And Soups Made From Meat

by Jimmy Akin

in Liturgical Year

Yee-haw!!! Another round in the annual Lent Fight!

In this corner, the Masked Reader writes:

Mr. Akin,

On your blog you stated that the laws of abstinence regarding soups et cetera changed when Paenitemini was promulgated in 1966. I think I have to take issue with your interpretation. It doesn’t seem that Paenitemini changes the laws then in force; all it says on the subject of abstinence is that "[t]he law of abstinence forbids the use of meat, but not of eggs, the products of milk or condiments made of animal fat." Is it not customary to interpret the law in accordance with earlier laws on the same subject? There is certainly no explicit permission in Paenitemini to partake of soups (and gravies and whatnot) made of meat on days of abstinence. Is there an authentic interpretation of Paenitemini or the 1983 Code that permits such?

You are correct that laws are generally to be interpreted in accord with earlier laws on the same subject. But this does not mean reading into the new law whatever the provisions of the old law were. In fact, it can involve the opposite: Looking at the new law to see what parts of the old law have been dropped.

Canon 20 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law provides that:

A later law abrogates, or derogates from, an earlier law if it states so expressly, is directly contrary to it, or completely reorders the entire matter of the earlier law [SOURCE].

Paenitemini expressly derogates from prior law when it says:

The prescriptions of ecclesiastical law regarding penitence are totally reorganized [i.e., completely reordered; this is a translation difference but it's the same phrase] according to the following norms [Norm I:2].

The norm on abstinence says:

The law of abstinence forbids the use of meat, but not of eggs, the products of milk or condiments made of animal fat [Norm III:1].

This is very similar to but nevertheless different from Canon 1250 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law which said:

The law of abstinence prohibits meat and soups made from meat but not of eggs, milks, and also whatever condiments are derived from animal fat [CIC(1917) 1250].

The "and soups made from meat" phrase is missing and thus Norm III:1 of Paenitemini derogates from Canon 1250 of the 1917 Code. As the Green CLSA commentary notes on canon 20 of the 1983 Code:

Divine laws do not change, but ecclesiastical laws, being of human origin, can be revoked partially (derogation) or entirely (abrogation) [p. 80].

[If a] new law changes part of an old law or norm but leaves the rest intact: this is a derogation, not abrogation [p. 82].

Since Paenitemini drops part of what the 1917 Code said about the law of abstinence but leaves the rest intact, it derogates from (partially revokes) what the 1917 Code said on that point.

Thus "soups made from meat" are now kosher on days of abstinence.

If anyone is of a mind to be cantankerous about this point, I would then note that the above line of reasoning at least creates a doubt as to the legal status of soups made from meat (in fact, it seems to do much more than create a doubt, but let’s suppose that’s all it does), in which case we have a doubt of law situation.

As Canon 14 of the 1983 Code provides:

Laws, even invalidating and disqualifying ones, do not oblige when there is a doubt about the law.

So one can still eat chicken noodle soup until Rome says otherwise.

I don’t favor that myself, but my job here is to explain what the law says, not what I’d prefer it to say.

If you liked this post, you should join Jimmy's Secret Information Club to get more great info!


What is the Secret Information Club?I value your email privacy

{ 35 comments }

Steve D. Galvanek February 15, 2005 at 12:47 pm

I can’t quite put my finger on why, but it troubles me that so much energy and effort is spent on the minutia of the Lenten observance. I certainly would not want to be one who says such things don’t matter, but isn’t this overkill (I am not directing this at Jimmy, by the way, as he is simply responding to the queries put to him)? Have we not lost the spirit of penance, fasting and abstinence at the point when we are arguing about gravy? Certainly I want to (as we all should) be wholly obedient to the Church and her precepts. And of course we are bound to continue to educate ourselves about these matters to the best of our ability. But something about many of the comments strikes me as pharisaic and a bit scrupulous.

Jimmy Akin February 15, 2005 at 12:57 pm

Preach it, brother!

Eric Giunta February 15, 2005 at 1:21 pm

What’s even more pitiful and scandalous is that Rome will not clarify these confusions. It’s an ecclesiastical law and should not be that hard to clear up.
Especially since we are discussing laws that bind under mortal sin.

Jimmy Akin February 15, 2005 at 1:25 pm

‘Cept for the fact that, per canon 14, where there is a doubt of law the law does not bind.
Therefore, whatever is not expressly prohibited or only doubtfully falls under what is prohibited is permitted.

Sean February 15, 2005 at 1:26 pm

Er…I don’t quite see where mortal sin comes in…it would be bad to eat meat on a Lent Friday in defiance, but would it be mortally grave? (Aside from culpability and knowledge, of course)

Jimmy Akin February 15, 2005 at 1:32 pm

Please see the post “The Gravity of Penance” under Annual Lent Fight.
See? Putting the annual Lent fight in one convenient permapost is already paying off! I don’t have to re-write the whole answer! Yee-haw! :-)

StephenL February 15, 2005 at 2:53 pm

Jimmy: Slow down! You are posting faster than I can read it all. I have a day job you know!

Eric Giunta February 15, 2005 at 3:46 pm

Really, Jimmy, I have to disagree with you on this. It seems plainly obvious that when Paul VI makes mention of meat he wants to include soups with meat in them.
It simply makes absolutely no sense to forbid eating a piece of chicken, and then allowing it when this same piece of chicken is soaked in a soup broth.
I find it hard to believe that this was how Oaul VI was thinking when he wrote what he did. I think we need to use a bit of common sense.

Publius February 15, 2005 at 5:37 pm

I think we need to use a bit of common sense.
Is it commonsensical to classify a giant rodent as a fish?

dcs February 15, 2005 at 6:22 pm

forbids the use of meat
But does not “forbid the use of meat” in soups? ;-)
As far as arguing over the minutiae of the Lenten abstinence is concerned, it’s hard to see how a person could reasonably take scandal at what’s been said so far (and what has been said so far can be useful in preventing someone from taking scandal at another’s Lenten practice), and, let’s face it: it’s fun.
.it would be bad to eat meat on a Lent Friday in defiance, but would it be mortally grave
Absolutely. One of the precepts of the Church, which bind under mortal sin, is that one must observe the days of fast and abstinence established by the Church.

Anonymous February 15, 2005 at 7:00 pm

>>What’s even more pitiful and scandalous is that Rome will not clarify these confusions. It’s an ecclesiastical law and should not be that hard to clear up.
Scandalous? Really? So, we have…
* The pope fighting for his life
* Heresy galore throughout the church
* The priest abuse scandal in the U.S.
* A severe priest shortage in the West
* Liturgical abuses out the wazoo
* A ‘Catholic’ politician running for president who is pro-abortion
* 90% of the laity rejecting the Church’s teaching on contraception
* etc.
* etc.
* etc.
…and somehow the gravy/soup controversy rises to the level of scandalous? Isn’t this just a tad bit hyperbolic? I suppose despite all the above, the Vatican has nothing better to do than just drop everything and issue a statement clearing this up. Good gravy! ;-)

Liam February 16, 2005 at 5:23 am

I have understood this bit of minutiae to refer not to flesh meat in the soup as consumed, but permitting broth made from meat & bones. In other words, it is now OK to eat chicken noodle soup but not any bits of chicken flesh. Actually, the prior canonical law still depended on the local understanding of what “meat” comprised, and in many areas, broth made from meat/bones was not considered meat. It would seem the change in the canon was actually intended to clarify this. Of course it appears that it has not.

Liam February 16, 2005 at 5:28 am

As for the mortal nature of sinful violation of the abstinence and fasting precepts, a number of the experts over at EWTN have issued conflicting opinions about whether the precept necessarily constitutes grave matter any more, for a variety of reasons, and so it would seem even fairly conservative commentators have raised doubts on that score.

Jimmy Akin February 16, 2005 at 7:33 am

In the absence of the clause in its entirety, eating soups with chunks of meat in it (e.g., chicken noodle soup) is going to be permitted.
If the pope wanted to allow broths but not soups with meat he could have changed the soup phrase rather than deleting it altogether.
Further, if you read Paenitemini, it is clear that what is going on is a relaxation of the law regarding penance. The pope is making it easier to observe the law, and the vanishing of the soup phrase is to be understood in that light.
That makes it implausible that he would want to put people in an ultra-scrupulous situation of eating chicken noodle soup but skipping the bits of chicken. (Oops! Was that just a tiny bit of chicken I swallowed or was that a piece of noodle?)
Regarding the gravity of infraction of the law, Paenitemini flat out *say* that the obligation of substantial observance of the norms of the document binds gravely. If conservative experts are giving contrary opinions, they either have not read the document or have not read it recently enough to remember the passage.
Please see “The Gravity of Penance” in Annual Lent Fight.

Eric Giunta February 16, 2005 at 7:40 am

“That makes it implausible that he would want to put people in an ultra-scrupulous situation of eating chicken noodle soup but skipping the bits of chicken. (Oops! Was that just a tiny bit of chicken I swallowed or was that a piece of noodle?)”
The common sense solution would be just to not eat Chircken soup to begin with. The whole POINT of abstaining from meat is that you’re depriving yourself of the taste of it, not the meat itself.
I’m beginning to believe that these laws are just plain stupid. I for one am embarrased by the fact that the Church has them, and further more that I have to spend an eternity under the blow-torch for eating a piece of chicken, but my neighbor gets off scot-free when he eats a delicious bowel of home-made, chunky-chicken soup.

Steven D. Greydanus February 16, 2005 at 8:00 am

I’m beginning to believe that these laws are just plain stupid. I for one am embarrased by the fact that the Church has them, and further more that I have to spend an eternity under the blow-torch for eating a piece of chicken, but my neighbor gets off scot-free when he eats a delicious bowel of home-made, chunky-chicken soup.

The laws, or at least the minutae of what is or isn’t permitted, may be stupid. Jesus never promised the Church that she would always have sensible disciplinary regulations. But He did make it clear that the power to bind or loose must be respected even when used poorly — even when abused or used hypocritically (note the use of “binding” terminology):
“The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice. They bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger” (Mt 23:2-4).
So, it may be stupid that the law allows for an exception to the no-meat clause when the meat is in soup. OTOH, it’s hardly a heavy burden, so thank God the laws are only stupid and not burdensome.

dcs February 16, 2005 at 11:43 am

As for the mortal nature of sinful violation of the abstinence and fasting precepts, a number of the experts over at EWTN have issued conflicting opinions about whether the precept necessarily constitutes grave matter any more, for a variety of reasons, and so it would seem even fairly conservative commentators have raised doubts on that score.
I know that they have raised questions about whether the general Friday penance binds under mortal sin (in fact, Jimmy has raised those same questions and has opined that it does not, since one is obliged under pain of mortal sin to observe fast and abstinence, not “penitential acts” in general), but I find it hard to believe that they would say the same about a precept of the Church and the Lenten penance.

dcs February 16, 2005 at 11:53 am

That makes it implausible that he would want to put people in an ultra-scrupulous situation of eating chicken noodle soup but skipping the bits of chicken. (Oops! Was that just a tiny bit of chicken I swallowed or was that a piece of noodle?)
I would imagine that one wouldn’t eat chicken noodle soup at all. Since meat is not permitted, but soups made from meat (apparently) are, one can conclude that one can only eat soups made from meat that do not contain meat — for example, split-pea soup made with ham stock but not containing ham, or noodle soup made with chicken stock but not containing chicken. If the intent of Paenitemini is a relaxation of the law regarding abstinence, we can note that the law was already “relaxed” if it permits stocks and gravies made from meat. It is not necessary to conclude that a hearty bowl of chicken noodle soup (and my chicken noodle soup is very hearty) is permitted.
I am very interested in whether this clause of Paenitemini has been the subject of an authentic interpretation from the Holy See, or if what has been presented here is your own opinion or that of learned canonists.

Liam February 16, 2005 at 1:24 pm

To clarify, the doubts about gravity of matter with regard to the violation of the fast and abstinence rules were specific, not merely about the general obligation of penance (Friday and otherwise).

Tim J. February 18, 2005 at 8:46 am

Oh, great… now I’m hungry…

Maureen February 18, 2005 at 10:43 am

Obviously, you wouldn’t be eating soups using meat broth or bits o’ meat if you knew about them. But what happens, for instance, if you’re eating your delicious eggdrop soup in all its Friday virtue, and you suddenly discover it’s got chunks o’ chicken hidden in the bottom? What if you’re drinking hot and sour soup for your cold, and suddenly discover it’s been augmented? And yes, what if your bean soup turns out to have been made by a Southerner, and thus includes bits of ham or bacon? Do you spew it from your mouth; shout, “Get behind me, meat-Satan!”; and adjourn to the bathroom for a little Roman-style ridding yourself of the sinful food?
No. You say to yourself, “Meat soup is okay,” and shrug, and take the meat-augmented soups off your list of food for next Friday’s abstinence day.
And I think it’s a mighty nice pastoral exception for the hierarchy to make.

