Eating of which non-fish animals does not go against the dietery law of the Roman Catholic Church?

score:9

Accepted answer

Canon Law 1251 says:

Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays [...] (emphasis mine).

In other words it is to be determined by the bishops exactly what constitutes abstinence. The bishops of Quebec can simply state that beaver meat is OK to eat on days of abstinence. They don't have to declare it 'fish'. I would imagine that this is common practice in areas where fish is very hard to come by and meat is a staple food. In areas where meat is a rarity, giving it up would be little sacrifice and the rules might again be changed. As this page puts it, "when we abstain, it's not because the food is impure; we're voluntarily giving up something good, for our spiritual benefit". The exact nature of what is given up is of secondary importance.

Upvote:1

The classical definition of what constituted "fish" in the days of St. Thomas Aquinas was based on the Summa Theologica's understanding of animals which took into account both animal habits as well as anatomy.

Generally speaking fish could be eaten on days of abstinence but not the flesh of animals. In the Rule of St. Benedict abstinence is considered the flesh of four-legged creatures.

Usually seafood was permitted and occasionally cold-blooded animals might be acceptable in certain areas. First Things offers a great list of some weird Lenten foods.

Upvote:2

As DJClayworth wrote, nowadays it's not a strict rule what you can eat in lent. But in Middle Ages, there were strict rules about it. All fish were allowed. But fish were not defined as today, but as "all water animals", including a beaver or a capybara. Molluscs were permitted too - thats why monks (some order had to fast for most of the year as others fasted in lent) brought Roman snails (helix pomatia) to some regions where it's not native.

More post

Search Posts

Related post