Chapter II. On the Causes Excusing from Fasting

The causes excusing from fasting are commonly 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.

507. Resolves. - 1. Poor persons begging door-to-door are excused from fasting, and all others who neither have nor can provide for themselves the means by which they may procure a suitable meal. But for this there do not suffice bread and fruits, nor pottage with bread and fruits, nor bread and wine alone, unless perhaps for one or another day ¹. - St. Lig., n. 1033; Hom. apost., n. 23.

¹ This limitation, "of one perhaps or another day," is not St. Alphonsus's; indeed he gives this reason why poor persons of this sort are released from obligation (lib. 3, n. 1033): "For although," he says, "he may be accustomed to foods of this sort, nevertheless he therefore sufficiently sustains himself because several times in the day, and several times in great quantity, he is accustomed to refresh himself with those foods which are of little nourishment." St. Alphonsus indeed affirms these things with the common opinion of the Doctors.

2. The sick, the infirm, the convalescent, and the weak are excused, for example, those who labor under tertian or quartan fever, or are convalescing from it; furthermore those who, unless they are refreshed twice, suffer notable headache or vertigo from emptiness of the stomach. - St. Lig., n. 1033-1034.

3. Those are excused who exercise very laborious works, such as plowing, digging, cutting stones, carrying heavy burdens, and other things of this sort. - St. Lig., n. 1041.

4. Male and female servants or others of this sort are excused when they are occupied with so many and such great labors that fasting cannot be joined with these without great difficulty or inconvenience; likewise those making a journey on foot for a notable time with great fatigue. - St. Lig., ibid.

5. But per se and ordinarily barbers, tailors, painters, scribes, servants, footmen, printers who do not turn the press but only arrange the characters, and those applying themselves to other similar things are not excused. - St. Lig., n. 1041. - Reuter, etc.

508. Questions. - Q. 1. Whether young men stronger in powers are bound to fast before the completion of the twenty-first year of age?

Resp. It is denied, because the law, as it is received and determined by approved custom, obliges only those who have completed the twenty-first year: for in this there is attended only to that which happens commonly. Yet young men are to be advised that, according to the measure of their age, they sometimes fast, so that more easily, when the time of obligation has come, they may be able to keep the law of fasting. - St. Lig., n. 1035, etc.

509. • Q. 2. Whether sexagenarians are excused from fasting ²?

² That those can here be understood as sexagenarians who have merely begun the sixtieth year, Diana teaches after others, tom. IV, tr. 6, res. 5, n. 1-2, and res. 8, n. 3.

Resp. 1. They are certainly excused if they are weak in powers, as is clear. Indeed they are also excused according to the common opinion in doubt about the strength of their powers, because then the presumption stands for their weakness. - St. Lig., n. 1036.

Resp. 2. If they abound in powers, it is disputed. The first opinion denies that they are exempted from the law of fasting, because those who have strong powers at that age are not reputed as old men. - Laymann, Antoine, Collet, etc. This opinion indeed is probable, says St. Alphonsus in the same place, but no less probable is the opposite opinion, which Sanchez, Roncaglia, Salmant. hold... The reason is both because universal custom bears it so, as Doctors more commonly testify; and because otherwise it would be a matter liable to many scruples to examine whether some sexagenarian is or is not sufficiently robust for sustaining a fast. But the stronger reason is that old men of this sort, both on account of weakness of powers and on account of defect of heat, cannot take sufficient food all at once, and need more frequent food; and although some at such an age may seem robust, nevertheless their strength is easily illusory and inconstant, since it cannot be denied that in old men of this sort the powers fail and slip toward death. Hence the common adage: Old age itself is a disease ³.

³ What is said concerning ecclesiastical fasts can be established also concerning fasts which Religious observe from their Rule: for sexagenarians will also be able to be excused from these, unless perhaps, as St. Alph. notes (lib. 2, n. 159), they expressly promised the observance of fasting even unto death.