Gobsmacked. March 18, 2006 at 12:38 am

1917: “The law of abstinence prohibits meat and soups made from meat but not of eggs, milks, and also whatever condiments are derived from animal fat [CIC(1917) 1250]”
1983: “The law of abstinence forbids the use of meat, but not of eggs, the products of milk or condiments made of animal fat [Norm III:1].”
Jimmy: “Thus “soups made from meat” are now kosher on days of abstinence.
Sorry, I am in agreement with Eric Guinta. That is not the necessary conclusion, Jimmy.
First of all, you would have to be familiar with the 1917 code before you could even get the remotest idea that soups made with meat are okay. It makes no sense at all that the Church would assume everyone’s familiar with the 1917 code and should notice a phrase taken out–that the new code should be read in the context of the old.
It makes no sense at all that the same meat is forbidden–unless you put it in a soup. Meat is forbidden. That means meat. Even if it’s in soup.
With all sincere and due respect for the otherwise fine job on this blog(!!), I don’t like the approach to canon law of, “Let’s see what we can get away with”, because this attitude is clearly coming through and it makes me very uneasy.
Maureen, it’s one thing to accidentally and ignorantly eat meat as per your situation. I’d stop eating once I was aware of the meat. But re-interpreting canon law to cover for these innocent accidents isn’t necessary if it was an innocent mistake.
Are these laws of fasting so hard, that we have to pick them apart for loopholes, and say, “Thank goodness we have these loopholes now!”? I saw an article here from 2006 about fasting, wherein it was presented as some kind of dangerous situation where people would be racing on the highway at 100mph to get home to eat. All that shows to me is a level of concupiscence that NEEDS some fasting in order to reign in some control over the concupiscence. If a little hunger makes you that crazy, that just isn’t normal. And you’re not going to be that way just from not eating meat, with so many other foods available. Time your meals if you have to, so you’re on the road with a fuller stomach if you really feel it is a problem, but I can’t see that it is, unless someone has an inordinate attachment to food or “feeling full”.
Do you suffer when you fast? Is it hard? GOOD. Try doing it for 40 days straight. Try being crucified.
We’re big meat-eaters. My husband has it even worse than me. If he can go meatless, you guys can. I’m sorry, I’m just gobsmacked.

BILL912 March 18, 2006 at 8:24 am

Thanks for the link, Karen. I especially like Jimmy’s quote from the relevant document that states that the norms for pennance were “totally reorganized”, which shows that Jimmy was right.

Anonymous March 18, 2006 at 8:37 am

What shows that Jimmy is right? “Totally reorganized” doesn’t mean anything in the way of Jimmy’s being right. Maybe “Totally reorganized” means, “‘We’re going to eliminate this meat-in-soup clause, because the soup clause from 1917 is totally redundant’, lest we expect people to go comparing every obsolete canon from the last 2000 years with the current one.”
Comparing the 1983 canon with the 1917 clause is exactly what Jimmy did in order to get the remotest idea that 1983′s clause was somehow nebulous. It actually can’t be more clear. No meat.

Karen March 18, 2006 at 9:07 am

The 1983 canon got rid of a redundant phrase. That is all.
If anything, you should want to tend to keep in conformity with the 1917 canon, if you were expected to take the 1983 canon in the context of the 1917 one.
That’d lead you to conclude, “No meat”.
But we’re not meant to take new canons in the context of the old, obsolete ones, which Jimmy had to do to come to a different conclusion. That is a ridiculous assumption and certainly the Church doesn’t expect it of us, seeing as we’ve got a lot of other canons over the last two millennia besides the 1917 one.

Jessica April 4, 2007 at 2:45 pm

Paenitemini is my favorite kind of soup. You can email me for the recipe.

