The Commandments of the Church

¹ That the Church has power to make laws obliging in conscience is established from the nature of the Church, from certain sayings of Christ the Lord, and finally from the practice and doctrine of the Church.² Therefore the precepts of the Church also must be observed, so that we may be able to attain the end of eternal life. Some precepts of the Church are universal, which oblige all the faithful; others are particular, which refer to particular states of the faithful. The universal precepts, concerning which we must treat here, are listed by different authors in different ways as to number and order. Since the observance of feasts was treated above, where there was discussion of the third precept of the Decalogue, it remains to speak: a. of abstinence and fasting; b. of annual confession and Paschal communion; c. of the prohibition of books; to which, because of the peculiar circumstances of this time, must be added d. the support of pastors; e. the prohibition of cremating corpses.

¹ St. Alphonsus, l. 3, n. 1004-1050; Tamburini, In quinque ecclesiae praecepta (posthumous work); St. Fagundez, Quaestiones in quinque ecclesiae praecepta; M. Struggl, Theologia moralis, tract. VIII, De praeceptis ecclesiae; Ballerini-Palmieri, Opus theolog. morale, 3rd ed., II, n. 1103-1225; Lehmkuhl, Theologia moralis, 10th ed., I, 1201-1222; Genicot, Theologiae moralis instit., 8th ed., I, n. 434-460.

² Dogmatic theologians and canonists demonstrate this truth expressly. Palmieri, De romano pontifice (Rome: Typograph. S. C. de prop. fide, 1877), p. 126 ss.; Wernz, Ius decretalium (Rome: Typograph. S. C. de prop. fide, 1898), I, n. 90 ss.; Aichner, Compendium iuris ecclesiastici, 10th ed. (Brixen: Weger, 1900), section 23, 3.

WE saw in the book on Laws that the Church has received power from God to make laws which bind all her children, and that she alone has authority to regulate all matters pertaining to the worship of God and the salvation of souls. The Catholic Church has exercised the power entrusted to her and imposed certain laws and precepts on the faithful. According to the Catechism the chief of these are six in number:

To keep the Sundays and holy days of obligation holy, by hearing Mass and resting from servile work.

To keep the days of fasting and abstinence appointed by the Church.

To go to confession at least once a year.

To receive the Blessed Sacrament at least once a year, and that at Easter or thereabouts.

To contribute to the support of our pastors.

Not to marry within certain degrees of kindred, nor to solemnize marriage at the forbidden times.

The last of these will be best explained when we come to treat of marriage; the other five will form the subject of the following chapters.

WHAT pertains to the obligation of hearing Mass and abstaining from servile work on Sundays and holy days of obligation has been already explained under the Third Commandment of the Decalogue. It only remains to add a few observations to what was there laid down.

Before Urban VIII issued his Bull Universa, September 13, 1642, various feasts were kept as of obligation in different countries. ‘For the purpose of introducing greater uniformity, Urban VIII drew up a list of feasts which were everywhere to be observed and besides which no others might be observed without the sanction of the Pope. Besides all the Sundays of the year, the list contained the following feasts: Christmas Day, the Circumcision, Epiphany, Resurrection and two following days, the Ascension, Whit Sunday and two following days, the Holy Trinity, Corpus Christi, Finding of the Cross, the Purification, Annunciation, Assumption, and Nativity of the Blessed Virgin; the Dedication of St Michael, the Nativity of St John the Baptist, SS Peter and Paul, St Andrew, St James, St John, St Thomas, SS Philip and James, St Bartholomew, St Matthew, SS Simon and Jude, St Matthias; St Stephen, St Sylvester, St Joseph, St Anne, the feast of All Saints, and one of the principal patrons in each kingdom or province, and another principal patron in each city, town, or village, where such are venerated.

In most countries the number of these feasts has been greatly reduced, and in England they have been reduced to eight by decrees of the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda dated March 9, 1777, and May 17, 1830. ‘Those eight are: Christmas Day, the Circumcision or New Year’s Day, the Epiphany, the Ascension of our Lord, Corpus Christi, SS Peter and Paul, the Assumption of our Lady, and All Saints. The suppressed feasts are still observed as days of devotion.

As in England we had no patrons such as those whose feast was to be observed according to the Bull of Urban VIII, by . a decree dated May 24, 1863, Pius IX granted permission for the name of St George to be inserted in the prayer A Cunctis at Mass, and for a commemoration of St George to be made in place of that of the patron among the suffrages of the saints in the Office. By a decree S.R.C. (December 2, 1891 [n. 3758]), regulars may add the name of their saintly founder as well. In Ireland the feast of St Patrick is celebrated as the feast of the patron and as a day of obligation in addition to those observed in England. in the United States the following are the holy days of obligation: Christmas Day, the Circumcision, the Ascension, the Assumption, the Immaculate Conception of our Lady, and All Saints.

Canon 1247 is as follows: “‘ The festival days of obligation in the Church universal are these only: Each and all Sundays, the feasts of the Nativity, Circumcision, Epiphany, Ascension, and Corpus Christi, of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Blessed Mary Mother of God, of St Joseph. her Spouse, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and finally of All Saints.”

The feasts of the Immaculate Conception and of St Joseph have not so far been introduced in England.

THERE are various reasons why the Church bids Catholics to fast and abstain from flesh meat on certain days. By these means we more easily keep our lustful appetites in due subjection and we do penance for our sins. There are certain devils, which, as our Lord taught us, are only cast out by prayer and fasting. Moreover, by denying and curbing our appetites we exercise ourselves in the virtue of temperance, and, like soldiers on parade, we accustom our lower nature to obey the command of reason, so that it may not betray us when we are in presence of the enemy in time of temptation.

Considerable changes were introduced into the law of fasting and abstinence by the new code. According to Canon 1250: The law of abstinence forbids the eating of flesh meat and of soup made from flesh meat, but not eggs, milk, cheese (lacticinia), nor any condiments even from the fat of animals.”

The flesh of animals that are born on land and that breathe is forbidden, as also soups made from this flesh and extract of meat. Fish, oysters, turtle, crab are not forbidden, and in some places certain aquatic birds are allowed by custom. Suet is classed as flesh meat, but the rendered fat of animals, butter, milk, cheese, and eggs are allowed.

This precept binds under pain of grave sin, but a violation of it would not be a mortal sin unless an appreciable quantity of unlawful food were taken. Theologians are not agreed on what quantity is necessary to constitute grave matter, but, in the opinion of some, two ounces would be necessary and sufficient.

All Catholics who have come to the use of reason are as a general rule subject to the precept of abstinence as to other positive laws of the Church. However, inasmuch as positive laws do not bind when they could not be observed without relatively serious inconvenience, those who are sick, or are recovering from illness, or those who are in weak health and cannot take abstinence fare, are excused from observing this precept, and may eat meat on days of abstinence. Children, too, of negligent Catholic parents who do not observe the law, Catholic servants in bigoted Protestant families who cannot get such food as the Church allows on days of abstinence, and must fast unless they eat meat which is put before them, may lawfully do so. Dispensations also from the obligation of abstaining may for good reason be obtained from the Bishop or from the priest.

The superiors of Religious Orders have the same powers as Bishops with regard to their own religious subjects. Ordinarily these can only dispense in particular cases or families, but on account of some great concourse of people or of public health, Ordinaries can now dispense in the law both of fasting and abstinence (Can. 1245, sec. 2, 3).

According to Canon 1251: “‘ The law of fasting prescribes that only one full meal be taken in the day; but it does not forbid the taking of some food in the morning and in the evening, nevertheless the approved custom of the place must be kept with regard to the quantity and quality of food. Nor is it forbidden to mix flesh meat and fish in the same meal, nor to change the evening collation with dinner.”

The law of fasting, then, prescribes that only one full meal may be taken in the day, and that after twelve o’clock midday. Solid food, not drink, is limited by the law of fasting, but very nutritious liquids, such as milk, soup, thick chocolate, are classed as food. Custom sanctions the taking of about two ounces of dry bread with tea, coffee, or thin chocolate at breakfast, and about eight ounces of lighter sorts of food in the evening at collation. If it is preferred the collation may be taken after midday and the full meal in the evening.

According to Canon 1252: “ The law of abstinence alone is to be observed on every Friday.

The law of abstinence and fasting also is to be observed on Ash Wednesday, on the Fridays and Saturdays of Lent, and on the Wednesdays, Fridays, and Saturdays of Ember Week, on the vigils of Whit Sunday, the Assumption, All Saints, and Christmas Day.

The law of fasting alone is to be observed on the other days of Lent. On Sundays or on feasts of obligation the law of abstinence, or of abstinence and fasting, or of fasting only, ceases, except on the feast during Lent, and the vigils are not anticipated; it also ceases on Holy Saturday after midday.”

The Holy See has dispensed English and Scotch Catholics from abstinence except during Lent, on the Saturdays of Ember Week, and on those vigils which immediately precede or follow Friday or another day of abstinence.

On June 12, 1923 the Holy See extended to England the regulations for fasting already granted to Australia. By this indult on fasting days those bound to fast are allowed one full meal at or after midday. In addition they are allowed two light meals, one of about eight ounces, at which butter, cheese, eggs or fish may be taken in small quantities; the other of two or three ounces, at which a little butter may be taken. No time is indicated for the two light meals, which may therefore presumably be taken at any time at the choice of the individual.

It is special to the law of fasting that it only binds the faithful after they have attained the age of twenty-one until they enter upon their sixtieth year. It binds under pain of grievous sin, which may be committed not only by taking more than one full meal in the day according to what has just been said, but also by taking food at frequent intervals in small quantities, for thus the total amount would be considerable. When one who is bound to fast has already taken two full meals, he has broken his fast, and the law no longer binds him. Whereas the law of abstinence is broken, and sin is committed, as often as the prohibited act is done.

Though all who have reached the age of twenty-one are per se bound to fast, yet as a matter of fact many are excused on the ground of impossibility, work of importance which cannot be omitted without serious inconvenience and which cannot be done if fasting is observed, and dispensation.

Not only hard bodily labour in the fields, mines, workshops, or mills, but severe mental work such as teaching, continual preaching, or hearing confessions, excuses from the precept of fasting. The sick, convalescents, health are also excused. and those in delicate Even though the difficulty of fasting and at the same time of doing one’s work is sometimes not sufficient of itself to excuse one from fasting, it will be sufficient for obtaining a dispensation, which may be given not only by the Pope, but by the Bishop, one’s religious superior, or by the parish priest.

As the Council of Trent teaches, there is a divine law which prescribes that all who fall into grievous sin after receiving Baptism should confess such sin to a priest and receive absolution for it from him. This divine precept is contained in the institution of the sacrament of Penance, and will best be explained when we come to treat of that sacrament. Here we have to do with a positive ecclesiastical law which supposes the divine law, but further determines it according to time and the person to whom the confession is to be made. The divine law does not determine any precise time for making the confession nor does it limit the choice of confessor. This was done by the Fourth Lateran Council, c. 21: “‘ Let all the faithful of both sexes after they have come to years of discretion faithfully confess all their sins in private at least once a year to their own priest, and do their best to perform the penance which he shall enjoin them.”

It is the common opinion of theologians that this law only affects those who have fallen into mortal sin, so that although venial sin may be confessed and affords sufficient matter for sacramental absolution, yet there is no law, human or divine, which imposes any obligation on the faithful in general to confess venial sins. The divine law does not do this, as the Council of Trent explains (sess. 14, c. 5), and the Lateran law only determines the divine law.

One’s own priest, according to the modern discipline of the Church, is any priest who has faculties for hearing confessions in the place where they are made. ‘To satisfy the precept it is not sufficient merely to make one’s confession; it must be made fruitfully, so as to merit absolution and reconciliation with God.¹

¹ Prop. 14, condemned by Alexander VII.

No special time within the year is mentioned by the council, and various methods of reckoning the year would satisfy its requirements; but as Easter time is assigned for the annual Communion which is also prescribed, in practice the two precepts are fulfilled together within the time appointed for the Easter duties. If one has neglected to go to the Sacraments within the prescribed time, he is not free for a further term, but he should go as soon as he can (Can. 906, 907).

THERE is also a divine precept to receive Holy Communion: ““ Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood you shall not have life in you.” + But no special time was assigned by our Lord for the fulfilment of this precept; he left all such matters to be determined by the Church. The Fourth Council of the Lateran, therefore, made the universal law that all the faithful, after coming to years of discretion, should reverently receive the holy Eucharist at least at Easter, unless it be deemed advisable to abstain for a time for some reasonable cause.”

Canon 859 of the new code repeats the words of the Lateran Council and interprets the words “years of discretion ”’ as ‘‘ coming to the use of reason,” so that children ¹ become subject to this law after completing their seventh year. This obligation, as far as it affects those under the age of puberty, falls chiefly on those who have care of them—that is, on their parents, guardians, confessor, teachers, and parish priest (Can. 860).

The Easter Communion should be made during the fortnight from Palm Sunday to Low Sunday, but local Ordinaries can anticipate the time from the fourth Sunday of Lent or prolong it to Trinity Sunday.

The faithful are to be exhorted to fulfil this precept in their own parish church, and if they fulfil it in another parish they should inform their parish priest.

In England the time for fulfilling the Easter duties is still from Ash Wednesday to Low Sunday.

In the United States the time for fulfilling the Easter precept is from the first Sunday in Lent till Trinity Sunday; in Ireland it extends from Ash Wednesday to the octave day of the feast of SS Peter and Paul.

This precept is not fulfilled by a sacrilegious Communion, and if it has not been complied with at the proper time the obligation still remains, and should be discharged as soon as the occasion offers.

Other matters concerning Holy Communion will be treated when we come to the Sacraments (Can. 861).

¹ John vi 54.

“ Know you not,” says St Paul, “‘ that they who work in the holy place eat the things that are of the holy place; and they that serve the altar partake with the altar? So also the Lord ordained that they who preach the gospel should live by the gospel.”¹ As, then, there was special provision made by God for the support of the priests and the maintenance of religion under the Old Law, so under the New Law our Lord commanded that his ministers should be supported by those to whom they ministered. The faithful, then, are bound by divine precept to contribute according to their means to the support of their pastors.

The method of fulfilling this duty has varied at different times; nowadays, at least in English-speaking countries, the offerings of the faithful are almost the only source of church revenue, as they were in the first ages of Christianity. The Church urges this divine precept and further determines it either by universal law or by provincial and diocesan regulations.²

¹ 1 Cor. ix 13, 14.

² Cf. 1 West., d. 23, nn. 4, 5; 2 West., d. 8; 3 Plen. Baltim., tit. 9; can. 1496.

Ministers of religion have a right in justice to decent support, for from the fact that they are put by lawful authority in spiritual charge of a parish or mission, the people under their care are bound by an implicit contract to support them, just as citizens are bound to support temporal rulers, magistrates, and officials.¹ The obligation, then, to support one’s pastors is grave, but it is difficult to determine when mortal sin is committed in particular cases by failing to comply with this duty. Much depends on the degree of necessity in which a pastor is placed, and on the means of the parishioner, The sacraments and ministrations of the Church should never be refused to the poor who cannot pay the usual fee, nor more especially is the priest justified in refusing the consolations of religion to dying people on the ground that they neglected the duty of supporting their pastors during life. The priest is bound by other ties to his flock than by the hope of earthly reward,

¹ St Thomas, Summa, 2-2, q. 87, a. 1.

If a church or public oratory has been polluted by the perpetration therein of certain crimes, it is forbidden to say Mass there until it has been reconciled. The crimes which pollute a church, provided that they are certain, notorious and committed in the church itself, are: homicide, the grave and injurious shedding of blood, the putting of the church to impious or sordid uses, the burial therein of an unbaptized ' person or of an excommunicated person after a declaratory or condemnatory sentence (Can. 1172). It is not allowed to celebrate the divine offices, to administer the sacraments, or to bury the dead in a polluted church before it has been reconciled.

If the church is only blessed it can be reconciled by its rector or by any priest with the presumed leave at least of the rector. one If the church is consecrated, its reconciliation belongs to the Ordinary of the place or to the higher superior if it is a church of exempt religious, or to a priest delegated by either of them. But in a case of grave and urgent necessity, the rector of a consecrated church can reconcile it and inform his Ordinary afterwards. The reconciliation of a blessed church can be done with common holy water. If the church is consecrated, the water should be specially blessed, but the priest who is deputed to reconcile the church can bless the water as well as the Ordinary (Can. 1176, 1177).

Private oratories are not polluted, even if any of the above crimes be committed in them, and so they do not need reconciliation.

Mass may not be said in a church or oratory which has lost its consecration. This happens when the greater part of it is destroyed at one and the same time, or when a new portion is added to it and what is added is greater than the old part. A church does not lose its consecration if the roof falls in or if the plastering of the walls is renewed. When a church loses its consecration it must be reconsecrated, or at least blessed, before Mass be again said in it.

When a church is polluted the altars in it are also polluted, but altars do not lose their consecration merely because the churches in which they are placed are desecrated. A fixed altar loses its consecration if the altar-stone is loosed from its foundation, and both fixed and portable altars lose their consecration if the tomb where the relics are placed is violated, or in consequence of a large fracture.

After in general moral theology, that is, in the first book, we have discussed the general principles of the Christian life, now we must speak of the exercise of the Christian life, or the cultivation of the virtues, that is, of eliciting acts of the virtues. Now of the virtues, some are immediately, at least principally (on virtues, n. 352), occupied around God, as He is author and end of the supernatural order; others immediately regard the morally good good of an intermediate end (n. 367). The former are called theological, the latter moral. Therefore we must speak first of the cultivation of the theological virtues, then of the cultivation of the moral virtues.

The principal precepts of the Church, common to all, are: 1° the sanctification of Sundays and feast days; 2° abstinence and fasting; 3° annual confession; 4° Easter communion; 5° the censorship and prohibition of books. Concerning the sanctification of certain days we spoke in Part III, concerning the third precept of the Decalogue (n. 701 ff.). It remains for us to treat the last four precepts, with a scholion on the forbidden cremation of bodies added.

Persons Who Give Scandal on Account of Obscenity.—(a) In case of obscene pictures or statues, scandal is given by the artists, painters, sculptors or others who make the images, and by the responsible persons who place them in museums, galleries, parks or other places to which there is general admission.

(b) As regards female dress, the guilty parties are proximately the wearers, but remotely and principally the designers and society leaders who impose their will in making the fashions dangerous and in causing one extreme mode to follow quickly upon another.

(e) With respect to obscene plays, the scandal is given by playwrights, managers, actors and actresses, and those who patronize or applaud them. The public itself and the civil authorities share in the guilt, when they supinely tolerate the degradation of the stage and the corruption of morals.

(d) In the case of obscene dances, the givers of scandal are the proprietors of resorts where the dances are held, the musicians and singers (especially when the songs themselves are obscene), and the dancers, spectators and other patrons.

(e) In the case of salacious publications or writings, authors, publishers, printers, vendors, and the reading public share responsibility for the scandal. Government censorship of the press is not desirable, but government suppression of obscenity has always been the policy of countries of English origin. The private citizen, then, is not free of guilt if he takes no interest even when he sees piles of indecent magazines, pictures, etc., being sold openly on the newsstands. Canon Law (Canon 1404) forbids booksellers to sell, lend, or keep books that deal ex professo with obscenity, though there is no objection to expurgated editions, as in the case of classical works.

Austerity.—The two chief forms of austerity in food and drink are fasting and abstinence.

(a) Nature.—The natural fast is the omission of all eating and drinking, or the omission to receive into the stomach anything whatever that has the nature of food, drink or medicine. The moral fast is the omission to take a certain quantity of food that could be taken without intemperance. Abstinence is the omission to take a certain quality of food, such as meat or eggs.

(b) Kinds.—Fast and abstinence are in respect to duration either perpetual (e.g., the abstinence from meat of the Carthusians) or temporary (e.g., the abstinence for Fridays and other appointed days of the faithful generally); either voluntary (e.g., a fast which one assumes under private vow) or obligatory (e.g., the fasts and abstinences prescribed in the general or particular laws of the Church). The ecclesiastical fast and abstinence will be spoken of later when we treat of the precepts of the Church and Holy Communion.

The Excellence of Fasting and Abstinence.—(a) Lawfulness.—Fasting and abstinence are acts of virtue, for they subdue the unruly flesh, fit the mind for divine contemplation (Dan, x. 3 sqq.), satisfy for sins (Joel, ii. 12), and add weight to prayers (Tob., xii. 8; Judith, iv. 11; Matt., xvii. 20). The greatest men of the Old and New Testaments practised fasting—Moses, Samson, Elias, John the Baptist, and St. Paul. Our Lord Himself fasted forty days and forty nights (Matt, iv. 2). St. Paul, therefore, numbers fasting with other virtues: “In fastings, in knowledge, in chastity” (II Cor., vi. 5). Examples of abstinence are Daniel avoiding meat (Dan, i. 8 sqq.) and Eleazar who died rather than eat forbidden swine flesh (II Mach., vi. 18 sqq.). Abstention from solid or liquid nourishment is not a virtue, however, if practised from purely indifferent or evil motives, for example, merely in order to recover health through diet, or to train for an athletic contest, or to preserve shape and beauty, or to commit suicide, or to simulate virtue, or to profess false doctrines or if carried to extremes. The forty-day fasts of Moses, Elias and of Our Lord are for our admiration, but very few are able to imitate these examples.

(b) Obligation.—Fasting and abstinence in general are obligatory under natural law, because without them certain necessary ends cannot be obtained. They are remedies for past sins and preservatives against future sins; and, as sin is the common state of man (James, iii. 2; Gal., v. 17), it would be presumptuous to neglect these antidotes. Under the positive law fasting and abstinence have been prescribed in detail, and this was necessary since it is the duty of the Church to determine the time, manner and other circumstances of natural duties of religion which the natural law itself has not determined.

Obligation of First Precept.—The first precept of the Church obliges under pain of grave sin, because it determines a necessary act of religion (2148), and experience shows that where the Sabbath is neglected the social, spiritual and physical interests of man are seriously harmed (see Denzinger, n. 1202). There is always hope for Catholics who attend Mass, whereas those who miss Mass soon become Catholics only in name. But since neglect of worship may be only slightly disrespectful, and since the end of the precept may be substantially obtained without complete fulfillment, a transgression may be only venial by reason of lightness of matter.

(a) Preceptive Part.—Grave matter is a part of the Mass that is notable on account of dignity (i.e., the essential and integral parts of the Mass, for example, the Consecration and Communion), or on account of its duration (i.e., a third of the whole Mass, e.g., from the beginning to the Offertory inclusively, from the beginning to the Gospel and from the Communion to the end, from the Preface to the Consecration, from the Consecration to the Agnus Dei, etc.). Hence, he who is culpably absent or asleep during a notable part of the Mass sins gravely, but he who is absent or asleep during an inconsiderable part of the Mass (e.g., one who arrives just at the Offertory or who leaves after the Communion) sins venially, unless he is so disposed that he does not care how much he misses.

