II. On Ecclesiastical Fast

What is ecclesiastical fast; when; whom does it oblige? Ecclesiastical fast is situated, properly and strictly speaking, in one meal per day; but when it is joined with abstinence, then it is situated in abstinence from foods and from a certain quality of foods, which is to be observed according to the form prescribed by the Church. - Ecclesiastical fast joined with abstinence consists as of three parts, namely 1. one eating during the 24 hours of the day, with an evening little meal added; 2. abstinence from flesh or even from milk foods, as will be declared below; 3. the time determined for taking the meal, also to be declared below. Yet note that the custom of places and times contributes very much to modifying the nature and obligation of fast. The time of fast, as in other similar obligations, is from midnight to midnight, and can be computed according to true, mean, central astronomical time.

Fast obliges especially in the time of Lent, Advent, the Four Times, and certain vigils. The principal ones are: of the Nativity of the Lord, Pentecost, Assumption, All Saints, and the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul. There were many fasts in antiquity, also in the time of Advent, of Rogations, and on several other vigils; but all these in many places have become obsolete. The fasts of the vigils themselves have been reduced almost everywhere. Cf. 1573 bis. But when a vigil occurs on Sunday, fast must be kept on Saturday, C. Ex parte 1, C. Consilium 2 de Observatione ieiunior.; Urban VIII, Br. Cum evenire, 13 Oct. 1638. Cf. n. 1573 bis. All the faithful, from the twenty-first completed year of age, are held under grave obligation to observing fast on established days, unless they are legitimately excused or dispensed by superiors. It is a most ancient obligation, which is said to have been handed down by the Apostles themselves. From the twenty-first completed year, because the Church, a pious mother, does not wish to impose on children and adolescents a law surpassing their strength. This is clear from universal custom and from all Catechisms. L. 1004.; St. Thomas, 2. 2, q. 147, a. 3-5.; Benedict XIV, Notif. 11.; de Syn. l. 13, c. 4, n. 6, 7.; Tamburini tr. 4 de Quarto Eccl. praec. c. 9.; La Croix l. 3, p. 2, n. 1260 seqq., 1273.; Ferraris v. Ieiunium Append.; E. M.

Note: The vigils of feasts suppressed by the Motu Proprio Supremi disciplinae, 2 July 1911, are still to be observed. Cf. 1573 bis. On 23 Dec., when it falls on Saturday, fast and abstinence are to be observed. E. M. "Since the feast of the Annunciation of the B. M. V., occurring next year on Friday in Parasceve, is transferred also with cessation from work to Monday after Low Sunday as to its proper place, it is asked whether in the following year 1910 the law of abstinence from flesh is to be observed on the vigil of the Annunciation of the B. M. occurring on Thursday in the Supper of the Lord, or ought to be transferred?

Resp. Affirmatively to the first part, negatively to the second." S. C. Conc. 9 June 1909. "The fast on the vigil of the festivity of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul is to be observed in France on the Saturday before the Sunday of the festivity of the said Apostles. But if the day of 29 June occurs on Saturday, the fast of the vigil in question is to be observed on the fourth day before the Kalends of July." S. O. 22 Nov. 1879. For the whole kingdom of Spain it was conceded that "as often as the feast of the Immaculate Conception happens to fall on Friday or Saturday, the fast of that day be transferred to the Thursday immediately preceding." S. O. 9 Nov. 1870. The fast on the vigil of St. John the Baptist, when it falls on the day of the solemnity of Corpus Christi, is to be anticipated on the preceding day, or Wednesday. Urban VIII, Br. Cum evenire, 15 Oct. 1638.

What is one meal? - One meal is the primary condition of fast: for its essence is principally situated in this, and when this is removed no one is ever said to fast, while on the contrary fast without abstinence from flesh and milk foods is conceived. But with one full meal or dinner in the morning, a little supper in the evening is permitted at present to all.

But small eatings which are made besides this will be venial sins taken separately, and when repeated more often on the same day can coalesce into grave matter, as is clear from proposition 29 condemned by Alexander VII. Fast is not broken by a draught of water, wine, and other drinks which of themselves are ordered and commonly employed for quenching thirst, although, according to the first discipline of the Church, Christians abstained entirely from wine and similar liquors. Hence the axiom: Liquid does not break fast. But by liquid is understood only that which, from common use, is taken in the manner of drink, not in the manner of food, as milk, etc. L. 1021, 1022.; St. Thomas, 2. 2, q. 147, a. 6.

Whether wine drunk for calming hunger breaks fast? - Resp. More probably negatively. The reason is that the law of fast commands only abstinence from food, but not from drink; and, according to St. Thomas, 4 dist. 15, q. 3, a. 4, c. 1, "The statute of positive law does not attend to the intention of the one observing, but to the act itself, because the mode of virtue does not fall under precept, but is the end of the precept." L. 1022.; St. Thomas, 2. 2, q. 147, a. 6 ad 2.

