Causes Excusing from Fasting

687. Who are excused. In order that someone be excused from fasting, a grave cause proportionate to the gravity of the precept is required. The causes excusing from fasting can be reduced to three: a. weakness of body; b. poverty; c. grave labor, whether of body or of mind.

1. Because of weakness of body are excused:

a. The sick, convalescents, the weak; likewise those who cannot take sufficient nourishment at one time; moreover all who from fasting suffer notable headache or dizziness, or who without supper cannot sleep for a notable part of the night.

b. Pregnant and nursing women, even if on account of robust strength they do not seem to suffer detriment from fasting; to these physicians add women who are suffering the menstrual flow.

c. Those who suffer from nerves: for according to the judgment of physicians the "nervous" must take food in smaller quantity but more frequently; hence those whose disease (nervousness) is notable are excused from the law of fasting, or at least there is sufficient reason for seeking and granting dispensation.

d. The aged, that is, sixty-year-old men from the beginning of the sixtieth year, and fifty-year-old women from the beginning of the fiftieth year of age. For when old age begins, the faithful are excused from fasting; but according to things as they commonly happen, old age begins in men from the sixtieth year, in women, who grow old more quickly just as they flourish sooner in age, from the fiftieth year of age. This same age also excuses from fasting which is observed by force of a rule in religious orders or which is undertaken from vow, unless something else is expressly established.

a. The reason why old age excuses from fasting is this: because on the one hand in old age nature and strength are diminished and therefore need restoration more often; on the other hand the aged, because of weakness of strength and because of heat gradually failing, cannot digest sufficient food all at once and at the same time, and therefore need food more frequently.

b. Since the aged are of themselves excused from fasting, not only those who in fact are weak in strength are not bound to fast, but also those who seem robust enough to bear the fast: for this is accidental.

2. Because of poverty all those are excused who do not have the means from which they may procure for themselves a full meal, such as those begging door to door, and those who do not have such foods that one full meal would suffice for their nutrition: for bread and legumes or other foods of little nourishment do not suffice for the just nutrition of the whole day.

3. Because of bodily labor are excused: workers who exercise a mechanical art with great labor of body: farmers, blacksmiths, carpenters, masons, weavers, stonecutters, sailors, porters, runners, shoemakers, cooks who must prepare several foods for many persons, etc.; and indeed these (by reason of custom) are excused of themselves, so that not even those must fast who, because of sufficiently robust strength, could fast without grave inconvenience, because they exercise an art which of itself is joined with great weariness of body.

Travelers, if the journey cannot be deferred without inconvenience or if it has already begun, and indeed: a. a longer journey on foot, that is, of four or five hours, of itself excuses from fasting; and if the road is hard, or the weather harsh, or the traveler weak, even a shorter journey excuses. b. Those who travel by horse or carriage are excused if they are on a journey for several days; a journey of one day excuses only if it must be made with great weariness. c. But a journey by railways, since it is not laborious, can excuse only accidentally, namely if the travelers lack suitable nourishment.

a. Those who by reason of bodily labor are excused from fasting are not bound to fast on those days on which they interrupt labor if they do this for only one or another day: for they are excused so that they may restore and preserve the strength necessary for their next labors. But in order that those who exercise an art joined with grave labor may be judged actually excused, they must at least ordinarily labor through the greater part of the day: for if ordinarily they were occupied in labors of this kind for only two or three hours, they would not be excused of themselves.

b. No one is bound, in order that he may be able to fast, to interrupt labors incompatible with fasting which he ordinarily exercises, even if he does not need the labor, since he is excused from fasting even because of labor that is not necessary: for the Church does not intend to impede the faithful from their ordinary occupations.

c. Nevertheless it is not lawful, on a fast day, without just cause, that is, merely for the sake of recreation, to undertake labor incompatible with fasting which otherwise is not exercised, unless this is done very rarely; but it is lawful for a useful end, even if not necessary. Therefore it is lawful on a fast day to undertake a pious pilgrimage if there is a special reason for undertaking it on that day, for example, a special spiritual utility of the pilgrims; but if a special reason of this kind is absent, the pilgrimage must be deferred to another day.

Note. It cannot be admitted that all those are of themselves excused from fasting who exercise serious labor, especially bodily labor: for there are many workers and craftsmen whose occupation is not so laborious that they are excused of themselves from fasting; of this kind are painters, scribes, typesetters and others laboring in printing houses who do not themselves have to turn the press, barbers, tailors, servants and maids who perform only lighter domestic services. Yet because of the great weakness of men at the present time, many of these, especially in towns, are accidentally excused from fasting.

4. Because of mental labor, which is often joined with bodily weariness, are excused:

Lecturers of sciences, even if they have a lecture only once in the day, when they need great study and labor to prepare the lectures, but not those who deliver lectures already prepared before and often repeated.¹

Professors of grammar and schoolmasters who must teach daily for four or five hours with great weariness.

Students who through the greater part of the day (for about nine or ten hours) attend schools and seriously apply themselves to studies.

Preachers who daily or almost daily have a sermon; and a fortiori missionaries, who are exercised in missions with still greater weariness. But generally preachers are not excused who have a sermon only three or four times in the week, unless they undergo notable inconvenience in observing the fast.

Confessors are excused if they cannot hear penitents and at the same time fast without grave inconvenience; but this ordinarily happens only if they receive confessions almost through the whole day, that is, for seven or eight hours.

All these, however, are not excused of themselves, but only accidentally, namely if by reason of some circumstance aggravating the ordinary labor (weakness of the person, special gravity of the labor, etc.) they could not, while fasting, perform their offices. Yet they easily have sufficient reason because of which they can seek and receive dispensation.

Note. 1. All who judge themselves excused from the law of fasting or abstinence, because of the danger of hallucination, are to be warned that, where the excusing cause is not altogether manifest, they should seek the declaration of the pastor or physician, and that they should seek dispensation where, because of the lightness of the cause, a declaration alone does not suffice.

2. Ecclesiastical superiors should not be difficult in granting dispensation; but let them remember that this reason alone, that if dispensation is denied the precept will be violated, is not a sufficient cause for granting dispensation. Nevertheless the faithful who seek dispensation can ordinarily be presumed to have some reasonable cause, such as weakness, wearying labor, etc.; indeed a founded fear lest, if dispensation is not granted, those weak in faith and in Christian life be alienated from the Church itself constitutes some cause for granting dispensation.

3. Confessors should beware lest they warn those who are in good faith and are foreseen not to obey about observing the precept of abstinence and fasting to the very point of moral theology, lest, once warned, they commit formal sins and be frightened away from the sacraments.

4. Not every difficulty which follows from fasting excuses from observing it, but only grave external difficulty, which is not joined to the very nature of the precept: for some weakening of the body and some headache, likewise difficulty in exercising one's duty somewhat greater than usual, necessarily follow from fasting, and therefore belong to inconveniences internal to this precept.

¹ St. Alphonsus, n. 1094.

The causes excusing from fasting are commonly reduced chiefly to three, namely: 1. to impossibility, whether physical or moral; 2. to piety or charity; 3. to dispensation, as was said concerning other precepts.

507. Resolves. - 1. Poor persons begging door-to-door are excused from fasting, and all others who neither have nor can provide for themselves the means by which they may procure a suitable meal. But for this there do not suffice bread and fruits, nor pottage with bread and fruits, nor bread and wine alone, unless perhaps for one or another day ¹. - St. Lig., n. 1033; Hom. apost., n. 23.

¹ This limitation, "of one perhaps or another day," is not St. Alphonsus's; indeed he gives this reason why poor persons of this sort are released from obligation (lib. 3, n. 1033): "For although," he says, "he may be accustomed to foods of this sort, nevertheless he therefore sufficiently sustains himself because several times in the day, and several times in great quantity, he is accustomed to refresh himself with those foods which are of little nourishment." St. Alphonsus indeed affirms these things with the common opinion of the Doctors.

2. The sick, the infirm, the convalescent, and the weak are excused, for example, those who labor under tertian or quartan fever, or are convalescing from it; furthermore those who, unless they are refreshed twice, suffer notable headache or vertigo from emptiness of the stomach. - St. Lig., n. 1033-1034.

3. Those are excused who exercise very laborious works, such as plowing, digging, cutting stones, carrying heavy burdens, and other things of this sort. - St. Lig., n. 1041.

4. Male and female servants or others of this sort are excused when they are occupied with so many and such great labors that fasting cannot be joined with these without great difficulty or inconvenience; likewise those making a journey on foot for a notable time with great fatigue. - St. Lig., ibid.

5. But per se and ordinarily barbers, tailors, painters, scribes, servants, footmen, printers who do not turn the press but only arrange the characters, and those applying themselves to other similar things are not excused. - St. Lig., n. 1041. - Reuter, etc.

508. Questions. - Q. 1. Whether young men stronger in powers are bound to fast before the completion of the twenty-first year of age?

Resp. It is denied, because the law, as it is received and determined by approved custom, obliges only those who have completed the twenty-first year: for in this there is attended only to that which happens commonly. Yet young men are to be advised that, according to the measure of their age, they sometimes fast, so that more easily, when the time of obligation has come, they may be able to keep the law of fasting. - St. Lig., n. 1035, etc.

509. • Q. 2. Whether sexagenarians are excused from fasting ²?

² That those can here be understood as sexagenarians who have merely begun the sixtieth year, Diana teaches after others, tom. IV, tr. 6, res. 5, n. 1-2, and res. 8, n. 3.

Resp. 1. They are certainly excused if they are weak in powers, as is clear. Indeed they are also excused according to the common opinion in doubt about the strength of their powers, because then the presumption stands for their weakness. - St. Lig., n. 1036.

Resp. 2. If they abound in powers, it is disputed. The first opinion denies that they are exempted from the law of fasting, because those who have strong powers at that age are not reputed as old men. - Laymann, Antoine, Collet, etc. This opinion indeed is probable, says St. Alphonsus in the same place, but no less probable is the opposite opinion, which Sanchez, Roncaglia, Salmant. hold... The reason is both because universal custom bears it so, as Doctors more commonly testify; and because otherwise it would be a matter liable to many scruples to examine whether some sexagenarian is or is not sufficiently robust for sustaining a fast. But the stronger reason is that old men of this sort, both on account of weakness of powers and on account of defect of heat, cannot take sufficient food all at once, and need more frequent food; and although some at such an age may seem robust, nevertheless their strength is easily illusory and inconstant, since it cannot be denied that in old men of this sort the powers fail and slip toward death. Hence the common adage: Old age itself is a disease ³.

³ What is said concerning ecclesiastical fasts can be established also concerning fasts which Religious observe from their Rule: for sexagenarians will also be able to be excused from these, unless perhaps, as St. Alph. notes (lib. 2, n. 159), they expressly promised the observance of fasting even unto death.

