Meat on Good Friday...Mortal Sin?

[susanlo]

Yes, once the law was terminated, eating meat no longer constituted a mortal sin of disobedience since there was no law to disobey. When the law was in place, disobedience would constitute a mortal sin. You can’t disobey a law that doesn’t exist. It’s okay that you get confused by this, I used to be quite confused by this as well.

When rules such as this change within Catholic teaching, is this believed to be a change coming directly from God conveyed to those in leadership? Or is the change coming directly from man with the authority that was given them?

 

[Wannano]

Yes and no.

I have committed grave sins, yet contained a remorse and sorrow which I believe kept me from being lost to Him. It is faint indeed, yet I desired reconciliation. I was weak, but had love. I did not have enough love to avoid the sin altogether, but enough to bring me back.

What would have happened to Peter after his denial of the Lord, before his repentence? Or when Paul found him “standing condemned”?

We believe the Lord knows our hearts. We must be humble, so very thankful, pray, fast and turn to him daily.

wannano, do you believe in the power of fasting? What do you think about it?

I have to honestly say I know very little about it. It is something I should study on as it is something I hear very little about.

 

[Reuben_J]

It is Good Friday and I have been reading about eating meat on Good Friday. If I understand the Catholic position the following scenario would be accurate:

A Catholic in good standing with the Church walks by a steak house on Good Friday and is suddenly tempted to have a good rib eye steak. He thinks about his temptation to eat the steak and admits to himself that he knows it is a mortal sin to succumb to his craving today but he willfully decides to eat one anyway. After he is finished eating he gets up from the table feeling very satisfied and immediately drops dead. No thought of confession or chance of confession occured. Does the Church teach that he would immediately have sent himself to Hell with this action?

The Church does not teach that he will be sent to hell. There are many factors which we do not know there. God only knows the full story of this good standing Catholic who was tempted and ate meat on that fateful Good Friday. lol.

I think by your hypothetical scenario and question you are asking: is eating meat on Good Friday a mortal sin? It is if it is declared so by the local Bishop on that day, yes, it is mortal sin to disobey the Church’s Law.

Ultimately then for the man in question, it was whether his action fulfilled the definition of mortal sin. For that you have to give more detail.

CCC 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.”

Since we do not know the heart of the man and that there are extenuating factors, God is just and merciful, and therefore, rightly it is His call, not ours. We only need to know what is mortal sin but final judgment is God’s.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

When rules such as this change within Catholic teaching, is this believed to be a change coming directly from God conveyed to those in leadership? Or is the change coming directly from man with the authority that was given them?

The change in discipline came about at the initiative of Pope Paul VI.

When this document, Paenitemini, was issued, the world’s Catholic bishops had just been together in Rome for an ecumenical council which met on and off over a three year period. The bishops had much to say about the health and the needs of the Church in their respective lands and dioceses and this initiated broad and sweeping reforms at all levels and in all aspects of the Church and her life including penance.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I think by your hypothetical scenario and question you are asking: is eating meat on Good Friday a mortal sin? It is if it is declared so by the local Bishop on that day, yes, it is mortal sin to disobey the Church’s Law.

By you last sentence, are you actually contending that the whole of the Code – and each and every canon – impinges mortal sin?

I am sorry…this is properly Wannano’s question but so many of the answers being given have caused my hair to stand straight on end. If my students had given some of these answers, they would have failed the subject. So, I really can’t imagine how some of these answers must seem for a non-Catholic. My goodness.

 

[Gorgias]

No. We are not saying the same thing. Nor are we seeing the scenario in the same way, given the specific parameter of the original poster, the answer to which is in the text.

Interesting take on it, considering that we both looked at it the same way: we both said that what would make it grave (that is, in the context of a substantial observation (oops, sorry! – ‘substantialis observantia’ ) of the obligation), would be the intent: as you mentioned, it would be whether the hypothetical person’s decision was prompted “by utter hatred of ecclesiastical authority”. That’s a bit of hyperbole, of course; but it touches upon the salient issue – did the guy say “I know it’s Good Friday, and the Church says ‘no meat’” or merely “meh, I want a steak”? The OP indicates it’s the former: “he knows it is a mortal sin to succumb to his craving today but he willfully decides to eat one anyway”.

