So on my one meal today for Ash Wednesday, my mom told me to have some soup. However, after I was done with it and looked at the ingredients it said "chicken stock", I don't know, but I'd say that likely counts as eating meat. I'd guess this is probably serious sin, but because It was accidental, do I need to confess this??, and I did recieve Communion at Mass tonight, should I have. the reason I recieved was that I didn't want to be too scrupulous, but then I don't know???.....

Quote: Quote: Abstinence The law of abstinence requires a Catholic 14 years of age until death to abstain from eating meat on Fridays in honor of the Passion of Jesus on Good Friday. Meat is considered to be the flesh and organs of mammals and fowl. Also forbidden are soups or gravies made from them. Salt and freshwater species of fish, amphibians, reptiles and shellfish are permitted, as are animal derived products such as margarine and gelatin which do not have any meat taste. endquote

http://www.ewtn.com/faith/lent/fast.htm

this highlighted line shows that "chicken stock" in soup is probably considered meat, I think.

-- Matt (slywakka250@msn.com), February 09, 2005

Answers

Matt, it is certainly not a serious sin. If you ate the meat ACCIDENTALLY (i.e. without knowing it was meat) then by definition it is no sin at all. A sin is something you do WILFULLY.

IF you had looked at the ingredients BEFORE eating it, and if you knew that it was Ash Wednesday and that that food was forbidden, you would have been committing a sin, but not a serious one.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), February 09, 2005.

I've been told that eating meat on a day of abstinence is objective grave matter. true I ate it before looking at the ingredients, so it was probably not mortal, but for the future, should one still recieve communion after this particular grave sin, as I fear someday it could happen again?

-- Matt (slywakka250@msn.com), February 09, 2005.

I’m afraid you’ve been told wrong, Matt. No way is it an objective grave matter. Either you’re unbelievably scrupulous or you’re winding me up.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), February 09, 2005.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01067a.htm

QUOTE THE LATIN CHURCH: SUBJECTS UNDER, AND MATERIAL ELEMENT OF, THE LAW

Throughout the Latin Church the law of abstinence prohibits all responsible subjects from indulging in meat diet on duly appointed days. Meat diet comprises the flesh, blood, or marrow of such animals and birds as constitute flesh meat according to the appreciation of intelligent and law-abiding Christians. For this reason the use of fish, vegetables, mollusks, crabs, turtles, frogs, and such-like cold- blooded creatures is not at variance with the law of abstinence. Amphibians are relegated to the category whereunto they bear most striking resemblance. This classification can scarcely preclude all doubt regarding viands prohibited by the law of abstinence. Local usage, together with the practice of intelligent and conscientious Christians, generally holds a key for the solution of mooted points in such matters, otherwise the decision rests with ecclesiastical authority. Furthermore, on many fasting days during the year the law of abstinence bars the use of such viands as bear some identity of origin with flesh meat. For this reason eggs, milk, butter, cheese, and lard are interdicted (St. Thomas, Summa, II-II, Q. cvii, art. ult., ad 3). The Church enjoins the ways and means whereby her subjects must satisfy the obligation of doing penance inculcated by natural law. Many of the Fathers allude to the exercise of ecclesiastical authority in reference to the obligation of abstinence. The disciplinary canons of various councils bear witness to the actual exercise of authority in the same direction. Texts of theology and catechisms of Christian doctrine indicate that the obligation of abstaining forms an element in one of the Commandments of the Church. Satisfaction for sin is an item of primary import in the moral order. Naturally enough, abstinence contributes no small share towards the realization of this end. As a consequence, the law of abstinence embodies a serious obligation whose transgression, objectively considered, ordinarily involves a mortal sin. The unanimous verdict of theologians, the constant practice of the faithful, and the mind of the Church place this point beyond cavil. They who would fain minimize the character of this obligation so as to relegate all transgressions, save such as originate in contempt, to the category of venial sin are anathematized by Alexander VII [Cf. Prop. 23, ap. Bucceroni, Enchiridion Morale, 145 (Rome, 1905)]. In fine, the Trullan synod (can. 58, ap. Hefele, "History of the Councils of the Church", V, 231, Edinburgh, 1896) inflicts deposition on clerics and excommunication on laymen who violate this law. Furthermore, theologians claim that a grievous sin is committed as often as flesh meat is consumed in any quantity on abstinence days (Sporer, Theologia Moralis super Decalogum, I, De observ. jejunii, # 2, assert. II), because the law is negative, and binds semper et pro semper. In other words, the prohibition of the Church in this matter is absolute. At times, however, the quantity of prohibited material may be so small that the law suffers no substantial violation. From an objective standpoint such transgressions carry the guilt of venial sin. Moralists are by no means unanimous in deciding where the material element of such minor disorders passes into a material disorder of major importance. Some think that an ounce of flesh meat suffices to constitute a serious breach of this law, whereas others claim that nothing short of two ounces involves infringement of this obligation. Ordinarily, the actual observance of the law is confined to such circumstances as carry no insupportable burden. This is why the sick, the infirm, mendicants, labourers, and such as find difficulty in procuring fish diet are not bound to observe the law as long as such conditions prevail.

