People taught that lenten fasting is optional

[yellow8yellowM]

I know a lot of Catholics who claim they were taught in the 1990’s that lenten fasting and abstinence is optional.

How many of you were taught this, or have heard this from your peers, friends, or family?
Do you think like me that it was more likely that they misunderstood, or more likely that they were really taught this?
How do you answer these people, other than just telling them they are wrong and pointing them to the Catechism or Canon law?

 

[paperwight66]

What I do remember being emphasised over and over again, and still today, is what I believe. Fasting from unkind thoughts and actions, abstaining from laziness and injustice - those are far mor important than merely physical self-denial. The point was also made that fasting and abstinence without doing these ‘more weighty matters’, as Jesus put it when talking about the Pharisees and their tithing, carry the danger of pride

 

[SecretaryMonday]

It is good to fast/abstain from bad thoughts and actions. Its not specifically a Catholic thing; many non-Catholics try to do this too.

We are also required by canon law, if we are of age and not sick/pregnant/etc., to fast/abstain from food on certain days. Because we’re Catholic, which is really awesome.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

I don’t know anyone who was actually taught this. I know several who misunderstood or just decided to disregard. On the other hand. I do know people who were told that their own Lenten observances - giving up candy and the like - were vows. Perhaps when that misconception was cleared up people felt free to do what they liked.

 

[surritter]

To this day my parish explains the fast/abstinence in a somewhat mushy way:
In the bulletin right before Ash Wednesday they say that these practices are to be observed etc., but “they are not meant to bind under pain of mortal sin.”

That’s nice that they’re trying to downplay the fear/guilt factor, but you can see how many people would take that as license to blow off the entire thing. Shrug.

 

[curlycool89]

I know a lot of Catholics who claim they were taught in the 1990’s that lenten fasting and abstinence is optional.

Let’s make sure we’re on the same page here.

The fasting on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday is not optional, it is required under Canon Law (cf. CIC 1251), and abstinence from meat is mandatory on Ash Wednesday, Good Friday, and all Lenten Fridays (and possibly all Fridays depending on your country and the decision of the local Episcopal Conference. Again, see CIC 1251). These are generally binding between the ages of 14 and 60. Failing to observe these, with full knowledge that they are required, would be considered a sin (a sin of disobedience to legitimate authority), and most (maybe all, but I’m not going to look them all up to check) examinations of conscience I’ve seen classify these as a mortal sin.

“Giving something up” for Lent is, strictly speaking, optional. Lent is a time of penance and doing some kind of penitential act (like giving something up, like sweets for example) is strongly recommended but there is nothing prescribed that must be done (outside of what I laid out in the last paragraph). There is nothing, again strictly speaking, legally binding or binding upon your conscience to do so.

 

[babochka]

What I do remember being emphasised over and over again, and still today, is what I believe. Fasting from unkind thoughts and actions, abstaining from laziness and injustice - those are far mor important than merely physical self-denial. The point was also made that fasting and abstinence without doing these ‘more weighty matters’, as Jesus put it when talking about the Pharisees and their tithing, carry the danger of pride

Of course, this is true, but such things should not replace depriving ourselves of food, but accompany them. From St. John Chrystostom:

In other words, not only should the mouth fast, but the eyes and the legs and the arms and all the other parts of the body should fast as well. Let the hands fast, remaining clean from stealing and greediness. Let the legs fast, avoiding roads which lead to sinful sights. Let the eyes fast by not fixing themselves on beautiful faces and by not observing the beauty of others. You are not eating meat, are you? You should not eat debauchery with your eyes as well. Let your hearing also fast. The fast of hearing is not to accept bad talk against others and sly defamations.
Let the mouth fast from disgraceful and abusive words, because, what gain is there when, on the one hand we avoid eating chicken and fish and, on the other, we chew-up and consume our brothers? He who condemns and blasphemes is as if he has eaten brotherly meat, as if he has bitten into the flesh of his fellow man. It is because of this that Paul frightened us, saying: “If you chew up and consume one another be careful that you do not annihilate yourselves.”
You did not thrust your teeth into the flesh (of your neighbor) but you thrusted bad talk in his soul; you wounded it by spreading disfame, causing unestimatable damage both to yourself, to him, and to many others.

