Category: Liturgical Year

Another reader writes:

So that we, the readers and commentators on this topic, "Meat On Lenten Fridays: A Mortal Sin?" all are all ‘on the same channel,’ would you please define ‘mortal sin’?

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God’s law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him. Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it.

For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent" [CCC 1855, 1857].

According to Paenitemini, the substantial observance of the Church’s days of penance is grave matter. This means that if one fails in this regard with adequate knowledge and consent, a mortal sin is committed.

The reader continues:

Once, at a CCD teacher’s meeting, I flew through the ceiling when one of the Catholic teacher-participants said she thought the Eucharist was only ‘symbolic’. My explosion amounted to a hill of beans. Her calm retort was, "Why does everything have to be so technical?"

Somewhat in sympathy with her I must ask, where does all this legalistic niggling regarding rules go?

According to John Paul II’s apostolic constitution Sacrae Disciplinae Leges :

[T]he writings of the New Testament enable us to understand even better the importance of discipline and make us see better how it is more closely connected with the saving character of the evangelical message itself.

This being so, it appears sufficiently clear that the Code is in no way intended as a substitute for faith, grace, charisms, and especially charity in the life of the Church and of the faithful. On the contrary, its purpose is rather to create such an order in the ecclesial society that, while assigning the primacy to love, grace and charisms, it at the same time renders their organic development easier in the life of both the ecclesial society and the individual persons who belong to it [here, but you’ll need to scroll down].

What the pontiff says regarding the Code is true of the Church’s laws in general. They are not a replacement for faith, grace, and the charisms of the Spirit, but are intended to create an order in the society of the Church that facilitates the development of these.

If you don’t like the way the law is presently written, that is your prerogative. To tell you the truth, I wouldn’t have a problem myself if the Church decided to change the grave matter of the law in question. But I’m simply trying to represent the Church’s law accurately.

The reader continues:

I drew the line at symbolism vs. Real Presence.  (My mistake was to think this lady had actually thought things though. She hadn’t and she is forgiven.) Are you ‘drawing the line’ at a sausage topping or animal fat in the four-cheese pizza dough?

No. Please read the blog relevant entries on this subject. Cheese and animal fat are do not violate the law of abstinence. Whether the amount of meat on a sausage pizza would violate the substance of the observance might be a debatable matter. (However, there are limits. A "meat-lover’s pizza" certainly would.)

The reader continues:

Are you asserting that ‘deliberately violating the law of abstinence is…’ on a par with the grave matter of the denial of God, blasphemy, adultery, fornication abortion, murder, rape, child sex abuse, calumny, drunkenness, devil worship, infanticde, suicide etc.?

Depends on what you mean by "on a par." If you mean "Is it also grave matter?" then yes, that is what the Church’s law provides. If you mean "Is it as grave as the other matters you name?" then no, clearly that is not the case.

The reader continues:

For example, are the Catholic attendees at our Benedictine run Catholic high school who blithely chow down on the pork chop sandwiches proffered by the booster club on Friday night football games really consigning themselves to hell?

Are not these the same sheep that are being led by the shepherds, i.e., the priests who head their parishes?

I’m afraid that I don’t understand your remark regarding sheep, so I can’t respond to it. I can only tell you what the law says.

If someone knowingly and deliberately fails to observe the substance of the Church’s penitential requirements by violating the law of abstinence then, since the law itself states that this is grave matter, the person will commit a mortal sin.

However, if people are "blithely" chowing down on pork chop sandwiches on Fridays during Lent (which is when the law of abstinence binds in the United States) then their blithe-ness may be evidence that they may not be aware of the law or its gravity and so may lack the necessary knowledge to commit a mortal sin in this matter.

If your Benedictine-run Catholic high school has such poorly catechized Catholic attendees at the sports games it sponsors that they don’t know the law in question, that would seem to be the fault of the shepherds who head their parishes.

If people don’t know what the law says, don’t blame the messenger who finally tells you. Blame the ones who should have told you in the first place and didn’t.

Hope this helps!

A couple of follow-ups on the recent entry on the gravity of Friday penance. First, a reader writes:

Doesn’t the 1983 Code of Canon Law operate to repeal and replace the previous norms set forth by Pope Paul VI? Shouldn’t you be looking only at what the Code of Canon Law says? (And it doesn’t mention the gravity of the obligation.)

Good question! The answer is no, the Code does not repeal and replace all prior norms.

