91. On Abstinence and Fasting

1. Cornelius, staying at Rome for the sake of a pious pilgrimage to the thresholds of the Apostles, eats meats on Saturdays. For he asked a confessor, who responded that he could do that very thing, as in his own country, in which abstinence is not observed on Saturdays, because he is a pilgrim. For the law of abstinence on Saturday is not universal per se, but particular to places.

Q. 1. What is the obligation of the law of abstinence? — 2. What as to the Case?

R. To the 1st. Cf. I. M. 1571 seqq. — To the 2nd. Cornelius seems to be held to observing abstinence at Rome on Saturdays. This is drawn first from the custom itself which prevails at Rome; for pilgrims are accustomed either to seek this faculty, or to observe abstinence as others do. And very recently, on the occasion of the jubilee feast of the Supreme Pontiff, an indult was conceded to pilgrims by the same Supreme Pontiff, namely that they could at Rome follow the customs of their fatherlands as to abstinence. Besides, this law of Saturday abstinence seems per se rather universal than particular to places. Benedict XIV, de Syn. l. 1. c. 5. n. 2, 3, 5, has these things: “Already from the fourth century the Saturday day was numbered in the Roman Church among days of hunger.... Most, though not all, Western Churches indeed followed the use of the Roman Church.... But we admit this as probable, namely that discipline of the Roman Church of this sort never penetrated Spain.... Moreover, because no one willingly sustains for long a yoke from which he sees others everywhere withdrawn, from this variety of discipline it finally happened that the custom of consecrating the Saturday day by fasting gradually failed in the whole West.... Hence the opinion commonly prevailed among the doctors that it is lawful on Saturday to eat meats wherever their use has not been forbidden by received custom.” From these things it is drawn that the law per se was general in the Western Church, from the use of the Roman Church and from general custom, but that in particular places it was derogated by particular customs. Hence Clemens Marc., Inst. Mor. v. 1. n. 1244, says: “The ecclesiastical precept of abstaining from meats urges under grave obligation, besides days of fast, 1. on the sixth feria of any week in the whole Church.... 2. on Saturday, in most places of the Latin Church by customary law. Excepted, besides Greece, are the kingdoms of Spain. Likewise, in some dioceses of Gaul and Belgium, the Saturdays occurring between the Nativity of the Lord and the Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary are excepted.” And this can be confirmed from the Rescript of Pius IX in the year 1868, by which he refused to concede for America a general and perpetual dispensation, but ordered the individual bishops, the reasons having been set forth, to ask for a temporary Indult.

Finally, the preceding resolution and doctrine can be confirmed from the following Resolution of the Holy Office, 13 March 1727, Collect. S. C. de P. F. n. 2050: “1. Is it lawful for Greeks staying at Rome, at least for avoiding scandal, to eat meats on Saturday? — 2. Is it lawful for Greeks to have Latins in their service, and on Saturday to give them meats to eat? — 3. Is it lawful for Greeks on the aforesaid day to present meats to be eaten to Latin boys and youths who are not assigned to their service? — R. To the 1st. It is not lawful, and the Instruction of Clement VIII is to be observed, in which it is thus had: The use of meats on Saturday is to be tolerated among the Greeks, where it can be done without scandal, but in their own places and among them only. — To the 2nd and 3rd. Latin servants of Greeks are held to observe the Latin rite, and therefore Greeks sin by placing forbidden foods before servants at a time at which they ought to abstain from them.”

2. Xaverius, a missionary in places of infidels, remains very uncertain whether neoconverts to the faith are held by the law of fasting, and so whether he himself ought to manifest it to them. For he fears lest the recent faithful transgress it, and an occasion be given to others by which they are turned away from the faith.