This norm can be extended also to those who have vowed some weekly or monthly fasts for their whole life. But likewise except if someone, thinking about old age, expressly wished to bind himself even to the end of life.

Here the Doctors append the question (see St. Alph., lib. 3, n. 1037), whether the weaker sex, as one which grows old sooner, is also excused sooner from fasting, and they raise a controversy especially about the fiftieth year. Those who deny that they are excused are moved by the fact that although a woman grows old sooner, nevertheless she is less wasted by fasting and needs less food. But others affirm, and press that which no one denies, namely that what is true equally for men and for women is that old age is a disease. Nor certainly does it sufficiently appear why those things which St. Alphonsus observes concerning old age for men would not be equally valid for women. But if women need less food, or rather if because of weakness they are unequal to bearing more abundant food, this will prove rather that they are excused from the law which concedes one meal, since one scanty meal cannot be equal to sustaining their powers.

Moreover, Sanchez wisely concludes concerning this matter (Cons., lib. 5, cap. 1, dub. 4, n. 3-4): "Those who before the sixtieth year are already old and weak are excused. Yet when there is doubt about incapacity, the Confessor ought to attend to providing for necessity with the least detriment of the law; so that if it is sufficient that he anticipate the hour, or make the nocturnal little refection more indulgently, he ought to concede this, and not relax the fast wholly."

** Concerning this Note the Veronese Vindicators (p. 922, in note) observe that P. B. perhaps did not know the things which St. Alphonsus had premised (lib. 3, n. 1032) in these words: "I carefully took care on this point, namely on causes excusing from fasting, to observe very many authors and to recount them here, because in this matter the authority of Doctors redounds into intrinsic probability, since there is question of a matter which depends very much on the estimation of the wise."

Resp. 1. St. Alphonsus, concerning the present question (l. c., n. 1037), thus reports authors: "The first opinion affirms that women of fifty are excused, which Escobar, Renzius, and Narbona, Machadus, and Pellizzarius apud Diana hold; and Sanchez also approves this, who although in the treatise on matrimony he recalled it into doubt, nevertheless in the little work Counsels with Cajetan and others teaches it absolutely; and Viva and Mazzotta think it probable. But the second opinion, which Laymann, the Salmanticenses, Tamburini, Croix, Holzmann, Elbel, Anacletus hold, denies that women of fifty are excused unless," etc. Therefore if from the premised warning of St. Alphonsus, which the Veronese Vindicators wish to be kept before the eyes, the authority of Doctors in this matter redounds into intrinsic probability, it will now scarcely appear why by force of that warning intrinsic probability is to be denied also to the first opinion.

Resp. 2. St. Alphonsus, where he asks (ibid., n. 1036) whether sexagenarians robust in powers are bound to fasting, does not doubt to embrace the negative opinion against Laymann, Elbel, and Anacletus, who oblige them; and against Croix he urges that when it is doubted whether a law comprehends some case or subject, it does not oblige. Therefore if it was lawful for St. Alphonsus to postpone the authority of these four authors, nor did he judge that, on account of their contrary opinion, the intrinsic probability of the opposite opinion perished, it is therefore lawful for us also to postpone the authority of these same writers with regard to women of fifty, lest otherwise we be said to have weight and weight. And hence also it is clear that perhaps the Veronese Vindicators less to the point objected here (l. c.) that the argument taken from these authors is the more valid because those Authors cannot be counted among the more rigid. We shall not say that they are rigid; nevertheless it is manifest that St. Alphonsus in that question abandoned them as more rigid.

