When in Rome ...

[AlanFromWichita]

1 Cor 9:19-27

Although I am free in regard to all, I have made myself a slave to all so as to win over as many as possible.
To the Jews I became like a Jew to win over Jews; to those under the law I became like one under the law–though I myself am not under the law–to win over those under the law.
To those outside the law I became like one outside the law–though I am not outside God’s law but within the law of Christ–to win over those outside the law.
To the weak I became weak, to win over the weak. I have become all things to all, to save at least some.
All this I do for the sake of the gospel, so that I too may have a share in it.
Do you not know that the runners in the stadium all run in the race, but only one wins the prize? Run so as to win.
Every athlete exercises discipline in every way. They do it to win a perishable crown, but we an imperishable one.
Thus I do not run aimlessly; I do not fight as if I were shadowboxing.
No, I drive my body and train it, for fear that, after having preached to others, I myself should be disqualified.

To me this is saying that we have the freedom to observe the cultural norms, customs of the people we are around. What about the religious customs? For example, in my freedom I can drink a beer during lunch hour, but my Southern Baptist friend is offended so I should abstain while with him. OTOH, I could be invited for lunch on a Lenten Friday by some person who doesn’t know God, and have a piece of meat placed before me. In this case, I should accept it and eat it without worrying matters of conscience.

I base my claim on 1 Cor 10:27-29

If an unbeliever invites you and you want to go, eat whatever is placed before you, without raising questions on grounds of conscience. But if someone says to you, “This was offered in sacrifice,” do not eat it on account of the one who called attention to it and on account of conscience. I mean not your own conscience, but the other’s. For why should my freedom be determined by someone else’s conscience?

Any comments?

Alan

 

[thistle]

1 Cor 9:19-27

To me this is saying that we have the freedom to observe the cultural norms, customs of the people we are around. What about the religious customs? For example, in my freedom I can drink a beer during lunch hour, but my Southern Baptist friend is offended so I should abstain while with him. OTOH, I could be invited for lunch on a Lenten Friday by some person who doesn’t know God, and have a piece of meat placed before me. In this case, I should accept it and eat it without worrying matters of conscience.

I base my claim on 1 Cor 10:27-29

Any comments?

Alan

Fridays outside Lent Catholics are not bound by any obligation to refrain from eating meat.
However, during Lent you may NOT eat meat on any Friday during Lent. This is an obligation that binds all Catholics and it is a grave sin to disobey. Your private interpretation of Scripture does not trump a Church teaching!

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Fridays outside Lent Catholics are not bound by any obligation to refrain from eating meat.
However, during Lent you may NOT eat meat on any Friday during Lent. This is an obligation that binds all Catholics and it is a grave sin to disobey. Your private interpretation of Scripture does not trump a Church teaching!

Thank you for your reply. One thing I did want to know is how the Church would treat such situations.

That said, how am I “interpreting” scripture? Does the scenario with the “unbeliever” in the 1 Cor 10 apply to today’s time – according to the Church? If so, then how does my example run afoul of Church teaching? If it does not, then what would be an example of where it would apply?

BTW, please do not take from my terseness that I am not interested in Church rules. Normally (I’m an engineer) I make all sorts of disclaimers and explanations such as this one so that I may not be misunderstood. I am striving to “get to the point” and make my posts short enough to be readable, because I myself am a slow reader and appreciate others’ not rambling on. Anyway, I guess this paragraph is an example of what I mean.

Alan

 

[Sirach2]

I just remembered a grave example a friend talked over with me. She was scheduled to go on vacation and her family did not feel that Sunday mass was important while on vacation. Should she abide by their wishes and not cause turmoil by insisting they take her to mass?

Another situation arose when a friend and her husband visited Disneyland and stayed at the hotel there. The nearest Catholic Church was several miles away and the only way to get there was by cab, costing $30 round trip. Her husband was adamant about not paying that much money just to get to mass on Sunday and refused to let her go. She went to confession, feeling that it was a sin.

In these cases, we are speaking about “believers” who choose to disregard a lawful commandment for pleasure. Your example is that of an “unbeliever” who would not be scandalized if you simply said, “I’m not allowed, but pass extra veggies, please.” The matter of food is neutral, UNTIL you discover that it was offered in sacrifice, or UNTIL you know that it is forbidden to you, as the lenten Friday abstinence would be.

Personally, I would refrain, believing that my example might edify my host. What would happen if one day they discovered the law of abstinence and remembered that you ate meat? Wouldn’t this person be scandalized and wonder why you ate it?

