§ 2. On the Extent of the Ecclesiastical Law of Fasting

653. Principle. The essence of ecclesiastical fasting consists in one complete meal.¹²⁰⁹

The older authors quite commonly placed the essence of fasting in three things, namely, in one meal, in a determined hour for that meal, and in abstinence from certain foods, namely, from meat, eggs, and milk products.¹²¹⁰ Certainly, even in our times these three things pertain to the perfection of fasting, so that it is not altogether perfect unless these three are observed, but they by no means pertain to its very essence. The reason is that the essence of ecclesiastical fasting can still be present even if the second or third condition is lacking. Hence, for example, the essence of ecclesiastical fasting is still present although meat is eaten at dinner and eggs or milk products at the evening meal. But if anyone has taken two complete meals in one day, the essence of ecclesiastical fasting has been destroyed. There is indeed no authentic declaration of the Church determining that the essence of ecclesiastical fasting is situated in one complete meal; but since the Church permits the faithful to eat milk products and the hour of the complete meal to be changed, and since, on the other hand, the Church cannot be accused as though she had permitted the essence of ecclesiastical fasting to be changed in the course of time, it follows that the essence of fasting consists solely in one complete meal, just as it was always prescribed from the beginning of the Church. St. Thomas already intimates the same thing not obscurely when he writes:¹²¹¹ "Fasting is instituted by the Church for restraining concupiscence, yet in such a way that nature is preserved. For this, however, one eating seems sufficient, through which man can satisfy nature and yet detract something from concupiscence by diminishing the number of eatings. And therefore it was established by the moderation of the Church that those fasting should eat once in the day." From this excellent principle, that ecclesiastical fasting ought so to restrain concupiscence that nature is preserved, it follows that the Church can reasonably permit a milder practice on account of changed circumstances, and especially on account of the increased weakness of the human race and enervating labors, without the essence of fasting nevertheless being injured or its end perishing. Hence, in our times the Church permits that there be taken: 1. dinner; 2. an evening collation; 3. a morning morsel.

Concerning these three eatings, the following things are to be noted in relation to the quantity and quality of food and the hour of eating.

¹²⁰⁹ Cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 1251.

¹²¹⁰ Cf. Billuart, De ieiunio a. 3.

¹²¹¹ S. theol. 2, 2, q. 147, a. 6.

654. 1. On dinner on fast days.

a) The hour of dinner, according to modern discipline, is left to the free disposition of the one fasting, as was already said above. Hence dinner can be taken at the fifth or sixth hour in the afternoon, as is customary in America and other regions. Dinner can also be taken at the eleventh hour in the morning if there is a reasonable cause.¹²¹²

b) Dinner must be morally continuous and not immoderately prolonged. For if dinner is notably interrupted, it is no longer one meal, but there are two meals. What interruption is notable, however, depends upon the estimation of a prudent man and upon the reason for which the interruption occurs. In general, however, an interruption of one half-hour is considered slight. Hence he who, dinner now being finished, eats again within half an hour (even meat, if the eating of meat is permitted) has still made one eating. But as regards the prolongation of dinner, authors after St. Alphonsus¹²¹³ commonly permit a space of two hours. From this, however, it cannot be inferred that someone may lawfully eat again after an hour and a half if he previously dined for the space of one half-hour. For there would be a notable interruption.

c) The quantity of food at dinner is not determined by ecclesiastical law, so that one can eat unto satiety. If, however, someone eats too much at dinner on fast days, he injures the virtue of temperance, although he does not violate the precept of ecclesiastical fasting.

d) The quality of food was indeed determined in ancient times, but today, on fast days which are not at the same time days of abstinence, any foods whatsoever are permitted by ecclesiastical law; indeed, it is not even forbidden to mix meat and fish in the same meal.¹²¹⁴

Whenever meat is permitted on fast days, those who by reason of labor, age, or infirmity are unable to fast may lawfully eat meat several times during the day. The Sacred Penitentiary expressly decreed this.¹²¹⁵ A bishop can, however, decree for his diocese that even those who are dispensed from fasting are not to eat meat except once in the day. Apart from an express decree of this kind, however, the general rule holds: on days of fasting alone, all those who are not bound to fast can eat meat several times.

¹²¹² Code of Canon Law, canon 1251, § 2. Cf. Lehmkuhl, Theol. mor. I, n. 1468, and Noldin, De praeceptis n. 685.

¹²¹³ Theol. mor. l. 3, n. 1020.

¹²¹⁴ Code of Canon Law, canon 1251, § 2.

