Well it’s Ash Wendsday and for my meal I had pinto beans on a corn tortilla with lettuce and salsa. All fine and dandy when I remember that the beans are made with Lard to be able to make it more like a paste. So It hasn’t been more than a few hours of Lent and already I’ve broken my sacrifice for Lent. (For the record after eating one I recalled it had lard but with that knowledge I still finished my plate…)
So upon the other dozen of damnable sins I have; do I have to Confess that I broke my Lent vow by eating food with Lard on Ash Wendsday?
The only sin that you committed was not being alert enough to notice. You did not knowingly eat the food containing lard. To commit a sin, at least a mortal sin, it has to have been premeditated. This obviously was not. If you feel you need to confess, confess that you were not aware enough to notice it had lard before eating it. It was an accident!
Well, that one’s actually kinda debatable. As I recall, gravy is okay, as with mashed potatoes, but I’m not too sure about beans with lard. Are you sure it has lard in it? In my opinion, baked beans with bacon is okay, too, so long as you don’t eat the bacon. Anyway, that’s just my understanding of it.
I read that you can even drink meat flavored broth…just no actual meat. (chicken broth for instance) What is this about the Lard?
Lard is NOT meat. It is the actual meat that is not permitted. If lard is not permitted you would think butter would not be either.:shrug: Nor cheese, eggs, anything to do with meat. Now they might go to those extremes in the Eastern Orthodox Churches during lent, but I have never heard of it in the Roman Church. I have relative in laws that are Greek Orthodox…during Holy Week they are not even allowed eggs, butter, cheese, milk, nothing that comes from meat at all…frankly I’ve never figured out what it is that they DO live on during Holy Week:D . Their Easter celebrations are great though. They start feasting after their Vigil Mass (usually 10:00 or 11:00pm) and they party through till Tuesday after Easter. (3 days of feasting - whew!)
Taken from Catholic ansewers encyclopedia on fasting. You did not break the fast by eating lard.
The ecclesiastical law of fasting embodies a serious obligation incumbent on all baptized individuals capable of assuming obligations provided they have completed their twenty-first year and are not otherwise excused. This doctrine is merely a practical application of a universally accepted principle of moralists and canonists whereby the character of obligation in human legislation is deemed serious or light in so far as the material element involved in the law bears or does not bear a close and intimate relation to the attainment of a prescribed end. Inasmuch as fasting considered as a function of the virtue of temperance bears such a relation to the promotion of man’s spiritual well-being (see Lenten Preface in the Roman Missal), it certainly embodies an obligation generally serious. To this a priori reason may be added what Church history unfolds concerning the grave penalties attached to transgressions of this law. The sixty-ninth of the Apostolic Canons (see Apostolic Canons) decrees the degradation of bishops, priests, deacons, lectors or chanters, failing to fast during Lent, and the excommunication of laymen, who fail in this way. The fifty-sixth canon of the Trullan Synod (692) contains similar regulations. Finally Alexander VII (September 24, 1665) condemned a proposition formulated in the following terms: Whoso violates the ecclesiastical law of fasting to which he is bound does not sin mortally unless he acts through contempt or disobedience (Denzinger, op. cit., no. 1123). Though this obligation is generally serious, not every infraction of the law is mortally sinful. Whenever transgressions of the law fail to do substantial violence to the law, venial sins are committed. Inability to keep the law of fasting and incompatibility of fasting with the duties of one’s state in life suffice by their very nature, to extinguish the obligation because as often as the obligation of positive laws proves extremely burdensome or irksome the obligation is forthwith lifted. Hence, the sick, the infirm, convalescents, delicate women, persons sixty years old and over, families whose members cannot have the necessaries for a full meal at the same time, or who have nothing but bread, vegetables or such like viands, those to whom fasting brings loss of sleep or severe headaches, wives whose fasting incurs their husbands’ indignation, children whose fasting arouses their parents’ wrath; in a word, all who cannot comply with the obligation of fasting without undergoing more than ordinary hardship are excused on account of their inability to fulfill the obligation. In like manner unusual fatigue or bodily weakness experienced in discharging one’s duty and superinduced by fasting lifts the obligation of fasting. However, not every sort of labor, but only such as is hard and protracted, excuses from the obligation of fasting. These two conditions are not confined to manual labor, but may be equally verified with regard to brain work. Hence bookkeepers, stenographers, telegraph operators, legal advisers and many others whose occupations are largely mental are entitled to exemption on this score, quite as well as day-laborers or tradesmen. When these two causes begetting exemption by their very nature, do not exist, lawfully constituted superiors may dispense their subjects from the obligation of fasting. Accordingly the Sovereign Pontiff may always and everywhere grant valid dispensations from this obligation. His dispensations will be licit when sufficient reasons underlie the grant. In particular cases and for good reasons, bishops may grant dispensations in their respective dioceses. Unless empowered by Indult they are not at liberty to dispense all their subjects simultaneously. It is to be noted that usually bishops issue just before Lent circulars or pastorals, which are read to the faithful or otherwise made public, and in which they make known, on the authority of the Apostolic See, the actual status of obligation, dispensations, etc. Priests charged with the care of souls may dispense individuals for good reason. Superiors of religious communities may dispense individual members of their respective communities provided sufficient reason exists. Confessors are not qualified to grant these dispensations unless they have been explicitly delegated thereunto. They may, however, decide whether sufficient reason exists to lift the obligation. Those who have permission from the Holy See to eat meat on prohibited days, may avail themselves of this concession at their full meal, not only on days of abstinence but also on fasting days. When age, infirmity or labor releases Christians from fasting, they are at liberty to eat meat as often as they are justified in taking food, provided the use of meat is allowed by a general indult of their bishop (Sacred Penitentiaria, January 16, 1834). Finally, the Holy See has repeatedly declared that the use of lard allowed by Indult comprehends butter or the fat of any animal.
We discussed this yesterday at my parish as we worked in the kitchen getting ready for soup suppers to begin today. Is it really a sacrifice to give up meat when you relly love fish? So in turn is it really a sacrifice or harship for you to give up meat when you really love pinto beans. We didn’t have an answer!