Appendix: On the Precepts of God and of the Church

1094. In explaining the moral doctrine concerning the theological and moral virtues, by that very fact we have declared the precepts of the Decalogue connected with them, and also the principal ecclesiastical laws; for these cannot be separated from one another. But since, as St. Augustine testifies, the Decalogue is the sum and epitome of all laws⁵ which must be observed by man, and especially by the Christian, so that he may tend suitably to the last end and happily attain it, it is of no small importance to meditate upon the precepts of the Decalogue and to understand them distinctly, so that by frequent preaching they may be clearly proposed to the faithful, and consciences may be composed, judged, and reformed according to them. In order that pastors and other priests may be as equal as possible to this duty, although we treat the virtues at length in the whole course of the moral Synopsis, it is useful to present a compendious exposition of the individual precepts.

⁵ Quaestiones in Heptateuchum, q. 140, P. L., XXXIV, 644. - Here the Decalogue is treated as it has been completed and perfected by Christ. During the first four centuries, the Fathers scarcely speak of the Decalogue. But St. Augustine, pouring the Christian spirit into the interpretation of the Decalogue, presents it as the sum of the Christian law; for "the ten precepts (depend) upon those two, namely the love of God and of the neighbor, on which the whole Law and the prophets depend." The interpretation which we briefly contract, with the cooperation of E. M. Quevastre, is that which the Catechism of the Council of Trent digested more fully from Christian Tradition. - We have already described the origin and character of the Decalogue in the Treatise on Laws, n. 235-245. Cf. Mangenot, Dict. de Theol., t. IV, 171-176.

"Thou shalt not have strange gods before Me."⁶

⁶ Exod. 20:3.

1095. This precept, first and greatest of all not only in order, but in reason, dignity, and excellence, consists of a double part, as do the other precepts, namely an affirmative and a negative part; these we shall touch on successively.

1. As affirmative, it commands the eliciting of acts of faith, hope, and charity, by which we worship God as faithful, whose oracles we rightly and deservedly assent to; as omnipotent and merciful, in whom we place all our hopes; as full and overflowing with goodness and perfection, whom we embrace with the whole heart. Against this precept sin those who fall into heresy, who put faith in dreams, auguries, and other most vain things, who cast away hope of their salvation, who rely on riches and on bodily health and strength, who conceive hatred and weariness of God, etc.

1096. 2. By the other part of the precept, which is negative, idolatry, or the worship of false divinities, is prohibited.

(a) But the veneration and invocation of the holy angels and blessed souls are not prohibited, nor even the cult of sacred relics. For we honor the saints as the household members, friends, and ministers of God: this manner of acting is commended by manifold theological reason, apostolic and ecclesiastical custom, the benefits and patronage of the saints themselves, and many and great miracles.⁷

⁷ On these things cf. St. Ambrose, Epist. XXII, P. L., XVI, 1019 sq.; St. Augustine, De Civitate Dei, XXII, 8, P. L., XLI, 700; Confessions, IX, 7, P. L., XXXII, 770.

(b) Nor is the art of fashioning or sculpting prohibited, unless the majesty of God be injured. This could happen for a double reason: one, if idols and images were worshiped as God, or it were believed that some divinity or power was in them, or that something was to be asked from them, or that confidence was to be fixed in images; the other, if someone tried to fashion the form of the divinity by some art, as if it could be seen by bodily eyes or expressed by colors or figures.

(c) Hence it is lawful to represent by images the persons of the Most Holy Trinity, especially after the manner of the apparitions which are related in Sacred Scripture; it is lawful to fashion or paint images of Angels, Saints, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and Christ Himself. For representations of this kind teach us the attributes and benefits of God, the virtues and intercession of the Saints, and consequently excite us to worship, invocation, and imitation. Besides, pastors should take care to restrain abuses and superstitions which can creep into the use of images, according to the decree of Trent.

All these things indeed we have explained above, namely: (A) as to the virtues: (a) the necessity of faith for salvation, n. 628-630; the truths which must be explicitly believed by necessity of means, n. 631-637; the truths by necessity of precept, n. 639-647; and also the obligation of externally professing the faith, n. 648-654; - sins against faith, namely heresy and doubt in faith, 656-662; apostasy and adhesion to Masonic sects, 663-666; infidelity, 667-668; and the chief causes which induce loss of faith, 669-688; nor did we pass over the means by which we are able to progress in faith, 689-694.

(b) The nature and properties of hope, 696-713; its necessity, 714-718; sins against hope, namely despair and presumption, 720-725; adding a few things concerning the means of progressing in hope, 726-729.

(c) The nature of charity toward God, 745-748; the necessity of loving God above all things, 749-754; sins against this virtue, especially hatred of God, 755-757; the means of progressing in the love of God, 758-763.

(d) The precept of charity toward the neighbor, 769-779; insofar as it includes the love of enemies, 780-789; alms to be given to the poor, 790-795; fraternal correction, 796-804; and also the order to be observed in charity, 805-816; the works of social charity so necessary today, 817-835; sins opposed to fraternal charity, namely discord and contention, 836-839; scandal, 840-850.

(e) The necessity of the virtue of religion, especially of adoration and prayer, 855-873, and also of devotion, 886-893. - Concerning the cult of Blessed Mary and the saints, concerning sacred images and relics, we have written elsewhere, in De Verbo Incarnato, near the end.

(B) As to vices: (a) idolatry, 895-896; (b) vain observances and various superstitions in which the devil intervenes, 899-905; (c) tempting God, by which an unusual effect is expected from God without cause, 925-928; (d) sacrilege and simony, or the unworthy handling of a thing or person sacred to God, 929-942.

"Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain."⁸

⁸ Exod. 20:7.

1097. Although, in the first precept of the divine law, this which follows in the second place is necessarily contained, nevertheless God, because of the greatness of the matter, willed to give separately this law concerning the honoring of His own divine and most holy name.

1. As affirmative, the second precept commands us to honor the name of God, and by it to swear holily.

But we are commanded to honor not the name itself taken literally, according to the vain superstition of certain Jews, but the omnipotent and eternal majesty of the one and triune Deity which the name of God signifies.

The name of God, thus understood, is honored: (a) by confession, by which we acknowledge God and His Christ to be our Lord and the author of our salvation; (b) by meditation on the word of God, by which His will is declared; (c) by praise, by which, following the example of David and Job, we celebrate the magnificent attributes and works of God, and give singular thanks to Him for all things, both prosperous and adverse; (d) by prayer, by which we confidently implore His help; (e) by vow, by which we irrevocably refer certain works to the worship of God; (f) we pursue the name of God with honor when, for the sake of making faith, we call God as witness, whatever the form and conception of words by which this is done; for both "God is my witness" and "By God" are the same. We can also swear by created things, as by the sacred Gospels of God, by the Cross, by the relics of the Saints, and other things of that kind, insofar as the splendor of the divine majesty shines forth in those things.

There are two kinds of swearing: one assertory, when we religiously affirm something concerning a present or past matter, as the Apostle does in the Epistle to the Galatians;⁹ the other promissory, to which also threats are referred, looking to future time, when we promise and confirm as certain that something will be so; of this kind is that oath of David directed to Bersabee.¹⁰

⁹ Gal. 1:20.

¹⁰ 3 Kings 1:29.

For a legitimate oath three things are required: (a) truth, insofar as what is asserted is itself true, and he who swears judges that it is so, or insofar as he who promises something is so disposed that, when the time comes, he will actually perform it; (b) judgment, by which the oath is employed not rashly and inconsiderately, but advisedly and thoughtfully; whence it has been established that an oath not be exacted from children before the fourteenth year;¹¹ (c) justice, which is especially required in promises; therefore if someone promises something unjust and dishonorable, he both sins by swearing, and by making promises heaps crime upon crime, as Herod¹² and the Jews did, who wickedly pledged that they would taste nothing until they had killed Paul.¹³

¹¹ Gratian, Decretum, p. II, C. 22, q. 5, c. 16.