 

[godisgood77]

Seems to me that any sacrifice not freely given of ones own volition is meaningless.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

Let’s make sure we’re on the same page here.

The fasting on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday is not optional, it is required under Canon Law (cf. CIC 1251), and abstinence from meat is mandatory on Ash Wednesday, Good Friday, and all Lenten Fridays (and possibly all Fridays depending on your country and the decision of the local Episcopal Conference. Again, see CIC 1251). These are generally binding between the ages of 14 and 60. Failing to observe these, with full knowledge that they are required, would be considered a sin (a sin of disobedience to legitimate authority), and most (maybe all, but I’m not going to look them all up to check) examinations of conscience I’ve seen classify these as a mortal sin.

“Giving something up” for Lent is, strictly speaking, optional. Lent is a time of penance and doing some kind of penitential act (like giving something up, like sweets for example) is strongly recommended but there is nothing prescribed that must be done (outside of what I laid out in the last paragraph). There is nothing, again strictly speaking, legally binding or binding upon your conscience to do so.

But…not giving something up voluntarily for Lent…is a missed opportunity…and opportunity to grow in holiness.

 

[curlycool89]

Seems to me that any sacrifice not freely given of ones own volition is meaningless.

Not true.

Suffering itself can be a sacrifice, and most suffering is not freely chosen. Still, it has meaning as Mother Teresa always said.

But…not giving something up voluntarily for Lent…is a missed opportunity…and opportunity to grow in holiness.

Oh, absolutely. I would encourage people to give something up for Lent, but never as an additional stumbling block if its going to lead them to be scrupulous over whether or not they “miss” one day.

Also, one should not fast on Sundays, even during Lent. Sunday is the celebration of the Resurrection, even Lenten Sundays, so it is always fine to do whatever it is you were giving up that day (except if it’s something genuinely bad you’re giving up, like smoking. Then it would be counter-productive to not continue fasting from that).

 

[PatriceA]

I know a lot of Catholics who claim they were taught in the 1990’s that lenten fasting and abstinence is optional.

How many of you were taught this, or have heard this from your peers, friends, or family?
Do you think like me that it was more likely that they misunderstood, or more likely that they were really taught this?
How do you answer these people, other than just telling them they are wrong and pointing them to the Catechism or Canon law?

I think it depends upon where you live. Here in the US, we’re still required to abstain and fast on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday during Lent and to abstain the other Fridays of Lent. We are still required to observe some sort of penance on Fridays and greatly encouraged to abstain from meat on Fridays during the whole year, but the requirement is a bit laxed since Vatican ll. I think that’s where the “option” comes in for Catholics that grew up after Vatican ll and where the confusion begins.

 

[Brendan_64]

I live in the UK and, as far as I’m aware, abstinence fro meat is only compulsory on Ash Wednesday and good Friday.

As to it being a mortal sin to fail to observe this? I seriously doubt whether failing to abstain from meat would be considered a ‘grave violation of God’s law’ and would end up damning someone to Hell as a result.

 

[Corki]

To this day my parish explains the fast/abstinence in a somewhat mushy way:
In the bulletin right before Ash Wednesday they say that these practices are to be observed etc., but “they are not meant to bind under pain of mortal sin.”

That’s nice that they’re trying to downplay the fear/guilt factor, but you can see how many people would take that as license to blow off the entire thing. Shrug.

We get that odd verbiage too.

BUT 1) one of the precepts of the Church is to observe the days of fast and abstinence. 2) it is a grave sin to violate a precept of the Church SO how can someone willingly fail to observe the rules of fast and abstinence and *not *incur mortal sin?

