Question Five: On Violation of Fasting and Abstinence

973. The law of fasting and abstinence obliges under grave obligation, because it conduces greatly to spiritual good, to mortification, and to the repression of concupiscence. Hence its violation is mortal from its kind; nevertheless the matter can be light, unless the observance is required as a confession of faith, or for some similar reason.

1. Proposition 23 condemned by Alexander VII: "He who breaks a fast of the Church to which he is held does not sin mortally, unless from contempt or disobedience; for example, because he does not wish to subject himself to the precept."

974. Violation of fasting. - 1. The precept concerning the meal is indivisible: if it is broken by a second eating, it cannot afterward be kept or broken further in the same way; for abstaining from a third or fourth eating does not much serve mortification, nor is it prescribed.

2. It is negative, but with a limitation: for the law does not say simply, "do not eat more than once," but rather, "do not eat twice." Hence it obliges until it is broken; after it has been broken, it no longer obliges in the same way. Therefore one sins gravely if he takes a second notable quantity; but he does not sin gravely again, by reason of fasting, if after a second notable quantity already culpably taken he adds a third or fourth.

3. It is affixed to the day. Hence several light eatings coalesce into one grave nourishment; otherwise the law would be rendered vain.1

Therefore:

a) He sins gravely not only who takes a second complete meal, but also he who adds a notable quantity to the meal, the collation, and the little morsel, whether this is done at once or at several times, by increasing the collation or little morsel, or by taking something besides them.

b) A light quantity is about two ounces; a notable quantity is that which is equivalent to a light breakfast, or to half a collation, or to a notable part of a meal, or which, together with the little morsel and collation, equals half an ordinary dinner.2 Modern authors commonly judge an excess of four ounces notable; lighter foods require a greater quantity.

c) If the collation is exceeded so that it changes into a true supper, there is grave matter. Some place this in an excess of two ounces beyond what is licit; others, more benignly, in four ounces.

d) If the little morsel is doubled so that it reaches four ounces or exceeds it, it becomes equivalent to a light breakfast or a collation; for then one sins not only by anticipating the meal, but by intending and taking a collation, and so two collations are had.

e) If the meal, whether dinner or collation, is notably anticipated without proportionate cause, there is sin according to what was said above, n. 956; yet many think it venial. A brief anticipation without cause is venial; a slight one is nothing.

1. Proposition 29 condemned by Alexander VII: "On a day of fasting, he who often eats a little, even if at the end he has eaten a notable quantity, does not break the fast."

2. These things nearly agree: a light breakfast is four ounces; likewise half a collation. If an ordinary meal is two pounds, that is, twenty-four ounces, four ounces together with the little morsel and collation somewhat exceed half a not large meal. Billuart says that the quantity is equivalent to another collation, but he admits a very small collation, a middling breakfast. Note that the meal can be larger in the robust.

975. Violation of abstinence. - 1. The law of abstinence is negative, always, and absolute, without limitation: it is not restricted to this, "do not eat meats once or twice," but says simply, "do not eat meats."

2. It is divisible: after it has been violated, it still obliges for the possible part; therefore one sins as often as, by morally interrupted acts, he takes something forbidden.

3. It is affixed to the day: therefore several light takings coalesce into grave matter; and one sins gravely whenever morally interrupted acts reach grave matter. If from the beginning he intends to reach a grave quantity through several meals, or to eat meat at all meals and does not revoke this intention, the acts are morally united, and the sin is mortal from the beginning, and graver according as the quantity is greater.

As to lightness of matter: a very slight quantity, such as when a cook tastes, is no sin, because a little of this kind is counted as nothing; much more if one tastes but does not swallow. A light quantity is venial; a grave quantity is mortal. Authors vary in assigning it. The older authors are stricter: some place the limit of light matter at an eighth of an ounce, as St. Alphonsus; others at one mouthful, or at the size of a hazelnut. This seems too rigorous. Others put it at half an ounce, as Gury. Others at one ounce, and they say that grave matter is that which morally surpasses one ounce; and this is the opinion of many recent authors. Most recent authors say that grave matter is only what approaches two ounces or reaches them; Noldin says what exceeds two ounces. But there is no sufficient reason for this.

It seems to us that almost two ounces are certainly grave matter, and one and a half ounces very probably so. For two ounces are an ordinary portion, and not a large one; one and a half ounces are notable. Besides, such a quantity nourishes notably; the faithful judge it grave; otherwise one could violate the law with a sufficiently large portion without grave sin. Nor is there reason to depart so far from the stricter judgment of the ancients. Therefore it is probable that one ounce is not grave matter; but it is more probable that matter morally surpassing one ounce, or one and a half ounces, is grave.

For broth, light extract, eggs, or dairy products, where they are prohibited in the collation or little morsel, parvity of matter is more easily admitted; nor is there grave matter unless it at least morally exceeds two ounces.

In practice, in sermons it is enough to say that meats are prohibited under grave obligation, unless the quantity is modest. In confessions, most who eat meat take more than grave matter, namely an ordinary portion, and give scandal. An exception can be made for a poor worker or farmer who takes a not very large portion of lard once in the day; this is light, and perhaps he has an excusing cause.

976. Cooperation in violation. - Those who break the law and contribute to its violation sin: namely by inducing another, by properly cooperating, as by preparing forbidden foods, or by failing to prevent violation when they can and ought. Cooperation is illicit per se; accidentally, however, it can be licit for a just cause proportioned to the evil and to the occasion, provided the violation is not done in contempt of faith or religion, or in profession of a false sect, or in protest against obedience, and provided the violation is not intended by the cooperator.

A. Wives and daughters, if a husband or father commands forbidden foods, must first try to dissuade him if fruit is hoped; but if they cannot, they may obey on account of grave harm, such as discord or blasphemies, contempt being excluded.

B. Servants likewise, if the master is not bound by the law. If he is bound, they may still, at least for a time, serve him because of notable inconvenience or detriment, such as loss of service with danger that they will not soon have another, necessary profit for parents, or fear of a worse master or of an occasion of sin. In doubt they may presume that the master has an excusing cause.

C. Public inns and taverns. This question is less practical where there is a dispensation for those who buy food in inns, as in Belgium for travelers and those who by reason of occupation eat outside the home, except on Good Friday.

Where there is no such dispensation: 1) in places very observant of the fast, and where there is only one inn, it is rarely licit to prepare forbidden foods for one who has no excuse; if there are others, one must act cautiously and use a separate table to avoid scandal. 2) Where the fast is often violated, or travelers come from many places, especially if there are many inns, forbidden foods can rather easily be served because of notable harm, provided licit foods have also been sufficiently prepared and are not refused. 3) They certainly sin if they spontaneously offer illicit foods, or set them before those who have not asked, or fail to buy licit foods in time when they foresee they will be demanded, or show ill will and refuse even when they can provide them.

A private family which receives a few guests for weekly or monthly payment can less readily set meats before them, even if they ask, at least in Catholic regions; for in a private house the law is more easily observed, and a greater reason is required. Yet a moderately grave cause suffices if the sin cannot be impeded by refusing and there is no scandal.