Can you eat SEAL during Lent?

We all know some of the strange rules with eating certain animals during Lent. In general, every Catholic is obliged to abstain from "flesh meat" during Fridays of Lent. However, they can eat fish of almost any kind.
But did you know there are some animals that are not fish that can be eaten during Lent in certain areas? Dispensations were given in some parts of the world to alloy people to eat non-fish animals on Fridays of Lent.
For example, in Quebec, beaver was permitted in the 1700s. In Venezuela, Capybara is allowed to be eaten. And in Newfoundland, at least in previous centuries, seal meat was an allowable food to be eaten during Lent and even Fridays of Lent.
One of the reasons for this was that our modern-day taxonomy did not exist prior to Carl Linnaeus who lived between 1707 and 1778. He started the classification of the animal kingdom into various groups such as Mammals, Birds, Fish, etc.
So animals were classified in different ways. One way was by their predominant behavior. All of the animals listed above which are exceptions to the rule of only eating fish spend most of their time in the water. In an older classification system, these animals could be considered types of fish.
When you think about a seal, it, in many ways, acts and behaves as a fish, even though it is a mammal and spends much of its time on land (or ice).
In any event, seals are permitted to some people. To be honest, I am not sure if seal meat is currently permissible to be eaten during Lent in Newfoundland as it once was.
As a side note, if you are interested, I sell seal oil capsules which contain high levels of omega-3 fatty acids. You can check out my website at www.TerraNovaSealOil.com
Thanks for stopping by and reading. I will try to update this blog frequently!

Fasting During Lent: Are you doing enough?

Have you ever gone through Lent and ended up in Easter and thought to yourself, "Man that wasn't hard. In fact, it wasn't hard enough."?

It has happened to me many times. I give up some very minor things during Lent and when it's all over, I barely even notice. Examples of not giving up much include:

• No chocolate between 7pm and 8pm on Wednesdays and Fridays
• Having one less Coffee on the first day of the month.
• Going to Mass on Ash Wednesday instead of staying home

These are somewhat exaggerated to make a point. In reality, I once heard of a person who had given up one particular type of chocolate bar during Lent. That's it. Remember, they didn't give up snacking, or sweets, or even chocolate in general, they had given up one particular chocolate bar. They permitted themselves to eat ANY OTHER type of chocolate bar, but not this one particular kind. And I'm not saying milk chocolate, e.g. I mean something like Kit-Kat bars or Mars bars.

Now, once Lent is all said and done do you think this person can better relate to Jesus Christ and feel as though they accompanied him in the desert for 40 days? I somehow doubt it.

On the other hand, this person may have already been holy and sanctified that they didn't really need to give anything up and perhaps they were focusing more on doing more almsgiving or acts of charity, as opposed to "giving things up".

One thing that can get us through Lent is the prospect and thought of Easter. The hardships we are going through will be turned to joy and glory at Easter. Isn't that the point? Imagine doing something much greater this Lent than usual. Maybe not eating until after 3pm every day, maybe eating just one meal a day, maybe forgoing all snacks, or not eating meat on most days, etc.

Although I sometimes personally focus on the fasting aspect of Lent, there is also almsgiving and prayer which are equally important. And in all three it's important to know the reason we are doing these things. They are all meant to be done for love of Christ. If they are done primarily for reasons other than love of God, they are being done for the wrong reasons.

Once your trial is over and the glories of Easter are upon us, you will feel like a new creation!
Please provide your comments and feedback!

Sensus Fidelium: A Treasure Trove of Information

If you are a serious Catholic, you have no choice but to check out the Sensus Fidelium Youtube Channel.

The channel contains thousands of top quality audio from various Catholic priests and others. They are very faithful to tradition and teach true Catholic Doctrine. I must say that I really learned a lot by listening to some of these talks particularly those by Fr. Chad Ripperger. He really clarifies things in a fantastic way. For example, he doesn't lightly use words randomly. He uses the precise word that he is looking for as he has memorized their definitions.

This priest has given some excellent talks concerning the various levels of prayer and the necessity of mental prayer. This is something that I hadn't her talked about very often in homilies. As mentioned, he very clearly explains the various levels of prayers and will quote various saints when giving his talks. We need clear teaching and teachings of substance, which is something that is highly lacking in the live of most Catholics.

Check it out at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3x3gDTqUYy_bFZWS-U_mZQ

Stupid Abortion Argument #25918: If you don't pay all expenses of a child, then you aren't pro-life

A popular new argument being brought by pro-choice advocates is that you aren't really pro-life unless you pay for some or all expenses related to raising a child. The specific argument can vary.  For example, when advocating that children not be killed in the womb some pro-choice people will ask "How many children have you adopted?" Others might rhetorically asked if you are willing to pay all of the expenses associated with having this child.

On a purely logical basis this line of reasoning is easily answered. Pro-life people believe that human life begins at conception and that purposely ending the life of an innocent human being after conception is murder. It is a very basic an easy concept to understand.   Any deliberate killing of a human being is gravely morally wrong. Stating this fact and telling others about it is a morally good thing to do. This is a very basic concept.

In order to advocate that a particular group of people not be killed, one has no moral obligation to first agree to provide for any or all of their material needs. This is an illogical belief. This would make no more sense than saying in order for one to say that innocent people should not be killed one must first agree to provide for all of the material needs of the people they say should not be killed. If I advocate for the idea that homeless people should not be arbitrarily murdered in the streets it does not make sense to say I must bring all homeless people into my home in order to advocate this position.

