Tuesday, November 13, 2012

Why is Fish Allowed on Meatless Fridays?

Yesterday, Cardinal Dolan gave his Presidential Address to the USCCB about the need for penance, and the possibility of re-instituting meatless Fridays year-round:
​What an irony that despite the call of the Second Vatican Council for a renewal of the Sacrament of Penance, what we got instead was its near disappearance. 
​We became very good in the years following the Council in calling for the reform of structures, systems, institutions, and people other than ourselves.That, too, is important; it can transform our society and world. But did we fail along the way to realize that in no way can the New Evangelization be reduced to a program, a process, or a call to structural reform; that it is first and foremost a deeply personal conversion within? "The Kingdom of God is within," as Jesus taught. [....] 
The work of our Conference during the coming year includes reflections on re-embracing Friday as a particular day of penance, including the possible re-institution of abstinence on all Fridays of the year, not just during Lent.
This move doesn’t come as a total shock: Cardinal Dolan has been openly discussing the idea for over a year, after the British bishops restored the Friday abstinence (and canonically speaking, year-round meatless Fridays remain the norm (can. 1250) unless the bishops’ conference decides to substitute other forms of penance (can. 1253)).

Fr. Dwight Longenecker raised a reasonable objection, both on Facebook, and on his blog: “If they do bring back Friday as a day of abstinence I hope they'll suggest no meat or fish. Seafood is not really a penance.” Now, it’s true that Friday abstinence need not meat that your palate will suffer. It’s not hard to eat well without meat … with or without seafood. So as a penance, it’s rather light. But frankly, that’s not the point – or at least, not the primary point.  As I explained last year:
What's given up isn't technically “meat” but the Latin “caro,” which means "flesh." This is why fish is allowed: their meat isn't considered "flesh." So why do we give up flesh on Fridays? Two reasons.

First, “flesh” is often the term the New Testament writers (particularly St. Paul) use to describe our sinful appetites. So in Romans 8:13, Paul says, “For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.” We give up “flesh meat” to symbolize putting to death the deeds of the flesh.

Second, Christ Redeemed us by offering up His Flesh for our salvation on Good Friday. St. Paul explains in Colossians 1:19-23
For it pleased the Father that in Him should all fullness dwell, and having made peace through the blood of His Cross, by Him to reconcile all things unto Himself -- by Him, I say, whether they be things on earth or things in heaven.

And you, who were once alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, even now hath He reconciled in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy and unblamable and unreprovable in His sight, if ye continue grounded and settled in the faith, and be not moved away from the hope of the Gospel, which ye have heard and which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, am made a minister.
So Christ, by being put to Death in the Flesh, reconciles us to the Father. So our job is done, right? Christ bore all the bad stuff, so we're home free? Not quite. St. Paul says in the very next breath (Colossians 1:24-25)
I now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is lacking of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh, for His body's sake, which is the church, of which I am made a minister according to the dispensation of God, which is given to me for you, to fulfill the Word of God-- even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to His saints. 
Just read that passage a couple times, and tell me that St. Paul wasn't a Catholic. Christ being put to Death in the Flesh reconciles us to God the Father, but the Passion doesn't mean that we're going to free-ride. Rather, our job is to take up our cross daily, and follow Christ (Luke 9:23). A Cross is a for killing: Christ is saying that we have to die to ourselves every day. So it's fitting that we put away the flesh-meat on Friday, the day of week which forever honors Christ's Passion, to signify both our love of the ultimate Sacrifice of the Flesh, and to emulate our Savior by mortifying the flesh for the sake of the Spirit.
On a related, somewhat-amusing historical note: did you know that the Catholics of South America treat the capybara as a fish for Friday abstinence purposes, since it spends much of its time in the water?  Nor is that oddity merely historical: capybara remains a popular Lenten dish in Venezuela.  But prior to the modern system of classifying animals, there were several mammals (like beaver) that were lumped in with “fish” for purposes of the Friday abstinence.  For example, the 19th century explorer Alexander von Humboldt noted in his travel diary that:
[The capybara’s] flesh has a musky smell somewhat disagreeable; jet hams are made of it in this country, a circumstance which almost justifies the name of “water-hog,” given to the chiguire by some of the older naturalists. The missionary monks do not hesitate to eat these hams during Lent. According to their zoological classification they place the armadillo, the thick-nosed taper, and the manati, near the tortoises; the first, because it is covered with a hard armour like a sort of shell ; and the others because they are amphibious.
No word yet what Cardinal Dolan’s stance is on these faux-fish.