 

[Sirach2]

For why should my freedom be determined by someone else’s conscience?

After a second reading, this jumped out at me. This is not morally neutral, for you do not have “freedom” to eat meat on lenten Fridays; whereas, you have freedom to drink a beer at any time since it is not sinful.

Hope this helps clarify it a bit.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Sirach2, you raise some good questions. Thank you for your consideration of my issue.

In the case I’m talking about, I might suppose there was some food waste to the person who offers me a steak. The reason I was proposing was not because of convenience or pleasure, but as the “best” option, to conform to those we are around so that we may win them – the way Paul did.

I also see your point about “my freedom” which differentiates the beer example from the Lenten Friday example. That said, what does Paul mean here by telling us we should eat whatever is put before us by an unbeliever – and that we may accept such an invitation if we wish, clearly knowing the unbeliever may give us something forbidden? I assumed Paul was talking about food we were not theoretically supposed to eat or it doesn’t make any sense to me.

Alan

 

[Sirach2]

USCCB Commentary:

A summary of specific situations in which the eating of meat sacrificed to idols could present problems of conscience. Three cases are considered. In the first (the marketplace, 1 Cor 10:25-26) and the second (at table, 1 Cor 10:27), there is no need to be concerned with whether food has passed through a pagan sacrifice or not, for the principle of 1 Cor 8:4-6 still stands, and the whole creation belongs to the one God.

But in the third case (1 Cor 10:28), the situation changes if someone present explicitly raises the question of the sacrificial origin of the food; eating in such circumstances may be subject to various interpretations, some of which could be harmful to individuals. Paul is at pains to insist that the enlightened Christian conscience need not change its judgment about the neutrality, even the goodness, of the food in itself (1 Cor 10:29-30); yet the total situation is altered to the extent that others are potentially endangered, and this calls for a different response, for the sake of others.

The first two examples are morally neutral, as Paul indicated. But the Friday meat example is not neutral, and falls (IMO) under the third category.

The other wording that is significant is this: “If an unbeliever invites you and you want to go, eat whatever is placed before you…”

It depends on whether you know it is Friday and explain your restrictions before you accept the invitation. I’m not a theologian, so these are only my ways of handling this. You might need to speak to clergy or someone who can advise you about the personal morality of this decision.

 

[puzzleannie]

I Another situation arose when a friend and her husband visited Disneyland and stayed at the hotel there. The nearest Catholic Church was several miles away and the only way to get there was by cab, costing $30 round trip. Her husband was adamant about not paying that much money just to get to mass on Sunday and refused to let her go. She went to confession, feeling that it was a sin.

?

the nearest Catholic Mass until a few years ago was inside the Disneyworld property, in one of their hotels and now the Shrine of Mary Queen of the Universe is just outside the grounds, and I see buses from the resorts there regularly. We stay in a condo resort that has a van that takes anyone to any church in the area. I don’t know the situation at the California park, but am guessing there is a similar arrangement. Most vacation destinations at least in the US have Sunday Mass within a reasonable distance. If there is no way to get to Mass, there is no obligation, so it is not a sin.

None of this however is the topic OP has posed.

When in Rome, do as the Romans do, was originally attributed to St. Ambrose, bishop of Milan, where they had their own rites, and he was telling his congregants to follow the Roman rite when they were in Rome. So Paul’s message in 1 Cor is not a direct antecedent of that advice.

Paul is talking about what we would today called enculturation. That does not mean we water down binding Church teaching to conform to the culture, but that we act in the culture to conform it to the Gospel. In all matters that are not binding or do not conflict with Church teaching, or are not intrinsically immoral, the cultural norms can be followed by the concientious Christian.

Paul was speaking to Christians who like many of us today have to live and raise children in a culture, or even in our own families, which is not Christian. He also speaks directly to OP’s issue about respecting the sensibilities of those who are more sensitive and strict, as an act of charity. So if your Baptist friend is offended when those around him are drinking, the charitable person refrains from drinking in his presence.

In the matter of eating food sacrificed to the gods (which was then sold as common food in the marketplace for the people, Romans must have been thrifty people) Paul was speaking specifically to the issue that eating such food could be constituted as participating in the public worship of the gods by the scrupulous. He assured them that if their intent was not to dilute their Christian worship or participate in pagan rites, but simply daily nourishment, there was nothing wrong with eating the commonly available food. But by the same token, when eating with other Christians who would be scandalized, you would avoid it for their sake. But that would not mean it was okay for a Christian to indulge say in a Roman orgy, or a meal specifically intended as worship for the gods.