-- MAtt (slywakka250@msn.com), February 09, 2005.

"Naturally enough, abstinence contributes no small share towards the realization of this end. As a consequence, the law of abstinence embodies a serious obligation whose transgression, objectively considered, ordinarily involves a mortal sin."

from above

-- MAtt (slywakka250@msn.com), February 09, 2005.

Read the whole thing then.

Some think that an ounce of flesh meat suffices to constitute a serious breach of this law, whereas others claim that nothing short of two ounces involves infringement of this obligation

I'd doubt a bit of boullion cube is an ounce of meat. But more importantly, you were UNAWARE that you were eating it, so it can't be a sin. Sin involves a conscious decision.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 09, 2005.

Well, you know what's funny? Almost all restaurants offer clam chowder on Fridays--guess what, it usually contains bacon or salt pork for added flavor.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), February 10, 2005.

Matt, you were right. It was "grave matter." Steve was wrong to say that it is not.

But, Matt, Frank was right to tell you that you committed NO sin at all (not even venial), since you were unaware of the presence of the stock. You should not confess it, and you should give it no further (scrupulous) thought.

GT, that is bad news (if you are right, and you may not be). Restaurateurs know that they should not add that stuff, not just because Catholics expect meatless soup, but also because Jews and Moslems expect pork-free soup.

Campbell's New England Clam Chowder does not contain meaty adulterations.

-- Fin (in@the.end), February 10, 2005.

Well, you know what's funny? Almost all restaurants offer clam chowder on Fridays--guess what, it usually contains bacon or salt pork for added flavor.

As rank rightly points out, sin involves an act of the will. If you ordered clam chowder in a restauant, you would reasonably assume that it contained no meat or meat products. If you found out after the fact that it did, you would not have sinned, not even venially. You could simply make a mental note that if you're at a restaurant on Friday, to ask the server if the food you want to order contains any meat.

-- jake (j@k.e), February 10, 2005.

Well, I imagine that no one has analyzed each restaurants recipes (not, for example, like the vegetarian/vegan crowd went after McDonald's on the french fries).

Even if you look in most cookbooks, you will find "salt pork" in the recipe. For example, "Joy of Cooking" calls for a 1" cube in both the Manhattan and Boston versions.

And what about gelatin?

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), February 10, 2005.

And what about gelatin?

Jell-O? I don't think that can even be considered a food, in the strict sense, much less a meat product.

:)

-- jake (j@k.e), February 10, 2005.

You know, this is the kind of thing that I think goes far beyond God's intent or requirements. It's one thing to schedule a season of Lent for reflection and repentance and recommend that believers consider self-denial/fasting during this time to draw us close to God, to make this a "law" that binds one to sin - whether venial or mortal - is, in my opinion, wrong. It's exactly this sort of thing that Jesus railed against the Pharisees about - adding to the Law.

