Question Two: On Ecclesiastical Fasting

S. Th. II-II, q. 147, a. 6 and 7.

954. The object of ecclesiastical fasting is indicated by can. 1251: "The law of fasting prescribes that only one meal be made in the day; but it does not forbid taking some food in the morning and evening, while preserving, however, the approved custom of places concerning the quantity and quality of foods." Therefore the Code did not change the law of fasting as to the object, but ratified it, which wholly depends upon legitimate custom, just as custom introduced it and through the course of centuries somewhat modified it, and thus confirmed it. Whence it follows that the law is to be interpreted in the same way as before the Code.¹

¹ This is very much to be noted. Many, after the Code was promulgated, were frustrated in their hope, since they were expecting from it a certain mitigation of the law. Nevertheless, desiring a milder mode of fasting, they proposed to introduce it, as may be seen in the periodical Ami du Clerge, 1921, and Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses, 1927, and thus they attempted to attenuate the law of fasting. But the Code confirmed the custom as it existed; after the Code was promulgated, however, mitigation could not yet have been introduced by a new custom because sufficient time for this was lacking.

The essence of fasting, or the essential part without which fasting is not conceived, consists in this, that in the day, that is, from midnight to midnight, only one complete meal is taken, whose quantity is not determined; whence if it exceeds the limits of temperance, someone can sin against that virtue and wholly or partially lose the merit of fasting, yet he will not sin against the precept of ecclesiastical fasting.

"Fasting," says St. Thomas, a. 6, "is instituted by the Church for restraining concupiscence, yet so that nature be preserved. But for this one meal seems to suffice, by which man can satisfy nature, and yet it takes something away from concupiscence, by diminishing the times of eating. And therefore by the moderation of the Church it has been established that those fasting should eat once in the day."

But this can be violated in three ways: 1) by taking several meals or several parts of a meal; 2) by dividing the meal, or interrupting it for a notable time, because thus there would be several meals and not one morally continuous meal; 3) by prolonging the meal for a long time, because thus it would be virtually multiplied.

Still less can that be admitted which sometimes they profess, not indeed in writing but orally: that the law of fasting no longer obliges because only a few observe it. But this reason is not sufficient, because the law has not yet become harmful or contrary to reason.

They imagine for themselves another law which they would wish to be held more conformable to reason; but the old law has not yet been abolished. Indeed each year, on the occasion of the Lenten mandate, in the several dioceses and churches the law is customarily inculcated again; and the very dispensations which the faithful ask suppose the persistence of the law. These things therefore prevent a custom contrary to law from being able to be introduced. Therefore it is not licit to interpret the law of fasting otherwise than was received before the Code. - But if the ecclesiastical law were too much attenuated, the practice of penance among the faithful would be reduced to nothing.

955. The time through which the meal can last* is assigned differently by different men; but not without fault will it be prolonged beyond two continuous hours, unless there is a reasonable cause (for example, the custom of receiving friends in this way); or, as some say, if afterward only sweetmeats or altogether light foods (dessert) are set forth, especially if the little evening meal is omitted, but this can be done only rarely.

Interruption: 1) if it is very brief, for example, of one quarter of an hour or morally within half an hour, even without a just cause, it does not prevent the eating from being morally continuous, even if it is interrupted with the intention of continuing elsewhere, in an inn. Indeed, if someone has already finished with the intention of eating no more, he can return, for example, if the table companions are still eating, or if food is set forth which he did not know of, because intention alone, although it can multiply human acts, nevertheless cannot make the eating not one but twofold: for eating is an external fact, and all consider as one eating the fact of eating in several turns not much interrupted.

2. If it is brief or rather notable, for example, of half an hour or within an hour, and there is an intention of returning and a proportionate motive, it does not prevent the eating from being morally one, because the motive sufficiently unites the two parts; on the contrary if there is no reason, because the intention of man alone does not suffice to unite two eatings.

3. If it is truly notable, that is, of one hour or, according to others, morally beyond an hour, it always constitutes two meals; whence if someone had to interrupt the meal on account of a grave reason and was not sufficiently refreshed, he will be excused from the law of the single meal but will not fast, unless in the other part he takes a small matter of food.

956. The hour of the meal according to present-day custom is about noon.² But theologians dispute whether it is of the substance of fasting and an integral part of it, or only a certain accidental circumstance. Many more recent men probably deny the former, because the sole substance of fasting, at least today, is one meal; whence they say the hour is prescribed only under light obligation, as for the divine office, and therefore even notable anticipation is never mortal.

