Section I. On the Law of Abstinence

I. Object of the law. The law of abstinence forbids eating meat and broth from meat, but not eggs, dairy products, and any condiments whatever, even from the fat of animals (can. 1250). It is said:

1. Meat; wherefore observe these things:

a) By the word meat are included not only flesh taken more strictly, but also other constitutive parts of an animal, such as blood, bacon, marrow, etc. Yet the following are permitted: 1° a thing not prohibited in itself which has been mixed with meat, provided that only a little of the meat has remained in it. The reason is that a little is reputed as nothing. Therefore oil in which meat has been fried is permitted.¹ Some concede the same with respect to vegetable fat and Palmin,² in which meat has been fried.³ But this seems doubtful to others, because in that case too much meat remains in the fat. The same reason for doubting holds with respect to butter in which meat has been fried. 2° Peptones which are obtained from pepsin and vegetable albumin; but not those which are prepared from pepsin and animal albumin. "To take" the latter, Antonelli says, "is the same as to eat the more principal substance of meat already wholly digested";⁴ the fact that they are not called meat, but have a special name, and do not have the taste of meat, does not prevent them from being judged meat.

b) Rules for discerning whether animals are meat or fish, or at least whether they are prohibited or permitted.

alpha) Before all else, common estimation and custom should be attended to (St. Alphonsus, III, 1011).

beta) If common estimation and custom are lacking, these things should be observed: 1° those animals are judged meat which are accustomed to live on land, or at least for a long time outside water; 2° amphibians are counted with those animals to which they bear the greater likeness⁵ (St. Alphonsus, III, 1011; Homo Apostolicus, tract 12, n. 2).

gamma) If, considering the things said above, the matter is doubtful with respect to certain animals, it is lawful to eat them until a declaration of the Church removes the doubt.

c) Applications. With attention to the rules set forth:

alpha) Among others, birds are counted as meat, although some are nourished in water, such as divers and ducks.

beta) Frogs, snails, turtles, oysters, shellfish, and lobsters are counted as fish, or are equated with fish with respect to our matter; the same must be said about caviar, as the Sacred Penitentiary declared.⁶

gamma) With respect to otters, beavers, coots, etc., custom should be attended to.

2. And broth from meat; by the name of broth from meat is understood the water in which meat - to which bones also pertain - has been boiled. Moreover, it is prohibited absolutely, so that it cannot even be used after the manner of a condiment. But if it could be taken in such a mode, the legislator certainly would have signified this, just as he did with respect to a condiment from fat. Add that even previously the use of fat after the manner of a condiment had been conceded, but not truly the use of broth from meat.

Hence liquid foods prepared from meat broth, bouillon, are prohibited; likewise those prepared from Liebig. Foods prepared from Maggi are some prohibited, others not prohibited, according as the Maggi used consists of elements of meat or of others; namely, each case occurs.

3. But the law of abstinence does not forbid using eggs, dairy products (milk, butter, cheese), and any condiments whatever (butter, margarine,⁷ etc.), even from the fat of animals. With respect to animal fat observe:

a) By the name of fat is understood not only swine fat, but the fat of any animal whatever;⁸ likewise fat extracted from bacon, for it can come under the name of fat.⁹ Likewise those bits of bacon which remain whole from the same rendered bacon can be eaten, provided they continue to be part of the condiment.¹⁰ From what has been said it also follows that it is lawful to eat bread spread with fat: both because it can be said that not only that which is cooked with food is taken after the manner of a condiment, but also that which is added to it merely for the sake of increasing flavor; and because the law, if taken more severely, would harm the poor especially.

b) Fat - just like butter, margarine, and similar things - seems lawful, even if it is not used after the manner of a condiment. The reason is that it seems to be equated by the legislator with other condiments which are certainly lawful. The fact that the law uses the word condiment is explained from this, that the aforesaid things are accustomed to be used only after the manner of a condiment.

¹ S. Poenit., 17 Nov. 1897.

² These, of themselves, consist only of plant elements.

³ N. K. Stemmen, 1909, p. 126.

⁴ Medicina Pastoralis, II, 868.

⁵ Benedict XIV, De Synodo, book II, ch. 5, n. 12.

⁶ 16 Jan. 1834.

⁷ Cf. S. Off., 5 Sept. 1906 (A. S. S. XXXIX, p. 455).

⁸ S. Off., 1 May 1889; 25 March 1895.

⁹ Cf. S. Off., 25 March 1895 (A. S. S. III, p. 276), and S. C. C., 29 April 1911 (A. S. S. XXVIII, p. 570).

¹⁰ S. Poenit., 17 Nov. 1897.

II. Subject of the law. All who have completed the seventh year of age are held by the law of abstinence (can. 1254, § 1). Therefore one who has not yet completed the seventh year of age is not held, even if he has arrived at the use of reason. Likewise, in view of can. 12, one is not held who, although the seventh year of age has been completed, has not yet attained the use of reason. One who completes the seventh year of age on a day of abstinence seems not yet to be held to abstinence on that day, but only from midnight of the following day (cf. can. 34, § 3, 3°).