Whether the drinking of coffee and tea breaks fast? Resp. More probably negatively, unless too great a quantity of sugar is mixed in; because these do not have the nature of food, but of drink or medicine. St. Liguori 1019 says: "indeed they are permitted altogether at will."

Whether the drinking of water mixed with sugar and juices of oranges or lemons breaks fast? Resp. Negatively, of itself, that is, unless you mix in a great quantity of their substance which is judged to have the nature of food. The reason is that all these from common estimation are held as drinks. Nor does it prevent this if they are served frozen; for freezing does not change the nature. L. 1022.

Resolutions: Therefore it would be otherwise concerning the taking of milk, broth, juice of melons, commonly melloni, and of other fruits, likewise of preserved grapes, or those then pressed by the teeth, although afterward they are spat out. For all these are judged to have the nature of food; and they are referred rather to nutrition than to a vehicle of food. Indeed as regards drinks mixed with milk there is an express prohibition of Clement XIII, Enc. Appetente sacro, 20 Dec. 1759. - Whey properly so called is held as a simple drink, or rather as medicine. Yet as regards tea and coffee to which milk is mixed, Billuart says, tr. de Temper. diss. 2, art. 5, par. V: "Tea and coffee... seem to me to have the nature of drink and not to dissolve the fast, unless perhaps much milk and sugar is mixed in, and they are taken in great quantity." Indeed in milk there is a great part of water, almost 85 parts in one hundred. - L. 1019, 1021, 1022.

Whether a drink of chocolate breaks fast? - Resp. Affirmatively, if it furnishes rich nutrition, as is the custom outside the time of fast. But negatively if a modest quantity of chocolate is taken, and it is done only once in the day, in the morning morsel. The reason is drawn from general custom. L. 1023. What quantity can be taken? The holy Doctor says that not less than an ounce and a half of chocolate is usually put into ordinary cups; for thus it is commonly done from the custom tolerated by the Church and observed by pious faithful. But not a few, with the aforesaid quantity of chocolate diminished, substitute bread pro rata. But truly the total quantity of that food ought not exceed the weight of two ounces, water prescinded. An ounce equals around 30 grams. Cf. 1593. - Benedict XIV, Notif. 15.; E. M.

Whether it is licit on a day of fast to taste some food before drink, lest the latter harm? - This indeed is not licit as often as one likes, as they say; for then the law of fast would be ridiculous. And so it can be permitted only once or again in the day; especially lest strength fail, if dinner, e.g., happens to be delayed much beyond the customary time, as happens to religious serving at table, readers, and servants. Indeed an obligation of taking something will urge, if this is necessary for observing the fast. - L. 1018, 1019.; E. M.

Whether electuaries break fast? Electuaries are said to be those things which are made from chosen things, e.g., from sugar and juniper, etc. But they are not judged illicit on days of fast, if they are taken in the manner of medicine and in modest quantity. But any reasonable cause suffices for excusing from all fault, e.g., for the digestion of foods, strengthening the stomach, removing bad odor of the mouth, preserving the voice, and similar things. St. Thomas, 2. 2, q. 147, a. 6.

What quantity of food is judged grave matter if it is taken outside the meal and little supper? It is controverted. Matter which, added to the evening little supper, would make another meal is undoubtedly to be judged grave. But certainly a quantity of two ounces is to be held as light matter. Not a few judge the quantity equivalent to half a little supper, or four ounces, to be grave matter. Outside the meal; in the meal no quantity of foods is taxed; otherwise it is in the little supper. Cf. 1593. Outside the meal and little supper; therefore to these four ounces are to be computed those two ounces of the morning morsel, and therefore even outside that, the matter is grave beyond only two ounces. But, with the morning morsel now permitted from present custom, the illicit light and grave matter of two and four ounces seems now to be computed outside all permitted little meals. L. 1020, 1025.; St. Thomas, 2. 2, q. 147, a. 6.; 4 d. 15, a. 4, q. 3.

Whether he who culpably took two meals sins gravely if he adds a third? Resp. Negatively, at least more probably.

The reason is that the precept of fast urges in an indivisible mode during the day of precept; therefore he who once violated it does not sin again and again by eating. Therefore, once mortal sin has been committed through violation of fast, the whole law urging on such a day has been violated. Therefore. Yet he who breaks fast by eating forbidden flesh or milk foods several times sins as often as he eats. L. 1030.; H. A. 20.