37 comments:

  1. What about the old rumor that Fish was always pushed on Friday because one of the Popes owned a fleet of fishing boats?
    FWIW, I'm not Catholic but I do love any excuse for eating fish.

    ReplyDelete
  2. As a matter of fact, the traditional Eastern fasting and abstinence rules followed by Orthodox and Byzantine Catholics do NOT allow for fish on either Wednesdays OR Fridays. That's for wimps.

    Our discipline is vegan on those days, as well as Advent, Apostle's Fast, and Fast of the Virgin, as well as Great Lent.

    On some few Wednesdays and Fridays, fish is permitted.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Roman discipline never permits eating vegans.

      Delete
  3. I feel worse now that I know Tertullian is behind this. For decades I have not missed giving up something on my own on Fridays...not once. Now we seem to be going back to a practice that is not made rational by typology insights. If you give up meat but can freely have salmon in sauce Breval, it's no penance....it's a law with no point.
    And....it's going in circles. Have Catholics give up tv on Friday which I do each night after 8 PM...so as to pray long for everyone who is in trouble with salvation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oooo ... the idea of making everyone give up TV ... I like it ... but think you would have a revolt on your hands with those who are 'cafeteria' Catholics.

      Delete
    2. Just as long as I can watch good Bishop Sheen on Saturdays.

      Delete
    3. I would disagree that it has no point. In the West, meat is part of our everyday life. To consciously abstain from any and all meat is to bring our focus onto why: as a means to remember penance for our sins on the weekly anniversary of Christ's Passion and Death.

      Delete
    4. I agree with Aaron. Sure, the Friday penance could be harder, but it’s well-suited now to remind us of the need to do battle with the flesh, and of the Lord’s Passion. And I think we have to be cautious about spiritual pride, too. Better to do a light penance with the Church than to do a rigorist penance and get puffed up about it.

      I.X.,

      Joe

      Delete
    5. I could choose to have salmon in sauce Breval (whatever that is) any day. I can choose to have meat any day, except Friday, when my choice is restricted. That my choice is restricted in respect of flesh meat but not in respect of salmon in whatsit sauce does not gainsay the fact that my choice is restricted. Therein is at least some element of denial and therefore penance.

      Delete
    6. I was taught that the rule is abstinence, not necessarily a penance.

      Still, I'll agree that a Catholic eating a luxury meal of fish on Friday is an act in bad taste.

      A Friday discipline of abstinence from flesh meat plus a penance of no luxury foods* on that day seems to me appropriate to our present day.

      *This category includes salmon in sauce Breval and chocolates.

      Delete
    7. @Louis C. Gasper I can choose to have meat any day, except Friday, when my choice is restricted. That my choice is restricted in respect of flesh meat but not in respect of salmon in whatsit sauce does not gainsay the fact that my choice is restricted.

      That's the stupidest thing I've read this month.

      Where's the penance in giving up Hamburger Helper so as to go to the local restaurant and eat fried catfish? In fact, where I live, parochial schools use Lenten Friday fish fries as a fund raiser.

      Delete
  4. For those opposed to Cardinal Dolan's suggestion, some points to consider.

    1) There is something to be said for Catholics corporately giving up meat, rather than each Catholic giving up something of his own choosing. It reinforces our identity as the family of God, as the Body of Christ, over and against our societies idea that we are, first and foremost, "individuals" who happen to come together to worship.

    2) Meatless Fridays force Catholics to live the Faith outside of Sunday Mass. Many of us have been doing this already, more have not.

    3) Individual Catholics are free to go above and beyond abstaining from meat. Abstaining from meat is the minimum, but giving up fish and TV in addition to meat would be commendable, just as confessing once a year is the minimum, but confessing more frequently is a good idea.

    4) Meatless Fridays were never done away with, the bishops simply allowed individual Catholics to substitute something else instead of abstaining from meat. Most Catholics have been eating meat and not substituting any other form of penance. This is bad for their souls. Therefore, it is reasonable to remove the special permission, as it has been abused or misunderstood.

