I thought this was a particularly good observation. I have always felt that the approach taken by the architects of Vat II to liturgy and practice was extremely authoritarian and legalistic, despite their claims to be just the reverse.
Ping to a few names I could think of off the top of my head. Please ping anybody else you think might be interested in this.
I can certainly agree with this statement, for my part.
The theological and practical shift represented by this abandonment of an ancient part of the tradition was not merely a matter of theological emphasis, and more, too, than a question of whether ascetical exercises like fasting are good for the character. What was also at stake was the Church's prophetic integrity: its claim to solidarity with the poor.
This would be a strictly RC thing. For the Orthodox, fasting is a liberation from dependence on earthly food and a daily reminder about dependence upon the true "Bread of Life".
Additionally I would comment that fasting should never, for us, be intended as a witness to others, as the author suggests here. Christ instructed us to fast secretly.
It can be difficult! We fast all year on two days of the week, Wednesday and Friday, and I often find I am struggling to come up with an excuse about why I am refusing dairy products at a gathering. Avoiding a lie and not admitting to fasting can be a tricky endeavor.
This is an excellent observation, but I think that in addition to having to stretch oneself and give up the world, what is at risk with these kinds of watering-down of customs and traditions - and you can see them in our mission churches, where a working priest is a necessity for a small parish - is the loss of fellowship. If people attend church on separate days, they don't share the liturgy together. It can be the same for fasting. (Check out any Orthodox mailing list about one month into Great Lent, and you will see a lot of posts about food.)