Fasting and Abstinence

For Catholics, fasting during lent is a major issue. But, what is really essential behind this “requirement” to have a meaningful Lenten season? Obviously, the purpose of fasting is to do penance. Penance is a form of atonement for all the wrongs you have done during the year. It is like saying “I’m sorry” in a much bigger way, because this time it involves suffering. In a more meaningful way, it is an act of sharing in the suffering of Jesus who died on the Cross in atonement for our sins. And, to fully appreciate your penance think back to the time that Jesus was physically abused by His persecutors, and how much pain He went through during His final walk, and how He suffered as He hung there on the Cross breathing His last. Then, realize how small and petty the physical inconvenience that you are going through compared to His.

But, suffering must be voluntary and with full acceptance of the inconvenience, physical discomfort, even the pain that come with it. Otherwise, it is absolutely meaningless. If you feel “forced” into penance because of fear of “eternal damnation” or committing mortal sin there is no value to your suffering no matter how much you suffered. Penance is like getting a whack on the head and loving it since you deserve it in the first place. While Catholics are advised to fast it is not a “requirement” for you to earn points in order to go to heaven. It is about time Catholics should erase that notion from their heads.

Now, if you are someone who eats three square delicious meals a day fasting (assuming you wholeheartedly welcome it) would be a worthy act on your part. Make an offering of your act to the Lord. He would smile down on you. But, think of this: what about the millions who go hungry all the their waking hours and go to sleep at night hungrier still? Or, just think of those who can only eat once a day. Would fasting have any meaning for them? It’s like – if you’re around something everyday of your life you couldn’t care less whether it has any meaning or none at all. Right? Particularly, since one can’t think of religion on an empty stomach. Doesn’t this reality make a significant impact on your act of fasting? Eating has become almost routine for many people in affluent societies. Sometimes, they eat even when they’re not hungry. They eat simply because it’s time to eat. You go to restaurants and you see people with a lot of food in front of them. More often than not, they cannot finish the food and these end up in the trash. And this brings us to another issue – abstinence.

Many Catholics equate abstinence with meat and poultry. So, during Lent Catholics are “forbidden” to eat meat and chicken because it is a sin. Is this really the teaching of the Mother Church? Let me pose this question: if there is a hungry Catholic who has not eaten for three days who came to you on a Good Friday and the only food available is meat would you deny him the charity of a meal? Which is more Christian – feeding a hungry man or letting that hungry man abstain from meat because “it would be a sin” for him to eat meat during Lent?

Abstinence is an act of refraining from indulging yourself in something that gives you pleasure or satisfaction. Not just meat or poultry. So abstinence, as an act of penance, can take many forms. Cigarettes give you pleasure? Abstain from smoking. Eating meat satisfies your craving for food? Abstain from meat. Curtailing desire for something that gives pleasure to the physical body is what abstinence all about. Even sex. You like food so much, you want to eat every chance you get? Abstain from food! Are you getting the drift here? Fasting is also a form of abstinence! You eat four times a day? Try abstaining and eat only once or twice a day. What would make your act of abstinence more meaningful? Let’s say you eat three times a day - eat only one meal, and the money you’d spent for the other two meals give to charity. Now, that would be something. At least, in your own small way, you help feed those millions who would go to sleep while only dreaming of food in their waking hours. If you smoke four packs of cigarettes a day maybe, at least for one day, you’d stop smoking and buy a hungry person some food with your cigarette money. Now, that is abstinence.

Meekness?

The Eye of God

Christians have been taught the value of restraint. There are passages in the bible that appear to give substance to this teaching. For example, in Mt. 5:39, Christ spoke about turning the other cheek when an evil person strikes you on your right cheek. Many assume this is an act of meekness, considering that being meek is a virtue (Mt. 5:5). But, is this meekness? Are we being taught to be meek in the face of this kind of abuse? Matthew's specific mention of the "right cheek" is quite intriguing. (Luke [Lk. 6:29] did not specifically say "right cheek" but, just "one cheek".)

Let us explore the nuances of Matthew's passage. Normally, when someone slaps you in the face, the two of you would be facing each other. We must assume that the person is right-handed, as most people are. It would be quite a stretch, under normal circumstances, for Matthew to be referring to all left-handed persons. Now, if that person slaps you on the right cheek, he would have to use the back of his right hand, since it would be very awkward to hit you with the open palm of his or her right hand. (Try doing it, if you can).

The use of the back of the hand is reserved only for those who are low in status as compared to the one inflicting the physical abuse, as in the case of a master striking the slave. If we contextualize the Matthean passage, it seemed obvious that Christ was speaking to the poor, the lower class of people (the Anawim) of His time, as the discourse followed closely on the heels of His Sermon on the Mount (the Beatitudes). These were the shepherds, the vine-dressers, the fishermen (like most of His apostles), as opposed to the Pharisees, and Sadducees. So, Christ was clearly putting things in perspective, making it clear to His listeners their apparent position vis-a-vis those who were higher in status then them. But, then again was He really teaching meekness? Remember, in the Beatitudes He said: "Blessed are the meek for they will inherit the earth." (Mt. 5:5). Let's see.

As we have noted, for a person to be able to hit you on your right cheek he or she has to use the back of his or her right hand. This situation can only occur, in context, when a Master strikes a slave, or when a person of higher status hits a person of lower status. In a face to face situation between equals, the open palm striking the left cheek would be very likely. Now let's consider the second part of the verse which says, "turn the other cheek". This is suppose to be the act of "submissiveness". But, is it? Actually, this is a challenge to the slapper to hit again but, this time with the open palm of the right hand on the left cheek! When the slapper does that, he or she elevates the status of the lower-class person, and considers him/her now as an equal! One can only marvel at the brilliance of the Lord. The underlying message was not clearly obvious, as in the case of His parables, but the subtle slur on the high and mighty Pharisees was very cleverly done.

Restraint, yes. Meekness? No. Meekness maybe a virtue, but in the face of abuse restraint tempered with grace and dignity takes precedence.