No legal obligation to do penance on Friday?

[JM3]

I quoted the article.

Look at it this way. The posted speed limit on a road is 35mph. You are doing 40 and drive past a police officer. He does not stop you. Because you are not fined, does that mean that the speed limit law has been abrogated?

 

[Rich_C]

I do not have time to find the link now, but I know the obligation stands. You are correct that the change was to allow alternative penances besides abstinence, not to abolish the obligation. Also, if I recall, Catholics are not allowed to make an alternative penance on Good Friday.

Fr. Z is situate in Rome, having the Vatican at his fingertips. He is solid and orthodox and just about every trad takes his word verbatim … except you.

But when more and more viable sources say the same thing, we can trust that their words are to be trusted. These servants of God are not advocating sinful actions such as you alleged with the example of contraception, but they have encouraged voluntary penance. You are using a flawed argument.

So unless a priest wears his credentials on his lapel and provides pages of documents to justify his priestly source of advice, you don’t have to listen to him?

Of course I’m glad that Father made it clear. It settled the scrupulosity matter unequivocally and provided an opportunity for me to help people who are reading this thread avoid misinformation and speculation whenever people opt to set aside the authority of a priest in favor of their own interpretation.

That’s the trouble with this TC forum. Too many people elevate their own ideas above the hierarchy and believe they have expertise to interpret complex legislation within the Church.

Well, I must admit I was wrong about the obligation. I read the USCCB document in good faith, and I misunderstood it (in my defense, no priest or catechist ever taught me one way or the other, so I had to figure it out on my own).

Also, in fairness, I agree with whoever said that its necessary to fact-check what father tells you these days, but in this case the priest who said the obligation is null was clearly right in the end.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Friend, you’re not looking at the whole picture here. Think about what you’re saying: Akin, Father Z, and EWTN all say there is no binding-under-pain-of-sin obligation to substitute another penance if one doesn’t abstain on Fridays.

These people may indeed all be wrong, but none of them is stupid, and - as you’ll see if you read below - they’ve already thought thoroughly about every point you raise.

I am not sure I see it being addressed.

Akin raises the argument from the 1966 document that it abolishes the obligation to do penance altogether. BUT, the 1966 document does not state that. It merely abolishes the obligation for Abstinence.

For Akin to go further, he needs to interpret more. This is why in the first link he appeals to a document from the conference in the 80’s and in the other link to authority as been given by Rome.

The problem for Akin is that his position relies upon his interpretation of these situations.

What I pointed out was that Akin spins the situations in his favor. BUT, a simple unbiased look in to the issue can see another entire line of interpretations which give the opposite result.

At this point, Akin thinks he still wins by saying that since there is no law, you still have no obligation. But this too is incorrect. There is the Canon law that binds the entire church. In the absence or lack of clarity with the local law, it seems more reasonable that one needs to assent to that binding the entire church rather than no obligation at all. So Akin is wrong on this point as well.

Now you raise the point of Akin,EWTN, Fr. Z vs. me. It is important to note that this argument only carries weight if you can show that all three of them are independent sources. Since none of them provide a reference, its honestly arbitrary.

It is possible that two of those are listening to the conclusion of the other or all three of them are drawing from an erroneous source. At that point, Me vs. EWTN / Fr. Z / Akin is really an invalid comparison.

At worst, their argument is ambiguous. Canon 14 self-evidently applies.

Actually no, this I feel is an error of Akin. IF the local law is not clear, you will still be bound by the Code of Canon law itself. So you will be bound by Canon 1250.

I have no clue how Akin actually thought ambiguity of local law meant no law at all regarding the subject.

Read the links Transformer gave. Akin considers and addresses this argument.

Actually he doesn’t. He argues in that link that Rome approving the 1966 document certifies this authority. BUT, he has to show that Rome actually interpreted the 1966 document that way he is saying. One could argue that Rome interpreted it the same way many Catholics have come to interpret and practice it through the years.

So its really Akin picking evidence for his favor.

He addresses that one, too.

Read carefully, he does not address this point in the context above. IF he admits that Rome interpreted it differently, then his initial case for the authority of Bishops collapses. Do you see what I mean now?

Your arguments are at best convoluted and most of the time already addressed by Akin’s analysis in those two links.

