Is Friday Penance Required?

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0501bt.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0501bt.asp[/url]

This is news to me. Akin argues that abstaining from meat on Friday is not required - in fact, nothing is required. Any thoughts on this article?

[Aloysius]

the problem with this interpretation is: the code of canon law gives bishops conferences the competency to offer some other penance NOT to say no penance at all is required. the USCCB does not have the authority to say "no one has to do anything on Friday" and, with that in mind, it is clear that that's not what they said. in exhorting people to replace it with some other penance, they followed their canonical place in giving a replacement penance. they did not have the authority to make nothing required, only the authority to offer something else. they did: they offered other options (basically do anything special you can blah blah blah ambiguity ambiguity ambiguity) and those options hold the force of law as replacements to the universal requirement of abstinence from meat.

the USCCB did not bind us under force of law, they offered ambiguous replacements which fit into canon 1251 as obligations.

"determine more precisely" does not cover complete abrogation of obligation. they can make it not a mortal sin not to do it, sure that would determine more precisely. but saying there is no obligation whatsoever is not "determining more precisely".

so while the Bishops of the US exhort us but do not bind us, the universal code of canon law DOES bind us to do what they exhort us to do. whatever the bishops' intentions, they do not have the canonical authority to completely abrogate any obligation on fridays. all Latin Catholics by universal law are required to have some sort of obligation for fridays.

[Colleen]

The article seems very legalistic to me. I am not convinced by his argument.

This is from CUF, and includes a quote from the Bishop's 1991 conference, which Akin quoted:

[url="http://www.cuf.org/Faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=61"]http://www.cuf.org/Faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=61[/url]

[quote]
Following Pope Paul VI’s directive, the U.S. Bishops decreed norms for U.S. Catholics in their November 1966 statement on penance.[4] The bishops maintained the traditional law of fast and abstinence on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday, and abstinence from meat on the Fridays of Lent.[5] They also rescinded the traditional law of abstinence under pain of sin for other Fridays. However, in accord with Pope Paul VI’s directives and Canon, no. 1249, [b]the U.S. faithful must do some sort of penance on every Friday,[/b] excluding Solemnities or a dispensation by their diocesan bishop. Abstinence from flesh meat maintained its primary place among recommended works of self-denial and personal penance from which the faithful may choose. Following are the condensed highlights of the U.S. Bishops’ 1966 statement, which the Bishops reaffirmed in 1991:

. . .

3. The traditional law of abstinence as binding under pain of sin, as the sole prescribed means of observing Friday, is hereby terminated as the [b]sole [/b]means of observing Friday. Among the works of voluntary self-denial and personal penance which we especially commend to our people for the future observance of Fridays, abstinence from flesh meat has first place. The bishops do so in the hope that the Catholic community will ordinarily continue to abstain from meat by free choice as we formerly did in obedience to Church law. Our expectation is based on the following considerations:[/quote]

To me this seems to say simply that abstinence from meat is not the only form of penance one can perform. I don't see this as doing away with it. And from the article I quoted, it clearly says that the faithful MUST perform some sort of penance.

Why is this even such an issue to Akin? Why do away with a great practice, even if he claims it is not required? To me this just seems an excuse for people to get out of it. I don't think that's what our faith should be about . . . finding loopholes to get out of growing closer to God.

Edited December 22, 2006 by Colleen

[Aloysius]

Akin is wrong and this artical very much bothers me because it may deceive people.

[Seven77]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1147505' date='Dec 22 2006, 05:51 PM']
the problem with this interpretation is: the code of canon law gives bishops conferences the competency to offer some other penance NOT to say no penance at all is required. the USCCB does not have the authority to say "no one has to do anything on Friday" and, with that in mind, it is clear that that's not what they said. in exhorting people to replace it with some other penance, they followed their canonical place in giving a replacement penance. they did not have the authority to make nothing required, only the authority to offer something else.
[/quote]

yeah...makes more sense.

i'm surprised at Akin. wow.

[Moneybags]

Here's VERY WRONG:

Code of Canon Law:


Canon 1251: "Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the episcopal conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday."

Canon 1253 provides an exception to the rule - and, perhaps, an explanation for the cultural shift: "The episcopal conference can determine more particular ways in which fasting and abstinence are to be observed. In place of abstinence or fasting it can substitute, in whole or in part, other forms of penance, especially works of charity and exercises of piety."

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

He had a response to criticisms on his blog. I'll link it when I have more time. I don't think he is correct either, given that the great majority hold a differing view.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Here it is:

[url="http://www.jimmyakin.org/2004/07/more_on_friday_.html"]http://www.jimmyakin.org/2004/07/more_on_friday_.html[/url]

[Moneybags]

I read the new article. Yep, he's still wrong.

[jswranch]

[quote name='St. Benedict' post='1148701' date='Dec 24 2006, 10:31 AM']
Here's VERY WRONG:

Code of Canon Law:
Canon 1251: "Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the episcopal conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday."

