Author Topic: Meat on Friday (Read 2531 times)

Änσnymσus · « **on:** June 28, 2013, 10:01:47 PM »

Today, I was traveling with my boss all day in a fairly remote area. We had made plans for lunch that didn't materialize, so we had to stop at a drive-thru. As it was Friday, I had a hard time figuring out something I could eat that would keep me until six or seven hours later for dinner.

The only non-meat items on there were such things as side salads, ice cream, and fries. The ice cream seemed like a bad idea considering the restroom options en route were highly limited, and fries and salad weren't substantial enough to keep me full and head-ache free.

So I decided to order the chicken snack wrap, which was the smallest thing (least meat) on the menu that made sense, but unfortunately and obviously was not meat free. I had no desire to break the Fri. abstinence law but it seemed to make the most sense. I didn't enjoy it- wasn't like I was craving it and caved in to temptation or something. Given the choice, I'd have picked a meat-free option.

The problem is now I am feeling guilty since I did have other options, I just chose to not use them because I didn't want to have to put up with hunger, headaches, or a full bladder for six or so hours. Honestly, compared with Our Lord's agony on the cross which we abstain from meat on Fridays in His honor, as a penance, it seems like a poor reason now.

Is this a venial or mortal sin, and how should I deal with this type of situation if it comes up again in the future? I plan on mentioning it in Confession but would like to hear what others have to say.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #1 on:** June 28, 2013, 10:48:18 PM »

I would say that you should go and confess it and don't think about it again.

When you're in similar situations in the future, simply deal with the hunger pains and offer them up. No reason to turn this into more than it is. Certainly not a mortal sin.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #2 on:** June 28, 2013, 11:30:17 PM »

I talked to a priest once and he told me that you can eat meat while traveling if nothing else is available. However, there are places that serve fish sandwiches and other places that serve seafood.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #3 on:** June 28, 2013, 11:57:10 PM »

Taco Bell has bean burritos and you can order them with extra cheese.

You also had the option of doubling up on the french fries.

Now that the deed is done, go to confession soon and plan ahead or willingly go without next time.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #4 on:** June 29, 2013, 12:59:10 AM »

This was posted in this subforum recently on this same topic:

The following are excused from the law of abstinence:

"Children under the age of seven, those who have of come to the use of reason, those who cannot without grave inconvenience get abstinence fare, those who cannot abstain without considerable difficulty, whether of health, time, expense, the sick, the convalescent, the very poor, those who require meat foods for the sake of health or work, those engaged in hard manual work, wives and children, who, by abstaining, would incur the serious anger of the father of the family, vagrants who live on what they can beg, members of the armed forces during service, that is, so long as the are members."

From: Moral and Pastoral Theology, Davis, 1952, p. 125.

Tiffany · « **Reply #5 on:** June 29, 2013, 03:40:33 PM »

Sometimes we don't have much choice especially when we aren't in control of our traveling/surroundings. It's good you were considerate of where the other person wanted to eat too.
Jiff To Go Peanut Butter cups travel well. I think McDonalds offers a side of apples you could dip them in there or keep an apple on you. Trail Mix & bags of nuts travel well too. Wendy's has baked potatoes - when we ate at Wendy's I would pay a little extra for shredded cheese on them.
Trying to analyze a fast food billboard style menu in 30 seconds from the passenger seat doesn't really let you find alternatives!

Tiffany · « **Reply #6 on:** June 29, 2013, 04:02:24 PM »

Quote from: Guest

Taco Bell has bean burritos and you can order them with extra cheese.

You also had the option of doubling up on the french fries.

Now that the deed is done, go to confession soon and plan ahead or willingly go without next time.

I don't know about Taco Bell but some refried beans are made with animal fat.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #7 on:** June 29, 2013, 07:02:43 PM »

Quote from: Tiffany

Quote from: Guest
Taco Bell has bean burritos and you can order them with extra cheese.

You also had the option of doubling up on the french fries.

Now that the deed is done, go to confession soon and plan ahead or willingly go without next time.

I don't know about Taco Bell but some refried beans are made with animal fat.

Lard used in cooking does not violate the abstinence law.

Tiffany · « **Reply #8 on:** June 29, 2013, 07:49:35 PM »

Quote from: Guest

Quote from: Tiffany
Quote from: Guest
Taco Bell has bean burritos and you can order them with extra cheese.

