What animals can be eaten on Good Friday, April 21, 2011

For Catholics, Good Friday is a day of fasting and abstinence from meat. But there is some confusion as to what is actually allowed. Before modern taxonomy, the term "fish" had a broader meaning to many people. We would now recognize a fish as a cold-blooded animal from the ocean or a pond that breathes under water. That may not be the exact definition, but its close enough. However, before this, fish would just be considered any animal that is predominantly a water-dweller. Because of this, certain regions have exceptions to the general rule of abstaining from meat, such as:

- Seal can be eaten in Newfoundland on Good Friday
- Muskrat can be eaten in some parts of the United States on Fridays during Lent
- Some places in Europe allowed and possibly still allow the consumption of beaver tails

Here is some further information from AmericanCatholic.org:

Abstinence forbids the use of meat, but not of eggs, milk products or condiments made of animal fat.

Abstinence does not include meat juices and liquid foods made from meat. Thus, such foods as chicken broth, consomme, soups cooked or flavored with meat, meat gravies or sauces, as well as seasonings or condiments made from animal fat are not forbidden. So it is permissible to use margarine and lard. Even bacon drippings which contain little bits of meat may be poured over lettuce as seasoning.

----

If you are aware of any other exceptions, feel free to post a comment about it.

What if Good Friday and a Feast Day Coincide?

I was doing some research on Good Friday fasting and thought of an interesting question. What would happen if Good Friday (a moveable fast day) and the Feast of the Annunciation (celebrated on March 25) coincided? In other words, Good Friday was on March 25th. Would we feast or fast?

I couldn't seem to come across the answer, so I first went to a website which listed all the dates for Good Friday, Easter, etc. for about a hundred years. Then I searched on Google archives to see if anyone else addressed this issue. And sure enough someone did. Who was it? Well, none other than Jimmy Akin, a frequent guest on Catholic Answers Live and the writer of several books on Catholicism.

The short answer to the question is that in the event that both occur on the same day, interestingly, the Annunciation is pushed back. In the case of 2005 (the most recent time this occurred), it was pushed back to April 4th.

I'm not going to write a better article than Jimmy on this subject, so you can check it out here:

http://www.jimmyakin.org/2005/02/good_annunciati.html

Ontario Human Rights Tribunal rules in favor of pro-life monument

More proof that reality is stranger than fiction. A PARISHIONER complained about a pro-life monument erected in from of a CATHOLIC church. She filed the complaint to the human rights commission of Ontario saying that the inscription referring to life as being from "conception to natural death" is a statement against abortion and that the monument is "offensive and discriminatory because it denounces, victimizes, and excludes women."

The entire inscription on the monument reads: "Let us pray that all life rests in the hands of God from conception until death."

The woman who complained apparently is very much against the Church's stance on abortion. It's important to note that the inscription cannot be read from the road, and one must enter the premises of the church in order to read it.

I checked the date and this article is not from April Fool's Day. I'm sorry, but this absolute lunacy. First of all, how can this woman even claim to be Catholic in the first place? Opposition to abortion is a major teaching of the Church and she clearly disagrees with it. There are other churches which would probably support her agreement with abortion. I never understand this in general. How can people regularly attend a religious institution where they clearly disagree with many of its major teachings? This makes as much sense to me as someone claiming to be Christian but not believing that Jesus existed.

I'm actually pleasantly surprised that the Human Rights Commission of Ontario ruled against this woman, given Canadian Human Rights Commissions' tendency to rule against churches and Christian groups. I guess there was no way for them to see this in a bad light. They were forced to concede the church did nothing wrong. However, the tribunal adjudicator made it quite clear that she is not giving a general pass to the church or to the Knights of Columbus or any such group and that if they cross the line, they could be prosecuted. Obviously this is true, but I wonder if this adjudicator or any adjudicator in general would ever make a statement like this to any other group. It seems these tribunals have become nothing more than a weapon used by secularists to stop the Church from teaching.

These human rights tribunals generally really annoy me. I don't know much about their inner workings, but it just seems like they are so geared toward secularists and against the religious community in general.

As I mentioned in a previous article, the usual people who complain about religious expression are not people from other religions, but rather former or current Christians. Look at this woman. She actually attends this church regularly, yet SHE filed the complaint. It didn't come from a Hindu or Buddhist, it came from a so-called Catholic.

