Pork on Fridays in Lent?

[gelsbern]

NPS:

Mortal? Venial? The point is—Why hide your faith?!? Why let your faith depend on which way the wind blows?

Let me get this straight—Subtly ask for a different night because the Catholic Parish Liturgist might serve meat?!?Or if the Catholic Parish Liturgist is enough of blockhead that he serves pork, then the unprepared guests should gulp it down on the off-chance he or she may be “humiliated”?!? guffaw!
He should be embarrassed for putting his guests in such a predicament!

But it would be a mortal sin to tell your host you don’t eat meat on Fridays during Lent?!? double guffaw!!!

As if this is some intractable situation. Here’s a tip—eat everything but the meat! :banghead:

A sin against charity compared to breaking a discipline in which one is clearly given permission to break, even during lent. I dunno, I’d eat the pork.

 

[AugustineFL]

gelsbern:

This is now becoming very interesting, according to canon law, the substitution of another penance is only available for the Fridays outside of lent.

But then one has to ask, how many people are as scrupulous about no meat on Fridays for the rest of the year?

ewtn.com/expert/answers/fast_and_abstinence.htm

Yes, that is very interesting. Honestly I find that rather confusing and am not sure what to make of that. I’ve also gotten many conflicting interpretations of that from ‘experts’. Is it or is it not binding under pain of sin to do penance, be it abstinence or some other practice, on Fridays outside of lent. Some priest say it is grave matter and others say that penance on Fridays outside of Lent is highly encouraged but it is not sin if one does not do penance on Friday. A clear cut answer on that would be great. As it is I guess one must follow to the best of their ability what they believe they should do. I usually choose to abstain from meat…but have no problem consuming meat if I eat with others…or even if that is what we have for leftovers and they will spoil if we don’t eat them. During Lent it seems pretty clear cut that we must abstain so I do no matter what.

 

[AugustineFL]

gelsbern:

EDIT Again

It seems I may have been right in the first place.

from the same EWTN link

ewtn.com/expert/answers/fast_and_abstinence.htm

Those bishops think of everything!!!

I’ve seen that. But what would be ‘great offense’ or ‘enmity’? I see that as very restricted. If I’m a foreign diplomat in hostile Muslim territory I’ll keep that in mind. If I’m in a western country with a Christan history I’ll choose to educate my host and possibly offend them, though causing offense would not be the intent, just the unintended result. I can see how a ‘loop hole’ can be made here, though. Without a clear definition of ‘great offense’ or ‘enmity’ it can be interpreted widely.

With my knowing of people who gave their lives as martyrs to uphold such laws I tend to see great offense or enmity as a rather serious or almost never situation. Perhaps my interpretation is a bit old fashioned and from a time of chivalry and great honour that is now a thing of mere legend and tales. I tend to think being made a fool for Christ and suffering scorn is a noble thing; even if I’m not very good at taking such ridicule and scorn.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Duffy:

No, they were too surprised and kind of intimidated to ask him what’s up. In addition to being their host, and their parish’s liturgy director, this was also their choir director (this was a “thank you” dinner for the choir members), and a graduate student in theology. Needless to say the choir ladies were rather more deferential than is perhaps appropriate. And so far as I know, they’re not whispering behind his back. My wife just asked me if I knew a reason why this would be OK.

The problem here is that you never specified which Friday and so we are just guessing at possibilities.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

m134e5:

For that reason it is NOT a mortal sin- EVER!!! This seems quite pharisaical to me- violating simple charity to follow “the rules”. If you are invited to someone’s house on a Friday during Lent, you should try to avoid the situation entirely by subtly asking for a different night, or if they ask you what you like, say you like fish. Don’t go to someone’s house as their guest and refuse their food. That is just plain rude. If anyone did that to me, they likely would not be invited back- regardless of why they wouldn’t eat it. If they do it to mock your religion, that’s one thing- but not as an honest mistake. Jesus healed on the Sabbath…

I’m not interested in pleasing anyone but God!

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

gelsbern:

But God, (and I am assuming you are meaning the church) says Thou shalt not eat meat on Fridays, but if there is a reason you must eat meat (i.e. to be charitable to your host) then you may substitute some other penitent act.

Edit OOPS.

This is now becoming very interesting, according to canon law, the substitution of another penance is only available for the Fridays outside of lent.

