Are we serious about fasting?
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
By Bryan Cones
Comments (11)
I've had some friends ask me what the value of fasting is: Why give something up instead of "doing" something, or helping someone in need?
I'm not sure those things are mutually exclusive, but I do think there's something valuable in just "giving up," too, in just fasting. For me that's going to be meat this Lent. And, no, that doesn't mean I'm going to be eating lobster everyday!
I chose meat for all kinds of reasons: It's traditional, for one thing, so I feel like I'm joining all kinds of other Christians, too. Meat isn'tincredibly good for me, either, and I eat too much of it anyway. But a meat-heavy diet is also hard on the earth (everything from land use to greenhouse gasses) and on the poor (if we meat-eaters consumed less, there would be more land for grain consumption). Plus, the way we produce meat in this country is at least gross if not grossly immoral.
But I think, in the end, my meat-eating is a symbol of my overconsumption: Not only do I use up more of my "fair share" of the earth's resources--including food--I consume a lot more than I need. Food is obvious, but you could add energy and entertainment and "screen time" too.
I think fasting--simply "giving up" without any other purpose--would be good for anyone, especially in our culture of super-overconsumption.
Posted in: In preview mode
giving up meat
By crystal (not verified) on Thursday, February 18, 2010Bryan, it's not too late to become a full time vegetarian, like me :)
A Lenten experiment
By Bryan Cones on Thursday, February 18, 2010I for sure want to be eating less meat even after Easter... but not sure I'm ready to go whole hog (or no hog!) yet.
But my brain is there. Esp considering the way we produce animal protein, I think a vegetarian diet is definitely the most ethical way to eat.
Baby steps...
Bryan Cones
Joyce Rupp has a column on
By Anonymous (not verified) on Wednesday, February 17, 2010Joyce Rupp has a column on this today.
http://ncronline.org/blogs/spiritual-reflections/open-my-eyes-what%E2%80...
Excerpt below.
"....I heard this story long ago ... I laughed heartily at its incongruity. But I also got the point, realizing in an instant how absurd my Lenten penances were: not eating candy, fasting to lose weight, giving up coffee, liquor or TV. Had these practices changed my attitudes and behavior? Not one iota. None of these had value in themselves when it came to spiritual renewal. Mostly they fed my hungry ego, so at Easter I felt proud satisfaction about my efforts at discipline.
Discipline and disciple have the same Latin root, discipulus, meaning “a learner.” Webster’s Dictionary defines discipline as “training that develops self-control, character, or orderliness and efficiency.” Discipline for the sake of discipline creates disciplinarians but doesn’t do much for changing one’s heart. Worthy Lenten restraint is practiced for the purpose of learning, of discovering what attitudes and behavior are to be changed in order to reflect the teachings of Christ.
For instance, we can discipline ourselves to keep quiet instead of having to be right, to not verbally slap back in response to hurtful remarks, to stop trying to show how wise we are. Closing our mouth is not enough, though. There also needs to be an opening of the barriers in our heart...."
Enough AshWed Catholic VooDoo --
By Anonymous (not verified) on Wednesday, February 17, 2010Serving Meals On Wheels Instead Of Eating A Full Lunch Is One Way To Fast; Performing Prayerful Daily Reflection Focusing Upon 'Stewardship' Seems More Productive Discipleship Than A Fast Lamenting The Immorality Of Some Meat Producing Conglomerate; Railing Against The Moon Seems More Productive Than Odd Contra-Scripture Practice Of Getting Ashes -- Break Out The Chrism Oil And Slather Me Down Let My Heart Rejoice And Give Me A Renewed Song To Sing To The Lord...
on fasting
By elizabeth (not verified) on Wednesday, February 17, 2010Hi Bryan,
I'm with you on giving up for lent, especially in our "culture of super-overconsumption." But did it ever occur to you that the Catholic Church is partly responsible for creating the culture it now sees fit to criticize, namely by relaxing the (already liberal, as far as I understand) fasting laws after Vatican II. Both my parents grew up abstaining from meat on Fridays year round. Apparently, the restriction was relaxed to apply only in Lent ...
