Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Catholic Living in the Modern World => Topic started by: Soubirous on May 21, 2024, 07:11:59 PM
-
Putting this out there to see what folks here think/do. Say you have one of these scenarios or something similar:
a) You take an apostate Catholic out to lunch (this is a close relative) saying you'll pay. It's a Friday. This person knows the precepts of the Church from childhood but orders a meat entree anyway out of habit.
b) A Protestant friend asks you to bring back (and fronts you the cash for) a few pounds of really good barbecue since you're traveling anyway near a town that's known for really good barbecue. Given the timing, odds are that this will get eaten on a Friday.
Both of these people know about your traditional Catholic dietary habits, have commented that these are "weird", but will ask about and listen to catechesis respectfully enough.
I figure that a basic principle is not to enable other peoples' sins even if they don't think they're sinning. Where's the balance between orthodoxy without being pharasaical and charity without falling off the cliff into "accompaniment"?
Thanks!
-
I can’t really comment on the first situation.
As to the second situation, I’m fairly certain that the laws of fast and abstinence only bind members of the Church, so I don’t see this being an issue as long as you didn’t eat the meat? Others may have a more learned opinion than I.
-
a) You take an apostate Catholic out to lunch (this is a close relative) saying you'll pay. It's a Friday. This person knows the precepts of the Church from childhood but orders a meat entree anyway out of habit.
You knew this person was/is a Catholic. You just provided an occasion of sin for them. Take them out on another day. What they do on Friday alone is on them but you put the temptation before them.
It was probably a good guess that they'd order meat. Why not take them to a seafood restaurant if it's Friday?
-
A. Burn the apostate at the stake.
B. Burn the Protestant at the stake.
:laugh1:
C. Burn the steak at the stake.
-
In neither A nor B did you sin, nor did you encourage sin, so what they ordered is not your fault. That's on them.
For A, you could just not go to lunch on a friday. For B, just say, "No, I don't have time to pick that up for you." But it's not required.
-
In neither A nor B did you sin, nor did you encourage sin, so what they ordered is not your fault. That's on them.
Re A. knowing what was known about the person, the host knew there was a probability/possibility of the person not abstaining nor fasting that day. Therefore the host provided the temptation to sin, and that's on the host.
-
Re A. knowing what was known about the person, the host knew there was a probability/possibility of the person not abstaining nor fasting that day. Therefore the host provided the temptation to sin, and that's on the host.
No, sorry, you’re wrong. Only if the person had made it clear (ie “Hey, if you take me out to dinner on Friday, I’m ordering meat.”) then you’d be guilty.
In all other cases, what the person orders is on them. Had you not taken them to lunch on Friday, they would have had lunch somewhere else and eaten meat anyway.
-
Nine ways of being accessary to another's sin
1. By counsel
2. By command
3. By consent
4. By provocation
5. By praise or flattery
6. By concealment
7. By partaking
8. By silence
9. By defense of the ill done
Number 4 and maybe #8 apply.
Had you not taken them to lunch on Friday, they would have had lunch somewhere else and eaten meat anyway.
What the guest did or didn't do away from the host is not the issue
Re A. knowing what was known about the person, the host knew there was a probability/possibility of the person not abstaining nor fasting that day. Therefore the host provided the temptation to sin, and that's on the host.
If the host had taken the guest to a brothel for a drink would the host be guilty if the guest had more than a drink when the host had fore knowledge that the guest was so inclined?
-
Provocation/temptation doesn’t apply because the temptation comes from the person himself (ie he’s hungry). It’s not like she asked the person “Do you want steak for lunch?” Nor does it sound like she invited the person, on a Friday, to a steakhouse (and then ordered shrimp).
The silence aspect only applies if you are a superior of the sinner (then you have an obligation to correct). The person in question did NOT order meat, thus they were not silent on the matter, but followed the law. Also, you don’t know that the person didn’t say say, “It’s Friday, I’m ordering fish. What are you getting?” Which would be a reminder of the law.
The rules of fraternal correction apply here. One is not obligated to go out of their way to stop evil (if that we’re even possible, due to free will), especially if the person will reject your attempts and become more bitter against God/Church. If you repeatedly scold/preach to sinners, (and you’re not a superior), you actually commit a sin yourself, against prudence and charity.