Resp. 3. Finally, it is lawful also to inquire on what foundation those authors objected to us rest. For even St. Alphonsus, although he says that extrinsic authority redounds into intrinsic, nevertheless does not omit the examination of reasons. And to begin with Laymann, he (lib. 4, tr. 8, c. 3, n. 2) merely objects the authority of Sanchez. But Sanchez stands altogether against Laymann. For although, as St. Alphonsus says, Sanchez in the treatise on matrimony recalled it into doubt, nevertheless in the little work Counsels (lib. 5, c. 1, dub. 4, n. 6) he teaches absolutely that opinion, namely the opinion which excuses women of fifty; and this work Counsels is later, for the Treatise on Matrimony is cited there. Therefore Laymann rests merely on a false supposition. - Anacletus (tr. 10, dist. 2, q. 4, n. 64) rests merely on the authority of Sanchez and Laymann. But from the things said both these supports fall. - Tamburini (Dec., lib. 4, cap. 5, § 7, n. 5) refers to Laymann, Fagundez, and John Sanchez. But both Fagundez (De 4 Praec. Eccl., lib. 1, c. 8, n. 11) and John Sanchez (Select., disp. 54, n. 11), not otherwise than Laymann, rest merely through a false supposition on the authority of Sanchez, as if he had taught the opposite. Therefore also the suffrage of Tamburini is built upon an empty foundation. Elbel (part 3, conf. 18, n. 507) merely cites Laymann and Tamburini. But from the things said the suffrage of both these is deficient. - Croix (lib. 3, p. 2, n. 1318) confirms his opinion by citing Laymann, Fagundez, Sanchez, and Tamburini. But, as has been seen, those citations do not help the cause. - The Salmanticenses (tr. 23, cap. 2, n. 131), besides the fact that by opining merely "more probably" they confess their assertion, thereafter support this very thing with the customary testimonies of Fagundez, John Sanchez, and Laymann, that is, with shaken reeds. - Finally Holzmann (part 5, tr. 1, c. 3, n. 17), while he adds two writers for our thesis, namely Cassianus a S. Elia and Abreu, just as Croix (l. c.) had added Lotherius, merely opposes Sanchez and Babenstuber. But Babenstuber (tr. 6, disp. 1, art. 3, n. 3) also fortifies his opinion solely with the empty authority of Laymann and Tamburini, to whom he adds, as Holzmann also does, Sanchez, who, as we have said, is indeed the leader of the contrary opinion. Behold, therefore, what the authorities are worth on which St. Alphonsus also relied when he said that he did not dare to call the first opinion probable.

But, you will say, did those authors bring forward no intrinsic reason for their opinion? - Resp. They do bring forward some, indeed; but almost those which Sanchez also had drawn out (De Matrim., lib. 7, disp. 32, n. 17), and he weighed them in an even balance in such a way that he concluded thus: "These things render me uncertain; and to learned men consulted by me it pleased that a lesser age should be assigned to women than to men; but they doubted about the quantity of the age. But certainly the things which I brought forward in the preceding number... and from common estimation prove that a woman of fifty is equally called old as a man of sixty. And therefore this part pleased other learned men. And with the matter considered by myself, and the reasons weighed, I think that he will say nothing deviating from reason, nor moderately alien from probability, who excuses women of fifty from fasting, just as men of sixty are excused." But then he adds those other things which gave occasion to some to cite Sanchez as obliging women of this sort to fasting, but to others to reproach him as speaking contradictory things. For presently he writes: "But until something else more clearly convincing shall appear, I choose as the more probable opinion that which maintains that one must speak indiscriminately of the age of man and woman for excusing from fasts; and the aforesaid things will serve lest we condemn one embracing the opinion which excuses women of fifty. Nevertheless, although the aforesaid things show that that opinion is probable speculatively speaking, yet in practice I judge that it is not safe." And indeed these last words you see are those which after Laymann they eagerly seized and repeat, as many as cite Sanchez as equating women with men as to fasting and condemning the opposite opinion; and likewise they are those on account of which John Sanchez (l. c.) brings Sanchez forward as speaking contrary things, when in reality no cause appears why an opinion which he affirms to be speculatively probable should not be held probable practically. But whoever knows this, which also St. Alphonsus testifies, as we have seen, that Sanchez in the later Work absolutely excused women of fifty from fasting, will say that all these things were brought forward in vain.