    5) Being forced to not eat meat, even if a Catholic may eat expensive seafood, is more penitential than is being suggested by some. Meat is frequently consumed throughout the day (breakfast sausage or bacon, hamburgers, steak, etc.) by Americans and being forced by the authority of the bishops to change their diets will be difficult. Few will want to eat seafood for 3 meals a day every Friday and many will be irked by simply desiring a hamburger and not being free to eat whatever they want as has been their custom. It will be a practice in submission to authority in a way inventing their own penitential practices can never be.

    6) Lastly, it will set Catholics apart. I currently give up meat on Fridays and there have been a number of times that I have been invited out for a birthday party or other reasons to eat at a friend or family member's house where seafood is not an option. Passing on eating meat in these situations is a witness to the Catholic Faith.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that we need to do something as a family, and that giving up meat is a good idea. I have been trying to make my Friday's meatless for several months now, and keep falling short ... mostly because I forget, until after I have had my morning breakfast burrito (eggs and sausage).

      I keep trying though, and have asked my wife and kids to help me remember, by ensuring that we do something else ... like potatoes, beans or some other ingredient than meat.

      Delete
    2. It is hard to remember at first, but with perseverance memory kicks in. When we were first starting and I'd forget to go meatless for breakfast I'd make sure to be meatless the rest of the day, that, over time, helped. Keep at it! God Bless.

      Delete
    3. As a little girl, I felt so moved toward holiness by the Friday observance. We ate no meat nor fish, but simple pasta with marinara sauce at Giuliani's Cafe in Narberth, PA. Surrounded in the tiny neighborhood restaurant by similar Catholics, my father and mother discoursed with the 3 Giuliani brothers while my brother flirted with one of the Giuliani daughters. We so enjoyed these weekly, holy observances.

      Delete
    4. As a little girl, I felt so moved toward holiness by the Friday observance. We ate no meat nor fish, but simple pasta with marinara sauce at Giuliani's Cafe in Narberth, PA. Surrounded in the tiny neighborhood restaurant by similar Catholics, my father and mother discoursed with the 3 Giuliani brothers while my brother flirted with one of the Giuliani daughters. We so enjoyed these weekly, holy observances.

      Delete
    5. Meat is frequently consumed throughout the day (breakfast sausage or bacon, hamburgers, steak, etc.) by Americans...
      --Nathan

      Yes, and I can testify that keeping the Friday abstinence does frequently turn ones mind to God on that day.

      ...and being forced by the authority of the bishops to change their diets will be difficult. Few will want to eat seafood for 3 meals a day every Friday...

      I don't eat seafood for 3 meals a day on Friday - were you kidding? - and I keep the Friday abstinence. Many Fridays I don't have any seafood at all.

      Delete
  5. I've read on Taylor Marshall's blog that the exception for fish may be related also to the fact there was not meat available save for fish on Noah's Ark (which was 40 days of course.) Is there any merit to that at all? It sounds good.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. None what so ever. Meatless Fridays were institutes because of the Hanseatic Leagues development of dried cod. They needed a market and the Pope provided one for them.

      Delete
  6. Part of penance is sacrificing your intellect. Being asked to do something that you can't make sense of, like eating one thing, not another, can be a penance in itself. and the Lord knows plenty of us can use some intellectual humility: to admit we don't understand. but obey his Church anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  7. My father was an Anglo-Catholic priest and when I was a boy some 60 years ago we observed the Friday fast (and Wed. fast during Lent) and I don't like fish! However, I discovered pizza and was actually happier than I would have been with meat. That is the problem these days facing a Friday fast from just meat, or "flesh." Back when I was a boy pizza was just beginning to appear, and with the influx of so many other alternatives to fish or meat a fast merely from those two makes little sense. I don't know the answer other than a sunset Thursday to sunset Friday fast from anything except water.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I say we go back to the pre-Jerusalem I days of eating locusts and wearing camel skins for Lent!

    ReplyDelete
  9. I remember at the time that the fact that eating fish was no longer a hardship was one of the reasons given for changing the Friday abstinence. Of course, I hated fish (still do, except for tuna and breaded shrimp) so on those nights I simply had a bowl of cereal.

