Meatless Fridays throughout the year may return to the United States

[IneedGod]

I didn’t read every post on this, sorry. However I would like to add that we( my R.I.C.A. Class) were told that one reason to have it is that most of the world can not afford to eat meat. By not eating meat we are recognizing that.
Any one ever heard anything like that?

 

[thewanderer]

I didn’t read every post on this, sorry. However I would like to add that we( my R.I.C.A. Class) were told that one reason to have it is that most of the world can not afford to eat meat. By not eating meat we are recognizing that.
Any one ever heard anything like that?

No I hadn’t, but I actually really love that idea, it helps add more meaning to the abstinance.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I didn’t read every post on this, sorry. However I would like to add that we( my R.I.C.A. Class) were told that one reason to have it is that most of the world can not afford to eat meat. By not eating meat we are recognizing that.
Any one ever heard anything like that?

The point is that we are commanded by God to do penance, both for our own good and for the good of everyone else, spiritually. Over the centuries the Church developed the practice of abstaining from meat on Fridays as a sort of corporate, mandatory penance. While what you were told in RCIA isn’t historically accurate, to add that meaning onto the original meaning is fine in my estimation.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

So, to anyone’s knowledge, has this been implemented? On Sunday, one of our priests told us that it was now a requirement, but this piqued my curiosity as to the reasoning, so I did a search online and couldn’t find anything to that effect.

No, it hasn’t been implemented yet.

My family and I have been practicing this for years, for the most part. I’ve made exceptions when we were visiting someone who would be serving us dinner, under the premise that it is rude to be particular about what is served when accepting someone’s hospitality. But, that was when it was my own rule – I wouldn’t imagine such an exception would be included if the bishops had in fact decreed this.

Actually, I think such an exception would indeed still be fitting. Charity trumps law, every time.

Whether you would need a dispensation or it would be automatic, I don’t know.

 

[thewanderer]

Actually, I think such an exception would indeed still be fitting. Charity trumps law, every time.

Whether you would need a dispensation or it would be automatic, I don’t know.

Yup, I agree with you here. I mean, I understand that it can be a great witness to others of ones Catholic faith, something that sets Catholics apart but sometimes it is just better if it can be set aside. Like with a good friend of mine, an agnostic, who I hadn’t seen in a while and only managed to visit on a friday, when I did get there she had already spent a long time preparing a meat dinner for me. She was so sweet about it too, *she’s *even the one who brought it up, when she all of a sudden remembered that it was a friday and us odd Catholics don’t eat meat on fridays, and started apologizing, and feeling bad for forgetting, worrying about what else she could make instead… all I can say is that I was very very glad that the law still allows for alternative forms of penance and I didn’t need to worry about whether I needed a special dispensation from a priest. The sabbath was made for man not man for the sabbath.

 

[Cat]

I know it’s up to Holy Mother Church, but I honestly hope the Church will not specify the Friday penance and instead, leave it up to each individual.

I think that like most Americans, I don’t really consider abstinence from meat a “penance.” We have quite a few meatless meals these days. It’s the “healthy” thing to do here in the United States.

I think it makes more sense for each individual, at least here in the U.S., to choose something that they truly love (NOT their spouse or their family!), and abstain from it on Fridays as a penance. For many individuals, meat wouldn’t even be on the list of “things they love.” So why single out meat? Why not give up liquor? Or sweets? Or wake up early and go to Mass or Adoration, or spend some time in private prayer at home. Or do an extra chore to help the family, like washing the dishes or cleaning the potty.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Yup, I agree with you here. I mean, I understand that it can be a great witness to others of ones Catholic faith, something that sets Catholics apart but sometimes it is just better if it can be set aside. Like with a good friend of mine, an agnostic, who I hadn’t seen in a while and only managed to visit on a friday, when I did get there she had already spent a long time preparing a meat dinner for me. She was so sweet about it too, *she’s *even the one who brought it up, when she all of a sudden remembered that it was a friday and us odd Catholics don’t eat meat on fridays, and started apologizing, and feeling bad for forgetting, worrying about what else she could make instead… all I can say is that I was very very glad that the law still allows for alternative forms of penance and I didn’t need to worry about whether I needed a special dispensation from a priest. The sabbath was made for man not man for the sabbath.

Well said.

I know it’s up to Holy Mother Church, but I honestly hope the Church will not specify the Friday penance and instead, leave it up to each individual.

I think that like most Americans, I don’t really consider abstinence from meat a “penance.” We have quite a few meatless meals these days. It’s the “healthy” thing to do here in the United States.

I think it makes more sense for each individual, at least here in the U.S., to choose something that they truly love (NOT their spouse or their family!), and abstain from it on Fridays as a penance. For many individuals, meat wouldn’t even be on the list of “things they love.” So why single out meat? Why not give up liquor? Or sweets? Or wake up early and go to Mass or Adoration, or spend some time in private prayer at home. Or do an extra chore to help the family, like washing the dishes or cleaning the potty.

Not a bad point, Cat. Still, in defense of abstinence from meat even in a modern context, I think we should consider these bits of wisdom from the website of the Orthodox Church in America:

“Wouldn’t it be more sacrificial for someone to give up foods that they really loved such as candy rather than meat which they may not care for that much anyhow?”

RESPONSE:

The purpose of fasting is not to “give up” things, nor to do something “sacrificial.” The purpose of fasting is to learn discipline, to gain control of those things that are indeed within our control but that we so often allow to control us. In our culture especially, food dominates the lives of many people. We collect cookbooks. We have an entire TV network devoted to food [the “Food Channel”]. We have eating disorders, diets galore, weight loss pills, liposuction treatments, stomach stapling—all sorts of things that proceed out of the fact that we often allow food, which in and of itself cannot possibly control us, to control us. We fast in order to gain control, to discipline ourselves, to gain control of those things that we have allowed to get out of control. Giving up candy—unless one is controlled by candy—is not fasting. It is giving up candy, or it is done with the idea that we fast in order to suffer. But we do not fast in order to suffer. We fast in order to get a grip on our lives and to regain control of those things that have gotten out of control. Further, as we sing during the first week of Great Lent, “while fasting from food, let us also fast from our passions.”

 

[Cat]

QUOTE FROM ABOVE POST:
"The purpose of fasting is not to “give up” things, nor to do something “sacrificial.” The purpose of fasting is to learn discipline, to gain control of those things that are indeed within our control but that we so often allow to control us. In our culture especially, food dominates the lives of many people. We collect cookbooks. We have an entire TV network devoted to food [the “Food Channel”]. We have eating disorders, diets galore, weight loss pills, liposuction treatments, stomach stapling—all sorts of things that proceed out of the fact that we often allow food, which in and of itself cannot possibly control us, to control us. We fast in order to gain control, to discipline ourselves, to gain control of those things that we have allowed to get out of control. Giving up candy—unless one is controlled by candy—is not fasting. It is giving up candy, or it is done with the idea that we fast in order to suffer. But we do not fast in order to suffer. We fast in order to get a grip on our lives and to regain control of those things that have gotten out of control. Further, as we sing during the first week of Great Lent, “while fasting from food, let us also fast from our passions.”
END QUOTE.

Meat has not “gotten out of control” in my life. I think a lot of Americans would say the same thing.

But sweets ARE often out of control in my life. I think many Americans would say the same. If not sweets, then salties, like chips or fries.

So I stand by what I wrote earlier–it makes more sense to fast from something that we crave and adore and that has us in its grip rather than something that has no emotional appeal to us and that we can easily give up for a day, week, or longer.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

QUOTE FROM ABOVE POST:
"The purpose of fasting is not to “give up” things, nor to do something “sacrificial.” The purpose of fasting is to learn discipline, to gain control of those things that are indeed within our control but that we so often allow to control us. In our culture especially, food dominates the lives of many people. We collect cookbooks. We have an entire TV network devoted to food [the “Food Channel”]. We have eating disorders, diets galore, weight loss pills, liposuction treatments, stomach stapling—all sorts of things that proceed out of the fact that we often allow food, which in and of itself cannot possibly control us, to control us. We fast in order to gain control, to discipline ourselves, to gain control of those things that we have allowed to get out of control. Giving up candy—unless one is controlled by candy—is not fasting. It is giving up candy, or it is done with the idea that we fast in order to suffer. But we do not fast in order to suffer. We fast in order to get a grip on our lives and to regain control of those things that have gotten out of control. Further, as we sing during the first week of Great Lent, “while fasting from food, let us also fast from our passions.”
END QUOTE.