First, there are some norms that, although part of universal law, simply are not part of the Code. The largest body of norms that are not found in the Code are the Church’s liturgical laws, a fact of which the Code itself takes note:

For the most part the Code does not define the rites which must be observed in celebrating liturgical actions. Therefore, liturgical laws in force until now retain their force unless one of them is contrary to the canons of the Code (Can. 2).

There are also other parts of universal law that are not contained within the Code, for example most of the norms that are to be observed in electing a new pope are not found in the Code but are contained in another document. The one presently in force in John Paul II’s apostolic constitution Universi Dominici Gregis. There are thus certain documents that contain norms complimentary to those in the Code. One of these is Paenitemini. In fact, it is one of the oldest such documents currently in force.

Second, the Code makes the point that it does not repeal all other norms. For example:

The canons of the Code neither abrogate nor derogate from the agreements entered into by the Apostolic See with nations or other political societies. These agreements therefore continue in force exactly as at present, notwithstanding contrary prescripts of this Code [Can. 3].

What the Code does say lapse are the following:

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;

3° any universal or particular penal laws whatsoever issued by the Apostolic See unless they are contained in this Code;

4° other universal disciplinary laws regarding matter which this Code completely reorders [Can. 6 §1].

By this standard, the norms of Paenitemini are not abrogated. These are not part of the 1917 Code (1°), they are not en toto contrary to the prescriptions of the 1983 Code (2°), they are not penal laws (3°), and–although they are universal disciplinary laws–they do not regard matters which the 1983 Code completely reorders (4°). Therefore, Paenitemini stands except where specifically modified in the new Code.

In fact, the Code has so little to say about penance that one cannot determine what the Church’s law is without consulting Paenitemini. For example, the Code does not provide any explanation of what the law of fast entails. It states who is subject to it (Can. 1251), but it does explain what the law itself is. To find that out, you have to consult Paenitemini (Norm III §2).

A common question at this time of year is whether or not deliberately violating the law of abstinence is a mortal sin. It is. The relevant law is found in Paul VI’s 1966 apostolic constitution Paenitemini, which provides that:

The time of Lent preserves its penitential character. The days of penitence to be observed under obligation through-out the Church are all Fridays and Ash Wednesday, that is to say the first days of "Grande Quaresima" (Great Lent), according to the diversity of the rite. Their substantial observance binds gravely [Norm II §1, emphasis added].

That the keeping of abstinence (and fast on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday) is part of the substantial observance of these days is evident from the fact that the second half of Norm II names this as the chief requirement of observing these days:

Apart from the faculties referred to in VI and VIII regarding the manner of fulfilling the precept of penitence on such days, abstinence is to be observed on every Friday which does not fall on a day of obligation, while abstinence and fast are to be observed on Ash Wednesday or, according to local practice, on the first day of ‘Great Lent’ and on Good Friday [Norm II §2, emphasis added].

The faculties mentioned "regarding the manner of fulfilling the precept of penitence on such days" have to do with the ability of pastors to dispense the faithful from the obligation of abstinence and fast or commuting it to something else. If such dispensation or commutation is not obtained then "the manner of fulfilling the precept" is abstinence.

Thus one must substantially observe the law of abstinence on such days, and the obligation to do so is a grave one, meaning that it satisfies the condition of grave matter required for mortal sin. If one knowingly and deliberately fails in this obligation then one has committed mortal sin.

As to the reason for this, the Code of Canon Law notes that:

The divine law binds all the Christian faithful to do penance each in his or her own way. In order for all to be united among themselves by some common observance of penance, however, penitential days are prescribed on which the Christian faithful devote themselves in a special way to prayer, perform works of piety and charity, and deny themselves by fulfilling their own obligations more faithfully and especially by observing fast and abstinence, according to the norm of the following canons [Can.  1249, emphasis added].

It is thus a matter of divine law that the faithful are to do penance (a fact we could have determined from Scripture), and the regulations regarding fast and abstinence are simply the Church’s specification of this divine requirement, made in keeping with Jesus giving the church the power to bind and loose (Matt. 16:18, 18:18).

A reader writes:

My wife and I have a large family, my wife homeschools, and I work six days a week.

I do not want a special dispensation to do work on Sundays, but if my wife and I do not work around the house on Sunday the place would fall apart.

I do not do really hard labor on Sundays — no home improvement or lawn work. But just doing the necessary work keeping the house picked up and my wife doing a load of laundry or two is fairly hard work.