Q. 1. What is the obligation of the law of fasting? — 2. What as to the Case?

R. To the 1st. Cf. I. M. 1578 seqq. — To the 2nd. Positive ecclesiastical law concerning abstinence and concerning fasting absolutely obligates, even in mission places, infidels already converted to the faith. But with attention to the quality of regions and persons, there can more easily be place for dispensation. Wherefore ecclesiastical law concerning abstinence and concerning fasting must be notified by the missionary as obligatory under mortal sin. Nevertheless the missionary can at the same time explain the causes on account of which the faithful are excused from the observance of the precepts. But with attention to the infirmity and necessity of persons, the missionary will be able to seek due dispensation from the Holy See, or due faculty, so that he himself can dispense in particular cases, if he does not already have it. But let him note that the faculty of dispensing in abstinence and fasts is conceded to missionaries in such a way that they cannot use it except in particular cases and for just causes. S. C. de P. F. 12 Sept. 1645; 2 Aug. 1781; S. O. 23 March 1656; Collectan. S. C. de P. F. n. 2046, 2047, 2059, 2080.

3. Basilius, a monk, does not observe the fast on the vigil of St. John the Baptist. For he says it is a particular fast of the diocese prescribed by the bishop, which regulars are not held to observe. Does he act rightly?

R. Basilius is deceived, and, prescinding from other reasons already set forth above, Cf. n. 16, par. 5, p. 37, he is altogether held to the fast on the aforesaid day, because that fast is not a particular precept in that diocese, but is to be observed from universal law still prevailing in that diocese. And indeed the doctors commonly count such a fast among others to be observed from universal law. And thus Tamburini, tr. 4, de Quarto Ecclesiae praecepto, c. 9, n. 8, among other vigils on which the faithful are obligated to fast, also counts the vigil of St. John the Baptist. The same is had in La-Croix, l. 3. p. 2. n. 1273.

And it is confirmed from the Brief of Urban VIII, Cum evenire, 13 Oct. 1638, Decr. Auth. S. R. C. n. 657, by which it is established that if the feast of Corpus Christi falls on the vigil of St. John the Baptist, the fast is to be made on the day before the feast of Corpus Christi.

4. Carolus, staying in a place where, from received custom, coots are permitted on days of abstinence, asks his confessor whether on days of Lenten fast, when meats are conceded by Indult, he can eat meats and coot at the same time.

Q. 1. What is the law of mixing foods? — 2. What as to the Case?

R. To the 1st. Cf. I. M. 1607, 1626. To the 2nd. Carolus does not seem able to eat meats and coot at the same time. For in the place in which he lives, coot is held as fish, and therefore is permitted on days of abstinence. And thus from the Declaration of the Sacred Penitentiary, 16 Jan. 1834, marine shellfish, although commonly they are not called fish, nor are they fish, nevertheless one cannot eat them together with meats. For the same reason snails and frogs, although they are not fish, since they are eaten in the manner of fish, are prohibited when the use of meats is prohibited, and then by indult are permitted. G. 489; Scav. l. 1. n. 404. Therefore the same seems to be said concerning coots, when they are eaten in the manner of fish. Otherwise it would follow that, in that place, on a day of abstinence and fast within the year coots are eaten because they are eaten in the manner of fish; but on another day of Lenten fast, meats being permitted by Indult, coots are eaten together with meats because they are eaten in the manner of meats. Moreover, if in that place they are held and eaten as fish, it follows that they are always to be held and eaten as fish, and not at the pleasure of each one.

But is it lawful in the aforesaid place to eat coot on a day of abstinence and fast? If truly a proven custom is present there, as is asserted in the Case, it does not seem illicit. But the custom must be called proven which has been received among pious and upright men. Bened. XIV, de Syn. l. 11. c. 5. n. 10-12. But prescinding from custom, is it lawful per se to eat coot on days of abstinence? There are not lacking those who affirm this, and they rely 1. on the fact that it is an aquatic bird; 2. on the Indult conceded to the Religious of the Order of Minims of St. Francis of Paola, S. C. Reg. Disc. 22 Feb. 1804. For it does not seem that coot meats were conceded to the said Religious, to whom meats are altogether forbidden. But, the doubt standing: “Whether the aquatic bird whose name is coot is to be reckoned among fish, and it is lawful to feed upon it on those days on which meats are forbidden”; and likewise “the perplexity standing by which their consciences (of the religious) were troubled concerning this matter,” whence the same religious “offered a supplication to Pius VII that it be conceded to them to be able to use that food freely”; the Most Holy One, the narrated things being true, benignly assented for the grace according to the things sought, the Constitutions of the Order and all other things notwithstanding: namely, he conceded the grace for all security of conscience and as a precaution, in that doubt, as not rarely happens. Whence at least it is not certain concerning the prohibition of coot. But the more common opinion holds that coot is prohibited per se. The reason is that coot, which is an aquatic hen, has meats similar to the meats of terrestrial birds, which are prohibited; it has nutritive force, as other bird meats do, whence meats of this sort are also more conformed to the human body. S. Th. 2.2. q. 147. a. 8; I. M. 1572.