Meat has not “gotten out of control” in my life. I think a lot of Americans would say the same thing.

But sweets ARE often out of control in my life. I think many Americans would say the same. If not sweets, then salties, like chips or fries.

So I stand by what I wrote earlier–it makes more sense to fast from something that we crave and adore and that has us in its grip rather than something that has no emotional appeal to us and that we can easily give up for a day, week, or longer.

The Q&A I quoted neither claims nor presumes that *meat *specifically tends to get out of control in our lives. It is food that does. But in our society, meat remains a common staple, often expected as part of a complete meal. And that’s just not true of candy. Perhaps the reason that giving up something peripheral like candy seems like more of a sacrifice than giving up something like meat is that we don’t even notice how much our need for material sustenance can control us. After all, given that our need for food is such a fundamental and instinctive one, it’s *easy *not to notice the ways food controls us.

Now, maybe food genuinely doesn’t control you that way. That’s excellent; congratulations! But *my *personal experience is in accord with the OCA website’s claim. And in light of what I said in the above paragraph, I highly doubt that sweets control you the way food controls many of us.

Perhaps the difference between true fasting/abstinence and the practice of giving up something we like, would be clearer to us if we experienced the kind of fasting that’s common in the east, where they’ll often abstain from all animal products and even certain (or all) oils.

We may not think we “crave and adore” what we’re used to as regular, boring old food, or that it has us in its grips, but it’s worth it to see for ourselves if that’s the case by experiencing what it feels like to live off of bread, vegetables, etc. for awhile.

Doing that makes everything different, whereas giving up sweets or chips is just giving up a little treat, and nothing else.

Of course, I fully admit that these very points may in fact support your position: while what I’ve said is true, my experience is also that merely abstaining from meat every Friday (as opposed to more often, and from all animal products) has the same effect that I just associated with giving up sweets: that is, it’s merely an experience of giving up a little treat. No more, no less.

 

[CB_Catholic]

Giving up meat would not be penitential to me in the least. Giving up pasta, which is a staple in my diet, would. It make more sense to give up my beloved mac 'n cheese or pierogies than meat. I don’t think this rule should be re-imposed. For one thing, I think it would largely be ignored.

 

[Aran_Houlihan]

I have got user to not eating meat on a Friday

 

[CB_Catholic]

Giving up meat would not be penitential to me in the least. Giving up pasta, which is a staple in my diet, would. It make more sense to give up my beloved mac 'n cheese or pierogies than meat. I don’t think this rule should be re-imposed. For one thing, I think it would largely be ignored.

 

[Cat]

The Q&A I quoted neither claims nor presumes that *meat *specifically tends to get out of control in our lives. It is food that does. But in our society, meat remains a common staple, often expected as part of a complete meal. And that’s just not true of candy. Perhaps the reason that giving up something peripheral like candy seems like more of a sacrifice than giving up something like meat is that we don’t even notice how much our need for material sustenance can control us. After all, given that our need for food is such a fundamental and instinctive one, it’s *easy *not to notice the ways food controls us.

Now, maybe food genuinely doesn’t control you that way. That’s excellent; congratulations! But *my *personal experience is in accord with the OCA website’s claim. And in light of what I said in the above paragraph, I highly doubt that sweets control you the way food controls many of us.

Perhaps the difference between true fasting/abstinence and the practice of giving up something we like, would be clearer to us if we experienced the kind of fasting that’s common in the east, where they’ll often abstain from all animal products and even certain (or all) oils.

We may not think we “crave and adore” what we’re used to as regular, boring old food, or that it has us in its grips, but it’s worth it to see for ourselves if that’s the case by experiencing what it feels like to live off of bread, vegetables, etc. for awhile.

Doing that makes everything different, whereas giving up sweets or chips is just giving up a little treat, and nothing else.

Of course, I fully admit that these very points may in fact support your position: while what I’ve said is true, my experience is also that merely abstaining from meat every Friday (as opposed to more often, and from all animal products) has the same effect that I just associated with giving up sweets: that is, it’s merely an experience of giving up a little treat. No more, no less.

Oh, no, no, no. Nope.

I envy you. “Sweet or chips…a little treat…”

I can’t even imagine a mindset like that.

There is a REASON why over half of adult Americans and a third of juvenile Americans are overweight or obese, and it’s not because we eat sweets and chips as “little treats.”