But then one has to ask, how many people are as scrupulous about no meat on Fridays for the rest of the year?

ewtn.com/expert/answers/fast_and_abstinence.htm

EDIT Again

It seems I may have been right in the first place.

from the same EWTN link

ewtn.com/expert/answers/fast_and_abstinence.htm

Those bishops think of everything!!!

We are down to interpreting a bishops document looking for a loophole. However these parts stick out:

During Lent abstinence from meat on Fridays is obligatory in the United States as elsewhere.

**Those who are excused from fast or abstinence **Besides those outside the age limits, those of unsound mind, the sick, the frail, pregnant or nursing women according to need for meat or nourishment, manual laborers according to need, guests at a meal who cannot excuse themselves without giving great offense or causing enmity and other situations of moral or physical impossibility to observe the penitential discipline.

An Obligation is one that binds under Mortal sin, except in cases of **moral or physical impossibility. **This private dinner situation in my opinion does not fit the exception.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

gelsbern:

I have to wonder about this.

From what I can see, since the 1983 code of canon laws, eating meat on Friday is no longer a mortal sin as long as one replaces the penitential act with something else.

ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=463262&Pg=Forum6&Pgnu=1&recnu=7

However, a sin against charity i.e “love thy neighbor” by humiliating your host by reminding them that they forgot and served meat and either not eating the meal they worked hard to provide, or inconveniencing them to provide a separate meal just for you seems to me to be where the mortal sin would lie.

As a conscientious catholic, if I am invited to dinner I mention when first invited that Friday is a day of abstinence, which would give the host time to prepare for a proper meal.

Your confusing the thread by mixing the Fridays in Lent with Fridays outside of Lent requirements.

 

[slyboots]

Our family decided some time ago that meatless Fridays all year long were a good idea. We assumed that the reasoning was for penance. In other words we would eat no chicken, beef, veal, or pork on Fridays.
Well, unfortunately that has led to some exorbitantly expensive meals of crab legs, lobster, shrimp, and grilled salmon. Since we live far away from any coast seafood is rather pricey.
So we also tried eating non-fish type meals. This has led us to some delicious, but certainly not sparse, restaurant meals of pasta pimavera, eggplant parmesan, cheese enchiladas, chile relenos, etc.
So I guess what I am thinking now is that Friday should be a fast day all year long for me anyway. Abstinance has led to luxury.
Maybe no going out to dinner on Fridays. Maybe tomato soup and a cheese sandwich. Or beans and cornbread.
Believe me I do not advocate eating food which is distasteful. I will proabably never eat another tuna casserole in my life if I can help it.
But perhaps the idea of meatless Fridays needs to be re-thought. At least in my home.

 

[rwoehmke]

slyboots:

Our family decided some time ago that meatless Fridays all year long were a good idea. We assumed that the reasoning was for penance. In other words we would eat no chicken, beef, veal, or pork on Fridays.
Well, unfortunately that has led to some exorbitantly expensive meals of crab legs, lobster, shrimp, and grilled salmon. Since we live far away from any coast seafood is rather pricey.
So we also tried eating non-fish type meals. This has led us to some delicious, but certainly not sparse, restaurant meals of pasta pimavera, eggplant parmesan, cheese enchiladas, chile relenos, etc.
So I guess what I am thinking now is that Friday should be a fast day all year long for me anyway. Abstinance has led to luxury.
Maybe no going out to dinner on Fridays. Maybe tomato soup and a cheese sandwich. Or beans and cornbread.
Believe me I do not advocate eating food which is distasteful. I will proabably never eat another tuna casserole in my life if I can help it.
But perhaps the idea of meatless Fridays needs to be re-thought. At least in my home.

Here is a person with a capital idea. For most of us eating “fish” on Friday is no penance beyond maybe being inconvenient at times. For a vegiterian it certainly would not be penance either. I think under the circumstances the OP did the right thing, but then I would probably also assume that the choir director either forgot it was Friday or whatever, but not that he/she was maliciously serving meat. Do I believe in the idea of no meat on the Fridays of lent and obedience to the Church? You bet I do! Maybe its my family’s Jesuit training.