(b) Prohibitive Part.—Grave matter is labor that is notable on account of its quality (e.g., forensic proceedings even for a brief space on Sunday would be a serious distraction and scandal), or its quantity (e.g., two and a half hours given to very exhausting manual work, such as digging a ditch, three hours given to less arduous labor, such as sowing). He who commands ten laborers to work an hour each on Sunday cooperates in ten venial sins (see 219), but he may be guilty of mortal sin on account of scandal.

The Second Precept of the Church.—This precept commands that on all Fridays of the year and certain other specified days (unless they fall on a holyday outside of Lent) every baptized person who has completed the age of seven and has attained the use of reason shall abstain from eating flesh meat and from drinking the broth or soup made from flesh meat (Canons 1250-1254).

(a) Under the name flesh are included all land and warm-blooded animals (i.e., mammals and birds). The law does not include aquatic animals (i.e., fishes, clams, oysters and other shellfish, lobsters, shrimps, crabs and other crustaceans), nor cold-blooded animals (i.e., reptiles, snails and amphibians, such as frogs, tortoises). Some authors include under aquatic animals otters, beavers, seals, walruses, loons, and coots, though generally the birds are regarded as flesh. In doubt whether a food is fish or flesh, it may be judged to be fish, for in doubts laws are to be interpreted benignly.

(b) Under the name meat are included all the parts of an animal (i.e., its flesh, blood, marrow, brains, lard, meat extracts, mince-pie, pepsin) but not its fruit (e.g., eggs, milk, and things made from milk, such as butter, cheese).

(c) Under the name broth is included any liquid made from the juice of meat, such as beef tea, chicken broth, mutton soup, gravy, etc. But the law does not forbid condiments made from animal fats (e.g., margarin).

Obligation of the Second Precept of the Church.—(a) Origin of the Obligation.—In substance this precept is of the natural law, but in details (time, manner, etc.) it is of ecclesiastical law (2468 b) and has come down from customs that began in the first ages of Christianity. The church regulation on abstinence is most wise and moderate: the foods forbidden are those whose deprivation is a mortification to most persons, and at the same time a great benefit to spiritual and bodily health; the times appointed are few but appropriate (viz., days of sorrow, special prayer, penance, preparation, such as Fridays, Ember Days, Lent, vigils), and they are so distributed as to sanctify by mortification each week and each season of the year. True, no food is evil in itself (Matt., xv. 11; I Cor., viii, 8; I Tim., iv. 3; Col., ii. 16), but just as the physician can forbid certain foods to his patient for the sake of temporal good, so for the sake of spiritual good God forbade to Adam the fruit of one tree and to the Jews the flesh of certain animals; and the Church from the days of the Apostles (Acts, xv. 29) has exercised the same right.

(b) Gravity of the Obligation.—The abstinence required by the Second Precept is a grave duty, because the Church makes it the necessary act of the necessary virtue of abstemiousness and a serious duty of obedience. But not every transgression is a serious injury to the spirit of this law, and hence some sins against it are venial. Grave matter is such a quantity of forbidden food as gives considerable nourishment, and hence for practical purposes the rule may be given that flesh meat which weighs two ounces (or, according to others, what would be the size of a walnut or of a small hen’s egg) is grave matter. Some hold for a more liberal interpretation when the food is not strictly flesh meat, and believe that liquid from meat is not grave matter at any time, or at least when it weighs less than four ounces. Vegetables cooked or seasoned with meat or meat juice are also considered light matter. He who eats meat twice on a Friday or other abstinence day commits two sins, just as he who works twice on a Sunday or holyday commits two sins. It is commonly held that many venial sins against abstinence committed on the same day coalesce to form grave matter, but on account of the separation between the eatings a larger amount is necessary for grave matter.

(c) Exceptions to the Obligation.—Those are not bound to observe a day of abstinence who have been exempted by indult (Canon 1253), who have been dispensed by the Ordinary, pastor or superior (Canon 1245), or who are excused on account of real impossibility (e.g., the poor, the sick, those obliged to perform very hard work, those who are morally forced to eat meat but not as a sign of contempt of the law). Persons dispensed from abstinence may not eat meat oftener than once a day on fast days, unless they have a special grant. The faithful should be guided by the Lenten regulations of their dioceses, and in doubt they should consult their pastors.

The Obligation of Fasting.—The Second Precept also commands that on the weekdays of Lent and certain other specified days (holydays outside Lent excepted) every baptized person between the ages of twenty-one years completed and sixty years begun shall eat not more than one full meal a day (Canon 1251).

(a) The law speaks of eating, that is, of solid food, and hence the Lenten and other similar fasts are not broken by liquids which are beverages rather than foods, or which are used to allay thirst, or carry food or assist digestion, and not chiefly to nourish (e.g., water, teas, coffee, light cocoa, wine, beer, lemonade, fruit juice). Likewise, sirups taken as medicines are not considered foods, even though they contain nourishment, unless one drinks a large quantity for its food content. Light ices may be considered drink, but ice-cream is food. On the contrary, liquids that are chiefly nourishing are regarded as food (e.g., soup, oil, honey). Finally, some liquors vary between food and drink, according to their richness or weakness, their great or small quantity. Thus, hot chocolate as made in the United States contains only a small amount of solid and may be considered as a drink, but as made in Europe it is stronger and rather food than drink.

(b) The law admits as an indulgence on fast days, in addition to the one meal, a small breakfast in the morning and a light collation to be taken either around noon (lunch) or in the evening (supper). The quality and quantity of these two repasts are left to local custom. The Uniform Norm for Fast and Abstinence in the United States adopted by the Hierarchy, Nov. 14, 1951, establishes the following norm for these two meatless meals. They are to be “sufficient to maintain strength, may be taken according to each one’s needs; but together they should not equal another full meal.” This norm, called the relative standard, was adopted by many Bishops of the United States, beginning with Lent of 1952. Thus, the amount of food is dependent to some degree on a person’s own needs and appetite. The relative standard is distinguished from the absolute norm which allows about two ounces for the morning collation and eight ounces for the evening.

(c) The law permits one to eat but once in the day (exception being made for breakfast and collation), but it places no limits as to the quality of the food at the principal meal (unless the day be also a day of abstinence, when meat is forbidden), or as to its quantity, though temperance bids one to eat at all times in moderation. On fast days, therefore, one may not eat between meals, nor so divide or prolong the dinner that it really becomes several meals. A notable interruption (two or three hours) made without good reason divides a dinner into two meals, and over two hours of uninterrupted eating, under ordinary circumstances, seems to be more than the one full meal which the law allows.

The Obligation of the Precept of Fasting.—(a) Origin.—The natural law commands fasting in general, since without some kind of austerity above common temperance certain desirable ends (such as atonement for past transgressions, conquest of unruly passions, and elevation of the soul) cannot be attained; and as these ends are necessary it is also necessary to use the means as far as one needs them. The particularization of this natural law has been made by the positive law of the Church, and with such wisdom as to promote the good of both soul and body. The times appointed are most appropriate (e.g., the season when the Passion is commemorated, Luke, v. 35); the duration of the long fast is modelled on that of Christ (Matt., iv. 1); the curtailment of food required is not only beneficial (as an exercise of self-control and a rest and change to the metabolism), but is moderate, since it permits sufficient food for the day, and even in the fast of Lent the Sundays occur to give a respite.

(b) Gravity.—The precept of fasting is grave, both from the purpose of the law (see 2469), and from the express declaration of the lawgiver (Denzinger, n. 1123). But the spirit of the precept is not notably deviated from by every transgression, and hence even in reference to matter there are minor or venial violations; and moreover the precept is probably (unlike that of abstinence) an indivisible one, since it consists in the limitation to one meal, and hence it cannot be violated more than once a day. Grave matter, when the absolute norm is used, seems to be about four ounces added to the collations or taken between meals, either all at once or at different times during the day (Denzinger, n.1129), But if the relative norm is used, a greater quantity is needed to establish grave matter, e.g., one fourth of a full meal. But he who has broken his fast (e.g., by a second full meal) does not break it again by a third or fourth full meal on the same day, for after the second full meal the fast has become impossible for that day. He who accidentally takes too much at breakfast can still keep the fast by proportionately diminishing his evening repast.

(c) Exceptions.—Physical or moral impossibility excuses from the fast, and gives the right to eat meat as often as moderation allows on days that are not meatless days. The chief persons who labor under impossibility are those who are too weak to fast (e.g., the sick, the convalescent, pregnant and nursing mothers, the nervous), those who are too poor to get one square meal a day (e.g., street beggars who have nothing may eat as often as they are given an alms, if it does not buy them a dinner), and those who cannot do their necessary or customary hard work if they fast. Hard work is such as is exercised for many hours continuously, or for a less time if it is very intense, and which is greatly fatiguing to the mind (e.g., daily teaching, lecturing, studying, hearing confessions, preaching, etc.) or to the body (e.g., heavy manual labor, the difficult jobs in offices or stores, work that requires one to be on one’s feet for hours at a time, necessary journeys made under hardship). The confessor or physician can decide about cases of impossibility that are not manifest, but dispensation should be had from the pastor (Canon 1245). Those who are dispensed from the ecclesiastical fast or abstinence should remember that they are not dispensed from the natural law of temperance, and they should practise some abstemiousness according to their ability (e.g., by self-denial in alcoholic beverages, tobacco, sweets, etc., or mortification in the quantity or quality of food).

The Third Precept of the Church.—This precept commands that all the faithful, male and female, who have reached the age of discretion go to confession at least once a year (Canon 906).

(a) The subject of this precept is every baptized person who has entered the Church through valid Baptism and who has the use of reason, which begins usually at the age of seven. Infants are incapable of committing sin, and the unbaptized are incapable of receiving the Sacrament of Penance.

(b) The matter of the precept is a good sacramental confession of the grave sins not yet confessed, made with the purpose of obtaining absolution to any duly authorized priest. Hence, those who have only venial sins on their conscience are not bound according to the common opinion by this precept, and, on the other hand, those who make a sacrilegious or voluntarily null confession do not fulfill the law (Denzinger, n. 1114; Code, Canon 907). It seems that one who, after a confession of venial sins at Easter, falls into grave sin is not bound from this precept to confess again before the end of the year.

(c) The time for fulfillment of the precept is once during the year. The law leaves one free to confess on any day during the twelvemonth, and to count the year either civilly (i.e., from January 1 to December 31), or ecclesiastically (e.g., from Easter time to Easter time, as is commonly done), or from the date of the last confession. The limit is set, however, not to terminate but to insist upon obligation, and hence it seems that he who has not made his 1957 confession must make it as soon as possible in 1958, but the 1957 confession made in 1958 will satisfy for the 1958 obligation also (see 468 sqq.).

The Obligation of the Third Precept.—(a) Origin.—From divine law sacramental confession is necessary for all who have fallen into serious sin after Baptism, since Christ has given His Church the keys of heaven and appointed His bishops and priests the physicians and judges to cure and pardon (Matt., xviii. 18; John, xx. 23). But Our Lord did not fix the frequency of confession, and it is this which the present precept determines. The law of annual confession goes back to the Fourth Lateran Council (1215).

(b) Gravity.—The precept of annual confession obliges under pain of mortal sin, for its purpose is of vital importance and the Church has always regarded it as a grave obligation. The purpose of the law is to ensure the use of the Sacrament instituted by Christ for forgiveness and to keep sinners from delaying their repentance too long. If a good business man takes stock of his assets and liabilities at least once a year, and those who are careful of their health have medical attention or examination at least yearly, it is most reasonable that the faithful should settle their spiritual accounts and attend to the well-being of their souls within an equal period of time. In the early centuries when fervor was greater and conditions different, no general church law on the frequency of confession was needed; but there is no doubt that the Lateran Decree met well the need that began after the change from the early penitential discipline, The penalties for violation of this precept were excommunication and exclusion from ecclesiastical burial, and, though they are not enforced today, they show the intention of the Church to impose a grave duty.

The Fourth Precept of the Church.—This precept commands that all the faithful, male and female, who have attained the use of reason, go to Holy Communion at least once a year, and that during Easter time (Canon 859).

(a) The subjects of this precept are the same as those of the previous precept, and consequently children of seven years or thereabout, who are able to understand, must make the Easter duty.

(b) The matter of the precept is a worthy Communion (Viaticum or ordinary Communion) received in any parish, but preferably in one’s own parish. Persons living in community (e.g., religious, soldiers, college boarders) may make the Easter duty in their own chapels, strangers and vagi in any church or chapel, and priests in the place where they say Mass.

(c) The time of the precept is the Paschal Season (i.e., from Palm Sunday to Low Sunday, but in the United States, by privilege, from the First Sunday of Lent to Trinity Sunday). The Easter time may be prolonged for an individual by his pastor or confessor for a just reason. The year within which the Easter duty is to be made begins, it seems, with the opening of one Paschal Season and ends with the opening of the Paschal Season of the following calendar year. Since the law requires that the Easter duty be made, not only within the Paschal Season, but also once a year, it follows that he who neglects Communion during the Easter period is still bound by the law to go to Communion before the opening of the next Paschal Season, but probably he is not bound to go at the first opportunity. As a rule, we believe those who do not make their Easter duty during a year are guilty of but one sin, since they do not think of distinct violations.

The Obligation of the Fourth Precept.—(a) Origin.—There is a divine precept of receiving Communion some time during life, since Our Lord willed the Eucharist to be the necessary nourishment of the soul’s journey (John, vi. 54) and the perpetual memorial of Himself (I Cor., xi. 24). The Church in the present precept has prescribed both the frequency and the time for complying with the will of Christ. Since the Eucharist is a daily bread, the law does not permit it to be abstained from by anyone beyond a year; and, since the Paschal Season brings the anniversary of Christ’s sacrifice and of the institution of the Blessed Sacrament, it is the time most fitly chosen for the obligatory Communion.

(b) Gravity.—The precept obliges under pain of grave sin, for it determines a law given by Our Lord Himself and regulates the minimum in the use of the Eucharist, the greatest of the Sacraments and the end of all the others. The doctrine of theologians is that it is a grave sin to delay culpably the Easter Communion for even a day beyond the Paschal Season as prescribed.

The Fifth and Sixth Precepts of the Church.—The Fifth Precept commands the proper maintenance of the clergy by the laity. The manner of giving the support is left to the special statutes and customs of each country (Canons 1496, 1502). This ecclesiastical law is but a determination of the natural law of justice and religion, and also of the divine law; for even in the Old Testament the Levites were supported by the people. The duty is, therefore, grave (see 2185 sqq.). Respect and obedience in spiritual matters are owed the clergy, and it is sinful to usurp their functions (see 2351, 2355 sqq., and Canons 119, 683, 1931, 166).

The Sixth Precept commands the proper solemnization of marriage and prohibits the solemn blessing of marriages at stated times. Canon 1108, Sec.2 specifies these times as “from the first Sunday of Advent until the day of the Nativity of Our Lord inclusive, and from Ash Wednesday until Easter Sunday inclusive.” It is to be noted that the forbidden time excludes only the solemn blessing, and even this may be permitted by the Ordinary for just cause, subject to liturgical laws (Canon 1108, Sec.3).

"The whole Church throughout the world knows that it belongs to the supreme solicitude of the Roman Pontiff to direct the Lord's flock to eternal salvation, and so to explain apostolic precepts that the faithful may run in the way of the commandments and be able happily to arrive at beatitude.

1. Indeed, by the report of very many of Our Venerable Brothers, Archbishops and Bishops constituted through various regions, it has come to Us that the multitude of Feasts through their several Dioceses and Provinces has grown so much, with devotion and new custom introducing them day by day, that many now seem to doubt which are to be observed by precept, and which by the free will of each person, while the fervor of piety grows lukewarm because of their excessive number. Indeed, the frequent cry of the poor has ascended to Us, complaining that this same multitude, because of the necessity of procuring daily food by their labors, is very harmful to them. And, what is most greatly to be lamented, with great grief of Our mind We have learned that the enemy has very often contrived so much against the Saints, that by the very multitude the people do not use them for edification and for praising God in the churches, but do not fear frequently to abuse them for idleness, vanities, and vices; so that those things which were first instituted for glorifying the Divine Majesty, the hostile man in the course of time has corrupted and converted into a great offense of Him and grave loss of souls. Wherefore the said Venerable Brothers, Archbishops and Bishops, have caused Us humbly to be supplicated, that in the aforesaid matters, from the fullness of apostolic power, We should enter upon some suitable plan.

2. Therefore We, wishing to provide from the duty of the Pastoral office and henceforth to establish a certain precept of the sanctification of Feasts, following in this the ancient custom of the Church, after frequent consultations first had through learned and pious men whom We specially deputed for this, as the gravity of the matter seems to demand, by Our own motion and from Our certain knowledge and mere deliberation, and also from the fullness of the aforesaid apostolic power, by this Constitution to be valid forever, also from the vote of Our Venerable Brothers, Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church set over Sacred Rites, by apostolic authority decree and declare that only the days written below are to be observed as Feasts by precept, namely those which venerable antiquity has either consecrated from the beginning, or the custom of the universal Church has approved, or the unanimous piety of all nations venerates: namely, the Sundays of the whole year, the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Circumcision, Epiphany, Resurrection with the two following ferias likewise, the Most Holy Trinity, the Solemnity of the Body of Christ, and the Finding of the Holy Cross; and also the Purification, Annunciation, Assumption, and Nativity of the Virgin Mother of God, the Dedication of St. Michael the Archangel, the Nativity of St. John the Baptist, Saints Peter and Paul, St. Andrew, St. James, St. John, St. Thomas, Saints Philip and James, St. Bartholomew, St. Matthew, Saints Simon and Jude, and St. Matthias, Apostles of Christ the Lord; likewise St. Stephen Protomartyr, the Holy Innocents, St. Lawrence Martyr, St. Sylvester Pope and Confessor, St. Joseph Confessor and St. Anne, respectively Spouse and Mother of the Mother of God, the Solemnity of All Saints, and one of the principal Patrons in any Kingdom or Province whatever, and likewise another more principal Patron in any city, town, or village, where these Patrons happen to be had and venerated.

3. But as regards the observance of the remaining days, which until now, whether in the universal Church, or in any Nation or Kingdom, Province, Diocese, or place in whatever way, whether from devotion, the Christian faithful have celebrated as festive, by the said authority and by the tenor of the presents We decree and declare, also perpetually, that they are by no means bound by precept to observe them. And lest feast days be multiplied again hereafter by local Ordinaries because of too great facility of some persons or importunity of peoples, We admonish the same Ordinaries in the Lord that, for preserving ecclesiastical equality everywhere, for the rest, for perpetual future times, they should strive to abstain from the proclamation under precept of new Feasts. But in order that those things which have been expressed above may be observed with the more fervent veneration and devotion which is fitting, We recall to memory for the same Ordinaries the observance of the ancient Canons in granting licenses to work on feast days; which licenses indeed, to be granted in no other way than according to the form of the aforesaid Canons, as is premised, are to be granted only gratuitously, freely, and without any price or pact at all, directly or indirectly, under even graver penalties to be inflicted at the judgment of Us and Our successors. Nevertheless, by this Our Constitution We do not intend to change in anything the holidays concerning judicial matters; for this effect We leave them in the same state and terms in which they were before its promulgation..." Urban VIII, 15 Sept. 1641.

"The reason of the Most Holy Apostolate divinely committed to Us demands that, striving to enlarge on earth, according to the custom of many Roman Pontiffs Our predecessors, the veneration and cult of the most glorious Virgin Mary, Mother of God, whose conception announced joy to the whole world, We continually endeavor, as far as is granted to Us from on high, to merit the most powerful help, in so many and so great necessities of the Christian Commonwealth and the Catholic Church by which We are pressed, of her who, exalted above the Choirs of Angels, as a diligent intercessor for the Christian people, continually intercedes in Heaven with Him whom she bore. Therefore, moved by Our sincere devotion toward the same most august Queen of Heaven, Our Patroness, Our Advocate, by apostolic authority, by the tenor of the presents, We decree, command, and order that the Feast of the Conception of the same Blessed Immaculate Virgin Mary hereafter everywhere on earth be comprehended by all and singular Christian faithful of either sex, just as other Feasts, under the precept of observing Feasts. Notwithstanding, etc." Clement XI, 6 Dec. 1708.

"Rome, 31 Dec. 1885. Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Lord. By Your Excellency, in the name of the Fathers of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, the following supplication was presented to the Supreme Pontiff, that feast days of precept to be observed in all the Dioceses of the United States of North America be reduced to certain determinate days.

Most Blessed Father, within the boundaries of the United States of North America there obtains a great diversity in observing feast days of precept. For in some places five are observed, in others nine, and in others even more, so that not only non-Catholics, but also the faithful, are now disturbed concerning this matter, wondering not a little by what reason it happens that on certain days the obligation of hearing Mass and abstaining from servile works presses in one diocese or province, but not in another. Moreover, in these regions the faithful also are pressed by very grave difficulties concerning the observance of feast days. For since, in preparing the necessities of life, they depend in great part on non-Catholics, who do not allow labors to be interrupted on feast days unless they fall on Sundays, the greatest part of the faithful can only with very grave inconveniences abstain from works and attend the Sacrifice of the Most Holy Mass on those same days. Hence the Fathers gathered in the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, very greatly desiring that uniformity be introduced in observing Feasts, and maturely weighing the difficulties with which the faithful labor within these Federated Provinces, judged that Your Beatitude should be supplicated:

1. That, the peculiar circumstances of Catholics dwelling in these regions being considered, by Apostolic Authority he deign to declare that throughout all dioceses of Federated North America, as regards the precept of hearing Mass and abstaining from servile works, all and only the following feast days are to be observed: the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Circumcision of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Ascension of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the Feast of All Saints. For, according to the reasons of things and times, a more successful observance of these six feast days is hoped for. 2. As regards the other feast days, which besides the six above-mentioned are still of precept in certain places, that by Apostolic kindness the faithful of the same places indeed be freed from the obligation of hearing Mass and abstaining from works; yet without those same feast days being suppressed as regards devotion and external solemnity. 3. As regards the feast of the Most Holy Body of Christ, that he benevolently be willing to grant that the solemnity of the same Feast be transferred to the Sunday next following, according to the norm of the indult granted to the dioceses of the United States of North America concerning the feast of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, as is contained in the letters of the Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide to the Archbishop of Baltimore dated 19 December 1840.

The S. I. C. responded on 25 Nov. 1885: That the Most Holy Lord should be supplicated for the grace according to the prayers... But His Holiness... according to the opinion of the Sacred Congregation, deigned kindly to accede to the prayers of the Fathers of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore."