I can't believe that there are people at church every Sunday, participating at Mass, seeming to be completely Catholic, yet so opposed to Catholic social teaching that they would actually complain to a human rights tribunal about a consistent teaching of the Church. It just stuns me. How does it make any logical sense? The only possible explanation is that the individual really knows nothing about the Church. Perhaps they view it as some sort of "club" where everyone is a member of some kind of democracy which must align itself with the prevailing morality of the time and place.

In order to reject the Church's teaching on abortion, you must reject much more. You must reject the idea that the Church has the authority to explain and defend moral truths. You must cease to believe that Jesus established a church with a structure of bishops and priests. So now you would have to believe that the Church has no real authority and that as a Catholic you are free to pick and choose what you believe. I'm sorry, but without recognizing the authority of the Church, you cannot be properly called a Catholic in union with the Church. You have actually become a Protestant. Therefore, if you already believe as a Protestant, why are you still attending a Catholic church?

Anyway, 3 cheers for the Ontario human rights commission. Finally a ruling that is not against the Church.

Ontario Human Rights Tribunal rules in favor of pro-life monument | LifeSiteNews.com

Archbishop Currie's Easter Message 2011 | The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of St. John's

Click here to view his message

Is Holy Thursday (April 21, 2011) a Day of Fast and/or Abstinence?

Holy Thursday, April 21, 2011, is NOT a day of fasting or abstinence. Church Law (Canon Law) spells out the following:

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.

There is no mention of Holy Thursday (also known as Maundy Thursday) or Holy Saturday being days of fast or abstinence.

Of course, many people choose to go somewhat above and beyond the minimum requirements and will fast or abstain from meat on these days. That's a personal choice though.

Now I want Vancouver to win the Stanley Cup even more!

Vancouver has declared that May 1 will be Pope John Paul II Day in the city. This is after a request from the local archbishop. As I said, I want the Vancouver Canucks to win the Stanley Cup even more now. One of the reasons this is such a great news story is that Vancouver is extremely ethnically diverse. Only 19% of the population is Catholic, and 52% of people do not speak English as their first language. If you were to guess the least likely city to name a Pope John Paul II Day, you might guess Vancouver. But not so. Oftentimes, people are afraid to celebrate a specifically Catholic event fearing people from other religions or belief systems may be offended. However, I've come to realize that the main objectors to recognizing Christianity or Catholicism specifically are not people of other faiths, but former Catholics/Christians. It is not coming from Chinese people, or Hindus, or Buddhists, it's coming from traditionally Christian people. Take Newfoundland for example. A referendum was held on whether religious schools should stay or leave and a slight majority voted to have them leave. The irony is that over 95% of the population of the province is Christian. Anyway, I digress. I am very happy about Vancouver's decision. Check out the article below:

Vancouver declares May 1st "Pope John Paul II Day” - The Search

New Bishop Installed for Diocese of Grand Falls

This'll take some pressure off the Archbishop of St. John's, Martin Currie and his busy schedule.

Article here

Pope Benedict is urged to declare martyrdom of Shahbaz Bhatti

I wrote an article on Shabaz Bhatti on March 3rd, here.

Here is the article about declaring Shabaz Bhatti a saint

A Catholic bishop offers advice to unmarried cohabiting couples

Link

Fact-Checking Claims about Planned Parenthood | Christianity Today

Article

In his new book, Michael Coren does battle with enemies of Catholicism

Great article for what looks to be a great book on defending Catholicism. Michael Coren's new book tackles the biggest issues facing the Church head-on. He confront the sex-abuse scandal, the Crusades, the inquisition - you know the topics those against the Church usually bring up. I saw Coren speak here in St. John's about a year and a half ago during a pro-life convention. He made some excellent and intelligent points, yet with humour. I look forward to reading his new book.

In his new book, Michael Coren does battle with enemies of Catholicism | Holy Post | National Post

Some quick stuff on Palm Sunday

This is not a long post. Just a couple of tidbits about Palm Sunday, which was today.

1) My friend accompanied me to Mass today. She hadn't been there in a long time and she isn't Catholic so it was good that she wanted to come. She called a little while back saying she'd like to go, so we did.