Whether he who inculpably took two meals in a day, when the error has been detected or the excusing cause removed, is held under grave obligation to abstain from a third? Some affirm. The reason is that he injured fast only materially, not formally; wherefore as soon as he adverts to the law of fast, or sees the excusing cause cease, he is subject to the same law and is held to observe it as the rest; otherwise he would violate it formally. Thus probably Reuter de Leg. 176. Yet others more probably deny it, because since the essence of fast is situated in one eating, after two meals fast becomes impossible. L. 1030.; H. A. 20.

What if on a day of fast you inadvertently breakfasted? - If you have taken a little something, e.g., two, three, or almost four ounces of food, you ought indeed according to custom to fast, without leaving the meal and little supper at the customary hours; for the fast was not substantially injured. If you have taken a quantity equivalent to a little supper, you ought to transfer dinner to the evening time, or abstain from the little supper itself, or take a morsel in place of the little supper, unless this yields to you into grave inconvenience. But if a quantity of this kind were nearly equal either to a double little supper or to the customary meal, you ought, with dinner omitted, to take only the evening little supper, yet earlier if you cannot wait without grave difficulty. Moreover, you could increase this little supper according to the reason of necessity; or even take a morsel late, with the little supper anticipated at evening time. But there are not lacking those who think that one is no longer held to fast in this inverted order, not the usual order, since it is an extraordinary mode and as it were a privilege, which no one is held to use, and it is not without grave inconvenience. E. M.

Whether an evening collation is permitted? - Besides the customary meal, it is licit, from universal custom introduced for many centuries and tolerated by the Church, indeed tacitly also approved, to take toward evening a little meal from lighter foods. The evening little collation began in some way from monks, who in fasts introduced by their own rule, before or after sacred conversations, called collations or conferences, took some draughts of water, or of another drink, for refreshing strength. Afterward a morsel either of bread or of another food was added, lest the drink harm. But the faithful embraced this custom in the fasts of the Church; this custom came to this, that a small supper is had; that this custom is altogether legitimate at present is proved by custom received everywhere, and indeed indiscriminately as regards all, even if someone did not need it. Elbel 473.; L. 1024.

What quantity of food can be taken in the little supper? From present and common custom, at least speaking ordinarily, around eight ounces of food, or around 250 grams, can be taken. For a common ounce is equivalent to around 31 grams, and a Roman ounce around 29 grams. A pound of 16 ounces equals 500 grams. L. 1025. But others say that the fourth part of supper or dinner is to be permitted. But this doctrine is too vague or liable to scruples. - The quantity of eight ounces seems to be denied to no one, but a greater one is to be conceded to those for whom this would not suffice. Indeed no rule altogether fixed can be established, since attention also must be paid to constitution, duties to be performed, duration of fast, etc. It is licit in general to take as much as one judges necessary for avoiding an indisposition which impedes him from suitably performing his duties. Regard also must be had to one's own region, if somewhere a greater quantity of food is necessary. - L. 1024.

What excess is judged grave in the little supper? - All agree that an excess of two ounces is light matter. The stricter authors with Concina teach that an excess surpassing two ounces is grave; but others with Billuart hold that an excess is required which, taken separately, is equivalent to an entire little supper. Yet commonly the doctors require above the little supper an excess equivalent to another half little supper, or four ounces. In various places, from introduced custom, on the vigil of the Nativity, even on Saturday if the Nativity falls on Monday, likewise on the Supper of the Lord, it is licit to take a quantity twice as great; but this custom is not in force everywhere. - L. 1024, 1025.

What quality of foods can be employed in the little supper? - Lighter foods are permitted: bread, any fruits, also any vegetables, sweets of various kinds. But especially the custom of places is to be observed.

Several things are permitted in various dioceses or provinces which elsewhere are forbidden. L. 1024-1026.

Whether it is licit to eat eggs, cheese, butter in the evening little supper? - Resp. Negatively, generally; although a dispensation for milk foods is had, as is clear from the Decree of Benedict XIV and C. Appetente of Clement XIII, 20 Dec. 1759. Yet in certain places, from custom, it is licit to take some butter, or cheese, or milk; but eggs are by no means permitted, because they are of greatest substance, and therefore are rejected by custom, says St. Liguori 1027. Thus in Belgium milk and cheese are usually employed; in France and elsewhere generally it is licit from custom to feed on cheese. The privilege of cheese likewise in the diocese of Novara for the whole Vicariate of Intra was conceded by Innocent XII, through the organ of the Holy Office, 30 Jan. 1694. "Cheese or butter in the little supper is not conceded," says Kenrick tr. 4, c. 4, n. 46, "according to the general custom of the Church: but a contrary usage has obtained in these provinces. Milk also from a certain necessity is taken somewhere among us." They also assert that eggs are permitted from custom in Germany and in many regions of North America. In Latin America it is licit for all to use milk foods and also eggs. S. E. Neg. Extr. 6 July 1899. Cf. here n. 1573 bis.