¹²¹⁵ Sacred Penitentiary, May 27, 1863, and March 16, 1883.

655. 2. On the evening collation on fast days.

a) The hour of this collation is free, since it is evident from what was said above that it can be taken at the eleventh hour in the morning and can freely be interchanged with dinner.

b) The quantity of food permitted at the collation is assigned differently by different authors. Some permit a fifth part, others a fourth part, of a complete meal. Better, or at least simpler and easier, is the opinion of St. Alphonsus, which modern authors most commonly follow. These are the words of St. Alphonsus:¹²¹⁶ "It is better to follow the opinion of others commonly received today, as Castropalaus, Roncaglia, the Salmanticenses, Viva, Bonacina, Holzmann, Tamburinus, Elbel, Diana, Sporer, Milante, Croix, Mazotta, etc., testify, which indiscriminately permits to all (even to those who need little food, as they also commonly say) the quantity of eight ounces, and something else, namely, two other ounces, which is slight matter, to him who would need greater nourishment." Eight ounces are equivalent to 240-250 grams, or half a pound. The same theologians add that even he who would be satiated by this quantity of food can nevertheless eat such a quantity with a safe conscience, because this would be a sign that he has a weak stomach and consequently is not bound to so strict a fast.

¹²¹⁶ Homo apost. tr. 12, n. 16.

656. Lehmkuhl teaches:¹²¹⁷ "But when porridge is cooked from foods mixed with water, oil, etc., there is scarcely anyone who would concede that, apart from the liquid, eight ounces of solid food may be taken. And indeed attention ought to be given not only to the nutritive power of foods, but also to the satiety which is actually induced.... Therefore, it is rightly permitted that no more of a porridge of this sort be taken than what is cooked from four or five ounces of flour, beans, dry bread, rice, etc., without counting that small condiment of oil and vinegar." This opinion, which is also held by several other authors, ought not to be urged too much in practice. Certainly, if a notable quantity of oil, milk, or another nutritive liquid is employed in cooking foods of this sort, it would then not be lawful to take a further eight ounces of solid food; but if only water, wine, or another non-nutritive liquid is employed, or only a moderate quantity of some nutritive liquid, no reason appears why something should then be subtracted from the quantity of solid food. For a law seems sufficiently arbitrary which would permit someone, for example, to take eight ounces of bread and then drink half a liter of wine, but which would forbid under mortal sin that someone dip or cook the same quantity of bread in even a smaller quantity of wine. Nor do the reasons brought forward by those authors seem valid. For the concept of fasting according to common judgment by no means demands such a limitation. On the contrary, it would seem sufficiently curious to simple persons if eight ounces of bread and half a liter of wine were permitted, provided they were taken separately at the collation, while, on the contrary, they would be gravely forbidden when taken together. Nor is the reason valid that a man would have a greater sensation of satiety from porridge of this kind; for nowhere has the Church prohibited the sensation of satiety. Experience, moreover, establishes that the sensation of satiety is very deceptive and is sometimes had even after a small amount of food has been taken. Since these things are so, the opinion of many authors, both older¹²¹⁸ and modern, seems preferable, who in every case permit the quantity of eight ounces of solid (but light) food at the evening collation. This opinion was already called most probable by the very illustrious Elbel.¹²¹⁹

For the vigil of the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, St. Alphonsus permits a quantity twice as great at the collation; for he says that there is then a "joyful fast."¹²²⁰ On the vigil of Easter, however, the fast ceases after noon.¹²²¹

c) The quality of food permitted at the collation depends upon custom and particular statutes. Certainly, eggs, milk products, and larger fish are not of themselves excluded; nevertheless, all modern authors teach that it is not lawful to take the entire collation from such highly nutritive foods. Hence no moralist, as I think, would permit someone to eat four hens' eggs at the collation, which have a weight of about eight ounces; or that someone take two eggs and, in addition, four ounces of bread. It seems more conformable to the mind of Holy Church if lighter foods, and foods not so strongly seasoned with fat, are taken for the evening collation on fast days.

¹²¹⁷ L.c. n. 1462.

¹²¹⁸ See those authors in St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 3, n. 1029, and Homo apost. tr. 12, n. 18.

¹²¹⁹ Cf. also Göpfert, Moraltheol. II, 203; Vermeersch, Theol. mor. III, 873. Capellmann (Pastoralmed. 120) rightly calls the contrary opinion "a peculiar opinion of the moralists," and Génicot (Theol. mor. I, 437) writes: "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 lawful), but to prohibit the poor man from cooking the same quantity in water. Indeed, if recourse is had to common estimation and the end of the law, by which reasons Lehmkuhl n. 1211 [1462] endeavors to support the opinion of St. Alphonsus, this poor man, at least in our regions, will be judged to fast and exercise mortification better than the rich man using wine."