 

[maryjk]

rwoehmke:

Here is a person with a capital idea. For most of us eating “fish” on Friday is no penance beyond maybe being inconvenient at times. For a vegiterian it certainly would not be penance either. I think under the circumstances the OP did the right thing, but then I would probably also assume that the choir director either forgot it was Friday or whatever, but not that he/she was maliciously serving meat. Do I believe in the idea of no meat on the Fridays of lent and obedience to the Church? You bet I do! Maybe its my family’s Jesuit training.

I really dislike fish. Now, I can eat it. But I never really enjoy it.

Fridays, I eat fish. It is real penance for me.

I try to not go over to someone’s house on Fridays. I tell them that it is because I don’t eat meat on Fridays. And I tell them why, simply that I am Catholic. Sometimes we make plans for another day, sometimes they have a meatless meal.

I would have said something to the host. Something quietly, in the kitchen away from the others. “I am so sorry, I can’t eat meat. Its Friday.” He may have forgotten. It may have been March 17 and he may have been Irish.

 

[Sherlock]

It would not have necessarily been a “sin against charity” to kindly and politely inform the host that since it is a Friday during Lent, that you will happily and gratefully eat everything but the pork. It would have been a reminder to him, if he had simply forgotten, of that obligation. If he was a sincere Catholic he would have been grateful for the reminder, and, though perhaps somewhat embarrassed, some grace and humor on the part of all the people there would have smoothed that over. No humiliation required.

Gelsbern, as others have pointed out, you are confusing Fridays during Lent with Fridays outside of Lent.

 

[1ke]

Duffy:

Not wanting to be bad guests, and wondering if our liturgy expert knew something they didn’t, the guests ate the pork and didn’t question the host.

They should have asked.

Duffy:

But I’m questioning. I know that this isn’t right, and I have a hard time believing that this guy could simply have forgotten.

Why do you have a hard time believing this? Last Friday I made cheese manicotti for dinner only to put bacon bits on our salad… duh! My husband is then, “what’s this on the salad”… “bacon bits”… “what’s this on the salad?”… “baco-- oh, cr*p…”.

I mean, I couldn’t even remember it was Friday after specifically cooking a meatless dinner entree.

Duffy:

Is there some dissent about pork on Fridays? I wonder if he was making a point, and waiting for someone to question him. Does anyone know of any line of reasoning that claims that Catholics may eat pork on Fridays during Lent?

Why don’t you just ask him? I would not assume some sinister motive.

 

[NPS]

Sherlock:

It would not have necessarily been a “sin against charity” to kindly and politely inform the host that since it is a Friday during Lent, that you will happily and gratefully eat everything but the pork. It would have been a reminder to him, if he had simply forgotten, of that obligation. If he was a sincere Catholic he would have been grateful for the reminder, and, though perhaps somewhat embarrassed, some grace and humor on the part of all the people there would have smoothed that over. No humiliation required.

Gelsbern, as others have pointed out, you are confusing Fridays during Lent with Fridays outside of Lent.

Very well said. There’s no reason to automatically assume a “sin against charity” and that the host will be “humiliated”.
It’s rather a simple situation to handle. Any gracious host would be embarrassed that he or she put their guests in that difficult position. That goes (more than) double for a Catholic Parish Liturgist. Humiliated? Sure, if you’re a 11 year-old girl hosting a “tea party” to impress your friends—but a Catholic Parish Liturgist? Adults should act like adults. Hosts should be gracious to their guests. I know many people who, if they put their guests in that position, would not only not be humiliated, but would buy each one of their guests a little present in order to make an apology.

 

[NPS]

Duffy:

No, they were too surprised and kind of intimidated to ask him what’s up. In addition to being their host, and their parish’s liturgy director, this was also their choir director (this was a “thank you” dinner for the choir members), and a graduate student in theology. Needless to say the choir ladies were rather more deferential than is perhaps appropriate. And so far as I know, they’re not whispering behind his back. My wife just asked me if I knew a reason why this would be OK.

So if the person is the Liturgist of the parish, the Choir Director of the parish, and a graduate student in Theology, one can safely assume that he knew darn well that he was not adhering to the rules during Lent. If so, shame on him for putting his guests in that position. He obviously thinks nothing of the rules in this regard and probably thinks anyone who adheres to them is “old fashioned” etc etc.
I’ll take a guess and say that this man is much more interested in music than the church and has plenty of ideas about “changing the church for the better” and that if it were later pointed out to him that he put his guests in this uncomfortable position, he would likely say “Get over all that old-Church stuff !” or something similar.

