Doing a little research and I came across this interesting piece of Vatican II that must have led them to allow eating meat on Fridays etc.

Bishop La Ravoire Morrow of Krishnagar, India, said the Church in the West seems to have become far too juridical. Many people could not understand how God could be expected to damn an individual to hell for eternity for such a thing as eating meat on Friday, and thus put him on a level with an adulterous atheist. There was no proportion between the deed and the punishment. The mentality behind such legislation seemed more legal than religious and made the Church a laughing-stock for many. It was well known that rules did not produce the desired effect, but only dulled the moral sense of the faithful. People did not generally need to be forced. Insistence on this kind of thing made real dialogue impossible.

What is a "piece of Vatican II"?

Unless I am missing something, V2 did not summarily permit the eating of meat on Friday.  The Church did, around that time, leave it up to the discretion of national bishops' conferences, to derogate the practice outside of Lent, and to allow the faithful, at their discretion, to substitute another penance or work of charity.

Of course, nobody heard this, all they heard is "we can now eat meat on Friday", and they don't give it a second thought.  Where are all those acts of penance and charity?  Ever hear anyone mention this?

Not clear whether the penitential obligation (i.e., either no meat, or something else) still binds under pain of mortal sin.  I don't think it does in the UK.  If it binds in the US, when was the last time you ever heard a Novus Ordo priest say anything about it?

Just don't eat the meat.  It's so much simpler, and you have no doubt you have done what the Church requires.

In his opinion at Vatican II, bishop La Revoire Morrow, compared the sin of abstinance from meat on Friday with that of an adulterous atheist in that either of the two sins will send one to Hell. That is what I thought might generate a few opinions on CIF.

If that were the case, they could simply have changed the rule to binding under pain of serious venial sin.  Problem solved.  I can see this being a point, where it could make the Church appear somewhat Pharasaical to have a fasting law be on the same level of someone committing the sin of sodomy or murdering someone.  No reason, however, to get rid of it ... just reduce it to binding under pain of a serious venial sin.  And I do believe that fasting on Fridays is still on the books ... or else you have to substitute something equivalent.  I actually knew some NO Catholics who kept the Friday abstinence and pointed this out.  In practice, nobody actually substitutes anything equivalent ... largely because they're not catechized.  If they were catechized about it ... instead of thinking that the rule no longer exists ... those who are serious Catholics would likely adhere to it (vs. the ones that only bother showing up to Mass every once in a while anyway).

A 'piece of Vatican II' is the opinion of a bishop given at Vatican II by numerous bishops, taken from a record of what was said at one of the sessions of that non-dogmatic council, that is, The Church in the modern world.

I know Vatican II did not summarily permit such changes at Vatican II. They came afterwards. I posted this particular speech to show why the change to the second commandment of the Catholic Church probably came about.

In his opinion at Vatican II, bishop La Revoire Morrow, compared the sin of abstinance from meat on Friday with that of an adulterous atheist in that either of the two sins will send one to Hell. That is what I thought might generate a few opinions on CIF.

Why would someone deliberately eat meat on Friday without a dispensation from the local priest?  You got a dinner planned tell the priest on Sunday and he can let you slide for the one day, or that's my understanding anyways.  I could see why it would be a mortal sin though.

Far as I know, NOers never fast or abstain, whatever the law is, they don't believe in it.

Some years ago after a business meeting on Ash Wednesday, about six or seven of us that worked in my office went to lunch, most of them were NOers. I ordered first - fish and chips - and I looked at the rest and told them - "remember, it's Ash Wednesday so no meat today don't forget" - they all laughed, some said "we don't have to anymore" even "screw that" everyone of them ordered meat knowing full well it was Ash Wednesday before they ordered. They simply could not care less.

It may not be that they don't believe in it, but rather have never heard it. The Ash Wednesday one is a bit wonky as even when I was in the NO, heard about that. In the NO, though, giving up anything on Fridays or any kind of penance was never mentioned. Most people in the NO honestly have no idea they should be doing anything different on Fridays.

If that were the case, they could simply have changed the rule to binding under pain of serious venial sin.  Problem solved.  I can see this being a point, where it could make the Church appear somewhat Pharasaical to have a fasting law be on the same level of someone committing the sin of sodomy or murdering someone.  No reason, however, to get rid of it ... just reduce it to binding under pain of a serious venial sin.  And I do believe that fasting on Fridays is still on the books ... or else you have to substitute something equivalent.  I actually knew some NO Catholics who kept the Friday abstinence and pointed this out.  In practice, nobody actually substitutes anything equivalent ... largely because they're not catechized.  If they were catechized about it ... instead of thinking that the rule no longer exists ... those who are serious Catholics would likely adhere to it (vs. the ones that only bother showing up to Mass every once in a while anyway).

Being basically a kindly sort and a bit of a softie, if I were making the rules, I would restore Friday abstinence across the board, but as Ladislaus alludes to, I would only bind the faithful under pain of venial sin --- no free passes (unless there is a difficult situation, being in a situation where you are basically forced to eat meat), you can't blow it off sinlessly, but to stake eternal salvation on it, I'm not sure I'd go that far.  Milk before meat (unavoidable pun unintended).