In the evolution that rituals and offerings have undergone we can also observe the same reasons on which taboos are based. Since food is the most important resource of human beings, offering it to the gods or abstaining from eating any food has a relevant symbolic load in terms of devotion and that can be perceived even in the way the foods are prepared. food. In many cultures, llamas are considered a spirit capable of imbuing food with supernatural properties that those who eat it acquire. On the other hand, once a food has acquired symbolic status, its nutritional properties cease to be important. What does it matter that wine is toxic and addictive if it symbolizes the blood of Christ?
We have already talked about how offerings, taboos and sacrifices mainly affect animals and not plants, since we have always given more value to meat because it is more difficult to obtain. For this same reason, in sacrifices – an offering of the highest level – a domestic animal is killed and never wild animals, which are considered a gift of nature. Domestic animals have an economic and heritage value that wild animals lack. Ultimately, as Plato noted in his dialogue Euthyphro, for Socrates offerings are “the way that gods and men do business.”
Rarely is the meat of sacrificed animals left to rot on the altar. On the contrary, it becomes part of a great feast that is celebrated in community. It is likely that our current taste for Sunday barbecues, the British Sunday roast or mass paellas in towns have their origin in these festivities. The Eucharist itself is the Sunday commemoration of a banquet—or a business dinner—and a sacrifice.
An example of the survival of these sacrifices is found in the Muslim Passover, Eid al-Adha, in which the salvation of Ishmael is remembered with the sacrifice of an animal and then distributing its meat equally among family, neighbors and friends. The animal is chosen, of course, depending on the economic possibilities of the hosts.
In the case of declaring ourselves atheists or agnostics, it is obvious to say that we cannot deny the cultural influence that religions have had on society and that they affect us all, believers or not, in a very intimate way—even at a deep level. not conscious—in our daily lives.
Modern religions quickly realized that as population density increased, this ritual sacrifice thing was—literally—bad business. It is not the same that a small group of people deliver three goats and four chickens, than the enormous expense of a ceremony for thousands of people. Furthermore, it was feared that asking parishioners to hand over their animals to be offered to God was probably not the best way to get parishioners. But they also knew that food and nutrition were important enough aspects of people’s lifestyles not to exert some kind of control over them. So they transformed the concrete sacrifice of an animal into a more abstract one that they shaped through penance and abstinence, which in some faiths even moved to the sexual field.
In different religions, vigil is practiced in their own way, and in all of them there is some legal loophole that allows it to be skipped. As has already been said, any religious precept does not survive if it is an obstacle to the survival of those who have to observe it.
When I was a child, we celebrated Easter with my cousins ??and uncles. My mother is a non-practicing believer and my father, who is basically a skeptic about everything, is agnostic and smart and tolerant enough to know what battles he has to fight, so my sisters—Elisenda and Victòria—and I are baptized and have made my first communion, because it was more important than because of my mother’s religious convictions or ours.
Unlike what happened in my house, my uncles were punctual parishioners at the celebrations of the Lord’s Day. Exemplary Catholics, religion was a way of life for them, although I always thought that they complied with the precepts of the Church more out of comfort than out of true devotion – I don’t want to say that they were not devout, far from it – I think that their faith made them feel worthy and respectable people, although I always believed that they did not need to be supported by the church, they were already like that anyway. My uncle—my mother’s sister’s husband—, in addition to being my godfather, was a good and loving man who, when we were together, took the opportunity to give me the traditional mona that is eaten in Catalonia on Easter Mondays. The only drawback was that the cake was always chocolate, and as strange as it may seem, the only ones who enjoyed it were my cousins ??because I didn’t really like chocolate cake. As a sign of Christian resignation, given the Easter season in which this took place year after year, I never complained and much less protested, because I may be a disbeliever, but not rude and even less ungrateful. And I loved my uncle too much.
During that week, my mother was in charge of the housekeeping most days, that is, cooking, because my aunt was not good at it and she herself had no qualms about admitting it. My mother has always cooked with an angel’s hand, so there was no possible discussion even between my cousins. I am more than convinced that they were the ones who most looked forward to the arrival of those seven days, especially because it meant relief and pleasure for their stomachs. Despite this, my aunt felt obliged to take charge of some of the meals, so as not to always leave the dead to her little sister. If she made her veal round, everything went more or less well.
And then came Good Friday, one of the two days—along with Ash Wednesday—of obligatory vigil. In fact, according to article 1,251 of the Code of Canon Law “every Friday, unless they coincide with a solemnity, abstinence from meat or other food determined by the Episcopal Conference must be observed; fasting and abstinence will be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday. So that day, during those family Holy Weeks, you couldn’t eat meat. I have always been more curious than clever, and one day I asked my mother the reason why that day there was no fricandó, no meatballs, no coq au vin. I remember that she told me that the crucifixion and death of Jesus was commemorated, and since he died for our sins, we had to reciprocate his sacrifice with another—in essence much smaller—by abstaining from eating meat for a day. My mother, who was and is smarter than hunger, didn’t say anything about fasting because she knew what there was. And the thing was that whatever was replacing meat, that day, my cousins—and my uncle in the lead—were going to get all worked up as they usually did.
It didn’t matter to me personally, as long as the damned mimosa eggs didn’t appear on the table, but deep down, I realized – and anyone would have – that things that day of supposed abstinence were like any other day, and Therefore I didn’t quite understand where the hell the sacrifice was that my mother had told me had to be made. Once again appetite prevailed over religion.
They say that God squeezes, but does not choke and Good Friday is a busy day for restaurants specializing in fish and where seafood on large trays is the law, not divine, but human, offering alternatives to overcome the title of good parishioner . The Catholic law of abstinence, by the way, would allow eating snakes, since only the meat of mammals and poultry—including their organs—is prohibited, as well as soups and creams made with these animals. Fish, amphibians, reptiles and shellfish are allowed, as are animal products such as butter and jellies, as long as they do not taste like meat. Alcohol is allowed, but not recommended, and it is requested not to eat luxurious or expensive foods, without taking into account that things are expensive or cheap depending on the pocket of each household.
In any case, it is clear that abstaining from eating meat is, again, something more symbolic than anything else, since it dates back to the times when eating it was the exception and had not yet become a common food. Nowadays it is no real sacrifice for anyone not to eat meat for a day. In fact, in Catholic documents that refer to abstinence and fasting, the latter is openly recognized, but at the same time their observance is insisted upon as a sign of adhesion and obedience due to the Church. There must be Catholic vegans for whom not eating meat does not represent a sacrifice, but quite the opposite, since they consider it an ethical duty. In this case, as in the previous one, “the faithful to whom abstaining from meat does not cost him a sacrifice, still has the obligation to abstain: and then the value of his action will be that of obedience to the norm of the Church. It does not imply abstinence from meat is a sacrifice, but it has the merit and exemplary value of obedience to the law and the Church”, and the matter is resolved.
I am as sure that my uncles and cousins ??were convinced that they behaved like good Catholics and that they were doing nothing wrong by eating on all fours, as I am that even the Pope himself would have reassured them in confession about the rectitude of their conduct. . What was once mortuary today has remained simple obedience, and they obeyed, no one will be able to say otherwise. Regarding fasting, the law of abstinence is ambiguous enough to fit everything. The general principle is that you have to eat less, which is like saying nothing. You can eat three meals a day, one important and two that together count as one. So that Good Friday lunch fit the norm perfectly. It was enough to have had a light breakfast and less dinner than usual.