    I also recall that about three years ago there was a discussion thread on Catholic Answers Forum over whether or not you could eat frogs legs on Fridays during Lent. The consensus was yes, since frog meat didn't constitute "caro" in the original Latin sense of the word. The discussion then veered off into some very interesting speculations: you could eat mermaids and mermen, but not trolls or gnomes. (Reminds me of the Rabbinical decision on catfish: they are kosher when they're young, but as they mature they loose their scales and so become treif.)

    ReplyDelete
  10. Tito, no can do.

    For one thing, there is a great deal of discussion in the Jewish world over eating locust. Only the Yemini branch of Judaism permits that because they're the only ones who claim to know just which insect was meant by the Hebrew word translated as "locust"; the other branches forbid it because they cannot be sure that the insects called "locust" in the modern world are the same as the insects referred to in Scripture. If we're "keeping with the Spirit of Pre-Jerusalem I", we would also have to forgo locust, unless we want to cherry-pick which rabbinical traditions we're going to follow. Since we're discussing dietary laws, that lends a whole new meaning to the phrase "Cafeteria Catholic."

    As far as camel hair clothing, I know people who won't come near me if I'm wearing a leather coat and who tell me "Milk is Rape!". Can you imagine what PETA would say to all Catholics having to wear animal skin one day each week?

    (Of course, I happen to be a member of PETA too -- People Eating Tasty Animals...)

    ReplyDelete
  11. Fish meat is flesh if you hold the common definition of flesh being muscular or fatty tissue. Unless you hold that the stuff eaten off the fish is neither muscle nor fat, then it must be flesh. The real reason fish is allowed on meatless Fridays is because of relaxations in the norm. The original norm was the Black Fast seen here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02590c.htm and it was on Wednesdays and Fridays. Due to various situations and circumstances, authorities allowed relaxations to the rules to permit for people who might not be able to fulfill the obligation. But we have had so many relaxations, we have lost any sense of real penance, and as the New Advent article above says, "During the past fifty years, owing to ever changing circumstances of time and place, the Church has gradually relaxed the severity of penitential requirements, so that now little more than a vestige of former rigour obtains." And I believe that the Catholic Encyclopedia transcribed onto the New Advent website was originally written in 1907, which would put it more than 50 years before the current relaxations.

    So the actual reason we can have fish, or the current option of any sort of penance we feel is appropriate, is not due to nuances of the words meat and flesh, or any theological symbolism, but it is because people thought it was too hard. They wanted more and more allowances which the authorities in the Church granted. That is why we have fish or whatever penance we want on Fridays, and that is why it doesn't feel like much of a sacrifice or penance at all, because we do whatever we want. Catholics go around explaining with countless different stories as to why fish isn't meat all for the sake of trying to support their beliefs, while knowing the actual history makes much more sense, makes them feel less foolish, and allows them to share their faith with others much easier.

    I'm not advocating going back to the "good old days" and becoming a “glutton for punishment” which was never actually the original intention of the Black Fast, but there is great wisdom in the past and we need to see this in the present. Fr. Longenecker is really onto something saying fish on Fridays doesn’t seem like a penance. We don’t need to crush ourselves with penance, but if it doesn't feel like any sort of difficulty, then it ceases to be penance and starts to be something superficial. When it is something merely superficial, we cease to the see the importance to it and quit doing it, which is where many Catholics currently are.

    Symbolism is good and helps to show meaning and depth, but by itself is superficial because its end is itself which leads us nowhere. There needs to be a bigger picture outside of the symbolism: a foundation to set it upon to make sense of its necessity and for the symbol to point toward something other than itself to take us somewhere. The Friday penance isn’t just for us to remember certain things or for people to notice us. We fast because it is a form of penance. The basis of penance is that we are sinners who are attached to sin and that sin, though forgiven by God through the Sacrament of Confession, does leave lasting damage in the world. We are able to atone for our sins and those of others though personal penance. The end we have in mind for penance is for God’s glory and satisfaction in us making reparation for damage caused by our sin and for us to turn away from sin toward God. By disciplining our flesh, we gain control over it and are better able to form virtues. It is the primary relationship with God that is the real significance and with putting this in the correct context and order, people can start to see the real meaning and depth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was given this same explanation by a professor, that it's not about the word or symbolism, etc, but it was simply a relaxing of the rules because people were too weak

