Section II. On the Law of Fasting

I. Object of the law. The law of fasting prescribes that only one meal be taken during the day; but it does not forbid taking some food in the morning and evening, while preserving the approved custom of places concerning the quantity and quality of foods. Nor is it forbidden to mix meats and fish in the same meal; nor to exchange the evening refection with the dinner (can. 1251). Besides, drink is never prohibited, nor certain things which are not taken after the manner of nourishment. We shall explain the several points.

1. One refection, which is called dinner. Moreover:

a) The full refection, which originally could begin only at a later hour, can now by custom be begun about midday, and indeed, by the same custom broadly interpreting the midday hour, at the eleventh hour. In calculating the hour it is lawful to follow the common usage of the place; likewise the time of the place, whether local, true or mean, or legal, whether regional or some other extraordinary time (can. 33, § 1; n. 167).

Besides, the determination of the hour no longer pertains to the substance of the precept, so that even a notable anticipation is not prohibited under grave sin. This can be deduced both from the fact that the law makes no mention of the hour of the one meal, and from the fact that, considering changed customs, the law has already for a longer time been accepted by more recent authors in that sense. Yet the determination of the hour pertains to the integrity of the law, so that anticipation per se involves venial fault; for the law permits only taking some food in the morning and exchanging the small supper with the dinner (can. 1251, § 2). Hence per se it is illicit to take dinner in the morning; but it is lawful to take the small supper at the eleventh hour and dinner in the evening (can. cited); likewise, for a reasonable cause, to take the small supper in the morning, dinner at midday, and a little piece in the evening (St. Alphonsus, III, 1024).¹

b) The full refection can be prolonged for two hours (St. Alphonsus, III, 1020, question 5). Besides, St. Alphonsus neither approves nor reproves the custom, if it is in force somewhere, of placing on the table, notably beyond two hours - namely for another hour or two - only sweetmeats or lighter foods, provided the little evening refection is omitted (loc. cit.).

c) The full refection, by the very fact that only one is permitted, must at least be morally continued. Wherefore observe:

alpha) An interruption made for a reasonable cause does not prevent one from returning to dinner (St. Alphonsus, III, 1020, questions 3 and 4).

beta) An interruption of a quarter hour or even half an hour does not prevent returning to dinner, even if it was already regarded as finished (St. Alphonsus, III, 1020). After the full refection has been taken, to eat again after an hour is a grave sin. If the refection has not yet been completed, an interruption of two hours is required for grave fault.

d) One who, whether culpably or inculpably, has taken a double refection does not sin gravely by refreshing himself a third time or more often. The reason is that the substance of the precept consists in abstinence from a second refection; hence, once the second refection has been taken, the substance of the precept no longer subsists, and therefore it can no longer be violated (St. Alphonsus, III, 1030, questions 1 and 2). Yet according to St. Alphonsus and others he sins venially, "because to act contrary to the end of the law is a certain disorder which does not seem to be excused from all fault" (III, 1030, question 1). But one who, whether culpably or inculpably, has injured the law of fasting only in accidental things is per se bound to keep it according to its substance. Hence, for example, one who has breakfasted in the morning, if the breakfast is equivalent to the small supper, should take dinner in the customary way and a little piece in the evening, or arrange the matter in some other way so that the substance of the law is preserved. If the breakfast is equivalent to a full refection, afterwards he can take only the small supper and a little piece, unless, because of inconvenience, a full refection must again be conceded to him (St. Alphonsus, III, 1020, question 4). Others, however, think that one who from inadvertence, and therefore inculpably, has breakfasted can thereafter fast as others fast, and consequently take dinner and the small supper.

2. The little morning refection is permitted, while preserving approved custom concerning the quantity and quality of foods. Now, half an ounce of denarius weight, or 60 grams, is permitted, whether of bread or of a nourishing drink, such as chocolate, etc.; in some regions even stronger foods - not, however, meats² - are permitted.

It is also permitted that one, repeatedly during the day, take a little bit of food for this purpose, lest drink harm him; likewise that he take certain electuaries in a small quantity, not indeed after the manner of nourishment, but, for example, to preserve the voice, remove bad odor of the mouth, or assist digestion (St. Thomas, II-II, q. 147, a. 6, ad 3; St. Alphonsus, III, 1018, 1019; Homo Apostolicus, tract 12, n. 11).