“…Among the rights divinely attributed to the Church, this certainly is one: to acquire any goods and other civil revenues, without any dependence upon any external authority, and freely to administer them.

“That right was conferred by God upon the Church so that she might provide more securely and stably both for the worship owed to the Divinity, for the support of her ministers, and, finally, for works of charity. Indeed, for the attainment of this end she can also, by her own authority, impose upon the faithful those monetary assessments which she herself shall judge necessary. Therefore, a civil law which, in its own name, intrudes itself into the goods and revenues of the Church so as to dispose of them at pleasure, and exempts the faithful from paying monetary assessments sanctioned by ecclesiastical law, directly opposes divine law and wrongfully attributes to itself a power which it lacks.

“…For these reasons that same civil law issued in Italy is of no force; and the conscience of the faithful remains bound to pay tithes as before.

“The Holy See gave a declaration equal to this as far back as the year 1853, when the Subalpine Kingdom abolished tithes on the island of Sardinia (Acta Pii IX, vol. 2, p. 335); just as the Supreme Pontiff Alexander III, writing to the Bishop of Vercelli, declared altogether null the letters of the emperor by which exemption from paying tithes was granted (title On Tithes, etc., ch. 25).

“Wherefore, even if that civil law had assigned compensation equal to the tithes taken away and, for that reason, had brought no detriment to the Church in a useful matter, it nevertheless would have done injury to her by intruding itself into her affairs and rights without any dependence upon the supreme authority which the Church herself received from God….” Sacred Penitentiary, 25 August 1887.

“1. First of all, the Ordinaries, in whatever ways they shall judge opportune, are to teach the faithful that the right of receiving tithes could in no way have been taken from the Church by the civil power, and therefore that the faithful are altogether bound to pay them no differently than before, and that no one can be freed from a burden and obligation of this kind except by ecclesiastical authority alone.

“2. Therefore, so that an easier way may lie open to the faithful for consulting their consciences and freeing themselves perpetually from the burden of paying tithes, the same Ordinaries shall exhort them to seek admission to a just redemption of the tithes, or even, where the case permits, to an equitable composition concerning them. For this purpose, by special and express Apostolic authority, the Sacred Penitentiary, by the tenor of these letters, grants to all local Ordinaries in Italy the necessary and opportune faculties, to be valid for five years only.

“3. Once the redemption or composition of the tithes has been made, their price—determined by the prudent judgment of the Ordinaries according to the particular circumstances of each case—since it stands in place of the principal of the tithes, is to be placed in a secure, honorable, and productive investment; but the fruits are to be applied to the benefices or pious places which suffered the loss.

“4. Those who have neither redeemed the tithes nor made any composition concerning them, and who have been unwilling to pay them in full to the cathedral or to any other churches or persons to whom they are lawfully owed, are not to be absolved unless full restitution has followed (Council of Trent, sess. 25, On Reformation, ch. 12), saving, however, the rules handed down by approved authors concerning those who labor under need or poverty.

“5. The Ordinaries are furthermore to know that it is tolerated that either they themselves, or parish priests and others whose interest is involved, petition the government for compensation for the damage inflicted upon them; yet in such a way that nothing is contained in a petition of this kind which could be taken to prove that the power of disposing of tithes belongs to the secular authority, and it is to be expressly signified that compensation is sought solely under the title of lawful indemnification.” Sacred Penitentiary, 2 September 1887.

“The obligation of paying tithes still persists, notwithstanding the abolition decreed by civil law, since the latter is by no means competent to decree those things which pertain to the Church.” Sacred Penitentiary, 20 November 1902; 8 March 1898; A. S. S., vol. 36, p. 63. Cf. no. 1331.

“73. The proposition declaring that the institution of new feasts took its origin from neglect in observing the old ones and from false notions of the nature and end of those same solemnities: false, rash, scandalous, injurious to the Church, favoring the reproaches of heretics against feast days celebrated by the Church. — 74. The deliberation of the Synod concerning transferring to Sunday feasts instituted throughout the year, and this by reason of a right which it declares itself persuaded belongs to the bishop over ecclesiastical discipline in relation to merely spiritual matters; and therefore also of abrogating the precept of hearing Mass on days on which, by the ancient law of the Church, that precept still remains in force; and also in that which it adds concerning transferring by episcopal authority to Advent the fasts to be observed throughout the year by precept of the Church—insofar as it asserts that it is lawful for a bishop by his own right to transfer the days prescribed by the Church for celebrating feasts or fasts, or to abrogate the precept introduced of hearing Mass: a false proposition, injurious to the right of General Councils and Supreme Pontiffs, scandalous, favoring schism.” Propositions of the Synod of Pistoia condemned by Pius VI.

Whether, besides the obligation of abstaining from servile works and of hearing Mass, the liturgical solemnity of suppressed or transferred feasts has also been removed? — Resp. “With respect to the choir and the ecclesiastical functions customarily performed, absolutely nothing is to be altered in relation to feasts on which the people have been released from the precept of hearing Mass, and chant was instituted for honoring God, not for attracting the people.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 18 October 1818, Alife, response to 2. Except: unless, when the Mass and Office have been transferred, the liturgical solemnity is also judged to have been transferred, ibid.

“The universal Church throughout the world knows that it belongs to the supreme solicitude of the Roman Pontiff to direct the Lord’s flock to eternal salvation and so to unfold the apostolic precepts that the faithful may run in the way of the commandments and be able happily to arrive at blessedness.

“1. For from the report of very many of Our Venerable Brethren, archbishops and bishops constituted throughout various regions, it has come to Us that the multitude of feasts throughout their individual dioceses and provinces has so increased, devotion and custom introducing new ones daily, that many already seem to doubt which are to be observed by precept and which by the free will of each person, while the fervor of piety grows cold because of their excessive number. Indeed, the frequent cry of the poor also ascends to Us, complaining that this same multitude is very harmful to them because of the necessity of obtaining their daily sustenance by their labors; and, what is greatly to be lamented, with great sorrow of Our soul We have learned that the enemy has very often contrived so much against holy things that peoples do not use this multitude for edification and for praising God in the churches, but do not fear frequently to abuse it for idleness, vanities, and vices, so that the enemy man has in the course of time corrupted those things which were instituted principally for glorifying the Divine Majesty and has converted them into a great offense against Him and a grave loss of souls. Wherefore the said Venerable Brethren, archbishops and bishops, have caused humble supplication to be made to Us that, in the aforesaid matters, from the fullness of Apostolic power We might enter upon some suitable arrangement.

“2. Therefore We, wishing from the duty of the pastoral office to make provision and henceforth to establish a definite precept concerning the sanctification of feasts, following the ancient custom of the Church in this matter, frequent consultations first having been held by learned and pious men whom We specially deputed for this purpose, as the gravity of the matter seemed to demand, by Our own motion, certain knowledge, and mature deliberation, and from the aforesaid fullness of Apostolic power, by this Constitution to remain perpetually in force, also with the vote of Our Venerable Brethren the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church placed over sacred rites, by Apostolic authority decree and declare that only the days written below are to be observed as feasts by precept: namely, those which venerable antiquity consecrated from the beginning, or the custom of the universal Church approved, or the unanimous piety of all nations venerates: namely, the Sundays of the whole year; the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ; the Circumcision; the Epiphany; the Resurrection, together with the two following weekdays; the Most Holy Trinity; the solemnity of the Body of Christ; and the Finding of the Holy Cross; also the Purification, Annunciation, Assumption, and Nativity of the Virgin Mother of God; the Dedication of Saint Michael the Archangel; the Nativity of Saint John the Baptist; Saints Peter and Paul; Saint Andrew; Saint James; Saint John; Saint Thomas; Saints Philip and James; Saint Bartholomew; Saint Matthew; Saints Simon and Jude; and Saint Matthias, Apostles of Christ the Lord; likewise Saint Stephen the Protomartyr; the Holy Innocents; Saint Lawrence the Martyr; Saint Sylvester, Pope and Confessor; Saint Joseph, Confessor, and Saint Anne, respectively the spouse and mother of the Mother of God; the solemnity of All Saints; and one of the principal Patrons in any kingdom or province, and likewise another principal Patron in any city, town, or village where it happens that these Patrons are held and venerated.

“3. By the said authority and tenor of these presents, We also perpetually decree and declare that the faithful are by no means bound by precept to the observance of the remaining days which hitherto, whether in the universal Church or in any nation or kingdom, province, diocese, or place, in whatever manner or from devotion, the Christian faithful celebrated as festive. But lest it happen that feast days are again multiplied hereafter by local Ordinaries through the excessive facility of some or the importunity of peoples, We admonish the same Ordinaries in the Lord that, for preserving ecclesiastical uniformity everywhere, henceforth and for all future times they take care to abstain from imposing new feasts under precept. But so that the things expressed above may be observed with the more fervent veneration and devotion which is fitting, We recall to the memory of the same Ordinaries the observance of the ancient canons in granting permissions to work on feast days. These permissions, indeed, are to be granted in no other way than according to the form of the aforesaid canons, as stated above, and only gratuitously, freely, and without any price or agreement whatever, directly or indirectly, under even graver penalties to be inflicted at Our discretion and that of Our successors. Nevertheless, by this Our Constitution We do not intend to change in any respect the days which are court holidays, which for this purpose We leave in the same state and limits in which they were before its promulgation….” Urban VIII, 15 September 1641, D. nos. 812, 844. Cf. chapter Conquestus 5, On Holidays.

“The nature of the office of the most sacred apostolate divinely entrusted to Us demands that, striving to enlarge on earth, after the manner of many Roman Pontiffs Our predecessors, the veneration and worship of the most glorious Virgin Mary, Mother of God, whose conception announced joy to the whole world, We should continually endeavor, insofar as it is granted to Us from on high, to merit the most powerful aid, amid so many and such great necessities by which We are pressed in the Christian commonwealth and the Catholic Church, of her who, exalted above the choirs of angels, as a diligent intercessor for the Christian people continually intercedes in heaven before Him whom she bore. Therefore, moved by Our sincere devotion toward that same most august Queen of Heaven, Our patroness and advocate, by Apostolic authority and the tenor of these presents We decree, command, and ordain that henceforth everywhere on earth the feast of the Conception of the same Immaculate Blessed Virgin Mary is to be comprehended among the other feasts of precept by all and each of the Christian faithful of either sex. Notwithstanding, etc.” Clement XI, 6 December 1708.

“The Fathers assembled in the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, greatly desiring that uniformity be introduced in the observance of feasts, and maturely weighing the difficulties under which the faithful labor within the federated states, judged that supplication should be made:

“1. That, in view of the peculiar circumstances of Catholics dwelling in these regions, it might graciously be declared by Apostolic authority that, throughout all the dioceses of the federated states of North America, all and only the following feast days are to be observed by the precept of hearing Mass and abstaining from servile works: the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Circumcision of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Ascension of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the Feast of All Saints. For, by reason of affairs and times, the observance of these six feast days is more happily hoped for. 2. With respect to the other feast days which, besides the six mentioned above, are still of precept in certain places: that by Apostolic benignity the faithful of those same places indeed be released from the obligation of hearing Mass and abstaining from works, but without those same feast days being suppressed with respect to devotion and external solemnity. 3. With respect to the feast of the Most Holy Body of Christ: that it may graciously please him to grant that the solemnity of that feast be transferred to the Sunday immediately following, according to the norm of the indult granted to the dioceses of the United States of North America with respect to the feast of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, as is contained in the letters of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith to the Archbishop of Baltimore, 19 December 1840.

“The Holy Office responded on 25 November 1885: Supplication is to be made to the Most Holy Father for the favor according to the petitions…. And His Holiness…graciously deigned to assent, according to the opinion of the Sacred Congregation, to the petitions of the Fathers of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore.”

The feast of Saint Joseph on 19 March is again to be observed by precept in Spain and in the regions subject to it. Leo XIII, Brief Quod paucis, 28 January 1890.

In the Neapolitan provinces: “Besides all the Sundays throughout the year, the following feasts are to be retained, namely: the Circumcision of Our Lord Jesus Christ; the Epiphany of the Lord; the Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary; the Annunciation of the same Blessed Virgin; Saint Joseph, Patron; the Ascension of the Lord into Heaven; the Nativity of the same Blessed Virgin Mary; and the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ. But for the city of Naples alone, the feasts of Saint Januarius and Saint Anthony of Padua are to be retained; and for the city of Palermo, the feast of Saint Rosalia, Virgin. But the feasts of the principal Patrons of individual cities, towns, and places, to which the precept of abstaining from servile works is attached, are to be transferred, together with the respective celebration of their Offices and Masses, to the Sunday immediately following.” Pius VII, Brief Paternae caritati, 10 April 1818. — To these, however, are to be added: the feast of the Visitation, Gregory XVI, Brief Cum nobis, 30 December 1835; the feast of the Apparition of Saint Michael the Archangel; the feast of the Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary; and the principal Patrons of each place, on their proper day, if the Ordinaries with their Chapters shall so judge. Pius VII, Brief Per Apostolicas, 15 October 1818. — M. E., vol. 9, part 2, p. 41 ff.; D. nos. 2589, 2590.

In the provinces of upper Italy: “By Our Apostolic authority We command and decree that the nineteenth day of the month of March, sacred to the remembrance of the Most Blessed Patriarch Joseph, is duly to be numbered among the feast days in all and each of the regions of Piedmont, Liguria, Sardinia, and also Lombardy. Therefore all Christians are bound by precept both to be present at the holy Sacrifice of the Mass and to abstain from those works which are customarily called servile.” Leo XIII, Brief Quod erat, 3 March 1891; A. S. S., vol. 24, p. 192.

“Every faithful person of either sex, after having arrived at the years of discretion, shall faithfully confess all his sins by himself, at least once a year, to his own priest, and shall strive according to his powers to fulfill the penance imposed upon him, reverently receiving at least at Easter the Sacrament of the Eucharist, unless perhaps, on the counsel of his own priest, for some reasonable cause he shall judge that he ought to abstain from receiving it for a time; otherwise, while living he is to be barred from entry into the church, and when dying he is to lack Christian burial.” Fourth Lateran Council, Decrees, chapter 21.

“If anyone shall deny that all the faithful are bound every year, at least at Easter, to communicate according to the precept of Mother Church, let him be anathema.” Council of Trent, sess. 13, canon 9.

“13. One satisfies the precept of annual confession who confesses to a religious presented to the bishop but unjustly rejected by him. — 14. One who makes a confession voluntarily invalid satisfies the precept of the Church.” Propositions condemned by Alexander VII.

“35. The precept of annual Communion is satisfied by a sacrilegious eating of the Lord.” Proposition condemned by Innocent XI.

“Since the mayor of Naples had prescribed that all Neapolitan clocks, with the exception of certain private ones, in indicating noon should take Roman mean time as their rule, it happens that midnight differs from the true time not only by reason of mean time but also by reason of the different meridian of each city, so that the difference sometimes exceeds a quarter of an hour by no slight amount. These things being considered, can the faithful at Naples, in observing the natural fast and other obligations of the Church, follow clocks indicating the hours according to Roman mean time, or ought they rather to follow those clocks which mark true Neapolitan time? — Resp. To the first part, affirmatively; to the second, negatively.” Sacred Penitentiary, 18 June 1873; Holy Office, 9 May 1892; 9 August 1899.

“Whether, where clocks adjusted to mean time are used, one is to stand by them both for fulfilling the burden of the Divine Office and for observing the natural fast; or whether one ought, or at least can, use true time? — Resp. The faithful can follow mean time in observing the natural fast and in reciting the Divine Office, but are not bound to do so.” Sacred Penitentiary, 29 November 1882.

“According to a law very recently enacted, throughout the entire German Empire from the beginning of April of the current year, one and the same time, without regard to the mean time or meridian of the diverse regions of the Empire, is to be observed in counting the hours, and the public clocks display it. Hence it happens that within the boundaries of this diocese the legal reckoning of the hours exceeds the local mean time by the space of half an hour. Can clerics follow legal time in discharging the Divine Office, both by privately anticipating Matins and by reciting Vespers? — Resp. Affirmatively.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 22 July 1893.

“Whether, when either by the Bull of the Crusade or for some other cause an indult is granted for the use of melted lard (commonly called strutto) solely under the title of condiment, those who are bound to fast may lawfully use that condiment even in the evening refection? — Resp. Those who are bound to fast can lawfully use, even in the evening refection, condiments permitted in the indult, because by force of the indult they take the place of oil, provided that no restriction is placed in the indult that those condiments may be used at the one meal.” Sacred Penitentiary, 16 January 1834.

“Whether on Fridays and Saturdays, on which condiments commonly called di grasso are permitted, meat broth can be used? — Resp. Under the terms condimenti di grasso, broth from cooked meat is not comprehended.” Sacred Penitentiary, 30 January 1866. — It is nevertheless tolerated where there is a custom. Holy Office, 20 January 1895.

“Whether the expression condiments from fat, used in the granting of indults for Lent and for condiment during the year, should be understood of fat from any animal whatsoever? — Resp. Affirmatively.” Holy Office, 25 March 1895.

“Whether on days consecrated to fasting, on which the use of condiments from fat is permitted by Apostolic favor, it is also lawful to use butter by way of condiment? — Resp. Supplication is to be made to the Most Holy Father for the favor. His Holiness graciously deigned to grant the favor.” Holy Office, 13 May 1896.

“Whether it is lawful to use margarine by way of food or condiment on those days on which the use of meat or fat from meat is unlawful, while the use of butter remains lawful? — Resp. Affirmatively, after the matter was reported to the Most Holy Father.” Holy Office, 6 September 1899.

“1. On days on which seasoning with rendered fat and lard is permitted, can one who uses the lard itself to season soup, polenta, an omelet, etc., freely eat those little pieces of lard which remain after they have been fried to extract the fat? — 2. On days of strict abstinence, on which eggs are forbidden, may vegetables, e.g., artichokes, be lightly moistened with beaten egg? — 3. On days of strict abstinence is it lawful to use oil in which meat has been fried, or at least is this lawful on days of simple abstinence? — Resp. To 1. Affirmatively, provided that they continue to be part of the condiment. — To 2. A condiment from eggs, when eggs are forbidden, is not lawful. — To 3. Those who act thus are not to be disturbed.” Sacred Penitentiary, 17 November 1897. Cf. no. 1573.

“Whether the aquatic bird named the coot (commonly folaga) is to be reckoned among fishes, and whether it is lawful to eat it on those days on which meats are forbidden? — The religious of the Order of Minims of Saint Francis of Paola, to whom meats are altogether forbidden, in order to remove the perplexity by which their consciences were troubled concerning this matter, presented a supplication to Pius VII that it might be granted to them to be able freely to use that food. Through the Congregation of Regular Discipline, on 22 February 1804, the Most Holy Father, provided that the things narrated were true, graciously granted the favor according to the petition, notwithstanding the Constitutions of the Order and all other things.”

“Can hartshorn softened in water, seasoned with sugar, and made into a jelly be regarded as Lenten food? — Resp. The Most Holy Father is to be consulted for a dispensation insofar as it may be necessary. The Most Holy Father granted it.” Holy Office of the Propagation of the Faith, 21 September 1843, C. 2071.

“In the year 1853, the Most Illustrious Bishops of Belgium petitioned the Holy See that it might deign to remove the law by which the eating of meat on Saturday is prohibited. The Holy See did not abrogate that law, but deigned to grant the Most Illustrious Bishops of Belgium the faculty of dispensing from it those who sought a dispensation. Whether, once a dispensation has been obtained, it is lawful for those traveling outside Belgium to eat meat in places in which that law remains in force? — Resp. Negatively.” Holy Office, 10 January 1855.

1. The law of abolition of tithes having been proclaimed, Ambrosius the pastor remains uncertain whether he can receive the pension assigned to him by the Government as compensation; and insofar as he can receive this pension, whether he can at the same time receive the tithes of those parishioners who still voluntarily offer them.

Q. What as to the Case?

R. Ambrosius seems able to receive the pension assigned by the Government, by title of compensation by reason of damage on account of the abolition of tithes made by that Government. Likewise Ambrosius seems able still to receive the tithes voluntarily offered to him by good parishioners who still wish to fulfill this obligation. For on account of the abolition of tithes they are not exempted from the obligation of paying tithes; nor consequently does the pastor lose the right of receiving them, if they are offered. This is confirmed from Resp. S. Poenit. 1860: “They can, according to the oracle of the Most Holy Lord, by title of mere compensation for damage inflicted on them by the Government on account of the impeded exaction of tithes, receive the pensions assigned by the Government; first having been made, either by the Ordinary of the place in common, or by any one of the said pastors or ecclesiastics in particular, a protestation that by a perception of this sort the abolition of tithes made by the Government is in no way recognized or approved; and the debtors of the same tithes having been cautiously admonished that they are not, by force of the law passed by the Government, freed from the burden of paying the same.” Scav. l. 4. n. 237; I. M. 1548.

2. A certain bishop, in order to foster the devotion and piety of his people, in the visitation of the diocese constituted in individual cities and towns a feast day to be celebrated in honor of the Saint, Patron of the place. But he established two feast days to be celebrated in the whole diocese, namely in honor of the Saint, Patron of the whole diocese, and in honor of the Saint, titular of the Cathedral Church.

Q. What as to the Case?

R. Bishops can institute some feast in honor of Saints, not Blesseds, at least with the consent of clergy and people, which is judged sufficiently present if they do not contradict, from C. Conquestus 5. de Feriis. Nevertheless Urban VIII, C. Universa, 15 Sept. 1641, admonishes bishops not to be easily induced to instituting new feasts, but that they should strive to abstain. Lig. l. 3. n. 266. Moreover by the aforesaid [Constitution] of Bl. Urban VIII it is conceded that the feast be celebrated “of one of the more principal Patrons in any Kingdom or Province, and likewise of another more principal one in any city, town, or village, where it happens that these Patrons are had and venerated.” Enchir. Mor. 1551. But today it is not lawful to choose Patrons except Saints, not Blesseds, and except with the consent of the people and clergy and bishop, and except the cause be brought forward and examined in the S. R. C. Therefore it will be lawful for the bishop, with the consent of clergy and people, to add the feast of the Patron, not of the Titular, or of one of the principal Patrons, both of the diocese and of each place. S. R. C. 23 Jun. 1703, Concordiae; Ferraris v. Festa n. 2 seqq., 141; I. M. 1550.

1. Antoninus in paschal time confesses his sins, although he had made sacramental confession only in the paschal time of the preceding year. In the present confession he confesses only venial sins; then he accuses a doubtful mortal sin, and forgets a certain grave sin.

