Cosmos-Liturgy-Sex

I was surprised the other day when some students asked me about Friday abstinence. I was not surprised that one of them did not realize that every Friday of the year was supposed to be observed but that another student had read an article in This Rock magazine (from a couple of years back) saying that Friday penance outside of Lent was optional.

The article was by James Akin whom I usually, but not always, agree with. He is a fairly logical thinker and as usual, in his article he presents a reasonable case. He cites both Canon Law (CIC 1251 and 1253) and the NCCB/USCCB Pastoral Statement on Penance and Absitnence from 1966 which removed the obligation for abstaining from meat outside of Lent. The canons read as follows:

Can. 1251 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. Abstinence and fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.

Can. 1253 The conference of bishops can determine more precisely the observance of fast and abstinence as well as substitute other forms of penance, especially works of charity and exercises of piety, in whole or in part, for abstinence and fast.

Akin understands the 1966 Pastoral to be still in force, which is correct. Further, he reads the Pastoral in the context of his understanding of the first clause of Canon 1253, giving the conference of bishops the authority to more precisely determine the observance of fast and abstinence. The Pastoral unmistakeably says that abstinence from meat on Fridays outside of Lent is no longer mandatory under the pain of sin.

However, the language he finds in the Patoral with regard to substituting other acts of penance, Akin interprets as recommended. This is not an unreasonable reading of the Pastoral itself, I will admit. Thus, he concludes that the bishops removed the obligation from abstaining from meat but put no obligation back in its place. Therefore, one is not obliged to observe Fridays outside of Lent. Please read his article for more precision on this.

This, it seems to me, is where Akin errs in his analysis. What he seems to be doing is to read the first clause of Canon 1253 as having given the national bishops conference carte blanche authority over the practice of fasting and abstinence. This is not the case and to see why we must look back at the relevant canons.

Canon 1251 clearly makes Fridays of the whole year days of abstience from meat, or some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, oblagatory. Canon 1253 further says that the Episcopal Conferences can determine the observance of fast and abstience more precisely. The question is what is meant by determining the observance more precisely. Do the national conference of bishops have the authority to abrogate the Friday observance for parts of the year (or for all of the year for that matter)? That authority is certainly not explicitly given and, as I will argue, therefore, cannot be implicitly given either.

Between Canons 1251 and 1253 the national conference of bishops is given the authority to substitute another meat or to substitute some other penance. It is not given the authority to abrogate the observance for any part of (or all of) the year. If the relevant portion of 1253 means what Akin assumes then canon 1251 has no meaning at all. 1251 becomes irrelevant. If the content is to remain at all, then 1251 should read as a suggestion and perhaps even be incorporated into 1253.

I admit I am not a canonist (phrases such as this always seem to prepare the reader expect to hear “but” or “however”… so I will try something else). Nevertheless, I am able to read the canons for interpreting Canon Law, specifically Canons 17, 20, & 21. These indicate that text and context must be understood, parallel texts must be consulted, that abrogation of a previous law must be explicit, and that in cases of doubt, abrogation cannot be presumed. Thus, I think that Akin went wrong in his assumption that the Pastoral needed to impose a new obligation. The obligation already exists (with three options: abstain from meat, some other food, or some other penance) in Canon Law and the NCCB was never given the authority to abrogate the requirement explicitly and so it cannot exist implicitly. Thus, the authority the bishops received in 1253 must be interpreted in light of the obligation instituted in 1251.

So what did Canon 1253 mean with regard the bishops’ conferences more precisely determing the observance of fast and abstinence? Following the interpretive canons, it would seem that first it is referring to their authority to substitute some other food and also it refers to the subsequent statement that in addition, they are able to substitute some other form penance.

I do not know the intention of the Pastoral in not making it clear that their recommendation for substituting some form of penance was another obligatory option, according to Canon Law. Though, perhaps one could surmise that it had to do with the hope that more fruit from abstinence/penance would come from encouragement rather than feeding into the prevailing legalist outlook that most Americans suffer from.

Unfortunately, whatever the reason, the approach did not seem to have a salutary effect. There is little understanding about the meaning and need for Friday observance. Neither do I wish to appear to be legalistic (which almost always happens when the term obligatory is heard).

What is important is knowing why fasting and abstinence are so fundamental that the Church obligates the faithful to some minimum observances (which as we mature spiritually, we should willingly desire and strive to exceed). It is also important to understand the liturgical year and why Fridays are significant days for fasting and abstinence. If we recognize the liturgy as our incorporation into the Paschal Mystery and the source of our salvation and sanctification that comes from putting on Christ. If we recognize that each week is a mini liturgical year, thus a Good Friday, then we will understand why we ought to make it a mini-Lent. We will desire to seek to join ourselves more closely to Christ on His Cross. If we understand these sufficiently, then the concern over whether it is mandatory or not recedes into the background. If we are not yet sufficiently spiritually mature, then we might still need to hear that it is mandatory.

Fasting and abstinence are fundamental to Christian life and to God’s plan of salvation for us. That is why the observance of the minimum requirements are considered precepts of the Church. This makes them grave matter. They are grave, not because they are some arbitrary discipline, but because we need them for our sanctification. There has to be some way of presenting the truth that there are minimums for being Christian and that as Christians we need to at least meet the minimums. So far, the term obligatory is about the best we can do.