Whether fish are permitted in the little supper? Resp. Affirmatively, if there is question of little fish, especially dried, and probably also of fresh and larger fish, with today's almost general practice considered. Yet St. Liguori thinks, 1208, that from these the weight of two or three ounces is not to be exceeded. In Spain, however, by force of custom, fish and little fish generally are not permitted. E. M.

Whether it is licit in the little supper to use broth from herbs cooked with water, vinegar, oil, or boiled wine? Resp. Affirmatively, probably, unless custom is certainly opposed: but then neither water nor wine is to be computed in the weight; but, according to Viva, that is to be computed which does not have the nature of drink, e.g., oil. L. 1209.

Whether it is licit in the little supper to take bread boiled with water and oil, or soupy bread? Resp. Affirmatively, from present custom, which even the timorous follow, and recent theologians commonly approve; yet with a quantity of solid food of bread less than eight ounces. Boiled: for it can be conceded that during the meal itself someone dip bread in water or wine, and thus also take eight ounces of bread moistened with wine: since here almost the same substance of bread remains: and the liquid, since it serves only as a vehicle, is not computed. L. 1029.

What quantity of boiled bread of this kind can be permitted, water prescinded? Theologians disagree. There are those who deny that it is licit absolutely to exceed eight ounces. But if an ounce of bread boiled in ten ounces of water with another ounce of oil were taken, what scruple would there be in permitting these twelve ounces? But others concede eight ounces of boiled bread, water prescinded. Yet on account of this boiling you have one food, which, although it does not constitute a greater quantity of nutritive substance, nevertheless from the greater volume generates greater satiety. Hence it seems that one cannot at least altogether prescind from the water. Therefore a middle opinion seems to be chosen, namely that five, or at least four, ounces of boiled bread can be permitted, with water and oil not computed. The same likewise will have to be said of other boiled preparations which likewise are usually placed in the little supper, e.g., from spelt, rice, legumes, etc. L. 1029.

What abstinence is prescribed in fast? - To all the faithful using reason, by the precept of the Church the use of flesh is now forbidden on many, but not all, days of fast. Hence by the law of fast a twofold precept is then imposed, namely of abstaining from several meals and of abstaining from flesh. On certain days eggs and milk foods also are prohibited under grave obligation, namely all those things which draw origin from flesh. - Moreover, although the use of eggs and milk foods could not be excused from grave sin of itself, according to the common opinion, nevertheless smallness of matter seems more easily to be admitted in these than in the use of flesh. But when by Indult it is licit to use bacon, fat, butter, margarine as seasonings, one can use them also in the little supper, although he fasts. Cf. 1572, 1572 bis.; L. 1005, 1006, 1007.; St. Thomas, 2. 2, q. 147, a. 3, 8.; Benedict XIV, Notif. 16.; E. M.

When must abstinence from milk foods be observed? - Resp. In Lenten time eggs and milk foods also were formerly prohibited under grave obligation, namely all those things which draw origin from flesh. But outside Lenten time this prohibition was not had. Yet somewhere, e.g., at Rome, a custom having the force of law prevailed, that even on certain other days, e.g., the Four Times, abstinence of this kind be observed. But at present one must stand by particular laws, privileges, indults. Cf. 1573 bis. In many places still, Bishops, by a faculty delegated by the Roman Pontiff, concede dispensation, even as regards flesh, for the principal part of Lent. - L. 1009.; St. Thomas, 2. 2, q. 147, a. 8 ad 3.; Struggl tr. 8, q. 2, n. 18.

Whether abstinence from eggs and milk foods also obliged on Sundays of Lent? - Resp. Affirmatively. The reason is that in Canon Law, C. Denique 6 d. 4, abstinence from milk foods is universally commanded on Lenten days. But it is certain that Sundays also are days of Lent. L. 1007.; St. Thomas, 2. 2, q. 147, a. 8.

Whether, when abstinence of stricter right is to be observed, it is licit in the meal to eat breads made with eggs? Resp. Negatively, unless eggs have been permitted; the reason is that their substance is not lost from the fact that it is mixed with flour. L. 1009.

Whether those dispensed for milk foods are by that very fact also judged dispensed for eggs? - Resp. Affirmatively, because these are equated by custom, unless a distinction is clearly expressed in the dispensation. Gury 504. Indeed, when on a day of simple abstinence, e.g., Friday, milk foods are permitted, eggs also are conceded. But those dispensed for flesh are judged also dispensed for eggs and milk foods; and those dispensed for eggs are judged dispensed for milk foods too; because to whom the greater is conceded, the lesser also is conceded. But to whom it is licit to eat milk foods, it is not therefore also licit to eat bacon and grease, because they participate in the substance of flesh and are judged as flesh. L. 1015. Cf. here 1573 bis.