I suggest that you try to first forget everything written by Akin. Start fresh and look at the evidence. Akin spins his tale in favor of his. He honestly hasn’t considered the objection I present here as far as I can see.

look: please, please, please - in the privacy of your own mind and heart - ask yourself this question, and I beg you to be as honest with yourself as you are capable:

Do you really think it is likely that you are right while Akin, Father Z, and EWTN are wrong, even knowing that Akin and Father Z admit that they’re biased against the very position they have been forced to take on this subject, and do you really think that their arguments - all of them - are so self-evidently invalid that canon 14 doesn’t kick in automatically?

Both I addressed above.

To elaborate on Canon 14 again, it doesn’t kick in or even need to kick in. If the local law is unclear, go with Canon 1250. Canon 14 only kicks in to the law presented by the Bishop’s conference itself. NOT Canon 1250. Akin is clearly wrong here in saying that Canon 14 kicks in and therefore no penance obligation exists anyway.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Fr. Z is situate in Rome, having the Vatican at his fingertips. He is solid and orthodox and just about every trad takes his word verbatim … except you.

But when more and more viable sources say the same thing, we can trust that their words are to be trusted. These servants of God are not advocating sinful actions such as you alleged with the example of contraception, but they have encouraged voluntary penance. You are using a flawed argument.

So unless a priest wears his credentials on his lapel and provides pages of documents to justify his priestly source of advice, you don’t have to listen to him?

Of course I’m glad that Father made it clear. It settled the scrupulosity matter unequivocally and provided an opportunity for me to help people who are reading this thread avoid misinformation and speculation whenever people opt to set aside the authority of a priest in favor of their own interpretation.

That’s the trouble with this TC forum. Too many people elevate their own ideas above the hierarchy and believe they have expertise to interpret complex legislation within the Church.

Ok first, I am not even sure what you asking me to do here. There is no document in the Church that states that I must give full assent to Fr. Z. He might be the Pope’s right hand man. But there is still no obligation for me to give assent to his EWTN answer.

Second, you mention that Contraception is a sin while this is not. So my example is invalid. Did it occur to you that the person in that confessional might not actually feel that Contraception is a sin? He might rely on the priest he confesses to, just like you do on Fr. Z, to tell him what the Church actually teaches. So just as the priest in the confessional can mislead the person, so can Fr. Z. That was my point here.

The “trouble” you charge the TC forum with as I can see is that most people are aware that there have been many cases in the church where those with authority have mislead people. Some even through first hand experiences.

In the case of this issue, I am only saying that if Fr. Z had provided a source or a laid out argument, things would be clear. When he simply says, “this is what it means”, he might be drawing conclusions from Akin himself for all we know.

The logical argumentation in this case is very important because it is not the Pope speaking. It is Akin, EWTN, Fr. Z etc. None of them have any protection of infallibility. So if their logic falls, the conclusion falls.

To argue as Akin did, at that point, it means norms of 1966 are ambiguous at best so Canon 1250 kicks in

 

[Transformer]

I quoted the article.

Look at it this way. The posted speed limit on a road is 35mph. You are doing 40 and drive past a police officer. He does not stop you. Because you are not fined, does that mean that the speed limit law has been abrogated?

If art. 1 of the USCCB document were talking specifically about the discipline of Friday penance, it would say so. It is clear from context that it is not. It speaks about the universal guilt of all people and the consequent absolute obligation to do penance in some form at some time. It does not say a word about the day of the week. It goes on to say that “from the obligation to penance we can seek no exemption.” But if it were talking about the discipline of Friday penance specifically, that clause wouldn’t make sense, because there are absolutely exemptions from Friday penance: for example, when a solemnity falls on a Friday. So it must be talking about the general requirement incumbent on all people to do penance (at some point in some form), not the specific disciplinary obligation that hasn’t even been mentioned yet. It’s just silly to think art. 1 is talking specifically about the discipline of Friday penance.

As for the speed limit, sinning by violating a law of the Church isn’t like speeding. There is no cop, no human who needs to notice your offence; violating Church law culpably is always automatically a sin. How could willfully violating a binding law that Christ’s Church specifically imposes on me ever not be a sin? No; if Friday penance is a binding, obliging law in the United States, then violating it must be a sin.

I am not sure I see it being addressed.

Akin raises the argument from the 1966 document that it abolishes the obligation to do penance altogether. BUT, the 1966 document does not state that. It merely abolishes the obligation for Abstinence.