Q. Is he held to confess again?

Resp. 1. Antoninus satisfied the precept of annual confession, confession having been made in the paschal time of the preceding and following year. For there are various opinions concerning the year to be computed as to this precept. Among others this also is present, that the year is computed from Easter to Easter, because this is considered the ecclesiastical year, and more conformable to the custom of the Church. The faithful, especially those who confess their sins only once in a year, are accustomed to make confession in paschal time, by a custom approved by Trent, sess. 14, c. 5, so that they may prepare themselves for paschal communion. I. M. 1558.

2. Antoninus does not seem to be held to repeating confession. For, 1. by confession of venial sins he probably satisfied the precept of annual confession. For although the common opinion holds that by this precept the Church imposes only the confession of mortal sins, nevertheless there are grave authors who judge that this precept also embraces the confession of venials only, if someone has committed no grave sin. S. Th. 4. d. 16. q. 2. a. 2; d. 17. q. 3. a. 1; Suppl. q. 6. a. 3; q. 8. a. 5 ad 4; Bened. XIV, Inst. 18. n. 2-4. Besides, he also probably satisfied the precept of annual confession by confessing a doubtful mortal sin. For many and grave authors teach that an obligation is present of confessing doubtful sins. “Here truly,” says Lugo, de Sacr. poenit. d. 15. n. 169, “he has already once fulfilled the precept of the Church and of Christ in the same year; for the precept of Christ, although it is not of confessing venials, nevertheless is of confessing not only certain grave sins, but also doubtful ones. Therefore that precept has been fulfilled by confessing those doubtful sins which he then had.” And La-Croix, l. 6. p. 2. n. 2041: “He who at least once during the year has confessed a doubtful mortal sin with venials satisfies, and is not held to confess again, although afterward he falls into a certain mortal sin; because there was an obligation of confessing that doubtful sin. Therefore he placed matter of the precept.” Cf. S. Alph. l. 6. n. 473 seqq. But that Antoninus forgot a grave sin does not impede that he has already sufficiently satisfied the precept of the Church of annual confession. Wherefore he is indeed held to accuse that sin in the next confession, but he is not held to a repeated confession, so that satisfaction may be made to the precept of annual confession of the present year, since he has already satisfied this precept. I. M. 1554, 1556.

2. Hedvigis, a woman lying sick with a grave illness, received sacred Viaticum on Palm Sunday. But, since after a few days she almost entirely recovered, she asks her confessor whether she is held to go out of the house, so that she may satisfy the precept of paschal communion.

3. Emporius, a merchant, since by reason of commerce he is found outside his own parish during paschal time, asks his confessor whether he can receive paschal communion in the place where he presently is, or whether he ought to return to his own parish.

Q. What as to the Cases?

R. Hedvigis does not seem to be obligated to repeated communion. For although she received communion by way of Viaticum, nevertheless she truly received communion in paschal time, and, as is supposed, she received it from the pastor or his delegate, and in a public manner; whence she adequately satisfied the end of the law, which is public edification and submission to one’s proper pastor. G. 453.

Emporius is not held to return to his own parish unless he can do so easily. He can then receive communion in the place where he is. For pilgrims satisfy this precept by receiving communion where they are staying during paschal time. I. M. 1566; G. 454.

1. Cornelius, staying at Rome for the sake of a pious pilgrimage to the thresholds of the Apostles, eats meats on Saturdays. For he asked a confessor, who responded that he could do that very thing, as in his own country, in which abstinence is not observed on Saturdays, because he is a pilgrim. For the law of abstinence on Saturday is not universal per se, but particular to places.

Q. 1. What is the obligation of the law of abstinence? — 2. What as to the Case?

R. To the 1st. Cf. I. M. 1571 seqq. — To the 2nd. Cornelius seems to be held to observing abstinence at Rome on Saturdays. This is drawn first from the custom itself which prevails at Rome; for pilgrims are accustomed either to seek this faculty, or to observe abstinence as others do. And very recently, on the occasion of the jubilee feast of the Supreme Pontiff, an indult was conceded to pilgrims by the same Supreme Pontiff, namely that they could at Rome follow the customs of their fatherlands as to abstinence. Besides, this law of Saturday abstinence seems per se rather universal than particular to places. Benedict XIV, de Syn. l. 1. c. 5. n. 2, 3, 5, has these things: “Already from the fourth century the Saturday day was numbered in the Roman Church among days of hunger.... Most, though not all, Western Churches indeed followed the use of the Roman Church.... But we admit this as probable, namely that discipline of the Roman Church of this sort never penetrated Spain.... Moreover, because no one willingly sustains for long a yoke from which he sees others everywhere withdrawn, from this variety of discipline it finally happened that the custom of consecrating the Saturday day by fasting gradually failed in the whole West.... Hence the opinion commonly prevailed among the doctors that it is lawful on Saturday to eat meats wherever their use has not been forbidden by received custom.” From these things it is drawn that the law per se was general in the Western Church, from the use of the Roman Church and from general custom, but that in particular places it was derogated by particular customs. Hence Clemens Marc., Inst. Mor. v. 1. n. 1244, says: “The ecclesiastical precept of abstaining from meats urges under grave obligation, besides days of fast, 1. on the sixth feria of any week in the whole Church.... 2. on Saturday, in most places of the Latin Church by customary law. Excepted, besides Greece, are the kingdoms of Spain. Likewise, in some dioceses of Gaul and Belgium, the Saturdays occurring between the Nativity of the Lord and the Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary are excepted.” And this can be confirmed from the Rescript of Pius IX in the year 1868, by which he refused to concede for America a general and perpetual dispensation, but ordered the individual bishops, the reasons having been set forth, to ask for a temporary Indult.

Finally, the preceding resolution and doctrine can be confirmed from the following Resolution of the Holy Office, 13 March 1727, Collect. S. C. de P. F. n. 2050: “1. Is it lawful for Greeks staying at Rome, at least for avoiding scandal, to eat meats on Saturday? — 2. Is it lawful for Greeks to have Latins in their service, and on Saturday to give them meats to eat? — 3. Is it lawful for Greeks on the aforesaid day to present meats to be eaten to Latin boys and youths who are not assigned to their service? — R. To the 1st. It is not lawful, and the Instruction of Clement VIII is to be observed, in which it is thus had: The use of meats on Saturday is to be tolerated among the Greeks, where it can be done without scandal, but in their own places and among them only. — To the 2nd and 3rd. Latin servants of Greeks are held to observe the Latin rite, and therefore Greeks sin by placing forbidden foods before servants at a time at which they ought to abstain from them.”

2. Xaverius, a missionary in places of infidels, remains very uncertain whether neoconverts to the faith are held by the law of fasting, and so whether he himself ought to manifest it to them. For he fears lest the recent faithful transgress it, and an occasion be given to others by which they are turned away from the faith.

Q. 1. What is the obligation of the law of fasting? — 2. What as to the Case?

R. To the 1st. Cf. I. M. 1578 seqq. — To the 2nd. Positive ecclesiastical law concerning abstinence and concerning fasting absolutely obligates, even in mission places, infidels already converted to the faith. But with attention to the quality of regions and persons, there can more easily be place for dispensation. Wherefore ecclesiastical law concerning abstinence and concerning fasting must be notified by the missionary as obligatory under mortal sin. Nevertheless the missionary can at the same time explain the causes on account of which the faithful are excused from the observance of the precepts. But with attention to the infirmity and necessity of persons, the missionary will be able to seek due dispensation from the Holy See, or due faculty, so that he himself can dispense in particular cases, if he does not already have it. But let him note that the faculty of dispensing in abstinence and fasts is conceded to missionaries in such a way that they cannot use it except in particular cases and for just causes. S. C. de P. F. 12 Sept. 1645; 2 Aug. 1781; S. O. 23 March 1656; Collectan. S. C. de P. F. n. 2046, 2047, 2059, 2080.

3. Basilius, a monk, does not observe the fast on the vigil of St. John the Baptist. For he says it is a particular fast of the diocese prescribed by the bishop, which regulars are not held to observe. Does he act rightly?

R. Basilius is deceived, and, prescinding from other reasons already set forth above, Cf. n. 16, par. 5, p. 37, he is altogether held to the fast on the aforesaid day, because that fast is not a particular precept in that diocese, but is to be observed from universal law still prevailing in that diocese. And indeed the doctors commonly count such a fast among others to be observed from universal law. And thus Tamburini, tr. 4, de Quarto Ecclesiae praecepto, c. 9, n. 8, among other vigils on which the faithful are obligated to fast, also counts the vigil of St. John the Baptist. The same is had in La-Croix, l. 3. p. 2. n. 1273.

And it is confirmed from the Brief of Urban VIII, Cum evenire, 13 Oct. 1638, Decr. Auth. S. R. C. n. 657, by which it is established that if the feast of Corpus Christi falls on the vigil of St. John the Baptist, the fast is to be made on the day before the feast of Corpus Christi.

4. Carolus, staying in a place where, from received custom, coots are permitted on days of abstinence, asks his confessor whether on days of Lenten fast, when meats are conceded by Indult, he can eat meats and coot at the same time.

Q. 1. What is the law of mixing foods? — 2. What as to the Case?

R. To the 1st. Cf. I. M. 1607, 1626. To the 2nd. Carolus does not seem able to eat meats and coot at the same time. For in the place in which he lives, coot is held as fish, and therefore is permitted on days of abstinence. And thus from the Declaration of the Sacred Penitentiary, 16 Jan. 1834, marine shellfish, although commonly they are not called fish, nor are they fish, nevertheless one cannot eat them together with meats. For the same reason snails and frogs, although they are not fish, since they are eaten in the manner of fish, are prohibited when the use of meats is prohibited, and then by indult are permitted. G. 489; Scav. l. 1. n. 404. Therefore the same seems to be said concerning coots, when they are eaten in the manner of fish. Otherwise it would follow that, in that place, on a day of abstinence and fast within the year coots are eaten because they are eaten in the manner of fish; but on another day of Lenten fast, meats being permitted by Indult, coots are eaten together with meats because they are eaten in the manner of meats. Moreover, if in that place they are held and eaten as fish, it follows that they are always to be held and eaten as fish, and not at the pleasure of each one.

But is it lawful in the aforesaid place to eat coot on a day of abstinence and fast? If truly a proven custom is present there, as is asserted in the Case, it does not seem illicit. But the custom must be called proven which has been received among pious and upright men. Bened. XIV, de Syn. l. 11. c. 5. n. 10-12. But prescinding from custom, is it lawful per se to eat coot on days of abstinence? There are not lacking those who affirm this, and they rely 1. on the fact that it is an aquatic bird; 2. on the Indult conceded to the Religious of the Order of Minims of St. Francis of Paola, S. C. Reg. Disc. 22 Feb. 1804. For it does not seem that coot meats were conceded to the said Religious, to whom meats are altogether forbidden. But, the doubt standing: “Whether the aquatic bird whose name is coot is to be reckoned among fish, and it is lawful to feed upon it on those days on which meats are forbidden”; and likewise “the perplexity standing by which their consciences (of the religious) were troubled concerning this matter,” whence the same religious “offered a supplication to Pius VII that it be conceded to them to be able to use that food freely”; the Most Holy One, the narrated things being true, benignly assented for the grace according to the things sought, the Constitutions of the Order and all other things notwithstanding: namely, he conceded the grace for all security of conscience and as a precaution, in that doubt, as not rarely happens. Whence at least it is not certain concerning the prohibition of coot. But the more common opinion holds that coot is prohibited per se. The reason is that coot, which is an aquatic hen, has meats similar to the meats of terrestrial birds, which are prohibited; it has nutritive force, as other bird meats do, whence meats of this sort are also more conformed to the human body. S. Th. 2.2. q. 147. a. 8; I. M. 1572.

5. Aurelius, on days of fasting, when the Indult for meats has been conceded, eats fish together with meat broth, meats together with fish broth, fish together with a pastry seasoned with small bits of meat, meats together with a dumpling seasoned with small fish dried by salt and crushed into little pieces, fish together with meat gelatin. — Does he act rightly?

R. Aurelius does not seem to be disturbed from the fact that he eats fish together with meat broth, or meats with fish broth. For broth, whether of meat or of fish, is not meat or fish; and so it cannot be said that he mixes lawful and unlawful dishes, that he uses meats themselves and fish at the same time.

But Aurelius cannot eat fish together with pastry seasoned with small bits of meat, nor meats together with a dumpling seasoned with little fish dried by salt and crushed into little pieces. For in that way, on the contrary, he truly eats meats and fish together. That that meat has been cut into small bits, and that the fish have been crushed into little pieces, does not therefore make them cease truly to be meats and fish. Nor truly, in the Case, do they properly stand in the manner of seasoning, but they truly stand in the manner of another substance which enters into the confection of that pastry and dumpling. And if that pastry and dumpling were made within wholly from meat, or wholly from fish, would it not certainly be meat and fish? and would he who ate them together with fish or with meat not eat meats and fish at the same time? It is certainly the same if the pastry were made only partially and from a smaller part, or by far a smaller part, from meats, and the dumpling from fish cut into little pieces, or minced meat were made.

Nor likewise can Aurelius eat fish with gelatin. For gelatin is true meat, and retains the whole substance of meat, although accidentally as to form it has been changed. Together with fish nothing is lawful except broth from meat and seasonings from meat, just as together with meat broth from fish or seasonings from fish are lawful. Moreover gelatin has neither the character of broth nor the character of seasoning, but is a true dish by itself; and in the Case it certainly is constituted not from fish, but from meat; and so it is an unlawful dish together with fish on a day of fast.

6. “Bertoldus, a father of a family, for a just cause, is by name dispensed from the law of abstinence for the time of the occurring Lent. This being known, his wife orders the maidservant to prepare meats indeed for the husband, but fasting foods for herself, the children, and the other members of the household. What is this? exclaims Bertoldus, muttering. I am dispensed, and I wish the whole family to use my privilege. But the anxious wife asks the confessor whether she can comply.

Q. Can in fact the whole family feed upon meats in the aforesaid case?

R. Affirmatively. It is evident from Resp. Poenit. 16 Jan. 1834. For it had thus been asked: Whether, when a father of a family, who is dispensed from the law of abstinence from meats during Lent, cannot or does not wish foods of each kind to be prepared, his children or household members can eat meats? The Sacred Penitentiary responded: That persons who are in the power of the father of a family, to whom legitimate faculty of eating meats has been granted, can be permitted to use the foods indulged to the father of the family, with the condition added of not mixing lawful and forbidden dishes, and of one meal in the day, for those who are held to fast.” Thus Fr. Gury, 497.

But from the Responses of the same Sacred Penitentiary something altogether different must be said in the Case, and one must stand not by the will of Bertoldus, but by the interpretation of his wife. For neither the wife, nor the children, nor the other household members of Bertoldus are in truth placed in inability to observe abstinence; but, on the contrary, they can observe it well.

In truth, when the same Sacred Penitentiary was asked whether fathers of families, when there is in the family someone dispensed from the law of abstinence from meats, can extend the dispensation indiscriminately to all from the family, it responded, 10 Jan. 1834: “Infirmity, and any other reasonable impediment whatever, by counsel of each physician, but not gluttony, avarice, or generally an economy of expenses, can exempt from the precept of abstinence on days of hunger.” And to the question: “Whether the reason on account of which sons under paternal power can use forbidden foods presented by the father of the family is their physical or moral inability to observe the precept, or rather the indult which the father of the family enjoys”; it responded, 29 Dec. 1862: The reason of the permission concerning which there is speech in the proposed question is not the indult of the father of the family, but the inability in which the sons under paternal power are placed of observing the precept.” Cf. Enchir. Mor. 1616.

7. Xaverius, a Spaniard, is staying at Rome to conduct his various businesses; and there he must remain for four or five months, returning to Spain after the aforesaid time. Meanwhile he eats meats, and also eggs and dairy products, on days of abstinence and fast. For he has the Bull of the Crusade, and at Rome he is only a pilgrim.

Q. 1. What is the Bull of the Crusade? — 2. What are the graces and indults of the aforesaid Bull? — 3. Does Xaverius act rightly?

473. • The Church enjoys the faculty of establishing precepts obliging the faithful under grave sin. For Christ conferred legislative power upon her, as was said in the Treatise on Laws, n. 83.

There exist many precepts of the Church, as is clear from Canon Law; but the principal ones, which regard all the faithful of whatever state or condition, are reduced to the following six, namely: 1. that the faithful observe the feasts instituted by the authority of the Church; - 2. that at least on Sundays and feasts they be present at the Holy Sacrifice; - 3. that at least once in each year they confess their sins; - 4. that at least in the time of Easter they approach the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist; - 5. that on certain days they abstain from flesh meat; - 6. that they keep the fasts at the stated times.

Resolves: He sins who on a fast day undertakes labor, although honorable, in order to be excused from the fast; although he, after he is gravely wearied, even with that evil end, is no longer held to the fast. L. 1. 3. n. 1022. But he does not at all sin who on the day before a fast spends the day hunting, foreseeing that through weariness it will not be licit for him to fast. He sins who, without a just cause, on the same feast day or one or another hour before it, begins a journey, foreseeing that he will not be able to hear Mass. But he does not sin if he does this on the preceding day. Gur. Ball. 111; Del Vecchio 161. But St. Alphonsus does not admit this, l. 3, n. 301, denying "that someone can set out on Saturday to hunt in a distant wood, although on Sunday he cannot hear Mass there."

"An excommunicated or interdicted person does not sin by omitting Mass, and likewise an imprisoned person, even if they neglect absolution or liberty, because these persons are not obliged to remove remote impediments," or extrinsic ones. L. 1. 3. n. 825; l. 1, n. 152; l. 7, n. 161. "Otherwise, however, they speak with respect to annual Confession and Communion, since this is one of the divine precepts, with regard to which we are held to remove impediments." L. 161; l. 6, n. 299. Excommunication and interdict, with relation to Confession and Communion, are not extrinsic impediments, but intrinsic, and therefore care must be taken that they be removed. "Tamb. and Viva, however, think that those detained in prison are not held to seek liberty in order that they may communicate." L. 1. 6. n. 299; Ithur., Cas. 3, n. 7.

What are the precepts of the Church; what of tithes? There are indeed very many precepts of the Church which concern particular states of men. But the precepts of the Church which regard all states of men are commonly numbered as six. We will speak of the former in the treatise on Particular States; of the latter it will be necessary to speak here. Struggl init.

But here we omit the precept concerning tithes to be paid; since in very many places, by a convention entered into with the Church, or by legitimate prescription, they have been extinguished. Yet the obligation always remains, confirmed by natural law through positive divine law, that the faithful supply what is necessary for the sustenance of clerics exercising the care of souls. But in the aforesaid places provision has already been made otherwise for this necessity. But where neither the aforesaid convention nor legitimate prescription was present, they are still owed and are to be paid to the pastor. Praedial tithes, which are received from lands, are owed to the pastor in whose territory the estates are situated. Personal tithes, which are received from things which someone acquires by his own industry, are owed to the pastor from whom the sacraments are received. - Tithes are owed both from religion as a sign of the universal dominion of God, whence not to pay them is a graver sin of irreligion; and from justice, for those who serve the altar ought to live from the altar; hence under obligation of restitution "tithes are required from debt, and those who are unwilling to give them invade another's goods." St. Thomas, 2. 2, q. 87.; Quodl. 2, a. 8.; Quodl. 6, a. 10.; L. 1. 3, n. 42.; H. A. tr. 20, n. 85.; tit. de Decim.; Trid. s. 25, C. 12 de R.; Conc. Plen. Amer. Lat. n. 832, 833.; E. M. In the Catechism published by order of the Holy Father Pius X on 18 Oct. 1912 and edited in 1913, the precept of paying tithes is not had. But in its place the fourth precept is put: To assist the necessities of the Church by contributing according to the laws or customs. Here likewise we omit the prohibition of the solemnity of nuptials. For it is treated in the treatise on Matrimony. In the aforesaid Catechism of the Holy Father Pius X, the fifth precept of the Church is: "Not to celebrate weddings solemnly in prohibited times."

What is the first and second precept of the Church? The first is that the faithful honor feasts instituted by the authority of the Church, especially by abstaining from servile works, C. 1 seqq. de Consecr. D. 3.; tit. de Feriis. The other is that at least on Sundays and feasts the faithful be present at sacred worship, C. Missas de Consecr. D. I. Hence these two precepts are intimately connected with each other. Struggl l. c.; Gousset 1091. In the praised Catechism of Pius X five precepts of the Church are numbered, of which the first is: "To hear Mass on Sunday and the other commanded feasts."

What is the power of the Church to institute feast days? The Church enjoys the power of instituting feasts and of commanding their sanctification under grave obligation to all the faithful, as one which has received from Christ all power in order to the spiritual good of the faithful. The Pope alone can proclaim feasts for the universal Church, because he alone enjoys jurisdiction over the universal Church. Bishops also can institute feast days in their own diocese; for they have the faculty of making laws in their own diocese. Yet from C. Conquestus ult. de Fer. Bishops are forbidden to establish new feasts without consulting the clergy and faithful. But whether at present Bishops can still institute new feasts, the first opinion affirms, provided they are instituted in honor of Saints, not of Blesseds, with the counsel of some clerics employed; yet they are admonished that they should strive to abstain. Urban VIII, C. Universa, 13 Sept. 1642.; Bonac. tom. 2, d. 6, q. un., p. 1, n. 3 seqq. The second opinion denies it from the Response of the S. R. C. 23 June 1703, n. 2113. And a Bishop certainly could not institute new feasts in those places in which, with Governments or the Bishops themselves requesting, the Holy See willed, by determining the number of feasts, to establish a uniform manner for all of sanctifying feast days. Bouix de Iur. Liturg. p. 4, c. 4.; E. M. Cf. following number.

Which are the feast days to be observed? - Many feasts were formerly instituted, which in the course of times went into desuetude, or were abolished by ecclesiastical authority itself. Urban VIII, C. Universa, 13 Sept. 1642, suppressed many feasts and established a new list of feast days for the universal Church. To this catalogue must be added the feast of the Immaculate Conception of the B. V. M., Clem. XI, C. Commissi nobis, 6 Dec.