You also had the option of doubling up on the french fries.

Now that the deed is done, go to confession soon and plan ahead or willingly go without next time.

I don't know about Taco Bell but some refried beans are made with animal fat.

Lard used in cooking does not violate the abstinence law.

Why can't you have soup from an animal bone?

Sigismund · « **Reply #9 on:** June 29, 2013, 09:10:38 PM »

Because there will almost certainly be actual meat in the soup. Not much maybe, but some.

Pheo · « **Reply #10 on:** June 29, 2013, 11:32:26 PM »

Hmm, I was always under the impression that lard wasn't allowed under the 1917 Code. Here's a line from Dominic Prummer's Handbook of Moral Theology (1956):

Quote

“By flesh meat is meant... blood, lard, broth, suet, the marrow of bones, brains, kidneys [but not] condiments made from animals fats]”

I'm not sure what condiments he had in mind - maybe he does mean just as a cooking fat? Things that bared no resemblance to meat, like gelatin (definitely no meat flavour or even colour in that stuff), were allowed.

Sometimes I wonder about these concessions in general though. It seems they were only allowed as a result of the long, slow decline of the Church's laws regarding fasting and abstinence. In The Liturgical Year, Dom Gueranger says that drippings and other animal products were only starting to be allowed in some areas, but his description also makes it clear this was completely foreign to the traditional Catholic notion of fasting. Fasting and abstinence were always understood to go hand-in-hand. And abstinence meant just that: no animal products.

I'm not saying that anyone is sinning by following the 1917 laws, and obviously Holy Mother Church has the authority to modify her own laws, but I'm really not sure what good these relaxations accomplished. Sure, they're far better than what happened to the laws post-VatII, but that holds true for...well, everything.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #11 on:** June 30, 2013, 01:06:34 PM »

Quote from: Pheo

Hmm, I was always under the impression that lard wasn't allowed under the 1917 Code. Here's a line from Dominic Prummer's Handbook of Moral Theology (1956):

Quote
“By flesh meat is meant... blood, lard, broth, suet, the marrow of bones, brains, kidneys [but not] condiments made from animals fats]”

I'm not sure what condiments he had in mind - maybe he does mean just as a cooking fat? Things that bared no resemblance to meat, like gelatin (definitely no meat flavour or even colour in that stuff), were allowed.

Sometimes I wonder about these concessions in general though. It seems they were only allowed as a result of the long, slow decline of the Church's laws regarding fasting and abstinence. In The Liturgical Year, Dom Gueranger says that drippings and other animal products were only starting to be allowed in some areas, but his description also makes it clear this was completely foreign to the traditional Catholic notion of fasting. Fasting and abstinence were always understood to go hand-in-hand. And abstinence meant just that: no animal products.

I'm not saying that anyone is sinning by following the 1917 laws, and obviously Holy Mother Church has the authority to modify her own laws, but I'm really not sure what good these relaxations accomplished. Sure, they're far better than what happened to the laws post-VatII, but that holds true for...well, everything.

It is not worth speculating on what good the Church's law accomplished. Our only duty is to trust the Church, as a young child would trust his mother. Whatever the Church has done cannot harm us, the Church is holy and good.

It may only be after we die, if we save our soul that we may see the wisdom and goodness of the Church's easing on the fasting and abstinence laws.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #12 on:** June 30, 2013, 02:04:21 PM »

...Poche?

In any case, I wasn't speculating - I just said I couldn't see what good was accomplished.

-Pheo

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #13 on:** June 30, 2013, 07:34:45 PM »

In this age of hyper-carbohydrate junk food consumption perhaps the eating of lard and meat condiments is more akin to abstaining.

Cheryl · « **Reply #14 on:** July 01, 2013, 09:39:18 AM »

Quote from: Tiffany

Quote from: Guest
Taco Bell has bean burritos and you can order them with extra cheese.

You also had the option of doubling up on the french fries.

Now that the deed is done, go to confession soon and plan ahead or willingly go without next time.

I don't know about Taco Bell but some refried beans are made with animal fat.

Taco Bell doesn't use lard or animal fat in their beans, but Aldi does. I recently read somewhere that Catholics could use lard on Fridays, I just don't remember where I read it. I'll keep searching until I find the source for the information.

Author Topic: Meat on Friday (Read 2531 times)

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus