Dear FrDavid96,
[for the sake of the 6000 character limit, I removed the opening paragraphs]
A careful reading of the particular law of the United States indicates that, while Fridays remain days of penance, outside of Lent it is not mandated that the faithful perform an individual act of penance.
The U.S. bishops terminated the abstinence requirement and did not put anything (even “choose your own penance”) in its place.
On that, I completely disagree. Indeed, I must take issue with it. The Conference did no such thing because that’s not what the document actually says.
What it says is
24. Among the works of voluntary self-denial and personal penance which we especially commend to our people for the future observance of Friday, even though we hereby terminate the traditional law of abstinence binding under pain of sin,
as the sole prescribed means of observing Friday, we give first place to abstinence from flesh meat…
It is simply not accurate to say that those 2 sentence have the same meaning:
“The U.S. bishops terminated the abstinence requirement” is not the equivalent of “we hereby terminate [abstinence] as the sole means of observing Friday”
The two statements are simply not saying the same thing.
[again, removed for the sake of space]
God bless everyone, and have a blessed Triduum and Easter season!
Part 1:
Then indulge me in a question:
A restaurant has a sign that reads “cash only.” That means exactly that. No checks, no cards, no credit. Cash only.
One day, the restaurant removes the “cash only” sign and replaces it with this: “we have cancelled our cash-only policy.” Now, if we use the language of the US bishops, let’s say that the restaurant said “we hereby terminate our policy of cash as the sole prescribed means of settling your bill.”
Now, my question is this: since the restaurant terminated its policy of allowing cash as the sole means of settling my bill, am I to infer that I am no longer obligated to pay for the food that I eat when I dine there? Does it mean that (a) the food is now free, as the obligation to pay has been abrogated, or does it mean that (b) I can now use a different form of payment, but I still have an obligation to pay?
If you say that the answer is (b), then I would like an explanation of why it might be the case for a restaurant but not the case for what the US bishops said?
Part 2:
Let’s look at the laws:
Canons 1250 to 1253 say that
–Every Friday is a day of penance (save solemnities). Canon 1250
–Abstinence from meat is to be observed on every Friday, unless the conference of bishops determines otherwise. Canon 1251
Now, canons 1250 and 1251 are two separate canons that speak of two separate (although certainly related) obligations. 1250 expresses an obligation for penance, while 1251 expresses an obligation to abstain from meat.
Let’s take note of the difference between the obligation for penance under 1250 and the obligation for abstinence under 1251.
Then we read canon 1253:
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.
Let’s look at what those words say:
- The Conference can determine more precisely fast and abstinence
- The Conference can substitute other forms of penance
That’s what they can do. What they cannot do is completely abrogate the obligation of Friday penance. They don’t have the authority to do that because the canons do not give them that authority. They can only substitute other forms of penance, but not remove the obligation itself.
At no point in the 1966 Pastoral Statement (which we can be confident has force-of-law as no one disputes that) actually say that the US bishop’s conference abrogates or otherwise releases from the obligation of penance under (what is now) canon 1250. No such sentence exists.
And that really is the heart of the matter. The US bishops never actually said that they were abrogating the Friday penance. It’s just that simple: they never said it.
Now, the only way for me to “prove the negative” in this case is to type out the entire document (which I won’t do). Short of that, there’s just no way to prove that there is no such sentence in the bishops’ statement. However, what I can do is to ask that anyone who claims that such a sentence (or 2 or more) is there to actually show it. Quote the sentence. Quote the words. Where do they say it?
The Pastoral Statement is, after all, the law of the Church. If one claims that the law says something, then it should be rather straightforward to show where the law says it by quoting the actual words.
Admittedly, the bishops did not specify any particular substitutes for abstinence as the means of satisfying the Friday penance requirement. However, the lack of a list of available substitutes does not equate to abrogating the penance itself.
Perhaps, if the current canon 1253 existed in 1966, the bishops might have added a sentence to make things more clear that one may substitute something else. Yet even this is not necessary because they did say:
22. Friday itself remains a special day of penitential observance throughout the year…
Which clearly indicates that they are *not *attempting to abrogate the Friday penance. They would not say “Friday remains” while at the same time abrogating the very thing.
PS: Yes, my post is a bit redundant at times. It took a while to type this as I was going back-and-forth from the desk. Please forgive any unnecessary repetitions. It appears that at times I forgot that I already said that.