1708. But from these some less solemn ones, such as feasts of the Apostles, were later diminished, namely by the prohibition of servile works being removed; and these thereafter in some places were entirely abrogated. But some also from the more solemn ones were in some places transferred to Sunday. But, both as regards those abrogated and those transferred, nothing at all was changed as regards the office and Mass, ecclesiastical functions and choir, all of which therefore must be observed as before the abrogation or transfer. S. R. C. 18 Oct. 1818, 23 May 1835. Understand a perpetual transfer: for if a transfer is sometimes made on account of some impediment, only the office, not the observance of the feast, is transferred. Likewise nothing was changed as regards the obligation imposed on pastors of celebrating Mass for the people, and therefore one must still stand by the catalogue of Urban VIII. Pius IX, C. Amantissimi, 3 May 1858. - L. 267. Pius VI, on account of the calamity of the times, condoned for the Roman faithful the obligation of celebrating certain feasts. But these following are: namely feasts of the Holy Apostles, besides the solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul; the two weekdays which follow Easter and Pentecost; the Finding of the Holy Cross; the feasts of St. Anne, St. Lawrence, St. Stephen, the Holy Innocents, St. Sylvester, the Nativity of St. John the Baptist, the feasts of St. Michael and St. Joseph; yet the last three were afterward restored. In France, after the Indult of Cardinal Caprara, 9 Apr. 1802, from the concession of the Supreme Pontiff Pius VII, only four feasts besides Sundays remain of precept for the faithful, namely 1. the Feast of the Nativity of the Lord; 2. of his Ascension; 3. of the Assumption of the B. Virgin Mary; 4. the Feast of All Saints. From the same Indult the feasts of the Epiphany of the Lord, of the Most Holy Body of Christ, of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and of the Holy Patrons of each diocese and parish are to be transferred to the Sunday next occurring. The remaining feasts, formerly commanded, are now celebrated on the same days as before, but without any obligation for the faithful. In the United States of America, from the concession of Leo XIII, 25 Nov. 1885, only six feast days are to be observed: 1. of the Immaculate Conception of the B. V. M.; 2. of the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ; 3. of the Circumcision of Our Lord Jesus Christ; 4. of the Ascension of Our Lord Jesus Christ; 5. of the Assumption of the B. V. M.; 6. of All Saints. The solemnity of the feast of the Most Holy Body of Christ and of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul is transferred to the Sunday next following.

For Spain, Pius IX conceded by Decree 2 May 1867: 1. that there be derogation from the precept of hearing Mass on feast days of the second order, commonly called Mass days; 2. that there be derogation from the same precept and moreover from the precept of abstaining from servile works on Monday after Easter and after Pentecost, on the day immediately following the feast of the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and on the day of the Nativity of the B. Virgin Mary and of St. John the Baptist; 3. that in each diocese only one principal Patron be venerated, who must be designated by the Holy See. Wherefore besides Sundays the feasts still in force are those of the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Circumcision, Epiphany; Immaculate Conception, Purification, Annunciation, Assumption of the B. Virgin Mary; Ascension of Our Lord Jesus Christ; Corpus Christi; Saints Peter and Paul, St. James the Greater; the feast of All Saints and of the Principal Patron of each diocese. But by Decree 12 Dec. 1867 the feast day of the Nativity of the B. Virgin Mary was restored. Finally, by Decree 28 Jan. 1890, in Spain and in regions subject to it, as also previously in several regions of Italy, the feast of St. Joseph is again to be observed as of precept. A. S. S. v. 24, p. 192.

To the feasts which the Church celebrates it was moreover licit to add the feast of the Patron, not Titular, or of one of the principal Patrons: 1. of a kingdom or diocese; and 2. of a place, where they happened to be had or venerated. Urban VIII, C. Universa; Pius VI, B. Ex quo divina, 7 June 1780. And where each feast has been introduced, each must be observed. S. R. C. 22 Mar. 1817. But it is not licit to choose Patrons except with the consent of the people and clergy and Bishop, and these Saints, not Blesseds, with the cause of the election known and approved by the S. R. C. Thus the same S. R. C. 23 Mar. 1630. - Ferrar. v. Festa n. 2 seqq.; L. 266.; E. M. But to the feasts which the Church celebrates it is no longer licit to add the feast of the Patron. At present, from the Motu Proprio of Pius X, Supremi disciplinae, 2 July 1911, concerning feast days, the feast days of Patrons are not subject to the ecclesiastical precept of hearing Mass and abstaining from servile works. Local Ordinaries can transfer the external solemnity to the Sunday next following. From S. C. C. 3 Apr. 1909, feast days recently suppressed are: In the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem there have been suppressed the feasts of the Holy Apostles Philip and James, St. John the Evangelist, and the Finding of the Holy Cross outside the city of Jerusalem, and also the second weekdays after Easter of the Resurrection and the second weekdays after Pentecost. - In the Apostolic Vicariate of Egypt the obligation of hearing Mass on the feast of St. Mark the Evangelist, 25 Apr., has been suppressed. In the Archdiocese of Munich and Freising the feast of St. Benno, 16 June, has been suppressed, transferred perpetually to the Sunday next following, with the obligation also of applying Mass for the people removed. In the Archdiocese of Bologna there have been suppressed the second weekday after Easter and Pentecost, the day immediately following the Nativity of the Lord, and the feasts of St. Anne, 26 July, St. Sylvester, 31 Dec. By common law now, from the Motu Proprio of Pius X, Supremi Disciplinae, 2 July 1911, the feast days besides Sundays are eight: the Nativity, Circumcision, Epiphany, and Ascension of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of the B. V. M., the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, All Saints. If any feast from those enumerated has legitimately been abolished or transferred, let nothing be changed without consulting the Apostolic See. But if Bishops judge that some feast from those abrogated should be preserved, let them refer the matter to the Holy See. If on any of these feasts a day of abstinence or fast falls, dispensation is given from each; and the same dispensation from abstinence and fast exists on feasts of Patrons, if those fall on these feasts, and they are celebrated with a great concourse of people.

Feast days to be observed in Missions must thereafter be observed in places separated from the former Mission. On feasts suppressed by the very recent Motu Proprio Supremi disciplinae, of the Most Holy Body of Christ, - of the Purification, Annunciation, and Nativity of the B. V. M., - of St. Joseph, spouse of the B. V. M., of St. John the Baptist, and of the Patron of each place or diocese, the obligation of making the Sacred Offering for the people remains. S. C. C. 8 Aug. 1911. In cathedral and collegiate churches, as regards the solemnity of Masses and Vespers in the choral office, the same things are to be observed as before the suppression. S. C. C. 8 Aug. 1911. By force of the very recent law, feasts from vow or statute, sanctioned even by ecclesiastical authority, are declared to be excluded from the number of feasts to which the obligation of hearing Mass adheres. S. C. C. 8 Aug. 1911. The law concerning feast days to be observed has been declared to be immediately in force. Namely, once it has been promulgated, the obligation concerning the observance of feasts on suppressed feast days now ceases altogether. S. C. C. 8 Aug. 1911. Faculty is granted to the Ruthenians, in the Canadian region and in the United States of North America, of observing feast days and fasts according to the custom of the places in which they live. Yet on Sundays and feasts falling in each rite on the same day, the Ruthenians are held to be present at the sacred liturgy in the church of their own rite, if it exists in the place. S. C. de P. F. 8 Aug. 1913, art. 33.; Pius X, XVIII Kal. Jul. 1907, art. 26. Whenever the feast of the Annunciation of the B. V. M. is impeded either on Friday in Parasceve or on Holy Saturday, as often as this occurs it is to be celebrated on Monday after Low Sunday with solemnity and cessation from work. S. R. C. 23 Apr. 1895, n. 3850. If on Friday in Parasceve another feast of precept falls, e.g., of the Patron, the precept of hearing Mass is not had, while the precept of abstaining from servile works remains. S. R. C. 20 Mar. 1706, n. 2164.; 10 Dec. 1773, n. 2305. If another feast falls on Holy Saturday, the transfer of the office and the obligation of hearing Mass to another unimpeded day is remitted to the judgment of the Bishop, S. R. C. 7 Aug. 1694, n. 1911.; or the obligation of hearing Mass ceases, while the obligation of abstaining from servile works remains, S. R. C. 2 Sept. 1903.

What is the third and fourth precept of the Church? - The third precept of the Church is that the faithful confess their sins at least once each year to their own priest, namely to the Pope, Bishop, pastor, or any priest approved by the Bishop. Innocent III in Lateran Council IV, a. 1218, can. 21, Omnis utriusque sexus; Benedict XIV, de Syn. l. 11, c. 14, n. 2-6. - The fourth precept is that the faithful, each year, at least at Easter time, approach the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist. Innocent III, l. c.; Trid. s. 13, c. 9.; E. M.

When are children judged to have attained the years of discretion, so that they are bound by the precept of Confession? - When they are capable of mortal sin; that is around the seventh year, which is to be judged not from age alone, but chiefly from the degree of understanding or discretion of good and evil. But the spirit of discretion is judged to be present in those who now apprehend that lying or disobedience is evil, or who are ashamed of certain impure actions, etc. Hence pastors of souls are held gradually to prepare these little children for Confession, and to absolve those in whom they observe mortal sin, even doubtful, at least within the year, by force of the Lateran Council. In doubt concerning discretion, let them be absolved conditionally. Therefore Confessors who never wish to absolve children committed to them gravely err and cannot be excused. But from the same age of discretion, that is around the seventh year, the obligation also of Communion begins. S. C. de Sacram. 8 Aug. 1910.; L. 1. 3, n. 370.; l. 6, n. 432-666.

Whether he who is not burdened with mortal sins is held to confess by reason of the precept of annual Confession? Resp. Negatively. The reason is that the Church, by commanding annual Confession, determines the precept of Confession imposed by Christ. But Christ imposed no other precept of Confession than that of mortal sins, as is clear from Trent s. 14, C. 1, 5.; c. 1, 2, 6, 7. - Therefore. C. De Lugo calls this opinion common and truer, Resp. Mor. l. 1, d. 15, n. 2.; L. l. 6, n. 663, 667.; Schmalz. de Poenit. et Rem. n. 16.

Note: "Notwithstanding these things, certain regular, or even synodal, statutes are given, by which religious, and in certain dioceses clerics, are obliged to receive the sacrament of penance more often within the year, even if they are conscious to themselves only of venial sins.... Meanwhile, however, similar statutes ordinarily, and speaking of themselves, do not oblige under grave sin." Struggl 18. From the Norms of the S. C. EE. and RR., art. 138, Religious are held ordinarily to make sacramental confession once a week.

Resolutions: "If someone within the year and at the beginning of Easter time confessed only venial sins, and then within Easter time fell into mortal sin, he would be held to confess it: because he would not yet have satisfied the precept of the Church, which obliges only to confessing mortal sins. Meanwhile, however, it is also probable that he is not held to confess before the year has elapsed from the sin committed." Struggl 12. Indeed, since doctors are not lacking who hold that annual Confession from obligation, in defect of mortal sins, is extended to venial sins; and the faithful think that by annual Confession they have now satisfied the obligation; certainly they ought not to be obliged, in the case, to a repeated Confession of mortal sins committed afterward. Cf. St. Thomas, 4 d. 17, q. 3, a. 1.; d. 16, q. 2, a. 2.; s. q. 6, a. 3.; q. 8, a. 5 ad 4.; Benedict XIV, Inst. 18, n. 24.

Whether this precept is attached to Easter time? - This precept is not per se, but only per accidens, attached to Easter time. The reason is that the Church nowhere commanded annual Confession determinately for Easter time, as it did Easter Communion. It is not per se, but only per accidens attached, etc.; for one having mortal sin is obliged to Confession at Easter time per accidens, and by reason of Communion to be received at Easter time; because for receiving this worthily in a sinner, contrition does not suffice, but sacramental Confession is required. Trent s. 13, C. 17, c. 11.; Struggl 10.

From what time is the year of Confession to be computed? - It can probably be computed from the first day of January to the last of December, or from the last Confession, or from one Easter time to another Easter time. Struggl 11.; L. 662. "But Lugo with the common opinion says that there is no obligation of confessing on account of the sole danger of forgetting sins." L. 665, 671.

Whether the precept of the Church is satisfied by an invalid Confession? Resp. Negatively, whether the Confession is voluntarily or involuntarily invalid. The first part is openly clear from proposition 14 condemned by Alexander VII. The second part is clear from the fact that the Church commands a Confession through which the sinner is reconciled with God. Hence, if a priest had invalidly absolved a penitent from defect of due intention or jurisdiction, and the latter found this out, he would have to confess again, if he knew himself to be guilty of mortal sin. Struggl 13. - Likewise he by no means satisfies the precept of Communion who communicates sacrilegiously. E. M.

Whether annual Confession which is not made to the pastor, or to another with the pastor's permission, is sufficient for satisfying the precept of the Church concerning annual Confession to be made to one's own priest? Resp. Affirmatively. The reason is that he who confesses to a priest having jurisdiction and approved now confesses to him by the permission of his own pastor, namely either of the Supreme Pontiff or of the Bishop, who deputed him so that he might hear the Confessions of all coming to him. Lugo Resp. Mor. l. 1, d. 15, n. 2.

Whether he who has not confessed for a whole year is held to confess as soon as possible? - Resp. Affirmatively. Because the precept imposed by the determination of the Church urges; for the term of the year was not placed by the Church to end the obligation, but only to urge it, as is sufficiently gathered from the words of the precept: at least once in the year. Yet another opinion is present which denies it. Moreover, he who confesses in the following year satisfies by one confession the precept of each year; and there is no one in practice who obliges him to another confession. For the precept is only concerning confession to be made once in the year. Therefore in this same year he is not held to another. L. l. 6, n. 668, 669. Cf. 1568 and Lugo de Poenit. d. 15, n. 180.

What is the nature of the precept of Easter Communion? - The precept of Easter Communion, not otherwise than the precept of annual Confession, is divine as regards substance, but ecclesiastical as regards the determination of time. But Communion is commanded in one's own parish, as is clear from the general practice of the Church and various Constitutions of the Supreme Pontiffs. Benedict XIV, C. Cum magno, a. 1751. Each is grave: not to communicate in one's own parish, and not to communicate at Easter time, although one or another day after Easter time has elapsed. There is no precept of the Church of receiving Communion determinately on the day of Easter, or on the Supper of the Lord, even for clerics. But priests satisfy this precept by celebrating anywhere; otherwise they are held to communicate in the parish, as other laymen. L. 300.; Lugo d. 17, n. 31.; E. M. In the often cited Catechism, promulgated in 1913 and edited by order of the Holy Father Pius X, 18 Oct. 1912, the third precept of the Church is expressed thus: "To confess at least once a year, and to communicate at least at Easter." In one's own parish is omitted.

What is Easter time; and who can grant delay? Easter time by common law begins from Palm Sunday and ends on Low Sunday. But it can be prolonged by dispensation of the Bishop or pastor. Thus judged S. C. C. 19 Nov. 1616. Ferraris v. Eucharistia n. 10. But pastors, only in individual cases. L. l. 6, n. 294, 296. Since the Confessor is judge not only of the disposition required for Communion, but of the greater opportuneness for receiving the Most Holy Sacrament, he can permit or impose some delay, if he judges that the greater good of the penitent requires this, at least if the latter is not unwilling. L. l. 6, n. 297, third part at the end. For this was expressly provided in C. Omnis de Poenit. et remiss.

Yet the penitent would indeed sin if the Confessor had to defer Easter Communion for him on account of defect of due disposition for receiving sacred absolution. For he who is held to the end is also held to the means. But due disposition for absolution is a means altogether necessary for receiving the sacred Eucharist at the prescribed time. Therefore. In Latin America all the faithful can satisfy the precept of annual confession and communion from Septuagesima Sunday up to and including the eighth day of the solemnity of Corpus Christi. Leo XIII, C. Trans oceanum § VIII. At present in Rome the aforesaid time for Easter Communion is prolonged up to the feast of the Most Holy Trinity.

Who can dispense from Communion in the parish? From the precept of communicating in one's own parish the Bishop, the vicar general, and the pastor himself can dispense. But interpretative or presumed consent suffices, provided there is moral certainty concerning their will. Thus St. Alphonsus l. c. n. 300.; Gousset 224, 226.

Whether in the Cathedral all who are of the diocese can fulfill the precept by communicating there? Tamburini responds "that they can, because there resides the Bishop, who is the common head and pastor of the whole diocese. Thus Diana.... Thus also Bonacina." De 3 Eccl. pr. c. 4, n. 4. And concerning this same matter, "there are many of the ancients," says C. De Lugo Resp. Mor. l. 1, d. 15, "who recognize in the archpriest of the Cathedral Church the power of administering sacraments to all subjects of that diocese, and therefore they seem to suppose the Cathedral Church to be common to the whole diocese; Thomas Sanchez reports and gathers these, l. 3 de Matrim. d. 27, n. 1. Wherefore he who receives Communion in the cathedral church seems to receive it in the common parish of the whole diocese. Hence just as, if he received it from the hand of the Bishop, he would without doubt satisfy the precept of the Church, since the Bishop is pastor of the whole diocese, so if he receives it in the episcopal Church, he seems to satisfy the same precept," n. 3. "Yet I," C. De Lugo continues, "rather believed that in strictness satisfaction is not made except in the proper parish of each one, or unless the Bishop expressly or tacitly consents," n. 4. St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 300, adheres to this opinion of Lugo, and says of the opposite opinion: "I do not know whether it is probable, unless in some place there is a common usage which causes the consent of the Bishop to be presumed; for sheep ought to be known by their own shepherd." And the same opinion is clear from S. C. EE. and RR. 21 Jan. 1848. Yet S. R. C. 6 Sept. 1636, 1 Apr. 1662, n. 1230, favors the contrary opinion.

Where can travelers, vagi, soldiers, and servants satisfy the precept of Easter Communion? - Travelers and vagi can communicate in any church, nor are they held to approach the parish of the place where they are staying; because they do not have their own pastor who ought to know them. - Soldiers in station, or having domicile in a city, ought to communicate in the parish in which they dwell; otherwise they can fulfill the precept in any church. Servants and all others having quasi-domicile are bound by the same law as inhabitants. L. l. 6, n. 300.

Whether he who communicated sacrilegiously in the parish is held to communicate again in the parish? - Resp. Negatively, because he fulfilled the end of the precept as regards the circumstance of place: therefore it suffices that he communicate in any place whatever to satisfy the precept of Easter Communion, which he did not fulfill through sacrilegious Communion. Nor is he held to making Easter Communion in the parish who at Easter time received sacred Viaticum, for the end of the law was sufficiently fulfilled. But cf., as regards this question and the preceding 1564-1566, n. 1562 at the end. La-Croix 630.

Whether he who omitted Communion at Easter is afterward held, once Easter time has passed, to receive Communion as soon as possible? The first opinion, more common, and which St. Alphonsus holds, l. 6, n. 297, affirms; and according to this opinion, as one is held to Communion after Easter time has passed, so also he is held to receiving Communion in his own parish.

The reason is that Easter time was not assigned by the Church to end the obligation, but to urge it; hence when the obligation already contracted has not yet been fulfilled, it must be fulfilled as soon as possible. Indeed, from the Lateran Council, one is not held simply to receiving Communion at Easter, but at least at Easter. The other opinion denies it. The reason is that the precept of Communion is affixed to Easter time. For as in the precept of hearing Mass on Sunday, and in similar precepts, the obligation ceases with the predefined time, so also it must be said in this precept of Communion at Easter time. Indeed, if Communion were not truly affixed to Easter time, but had to be made each year at least after that time had elapsed, it would be licit also to make it before Easter time, with just cause standing. Several and grave theologians hold this opinion, among whom is St. Antoninus; Busembaum, Palaus, Bonacina, and others think it probable, and St. Alphonsus himself, l. c., thinks it not to be contemned. But according to this second opinion, as one is not any longer held in that year to Communion when Easter time has now passed, so consequently neither is he obliged to Communion in his own parish. "Which," notes the holy Doctor, 688, "proceeds pari passu with the precept of annual Confession." But the precept of the Church here is determinative of the divine precept of communicating sometime in life.

Hence, when Easter time has passed, just as certainly the divine precept does not cease, so the ecclesiastical precept always urges, namely for that year; for it is said that the faithful ought to communicate each year, at least at Easter. Trent s. 13, c. 9. Therefore, if not at Easter, certainly not as soon as possible; but within the year one ought to communicate. Within the year, i.e., from Easter to Easter; otherwise the year cannot here be verified, since, in the time from January to Easter, the precept cannot be anticipated.

Whether one who cannot communicate at Easter time is held to anticipate? Resp. Negatively, because "such communion would not fulfill the precept; for at the time at which it would be made, the time of obligation would not yet have begun, since the time of annual communion had not yet begun. Conversely it is certain that, when Easter time has begun, if someone foresees that he is to be impeded from Communion, he is held to receive it immediately, as they commonly teach." L. 298.

Whether an excommunicated person is held to obtain absolution so that he can fulfill the precept? - They commonly affirm it; "because Communion greatly contributes to the salvation of the soul, whence its precept strictly obliges to removing spiritual evils which stand in the way." L. 299. Indeed he who is held to the end is held to the necessary means ordered per se to it. Wherefore just as he who is in mortal sin is held to confess, so that he can fulfill the precept of Communion, so also he who is excommunicated is held to obtain absolution from excommunication, so that he can receive Communion. And this is confirmed from the fact that, if someone wishes, he can most easily obtain the aforesaid absolution.

1570 bis. Decree concerning the first Communion of children. "...With all these things maturely weighed, this Sacred Order concerning the discipline of the Sacraments, in the general Congregation held on the fifteenth day of the month of July, in the year 1910, so that the mentioned abuses may be entirely removed and children even from tender years may adhere to Jesus Christ, live His life, and find protection against the dangers of corruption, judged it opportune to establish the following norm concerning the first Communion of children, to be observed everywhere. I. The age of discretion both for Confession and for Holy Communion is that in which the child begins to reason, that is around the seventh year, whether above or even below. From this time begins the obligation of satisfying each precept of Confession and Communion. II. For first Confession and first Communion a full and perfect knowledge of Christian doctrine is not necessary. Yet afterward the child will have to learn the whole catechism gradually according to the measure of his understanding. III. The knowledge of religion which is required in the child, so that he may suitably prepare himself for first Communion, is that by which he perceives according to his capacity the mysteries of faith necessary by necessity of means, and distinguishes Eucharistic bread from common and bodily bread, so that he may approach the Most Holy Eucharist with that devotion which his age bears. IV. The obligation of the precept of Confession and Communion, which burdens the child, falls chiefly upon those who ought to have care of him, that is, upon the parents, the confessor, the teachers, and the pastor. But it pertains to the father, or to those who take his place, and to the confessor, according to the Roman Catechism, to admit the child to first Communion. V. Once or several times in the year let pastors take care to announce and hold a general Communion of children, and to admit to it not only the newly admitted, but also others who, with the consent of parents or confessor, as was said above, have already previously for the first time tasted holy things from the altar. For each group let some days of instruction and preparation be put before.

