W
waanju
Guest
Apparently this issue is one where people often find themselves miscommunicating.
My bolding seems to imply that it’s a venial sin. It’s NOT. Poor choice of bolding 
Thanks for clarifying!
- Status
My bolding seems to imply that it’s a venial sin. It’s NOT. Poor choice of bolding Thanks for clarifying!
E
Eufrosnia
Guest
This is a very good question. If I may ask, which confessor should I trust? I know of confessors who say that contraception is not a sin or masturbation is not a sin. As much as I appreciate the thought, the matter boils down to following Church teaching rather than the confessor.
So this issue I think is pretty clear as far as I can see. Akin made a mistake in reading in his position to the evidence. This second article he wrote on the issue might be helpful for you
jimmyakin.com/2004/07/more_on_friday_.html
As he claims in the article, Pope Paul VI’s document does not give or mention any authority for the Bishop conference to waive the obligation on Friday. Hence he assumes the authority is given (or implicitly confirmed to exist) by the act of Rome accepting the 1966 document.
The issue is that the 1966 document by itself is somewhat ambiguous on whether the Bishops waived the obligation itself. So one can argue that Vatican simply approved the 1966 document because it seemed consistent with the Pope Paul VI’s document.
Akin wants us to think that the Vatican approved something that was not mentioned in Paul VI’s document. This begs the question as to why such an authority was never included in that document regarding penance.
I understand. But apologist make errors. There errors are then read by many more.
Akin has tried to make everyone who reads him believe that there is no legal obligation for penance on Friday. He even takes it a step further by saying that the best solution for Catholics is to not consider it a legal obligation till Rome speaks.
Both are erroneous.
E
Eufrosnia
Guest
The problem here is that did the good Reverend answer after reading Jimmy Akin or did he actually refer to some authority? As far as I can see, he doesn’t refer to any authority so I am not sure how conclusive it is, no?
P
PJM
Guest
Here’s what it ALL means:
Friday’s EXCEPT for LENT where abstinence still applies has been abrogated to a personal pious action. Good but not demanded.
HOWEVER in its place one IS TO preform some other fast, charity or other good work in
lieu OF having permission to eat meat.
Because this deals with “Church practices”; Bishops are empowered to do this.
God Bless,
Pat
G
George_Stegmeir
Guest
Nit picking arguments such as this reminds me of Christ’s admonition to the Pharisees about their paying more attention to the observation of the Law than to its meaning.and intent.
S
Sirach2
Guest
The problem here is that did the good Reverend answer after reading Jimmy Akin or did he actually refer to some authority? As far as I can see, he doesn’t refer to any authority so I am not sure how conclusive it is, no?
And you truly proved my point. Trust your own conscience and do what you think is best, but kindly refrain from influencing others that your way is the only right way — too many others with higher authority than yours contradict you. I’m totally surprised that you would not take Fr. Z’s opinion, but your doubt and nonacceptance was predictable.
For a long while, EWTN had publicly promoted on TV the idea that it is mandatory to do a substitute penance on Friday if meat is eaten. Although my confessor had previously told me it was not a sin, I developed a serious scruple over it from EWTN’s ads. Wrong opinions are very harmful to souls I am utterly grateful that Fr. Z clarified this as recently as last month.
T
Transformer
Guest
I think the clincher in Jimmy’s argument is canon 14, which he cites here:
jimmyakin.com/2004/07/more_on_friday_.html
jimmyakin.com/2004/07/more_on_friday_.html
So, if an obligation is ambiguous, it can’t oblige under penalty of sin. I think the complexity of the question and the positions of Akin, Fr. Z, and EWTN are sufficient, at the very least, to make the obligation ambiguous. Therefore it can’t bind under penalty of sin. Am I wrong here?
E
Eufrosnia
Guest
Sure, but I am just being technical here since Akin is trying to be technical. No harm done, is there?
E
Eufrosnia
Guest
I was merely asking for some reference to an authority. And NO! It is not about trusting my conscience. It is about doing what is taught and dictated by the Church. My conscience matters little in this issue.
Or are you glad to hear what you wanted to hear? See, without any reference by Fr. Z to some authoritative source, assenting to what he says is like assenting to the priest who tells you contraception is ok. It might make you feel liberated afterward but it doesn’t defeat the fact that he was in error and lead you to error.
E
Eufrosnia
Guest
I think canon 14 only applies if Akin can show ambiguity. The problem for Akin is that Paul VI’s document he cites suggests that the Vatican already had a notion of what powers it was giving to the Conference. So the Conference doesn’t have the authority to change it beyond that.
Akin then suggests using the fact that Rome confirming the 1966 document as validation for existence of such an authority. But here Akin is mistaken. It might well be that Rome agreed with the 1966 document because it saw what it permitted in it i.e Rome interpreted it the way contrary to Akin’s. The fact that Paul VI’ths documents lacks any such authority further strengthens that. So the law is honestly clear if Akin reads it in context rather than tries to read back his interpretation to it.