¹² Mark 6:23.

¹³ Acts 23:12.

Under these conditions it is plainly lawful to swear, as is established by the authority of Scripture¹⁴ and by manifold reason.¹⁵

¹⁴ Ps. 18:8; Deut. 6:10, 13; Ps. 62:12; Apoc. 10:3.

¹⁵ Cf. Catech. Rom., here, 7.

2. As negative, the second precept forbids: (a) to swear without counsel, without truth, without justice, or with some contempt, as if someone were to swear that he would not obey the evangelical counsels, or were to swear by false gods; (b) to injure the word of God, either by bending Sacred Scripture from its right and genuine meaning to the dogmas and heresies of the impious, or by twisting it to scurrilous and fabulous things; (c) to blaspheme, which is a far more detestable crime.

Concerning this we have treated in the Treatise on the Virtue of Religion, explaining namely: (a) how there are prohibited: blasphemy, n. 919-924; the vain taking of the name of God, 961-963; rash oath and the violation of a legitimate oath, 947-957; and also violation of a vow, 984-989; - (b) how reverence for the name of God is prescribed, which is shown by frequent invocation and praise, n. 963; by the religious observance of an oath, 947-952; and by the faithful fulfillment of a vow, 979-989.

"Remember that thou keep holy the sabbath day."¹

¹ Exod. 20:8.

1098. By this precept of the law exterior and social worship is prescribed, which is, as it were, a certain fruit of the preceding precept. This duty of religion was once assigned to the sabbath, yet by positive ordinance; hence the cult of the sabbath, instituted as a sign of creation and of liberation from Egyptian servitude, could be transferred to Sunday in memory of the Resurrection of Christ and of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

Although this precept differs from the rest in this, that with respect to time, rite, and ceremonies it is positive, nevertheless it agrees with them because it has something which is prescribed by natural right. For to render worship and religion to God is an inclination and law of nature; whence among all nations we see that there have been certain fixed and public feasts, which were consecrated to sacred things and to divine duties.

1. By the third precept we are commanded to assist at the most holy sacrifice of the Mass; but besides this, there are commended frequency of the sacraments, especially confession of sins and Communion, the hearing of the word of God, prayer and divine praises, and works of mercy.

2. Works which impede divine worship are prohibited, namely every kind of servile work, and besides and especially sin; but by no means those things which pertain to worship itself, such as preparing the altar, adorning churches, or other things that are necessary.

Concerning these things the treatment was given at n. 1006-1047.

"Honor thy father and thy mother, that thou mayest be long-lived upon the earth..."²

² Exod. 20:12.

1099. 1. This precept agrees with the first three: for if we do not venerate and honor parents, whom we ought to love next after God, since they are almost always before our eyes, what honor, what worship shall we give to God, the supreme and best parent, who falls under no sight?³

³ 1 John 4:20.

(A) Besides those who begot us, there are many whom we ought to honor in the place of parents, either by reason of power, or dignity, or utility, or some excellent function and office. Thus there are to be honored: (a) prelates of the Church and priests, who have begotten us in Christ Jesus through the Gospel,⁴ and as it were travail again with their little children until Christ be formed in us;⁵ (b) magistrates who govern the republic; (c) guardians and teachers, to whose care, fidelity, probity, and wisdom we are entrusted; (d) the aged and those worn out by age.

⁴ 1 Cor. 4:14.

⁵ Gal. 4:19.

(B) But especially are father and mother to be honored by us, who are certain images, as it were, of the immortal God, from whom life has been given to us, whom God used in order to impart to us an immortal soul, by whom we were led to the sacraments, instructed in religion and in human and civil culture, and educated to integrity of morals and holiness.

2. The honor of parents includes: (a) love, since they are so disposed toward us that they flee no labor, no striving, no dangers for our sake; (b) prayer, that they may be most commended to God and to the saints; (c) obedience, by which we conform our manner of acting to their judgment and will; (d) imitation, since we seem to attribute very much to those to whom we wish to be as similar as possible; (e) help as to the necessities of body and soul, especially in sickness, taking care lest they omit anything that pertains either to confession of sins or to the other sacraments; (f) care for burial and funeral rites, and also suffrages for hastening the repose of the soul.

In this same manner Bishops and Pastors are to be honored, assisted, and heard; Princes are to be observed and helped by prayers. The same is true of others who rightly and deservedly are called fathers, such as magistrates and the aged: for they are worthy to receive honor and benefit from our charity, obedience, and help.

3. Parents also have their own proper duties and functions: (a) that they imbue their children with most holy disciplines and morals; (b) that by their examples they inculcate equity, continence, modesty, and religion; (c) moreover that they especially avoid three things: 1) lest they speak or determine anything too harsh against their children, so that they do not become fainthearted;⁶ 2) lest by dissolute indulgence they corrupt their children; 3) lest in the education and instruction of their children they enter into preposterous counsels, being occupied in this one thought and care, that they may leave a rich and ample patrimony, while not solicitous about eternal salvation.

⁶ Col. 3:21.

Concerning these things it has been said in the Treatise on the Various Obligations of States, n. 969-1002 (30-63).

"Thou shalt not kill."⁷

⁷ Exod. 20:13.

1100. 1. It is not prohibited: (a) to kill animals, "because they are not associated with us by any reason,"⁸ and to eat them has been granted by God to men; (b) to inflict capital punishment upon wicked and criminal men, by which the life of men may be kept safe; (c) to take life from enemies, with only the aim of public utility; (d) to kill another for the sake of defending one's safety; (e) nor is he guilty of this precept who by chance kills a man; in this, however, one can sin for two reasons: 1) if someone, occupied in an unjust matter, kills a man; 2) if, not having examined all things, he negligently and incautiously kills someone.

⁸ St. Augustine, De Civitate Dei, I, 20, P. L., XLI, 35.

2. What is forbidden. (a) But other killings are prohibited, whatever be the difference either of the killer, or of the one killed, or of the killing. All, namely even the rich, even the powerful, even parents, ought to abstain from killing; all, even those of humble and abject condition, are defended by the force of this law; nor is it lawful for anyone to kill himself; every manner also of accomplishing killing is interdicted, namely physical perpetration and moral cooperation. (b) It is also prohibited to indulge anger without just cause, by which a way can be prepared for killing.

3. But we are commanded to have peace and charity with all, even enemies and those causing troubles;⁹ and consequently to cultivate patience,¹⁰ beneficence, meekness, and forgiveness of injuries.

⁹ Matt. 5:23.

¹⁰ 1 Cor. 13:4.

4. Indeed, for the perfect observance of the precept we receive from the Lord the counsel of not resisting evil, of offering the other cheek to one striking the right, and of letting go cloak and coat to one seeking them.¹¹

¹¹ Matt. 5:39.

Concerning these things we discuss in the Treatise on Justice, namely: concerning suicide and self-mutilation, n. 289-308; concerning the killing of the innocent, of malefactors, and of an unjust aggressor, 311-333; concerning duel, 334-344; concerning war, 345-363.

"Thou shalt not commit adultery."¹²

¹² Exod. 20:14.

1101. 1. As to the negative part, by this precept there are prohibited: (a) adultery, which, besides the baseness which is common to it with other kinds of intemperance, also has joined to it a sin of injustice not only against the neighbor, but also against civil society; (b) every kind of impurity and immodesty, indeed every intimate lust of the soul, insofar as these dispose to adultery and disturb the order of generation divinely instituted.