This norm can be extended also to those who have vowed some weekly or monthly fasts for their whole life. But likewise except if someone, thinking about old age, expressly wished to bind himself even to the end of life.

Here the Doctors append the question (see St. Alph., lib. 3, n. 1037), whether the weaker sex, as one which grows old sooner, is also excused sooner from fasting, and they raise a controversy especially about the fiftieth year. Those who deny that they are excused are moved by the fact that although a woman grows old sooner, nevertheless she is less wasted by fasting and needs less food. But others affirm, and press that which no one denies, namely that what is true equally for men and for women is that old age is a disease. Nor certainly does it sufficiently appear why those things which St. Alphonsus observes concerning old age for men would not be equally valid for women. But if women need less food, or rather if because of weakness they are unequal to bearing more abundant food, this will prove rather that they are excused from the law which concedes one meal, since one scanty meal cannot be equal to sustaining their powers.

Moreover, Sanchez wisely concludes concerning this matter (Cons., lib. 5, cap. 1, dub. 4, n. 3-4): "Those who before the sixtieth year are already old and weak are excused. Yet when there is doubt about incapacity, the Confessor ought to attend to providing for necessity with the least detriment of the law; so that if it is sufficient that he anticipate the hour, or make the nocturnal little refection more indulgently, he ought to concede this, and not relax the fast wholly."

** Concerning this Note the Veronese Vindicators (p. 922, in note) observe that P. B. perhaps did not know the things which St. Alphonsus had premised (lib. 3, n. 1032) in these words: "I carefully took care on this point, namely on causes excusing from fasting, to observe very many authors and to recount them here, because in this matter the authority of Doctors redounds into intrinsic probability, since there is question of a matter which depends very much on the estimation of the wise."

Resp. 1. St. Alphonsus, concerning the present question (l. c., n. 1037), thus reports authors: "The first opinion affirms that women of fifty are excused, which Escobar, Renzius, and Narbona, Machadus, and Pellizzarius apud Diana hold; and Sanchez also approves this, who although in the treatise on matrimony he recalled it into doubt, nevertheless in the little work Counsels with Cajetan and others teaches it absolutely; and Viva and Mazzotta think it probable. But the second opinion, which Laymann, the Salmanticenses, Tamburini, Croix, Holzmann, Elbel, Anacletus hold, denies that women of fifty are excused unless," etc. Therefore if from the premised warning of St. Alphonsus, which the Veronese Vindicators wish to be kept before the eyes, the authority of Doctors in this matter redounds into intrinsic probability, it will now scarcely appear why by force of that warning intrinsic probability is to be denied also to the first opinion.

Resp. 2. St. Alphonsus, where he asks (ibid., n. 1036) whether sexagenarians robust in powers are bound to fasting, does not doubt to embrace the negative opinion against Laymann, Elbel, and Anacletus, who oblige them; and against Croix he urges that when it is doubted whether a law comprehends some case or subject, it does not oblige. Therefore if it was lawful for St. Alphonsus to postpone the authority of these four authors, nor did he judge that, on account of their contrary opinion, the intrinsic probability of the opposite opinion perished, it is therefore lawful for us also to postpone the authority of these same writers with regard to women of fifty, lest otherwise we be said to have weight and weight. And hence also it is clear that perhaps the Veronese Vindicators less to the point objected here (l. c.) that the argument taken from these authors is the more valid because those Authors cannot be counted among the more rigid. We shall not say that they are rigid; nevertheless it is manifest that St. Alphonsus in that question abandoned them as more rigid.

Resp. 3. Finally, it is lawful also to inquire on what foundation those authors objected to us rest. For even St. Alphonsus, although he says that extrinsic authority redounds into intrinsic, nevertheless does not omit the examination of reasons. And to begin with Laymann, he (lib. 4, tr. 8, c. 3, n. 2) merely objects the authority of Sanchez. But Sanchez stands altogether against Laymann. For although, as St. Alphonsus says, Sanchez in the treatise on matrimony recalled it into doubt, nevertheless in the little work Counsels (lib. 5, c. 1, dub. 4, n. 6) he teaches absolutely that opinion, namely the opinion which excuses women of fifty; and this work Counsels is later, for the Treatise on Matrimony is cited there. Therefore Laymann rests merely on a false supposition. - Anacletus (tr. 10, dist. 2, q. 4, n. 64) rests merely on the authority of Sanchez and Laymann. But from the things said both these supports fall. - Tamburini (Dec., lib. 4, cap. 5, § 7, n. 5) refers to Laymann, Fagundez, and John Sanchez. But both Fagundez (De 4 Praec. Eccl., lib. 1, c. 8, n. 11) and John Sanchez (Select., disp. 54, n. 11), not otherwise than Laymann, rest merely through a false supposition on the authority of Sanchez, as if he had taught the opposite. Therefore also the suffrage of Tamburini is built upon an empty foundation. Elbel (part 3, conf. 18, n. 507) merely cites Laymann and Tamburini. But from the things said the suffrage of both these is deficient. - Croix (lib. 3, p. 2, n. 1318) confirms his opinion by citing Laymann, Fagundez, Sanchez, and Tamburini. But, as has been seen, those citations do not help the cause. - The Salmanticenses (tr. 23, cap. 2, n. 131), besides the fact that by opining merely "more probably" they confess their assertion, thereafter support this very thing with the customary testimonies of Fagundez, John Sanchez, and Laymann, that is, with shaken reeds. - Finally Holzmann (part 5, tr. 1, c. 3, n. 17), while he adds two writers for our thesis, namely Cassianus a S. Elia and Abreu, just as Croix (l. c.) had added Lotherius, merely opposes Sanchez and Babenstuber. But Babenstuber (tr. 6, disp. 1, art. 3, n. 3) also fortifies his opinion solely with the empty authority of Laymann and Tamburini, to whom he adds, as Holzmann also does, Sanchez, who, as we have said, is indeed the leader of the contrary opinion. Behold, therefore, what the authorities are worth on which St. Alphonsus also relied when he said that he did not dare to call the first opinion probable.

But, you will say, did those authors bring forward no intrinsic reason for their opinion? - Resp. They do bring forward some, indeed; but almost those which Sanchez also had drawn out (De Matrim., lib. 7, disp. 32, n. 17), and he weighed them in an even balance in such a way that he concluded thus: "These things render me uncertain; and to learned men consulted by me it pleased that a lesser age should be assigned to women than to men; but they doubted about the quantity of the age. But certainly the things which I brought forward in the preceding number... and from common estimation prove that a woman of fifty is equally called old as a man of sixty. And therefore this part pleased other learned men. And with the matter considered by myself, and the reasons weighed, I think that he will say nothing deviating from reason, nor moderately alien from probability, who excuses women of fifty from fasting, just as men of sixty are excused." But then he adds those other things which gave occasion to some to cite Sanchez as obliging women of this sort to fasting, but to others to reproach him as speaking contradictory things. For presently he writes: "But until something else more clearly convincing shall appear, I choose as the more probable opinion that which maintains that one must speak indiscriminately of the age of man and woman for excusing from fasts; and the aforesaid things will serve lest we condemn one embracing the opinion which excuses women of fifty. Nevertheless, although the aforesaid things show that that opinion is probable speculatively speaking, yet in practice I judge that it is not safe." And indeed these last words you see are those which after Laymann they eagerly seized and repeat, as many as cite Sanchez as equating women with men as to fasting and condemning the opposite opinion; and likewise they are those on account of which John Sanchez (l. c.) brings Sanchez forward as speaking contrary things, when in reality no cause appears why an opinion which he affirms to be speculatively probable should not be held probable practically. But whoever knows this, which also St. Alphonsus testifies, as we have seen, that Sanchez in the later Work absolutely excused women of fifty from fasting, will say that all these things were brought forward in vain.

510. • Q. 3. Whether smiths, artisans, etc., are excused from fasting if they are so robust that they can fast quite easily?

Resp. It is affirmed probably, because custom exempts generally all who exercise arts of this sort; but laws do not regard that which happens rarely and per accidens, but what happens commonly and per se. But Concina, Bonacina ⁴, etc., deny it, and this too probably. - This second opinion, says St. Lig., n. 1043, speculatively speaking seems more probable, but in practice scarcely one will be found who is not greatly weakened by labor of this sort.

⁴ Bonacina (De Ieiun., punct. ultim., n. 8) speaks about those workers who can conveniently fast.

Q. 4. Whether workers are excused from fasting on those days on which they abstain from labor?

Resp. It is affirmed, if they interrupt their labors only for one or another day, by reason of repairing weariness and preserving strength for sustaining the next labors. - Thus commonly.

Q. 5. Whether rich artisans are excused, who can cease from labor on fast days?

Resp. It is affirmed more probably. The reason is that it is of interest to the Republic that because of fasting workers not interrupt the exercise of arts to which they are bound from their office. This seems also to be established from the declaration of Eugene IV apud St. Lig., n. 1042 ⁵. Nor is it the mind of the Church that the faithful be impeded from ordinary occupations. - Thus commonly ⁶.

⁵ St. Alphonsus (lib. 3, n. 1042) thus reports the declaration of Eugene IV, which he also defends as genuine: "Artisans exercising laborious arts, and rustics, whether poor or not poor, are not bound to fast."

⁶ See St. Thomas, 2. 2, q. 147, art. 4, ad 3, where, speaking of pilgrims, he has these things: "It does not seem to have been the intention of the Church establishing fasts that by this it should impede other pious and more necessary causes."

511. • Q. 6. Whether they sin who without just cause undertake unusual labor incompatible with fasting?

Resp. It is affirmed per se, even if they do not act in fraud of the law; for the law which commands fasting consequently commands that causes which are opposed to satisfaction of the same not be placed without reason. - Thus commonly.

I said without reason; because when a just cause intervenes, it is lawful to take up labor incompatible with fasting, although that labor is unusual, for example, for perceiving the greatest profit, etc. But the sole reason of mere pleasure never suffices, unless another honorable cause is added. - St. Lig., n. 1046.

Q. 7. What journey undertaken on foot for a just cause exempts from fasting?

Resp. They commonly say that a journey of about 5 leagues, that is, fifteen thousand paces, is required and suffices; but if either the road were very difficult, or the weather harsh, or the traveler weak and unaccustomed to a journey, he could be excused by a journey of two leagues. - St. Lig., n. 1047.

512. • Q. 8. Whether, or in what way, preachers, teachers of sciences, and Confessors are excused?

Resp. 1. Preachers who have a sermon daily or almost daily are commonly excused from fasting by reason of piety and office. With even greater right Missionaries, who are exercised with graver fatigue in Missions. Generally speaking, preachers who preach only three or four times in the week are not excused; but in this one must stand by the judgment of the prudent. - St. Lig., n. 1049; Hom. apost., n. 34.