Did you see Rikki Lake’s show last week? (Probably not–I usually don’t watch it, but I happened to have it on.)

The woman on the show routinely eats several Pepsi’s a day, and a half dozen cupcakes, and nothing else. That’s a typical day of eating for her.

Since I have lost 80 pounds (over the last 4 years), I do better than that, but not much. There are still more days than I like to admit when I eat candy, pop, and chips for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. At this point in my life, I do not drink anything else with meals except pop (usually Diet).

Have you ever watched The Biggest Loser? There are people on that show who drink a 12-pack of Coke every day (not Diet Coke). There are people who eat bags of candy, not just a few pieces. And there are people who eat an entire bag of chips.

For many years, my husband and I routinely made a special chip dip and ate all of it with an entire bag of Ruffles potato chips for our Sunday evening meal.

Lucky and blessed are you who do not eat this way, and for whom “meat” is a staple. For many of us, meat is not a staple at all, but the healthiest thing we eat in days and weeks filled with bags of candy, chips, and can after can of soda.

So again, I totally stand by what I say about the Church allowing each person to be led by God to their own penance. I’m guessing that the Pope and the apostles at the Vatican in Italy have no idea about the way many Americans routinely eat. Italians supposedly have one of the healthiest and leanest diets in the world. Not so in the United States. I think that the apostles at the Vatican would be shocked and horrified at what many of us eat as a “routine” diet.

 

[YoungTradCath]

That kind of diet seems very shocking. No offense intended.

 

[Crescentinus]

That kind of diet seems very shocking. No offense intended.

Especially true if Asian carp are common in the area.

 

[Cat]

That kind of diet seems very shocking. No offense intended.

Shocking but true.

Everyone, take a good look at the grocery store next time you shop. Look at how much of the store is devoted to soda. Mountains and mountains of soda, and there are trucks parked outside filled with still more bottles and cans of soda. Now if people were drinking soda as an occasional treat, you know that there would not be the sheer volume of soda that you see. That’s because for many Americans, soda is not just an occasional treat, it’s what they drink all the time, constantly.

Same for chips, crackers, cookies, candy, etc–if we cleaned out the grocery stores of all this stuff, the stores would be…well, Trader Joes, although TJs has its share of “junk” food, too, but it’s healthier junk food.

Again, these foods are not just “treats” for a large percentage of Americans. They are eaten at every meal and between every meal and throughout the evening while watching TV or playing around online. Yes, I’m old enough to remember when we got a cookie every day, and that was it for sweets. On Saturday night, we got a scoop of ice cream. And once a week, we went out for an A and W root beer.

Times have changed. I think if the bishops asked people to abstain on Fridays from drinking soda or coffee, or eating chocolate, there would be a gigantic absenteeism from work and school on Fridays, as most of us would suffer from withdrawal headaches by 9:00 a.m.!

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Giving up meat would not be penitential to me in the least.

Yeah, I admit that’s true for some people. One friend of mine from graduate school, who was a devout Catholic herself, was also a pescetarian (someone whose only meat is fish and other seafood), and she often remarked that even the current rules for Lent had no effect on her.

Giving up pasta, which is a staple in my diet, would. It make more sense to give up my beloved mac 'n cheese or pierogies than meat.

Not a bad idea. In eastern (Byzantine) Christianity, abstaining from dairy (and eggs, too) almost always goes with abstinence from meat. With only one exception, they never abstain from just meat.

I don’t think this rule should be re-imposed. For one thing, I think it would largely be ignored.

Yeah, that’s a valid pastoral concern.

Oh, no, no, no. Nope.

I envy you. “Sweet or chips…a little treat…”

I can’t even imagine a mindset like that.

Okay, I understand. Perhaps I underestimate the extent to which sweets can genuinely control one’s life. I admit I myself don’t have much of a sweet tooth.

The woman on the show routinely eats several Pepsi’s a day, and a half dozen cupcakes, and nothing else. That’s a typical day of eating for her.

Since I have lost 80 pounds (over the last 4 years), I do better than that, but not much. There are still more days than I like to admit when I eat candy, pop, and chips for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. At this point in my life, I do not drink anything else with meals except pop (usually Diet).

