Article III: On Causes Excusing from Fast

1232. Besides causes which totally exempt from fast, as insanity and age less than seven years, there are four excusing causes, namely: 1. impotence; 2. labor; 3. piety; 4. dispensation.

Let it be noted: a) The first three causes exempt per se, if they are morally certain; but if they are doubtful, dispensation is required. Hence exemption is said to come from Right; but dispensation from man (III, 1032, fin.).

b) "If someone did not have a sufficient cause by which he could be excused from Lenten fast; but on the contrary he himself in good faith thought that he had a just cause of satisfying the precept by fasting only three or four times in the week, the confessor ought not oblige him to fast daily, when there is danger lest afterward he omit the fast daily" (III, 1049; H. Ap., XII, 34). Recall the things said n. 217 ff.

c) Several causes, insufficient in themselves, can coalesce, so that they suffice for exempting from the law.

d) Pilgrims are held by the laws of fast or are dispensed from them, according as in the case it is a question of a universal or particular law. Recall the things which we said in the treatise on Laws n. 204 ff.

1233. Impotence exempts, whether physical or moral.

1. On account of PHYSICAL impotence all those are exempted by whom fast cannot be observed by reason of defect of strength.

Hence they are excused: a) The sick, to whom fast can be of notable harm; and so likewise the convalescent and weak: for example those who labor under tertian or quartan fever, and others who cannot refresh themselves with sufficient nourishment in one meal.

b) Pregnant or nursing women, to whom it is not even licit to fast (unless once or twice, if the woman is robust); likewise, according to Capellmann, women during the time of menstruation (Past. Med., ed. 16, p. 169).

c) The poor, "who cannot have at once what suffices for their sustenance," as St. Thomas has it (2. 2, q. 147, a. 4, ad 4). Whence it is very probable to St. Alphonsus that those who have nothing other than bread and herbs or legumes are not held to one meal; for although they are accustomed to these relishes, nevertheless they sustain themselves sufficiently by this alone because they are accustomed to eat them several times in the day and in great quantity (III, 1033; H. Ap., XII, 23).

1234. 2. On account of MORAL impotence all are exempted who cannot fast without grave inconvenience, or without great extrinsic difficulty.

Hence they are excused: a) Those to whom fast brings grave headache, or notable privation of sleep. b) Soldiers, whether they remain in camps or in stations. Otherwise, if they live in the paternal house or at their own expenses, unless they can protect themselves by dispensation or legitimate custom (as exists in France). c) Wives and children of a family who by fasting would suffer grave indignation of husbands or parents; provided contempt of the Church or of religion is absent. d) Men (if ever they are found) who, on account of fast, would not be able to render the conjugal debt to be rendered from justice or even from charity alone. e) Adolescents who have not yet completed the twenty-first year of age: for these need more abundant and more frequent food, both for the increase of nature and for solidifying the powers of the body. f) Sexagenarian old men (the 60th year having begun) are excused from universal custom; both on account of weakness of strength, and on account of defect of heat, from which they cannot take and digest sufficient food at one time. But if some seem more robust, their robustness is inconstant and often only apparent. Except religious or others who have vowed to fast until death. g) Women of fifty years, provided some weakness or infirmity concurs; for it is doubtful whether they are exempted on account of age alone (III, 1034 ff.; H. Ap., XII, 24).

1235. 1. All labor of the body, all arts which cannot be exercised without great weariness of the body, excuse from fast.

By this title are excused: diggers, farmers, stone-cutters, potters, weavers, wool-workers, fullers, porters, drivers, sailors, rowers, runners, iron-smiths, wood-workers, masons, leather-workers, shoemakers who make shoes with thread smeared with pitch; bakers, oven-workers, cooks who in preparing several dishes for many persons are occupied through almost the whole day. Likewise typographers turning the press; servants addicted to greater labors, letter-carriers and others traversing the city to distribute letters, to sell wares; those adorning temples by carrying ladders around, etc., etc. But all these are understood to be excused only then if they are detained for the greater part of the day, not if only two or three hours, in laborious works of this kind (III, 1041; H. Ap., XII, 26).