I agree that, perhaps, we’re not seeing the scenario in the same way – yet, our analysis of the salient issues seems to coincide (unless you see “utter hatred of ecclesiastical authority” in the Latin which you are quoting ). The issue, it seems, comes down to precisely what the OP is asking us: is it the ‘eating of the meat’ or the ‘obligation’ that’s in play here? You offer a reasonable hermeneutic: that of mercy. Yet, in quoting the text, you seem to substantiate a different hermeneutic: one of substantial adherence to a precept. These two seem at odds… at least in the hypothetical situation offered by the OP.

When there is a dispute as to the meaning of a text’s words, one reverts to the editio typica since that is the definitive text from which one must work – and not a translation.That principle is basic to a first year class in theological methodology

Quite. And, a first year theology professor would rightly offer that critique. Yet, we’re not asking what the text says… are we? We’re asking what the hypothetical situation is offering us for consideration. You and I seem to agree – although you seem unwilling to admit that this is the case: if the person, in his decision, is saying, “I want beef”, then that seems somewhat harmless; but, if they are saying, “I do not wish to conform to what the Church obligates me to do”, then there is a particular conclusion that may be reached.

(Unless, of course, you wish to say that, for those who ‘wish to conform’ five weeks out of Lent, but ‘wish to refuse to conform’ on another week, then there’s “no harm no foul.”)

…just as it is from theological methodology principles that one would have to educe through textual exegesis that the man has a grave obligation relative to this specific meal.

I think I understand what you’re saying; and yet, if I may caricature it in order to probe how well it holds up, it seems that you’re suggesting that, at a Good Friday service, you wouldn’t blink at a priest who tells his flock, “hey… as long as you’ve substantially held to the observation of Friday abstinence during Lent, you might as well go out to your local steakhouse and enjoy a nice big porterhouse steak tonight!”. Is that consonant with your notion of ‘substantialis observantia’? If not, then how would you distinguish between these hypotheticals?

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

What you have written is not what I said and not expressive of my thought. The pope himself declared in what way his legislation is binding and His Holiness is who I agree with. It is there in the text, in his own formulation. The answer does not simply rest with knowledge and consent – there is another qualifier that the pope delineated and which I already explained.

Please pardon my misinterpretation of what you said; I only read the bolded part of your post due to time constraints.

Now I am confused yet again about the Church’s abstinence laws. I tried reading Fr. Bertrams in L’Osservatore Romano, but that did not help. I am going to have to ask my confessor about this. The Church should just go back to the way things used to be.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

We are looking precisely at what the text says. That is what is decisive since it is the dispositive text. It legislates what aspect of Lenten observance binds gravely. That in turn is what is applied in answering the question of the original poster.

I did not speak in hyperbole. If one is acting “in utter hatred of authority,” like acting in odium fidei, it doesn’t matter what the expression is – the moral culpability resides in the act of hating of authority and the outward expression is largely beside the point. Presuming that is not the motivation for the actor in the scenario and presuming that the person has otherwise observed the Lenten fast and abstinence, this instance would not be a mortal sin.

There is no need to analyse intent in the scenario presented since one arrives at the assessment without the need to do so.

 

[Reuben_J]

By you last sentence, are you actually contending that the whole of the Code – and each and every canon – impinges mortal sin?

I am sorry…this is properly Wannano’s question but so many of the answers being given have caused my hair to stand straight on end. If my students had given some of these answers, they would have failed the subject. So, I really can’t imagine how some of these answers must seem for a non-Catholic. My goodness.

Oop, negligent choice of word. Obviously it should be Church Commandments not canon. A Catholic may understand that but you are right, we are talking to a non-Catholic here.

**Commandments of the Church

The six principal ones given in the Catechism. There are many other precepts of the Church besides. These Commandments may be altered to suit different circumstances or different places, as the Head of the Church may think fit.

1. 
   *]To keep the days of fasting and abstinence appointed by the Church.
   *]To go to confession at least once a year.
   *]To receive the Blessed Sacrament at least once a year, and that at Easter or thereabouts.
   *]To contribute to the support of our pastors.
   *]Not to marry within certain degrees of kindred, nor to solemnize marriage at the forbidden times.
   
   **
   
   Eating meat on Good Friday should fall under Commandment #1.

 

[Gorgias]

We are looking precisely at what the text says.

I might disagree. You seem to concur:

Presuming that is not the motivation for the actor in the scenario

The difference in our analyses seems to be that you presume one thing about the actor in the scenario, and I am presuming another. Perhaps the OP might weigh in? Is the salient factor that he is raising the ‘eating of meat’ or the ‘deliberate desire to contravene the obligation’? I agree that this presumption is the factor on which the analysis turns.