2) Palm Sunday marks when Jesus came into Jerusalem and was hailed as king. The people waved palms and put down their cloaks for his to go across while sitting upon his donkey.

3) A donkey represents coming in peace. In those days, if a ruler came on a horse, it represented war, but riding in on a donkey or ass represented peace. So Jesus came in peace.

4) The waving of palms is referred to in books of the Bible, including Zacariah 9:9 and 1 Maccabbes 13:51

5) Palm Sunday marks the beginning of Holy Week, the most holy time of the Christian calendar.

Where is God Today? - God and science, under the stars

This is a great interview of a Jesuit priest who is also an astronomer. I think if anyone learned anything from this interview, it's the interviewer. The interviewer just doesn't seem to understand Catholic teaching at all, and seems antagonistic. It's funny but after one particular question, the priest actually chuckles. Good clarification of how Catholics view science.

CBCnews.ca - Where is God Today? - God and science, under the stars

His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI 84th Birthday

Pope Benedict's Birthday tomorrow. Happy Birthday Holy Father!

His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI 84th Birthday | The Manila Bulletin Newspaper Online

ATTENTION PRIESTS! How Well Are You Doing Your Job?

That's the title of an article written by Jimmy Akin, aka RoboCatholic. He discusses evangelization and says parishioners don't do it enough, a situation he partly blames on priests who do not promote it. On the contrary, he notes that many Protestants are encouraged to evangelize in everyday life. Jimmy says he has never seen a priest tell parishioners to talk to other people their faith or encourage them to attend Mass. I, however, have seen this. A priest in my church regularly encourages people there to bring a friend, and to tell others about Mass, etc. He says we must be open about proclaiming our faith and that we mustn't be afraid. I'm glad to have a priest like this.

Click below to read Akin's article:

ATTENTION PRIESTS! How Well Are You Doing Your Job? | Blogs | NCRegister.com

Banning face-coverings in France: a complex issue

On April 11, 2011, the Government of France officially banned the public wearing of full-face-coverings. The stated reasons behind this move were that wearing a mask over the face does not allow the person to be identified and thus is a security hazard. Also, it was seen as protecting women's rights, as some Muslim women were thought to be forced to wear this type of outfit, known as a niqab, or burqa.

The fine for wearing such a veil is up to 150 euros. However, the fine for forcing a woman to wear such an outfit can reach up to 30,000 euros.

The law passed with almost no opposition in the National Assembly - 335 to 1, and then the Senate passed the law with a margin of 246-1. A Pew Research Poll revealed that about 80% of French were in support of this law. However, it does present challenges.

Many see the law as a reaction against Islamic extremism. In fact, even the Grand Mufti of Paris said that this type of face-covering veil is not prescribed in Islam anywhere and that it is a cultural phenomenon, which he believes comes from radicalized sectors of Muslim society. On this basis, he supports the ban. However, he believes it should be addressed in a case-by-case basis.

Many other countries have either enacted similar legislation, are considering it, or have considered it in the past. These countries include Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain, Italy, Austria, Germany, the UK, and Switzerland.

Although this is a difficult issue for several reasons, ultimately I am against the ban, and I will explain why shortly. First, I was surprised to see certain sources which claim Pope Benedict XVI is against this ban. These sources are a little spurious, but they claim he said this in his book Light of the World.

I do not have any reason to doubt that he made these comments. During the controversy over minarets on mosques in Switzerland, the pope said he was against banning them.

The general idea behind all of this is that the Church advocates freedom of religion everywhere in the world. Religion cannot be forced on someone and it is a true human freedom to worship freely. The pope and the Church in general view the banning of religious expression as a bad thing. In the French case, they estimate in all of France only about 2,000 women wear a full face-covering and that these people are concentrated in specific regions of the country.

I believe that the backlash from this could be greater than the benefits achieved. You see, in many Muslim countries, Christians are persecuted and held as second-class citizens. With freedom of religion in "developed" countries, there is pressure placed on Islamic countries to allow more freedom also. However, once we curtail religious expression in Western countries, the Islamic ones have an excuse to do the same.