Further TO BE NOTED: a) It is not licit deliberately to choose the aforesaid labors so that fast may be avoided (Lehmkuhl, I, 1471). See the things which we said in the treatise on Laws, n. 225. b) Rich artisans are not held to interrupt labors for observing fast; for this would turn to the detriment of the public good; nor is it the mind of the Church to impede the faithful from their ordinary occupations. c) More robust artisans, who can fast without grave inconvenience, nevertheless are excused, both from common use and from legitimate presumption of diminution of strength going to follow from the fast; for in practice scarcely one will be found who is not gravely relaxed from labor of this kind. d) Those ceasing from labor for one or another day, even for the sake of extraordinary recreation, are excused by necessity of refreshing their powers, or preserving them for the morrow, unless they manifestly are able to fast without grave inconvenience (III, 1042 ff.; H. Ap., XII, 31; Praxis, 47).

1236. 2. Labor of the mind, or the liberal arts, do not excuse, nor offices which are exercised with light labor. To this looks proposition 30 condemned by Alexander VII, as too general: "All officials who labor corporally in the republic are excused from the obligation of fast; nor ought they to certify themselves whether the labor is compatible with fast."

Hence: a) Per se barbers are not excused; tailors; shoemakers who only cut or prepare hides; cooks preparing a few dishes; maids twisting wool or flax with a spindle or exercising similar things; merchants remaining in their shops, typographers composing types; painters, notaries, scribes; those making small watches; millers, bankers, sculptors, etc. Except (but per accidens), if any of these, on account of weakness, or singular labor, or another circumstance, cannot fast without grave inconvenience (III, 1041; H. Ap., XII, 27).

b) Lecturers of sciences per se are not exempted from fast, but only then if they need great study and labor. As regards teachers of grammar who teach for several hours in the day, their labor seems per se to exempt from fast. Cf. III, 1049. Scholastics similarly are not exempted for this reason that they devote themselves to studies; but they are exempted if through the greater part of the day they give work to necessary and serious studies (Noldin, II, 687, 4; Konings, n. 579, 4).⁰¹

Note. In doubt whether labor is incompatible with fast, this twofold rule must be held: If the labor, with the circumstances seen and generally for all, is of itself grave, presumption stands for exemption from fast. But if the labor is grave per accidens, namely on account of some circumstance of weakness of the person, or of fatigue greater than usual, presumption, in this doubt, stands for the obligation of fast; and therefore dispensation is needed (III, 1049, 7). Cf. the things said n. 248.

1237. IT IS ASKED. What sort of JOURNEY, undertaken for a just cause, suffices for excusing from fast?

Resp. 1. If it is made on foot, the common opinion teaches that a journey of 4 or 5 leagues (or 12 or 15 miles, or 25 kilometers) is required and suffices. Yet if the way were difficult and rough, or the traveler were weak, not accustomed to a journey, etc., a journey of two leagues (that is, six miles) could already excuse. But this depends on circumstances either of persons or of weather, etc.

2. If the journey is made by horse, carriage, or railroad, it does not excuse per se, as is established from proposition 31 condemned by Alexander VII: "All those are excused absolutely from the precept of fast who travel by riding, however they may travel; even if the journey is not necessary, and even if they make a journey of one day." Per accidens, nevertheless, anyone is excused who is not able, without grave inconvenience, to carry out a journey, even of one day (III, 1047, dub. 1 and 2; H. Ap., XII, 29, 30).

Note. He who begins a journey very early in the morning always has a right to refresh himself, nor is he held afterward to remain without refreshment. But he who beforehand, the order of fast having been observed, made the journey after midday, does not have the same right of injuring the fast, unless a reason accedes. Lehmkuhl, I, 1471, 3.