      Delete
  12. I have been wondering about the difference between the Roman Catholic reason for fasting and the Eastern Orthodox reason for fasting. From this article and the comments, it appears that the Western practice of fasting is done as a penitential practice, while I understand that the Eastern practice of fasting is done as an ascetic training of the passions.
    While these practices can, of course, overlap, there does appear to be a difference in approach between the Western and the Eastern practices.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I say Sushi Fridays with some Theology on Tap Saki Style thrown in! Get some! w00t w00t!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Fish was considered meat until the High Middle Ages for penitential purposes, and still is (provided the fish has a backbone) for Eastern Christians today. So no, we don't give up meat on Fridays because the Pope owned a fishing fleet, and any theological justification provided for the difference (as Dr. Marshall provided quoting St. Thomas Aquinas) was imposed retroactively. The original fast was a black fast on Wednesdays and Fridays as well as four 40-day periods (still practiced by us in the East and attested to in the letters of St. Leo the Great), although one wonders how many Christians had the physical stamina to handle it; it was eventually modified to permit a basically vegan, uncooked, un-fried, and non-alcoholic diet (to emulate life in the Garden of Eden, theoretically), later to permit fish on Sundays alone because the fish is a symbol of Christ; by the time of Aquinas the fish was permitted every day in order to emulate Noah's Ark; by the late 14th century alternate penances could be given in order to permit dairy products during Lent, and next thing you know by the post-conciliar chaos in the 1970s fasting was for all practical purposes forgotten and abandoned by the Roman Catholic West.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I grew up in Northwest Ohio, and there were not alot of good eating fish in the inland waterways-- mainly creeks. There was a dispensation for people to eat muskrat-- a small version of the South American giant rat. In fact today, there are lots of game dinners held, which includes muskrat, groundhog, raccoon, as well as the better known venison, elk, etc. Lunchtime in a public school was a testament to our Catholic faith every Friday-- we stood in the fish line. When the Reformation was studied in the third grade, all the Catholics were asked to stand and were grilled on why we prayed to statues, told our sins to a priest, etc. I think it was good, though-- it toughened us, and made us proud to stand up for each other and our religion. Today Catholic schooled students seem immature and coddled.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Jimmy John's offers day old bread quite reasonably. Coupled with the ubiquitous canteen of water, this makes a very good source for our days of fasting and abstinence. Bottom line, our culture is fat and soft. We have too much leisure than what we know what to do with. I think many of the social causes of the left are really just the product of a dissipated culture. Some lean times and hardship and much of the silly 'activism' will go away. Trouble is, they will drag us all into that hardship. Fasting, abstinence, penance, and focusing less on the delights of the flesh is our way to 1) our way to fight the culture, and 2) be lean for those who still refuse to.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I don't think the value is in suffering through a restriction in dietary choices so much as in turning our minds and hearts to God in doing so.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Several things come to mind when I think about this issue.

    1) Take up my yoke upon you, and learn of me, because I am meek, and humble of heart: and you shall find rest to your souls. [30] For my yoke is sweet and my burden light.(St. Matthew 11:29-30)

    It doesn't sound like God wants us to abuse ourselves and cause ourselves great pain. Rather, to reflect upon the great sacrifice he made for us and to sacrifice something for him.

    2) But he said: Are you also yet without understanding? [17] Do you not understand, that whatsoever entereth into the mouth, goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the privy? [Matthew 15:17] [Latin] [18] But the things which proceed out of the mouth, come forth from the heart, and those things defile a man. (St. Matthew 15:16-17)

    Is it not the spirit of the penance? What if on any given day I decide to eat one less piece of meat as an offering to God? Is that not a worthy penance? Does it matter whether I give up dessert instead? The point is I am reflecting on and showing my appreciation for the sacrifice he made for me and I am returning, in a small measure for sure, a sacrifice to him.