I have no doubt that if my wife and I were more diligent during the week we probably could cut down on Sunday work a lot. But it is hard. And we simply are not diligent enough.

So what is too much on Sunday? I try to sanctify the work I do by offering it to God, but obviously if He wants me not to do it, the sanctification won’t take, so to speak.

I know the standard "more than two [or some say three] hours of work is a mortal sin." I know I should strive for as little as possible. But if my wife and I get to the end of the week and the work needs doing, are we permitted to do it?

I find it hard to advise in this situation, because there are not hard and fast rules about what can and can’t be done on Sunday. In fact, I would be hesitant to employ the "two or three hours" rule that you mention. That kind of rule of thumb coheres well with the way the law used to be written, but the law on Sunday observance has been integrally reordered. The current law applies the principles of Sunday observance in a way that makes such prior rules of thumb unreliable.

Let me show you what I mean. Here’s the old law:

On feast days of precept, Mass is to be heard; there is an abstinence from servile work, legal acts, and likewise, unless there is a special indult or legitimate customs provide otherwise, from public trade, shopping, and other public buying and selling [CIC(1917) can 1248].

Now, here’s the new law:

On Sundays and other holy days of obligation, the faithful are obliged to participate in the Mass.

Moreover, they are to abstain from those works and affairs which hinder the worship to be rendered to God, the joy proper to the Lord’s day, or the suitable relaxation of mind and body [CIC(1983) can. 1247].

You’ll notice that the concept of "servile work" is gone from the new law. So are prohibitions on any specific affairs (legal acts, public trade, shopping). Instead, there is a general prohibition on "those works and affairs which hinder" the goals of worship and rest.

The concept of servile work was problematic, which is why it was eliminated. Servile work was understood principally as physical labor, and the concept worked fairly well in an age when people largely lived by manual labor. If you’d worked all week, you needed a day of physical rest. On this day it was permissible, however, to do non-servile work, meaning non-physical labor.

But today a large number of people do not do manual labor for a living. They sit in offices and do non-physical labor all day long. To prevent them from doing physical work on Sundays could result in them getting little or none of the physical activity they need to be healthy. Also, allowing them to continue to do non-physical work on Sundays, just like they do all week, would result in long-term mental strain due to not getting adequate time to rest and recharge their batteries. It would leave them stuck in a rut.

As a result, the law was re-written. As it is now, the law leaves it to the individual to figure out which specific works and affairs interfere with these goals in his particular case.

This means, among other things, that the old rules of thumb about how much servile work you could do on Sunday aren’t reliable.

Now to deal with your particular situation, I am a bit hesitant due to lack of information: I don’t know what kind of work you do during the week, I don’t know how many kids you’ve got or what ages they are, and (quite importantly) I don’t (yet) have the experience of managing a large household. All of these give me pause, but let me offer what I hope are some useful points:

1. You don’t have to kill yourself the other six days in order to provide yourself with a restful Sunday. You need some rest on the other days, too, so if you find it too difficult to get your work done on those days, don’t worry about it.
2. Consider the possibilities of using your kids to help with the housework. If you have a large family, some of the kids may be getting to an age at which they could be of use picking up, doing laundry, etc. Enlisting them in doing the tasks also would be of benefit to them, both spiritually and in establishing good habits and skills for the future.
3. Try to group the things you do on different days so that you end up doing things on Sunday that shake you out of your rut, either by raising or lowering your physical activity level or just changing what tasks you do so that you flex different mental and physical muscles on Sunday.
4. Re-think what tasks you let yourself do on Sunday in light of the above discussion of the law. It might be that some tasks you have up-to-now have been classifying as servile work (e.g., lawn work, gardening) might actually be fun for you or your wife to do and constitute restful activities.
5. Think about what you do on Sunday and other days in terms of value: Which is more valuable to you and your family: Doing the work and having the environment you like (which is restful in itself) or not doing the work and not having the environment you would like. It might be that it is more restful to do the work and get the environment you want, or it might be that physically resting and having a sub-optimal environment is more restful.
6. If you have trouble sorting out these issues, that’s understandable. The way the law is written now, we don’t have the kind of simple rules we used to, and more of a burden is placed on the individual in applying the principles to his own circumstances. Just do your best to figure it out, act on the results, and that will be pleasing to God.
7. If you need, try consulting a spiritual director who knows you, your family, and your situation. Make sure he also understands the principles embodied in the current law regarding Sunday.

Hope this helps!