¹²²⁰ Theol. mor. l. 3, n. 1025.

¹²²¹ Code of Canon Law, canon 1252, § 4.

657. 3. On the morning morsel on fast days.

Today, even in religious communities and among God-fearing faithful, there exists the custom on fast days of taking in the morning a morsel of bread or another lighter food. The Church knows and tolerates this custom.¹²²² Moralists most commonly teach that this morsel can lawfully contain the quantity of two ounces, or about sixty grams, of solid food. Liquid, for example, coffee or tea with a small quantity of sugar or milk, ought not to be counted.

¹²²² Ib., canon 1251, § 1.

658. Time of fasting. The days of ecclesiastical fasting by common law are:

a) The time of Lent, that is, from Ash Wednesday until after noon on Holy Saturday. Sundays are excepted, but not even feasts of precept.

b) The Ember Days, namely, Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday within the third week of Advent, the first week of Lent, within the octave of Pentecost, and the third week of September.

c) Four vigils, namely, of the Nativity of the Lord, Pentecost, the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and All Saints. But if these vigils fall on a Sunday or a feast of precept, fasting and abstinence neither bind nor are to be anticipated.¹²²³

d) The day before the consecration of a church, both the consecrating bishop and the people who ask that the church be consecrated for them must fast. Hence, if a parish church is consecrated, besides the consecrating bishop all the faithful belonging to the parish must fast, provided that they built the church at their own expense; otherwise, the parishioners are not bound to fast. But if a religious church is consecrated, the consecrating bishop and the religious attached to that church seem to be bound to fast.¹²²⁴

¹²²³ Code of Canon Law, canon 1252, §§ 2 and 4.

¹²²⁴ Ib., canon 1166, § 2; cf. Pontificale Romanum, title De ecclesiae dedicatione; Sacred Congregation of the Council, July 3, 1909 (Acta Ap. Sedis I, 624f.), and Pontifical Commission, July 20, 1929 (Act. Ap. Sed. XXI, 573). In the ordination of clerics which takes place outside the Ember seasons, no obligation of fasting exists for anyone (cf. Gasparri, De s. ordinat. II, n. 771).

659. For Latin America, the Antilles, and the other islands of the Caribbean Sea, the law of fasting and abstinence has been almost abolished. For:

1. fasting and abstinence from meat are prescribed only on the following days of Lent: Ash Wednesday, Thursday of Holy Week, and all Fridays of this season. Therefore, on Holy Saturday it is lawful to eat meat;

2. fasting without abstinence is to be observed on the Fridays of Advent and the Wednesdays of Lent;

3. abstinence from meat without fasting is to be observed on the four vigils of the feasts of the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Pentecost, the Assumption into heaven of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul.

Religious of each sex also (who are not bound by a special vow), with the consent of their superiors, can use these indults as regards the abstinences and fasts prescribed in their own rule or statutes, at least if the religious are outside the cloister. Regular superiors, however, are to be exhorted to take care, as far as possible, to abstain from the use of an indult of this kind within the cloister.¹²²⁵ The law of fasting and abstinence has also been greatly mitigated for Switzerland.

¹²²⁵ Cf. Act. Apost. Sedis II, 215-217; cf. also Sacred Congregation for Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs, December 13, 1911, and December 10, 1912 (Act. Apost. Sedis III, 669, and IV, 230).

660. Persons bound to fast. All the baptized, from the completion of the twenty-first year of age to the beginning of the sixtieth, are bound by the precept of ecclesiastical fasting, unless they are excused by some just cause.¹²²⁶ There will be discussion below of these excusing causes.

The reason why adolescents are exempted from fasting is assigned excellently by St. Thomas:¹²²⁷ "In children the cause for not fasting is especially evident: both because of the weakness of nature, from which it follows that they need frequent food, and not much taken at once; and also because they need much nourishment on account of the necessity of growth, which is made from the residue of nourishment. And therefore, as long as they are in a state of growth, which in most lasts until the end of the third period of seven years, they are not bound to observe ecclesiastical fasts. Nevertheless, it is fitting that even during this time they exercise themselves in fasting, more or less according to the measure of their age."

Protestants and, in general, all non-Catholics, since they are subject to ecclesiastical laws, are of themselves bound to the observance of ecclesiastical fasting; nevertheless, since they are often in good faith and almost always have excusing causes, they are not to be condemned for mortal sin when they do not fast.