Propaganda is a very powerful tool. Much of the rhetoric which creates Muslim extremists is that their kinsmen are being oppressed by the "Great Satan", which is the United States and its allies. We only end up fueling the flames when we make laws like this.

A radical Muslim cleric could incite hatred and violence by proclaiming that in the West, we are banning minarets, and niqabs. We are limiting the rights of Muslims. This not only gives them the right to limit Christians' freedom in those countries, but also to lash out violently.

Having said all of that, I do not believe that our morals must change to suit the squeaky wheel. In other words, we should not change our way of life or bend over backwards because a gang of terrorists threatens to hurt us. Caving into these demands only makes things worse and worse. We must stand for what's right.

Ultimately, I think we must guarantee freedom of religion if we are to expect it ourselves. Freedom of religion does not mean we must give into every whim of any religion. Rather it allows people to make their own choices concerning dress, eating habits, etc. I believe if we extend generous freedoms to Muslims, they will be more inclined to do so in their countries for large Christian minorities.

Also, I think in a case like this, there is common ground. As I mentioned earlier, the Grand Mufti of Paris said he is opposed to the wearing of such veils also because they contradict his religion. Instead of the Government unilaterally enacting this law and appearing to curtail religious freedom, it could work with people like this mufti to present this idea in a coherent and convincing way which will gain support from the Muslim community. Also, legitimate concern could be expressed over forced wearing of such clothing by members of the minority community. These issues would be seen from the vantage point of human rights rather than religious freedom and thus cause less friction.

This is admittedly a difficult situation. There are legitimate concerns about people covering their faces in public. There is also the issue of national sovereignty. Countries cannot accommodate the desires of each person and form a different law for each one. This would result in absurdity of course. People should expect to live by the laws of the land. Freedom of religion is a basic human right and must be given to each person. Developed nations must lead this charge. We cannot create tit-for-tat laws. I heard someone say well in Saudi Arabia women are forced to wear face-coverings even if they are Christian, therefore we have the right to force them to take off their face-covering. This is illogical because morals are not based on doing the opposite of what someone else is doing. Morals are based on absolute right vs. absolute wrong. We must be the example that Muslim countries strive for, rather than seeking one-ups-manship.

In conclusion, I will just say that I believe religious freedom is a universal right. Also, although I do believe in a state's right to create laws, I believe this particular law may have more negative consequences than positive. It will simply be fodder to make lives worse for Christians in other countries. We, as Christians, must give example to the world.

Jesus said, "I have given you example". We now follow his example. We too must again give example to the world, and ultimately they may respond in kind.

Good article about how the Church deals with gay couples...

First you have to get past the deceptive title of this news article. Bishop Tobin doesn't say the Church is ok with some benefits for gay couples. All he says is that he is ok with granting benefits to any two people to make decisions for each other. Whether that's a married couple, two buddies, an uncle and nephew, etc. It has nothing to do with sexual orientation. But I guess you gotta grab headlines somehow. The article actually has some good information. The bishop is clear that the Church does not support any officially-recognized gay unions of any kind.

GoLocalProv | News | EXCLUSIVE: Bishop Tobin—Church OK with Some Benefits for Gay Couples

Immorality of IVF and designer babies

Here's the scoop on this story. A couple wants to have a girl, not a boy. Their reason is that their daughter died and to help them in the grieving process, they want to have another girl. As is so typical in these cases, the child is not considered, only the parents desires. People are fond of "designing" their families. Some people believe the perfect family is parents, one girl, and one boy. Then they're done. It's no different than deciding what color to paint their house or what city to live in. They just see a family as an extension of their personal interests and desires. Of course, the reason all of this is possible is that we have separated the sexual act from procreation. Then we went even further by creating babies in test tubes. Now we're at the point where we not only create babies in test tubes, we design them. We look for certain genetic traits, sex, etc. The whole designer baby phenomenon has started. Dr. Frankenstein would be very proud.

One thing I liked in this article is that the government of Australia did not allow this kind of sex determination, and they also said the main decision is in favour of the child, not the parent. Children are gifts from God and we shouldn't be tampering with this. We definitely should not be "designing" babies as an extension of our own personalities. We don't "own" children, we are entrusted with them. They are not pets. We have to move away from this me-me-me attitude in families.

Here's the article:

Couple get no say in baby's sex | Herald Sun