    I also heard that, at one time, fish was the food of the poor and heard it was a reference to the multiplying of loaves and fishes. Given these things, if they are true, and the whole "caro" argument, I think fish can definitely count as a penance. Furthermore, however the church decided to allow fish, it did. If it was because people found it too difficult, then I see a church trying to be merciful and understanding but still lead people in a sincere act of penance which we all must do. I see the same in allowing people to substitute a penance of their own. If people abstain from meat but have a seafood feast I think it is natural to wonder just how much they are truly performing an act of penance. But, then again, maybe they are. Only God knows what is in a persons heart. So why are you worrying? It's between them and God. With all due respect, worry about yourself. Besides, if I have it correct, the church would ask us to abstain from meat, not to fast. Personally, I like the mandatory abstinence. It's my experience that if you leave most people to do it on their own, you have a better chance that they will do nothing. Tell them they can eat meat on Friday as long as they substitute something, all they hear is they can eat meat. It is the Churches duty to guide us in our faith and I think they should do all they can to help us do it. I think fish is fine. If it doesn't fit the definition of "caro", so be it. If it is because of the reference to the loaves and fishes and because it was a poor man's food, then let it remind us of God's love for us and how truly humble he was and how we should strive to be as humble. The point is we do penance and honor him and remember him and sacrifice a little something for him every Friday of the year outside of the Fridays in Lent. If the act is truly from the heart it COUNTS and if we follow the Churches guidelines it COUNTS! If the church decides to reinstate the "no meat rule" then I will follow it whether it includes fish or not.

    ReplyDelete
  19. The tradition of defining fish ("fins and scales" as in the Bible) as separate from "beasts of the land" in Jewish kashrut/kosher laws may be a closer precedent for this renewed practice in the Latin Church. Following wax and wane in practice, it has seen resurgence with popularity of the monastic and penitential orders, as well as popular devotion. But canonically, fish like eggs, vegetables and grains, are often classed separately in religious dietary rules within the jewish and early Christian traditions of the East and later, the Latinized Europe. In Singapore, we have followed the UK in reinstating Abstinence on Fridays throughout the year, although this is in the Ordo, it is not practiced by many mainly out of ignorance. I don't think we should use our modern scientific definitions - a general tendency in native English-speaking places to assume ancient texts in Hebrew and Greek were actually written in English :-) - and be literal about it. Rather WASPy, maybe. But look back to these sources of tradition and what the Patristic texts elaborate on such practices. Even if eating fish is not an inconvenience (ie. penance) in a coastal village but a staple, there is no need to skew the Ordo in such places. It is an act of fidelity and an demonstration of an informed, and well-formed conscience (Catholic Catechism) to exercise the charity of penance, and where we understand charity properly today - it is also a social justice. So, sometimes by boycotting certain foods (Iranian pistachios? e.g.) or luxuries (cigarettes? e.g.), we may also be acting with social justice as part of our penance.

    ReplyDelete
  20. The tradition of defining fish ("fins and scales" as in the Bible) as separate from "beasts of the land" in Jewish kashrut/kosher laws may be a closer precedent for this renewed practice in the Latin Church. Following wax and wane in practice, it has seen resurgence with popularity of the monastic and penitential orders, as well as popular devotion. But canonically, fish like eggs, vegetables and grains, are often classed separately in religious dietary rules within the jewish and early Christian traditions of the East and later, the Latinized Europe. In Singapore, we have followed the UK in reinstating Abstinence on Fridays throughout the year, although this is in the Ordo, it is not practiced by many mainly out of ignorance. I don't think we should use our modern scientific definitions - a general tendency in native English-speaking places to assume ancient texts in Hebrew and Greek were actually written in English :-) - and be literal about it. Rather WASPy, maybe. But look back to these sources of tradition and what the Patristic texts elaborate on such practices. Even if eating fish is not an inconvenience (ie. penance) in a coastal village but a staple, there is no need to skew the Ordo in such places. It is an act of fidelity and an demonstration of an informed, and well-formed conscience (Catholic Catechism) to exercise the charity of penance, and where we understand charity properly today - it is also a social justice. So, sometimes by boycotting certain foods (Iranian pistachios? e.g.) or luxuries (cigarettes? e.g.), we may also be acting with social justice as part of our penance.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I always considered fish as God's providence since there's no participation by humans for its production.

    Considering Genesis

    3:17.....CURSED IS THE EARTH IN THY WORK;.....


    So it says cursed is the earth in your work!

    So through sin,whatever humans did from Adam up to Jesus, was cursed.

    But the fish was the only food which was not part of the land,and humans never did anything for its production,so it was not cursed so they just ate it as God's providence.

    ReplyDelete
  22. This is very interesting. This subject makes way more sense to me now. Thanks you.

    ReplyDelete