Ps you’re using the word “host” incorrectly. An invitation to a lunch place is not the same as “hosting” someone at your house and grilling a steak on Friday.
Your brothel example is dumb because it’s a specific place, which is an occasion to sin. In regards to restaurants, 99.99999% of them serve meat of some kind, every single day. Meat is not an occasion to sin but it’s just forbidden on fridays.
And, if we want to get technical, V2 changed the law and allowed meat to be eaten on Friday (if another penance is substituted), so outside of Ash Wed or Good Friday, there’s no more meatless Fridays. You can’t be sure the person sinned because they could’ve done a private penance later.
-
You knew this person was/is a Catholic. You just provided an occasion of sin for them. Take them out on another day. What they do on Friday alone is on them but you put the temptation before them.
It was probably a good guess that they'd order meat. Why not take them to a seafood restaurant if it's Friday?
That’s ridiculous. I haven’t had a problem getting a meatless option at a restaurant, there are vegetable soups, salads, probably fish/lentil/bean. The person is not a child.
-
I was once told that meatless Friday is not divine law, therefore unknowingly ordering it is not a sin. If they're a practicing Catholic and order meat anyway, 100% on them...that's my two-cents.
-
Provocation/temptation doesn’t apply because the temptation comes from the person himself (ie he’s hungry). It’s not like she asked the person “Do you want steak for lunch?” Nor does it sound like she invited the person, on a Friday, to a steakhouse (and then ordered shrimp).
Of course she did. not a steakhouse but a full menu establishment.
The silence aspect only applies if you are a superior of the sinner (then you have an obligation to correct). The person in question did NOT order meat, thus they were not silent on the matter, but followed the law. Also, you don’t know that the person didn’t say say, “It’s Friday, I’m ordering fish. What are you getting?” Which would be a reminder of the law.
In all the places the "Nine ways of being an accessory to another's sin" is published, nowhere is it ever stated that these nine ways apply only if you are a superior of the sinner.
The rules of fraternal correction apply here. One is not obligated to go out of their way to stop evil (if that we’re even possible, due to free will), especially if the person will reject your attempts and become more bitter against God/Church. If you repeatedly scold/preach to sinners, (and you’re not a superior), you actually commit a sin yourself, against prudence and charity.
This hardly qualifies as going "out of their way" .
Ps you’re using the word “host” incorrectly. An invitation to a lunch place is not the same as “hosting” someone at your house and grilling a steak on Friday.
No I'm not. The OP stated she was paying therefore the other person was being invited as her guest, thereby making her the host of that guest. Check the dictionary. Location/venue is irrelevant.
Your brothel example is dumb because it’s a specific place, which is an occasion to sin. In regards to restaurants, 99.99999% of them serve meat of some kind, every single day. Meat is not an occasion to sin but it’s just forbidden on fridays.
And, if we want to get technical, V2 changed the law and allowed meat to be eaten on Friday (if another penance is substituted), so outside of Ash Wed or Good Friday, there’s no more meatless Fridays. You can’t be sure the person sinned because they could’ve done a private penance later.
OP only asked for thoughts on the limited scenario given so I only gave an opinion on what was provided
Quote from: FarmerWife (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=74010.msg937397#msg937397) 5/22/2024, 10:07:57 AM
That’s ridiculous. I haven’t had a problem getting a meatless option at a restaurant, there are vegetable soups, salads, probably fish/lentil/bean. The person is not a child.
I don't understand your point. It was a full menu restaurant as obviously the OP didn't order meat. I think everyone understood the person wasn't a child.
No, sorry, you’re wrong. Only if the person had made it clear (ie “Hey, if you take me out to dinner on Friday, I’m ordering meat.”) then you’d be guilty.
No, with the info given in the OP scenario the host knew there was a very good chance the guest wouldn't abstain.
Putting this out there to see what folks here think/do. Say you have one of these scenarios or something similar:
a) You take an apostate Catholic out to lunch (this is a close relative) saying you'll pay. It's a Friday. This person knows the precepts of the Church from childhood but orders a meat entree anyway out of habit.
b) A Protestant friend asks you to bring back (and fronts you the cash for) a few pounds of really good barbecue since you're traveling anyway near a town that's known for really good barbecue. Given the timing, odds are that this will get eaten on a Friday.