Have you ever watched The Biggest Loser? There are people on that show who drink a 12-pack of Coke every day (not Diet Coke). For many years, my husband and I routinely made a special chip dip and ate all of it with an entire bag of Ruffles potato chips for our Sunday evening meal.

Alright, I see your point.

Lucky and blessed are you who do not eat this way, and for whom “meat” is a staple. For many of us, meat is not a staple at all, but the healthiest thing we eat in days and weeks filled with bags of candy, chips, and can after can of soda.

Alright, you’ve definitely convinced me at least a little. I confess that what you describe is genuinely outside my realm of experience.

For me, meat - well, *cheese *really, but meat too - is my version of the typical food-I-know-I-should-eat-less-of-but-just-love-too-much.

So again, I totally stand by what I say about the Church allowing each person to be led by God to their own penance. I’m guessing that the Pope and the apostles at the Vatican in Italy have no idea about the way many Americans routinely eat. Italians supposedly have one of the healthiest and leanest diets in the world. Not so in the United States. I think that the apostles at the Vatican would be shocked and horrified at what many of us eat as a “routine” diet.

Fair enough. I do think that the typical eastern fasting is capable, if done correctly and with guidance, of benefiting almost anyone. But I definitely see your point about mere routine abstinence from meat. I can see how that wouldn’t affect some people even if they did it.

I confess I’d still feel happy if they reinstituted mandatory Friday abstinence from meat, but perhaps that’s because I let my own experience color my expectations.

I think if the bishops asked people to abstain on Fridays from drinking soda or coffee, or eating chocolate, there would be a gigantic absenteeism from work and school on Fridays, as most of us would suffer from withdrawal headaches by 9:00 a.m.!

Yeah, that I can understand. Many people I know are dependent on their morning cup of coffee to basically wake up. I’ve never been a big coffee drinker - I’ve probably had fewer than ten cups of the stuff in my whole life - and I am grateful that I do not suffer from any such dependency. I never drink soda, either.

Still, don’t get me wrong, Cat: I do not consider myself a healthy eater. Far from it. But I’ll admit I am if considered in comparison with the scenarios you describe.

 

[10thCrusader]

When I heard about the meatless Friday penance, it didn’t seem like too much of a penance for me, as I live in the Seattle area. We have an abundant supply of cheap, fresh fish and seafood. In fact, when people come to visit, it is often the custom to cook up a “Welcoming Salmon” - not sure where that custom got started - maybe from the Native Americans in the area.

I told my Catholic friends further inland about the meatless Friday penance. They just laughed, and said, “It looks like we’re back to fish sticks and grilled cheese sandwiches on Friday.” And grilled cheese sandwiches are not much of a penance either.

 

[thewanderer]

When I heard about the meatless Friday penance, it didn’t seem like too much of a penance for me, as I live in the Seattle area. We have an abundant supply of cheap, fresh fish and seafood. In fact, when people come to visit, it is often the custom to cook up a “Welcoming Salmon” - not sure where that custom got started - maybe from the Native Americans in the area.

I told my Catholic friends further inland about the meatless Friday penance. They just laughed, and said, “It looks like we’re back to fish sticks and grilled cheese sandwiches on Friday.” And grilled cheese sandwiches are not much of a penance either.

Thats why its not a penance for me either, I mean, there are plenty of tasty and healthy meals (well… grilled cheese isn’t exactly the healthiest… but you know what I mean ) that are inexpensive and easy to make that even if you do eat meat on a regular basis it often just isn’t a penance of any sort to give it up for a day.

 

[sw85]

The practice of Friday penance isn’t just penitential in character, so the fact that, for many people, abstaining from meat isn’t much of a sacrifice should have little bearing on the issue. For one thing, it would be a sacrifice for most people (we don’t all live near a bay with plentiful access to crab and salmon), even if it doesn’t amount to much more than an inconvenience. Inconveniences are crosses, too, after all. For another, the requirement would compel us to be mindful of our obligations and to structure our lives accordingly, which is a good thing in itself. For a third, abstension from meat touches on public behavior (meals, in general, being social affairs) and so has the added benefit of establishing in-group solidarity and out-group distinctiveness. Put simply, it makes Catholics mindful of their similarity to each other and their dissimilarity with everyone else, which is also a good thing. The loss of this sort of distinctive Catholic identity over the last few decades has been a positively bad thing for the Church, and reclaiming it would be a good thing. Who else has Friday fish fries?