Whether those dispensed for flesh are still held to fast? Resp. Affirmatively. This is proved from the prescription of Benedict XIV, B. In Suprema, 22 Aug. 1741, and more clearly B. Libentissime, 10 July 1745, Inst. 15, n. 20 seqq., de Syn. l. 7, c. 3, n. 1.; L. 1013, 1014, 1015. - Those dispensed; those who cannot abstain from flesh on account of grave inconvenience are more truly still held to one meal; although another thing seems to others. Benedict XIV, Not. 15, n. 19 seqq. But those who likewise on account of grave inconvenience cannot be nourished by one meal, are held to abstinence from flesh, which is the truer and certain opinion. Indeed this precept is divisible by reason of its matter, and the obligation can well remain for one part, the obligation ceasing for another, as is clear from particular laws for some places, and for others from the dispensation itself, which is usually given in Lent, and from the fact that those not yet having attained the twenty-first year of age, although they are not held to fast, are nevertheless held by the law of abstinence. Cf. n. 1573 bis, 1626.; Benedict XIV, cited Constitutions.; Collect. S. C. de P. F. n. 2057.; E. M.

Whether those dispensed for flesh can eat flesh and fish at the same time? - Those dispensed for flesh cannot on days of fast in the time of Lent and through the year, nor on Sundays of Lent, eat flesh and fish together, namely in the same eating. This is clear from three Constitutions of Benedict XIV: Non ambigimus, In Suprema, Libentissime. Those dispensed; for he who by reason of infirmity eats flesh, even several times, on a day of fast can eat both flesh and fish at the same time. S. Poenit. 9 Jan. 1899. For the forbidden mixing is a condition placed on those who eat flesh by force of an indult, although from a reasonable cause they are immune from the law of one eating. And these then can eat flesh as often as they eat, unless a restriction is placed in the indult, that those who also do not fast can eat flesh only once; this restriction is not added at Rome.

On days of fast; for on Fridays and Saturdays, he to whom it is licit to eat flesh from dispensation can eat fish at the same time. Days of fast; nevertheless the precept concerning not mixing each kind of food obliges also on Sundays of Lent. Flesh, not broth seasoned with flesh. Fish also comprehends marine shellfish, oysters, crabs, etc. Cf. here 1626.; L. 1013, 1014, 1015.; E. M. In Italy specifically, on the days on which fast is now prescribed, and also on Sundays of Lent, mixing is always and absolutely prohibited. The same prohibition is altogether had for Dalmatia. Cf. 1573 bis. An Indult has been conceded for Chile of mixing flesh and fish on those days on which dispensation from fast and abstinence had already been made. E. M.

Whether those dispensed for flesh can, without injury to the fast, eat flesh not wholesome, namely pork and similar things? "The doctors very commonly and indeed probably affirm; both because license for flesh generally imparted is not to be restricted to wholesome flesh alone, and because otherwise those dispensed would be subjected to many scruples, not rarely doubting which flesh harms or profits.... But, speaking in particular of pork, it does not seem that it can be called absolutely unwholesome." L. 1015. Those dispensed, namely individuals, not all universally; for then only wholesome flesh is permitted. Benedict XIV, C. Libentissime § 1. But this restriction, which previously was placed in the Indult at Rome, has now been omitted from the year 1897, as is to be seen in the Lenten Indult; and everywhere it has now become obsolete. E. M. 1626.

At what hour is the meal to be made? - In these our times, from universal custom, the meal is licitly taken almost at midday. L. 1016.; H. A. 9.; St. Thomas, 2. 2, q. 147, a. 7. "The one meal which is permitted on a day of fast was formerly taken after sunset in Lent, and at the ninth hour, or around three hours after noon, at the other times of the year; from the fourteenth century it has been taken around midday." Kenrick tr. 4, c. 4, n. 42.

Whether the hour of the meal pertains to the essence of fast, so that he sins gravely who notably anticipates it without just cause? The first probable opinion affirms. The reason is that just as the Church instituted fast, so also it instituted a certain time of eating for those fasting. Therefore he who notably anticipates dissolves the fast. The second opinion, also probable, denies it. The reason is that from present custom the hour no longer pertains to the substance of fast. Some say notable anticipation exists if the meal is anticipated by more than an hour; others if by only an hour. Anticipates; for someone would not sin by delaying, since he would more approach the ancient custom, which indeed conduces better to the end of fast. Without just cause; for as a just cause can excuse from the fast itself, so also it can excuse from the hour of the meal. "Moreover," says St. Alphonsus 1016, "it is licit to anticipate within an hour, even without cause." - L. H. A. tr. 12, n. 21.; St. Thomas, 2. 2, q. 147, a. 7. Cf. here 1611.