I read the Catholic Encyclopedia on this subject and guess what, Lent and fasting was not something that was handed down from the Apostles - the encyclopedia admitted that. It is a tradition that grew over hundreds of years with lots of variations in both time and geographic regions. And 'yes', I understand the Catholic argument that anything the Church establises is "established in Heaven and therefore binding", but I also depart in that I view that as a misinterpretation of that authority. Binding and loosing is an authority that was never intended as a means to heap new sins onto the people.

In case this is not already clear, while I respect and love the Catholic Church, I am not Catholic, so this opinion is not to be miscontrued as a Catholic position.

David

-- non-Catholic Christian (no@spam.com), February 10, 2005.

Sorry, I misread the recipe--it is a 2" cube of salt pork.

I notice as I write this that near the end of the original post, it says:

"Salt and freshwater species of fish, amphibians, reptiles and shellfish are permitted, as are animal derived products such as margarine and gelatin which do not have any meat taste."

You'd be surprised to find how many people do NOT know where gelatin comes from.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), February 10, 2005.

Gelatin

Gelatin is an odorless, tasteless and colorless thickening agent, which when dissolved in hot water and cooled, forms a jelly. Gelatin is pure protein derived from beef and veal bones, cartilage, tendons and other tissue. Much of the commercial gelatin today is a by- product of pig skin. Until the advent of commercial gelatin in the late 19th century, jelled dishes were not very popular because housewives had to make their own jelling agent by laboriously boiling calves' feet or knuckles. Their only alternative was to use either the hard-to-obtain ISINGLASS (gelatin from fish air bladders) or CARRAGEEN (a dried seaweed product).

-- non-Catholic Christian (no@spam.com), February 10, 2005.

Fin,

It is forbidden for kashrut-observant Jews and Muslims to eat clams anyway, so it doesn't matter whether there's pork fat in clam chowder.

On the other hand, what you said does hold true for corn chowder.

Jake,

Being a New Englander, I would always assume that clam chowder contains salt pork, especially in a good restaurant. If it doesn't, tain't chowdah!

-- JJ (nospam@nospam.com), February 10, 2005.

Boy, ignorance really IS bliss! So now I can't eat my chowder on Friday's?

Frank

-- someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 10, 2005.

Not unless you're making it yourself--and if you're really interested in where meat and meat products turn up, read Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser....

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), February 10, 2005.

Hi Rod,

[Name deleted] just handed me a list of lenten guidelines put out by the dioceses of [B]rownsville. [T}hese are 10 guidelines which include the rule of fasting and under the present law it does not include egg or milk products, meat broths or gravies. [T]hese are guidelines and rules which change over time(nothing more nothing less). Lent is a special season of prayer, penance and works of charity. [A]bstinence from sin? at least make a serious effort. [R]ight? [D]o what you feel is right in your heart....

 your friend in Christ,[Name deleted].

......

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 10, 2005.

I see I was right Matt, you were winding me up. Some have missed the point and seem to think that the reason we are forbidden to eat meat on certain days is because there is something evil about it, which makes us evil when we consume even the tiniest portion of it. Wrong. We are forbidden to eat meat on these days precisely because it is a good and enjoyable thing, which we give up temporarily for the sake of strengthening our souls, uniting ourselves with Christ’s sufferings and strengthening our willpower against temptations to do things which ARE grievously sinful. If there’s not enough meat in a dish for you to even taste that it’s there, obviously you’re not enjoying the meat, or “suffering” abstinence from meat if you forgo the dish. Just as “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath”, so the Church’s rules on fasting and abstinence are made to HELP us on our path to holiness, not to spring traps to catch the unwary in technical breaches of the moral code. And would post-ers please stop cutting and pasting excerpts from a 100 year-old encyclopedia and pretending that it represents the current law of the Church.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), February 10, 2005.

GT and Steve,

This brings up another point, which is the whole POINT of giving up meat in the first place. Where I am, many people look at Fridays as an excuse to go out and have lobsters or crabs' legs that they ordinarily wouldn't, so that although they are technically not eating meat, they are *celebrating* on Friday. Isn't that odd? LOL, I'm one to talk, I look forward to my tasty bowl of chowder, but the extreme isn't there.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 11, 2005.