² Thus from the fourteenth century. Anciently it was in the evening; afterward at the ninth hour (that is, 3 p.m.), and this usage still existed in the time of St. Thomas, who writes of it, a. 7: "because then especially the nature of the human body needs to be helped against the exterior heat of the air, lest the humors within be burned."

St. Alphonsus held this opinion as more probable, but afterward he retracted it altogether, because in the Middle Ages the hour was of the substance of fasting, as is had from canon law (cap. Solent, 50, de consecr. dist. 1): "In Lent they are in no way to be judged to fast who have eaten before the evening office is celebrated," and from St. Thomas (IV Sent., d. 15, q. 3, a. 4, ad 3): "He who too notably anticipates breaks the fast"; which would not be the case if only an accidental circumstance obligating under light obligation were violated. But now it is not proved that present-day custom has derogated from the ancient precept, or at least this is not certain; and therefore the precept possesses against liberty. Yet this last does not certainly conclude, because according to the doctrine of the Probabilists it suffices that the custom be solidly probable.

Nevertheless the hour seems to pertain to the substance of fasting: a) because the greater and principal difficulty of fasting consists precisely in this, that someone must wait a long time for the meal, which once taken, the hour of collation is already much more easily awaited; b) because the faithful think themselves obligated to this under grave obligation, nor would they judge that man to fast who took the meal at the eighth or ninth hour, whence custom does not seem to have abrogated this. Therefore the hour seems to pertain to the substance of fasting, and to conduce much to the end of the law, the mortification of the flesh, and therefore it is prescribed under grave obligation; and truly notable anticipation, because it is much contrary to this end, of itself is mortal.

957. Outside the meal all food is of itself prohibited, namely, everything which of itself or principally is ordained to nourishing the body, whether it is taken by eating, drinking, or sipping, such as porridge, milk,³ honey, broth, extracts of flesh, oil, sugar, fruits, juice of fruits pressed by the teeth, unless however they are mixed in a small quantity with drink, because then they are so liquefied that they seem to lose their proper nature and by the estimation of men are judged true drinks, for example, light lemonade, sugared water,⁴ etc.

³ Skimmed milk in some places is held as a drink, for example, among the Tyrolese.

⁴ Also chocolate, even if it is prepared not with milk but with water, is not a drink, since it does not principally serve to extinguish thirst, but is food because it rather nourishes. But in certain southern regions custom considers light chocolate as a medicine, insofar as it helps to carry food and to strengthen the stomach, as Benedict XIV and St. Alphonsus testify. According to that custom it can be used in a small quantity, which authors measure at one and a half ounces per day diluted in four or five ounces of water.

But these are not prohibited:

a) drinks or liquids, which are not ordained of themselves to nourishing the body, but to aiding the digestion of food and extinguishing thirst, for example, water, cider, beer, wine, tea, coffee: for nourishment, if present, accompanies accidentally, even if the liquid is frozen, because once put into the mouth it immediately liquefies and because freezing does not change the nature of the thing. Hence one who drinks immoderately can sin against the virtue of temperance and lose the merit of fasting, yet he does not sin against the precept of fasting;

b) medicines which are principally ordained to medication of the body or to promoting the operation of the physician;

c) electuaries prepared from chosen things, such as sugar, juniper, lemon (for example, jelly, preserves, candies, fondants, pastilles, jujube paste, almonds, conserves), if they are taken in the manner of medicine and in a moderate quantity (half an ounce or a little more in the day), for example, for the digestion of food, strengthening the stomach, removing odor of the mouth, preserving the voice, or lest drink harm, or lest strength fail when someone must defer dinner beyond the common hour. But if it is done in a great quantity, accidentally they will have the account of nourishment and will be taken in the manner of food in fraud of the law (a. 6, ad 3).

958. Custom introduced the collation and the little morsel, besides drink, medicine, and electuaries, concerning which it has been said.

A. From the time when the meal began to be taken about noon, there was introduced the little supper or collation, that is, the little meal which is taken toward evening from lighter foods. Now:

1. Their quantity seems of itself to be determined relatively to the condition of the person and occupations, the duration of the fast, and other circumstances; whence many authors indicate one-fifth or one-fourth part of a complete meal for such a person in such circumstances.1 Others, even St. Alphonsus, say that this rule is obscure and liable to scruples, and therefore determine the absolute quantity, and several allow up to eight ounces even for those who are thus refreshed to satiety (which is a sign of a weak stomach), and permit ten ounces to Germans and to those who have a German stomach, or for whom it is necessary for carrying out offices. The first opinion is in itself more reasonable; but the other, on account of custom, in fact is now practically certain (can. 1251). But now some would wish the quantity to be determined proportionally to the condition of the person, but far beyond the eight or ten ounces which St. Alphonsus generally permits: thus they are not choosing either opinion, but combining both; something which until now no one dared to put forth. Wherefore such a practice could not be introduced by private authority, nor by the power of a bishop or of a particular council, but only by the consent of the Holy See, or of a power delegated by it for this.