…

At this point, Akin thinks he still wins by saying that since there is no law, you still have no obligation. But this too is incorrect. There is the Canon law that binds the entire church. In the absence or lack of clarity with the local law, it seems more reasonable that one needs to assent to that binding the entire church rather than no obligation at all. So Akin is wrong on this point as well.

You’re misrepresenting what the Code of Canon Law of 1983 actually says. You’re implicitly assuming that the Canons impose a general obligation to do penance on Fridays and then, on top of that, an obligation to make that penance abstinence. You’re assuming that the Canons say something like “Everyone has the obligation to do penance on Fridays. Normally this penance must be abstinence, unless the bishops’ conference abolishes the abstinence requirement.” That is not what the Canons actually say.

Can. 1251 says “Abstinence from eating meat or some other food according to the prescripts of the conference of bishops is to be observed on all Fridays.” That’s it. The only obligation is abstinence. There is no “fall back” obligation to do some other penance, not unless the local bishops’ conference specifically says there is. Can. 1250 mentions, generally, that Fridays are times of penance, but it does not impose any specific obligation; only Can. 1251 imposes a specific obligation, and the only specific obligation is abstinence, plain and simple, not “abstinence or, barring that, other forms of penance.”

So if the USCCB document abrogates the obligation of abstinence, and does not specifically substitute another form of penance in its place, then there is no obligation, because the only obligation spelled out in the Canons is abstinence.

You say that if the local law in unclear then you should fall back on the universal law, but the only actual universal obligation is abstinence. There is no universal obligation to do some other penance. And the USCCB document very clearly abrogates the obligation of abstinence. So there is no universal law to fall back on.

Now, I’m willing to accept the argument that the USCCB document is unclear, and that it may have meant to merely substitute other forms of penance for abstinence (rather than simply abolish the universal abstinence requirement), or that Rome assumed that’s what the USCCB was doing. But you’re wrong to say that, in the absence of clarity on the part of the USCCB, we should just fall back on some clear universal law that we must do some other penance. There is no such universal law. The universal law is abstinence, plain and simple, and the obligation of abstinence was clearly abolished. So if the USCCB document (or Rome’s response to it) is unclear, Canon 14 does in fact kick in, and the obligation can’t bind.

 

[Eufrosnia]

You’re misrepresenting what the Code of Canon Law of 1983 actually says. You’re implicitly assuming that the Canons impose a general obligation to do penance on Fridays and then, on top of that, an obligation to make that penance abstinence. You’re assuming that the Canons say something like “Everyone has the obligation to do penance on Fridays. Normally this penance must be abstinence, unless the bishops’ conference abolishes the abstinence requirement.” That is not what the Canons actually say.

Can. 1251 says “Abstinence from eating meat or some other food according to the prescripts of the conference of bishops is to be observed on all Fridays.” That’s it. The only obligation is abstinence. There is no “fall back” obligation to do some other penance, not unless the local bishops’ conference specifically says there is. Can. 1250 mentions, generally, that Fridays are times of penance, but it does not impose any specific obligation; only Can. 1251 imposes a specific obligation, and the only specific obligation is abstinence, plain and simple, not “abstinence or, barring that, other forms of penance.”

So if the USCCB document abrogates the obligation of abstinence, and does not specifically substitute another form of penance in its place, then there is no obligation, because the only obligation spelled out in the Canons is abstinence.

You say that if the local law in unclear then you should fall back on the universal law, but the only actual universal obligation is abstinence. There is no universal obligation to do some other penance. And the USCCB document very clearly abrogates the obligation of abstinence. So there is no universal law to fall back on.

Now, I’m willing to accept the argument that the USCCB document is unclear, and that it may have meant to merely substitute other forms of penance for abstinence (rather than simply abolish the universal abstinence requirement), or that Rome assumed that’s what the USCCB was doing. But you’re wrong to say that, in the absence of clarity on the part of the USCCB, we should just fall back on some clear universal law that we must do some other penance. There is no such universal law. The universal law is abstinence, plain and simple, and the obligation of abstinence was clearly abolished. So if the USCCB document (or Rome’s response to it) is unclear, Canon 14 does in fact kick in, and the obligation can’t bind.

I am not sure its my misunderstanding here.

My point is that IF the 1966 law is ambiguous as Akin considers, then it does not logically follow that Canon 14 kicks in and therefore no obligation at all. That is the error I pointed out in the specific bit you quoted. So the faithful will have to turn to Canon 1250 onward of the Church.

