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

[aemcpa]

That doesnt even address the question. It’s great that you can do a search and find a quote that doesn’t deal with the question at hand. The question is basically whether there are valid reasons to eat meat on Friday. And that isn’t even addressed by your quote.

And yes, your voluntarism contradicts catholic philosophy. Your absolutist view of legal aspects like no meat on Fridays contradicts catholic theology and scripture (check the story of when Jesus was condemned for working on the sabbath and read the story of when he was walking through the field with apostles). Read the teachings on the sacraments, and you will see where you contradict the catholic understanding of law. There are laws about how baptism, the Eucharist, and etc are to be performed and celebrated. But there are many situations where that doesn’t bind or just doesn’t apply. The way of thinking transfers over all legal aspects.

The problem is that you read the texts like someone who is an outsider. You see the law, and you think that is all there is to Catholicism. You follow the laws and you will be saved. paradoxically this idea is both burdensome, and crass. What you miss is the spirit of Catholicism; you miss the whole heart of what it is to be catholic.

You are totally disregarding the gravity of the precept to follow the Church’s laws of fasting and abstinence. Of course there are situations in which a Catholic would be excused from them. “My lax Catholic husband ignored the fact that I asked him to make a meatless meal” isn’t one of them. Sorry. I already said I don’t know whether it’s a venial sin or a mortal sin - that is for a confessor to decide. But “the obligation to Friday abstinence binds gravely”. How does that not deal with the matter at hand?

 

[Moore11]

I would not be surprised if the husband did this on purpose in a passive aggressive manner.
Of course you should confess it. You were weak in your faith not strong. That is a sin in itself.
As for those who think we should forgo our fasting requirements so as not to offend. It is not the faster who runs the risk of offending. If this were an Orthodox Jew, or a Muslim or a vegetarian Hindu and someone’s husband walked in with a stuffed pig with an apple in it;s mouth then we surely would not expect the other faiths to put aside their faith for the sake of someone’s potential feelings. The rationalization behind some things is getting ridiculous. It is time we stop being ashamed of being a part of a faith that requires our relationship with God be more important than any other relationship on earth. At one time and even today some are martyred for their faith. Yet we cower from our obligations any time a social dinner party is involved. We should be ashamed of our actions, not our faith.

 

[jimmy]

You are totally disregarding the gravity of the precept to follow the Church’s laws of fasting and abstinence. Of course there are situations in which a Catholic would be excused from them. “My lax Catholic husband ignored the fact that I asked him to make a meatless meal” isn’t one of them. Sorry. I already said I don’t know whether it’s a venial sin or a mortal sin - that is for a confessor to decide. But “the obligation to Friday abstinence binds gravely”. How does that not deal with the matter at hand?/QUOTEI

First of all, the reason why there are exceptions is because we live in a real world that isn’t determined by laws. Yes, we can make a law and live by it. So we have the rule of fasting on Fridays of lent. Event life Isn’t so simple that we just follow the rule and we are just and virtuous. The exceptions aren’t planned, they simply occur. The church doesnt say ‘you can relax the law under this circumstance.’ what it says is ‘charity is the object and fulfillment of all fasting.’ the exception comes up in an individual life, and it is the individual person who must determine the proper action. You can’t say she was right or wrong, that is the job of her own conscience. Was it out of love, or was it simply acquiescence? That is for her own conscience to determine.

It doesn’t deal with the matter at hand because the question isn’t whether it is a sin, let alone mortal, to not fast on Friday. It is more specific, it deals with certain circumstances. Is it better to be charitable and eat out of thankfulness (she said she thought he was being thoughtful) in this particular situation, or should she have refused. I say the former, but I also say she shouldn’t be concerned about what people on the Internet think. She should let her conscience guide her. That is the only way she can get a true answer. The way I see it, she fulfills the law by eating in this particular instance, since charity is the object.

You have to remember that conscience is always active, even when submitting to a rule. It is your conscience that says you should submit to the rule, but it is also your own conscience acting in a particular situation to say it is better to forgo the letter of the law for the sake of the spirit. Granted, it is a rare occasion that you forgo the letter for the sake of the spirit.

Also, the Christian call is very personal. It is a call to you and to me, not to everyone as a whole. It appeals to your personal conscience, and consequently your conscience must play a role. On the one hand you have a rule of life, which includes fasting on Fridays of lent. On the other you have personal relationships with particular people. Your love is for particular people and it is personal, so there may be occasions that come up that you have to determine the application of the law in that particular instance.