2. As to the affirmative part, chastity is prescribed to each one, to be observed according to his state. For procuring this, these will be of the greatest help: (a) consideration of the baseness inhering in carnal sins, and of the injustice by which adultery is compounded, together with the infamy and manifold ruin which follow sins of this kind; (b) avoidance of idleness, excess in food and drink, immodest looking with the eyes, more elegant adornment, lascivious speech, and obscene books; (c) for suppressing the force of lust, confession and Communion should be employed, assiduous prayers joined with alms and fasting, vigils, pious pilgrimages, and other afflictions of this kind.

Concerning these things we have treated in the Treatise on Chastity and in the Supplement to the Treatise on Matrimony.

"Thou shalt not steal."¹³

¹³ Exod. 20:15.

1102. 1. By this precept there is prohibited any taking away or possession of another's thing, which in the broad sense is called theft. But if we speak more strictly, there is distinguished: theft, by which something private is taken from a private person; peculation, by which something public is taken; plagium, by which a free man is carried off into servitude; sacrilege, by which a sacred thing is seized.

(A) How grave these sins are appears: (a) from their nature, by which they are contrary to justice and sometimes to religion; and from their consequences, which are hatred, enmities, and condemnations of innocent men.

(B) Guilty of theft are: (a) those who occupy the things of others; (b) those who employ frauds in the quality of merchandise, in weight and measure; (c) those who do not furnish owed work or who plunder the resources of masters; (d) those who extort money by deceitful begging; (e) those who do not fulfill an office undertaken; (f) nor are sons of families and wives alien from the same fault, when they steal money from fathers and husbands. All these injustices are committed secretly and furtively; whence they are called thefts in the stricter sense.

(C) But guilty of rapine, which is the taking of another's thing openly and sometimes by force and violence, are: (a) those who do not pay wages to workers; (b) those who practice usury; (c) those who have judgments for sale; (d) those who, after taking a period of time for paying, buy goods on their own or another's credit and do not free the pledge; (e) those who exact debts owed to themselves too harshly; (f) those who withhold grain in time of necessity.

(D) Bound to restitution are not only those who have committed theft, but also all those cooperating in theft, such as those commanding, advising, consenting, participating in the thing taken, not prohibiting, not disclosing, and receiving. Nor do these excuse: care of preserving status and of having the convenience of life, the abundance of those from whom a thing is taken, the custom or occasion of stealing, the desire of taking revenge, the necessity of paying debts.

2. They observe the seventh precept more abundantly who exercise various works of mercy, devote themselves to labor, and cultivate frugality and thrift, so that they may do good to others.

Concerning this we treat in the Treatise on Justice, 431-610, 613-938.

"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."¹⁴

¹⁴ Exod. 20:16.

1103. 1. There are prohibited: (a) false testimony against any man whatever, even for favoring him, not only in judgment, but also outside judgment; (b) detraction through calumny and backbiting; (c) the stirring up of discords; (d) flattery; (e) lying; (f) simulation; (g) contumely; (h) rash judgment.

2. But there is commanded: (a) that judges exercise forensic judgments justly and according to the laws; (b) that the accused and the guilty confess the truth when they are legitimately interrogated; (c) that witnesses bring true and certain testimony when they are questioned by a judge according to the norm of law; (d) that advocates defend just causes justly and measure their fee according to right and equity by their work; (e) that accusers and petitioners exactly observe truth and justice toward all, even adversaries.

Concerning these things the treatment was given in the Treatise on Justice: (a) concerning rash judgment, n. 365-373; (b) concerning detraction, or defamation, through evil-speaking and calumny, 374-395; (c) concerning contumely, or injury to honor, 397-400; (d) concerning false testimony and lying, 401-417; and in the Treatise on the Various Obligations of States, where the duties of judges, accused persons, witnesses, advocates, etc., are treated, n. 992-1020.

"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house: neither shalt thou desire his wife, nor his servant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is his."¹⁵

¹⁵ Exod. 20:17.

1104. By these precepts we are admonished that the law of God is of such a kind that it must be observed not only in external acts, but also in the intimate sense of the soul.

1. Here there is prohibited, not the very power of desiring, which may be used both for good and for evil, but only that lust of desiring which the Apostle calls the concupiscence of the flesh.¹⁶ Now this cupidity is condemned either because it seeks evil, as adulteries, or because the things sought are another's, such as house, field, wife, ox, ass, and many other things, which, by the very fact that they are another's, the divine law forbids one to covet.

¹⁶ Gal. 5:16, 24.

Above others, however, those labor under this vice of cupidity: (a) those who delight in dishonorable games, or who abuse games immoderately; (b) merchants who desire a shortage of goods and high prices of grain, and who take it ill that others besides themselves sell or buy, so that they themselves may sell more dearly or buy more cheaply; (c) those who desire others to be in need so that they themselves may gain by selling or buying; (d) physicians who desire diseases; (e) legal consultants who covet the force and abundance of causes and lawsuits, etc.

2. The affirmative part of the precept, especially of the tenth, consists in this, that if riches abound, we not set the heart on them, and be prepared to cast them away through zeal for piety and divine things, and gladly spend money in relieving the miseries of the poor; if means are lacking, that we bear poverty with an equal and cheerful soul. By this law likewise it is prescribed that with ardent zeal and the highest desire we choose that to be done, not which we covet, but which God wills, as is explained in the Lord's Prayer.

Concerning internal sins and desires we have treated above, n. 499-506.

These are, summarily set forth, the holy precepts of God, of which a richer explanation can be found both in the course of our moral Synopsis and in the reading and meditation of the third part of the Roman Catechism. Moreover, the Roman Catechism teaches us both the manner of proposing doctrine persuasively and clearly, and the considerations by which souls may be moved to observing the law of God, whether considered in general or in the individual precepts.

1105. That authority belongs to the Church for making laws binding in conscience, we have already proved in the Treatise on the Church, n. 843. In truth she has promulgated many laws, concerning which we spoke above, n. 257-331. But among manifold laws of this kind, some are by antonomasia called the precepts of the Church, because they are of greater moment and touch all the faithful: five, six, or seven are numbered according to diverse times and various provinces of the Church.

The collection of these precepts under a common name does not seem ancient: for it is not found in the Catechism of the Council of Trent, published in the year 1566; but Peter Binsfeld (Enchiridion theol. pastoralis, 1591) already enumerated five precepts of the Church; Bellarmine, in his Catechism, 1598, set forth six; and P. Fagundez (+ 1645) published an entire treatise on the five precepts of the Church.¹

¹ A. Villien, Histoire des Command. de l'Eglise, in Revue du Cl. francais, t. XLI (1905), p. 562.

Formerly five were numbered as contained in these little verses:

"Keep the feasts, be present at the sacred rite; observe the fasts;
Let confession be annual; let Communion be at Easter."

Therefore the first precept is the sanctification of feasts which the Church has instituted, according to what was said above, n. 1010. - The second commands the hearing of Mass on Sundays and feast days, above, n. 1020-1037. - The third embraces fasting and abstinence from flesh: these two precepts formerly formed one, but today they are commonly distinguished, since often, according to today's discipline, abstinence is imposed without fasting. - The two latter, annual confession and paschal Communion, you will find declared in the Treatises on Penance and on the Eucharist. - In certain regions, however, a seventh precept is added concerning the contribution of support for the sustenance of pastors.

Therefore it remains to speak of three things: 1. concerning fasting; 2. concerning abstinence from flesh; 3. concerning the sustenance of pastors.

1106. Fasting is threefold: (a) natural, which consists in complete abstinence from food and drink: such is the Eucharistic fast, which is required from the midnight preceding Communion; (b) ecclesiastical, which consists in abstinence from food, not total, but according to limits predefined by the Church; (c) moral, which is moderation in taking food and drink, and, by extension, in other pleasures either of the soul or of the body.