But an ounce is understood as the Roman ounce, which is worth 27-28 grams, and is the twelfth part of the Roman pound, which is worth about 325-330 grams.2

2. The quality of food licit of itself in the collation is no other than lighter Lenten food which does not nourish much, such as bread, fruits, legumes or vegetables, cakes, herbs, potatoes, rice, sweet things (jellies, preserves), etc.; in fact, however, it is to be determined according to the various customs of places:3 for whatever foods here or there are in use, even one or two eggs as in Germany, or broth; but nowhere flesh properly so called.4 In Belgium eggs and broth are not in use, as is established from the Lenten mandate, but as to part of the collation stronger foods are permitted, such as milk, cheese, small fish, or even a moderate quantity, namely, two or three ounces, of larger fish.

In the number of ounces, however, drink is not to be counted, unless a solid substance (rice, flour, legumes, bread, vermicelli, beans, pastilles, macaroni) is cooked with liquid (wine, beer, water), because 1) by cooking and fermentation the food by the estimation of men is judged to acquire another nature, and the drink with it becomes one so that it could not easily be separated from it; 2) the whole is judged and called food, nor is one part drunk, but all is eaten; moreover 3) no custom exists of increasing the number of ounces. - Nor does it stand in the way that the whole does not nourish more. For a) we will be more satiated; b) eight ounces of nutritive quantity are not granted, otherwise by chemical analysis we could also subtract the quantity of water from food (bread, potatoes), but eight ounces of that which according to the estimation of men is food are granted; c) just as food mixed with liquid in a small quantity is judged drink, so a certain quantity of drink mixed with food is judged food. This opinion seems solidly proved and is generally admitted by all, with a few excepted.5

According to some, however, even St. Alphonsus, it is probably licit: 1) to soak food in water or wine while someone eats, and immediately bring the food to the mouth, because then fermentation does not intervene and the liquid serves only as the vehicle of the food, and it is still generally judged drink; likewise 2) to take broth from herbs cooked with water and vinegar, or oil, or cooked wine (provided that the vinegar and oil, which are food, are computed in the weight): for custom permits this, and besides these do not become something one as in the first case, and the whole can be taken by drinking.

B. A little morsel of bread taken in the morning is also permitted. The S. Penitentiary, 21 Nov. 1843, only declared for the Canadian region that those who follow such a usage are not to be disturbed, but today it has now been introduced everywhere by custom, which custom was consecrated by can. 1251. Bread, chocolate, or another lighter food not prohibited can be taken, indeed, according to some, some milk, but this certainly has not been introduced everywhere since it is not permitted everywhere even in the collation; the quantity, drink being excluded, cannot exceed two ounces, according to the received custom.

For the quality, the custom of the region seems rather to be looked at by us; thus in southern regions a drink of chocolate is in use, in northern regions rather bread.

1. Lehmkuhl notes, Th. M. I, n. 1462, that no one indicates one-third part; in fact, however, eight ounces will sometimes be one-third part of a complete meal, if indeed the ordinary meal does not extend beyond two pounds.

2. Genicot seems to determine the ounce altogether accurately at 31.25 grams; but the calculation is false. He divided our German pound by sixteen, because it contains about so many ounces (500:16 = 31.25). But a) the question is not of our pound, but of the Roman, which is worth not 375 but about 325 grams; b) even our pound is not worth 500 grams but a little less. - Others have the ounce as 30 grams; but this is said approximately.

3. Vermeersch says, Th. M. III, n. 873: "Concerning quality a fairly great variety of usage is discerned. In a few places eggs themselves are permitted; in many at least dairy products are admitted; in others, for example, in Italy, only fasting foods; in Spain, if you except one or another diocese in the northern part, even fish or little fish are prohibited. And because approved custom is confirmed, therefore stricter abstinence is to be observed by all in Italy and in many places in the morning and evening than in the principal meal, where eggs are always permitted."

4. Their use even after the Code is illicit, as we know from the response of the president of the Commission of Interpretation, 29 Oct. 1919.