In fact, I doubt in reality that anybody truly believes that in order to advocate on behalf of the right to life of an individual we must agree to bring that individual into our home or to pay for their material needs. Even answering this objection is difficult only in the sense that it is so obvious that there's not really any logical argumentation required in order to make that point.  But then again advocacy of abortion is not based on logic but on convenience.

Once again, the true point of argumentation when it comes to abortion is whether the pre-born child is a human being or not. Pro-choicers will call an unborn child anything but a child. They say it's a clump of cells, a potential life, etc. All of these are emotive and non-scientific stances. By definition, there is a human being upon the fertilization of an egg by a sperm to form a zygote. This zygote grows quickly. After around 5-9 days there are hundreds of cells and after 2 weeks most organs have begun to form. This child has unique DNA and the heart, lungs, etc. have begun development. To say this is not a human person is absurd.

This is just the most recent "argument" presented by pro-choicers. It should be summarily dismissed.

Chit-chatters at Mass

Sunday at Mass, there were two men who were chatting. I’ve seen this before and attempted to sit fairly far away from them. Due to other circumstances, I couldn’t get too far away. Throughout the entire Mass, they chit chatted. During prayers, even during the consecration, it didn’t matter to them. Just blabbering on. It may have been one more than the other.

Sadly, this isn’t uncommon. Most people don’t talk non-stop, but randomly whispering is very common. Not one or two words, but a few minutes. Sometimes if you are unlucky enough to overhear what they are discussing, it’s not something earth-shattering. Usually it’s the most mundane topics. What are we having for supper? Did you call Jim about that hockey stick after? When do you want to go up to the cabin next weekend?

My question is, why are these people coming to Mass in the first place? Do they have absolutely no idea what it is? Pope Benedict wrote a great article addressing this problem overall. He said it comes down to a lack of understanding of what the Eucharist and the sacraments in general are. If you are unaware of the significance of what is going on, you may not have an issue with talking throughout.

Basically Benedict attributes the problem to seeing the Mass primarily in terms of its side effects rather than the main purpose. People have come to believe the primary purpose of Mass is a social gathering, where people greet each other, hug, catch up, etc. There is a vague sense of Christian community. But there is a lack of knowledge or understanding of the divine, or the sacramental, of the supernatural. It’s seen entirely as natural.

As a corollary to this, people place inordinate attention on the homily. But even that they are misjudging. The homily is meant to educate and illuminate. But in the incorrect understanding of its purpose, people see the homily as intended to “bring people together” or create a sense of community. Therefore, if the priest ventures into an area of controversy, people are quick to react. Even priests who dare bring up challenging topics often spend much time preparing the hearers about what he is about to say and offering many nice and loving thoughts beforehand lest the congregation feel attacked.

The congregation generally dislikes being challenged and is looking to be praised or congratulated in various ways. Again, this is contrary to the purpose of the homily.

I see these attitudes very often in Newfoundland. The sacramental nature of the Mass is ignored. People see their attendance as a social gathering primarily. The supernatural and sacramental are largely unknown. People just do what they are “supposed” to do because that’s what they were shown as children.

Liturgy can be an important aspect to changing the behavior of the congregation. If the priest is very nonchalant about everything and shows no reverence, then can the congregation be expected to act differently? But it’s not the whole solution. Catechesis is very important. People need informative, thought-provoking, and challenging sermons. If a priest is talking in a very monotone way about vague ideas, how will people learn things or be motivated about the faith?

Fulfilling your Sunday obligation is more than being physically in a church. It’s about being aware of what is happening. No one is off the hook for this, including the parishioners and the priest.

Disturbing Trend of Ad Hoc Morality

I have a lot of friends who claim to be Christian but whose views are at direct odds with their stated religion. I am not for a minute saying that I am somehow perfect or something or that I don’t sometimes break the rules or whatever. What I’m talking about is people who hold views totally contrary to their belief system, yet they have absolutely no problem with this.

 

Christians all view abortion as wrong, for example. Yet many people I know are fine with IVF which almost always involves abortion. For Catholics, IVF, even if somehow abortion isn’t involved, is morally illicit and strictly forbidden. I find it shocking these people are fine with it. They don’t even attempt to reconcile their clear violation of morality with their so-called belief systems.

 

My contention is that these people should just stop calling themselves Christian. They can instead say something like “I tried to be Christian but it’s too hard and it conflicts with all of my viewpoints. Therefore for now I am not a Christian.”

 

Besides this, many so-called Christians and Catholics specifically will proclaim support for transgender operations, even for children, transvestitism, and homosexual activity. All of these are clear and obvious violations of Christian principles.

 

When pressed, they will ultimately make up some reasoning like “I don’t have to believe everything in Christiainty, plus different people have different opinions.” Ah yes, choose your own religion. So convenient. As St. Augustine said “If you accept things from the gospel that you like and reject what you don’t, it’s not the gospel you’re listening to but yourself.” These people are listening to themselves. It’s the religion of self. Self-worship. You are the ultimate God in this religion. Sounds attractive.

 

It’s also a result of Protestant theology which posits that there are no authorities within religion but that it’s up to each individual to decide what’s right. To be fair, they will claim the Holy Spirit has to make all the decisions. Sounds good right? God himself making your decisions. What could be better? Well, because of this belief we have 30,000 Protestant denominations. That’s why we need a structure. Otherwise people float around rudderless. As evidenced by many of my friends, their own faulty beliefs often take precedence over God’s laws. It’s all too easy to fall into this trap when it’s a “Me and God alone” proposition.