There is no need to analyse intent in the scenario presented since one arrives at the assessment without the need to do so.

However, you yourself noted that the intent is relevant, since you stated that an intent that betrays an odium fidei changes the analysis…

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I might disagree. You seem to concur:

The difference in our analyses seems to be that you presume one thing about the actor in the scenario, and I am presuming another. Perhaps the OP might weigh in? Is the salient factor that he is raising the ‘eating of meat’ or the ‘deliberate desire to contravene the obligation’? I agree that this presumption is the factor on which the analysis turns.

However, you yourself noted that the intent is relevant, since you stated that an intent that betrays an odium fidei changes the analysis…

Then you have not understood what I have written.

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

We are looking precisely at what the text says. That is what is decisive since it is the dispositive text. It legislates what aspect of Lenten observance binds gravely. That in turn is what is applied in answering the question of the original poster.

I did not speak in hyperbole. If one is acting “in utter hatred of authority,” like acting in odium fidei, it doesn’t matter what the expression is – the moral culpability resides in the act of hating of authority and the outward expression is largely beside the point. Presuming that is not the motivation for the actor in the scenario and presuming that the person has otherwise observed the Lenten fast and abstinence, this instance would not be a mortal sin.

There is no need to analyse intent in the scenario presented since one arrives at the assessment without the need to do so.

A note on the scenario. The character believes that eating the steak is a mortal sin. Since he firmly believes this to be true, yet eats the steak anyway, he would have committed a mortal sin regardless of the actual gravity of the act itself.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

A note on the scenario. The character believes that eating the steak is a mortal sin. Since he firmly believes this to be true, yet eats the steak anyway, he would have committed a mortal sin regardless of the actual gravity of the act itself.

No. His error in this instance does not alter the actual disposition of the law. A person does not commit sin for choosing to miss that Mass that they were sure they were obliged to attend but which, in fact, the law did not oblige. They were mistaken and there is no sin to absolve.

 

[frangiuliano115]

The reason why it is not simple is only for the fact that we are trying to discern Christ’s judgment of the heart, behind their actions. The reason a sin is deadly, is because they know it is wrong and do not have remorse for doing it. In a given situation, especially this hypothetical one about breaking a fast, we have to assume the man knew it is wrong, did it because of carnal desire, and then had no remorse for doing so!!! That’s a very strange thing for a “good standing” member of the Church, no???

Yep… “believe in me” does not mean merely agreeing with, or knowledge of something. It means following, obeying and trusting in the Charity given to us from above.

I used a passage from St Paul to Timothy earlier that I’ve always found significant:

Command this, so that they may be without reproach.*If any one does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his own family, he has disowned the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

By refusing to do what the faith compels us to do is a direct rejection of the faith. He is not an unbeliever, though. He is a believer who rejects what the faith is leading him to do.

1 John 5

“If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God*will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that.17All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.”

I don’t know how you come to a conclusion that stealing $20 is not Mortal, but $1,000,000 is? We have been telling you that it’s about knowing what is wrong, doing it, and having no remorse unto the end. If we have remorse and our desire/intention is to confess, then we are turning away from death and back to Him.

I know you want to simplify the bible, and reduce condemnation to “not believing in the savior”. But when we apply that faith to real situations in real life, we see there is a real direction to take. It’s not Faith Alone.

God is Spirit. If we choose the carnal, we reject the Spirit. Some rejection is in part, while some is wholly rejecting Him. Some people have ruined their consciences, while others have damaged.
Some sin puts damage into our relationship with Jesus, while some sin destroys our relationship.
Always remember that sin which leads to death is sin we have not turned from, and have basically called good. This is when our conscience has been seared to the point that it no longer leads to the conviction the Spirit has delivered to us.

Hi RC
Almost missed this.
I agree that remorse is necessary. ALWAYS. Every time we sin, remorse must be present to then be forgiven. I fail to see what this has to do with the gradation of sin, but we do agree on remorse.

Your relative up in your example is following Jesus command to feed the hungry (not in so many words) and to honor your mother and father, which includes other members of the family also. We are to honor ALL our family members, not just our mother and father.