5. Namely, Berardi, Noldin, and Genicot, the last of whom, Th. M. I, n. 437, II, has these things: "A chemical change is to be considered as though the beginning of digestion, because it does not differ from that change which is effected at the beginning of digestion. But from this the nutritive matter is in no way increased. The quantity indeed of this soaked bread can create greater satiety than the same portion of dry bread, although even this difference is not so great (Capellmann, Med. past., p. 95). Nor does it seem equitable to permit the richer man to dip eight ounces of bread in wine while he eats them (which St. Alphonsus thinks licit), but to prohibit the poor man from cooking the same quantity in water. Indeed, if recourse is had to the common estimation and the end of the law, by which reasons Lehmkuhl (n. 1462) more fully supports the opinion of St. Alphonsus, that poor man, at least in our regions, will be judged to fast and to exercise mortification better than the rich man using wine." - But no one of the faithful, as I think, holds cooking as the beginning of digestion. - Moreover, one cannot argue logically from a probable opinion to overthrow that which is certain or more probable: St. Alphonsus thinks it probably licit to dip food into wine; but he holds as certain that the cooking of which there is question is not licit. But if the argument from parity were valid, one would have to conclude not that cooking is licit, but that dipping food into wine is also illicit. - Finally, a poor man can dip food into drink (water, coffee) just as a rich man can: in this there is no difference, but the whole difference is from the fact that the poor man does not have wine. But if he mixes food with drink, he will not fast better than a rich man using wine, although he will observe mortification better; but this is outside the question.

959. What of delaying, anticipating, and interverting the meal. - A. Delay of the meal, even without cause, is never a sin, because it conduces better to the end of fasting.

B. Anticipation of half an hour relative to the customary hour or, as St. Alphonsus says, within an hour relative to noon (11 a.m.) is slight and is judged nothing, and therefore is licit without cause. - Anticipation of one hour relative to the customary hour, or even within two hours relative to noon (after 10 a.m.), is rather notable and is judged small, and therefore is illicit unless there is a reasonable slight cause, such as the custom of then taking dinner, courtesy, for example, the arrival of a guest who must leave sooner, etc. - Anticipation of one hour beyond the licit time (to 10 a.m.) according to several, among whom is St. Alphonsus, is judged notable; that which notably exceeds two hours relative to noon (to 9:30 a.m.) is certainly truly notable and great; and therefore it is illicit unless there is a rather grave reasonable cause, and one graver to the extent that the anticipation is more notable.

The cause can be more or less grave: a necessary journey to be undertaken, a grave business to be performed, for example, necessity of preaching, teaching, rising very early, weakness of constitution, etc.

But if for someone, at least ordinarily, it would be too difficult to fast unless he notably anticipated the hour, he would not be bound to fast: for the faithful so judge, and rightly, because no one is bound, at least habitually, to observe the law in an extraordinary way and in a way which from its nature includes inconvenience.

C. Interversion between the meal and collation is not forbidden, as can. 1251, § 2 says: "Nor is it forbidden... to interchange the evening meal with dinner." Hence it is licit a) if the hours almost agree; b) probably if the hours do not altogether differ, and therefore, if there exists a reasonable cause for interversion (for example, the reason of studies), those are not to be disturbed who take the little meal at the eleventh hour or between the tenth and eleventh hour in the morning and defer dinner to the fifth or even sixth hour in the evening (S. Poen., 10 Jan. 1834; S. Off., 29 July 1837; S. Poen., 17 Sept. 1862); indeed c) according to a few, if the hours differ much, and thus the collation is licitly taken in the morning, the meal at noon, and the little morsel in the evening, because the whole substance of fasting is preserved.

Yet this cannot be composed with the opinion of St. Thomas according to which the hour is of the substance of fasting, and obliges under grave obligation; and therefore it is better said that for this there is required a rather grave cause, for example, rather great weakness, necessity of studies or business; indeed, if for someone, at least ordinarily, it would be too difficult to fast otherwise, he would not be bound to it.

This last also seems true in the opinion of others, because although the mode of interversion today is permitted, it is nevertheless extraordinary, against the customary mode, and as it were a privilege which no one is bound to use; indeed of itself it includes a great inconvenience.

960. Corollary. - He who in the morning has taken breakfast, whether culpably or inculpably, is bound to fulfill the law as far as he can; whence 1) if the breakfast was very small, slightly exceeding the little morsel and not equivalent to a small collation, he is bound to fast; 2) if it was rather large: a) if it is equivalent at least to a small collation, for example, if it is at least four ounces, or does not much exceed a licit collation, he can take nothing except dinner and the little morsel; b) if it much exceeds a licit collation or even is equivalent to dinner, he can take only the collation and the little morsel. For in these two cases, the principal part of fasting can still be observed, namely, that a single meal be taken; whence he is obligated to this, unless there would be a rather great inconvenience, in which case he would not be bound to fast in any way.