5. Aurelius, on days of fasting, when the Indult for meats has been conceded, eats fish together with meat broth, meats together with fish broth, fish together with a pastry seasoned with small bits of meat, meats together with a dumpling seasoned with small fish dried by salt and crushed into little pieces, fish together with meat gelatin. — Does he act rightly?

R. Aurelius does not seem to be disturbed from the fact that he eats fish together with meat broth, or meats with fish broth. For broth, whether of meat or of fish, is not meat or fish; and so it cannot be said that he mixes lawful and unlawful dishes, that he uses meats themselves and fish at the same time.

But Aurelius cannot eat fish together with pastry seasoned with small bits of meat, nor meats together with a dumpling seasoned with little fish dried by salt and crushed into little pieces. For in that way, on the contrary, he truly eats meats and fish together. That that meat has been cut into small bits, and that the fish have been crushed into little pieces, does not therefore make them cease truly to be meats and fish. Nor truly, in the Case, do they properly stand in the manner of seasoning, but they truly stand in the manner of another substance which enters into the confection of that pastry and dumpling. And if that pastry and dumpling were made within wholly from meat, or wholly from fish, would it not certainly be meat and fish? and would he who ate them together with fish or with meat not eat meats and fish at the same time? It is certainly the same if the pastry were made only partially and from a smaller part, or by far a smaller part, from meats, and the dumpling from fish cut into little pieces, or minced meat were made.

Nor likewise can Aurelius eat fish with gelatin. For gelatin is true meat, and retains the whole substance of meat, although accidentally as to form it has been changed. Together with fish nothing is lawful except broth from meat and seasonings from meat, just as together with meat broth from fish or seasonings from fish are lawful. Moreover gelatin has neither the character of broth nor the character of seasoning, but is a true dish by itself; and in the Case it certainly is constituted not from fish, but from meat; and so it is an unlawful dish together with fish on a day of fast.

6. “Bertoldus, a father of a family, for a just cause, is by name dispensed from the law of abstinence for the time of the occurring Lent. This being known, his wife orders the maidservant to prepare meats indeed for the husband, but fasting foods for herself, the children, and the other members of the household. What is this? exclaims Bertoldus, muttering. I am dispensed, and I wish the whole family to use my privilege. But the anxious wife asks the confessor whether she can comply.

Q. Can in fact the whole family feed upon meats in the aforesaid case?

R. Affirmatively. It is evident from Resp. Poenit. 16 Jan. 1834. For it had thus been asked: Whether, when a father of a family, who is dispensed from the law of abstinence from meats during Lent, cannot or does not wish foods of each kind to be prepared, his children or household members can eat meats? The Sacred Penitentiary responded: That persons who are in the power of the father of a family, to whom legitimate faculty of eating meats has been granted, can be permitted to use the foods indulged to the father of the family, with the condition added of not mixing lawful and forbidden dishes, and of one meal in the day, for those who are held to fast.” Thus Fr. Gury, 497.

But from the Responses of the same Sacred Penitentiary something altogether different must be said in the Case, and one must stand not by the will of Bertoldus, but by the interpretation of his wife. For neither the wife, nor the children, nor the other household members of Bertoldus are in truth placed in inability to observe abstinence; but, on the contrary, they can observe it well.