Resp. 2. Teachers of sciences are excused, although they teach for only one hour on each day, if they need study and labor for preparing lessons; but not those who merely deliver from a written text lessons already previously arranged and often repeated. - St. Lig., ibid. But Sanchez and Azor rightly judge, against Salmant. and others, that teachers of grammar are excused if they teach for 4 or 5 hours.

Resp. 3. Confessors are not excused per se, but only when they undergo extraordinary labor, for example, when on several successive days they must hear confessions, as is usual in Missions, or when they are so weak in powers that without grave inconvenience they cannot satisfy the frequency of penitents ⁷. - St. Lig., ibid. - See Cases, n. 468 and following.

⁷ As to all these things, and others of this kind, one must always recall the premised opinion of St. Thomas, that it is not the intention of the Church, when she commands fasts, to impede pious and more necessary causes. Add likewise that it is not the intention of the Church that in these matters she oblige with notable inconvenience. Therefore whoever, by fasting, could not preach, even once, or teach sciences, whether he has prepared lessons or not, or hear confessions, even for a brief hour, without notable inconvenience, the mind of the Church does not seem to be that he should interrupt these exercises on account of fasting. But St. Thomas wisely adds (ibid.): "Yet it seems that in such things recourse must be had to the dispensation of the Superior, unless perhaps where it is so customary, because from the very fact that Prelates dissemble, they seem to agree." And these things indeed do not pertain to mere counsel when, all adjuncts having been inspected, the cause does not appear sufficient for excusing, although it may seem sufficient for dispensing.

513. • 1. To the question: Whether on fast days the time of eating can be inverted, by taking the evening little refection between the tenth and eleventh hour in the morning, but deferring dinner to the fourth or fifth hour in the evening?

The Sacred Penitentiary (on 10 Jan. 1834) judged that it should be answered: If there exists some reasonable cause for the aforesaid inversion, penitents who use this custom are not to be disturbed.

2. To the question: Whether heads of families, when in the family there is someone dispensed from the law of abstinence from flesh meats, can extend the dispensation indiscriminately to all persons of the family? (Latin version from the Italian exemplar.)

The Sacred Penitentiary judged that it should be answered: Illness and any other reasonable impediment whatever, by the counsel of each physician, but not gluttony, avarice, or generally economy of expenses, can exempt from the precept of abstinence on fasting days.

3. To the question: Whether, when a father of a family dispensed from the law of abstinence from flesh meats during Lent cannot or does not wish to have foods of both kinds, namely fasting foods and flesh meats, prepared, his sons or household members can eat flesh meats? (From the Italian exemplar.)

The Sacred Penitentiary (on 16 Jan. 1834) judged that it should be answered: That it can be permitted to persons who are under the power of the father of a family, to whom a legitimate faculty of eating flesh meats has been made, to use the foods granted to the father of the family, with the condition added of not mixing lawful and forbidden dishes, and of one eating in the day for those who are bound to fast. But the reason of this permission is not the Indult conceded to the father of the family, but the incapacity in which the sons of the family are placed of observing the precept. Thus the Sacred Penitentiary declared on 27 May 1863. See Ephemer. Revue cathol. de Louvain, July 1863. Likewise, Correspondance de Rome, 17 October 1863.

514. • 4. To the question: Whether the faithful exempt from the law of fasting on account of laborious arts, during Lent, when the eating of flesh meat and milk products is permitted to all at one meal, can eat flesh meats and milk products several times in the day, not otherwise than on Sundays of the same Lent, on which the obligation of fasting does not urge? (From the Italian exemplar.) The Sacred Penitentiary (on 16 Jan. 1834) responded: The faithful who by reason of age or labor are not bound to fast can lawfully, in Lent when an Indult has been granted, on all days comprehended in the Indult, eat flesh meats or milk products permitted through the same Indult as often as they eat during the day. But this does not apply in a diocese whose Bishop by apostolic authority grants to the faithful that on Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday of the time of Lent they can once in the day eat flesh meats and eggs; but to those who by reason of age or labor are not bound to fast, he permits that they use eggs more often in the day. Thus the Sacred Penitentiary declared on 27 May 1863. - See Ephemer. Revue catholique de Louvain, July 1863. - Likewise, Correspondance de Rome, 17 October 1863.

5. To the question: Whether those who by reason of age or labor are not bound to fast are subjected to the law of not mixing dishes of flesh meat and fish, when flesh meats are permitted through an Indult?

The Sacred Penitentiary (on 13 February 1834) responded: Let each one consult approved Authors ⁸.

⁸ Concerning this matter there is controversy among theologians. Some teach, thus Scavini, app. II at the end of vol. I, that they also are subjected; for the law, regarding the quality of foods, obliges all using the use of reason, so that, if there were no Indult, even they would have to abstain from flesh meats: hence the whole diversity regards only this, that those things which those fasting can eat once, those exempt from fasting can eat as often as they wish. But others, whom Righetti follows, hold the contrary; for the Encyclicals of Benedict XIV, by which that mixture is prohibited, speak only of those fasting; therefore they are not to be extended further; otherwise if they were to be urged too much, flesh meats would have to be indulged to those dispensed from fasting in only one eating, since flesh meats are there indulged only once. See Appendix at the end of vol. 2, p. 1078.

515. • 6. To the question: Whether the faithful dispensed from the law of abstinence on Fridays and Saturdays during the course of the year, when the obligation of fasting does not urge, can eat fish and flesh meats together? (From the Italian exemplar.)

The Sacred Penitentiary (on 13 Feb. 1834), the proposed doubt having been diligently weighed, and a report having been made to the Most Holy Lord Gregory XVI, by mandate of His Holiness, responds: It is permitted.

7. To the question: Whether on fast days during the time of Advent, prescribed by Pius VI, milk products nevertheless being permitted, to him to whom because of infirmity the eating of flesh meats is lawful, the promiscuous use of flesh meat and fish is forbidden?

The Sacred Penitentiary (on 8 Jan. 1834) responded: Affirmatively, namely that promiscuous use of this sort is not lawful.

8. To the question: Whether, under the law of prohibited mixing with flesh meats, there are comprehended little fish dried with salt, or anchovies (in French anchois, in Italian acciughe, alici), herrings (in French harengs, in Italian aringhe), and other things similar to these; whether they can be mixed in the manner of a condiment for another dish?

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.

All excusing causes can be reduced to two general causes, namely: a) dispensation, and b) inability (whether physical or moral).

664. a) Dispensation. The following can dispense from the ecclesiastical law of abstinence and fasting:

1. The Pope for the whole Church. Indeed, the Pope can abolish ecclesiastical fasting for some time for a reasonable cause, as he has already sometimes done for certain regions when an epidemic was raging there.

2. Bishops and other local Ordinaries, for the particular cause of a great concourse of the people or of public health, can dispense the whole diocese or some place, even only one parish, from fasting and abstinence for some time. Thus by common law.¹²⁶¹ By special delegation still greater faculties are customarily granted to them.

3. Pastors (and a fortiori local Ordinaries), in individual cases and for a just cause, can dispense individual subjects of theirs or individual families from the law of abstinence and fasting (or even from each law).

This faculty of bishops and pastors to dispense extends also to travelers staying in their territory.¹²⁶²

4. Superiors in an exempt clerical religious institute (but not other superiors), in the same manner as pastors for parishioners, can dispense not only their individual professed religious and novices, but also individual so-called familiars and continual table companions.¹²⁶³

Note. A confessor cannot indeed by his own authority dispense from the law of fasting; nevertheless, when a case occurs, he can declare that sufficient reasons for not fasting are present. Superioresses of nuns have the same right of declaring with respect to their subjects. But when the bishop has given the faculty of dispensing to all confessors, then a confessor can also dispense himself; this, however, is not expedient in practice, since no one ought to be judge in his own cause. Unless it is expressly stated in the faculty of dispensing that the confessor enjoys such a faculty in sacramental confession or in the tribunal of penance, the confessor can lawfully dispense from the law of fasting even outside the confessional. If the excusing cause is evident and certain, anyone can exempt himself from fasting, especially if otherwise some notable inconvenience would occur.

¹²⁶¹ Code of Canon Law, canon 1245, § 2. Cf. Pontifical Commission, March 12, 1929 (Act. Ap. Sed. XXI, 170).

¹²⁶² Code of Canon Law, canon 1245, §§ 1 and 2.

¹²⁶³ Ib., § 3.

665. b) Inability. Since the ecclesiastical law of abstinence and fasting is a positive law, it does not bind with great inconvenience, but any serious inability (even moral) excuses. Hence the following are excused:

1. All the sick and convalescent, and all who would have notable pain of the head or stomach from fasting. Sexagenarians also are exempted from fasting, for old age is itself a disease. There are certain authors who exempt all women fifty years of age from fasting, but several others deservedly contradict them; for there is no reason why women should be treated more leniently on this point, at least if they do not labor under a special infirmity. For experience establishes that women can sustain fasting more easily than men. For both men and women, however, the sixtieth year begun suffices, as was said above, n. 660. Pregnant or nursing women are likewise excused, since by fasting they would harm the child.

2. The poor, who do not have sufficient food, or whose food is not sufficiently nutritive. Hence not only those who are compelled to beg are excused, but also very many other persons of lower condition, who are nourished by little food and nevertheless are compelled to perform sufficiently heavy labors. In our days and in our regions, for this reason a great part of Catholics is excused from the strict observance of ecclesiastical fasting.

3. All who must perform heavy bodily labors. In order that a labor be called heavy, absolute heaviness is not required (for the same labor can be heavy for one and light for another), but it must be joined with great weariness of the laborer. Such wearying labors are exercised, for example, by blacksmiths, carpenters, masons, diggers, shoemakers, many farmers, bakers, and very many others who work in factories where machines moved by steam or electricity greatly excite and weary the nerves. It pertains to a prudent man or confessor to determine which labors are heavy, after all the circumstances of persons and things have been considered. Travelers also are often excused from fasting; and not only those who must make a journey of four or five leagues on foot (as the older moralists hold), but also those who make a journey throughout the whole day by railroad or ship; for experience establishes that journeys of this kind also cause much weariness, and, moreover, that a sufficient complete meal is then often not available because of a lack either of sufficient time or of sufficient hunger on account of the excitation of the nerves.

4. All who perform very wearying spiritual labors, for example, students who study much; professors who give lectures after laborious preparation, or who must give instruction daily for several hours, such as schoolmasters; confessors who hear confessions for many hours, for example, for six to eight hours in one day; preachers who, with great bodily movement and preparation of mind, preach several times each week (for about an hour).

