From a reader…
QUAERITUR:
I would like to offer an alternate point of view on Friday abstinence. The often referenced allowance by the U.S. Bishops, to do some other unnamed act instead of abstaining from meat, was agreed on in the 1960s. However, the 1983 code of canon law does in its first one or two sections, squash everything from before (including all such permissions, etc., about which there is a different and also interesting argument not immediately pertinent to this point). Therefore, the U.S.C.C.B. having not renewed any such permission since the new code was promulgated, there is no current allowance for substitution of Friday abstinence. Unfortunately, the current situation is not favorable to law. I believe that the law ought to be known, such as it is.
After consultation, I respond saying:
The 1983 Code didn’t “squash everything from before”.
The 1983 carefully, almost surgically, abrogated things that would be contrary to the newly promulgated Code. The 1966 treatment of the USCCB on the subject of Friday penance was not contrary to the provisions of canon 1251, and so it remains in force.
It is an arguable point whether this is a good development.
Has it moved the Catholic faithful in the United States beyond a mere totemistic avoidance of beef, pork, chicken, and buffalo?
Are the Catholic faithful embracing the need to do penance in commemoration of Our Lord’s Passion and death?
There is one sector, of which some pundits speak dismissively because it’s “tiny”, which seems to have moved to a healthy view and embraces penance.
And the GO TO CONFESSION!
The law, such as it is, retains it’s force. Catholics in these United States are perfectly free to choose a penance other than abstinence on all Fridays of the year except those of Lent where abstinence is required. Solemnities on Friday … penance is inconsistent with the occasion.
Feast of the Sacred Heart… MEAT FRIDAY.
Loading ...
New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, 2000, p. 1448 (commenting on canon 1253):
“Fasting and abstinence must be observed everywhere on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday, but for other Fridays and the season of Lent the conferences of bishops have broad competence to establish both obligatory and recommended penitential practices. In the United States, fasting on all weekdays of Lent is strongly recommended; on all Fridays of the year the NCCB recommends abstinence from meat, prayer, penance (especially by eating less food), and almsgiving for the sake of world peace. Abstinence from meat is obligatory on all Fridays of Lent.”
(Footnote cites: NCCB, pastoral statement, November 18, 1966, CLD 6, 679-684, NCCB, The Challenge of Peace: God’s Promise and Our Response 298, May 3, 1983.)
The Pastoral Companion: A Canon Law Handbook for Catholic Ministry, 5th edition, 2016, p. 373:
“In the USA, Catholics who are obliged to abstain from eating meat must do so on Ash Wednesday and all Fridays during the season of Lent. Those obliged to fast must do so on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday (NCCB, pastoral statement, Nov. 18, 1966, CLD 6:679-684). Self-imposed observance of fasting on all weekdays of Lent is strongly recommended. Abstinence from meat on other Fridays of the year is recommended but not required. Also recommended on all Fridays of the year is prayer, penance (especially by eating less food), and almsgiving for the sake of world peace (NCCB, The Challenge of Peace: God’s Promise and Our Response, May 3, 1983, no. 298).
“In Canada, the days of fast and abstinence are Ash Wednesday and Good Friday. Friday are days of abstinence, but the faithful may substitute special acts of charity or piety on this day (CCLA, 1672).”
No, alas, 1983 Code didn’t squash everything from before.
And here is how I read the quotes I have typed above:
What is left from pre-1983 in the U.S. includes this: on Fridays, outside of Good Friday and the Fridays of Lent, much is recommended but nothing at all is required. And while clearly in Canada (as seen above) the faithful can substitute other acts, in the U.S. no such substitution is described (however much people may claim otherwise).
So it appears to me: in the U.S., on Fridays, outside of Good Friday and the Fridays of Lent, much is recommended but nothing at all is required.
So I read it. Am I reading it incorrectly?
Pingback: FRIDAY EARLY-MORNING EDITION - BIG PULPIT
Reverend Father, with respect, but I disagree to that:
Solemnities on Friday … penance is inconsistent with the occasion.
No. We are perfectly free to make do what the law allows; but a solemnity on a Friday is, for those who want, perfectly consistent with penitential practices, even the usual ones (excepting of course if they would be undertaken for scrupulosity or conscious holierthanthouism). And as a matter of fact, a feast like the Sacred Heart is actually rather penitential (or reparational) in its design (as a look on the indulgenced actus reparationis makes clear).
In fact, I can number a couple of reasons why not to eat meat on the feast of the Sacred Heart.
1. “I’m inspired by the harder penitential practices of my forebears, who would have abstained (the Sacred Heart being no feast of precept), so I do so as a private practice.”