I DO NOT wish you NOT to follow your faith. You MUST follow your faith. If we all go about doing what we wish, that is known as relativity. In the Christian faith we have rules that must be followed. What I’m saying is that rules MUST be followed. If you want to work at Apple, you must follow THEIR rules. Same. What I’m saying is that I don’t agree that a church, any church, could make up a rule to do something, and something of insignificance since not eating meat on Friday does NOT necessarily comport a sacrifice (it’s complicated) and then declare that if you don’t follow that rule it’s a mortal sin and you end up in hell. This goes beyond the scope of teaching mortal sin. It is morally unacceptable and dumbs down the concept of mortal sin - which represents a VERY GRAVE sin.

Regarding the conclusion re stealing $20 and stealing $a million - this is what the Catholic church teaches. I’m certain of this. Please check. Here we go to gradation of sin again, and why I think it’s wrong. You say that if you have remorse and confess you turn from death and back to him. You are either very lucky in sinning very little OR you are moving from death to life many times during the day.

I DO NOT want to reduce the bible to only BELIEVING in the Savior. That is the hyper grace movement and it’s wrong. I believe in the entirety of the bible. I believe what James says. Jesus said we are to BELIEVE and we are TO DO. Works must follow faith or faith is empty.

You say that if we choose carnal we reject spirit. RC, we have both in us, the carnal and the spirit. I asked you to explain carnal but you did not. Let me just say that when I choose carnal (sin) I am NOT rejecting spirit. I am FAILING in my attempt to follow the Holy Spirit’s guide. I am NOT abandoning the Holy Spirit. The book of Romans explains this perfectly. Try reading chapter 7 and the change in 8.

I believe that some sin could damage our relationship with Jesus. But the only thing that will destroy it is my REFUTATION of Him. As long as I stay close to Him, I feel safe.

But, yes, let’s remember that God will not be fooled! Sincerity is key.

FG

 

[frangiuliano115]

You say “AMEN” in the above state. But yet you criticize someone on their typo of “Church”… Just saying

Jimmy,
There’s only one type of Church. The Body of Christ.

You mean church. We should get this staight or it becomes difficult to converse. The argument could be made that it’s one and the same thing - but the RCC itself distinguishes, and then so should we.

I’m not criticizing the RCC. I respect it for many reasons. There are some churches I do not care for because they teach doctrine that is damning. But, even in those cases, I believe God will judge us on the light we will have received. He is a just God - how could it be any other way.

I could disagree with a concept of the church
I could agree with much
Heck, we even disagree with what some bible passages mean!

I’m just trying really hard to say that it’s not so easy to go to hell as eating a steak.

FG

 

[frangiuliano115]

It is a grave matter for a Catholic to not obey the precepts of the Church concerning fasts & abstinence. Whether this would be a mortal sin for the transgressor would require him to have full consent and full knowledge of the gravity of the sin, which is what I assume Father meant in his post.

Church with a lowercase “c” is for church buildings. Fasting & abstinence are disciplines which can change since it is not divine revelation but is a command from the Church to the faithful for their spiritual welfare. The Church’s teaching that murder is a mortal sin is not a discipline but is part of divine revelation, so the Church doesn’t have the power to change it. It is divine law for us to obey the Church’s disciplines, but the Church’s disciplines are not divine law.

Yes. Well, my point should be obvious by now and I will not repeat ad infinitum.

What I’m saying, is that church law should be respected and followed.

I’m saying that the whole idea of not eating meat on Friday is not valid, even as a community sacrifice.

But, leaving that aside, it MOST CERTAINLY SHOULD NOT BE CLASSIFIED AS A MORTAL SIN if I do NOT follow.

See? The CONSEQUENCE is beyond the scope of the CRIME.
There is NO BALANCE.
God is just.
The church, in this case, is not following God’s justice.
It is demeaning God’s justice.

Ditto for missing Mass. There are some here who will tell you you’re going straight to hell if you miss a Mass. Where is the intent of the heart here? How could it be so easy to get to hell?

Do we not realize what we’re saying??
Did Christ have to die on that bloody cross so I could end up in hell for missing one Mass?

I cannot say more than this.

FG

 

[frangiuliano115]

Interesting take on it, considering that we both looked at it the same way: we both said that what would make it grave (that is, in the context of a substantial observation (oops, sorry! – ‘substantialis observantia’ ) of the obligation), would be the intent: as you mentioned, it would be whether the hypothetical person’s decision was prompted “by utter hatred of ecclesiastical authority”. That’s a bit of hyperbole, of course; but it touches upon the salient issue – did the guy say “I know it’s Good Friday, and the Church says ‘no meat’” or merely “meh, I want a steak”? The OP indicates it’s the former: “he knows it is a mortal sin to succumb to his craving today but he willfully decides to eat one anyway”.