1238. Piety excuses from fast insofar as, either from office or obedience, or even from mere devotion, works of charity or religion are licitly undertaken, although from this there follows impossibility of fasting.

The reason is that, from the order of charity, one good work ought not impede another work more noble and better. Whence St. Thomas (2. 2, q. 147, a. 4, ad 3): "It does not seem to have been the intention of the Church establishing fasts that through these it would impede other pious and more necessary causes."

Note. Piety only then excuses when the work undertaken from a just cause is judged to be of GREATER MERIT than fast, and when it cannot be deferred to another time, and requires labor incompatible with fast. Thus also from St. Thomas (l. c.), who says: "If a pilgrimage and the labor of a work can conveniently be deferred, or diminished without detriment of bodily health..., or of spiritual life, the fasts of the Church are not to be omitted on account of this."

1239. Therefore by the title of piety are EXCUSED: 1. Those serving the sick, if they are much fatigued, for example in hospitals. 2. Those making pilgrimage to holy places, if the pilgrimage is going to yield to the great honor of God, or edification of neighbor, or to the spiritual and great utility of the pilgrim himself; or if the pilgrimage, when the time of fast arrives, has already been begun. 3. Singers in church who, by fasting, would lose the voice and could not fulfill their office. 4. Preachers, if they preach daily or frequently, for example five times in the week, or with vehement agitation, as in Missions. 5. Confessors, if they undergo extraordinary labor and are at the same time so weak that with fast they cannot satisfy the frequency of penitents. In the same way, that is, per accidens, not per se, physicians, advocates, and others whose labor is useful to neighbor, or even necessary, will be able to be excused (III, 1049; H. Ap., XII, 34). See the twofold rule handed down n. 1236, note.

1240. I. They can dispense in fast: 1. The Supreme Pontiff in the whole Church, for example through indults conceded to Bishops, and indeed validly even without cause; although in this case he would sin, at least venially, "because this would be against the common good, to which laws are ordered" (III, 1032). 2. Bishops, and their vicars expressly delegated. Yet of themselves they cannot dispense with the whole diocese, nor with some parish, nor with a whole community or family, except in an urgent case. Thus from the Constitution of Benedict XIV: Libentissime. 3. Prelates and their vicars, but with their subjects taken individually. 4. Parish priests, where custom has force, and their vicars, provided they exercise parochial acts, and the parish priest is not opposed. But all these can dispense only with their own subjects, and indeed in a particular case, with private persons taken individually and from a just cause; otherwise the dispensation would be void (cf. the things already said n. 237).

Confessors cannot dispense, unless they are expressly delegated. Yet they can DECLARE whether someone is legitimately exempted or not. Physicians can do the same, as also Superioresses of nuns (III, 1032; H. Ap., XII, 22).

1. Dispensation concerning abstinence and fast has generally been conceded by the Supreme Pontiff for feast days recently established; likewise for feast days which, in some region, at the petition of Bishops, have been observed; finally for feasts of Patrons, if they are celebrated with the concurrence of the people. Indeed, dispensation can be conceded by a Bishop if some expunged feast day (on which abstinence or fast would have to be observed) is accustomed to be celebrated with the concurrence of the people (A. A. S., III, p. 351; IV, p. 341). Always firm remains the prohibition of not mixing dishes (cf. n. 1242, Rule 2).

2. Moreover, from the Decree of S. Off., 5 Dec. 1894 (A. S. S., 27, p. 512), and its authentic interpretation of 11 Dec. 1909 (A. A. S., p. 58), Bishops and other local Ordinaries have the faculty of anticipating to a day pleasing to themselves (which assigning the Ordinary can commit to parish priests from a reasonable cause) and for very grave causes even of dispensing concerning the law of abstinence, when, on Friday or Saturday through the year, with a great concurrence of peoples, either any Catholic solemnity whatever is celebrated, for example of centenaries, of pilgrimages, or extraordinary fairs are held. Further, among the very grave causes of dispensing, there can be assigned grave general danger that the abstinence to be anticipated will not be observed. From these faculties are excepted the time of Lent, the Four Times, vigils through the year consecrated to fast, or the time of Advent where (as in Spain) the fast of vigils has been transferred to each Friday and Saturday of Advent. In Italy only the time of Lent and Advent is excepted (S. Off., 7 Sept. 1909, n. 5). Wherefore on these days Bishops can neither dispense nor anticipate.