This type of situation is exactly why people need to make a decision before something such as this comes up to be comittted to their faith even in the smallest of ways and actions. Always give thanks before meals, no matter who you are with. Always speak up when others are bashing your Church. Don’t be timid with the little Catholic things you practice. A priest we love mentioned off-handedly to my wife and I to always make the sign of the cross at dinner in a restaurant or with extended family or friends. When we do this, we often see other Catholics sort of nod and give a supporting look at us. Even non-Catholic Christians give us approving looks and smiles. Sure, it’s not some huge statement, but the point is to try to condition yourself to live your faith every day in every way. Courage in little things make you strong in your faith and prepares you for bigger tests which undoubtedly will come.

 

[1ke]

NPS:

So if the person is the Liturgist of the parish, the Choir Director of the parish, and a graduate student in Theology, one can safely assume that he knew darn well that he was not adhering to the rules during Lent. If so, shame on him for putting his guests in that position. He obviously thinks nothing of the rules in this regard and probably thinks anyone who adheres to them is “old fashioned” etc etc.
I’ll take a guess and say that this man is much more interested in music than the church and has plenty of ideas about “changing the church for the better” and that if it were later pointed out to him that he put his guests in this uncomfortable position, he would likely say “Get over all that old-Church stuff !” or something similar.

OR, he simply forgot/wasn’t thinking. Speculation of this sort is not very charitable at all.

The best course of action is to ask him.

 

[gelsbern]

Sherlock:

It would not have necessarily been a “sin against charity” to kindly and politely inform the host that since it is a Friday during Lent, that you will happily and gratefully eat everything but the pork. It would have been a reminder to him, if he had simply forgotten, of that obligation. If he was a sincere Catholic he would have been grateful for the reminder, and, though perhaps somewhat embarrassed, some grace and humor on the part of all the people there would have smoothed that over. No humiliation required.

Gelsbern, as others have pointed out, you are confusing Fridays during Lent with Fridays outside of Lent.

This is twice, someone has said I am confusing the differences, but there is indeed, even during lent there are certain things that will lift the obligation. Since it seems my one post was simply glossed over, and someone else use the paragraph different I figured I would break it down .

Those who are excused from fast or abstinence besides those outside the age limits:

1. Those of unsound mind
2. The sick,
3. The frail
4. Pregnant or nursing women according to need for meat or nourishment
5. Manual laborers according to need
   6.** Guests at a meal who cannot excuse themselves without giving great offense or causing enmity **
   7.Other situations of moral or physical impossibility to observe the penitential discipline.

I would suggest reading Paenitemini which is where the current canons were derived from.

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-vi_apc_19660217_paenitemini_en.html

The NCCB document published in 1966 titled On Penance and Abstinence

catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=5303

Like I said, it is confusing and it would be nice if they just put it back. I don’t even know after reading the NCCB document if there is pain of sin associated for breaking the abstinence.

As far as humiliated, while yes, on the outside the person might seem grateful that you reminded them after they did all the meal preparation that it was a day of abstinence, but inside, they would probably be kicking themselves all night, and would be embarassed that someone in their position forgot. As I stated I would err on the side of being charitable and eating the meal preapared.

 

[NPS]

1ke:

OR, he simply forgot/wasn’t thinking. Speculation of this sort is not very charitable at all.

The best course of action is to ask him.

Uncharitable to speculate further on a message board about an anonymous person? I’ll have to disagree.
The only one who knows the person directly says “I have a hard time believing that this guy could simply have forgotten.” He knows the person. We don’t. The person is a Liturgy Director, Choir Director and a graduate student in Theology. Chances are he knew that Fridays during Lent mean “no meat”.

The point is that this person put his guests in a difficult situation. Forgetting that you are not supposed to serve meat on Friday during Lent is not an unforgivable offense. Putting others in such a difficult position because you find the rules silly or old-fashioned is a different story. It is unfair to paint any guest who would politely decline to eat meat as “uncharitable”.

Either he forgot or he disregarded the rule–doesn’t matter. What is important is that people need to be mentally prepared for these type of situations.