In truth, when the same Sacred Penitentiary was asked whether fathers of families, when there is in the family someone dispensed from the law of abstinence from meats, can extend the dispensation indiscriminately to all from the family, it responded, 10 Jan. 1834: “Infirmity, and any other reasonable impediment whatever, by counsel of each physician, but not gluttony, avarice, or generally an economy of expenses, can exempt from the precept of abstinence on days of hunger.” And to the question: “Whether the reason on account of which sons under paternal power can use forbidden foods presented by the father of the family is their physical or moral inability to observe the precept, or rather the indult which the father of the family enjoys”; it responded, 29 Dec. 1862: The reason of the permission concerning which there is speech in the proposed question is not the indult of the father of the family, but the inability in which the sons under paternal power are placed of observing the precept.” Cf. Enchir. Mor. 1616.

7. Xaverius, a Spaniard, is staying at Rome to conduct his various businesses; and there he must remain for four or five months, returning to Spain after the aforesaid time. Meanwhile he eats meats, and also eggs and dairy products, on days of abstinence and fast. For he has the Bull of the Crusade, and at Rome he is only a pilgrim.

Q. 1. What is the Bull of the Crusade? — 2. What are the graces and indults of the aforesaid Bull? — 3. Does Xaverius act rightly?

R. To the 1st. The Crusade is a Bull first conceded to the Spaniards, on account of the assault on infidels, in the year 1509 by Julius II, and was then amplified by other Pontiffs, but especially by Gregory XIII. This was also conceded by St. Pius V in the year 1569 to the Neapolitans for repelling pirates. This Bull, from its prorogation repeated many times by the Supreme Pontiffs, still prevails, although that first reason of concession has ceased, both in Spain and in the ancient kingdom of the Sicilies; and alms are expended for other pious causes.

To the 2nd. 1. The graces and indults of the aforesaid Bull, which are conceded to all the Christian faithful who dwell in the whole Spanish territory, or who come into it within the year from the publication of the Bull, who distribute alms for pious ends, and accept the Summary of the same Bull, Cf. the Summary of the same Bull, title and paragraph First, are the following:

1. Several Indulgences are conceded, both partial and plenary, which are related in the same Summary.

2. It is conceded that twice, namely once in life and once in death, they can choose any confessor approved by the Ordinary, and receive from him in the forum of conscience absolution from any sins and censures reserved to any Ordinary, and also to the Apostolic See, except the crime of heresy, and as to ecclesiastics except the censure of which the Constitution of Benedict XIV Sacramentum Poenitentiae treats, a salutary penance having been imposed, satisfaction having been made to the party, and other things enjoined which by law are to be enjoined. Cf. the cited Summary, par. So that.

3. It is conceded that by the same confessor simple vows can be commuted into other pious works and some alms, except vows of chastity, religion, and ultramarine pilgrimage. Cf. the cited Summary, par. So that.

4. It is conceded to the aforesaid Christian faithful that even in time of Interdict, provided that they themselves did not give cause to it, or that it did not stand by them that it not be removed, and faculty having been had for this from the Commissary General, even for an hour before day begins to dawn and for an hour after noon, within the said year, they can celebrate, if they are priests, or cause Masses and other divine offices to be celebrated in their own presence, and in the presence of their families and household members and blood-relatives, with doors closed, bells not rung, and excommunicates and specially interdicted persons excluded; and receive the Eucharist and other sacraments, except on Easter Day, both in churches in which, during the Interdict, other divine offices were in any way permitted to be celebrated, and in a private Oratory deputed only for divine worship, visited and designated by the Ordinary; and they can be present at divine services during the time of Interdict. Nevertheless on him who has used a private Oratory for the aforesaid use, it is imposed that as often as he has done this, he pour forth some prayers to God for the prosperity of the Church, the extirpation of heresies, the propagation of the faith, and the peace and concord of Christian Princes. Likewise, that bodies of the dead, unless they died bound by the bond of excommunication, can be buried with moderate funeral pomp at the same time of Interdict. Cf. the cited Summary, par. Likewise to those named above.