² St. Thomas, II-II, q. 147; Billuart, De Jejunio; St. Alphonsus, l. III, n. 1005 sq.; Ball. P., n. 1103-1153; Marc, n. 1218-1243; Lehmkuhl, n. 1210-1222; Noldin, n. 662-680.

Here ecclesiastical fasting is treated; we shall explain: 1. its origin and utility; 2. the manner of observing the law of fasting; 3. the causes which excuse from it.

1107. 1. Historical evolution of the law of fasting.³ (A) Under the Old Law, fasting is commended many times, and sometimes also prescribed.

³ Thomassin hands down fully and learnedly the brief history which we outline, Traite des Jeunes de l'Eglise, Paris, 1680.

(a) Thus it is presented as conferring greater force on prayer: "Prayer is good with fasting";⁴ hence David fasted that he might obtain from the Lord the health of his child;⁵ Judith is praised because she fasted all the days of her life, except the sabbaths and new moons and the feasts of the house of Israel;⁶ Esther fled to the Lord in prayer and fasting;⁷ Judas Machabeus, with his companions, prepared himself for battle by prayer and fasting.⁸ - Fasting, moreover, is preached as a means of doing penance and obtaining mercy from God: "Be converted to Me with all your heart, in fasting and in weeping";⁹ and so the Ninivites obtained their conversion and salvation by prayer, lamentation, and fasting.¹⁰

⁴ Tob. 12:8.

⁵ 2 Kings 12:16.

⁶ Judith 8:6.

⁷ Esth. 14:2.

⁸ 2 Mach. 13:12; cf. 1 Esdr. 8:23.

⁹ Joel 2:12.

¹⁰ Jonah 3:5, 10.

(b) Moreover the Jews had been commanded to fast on the tenth day of the seventh month;¹¹ and in the time of captivity the fasts of the fourth, fifth, and tenth month had been instituted.¹² - The Pharisees fasted more frequently.¹³ - But God was not placated by external fasting unless they at the same time cultivated true penance, justice, and charity.¹⁴

¹¹ Exod. 16:29.

¹² Zach. 8:19.

¹³ Luke 18:12.

¹⁴ Isa. 58:3-7.

1108. (B) Under the New Law, (a) Christ commended fasting by His own example, fasting forty days and nights before He preached the Gospel.¹⁵ He did not impose a law of fasting on His disciples, but at the same time announced that they would afterward be occupied with fasting;¹⁶ and He commands those who fast to avoid hypocrisy and ostentation, lest they be seen by men as fasting, but by the Father who sees in secret.¹⁷ - Nowhere, however, is it read that Christ Himself established certain fasts.

¹⁵ Matt. 4:2.

¹⁶ Matt. 9:14-15.

¹⁷ Matt. 6:16-18.

(b) The Apostles and first disciples are said to have fasted sometimes, especially when there was question of the election and consecration of ministers of God.¹⁸ Paul relates that he and other ministers of Christ often fasted.¹⁹ Yet it is not read in the sacred Scriptures that they established the law of fasting; but some Fathers say that the Lenten fast is observed in the Church according to the tradition of the Apostles; nevertheless Augustine confesses that it was not defined by Christ and the Apostles on which days one ought to fast.²⁰

¹⁸ Acts 13:2-3; 14:22.

¹⁹ 2 Cor. 6:5; 11:27.

²⁰ St. Augustine, Epist. 36, c. 14, P. L., XXXIII, 151.

1109. (c) Whatever the case, in the Church the custom soon prevailed of fasting in the time of Lent, for imitating Christ and doing penance before paschal Communion. Thus St. Jerome wrote to Marcella:²¹ "We, according to the tradition of the Apostles, with the whole world agreeing with us, fast one Lent; they (the Montanists) make three Lents in a year, as if three Saviors had suffered." - In truth, already in the fourth century, the Lenten fast was observed in both Churches, with this difference, however, that in the Eastern Church the fast lasted through seven weeks, because it was interrupted on every sabbath and Sunday, while in the Western Church it lasted only six weeks, because it was interrupted only on Sunday.²² - A few days were added to this fast by private persons, for the sake of devotion, namely the days of the weeks of Sexagesima and Quinquagesima; and, from the ninth century, the obligatory custom of fasting on the four days preceding Lent was introduced, so that, Sundays being deducted, the fast of forty days might be completed.²³ - But the devotion of the faithful did not stop here: certain persons began to fast outside Lent on two or three days each week, though this was not commanded by law. But gradually the custom prevailed, around the fifth century, of fasting for a few days at the four seasons of the year, to imitate the practice of the Jews and to dedicate the whole year to God; afterward the ordinations of priests and deacons could be celebrated only on these days.²⁴ - Later, in the sixth century, in certain churches there was instituted a fast of three days in each week of Advent.²⁵ At almost the same time, it was established that fasting be done during the triduum of the Rogations, first in particular Churches, soon in the universal Church. - Finally, from the sixth century, the custom also began of fasting on the vigils of the principal feasts, for example, of the Nativity of the Lord, Epiphany, Assumption, and the feasts of the Apostles.²⁶

²¹ St. Jerome, Epist. 41, P. L., XXII, 475.

²² See the authorities in Thomassin, op. cit., I, ch. 7, p. 33-44.

²³ Thomassin, op. cit., II, ch. 1, p. 224 sq.

²⁴ Thomassin, op. cit., I, ch. 21.

²⁵ Thomassin, I, ch. 23.

²⁶ Thomassin, II, ch. 14.

1110. (d) But the manner of fasting was much stricter in the first times than in ours: namely, one meal was taken in the Latin Church after Vespers, that is, toward the end of the day; in the Greek Church a meal was taken more often, but a very small one.²⁷ In those times, the faithful abstained not only from food, but also from wine, and they took only a little water at certain hours to extinguish thirst.²⁸ - But gradually and imperceptibly, from the tenth century, the custom prevailed of taking the meal at the ninth hour (that is, three o'clock after midday), and, a little later, at the noon hour.²⁹ In the thirteenth century, only one eating was permitted, as St. Thomas witnesses.³⁰ But a little later the use prevailed, borrowed from monks, of taking a small collation in the evening hour.³¹ - Finally, in the nineteenth century, the custom began of taking a small quantity of coffee in the morning with a little piece of bread.

²⁷ Thomassin, op. cit., II, ch. 9.

²⁸ Thomassin, II, ch. 7.

²⁹ Thomassin, II, ch. 12.

³⁰ St. Thomas, II-II, q. 147, a. 6.

³¹ Thomassin, II, ch. 11.

From this it is clear that the law of fasting is ecclesiastical, introduced by custom, and is to be understood and applied by the custom of various places.

1111. 2. Utility of fasting. The Church, in the Lenten Preface, thus describes the spiritual utility of fasting: "O God, who by bodily fasting dost restrain vices, elevate the mind, bestow virtue and rewards." - In truth fasting, moderately and wisely employed: (a) restrains vices, insofar as it moderates the concupiscence of the flesh; for experience has found that concupiscence is inflamed not a little, not only by sumptuous meals, but by any excess in food and drink, while lust is cooled by abstinence. Now men are prone, on account of the pleasure annexed to food, to indulge in some excesses; but by fasting established at fixed times, they learn moderation, and repair excesses, if any have been committed.

(b) It elevates the mind; for just as man, by taking food immoderately, becomes animal, unfit for intellectual operations, and prone to earthly things; so, on the other hand, he who at fixed times moderately deprives himself of food and drink becomes spiritual, thinks more frequently of spiritual things, and tends more easily to heavenly things.

(c) It bestows virtue, first of all sobriety and temperance: for he who sometimes abstains from lawful things, by that very fact moderates intemperance more easily; and also penance, because fasting, from what was said above, contributes to true amendment of heart: for since we are allured to sin by pursuing pleasure, we are turned away from sin by mortification.