¹²²⁶ Code of Canon Law, canon 1254, § 2.

¹²²⁷ S. theol. 2, 2, q. 147, a. 4 ad 2.

661. Quality of the obligation. 1. The precept of ecclesiastical fasting obliges of its kind under grave sin; the transgression of this precept nevertheless admits of lightness of matter.

Thus all Catholic moralists teach. That ecclesiastical fasting is prescribed under mortal sin is evident from proposition 23 condemned by Alexander VII: "He who breaks a fast of the Church to which he is bound does not sin mortally unless he does this from contempt or disobedience, for example, because he does not wish to subject himself to the precept."¹²²⁸ That this precept admits of lightness of matter is evident from the unanimous doctrine of theologians. Theologians do not agree, however, as to what is slight matter in the transgression of this precept. The matter is slight if, besides the eight ounces of the evening collation and the two ounces of the morning morsel, a further two ounces are eaten.¹²²⁹ Therefore, it would not be a mortal sin if someone bound to fast were to take, besides the one complete meal, a further twelve ounces of food in one day. Whether it would be a grave sin if someone were to take fourteen ounces is not certain. Small eatings taken on the same day coalesce and can constitute grave matter, as is evident from proposition 29 condemned by Alexander VII: "On a fast day, he who eats a little something rather often does not break the fast, even if in the end he shall have eaten a notable quantity."¹²³⁰

2. The precept of abstinence from meat is negative, but the precept of fasting is affirmative.

Thus holds the common opinion. Consequently, he who eats meat several times on prohibited days commits as many sins as the times he unlawfully eats meat.¹²³¹ But he who, either culpably or inculpably, has violated the fast, for example, by taking a second complete meal, probably does not commit a new sin if he eats a third or fourth time. Thus St. Alphonsus¹²³² and with him almost all modern authors, although very many of the older authors, for example, Navarre, Billuart, Wigandt, etc., contradict them. It must be acknowledged that the reasons which Billuart¹²³³ brings forward for his opinion are not to be despised; nevertheless, since mortal sins are not to be multiplied without evident necessity, and since the Church even today has determined nothing concerning this controversy, the opinion of St. Alphonsus seems to be preferred in the confessional. But without sufficient reason it is taught by some theologians that he who culpably took two complete meals on a fast day indeed does not commit a mortal sin, but commits a venial sin by taking a third meal, because such a man acts against the end of the law, namely, by neglecting mortification. For the end of the law does not fall under the law, as the commonly admitted adage holds; nor can it be said that a man of this kind sins against prescribed mortification, for there does not exist on fast days a special positive precept of mortification besides the precept of fasting. Nor is the natural precept of mortification violated by a threefold meal; otherwise, even on other days a threefold meal would be a venial sin, as being contrary to the natural precept of mortification.

¹²²⁸ Denzinger, n. 1123.

¹²²⁹ Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 3, n. 1025.

¹²³⁰ Denzinger, n. 1129.

¹²³¹ St. Alphonsus, l.c. n. 1030; Homo apost., l.c.

¹²³² L.c.

¹²³³ De ieiunio diss. 2, a. 5.

662. Scholion. On liquid on fast days. "Liquid does not break the fast," says the common adage. Hence it is lawful to take liquid several times on days of ecclesiastical fasting. Thus, at least, according to modern practice; for in ancient times it seems that during an ecclesiastical fast even liquid drink, and especially wine, was prohibited.¹²³⁴ Those things which are commonly taken as a vehicle for food have the character of liquid and drink; but not all those things which, although liquid, nevertheless have notable nutritive power. Therefore milk, melted chocolate, and broth, at least in a notable quantity, are excluded, for a little is reckoned as nothing; but wine, light beer, coffee, tea, water (even mixed with a small quantity of sugar), lemonade, etc., are permitted. Electuaries¹²³⁵ are also permitted, at least if they are taken in a small quantity. St. Thomas writes to the point:¹²³⁶ "Electuaries, even if they nourish in some manner, nevertheless are not principally taken for nourishment, but for the digestion of foods. Hence they do not break the fast, just as neither does the taking of other medicines; unless perhaps someone fraudulently takes electuaries in a large quantity by way of food."

¹²³⁴ Cf. Tertullian, De ieiunio c. 12, 5, 9, and Constitutiones apostolicae 5, 18.

¹²³⁵ Commonly Kompott, Latwerge, confiture, electuary [compote, medicinal confection, preserve, electuary].

¹²³⁶ S. theol. 2, 2, q. 147, a. 6 ad 3.