510. • Q. 3. Whether smiths, artisans, etc., are excused from fasting if they are so robust that they can fast quite easily?

Resp. It is affirmed probably, because custom exempts generally all who exercise arts of this sort; but laws do not regard that which happens rarely and per accidens, but what happens commonly and per se. But Concina, Bonacina ⁴, etc., deny it, and this too probably. - This second opinion, says St. Lig., n. 1043, speculatively speaking seems more probable, but in practice scarcely one will be found who is not greatly weakened by labor of this sort.

⁴ Bonacina (De Ieiun., punct. ultim., n. 8) speaks about those workers who can conveniently fast.

Q. 4. Whether workers are excused from fasting on those days on which they abstain from labor?

Resp. It is affirmed, if they interrupt their labors only for one or another day, by reason of repairing weariness and preserving strength for sustaining the next labors. - Thus commonly.

Q. 5. Whether rich artisans are excused, who can cease from labor on fast days?

Resp. It is affirmed more probably. The reason is that it is of interest to the Republic that because of fasting workers not interrupt the exercise of arts to which they are bound from their office. This seems also to be established from the declaration of Eugene IV apud St. Lig., n. 1042 ⁵. Nor is it the mind of the Church that the faithful be impeded from ordinary occupations. - Thus commonly ⁶.

⁵ St. Alphonsus (lib. 3, n. 1042) thus reports the declaration of Eugene IV, which he also defends as genuine: "Artisans exercising laborious arts, and rustics, whether poor or not poor, are not bound to fast."

⁶ See St. Thomas, 2. 2, q. 147, art. 4, ad 3, where, speaking of pilgrims, he has these things: "It does not seem to have been the intention of the Church establishing fasts that by this it should impede other pious and more necessary causes."

511. • Q. 6. Whether they sin who without just cause undertake unusual labor incompatible with fasting?

Resp. It is affirmed per se, even if they do not act in fraud of the law; for the law which commands fasting consequently commands that causes which are opposed to satisfaction of the same not be placed without reason. - Thus commonly.

I said without reason; because when a just cause intervenes, it is lawful to take up labor incompatible with fasting, although that labor is unusual, for example, for perceiving the greatest profit, etc. But the sole reason of mere pleasure never suffices, unless another honorable cause is added. - St. Lig., n. 1046.

Q. 7. What journey undertaken on foot for a just cause exempts from fasting?

Resp. They commonly say that a journey of about 5 leagues, that is, fifteen thousand paces, is required and suffices; but if either the road were very difficult, or the weather harsh, or the traveler weak and unaccustomed to a journey, he could be excused by a journey of two leagues. - St. Lig., n. 1047.

512. • Q. 8. Whether, or in what way, preachers, teachers of sciences, and Confessors are excused?

Resp. 1. Preachers who have a sermon daily or almost daily are commonly excused from fasting by reason of piety and office. With even greater right Missionaries, who are exercised with graver fatigue in Missions. 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 the prudent. - St. Lig., n. 1049; Hom. apost., n. 34.

Resp. 2. Teachers of sciences are excused, although they teach for only one hour on each day, if they need study and labor for preparing lessons; but not those who merely deliver from a written text lessons already previously arranged and often repeated. - St. Lig., ibid. But Sanchez and Azor rightly judge, against Salmant. and others, that teachers of grammar are excused if they teach for 4 or 5 hours.

Resp. 3. Confessors are not excused per se, but only when they undergo extraordinary labor, for example, when on several successive days they must hear confessions, as is usual in Missions, or when they are so weak in powers that without grave inconvenience they cannot satisfy the frequency of penitents ⁷. - St. Lig., ibid. - See Cases, n. 468 and following.