(d) It bestows rewards, namely the eternal crown of glory: for he who, on account of God, abstains from many things will receive a hundredfold in the other life. Wherefore the Apostle said:³² "And every one that striveth for the mastery refraineth himself from all things; and they indeed that they may receive a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible one."

³² 1 Cor. 9:25. Cf. St. Basil, homilies 1 and 2 on fasting.

1112. 1. Extension of the law. The law of ecclesiastical fasting obliges all baptized persons having the use of reason, from the completed twenty-first year of age to the begun sixtieth year (Code, c. 1254). - That this obligation is grave is established from the condemnation of this proposition 23 by Alexander VII, September 24, 1665: "He who breaks the 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."¹

¹ In Denzinger, n. 994; cf. Viva on this proposition.

The days on which, from common law, fasting is prescribed are: (a) the Lenten season, from Ash Wednesday² up to Holy Saturday inclusive, except Sundays and feasts of precept, where these are observed, except, however, during Lent; the fast ceases on Holy Saturday after midday (Code, c. 1252).

² In the Milanese church the use is retained of beginning the fast from the first Sunday of Lent, as formerly was commonly done.

(b) The Wednesday and Friday and also the Saturday of the Ember Days; this is done so that at each season of the year the faithful may expiate their sins, obtain new graces, and obtain good ministers from God (for then sacred orders are conferred).

(c) The vigils of certain feasts, namely of the Nativity of the Lord, Pentecost, Assumption, and All Saints: namely for this end, that these feasts may be celebrated devoutly. - But previgils, with respect to fasting and abstinence, are not anticipated. Thus if the feast of the Nativity of the Lord occurs on Monday, the fast and abstinence which are impeded on Sunday are not now to be observed on the preceding Saturday.

1113. 2. Concerning lawful meals. On days of fasting, according to today's discipline, one full meal is permitted, to which can be added a moderate collation and a morning morsel.

(A) Concerning the one meal. From midnight to midnight, only one full meal is permitted, the quantity of which, moreover, has not been determined. Therefore he satisfies the precept who dines more sumptuously so that he may bear the burden of the fast more easily. If he indulges in some excess, he sins indeed against temperance, but not against the law of fasting.

1114. (a) The time at which, from almost universal custom, this meal must be taken is around noon. It is lawful, however, notably to anticipate it when a just cause is present, for example, the necessity of beginning a journey, transacting business, or weakness of constitution. Indeed a notable anticipation (for example, of one hour), even without cause, is not a mortal sin, because it does not remove the substance of the fast, which consists in one full eating.

It is likewise lawful to invert the time of dinner and collation, for a reasonable cause, for example, to take the collation around the eleventh morning hour, and dinner around the sixth evening hour:³ this is very practical today in cities, where people are accustomed to dine in the evening. Indeed, according to some,⁴ when a just cause is present, it is lawful to take the collation in the morning, dinner at midday, and the morsel in the evening, because in this way the substance of the fast is preserved.

³ To the question: "Whether on days of fasting the time of eating can be inverted, by taking the little evening refreshment between the tenth and eleventh morning hour, but deferring dinner to the fourth or fifth evening hour," the Sacred Penitentiary, January 19, 1834, answered: "If there is some cause for the aforesaid inversion, penitents who use this custom are not to be disturbed." (Acta S. Sedis, I, p. 424).

⁴ D'Annibale, III, n. 134; Noldin, n. 674.

(b) Dinner must be morally continuous and not immoderately prolonged. For if it is notably interrupted, it is no longer one meal, but several. What interruption is notable must be judged from the estimation of prudent persons, with attention especially to two things, the intention of the one fasting and the length of the interruption. Generally an interruption is considered slight which does not exceed half an hour; but if someone has begun to dine, and afterward has been legitimately interrupted for an hour, he can complete the dinner, because he had the intention of returning. Moreover, if the interruption is had for a grave cause, for example, for administering the sacraments or helping those dangerously sick, even after two hours it is lawful to return to the dinner; for the Church does not require that someone be forced to pass the day without sufficient refreshment when some duty to be fulfilled presses.

It is not lawful to prolong dinner immoderately, for example, beyond two hours, unless a special cause is present, for example, the custom of prolonging dinner when friends are invited, as happens in certain regions.

1115. (B) Concerning the collation, or little supper. Besides dinner, a collation is permitted, which is commonly taken in the evening; here one must attend to what is lawful to take by custom as to the quantity and quality of foods.

(a) As to the quantity of food, about a fourth part of a full dinner can be taken; and, according to St. Alphonsus (n. 1025), eight ounces (about 240 gr.) can be permitted to all indiscriminately, even if they would be fully refreshed by this quantity. - Besides, attention must be paid to the constitution, duties, and functions of each one, the duration of the fast, etc.; thus in colder regions more is customarily conceded than in warmer ones, more to one laboring through the whole day than to one spending time in leisure, more to one weak and voracious than to one robust and lacking hunger. The general principle is that whatever is necessary can be taken so that one may be able fittingly to obey his duties.

By universal custom it is lawful on the vigil of the Nativity of the Lord to take a quantity twice as great.

(b) As to the quality of foods, the custom of each region is to be followed, since the collation was introduced by custom. In certain regions, fish, eggs, milk products, butter, and cheese are not permitted, but only cakes, bread, fruits, vegetables, and legumes. In others, either by custom or by indult, eggs and milk products are permitted, little fish, or even two or three ounces of larger fish. Hence, in practice, the mandates which Bishops promulgate concerning this matter at the beginning of Lent must be diligently read.

1116. (c) Concerning the morning morsel, or breakfast. From the Code, c. 1251, it is lawful in the morning to take something of food, that is, a small quantity of coffee, chocolate, tea, or something of this kind, with a little piece of bread;⁵ the quantity of nutritive food generally ought not to exceed two ounces (about 60 gr.), unless more is required on account of constitution or duties to be fulfilled.

⁵ Thus from the declaration of the Sacred Penitentiary, November 21, 1843. The doubt being proposed: "Whether it can be permitted that in the morning on days of fasting a small quantity of coffee or chocolate be taken with a morsel of bread, as is done in the Canadian region"; it was answered that "those who follow such a use are not to be disturbed."

1117. 3. Concerning those things which can be taken outside these meals. According to today's discipline, outside the aforesaid meals, it is lawful to take something by way of drink or medicine, according to the saying: liquid does not break the fast. By way of drink, it is lawful to drink water, even sugared water, wine, beer, and various liquors, even if in some way they nourish; by way of medicine, coffee, tea, very diluted chocolate, electuaries (in a small quantity) which are made from sugar, juniper, lemon, etc., can be taken, if they are taken for digesting food, preserving the voice, removing stench of the mouth, etc.; indeed, a very small piece of bread before drink, lest the drink harm, provided this is not done frequently, but once or twice in the day. - But what properly has the character of food cannot be taken, for example, broth, honey, milk,⁶ sugar, oil.

⁶ In certain regions purified milk is lawfully taken as a drink.

The quantity of food which is required for grave sin cannot be determined mathematically; it is rather commonly admitted that grave matter is what exceeds four ounces (120 gr.), whether it be taken at one time or in parts through the day. For small eatings taken on the same day coalesce and can constitute grave matter, from proposition 29 condemned by Alexander VII:⁷ "On a day of fasting, he who more often eats some small thing, even if at the end he has eaten a notable quantity, does not break the fast."

⁷ Denzinger, n. 1000; cf. Viva on this proposition.