You are attacking something else here. In other words, you trying to say that 1966 document is not ambiguous. But my response was for specific issue of it possibly being ambiguous. And on that matter, Akin is wrong.

As for what the issue you want to discuss, that I address differently. Akin has to show that the Bishops have the authority to remove a legal obligation to do penance completely. As Akin himself states, such permission is missing in Paenitimini. He tries to prove such authority exists by saying appealing to the 1966 document being approved by the Vatican. But as I said before, one can easily argue that the Vatican only accepted it because it interpreted it as many interpret it today i.e. permission to substitute other penances for abstinence (which actually is given permission for in the Paenitimini).

So honestly, it might well be that Rome will come out tomorrow and say “Legal obligation to do penance on Friday is waived in the US completely”. But, as far as Akin’s argumentation goes, his conclusion does not follow from the evidence.

 

[Transformer]

I am not sure its my misunderstanding here.

My point is that IF the 1966 law is ambiguous as Akin considers, then it does not logically follow that Canon 14 kicks in and therefore no obligation at all. That is the error I pointed out in the specific bit you quoted. So the faithful will have to turn to Canon 1250 onward of the Church.

You are attacking something else here. In other words, you trying to say that 1966 document is not ambiguous.

No, that was not my point. I am not arguing that the 1966 document is not ambiguous. I think that it is ambiguous.

I am arguing against your claim that if the 1966 USCCB document is ambiguous, then we simply default back to Can. 1250-1251 to get a clear law. That doesn’t work. We can’t just default back to Can. 1250-1251 because the only obligation that Can. 1250-1251 imposes is abstinence. Abstinence plain and simple. The abstinence requirement is clearly abolished by the 1966 USCCB document (regardless of whether that document simply abolishes it or substitutes other penances in its place). So there is no more universal law to default back to; the one and only one specific obligation imposed by the universal law has clearly been abrogated for the United States.

So we cannot default back to Can. 1250-51 if the local law is unclear, because the one thing the local law is clear about is that it abolishes the only obligation contained in the Canons.

Akin has to show that the Bishops have the authority to remove a legal obligation to do penance completely. As Akin himself states, such permission is missing in Paenitimini. He tries to prove such authority exists by saying appealing to the 1966 document being approved by the Vatican. But as I said before, one can easily argue that the Vatican only accepted it because it interpreted it as many interpret it today i.e. permission to substitute other penances for abstinence (which actually is given permission for in the Paenitimini).

Correct. The USCCB document is unclear, but it probably meant to abolish the abstinence obligation without substituting other penances in its place. The USCCB’s authority to do that is also unclear, but Rome may (or may not) have implicitly given that authority by accepting the USCCB document (depending on whether they saw it as substituting other penances in place of abstinence or not).

The whole point is that it’s ambiguous. it’s unclear. The USCCB document may have meant to substitute other penances in place of abstinence. Rome may have assumed that the USCCB meant to substitute other penances in place of abstinence. But we don’t know for sure. And if we don’t know for sure, then according to Canon 14, the law can’t oblige.

And, to repeat myself again, we cannot escape from this ambiguity in local law by defaulting back to the universal Canon Law, because there is no fallback obligation to do other penance in place of abstinence in Can. 1250-53. There is only the obligation to do abstinence, and that obligation has clearly been abrogated at the level of local law.

 

[Sirach2]

Eufrosnia,

Could we just skip all the b/s, conjecture, speculation and pedantry, and cut to the core?

Do you contend that it is a MORTAL sin, or even a VENIAL sin if one does not substitute a penance when they eat meat on Friday? Do you insist there is a binding obligation under pain of sin?

 

[Eufrosnia]

No, that was not my point. I am not arguing that the 1966 document is not ambiguous. I think that it is ambiguous.

I am arguing against your claim that if the 1966 USCCB document is ambiguous, then we simply default back to Can. 1250-1251 to get a clear law. That doesn’t work. We can’t just default back to Can. 1250-1251 because the only obligation that Can. 1250-1251 imposes is abstinence. Abstinence plain and simple. The abstinence requirement is clearly abolished by the 1966 USCCB document (regardless of whether that document simply abolishes it or substitutes other penances in its place). So there is no more universal law to default back to; the one and only one specific obligation imposed by the universal law has clearly been abrogated for the United States.

So we cannot default back to Can. 1250-51 if the local law is unclear, because the one thing the local law is clear about is that it abolishes the only obligation contained in the Canons.