Dining out on a Friday in Lent is not the same thing. In charity we would do just as we would with any food on our plate offered by a hostess, which we cannot eat due to allergy or any other reason, simply eat around it, without comment or criticism. If we know we will be in that position we eat something allowable before we go out.

 

[JRKH]

the nearest Catholic Mass until a few years ago was inside the Disneyworld property, in one of their hotels and now the Shrine of Mary Queen of the Universe is just outside the grounds, and I see buses from the resorts there regularly. We stay in a condo resort that has a van that takes anyone to any church in the area. I don’t know the situation at the California park, but am guessing there is a similar arrangement. Most vacation destinations at least in the US have Sunday Mass within a reasonable distance. If there is no way to get to Mass, there is no obligation, so it is not a sin.

None of this however is the topic OP has posed.

When in Rome, do as the Romans do, was originally attributed to St. Ambrose, bishop of Milan, where they had their own rites, and he was telling his congregants to follow the Roman rite when they were in Rome. So Paul’s message in 1 Cor is not a direct antecedent of that advice.

Paul is talking about what we would today called enculturation. That does not mean we water down binding Church teaching to conform to the culture, but that we act in the culture to conform it to the Gospel. In all matters that are not binding or do not conflict with Church teaching, or are not intrinsically immoral, the cultural norms can be followed by the concientious Christian.

Paul was speaking to Christians who like many of us today have to live and raise children in a culture, or even in our own families, which is not Christian. He also speaks directly to OP’s issue about respecting the sensibilities of those who are more sensitive and strict, as an act of charity. So if your Baptist friend is offended when those around him are drinking, the charitable person refrains from drinking in his presence.

In the matter of eating food sacrificed to the gods (which was then sold as common food in the marketplace for the people, Romans must have been thrifty people) Paul was speaking specifically to the issue that eating such food could be constituted as participating in the public worship of the gods by the scrupulous. He assured them that if their intent was not to dilute their Christian worship or participate in pagan rites, but simply daily nourishment, there was nothing wrong with eating the commonly available food. But by the same token, when eating with other Christians who would be scandalized, you would avoid it for their sake. But that would not mean it was okay for a Christian to indulge say in a Roman orgy, or a meal specifically intended as worship for the gods.

Dining out on a Friday in Lent is not the same thing. In charity we would do just as we would with any food on our plate offered by a hostess, which we cannot eat due to allergy or any other reason, simply eat around it, without comment or criticism. If we know we will be in that position we eat something allowable before we go out.

As Always puzzleannie, you give good well balanced advice.

Primarily the point about meat during lenten fridays is the one that I personally would consider the most flexible. There can be many factors that figure into it. If there is a case where latitude is allowed for a “well formed conscince” I think this would be one.
There are matters of waht all is served, how “insulted”, or “humiliated” the host might be, the specific context of the meal etc.
If the person feels that eating the meat is a better and more christian choice than not eating it, pray over the matter quickly and then go ahead. But then also I’d mention it at confession as well.

I’m reminded of a wonderful story about a blessed priest, Father Solanus. Seems some friends of his were coming back from a vacation and stopped by to see him. It was Friday and there was a left over hot dog in the cooler in the trunk of the car. This hot dog had been bothering the husband of theis couple, but the wife ouls not allow him to eat it being Friday (pre-Vat II).
Anyway - long story short, the man mentioned it to Father Solanus who asked to see the hot dog. They went out and looked in the cooler. There was teh hot dog floating in about 2 inches of water.
“How long has it been there?”, asked Solanus.
“Couple of days father”, came the reply. Father looks closely in the cooler, and then straightens up.
“That’s long enough”, he quips, “call it a fish and eat it.”

 

[Sirach2]

the nearest Catholic Mass until a few years ago was inside the Disneyworld property, in one of their hotels and now the Shrine of Mary Queen of the Universe is just outside the grounds, and I see buses from the resorts there regularly. We stay in a condo resort that has a van that takes anyone to any church in the area. I don’t know the situation at the California park, but am guessing there is a similar arrangement. Most vacation destinations at least in the US have Sunday Mass within a reasonable distance.

Dear Puzzleannie,

I don’t know how this information was overlooked by that couple, or how long ago it happened. The husband indicated that the cab fare was unreasonable, taking advantage of tourists. Seems so to me, also. I’ll certainly forward this information to my friend, just in case she goes to Disney again. Thanks!

If there is no way to get to Mass, there is no obligation, so it is not a sin.

Our group tried to explain that to her, but I think she was a bit scrupulous. Her husband was sitting nearby, and it seemed to be a very heated point of dissention between them.