Now if as Akin suggests, the local law is not clear. It still will not allow someone to simply ignore the Canon Law that is binding on the entire church. He/She will have to fall back to the Canon Law of the Church. What Akin suggests to do seems even more worse in this sense. Rome HAS spoken through its Canons. So when it doubt, the faithful should fall back to that. Not do their own thing.
S
Sirach2
Guest
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.
T
Transformer
Guest
As you say, it might be that Rome accepted the 1966 USCCB document because they didn’t think the document abolished the obligation of penance. But it also might be that they recognized that the document abolished the obligation of penance, and they were willing to allow the USCCB to do that. I can see why you would favor the first alternative, but I can’t see how you can possibly deny that the situation is ambiguous.
I think Jimmy’s argument that the text of the 1966 document abolished the penance obligation is absolutely solid, and so I think the ball was in Rome’s court to clarify if the USCCB could not, in fact, do that. Rome accepted the document without any criticism or clarification of any kind. That makes it a solidly defensible position to hold that the penance obligation was abolished for the United States. If both that position and its contrary are defensible, then the situation is definitely ambiguous, and the obligation can’t bind.
J
JM3
Guest
Just out of curiousity, how is this ambiguous?
T
Transformer
Guest
The article you’ve quoted refers to the general obligation of all sinners to do penance because they’re sinners; it’s a very general introductory article. It is not an explicit affirmation that the discipline of Friday penance remains binding under penalty of sin.
At any rate, my last post there is in direct reference to Jimmy Akin’s (somewhat elaborate) argument, and it won’t make sense to anyone who hasn’t read Jimmy’s argument at his blog.
jimmyakin.org/2004/07/since_tomorrow_.html
jimmyakin.com/2004/07/more_on_friday_.html
F
Fone_Bone_2001
Guest
You are incorrect. Please see this thread for more info.
A professional canon lawyer who personally advises the Curia has definitively asserted that the vigil Mass on Saturday evening can fulfill either obligation (though not both).
If you wish to discuss this matter further, I encourage you to join in the discussion in that thread.
No, your argument is quite solid.
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. Furthermore, none of them is in favor of laxity:
Akin specifically says (see Transformer’s links just above) that he wishes Friday penance were still canonically binding, and Father Z directly expresses his desire that the bishops simply reinstate mandatory Friday abstinence from meat.
Yet these and other sources confidently assert that no binding-under-pain-of-sin obligation to do some sort of penance on each individual Friday exists in the United States.
At worst, their argument is ambiguous. Canon 14 self-evidently applies.
Read the links Transformer gave. Akin considers and addresses this argument.
He addresses that one, too.
Your arguments are at best convoluted and most of the time already addressed by Akin’s analysis in those two links.
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?
That the faithful are obliged to do penance and that Friday remains a special day of penance does not logically necessitate the conclusion that the proper authorities have formally legislated a clear and therefore binding-under-pain-of-sin obligation to do some form of penance on every Friday except solemnities.
J
JM3
Guest
Divine law is a general obligation? I don’t understand that.
By changing “abstinence” with “penance”, It would appear that you are reading into it more than what it says.
No matter what anyone says, whether Fr Z, Jimmy Akin or what have you, it is the USCCB that has the authority to interpret their document and say what their intentions are. Anything else is just talk.
T
Transformer
Guest
Yes, the obligation of all us sinners to do penance for our sins under the divine (natural?) law is general in the sense that, if there were no specific Church discipline requiring Friday penance, it would be acceptable to do your penance on whatever days of the week you saw fit. There is nothing intrinsic about Friday that makes it incumbent on people to do penance on Friday (under pain of sin); it is the mandatory day of penance (for the Latin Church generally) because the Church says so, not because the divine or natural law says so.
No one is pretending the USCCB document says “penance.” Canon 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.” The USCCB document clearly abrogates this requirement of abstinence; it does not clearly substitute the obligation to do some other penance in its place.
Correct. Unless the USCCB comes out and says “You still have to do penance” or “You don’t still have to do penance, it’s just highly recommended,” the situation is ambiguous. An ambiguous law cannot bind under pain of sin according to Canon 14 (“Laws, even invalidating and disqualifying ones, do not oblige when there is a doubt about the law.”). Therefore, this obligation cannot bind under pain of sin.
J
JM3
Guest
They did, as I understand it.
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.
T
Transformer
Guest
Where? In what article? The USCCB document says “we urge all to prepare for that weekly Easter that comes with each Sunday by freely making of every Friday a day of self-denial and mortification” (art. 2). It uses the language of exhortation when it comes to Friday penance, not obligation.
Again, I can see how you would favor the interpretation that the bishops or Rome meant the obligation of penance to remain in place. I can’t see how you could possibly deny that the situation is ambiguous, and that the contrary position is also at least plausible, thus causing canon 14 to kick in.
For one thing, canon 14 says that an ambiguous law cannot oblige, it does not say that it “can oblige, but not under pain of sin.”
But anyway, are you saying that it would not be a sin at all, not even a venial sin, if a Catholic in the United States knowingly did no penance on Friday? What is the consequence of not doing penance on Friday then?
- Status