Mr. Hanlon has a commment for you over on Franciscus’ post about Catholic colleges.

As a convert myself, I’ve noticed that whereas fish-eating is not unpleasant at all for me (I rather like most kinds of fish), nevertheless on Fridays outside of Lent it’s good to practice the traditional abstinence of fish-eating because by so doing we help preserve whatever is left of “Catholic culture” in the United States and the preservation of Catholic culture is a good enough reason to continue the traditional practice. We must also remember that in some settings, choosing to eat meat on Fridays outside of Lent may cause scandal to some of our weaker (traditionalist) brethren, and in that case we should adhere to the pre-conciliar (and most historic) practice out of charity. However, because fish-eating for me is not that penitential, I try to bolster the traditional pracitice with something I once found very difficult: giving up all non-necessary electronics, music included (liturgical music in its liturgical setting excepted). Whereas I now surf the internet in Lent, I still adhere to my abstinence from music and the radio (which I particularly enjoy).

As regards nomenclature, instead of calling Catholics who consistently attend Mass in the vernacular “Novus” Catholics, let’s just call them “Nordites.” I find the term “Novus” sometimes confusing in a piece of writing, because it’s not immediately clear that it refers to a person.

While using a single term to describe a large group of people can lump very different sorts of people together (just think of all the different kinds of “democrats,” “republicans,” “Christians,” “protestants,” etc. there are), nevertheless Clara is most correct that these labels put us in touch with significant trends among those people so described. Therefore, we are justified in using such terms, provided that we remember that no particular group is monolithic.

Traditionally fasting is understood as referring to the deprivation of food and not the deprivation of other legitimate goods or pleasures. This comes from our Lord’s fast in the desert. It is only recently that the concept of fasting has been broadened to include other things. While I understand this, I don’t think it is a good way to use the word “fast.” It causes confusion and miscommunication. One fasts from food. One deprives one’s self of other things.

“But I preserve at least a little of the spirit of my old rule, in that I put no real restrictions on the type of food eaten at meals (except, obviously, for some limitations in the eating of flesh meat.) And although I wouldn’t want to interfere with any Lenten penances that seem to work for people, I would suggest that this might be a good precautionary measure to adopt, especially for young women, or anyone much inclined towards physical vanity. A general effort to eat plainer and simpler is fitting during Lent. But twenty-year-old girls should not be encouraged to observe the season by giving up sugar or fatty foods. Alcohol and meat might be acceptable sacrifices, especially since that rule is very clear-cut. It’s easy to distinguish between alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks, or between meaty and vegetarian dishes. But giving up “junk food” or “sweets” or “fatty stuff” plays too much into a girl’s already-developed instincts to watch her thighs, and the complexes that follow are not congenial to the Lenten spirit.”

I thought it would be clear that the proposed “rule” was “no giving up specific types of food known to be fattening” or more generally “no turning your standard dieting plan into your Lenten resolution.” I mean, I did once observe a stronger form myself, but I explain that that was mostly reactionary and that I eventually discarded it.

Anyway, sorry for the confusion. Perhaps I waxed too anecdotal and obscured my own message. Glad we got everything straightened out.

I do define fasting as preeminently involving deprivation from food, either by type or quantity. Sure, you can broaden that spirit to include other natural goods, but it’s ever and always preeminently going to be about … food. There is less of a leap from no food, to no food of type x / less food on days y-z than there is from less food to … less sleep.

I’ve known people to do this. It doesn’t seem unreasonable. (In fact, a huffy guest once all but ordered us to shut our blog down as a Lenten penance!) As a blogger I somehow feel that I would be “shirking” if I stopped posting all through Lent… possibly evidence of vanity of my own.

Oops! Sorry… I guess I was trying to spread the penances around. :)

Actually, what it says is that it was “presented as” something new. Presumably a lot of work would be done to flesh out the subtle differences between being new and being presented as new, but anyway it seems clear that there was a significant degree of liturgical discontinuity there, though obviously we must affirm that there wasn’t so much as to invalidate the Mass.