 

[jimmy]

I would not be surprised if the husband did this on purpose in a passive aggressive manner.
Of course you should confess it. You were weak in your faith not strong. That is a sin in itself.
As for those who think we should forgo our fasting requirements so as not to offend. It is not the faster who runs the risk of offending. If this were an Orthodox Jew, or a Muslim or a vegetarian Hindu and someone’s husband walked in with a stuffed pig with an apple in it;s mouth then we surely would not expect the other faiths to put aside their faith for the sake of someone’s potential feelings. The rationalization behind some things is getting ridiculous. It is time we stop being ashamed of being a part of a faith that requires our relationship with God be more important than any other relationship on earth. At one time and even today some are martyred for their faith. Yet we cower from our obligations any time a social dinner party is involved. We should be ashamed of our actions, not our faith.

The way I see it, it has nothing to do with cowering or being ashamed. Assuming you gave up sweets for lent as your personal sacrifice, would you eat a piece of cake on a birthday that happens to occur during lent? The way I see it is, if you love some one you rejoice with them at a time of joy and you mourn at a time of mourning. If someone offers me something I will accept it out of thankfulness.

 

[aemcpa]

The way I see it, it has nothing to do with cowering or being ashamed. Assuming you gave up sweets for lent as your personal sacrifice, would you eat a piece of cake on a birthday that happens to occur during lent? The way I see it is, if you love some one you rejoice with them at a time of joy and you mourn at a time of mourning. If someone offers me something I will accept it out of thankfulness.

Friday abstinence is not a matter of personal devotion. It is an obligation to which the Church binds us under pain of sin. Should you skip Sunday Mass to attend a non-Catholic wedding? How about a birthday party? How about if you’re given free tickets to a football game? Wouldn’t it be inhospitable and uncharitable to turn them down?

 

[jimmy]

Friday abstinence is not a matter of personal devotion. It is an obligation to which the Church binds us under pain of sin. Should you skip Sunday Mass to attend a non-Catholic wedding? How about a birthday party? How about if you’re given free tickets to a football game? Wouldn’t it be inhospitable and uncharitable to turn them down?

Giving up meat is very similar to any private devotion. Just as there may be exceptions to be made in a private devotion, there are exceptions in eating meat on fridays. It is essentially the same thing. I won’t break my personal devotion for any old reason, but I will break it if charity demands it. The same goes for friday fasts or any other devotion, no matter who declared it. As has been quoted several times on this thread, man was not made for the sabbath, but the sabbath was made for man. The laws exist for the sake of charity, not the other way around. The law exists for a viscious man, and the virtuous man doesn’t need it and I would dare to say isn’t subordinate to it.

If you want to prove to me I am wrong, you are going to have to show me that the pope trumps charity, because the rule concerning friday fasts isn’t an eternal or divine law. Charity, is number one.

 

[Listener]

This question reminds me of the time I was invited to a luncheon on a Friday in Lent. I didn’t think anything of it because I assumed it would be a buffet, and I could skip the meat. Well, it turned out that the lunch was served. The lunch consisted of meat, brown gravy, and a vegetable. There was gravy all over everything, even the vegetables. There was nothing else to eat. There were several Catholics at my table. They all looked at each other, then they came to a unanimous decision that it was better to eat the lunch than hurt the feelings of our hostess.

I did some research on this later, and I’m pretty sure it states somewhere in a Canon Law that an exception to the no-meat rule can be made if it causes discomfort to your host. Let’s say you were not a Catholic and you had no clue about the no-meat-on-Friday rule during Lent. Let’s say you invited a group of people to lunch, and most of your guests happened to be Catholics. As you served your meat dish, wouldn’t you be mortified if all of the Catholics declared that they were forbidden to eat what you had served them? I think it would make your host think that Catholics were really rude people.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P6PAEN.htm

"Therefore, the following is declared and established:

I. 1. By divine law all the faithful are required to do penance.

1. The prescriptions of ecclesiastical law regarding penitence are totally reorganized according to the following norms:

II. 1. 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."

(a) And there we have the mitigating word “substantial”.
Therefore this “positive” law of the church (ie man made and in a sense “arbitrary”) is not speaking of “grave matter” here in the same way that “murder” has “grave matter”.

This is a clear qualification of “binds gravely” (which btw is still, to the best of my knowledge, not the same as the “grave matter” of a “mortal sin”).

Many interpret this mitigation to mean that a one-off transgression (even involving awareness) cannot by itself be presumed to imply grave (and hence mortal) disobedience to the 4th precept. Gravity would be better indicated by repeated non-learning from awkward situations over Lent like this. I think Jimmy Akin represents a balanced view on this here.

(b) Also note that this is a 1966 ruling by Paul VI.
Being positive law details can change. The latest CCC does not mention anything about “gravely binding” so it is at least something that needs to be clarified further.

(c) EndNotes:
If we look at the endnotes we see that the Pope has given local jurisdictions authority to authorise alternative practices in their locaility. The Original Poster would need to check out with their local bishops conference if there are alternative practices she can do when “caught out” in these circumstances if her conscience still troubles here.

If there are other alternative practices she could do (and may already be doing them without knowing) then no grave matter exists. If no grave matter exists then its damned hard to commit a mortal sin, you’d have to really be wanting to .

But then… I don’t believe, for a one off, unrepeated situation, substantial gravity exists anyhow .
Many posters here already intuitively knew this from “spiritual common sense.”
Just another mortal-sin storm in a tea-cup it seems.

 

[Nan_S]

I would not be surprised if the husband did this on purpose in a passive aggressive manner.
Of course you should confess it. You were weak in your faith not strong. That is a sin in itself.

As for those who think we should forgo our fasting requirements so as not to offend. It is not the faster who runs the risk of offending. If this were an Orthodox Jew, or a Muslim or a vegetarian Hindu and someone’s husband walked in with a stuffed pig with an apple in it;s mouth then we surely would not expect the other faiths to put aside their faith for the sake of someone’s potential feelings. The rationalization behind some things is getting ridiculous. It is time we stop being ashamed of being a part of a faith that requires our relationship with God be more important than any other relationship on earth. At one time and even today some are martyred for their faith. Yet we cower from our obligations any time a social dinner party is involved. We should be ashamed of our actions, not our faith.

I’m with you on this. Secret Square’s husband passive-aggressively put her in a position where he set a precedent, and that opens the door up for him to do it again. After all, if she didn’t object the first time, what’s the big deal the next time he does it?

Secret, you husband is intentionally rewriting the rule book for his own enjoyment, and coercing you to join him out of “devotion” to him. That’s not a loving act on his part; that’s pure and simple bullying. After all these years he certainly DID know that this is Lent, and that Lent means no meat on Fridays. Her didn’t forget; he just chose to ignore it and to use a supposedly “loving” gesture to coerce you into joining him.

You need to put him on notice that he may not care, but you very much do. Tell him that after giving the matter very careful consideration you expect him to respect your devotion, even though he does not share it himself. A truly loving husband respects his wife in such matters.

 

[Secret_Square]

Ok folks, here’s the deal. I honestly thought I was doing the right thing when I ate those wraps – I figured it would demonstrate flexibility rather than rigid legalism and maybe would convince him that I was thinking about him rather than being self-centered. What I SHOULD have done in retrospect, and what I will do in the future if this happens again, is say “Thanks, honey, I’ll have those tomorrow, because it’s Friday, you know.” I didn’t think of that, however, until much too late.

 

[Moore11]

Giving up meat is very similar to any private devotion. Just as there may be exceptions to be made in a private devotion, there are exceptions in eating meat on fridays. It is essentially the same thing…

Where are you coming up with this idea?

 

[Moore11]

The way I see it, it has nothing to do with cowering or being ashamed. Assuming you gave up sweets for lent as your personal sacrifice, would you eat a piece of cake on a birthday that happens to occur during lent? The way I see it is, if you love some one you rejoice with them at a time of joy and you mourn at a time of mourning. If someone offers me something I will accept it out of thankfulness.

The OP has given a rather different view of the situation than you seem to be arguing. When lawyers have this problem they often say" right issue wrong client" You can argue your main philosophy on “legalists” and “pharasees” But your client (the situation) is not agreeing with your arguuments. But just to make sure you are not a hypocrite and practice what you preach I would like you to specifically do something tomorrow that breaks your personal lenten devotion. Do it for me. Or I will be offended…

 

[underacloud]

Ok folks, here’s the deal. I honestly thought I was doing the right thing when I ate those wraps – I figured it would demonstrate flexibility rather than rigid legalism and maybe would convince him that I was thinking about him rather than being self-centered. What I SHOULD have done in retrospect, and what I will do in the future if this happens again, is say “Thanks, honey, I’ll have those tomorrow, because it’s Friday, you know.” I didn’t think of that, however, until much too late.

As other posters have alluded to or mentioned, there is a primacy of conscience issue here. You did what you honestly thought was the right thing. The real sin here would have been to go against your own conscience. For the sake of marital harmony and avoiding embarrassing or upsetting your husband, you have chosen to act in charity.

By all means, discuss this with your pastor. The situation may well arise again, so he can help you discern a suitable approach. But I can’t see how anyone could possibly think you have committed a mortal sin in this matter. Don’t deprive yourself of the most blessed sacrament over this doubtful sin.

You could say something along these lines to your husband: “thanks very much for cooking the other night. It was very kind of you and I enjoyed it. I forgot it was Friday though and I’m not meat to eat meat, so please keep that in mind during lent.”