⁷ As to all these things, and others of this kind, one must always recall the premised opinion of St. Thomas, that it is not the intention of the Church, when she commands fasts, to impede pious and more necessary causes. Add likewise that it is not the intention of the Church that in these matters she oblige with notable inconvenience. Therefore whoever, by fasting, could not preach, even once, or teach sciences, whether he has prepared lessons or not, or hear confessions, even for a brief hour, without notable inconvenience, the mind of the Church does not seem to be that he should interrupt these exercises on account of fasting. But St. Thomas wisely adds (ibid.): "Yet it seems that in such things recourse must be had to the dispensation of the Superior, unless perhaps where it is so customary, because from the very fact that Prelates dissemble, they seem to agree." And these things indeed do not pertain to mere counsel when, all adjuncts having been inspected, the cause does not appear sufficient for excusing, although it may seem sufficient for dispensing.

513. • 1. To the question: Whether on fast days the time of eating can be inverted, by taking the evening little refection between the tenth and eleventh hour in the morning, but deferring dinner to the fourth or fifth hour in the evening?

The Sacred Penitentiary (on 10 Jan. 1834) judged that it should be answered: If there exists some reasonable cause for the aforesaid inversion, penitents who use this custom are not to be disturbed.

2. To the question: Whether heads of families, when in the family there is someone dispensed from the law of abstinence from flesh meats, can extend the dispensation indiscriminately to all persons of the family? (Latin version from the Italian exemplar.)

The Sacred Penitentiary judged that it should be answered: Illness and any other reasonable impediment whatever, by the counsel of each physician, but not gluttony, avarice, or generally economy of expenses, can exempt from the precept of abstinence on fasting days.

3. To the question: Whether, when a father of a family dispensed from the law of abstinence from flesh meats during Lent cannot or does not wish to have foods of both kinds, namely fasting foods and flesh meats, prepared, his sons or household members can eat flesh meats? (From the Italian exemplar.)

The Sacred Penitentiary (on 16 Jan. 1834) judged that it should be answered: That it can be permitted to persons who are under the power of the father of a family, to whom a legitimate faculty of eating flesh meats has been made, to use the foods granted to the father of the family, with the condition added of not mixing lawful and forbidden dishes, and of one eating in the day for those who are bound to fast. But the reason of this permission is not the Indult conceded to the father of the family, but the incapacity in which the sons of the family are placed of observing the precept. Thus the Sacred Penitentiary declared on 27 May 1863. See Ephemer. Revue cathol. de Louvain, July 1863. Likewise, Correspondance de Rome, 17 October 1863.

514. • 4. To the question: Whether the faithful exempt from the law of fasting on account of laborious arts, during Lent, when the eating of flesh meat and milk products is permitted to all at one meal, can eat flesh meats and milk products several times in the day, not otherwise than on Sundays of the same Lent, on which the obligation of fasting does not urge? (From the Italian exemplar.) The Sacred Penitentiary (on 16 Jan. 1834) responded: The faithful who by reason of age or labor are not bound to fast can lawfully, in Lent when an Indult has been granted, on all days comprehended in the Indult, eat flesh meats or milk products permitted through the same Indult as often as they eat during the day. But this does not apply in a diocese whose Bishop by apostolic authority grants to the faithful that on Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday of the time of Lent they can once in the day eat flesh meats and eggs; but to those who by reason of age or labor are not bound to fast, he permits that they use eggs more often in the day. Thus the Sacred Penitentiary declared on 27 May 1863. - See Ephemer. Revue catholique de Louvain, July 1863. - Likewise, Correspondance de Rome, 17 October 1863.

5. To the question: Whether those who by reason of age or labor are not bound to fast are subjected to the law of not mixing dishes of flesh meat and fish, when flesh meats are permitted through an Indult?

The Sacred Penitentiary (on 13 February 1834) responded: Let each one consult approved Authors ⁸.

