Principle. Everyone is obliged to follow his conscience whether it commands or forbids some action, not only when it is true but also when it is in invincible error.”

“There is a reason for the use of the two words “ commands ” and “forbids,” for if conscience permits or merely counsels some line of action there is no strict obligation to follow it. It is patently obvious why we must obey a true conscience, and the reason for man’s obligation to follow an invincibly erroneous conscience is that failure to do so would mean that he was acting contrary to the subjective norm of morality and was therefore committing sin. Thus, for example, a person who is convinced that he ought to tell a lie in order to save his friend from some danger is bound to tell the lie ; in so doing he does not commit formal sin. Anyone who thinks that to-day is a fast-day, although as a matter of fact it is not, and in spite of his conviction docs not observe the fast commits formal sin.”


It seems like you may have committed the sin subjectively, but not ‘objectively’ for lack of a better term.
 
Last edited:
Semper –

You raise an interesting question, but it is not as simple as all that.

I do not think any Latin/Roman Rite bishops currently bind their subjects to fasting and abstinence on pain of mortal sin, since the whole point of the V2 regs was to make fasting more voluntary an obligation, without punitive incentives.

Nor are their subjects taught that it is a matter of mortal sin; and since it is a church discipline and not grave in itself, they should not be taught that it is.

Nor does the OP seem to have seriously feared that it was an occasion of mortal sin. It was a dither over manners and timing, not an act of proud disobedience and defiance of authority.

So this seems to be a case of deceptively depressing afterthoughts or scruples, and should be ignored. (In the case of a Catholic back in the day, things might have been different, because discipline was different.)

Obviously it is a good idea for the OP to create a more definite fasting policy now, to prevent dilemmas in the future.

It would also be good for the OP to know if he or she is in a category of people excused from abstinence and fasting.

(If we are going to use the old standards, then we should be aware of all the old easements, too. My entire job category is excused from fasting, and there are lots of economic and reproductive statuses which excuse one from all abstinence. Notably, no poor or dependent-on-others -for -food person can be obliged to fast or abstain. People in the military or in institutions can eat whatever rations are provided for them.)

So let’s not be too quick to bind burdens.
 
Last edited:
Clare said:
In England and Wales it’s year round no meat on Fridays
Click to expand...
Except that the Briefing Notes issued as part of a Press Release from the Catholic Bishops of England and Wales made it clear that failing to abstain from meat was not mortal sin.
 
BananaManSuite said:
So, I was under the impression until today that I wasn’t supposed to eat meat on Fridays.
Click to expand...
If you are in England— all Fridays. If you are in the US, Fridays in Lent with the opportunity for a different penance other than abstaining from meat on Fridays outside Lent. Other countries: ask your pastor.
BananaManSuite said:
We arrived at our host’s house and they offered us some soup with meat in it.
Click to expand...
It is perfectly fine to eat what is offered when you are a guest or traveler.
BananaManSuite said:
so would this constitute a mortal sin?
Click to expand...
No. The discpline of abstaining from meat does not have a penalty attached to it if you don’t, such as it used to in other days (commonly referred to as “pain of mortal sin”).
BananaManSuite said:
Additionally, when traveling abroad to other countries, do I need to observe their days of obligation and abstinence rules even if it’s just a short trip?
Click to expand...
No, travelers are not bound by their destination location’s local laws.
 
I am unfamiliar with these categories. Would this be a mortal sin? I’m mainly worried about not being able to receive communion this Sunday since I’m in a foreign country and may not be able to get confession in English.
 
I’m not in England, but I think Semper makes a good point that I may have been acting against my conscience. But I don’t know if that’s venial or mortal.
 
BananaManSuite said:
I am unfamiliar with these categories. Would this be a mortal sin? I’m mainly worried about not being able to receive communion this Sunday since I’m in a foreign country and may not be able to get confession in English.
Click to expand...
A multitude of posters on here including myself have already told you that you did not commit a sin, much less a mortal sin. Do you have scrupulosity, that you would seize on the one post that provided some murky statement otherwise?

The Sensus Fidelium treatise that semper_catholicus posted is NOT an official document of the church. It was written by a theologian, Dominic M. Prummer O.P.

I would suggest that you not worry about it, especially since you had no control over what you were served to eat and you did make a good effort to observe the fast, so even if we accept Prummer’s theory, you still didn’t commit sin.
 
Is there anything in scripture with regard to not eating meat on the 6th day of the week?
 
I heard that it’s not a mortal sin even if you do nothing on Friday. That’s what I was told because I went to confession about eating meat on Friday and they said it wasn’t a sin anymore if I ate meat on friday

Bokbok
 
This is not merely “Prummer’s theology.”

It is a handbook of moral theology to be used by Catholics, and it is has a Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur.
 
Yes. Jesus gave Peter and the other apostles the power to bind and loose. Thus, he gave them and their successors the power to determine certain things about how the Church would live its life. Over time, those successors exercised that power to determine what good penance would be, and one of those practices of penance was Friday abstinence and other forms of fasting.

QED.

-Fr ACEGC
 
It’s primarily to be used by confessors. It was previously in 4 volumes.

Do you honestly think the average Catholic is going to be able to understand that book without help from the priest in persona Christi in the confessional?

Also, your making some person with possible scruples, who wasn’t even bound by a rule of abstinence, was served something he had no control over while traveling, and did his best to observe the fasting rule think, based on this handbook, that he may have committed a mortal sin is really beyond the pale even for this forum.

Please use some common sense. When the Lord starts sending people to hell for mortal sins, it’s not gonna be because of a situation like what the OP described. You know from seeing my posts that I’m always the first one in the “Please talk to your confessor, we cannot tell you if you committed a sin” post queue, and even I feel extremely comfortable saying this guy didn’t sin in this particular situation. And not only me, but 1ke who also doesn’t rush to pronounce on people’s sins.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top