2. “The people around me may have heard about Catholics tending to not eat meat on Friday, and may have noticed me not doing so on Fridays, but they do not know the liturgical Calendar.”
3. “I want to offer up my abstention as an expiatory sacrifice to the Sacred Heart.”
4. “I know that Solemnities go with ‘no obligation of abstinence’; but then solemnities also are ‘you really ought to go to Mass’ occasions even if without precept. But I won’t be able to do the latter. So I’ll at least do abstinence.”
5. Especially combined with fasting (and a bit at the risk of being flippant, but I actually do think that this is legitimate thinking): “I find that I need to lose some weight, and that only works when I do sacrifices for God. And after all, penance for sins really is something I ought to do, so I will offer it up for that purpose even though it’s admittedly not the immediate trigger of me doing so.”
6. “On the Sunday, there’ll be the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul. That’s a feast with a Vigil, and Vigils (though this one has been dispensed from even in the 1917 CIC) traditionally come with fasting and abstinence. But I won’t be able to do that on Saturday because I’m invited to a barbecue, hence I’ll sort of anticipate the abstinence (and perhaps even the fasting) on Friday which, after all, is a Friday. I couldn’t anticipate if it were mandatory, of course; but it isn’t, so I’m free to do as I choose.”
And probably a couple of others.
Is it, also, fine to say: “It’s a solemnity. Let’s celebrate it with a fine steak (or sausages or what not), to the honor of God and because we’re allowed?” Of course it is. Just that a more (superficially at least) arduous path is allowed doesn’t mean it’d be the tiniest sort of mandatory.
FISH ON FRIDAY! Catholics throughout the world were known for this.
Fish has been a symbol of our faith from the beginning. I will make you fishers of men. If a man can fish, he will never go hungry.
In Marxachusettts, on the Statehouse ceiling, hangs the SACRED COD.
We were until recently allowed to fish.
Now you must have a license to drop a line into the ocean. Does it surprise me?
When the took away the sacrifice, the took away the sacred.
Arguably, it’s more penitential now because it’s not legally observed, and no longer widely known that “Catholics don’t eat meat on Friday.” Many a time have I been to a party, potluck, or restaurant event on a Friday and had to content myself with substandard fare while in the presence of delicious foodstuffs.
(That being said, I did eat meat today though I hadn’t planned so; the canteen had run out of the vegetarian option. I know that this used to be yet another exception back in the day, but still: funny that this happens on a solemnity of all days…)
As someone interested in “the rules”, not for the sake of following them but because they are what allows the game to be played, I am always fascinated by how people translate “the rules” into how they play the game.
There is a lot to be desired in modern Canon law — it is too vague and too exacting at the same time; ie too much “it is suggested” and “this is automatic even if you don’t know about it” that can leave people in the pews unsure of what exactly they should be doing and unsure people gravitate towards not doing anything because that is the path of least resistance.
I think that what people forget about is that praying, penance, fasting, alms giving, are mandatory in the Catholic life — you have to do them because that is what a Catholic life entails, just like eating, breathing, and thinking about things is part of what a human life entails. But as there is quite a bit of flexibility in what we eat there is quite a bit of flexibility in when and what we penitentially abstain from (the key part is penitentially because we can abstain from things for the sake of abstaining which doesn’t merit us anything b/c it is not tied to Christ).
The modern western Church can be real weak sauce when it comes to fasting/abstinence. Friday isn’t the only traditional day of fasting/abstinence in the western Church but we have forgotten about the others and can be more than a little bit limpwristed in how we fast/abstain and even gravitate towards making it an excuse for gluttony; ie. for how many is the Friday Fish Fry the most extravagant meal of the week, outside of perhaps the Sunday meal?
So law and spirit can be a problem — modern law is too vague and the spirit when the law is exacting easily misses the mark. Yes I know “figure it out” but most people cannot “figure it out” and will just default to sloth’s option. “I’m doing “this” — please join me in doing “this”” is how we moved from local laws is how practices organically moved from local practices to being canon laws.
To wit, while I am prone to argue that one can be penitential on a solemnity (being mindful of how the East answers such questions), Fr. Z is a much holier individual than I am, so it is better to follow his example than my own, ie to play the same game according to the same understanding of the rules as he (who has has much success in doing so), and there by perhaps gain a fraction of a share of the prize that he has found. After all, that is why the game is played — to win the laurels.
If one runs well, do what they do. If they run poorly, don’t do what they do.