VI. Those having care of children must take care with every zeal that after first Communion the same children approach the sacred table more often, and, if it can be done, even daily, as Christ Jesus and mother Church desire, and that they do this with that devotion of soul which such an age bears. Let those to whom this care belongs remember moreover the very grave office by which they are held of providing that the children themselves continue to be present at public catechetical instruction, or if not, that they supply for the religious instruction of the same in another way. VII. The custom of not admitting children to confession, or of never absolving them, when they have arrived at the use of reason, is altogether to be disapproved. Wherefore local Ordinaries, with remedies of law also employed, will take care that it be thoroughly removed from the midst. VIII. Altogether detestable is the abuse of not ministering Viaticum and Extreme Unction to children after the use of reason, and of burying them with the rite of little children. Let local Ordinaries proceed severely against those who do not depart from a custom of this kind. These things sanctioned by the Fathers Cardinals of this Sacred Congregation, Our Most Holy Lord Pope Pius X, in the audience of the seventh day of the current month, approved all, and ordered the present decree to be issued and promulgated. Moreover he commanded individual Ordinaries that they signify the same decree not only to pastors and clergy, but also to the people, to whom he wished it to be read every year at the time of the Easter precept, in the vernacular language. But the Ordinaries themselves will have to report to the Holy See, after every five years has passed, together with the other affairs of the diocese, also concerning the observance of this decree. - Notwithstanding anything whatever to the contrary." Decr. Quam singulari, S. C. de Sacr. 8 Aug. 1910. - E. M. n. 500.

What is the fifth and sixth precept of the Church? - The fifth precept of the Church is that the faithful abstain from flesh on certain days, as is clear from various Constitutions of the Supreme Pontiffs, Catechisms, and the universal custom of the Church. - But the sixth precept of the Church is that the faithful observe fasts at the established times, as likewise is clear from various Constitutions of the Supreme Pontiffs, Catechisms, and the universal custom of the Church. C. Quadragesima 16 seqq. de Consecr. D. 5. - Each precept obliges of itself under grave sin, since its matter is grave. Proposition 23 condemned by Alexander VII. Of itself; for in each, according to the common opinion of theologians, smallness of matter is given. Trent s. 25 de Delectu cibor. etc.; L. 1030.; E. M.

Flesh of which animals is prohibited on a day of abstinence? - The flesh of animals born and breathing on land is prohibited. The reason is that these bring the greatest delight in eating, and chiefly provoke man to venereal things. St. Thomas, 2. 2, q. 147, a. 8. - "To discern which animals are to be reputed flesh, although it is not a slight judgment to attend to whether they are accustomed to live for a long time outside water; nevertheless the common estimation of the faithful and the judgment of physicians is more to be attended to, if they repute them flesh or fish." L. 1011. Hence for discerning prohibited flesh a twofold criterion is present: a physical natural criterion, namely that they are animals born and living on land; and a moral criterion, namely that from common estimation and the judgment of physicians they are terrestrial animals and not fish. But each criterion fails, and does not furnish a determined and fixed universal rule. The physical criterion fails because amphibious animals are given; and it is licit to eat snails, turtles, frogs, crabs, oysters, locusts, shells, and according to some, beavers or castors, otters, sea ducks, coots, and certain others add sea crows. The moral criterion fails because it is valid only for ordinary and common things, as is clear. Hence in doubt there is a threefold rule: 1. The structure of the animal, whether it is similar or dissimilar to terrestrial animals. 2. Nutritive power. 3. Custom, which in these matters is the best rule. With doubt still remaining, it is licit to eat, because the law concerning abstinence is negative; wherefore, unless the prohibition is certain, it is licit to eat. St. Thomas, 2. 2, q. 147, a. 8.; Benedict XIV, de Syn. l. 11, c. 5.; Antonelli vol. 2, de Praeceptis Ecclesiae. But both flesh and other things which are derived from flesh, or are in any way constitutive parts of animals, are prohibited; namely fat, blood, marrow, bacon, grease or lard, juice expressed from flesh, and peptones, which are extracted from beef and contain the more principal substance of flesh. Tambur. Decal. l. 4, c. 5, n. 19.; L. 1010. From an Indult now common almost everywhere, seasonings from animal fat are permitted; and then it is licit to use the fat of the flesh of any animal, and not only swine fat, and also butter and margarine; and where there is usage, also broth of cooked meat is tolerated. E. M.

1572 bis. Seasonings which are permitted on days of abstinence and fast can be used in the meal and in the evening collation, S. Poenit. 16 Jan. 1834. When abstinence is not of stricter right, the permitted seasonings are seasonings from the fat of any animal, from butter, from margarine, and similar seasonings. When these seasonings are permitted, one can use the same fat for seasoning foods and eat those small pieces which remain of fat or bacon from the same melted down, provided they continue to be part of the seasoning. Nor are they to be troubled who on days of abstinence and even of stricter abstinence use oil in which flesh has been fried. But seasonings from eggs are not permitted. The juice of swine bacon, or broth from pork, is not comprehended under the terms: condimenti di grasso. S. C. C., 29 Apr. 1911. Peptone is an extract of flesh, united to pepsin; and consequently it is by no means permitted on days of abstinence. The case is altogether different for margarine, which although it is made from the fat of oxen, oil, and milk mixed together, nevertheless is positively permitted when the use of butter is licit. S. O. 6 Sept. 1899.

When, outside fast, does the precept of abstinence from flesh urge? This precept, besides the time of fast, urges 1. on Friday of any week in the whole Christian world, C. Explicari 3 de Observ. ieiunior., unless a special Indult is had; - 2. on Saturday, unless legitimate custom has prescribed otherwise somewhere, or something else has been established by the Holy See, or a privilege is had, C. Quia 31 de Consecrat. D. 5. Cf. Benedict XIV, de Syn. l. 11, c. 5, n. 5. Hence the Holy Office declared on 10 Jan. 1855 that those traveling outside Belgium cannot eat flesh on Saturday in places in which the said Law is in force. But not only in Belgium, but also in the United States of America, in Italy, and in most other places, abstinence is no longer observed on Saturday. - 3. In Lent the precept of abstinence also urges on Sundays; again unless an Indult or another particular law is now had. From this law of abstinence the Nativity of the Lord is excepted by privilege of Honorius III for those who are bound neither by vow nor by regular observance, if it falls on the 6th weekday or on Saturday, C. Explicari 3 de Observ. ieiunior. In most dioceses of France, from particular custom, the obligation of abstinence is in force on the three Rogation days and on the vigil of St. Mark. Therefore attend to the special custom of places. Besides the time of fast. On days of fast, those also who are exempted or excused from fast are held to observing abstinence, as is clearly drawn from the Indults themselves, by which those even who are not held to fast are permitted to feed on flesh and milk foods, unless something else has been established by the Holy See for some place. Tamburini tr. 4 de Quarto Eccl. praec. c. 9.; La Croix l. 4, n. 1291.; l. 3, p. 2, n. 1660 seqq.; E. M. 1573 bis. In the Catechism of the Holy Father Pius X the second precept of the Church is expressed thus: "Not to eat flesh on Friday and on the other prohibited days, and to fast on the prescribed days." Indeed in very many places both the law of abstinence and of fast has been reformed at present. Italy: "1. In all and individual regions of Italy, with also the dioceses of Malta and Gozo comprehended, which are accustomed to use the dispositions laid down in this matter for Italy, fast, or the law of one meal per day, will have to be observed: During the whole time of Lent, Sundays only excepted; on Fridays and Saturdays of Advent; on Wednesdays, Fridays, and Saturdays of the Four Times of the year; on the Vigils: of Pentecost, of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, of the B. V. M. assumed into heaven, of All Saints, and of the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ. But on the days on which fast is prescribed, the mixing of flesh and fish in the same eating is at the same time always and absolutely forbidden, not even Sundays in Lent excepted. 2. Besides fast in all regions of Italy, as above, the law of abstinence from flesh and from all those things which draw origin from flesh, namely milk, butter, cheese, eggs, and seasonings from the fat of any animal, must also be observed: on Friday of the Four Times in Lent; on Friday in Parasceve; on the Vigils of the Assumption of the B. V. M. and of the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ. 3. But on the first day of the Lenten fast; on Fridays and Saturdays of Lent; on Fridays and Saturdays of Advent; on Wednesdays, Fridays, and Saturdays of the Four Times; on the Vigils: of St. Joseph, Spouse of the B. V. M.; of the Annunciation of the same B. V. M., where these feasts are recalled under precept, and, as regards the vigil of the Annunciation, provided it falls within Lent; of Pentecost; of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul and of All Saints, abstinence from flesh only and from juice in any way expressed from flesh will have to be observed: so that it is licit at will in the principal meal to eat eggs and milk foods, and both in the same principal meal and in the little meal to use seasonings from any fat, butter, margarine, as they call it, and similar things. 4. This same abstinence from flesh only and from meat broth will likewise have to be observed on all and individual other Fridays through the year, yet without obligation of fast and, consequently, with no distinction of meals made as regards the free use of eggs, milk foods, and seasonings. 5. But as often as, on any of the above-mentioned days consecrated to fast or abstinence or to each, there falls either some feast from the more solemn ones in the Church, or the feast of the Titular or principal Patron of some place or diocese, or some extraordinary religious solemnity, such as centenaries, pious pilgrimages, and similar things, or public annual fairs which are celebrated with an unusual concourse of people, it is conceded to local Ordinaries, except in the time of Lent and Advent, that they can either anticipate both fast and abstinence, either for the whole diocese or, according to diverse cases, for certain determined places, to another free day pleasing to them, or even, yet from very grave causes, dispense concerning these. 6. This decree does not regard fasts and abstinences to be observed in some places from a particular vow. But as regards Regular Families of each sex, not bound by a special vow of abstinence or fast, it is decreed that they can use the same law as the simple faithful. 7. By the present decree whatever local indults, concessions, privileges, customs even immemorial, to the contrary, not even the Bull of the Crusade excepted, where and under whatever form it is now in force in Italy, are revoked, abrogated, and thoroughly abolished. But let the Ordinaries vehemently exhort the faithful subject to them that they strive to compensate the Apostolic indulgence by other good works.... Our Most Holy Lord Pope Pius X deigned by His Supreme authority to approve and confirm all and individual these things, commanding those whom it concerns that the same, having been opportunely brought to the knowledge of the faithful, from the First Sunday of Advent of the current year 1906, be observed exactly and that they strive that they be observed by all. - Anything whatever to the contrary notwithstanding." S. O. Decr. Frequenter pluribus, 7 Sept. 1906. Therefore in their own force remain fasts and abstinences to be observed from the particular vow formerly made by some place. And therefore at Rome the vow of strict fast on the vigil of the feast of the Purification of the B. V. M. obliges; and in Sicily the vow of fast on the vigil of the feast of the Immaculate Conception, confirmed by Pius VII, C. Frequentes pluribus, 10 Apr. 1818.

After the Motu Proprio Supremi disciplinae, 2 July 1911, concerning suppressed feasts, the vigils of suppressed feasts hitherto observed from precept or from vow must still be observed. S. C. C. 18 Sept. 1911. But by this decision the Decree of the Holy Office Frequenter pluribus, 7 Sept. 1906, was not derogated. S. O. 25 Feb. 1912. "Whether by article 6 of the Decree of Wednesday, 7 September 1906, On reforming the law of fast and abstinence in Italy, anything was derogated from the fasts and abstinences prescribed for Religious Families of each sex by their own Rules and Constitutions? - Resp. Negatively; and therefore, as regards fasts and abstinences to be observed from the general precept of the Church, Religious Families of each sex, not bound by a particular vow of fast or abstinence, can use the same law as the simple faithful; but as regards fasts and abstinences proper to them, one must stand by the Rules and Constitutions of each of them." S. O. 24 Apr. 1907. The great concourse of peoples in the Decree of the Holy Office, as regards dispensation from abstinence and fast to be conceded or anticipation to be made by the Bishop, can be understood also of the concourse of a city or place, and not necessarily of extraneous peoples. S. O. 18 Mar. 1896. Dalmatia: It was established: "1. That fast be observed by strict abstinence from flesh and from all those things which draw origin from flesh, namely milk, butter, cheese, eggs, and seasonings from the fat of any animal, each year on these four days only: Friday of the Four Times in Lent; Friday in Parasceve; the vigil of the Assumption of the B. Virgin Mary; the vigil of the Nativity of the Lord. 2. That fast be observed by non-strict abstinence, that is, from flesh only and from broth in any way expressed from flesh, so that it is licit at will in the principal meal to eat eggs and milk foods, and both in the same principal meal and in the little meal to use seasoning from any fat, butter, margarine, and similar things, each year on these following days: Ash Wednesday; Fridays and Saturdays of Lent; Wednesdays and Fridays of Advent; Wednesdays, Fridays, and Saturdays of the Four Times; the vigil of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul; the vigil of the Annunciation of the B. Virgin Mary, if it falls in Lent; finally the Vigil of All Saints. 3. But since for several citizens of Dalmatia, on account of weakness of stomach, the drinking of coffee in the morning breakfast without milk becomes very burdensome and troublesome, we indulge that on the days inscribed above under n. 2, with Wednesdays, Fridays, and Saturdays of the Four Times always excluded, it is licit in the morning breakfast either to mix milk with coffee, or to use simple milk. 4. We further declare that abstinence of this kind from flesh only and from broth expressed from flesh is to be observed in all Dalmatia, also on all and individual other Fridays through the year, yet without the obligation of fast, and consequently with no distinction of meals made as regards the free use of eggs, milk foods, and seasonings. 5. Finally we command that in all the Dioceses of Dalmatia fast be observed during the whole time of Lent, besides the days already enumerated above, so that it is licit to eat flesh in the principal meal only, but in the little meal to employ seasoning of fat, butter, and similar things. But as regards the mixing of flesh and fish in the same eating, we altogether forbid it on the days on which fast is prescribed, and during Lent, even on Sundays; and therefore we will that all who are dispensed from abstinence from flesh cannot use such mixing during the whole time of Lent, on Wednesdays and Fridays of Advent, for in Austria in the Advent of the Lord on Wednesdays and Fridays and not Saturdays fast is prescribed; finally on the Four Times of the year and on the vigils mentioned above. 6. Moreover, complying with favorable will to the vows of the Bishops of Dalmatia, we concede to them the faculty that, except in the time of Advent and Lent, they can anticipate both fast and abstinence, either for the whole Diocese or, according to diverse cases, for determined places, to another free day; or even, with very grave causes nevertheless pressing, whether of solemnity or of concourse of people, they can altogether dispense the faithful similarly from the obligation both of fast and of abstinence.

7. Finally, assenting to the desires of the same Prelates, we grant that regular families of each sex existing in Dalmatia, which are not bound by a special vow of abstinence or fast, can and may licitly use and enjoy, from Apostolic benignity, the same dispensation as the simple faithful." Pius X, C. Romani Pontifices, 10 June 1911. Spain and Portugal use the Bull of the Crusade, to which various other Indults have been added, the Indult of flesh, the Indult of milk foods. Cf. E. M. ed. 4, p. 151 seqq. As regards Spain, the Bull which is called of the Crusade does not dispense for eating flesh on days of fast, even of Lent, unless necessity stands, from the counsel of both physicians; but it gives the faculty of eating eggs and milk foods at discretion. The law of fasting remains. Secular priests and regulars living outside cloisters cannot use this Indult unless one has reached the sixtieth year of age; but outside the Lenten time eggs and milk foods are permitted to them. In Spain there is besides another Indult which is called of flesh, for eating wholesome flesh in the time of Lent and on other vigil and abstinence days within the year, except Ash Wednesday, the Fridays of Lent, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday of greater week, and the whole greater week besides Palm Sunday for priests, whether secular or regular outside cloisters, the vigil of the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, of Pentecost, of the Assumption of the B. Virgin Mary, and of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul; and this for all. But that someone may be able to use this privilege he must besides have the Bull of the Holy Crusade; and priests, whether secular or regular outside cloisters, must have another Indult of milk foods, so that they can use that of flesh in the time of Lent, if they have not yet completed the sixtieth year. But regular priests within cloisters can, with the Bull of the Crusade alone, feed on eggs and milk foods, even in the time of Lent, greater week excepted. With the Bull of the Crusade and the Indult of flesh they can do the very same as secular priests having the Bull of the Crusade, the Indult of flesh, and the Indult of milk foods. Indult for sixty-year-old priests in Spain. "In Spain secular priests, sixty years old, by force of the Bull of the Crusade and the Indult for feeding on flesh, with abstraction made from their greater or lesser strength or infirmity, cannot use flesh on Monday and Tuesday of Greater Week, as the lay faithful. But Our Most Holy Lord deigned benignly to declare that sixty-year-old secular priests in Spain, by force of the Bull of the Crusade and the Indult for feeding on flesh, with abstraction made from their greater or lesser strength or infirmity, can use flesh on Monday and Tuesday of Greater Week, as the lay faithful." S. O. 31 Mar. 1906. Indult for the poor in Spain. "The poor in Spain, in order that they enjoy the Lenten Indult, are not held to give alms; but they are held if they wish to enjoy other privileges of the Bull of the Crusade." S. C. C. 23 Jan. 1910. "The poor in Spain, without the alms assigned for the Bull of the Crusade having been paid, can enjoy the Indult as regards eggs and milk foods which is contained in the mentioned Bull." S. C. C. 4 July 1910. "1. Whether the law of fast and abstinence on the day of the solemn Commemoration of St. Joseph, Spouse of the B. V. M., in Spain, where the feast has been restored, has been dispensed by force of the Motu Proprio Supremi disciplinae, or needs dispensation of the Ordinaries according to the tenor of the decree of S. C. C. 3 May 1912? - 2. Whether on days on which the law of fast and abstinence is dispensed, the prohibition also is removed of not mixing fish with flesh in the same meal? - Resp. To the 1st: Affirmatively to the first part, Negatively to the second. - To the 2nd: Negatively." S. C. C. 21 Nov. 1912. - Concerning this Response to the 2nd, observe: Through the Motu Proprio of the Supreme Pontiff, 2 July 1911, the precept of abstinence and fast is not simply removed, but dispensed, "we dispense," "we concede dispensation." Wherefore, if feast days preserved by the Motu Proprio fall on a day only of abstinence, the mixing of foods is not prohibited. But when they fall on a day of fast, the mixing of flesh and fish still remains prohibited. "Whether it is licit or not among Spaniards to season fasting foods, both in the meal and in the evening collation, with fat or bacon? Resp. Affirmatively, provided that by Apostolic Indult those seasonings are permitted on days of fast." S. C. C. 6 Aug. 1910. "Whether an Apostolic Indult for seasoning foods both in the meal and in the evening collation is had in Spain by force of the Bull of the Crusade, or at least by force of the Lenten Indult? - Resp. His Holiness benignly deigned to grant the favor, as regards all those not excepted in the Lenten Indult." S. C. C. 24 Jan. 1914.

Latin America and the Philippine Islands: With the Bull of the Crusade abrogated for all Latin America and the Philippine Islands, and likewise with Lenten Indults and Summaries abrogated, a new recent Indult for ten years, concerning abstinence and fast, has been conceded to all, without petition being necessary or any tax to be paid. And even Regulars can use this Indult, provided they are not bound by a special vow, and even as regards abstinences and fasts prescribed in their own Rules. By force of this Indult, Fast without abstinence is to be observed on Wednesdays of Advent and Lent. Fast with abstinence is to be observed on Ash Wednesday, Fridays of Lent, and Thursday of greater week. Eggs and milk foods are permitted in the evening collation; in the morning little meal, milk foods, eggs excluded. Abstinence from flesh without fast is to be observed on the four vigils of the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Pentecost, Assumption of the B. V. M., and the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul. Secret. Stat. 1 Jan. 1910. In the Episcopate of Ancy, Frejus, and Toulouse, and in the Archdiocese of Mechlin and the suffragan Episcopates, abstinence and fast on the vigil of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, whose feast has been transferred to the Sunday next following, have been abolished.

Warsaw: In the Archdiocese of Warsaw, and in the whole ecclesiastical province, there is conceded 1. the use of milk foods on all days of strict fast through the year, except Friday in Parasceve; 2. swine fat, goose fat, etc., on Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays of Lent, as seasoning of foods; 3. the use of flesh on all Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays of Lent, only at dinner, except Thursday of greater week; on Rogation days as often as they occur; on all Saturday days through the year, insofar as they do not coincide with a strict fast obliging from another source. Scotland: The law of abstinence for the faithful of the kingdom of Scotland has been relaxed, so that it is licit for individual faithful of that Region to eat flesh, Lent excluded, on Saturdays of the Four Times of the year, and on vigils which either immediately precede or follow Friday or another day of abstinence. Apost. Lett. Benigna Mater, 27 Jan. 1911. Ruthenians: Cf. number 1551 at the end.

Whether flesh can be given to little children on those days on which it is prohibited? - Resp. Affirmatively, if they have not attained the use of reason; otherwise, negatively. But if they are possessed of the use of reason before the seventh year, it is controverted; St. Liguori more probably denies it, de Leg. n. 155. Cf. 195.; L. 1012.

What quantity of flesh is required for grave sin? It is controverted. All agree that matter is grave which notably nourishes; but this can scarcely be determined. According to several, grave matter ought to exceed half an ounce; but St. Liguori rejects this opinion, 1029, where he reports and seems to approve what the Salmanticenses say, that slight matter is only the eighth part of an ounce. Yet they say this concerning days on which fast must also be observed. Among more recent authors, some say grave matter is one ounce; others say grave matter in flesh, eggs, and milk foods is only two ounces. For the nature of this precept does not seem to require that severity of an eighth or half part of an ounce, or even of one ounce. Yet a distinction seems to have to be made among flesh, eggs, and milk foods. Grave matter in the latter is twice as much as grave matter of flesh; for they nourish less. One hen's egg equals almost two ounces.

Whether it is a mortal sin to feed on a dumpling, greens, etc., seasoned with flesh or grease? - Resp. Affirmatively, of itself, if that food is notably juicy; otherwise it will be only venial. Hence it is mortal if the broth of the dumpling has been cooked with a great quantity of flesh, and so on for the others. But the poor are more easily excused from grave, or even light, sin, when, because they are not able to buy butter, they use a small quantity of grease for seasoning a dumpling. But if seasonings from fat are permitted, and grease is employed only in the manner of seasoning, then there will be no sin for all. And where there is usage, also broth of cooked flesh is tolerated. If forbidden seasonings have been employed in good faith, and the error is detected with dinner imminent, when it is no longer easy to prepare other foods, and lest there be scandal and disturbance, the food already prepared can be taken. E. M.