5. It is conceded that, during the aforesaid year from the publication of the Bull, and while dwelling in the aforesaid Spanish territory, not outside it, they can eat meats, by counsel of each physician, if necessity, or weak health of body, or any other cause should demand it, during the fasts of the whole year, even Lenten ones, and at the same time at will eggs and dairy products, so that those who are held to fast satisfy the fast by eating meats and by observing in the rest the law of fasting. In this indult are included religious of any Military Order; but from it are excepted Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops, inferior Prelates, regular ecclesiastical persons, namely priests, and secular priests, unless they are now sixty years of age; and outside Lenten time all these can use the same Indult as to eggs and dairy products. Cf. cited Summary, par. And likewise during. Wherefore the aforesaid excepted persons, namely Patriarchs, Archbishops, etc., are excepted from the Indult only of dairy products and only during Lenten time, but not from eating meats by counsel of each physician and from a just cause.

And here it must be noted: 1. From ancient custom and from the general concession of Pius VI, it is permitted in Spain to eat meats on Saturdays. Cf. Bened. XIV, de Syn. l. 11. c. 5.

2. Besides the Bull of the Crusade, another Indult is present in Spain, namely the Indult of Dairy Products, by which the Commissary of the Bull of the Crusade extends the same indult of dairy products, conceded to the rest of the Christian faithful in the Bull of the Crusade, to the persons excepted in the same Bull. But these persons must accept the Summary of the same Indult of dairy products and give the taxed alms. Nevertheless in this extension the exception of Holy Week is placed by the Commissary; and so that extension is restricted only to the preceding Lenten time.

3. Likewise another indult is present in Spain, namely the Indult of Meats, by which it is conceded to all Christian faithful of each sex, secular and ecclesiastical, even religious, except those who are bound to abstinence by vow, that they can eat wholesome meats, and so also eggs and dairy products, on all days, except Ash Wednesday, the sixth ferias of Lent, the fourth, fifth, sixth ferias and Saturday of Holy Week, the vigils of the Nativity of the Lord, Pentecost, the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul; and except also, for those who are of the clergy, or for priests, the second and third ferias of Holy Week. But the Summary of the Indult must be received, and the taxed alms must be paid, and at the same time the Bull of the Crusade must be received; and for ecclesiastics the Indult of Dairy Products must also be received, namely so that they can use them during Lenten time, if they have not yet completed their sixtieth year of age. Cf. the Summary of the same Indult. — Therefore on those excepted days, by force of the Indult of Meats, it is not lawful to eat meats, or eggs and dairy products by force of the Bull of the Crusade and by force of the Indult of Dairy Products, as they are permitted in that Bull and in this Indult. Cf. here par. 5, It is conceded, and par. 2, Besides.

4. The poor, in place of alms, are held only to pour forth some prayers according to the intention of the Supreme Pontiff, so that they may enjoy the Indult of Meats, and, as it seems, also the Bull of the Crusade. For in the Brief of Pius IX, 20 April 1866, the burden of a double alms is imposed only on the rich.

5. Someone can twice in any year take up the Summary of the Bull of the Crusade, the taxed alms being given for each one, and he will then be able to enjoy the aforesaid graces twice in the year. Cf. cited Summary, par. Likewise it is conceded similarly.

6. Other graces are conferred on the Commissary General himself, namely of dispensing from irregularity contracted because of a violated censure, and from other certain irregularities arising from delict; of revalidating the titles of benefices received with the same irregularity, but not of all; of celebration of Mass one hour before dawn and one hour after noon; of making composition as to restitution; of dispensing over the hidden impediment of affinity from illicit intercourse. Cf. Summary And to us and the Commissary General seqq.; — M. E. v. 1. p. 2. p. 181; p. 3. p. 88; v. 8. p. 1. p. 275 seqq.

To the 3rd. Xaverius the Spaniard acts illicitly at Rome by eating meats, eggs, and dairy products on prohibited days of abstinence and fast. For the Bull of the Crusade is not a personal indult, but local, as is expressly provided in the Summary itself of the Bull. And it is confirmed from Resp. S. O. 22 June 1897, Acta S. Sed. v. 30. p. 286 seq. The same would have to be said of Xaverius if he were Neapolitan, as is also clearly asserted in the Instruction of the same Indult recently published again. Cf. cited Monitore v. 8. p. 1. p. 275 seqq.

8. Ignatius, a Spaniard, took up only the Bull of the Crusade, without also taking up the Indult of Meats, and he uses it by eating meats and dairy products. — Does he act rightly?