666. Note. 1. Let a confessor furnished with a legitimate faculty not show himself too difficult in granting a dispensation from fasting, since in our days there are not so many lay faithful who can observe ecclesiastical fasting perfectly; for they are either burdened with very wearying labors, or enjoy weak health, or live in such circumstances that there is a sufficient cause for dispensing from ecclesiastical fasting. Nevertheless, let the confessor endeavor, as far as he can, that during the time of fasting the dispensed faithful perform other works of mortification or religion according to their capacity and good will. For it is of the greatest importance that the faithful be inwardly convinced of the necessity of practicing mortification and of the obligation of obeying the commands of the Church. Hence let the confessor counsel, or even enjoin, that the faithful who are unable to fast at least abstain from more delicate foods not necessary for health; or that they voluntarily deprive themselves of certain pleasures otherwise lawful; or that they restrain interior concupiscences more efficaciously; that they assist more frequently at Mass and the liturgical offices; in a word, that during the times of fasting they lead a fervent Christian life. Since abstinence from meat is customarily observed more easily than fasting, let the confessor dispense from this abstinence with greater difficulty than from fasting.

2. When a dispensation is granted on days of fasting or abstinence through episcopal mandates, certain prayers to be said or alms to be distributed are customarily imposed in place of fasting and abstinence. Certainly, he who uses a dispensation of this kind is bound either to say the prescribed prayer or to give the alms; nevertheless, this obligation is not grave, since the dispensation is granted absolutely and not only conditionally. Moreover, a grave obligation is never to be presumed, but it must be established with certainty; furthermore, bishops granting a dispensation of this kind do not speak of a grave obligation concerning these prayers and alms. If alms are prescribed for a determined end, then the bishop is to be obeyed also on this point, but likewise under a light and not a grave obligation.

The causes excusing from fasting are commonly reduced chiefly to three, namely 1° to inability, whether physical or moral; 2° to piety or charity; 3° to dispensation, as has been said concerning other precepts. (k) p. 475.

573. You will resolve. - 1° Poor persons begging from door to door are excused from fasting, and all others who neither have, nor can provide for themselves, the means from which they may procure an adequate meal.⁴

2° The sick, the infirm, convalescents, and the weak are excused, for example those who labor under tertian or quartan fever, or who are recovering from it; moreover those who, unless they are refreshed twice, suffer notable headache or dizziness from emptiness of stomach. Likewise pregnant and nursing women, and these also from the law of abstinence, if they either have a weak offspring or are weak.¹ (o) p. 475.

3° Those are excused who exercise very laborious works, such as plowing, digging, cutting stones, carrying heavy burdens, and other things of this kind. Hence also blacksmiths, woodworkers, masons, tanners, shoemakers, bakers, oven-men, cooks preparing banquets for many, farmers, potters, weavers, wool-workers, fullers, drivers, sailors, and rowers are excused, provided the greater part of the day is spent in labors of this kind.²

4° Servants and maidservants or others of this kind are excused when they are occupied with so many and such great labors that fasting cannot be joined with these without great difficulty or inconvenience; likewise those making a journey on foot for a notable time with great weariness.³

5° But barbers, tailors, painters, scribes, servants attending on foot, printers who do not turn the press but only arrange the types, and those applying themselves to other similar things, are not excused of themselves and ordinarily.⁴ The same is to be resolved when the press is turned by a machine, not by movements of the arms.

6° To this refer also the Responses concerning fasting to questions 2 and 3, p. L, from which you will conclude: a) a wife, children of a family, and servants in the stated case are excused from sin when eating flesh-meat, provided nevertheless that this eating is not demanded in contempt of religion, or, if it is so demanded, that those eating signify that they reverence religion and do what they do from necessity. But servants of this kind are bound to leave such service if, without their grave damage, they can have another in which they can observe the laws of the Church. b) A girl who on forbidden days eats flesh-meat, fearing lest her non-Catholic father become violently enraged when he perceives that she has passed over to the Catholic Church, is guilty neither of denied Faith nor of violated fasting; "yet," adds Kenrick,⁵ "she will not be excused on account of ridicule or some slight molestation." I would add 1) that the same is to be resolved concerning a wife and a son, if she with respect to her husband, he with respect to his father, is situated in the same circumstances; yet I would not concede the same to a husband with respect to his wife, for he will more easily be able to contemn her angers; 2) that this can be conceded to a son with more difficulty than to a daughter; for he, especially if he has grown up and particularly in this region, generally needs the help of parents less; 3) that it is to be conceded to none of these longer than until that time up to which it is licit or possible for him to hide his conversion to the Catholic Faith.

7° Where labor excuses of itself, in doubt the presumption stands for exemption from fasting; on the contrary, where labor excuses not of itself, but by accident, namely on account of some circumstance of weakness of the person or gravity of labor, in doubt the presumption stands for the obligation of fasting.¹

8° Kenrick observes² that in this region fasting foods, by which someone eating once per day is sufficiently refreshed, are not easily obtained, and that those things which are born from American soil alone do not contain very much juice and nourishment, and therefore our people are more easily excused from fasting. I would add also this reason: on fast-days Americans are deprived of flesh-meat, which even workers themselves are accustomed to eat for breakfast; this deprivation renders fasting more difficult for them.

574. Questions. - Quaer. 1° Are young men more hot in strength bound to fast before the twenty-first year of age has been completed?

Resp. In the negative, because the law, as it is received and determined by approved custom, obligates only those who have completed the twenty-first year; for in this attention is paid only to that which commonly happens. Yet young men are to be persuaded that, according to the measure of their age, they should sometimes fast, so that more easily, when the time of obligation has arrived, they may be able to observe the law of fasting.³

575. • Quaer. 2° Are those who have begun their sixtieth year excused from fasting?

Resp. 1° They are certainly excused if they are weak in strength, as is clear. Indeed they are excused also, according to the common sentence, in doubt about the soundness of their strength; because then the presumption stands for their weakness.⁴

Resp. 2° If they are strong in strength, it is disputed. The first sentence denies that they are exempted from the law of fasting, because those who in that age have strong powers are not reputed as old men. - Laymann, Antoine, Collet, etc. "This sentence indeed is probable," says St. Alphonsus,¹ "but the opposite sentence is not less probable, which Sanchez, Roncaglia, the Salmanticenses, ... hold. The reason is both because universal custom so bears, as the Doctors more commonly testify; and because otherwise it would be a matter liable to many scruples, to examine whether some sexagenarian is or is not sufficiently robust for sustaining a fast. But the stronger reason is that old men of this kind, both on account of weakness of powers and on account of defect of heat, cannot take sufficient nourishment all at once, and they need more frequent food; and, although some in such an age seem robust, nevertheless their robustness is easily illusory and inconstant, since it cannot be denied that in old men of this kind the powers fail and slip into destruction. ... Hence the common saying: Old age itself is a disease." - The holy Doctor, speaking of the question whether women in their fiftieth year are excused from fasting by reason of age alone, responds: "The sentence" (affirming) "I do not dare to disapprove, but neither do I dare to call it probable."² It is said: by reason of age alone; for certainly women in their fiftieth year are excused when infirmity or some weakness concurs.

576. • Quaer. 3° Are smiths, artisans, etc., excused from fasting, if they are so robust that they can fast quite easily?

Resp. In the affirmative, probably, because custom generally exempts all who exercise arts of this kind; but laws do not regard that which happens rarely and by accident, but that which happens commonly and of itself. Yet Concina, Bonacina, etc., also probably deny. - "Here the second sentence," says St. Alphonsus,³ "speaking speculatively, seems more probable, but in practice scarcely one will be found who is not gravely relaxed from labor of this kind."

Quaer. 4° Are craftsmen excused from fasting on those days on which they abstain from labor?

Resp. In the affirmative, if they interrupt labors only for one or another day, by reason of repairing weariness and of preserving strength for sustaining future labors. - So commonly.

Quaer. 5° Are rich artisans, who could cease from labor on days of fasting, excused?

Resp. In the affirmative, more probably. The reason is that it is of interest to the Republic lest workers, on account of fasting, interrupt exercising the arts which are incumbent on them from their office. This also seems clear from the declaration of Eugene IV apud St. Alphonsus.¹ Nor is it the mind of the Church that the faithful be impeded from ordinary occupations. - So commonly.

577. • Quaer. 6° Do those sin who, without just cause, assume an unaccustomed labor incompatible with fasting?

Resp. In the affirmative, of itself, even if they do not act in fraud of the law; for the law which commands fasting consequently commands that causes adverse to satisfaction of the same not be placed without reason. - So commonly. Cf. n. 139.

I said without reason: because when a just cause intervenes it is licit to undertake labor incompatible with fasting, although that labor is unaccustomed, for example for perceiving a very great gain, etc. But the reason of mere enjoyment alone never suffices, unless another honest cause is added.²

Quaer. 7° What journey undertaken on foot from a just cause exempts from fasting?

Resp. They commonly say that a journey of nearly five leagues is required and suffices, that is, fifteen miles; but if either the road were very difficult, or the weather inclement, or the traveler weak and unaccustomed to a journey, he could be excused by a journey of two leagues,³ or even shorter. - Hence letter-carriers and others are excused who run around a city through the whole day for the sake of business. Likewise, probably, servants who continually serve through the day, going around for buying, accompanying, carrying letters, and similar things.

578. • Quaer. 8° Whether and when one making a journey by horse, carriage, or railroad is excused?

Resp. It depends on the circumstances, and thus a journey of one day could excuse someone who had to make it with great labor, or was weak in strength, or if the weather was rainy and the road rough and laborious.⁴ Kenrick⁵ generally excuses those who are carried by public coaches through the whole day and almost the whole night, even on a railroad.

579. • Quaer. 9° Whether or how preachers, teachers of sciences, confessors, students, advocates, judges, physicians, etc., are excused?

Resp. 1° Preachers who have a sermon daily or almost daily are commonly excused from fasting by reason of piety and duty. With stronger right also missionaries, who are exercised with graver fatigue in missions. Generally speaking, preachers are not excused who preach only three or four times in the week; but in this one must stand by the judgment of prudent men.¹

Resp. 2° Teachers of sciences are excused if they need great study and labor for preparing lectures; but not those who only deliver from writing lessons already earlier arranged and often repeated. ... But Palaus and others apud Croix say that teachers of grammar who teach for four hours are not bound to fast more than three days in the week.²

Resp. 3° Confessors are not excused of themselves, but only when they undergo extraordinary labor, for example when for several successive days they must hear Confessions, as is accustomed to happen in Missions, or when they are so weak in strength that they cannot satisfy the frequency of penitents without grave inconvenience.³

Resp. 4° Concerning students St. Alphonsus defines nothing.⁴ I think that those who devote themselves to necessary studies (of which kind are those which are enjoined by a teacher) are excused, if either they need great study and labor, as was said in Resp. 2° concerning teachers of sciences, or if, by reason of weakness, they need moderate and frequent refreshments for sustaining labor.