Why I never come here for answers. December 30, 2008 at 10:44 am

Fast and Abstinence
——————————————————————————–
It is a traditional doctrine of Christian spirituality that a constituent part of repentance, of turning away from sin and back to God, includes some form of penance, without which the Christian is unlikely to remain on the narrow path and be saved (Jer 18:11, 25:5; Ez 18:30, 33:11-15; Joel 2:12; Mt 3:2; Mt 4:17; Acts 2:3. Christ Himself said that His disciples would fast once He had departed (Lk 5:35). The general law of penance, therefore, is part of the law of God for man.
The Church for her part has specified certain forms of penance, both to ensure that the Catholic will do something, as required by divine law, while making it easy for Catholics to fulfill the obligation. Thus, the 1983 Code of Canon Law specifies the obligations of Latin Rite Catholics [Eastern Rite Catholics have their own penitential practices as specified by the Code of Canons for the Eastern Churches].
Canon 1250 All Fridays through the year and the time of Lent are penitential days and times throughout the entire Church.
Canon 1251 Abstinence from eating meat or another food according to the prescriptions of the conference of bishops is to be observed on Fridays throughout the year unless (nisi) they are solemnities; abstinence and fast are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and on the Friday of the Passion and Death of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Canon 1252 All persons who have completed their fourteenth year are bound by the law of abstinence; all adults are bound by the law of fast up to the beginning of their sixtieth year. Nevertheless, pastors and parents are to see to it that minors who are not bound by the law of fast and abstinence are educated in an authentic sense of penance.
Can. 1253 It is for the conference of bishops to determine more precisely the observance of fast and abstinence and to substitute in whole or in part for fast and abstinence other forms of penance, especially works of charity and exercises of piety.
The Church, therefore, has two forms of official penitential practices – three if the Eucharistic fast of one hour before Communion is included.
Abstinence The law of abstinence requires a Catholic 14 years of age until death to abstain from eating meat on Fridays in honor of the Passion of Jesus on Good Friday. Meat is considered to be the flesh and organs of mammals and fowl. Also forbidden are soups or gravies made from them. Salt and freshwater species of fish, amphibians, reptiles and shellfish are permitted, as are animal derived products such as margarine and gelatin which do not have any meat taste.
On the Fridays outside of Lent the U.S. bishops conference obtained the permission of the Holy See for Catholics in the US to substitute a penitential, or even a charitable, practice of their own choosing. They must do some penitential/charitable practice on these Fridays. For most people the easiest practice to consistently fulfill will be the traditional one, to abstain from meat on all Fridays of the year. During Lent abstinence from meat on Fridays is obligatory in the United States as elsewhere.
Fasting The law of fasting requires a Catholic from the 18th to the 59th birthday to reduce the amount of food eaten from normal. The Church defines this as one meal a day, and two smaller meals which if added together would not exceed the main meal in quantity. Such fasting is obligatory on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday. The fast is broken by eating between meals and by drinks which could be considered food (milk shakes, but not milk). Alcoholic beverages do not break the fast; however, they seem to be contrary to the spirit of doing penance.
Those who are excused from fast or abstinence Besides those outside the age limits, those of unsound mind, the sick, the frail, pregnant or nursing women according to need for meat or nourishment, manual laborers according to need, guests at a meal who cannot excuse themselves without giving great offense or causing enmity and other situations of moral or physical impossibility to observe the penitential discipline.
Aside from these minimum penitential requirements Catholics are encouraged to impose some personal penance on themselves at other times. It could be modeled after abstinence and fasting. A person could, for example, multiply the number of days they abstain. Some people give up meat entirely for religious motives (as opposed to those who give it up for health or other motives). Some religious orders, as a penance, never eat meat. Similarly, one could multiply the number of days that one fasted. The early Church had a practice of a Wednesday and Saturday fast. This fast could be the same as the Church’s law (one main meal and two smaller ones) or stricter, even bread and water. Such freely chosen fasting could also consist in giving up something one enjoys – candy, soft drinks, smoking, that cocktail before supper, and so on. This is left to the individual.
One final consideration. Before all else we are obliged to perform the duties of our state in life. Any deprivation that would seriously hinder us in carrying out our work, as students, employees or parents would be contrary to the will of God.
——————————————————————————–
Answered by Colin B. Donovan, STL

Tim Jones December 30, 2008 at 10:56 am

So, why DO you come here?