I agree that, perhaps, we’re not seeing the scenario in the same way – yet, our analysis of the salient issues seems to coincide (unless you see “utter hatred of ecclesiastical authority” in the Latin which you are quoting ). The issue, it seems, comes down to precisely what the OP is asking us: is it the ‘eating of the meat’ or the ‘obligation’ that’s in play here? You offer a reasonable hermeneutic: that of mercy. Yet, in quoting the text, you seem to substantiate a different hermeneutic: one of substantial adherence to a precept. These two seem at odds… at least in the hypothetical situation offered by the OP.

Quite. And, a first year theology professor would rightly offer that critique. Yet, we’re not asking what the text says… are we? We’re asking what the hypothetical situation is offering us for consideration. You and I seem to agree – although you seem unwilling to admit that this is the case: if the person, in his decision, is saying, “I want beef”, then that seems somewhat harmless; but, if they are saying, “I do not wish to conform to what the Church obligates me to do”, then there is a particular conclusion that may be reached.

(Unless, of course, you wish to say that, for those who ‘wish to conform’ five weeks out of Lent, but ‘wish to refuse to conform’ on another week, then there’s “no harm no foul.”)

I think I understand what you’re saying; and yet, if I may caricature it in order to probe how well it holds up, it seems that you’re suggesting that, at a Good Friday service, you wouldn’t blink at a priest who tells his flock, “hey… as long as you’ve substantially held to the observation of Friday abstinence during Lent, you might as well go out to your local steakhouse and enjoy a nice big porterhouse steak tonight!”. Is that consonant with your notion of ‘substantialis observantia’? If not, then how would you distinguish between these hypotheticals?

Gorgias,
I prefer a nice, big, juicy lobster tail
to a nice, big, juicy steak.

See? Pretty silly, isn’t it?
Do we follow a law because we wish to serve God?
In that case, we should REALLY fast on Good Friday.

Or we are making God into a fool…

FG

 

[frangiuliano115]

Please pardon my misinterpretation of what you said; I only read the bolded part of your post due to time constraints.

Now I am confused yet again about the Church’s abstinence laws. I tried reading Fr. Bertrams in L’Osservatore Romano, but that did not help. I am going to have to ask my confessor about this. The Church should just go back to the way things used to be.

NO CD

Things were not right before and I welcome any change that brings us closer to understanding God’s laws and God’s ways and the importance of the sacrifice Jesus made for us
So we wouldn’t even have to have pages of this discussion…

FG

 

[frangiuliano115]

We are looking precisely at what the text says. That is what is decisive since it is the dispositive text. It legislates what aspect of Lenten observance binds gravely. That in turn is what is applied in answering the question of the original poster.

I did not speak in hyperbole. If one is acting “in utter hatred of authority,” like acting in odium fidei, it doesn’t matter what the expression is – the moral culpability resides in the act of hating of authority and the outward expression is largely beside the point. Presuming that is not the motivation for the actor in the scenario and presuming that the person has otherwise observed the Lenten fast and abstinence, this instance would not be a mortal sin.

There is no need to analyse intent in the scenario presented since one arrives at the assessment without the need to do so.

It is NOT the hating of authority that makes one fail.
We have authority in the secular world and it’s right to have authority in the Christian world. Jesus was the ultimate authority - He passed that authority on.

What makes us fail is the sin nature or concupisense that is part of our moral fiber.
Praise the Lord the dominion of SIN has been put to death, but man will commit SINS till the day he dies and as long as we hold firm to our belief in Jesus, God will be a just judge. Some have never heard of Jesus, and He will still be a just judge. We are in His hands, after all - our abilities are limited beyond what the Holy Spirit reveals to us.

FG

 

[frangiuliano115]

I might disagree. You seem to concur:

The difference in our analyses seems to be that you presume one thing about the actor in the scenario, and I am presuming another. Perhaps the OP might weigh in? Is the salient factor that he is raising the ‘eating of meat’ or the ‘deliberate desire to contravene the obligation’? I agree that this presumption is the factor on which the analysis turns.

However, you yourself noted that the intent is relevant, since you stated that an intent that betrays an odium fidei changes the analysis…

God will know the intent and all the salient factors.