Case 1. A Soldier's Difficulties

Caius, a centurion of the British militia (commonly, Officer of Militia) and a Catholic, who ordinarily has charge of a very extensive business, has experienced difficulties more than once concerning the obligations of fasting and abstinence. Being of robust health, he is much devoted to hunting; and when he was recently free from business, he indulged in hunting on a fast day without, however, fasting. On another Friday he was invited to a formal dinner of the regular regiment to which his own militia regiment is attached; he accepted the invitation and did not observe abstinence. Finally, during the past Lent he obtained a dispensation from the law of fasting; nevertheless, it happened more than once that on those days on which meat was permitted by indult to those fasting at the principal meal, he himself ate meat twice or even three times. Afterward, however, moved by the stings of conscience, he asked a confessor whether he had acted rightly. It is asked:

1. To what does the law of the ecclesiastical fast bind?

2. What excuses from the laws of fasting and abstinence?

3. What is to be said of the case?

1. To what does the precept of the ecclesiastical fast bind?

Essentially, fasting consists in taking but one full meal in the twenty-four hours and that after mid-day, but it also implies abstinence from flesh meat unless leave be given to eat it.¹

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. i, p. 573.

2. What excuses one from the precepts of fasting and abstinence?

Physical or moral impossibility of observing the law arising from ill health, laborious occupations, or other source, excuses from the observance of these precepts; a dispensation may be granted by the bishop or by the parish priest.

3. The case. Caius, an officer of militia, in robust health, went hunting on a fasting-day and did not fast. We suppose that Caius ordinarily fasts, and that his ordinary business duties are not sufficiently laborious to excuse him. If he frequently went hunting on fasting-days, and excused himself from fasting, he would do wrong. If he found that the labor of the chase was incompatible with fasting, he should abstain from such laborious recreation and observe the laws of the Church. However, if this happened only once in a while, and Caius had some good reason for joining the hunt on that particular day other than the mere wish to escape fasting, so that it would have been seriously inconvenient not to attend the hunt, and he finds that hunting is incompatible with fasting, he was not blameworthy in what he did.

On a Friday he accepted an invitation to dinner given by the regiment to which his corps was attached, and he did not abstain. There is more difficulty in excusing Caius from blame in this case. If he could easily have declined the invitation, or if, having accepted it, he could easily have made a dinner on fish or other lawful food which is generally provided at such dinners, he did wrong in eating flesh meat on a Friday. Still, again, if it was a very special occasion, and he could not absent himself without serious inconvenience, and finding himself seated at dinner he could not procure fish or other lawful food, he might be excused from sin if, without giving scandal, he took flesh meat. In such cases he might ask his parish priest to give him a dispensation, and thus avoid all difficulties.

Last Lent he got a dispensation from fasting, and on days when flesh meat was allowed by indult to fasters at the principal meal Caius took meat two or three times in the day. Whether Caius was justified or not in doing this depends on the terms of the dispensation or the expressed intention of him who granted it. The dispensation might be granted to eat meat only once in the day. This does not seem to have been done; we must suppose that it was granted without limitation. In that case Caius acted within his rights. Those who fast may take meat by indult only once in the day, but Caius was dispensed from fasting.