why meat followup

From the few e-mails I have been sent regarding my previous post, Why Meat?, I think I may have not been so clear.
I know that chicken is meat. My question is how did the definition of meat come about as it is used for the Church? Is it simply definition 2b from Websters? “flesh of domesticated animals”? I am just curious on why meat is meat and something that is not meat (fish, seafood) is not meat.
Like, pigs (ham, pork) are meat since they are domesticated animals. What about a wild boar, that is by definition not domesticated? I’m never going to go out and kill a wild beast because it could be a loophole; I’m just curious on what definition the Church looks at.
I’m not trying to find a loophole or get too picky. I’m just curious how much thought there is out there on this.
From what I’ve read so far, the reason meat was chosen was because it is pretty common and most people would prefer it to veggies and so it seems to be an acceptable universal penance. Is that correct? I have no idea. It’s just what I have to work with right now.
As far as my personal discipline: No meat works just fine for me as it is something that is a sacrifice to me and with my current dining habits, it is a challenge. I also follow the school of thought that there is nothing wrong with “going a bit further” on Fridays- such as giving up sweets also on Fridays. However, in questioning why things are as they are, we can better understand our faith and the disciplines of it. The better we understand, the better we are able to express it, internalize it and then spread it.






One response to “why meat followup

  1. Jen Avatar

    Hiya honey…
    I heard that it’s bc a long time ago meat was a delicacy…like expensive and harder to come by than fish. But being in TX, for us, fish is harder to come by than chicken. Of course, this could be wrong, but it’s just what i heard. hehe…just thought i’d share the knowledge…maybe you can do some research about that. ha.

Leave a Reply