Canon 1253 provides an exception to the rule - and, perhaps, an explanation for the cultural shift: "The episcopal conference can determine more particular ways in which fasting and abstinence are to be observed. In place of abstinence or fasting it can substitute, in whole or in part, other forms of penance, especially works of charity and exercises of piety."
[/quote]

I am confused. How did Akin contradict these two canons?

[Aloysius]

[quote name='jswranch' post='1152978' date='Dec 31 2006, 03:39 PM']
I am confused. How did Akin contradict these two canons?
[/quote]
because 1253 does not give the bishops' conference the authority to abrogate the obligation, only to determine it more precisely and/or offer substitutions. anything the bishops conference does then places itself in the framework of the universal law such that the bishops' conference need not make it an obligation by explicitly stating a force of obligation because the universal law makes any and all clarifications and substitutions to friday penance obligatory

[jswranch]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1153843' date='Jan 1 2007, 03:18 PM']
because 1253 does not give the bishops' conference the authority to abrogate the obligation, only to determine it more precisely and/or offer substitutions.[/quote]

So it seems the USCCB abrogated the obligation even though they do not have permission to do so?

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

The USCCB document is from 1966, before the 1983 Code of Canon Law. Akin is arguing that despite the fact that Canon Law is newer, the USCCB document is still in force.

[Aloysius]

where he jumps leaps and bounds is in citing the fact that the document does not impose an obligation as if it abrogated the obligation

the document does not even say it abrogates the obligation (it would not have the power to do so in my opinion anyway), it merely states that it is not imposing an obligation. since the universal law imposes an obligation, it was never up to the USCCB to impose the obligation anyway.

it is not the mortal sin of disobedience, that weight of obligation has been lifted, but it is still an obligation of canon law and to disobey it would be to sinfully disobey, the Church merely no longer holds it as a command of grave matter.

[jswranch]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1156555' date='Jan 5 2007, 02:49 AM']
where he jumps leaps and bounds is in citing the fact that the document does not impose an obligation as if it abrogated the obligation

the document does not even say it abrogates the obligation (it would not have the power to do so in my opinion anyway), it merely states that it is not imposing an obligation. since the universal law imposes an obligation, it was never up to the USCCB to impose the obligation anyway.

it is not the mortal sin of disobedience, that weight of obligation has been lifted, but it is still an obligation of canon law and to disobey it would be to sinfully disobey, the Church merely no longer holds it as a command of grave matter.
[/quote]

Sorry if I am asking the dog to chase his tail again or to hijack but is it or is it not a grave matter to eat meat on fridays during lent? I understand it is. Our pastor is not sure it is even a venial matter.

[Franimus]

on Fridays in Lent, if you eat meat, it's fine (it's not sin) as long as you give up something else instead. That's the way I understand it.
What I don't understand is, are we obligated to be doing something (anything) every Friday, even outside of Lent? If so, how comes I never knew about it before?

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='Franimus' post='1161282' date='Jan 11 2007, 07:24 AM']
on Fridays in Lent, if you eat meat, it's fine (it's not sin) as long as you give up something else instead. That's the way I understand it.
What I don't understand is, are we obligated to be doing something (anything) every Friday, even outside of Lent? If so, how comes I never knew about it before?
[/quote]
The way I understand it is that what you described is the rule for outside of Lent. Lenten Fridays require abstaining from meat I think.

[Dave]

If I may comment on eating meat on Fridays in Lent ...

Yes, objectively speaking it's a sin to eat meat then, even if only a venial sin. An orthodox, holy priest I knew once said this -- that a single violation of Church law on that matter may not be a mortal sin, but general and substantial neglect to do penance is definitely serious matter.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Franimus' post='1161282' date='Jan 11 2007, 06:24 AM']
on Fridays in Lent, if you eat meat, it's fine (it's not sin) as long as you give up something else instead. That's the way I understand it.
What I don't understand is, are we obligated to be doing something (anything) every Friday, even outside of Lent? If so, how comes I never knew about it before?
[/quote]

It is a mortal sin to eat meat on a Friday in Lent is you were doing so intentionally. It is also a mortal sin to eat meat on Friday without doing some other penance.

[toledo_jesus]

actually, Akin is right. Nothing is [i]required[/i].

We are [i]encouraged [/i]to do something on Fridays. That word 'encouraged' should be visualized as pink and fluffy, surrounded by butterflies and pirouetting faires. yea, the fuzzy-wuzzy doodle bugs all rejoiced and danced in merriment.

And no meat is only for Fridays in Lent.

The bishops had perhaps too much faith in the common man's devotion.

edit to say that I abstain from meat every friday, and am generally disgusted at the lack of consideration displayed by the average layman.

Edited January 11, 2007 by toledo_jesus