Husband served meat on Friday and I didn't want to embarass him

[Secret_Square]

Hi everyone, I have what may be kind of a strange question here but here goes.

My husband is a non-practicing/lapsed Catholic who is kind of erratic about following Friday abstinence during Lent. Sometimes he does it, but other times he either forgets or deliberately chooses to disregard it. He has in the past scolded me for being “fanatical” about Friday abstinence though he hasn’t done so for a while.

Most of the time I take a pro-active approach by specifically requesting or preparing a meatless meal on Friday. I did so this week (I made veggie and cheese pizzas). I came home from work and was getting ready to prepare the meal when my husband brought out some wraps he had made with tortillas, cheese, sliced ham and turkey. He had gone to the trouble of making them and setting them out on a serving plate, and said “I thought we would have these too.”

I realized right away that there was meat in the wraps and I really shouldn’t eat them. But at the same time, it appeared to me that he had prepared these in an attempt to be thoughtful, and simply had forgotten about it being Friday. So, not wanting to embarass him, start an argument, or waste food, I ate about half of my wrap (along with the pizza), and discreetly set aside the rest to eat on Saturday.

My question is: did I commit a sin that I am obliged to confess? Somewhere, I can’t quite remember where, I seem to recall being told that if someone accidentally serves you meat on a day of abstinence, you can go ahead and eat it if rejecting it would cause embarrassment or inconvienience to the host. Now that I think about it, however, I suspect that was meant for situations in which a non-Catholic who sincerely doesn’t know about Friday abstinence serves you meat. I’m not sure if it covers this situation or not. I will try harder to make sure this doesn’t happen again in the future.

 

[jimmy]

You acted in the best way you could. It is better to eat for charity’s sake, than to fast. The whole purpse of the fast is charity, and if you miss out on that, then you miss out on the whole thing. I would do the same thing you did. By eating you live the fast according to how it was meant to be lived.

 

[1ke]

Please talk to your pastor in confession.

I do not think it was appropriate for you do deny your Friday obligation in your own home because your husband “rants” about you faith. Standing up for your faith is important. You should have said something-- thank you honey, I will save mine for tomorrow. You already had meatless options, you need not have eaten the wrap.

As far as the idea of not refusing hospitality, etc, that little urban legend comes up frequently but it is not substantiated by any Church document. You can certainly be dispensed by your pastor if you have some important reason-- but that requires it be done ahead of time. Otherwise, we are to abstain.

 

[mommamaree]

http://www.ewtn.com/faith/lent/fast.htm

From EWTN. It gives the most common reasons one is excused from abstinence, including the situation of being a guest at a meal who might give great offense to the host by abstaining. Your own pastor can help you discern if this situation applies in your case. It sounds like it is likely to happen again, since your husband is a lapsed Catholic. So I would just ask your pastor about it, if I were is your shoes. Good luck.

 

[michaelmas]

Excuse my question, but is eating Meat on Friday a mortal sin during lent or a venial sin? For that matter is fasting during lent a requirement or a suggestion?

 

[ALLGIRLS]

Excuse my question, but is eating Meat on Friday a mortal sin during lent or a venial sin? For that matter is fasting during lent a requirement or a suggestion?

It’s not the meat itself that’s sinful (otherwise it would be always a sin to eat it, not just on Fridays during Lent and Ash Wednesday), but the ignoring of a rule/discipline that the Church has the right to impose on it’s followers. That’s why, unlike objectivelly grave matter (abortion, premarital sex, murder, stealing, etc.), it’s not a sin for a nonCatholic to eat meat on Lenten Fridays (but it is a sin for them to kill, steal, fornicate, etc., even if they’re atheists or don’t believe those things are sins). Whether or not it’s mortal or veniel probably depends on the circumstances. And yes, the fasting/abstinance is a requirement (for Catholics, barring age or medical dispensations), not just a suggestion.

In Christ,
Ellen

 

[Cath4life]

Please talk to your pastor in confession.

I do not think it was appropriate for you do deny your Friday obligation in your own home because your husband “rants” about you faith. Standing up for your faith is important. You should have said something-- thank you honey, I will save mine for tomorrow. You already had meatless options, you need not have eaten the wrap.