Who are judged to be excused from the law of abstinence? - 1. Begging poor; for they can eat whatever they receive as alms, as theologians commonly think. 2. Poor workers, who have nothing else except a little piece of grease or bacon for seasoning a dumpling or greens. 3. The sick, e.g., those laboring under fever, etc.; also those who are so weak in stomach that they cannot digest licit foods. 4. Those who daily give themselves to labors so arduous and fatiguing to the stomach that, like the sick, they do not experience hunger and reject foods; of this kind are those who spend life in mines or in glass and iron works. In the number of these seem also to be judged drivers who, for the space of several days, leading public carriages by day and night, can scarcely swallow one or another little piece of food; but not those who slowly lead carriages, horses, or mules and rest at inns at night. 5. Travelers who find nothing in inns besides forbidden foods, and cannot easily turn aside elsewhere. Yet they are held seriously and insistently to ask for licit foods. For the mere reason of journeying in no way exempts from the law of abstinence, even if on account of too great fatigue it perhaps dispenses from fast. Hence travelers cannot be excused on account of human fear, on account of fear of displeasing companions, on account of mockeries and other difficulties of this kind; otherwise nearly all those making a journey would be exempted from this law. 6. Those who are of a household, if the father of the household is unwilling or unable to prepare fasting foods; namely these are excused by reason of the necessity in which they are placed. 7. Soldiers living in camps or barracks, and nourished in common at the expense of the Government; and from toleration, in France, also their officers and families, Gousset 313, or from an indult, as others affirm, La France militaire et religieuse n. 3, p. 40, Mar. 1889. An Indult is given each year in Belgium. "Pius IX, at the prayers of the Bishop of Buffalo, conceded that American soldiers and sailors be exempted universally from the law of abstinence, six days excepted, namely Ash Wednesday, the three last 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 are actually serving in camps, ships, garrisons, but not those who are absent by leave. Families using common food with them enjoy that privilege; not likewise those who live far away." Kenrick tr. 4, c. 4, n. 37. Cf. here 1626. 8.

Those who from a just cause have obtained dispensation, which besides the Supreme Pontiff, in individual cases Bishops, regular prelates, and pastors can give to their subjects. If sometimes dispensation is given to the whole household, it seems to comprehend, from the intention of the giver, also those who, in occurring cases, are guests in the same household. C. Consilium 2 de Observat. ieiunior.; L. 1008.; E. M.

What is ecclesiastical fast; when; whom does it oblige? Ecclesiastical fast is situated, properly and strictly speaking, in one meal per day; but when it is joined with abstinence, then it is situated in abstinence from foods and from a certain quality of foods, which is to be observed according to the form prescribed by the Church. - Ecclesiastical fast joined with abstinence consists as of three parts, namely 1. one eating during the 24 hours of the day, with an evening little meal added; 2. abstinence from flesh or even from milk foods, as will be declared below; 3. the time determined for taking the meal, also to be declared below. Yet note that the custom of places and times contributes very much to modifying the nature and obligation of fast. The time of fast, as in other similar obligations, is from midnight to midnight, and can be computed according to true, mean, central astronomical time.

Fast obliges especially in the time of Lent, Advent, the Four Times, and certain vigils. The principal ones are: of the Nativity of the Lord, Pentecost, Assumption, All Saints, and the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul. There were many fasts in antiquity, also in the time of Advent, of Rogations, and on several other vigils; but all these in many places have become obsolete. The fasts of the vigils themselves have been reduced almost everywhere. Cf. 1573 bis. But when a vigil occurs on Sunday, fast must be kept on Saturday, C. Ex parte 1, C. Consilium 2 de Observatione ieiunior.; Urban VIII, Br. Cum evenire, 13 Oct. 1638. Cf. n. 1573 bis. All the faithful, from the twenty-first completed year of age, are held under grave obligation to observing fast on established days, unless they are legitimately excused or dispensed by superiors. It is a most ancient obligation, which is said to have been handed down by the Apostles themselves. From the twenty-first completed year, because the Church, a pious mother, does not wish to impose on children and adolescents a law surpassing their strength. This is clear from universal custom and from all Catechisms. L. 1004.; St. Thomas, 2. 2, q. 147, a. 3-5.; Benedict XIV, Notif. 11.; de Syn. l. 13, c. 4, n. 6, 7.; Tamburini tr. 4 de Quarto Eccl. praec. c. 9.; La Croix l. 3, p. 2, n. 1260 seqq., 1273.; Ferraris v. Ieiunium Append.; E. M.

Note: The vigils of feasts suppressed by the Motu Proprio Supremi disciplinae, 2 July 1911, are still to be observed. Cf. 1573 bis. On 23 Dec., when it falls on Saturday, fast and abstinence are to be observed. E. M. "Since the feast of the Annunciation of the B. M. V., occurring next year on Friday in Parasceve, is transferred also with cessation from work to Monday after Low Sunday as to its proper place, it is asked whether in the following year 1910 the law of abstinence from flesh is to be observed on the vigil of the Annunciation of the B. M. occurring on Thursday in the Supper of the Lord, or ought to be transferred?

Resp. Affirmatively to the first part, negatively to the second." S. C. Conc. 9 June 1909. "The fast on the vigil of the festivity of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul is to be observed in France on the Saturday before the Sunday of the festivity of the said Apostles. But if the day of 29 June occurs on Saturday, the fast of the vigil in question is to be observed on the fourth day before the Kalends of July." S. O. 22 Nov. 1879. For the whole kingdom of Spain it was conceded that "as often as the feast of the Immaculate Conception happens to fall on Friday or Saturday, the fast of that day be transferred to the Thursday immediately preceding." S. O. 9 Nov. 1870. The fast on the vigil of St. John the Baptist, when it falls on the day of the solemnity of Corpus Christi, is to be anticipated on the preceding day, or Wednesday. Urban VIII, Br. Cum evenire, 15 Oct. 1638.

What is one meal? - One meal is the primary condition of fast: for its essence is principally situated in this, and when this is removed no one is ever said to fast, while on the contrary fast without abstinence from flesh and milk foods is conceived. But with one full meal or dinner in the morning, a little supper in the evening is permitted at present to all.

But small eatings which are made besides this will be venial sins taken separately, and when repeated more often on the same day can coalesce into grave matter, as is clear from proposition 29 condemned by Alexander VII. Fast is not broken by a draught of water, wine, and other drinks which of themselves are ordered and commonly employed for quenching thirst, although, according to the first discipline of the Church, Christians abstained entirely from wine and similar liquors. Hence the axiom: Liquid does not break fast. But by liquid is understood only that which, from common use, is taken in the manner of drink, not in the manner of food, as milk, etc. L. 1021, 1022.; St. Thomas, 2. 2, q. 147, a. 6.

Whether wine drunk for calming hunger breaks fast? - Resp. More probably negatively. The reason is that the law of fast commands only abstinence from food, but not from drink; and, according to St. Thomas, 4 dist. 15, q. 3, a. 4, c. 1, "The statute of positive law does not attend to the intention of the one observing, but to the act itself, because the mode of virtue does not fall under precept, but is the end of the precept." L. 1022.; St. Thomas, 2. 2, q. 147, a. 6 ad 2.

Whether the drinking of coffee and tea breaks fast? Resp. More probably negatively, unless too great a quantity of sugar is mixed in; because these do not have the nature of food, but of drink or medicine. St. Liguori 1019 says: "indeed they are permitted altogether at will."

Whether the drinking of water mixed with sugar and juices of oranges or lemons breaks fast? Resp. Negatively, of itself, that is, unless you mix in a great quantity of their substance which is judged to have the nature of food. The reason is that all these from common estimation are held as drinks. Nor does it prevent this if they are served frozen; for freezing does not change the nature. L. 1022.

Resolutions: Therefore it would be otherwise concerning the taking of milk, broth, juice of melons, commonly melloni, and of other fruits, likewise of preserved grapes, or those then pressed by the teeth, although afterward they are spat out. For all these are judged to have the nature of food; and they are referred rather to nutrition than to a vehicle of food. Indeed as regards drinks mixed with milk there is an express prohibition of Clement XIII, Enc. Appetente sacro, 20 Dec. 1759. - Whey properly so called is held as a simple drink, or rather as medicine. Yet as regards tea and coffee to which milk is mixed, Billuart says, tr. de Temper. diss. 2, art. 5, par. V: "Tea and coffee... seem to me to have the nature of drink and not to dissolve the fast, unless perhaps much milk and sugar is mixed in, and they are taken in great quantity." Indeed in milk there is a great part of water, almost 85 parts in one hundred. - L. 1019, 1021, 1022.

Whether a drink of chocolate breaks fast? - Resp. Affirmatively, if it furnishes rich nutrition, as is the custom outside the time of fast. But negatively if a modest quantity of chocolate is taken, and it is done only once in the day, in the morning morsel. The reason is drawn from general custom. L. 1023. What quantity can be taken? The holy Doctor says that not less than an ounce and a half of chocolate is usually put into ordinary cups; for thus it is commonly done from the custom tolerated by the Church and observed by pious faithful. But not a few, with the aforesaid quantity of chocolate diminished, substitute bread pro rata. But truly the total quantity of that food ought not exceed the weight of two ounces, water prescinded. An ounce equals around 30 grams. Cf. 1593. - Benedict XIV, Notif. 15.; E. M.

Whether it is licit on a day of fast to taste some food before drink, lest the latter harm? - This indeed is not licit as often as one likes, as they say; for then the law of fast would be ridiculous. And so it can be permitted only once or again in the day; especially lest strength fail, if dinner, e.g., happens to be delayed much beyond the customary time, as happens to religious serving at table, readers, and servants. Indeed an obligation of taking something will urge, if this is necessary for observing the fast. - L. 1018, 1019.; E. M.

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

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

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

Formerly five were numbered as contained in these little verses:

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

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

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

1. Opyect.—Among the many ecclesiastical precepts contained in the Canon Law a few are preéminently called Commandments of the Church (praecepta seu mandata Ecclesiae) because they bind every Catholic who has attained the age of discretion. These commandments are but corollaries drawn from the precepts of the natural and positive divine law,¹ determining more accurately the manner or time of their observance.²

¹ F. Suarez, De Legibus, l. IV, c. 1, n. 10: “These [precepts] for the universal Church . . . are only certain determinations of divine law morally necessary for men, as is plain concerning the precept of annual confession and Communion, fasts and feast days, and the payment of tithes.” (Opera Omnia, V, 330).

² St. Augustine, Epist., 36 (al. 86), c. 11, n. 25: “Revolving this in my mind in the evangelical and apostolic writings and in the whole instrument which is called the New Testament, I see that fasting has been commanded. But on what days one ought not to fast and on what days one ought to fast, I do not find determined by a precept of the Lord or of the apostles.” (Migne, P. L., XXXIII, 147).—St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 147, art. 3: “Just as it pertains to secular princes to hand down legal precepts determining the natural law concerning those things which pertain to the common advantage in temporal matters, so also it pertains to ecclesiastical prelates to command by statutes those things which pertain to the common advantage of the faithful in spiritual goods. . . . It has been said [art. 1] that fasting is useful for the destruction and restraint of fault and for the elevation of the mind to spiritual things. But everyone is bound by natural reason to employ only so much fasting as is necessary for him for the aforesaid purposes. And therefore fasting in general falls under the precept of the natural law, but the determination of the time and manner of fasting according to the convenience and advantage of the Christian people falls under the precept of positive law instituted by the prelates of the Church; and this is the fast of the Church; the other is the fast of nature.”

As the worship of God by faith, hope, and charity cannot be left to the arbitrary judgment of the individual, the Church has formulated certain precepts for the purpose of inducing her children to obey the will of God and instructing them how to obey it. The character and purpose of these so-called Commandments of the Church is, therefore, essentially moral and ascetic. They refer partly to divine worship, partly to the reception of the Sacraments, and partly are directed against concupiscence and the pursuit of pleasure.

2. History.—The list of Commandments of the Church as it appears in our catechisms, is of comparatively recent origin. The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not even allude to them, though collections of these precepts had been compiled before that time. Three years before the appearance of the Catechismus Romanus, as it is generally called, the French Jesuit Edmund Auger published a Catéchisme et Sommaire de la Réligion Chrestienne, in which it is stated that, besides the Ten Commandments of God, there are five other ancient precepts which every Catholic must observe. These five “Commandments of the Holy Catholic Church” seem to have been transcribed from the Small Catechism of Bl. Peter Canisius, first published in Germany in 1556. The Summa Casuum. Conscientiae of Angelo de Clavasio, which appeared at Venice, in 1486, contains two separate and distinct lists of Church Commandments, which, though differing slightly from each other, are substantially identical with those now in force. Before Angelo de Clavasio these precepts had been catalogued by St. Antoninus, and consequently Villien is probably right when he dates the collection, as we have it, from the second third of the fifteenth century. Successive catechisms did not adhere closely to the earlier list, but since the second half of the seventeenth century catechisms everywhere give in a few precise numbers a summary of the obligations imposed by the Church on every Christian.³

³ A. Villien, A History of the Commandments of the Church, pp. 2 sqq., St. Louis 1915.

3. NUMBER.—Angelo de Clavasio’s Summa contains two lists of Church Commandments.

The first enumerates five precepts, referring to (1) the celebration of feasts; (2) the obligation of hearing Mass; (3) fasting during Lent and on the vigils of holydays; (4) the duty of confession; (5) the reception of the Holy Eucharist; (6) the paying of tithes; and (7) the obligation of avoiding excommunicated persons. This is the longest and most complete of the older lists so far as known. The second is even more detailed. St. Antoninus’s list runs as follows: (1) To observe the feast days; (2) to keep the fast on the days appointed by the Church, as throughout Lent; (3) to abstain from flesh meat every Friday; (4) to hear Mass on Sundays and holydays of obligation; (5) to go to confession at least once a year; (6) to communicate annually on Easter Sunday; (7) to pay the tithes; (8) to abstain from all acts prohibited under pain of excommunication; (9) to avoid excommunicated persons at divine worship and even at other times, in conversation, at table, etc., when association with them might be construed as contempt of the Church; (10) to stay away from Mass and divine office when celebrated by clerics who publicly live in concubinage.⁴

⁴ Villien, op. cit., pp. 9 sqq.

Later the number of these commandments was reduced to five, and this division is maintained up to the present day. These five commandments are enumerated as follows in the Catechism approved by Pope Pius X for the Province of Rome:

(1) To hear Mass on Sundays and all other holydays of obligation; (2) To fast during Lent, on Ember Days, and on the appointed vigils, and not to eat meat on forbidden days; (3) To confess at least once a year and to receive holy Communion at Easter time, each one in his own parish; (4) To pay tithes to the Church according to usage; (5) Not to celebrate weddings in prohibited seasons, that is, from the first Sunday of Advent to the feast of Epiphany, and from the first day of Lent to the octave of Easter. (This law has been modified by the new Code.)

To these general precepts some diocesan, provincial or national catechisms added one or more particular ones, imposed by local bishops or councils. Thus the German-English Catechism of Deharbe, edited for the United States of America, contains under number six the following precepts: Not to contract marriage without the presence of a priest and witnesses; not to solemnize weddings in forbidden times; not to espouse non-Catholics or those related within a prohibited degree, or to contract marriage in any way forbidden by the Church. Father Färber’s Catechism, which is also widely used in this country, gives under number four the prohibition of affiliating with condemned secret societies.

In French Canada the bishops, on whom it everywhere rests to decide what teaching is most necessary for the faithful of their respective dioceses, emphasize the precept of paying tithes. Certain American catechisms have adapted this precept to domestic conditions as follows: “Thou shalt contribute to the support of the Church and of the pastor according to thy means.”⁵

⁵ Villien, op. cit., pp. 20 sqq.

The catechism in common use in the Greek Catholic Church enumerates nine general precepts.

It has been contended that, from the moral point of view, it would be preferable to leave the observance of the precepts embodied in the so-called Commandments of the Church to the free-will of the faithful. This objection carries no weight if we consider the frailty of human nature after the fall. Even if every citizen knew what had to be done to protect the country against its enemies, it would still be necessary to have laws compelling all to do their duty. Human nature is weak and corrupt, and between knowing a thing to be right and doing it, there is a vast gulf, which the law endeavors to bridge by urging and, if necessary, compelling each individual to do what he perceives to be right. Even though every Catholic were firmly convinced that he must receive the Holy Eucharist at least once a year, in order to comply with our Saviour’s wish and the purpose for which He instituted this Sacrament, many would disobey if the Church did not enjoin annual communion as a strict duty. This statement applies with even greater force to practices of mortification. How many Catholics would do penance if the Church did not oblige them to? Thus the Commandments of the Church influence both the intellect and the will by convincing the former and moving the latter to act. In other words, the Church compels us, as it were, to perform our Christian duties.⁶

⁶ Wilmers, Lehrbuch der Religion, 6th ed., by Lehmkuhl, Vol. III, pp. 463 sq.

The Commandments of the Church are, and are intended to be, means of sanctification or instruments of perfection (media sanctificationis sive instrumenta perfectionis).

The Commandments of the Church oblige strictly, i. e., in conscience and under pain of mortal sin, unless the unimportance of the matter involved or inability or inadvertence excuses.⁷ To transgress any one of them, therefore, is a mortal sin, not only when it is done habitually, or in open contempt of ecclesiastical authority, or when accompanied by grave scandal, but as often as it is done without sufficient reason or legitimate excuse in an important matter.

⁷ Matt. XVIII, 17; Luke X, 16. Cfr. Conc. Trid., Sess. VI, can. 20; Sess. VII, De Bapt., can. 7–8.

A sufficient excuse is physical or moral impossibility arising from sickness or from notable danger to one’s health, honor, or temporal possessions.

That the Commandments of the Church entail a strict obligation appears (1) from the importance of their subject matter, (2) from the common teaching of theologians, (3) from the custom of faithful Catholics, and (4) from certain explicit decisions of the Roman authorities.⁸

⁸ Proposition condemned by Alexander VII, n. 23: “One who breaks the fast of the Church to which he is bound does not sin mortally unless he does this from contempt or disobedience, namely, because he does not wish to subject himself to the precept.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1123).—Proposition condemned under Innocent XI, n. 52: “The precept of observing feast days does not bind under mortal sin, scandal set aside, if contempt is absent.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1202).

The question, at what age the Commandments of the Church begin to bind, was long disputed among theologians. The Lateran Council declared that every faithful Catholic must confess and communicate “after he has arrived at the years of discretion.” This law has been adopted into the New Code of Canon Law.⁹ According to the common teaching of theologians the age of discretion is reached when reason is sufficiently developed to distinguish good from evil; which means, on the average, at seven years.¹⁰ The law of abstinence binds all who have completed the seventh year; the law of fasting, all who have completed the twenty-first and not yet entered upon the sixtieth year.¹¹

⁹ Can. 906; 859, § 1.

¹⁰ Villien, A History of the Commandments of the Church, p. 170.

¹¹ Can. 1254.

In the early days of Christianity the faithful began to fast as soon as they were able. Some fasted at the age of fifteen, while others waited until they were twenty-one. Alexander of Hales, for canonical and physiological reasons, fixed the beginning of the obligation at eighteen, which was the age designated by the Church for admission to the religious state. St. Thomas held that the juridical obligation of fasting began at the age of twenty-one, because at this age, which marks the end of the third septenary, bodily growth ceases and there is less need of food, as a rule.¹²

¹² Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 147, art. 4, ad 2; Villien, op. cit., pp. 267 sq.

READINGS.—St. Antoninus, Summa Theol., P. I, tit. xvii, p. 12.—Th. Tamburini, Tractatus Quinque in Quinque Ecclesiae Praecepta, Dillingen 1697.—A. Villien, A History of the Commandments of the Church, St. Louis 1915.—Th. Slater, S.J., A Manual of Moral Theology, Vol. I, pp. 563 sqq.—J. W. Melody in the Cath. Encyclopedia, Vol. IV, pp. 154 sq.—J. B. Ferreres, S.J., Comp. Theol. Mor., Vol. I, pp. 382 sqq.

Division into four Parts

1. In order that, which is our purpose, we may place the present law concerning the prohibition and censorship of books in a clearer view, we divide this our study into four principal Parts.

The first will contain various notions which either, as it were, surround the law, concerning its end, usefulness, and history, or are of more general use and give common aids for its right interpretation.

In the second, we shall illustrate the several articles of the Constitution, in the order in which they are proposed, by brief notes.

In the third, there will be made a brief repetition of the General Decrees, arranged, as they say, in a "logical" order.

The fourth will give certain useful forms and lists.

Finally, at the end of the work, before the Indexes, we shall bring forward the Constitutions of Leo XIII and Benedict XIV, from which the present law concerning the prohibition and censorship of books is composed.

Books prohibited in the first age of the Church

2. 1. Relying on the example of St. Paul himself, under whose eyes at Ephesus books of superstitions were burned by fire,¹ the Holy Fathers strove with every effort to deter the faithful from keeping or reading the writings of heretics. And in the very first ecumenical Council, that of Nicaea, in the year 325, a decree was issued against the book Thalia of Arius, which Constantine the Great completed by severe enforcement. Several later decrees concerning the books of Pelagius, of the Manichaeans, and so forth, imitated that example.

Gelasian decree

Moreover, the first catalogue of prohibited books is found in the decree which, under the name of Gelasius (496), was received into the Gratian collection of law.² It is sometimes celebrated as the first Roman Index.

Besides the works of heretics, the forged Acts of the Martyrs and apocryphal penitential books were then condemned.

¹ Acts of the Apostles, 19:19.

² Canon Sancta Romana, 3, D. 15.

Prohibited books in the Middle Ages

3. 2. In the Middle Ages also severity was used against the works of heretics and treatises on the magical arts.

Precautions concerning the Sacred Bibles, thirteenth century

4. 3. From the end of the thirteenth century (1299), on account of the abuses of heretics, precautions began to be taken lest the Sacred Bibles be read imprudently by the people, especially in the vernacular tongue.¹

¹ Hilgers, Der Index, p. 5.

After the spread of the typographical art

5. In the sixteenth century, after the typographical art had spread, there was need to take sharper measures against evil books. Therefore several particular Indexes of dioceses¹ or kingdoms appeared.

Index of Paul IV

Paul IV first published a Roman Index in the year 1559, to the moderation of which that Holy Pontiff himself already applied his labor.²

Of Pius IV

But in the year 1564 there appeared the Index of Pius IV, called the Tridentine Index, because that sacred synod had committed to the Supreme Pontiff the care of publishing an Index and of arranging that subject. The so-called Tridentine rules, or ten general decrees concerning the proscription of books, are placed before the catalogue itself. The catalogue, however, borrowed from Paul IV the division of books into three classes: 1. of heretical authors; 2. of Catholic works; 3. of anonymous works. Moreover, all the works of authors of the first class were prohibited. This Index, as far as substance is concerned, remained up to Leo XIII.

Of Sixtus V and Clement VIII

Nevertheless, Sixtus V prepared a new edition of the Index, which, with certain books removed, especially the Controversies of Cardinal Bellarmine and the Relectiones of Francis de Vitoria, Clement VIII completed in the year 1596. The first class scarcely appears there to have been increased by any name; but in place of insertion into the first class there succeeded the clause Opera omnia, by which a writer was marked who seemed worthy of universal proscription.