Both of these people know about your traditional Catholic dietary habits, have commented that these are "weird", but will ask about and listen to catechesis respectfully enough.
I figure that a basic principle is not to enable other peoples' sins even if they don't think they're sinning.
ABSOLUTELY !
-
not a steakhouse but a full menu establishment.
Exactly, you proved my point. Going to a steakhouse on a friday, might be a proximate temptation for some. Going to a normal restaurant would not be a temptation (or a remote one), as there are a variety of menu options, including vegan. So your original assertion that going to ANY restaurant is a temptation is dumb.
nowhere is it ever stated that these nine ways apply only if you are a superior of the sinner.
The point is, you have to use common sense. You can't apply these "9 ways" to every situation, and ONLY these 9 ways. There are other "rules" that Catholics must live by (i.e. rules of fraternal correction). Further, your application of "sins of silence" is wrong because one can "speak" on a topic in a variety of ways, including non-verbally. The invited person probably knows that their catholic friend doesn't eat meat on fridays...you aren't required to mention it every single time you eat a meal on fridays.
No, with the info given in the OP scenario the host knew there was a very good chance the guest wouldn't abstain.
The practical problem is "where do you draw the line?" If you go into a restaurant on a friday, by yourself, are you obligated to tell the server that Catholics don't eat meat on fridays? Should you tell the couple in the table next to you, whom you see eating a steak? Should you tell the whole restaurant? If you don't say anything, aren't you guilty by "silence"? Of course, you're not guilty.
-
Pax you keep going off the track.
My responses were to the OP on the limited info supplied. I drew the line there. Some of your scenarios were just nonsensical
The OP already had a correct inkling of the situation when she stated "I figure that a basic principle is not to enable other peoples' sins even if they don't think they're sinning", and merely asked for opinions to which I gave mine.
And I'm done.
-
To whoever reported a post in this thread: I see no problem with it. I merely see an argument. Carry on.
-
Inviting a friend to a restaurant, on a friday, is not enabling. Or condoning. Or sinning in any way. The person who was invited has free will and will eat what they want, and neither you nor even God will interfere in their decision. Sure, you could stop going to lunch on fridays, if the activity is habitual. But 99% of the population does not avoid meat on fridays, so how is this activity even surprising?
-
There are objective rules for Fraternal Correction. I might have them saved off now (Sean Johnson originally provided a great graphic on this topic)
-
To whoever reported a post in this thread: I see no problem with it. I merely see an argument. Carry on.
Sorry that was me. I was merely trying to report a technical problem with my reply #11.
When I typed the reply it was as I intended but when I posted it my responses in the top half did not come in colour. I tried to modify but that didn't work either.
Again, sorry, I used the wrong method of communication.
-
That’s ridiculous. I haven’t had a problem getting a meatless option at a restaurant, there are vegetable soups, salads, probably fish/lentil/bean. The person is not a child.
Come down South sometime. The people here have no clue. As a practical matter, I prepare my own food on Fridays and eat at home. (Though I had to go to a city about an hour away a few Fridays back, and got the $4.99 lunch special at Captain D's, best fried fish you will ever eat. Captain D's isn't usually that good.)
-
Thanks for all the feedback.
a) Standard suburban place, big menu with lots of non-meat options. Time (Friday or not) and place (diner or fish shack or steakhouse) is pretty much out of my control with this particular person. I offer to pay every nth time or so since I'm usually the one dining for free.
Sometimes cajoling or distraction works, sometimes not. When it doesn't, given the mix of temperaments and history involved, my options are either let it slide or get up and leave. The latter won't fix it since I'm hoping and praying this person returns to the Faith before it's too late.:pray:
Whereas staying silent might be the lesser evil double effect strategy (nod to Ladislaus).... or not either, since the sin committed is certain and immediate, while the reversion is uncertain and far off. (We need a sigh emoji.)
b) Change of plans, bbq is getting dropped off on Saturday, albeit an Ember Day this week. I had thought that Trinitarian Baptism binds any Christian after the age of reason, my error. But that's a whole other kettle of fish. :laugh1:
-
While not entirely on point with the O.P., when it comes to Fridays and someone asks us over to eat for dinner, I follow the advice of St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 10:27: "If any of them that believe not, invite you, and you will be willing to go; eat of any thing that is set before you, asking no question for conscience' sake."
