The Catholic Book Club discussion

7. Post here any thoughts you may have while reading The Benedict Option: A Strategy for Christians in a Post-Christian Nation that don't necessarily fit one of our other topics.

Regarding asceticism and fasting, he says that the mentality has disappeared from the West.

Many Orthodox fast or abstain from meat and dairy on a regular basis during the year, basically maintaining dates in which Catholic also fasted or abstained in the past.

Catholics currently only need to fast on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday, and to abstain from meat on Lenten Fridays. On other Fridays, abstinence may be substituted for another pious practice. Do you think many people do it?

In Britain, the substitution of abstinence for something else on non-Lenten Fridays started in 1984, but in 2011 the Bishops decided to restablish the practice "as a clear and distinctive mark of their own Catholic identity", and because "it is important that all the faithful be united in a common celebration of Friday penance.”

In the past, days of fasting or abstinence included: Advent, Lent, the Ember Days, the Rogation Days, Fridays throughout the year, and vigils of Christmas, Pentecost, All Saints, and the Immaculate Conception. Why was this pared down to the current practice?

Because of the recent scandals, bishops in the US have called to bring back the Temporae or Ember Days, three days of fasting at the beginning of each season of the year, which had been observed by the Church till 1966. Here is a very beautiful article about the ember days:

https://aclerkofoxford.blogspot.com/2...

Mariangel wrote: "Regarding asceticism and fasting, he says that the mentality has disappeared from the West... Why was this pared down to the current practice?..."

The Second Vatican Council decided to put an end to the diversity of practices as regards fasting and abstinence in different countries, and even inside a single country, and they did it by equalizing everyone at the minimum level.

In Spain, for instance, since the days of the conquest of Granada (the crusade against the moor to re-unify Spain, in the time of the Catholic Monarchs, half a millennium ago), it was possible to "buy" a significant reduction of the rules about fasting and abstinence for a nominal fee, which depended on the economic level of each person. This reduced level was about equivalent to the current practice.

I think meat abstinence is an outdated practice. At the beginning, it was addressed to rich people, as those who were not rich practiced abstinence almost every day, for meat was outside their reach. Today, meat is not different from any other victuals. I think meat abstinence should be replaced by abstinence of whatever you like most, which is different for different people.

Fasting, of course, is as important today as it was at other times.

Manuel wrote: "Mariangel wrote: "Regarding asceticism and fasting, he says that the mentality has disappeared from the West... Why was this pared down to the current practice?..."

The Second Vatican Council deci..."

I think this was a mistake, like the reduction in the number of Holy Days of Obligation. I understand the desire to have a uniform practice, but it shouldn't have been at the lowest level.

I understand your suggestion that instead of meat, each person abstain from their favorite food on days of abstinence, but I disagree. There is also a universality to a common ban which is very . . . catholic. :-) I would favor an instruction, however, that suggested that since this is intended to be sacrificial, you shouldn't replace your meat with lobster, or other foods that you like as much as meat. For example, I love fish, so having salmon at lunch is hardly an act of abstinence for me, except in the fact that it is required as a common practice. I also love mac and cheese, ordering the extra rich restaurant servings is an indulgence for me, not abstinence.

I also don't think anyone should be able to buy their way out of compliance with fasting and abstinence obligations. That has a corrupting feel to me.

John wrote: " I understand the desire to have a uniform practice, but it shouldn't have been at the lowest level. "

The reason was, I deem, that those who had been complying at the lowest level would have to increase their sacrifices, and in times such as ours, where sacrifices are looked down on, increasing them for some people would have been counter-productive.

John wrote: "I would favor an instruction, however, that suggested that since this is intended to be sacrificial, you shouldn't replace your meat with lobster, or other foods that you like as much as meat."

But what about people like me, who don't like meat specially at all, and therefore abstaining from meat is no sacrifice? And what about vegetarians, who abstain from meat every day? Of course I abstain from meat on Lent Fridays, but as this is no sacrifice for me, I also abstain from other things I like more on all Fridays.

John wrote: "I also don't think anyone should be able to buy their way out of compliance with fasting and abstinence obligations."

This was an emergency decision, for the Catholic Monarchs had a tremendous need of funds for the Granada war, and the Pope decided to help them by making it possible to get funds in this way (the money would be dedicated to the war). Later, when the war ended and the need was no longer pressing, the possibility of reducing the sacrifice was maintained as a reward to Spain for its long fight (crusade) against the Muslims during eight centuries. It finally disappeared after the II Vatican Council.

Manuel wrote: "But what about people like me, who don't like meat specially at all, and therefore abstaining from meat is no sacrifice? And what about vegetarians, who abstain from meat every day? Of course I abstain from meat on Lent Fridays, but as this is no sacrifice for me, I also abstain from other things I like more on all Fridays."

This is what I'm suggesting. A general rule, with an instruction that people who don't normally eat meat anyway should abstain from another preferred food as well as meat. I think there is a benefit to universal practice.

John wrote: "This is what I'm suggesting. A general rule, with an instruction that people who don't normally eat meat anyway should abstain from another preferred food as well as meat. I think there is a benefit to universal practice."

Agreed!

I also think that the uniform rule for all countries should not have been at such a low level. For Spain it would have probably been an increase in penance days then, right?

I agree with what the British bishops did, as abstinence from meat on Fridays really is a distinctive Catholic behaviour and other people know it. I also agree that non meat eaters should find some additional food or drink to abstain from.

About the same time that a few bishops announced the Ember Days practice, my parish priest announced 3 weeks that will be dedicated to reparation during this academic year. He also said that he will continue the practice in future years, as we need a reminder that penance and reparation should a regular part of our relation with God.

Chapter 2, Roots of the Crisis is a great synopsis of how we got to where we are today, starting with William of Ockham and nominalism.

Chapter 3, A Rule for Living is a fascinating look into monastic life. What made me think is the sentence, "The purpose of the Rule is to free you." There is so much to unpack here!

We look down upon structure in our culture. Yet when you don't have routines, then you do things in a disjointed haphazard way. If you don't have a budget, you don't know what you can and cannot afford.

We live in a production oriented society. We are hyper-busy, always looking at what still has to be done at work and at home, as if the impending work-load was the measure of all things. It stresses us out and causes anxiety. It takes our focus away from our families and friends, from community, because we are too darn busy!

It is here where I think the Rule can help us find more balance, take the nuggets and incorporate them into our lives. For instance, this summer on an outing with my family we visited a Benedictine monastery. Our goal was to visit the church, the bookstore :), and do a little hiking. We happened to be there around noon, and the monks filed in for their noon-hour prayer. We sat in this beautiful sacred place and the monks chanted their prayers. It was sublime. A thought entered my mind as to how beautiful it is to witness making time for a noonday prayer, to re-center the day towards God. The layman's equivalent to this is the Angelus prayer, and I've been trying to do this at noon. I kept forgetting, so I programmed it into my laptop calendar to pop up at noon.

But there is more. The balance between work, prayer, and study as the Rule requires is also a great insight into human psychology. If one toils away at something without end, you become fatigued mentally and physically. You don't have any energy left for anything else. The Rule requires you to stop before your activity becomes excessive.

To live a Christ-centered life in this sense is also living in the present moment as much as possible, without giving undo energy to what is past and what is to come. After finishing the work for today, the work of tomorrow is a concern for tomorrow. This is liberating.

I don't know of Dreher will focus on practical solutions for us later in the book, how you reconcile a balanced Christ-centered life in a production oriented world.