The Masked Chicken December 30, 2008 at 12:18 pm

Dear Why I never come here for answers,
As Colin Donovan did not state his sources, his statements can not be validated. Why do you assume that he is right (or Jimmy, for that matter) simply because they say something. Jimmy has at least provided documents in making his argument. These can be examined. Mr. Donovan has not and I assume the reason he did not was that he was not answering a specific point about the law and so gave a generic answer, possible based on historical trends. As Jimmy has pointed out, current law supercedes past law (but the old law comments on current law). As such, it behoves YOU, not Mr Donovan, since he is not present for cross-examination and has not been asked the question Jimmy was, to provide documentation to support your contention that meat-based soups are excluded under the current discipline of the Church. At that point a reasoned examination of the facts can begin.
The Chicken

Spirithound January 1, 2009 at 8:53 pm

I’ve read opinions that women are still required to cover their hair in church because the 1917 code directed it, and the 1983 code did not direct otherwise, even though the document is actually silent on that issue. I honestly do not know whether those people are correct, or whether Jimmy holds that opinion, but by that reasoning we cannot assume that a deletion by the 1983 code implies abrogation or derogation.
On to my own opinion…The section of the 1983 code specifically gives exceptions to the rule. If it was intended that we be allowed to eat meat-soup on Fridays of Lent, why would it not be stated? It particularly mentions condiments made from fat. I’d say that’s quite a concession, although I actually don’t know the make-up of my condiments, and if meat-soup was allowed, it should be stated along side it.
Furthermore, as another poster alluded to, when does “meat-soup” become “really juicy meat”?
I disagree with calling this sort of thing “pharasaical”. I’m not interested in binding other people without lifting a finger myself, I want to bind MYSELF, and quite frankly, a total ban on meat is alot simpler than trying to justify certain ratios of broth to chicken-shreds.

Ruse January 1, 2009 at 10:39 pm

Since Donovan’s degree is merely an STL it is reasonable to suppose that he might not be acquainted with some material a person with an STD might be acquainted with. And an STL is not in any case a JCL, let alone a JCD.
As regards canon law, it should be pointed out that sometimes the church ends up giving an authentic interpretation that runs contrary to the expectation of many, including the bulk of canonists. For example the authentic interpretation given to what constitutes “formal defection” from the church was a surprise to many and raised some significant questions still.
FWIW — and since I have no competence in canon law to present to you feel free to respond by saying that it it is “worth absolutely nothing”, just don’t embellish that with more snide remarks if you please –, I think Akin is correct as regards chicken noodle soup but only if we are dealing with varieties that don’t involve ginormous chunks of chicken — the kind of chunks that would be too big to eat in one bite. Obviously, making cream of mushroom soup in a large bowl and then plopping a 12 ounce steak in there in the name of culinary creativity to make “cream of mushroom and steak soup” would not be fidelity to what the law envisions … this would be true for several reasons ((1) the issue of the lone chunk of meat being ginormous and (2) the fact this would essentially be steak with cream of mushroom serving as gravy, whether one chooses to eat it as a soup in a bowl after cutting up the steak into pieces consumable with a spoon or not … whether something is a “soup” does not depend on whether it can be consumed with a spoon as in many cultures soups are consumed without a spoon … and may be consumed with one’s mouth alone or with the aid of chop sticks … some soups of some cultures actually involve whole chickens (or pieces thereof) which might sit alongside the soup proper but which one might eat only together with the soup though others at the table might alternate between eating it combined with the soup and eating it alone without any soup … it’s hard to imagine that the Vatican’s intent would have been in this case to make a rule about which ways one can eat that dish!)

Christina February 25, 2009 at 10:35 am

yea I know, two years later…
“The law of abstinence forbids the use of meat, but not of eggs, the products of milk or condiments made of animal fat.”
The phrase “use of meat” includes soups made from meat (no matter how you slice it). By adding “use of” they included both meat chunks on a plate, in a soup, soup that “used” a meat bone, broth, and probably smoking meat under a potato to try to imbibe the flavor into it. They thus clarified by eliminate superfluous language.
Either way, you can go without the flavor of steak for a day.

Jimmy Akin February 25, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Dave February 25, 2009 at 1:11 pm

I took this to my wife (cradle Catholic, I’m converted from the Episcopal thing), told her that a famous theologist said we could have meat soup on Fridays. She looked at me Hispanically and said, “Meat soup is meat!”
Subject closed, at least in my house. :^)
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas

Buy ambien without prescription. September 16, 2009 at 5:49 pm

Buy ambien online no prescription.

Buy ambien without a prescription. Buy ambien online no prescription.

Previous post:

Next post: