HolyMotherChurch.blogspot.com is an easy-to-read blog regarding news, events, and opinions of what is happening inside the Catholic Church.
Friday, March 25, 2022
Consecration of Russia and Ukraine to the Immaculate Heart of Mary
Can Catholics FAST on a Feast Day or Solemnity? e.g. Solemnity of the Annunciation
Please pay close attention to the question I am asking:
Can Catholics fast on a feast day or solemnity?
I ask you to pay attention because it's a question for which an answer is very difficult to find! Whenever I search for it on Google, it inevitably brings up the minimum requirements for fasting in the Church. It seems very few people ask about the permissibility of fasting on a feast day.
Most of the questions revolve around whether one is permitted to forego fasting on a particular day.
So, again I ask: can Catholics fast on a feast day or solemnity? In other words, are Catholics even permitted to fast on a feast day? It is wrong, inadvisable, etc? Let's talk about it.
Although I could not find a direct answer in the Catechism or in the Code of Canon Law regarding this, I was able to find some other sources which address this question.
St. Francis of Assisi
On a particular blog, I found a quote by St. Francis of Assisi. The version found there states:
When the question arose about eating meat on Christmas Day, because it fell on a Friday. St. Francis replied to Brother Morico, "You sin, Brother, calling the day on which the Child was born to us a day of fast. It is my wish," he said, "that even the walls should eat meat on such a day, and if they cannot, they should be smeared with meat on the outside."
Saint Francis of Assisi
Celano, Second Life
Chapter CLI
From this quote, it seems clear that one of the Church's greatest saints was greatly opposed to fasting on a solemnity.
Catechism and Code of Canon Law:
These two sources, rather than discuss whether one is permitted to fast on a feast or solemnity instead lays out fasting requirements and indicates that fasting is not required on these days:
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.
So Canon 1251 addresses whether one is obligated to abstain from meat on a Friday which is also a feast or solemnity, but it doesn't address whether one is allowed to fast on such a day or if it would be wrong.
Is it advisable to fast on a feast day?
Unless I hear otherwise, I am a proponent of avoiding fasting on a solemnity or feast day even if it's on a Friday during Lent. By fasting on such a day, it seems we are missing the point. Jesus himself fasted for 40 days and nights but also tells people that fasting at certain times would be inappropriate.
Matthew 9 (14-15): The Question About Fasting.
14
g Then the disciples of John approached him and said, “Why do we and the Pharisees fast [much], but your disciples do not fast?”
15
Jesus answered them, “Can the wedding guests mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them? The days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast.
Feasts and Solemnities are times of celebration and joy, very similar to Sundays during the year. Although Lent is a penitential time, there are glimmers of joy even in this season, and we should not neglect those.
I feel that this is also partially about obedience. Sometimes pride can sneak into our fasting efforts. Some people may continue to fast on these celebratory days just to show they are able to or to "challenge" themselves. But again, I feel this is the wrong approach. Fasting is about growing spiritually closer to Jesus Christ our Savior. It's not about some personal achievement or accomplishment.
Today is the feast of the Annunciation, a day on which Mary was proclaimed to be the Mother of God. It is truly a time of great celebration and joy. To fast and deny ourselves on this day would seem inappropriate.
I would love to hear your thoughts in the comment section!
I hope you continue to have a blessed Lenten season!
Thursday, March 24, 2022
Supreme Court nominee doesn't know what a woman is
Sadly, this isn't satire. Ketanji Jackson-Brown is the nominee to become the next Supreme Court Justice of the United States. She's being interviewed as part of her nomination hearing. She was asked by a Ms. Blackburn yesterday what a woman is. She couldn't answer. She refused to answer. She said she can't answer because she is not a biologist.
Again, no, this is not some sort of joke. It wasn't more complicated than this. You can see the clip or read the transcript. A nominee to the highest court of the United States was asked to define "woman" and she was unable to. She isn't seeking a job at Wendy's. She will be responsible for interpreting the Constitution of the United States and she can't even say what a woman is. Does she know what a house is, or a cat? Maybe she can't tell you what a tree is because she's not a botanist. Perhaps the concept of a computer eludes her because she's not a computer scientist.
How can anyone expect a person like this to offer an objective analysis of a law? Court cases can involve hundreds of documents, and tens of thousands of words. Will she claim ignorance for the definition of every word that crosses her path? How would one even be able to do his or her job with this type of constraint? Court cases would be reduced to absurdity.
I checked a recent Supreme Court case that came up and looks like was resolved today. A man was convicted of murder in Texas at a convenience store and was sentenced to be executed. He wanted to have his pastor present who would offer prayers and be there during the execution which is currently not allowed. Okay, so this case goes to Jackson-Brown.
She might ask what is a pastor and what are prayers? I'm not a theologian.
This happened in Texas. What is Texas? I'm not a cartographer!
What's a convenience store? I'm not a city planner or architect!
Things would quickly get pretty untenable.
We all know why this is happening. Crazy leftwing ideology. She is trying to appease these people but she is putting the entire country at risk. If we cannot agree on the most basic terms such as man, woman, person, etc, what's the point of even having a Supreme Court?
You may be asking what this has to do with Catholicism. Well, I think we have to proclaim the truth in public. Truth is not a subjective thing that changes as time goes on. A woman is a woman, two X chromosomes, has female reproductive organs, etc. Everyone always knew what a woman was, it was the furthest thing from controversial. But now this basic truth of our humanity is being attacked and people, like a potential supreme court justice, are pleading ignorance on this issue.
More than ever we must stand up for the truth and proclaim it when it makes sense to do so.
Wednesday, March 09, 2022
"Instead of fasting from food, fast from..." and other nonsensical phrases
Something I've heard a lot in recent years is the expression that goes something like "This Lent, instead of fasting from food, fast from criticizing others (or judgment, meanness, anger, etc - the list goes on).
They may also say what to feast on, such as love, kindness, etc.
There is nothing wrong with this except the unnecessary contrasting of fasting from food with fasting from other actions and activities. They are hardly mutually exclusive concepts, as though you must choose one or the other.
In fact, fasting from food helps us in fasting from other vices which is why we are told to do so. If fasting itself had no beneficial effects or in fact makes us more judgmental, angry, jealous, etc, then why would Christ have implored us to do so? Remember, Jesus doesn't say if you fast, he says when you fast. Fasting is presupposed to the point where not only does he not have to tell people to do it or start doing it, he tells people how to do it correctly and points out those who do it wrong.
I find it highly misguided and inappropriate in our current time to set up this false dichotomy when speaking to people in our current era who have generally neglected fasting almost completely. When people do "fast", it is usually the mildest form of it. I once heard a woman say that she is fasting from one particular type of chocolate bar during Lent. Not chocolate in general, but one specific bar, such as Peanut Butter M&Ms or something. I'm sure St. Francis of Assisi is looking down from heaven in awe of this level of self-denial.
I don't say these things in order to toot my own horn or say that I'm superior. I won't even mention what I may or may not be doing during this or other Lents. One of my prompts in writing this comes from my own reflection that we should make Lent a little more strenuous than usual so that we can grow spiritually during this season of penance. My point is that in an era where the practice of fasting has almost completely vanished, it seems odd that priests and others would implore us to leave behind fasting from food and to choose other sacrifices instead.
In my readings, I've been looking at what some Christians undertook as fasting for many centuries. They would give up all meat and animal products, many would only eat one meal a day after 3pm (and sometimes later). During Holy Week itself, many would subsist on bread and water alone. These practices weren't considered extreme and unusual, they were the norm in many places and for many people. In that bygone era, perhaps it would have made sense to remind these people to fast from other vices as well, or to even warn people not to go too far so as to damage their health. But such warnings seem almost silly in our time. It would be like speaking at an obesity conference and telling participants to focus on eating enough.
On the level of communication itself, we live in a time of imprecision. People throw around terms interchangeably without attempting to be precise. In my opinion, this has had the effect of rendering people less able to express specific ideas and has damaged theological and philosophical discussions. My point in mentioning this is that we shouldn't be using the term "fasting" in reference to things other than food. It's unnecessary and confusing. The English language especially has a very wide vocabulary and resorting to a specific word for use in other purposes seems unnecessary. It also waters down the concept of fasting. If fasting can mean refraining from not only food, but anger or jealousy or rudeness, then it takes away the idea that fasting from food is necessary and helpful. People start to believe that fasting from anything is the equivalent. The truth is Jesus specifically mentions fasting many times. He doesn't lump it together with various other practices. This highlights its importance.
Instead of "fast from anger", just say practice patience. Instead of "fast from criticism" say show mercy or show compassion. Instead of "fast from rudeness", perhaps say "show meekness". Not only is it more accurate, it is phrased in the positive. We don't just fast from pride, we pray for an increase in humility, for example.
Leave fasting as its own separate category. There are many spiritual fruits to be gained from this practice and watering it down is not the right thing to do in this era. Fasting is not an end in itself but rather a means to an end. By denying our bodies, we can focus more on the spiritual and growing closer to God.
This Lent, let's "fast" from watering down concepts and finding the easy ways out. I hope you have a blessed and fruitful Lent in anticipation of Christ's death and glorious resurrection and ascension at Easter.
Wednesday, March 02, 2022
Happy Lent Everyone
Today is Ash Wednesday, the first day of Lent. What are you all going to do? Try to challenge yourselves. When Easter rolls around, you want to be proud of what you've accomplished in terms of penance as well as growing in spirituality and holiness. Don't let this Lent go by without making a big effort. God bless!