 

[Corki]

I live in the UK and, as far as I’m aware, abstinence fro meat is only compulsory on Ash Wednesday and good Friday.

Not too long ago, the Bishops in the UK reinstated abstinence from meat on all Fridays that are not solemnities. Did they change back?

 

[Brendan_64]

As far as I’m aware it was ‘brought back’ as a practice to be very strongly encouraged and promoted, I don’t think it was compulsory (at least not to the point of it being sinful not to observe).

Anyway, I don’t think we should be doing or not doing things based on whether they are compulsory or even sinful to not observe. That kind of defeats the point. It makes little sense for something to be a grave violation of God’s law one week, whereas the week before it wasn’t.

 

[jmcrae]

I know a lot of Catholics who claim they were taught in the 1990’s that lenten fasting and abstinence is optional.

How many of you were taught this, or have heard this from your peers, friends, or family?
Do you think like me that it was more likely that they misunderstood, or more likely that they were really taught this?
How do you answer these people, other than just telling them they are wrong and pointing them to the Catechism or Canon law?

I can see how people might think they are being told that it’s optional when they hear Church leaders say, “Fast from gossip, it’s better than fasting from food,” and things like that.

I hope that the leaders are simply taking it for granted that everyone knows they have to fast from food, but if someone is a little hazy on the concept to start with, then it could really seem like the leader is telling them that they have a choice of things to fast from, or that fasting is optional.

We had an article in our Diocesan newsletter that was rhapsodizing on about the glories of fasting from various sinful behaviours during Lent, without ever mentioning the fact that fasting from food is still a requirement of the Church, and that there is no “instead of” involved - we fast from food by law and requirement, and then fast from other things by choice, in addition to fasting from food.

But anyone reading the article who was not familiar with Catholic law would have gotten the distinct impression that fasting from food is both optional and less desirable than fasting from these other things.

 

[jmcrae]

As far as I’m aware it was ‘brought back’ as a practice to be very strongly encouraged and promoted, I don’t think it was compulsory (at least not to the point of it being sinful not to observe).

Anyway, I don’t think we should be doing or not doing things based on whether they are compulsory or even sinful to not observe. That kind of defeats the point. It makes little sense for something to be a grave violation of God’s law one week, whereas the week before it wasn’t.

It’s not the fasting or not fasting in and of itself that makes it a mortal sin, but it is the obedience to your Bishop that is the virtue, and the disobedience toward your Bishop that is the mortal sin.

To disobey your Bishop in anything, no matter how trivial it may seem to you, is always a mortal sin.

 

[surritter]

As to it being a mortal sin to fail to observe this? I seriously doubt whether failing to abstain from meat would be considered a ‘grave violation of God’s law’ and would end up damning someone to Hell as a result.

I think you are missing a key point. The “grave violation” is not the actual eating of meat, but in the failure to obey God’s lawful authority here on earth.

Consider the analogy of a stop sign. If I fail to stop, and then receive a traffice violation, I probably know that the actual act of driving through an intersection is not intrinsically evil. But the fact that I disobeyed the government’s decision to erect a stop sign is the problem, whether I like their decision or not.

 

[Brendan_64]

It’s not the fasting or not fasting in and of itself that makes it a mortal sin, but it is the obedience to your Bishop that is the virtue, and the disobedience toward your Bishop that is the mortal sin.

To disobey your Bishop in anything, no matter how trivial it may seem to you, is always a mortal sin.

And if the Bishop has said that abstinence is to be strongly encouraged and promoted, rather than compulsory, then to not abstain is not sinful.

 

[jmcrae]

And if the Bishop has said that abstinence is to be strongly encouraged and promoted, rather than compulsory, then to not abstain is not sinful.

If he says it’s “strongly encouraged” then go ahead and do it.

After all, if your boss, who has less authority over your life than your Bishop does, were to say to you, “I strongly encourage you to [whatever],” you would certainly do it, wouldn’t you?