 

[1ke]

NPS:

Uncharitable to speculate further on a message board about an anonymous person? I’ll have to disagree.
The only one who knows the person directly says “I have a hard time believing that this guy could simply have forgotten.” He knows the person. We don’t. The person is a Liturgy Director, Choir Director and a graduate student in Theology. Chances are he knew that Fridays during Lent mean “no meat”.

Yes, chances are he does know. Just as I know, and yet I still managed to put bacon bits on our salad last Friday-- I just got busy with work, and then throwing dinner together, I honestly just didn’t even think about it.

NPS:

The point is that this person put his guests in a difficult situation.

Only if he did this purposely.

NPS:

Forgetting that you are not supposed to serve meat on Friday during Lent is not an unforgivable offense. Putting others in such a difficult position because you find the rules silly or old-fashioned is a different story.

Yes, and my point is simply that no one can know which it is-- forgetfulness or dissent-- unless the OP asks the poor guy… the only one who can supply this answer.

NPS:

It is unfair to paint any guest who would politely decline to eat meat as “uncharitable”.

No one has done so. I said that speculating that he purposely served meat and actively rejects church teaching is uncharitable.

NPS:

Either he forgot or he disregarded the rule–doesn’t matter. What is important is that people need to be mentally prepared for these type of situations.

Yes, of course they do.

But subscribing nefarious motives to this person is unfair. The charitable thing to do would be to advise the OP to ask the guy about it, not speculate endlessly about possible motives.

 

[NPS]

I guess I am just over-reacting to this situation. The OP was put in a terribly difficult and unforeseen position. If it was any other person they were all going to dinner with, excepting the parish priest etc, the OP would obviously have asked the host before hand. And since they were in the position of assuming the host knew more than they did about it, they made an understandable decision. I find it hard to believe, however, that most people would automatically assume a “humiliation” for the host. Embarassment, yes, but humiliation? Such a grey area! Especially for this American Catholic culture who doesn’t give the second thought to any sort of penance or self-denial.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NPS
Chances are he knew that Fridays during Lent mean “no meat”.

1ke
Yes, chances are he does know. Just as I know, and yet I still managed to put bacon bits on our salad last Friday-- I just got busy with work, and then throwing dinner together, I honestly just didn’t even think about it.

Equating accidentally tossing a few bacon bits on top of a salad is different than asking 6 or 7 different people to dinner, probably a week -10 days in advance, deciding on and planning a meal, shopping for that meal, preparing for that meal, and cooking that meal. At least…to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NPS
The point is that this person put his guests in a difficult situation.

1ke
Only if he did this purposely.

Not logical. They were in a difficult position because of his actions regardless of motive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NPS
It is unfair to paint any guest who would politely decline to eat meat as “uncharitable”.

1keNo one has done so. I said that speculating that he purposely served meat and actively rejects church teaching is uncharitable.

Read the thread! Several people have said so. “Rude” “Uncharitable” “Sin against charity” “Would not be invited back”

1ke
But subscribing nefarious motives to this person is unfair. The charitable thing to do would be to advise the OP to ask the guy about it, not speculate endlessly about possible motives.

The host either did it accidentally or did it on purpose. The OP says he finds it hard to believe it was a simple mistake. If that is the case why only limit ourselves to the speculation regarding the guests? I notice no one has a hard time speculating or extrapolating upon the horrible humiliation the host would have felt and calling the act (which did not take place)of not eating meat on Fridays during Lent a sin against charity. I am not saying the person purposefully served them pork to “get them”. Most likely it is a case of the person is so used to not following that particular rule that it didn’t cross his mind. He probably has a great pork recipe and just went with it.

The bottom line is what “gelsbern” posted regarding the rules.
**6. Guests at a meal who cannot excuse themselves without giving great offense or causing enmity **
As I said at the beginning of this post–I don’t blame them for eating the pork.
But giving great offense and causing enmity? Hmm.

 

[m134e5]

Br. Rich SFO:

I’m not interested in pleasing anyone but God!

God mandated us to be charitable to others. This is not optional. It’s all over the Bible. All of what we do should help us grow in love for God and for our neighbor- and not be an impediment for others to grow in love for God and for their neighbor. That doesn’t mean you let yourself be walked all over, but it does mean that following rules that do no harm in and of themselves when you break them- other then that they are Church laws- does not excuse a person from common courtesy. It may be appropriate in some places to refuse food in such a situation. This is considered VERY rude around here.