I agree with the original questioner:
Can. 6 §1. When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated:
1/ the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;
2/ other universal or particular laws contrary to the prescripts of this Code unless other provision is expressly made for particular laws…
The 1966 U.S. document is contrary to canon 1253 because the latter enjoins abstinence from meat on every Friday unless it falls on a Solemnity, and only gives episcopal conferences the option of changing the penance to abstinence to another type of food (this is a provision for particular law that abrogates even the well-known clause in the 1966 document allowing substitution of another type of penance apart from abstinence from food).
Some seem to forget that we were told, if you eat meat make another sacrifice.
How did that work out? What’s next? If you can’t make it to Mass on Sunday, go sit in the woods because God is everywhere.
bourgja wrote, “the well-known clause in the 1966 document allowing substitution of another type of penance apart from abstinence from food”
No, there is no such clause in the document. There is just one use of the word “substitute”– not allowing it, but simply referring to it.
Here is the 1966 document:
https://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/liturgical-year-and-calendar/lent/us-bishops-pastoral-statement-on-penance-and-abstinence
What do we read?
In para. 24: “…we hereby terminate the traditional law of abstinence binding under pain of sin, as the sole prescribed means of observing Friday…”
In para. 25: “…our people are henceforth free from the obligation traditionally binding under pain of sin in what pertains to Friday abstinence, except as noted above for Lent…”
If the 1966 document stands, then, I believe, in all Fridays of the year outside of Good Friday and Lent, much is recommended but nothing is required.
Dear Not,
in fact, some people are legitimately excused from the Sunday obligation. (At present, this includes even without any further excuse all those who have been to Mass on Saturday evening – rather similar to the Friday substituion allowance in that the good practice of pious Catholics is in either case to only use that concession for exceptional reasons, but then hopefully without scrupulosity about it. But that is an aside. This concession is new, but some such excuses have always existed.)
The thing is, the excused ones are then indeed recommended (probably, under the Third Commandment, required) to substitute some other prayer. And for those that find it helpful, they can, in fact, go to the woods for that purpose.
Dan G, thank you for the correction. The U.S. bishops in 1966 did clearly encourage voluntary penance on Fridays, with abstinence from meat having pride of place, but suggesting many other types (hence the term substitution which is referred to implicitly many times in the document even if used only once explicitly). My main point, though, is that the 1983 Code supersedes the 1966 document and indeed all particular laws related to abstinence prior to 1983 that contradict it. The Code makes it clear that “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.” The U.S. bishops have not determined a different type of food for abstinence on Fridays, hence we are obligated by the 1983 Code to abstain from meat on Fridays (except again for Solemnities).
Dear bourgja,
while can. 1251 does appear to take about a type of food (“abstinentia … vel ab alio cibo”), can. 1253 is very clear that episcopal conferences can substitute abstinence entirely or in part (ex toto vel ex parte pro abstinentia … substituere). That’s a “provision expressly made for particular laws”, right? (The fact that we, on the whole, would probably wish for this concession not to have been given is of no relevance here.)
Dear Imrahil,
Got it. You have convinced me that canon 1253 does encompass the 1966 document as a provision for particular law in accordance with canon 6. I also agree with all aspects of your parenthetical assessment.
I am a bit late to this thread, but I wanted to comment on a key mistake in the original question, which states “the U.S.C.C.B. having not renewed any such permission since the new code was promulgated.” This is incorrect – the decree of promulgation can be found in the Complementary Norms for the United States: https://www.usccb.org/committees/canonical-affairs-church-governance/complementary-norms
As the page explains: “The Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II in 1983 contains eighty-four canons that call for or permit legislative action by the episcopal conference. Since that time the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (designated the National Conference of Catholic Bishops prior to July 1, 2001) has taken action on twenty-nine canons, thereby establishing particular legislation for the dioceses of the United States.”
Here is the relevant text for Friday abstinence, which shows that the 1966 guidelines are still in force:
Canon 1253 – Observance of Fast and Abstinence
Complementary Norm: Norms II and IV of Paenitemini (February 17, 1966) are almost identical to the canons cited. The November 18, 1966 norms of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops on penitential observance for the Liturgical Year continue in force since they are law and are not contrary to the Code (canon 6).
Approved: Administrative Committee, September 1983
Promulgated: Memorandum to All Bishops, October 21, 1983
Amended: “… the age of fasting is from the completion of the twenty-first year to the beginning of the sixtieth” (Paenitemini, norm IV) is amended to read “‘… the age of fasting is from the completion of the eighteenth year to the beginning of the sixtieth’ in accord with canon 97.”
Promulgated: Memorandum to All Diocesan Bishops, February 29, 1984
(See On Penance and Abstinence, Pastoral Statement of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, November 18, 1966)