Granted, I know full well that my truly Catholic friends will be serving us a meatless meal.
-
It is possible -- although improbable -- that a person has been canonically exempted from Friday penance, e.g., an episcopal exemption (temporary or perpetual) or one may have paid the annual La Cruzada fee in Spain.
-
my options are either let it slide or get up and leave.
You can’t control this person. It’s their decision.
-
or one may have paid the annual La Cruzada fee in Spain.
No, since the times of Pius XI (i think, at least it was the case under Pius XII) the bull was made to be valid for only one year, and it was renovated every year. Montini never renovated it, so... no one can claim to use it.
Also, that benefit of the bull was free for poor people, poor meaning that they need to work to sustain themselves.
-
No, since the times of Pius XI (i think, at least it was the case under Pius XII) the bull was made to be valid for only one year, and it was renovated every year. Montini never renovated it, so... no one can claim to use it.
Also, that benefit of the bull was free for poor people, poor meaning that they need to work to sustain themselves.
Thank you for that information.
I had a professor in grad school -- a monsignor -- who paid the fee during a trip to Spain while he was a seminarianin Rome during the 1950s. He told us grad students how he and another would eat meat in cassock in Rome on Fridays at trattoria frequented by clergy from the Roman Curia with their exemption docuмents displayed on the table.
It is too bad that one can longer receive that exemption if only to celebrate the expulsion of the Moors (and small hats) from Iberia.
-
While not entirely on point with the O.P., when it comes to Fridays and someone asks us over to eat for dinner, I follow the advice of St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 10:27: "If any of them that believe not, invite you, and you will be willing to go; eat of any thing that is set before you, asking no question for conscience' sake."
Granted, I know full well that my truly Catholic friends will be serving us a meatless meal.
This is not a proper application of St Paul's advice, who was speaking of the situation of eating foods sacrificed to pagan idols. The council of Jerusalem forbid Christians from eating such foods (which is obvious) but this command was not absolute; there were exceptions. Such as, the avoidance of such foods were to avoid scandal to the newly converted, who may be confused between Catholic rules and their former life. Also, this rule was only for Jerusalem and surrounding areas, which is where the main scandal was probable.
There are also exceptions for the Church's law forbidding the eating of meat on fridays, but typically such exceptions relate to sickness or health of the individual. Scandal has never been an exception, and the rule of law is not a local one, but applies to the entire Church, as many saints say this law is of Apostolic origin, and thus part of Tradition (which cannot be changed).
So, I think your thought-process on this matter is slightly flawed. If one were invited to a meal by an unbeliever, who served meat, I'm not sure if one could partake (assuming pre-V2 rules), for charity's sake. I'm sure there are situations were it would be allowed, but the point being that the "Friday Fast" is more strict of a law than the "Avoid Pagan foods" law which St Paul refers to above.
-
In both situations, mind your own business. Friday meat fast is NOT a moral precept. It’s ecclesiastical law, but does not apply universally, never did. Technically speaking, Catholics do not absolutely need to abstain on Friday if they perform some other penance in its place. The non-practicing relative won’t perform any penance, regardless. The most you could choose to do is to mention that you follow the traditional Catholic custom of fasting from meat on Friday. You are in no way responsible for your adult relative’s choice. Again, this is NOT a moral matter.
As for the Protestant, he’s in no way obliged to observe a Catholic law. Again, it’s not a moral issue.
-
Technically speaking, Catholics do not absolutely need to abstain on Friday if they perform some other penance in its place.
Are you sure about that? Traditionally, the Friday abstinence was mandatory (making allowance for exceptions such as Jone describes in his moral theology text), and substituting another penance wasn't an option.
Here are the exceptions that Jone cites:
(https://i.imgur.com/UiDhii4.png)
-
Friday meat fast is NOT a moral precept.
Ok, but one can still be damned for not obeying church law. So your distinction is dangerous, in implying that Church Law has no bearing on salvation.
It’s ecclesiastical law, but does not apply universally, never did.
It is Church law but it's Apostolic too. You'd have to prove that it's not universal. Most sources I've read say that this law is of Apostolic origin and thus, it's part of Tradition (i.e. universal). I'm pretty sure even the Orthodox have the Friday fast.