As far as the idea of not refusing hospitality, etc, that little urban legend comes up frequently but it is not substantiated by any Church document. You can certainly be dispensed by your pastor if you have some important reason-- but that requires it be done ahead of time. Otherwise, we are to abstain.

I totally agree as practicing catholics, WE are the ones that have to stand up and defend our faith. It all starts at home by teaching others that abstaining is following your faith. It’s hard to have the courage to stand up to those closest to us, but our priority should be God and his church.

Pray to Our Lord for courage to defend the church’s teachings in your life and you will be an example to your husband and others.

Prepare ahead for next week by telling your husband ahead of time NOT to prepare MEAT dishes prior to Friday as you would like to abstain. If he does, you will be saving your meat plate for another day.

In Christ,

 

[michaelmas]

It’s not the meat itself that’s sinful (otherwise it would be always a sin to eat it, not just on Fridays during Lent and Ash Wednesday), but the ignoring of a rule/discipline that the Church has the right to impose on it’s followers. That’s why, unlike objectivelly grave matter (abortion, premarital sex, murder, stealing, etc.), it’s not a sin for a nonCatholic to eat meat on Lenten Fridays (but it is a sin for them to kill, steal, fornicate, etc., even if they’re atheists or don’t believe those things are sins). Whether or not it’s mortal or veniel probably depends on the circumstances. And yes, the fasting/abstinance is a requirement (for Catholics, barring age or medical dispensations), not just a suggestion.

In Christ,
Ellen

Thank you Ellen

 

[aemcpa]

We are allowed (and even encouraged in some cases) to confess venial sins even though we are not required to confess them. So when in doubt, just confess it.

 

[the_phoenix]

In the Garden of Eden, Eve sinned / became non-practicing / lapsed when she ate the apple. Why did she offer the forbidden fruit to Adam? In any case, she did.

And why did Adam eat the apple offered by his wife? He didn’t want to embarrass her, start an argument, waste food? In any case, he ate the forbidden fruit too.

And the two of them, husband and wife, were cast out of Paradise.

I would say this is a matter to bring up in Confession.

~~ the phoenix

 

[jimmy]

In the Garden of Eden, Eve sinned / became non-practicing / lapsed when she ate the apple. Why did she offer the forbidden fruit to Adam? In any case, she did.

And why did Adam eat the apple offered by his wife? He didn’t want to embarrass her, start an argument, waste food? In any case, he ate the forbidden fruit too.

And the two of them, husband and wife, were cast out of Paradise.

I would say this is a matter to bring up in Confession.

~~ the phoenix

That is a distortion of the text. Adam didnt eat to prevent eve from being embarrassed. It doesn’t imply that at any point in the text.

There is a problem with a rule of the Church when it prevents charity, especially when it is an arbitrary rule. We should probably walk around looking somber, haggard and dirty when we fast too, shouldn’t we?

 

[aemcpa]

That is a distortion of the text. Adam didnt eat to prevent eve from being embarrassed. It doesn’t imply that at any point in the text.

There is a problem with a rule of the Church when it prevents charity, especially when it is an arbitrary rule. We should probably walk around looking somber, haggard and dirty when we fast too, shouldn’t we?

It is a false charity that tolerates sin to avoid discomfort.

 

[the_phoenix]

That is a distortion of the text. Adam didnt eat to prevent eve from being embarrassed. It doesn’t imply that at any point in the text.

There is a problem with a rule of the Church when it prevents charity, especially when it is an arbitrary rule. We should probably walk around looking somber, haggard and dirty when we fast too, shouldn’t we?

No, it was not a distortion of the text. It was a question, that’s all.

And to my mind, a wife should charitably be able to tell her husband that she will politely decline to eat meat on Friday, but will be happy to partake of it instead on Saturday. And the husband should charitably understand. He was a practicing Catholic at one time.



Please note the clean smiley face above.

…

 

[jimmy]

It is a false charity that tolerates sin to avoid discomfort.

