Case XXXII: Fasting

Case.—Arcadius, a young priest, was assigned one ember day by his pastor, who was suddenly called from home, to give a sermon during the triduum services to be held that evening. The work was gladly accepted, Arcadius saying to himself it would stand as a quid pro quo, in place of the fast prescribed for that day. A few days later, on another fast day, he settled down to a strenuous day’s work, laboring zealously in preparing his paper for the conference, writing his sermon for Sunday, etc., with the conviction that his efforts of the day were sufficient to excuse him from the obligation of fasting. Upon the pastor’s return the young priest acquainted him with the aforesaid facts, and was promptly told that the reasons set forth were not sufficient to excuse from so serious a law.

Question.—Was the pastor right?

Solution.—The obligation of fasting is a grave one, so that weighty and serious reasons are required to free the children of the Church from the binding force of this law. Such reasons make the law morally or physically impossible of fulfillment. Are the reasons alleged by Arcadius of such a nature? We do not think so. In the first instance, the preparation and delivery of one sermon, even under the given conditions of haste, etc., are usually not attended by such mental or physical fatigue as not to be compatible with even a rigorous compliance with the demands of the Church in the matter of fasting. There is a strain, of course, but our contention is that it is only a moderate one, and does not cause wear and tear enough to be seriously considered a legitimate excuse. Besides, we are not justified in substituting what we wish for any definite obligation that we are apt to find irksome. However, nothing is said in the statement of the case of the physical state of our young friend. If his health is not good, and this extra labor, even though moderate in itself, or when added to other labors of the day, would make it morally impossible for him to observe the strict fast, without injury to his weakened condition, or interference with his priestly duties, then, of course, his view of the case would be a perfectly proper one; his reason would be a valid one. But we fear there is nothing of this nature in the case, and must decide that Arcadius was wrong and his pastor was right.

In the second instance, the pastor was again in the right. The intense labor assumed on the fast day was not necessary for that day, was undertaken freely on that day in preference to other days, and for the sole motive of escaping the obligation of fasting on that day. This extraordinary labor brought no special benefit that could not be gained on any other day not a fast day. We know that the doing of corporeal or spiritual works of mercy, even undertaken freely on a fast day, are sufficient to relieve one of the obligation when found incompatible with it, because they bring a greater good than mere fasting. But no greater good accrues in this case. Arcadius would do well to mend his conscience.