Resp. 5° Advocates, judges, physicians, and the like are excused, who because of the study to which they must devote themselves for satisfying clients, rendering judgment, and aiding the sick, could observe fasting with very great difficulty; for these, although they do not need more abundant food (since the labor is of the mind), nevertheless need more frequent food, so that the consumption of spirits may be repaired in them.⁵

But observe that those who are enumerated in this number are universally excused only by accident, that is, in the sense declared above at n. 573 under 7°.

Note. - The fast on the day before the consecration of a church is of strict obligation for the Bishop consecrating, and only for those who ask that a church be consecrated for them. S. R. C. in Mechl. 19 July 1780. Therefore for the clergy assigned to the church, but not for the people. N. R. Th. T. 12. p. 594. n. 62.

1232. Besides causes which totally exempt from fast, as insanity and age less than seven years, there are four excusing causes, namely: 1. impotence; 2. labor; 3. piety; 4. dispensation.

Let it be noted: a) The first three causes exempt per se, if they are morally certain; but if they are doubtful, dispensation is required. Hence exemption is said to come from Right; but dispensation from man (III, 1032, fin.).

b) "If someone did not have a sufficient cause by which he could be excused from Lenten fast; but on the contrary he himself in good faith thought that he had a just cause of satisfying the precept by fasting only three or four times in the week, the confessor ought not oblige him to fast daily, when there is danger lest afterward he omit the fast daily" (III, 1049; H. Ap., XII, 34). Recall the things said n. 217 ff.

c) Several causes, insufficient in themselves, can coalesce, so that they suffice for exempting from the law.

d) Pilgrims are held by the laws of fast or are dispensed from them, according as in the case it is a question of a universal or particular law. Recall the things which we said in the treatise on Laws n. 204 ff.

1233. Impotence exempts, whether physical or moral.

1. On account of PHYSICAL impotence all those are exempted by whom fast cannot be observed by reason of defect of strength.

Hence they are excused: a) The sick, to whom fast can be of notable harm; and so likewise the convalescent and weak: for example those who labor under tertian or quartan fever, and others who cannot refresh themselves with sufficient nourishment in one meal.

b) Pregnant or nursing women, to whom it is not even licit to fast (unless once or twice, if the woman is robust); likewise, according to Capellmann, women during the time of menstruation (Past. Med., ed. 16, p. 169).

c) The poor, "who cannot have at once what suffices for their sustenance," as St. Thomas has it (2. 2, q. 147, a. 4, ad 4). Whence it is very probable to St. Alphonsus that those who have nothing other than bread and herbs or legumes are not held to one meal; for although they are accustomed to these relishes, nevertheless they sustain themselves sufficiently by this alone because they are accustomed to eat them several times in the day and in great quantity (III, 1033; H. Ap., XII, 23).

1234. 2. On account of MORAL impotence all are exempted who cannot fast without grave inconvenience, or without great extrinsic difficulty.

Hence they are excused: a) Those to whom fast brings grave headache, or notable privation of sleep. b) Soldiers, whether they remain in camps or in stations. Otherwise, if they live in the paternal house or at their own expenses, unless they can protect themselves by dispensation or legitimate custom (as exists in France). c) Wives and children of a family who by fasting would suffer grave indignation of husbands or parents; provided contempt of the Church or of religion is absent. d) Men (if ever they are found) who, on account of fast, would not be able to render the conjugal debt to be rendered from justice or even from charity alone. e) Adolescents who have not yet completed the twenty-first year of age: for these need more abundant and more frequent food, both for the increase of nature and for solidifying the powers of the body. f) Sexagenarian old men (the 60th year having begun) are excused from universal custom; both on account of weakness of strength, and on account of defect of heat, from which they cannot take and digest sufficient food at one time. But if some seem more robust, their robustness is inconstant and often only apparent. Except religious or others who have vowed to fast until death. g) Women of fifty years, provided some weakness or infirmity concurs; for it is doubtful whether they are exempted on account of age alone (III, 1034 ff.; H. Ap., XII, 24).

1235. 1. All labor of the body, all arts which cannot be exercised without great weariness of the body, excuse from fast.

By this title are excused: diggers, farmers, stone-cutters, potters, weavers, wool-workers, fullers, porters, drivers, sailors, rowers, runners, iron-smiths, wood-workers, masons, leather-workers, shoemakers who make shoes with thread smeared with pitch; bakers, oven-workers, cooks who in preparing several dishes for many persons are occupied through almost the whole day. Likewise typographers turning the press; servants addicted to greater labors, letter-carriers and others traversing the city to distribute letters, to sell wares; those adorning temples by carrying ladders around, etc., etc. But all these are understood to be excused only then if they are detained for the greater part of the day, not if only two or three hours, in laborious works of this kind (III, 1041; H. Ap., XII, 26).

Further TO BE NOTED: a) It is not licit deliberately to choose the aforesaid labors so that fast may be avoided (Lehmkuhl, I, 1471). See the things which we said in the treatise on Laws, n. 225. b) Rich artisans are not held to interrupt labors for observing fast; for this would turn to the detriment of the public good; nor is it the mind of the Church to impede the faithful from their ordinary occupations. c) More robust artisans, who can fast without grave inconvenience, nevertheless are excused, both from common use and from legitimate presumption of diminution of strength going to follow from the fast; for in practice scarcely one will be found who is not gravely relaxed from labor of this kind. d) Those ceasing from labor for one or another day, even for the sake of extraordinary recreation, are excused by necessity of refreshing their powers, or preserving them for the morrow, unless they manifestly are able to fast without grave inconvenience (III, 1042 ff.; H. Ap., XII, 31; Praxis, 47).

1236. 2. Labor of the mind, or the liberal arts, do not excuse, nor offices which are exercised with light labor. To this looks proposition 30 condemned by Alexander VII, as too general: "All officials who labor corporally in the republic are excused from the obligation of fast; nor ought they to certify themselves whether the labor is compatible with fast."

Hence: a) Per se barbers are not excused; tailors; shoemakers who only cut or prepare hides; cooks preparing a few dishes; maids twisting wool or flax with a spindle or exercising similar things; merchants remaining in their shops, typographers composing types; painters, notaries, scribes; those making small watches; millers, bankers, sculptors, etc. Except (but per accidens), if any of these, on account of weakness, or singular labor, or another circumstance, cannot fast without grave inconvenience (III, 1041; H. Ap., XII, 27).

b) Lecturers of sciences per se are not exempted from fast, but only then if they need great study and labor. As regards teachers of grammar who teach for several hours in the day, their labor seems per se to exempt from fast. Cf. III, 1049. Scholastics similarly are not exempted for this reason that they devote themselves to studies; but they are exempted if through the greater part of the day they give work to necessary and serious studies (Noldin, II, 687, 4; Konings, n. 579, 4).⁰¹

Note. In doubt whether labor is incompatible with fast, this twofold rule must be held: If the labor, with the circumstances seen and generally for all, is of itself grave, presumption stands for exemption from fast. But if the labor is grave per accidens, namely on account of some circumstance of weakness of the person, or of fatigue greater than usual, presumption, in this doubt, stands for the obligation of fast; and therefore dispensation is needed (III, 1049, 7). Cf. the things said n. 248.

1237. IT IS ASKED. What sort of JOURNEY, undertaken for a just cause, suffices for excusing from fast?

Resp. 1. If it is made on foot, the common opinion teaches that a journey of 4 or 5 leagues (or 12 or 15 miles, or 25 kilometers) is required and suffices. Yet if the way were difficult and rough, or the traveler were weak, not accustomed to a journey, etc., a journey of two leagues (that is, six miles) could already excuse. But this depends on circumstances either of persons or of weather, etc.

2. If the journey is made by horse, carriage, or railroad, it does not excuse per se, as is established from proposition 31 condemned by Alexander VII: "All those are excused absolutely from the precept of fast who travel by riding, however they may travel; even if the journey is not necessary, and even if they make a journey of one day." Per accidens, nevertheless, anyone is excused who is not able, without grave inconvenience, to carry out a journey, even of one day (III, 1047, dub. 1 and 2; H. Ap., XII, 29, 30).

Note. He who begins a journey very early in the morning always has a right to refresh himself, nor is he held afterward to remain without refreshment. But he who beforehand, the order of fast having been observed, made the journey after midday, does not have the same right of injuring the fast, unless a reason accedes. Lehmkuhl, I, 1471, 3.

1238. Piety excuses from fast insofar as, either from office or obedience, or even from mere devotion, works of charity or religion are licitly undertaken, although from this there follows impossibility of fasting.

The reason is that, from the order of charity, one good work ought not impede another work more noble and better. Whence St. Thomas (2. 2, q. 147, a. 4, ad 3): "It does not seem to have been the intention of the Church establishing fasts that through these it would impede other pious and more necessary causes."

Note. Piety only then excuses when the work undertaken from a just cause is judged to be of GREATER MERIT than fast, and when it cannot be deferred to another time, and requires labor incompatible with fast. Thus also from St. Thomas (l. c.), who says: "If a pilgrimage and the labor of a work can conveniently be deferred, or diminished without detriment of bodily health..., or of spiritual life, the fasts of the Church are not to be omitted on account of this."

1239. Therefore by the title of piety are EXCUSED: 1. Those serving the sick, if they are much fatigued, for example in hospitals. 2. Those making pilgrimage to holy places, if the pilgrimage is going to yield to the great honor of God, or edification of neighbor, or to the spiritual and great utility of the pilgrim himself; or if the pilgrimage, when the time of fast arrives, has already been begun. 3. Singers in church who, by fasting, would lose the voice and could not fulfill their office. 4. Preachers, if they preach daily or frequently, for example five times in the week, or with vehement agitation, as in Missions. 5. Confessors, if they undergo extraordinary labor and are at the same time so weak that with fast they cannot satisfy the frequency of penitents. In the same way, that is, per accidens, not per se, physicians, advocates, and others whose labor is useful to neighbor, or even necessary, will be able to be excused (III, 1049; H. Ap., XII, 34). See the twofold rule handed down n. 1236, note.

1240. I. They can dispense in fast: 1. The Supreme Pontiff in the whole Church, for example through indults conceded to Bishops, and indeed validly even without cause; although in this case he would sin, at least venially, "because this would be against the common good, to which laws are ordered" (III, 1032). 2. Bishops, and their vicars expressly delegated. Yet of themselves they cannot dispense with the whole diocese, nor with some parish, nor with a whole community or family, except in an urgent case. Thus from the Constitution of Benedict XIV: Libentissime. 3. Prelates and their vicars, but with their subjects taken individually. 4. Parish priests, where custom has force, and their vicars, provided they exercise parochial acts, and the parish priest is not opposed. But all these can dispense only with their own subjects, and indeed in a particular case, with private persons taken individually and from a just cause; otherwise the dispensation would be void (cf. the things already said n. 237).

