Section 3: Obligation of the Law of Fasting and Abstinence

1. The law of fasting proper (ieiunium) binds the faithful only after they have attained the age of twenty-one and until the beginning of the sixtieth year.¹ This law renders it grievously sinful not only to take more than one full meal a day, but also to take small quantities of food at frequent intervals, so that the total amount is considerable (say, four ounces).

¹ C. I. C., can. 1254, § 2.

When one who is obliged to fast has taken two full meals, he has broken the fast, and the law of fasting no longer binds him; whereas the precept of abstinence may be broken again and again, and a new sin is committed every time the forbidden act is repeated.

Many who are per se bound to fast are excused by virtue of a dispensation, or on the ground of inability (impotentia), or because they are engaged in important work (labor), which cannot be omitted without serious inconvenience and to do which they need ample nourishment, or because they would be hindered in their works of piety (pietas) if they fasted. a) A dispensation, to be valid, must be based upon a truthful statement of the case. If the reason for which the dispensation is asked, is certain and undeniable, no express permission is required, particularly if legitimate custom can be adduced or there is difficulty in reaching the competent superior. Confessors and physicians can declare that there is sufficient reason in this or that case to exempt one from the law, but they have no power per se to dispense.

Dispensations from fasting as well as abstinence may be obtained for any good reason from the bishop, or the pastor, or some other priest having ordinary, quasi-ordinary, or delegated jurisdiction.

Those who are dispensed from fasting are not eo ipso dispensed from keeping the law of abstinence.

b) Inability to fast may be physical or moral. It excuses the sick, convalescents, pregnant and nursing women, all who are in delicate health, the poor who cannot obtain enough food at any time to eat a full meal, as well as those who are obliged to perform hard bodily labor in fields, mines or workshops, or severe mental work, such as teaching, frequent preaching or hearing confessions; also physicians, judges, travellers (un- der certain circumstances), and those whom fasting would hinder in the performance of pious and charitable works. The Church imposes fasting and abstinence as a means of furthering good works, and therefore does not wish this law to stand in the way of anything that is better or more necessary.

The exception made in favor of those who are under twenty-one or over sixty, is based on the fact that the very young as well as those advanced in years require more frequent nourishment, the former because they are still in process of physical development, the latter because they are usually weak and infirm. The exemption is general because laws are made for the generality of men, not for those who are exceptionally situated.

Some moralists hold that women are probabiliter exempt from fasting at the age of fifty, as they age more rapidly than men, and usually take less food—a view which, in praxi, would seem to justify certain mitigations.

2. The law of abstinence binds all Catholics who have completed their seventh year, except those who are duly excused.

This law binds per se under pain of mortal sin because its matter is objectively important; but it admits of parvitas materiae.

One is exempt from keeping the law of abstinence by a valid dispensation or by inability to live up to the Church’s command. This exemption applies to the poor who have no choice of foods, to all who cannot sufficiently regain their strength without the use of flesh meat, to the sick and convalescent, to those who are in delicate health and cannot digest Lenten foods, to those who are dependent upon others for the preparation of their meals (e. g., travellers, soldiers, servants, apprentices, etc.). But those so exempted should substitute for fasting some other work of penance or mortification to show their willingness to obey the law.²

² Cfr. Thos. Slater, S.J., Manual of Moral Theol., Vol. I, p. 575.

The United States has been favored with three separate indults regarding the law of abstinence.

a) The first, called the Quadragesimal Indult, permitted the faithful to continue, or, more strictly, said they need not be prevented from continuing, the practice of eating eggs, milk, butter, etc., at the collation in Lent, and permitted the use of drippings and of flesh meat on Holy Thursday.

b) The second indult permitted soldiers and sailors in actual service to eat flesh meat on any day of the year except Ash Wednesday, the vigils of Christmas and of the feast of the Assumption, and the last three days of Lent. Holy Saturday afternoon has since been exempted by the New Code.³ This privilege extends also to the families of soldiers and sailors, while living with them, but not if they live apart.

³ C. I. C., can. 1252, § 4.

c) The third indult was granted in favor of workingmen. It gives each bishop the faculty to permit workingmen and their families the use of flesh meat on all days of abstinence, except Fridays, Ash Wednesday, the last week in Lent, and the vigil of Christmas. This indult even permits flesh meat to be used more than once a day by those who are not bound to fast, but its application is left to the discretion of the Ordinary. Many bishops in the exercise of this faculty do not permit the use of flesh meat more than once a day even to those who are excused from fasting.

The question who are operarii in the sense of the indult is controverted. Fr. Michael Martin, S.J., who contributed the notes on American legislation to Slater’s Manual of Moral Theology, says on this point: “Does it [the term operarii] mean only those who are usually designated by the English word workingmen, i. e., general laborers, mechanics, etc., or does it include also those engaged in the liberal professions, physicians, lawyers, etc.? Sabetti holds the former view, arguing from the intention of those who petitioned for the faculty and from the purpose of the concession itself. The other opinion is defended by a writer in the American Ecclesiastical Review, Vol. XIII, pp. 295 sqq., where he says: ‘Under the term working people (operarii) seem here to be included all classes of people who cannot observe the abstinence laws on account of the labor they are obliged to perform, whatever may be the character of that labor. Lex non distinguit.’ This second interpretation may, it seems, be followed so long as there is no decision of the Holy See restricting the meaning of the word operarii. While the intention of the archbishops in presenting the petition was very probably limited to those who are usually called working people, and while the Holy See is to be presumed to grant the petition according to the mind of the petitioners (the archbishops of the United States), still the word operarii employed in the response of the Sacred Congregation is frequently taken to signify others besides working people. When, however, in the Lenten regulations, which usually make reference to this indult, the bishop employs the term workingmen or working people, he would seem to indicate his intention that the privilege could be used only by those commonly designated by the term, and not by others who might be included under the word operarii. From the words of the indult itself it is manifest that a bishop has authority to make such a limitation, even if operarii be capable of bearing a wider meaning. It may be noted that, in order to share in this indult, it is sufficient that any member of the family, male or female, belong to the class in whose favor the bishop may extend the faculty.”⁴

⁴ Slater, Manual of Moral Theology, Vol. I, pp. 571 sq.

READINGS.—H. Noldin, S.J., Summa Theol. Mor., Vol. II, pp. 697 sqq.—Th. Slater, S.J., A Manual of Moral Theology, Vol. I, pp. 566 sqq.—A. Tanquerey, Synopsis Theol. Mor. et Pastor., Vol. II, pp. 633 sqq.—J. B. Ferreres, S.J., Compendium Theol. Mor., Vol. I, pp. 393 sqq.—Sabetti-Barrett, Comp. Theol. Mor., pp. 326 sqq.