The Catholic Message Board

I would post this in Catholicism, but since I could be wrong, it is here. But I think I'm right.
OK, you know that a one year old is in his second year of life, right? And that last century was not the 19th but the 20th, right? So when Canon Law says that on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday adults are to fast "up to the beginning of their 60th year", do you see that this means through age 58? Because your 60th year is when you are 59 years old.

A 59-year-old does not have to fast. Yes, the law is weird. I didn't write it

The law was probably written when 59 years was considered old for a human being. Now 59 is the new 49 or something like that.

The bigger oddity is why it's 59 instead of 60.

Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2026 7:19 pm The bigger oddity is why it's 59 instead of 60.

Because you would then be starting your 61st. year of life?

I could never understand why the age for abstaining from meat went from 7 to 14. We did it. Maybe older generations were just tougher as kids. You just sucked it up and soldiered on. And if we cried, we got something to really cry about.

anawim wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2026 7:31 pm

Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2026 7:19 pm The bigger oddity is why it's 59 instead of 60.

Because you would then be starting your 61st. year of life?

RIght, but my question is why the law is written that way. Why is the switch point the 59th birthday rather than the 60th?

Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2026 7:19 pm The bigger oddity is why it's 59 instead of 60.

It is a question of how you count. It is not "age 59", it is "your 60th year of life", which begins when you turn 59. Age 60 is the beginning of your 61st year of life. Just as this is the 21st century, not the 20th.

Irenaeus wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2026 7:07 pm The law was probably written when 59 years was considered old for a human being. Now 59 is the new 49 or something like that.

It is not that you are considered "old," it is that your dietary needs change as you get older. And even then, the requirement to fast really only applies to people in good health; people who are sick, or who have chronic illnesses, are not required to fast, whatever age they might be.

As a diabetic, I am technically exempt from fasting because going too long without eating could cause my blood sugar to fall to a dangerously low level. I eat less than normal to make sure I don't feel full, but it's probably a little more than the strict requirement, and if I start to feel like my blood sugar is getting too low (I know the symptoms of hypoglycemia, I don't need to take my blood sugar) then I eat more to make sure I don't pass out,

Irenaeus wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2026 7:07 pm The law was probably written when 59 years was considered old for a human being. Now 59 is the new 49 or something like that.

That's true but fasting at age 59 is difficult (at least, if it doesn't get easier as you age - I'm not 59 yet unlike Fr. Kenobi) no matter what shape you're in.

Fasting got easier as I got older. My appetite just seemed to naturally decrease. I used to wonder why old people would eat like a bird.