Confessors cannot dispense, unless they are expressly delegated. Yet they can DECLARE whether someone is legitimately exempted or not. Physicians can do the same, as also Superioresses of nuns (III, 1032; H. Ap., XII, 22).

1. Dispensation concerning abstinence and fast has generally been conceded by the Supreme Pontiff for feast days recently established; likewise for feast days which, in some region, at the petition of Bishops, have been observed; finally for feasts of Patrons, if they are celebrated with the concurrence of the people. Indeed, dispensation can be conceded by a Bishop if some expunged feast day (on which abstinence or fast would have to be observed) is accustomed to be celebrated with the concurrence of the people (A. A. S., III, p. 351; IV, p. 341). Always firm remains the prohibition of not mixing dishes (cf. n. 1242, Rule 2).

2. Moreover, from the Decree of S. Off., 5 Dec. 1894 (A. S. S., 27, p. 512), and its authentic interpretation of 11 Dec. 1909 (A. A. S., p. 58), Bishops and other local Ordinaries have the faculty of anticipating to a day pleasing to themselves (which assigning the Ordinary can commit to parish priests from a reasonable cause) and for very grave causes even of dispensing concerning the law of abstinence, when, on Friday or Saturday through the year, with a great concurrence of peoples, either any Catholic solemnity whatever is celebrated, for example of centenaries, of pilgrimages, or extraordinary fairs are held. Further, among the very grave causes of dispensing, there can be assigned grave general danger that the abstinence to be anticipated will not be observed. From these faculties are excepted the time of Lent, the Four Times, vigils through the year consecrated to fast, or the time of Advent where (as in Spain) the fast of vigils has been transferred to each Friday and Saturday of Advent. In Italy only the time of Lent and Advent is excepted (S. Off., 7 Sept. 1909, n. 5). Wherefore on these days Bishops can neither dispense nor anticipate.

As regards indults which have lately been conceded to diverse peoples and regions, see below n. 1247, 1248.

1241. Let it be noted: a) Dispensation through pontifical indult is not accustomed to be given concerning the law of one eating (for in this an excuse from right suffices); but it is given concerning abstinence, which it always restricts by certain limits (cf. n. 243 and 1223).

b) Dispensation which, on account of peculiar reasons, is conceded to private persons, can comprehend either one or the other, or both parts of the law.

In the Bull Non ambigimus of Benedict XIV, it is prescribed that dispensation with a particular person, in eating meats, eggs, and milk-foods, be made from the counsel of both physicians, that is, both the spiritual, namely the confessor or parish priest, and the physical, or physician of bodies. Thus indeed practice bears in the dear City; elsewhere however it has gone into disuse.

c) Bishops, when they dispense from pontifical indult, generally enjoin upon the faithful some prayers or alms.

But whether under grave matter is controverted. Some affirm, because it is judged to be a commutation; but others deny with Gury: because it is more probable that Bishops intend principally to dispense, and accessorily to impose some pious work as a certain light satisfaction. Except if the Bishop by express words wishes to oblige strictly.

1242. II. The rules for those dispensed from INDULT are the following:

RULE 1. Those dispensed for meats are by that very fact dispensed for milk-foods; but those dispensed for milk-foods are judged by that very fact to be dispensed for eggs, unless the contrary is expressed.

To those dispensed for meats, pork is not prohibited, nor in general unhealthful meat, unless a special prohibition has been made (such as was made by Clement XI, through Edict of 24 February 1702 for the Roman State). Cf. H. Ap., XII, 8.

RULE 2. Those dispensed for meats are obligated under grave matter to abstain from fishes in the same meal. This precept embraces the whole of Lent, even Sundays, and moreover each and every day of fast through the year. It is established from three Constitutions of Benedict XIV, Non ambigimus (1741), In suprema (1741), Libentissime (1745); and from several decisions of the S. Penitentiary. Not even a Bishop can dispense in this law. Cf. A. A. S., II, p. 953; there the Benedictine prohibition is very well illustrated.

Under the name of fishes come also little fishes dried with salt, likewise caviar, or marine shellfish, as crabs (ecrevisses), oysters (huitres), and other things similar to these, as is established from Responses of S. Poenit., on 10 and 16 Jan. 1834.

Therefore all, even children after the seventh year (S. Poenit., 15 Mar. 1837), who, FROM INDULT, eat meats, although they are not held to fast, nevertheless are obligated not to mix dishes, as S. Off. responded, 23 Jun. 1875. Yet broth of meat together with fishes can be used by them, from a declaration of S. C. C., on 7 Aug. 1910 (A. A. S., II, p. 959).

But those who, not by force of indult, but FROM RIGHT, say by reason of grave sickness, become immune from the law of abstinence, can use meats and fishes together, from the opinion which S. Poenit., 9 Jan. 1899, declared could safely be followed (Nouv. Rev. Theol., 32, p. 64). Likewise, the faithful dispensed from the law of abstinence on Fridays and Saturdays, during the year, when the obligation of fast does not urge, can eat fishes together with meats (S. Poenit., 15 Feb. 1834).

RULE 3. To those dispensed for meats and milk-foods, it is licit to eat milk-foods together with fishes. And to the same it is similarly licit to eat fishes together with soup cooked with meat juice.

The first is established from the Constitution Libentissime; the other from a Response of the Holy See. For to the QUESTION: "Whether one dispensed for eating meats on days of fast can in the same eating eat, for consulting his health, soup cooked with meat juice, and for the rest eat fishes, so that as much as he can, he may preserve the observance of fast?" S. Poenit., on 23 Feb. 1826, responded: "Affirmatively."

Nor is it prohibited to those dispensed to eat, together with meat, other foods seasoned with fish juice. S. Poenit., 14 Jun. 1880 (Coll. S. C. de P. F., n. 2077).

RULE 4. Those dispensed for meats, but constrained by the law of fast, are obligated, just as other fasting persons, to one meal at the fixed time; and these, in the evening collation, must use the same food which other fasting persons use, and in the same restricted measure. It is established from the Constitution Libentissime of Benedict XIV. But see n. 1228.

RULE 5. Those who by reason of age, or labor, or infirmity, are not held to fast, on days of fast, when the eating of meat and milk-foods is permitted to all for one meal, can licitly eat meat and milk-foods several times in the day, or as often as they eat through the day; unless the Bishop, dispensing by apostolic authority, has added a restriction. It is established from decisions of S. Poenit., on 24 Feb. 1819, 27 May 1863, 16 Mar. 1882.

RULE 6. When permission of using a condiment of fat has been conceded through an apostolic indult, it is licit to use both the fat of any animal (S. Off., 1 May 1889) and butter (S. Off., 15 May 1896), but by no means meat broth (S. Poenit., 15 Apr. 1836 and 20 Mar. 1847), unless custom is present, in which case the Bishop should be silent (S. Off., 20 Jan. 1885).

As often as it is licit to use butter, it is also licit to use margarine (S. Off., 6 Sept. 1899). But when butter has been conceded, condiment of fat is not by that very fact conceded. Further, condiment conceded through indult can be used even in the evening refreshment, provided no restriction has been placed in the indult. Moreover, when condiment of lard fat is permitted, he who uses the lard itself for seasoning foods can without scruple eat the fragments of lard which, the fat having been extracted, remain, provided they continue to be part of the condiment (S. Poenit., 17 Nov. 1897).

1243. Questions. QUAER. 1. Whether Religious can use dispensations which are conceded universally to the faithful as regards fast? From the Decree of 1 Sept. 1912 (A. A. S., IV, p. 627), one must respond: Affirmatively, if it is a question of dispensation concerning the general law of the Church and Religious are not excluded in the apostolic indult. But negatively if abstinence or fast are prescribed by the rule, unless in the indult account is had of this dispensation. Those not observing abstinence or fast of this kind do not transgress the law of the Church, but only the rule. Religious dwelling in Latin America must stand by the Response from the Secretary of State, 1 Jan. 1910 (cf. n. 1247).

QUAER. 2. Whether fathers of families, when in the family there is found some person dispensed concerning the use of meats, can indiscriminately extend the dispensation to all persons of the same family. S. Poenit. (19 Jan. 1834) judged that it must be responded: "Infirmity and any other impediment whatever, from the counsel of both physicians, but not gluttony, avarice, or generally saving of expenses, can exempt from the precept of abstinence on esurial days."

QUAER. 3. Whether in Lent, when a father of a family has the faculty of eating meats, and the same either cannot or will not prepare two meals, one of meats and the other of esurial foods, the children of the family and the others addicted to his service can eat meats? S. Poenit. (19 Jan. 1834), responded: "Persons who are in the power of the father of the family, to whom legitimate faculty of eating meats has been granted, can be permitted to use foods granted by indult to the father of the family; with the condition added of not mixing permitted and forbidden dishes, and of one eating in the day for those who are held to fast." Further, "the reason of the permission about which in the question is not the indult of the father of the family; but the impotence in which the children of the family find themselves of observing the precept." Therefore it is a mere direction for confessors. It is established from various Responses of S. Poenit., edited 27 May 1863 and 20 Apr. 1865 (A. S. S., I, 424 ff.).

966. Excusing causes do not remove the obligation of the law, but impede its application in a particular case. They are reduced to impotence, which, in the present matter, can arise from necessity or great utility, from impossibility, or from piety.

In the law of fasting and abstinence there is not found physical impotence, but moral impotence, namely a sufficiently great extrinsic inconvenience accidentally connected with the observance of the law. For an intrinsic difficulty is not enough to excuse, since the law was established precisely for bearing some difficulty and for afflicting the body. This moral impotence is absolute and strict, if the law cannot be observed without sin; it is relative and broad, if from the observance there arises some great harm or inconvenience, whether material or spiritual.

And because the same arduousness is not found in abstinence and in fasting, the same inconvenience does not excuse from both.

967. From abstinence are excused:

1. The poor, if they receive meats in alms and do not have other foods with which they can be sufficiently nourished.

2. The sick, convalescents, those who have a weak stomach, women nursing infants, and others who cannot be sufficiently nourished by fasting foods. Pregnant women also, if they are weak, or if they have a great appetite for meats, can take a morsel of them.

3. Those who engage in very arduous labor, by which appetite for fasting foods is taken away, such as those who work in foundries, glassworks, ironworks, mines, or locomotives.

4. Wives, children, and servants, if they cannot obtain other foods. Yet servants must seek another master if they can do this without great inconvenience.

5. Travelers, soldiers, and guests, and others of this sort, when without grave inconvenience they cannot obtain other foods. Also if, by error, forbidden foods have been prepared, for example, for weddings, it is licit to eat them if they cannot be sent back without grave inconvenience.

