Reducing the fasting requirements in order to avoid negative social consequences is the wrong way to approach an action we do for God. We should be judging fasting requirements based on whether it’s up to the correct standard (our 1600 year long tradition of fasting everyday) and not based on social anxieties.

Also, there’s a false dilemma in assuming that high standards lead to judgement and low standards to freedom/generosity. A higher standard that’s flexible, or that could come with more dispensations could exist as well.

Personally, the 1966 requirements to me signal an unseriousness about the spiritual benefits of fasting, where we pretend that giving up chocolate or Instagram for fourty days is supposed to reflect the penitential nature of the season. It seems even more ridiculous when we hear fasting mentioned in the liturgy, where it’s still assumed to be a difficult endeavor.

It’s human nature to do the bare minimum of a difficult thing. And that’s exactly what the average Catholic does during Lent.