1118. 4. Concerning abstinence to be observed on days of fasting. (A) From the Code, c. 1252, "the law of abstinence and fasting is to be observed on Ash Wednesday, the Fridays and Saturdays of Lent, and the Ember Days," and the four previgils mentioned above (1112). By the name of flesh understand not only flesh properly so called, but also all parts of animals, such as blood, marrow of bones, brain, fat, lard, and broth expressed from flesh. By no means, however, are fish prohibited. But what is flesh and fish in the ecclesiastical sense must be determined not from the theories of natural philosophers, but from common estimation and the custom of places; for this distinction was especially introduced by custom.

Ancient authors generally held as prohibited the flesh of animals "resting on the earth and breathing,"⁸ and as lawful the flesh of aquatic animals, which live and breathe in water, or at least are nourished by fish. Today, however, with attention to custom, by the name of fish are understood not only fish properly so called, but also: crustaceans, such as crabs, crayfish, sea-urchins (crabes, ecrevisses, homards, langoustes, oursins de mer); mollusks, such as shells, oysters, snails (coquillages, huitres, limacons); reptiles and amphibians, as frogs, turtles (grenouilles, tortues). But the flesh of mammals and birds is prohibited, with a few exceptions from custom; thus otters, beavers or castors, seals (loutres, castors, phoques) are permitted, and in certain regions ducks of a certain species (canards sauvages).⁹

⁸ St. Thomas, II-II, q. 147, a. 8.

⁹ According to some (Noldin, n. 664), the same is to be said of coots, because their use was conceded to the Minims; but, since this was conceded as a grace, it cannot be inferred from this that it is lawful for all without indult; in truth this faculty was denied to the Carthusians.

1119. (B) In the time of Lent, formerly even on Sundays, besides flesh, eggs and milk products were prohibited by common law, that is, milk and all those things which are made from milk, such as butter, cheese, etc.; but, from can. 1250, the law of abstinence "forbids eating flesh and broth from flesh, but not eggs, milk products, and any condiments even from the fat of animals."

1120. (C) As to gravity of matter, authors do not agree; nevertheless most concede that, as to flesh, matter which exceeds two ounces (60 gr.) is grave. But a greater quantity is required if there is question of a condiment which comes from flesh, or of eggs and milk products.

Since the law of abstinence today differs from the law of fasting, he who knowingly violates both, without reason, commits a double sin in itself. Indeed, according to the common opinion, one sins against abstinence as many times as flesh is eaten by morally distinct acts. Otherwise one must speak of the law of fasting, which can be violated only once in a day. - In practice, however, attention must be paid to the psychological dispositions of violators of the law: often they apprehend all these things only confusedly, by way of one thing, and commit only one sin.

1121. 5. Concerning the forbidden mixing of flesh and fish. By a law handed down by Benedict XIV,¹⁰ one who by force of dispensation had received license to eat flesh could not, on days of fasting, eat flesh and fish together in the same meal. This prohibition has been abrogated by the Code, can. 1251: "It is not forbidden to mix flesh and fish in the same meal."

¹⁰ Benedict XIV, Const. Non ambigimus, May 31, 1741; In suprema, August 22, 1741; Libentissime, June 10, 1745. You will find these prescriptions fully explained in Ami du Clerge, t. XXII, 1900, p. 104-108.

1122. Three can be distinguished: 1. impotence; 2. duties of state incompatible with fasting; 3. dispensation.

1. By reason of impotence, all those are excused who, on account of weakness of body, poverty, or other grave inconveniences, cannot morally fulfill the law; for a law, especially a positive one, does not oblige with so great an inconvenience.

(A) Thus, by reason of weakness, there are excused: the sick, the convalescent, or those of ill health, pregnant or nursing women, who cannot fast without notable harm; likewise sexagenarians, even if they seem rather robust, because their strength decreases and they need more frequent restoration; but not quinquagenarian women, unless another reason concurs, for, according to physicians, they do not need food more than men of the same age.¹

¹ Cf. Ami du Clerge, 1903, p. 13.

(B) By reason of poverty, all those are excused "who cannot at the same time have what suffices them for sustenance,"² that is, for a full eating, or who have nothing else than bread and legumes or other foods that are little nutritive.

² St. Thomas, II-II, q. 147, a. 4, ad 4.

(C) By reason of grave inconvenience, there are excused those who from fasting suffer grave headache or notable deprivation of sleep; wives and sons of families, who by fasting would incur grave indignation of husbands or parents; those who perform works of charity or piety which they would have to abandon while fasting; in one word, those who cannot fulfill the law without grave inconvenience.

1123. 2. By reason of duties of state, all those are excused who by fasting would not be able rightly to fulfill their duties without great fatigue or weakening of powers. Therefore not every labor exempts from fasting,³ but only labor that is arduous and continuous for many hours, such as today is the labor of many in fields, workshops, industrial or liberal arts. Here there is question not only of works of the hands, but also of intellectual labor, which weakens the brain and nerves more than servile work.⁴ Now today, because of the law of competition prevailing almost everywhere, many men, otherwise rich, have the duty of working intensely and for a long time. Therefore many under this title are exempted from the law.

³ This is established from the condemnation of proposition 30 by Alexander VII, March 18, 1666: "All officials who labor bodily in the republic are excused from the obligation of fasting, nor ought they to make certain whether the labor is compatible with fasting." (Denzinger, n. 1001.)

⁴ Under this title, therefore, professors and students who labor arduously are excused, but not those who indulge sloth.

Here theologians are accustomed to enumerate workers who, according to the nature of their labor, are excused or not; but many things which they formerly wrote cannot be applied today, circumstances having changed. Thus they say that printers turning the press are excused, but by no means those who compose type; now today this work, because of the application of mind which it requires, is often more arduous than turning the press. Therefore the only general rule is that every labor, whether manual or intellectual, exempts from fasting when it is both arduous and continuous for many hours; this must be judged with attention to all the circumstances of persons, health, inclemency of the air, etc.

1124. Hence a journey undertaken for a just cause suffices to exempt from fasting if, with all things considered, it is long and arduous; this indeed depends upon the traveler's health and the manner of traveling. Thus a journey on foot of 12 or 15 miles is sufficiently arduous, especially if the road is rough, while a journey of 150 miles on railways scarcely induces any fatigue. Now a journey does not excuse from the law unless it causes notable fatigue.⁵

⁵ This is established from proposition 31 condemned by Alexander VII: "All those who travel on horseback are absolutely excused from the precept of fasting, however they travel, even if the journey is not necessary, and even if they complete the journey of one day." (Denzinger, n. 1002.)

Those who are excused by reason of labor are not bound to fast on the few days on which they interrupt labor, at least generally, because they must repair the powers necessary for proximate labors. - Nor are even the rich bound to interrupt labors incompatible with fasting; for the public good demands that they be occupied with ordinary occupations. - Yet it is not lawful to undertake labor incompatible with fasting for the sake of mere recreation, for example hunting, unless rarely and on account of some utility.

1125. 3. Concerning dispensation. When there is not a cause sufficient in itself for excusing from fasting, nevertheless a dispensation can be conceded by a legitimate superior.

(A) Concerning the author of dispensation. The legitimate superior is: (a) the Supreme Pontiff, who can always validly dispense for the whole Church, and licitly when a just cause is present; (b) the Bishop, in his diocese, for particular cases, from a just cause, but not for the whole diocese or even community, unless from indult;⁶ (c) likewise the pastor can dispense individual faithful or individual families, even outside the territory, but not the whole parish; likewise his vicar, when, in the absence of the pastor, he exercises jurisdiction in the parish; or when he is delegated by the pastor who is present; (d) regular superiors as to subjects taken individually. - But confessors, unless they have been expressly delegated, cannot properly dispense, but only declare whether in the case a cause excusing is present; this, moreover, physicians and superioresses of nuns can do.

