3 ms·

I'm a Catholic who doesn't eat meat on Fridays. The reason I do it is that it's a weekly commemoration of the crucifixion. There are other benefits, too, (in

I'm a Catholic who doesn't eat meat on Fridays. The reason I do it is that it's a weekly commemoration of the crucifixion. There are other benefits, too, (in fact the concept seems to be gaining popularity in the secular world as "meatless Mondays") but for me it is a principally a weekly reminder of my faith. But I agree that we Catholics don't have anything on the Jews when it comes to dietary laws. In fact, that was the whole point of the Council of Jerusalem! And as far as the "fish is okay" rule goes, that's really just because our modern word for "meat" doesn't correspond exactly with the word for "meat" in the ancient church. Fish was seen as distinct from meat from the very beginning. And unfortunately our modern word for "fish" doesn't correspond exactly with the ancient meaning as well. In the ancient church "fish" referred to any animal that lived primarily in water, which includes some reptiles like frogs and semi-aquatic mammals like the capybara.

Falling3 11y ago
Meatless Monday is ultimately promoted from a concern of animals - I don't see the concepts as being analogous beyond a superficial similarity. I've got to say, even as a former Catholic, I don't understand meatless Fridays. There is certainly no level of sacrifice required to abstain from meat. And if there were even a tinge of moral reasoning behind the decision, why only one day a week? Seems like another strange artifact.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- Jtsummers 11y ago
  Abstinence and fasting (Catholic traditional definition is one big meal, or a couple small meals) are sacrifices. They're also not sustainable (ok, maybe abstinence from meat, plenty of healthy vegetarians, but not fasting) over a long period if a population actually has to do any significant physical labor. Once a week makes it more significant than once or twice a year, but not so impactful as to prevent people from remaining otherwise high functioning (physically and mentally). Also, Meatless Monday is not about concern for the animals. It started as a health concern, and morphed into an environmental concern. If the concern were for the animals, they should be going for full-time meatlessness. http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-a-livable-future/projects/MMP_old/ http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-h... EDIT: http://www.meatlessmonday.com/the-global-movement/ http://www.meatlessmonday.com/the-global-movement/ In reviewing the above link, it seems that Meatless Monday has been brought to numerous countries by various groups. The two primary motives seem to be about health and sustainability. There are, however, some countries where vegetarian groups brought it in, I imagine as a way to get more people implementing a partial practice of what they want, a more politically savvy way to move things where they want rather than insisting on 100% vegetarianism today.
  - Falling3 11y ago
    >Abstinence and fasting (Catholic traditional definition is one big meal, or a couple small meals) are sacrifices. My point was that cutting meat out of a meal can in no way be seen as a sacrifice today. >Also, Meatless Monday is not about concern for the animals. It started as a health concern, and morphed into an environmental concern. If the concern were for the animals, they should be going for full-time meatlessness. The origins of Meatless Monday actually date back to World War I rationing and was later revived as a health initiative. That's irrelevant to the point that the vast majority of institutionalized pushing for the day comes from animal rights and welfare organizations. Of course people should be cutting meat entirely, but this is seen as some sort of intermediary measure to get people accustomed to vegetarian eating.
- michaelsbradley 11y ago
  It is a bit harder to appreciate meatless Fridays these days, given the great variety and plenitude of the average diet in (much of) the modern world. For many centuries, meat was more scarce and a small measure of it – perhaps in the principal meal of the day – was a prized part of the diet. Today we know a lot about amino acids, calorie content, etc.; despite the lack of such knowledge, people generally knew and experienced that meat was hearty and sustaining. So to deliberately forego meat for a day or even a whole season was a form of self-denial that would leave one feeling hungrier and less energetic, while still facing the same work and other obligations. And that's the point – to exercise self-denial and experience discomfort: reminding one of the frailty of human nature; offering opportunity to meditate by analogy (w.r.t. the hunger pangs) on man's constant need for Divine Grace (often not sensibly perceived); giving occasion to spiritually unite one's personal suffering, however slight, to Christ's sacrifice on Calvary.

Falling3 11y ago

Meatless Monday is ultimately promoted from a concern of animals - I don't see the concepts as being analogous beyond a superficial similarity. I've got to say, even as a former Catholic, I don't understand meatless Fridays. There is certainly no level of sacrifice required to abstain from meat. And if there were even a tinge of moral reasoning behind the decision, why only one day a week? Seems like another strange artifact.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
Jtsummers 11y ago
Abstinence and fasting (Catholic traditional definition is one big meal, or a couple small meals) are sacrifices. They're also not sustainable (ok, maybe abstinence from meat, plenty of healthy vegetarians, but not fasting) over a long period if a population actually has to do any significant physical labor. Once a week makes it more significant than once or twice a year, but not so impactful as to prevent people from remaining otherwise high functioning (physically and mentally). Also, Meatless Monday is not about concern for the animals. It started as a health concern, and morphed into an environmental concern. If the concern were for the animals, they should be going for full-time meatlessness. http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-a-livable-future/projects/MMP_old/ http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-h... EDIT: http://www.meatlessmonday.com/the-global-movement/ http://www.meatlessmonday.com/the-global-movement/ In reviewing the above link, it seems that Meatless Monday has been brought to numerous countries by various groups. The two primary motives seem to be about health and sustainability. There are, however, some countries where vegetarian groups brought it in, I imagine as a way to get more people implementing a partial practice of what they want, a more politically savvy way to move things where they want rather than insisting on 100% vegetarianism today.
- Falling3 11y ago
  >Abstinence and fasting (Catholic traditional definition is one big meal, or a couple small meals) are sacrifices. My point was that cutting meat out of a meal can in no way be seen as a sacrifice today. >Also, Meatless Monday is not about concern for the animals. It started as a health concern, and morphed into an environmental concern. If the concern were for the animals, they should be going for full-time meatlessness. The origins of Meatless Monday actually date back to World War I rationing and was later revived as a health initiative. That's irrelevant to the point that the vast majority of institutionalized pushing for the day comes from animal rights and welfare organizations. Of course people should be cutting meat entirely, but this is seen as some sort of intermediary measure to get people accustomed to vegetarian eating.
michaelsbradley 11y ago
It is a bit harder to appreciate meatless Fridays these days, given the great variety and plenitude of the average diet in (much of) the modern world. For many centuries, meat was more scarce and a small measure of it – perhaps in the principal meal of the day – was a prized part of the diet. Today we know a lot about amino acids, calorie content, etc.; despite the lack of such knowledge, people generally knew and experienced that meat was hearty and sustaining. So to deliberately forego meat for a day or even a whole season was a form of self-denial that would leave one feeling hungrier and less energetic, while still facing the same work and other obligations. And that's the point – to exercise self-denial and experience discomfort: reminding one of the frailty of human nature; offering opportunity to meditate by analogy (w.r.t. the hunger pangs) on man's constant need for Divine Grace (often not sensibly perceived); giving occasion to spiritually unite one's personal suffering, however slight, to Christ's sacrifice on Calvary.