968. From fasting are excused those to whom it would cause a grave and extrinsic inconvenience. Such are:

1. By reason of age, those who have not completed the twenty-first year, and those who have reached the sixtieth.

2. By reason of infirmity, the sick, convalescents, weak persons, nervous persons, pregnant women, women nursing infants; also those who cannot take sufficient food at one time, or who would suffer notable headache, dizziness, or deprivation of sleep.

3. By reason of indigence, the poor who do not have a sufficient meal, or who have only bread, legumes, and foods of little nourishment.

4. By reason of labor. Per se, only honest bodily labor morally and ordinarily incompatible with fasting excuses: such as the labors already mentioned concerning abstinence, and also those of blacksmiths, woodworkers, masons, stonecutters, tanners, shoemakers, bakers, oven workers, cooks who prepare many dishes, farmers, potters, weavers, wool-workers, fullers, porters, couriers, drivers, sailors while sailing, if they spend the greater part of the day in such labors; likewise servants who are occupied in many very arduous works. All these are excused by custom, even if they are robust and could fast.

Other bodily labors, and also intellectual labors, do not per se and always excuse, as is clear from the proposition condemned by Alexander VII:¹ but they do excuse accidentally, when from a special circumstance fasting becomes very difficult. Then dispensation can be obtained.

¹ Proposition 30 condemned by Alexander VII: "All officials who labor bodily in the republic are excused from the obligation of fasting, nor must they certify whether the labor is compatible with fasting."

5. By reason of a journey, if it is long and arduous, and causes notable fatigue, and there is a reasonable cause for undertaking it. For it is not enough to travel in any manner whatever, as is clear from the proposition condemned by Alexander VII.² Hence a journey on foot of four or five leagues excuses; a shorter one also, if the road or weather is difficult. But a journey by horse or carriage does not excuse, unless it lasts several days or causes great fatigue; still less a journey by railway.

² Proposition 31 condemned by Alexander VII: "All those are absolutely excused from fasting who travel by riding, however they travel, even if the journey is not necessary, and even if the journey is of one day."

6. By reason of a greater good, or piety, if a more excellent work or one more pleasing to God cannot morally be performed with fasting, nor deferred to another time: such as works of mercy or religion, preaching, hearing confessions, caring for the sick, or similar works.

969. Observations. - 1. If the excusing cause is evident, one can omit the precept. If it is doubtful, one should consult the pastor, or the confessor, or the physician, provided he is not lax; and if these are lacking, a prudent and good man. If doubt still remains, dispensation is to be obtained, according to can. 15.

2. Not every annoyance excuses from the precept, but only a grave and extrinsic one. Some weakness, headache, and difficulty are inherent in fasting itself.

3. It is illicit voluntarily to place a proximate impediment which makes fasting impossible. Hence one cannot assume extraordinary labor, or undertake an arduous journey, even from devotion, unless there is a proportionate cause, for example, extraordinary profit. Yet once the impediment has been placed, fasting does not oblige; but the sin was in placing the impediment.³

³ Noldin, Th. M. II, n. 686.

4. One is not excused from abstinence because only foods which are worse or dearer are available, unless they are so bad that they do not constitute a fitting meal, or so dear that the use of them would cause notable detriment.⁴

⁴ Ibid., n. 678.

The causes excusing from fasting are usually reduced chiefly to three:

1st. to impossibility, whether physical or moral;

2nd. to piety or charity;

3rd. to dispensation, as was said concerning the other precepts.

Question 1. Who are those who certainly are excused from the law of fasting?

Response. Certainly excused are: 1st. the poor begging from door to door; 2nd. the sick, the infirm, the convalescent, and the weak, and all those who, unless they take something often during the day, suffer notable headache or dizziness; 3rd. all those who exercise works that are very laborious, e.g., stonecutters, farmers, potters, weavers, wool-workers, fullers, porters, wagon-drivers, sailors who row, blacksmiths, carpenters and masons, runners who carry letters, bakers, shoemakers, etc. - 4th. Pregnant or nursing women, etc. etc.

To these and many others having been enumerated, Kenrick, n. 60, adds these things: "If we add the special circumstances of these regions, it will easily appear that few are held obligated to this law, which formerly was observed so strictly. Most of the faithful indeed in these provinces are occupied either in cultivating fields or in other heavy labor; besides which, fasting-foods by which someone eating once per day may be sufficiently restored are not easily procured, and the things which grow from American soil are said not to contain very much juice and nourishment. Therefore missionaries must take care lest, by clinging too closely to the old discipline, they provide some persons an occasion of sinning out of error." Cf. Kenrick, tract. 4, part. 2, nn. 49 and seq. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 1033 and seq.

Question 2. Are all those excused from fasting who, although they are occupied with laborious work, are nevertheless so robust that they can easily fast?

Response. Affirmatively, probably; and the reason is that in all these matters attention must be paid to that which happens commonly and of itself, not to exceptions. Besides, if it were otherwise, the door would now be opened to many scruples and anxieties. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 1043.

It is useless to enumerate many other cases, about which theologians treat. Yet it must always be kept before the eyes that the Church, as a pious mother, certainly wills the exercise of penance, but not the diminution of labor, or some grave extrinsic harm. But if there is doubt concerning the sufficiency of the excusing cause, recourse should be had to dispensation. - Finally it is helpful here to report the concession made to American soldiers and sailors, concerning which Kenrick speaks thus: "Pius IX conceded, at the prayers of the Bishop of Buffalo, that American soldiers and sailors should universally be exempted from the law of abstinence, six days excepted, namely Ash Wednesday, the last three days of Holy Week, and on the Vigil of the Assumption of the B. V. M. and of the Nativity of the Lord. This is to be understood of those who actually serve in camps, ships, and garrisons, but not those who are absent by permission. Families using a common table with them enjoy that privilege, but not those which dwell far away." - Cf. Kenrick, tract. 4, part. 2, n. 37. Among the faculties conceded by Apostolic authority and to be valid during the war in the Army and Navy of the Federated States of North America, the sixteenth is described thus: - "By virtue of the Pontifical indult all who belong to the Army and Navy are dispensed from fasting and may eat meat, except on Ash Wednesday, the Vigil of the Nativity of the Lord, Friday of Holy Week, and before noon of Holy Saturday."

Here finally must be commemorated the concession recently made "in favor of laborers in the Federated States of America," by virtue of which there is granted "the faculty to individual Ordinaries for ten years of permitting the use of meat in those circumstances of places and persons in which they shall judge that a true difficulty of observing the common law of abstinence exists. But from this permission, besides all the Fridays of the whole year, there must also be excluded Ash Wednesday, the whole time of Holy Week, and the vigil of the Nativity of the Lord. But on those days on which the use of meat is permitted by the Ordinary, this permission for those obligated to fasting must be extended only to the single meal. A concession of this kind must be considered made not only to individual laborers, but also to their families, so that all members of the same participate in the indult."

But if you ask what here is signified by the name "laborers," it seems that the response must be that by this word are to be understood, not all who apply themselves to any labor whatever, but only those whom in English we are accustomed to designate by the word "workingmen." - This is gathered both from the purpose of the concession and from the mind of those who petitioned for it. Cf. Amer. Eccl. Review, vol. 12, p. 425.

§ 1. Not only local Ordinaries, but also pastors, in individual cases and for a just cause, can dispense individual faithful subject to them and individual families subject to them, even outside the territory, and in their own territory also travelers, from the common law concerning the observance of feasts and likewise concerning the observance of abstinence and fasting, or even of both.

§ 2. Ordinaries, on account of a 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 even from both laws at once.

§ 3. In an exempt clerical religion the Superiors have the same power of dispensing in the manner of a pastor, as regards the persons mentioned in can. 514, § 1 (Can. 1245).

THOSE are reckoned impotent who, without grave inconvenience, cannot morally carry on their life; or who, being weak, cannot sustain themselves with one meal, or are too much burdened by it, so that they cannot digest; as the sick, the sickly, convalescents, and those whom fasting notably harms. Among the sick are also the old; for, as Caietanus says here art. 4. Valentia puncto 5. old age is an incurable disease. But the age beyond which they are not bound to fast is commonly assigned by the Theologians at sixty years. Many, however, say that if at that age they are still robust, they are bound. Of these about thirty Doctors are counted by Diana resol. 29.

OTHERS, however, with whom Diana sides, free from the fast all old men whatsoever above the sixtieth year. Llamas part. 3. cap. 5. §. 20. where he asserts that Pius V, questioned on this matter, so answered viva voce. Molfesius tom. 1. tract. 10. cap. 4. Ortiz summa, c. 19. Angles in 4. part. 2. quaest. 6. dub. 6. Sanchez de matr. tom. 2. lib. 7. disp. 22. num. 17. Portel. in dub. leg. part. 1. verb. ieiunium.

THE REASON is, because that age has a deceptive health, and is midway between disease and health, as Gal. says lib. 5. et 6. de tuenda sanitate, and although some seem strong, yet they rush toward death, and thus are continually in danger of the gravest fall, unless they are refreshed with food. Then Pius V and the succeeding Pontiffs, denying to clerics and religious the eating of milk-dishes by virtue of the Bull of the crusade, nevertheless excepted the sixty-year-old, as it were agreeable to reason, that in that age provision be made for the weakness of nature.

MOST WELL does St. Bonaventure in spec. animae, cap. 5. posit impotency from age without fixing the years, for many are more impotent in their fortieth year than others in their sixtieth. Therefore one must consider the complexion and state, etc., which hurry a man to old age, as Lessius notes de iust. lib. 4. cap. 2. dub. 6. Tanner. disp. 3. quaest. 5. dub. 5. num. 101. Bassaeus V. Ieiunium, 2. Fagundez de praecep. 4. eccles. lib. 1. cap. 8. Reginaldus tom. 1. lib. 4. cap. 17. sect. 1. num. 209. Bonacina de leg. disp. 10. quaest. 1. part. ultim. saying that a sixty-year-old can be so sound in strength that by no reason is he excused.

ADOLESCENTS also are reckoned impotent up to the twenty-first year, which is that of growth, as Valentia notes loco cit. and others with St. Thomas quaest. 147. art. 4. ad 2. there Syluios Sanc. sel. disp. 54. Lezana V. Ieiun. num. 6. Bassaeus ibi.

SIMILARLY also pregnant women and nursing women, who must supply food to their offspring; it is the common opinion, in Diana resol. 14. nor should I exclude those who are robust, for the offspring must not in doubt be exposed to danger. Diana brings the case resol. 30. whether a pregnant woman, who is in grave danger of lust, is bound to fast with danger to the offspring. Fernandez asserts it in Exam. part. 4. cap. 12. §. 6. Against whom Homob. rises up in Exam. part. 2. tract. 8. cap. 7. quaest. 17. Diana resol. 30. Pasqualig. disp. 289. with whom I see that one must subscribe without hesitation; for since other remedies are prepared by God, as prayer, frequent Sacraments, and the grace of God never fails in necessities, and moreover since God has commanded that we not kill, and accordingly this is a grave necessity of keeping both precepts, not killing and not committing adultery, I think it impious to say that it is in our power to kill, or that we are compelled, as it were because God with His grace fails the necessary opportunity of an otherwise inevitable temptation.