⁶ For Benedict XIV established this, Const. Libentissime, June 24, 1745. - From the Code, "Not only local Ordinaries, but also pastors, in individual cases and for a just cause, can dispense individual faithful or individual families subject to them, even outside the territory, and also pilgrims in their territory, from the common law concerning the observance of feasts, and likewise concerning the observance of abstinence and fasting or even both. Ordinaries, from the peculiar cause of a great concourse of people or of public health, can also dispense the whole diocese or place from fasting and from abstinence, or both laws at once. In an exempt clerical religion the Superiors have the same power of dispensing after the manner of a pastor." (c. 1245.)

When a dispensation is conceded, a lesser cause is required than that which excuses of itself. Indeed the superior can dispense not only when the cause is sufficient, but also when he doubts whether it is sufficient. But if he certainly knows that the cause is not wholly sufficient, he can dispense by commuting, enjoining pious works, such as prayers and alms, in place of fasting.

By the law of Benedict XIV, dispensation ought not to be conceded to private persons except on the counsel of both physicians, that is, of physician and confessor; but in many regions this precept has gone into desuetude.

1126. (B) Things to be noted concerning the interpretation of dispensation. (a) He who has received from the Holy See license to eat flesh on days forbidden by the Church, with the law of fasting preserved, can use this dispensation not only on days of abstinence, but also on days of fasting, but only for the principal meal, not for the collation.

(b) The faithful who, by reason of age, infirmity, or labor, are exempted from the law of fasting (but not dispensed by a superior), can eat flesh as often as they take food, when the eating of flesh is permitted by a general indult of the bishop, unless, however, the dispensing bishop restricts this faculty.

(c) When, by force of indult, the use of condiment of fat is conceded on days of fasting or abstinence, today, from the more recent decrees, it is understood not only as swine lard, but also fat (graisse) of any animal whatever, but not broth of flesh.

1127. For practice it must be noted. Today the law of fasting is wholly observed by few in many regions. This happens from a manifold cause, but especially from the lessening of the Christian spirit of mortification, from the general weakness of men, especially in great cities, and also from the more intense labor which industrial and commercial matters require.

To provide some remedy for this evil, a milder discipline has been introduced into certain regions, such as Germany and Austria:⁷ there indeed, both from custom and from indults, the practice of fasting became easier, and the mitigated law was better observed. But where the law was applied more strictly, and the morning morsel was denied by confessors, very few observe the fast, since it is morally impossible.

⁷ Cf. Le Correspondant, February 25, 1898, Mandements de Careme en France et en Autriche; Ami du Clerge, t. XX, 1898, p. 884-886. - In Spain also, and in Spanish regions where the Bull of the Crusade is in force, the law of fasting has been made milder. Cf. N. Rev. Theolog., 1891, p. 586; Ami du Clerge, t. XXII, p. 1032-1034.

Therefore one must beware lest by too much rigor the law be wholly abolished. Let it indeed be integrally observed by those who can perform this without grave inconvenience. But if some are not able to observe it strictly, let confessors deal more mildly with them, exhorting them to keep the spirit of the law, faithfully and sincerely doing whatever does not exceed their powers. But by no means let them judge themselves excused from all mortification because they cannot fast integrally; let them do whatever they can in this matter; what they cannot perform, let them supply by other works of self-denial, for example, by depriving themselves of more delicate foods and certain lawful pleasures, more efficaciously restraining internal concupiscences, more frequently cultivating pious works of charity, etc.; in one word, by leading a more Christian life.

1128. I. Origin and extension of the law. 1. Abstinence from flesh was formerly annexed only to days of fasting; but certain fasts having been suppressed, the law of abstinence persevered; and thus today there are days of abstinence which are not days of fasting.

Already in the first centuries the custom prevailed of fasting and abstaining from flesh on Friday of each week, in honor of the Lord's Passion. At almost the same time, in the Latin Church, but not in the Greek, the same custom prevailed on the sabbath day, in honor of the burial of Christ; but, in some provinces, a law of this kind went into desuetude.

1129. 2. Today the precept of abstinence from flesh: (A) from common law, obliges, besides the days of fasting enumerated above, n. 1118,⁸ only on Friday of each week.

⁸ Motu proprio, July 2, 1911 (A. A. S., t. III, 306), Pius X decreed: "But if one of the feasts which we wish to be observed (above, n. 1010) falls on a day consecrated to abstinence or fasting, we dispense from both." This dispensation does not apply where the aforesaid feasts are not observed by indult. S. C. C., August 28, 1911.

1130. (B) A law of this kind touches all the faithful enjoying the use of reason, and therefore those who have completed the seventh year, unless they are insane. - Parents are to be exhorted to accustom children to abstinence as soon as possible, even before the seventh year, so that afterward they may observe the law more easily.

The law obliges under grave sin; although it cannot be absolutely determined what matter is grave, it is rather commonly taught that he sins mortally who, without any reason, knowingly eats about two ounces. - It is likewise unlawful to eat broth from flesh, but not condiments from the fat of animals.

In itself one sins against the law of abstinence as many times as, without reason, flesh is eaten by morally distinct acts (above, n. 496); but in fact many violators think that they have sinned once, even if they have eaten flesh several times on the same day.

1131. II. Concerning causes excusing from the law of abstinence. All can be reduced to moral impotence, by reason of which all are excused who cannot abstain from flesh without great inconvenience:

(a) The poor, who receive flesh as alms and have nothing else by which they may be fed; those who, lacking butter and oil, use lard or fat for seasoning foods.

(b) The sick, convalescent, those weak in stomach, nursing women, and all those who, in the judgment of a physician or prudent man, cannot be sufficiently nourished by meager foods. Say the same of pregnant women who, even if they do not strictly need flesh, suffer from a great appetite for flesh: for then they can take a morsel of flesh, lest they be too much tormented by this appetite.

(c) Workers who daily apply themselves to very arduous labors, or labors that remove the appetite for foods, such as those who work in foundries, glassworks, ironworks, metallic or coal mines, factories, and locomotives.⁹

⁹ Therefore the Holy See granted license to the bishops of the United States of America to permit workers and their families the use of flesh in those circumstances of places and persons in which they judged that a true difficulty of observing the law of abstinence existed, excepting however Fridays, Ash Wednesday, the whole time of Holy Week, and the vigil of the Nativity of the Lord, and with the prohibition of mixing foods remaining firm. But counsel is to be given to the faithful that on the days on which they use the indult, they exercise some other work of penance, for example, abstain from intoxicating drink.

(d) Wives, sons of families, and servants who cannot have other foods:¹⁰ but servants are bound to seek another master, if this can be done. - For the same reason, travelers are excused who cannot find other sufficiently nutritive foods in inns; but they ought seriously and insistently to ask for these, and they are not excused by the sole fear of provoking slight mockeries; and likewise guests who, contrary to expectation, find the whole meal prepared with forbidden foods and cannot otherwise leave without grave inconvenience; but if the matter is foreseen, they are bound to refuse the invitation, as often as this can be done.

¹⁰ If the father of a family has obtained license to eat flesh, and he cannot or will not prepare two meals, one of flesh and another of meager foods, the sons of the family and others bound to the service of the father can eat flesh, not indeed by force of the indult, but because they are in impotence of observing the precept. This is established from the response of the Sacred Penitentiary, January 19, 1834: "Persons who are under the power of the father of a family, to whom legitimate faculty of eating flesh has been made, can be permitted to use foods granted by indult to the father of the family; with the condition added concerning not mixing lawful and forbidden foods, and concerning one eating in the day for those who are bound to fast." - "The reason for this permission is not the indult conceded to the father of the family, but the impotence in which the sons of the family are placed of observing the precept." (May 27, 1863.)