But anyway, the term ‘Novus Ordo’ was coined by Rome, not by, say, Marcel Lefebvre.

But I’m happy to consider an alternative nomenclature, as I’ve said. I just think it’s silly to insist that there should be no terms to describe devotees of these different Masses, when there are clearly differences in their liturgical practices, as well as significant cultural trends that can be identified with each. Of course it shouldn’t be about name calling but intelligent use of language suggests that there should be names. ‘Traditional’ is a sensible adjective to apply to those who love the Traditional Latin Mass (and note that I don’t call it the Tridentine, for precisely the reasons Pope Benedict mentioned) because tradition is one of the things that this group prizes most. (I actually tend to think that both their peculiar virtues and their characteristic vices stem from this powerful attachment to what is traditional.) If you think the name ‘Novus’ is unflattering to those who assist mainly at the Novus Ordo Mass, want to propose an alternative?

The latter of these claims expresses the sort of American individualism choice emphasis. Traditionally, in Catholic cultures and Catholic subcultures, penances were a social thing (as they remain in Orthodox cultures). This doesn’t mean it was not a struggle or not unpleasant. But it does mean that it had a much more social aspect, relying on community identity rather than individual willpower. That to me seems a major issue. The decline of the virtue of penance in individuals is related to the decline of the social practice of penances. How do we deal with this in a pluralistic setting?

One last question for consideration - coming out of my current doctoral seminar on ecclesiology and globalization… might we consider a necessity of sometimes fasting from technology, espeically the Internet? What an ironic question for a blog, eh?

The issue with “novus” as a descriptor for people is that it seems to imply a break with Church tradition, whereas something like “Traditionalist” (even if said sneeringly) implies a continuity with tradition. Those of us cradle Catholics born into post-Vatican II reformed liturgies are part of the continuity, even if we want to critique the way the liturgical reforms were handled (architecturally, musically, etc.).

Anyway, you get my general point. It’s certainly not uncommon to take “fasting” to refer to something other than going hungry.

“Holy and Great Friday is observed as a strict fast, and adult Orthodox Christians are expected to abstain from all food and drink the entire day to the extent that their health permits. “On this Holy day neither a meal is offered nor do we eat on this day of the crucifixion. If someone is unable or has become very old [or is] unable to fast, he may be given bread and water after sunset. In this way we come to the holy commandment of the Holy Apostles not to eat on Great Friday.”[1]”

That, no doubt, is what my Russian Orthodox colleague was observing. And from here http://www.stjohnsroc.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20&Itemid=9 :

“A total fast is expected to be kept on the Eve of Nativity, the Eve of Theophany (Epiphany), Great Friday and Holy Saturday for those who can do so.”

“Total” means no food, no water. For both Good Friday and Holy Saturday, that would be quite a tall order, hence the stipulation “for those who can do so.” Probably the Easterners think we are legalistic/rationalistic for making rules that already take into account human abilities, instead of making virtually impossible rules and expecting people simply to do what they can . . .

Anyway, as I say, I think I might have finally gotten it. Your reasoning is something like this:
1) The Church wants us to fast during Lent.
2) Fasting involves not eating.
3) By advising (certain) people not to give up food for Lent, I’m replacing the Church’s regulations with my own penances.

I think (2) was the assumption that I was missing. Except for people with definite reasons for eating (of which an eating disorder might certainly qualify), I certainly think abstaining from food (in accordance with traditional restrictions) on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday is important. But it didn’t occur to me that you wouldn’t consider other voluntary deprivations to count as “fasting.” Just out of curiosity, how would you define ‘fasting’? Do you think that it needs to involve restrictions on the quantity of food eaten, or are restrictions of type enough to qualify? If the first, then the Orthodox don’t really ever fast (at least if I’ve understood their rules correctly), and almost none of the Novus Catholics I knew in college ever fasted either, except on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday. Their restrictions were all type-based (no fats, no sugars, no carbs, whatever.) But once you expand your fasting to include the second, it seems natural to me to expand it also to include other sorts of pleasures.