⁸ Concerning this matter there is controversy among theologians. Some teach, thus Scavini, app. II at the end of vol. I, that they also are subjected; for the law, regarding the quality of foods, obliges all using the use of reason, so that, if there were no Indult, even they would have to abstain from flesh meats: hence the whole diversity regards only this, that those things which those fasting can eat once, those exempt from fasting can eat as often as they wish. But others, whom Righetti follows, hold the contrary; for the Encyclicals of Benedict XIV, by which that mixture is prohibited, speak only of those fasting; therefore they are not to be extended further; otherwise if they were to be urged too much, flesh meats would have to be indulged to those dispensed from fasting in only one eating, since flesh meats are there indulged only once. See Appendix at the end of vol. 2, p. 1078.

515. • 6. To the question: Whether the faithful dispensed from the law of abstinence on Fridays and Saturdays during the course of the year, when the obligation of fasting does not urge, can eat fish and flesh meats together? (From the Italian exemplar.)

The Sacred Penitentiary (on 13 Feb. 1834), the proposed doubt having been diligently weighed, and a report having been made to the Most Holy Lord Gregory XVI, by mandate of His Holiness, responds: It is permitted.

7. To the question: Whether on fast days during the time of Advent, prescribed by Pius VI, milk products nevertheless being permitted, to him to whom because of infirmity the eating of flesh meats is lawful, the promiscuous use of flesh meat and fish is forbidden?

The Sacred Penitentiary (on 8 Jan. 1834) responded: Affirmatively, namely that promiscuous use of this sort is not lawful.

8. To the question: Whether, under the law of prohibited mixing with flesh meats, there are comprehended little fish dried with salt, or anchovies (in French anchois, in Italian acciughe, alici), herrings (in French harengs, in Italian aringhe), and other things similar to these; whether they can be mixed in the manner of a condiment for another dish?

The Sacred Penitentiary (on 10 Jan. 1834) responded: Fishes dried with salt... are forbidden to be mixed with flesh meats whenever the mixture of flesh meat and fish is forbidden.

9. To the question: Whether during the time of fasting, to him to whom the eating of flesh meats is lawful, it is lawful to mix marine shellfish, which are improperly called fruits of the sea but are commonly considered fish, that is, oysters (in French huitres, in Italian ostriche), crabs (ecrevisses, gambari, granchi)?

The Sacred Penitentiary (on 16 Jan. 1834) responded: Marine shellfish, which are improperly called fruits of the sea but commonly fish, are forbidden to be mixed with flesh meats whenever the mixture of flesh meat and fish is prohibited.

10. To the question: Whether those dispensed from the law of abstinence from flesh meats can, on days on which the obligation of fasting urges, for the sake of health, eat only broth seasoned with flesh meats, and otherwise eat fasting foods, as the others who can eat fish, in order to observe the law of abstinence insofar as it can be done? (From the Italian exemplar.)

The Sacred Penitentiary (on 8 Feb. 1828), the matters set forth having been attentively considered, responded: Affirmatively.

516. • Here also must be remembered the decision of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, 25 May 1853, concerning the fast of the vigil of St. Peter for those regions in which the feast of St. Peter is transferred to the following Sunday. Now it reads thus: "In the general Congregation of the holy Roman and Universal Inquisition, held in the convent of Saint Mary above Minerva, before the Eminent and Reverend Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, general Inquisitors against heretical depravity, the written petition having been proposed, and the vote of the Lords Consultors having first been had, the same Eminent and Reverend Lords ordered it to be written back that the fast on the fore-vigil of the festivity of the Holy Apostles is to be observed." (25 May 1853).

Although, however, from the manifold decision of the Sacred Congregation the fast must be observed by the aforesaid faithful, not indeed on the very fore-vigil of St. Peter, but on the Saturday immediately preceding the Sunday to which the Solemnity of the Holy Apostles is remitted; nevertheless, if the feast of the Holy Apostles occurs on the Saturday itself, then the day before, or Friday, will be fasted. Thus decided by the Sacred Congregation of the Council, 22 Sept. 1858.

END OF THE TREATISE ON THE PRECEPTS OF THE CHURCH.