If by error a meal has been prepared with forbidden foods, and otherwise without grave inconvenience it cannot be deferred, for example when there is question of weddings, it is lawfully taken; otherwise, if without grave inconvenience the meal can be deferred to the following day.

(e) Soldiers and sailors, fed in camps or stations by the Government. - As to military commanders, the matter is controverted. But in France, from custom founded on an ancient indult, these can eat flesh, with a few days excepted, and communicate this privilege to the members of their family living with them.¹¹ The same has been conceded for the United States of America, with six days excepted, namely Ash Wednesday, the last three days of Holy Week, and the vigils of the Nativity of the Lord and of the Assumption.

¹¹ Cf. Ami du Clerge, t. XX, 1902, p. 636.

1132. 1. Origin of the law. The institution of the priesthood being posited, and the deputation of special ministers for exercising sacerdotal offices in the name of the whole people, the faithful are bound to furnish the things necessary for sustenance to pastors and others having the care of souls. For since these must devote the chief part of life to preparation for, and exercise of, the sacred ministry, they are not able, from what commonly happens, to sustain themselves, and therefore they must receive food and clothing from others. But since they labor for the souls committed to them, it is wholly equitable that they receive necessities from them.

(A) Thus the matter stood under the Old Law. In the partition of the land of Chanaan, no part had been assigned to the priests and Levites, because the Lord wished to be their portion and inheritance.¹ But priests had a right to the firstfruits, which were offered to God by the sons of Israel;² Levites had a right to the tenth part of the fruits;³ but these were bound to give the tenth part of the tithes to the priests.⁴ Moreover the Lord commanded the sons of Israel "that they give to the Levites from their possessions cities to dwell in, and their suburbs round about; that they themselves may remain in the towns, and that the suburbs may be for cattle and beasts."⁵ In truth forty-eight cities were assigned to the Levites, of which thirteen were reserved for the priests. - From these things it is clear that God, on the one hand, willed the Levites to be immune from temporal cares, and, on the other hand, wisely provided for their necessities.

¹ Num. 18:20.

² Num. 18:8-19.

³ Num. 18:21.

⁴ Num. 18:26.

⁵ Num. 35:2-4.

1133. (B) Under the New Law, it was declared in a general way that every worker, even he who labors for the salvation of souls, is worthy of his food;⁶ and that those who serve the altar can eat of the altar: "Know you not, that they who work in the holy place eat the things that are of the holy place: and they that serve the altar partake with the altar? So also the Lord ordained that they who preach the Gospel should live by the Gospel."⁷

⁶ Matt. 10:10.

⁷ 1 Cor. 9:13-14.

In truth, in the first centuries of the Church, clerics assigned to the care of souls were sustained by the spontaneous offerings of the faithful, especially those which were offered on the occasion of the Eucharistic sacrifice. To this custom succeeded the payment of tithes, which already from the ninth century flourished in many provinces.⁸ Elsewhere benefices were instituted, from the revenues of which ministers of the Church received whatever was necessary for their own sustenance.⁹ But in many regions tithes were abolished; in certain others benefices were usurped, in place of which a pension was to be paid by the Government. But certain Governments, as in France, no longer wish to pay pensions; and thus we are compelled to return to the ancient custom of offerings. Besides, in the missions, clerics often have nothing except what the faithful freely offer.

⁸ You will find documents in the Decretals, l. III, tit. 30, De decimis, primitiis et oblationibus.

⁹ Read the documents in the Decretals, l. III, tit. 5-13.

From these things it is clear that in every time, by divine right, the duty has lain upon the faithful of providing for the legitimate necessities of pastors, but that this duty has been fulfilled in diverse ways, according to diverse times and various regions, according to the prescriptions of canon law.

1134. 2. Character and extension of the law. (A) By divine and ecclesiastical right, the duty lies upon the faithful, according to each one's resources, of contributing something to the sustenance of their own pastors.

This is already established from the brief historical exposition outlined above; and it is confirmed by the following argument: when a pastor or other minister is legitimately deputed by ecclesiastical superiors to exercise the care of souls in such a parish or mission, a quasi-contract is entered into between the pastor and the faithful: he indeed assumes the obligation of duly performing sacred functions and administering the sacraments; but they oblige themselves to sustain the pastor decently, according to their powers.

That this is wholly agreeable to reason St. Thomas thus declares:¹⁰ "That the people should minister the necessities of sustenance to those who ministered to divine worship for the salvation of the whole people is dictated by natural reason; just as to those who watch over the common utility, namely princes and soldiers, and others of this kind, the stipends of sustenance are owed by the people. Whence also the Apostle proves this by human customs, saying:¹¹ 'Who serveth as a soldier at any time at his own charges? Or who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof?'"

¹⁰ St. Thomas, II-II, q. 87, a. 1.

¹¹ 1 Cor. 9:7.

Therefore, by force of quasi-contract, the faithful are bound to provide necessities for pastors and others having the care of souls.

1135. (B) The existence of this obligation is indeed certain, but to define its extension strictly is very difficult, unless an ecclesiastical law intervenes clearly determining it. Where the payment of tithes still flourishes, the tenth part of the fruits must be paid. But where it does not exist, the only general rule is that individuals contribute something according to their own part, lest priests lack necessary sustenance.

Whence we make our own the words of Kenrick:¹² "As long as no burden is imposed and defined by a certain law, we do not dare to condemn as guilty of mortal sin him who omits to contribute an equitable portion, as often as there is no danger lest priests be in need for that cause, or other faithful be too much burdened. But those who out of avarice refuse to give anything, in the circumstances which we have indicated, seem gravely guilty, and unworthy of sacramental forgiveness: for they violate the law of Christ the Lord concerning the sustenance of the ministers of the Gospel, and expose themselves and others to the risk of salvation."

¹² Kenrick, Theologia Moralis, Mechlin, 1861, tract. IV, n. 64.

Wherefore it is wholly fitting that priests exact their rights not so much by threats and harsh rebukes as by kindly admonition and persuasion; for, as St. Thomas rightly says,¹³ "ministers of the Church ought to have greater care for promoting spiritual goods among the people than for collecting temporal goods; and therefore the Apostle did not wish to use the power handed down to him by the Lord, namely that he should receive the stipends of sustenance from those to whom he preached the Gospel, lest some impediment be given to the Gospel of Christ."

¹³ St. Thomas, II-II, q. 87, a. 1, ad 5.

One must especially beware lest the sacraments be denied to the faithful who are unwilling to give an offering in collections, to which it is not established that they are bound under grave sin, especially to those who are near death.¹⁴ Even if certain faithful had sinned gravely by providing nothing, when they could and ought, this sin is not more irremissible than others.

¹⁴ On this see the Third Council of Baltimore, n. 292.

Besides, experience establishes that those priests receive abundant offerings from the faithful who, on the one hand, labor strenuously for the salvation of souls, and, on the other, show themselves kindly and merciful toward the people committed to them, especially if honestly and in detail, insofar as this can be done, they render an account of the monies which they have received.

1136. (C) It belongs to the Bishop to determine the manner in which money ought to be collected for providing for the expenses of worship and the honorable sustenance of priests, and to pursue disobedient pastors with canonical penalties. Wherefore the S. C. of the Council, being asked whether a Bishop can compel pastors to collect the offerings of the faithful, on April 29, 1911, answered: "The Bishop in the case can under grave obligation compel pastors to collect the offerings of the faithful, either by themselves or through another, and after warnings pursue them with canonical penalties, and, if they have been contumacious, with the things to be observed by law having been observed, even remove them from the parish."¹⁵

¹⁵ A. A. S., III, 273.

And let these things suffice concerning the precepts of the Church, which, if they are rightly kept, will promote temperance and chastity not a little, and also pious sentiments of mutual love between pastors and the sheep committed to them.