As regards indults which have lately been conceded to diverse peoples and regions, see below n. 1247, 1248.

1241. Let it be noted: a) Dispensation through pontifical indult is not accustomed to be given concerning the law of one eating (for in this an excuse from right suffices); but it is given concerning abstinence, which it always restricts by certain limits (cf. n. 243 and 1223).

b) Dispensation which, on account of peculiar reasons, is conceded to private persons, can comprehend either one or the other, or both parts of the law.

In the Bull Non ambigimus of Benedict XIV, it is prescribed that dispensation with a particular person, in eating meats, eggs, and milk-foods, be made from the counsel of both physicians, that is, both the spiritual, namely the confessor or parish priest, and the physical, or physician of bodies. Thus indeed practice bears in the dear City; elsewhere however it has gone into disuse.

c) Bishops, when they dispense from pontifical indult, generally enjoin upon the faithful some prayers or alms.

But whether under grave matter is controverted. Some affirm, because it is judged to be a commutation; but others deny with Gury: because it is more probable that Bishops intend principally to dispense, and accessorily to impose some pious work as a certain light satisfaction. Except if the Bishop by express words wishes to oblige strictly.

1242. II. The rules for those dispensed from INDULT are the following:

RULE 1. Those dispensed for meats are by that very fact dispensed for milk-foods; but those dispensed for milk-foods are judged by that very fact to be dispensed for eggs, unless the contrary is expressed.

To those dispensed for meats, pork is not prohibited, nor in general unhealthful meat, unless a special prohibition has been made (such as was made by Clement XI, through Edict of 24 February 1702 for the Roman State). Cf. H. Ap., XII, 8.

RULE 2. Those dispensed for meats are obligated under grave matter to abstain from fishes in the same meal. This precept embraces the whole of Lent, even Sundays, and moreover each and every day of fast through the year. It is established from three Constitutions of Benedict XIV, Non ambigimus (1741), In suprema (1741), Libentissime (1745); and from several decisions of the S. Penitentiary. Not even a Bishop can dispense in this law. Cf. A. A. S., II, p. 953; there the Benedictine prohibition is very well illustrated.

Under the name of fishes come also little fishes dried with salt, likewise caviar, or marine shellfish, as crabs (ecrevisses), oysters (huitres), and other things similar to these, as is established from Responses of S. Poenit., on 10 and 16 Jan. 1834.

Therefore all, even children after the seventh year (S. Poenit., 15 Mar. 1837), who, FROM INDULT, eat meats, although they are not held to fast, nevertheless are obligated not to mix dishes, as S. Off. responded, 23 Jun. 1875. Yet broth of meat together with fishes can be used by them, from a declaration of S. C. C., on 7 Aug. 1910 (A. A. S., II, p. 959).

But those who, not by force of indult, but FROM RIGHT, say by reason of grave sickness, become immune from the law of abstinence, can use meats and fishes together, from the opinion which S. Poenit., 9 Jan. 1899, declared could safely be followed (Nouv. Rev. Theol., 32, p. 64). Likewise, the faithful dispensed from the law of abstinence on Fridays and Saturdays, during the year, when the obligation of fast does not urge, can eat fishes together with meats (S. Poenit., 15 Feb. 1834).

RULE 3. To those dispensed for meats and milk-foods, it is licit to eat milk-foods together with fishes. And to the same it is similarly licit to eat fishes together with soup cooked with meat juice.