(note when I say “forgot” you should choose some careful wording that is not technically a lie)

 

[jimmy]

The OP has given a rather different view of the situation than you seem to be arguing. When lawyers have this problem they often say" right issue wrong client" You can argue your main philosophy on “legalists” and “pharasees” But your client (the situation) is not agreeing with your arguuments. But just to make sure you are not a hypocrite and practice what you preach I would like you to specifically do something tomorrow that breaks your personal lenten devotion. Do it for me. Or I will be offended…

I don’t think her situation is different than what I am proposing. I don’t think she was just acquiesing to his will. And I don’t necessarily think he was being passive aggressive. She never said he was, or that his actions were anything but thoughtful.

It is fine if she doesn’t agree with my argument. I am not here to be affirmed by anyone. I am simply making a point, and she is free to accept it or reject it.

As I already mentioned, I don’t break my fast for just any reason, but there are times that I might because of charity. A birthday would be one example where I have. Rather than be the curmudgeon who sits on the side and refuses to eat, I will eat a piece of cake and celebrate.

 

[Catholic_Wife]

Ok folks, here’s the deal. I honestly thought I was doing the right thing when I ate those wraps – I figured it would demonstrate flexibility rather than rigid legalism and maybe would convince him that I was thinking about him rather than being self-centered. What I SHOULD have done in retrospect, and what I will do in the future if this happens again, is say “Thanks, honey, I’ll have those tomorrow, because it’s Friday, you know.” I didn’t think of that, however, until much too late.

I think this is a good idea. My husband is a practicing Catholic, but a lot of things slip his mind - especially when he’s in the middle of his work week (he works 7 on / 7 off). There have been been many times he’s forgotten what day it is, or that there is such a thing as “no meat on Fridays of Lent”, and I’ve had to use the same line with my husband. What should I do? Chastise him for being a lazy, thoughtless Catholic? Or gently remind him and encourage him to do better next time?

And if, as someone suggested, your husband is doing this as some form of passive aggression, de-emphasize the “legalism” of abstaining from meat and focus on the “love” of why we abstain. I’ve found that this (and text messages reminding my husband of what day it is and that Fridays in Lent are meatless) works better and makes my husband more willing to follow the “rules” than beating him over the head (so to speak) with legalism.

 

[Kensho]

I would not be surprised if the husband did this on purpose in a passive aggressive manner.

That’s what I was thinking. His wife had already prepared a meatless meal that apparently just needed to go into the oven. He said he thought they would eat the wraps also, indicating that he knew she had prepared a meal already. I assume from everything else the OP said that he would have known full well why she went to the trouble of preparing a Friday meal ahead of time. It sounds to me as though he was deliberately putting his wife in a position where she would be forced to choose between her love for him and her obedience to the Church. I understand why a non-Catholic or lapsed Catholic might do that, but it is wrong and charity does not demand that a wife submit to that kind of ploy.

Or maybe he really did just forget, but I don’t see why in that case he would be embarrassed or upset if his wife said, “Oh, thanks! Those look delicious! I can’t wait to eat some tomorrow when I can have meat!”

I don’t think this could be a mortal sin – it isn’t like the wife just said, “What the hell, I really want to eat ham tonight and this is a stupid rule!” But I think she should confess it. The priest could probably give her some good advice and insight.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Ok folks, here’s the deal. I honestly thought I was doing the right thing when I ate those wraps – I figured it would demonstrate flexibility rather than rigid legalism and maybe would convince him that I was thinking about him rather than being self-centered. What I SHOULD have done in retrospect, and what I will do in the future if this happens again, is say “Thanks, honey, I’ll have those tomorrow, because it’s Friday, you know.” I didn’t think of that, however, until much too late.

Thats a perfectly acceptable and considered response SS. My only observation, from a Christian perspective, is that this may be interpretted by your husband as a tad passive-agressive if he sincerely forgot it was Friday in Lent. In which case this isn’t going to help your relationship.
As Aquinas once put it (I paraphrase) “always assume the best, reasonable interpretation of other people’s ambiguities.” Personally I believe the impugning of suspicions in the face of ambuiguity with our loved ones is the beginning of a road that inevitably ends in tears. Rise above it if at all possible - especially with little things.

In which case, your original response is also perfectly acceptable from the Church’s perspective. As above, it seems one is not substantially contravening the 4th precept by mucking up one Friday in Lent alone (even if intentionally done with reasonable knowledge of that fact). It would of course be prudent to later mention to your husband that you would not be able to repeat this compassionate contravening of abstinence (for his sake) a 2nd time.

I think you did very well.

 

[Pax2u]

The criteria for sin is that it has to be wrong, you have to know it’s wrong, and you do it anyway. I would not be happy with a husband who gave me a hard time about “fanaticism” for trying to follow the precepts of my faith. It’s almost like he baited the OP to see if he could get her to do something against her beliefs.

I feel badly for her that she felt eating the meat was a better thing to do than risk her husband’s displeasure over such a thing.