Ok please listen to what you are saying here. First you say that 1966 law is ambiguous. Then you want to say that we can’t default back to Canon 1250 because it’s requirements was CLEARLY abolished by 1966 document.

So the issue here is that you need to make up your mind. If there is ambiguity in the 1966 law, then that is it. It is ignored completely and the faithful rely on 1250. You are complicating matters here more than necessary.

 

[Transformer]

Ok please listen to what you are saying here. First you say that 1966 law is ambiguous. Then you want to say that we can’t default back to Canon 1250 because it’s requirements was CLEARLY abolished by 1966 document.

Ah, I see how what I said was confusing. Here is my position on the 1966 document:

The 1966 document is clear in one respect, unclear in another.

It is clear insofar as it clearly abolishes the obligation to abstain. That part is absolutely clear (see art. 3 of the document). This is why we cannot default back to the Canons; the only obligation in the Canons is the obligation of abstinence, and that obligation is clearly abolished by the 1966 document.

The 1966 document is unclear insofar as it’s hard to tell whether they simply abolished the abstinence obligation without substituting anything in its place, or substituted the obligation to do some other form of penance in its place. That aspect of it is unclear. I tend toward Jimmy Akin’s position that they did not mean to substitute another obligation, but it doesn’t really matter. It is enough that it is ambiguous, and so Canon 14 kicks in.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

They did, as I understand it.

The language of that sentence - “Friday itself remains a special day of penitential observance throughout the year” - is not the language of an obligation that is being legislated.

I think your problem is the ‘bind under pain of sin’. Just because an obligation is no longer binding under pain of sin, does not mean that it is no longer an obligation.

Okay, fine. But you do realize, don’t you, that during Lent - and, in universal law, year-round - the obligation to abstain from meat is in fact a formal one that binds under pain of sin, just like the obligation to assist at Mass on Sundays and days of precept, etc.?

The very question we’re addressing here is whether or not it is true, as many believe, that there is still a canonically binding obligation, of the kind that Lenten Friday abstinence is, to do some form of penance on every Friday that is not a solemnity.

I agree there’s a general obligation to do penance, and that Fridays are the days normatively selected by the Church for such penance. If you are saying that you admit this obligation is not a formally legislated one that binds under pain of sin, then we are actually in full agreement.

I quoted the article.

Look at it this way. The posted speed limit on a road is 35mph. You are doing 40 and drive past a police officer. He does not stop you. Because you are not fined, does that mean that the speed limit law has been abrogated?

If the sign says, “We urge you to go no faster than 35mph!” then yes, the speed limit law has been abrogated.

Akin raises the argument from the 1966 document that it abolishes the obligation to do penance altogether. BUT, the 1966 document does not state that. It merely abolishes the obligation for Abstinence.

Indeed. And abstinence is what the obligation was. By abolishing the obligation, there no longer is one unless they clearly legislate another. They did not do so.

I am arguing against your claim that if the 1966 USCCB document is ambiguous, then we simply default back to Can. 1250-1251 to get a clear law. That doesn’t work. We can’t just default back to Can. 1250-1251 because the only obligation that Can. 1250-1251 imposes is abstinence. Abstinence plain and simple. The abstinence requirement is clearly abolished by the 1966 USCCB document (regardless of whether that document simply abolishes it or substitutes other penances in its place). So there is no more universal law to default back to; the one and only one specific obligation imposed by the universal law has clearly been abrogated for the United States.

This is the crux of your point, and I can’t find any way to reasonably disagree.

 

[JM3]

The language of that sentence - “Friday itself remains a special day of penitential observance throughout the year” - is not the language of an obligation that is being legislated.

I agree there’s a general obligation to do penance, and that Fridays are the days normatively selected by the Church for such penance. If you are saying that you admit this obligation is not a formally legislated one that binds under pain of sin, then we are actually in full agreement.

If the sign says, “We urge you to go no faster than 35mph!” then yes, the speed limit law has been abrogated.

1. Paragraph 22 is legislative language.

The speed limit law: Can. 1251 Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.

The USCCB (police officer) has abolished the penalty: Can. 1253 The conference of bishops can determine more precisely the observance of fast and abstinence as well as substitute other forms of penance, especially works of charity and exercises of piety, in whole or in part, for abstinence and fast.

The law is not abrogated and it does not say “we urge you”.

No one, who has said that the obligation to do penance is not abrogated, has said anything about being bound “under pain of sin”. That seems to be the flag waved by those who say no penance need be done.