For the Muslims (or the Mormons!) fasting just means not eating, plain and simple. Of course, Mormon fasts are always very short — nobody is asked to fast for 40 days under that definition! When I came into contact with Catholics, I was a little confused about why everybody was still eating when they claimed to be ‘fasting,’ but I came to understand that Catholics view ‘fasting’ in a broader sense, meaning something like ‘voluntary deprivation of natural goods.’ Food is sort of the most obvious and fundamental form, but it can be expanded, in the way that, say, the commandment ‘Thou shalt not kill,’ can be expanded to include violence, excessive anger, etc. Maybe we want to say that everybody should fast FROM FOOD at some times, and I would actually be fairly receptive to that claim, because I do think that bodily hunger has certain special effects on the soul that are difficult to simulate in any other way. And of course, since I became a Catholic, I have fasted from food during Lent — as I’ve said, my husband and I just follow the old regulations of fasting and partial abstinence on normal Lenten days.

However, my sense is that the broader interpretation of fasting is more in keeping with the Church’s pronouncements on the subject in the post-Vatican II era. Anyway, that was certainly how my Novus friends understood it. So I don’t think a person who chose to ‘fast’ by giving up something other than food for Lent could be said to be disregarding the Church’s laws.

Anyway, when it doubt the best thing to do would be to take Fr. Bailey’s advice, and get some help from a confessor or spiritual director. That’s not always as easy as we’d like it to be (as he said, there just aren’t enough clergy these days to give everyone adequate spiritual direction!) but if you’re worried about it you should try.

The traditional (so considered because they are rooted in the Gospels and endorsed by our Lord) practices of prayer, fasting, and almsgiving are those considered generally “safe” for all. Therefore, the Church prescribes these practices and sometimes requires them by law. Any other penances should not be undertaken without guidance from a confessor or spiritual director.

Fasting becomes a legitimate concern in the case of eating disorders. While someone who is not so afflicted has a moral obligation to fast on prescribed days and at other times, the situation is less clear when such diseases come into play. Is it wise for someone who may not have an eating disorder per se but who buys into the “hollywood model of the ideal” to fast? I think it depends on why? What is the primary motive? Is it to obey the law of the Church, to do Penance, or is it to live up to the ideal? I don’t mean to suggest that living up to the ideal is immoral but it does seem disorderd. It says a lot about where a person gets his/her values. So there is a need for catechesis and possibly the suggestion of an alternative deprivation.

Someone who has been diagnosed with an eating disorder should not fast without consulting a confessor or spiritual director. The Church’s law presumes a person is in good health. Someone with an eating disorder is not so blessed. For them to fast could actually be sinful in that it runs counter to proper medical treatment of the disorder and would cause harm to the person. They could fast from things other than food, what we traditionally call “giving up.” They should still do penance which involves deprivation.

Healthy people are to fast or deprive themselves of food. They ought also deprive themselves of other legitimate pleasures (deprivation of a vice is an obligation not a penance as Clara pointed out). No one is excused from prayer or almsgiving. Even those who have very little can give someting of their wont and everyone can pray.

As to labeling groups as Novus or Trad, this has long been an issue with me. It seems that in the labels is the implication that one is to be preferred over the other. This comes, I think, from a long standing battle between the two. However, in my opinion, both “sides” can be equally un-Catholic. I think one is either Catholic or one is not Catholic. Any deviation from that, whether to right or left, is a movement away from the authentic Church. Certainly there are people with different preferences for legitimate expressions of Catholicity; which form of the Roman Rite, for example. But there are Trads who are not Catholic and there are Novi who are very Catholic and vice versa. So, rather than being Trad or Novus, what we must strive for is to be authentically Catholic.