THE POOR also are excused, who have not wherewith to eat enough. Indeed, those who have not wherewith to season, what fatness, are excused by Silvester verb. Ieiunium, quaest. 5. num. 16. cap. 21. quaest. 8. Tanner. num. 107. especially in places where eggs and milk-dishes are lawful. See St. Thomas art. 4. ad 4.

Indeed those who have nothing but flesh are excused by Bellarmino lib. 2. de bonis operibus, in particul. cap. 9. Azor lib. 7. cap. 27. quaestio 7. Tanner. num. 106. Therefore he excuses those serving heretics, with Lessio disp. 5. n. 35. Indeed he excuses those who, destitute, eat the leftovers given them from the banquets of Bacchanalians; but these things are not to be granted so absolutely; I excuse, indeed, those who have no congruous food, but only vegetables and fruit, Pasqualig. disp. 179. Bassaeus V. Ieiun. 2. for with bread a relish is necessary: Therefore the Saintly Doctor loco cit. speciali requires that the poverty be notable.

THE NECESSITY excusing from fasting is reckoned when one cannot attend to a work necessary for himself or his own, or even highly useful, while at the same time fasting, as is evident from the doctrine of St. Thomas art. 4. Caietani there, Valentia disp. 9. quaest. 2. puncto 5. St. Bonaventure in spec. cap. 3. Thus are excused those who by their own labor, incompatible with it, must acquire their food.

BUT all things must be prudently weighed: the kind of craft, the artisan's complexion, etc. Therefore some seem to me senselessly to define as excused shoemakers, tailors, smiths, barbers, and the other artisans, indiscriminately. Rightly does Bassaeus num. 2. establish a judging conscience: whether the labor be sufficient, or a just necessity of necessary labor, as the Saintly Doctor says loco citato.

SHOEMAKERS are excused by Azor part. 1. lib. 7. cap. 17. quaestio 8. Lessius lib. 4. cap. 2. dub. 6. num. 45. Reginaldus Tom. 1. lib. 4. cap. 17. sect. 2. Bonacina de legibus, disp. ultim. quaest. 1. punct. ultim. Layman lib. 4. tom. 8. cap. 3. for the effort is great. Better does Villalobos tom. 1. tract. 23. diffic. 14. refer it to prudent judgment. For the craft is little laborious, and it can be that many are not impeded; others indeed are impeded, which must be judged from the age, strength, etc., of the laborer.

COMMONLY tailors and barbers are not excused, in Diana resol. 8. among whom is also Villalobo difficult. 3. Ioan. de la Cruz in rect. part. 1. praecep. 3. art. 4. dub. 9. and others who excuse potters, silversmiths, weavers, fullers, masons, painters, curriers; yet not painters, tailors, and barbers, because these crafts are not so laborious. Tannerus subscribes numero 102. citing Lessius dub. 6. Toletus lib. 6. cap. 6.

THEM, however, Ledesma excuses 24. quaest. 17. art. 3. dub. 9. Fagundez praecep. 4. lib. 1. cap. 8. num. 15. and he proves it by the privilege of Eug. IV., which seems to excuse all artisans; but that it does not excuse all, Bassaens observes, Diana resol. 8. with Reginaldo Tom. 1. lib. 4. cap. 17. num. 116.

CONCERNING diggers, smiths, and the like, for some intervening day on which they do not labor, it is thought to be defined by the judgment of the prudent, Medina lib. 1. cap. 24. §. 10. Sylvius 2. 2. quaest. 187. art. 4. Villalobos sum. tom. 1. tract 23. diff. 9.

BUT Diana judges absolutely resol. 9. that such men are not bound if one or two intervening days are assigned to the fast, because they need to restore their strength; and so think also Ioan. de la Cruz part. 1. praecep. 3. art. 4. dub. 9. Azor tom. 1. lib. 7. cap. 17. quaesito 8. Fagundez praecep. 4. lib. 1. cap. 8. num. 16. and others.

THEY ASK also concerning Procurators and Advocates, whom some excuse if the labor be unremitting and they themselves so weak that they cannot otherwise satisfy their office. See Dian. resol. 12. So also Diana excuses scribes laboring all day part. 4. tract. 4. resol. 130. Pasqualig. disp. 335.

THAT which many say — that only those workmen are bound who are at the same time able to fast — seems Scrupulous to Fernando part. 2. cap. 8. §. 2. Fagundez praecep. 4. lib. 1. cap. 6. num. 16. and Diana resol. 13.

THEY HAVE SPOKEN also of Preachers hired for pay. But many think they are bound, in Diana resol. 11. but I do not see why they should be excused if not led by pay; yet if for pay, they should not be excused, since on both sides the labor is the same, even assumed, as I suppose, for the utility of the peoples. Therefore they teach that in either case they are excused, Bonacina tract. de legibus, disp. ultim. quaest. 1. punct. ult. Filliucius tom. 2. tract. 27. part. 2. cap. 6. num. 124. Lessius lib. 4. cap. 1. dub. 6. num. 44. Diana loco cit.

HE EXCUSES also musicians, Sancius disp. 49. Diana loco cit. if they cannot otherwise sing; and clerics for taking eggs in order to restore a melodious voice.

IT IS DIFFICULT for me to define concerning those who are wearied by no necessity, indeed by unremitting labors; for many loosen the reins, saying: The precept binds only those whom it finds powerful, not those whom it finds impotent. So Bonacina tract. 1. dub. 2. quaest. 8. punct. 1. num. 16. Lublin. p. p. v. Ieiun. num. 19. Diana p. p. tract. 9. resol. 40. et 52. Sancius select. disp. 54. num. 14. Layman lib. 4. tract. 8. cap. 3. Sanchez lib. 5. consil. cap. 1. dub. 7. Pasqualig. disp. 317. Quoad laborantes inaniter.

AS TO those who weary themselves for a base end, there are those who excuse them, even if they foresaw the impotency. So Medina lib. 1. sum. cap. 23. Diana loc. cit. Resol. 40. Bonacina num. 16. Sancius disp. 54. Bassaeus num. 7.

I REFUTE the opinion of these with this reasoning, with Navar. cap. 21. num. 17. Bonacina num. 16. Layman num. 5. Who does something, as licit, which is against the law standing in its vigor, cheats the law, and therefore sins. Such are these men with regard to the law of fasting: Therefore. The major is conceded by the adversaries. The minor is proven. For at that point at which they labor, they are bound to the law, and they cast it aside for the time of execution, like one who would drink the Breviary so as not to say the office.

I prove secondly: He who destroys the end of the law by refusing the means enjoined is guilty. Such are these. For the end of the law is the ordering of the soul, not only through maceration, but through the acts of the virtue of Abstinence. St. Bonaventure teaches this in speculo animae, cap. 3. saying that necessary labor is required.

THERE REMAIN those undertaking journeys on foot, whom the Doctors commonly excuse, in Bonacin. punct. ult. Bassaeum num. 7. But how long the journey should be, Rodriquez tom. 2. 99. reg. quaest. 100. art. 3. establishes at six leagues. Others at seven Italian miles; better, with Bassaeo and others, I shall say that the journey must be weighed: if arduous through places, the time, if it exceeds by heat or rigor, especially the strength of the traveler must be pondered. See Pasqualigum decif. 313. Many will that the journey be such that it cannot at least conveniently be postponed; so Angles flor. quaest. 6. de ieiun. diff. 10. Lessius lib. 4. cap. 2. num. 456.

OTHERS deny this condition; for Eug. IV. also declares that those exercising laborious crafts are excused, even if they be rich and could refrain from labor. So Sanc. disp. 54. num. 21. Pasqualig. decis. 314. Medin. lib. 1. instr. c. 14. §. 10.

UNDER this title is excused he who can perform some good work better than fasting, as to preach, to teach in schools, to hear confessions: Likewise to go on pilgrimage with a certain special edification of others, as with Caietano verb. Ieiunium, Navarro man. cap. 21. num. 18. Valentia teaches puncto 5. Tannerus num. 103.

AND concerning Preachers this they assert also, Ioan de la Cruz part. 1. praecep. 3. art. 4. dub. 9. Tabiena, verb. Ieiunium, Filliucius tom. 2. tract. 27. part. 2. cap. 6. Azor part. 1. lib. 7. cap. 28. quaestio 1. Graff. part. 1. lib. 2. cap. 37. Antonius de litteratis, part. 1. cap. 39. Fernandez in Exam. part. 2. cap. 8. §. 2. Nauar. cap. 21. Gabriel 4. dist. 16. quaest. 3. art. 1. Reginaldus tom. 1. lib. 4. cap. 17. num. 219. Sylvius 2. 2. quaest. 147. art. 4. and others: But they understand this when they cannot conveniently fast. I think, however, with Diana resol. 10. that this occurs in Lent, when preaching is continual, but not if only on Sundays. So also Bassaeus V. Ieiun.. 2 num. 8.

CONCERNING Lectors he says, with Fagundez praecep. 4. lib. 1. cap. 8. num. 19. that not all are to be excused, but only those whose labor is unremitting, or who are so weak that they cannot study sufficiently, etc. So also Bassaeus.

AS TO those making pilgrimage to the holy places, that they are not excused if they can conveniently postpone, St. Thomas teaches art. 4. ad 3. Sylvius ibi, Villal. tom. 1. tract. 23. dub. 4. Fernan. part. 2. cap. 8. §. 2.

FOR INDEED that these are greater goods, and excluding from the fast without other cause, Sanctius teaches disp. 54. num. 1. Palao part. 1. tract. 3. dub. 1. Pasqual. disp. 341. Bassaeus num. 9. Ortiz sum. cap. 19. Diana resol. 56.

A SPOUSE may not fast if impeded from the moderate rendering of the debt, for this is the stricter obligation of the justice of divine natural law: that other, of human law.

LIKEWISE she is excused on account of the good of marriage alleged by the husband, who forbids the fast, lest of course she be weakened, or displease by pallor or squalor. So Pasqualig. disp. 281. Sanc. disp. 54. num. 24. Sanchez lib. 9. de matrim. disp. 3. num. 11. Bonacina punct. ult. num. 14. Fagundez praecep. 4. lib. 1. cap. 8. num. 18. Bassaeus num. 10. Provided he does not forbid it, as a heretic, out of contempt. So, if discords were imminent which she could not sustain, she can obey a husband commanding her not to fast. So Sanchez num. 53.