Whether fast is broken if the little supper is taken at midday, but the meal in the evening? It is not broken essentially, and therefore, if it is done without cause, it does not exceed venial sin. But even from this venial sin a reasonable cause excuses, and the custom of place or condition. Indeed in many places from present custom the little supper can be made at the tenth hour in the morning, and the meal in the evening. But with a reasonable cause standing, someone could also take the little supper in the morning, dinner at midday, and a morsel in the evening. L. 1020, 1024.; E. M.

How long can dinner be prolonged? Nothing can be determined absolutely concerning this; but it does not seem that it can be prolonged beyond two hours without some fault. L. 1020.; H. A. 10.

Whether he breaks fast who interrupts the meal and, after an interval has elapsed, approaches it again? - If the interruption is slight, e.g., of one quarter-hour, it lacks all fault, even if it is done without reason. L. ib. - If the interruption is of almost one hour without reason, it does not lack some fault, as it seems. If the interruption is very notable, e.g., of two hours, it cannot be excused from grave sin, because it cannot be called one meal, unless a just cause excuses. - But if the interruption is had from a grave cause, there is no sin in returning to the table, even with a notable delay interposed, when the preceding meal was not sufficient; because the Church never intended to oblige one to pass a day without sufficient meal. L. 1017, 1020.

Whether he who rose from the table with the intention of eating no more can sit down at the table again? Resp. Affirmatively, probably, if the guests are still eating, or if a new dish is placed on the table which he did not know was to be placed. The reason is that it is still judged morally the same dinner. By the same reason it is licit to take something before dinner for sustaining strength, e.g., for ministers and readers at table among religious; for there still remains morally one meal, and sufficient cause is present for acting thus. - L. 1020.

What are the causes which excuse from fast? Causes excusing from fast are usually reduced chiefly to three, namely: 1. to impossibility, whether physical or moral; 2. to piety or charity; 3. to dispensation, as was said concerning other precepts. As regards piety and charity, any work of piety and charity indeed excuses, provided nevertheless that it is better than fast and a grave cause is present; because what the law commands is regularly to be furnished. If the cause is doubtful, someone ought to use the counsel of both physicians, or of the Confessor alone, or of the physician alone, or of another prudent man, or even his own, if he can prudently judge the case. L. l. 3, n. 325.; n. 1031 seqq.; l. 4, n. 154.; St. Thomas, 2. 2, q. 147, a. 4.

Resolutions: All poor are excused from fast who neither have, nor can provide in such a way, that from which they may procure a fair meal for the whole day. But bread and fruits do not suffice for this, nor a dumpling with bread and fruits, nor bread and wine only. For they cannot suitably sustain themselves with such foods unless they take them several times in the day. The sick, convalescents, the weak, and those who, unless they are refreshed twice, suffer a notable headache or dizziness from emptiness of stomach, or cannot sleep at night, are excused. Nor are these held to breakfast in the morning and dine in the evening, which is extraordinary and brings grave inconvenience. Pregnant women and nurses are also excused, and likewise wives to whom fast is forbidden by husbands, and who by fasting would suffer grave indignation of husbands.

Those are excused who exercise very laborious works, such as plowing, digging, cutting stones, carrying heavy burdens, and other things of this kind. Soldiers are excused, whether in camps or in lodgings, even in time of peace, both because they do not have food suitable for fast, and on account of the labors of military service, and on account of custom.

Servants and maidservants and others of this kind are excused when they are occupied with so many and such great labors that fast cannot be joined with them without great difficulty or inconvenience; likewise those making a journey on foot for a notable time with great fatigue. But of themselves and ordinarily servants, lackeys, barbers, tailors, painters, scribes, printers who do not turn the press but only arrange type, and those giving work to other similar things, are not excused. C. Consilium 2 de Observ. ieiun.; L. 1008, 1031 seqq.; H. A. 23.; St. Thomas, 2. 2, q. 147, a. 4.; E. M.

Whether sixty-year-old elderly persons are excused from fast? - They are indeed excused if they are weak in strength, as is clear. Indeed they are excused also, according to the common opinion, in doubt concerning the validity of their strength; because then the presumption stands for their weakness. L. 1036. If they are strong in strength, it is controverted. The first opinion denies that they are exempted by the law of fast, because those who at that age have strong powers are not reputed as elderly. This opinion indeed is probable, says St. Alphonsus ib., but the opposite opinion is no less probable. The reason is both because universal custom bears this, as the doctors more commonly testify, and because otherwise it would be a matter liable to many scruples to examine whether some sixty-year-old is or is not sufficiently robust for sustaining fast. But the stronger reason is that old persons of this kind, both on account of weakness of strength and on account of defect of heat, cannot take sufficient nourishment at one time, and need more frequent food; and although some at such an age seem robust, nevertheless their robustness is easily illusory and inconstant, since it cannot be denied that in elderly persons of this kind strength fails and slips toward destruction. Hence the common adage: old age itself is a disease.

