Case XI: The Law of Abstaining from Flesh Meat

John, a business man, was in the diocese of P. on business, on a Friday, when a dispensation from the abstinence from flesh meat was granted by the Holy See to the whole diocese of P. John was not a diocesan of P. but knowing that all the Catholics of the diocese had permission to eat meat on that Friday, he also ate it. He did the same on another occasion, being invited by a friend to spend a few days with him. On New-Year's day, which fell on a Friday, he went to a neighboring city, outside of his own diocese, purposely to eat meat, because in his own diocese no dispensation from the abstinence had been announced, whilst in the neighboring diocese such a dispensation had been published. Did John commit a sin in any of these instances?

Answer.—John did not commit any sin, either in the first or the second instance. This is evident from the very nature of the law of abstinence itself. A law differs from a personal command or precept in this, that a personal precept affects the individual person, following him like his shadow, say the canonists, and "sticking to his bones" (adhaeret ossibus), whilst a law affects immediately a definite territory and only mediately the inhabitants of the territory. A personal mandate or precept follows the individual to whom it has been given wherever he goes and is not restricted to any territory or district. Thus if a bishop issues faculties to a priest, with the condition that they are revoked ipso facto the first time the priest enters a saloon to drink, then it makes no difference whether the priest enters a saloon within the limits of the diocese, or outside the limits, he loses his faculties, because he transgresses a personal precept, given to him individually, and which is not restricted by the limits of the diocese. But if a bishop makes a general rule for all the priests of his diocese, that they are suspended ipso facto, for entering a saloon, then such a rule is a law and is operative only within the limits of the diocese, and if a priest of the diocese transgresses outside the diocese, he does not incur suspension.

Those, therefore, who are outside the territory affected by a law, are not bound by the law. The law of abstinence from flesh meat on Fridays is a general law of the Church and binding on all Catholics in all places, except where certain places or persons have been exempted by special dispensation. The diocese of P. on the Friday mentioned was exempted from the law. The exemption affected immediately the territory and only mediately the inhabitants of the district. Any inhabitant of the diocese of P. who on that Friday left the diocese would be bound by the law of abstinence, as soon as he crossed the diocesan border, and anyone living outside the diocese, would be exempted from abstinence the moment he entered the diocese. The law does not oblige anyone to remain within its domain, but obliges those who are within the territory affected by the law to keep the law.

In the third instance, cited above, where John leaves his own diocese on purpose to evade the law, the common opinion of theologians is also that he does not commit any sin, as far as the Church's law of abstinence is concerned. He might sin by gluttony or scandal, but not against the law of abstinence. The law of abstinence binds John as long as he remains within the territory or district subject to the law, but the law does not forbid John to leave the district, even in order to evade the law. Therefore, when John left his own diocese on New-Year's day, where he believed the law of abstinence to be in force, and went to a neighboring diocese, where the law was suspended, he only made use of his right to go where he pleased, as long as it was not forbidden by the law.

It cannot be maintained that the will of the Holy See, in granting a dispensation from the Friday abstinence to a certain diocese, is that only the bona fide inhabitants of the diocese are to enjoy it. For, since such will of the Holy See would be contrary to the very nature of law, it must be clearly proven to exist before it can be allowed. In some particular instances the Holy See has expressly forbidden leaving the territory to evade the law in fraudem legis; as, for example, Urban VIII. forbade leaving the territory to evade the law of clandestinity in marriage, and Clement VIII. forbade leaving the territory to escape reservation. But unless it be expressly forbidden, everyone is free to withdraw from a territory affected by a law, in order to evade or escape the law. This must be regarded as the general principle and the prohibition to leave the district in fraudem legis is the exception. Therefore, as far as the Church's law of abstinence from flesh meat on Friday is concerned, John did not in any way sin against this law by leaving the territory where it was binding and going elsewhere, where it did not bind, even though he did so purposely, in order to escape the law.

But independently of the law of abstinence, it is very possible that John may have sinned in this third instance against the law of God, forbidding gluttony and scandal. But under ordinary circumstances, such gluttony or scandal would scarcely amount to a mortal sin.