R. The Bull of the Crusade, as also the Indult of Dairy Products, is valid, and one can use it although he does not have the Indult of Meats. But this Indult is not valid for those who can give the taxed alms and who cannot use it if they do not have the Bull of the Crusade, and, if they are ecclesiastics, the Indult of Dairy Products, as is openly evident from the Summary of the Indult of Meats. Wherefore Ignatius does not seem to be disturbed, provided nevertheless that he does not transgress the limits of the concession of the Bull of the Crusade. For by the Bull of the Crusade of 4 Dec. 1877 it is conceded to the Christian faithful that “both on Lenten days and on the other days of that year on which the use of meats, eggs, and dairy products is prohibited, they may freely and licitly be able to use and feed upon the same eggs and dairy products, and also meats, nevertheless by counsel of each physician, if necessity, or infirm bodily health, or any other indigence has required it, the law of fasting being observed, of course, in the rest.” Here it appears that a certain restriction is placed for meats, of necessity, infirm health, another indigence, and counsel of each physician; but no restriction of necessity or of another cause is placed for eggs and dairy products; the law of fasting being observed in the rest, namely of one meal with the morning little piece and the evening collation.

9. Paschalis, a fifty-year-old Neapolitan priest, by force of the Bull of the Crusade, and by force of the Response of the Sacred Penitentiary, 16 Jan. 1834, Cf. Enchir. Mor. 1572, on days of fasting uses melted lard by way of seasoning also in the evening little refection. Likewise he feeds upon eggs and dairy products even in Holy Week. — Does he act rightly?

R. In the cited Response of the Sacred Penitentiary it is indeed said that those who are held to fasting can licitly use seasonings permitted in the Indult also in the evening refection. Nevertheless in the same Response a restriction is placed, namely: provided that in the Indult there has not been placed the restriction that those seasonings can be employed at the one meal. Moreover this restriction is had in C. Catholicae Ecclesiae of Pius VI, 21 Nov. 1777, by which the use of eggs and dairy products is conceded to the Neapolitan Provinces at only one meal in the day. Likewise in the same Constitution there is conceded the faculty, for all days of Lent, of using eggs and dairy products, even in Holy Week, but from this last concession are excepted Archbishops, Bishops, Prelates, religious, and secular priests, unless they have completed their sixtieth year of age. But to priests, whether regular or secular, who have now completed the aforesaid age, the use of the aforesaid foods is conceded even on Palm Sunday and through Holy Week. Nor truly have these things been revoked, but rather confirmed through another Constitution, Quamvis Pastoralis, 20 Nov. 1778. Wherefore Paschalis does not act rightly as to either matter.

It is confirmed from the more recent Instruction which is had in M. E. v. 8. p. 1. p. 275 seqq., par. III. These things as to the present matter: “As to the privilege of using eggs, dairy products, and lard, which is used by way of seasoning, it is very well known: 1. That the faithful can avail themselves of such privilege on all days of the year, without any exception, provided that they dwell in the territory of the provinces of Naples; so that if they go out from that territory and go to dwell elsewhere, even for a brief time, they will not be able to enjoy this concession; but on the days of Lent, except Sundays, as also on all other days of fast, the use of the said foods is not permitted to them except only once a day, that is, at the one meal, whenever, either by reason of age or of another excusing cause, they do not remain exempt from fasting as to the one meal. 2. That priests and professed religious of either sex will at present also be able to enjoy such privilege, except Holy Week for those who have not completed the age of 60 years, beginning from Palm Sunday; however, those religious who by their own Institute are obligated to perpetual Lent will on no day of the year be able to avail themselves of such concession.”

But it must here be noted that from the Declaration of the Commissary of the same Bull of the Crusade, His Eminence Cardinal Zurlo, one can use swine fat for seasoning, of whatever species it may be, lardo, lardello, sugna; likewise from the Declaration of His Eminence Archbishop Philippus Iudicis Caracciolo it is lawful also to use the fat of a young bull, rognonata, namely by way of seasoning. M. E. v. 9. p. 1. p. 257; p. 2. p. 18. Cf. Enchir. Morale 1626, and in the same place on Seasonings on days of abstinence and fasting, 1572.