Who mentioned discomfort? What does that have to do with the subject of this thread? It is you and some other posters assuming that she just wants to avoid discomfort.

Since when has eating meat been a sin? The last time I checked, the purpose of the law is charity (read the sermon on the mount and Thomas Aquinas on law). Charity fulfills the whole law. But now you want to make an arbitrary law (eating meat on a particular day in the year) an absolutely unbreakable law. Those who fall under the law have sinned if the eat meat on friday, no matter what the circumstances. Your legalism has gotten in the way of charity, and consequently of faith and God.

None of this is to say you shouldn’t abstain on Fridays during lent. But you should remember what is important in the whole process. Lent doesn’t stand alone, but has an object in mind. When that object is forgotten the whole process loses its meaning. Do penance during lent, but remember that penance isn’t just arbitrary self sacrifice or self chastisement. It is about doing an about face and returning to what is important. Charity is the virtue that we aim for.

 

[aemcpa]

Who mentioned discomfort? What does that have to do with the subject of this thread? It is you and some other posters assuming that she just wants to avoid discomfort.

Since when has eating meat been a sin? The last time I checked, the purpose of the law is charity (read the sermon on the mount and Thomas Aquinas on law). Charity fulfills the whole law. But now you want to make an arbitrary law (eating meat on a particular day in the year) an absolutely unbreakable law. Those who fall under the law have sinned if the eat meat on friday, no matter what the circumstances. Your legalism has gotten in the way of charity, and consequently of faith and God.

The OP said the reason she ate what her husband made is because she didn’t want to potentially upset him. Charity is wanting what is good for another person, and there is charity in truth. Is it charitable to pretend that the Church does not have the authority to bind Catholics to fast and abstain on certain days? Her husband is Catholic, he’s just lazy about it. I don’t know whether it was a mortal sin, but it was a sin, and I do know that you can’t just knowingly commit sin, mortal or venial, and call it charity.

 

[jimmy]

The OP said the reason she ate what her husband made is because she didn’t want to potentially upset him. Charity is wanting what is good for another person, and there is charity in truth. Is it charitable to pretend that the Church does not have the authority to bind Catholics to fast and abstain on certain days? Her husband is Catholic, he’s just lazy about it. I don’t know whether it was a mortal sin, but it was a sin, and I do know that you can’t just knowingly commit sin, mortal or venial, and call it charity.

I edited my post, so it is a little different than what you quoted. But your post here makes Jesus a sinner for doing miracles on Sunday, and pulling the heads of grain off and eating it with his apostles. The law is the law, and since the letter was violated he is a sinner.

 

[aemcpa]

I edited my post, so it is a little different than what you quoted. But your post here makes Jesus a sinner for doing miracles on Sunday, and pulling the heads of grain off and eating it with his apostles. The law is the law, and since the letter was violated he is a sinner.

No, because Christ is the lawgiver. If the Pope decides that he can eat meat on Friday, then he commits no sin. But we are bound to obedience. As others have posted, the sin is disobedience to lawful authority.

 

[dailey]

Since your husband knows the rules about no meat on Fridays then I would say you should not have eaten the meat. I would have removed it and gave it to him for his sandwich instead.

 

[jimmy]

No, because Christ is the lawgiver. If the Pope decides that he can eat meat on Friday, then he commits no sin. But we are bound to obedience. As others have posted, the sin is disobedience to lawful authority.

So you are proposing voluntarism, the idea that the law is the product of divine will. God just makes arbitrary judgements on what is sin and what isn’t.

Jesus’ arguments against the pharisees are largely associated with them making the law a burden, and not about him being the law giver.

The pope is allowed to violate the law if he decides he doesn’t want to avoid meat on Friday?

 

[aemcpa]

So you are proposing voluntarism, the idea that the law is the product of divine will. God just makes arbitrary judgements on what is sin and what isn’t.

Jesus’ arguments against the pharisees are largely associated with them making the law a burden, and not about him being the law giver.

The pope is allowed to violate the law if he decides he doesn’t want to avoid meat on Friday?

Are you proposing that the Church’s laws on fasting and abstinence are merely arbitrary? Do you feel the same way about the Sunday obligation?