Excellent point Frank. That’s not only odd, it defeats the whole purpose of the abstinence rule. Some people love fish and seafood; others hate it and going without meat is a severe test; others are vegetarians and find it no trial at all; and in some areas for some people meat is a treat which they can only afford once a week anyway. That’s exactly why the Church changed its former blanket ban on meat for all Fridays of the year, but instead tells us to choose the form of self-denial which is most appropriate to us.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), February 11, 2005.

Frank, you need to learn how to make clam chowder (assuming you don't know how already) and then make CORN chowder instead. (Just use corn instead of clams, the rest is the same). It's easy.

Corn chowder is good, but it's nowhere near clam chowder, which is exactly what you'll be thinking about when you eat it.

You'll really get that sense of self-denial, which is the whole point.

And, if you have leftovers, add clams to it on Saturday.

-- JJ (nospam@nospam.com), February 11, 2005.

One parish I was at years ago, the pastor would encourage doing extra good works during Lent, instead of worrying about fasting so much.

Almost all restaurants have Clam Chowder every Friday anyway (easier to just make it a menu staple).

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), February 11, 2005.

And fasting is "in" right now also, some people regularly do it once a week....

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), February 11, 2005.

Lent and fasting was not something that was handed down from the Apostles - the encyclopedia admitted that. It is a tradition that grew over hundreds of years with lots of variations in both time and geographic regions.

No, non-Catholic. Lent, fasting, and abstinence are not "a tradition" (i.e., a custom). They are a DISCIPLINE by which the Church specifies certain minimum penitential acts, to fulfill the divinely revealed requirement (known through Scripture and Sacred Tradition) that we express repentance for our sins, and that we strengthen ourselves to battle temptation, with more than mere words. The Church has the authority and even the duty to help Christians to do what God has required. In Matthew 6:1-16 and elsewhere, Jesus shows that he expects us to engage in prayer, fasting, and almgiving.

Binding and loosing is an authority that was never intended as a means to heap new sins onto the people.

Again you are mistaken, non-Catholic. The 2000-year-old Catholic Church, not weak young individuals posting messages here, knows what "binding and loosing" can entail. In the case of Lenten fasting and abstinence, the Church is not "heaping new sins," but is playing her role as Mother to her children. The sin involved is "failing to do penitential acts," and it is an OLD sin, not a new one.

-- Fin (in@the.end), February 11, 2005.

What would Jesus say to a "discipline" forced on all Catholic believers that could send them to Hell with mortal sin because they weren't aware that clam chowder contained chicken stock? Jesus and His disciples picked grain and ate it on the Sabbath clearing violating similar "disciplines". It was so scandalous, the Pharisees sounded just like you, Fin, falling all over themselves objecting to what Jesus said, just as you've objected to what I said. Think about it. The parallel is startling.

David

-- non=Catholic Christian (no@spam.com), February 12, 2005.

We observe these disciplines willingly, not as if forced. What some would term a mortal sin can't be so casually decided. Involuntary violations either in fasting or abstinence, aren't mortal sins. Careless observance can be a venial sin or no sin at all. Repeated indifference to the Church's call to Lenten observances is a serious sin. The reason is, one can't be a faithful member of Christ's Church and yet be un- willing to do penance; and penance is exactly what our self-denial is. By her authority from Christ, His Church imposes-- not just asks, --penance offered up as one people. The Church united under Jesus Christ.

Whoever wilfully resists her imposition and doesn't repent for it is a sinner. He takes no part in our divine observance. Because some of us forget: all that the Church does for God is DIVINE. From the shortest prayer to Christian charity, to the sacraments. And what Catholic has independent and yet DIVINE offices he can do for God? --They are wasted.

With the Church (the Communion of Saints) however, all his good works and sacrifices can be divine. They truly reach up to God! The apostle says we are a royal priesthood, a people set apart. That's why during Lent we must fast and abstain as ONE HOLY PEOPLE.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 13, 2005.