Article — Konings, Theologia Moralis
ARTICLE II: ON ABSTINENCE FROM FLESH-MEAT IN FASTING
- Principles. - I. To all the faithful using reason, by the precept of the Church the eating of flesh-meat is forbidden on each day of fasting. Hence by the law of fasting a double precept is imposed, as Benedict XIV also defines, namely of abstaining from several meals, and of abstaining from flesh-meat; therefore contrary to what several of the older authors hold, one dispensed or unable as to one is not for that reason and by this very fact to be excused from the other.1 - Under the name of flesh-meat come all animals living and breathing on land; therefore frogs, tortoises, etc., are not prohibited. In doubt, if custom is lacking, one should attend to whether the animal is similar to what is forbidden and whether it nourishes more strongly. If the doubt persists, the Holy See should be approached.2
II. In the Lenten time eggs and milk-products also are prohibited, namely all those things which draw their origin from flesh. This is clear from the practice of the Church, from its dispensations, and from Proposition 32 condemned by Alexander VII, p. XIV. Now, however, in most places an almost general dispensation from that law is conceded to the faithful. Indeed today Bishops, from an indult conceded by the Roman Pontiff, grant to the whole diocese a dispensation also as to the eating of flesh-meat for the principal part of Lent. On the use of fat see what was said at n. 552, Quaer. 3°.
Moreover, although the eating of eggs and milk-products could not be excused from grave sin, of itself, according to the common sentence, nevertheless smallness of matter seems more easily to be admitted in these than in the eating of flesh-meat.
- Questions. - Quaer. 1° Must abstinence from milk-products be observed also in fasting outside the Lenten time?
Resp. In the negative. Because an obligation of this kind is imposed by no general law. It is the common sentence, says St. Alphonsus.3 Yet somewhere, for example at Rome, a custom has prevailed, having the force of law, that abstinence of this kind is to be observed also on certain other days, for example on Ember Days.
Quaer. 2° Must abstinence from milk-products be observed on the Sundays of Lent?
Resp. In the affirmative, because neither law nor custom excepts Sunday. - St. Alphonsus,1 and others commonly against some, whose sentence is not probable according to St. Alphonsus.
Notes to n. 567. (1) L. IV. 1005. (2) L. IV. 1011 and three responses. (3) L. IV. 1009.
- Quaer. 3° In the time of Lent is it licit in the meal to eat breads made with eggs?
Resp. In the negative, unless eggs have been permitted; the reason is that their substance is not lost from the fact that it is mixed with flour.2
Quaer. 4° Are those dispensed for milk-products judged by that very fact also dispensed for eggs?
Resp. In the affirmative, because these are equated from custom (n. 145), unless a distinction is clearly expressed in the dispensation.
Quaer. 5° Can those dispensed for flesh-meat on days of fasting also eat fish?
Resp. In the negative, if it is a question of eating fish in the same meal. This is clear from the Constitution of Benedict XIV Non ambigimus. See also Response concerning Fasting, questions 5 and 10, pp. L, LI. It is said in question 10 "on days of fasting"; for that a mixture of this kind is licit outside Lent, when only abstinence is to be observed, is clear from the Response to question 6, p. LI. (e) p. 481.
Notes to n. 568. (1) L. IV. 1007. (2) L. IV. 1009. (3) T. I. p. 426. (1). Appendix annotation (e), to n. 568. q. 5°. p. 249. col. 1. The S. Penitentiary, under June 14, 1880, declared that meats seasoned with fish sauce are not comprehended under the forbidden mixing of fish and flesh-meat.
- Quaer. 6° Whether the faithful exempt from the law of fasting because of laborious arts, in the time of Lent, when the eating of flesh-meat and milk-products is permitted to all for one meal, can eat flesh-meat and milk-products several times in the day, no otherwise than on the Sundays of the same Lent, on which the obligation of fasting does not urge?
The Sacred Penitentiary (on 16 Jan. 1834) responded: "The faithful who, by reason of age or labor, are not bound to fast, can licitly in Lent, when an indult has been granted, on all days comprehended by the Indult, eat flesh-meat or milk-products permitted by the same Indult, as often as they eat through the day." But this is not valid in a diocese whose Bishop by apostolic authority concedes that on certain weekdays of Lent it is licit once in the day to eat flesh-meat and eggs, at the same time permitting those who by reason of age or labor are not bound to fast to use eggs more often in the day. So the same Penitentiary, 27 May 1863. The Acta compose each response very well (f) p. 481.
Appendix annotation (f), to n. 569. p. 249. col. 1. We transcribe here the response given on Jan. 24, 1881, to a certain Bishop by the Most Eminent Prefect of the S. Congregation de Propaganda Fide, and graciously transmitted to me. "I have received your letters ... by which you sought an Indult concerning the eating of meats outside the one meal on days of fast, in favor of those who, by daytime labor in procuring livelihood for themselves, could with difficulty obtain other food. As regards this, you know that an Apostolic Indult is by no means necessary; for according to the doctrine commonly received from approved authors, those who are devoted to heavy labors, since they are by no means held to fast, can eat meats on all the days on which dispensation concerning the eating of meats was granted by the Apostolic See, whenever they eat. Although the response does not speak about those who by reason of age or affected health are not held to fast, nevertheless it must also be applied to these, since the reason of the resolution has force for them also: 'since they are by no means held to fast.'" This is clear from the response of the S. Penitentiary, Acta, T. 14. p. 568.
- Quaer. 7° What is to be said about Catholics who on days of abstinence supply flesh-meat to non-Catholics with whom it happens that they are at table?
Resp. They are not to be blamed, if either 1° this is permitted to them from the Apostolic Indult which our Bishops have by force of the Extraordinary Faculties C. (see p. LXXII. 5); or 2° some just cause concurs, provided nevertheless that in either case scandal and contempt of the ecclesiastical law are absent.