3. The small supper, or evening refection, is likewise permitted, while again preserving approved custom concerning the quantity and quality of foods. With this considered, the following can be established:

a) With respect to quantity. About 2 1/2 ounces of denarius weight, or about 250 grams, of foods not very nourishing are permitted to all, even to those who are plainly refreshed by the quantity to be assigned; but 300 grams are permitted in northern regions, and if someone needed more abundant food (St. Alphonsus, III, 1025). If the food is very nourishing,³ only about 1 1/2 ounces of denarius weight, or 140-150 grams, can be taken. Besides, the assigned quantities can be increased a little if a just cause is added; indeed they can be increased as much as is necessary for duly carrying out the duties of one's state. Finally, if somewhere there exists a custom, on the Vigil of the Nativity or others, of doubling the quantity of the small supper, the "joyful fast," this can be observed, even if the chief reason, namely assistance at the nocturnal office, is not present (St. Alphonsus, III, 1025).

b) With respect to quality. Considering custom, in most regions nothing except meats is prohibited. Yet, as was said above, if the small supper consists of stronger foods - such as eggs, larger fish - only a smaller quantity is permitted (cf. St. Alphonsus, III, 1026-1028).

4. Drink always permitted is understood as that which per se and ordinarily is used to extinguish thirst, refresh nature, and foster digestion, such as wine, beer, water, or coffee mixed with a small quantity of sugar, and this even if they nourish to some degree. Milk, meat broth, chocolate, and similar things are excluded, since they have rather the character of food; this also holds of fruits, such as apples, melons, etc., even if only the juice is swallowed (St. Thomas, II-II, q. 147, a. 6, ad 2; St. Alphonsus, III, 1022, 1023).

¹ Cf. S. Poenit., 19 Jan. 1834.

² The President of the Pontifical Commission, to the doubt whether on days of fasting alone meats can be taken several times, responded on 29 Oct. 1919: Negative (A. A. S. 1919, p. 480).

³ From precisely the fact that food is cooked, for example into porridge, at least nowadays the quantity does not seem to be diminished. But in some dioceses cooked foods seem to be prohibited.

II. Subject of the law. All are bound by the law of fasting from the completed twenty-first year of age to the begun sixtieth year (can. 1254, § 2).

Corollary I. In view of the cited canon, the opinion once defended by some, which exempted women in their fiftieth year from fasting, can no longer be sustained.

Corollary II. One who completes the twenty-first year on a day of fasting seems not yet to be held to fasting on that day, but only from midnight; one who begins the sixtieth year of age on a day of fasting seems exempt from fasting on that day, so that the obligation of fasting ceases once the fifty-ninth year of age has passed (cf. can. 34, § 3, 3°).

Corollary III. It is commonly admitted that religious who have begun the sixtieth year are exempt even from the fasts to which they are bound by force of profession, because the rules of religious are judged to oblige after the manner of ecclesiastical laws. It is disputed, however, whether the same can be said of robust young religious who have not yet completed the twenty-first year. Most deny it, because young men are presumed to have bound themselves also for a younger age. To this it can be answered that young men have bound themselves according to the mind of the rule. Hence, if it is doubted whether the rule comprehends them, in practice they are excused from the regular fast.

III. Obligation of the law. On this point, first note proposition 23 condemned by Alexander VII: "One breaking the fast of the Church to which he is bound does not sin mortally unless he does it from contempt or disobedience, for example because he does not wish to subject himself to the precept."¹ Now the law of fasting obliges under grave sin insofar as it prohibits a second full refection. In addition, he sins gravely who, besides the full refection, whether in the small supper or otherwise, reaches grave prohibited matter. Moreover, according to St. Alphonsus, grave matter in violation of fasting is a quantity exceeding 30 grams of denarius weight (III, 1029). Hence he sins gravely who, for example, in the small supper adds to the permitted quantity a quantity greater than 30 grams. But if there is question of prohibited food, suppose meat, or eggs in a region where eggs are prohibited in the small supper, even a smaller quantity suffices. Besides, observe:

1. Small quantities coalesce, as is deduced from proposition 29 condemned by Alexander VIII: "On a day of fasting, one who more often eats a small amount of something, even if at the end he has eaten a notable quantity, does not break the fast"² (St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.).

2. It is the same whether the permitted quantity is exceeded in the small supper or at another time.

¹ Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1123.

² Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1129.

IV. Causes excusing from the law are infirmity, bodily labor, and spiritual labor.

1. Infirmity excuses: 1° not only the sick, but also those recovering; 2° the weak, who cannot take sufficient food in one refection; 3° those who from fasting suffer dizziness or notable pain of the head or stomach, or cannot sleep through a great part of the night; 4° pregnant or nursing women, which Capellmann-Bergmann¹ extends also to the time of menstruation; 5° the poor, who lack a sufficient dinner (St. Alphonsus, III, 1033-1036).

2. Bodily labor excuses if it is both necessary or useful to oneself or others, and grave and prolonged through a great part of the day. It is said:

a) Labor whether necessary or useful to oneself or others. Concerning this, note that the Church does not require that, in order to observe the fast, one abstain from necessary or useful labor; and this holds even if there is question of the rich, because it is of interest to the common good that useful labors not be interrupted (St. Alphonsus, III, 1042). It is disputed, however, whether it is lawful for the sake of pleasure alone to assume labor which cannot morally be combined with fasting. Moreover, some think that this can be done once or twice. But I rather adhere to the opinion which teaches that pleasure alone, not even once or twice, is a reason why it is lawful to place an impediment to a grave law that must be observed.

b) Grave labor, and prolonged through a great part of the day; otherwise, for the most part, it is compatible with fasting. Moreover, grave labor is the labor: 1° of farmers; 2° of workmen and artisans, except those who perform quiet works, such as barbers, tailors, and painters; 3° of male servants and maids, whether in a private family or in an institute or monastery, unless they perform only light services. To these also are to be counted those who make a laborious journey, suppose a journey on foot of 4-5 leagues, although it can happen that even a journey made by horse or carriage must be called laborious (St. Alphonsus, III, 1041, 1047); likewise those who use a bicycle for a long time. For the rest, note proposition 30 condemned by Alexander VII: "All officials who labor bodily in the State are excused from the obligation of fasting";² likewise proposition 31 proscribed by the same Pontiff: "All those who travel by riding are absolutely excused from the precept of fasting, however they make the journey, even if the journey is not necessary, and even if they complete a journey of one day."³

3. Grave spiritual labor likewise excuses, provided the conditions required with respect to bodily labor are also present in the case, in other words, provided the labor is necessary or at least useful, and is prolonged through a great part of the day. For this reason the following are commonly excused: 1° preachers who preach five or six times a week; 2° teachers of the higher sciences, who are almost continually intent upon study; 3° teachers of a lower science or art, who teach daily for several hours and therefore are fatigued by study and speaking; 4° confessors who hear confessions through the greater part of the day; 5° scholastics continually occupied with study (cf. St. Alphonsus, III, 1049).

Corollary I. From what has been said it follows that grave labor, provided it is at least useful, can for the most part be undertaken, even if it is morally incompatible with fasting. Yet this should not be extended to all works, especially religious works and those useful only to the one acting. For many works of this sort are rather to be omitted or deferred than undertaken with injury to the fast, suppose - at least per se - a pilgrimage (St. Thomas, II-II, q. 147, a. 4, ad 3; St. Alphonsus, III, 1049).

Corollary II. Bodily labor, about which there has been discussion, is such that each person is presumed to be excused from fasting because of it; but if there is question of spiritual labor, it can more easily happen that someone is so robust that he is not excused because of it, but needs a dispensation (St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.).

Corollary III. One who in Lent performs labor which excuses from fasting is not bound to fast on one or another day on which perhaps he is free from labor, unless it is manifest that this can be done without danger of grave inconvenience. For the most part he will be excused either for restoring or for preserving his strength.

4. Labor not so grave in itself will rather often excuse when some infirmity is added.

¹ Pastoral-Medizin, 10th ed., p. 245.

² Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1130.

³ Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1131.

V. Dispensation. The same persons who can dispense from the law of abstinence can dispense from the law of fasting (n. 1098). Those who can dispense should generally acquiesce readily to the one seeking dispensation, and should remember that even in doubt whether there is a sufficient cause for dispensing, they can dispense.

Note. Canon 1253 establishes: By these canons, that is, by the canons explained by us, nothing is changed concerning particular indults, concerning vows of any physical or moral person, or concerning the constitutions and rules of any approved religion or institute of men or women living in common even without vows.