III. Obligation of the law. It is grave from its kind. Practically, however, it can be said that grave matter is 20 grams.¹

Besides, observe: 1° small quantities coalesce; 2° sin is committed as often as prohibited food is eaten. The reason is that the essence of the precept consists in abstinence from meats as long as the day lasts; hence one who has violated the precept at some time of the day violates it again if at another time of the day he again eats meats (St. Alphonsus, III, 1030, q. 1). But it is another question whether, after grave matter has been completed, new acts of eating - abstracting from a retracted will - are sins new in number, or the same continued sin. The latter opinion does not lack foundation, because there is one precept for each whole day (cf. n. 254).

¹ Some think - but without sufficient reason - that on days of abstinence alone a larger quantity is required for grave matter than on days of fasting and abstinence.

IV. Excusing causes. "Many," as Aertnys-Damen rightly note, "need more than one meal on a day of fasting; but few need forbidden foods, at least in our time, in which the law of abstinence has been greatly mitigated in the Code of Canon Law."¹ Yet the following are excused:

1. The sick, or those so weak that they cannot digest fasting foods. Likewise pregnant or nursing women, if they are weak, if their infant is sick or danger of sickness threatens the infant; likewise if they vehemently desire meat (St. Alphonsus, III, 1033).

2. The poor who beg - likewise those who would beg, unless shame prohibited them - can eat what they receive, and this even if on that day they have fasting foods, because the Church is not judged to prohibit them from enjoying an advantage unusual for them.

3. The poor who have nothing else except a small piece of fat or bacon for seasoning porridge or lettuce.

4. Workers who daily devote themselves to labors so arduous and so fatiguing to the stomach that, after the manner of the sick, they do not experience hunger and have an aversion to foods; of this sort are those who pass their life in mines, or in glass or iron foundries.

5. Travelers who, for example in inns, cannot have lawful foods without great difficulty.

6. Children of the household, male servants, and maids who are in the same condition as the said travelers. With respect to persons who are in the power of a father of a family to whom a legitimate faculty of eating meats has been granted, the Sacred Penitentiary² declared that "permission made by a simple confessor suffices," if the father cannot or will not prepare two meals; the sense of this declaration seems to be that the confessor can practically declare, in the supposed hypothesis, that a case of inability is present.

7. A guest who finds a meal furnished with prohibited foods and cannot easily obtain other dishes; for by departing, or by eating only lawful things, he would for the most part provoke a notable disturbance or even enmity. If someone must attend a meal which he foresees will be prepared with meats, he should ask for a dispensation in time. If time is not available, he should proceed as was just said. But if someone spends several days among relatives or very close friends who do not observe the law, permitted foods are more easily obtained without grave inconvenience.

8. If prohibited condiments have been used in good faith, and the error is discovered only when the meal is imminent, it is lawful to take foods seasoned in this way. - If an entire meal has been prepared with meats, it can be taken if it cannot be left without grave inconvenience; suppose if time is lacking for preparing another suitable meal, or if anger and quarrels are feared.

¹ Aertnys-Damen, Theologia Moralis, I, n. 1065.

² 27 May 1863.

V. Dispensation. 1. Not only the Ordinaries of places, but also pastors, in individual cases and for a just cause, can dispense individual faithful subject to them, or individual families, even outside the territory, and in their own territory also travelers, from the common law concerning the observance of feasts and likewise from the observance of abstinence and fasting, or even of both (can. 1245, § 1); suppose on the occasion of marriage, or funerals, or golden weddings.

The same, in view of can. 1368, seems to have to be said concerning the rector of a seminary with respect to all who are in the seminary; this, at least with the Church supplying, is practically certain.

2. Ordinaries, from a special cause of a great concourse of the people or of public health, can also dispense the whole diocese or place from fasting and from abstinence, or even from both laws together (can. 1245, § 2). And the P. C.¹ declared that a great concourse of the people is had even through an extraordinary concourse of the faithful of only one parish to a feast to be celebrated in a church.

3. In an exempt clerical religious institute, Superiors have the same power of dispensing after the manner of a pastor, so far as concerns professed members, novices, or others dwelling in the religious house day and night by reason of service, education, hospitality, or ill health (can. 1245, § 3).

4. Finally note the dispensation, both from the law of abstinence and, if ever it occurs, from the law of fasting, granted on 7 March 1924 by Pius XI to all who have attended a Eucharistic Congress, whether international, or of one nation, region, or diocese, also on the occasion of the journey.²

Note 1. One who is not held by the law of fasting - whether because he has not yet attained the required age, or because he has been dispensed from the law, or is excused from it - can, on those days on which the law of fasting alone is in force but not that of abstinence, eat meats as often as he eats during the day. Others can eat meats only at the full meal, while preserving morning and evening the approved custom of places concerning the quantity and quality of foods.

Note 2. It is lawful, as it seems, on Holy Saturday - just as on other days (n. 1099) - to begin the full meal after the eleventh hour; likewise to eat meats in it; since, in view of the obvious sense of can. 1252, § 4, both laws cease at the same moment. Therefore the word midday, which the canon uses, should be taken in a broad sense. However, on Holy Saturday it is not lawful to take breakfast, even if the law of fasting ceases after midday. The reason is that the law commands the continuation of the fast until midday.

Note 3. The obligation of almsgiving or prayers which Bishops are accustomed to impose in a dispensation from the law of abstinence is certainly only light, if the work imposed is light; nor does the matter, as imposed for individual days, coalesce. If the work is grave, nevertheless, considering the character of a dispensation - otherwise than of a commutation - the obligation seems light.

¹ 12 March 1929, ad III (A. A. S. 1929, p. 170).

² A. A. S. 1924, p. 157.