The first is established from the Constitution Libentissime; the other from a Response of the Holy See. For to the QUESTION: "Whether one dispensed for eating meats on days of fast can in the same eating eat, for consulting his health, soup cooked with meat juice, and for the rest eat fishes, so that as much as he can, he may preserve the observance of fast?" S. Poenit., on 23 Feb. 1826, responded: "Affirmatively."

Nor is it prohibited to those dispensed to eat, together with meat, other foods seasoned with fish juice. S. Poenit., 14 Jun. 1880 (Coll. S. C. de P. F., n. 2077).

RULE 4. Those dispensed for meats, but constrained by the law of fast, are obligated, just as other fasting persons, to one meal at the fixed time; and these, in the evening collation, must use the same food which other fasting persons use, and in the same restricted measure. It is established from the Constitution Libentissime of Benedict XIV. But see n. 1228.

RULE 5. Those who by reason of age, or labor, or infirmity, are not held to fast, on days of fast, when the eating of meat and milk-foods is permitted to all for one meal, can licitly eat meat and milk-foods several times in the day, or as often as they eat through the day; unless the Bishop, dispensing by apostolic authority, has added a restriction. It is established from decisions of S. Poenit., on 24 Feb. 1819, 27 May 1863, 16 Mar. 1882.

RULE 6. When permission of using a condiment of fat has been conceded through an apostolic indult, it is licit to use both the fat of any animal (S. Off., 1 May 1889) and butter (S. Off., 15 May 1896), but by no means meat broth (S. Poenit., 15 Apr. 1836 and 20 Mar. 1847), unless custom is present, in which case the Bishop should be silent (S. Off., 20 Jan. 1885).

As often as it is licit to use butter, it is also licit to use margarine (S. Off., 6 Sept. 1899). But when butter has been conceded, condiment of fat is not by that very fact conceded. Further, condiment conceded through indult can be used even in the evening refreshment, provided no restriction has been placed in the indult. Moreover, when condiment of lard fat is permitted, he who uses the lard itself for seasoning foods can without scruple eat the fragments of lard which, the fat having been extracted, remain, provided they continue to be part of the condiment (S. Poenit., 17 Nov. 1897).

1243. Questions. QUAER. 1. Whether Religious can use dispensations which are conceded universally to the faithful as regards fast? From the Decree of 1 Sept. 1912 (A. A. S., IV, p. 627), one must respond: Affirmatively, if it is a question of dispensation concerning the general law of the Church and Religious are not excluded in the apostolic indult. But negatively if abstinence or fast are prescribed by the rule, unless in the indult account is had of this dispensation. Those not observing abstinence or fast of this kind do not transgress the law of the Church, but only the rule. Religious dwelling in Latin America must stand by the Response from the Secretary of State, 1 Jan. 1910 (cf. n. 1247).

QUAER. 2. Whether fathers of families, when in the family there is found some person dispensed concerning the use of meats, can indiscriminately extend the dispensation to all persons of the same family. S. Poenit. (19 Jan. 1834) judged that it must be responded: "Infirmity and any other impediment whatever, from the counsel of both physicians, but not gluttony, avarice, or generally saving of expenses, can exempt from the precept of abstinence on esurial days."

QUAER. 3. Whether in Lent, when a father of a family has the faculty of eating meats, and the same either cannot or will not prepare two meals, one of meats and the other of esurial foods, the children of the family and the others addicted to his service can eat meats? S. Poenit. (19 Jan. 1834), responded: "Persons who are in the power of the father of the family, to whom legitimate faculty of eating meats has been granted, can be permitted to use foods granted by indult to the father of the family; with the condition added of not mixing permitted and forbidden dishes, and of one eating in the day for those who are held to fast." Further, "the reason of the permission about which in the question is not the indult of the father of the family; but the impotence in which the children of the family find themselves of observing the precept." Therefore it is a mere direction for confessors. It is established from various Responses of S. Poenit., edited 27 May 1863 and 20 Apr. 1865 (A. S. S., I, 424 ff.).