The Church made the mistake of making the religion easier for people, and this was a big mistake. If it's not countercultural, it's meaningless. I think I flirted with Orthodoxy in graduate school (which has maintained very strict fasting laws), because I wanted my religion, my life, to be harder.
Catholics used to be distinguished not so much by what they believed, but by the way they lived - part of which included fasting on Fridays - so much that restaurants would offer Friday fish specials - of course the tradition of eating fish developed in world in which fish were still abundant - hardly the case today - but sadly, there's very little that sets us apart anymore, not even keeping Sabbath, let along keeping Lent.
set apart
By Meghan Murphy-Gill on Wednesday, February 17, 2010I'm not so sure that the fact there's "very little that sets up apart anymore" is a problem. First, what you're getting at are the obvious identifiers that set Catholics apart, such as eating fish on Fridays. Being set apart for the sake of being set apart seems counter to what Jesus preaches in the gospels: don't let your right hand know what you're left is doing, groom yourself and don't act distraut over your hunger when you're fasting.
I have a hard time believing that religion is supposed to be hard, to make us suffer. Frankly, the Good News is just that: God wills the flourishing of creation.
So why endure hunger pangs and resist the urge to eat a steak on Fridays or all of Lent? Because our religion tells us we should suffer like Christ? That's one interpretation. But, I tend to think it as more to do with forming us as a faithful people, not so that we can endure more suffering, but so we can all live according to God's plan for the flourishing of all creation. But, like Bryan said, some of us are "flourishing" at the expense of others. And such overconsumption can hardly be considered good for us, the poor, or the planet. The idea of giving up or even doing something for Lent isn't to confine this change to 40 days, but to allow it to change us to be better for the rest of the year. In this way, Lenten fasting is meaningful in a much bigger way than it is when its simply something that gives us identity or sets us apart.
Hi Meghan, I should clarify
By elizabeth (not verified) on Thursday, February 18, 2010Hi Meghan,
I should clarify that by "hard" I meant challenging; I don't believe suffering (even if it sometimes goes with the territory of being a Christian) is redemptive. Which is one reason I believe our over-consumption is sinful - because of the suffering it causes - to the poor, to the planet, etc.
I think I'd interpret some of the passages you references slightly differently. Meaning, when we give charity, or do good deeds, etc., we shouldn't seek credit. Our reward is in heaven, so to speak. And as for Christian practices that set us apart, notice Jesus says "when you fast" (implying they would be fasting, so why the Church abandoned the practice, I don't know) as many others did, who weren't his followers. So he was telling them not to fast joyfully - not in the manner they were familiar with. But I'm no exegete :-)
I definitely believe we are called, in baptism, to set ourselves apart, we are no longer in Adam, but Christ. Christians for many centuries were distinguished by their actions (namely their charity, their hospitality, their care of the sick - not their fasting, to be sure). I find it sad we're all caught up in getting and spending ...
For most people, following Jesus is hard. Very hard. It's why the rich young man in Mark's gospel walks away (because he had many possessions ...).
A challenging Faith
By Jim (not verified) on Friday, February 19, 2010I agree with you Elizabeth-I think St. Paul called us to constant conversion. The way I interpret that is that we, as Catholic Christians, should always be open to new ways of seeing the same stuff.
I like this - If Christianity is easy for you, then you are missing something.
Whoops, I meant to write "he
By elizabeth (not verified) on Thursday, February 18, 2010Whoops, I meant to write "he was telling them to fast joyfully not in the manner they would have been familiar with."
whoops, I meant to write he
By elizabeth (not verified) on Thursday, February 18, 2010whoops, I meant to write he was telling them to fast joyfully, not to make it obvious (like those who weren't his followers were in the habit of doing)
U.S. Catholic insists on a civil and respectful dialogue on our website, following our Comment policy. Comments should be charitable, on topic, and brief. U.S. Catholic reserves the right to delete comments deemed inappropriate. Links are not allowed and comments with them will be moderated or deleted. We encourage you to choose your words wisely.