Note: What is said concerning ecclesiastical fasts, the same can be established concerning fasts which Religious observe from Rule; for sixty-year-old persons will be able to be excused also from these, unless perhaps, as St. Alphonsus notes, l. 3, n. 139, they expressly promised observance of fast even unto death. This norm can be extended also to those who have vowed some weekly or monthly fasts for the whole of life. But likewise except if someone, thinking of old age, expressly wished to bind himself up to the end of life. L. 1038 seqq.

Whether the weaker sex, as being one which ages sooner, is also excused sooner from fast? The doctors almost move the controversy concerning the fiftieth year. Those who deny that they are excused, some say it is false that women already grow old at the fiftieth year; but others are moved by the fact that although a woman ages sooner, nevertheless she is less worn down by fast and needs less nourishment. Those who affirm it say that women at the fiftieth year already grow old, so that they cease to generate. But if women need less nourishment, or rather if, because of weakness, they are unequal to bearing more abundant nourishment, this rather proves that they are excused from a law which concedes one eating, since one scanty eating cannot be equal to sustaining strength. - L. 1037.

Whether smiths, artisans, etc., are excused from fast if they are so robust that they can fast quite easily? Resp. Affirmatively, probably, because custom exempts generally all who exercise arts of this kind; but laws do not regard that which happens rarely and per accidens, but what happens commonly and per se. But Concina, Bonacina, etc., also probably deny it. This second opinion, says St. Liguori 1043, speaking speculatively, seems more probable, but in practice scarcely one will be found who is not gravely relaxed from work of this kind.

Whether workers are excused from fast on those days on which they abstain from work? Resp. Affirmatively, if they interrupt labors only for one or another day. For they are sufficiently excused by reason of repairing exhaustion and of preserving strength for sustaining the next labors. L. 1044.

Whether rich artisans, who can cease from work on days of fast, are excused? - Resp. More probably affirmatively. The reason is that it concerns the republic that on account of fast workers not interrupt the exercise of arts to which they are devoted from their office. This seems also to be clear from the declaration of Eugenius IV apud St. Liguori 1042. Nor is the mind of the Church that the faithful be impeded from ordinary occupations. St. Thomas, 2. 2, q. 117, a. 4 ad 3, speaking of those journeying, has these words: "It does not seem to have been the intention of the Church establishing fasts, that through this it would impede other pious and more necessary causes."

Whether they sin who without just cause undertake unusual labor and labor incompatible with fast? - Resp. Affirmatively, of itself, even if they do not act in fraud of the law: for the law which commands fast consequently commands that, without reason, causes not be placed which are opposed to satisfaction of it. - Without reason; because, with a just cause intervening, it is licit to undertake labor incompatible with fast, although that labor is unusual, e.g., for receiving extraordinary gain, etc. But the mere reason of pleasure alone never suffices, unless another honest cause accedes. Yet ancient and more recent authors are not lacking who affirm that even delight alone suffices, provided it is rarely done. For natural equity itself seems to persuade this. Indeed, if it is done rarely, there is had a certain necessity of honest and licit delight, which it does not seem the intention of the legislator itself to impede. - L. 1045, 1046, 1048, 1049.

What journey undertaken on foot from a just cause exempts from fast? They commonly say that a journey of almost 5 leagues is required and suffices, that is, fifteen thousand paces, or four or five hours, or 20-22 kilometers; but if either the way were very arduous, or the weather harsh, or the traveler weak and unaccustomed to journeying, he could be excused by a journey of two leagues, or 9, 10 kilometers. L. 1047.; E. M.

Whether or how are preachers, teachers of sciences, and Confessors excused? Preachers who have a sermon daily or almost daily are commonly excused from fast by reason of piety and office. By even stronger right missionaries, who are exercised in missions with graver fatigue, are excused. Generally speaking, preachers who preach only three or four times in the week are not excused; but in this one must stand by the judgment of prudent persons. - Teachers of sciences are excused, although they teach for only one hour each day, if they need study and labor for preparing lessons; but not those who only deliver from writing lessons already previously ordered and often repeated. The same must be said of advocates and judges if they need great study, and also of physicians if they are fatigued by great labor in the visitation of the sick. - Likewise students are excused who otherwise cannot devote themselves to their office. But Sanchez and Azor deservedly judge, against the Salmanticenses and others, that teachers of grammar are excused if they teach for 4 or 5 hours. Confessors are not excused of themselves, but only when they undergo extraordinary labor, e.g., when for several succeeding days they must hear confessions, as is usually done in missions, or when they are so weak that they cannot satisfy the frequency of penitents without grave inconvenience. L. 1047, 1049.; H. A. 34.

