I found out that we are supposed to give up meat on all Fridays, not just Lent, or choose something more meaningful for Fridays not in Lent.
No, by default we’re supposed to abstain from meat on all Fridays, period. However, national conferences of bishops can adjust the requirements and they can indeed do something else than requiring the abstinence from meat on all Fridays.
The American (USA) conference of bishops has decided to lift the requirement of abstinence from meat on all Fridays except for Lent. What they did is more like remaking the rules without the requirement than just lifting it. At any rate, Americans are not bound to abstain from meat on Fridays. This doesn’t mean some other nations aren’t. For example, here in Poland, meat on Fridays is banned. And no, can’t choose something more meaningful instead. Only if we can’t choose the ingredients, then we’re supposed to do some act of charity in exchange, but we’re allowed to go ahead and consume that meat.
Also, I would like you to look at the logical order of things: Person X wants to eat meat on Friday. Therefore, person X looks for a reason to do so. Then, person X finds out about the idea of doing something more meaningful. So person X comes up with something objectively more meaningful than abstinence from meat - but costing him less. The beginning of things is person X wanting meat on Friday. The meat is more meaningful then than it would seem. After all, it seems to be a bigger deal to go without meat for that day than to do the more meaningful thing, not?
I am really trying hard to think of something more
meaningful than giving up meat but I can’t think of anything.
So don’t give up meat?
The fact that you do something else doesn’t mean you can’t give up on meat. You can do both.
Even giving up meat isn’t meaningful to me, just a great sign of Catholic unity. After Jesus died so that we may have life and have it to the full, sacrificing just doesn’t seem meaningful unless there is some greater good to come from it.
It’s also a sign of uniting with Jesus and abstaining from something which shed blood to feed us. It’s not just about the nourishing value of meat or the flavour of it, although it would certainly look wrong to abstain from meat but go on with sweets, for instance.
I’d like to know if there is anyone who has thought of a Friday sacrifice for not during Lent that seems more meaningful to
them than giving up meat?
Once again, if you don’t want the meat but you want a bigger sacrifice, then why the swap? You can certainly add to the sacrifice, it’s not like you can do just one thing.
I can tell you how it looks here, which, according to my information, is how it looked everywhere until rules got changed in individual countries. Friday is a proper penitential day. The penitential character precludes dancing, loud partying, other such. Don’t know what if one tried to force a wedding on Friday, but it probably wouldn’t happen. As for the fasting and abstinence, it’s one word in our language and the separation is not obvious. No meat is the rule and the requirement, but some people will also limit the quantity of food they eat or give up the more pleasurable kinds, such as sweets. Alcohol is generally frowned upon, although there’s no prohibition. Similarly sweets. If you asked a priest here, he would probably tell you there 's no prohibition but it would be better to avoid alcohol or sweets.
And in the USA, the conference of bishops lifted the requirements and replaced them with an exhortation to do such acts of charity or sacrifices as the faithful find fitting. This means you can give something up or give some alms or work for a charity or go out of your way to help people. Or all.
Naturally, if you’re not from the USA or in there (or some other country where the requirement of abstinence from meat has been lifted), you are bound by what your own conference of bishops has decreed in the matter.
Note that even if you’re free to eat meat, it doesn’t suddenly make you wrong and defiant to give it up. The bishops may be lifting those requirements out of leniency or out of wanting the faithful to come up with some sacrifices that cost them, or some more invdividual and specific penance, but they don’t do this to deride the default discipline of the canon law or to “modernise” the Church. It’s not a meat affirmative action.
However, they have likely at least allowed you to substitute a penance of your own choice, and that concept includes works of charity. But it is my understanding that they do give pride of place to the choice of abstinence from meat.