Technically speaking, Catholics do not absolutely need to abstain on Friday if they perform some other penance in its place.
This has only been the rule since V2. Prior to V2, the option to "do another penance" was only for rare exceptions, when allowed by a priest.
-
Are you sure about that? Traditionally, the Friday abstinence was mandatory (making allowance for exceptions such as Jone describes in his moral theology text), and substituting another penance wasn't an option.
Here are the exceptions that Jone cites:
(https://i.imgur.com/UiDhii4.png)
True, I’m going by the novus ordo. Is it valid? I’m not the Pope. (and doubt the current occupant is, either!) In some situation under pre-V2 and even pre-1955, a person could get a dispensation that could even his entire household.
I’ll leave the research to you, but I’m very confident of this.
Pardon the indelicacy, but our entire family got a dispensation from an SSPX priest. Our Dad, head of the household, had to do the preparation for a medical procedure on a Friday. It involved the drinking of large quantities of gelatin based liquid! (For those who don’t know, gelatin is derived from bone marrow. You can buy vegetable based gelatin in the supermarket, but the medical product offered no choice other than lemon-lime or orange flavor!)
Of course, there was no need for anyone else to use the dispensation. Poor Dad was limited to his choice of jello or clear broth.
-
In some situation under pre-V2 and even pre-1955, a person could get a dispensation that could even his entire household.
Ok, but a dispensation doesn't mean the law isn't a universal law. Nor does a dispensation mean the law is less important than one of the 10 commandments.
-
True, I’m going by the novus ordo. Is it valid? I’m not the Pope. (and doubt the current occupant is, either!) In some situation under pre-V2 and even pre-1955, a person could get a dispensation that could even his entire household.
I’ll leave the research to you, but I’m very confident of this.
Pardon the indelicacy, but our entire family got a dispensation from an SSPX priest. Our Dad, head of the household, had to do the preparation for a medical procedure on a Friday. It involved the drinking of large quantities of gelatin based liquid! (For those who don’t know, gelatin is derived from bone marrow. You can buy vegetable based gelatin in the supermarket, but the medical product offered no choice other than lemon-lime or orange flavor!)
Of course, there was no need for anyone else to use the dispensation. Poor Dad was limited to his choice of jello or clear broth.
I've got probably the very same procedure coming up in a couple of weeks, and know what is required.
As to gelatin, Jone says this:
(https://i.imgur.com/r1vJ3Ze.png)
If you can't detect the taste of meat in it, then it's no longer considered meat. I have used rendered bacon fat for cooking on Fridays, and I cannot detect any bacon taste in it. I also had some canned turnip greens that supposedly had been prepared with bacon fat, but I couldn't taste that either, so I went ahead and had them on a Friday, following what Jone says.
-
In both situations, mind your own business. Friday meat fast is NOT a moral precept. It’s ecclesiastical law, but does not apply universally, never did. Technically speaking, Catholics do not absolutely need to abstain on Friday if they perform some other penance in its place. The non-practicing relative won’t perform any penance, regardless. The most you could choose to do is to mention that you follow the traditional Catholic custom of fasting from meat on Friday. You are in no way responsible for your adult relative’s choice. Again, this is NOT a moral matter.
As for the Protestant, he’s in no way obliged to observe a Catholic law. Again, it’s not a moral issue.
The initial post was less about me compelling them to do anything and more my own actions. If I pay for the meat meal, did I condone it? Should I have said, sorry, I'll pick up the tab some other day? (Just restating for clarity, not for prolonging the discussion. :cowboy:)
As for the Protestant, OK, I guess there are plenty of Catholic cooks and waitstaff working on Fridays and other days of abstinence, so it's moot.
-
The way I usually explain it to Protestants in a way they can understand and respect (and hopefully push off their list of anti Catholic grievances) goes like this:
Our Lord sacrificed Himself in the flesh on Good Friday, so in thanksgiving, praise, and reparation, we sacrifice eating of flesh meat every Friday. It's a small token of our love for Jesus.
As far as you paying for the meal, if I did the same, it would have been in the vein of feeding the hungry, hospitality and generosity. I don't think your action condoned anything, especially if Friday abstinence is only binding on Catholic and was nowhere on their radar