Who can dispense in the law of fast? These can dispense: 1. The Supreme Pontiff, in the universal Church, and his dispensation, even without cause, is valid. A just cause is required for lawfulness at least under light obligation.

2. Bishops with individuals, in particular cases, from a legitimate cause; but not with a whole community, unless from very grave and urgent necessity, and only for individual occasions. Benedict XIV, B. Prodiit iam dudum, B. Non ambigimus, B. In suprema, § 2. Benedict XIV, for dispensing as regards abstinence with private persons, requires the counsel of each physician, bodily and spiritual. Yet usage has prevailed that the faithful are content either with the counsel of the pastor alone, or confessor, or of the physician alone, or even of some prudent man, nor therefore are they to be troubled. From the Decree of the Holy Office, 5 Dec. 1894, Bishops have the faculty of anticipating or even from a very grave cause of dispensing concerning the law of fast and abstinence, when some feast to be celebrated with great concourse of people falls on Friday or Saturday, except in the time of Lent, Advent, the days of the Four Times, and vigils consecrated through the year to fast. And they can do the same for days on which extraordinary fairs with great concourse of people are held, or centenaries, pilgrimages, and similar things are celebrated, provided there is a great concourse of peoples. A very grave cause is the general danger of transgression of the law. 3. Regular superiors, by force of privileges, with their own subjects, in particular cases and from a legitimate cause. 4. Pastors, by force of custom, with individuals, and only for individual occasions, and from a just cause. But the law of one eating and of forbidden mixing is always and by all to be observed, whether dispensation as regards abstinence is given to the whole community or is given to private persons, provided no certain and dangerous reason of affected health intervenes and necessarily demands that it be done otherwise. Benedict XIV, C. In suprema § 2.; Non ambigimus, 30 May 1741.; C. Si fraternitas, 8 July 1744. The first limitation of one eating does not touch those who by age, grave labor, or weak health are not held to fast. The other limitation of mixing does not regard those who are not bound by the law of abstinence on account of illness, and consequently do not need to be dispensed. Nor indeed does it regard those who use the Bull of the Crusade; for Benedict XIV himself affirms that his Constitutions do not regard that Diploma of the Crusade. Moreover, those who use that Bull do not eat flesh merely by force of Indult, but with necessity and weakness of health intervening, as is declared there. Finally those who use that Bull do not eat flesh by force of dispensation, but by force of Privilege, which is quite different, since those consequently are exempt, not merely dispensed. 5. A physician and confessor cannot dispense, but they can by their office declare someone to be excused from fast or abstinence, when the excusing cause is manifest or doubtful. Sanch. Cons. l. 5, c. 1, d. 5, n. 3, 28.

But a superior can dispense not only when the cause is manifest, but also when it is doubtful, and then he will be able to mix with the dispensation a commutation into other pious works, prayers, alms, etc. Sanch. l. 5, c. 1, d. 5, n. 26. - Cf. n. 1601.; L. l. 6, n. 1031, 1032.; H. A. tr. 12, n. 22.; St. Thomas, 2. 2, q. 147, a. 4.; E. M. A broad Indult was conceded for Spain to common soldiers, by which, without any exception of time, they are dispensed from fast, from abstinence, and from the law of mixing. Edict. Patr. Ind. 28 Jan. 1877. - But the Brief of Pius VII, Cum in Regis, 16 Dec. 1803, has these things: "Of declaring all common soldiers and decurions, commonly corporals and sergeants, and also drummers and moreover royal guards, making some journey by reason of their office, free from the law of fast, no account of days being had, not even of Friday and Saturday of Lent and of greater week, as often as the Vicar General himself shall judge this expedient in the Lord." An Indult was conceded to the Bishops of Austria for seven years of dispensing from the law of abstinence "soldiers who actually serve in camps or garrisons, two days only excepted, namely the vigil of the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ and Friday in Parasceve. But as regards dispensation from the law of fast... let them follow the doctrines of approved authors concerning the exemption of soldiers from that law by reason of labor." S. O. 7 Sept.; A. S. S. v. 37, p. 236 seq. Bishops, dispensing from abstinence by Apostolic Indult in the time of Lent, prescribe a visit to some church, prayers, alms. Under grave obligation? - There are those who affirm, because Bishops dispensing by delegation are judged to make a certain commutation, and therefore the substituted work represents the grave obligation of abstinence; and the Bishop of Montpellier declared thus in the year 1861. But others generally do not recognize this rigorous commutation. Rather, it must more probably be said that Bishops principally intend to dispense, and accessorily to impose some pious work as a certain light satisfaction; and thus among others the Bishop of Mondovi declared in the year 1844 and the Bishop of Wurzburg in 1879. S. O. 5 Feb. 1890, to the Apostolic Vicar of Southern Japan declared "that this is remitted to the prudent judgment and conscience of the Reverend Apostolic Vicar." - E. M.