Of Alexander VII

Then, in the edition of Alexander VII (1664), the division into three classes was formally suppressed, since the books were arranged in alphabetical order.

Of Benedict XIV

Benedict XIV deservedly gave an excellent edition (1758), after first prescribing the most wise Constitution Sollicita ac provida, July 9, 1753, concerning the method to be observed in the examination and proscription of books.

Of Leo XIII

And thus one comes to the Index which, under the auspices of Leo XIII, was promulgated to the whole world in the year 1900.

¹ It would be wholly alien from the mind of the Holy See to publish particular Indexes of this kind today. Thus, on August 17 of the year 1892, to the Archbishop of Valladolid, who had asked the Holy See certain things concerning the Spanish Index, the response was: One must stand solely by the Roman Index and its rules, and new editions of the Spanish Index are to be prohibited.

² Cf. Hilgers, Der Index, p. 7.

Origin of the Sacred Congregation of the Index

6. Concerning the Sacred Congregation of the Index itself, it will be useful to recall that it is contained seminally in the Motu Proprio of St. Pius V, November 19, 1570, by which he gave to the Master of the Sacred Palace a most full faculty of correcting books. Then, as the Congregation for Reforming the Index and Correcting Books, it was brought to light in the month of March 1571; which institution the Bull of Gregory XIII, September 13, 1572, solemnly promulgated, so that Sixtus V, by the Constitution Immensa aeterni Patris, January 22, 1588, by which he instituted or confirmed fifteen Congregations, had only to ratify the already existing Congregation.

Censorship from the first centuries of Christ down to the modern age

7. 1. For a long time, before any law concerning previous censorship existed, there were holy and learned men who either handed suspect works over to the Supreme Pontiff to be judged, or sought his judgment and counsels concerning their own writings. Thus in the fifth century a certain Gennadius sent his work On Ecclesiastical Writers to Pope Gelasius, just as in the year 1198 Godfrey of Viterbo offered to Urban III his book whose title is Pantheon, to be approved and corrected.¹

A certain previous censorship was imposed by particular law, for example, by the University of Paris (June 5, 1366), for masters.

After books began to be printed with type, the University of Cologne went before others by example in requiring previous censorship; Sixtus IV praised its zeal and approved its service, March 18, 1479.²

¹ Hilgers, Der Index, p. 403.

² Ibid., p. 407.

In the modern age

8. 2. But the first pontifical Constitution concerning the previous censorship of books has as its author Innocent VIII, November 17, 1487. Although it has universal force, it was sent to the Archbishop of Cologne. Alexander VI, by the Constitution Inter multiplices, June 1, 1501, issued for the four ecclesiastical provinces of Germany a general prohibition that books should not be printed unless the Archbishops or competent Officials had first been consulted.

Then, in the Lateran Council (1515), Leo X, by the Constitution Inter sollicitudines, May 4, 1515, enacted a general law by which, under grave penalties and even excommunication itself, he prohibited anyone from presuming to publish any writing whatever without the previous review of the Bishop, or, in the City, of the Vicar and the Master of the Sacred Palace.

At the present age

That decree was confirmed in the Tridentine Index; afterwards it was increased by the rules of Clement VIII concerning the printing of books, until the rigor of the former law was mitigated by an express law of Pius IX in the year 1848 for the Pontifical State, and elsewhere also by the custom of places. Leo XIII sanctioned and more fully defined that benignity.

Particular laws

Meanwhile, particular provisions were also made concerning liturgical books, and concerning books written on a certain subject matter in places which are governed by the spiritual jurisdiction of the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide. Cf. Collectanea, n. 1866 ff.

Censorships and proscriptions among non-Catholics and political men

9. At the end of this very brief exposition, these things must not be passed over: the pseudo-reformers of the modern age were most severe censors and proscribers of books; and political men, in order to attain their own ends, framed similar laws, which not even today have been entirely suppressed. One must by all means compare the things which are learnedly set forth concerning the censorship and prohibition of books in England, Holland, Scandinavia, Switzerland, Germany, and concerning royal and imperial censorship in France, in the work of Father Hilgers, S.J., Der Index.

The Church's right of making these laws

10. By its sanctions concerning the prohibition and censorship of books, the Church wishes to provide for the spiritual safety of the faithful, while it strives to punish or restrain evils, and indeed to forestall them. No one among Catholics will be able to deny that this is its inviolable right.

The past usefulness of the laws

And formerly indeed, so long as the rulers of the state agreed as one with the sacred power,¹ the usefulness of proscriptions was great: evil books were morally removed from commerce.

So happy a fruit can no longer be hoped for today. On the contrary, it happens that by its very proscription a book acquires a certain reputation and fortune. This may be a reason why the Church prefers that many works perish in silence rather than, by its mark of censure, to procure celebrity for them.

¹ Constitution Officiorum, preface.

And present usefulness:

11. Yet beware lest on that account you hold the general or special decrees of the Index to be useless. And indeed:

For the faithful,

1. They constantly inculcate the salutary principle concerning the danger which exists in the reading of many books. And this not ineffectively.

Even now there are not lacking, especially among Catholic young people, those whom the prohibition of the Church restrains from reading evil writings, so that by the benefit of laws of this kind they preserve purity and virtue unharmed.

For writers,

2. Next, for many writers these laws are a bridle by which they are kept back from not a few excesses. For most Catholics dread the reprobation of the Index; therefore, lest they be affected by that mark, they write much more cautiously and temperately than they would if they were permitted to set forth all things with impunity.

Indeed, since because of a mark of this kind profits are often made smaller, or positive losses of fortune are sustained, it happens that even those who are little inclined toward the Church do not dare to offend faith or morals, and publish books that are more corrected. It is enough to recall in mind how a more chastened edition of several dictionaries appeared, such as those which borrow their name from Littré or from Larousse.

For the Church

3. By disapproving books, the Church not rarely manifests its mind concerning various doctrines and directs the good along the right way, even before solemn judgments concerning doctrine can prudently be made. This is especially profitable to the Christian commonwealth.

4. Moreover, by previous censorship, which is imposed on certain kinds of books, the faithful are rescued from many dangers of deception. The Church also has a means of providing for its own name, which, from ill-timed or ridiculous writings, can be exposed not only to the hatred but also to the mockery of enemies.

The true reason why these laws are often less pleasing

12. Observe, moreover, with how great a force of words, in our Parliaments, men inveigh against certain books which defend principles contrary to modern principles, as they say. Nor would they allow such things to be read aloud in public schools. Therefore let them not wonder that the Church pursues the documents of revealed faith with a similar love and zeal to that by which they wish to honor "revolutionary" principles. That affected tolerance of many, by which they claim liberty for dogmatic error and moral evil, seems, when all is finally said, to be drawn rather from a certain doubting and skepticism than from a benign moderation of mind.

The laws in force are enumerated

13. I. Today we are governed solely by:

1. The Constitution Officiorum, issued by Leo XIII, January 25, 1897.¹

2. The Constitution Sollicita ac provida of Benedict XIV, July 9, 1753, which Leo XIII wished to remain wholly in force, as he openly declares in the beginning of his own Constitution.

3. The new Index which Leo XIII, by the same Constitution Officiorum, ordered to be made and promulgated by the appended Brief Romani Pontifices, September 27, 1900.

Moreover, the Index itself, or catalogue strictly so called, has its own Preface, written by the Very Reverend Father Thomas Esser, O.P., which supplies no slight aids to the interpreter.

On the volume of the Index

The monuments thus far recounted are contained in that handsome volume which, in the year 1900, first appeared under the title Index librorum prohibitorum.² In this order:

The Brief of Leo XIII, Romani Pontifices, dated September 27, 1900;

The Preface written in the name of the Sacred Congregation of the Index by its secretary;

First Part. Apostolic Constitutions on the Examination and Prohibition of Books:

The Constitution Officiorum ac Munerum of Leo XIII;

The Constitution Sollicita ac provida of Benedict XIV;

Second Part. Index of Prohibited Books.

4. A few decrees which have interpreted the Constitution of Leo XIII, or have governed a new subject, such as the sanctions concerning sacred music of Our Most Holy Lord Pius X.

Concerning the first three sources of law, these few things must be handed down.

¹ In Bulls, the year is taken from the Incarnation of the Lord, whose beginning is March 25. Therefore, since this Bull appeared in the month of January, the year indicated was 1896, which by civil reckoning was already to be called 1897.

² One large octavo volume, XXIII-317 pp. The title reads thus: Index librorum prohibitorum, Ssmi D. N. Leonis XIII iussu et auctoritate recognitus et editus. Praemittuntur Constitutiones Apostolicae de examine et prohibitione librorum. Romae, Typis Vaticanis, MCM. Afterwards a second edition appeared, MCMI; the most recent, however, in the year MCMIV.

Of the Constitution Officiorum

14. II. The Constitution Officiorum consists of the Preamble, the General Decrees, and the clauses by which pontifical acts are customarily concluded.

Preamble

1. In the Preamble, the reason for the laws concerning harmful books is defended, the history is sketched, the necessary mitigation is demonstrated, the intention of the Pontiff is set forth, and the former law is abrogated.

General Decrees

2. The General Decrees are the chief part and systematic ordering of ecclesiastical law concerning books, on which, as on their foundation, special decrees rest.

Moreover, they are divided into two titles: the first is on the prohibition of books; the other on their censorship.

In the first title are contained general proscriptions by which, even if no special sentence comes forth, various classes of books are reproved under a general note; these Father Hilgers elegantly reduces to three kinds of works:¹ irreligious, heretical, superstitious, and immoral works; works injurious to God and the Church; and works which, without the approval of competent authority, handle delicate subjects of Christian doctrine and instruction.

This title therefore brings this advantage: the Church need not proscribe all books by a special prohibition, and can especially pass over those on which a general proscription has clearly fallen.

The other title treats with sufficient distinctness of the Prelates who are placed over the censorship of books, of the mode in which the previous examination is to be carried out, and of the books which are subject to this examination. Then it gives related admonitions for printers and publishers of books.

Nevertheless, the last chapter of this title in reality pertains to all the laws concerning books, so that it may furnish them with a suitable sanction.

Clauses

3. By the customary clauses of Bulls, these laws are intimated, it is decreed to what copies faith is to be given, and, after the ordinary threats, there is appended the day, month, and year of the Incarnation.

¹ Der Index, pp. 38, 39.

Brief summary of the Constitution Sollicita

15. III. The Constitution Sollicita ac provida chiefly treats and sets forth three things in order, by which:

1. First, there is described and confirmed the form of action by which either the supreme Congregation of the Holy Office or the Sacred Congregation of the Index examines books and reproves those which seem to be worthy of condemnation.

2. Precautions are recalled and recommended by which, as far as possible, Catholic writers are spared, especially those who have acquired a certain name for themselves, and a fitting place is prepared for their defense.

3. Consultors and relators are instructed by wise admonitions and counsels.

Those letters of Benedict XIV are worthy of every consideration; they exhibit the true mind of the Church in prohibiting books, and they contain those things which vindicate the same Church as free from many accusations.

The end intended in the Brief of Leo XIII

1. The proper intention of these letters is the promulgation of the Index itself: apostolic approval, I say, and confirmation. "This general Index of this kind," the Pontiff says, "which we wish to be held as inserted expressly in these letters, by Apostolic authority, by the tenor of the present letters, we approve and confirm, and we command it to be observed by all, everywhere, wholly and inviolably, under the penalties sanctioned in our Constitution Officiorum ac Munerum."

The Index therefore obtains the force of a universal law, which is commended to the local Ordinaries and to the Superiors of all Regulars, that they "take care, according to their powers, that it be published and observed."

Matters contained

2. Matters contained. a) After a brief survey has first been set forth of the historical progress of the laws by which the Church has taken action against evil writings, and after the additions have been related by which, at the command of various Pontiffs, the Tridentine Index was supplemented, the Supreme Pontiff declares the task entrusted by him to the Eminent Fathers of the Congregation of the Index; and this task looked to this end, that, after a most diligent review of the former Index, a new Index might be prepared, purged of errors, of more expedient use, and at the same time adapted to more benign laws. b) Therefore, as the Holy Father recalls, it was necessary to relieve the new catalogue "of not a few books, whose proscription, once necessary or opportune, has today become almost useless." c) The Supreme Pontiff congratulates both the Eminent Cardinals and the learned men whom they had called in as an aid to their work on the task happily completed.

Importance of the Preface

That Preface not merely explains in what manner the Index was composed, but hands down several things from which we shall draw no small light for rightly understanding the laws of the Index. Concerning each subject separately:

Various notions

Certain errors are corrected

1. Various notions concerning the Index. a) After the proper nature of the Index has been explained, the Preface compares that special catalogue with the General Decrees: in what respects they agree, and what difference there is between the two. It warns that those who think they can know from the Index alone the books of disapproved reading are gravely mistaken, since it contains only the smallest part of them; and it declares that those do not think truly who suppose that certainly those books can be sought there which in any discipline are, as it were, outstanding in wickedness: for a special reason, generally denunciation, must be added for a book to be proscribed by a particular decree.

Which books have been removed from the Index

b) It goes through various kinds of books which have now been struck from the Index. They are chiefly: books whose defects were compensated by no mediocre usefulness; books which were noted less on account of an intrinsic reason than on account of the manner of treating the matter, or because of the necessity of protecting charity, after passions and excessive contests had been suppressed in disputing about subjects which today can now be treated with an even mind; or also on account of inserted little offices or litanies which today can be published for private use by the authority of Ordinaries; books which today, either because of the folly of the subject, are rather to be despised than reproved, or which, by their small bulk, have been, as it were, carried off by the wind; all works which, in the early seventeenth century, were struck solely by edicts of the Master of the Sacred Palace; books concerning which the Sacred Congregation of the Index itself sometimes decreed that they could or should be omitted in the next decree; and old collections of decrees of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, proscribed by the decree of April 20, 1621.

Statistical indications

Moreover, from the work of Father Hilgers¹ we borrow these numerical indications. Almost 800 works have been struck from the earlier Index. But 4000 decrees are preserved, by which either works or writers are condemned by name. Moreover, the writers whose works are collectively reproved are numbered as 108.² Of the 4000 proscribed books, 1500 are assigned to the seventeenth century, 1200 to the eighteenth century, and 1300 to the nineteenth century. For works condemned before the year 1600 are not distinctly recounted.

As regards the kinds of reproved writers, in the sixteenth century and at the beginning of the seventeenth century Protestant heretics are chiefly noted, besides impious or base writers of the age which is called that of revived letters. From about the year 1649 there follow Jansenists, Gallicans, several moralists sinning by excessive benignity, defenders of the Chinese and Malabar rites, and Quietists. From the middle of the eighteenth century, the reproved works cannot be forced into a few kinds.

Of the 1330 works condemned in the nineteenth century, 500 are Italian in origin, 480 from France (together with Belgium and Holland),³ 180 from Germany, about 120 from Spain and Portugal, and 40 from England. The very few which remain are to be assigned to Poland, Greece, Denmark, and so forth.

External figure of the Index

c) The praised Preface delineates, as it were, the external figure of the Index by handing down the method observed in composing the Index and in describing books.

Aids for the interpreter

Benign mind of the Pontiff

2. Aids of interpretation. a) The Preface again emphasizes this plan of the Supreme Pontiff, by which, tempering the former severity, he wished "to accommodate the whole system of the Index to the time, according to the maternal benignity of the Church."

Exclusive force of these laws

b) While the Constitutions of Leo XIII and Benedict XIV are placed before the Index (the latter of which, it says, pertains to the censors of books rather than to the universality of the faithful), the Apostolic Constitutions are proclaimed to be published "by which the examination and proscription of evil books is governed at present." Therefore, that book is declared to be of safe reading which is reproved neither by the Index nor by these General Decrees.

We wish this to be observed by those who seem to labor so that from the ancient laws they may seek obligations and bonds by which the benefit of Leo XIII is almost raised away; for he determined that precepts in this matter should be made easier both to know and to observe.

Clause Opera omnia

c) The force of the clause marking the Opera omnia of some writer is accurately explained.

All editions and versions are prohibited of themselves

d) The author of the Preface confirms that which has already been received: when some book has been prohibited, all its editions and translations are prohibited, unless by express words the proscription is confined within narrower limits.

Volumes or fascicles later than the decree are of themselves only suspect

e) Explaining the force of a decree by which some volume of a work is condemned, when that work has afterwards had another volume, or by which a periodical booklet, afterwards continued, is condemned, he teaches us that those later volumes or fascicles are not indeed affected by a special decree, but are to be held as suspect unless the repentance of the author is established.

When mention is made of a version

f) He warns that in the new Index the version of a work is no longer indicated unless it is established that only the version is prohibited. But each book is indicated in its own language, such as it was when published. And, moreover, translations have then only been listed when, besides the work itself, the Sacred Congregation also wished to mark some translation of it by a special decree.

To what date decrees are referred

g) He adds that, in the new Index, as far as possible, the day and year on which the decrees were issued have now been placed, not, as used formerly to be done, the day and year on which they were printed and published. Hence, for example, the Catechismus spiritualis of Father Surin was formerly noted in Italian as proscribed by decree of the Holy Office of September 7, 1695; now it is noted in French as proscribed on July 20, 1695.

Clause Donec corrigatur

h) The clause Donec corrigatur is said to affect the manner of the prohibition, but not its effects.

¹ Pp. 93 and 113.

² Their works taken together seem to be near the number of a thousand.

³ Why Italian and French works stand out so much in number, there are several causes: the Catholic religion of the writers, which demands greater vigilance; more frequent use of denunciation; the intensity of intellectual life in these regions during the nineteenth century; proximity and greater knowledge of the language.

Words of the Constitution

18. I. At the end of the Preamble itself, the Supreme Pontiff sets down a most ample abrogation of the earlier law when he says: "We will that these alone have the force of law, the Rules published by order of the Holy Synod of Trent, the Observations, the Instruction, the Decrees, the Admonitions, and every other statute and command of Our predecessors concerning this matter being abrogated, with the sole exception of the Constitution Sollicita ac provida of Benedict XIV, which, just as it has been in force up to now, so we will to remain wholly in force for the future."

II. Therefore:

The statutes which were prefixed to the Index are abrogated

19. 1. By the first enumeration there are suppressed, under their proper indicated title, most of the general statutes which, in editions of the Index, were prefixed to the catalogue itself. They are, namely: the Rules of the Index, promulgated by order of the Sacred Tridentine Council; the Observations of Clement VIII on Rules IV and IX, and of Alexander VII on Rule X; the Instruction of Clement VIII for those who are to devote labor to books, both to be prohibited and to be expurgated, and also to be printed; the Decrees of Benedict XIV concerning prohibited books not expressly named in the Index; the Admonitions of the Sacred Congregation of the Index, March 4, 1878, January 7, 1836. The Constitution Sollicita ac provida of Benedict XIV is omitted, since it still remains in force; also the Mandate of Leo XII and the Most Recent Addition (concerning censures), which have material confirmation in the new Constitution.

And any other dispositions concerning this matter

Extent of this abrogation

As to extension

2. By the universal words which follow the enumeration, this abrogation is made most ample. But we declare its extensive amplitude thus: Excepting the Constitution Sollicita, which is expressly confirmed, and saving perhaps a future exception to be introduced by Decrees or Responses of the Congregations, every sanction of the superior pontifical law concerning the censorship or prohibition of books is suppressed. Nor does it matter whether it is a general or special law distinctively concerning this subject, or whether the disposition concerning censorship or prohibition is part of another law which principally treats another matter.

I say, saving perhaps a future exception. For it happens that the breadth of dispositions of this kind is afterwards sometimes opportunely tempered by "restrictive" Declarations of the Holy See. Thus, after the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis had been promulgated, which suppressed all censures latae sententiae of the superior law, it nevertheless wished the Declaration of Pius IX to remain in force, namely the excommunication laid down against missionaries who trade.¹

Concerning the censorship or prohibition of books. For the Supreme Pontiff says: concerning this matter. Therefore it is not of itself repugnant that a special law be preserved which indeed does not prohibit a book, but subjects a certain use of it to a special solemnity. Cf. the things which we shall discuss concerning liturgical books.

Moreover, we prove our conclusion:

a) From the words by which, at the end of the Preface, the Supreme Pontiff both negatively abrogates every other statute and command concerning this matter, and positively designates his present Decrees as the single source of law in this matter; he wills that they alone have the force of law, and that the sacred Council for marking books use them alone.

b) From the end. The Holy Father wishes to effect this, that "a certain and clear norm of acting in this kind be available to all." Nothing contributes more to this end than to have, collected in a single Constitution, as in a certain Code, all the laws concerning the same matter. On the contrary, if particular dispositions which wander through various Constitutions and were already partly obsolete still had to be approached,² who would not see with how many doubts and questions that effect would be impeded?

c) From the examples given in the Constitution itself. If he had wished a less ample abrogation, why in articles 47 and 48 would the Supreme Pontiff have judged that the excommunications latae sententiae promulgated by Pius IX in the recent Constitution Apostolicae Sedis had to be expressly confirmed? For those excommunications do not so much prohibit something in our matter as they are penal sanctions of an existing prohibition. Why, in articles 31, 32, and 34, did he have to recall special dispositions concerning documents pertaining to causes of beatification,³ and Decrees issued by the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide for Missionaries?

d) From the fact that, if you circumscribe the abrogation to those statutes which were prefixed to the Index,⁴ or even to others which are general by their object, the clause "every other statute and command concerning this matter" accomplishes scarcely anything. For by express words those things are suppressed which were contained in the volume of the Index. But what other general statutes in force can be designated?

e) From authority. Dilgskron,⁵ Cardinal Gennari,⁶ Hollweck,⁷ Planchard,⁸ and Wernz⁹ seem to think with us; hence, for example, Gennari and Hollweck compare the effect of our Constitution with the similar effect which the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis had for censures latae sententiae.

That correction of law is odious, as J. V.¹⁰ objects, what obstacle does that present? Are we thereby forbidden to understand words according to their proper sense, and as the end of the law demands?

¹ Promulgated by the encyclical letter of Propaganda Fide, March 29, 1873 (Collectanea P. F., nn. 351, 352).

² Thus, those who hold that the sanctions of Urban VIII concerning the narration of miracles still remain in force must send the reader back to the works of Benedict XIV, so that he may fish out from them the texts of the two protestations which we have seen inserted in no book!

³ Sacred Congregation of Rites, July 23, 1661.

⁴ The distinguished Pennacchi, n. 34, seems to do this.

⁵ Analecta Ecclesiastica, 1897, pp. 129, 130, 226.

⁶ Monitor Ecclesiasticus, loc. cit., pp. 13, 14.

⁷ Op. cit., p. 16.

⁸ Revue Theologique Francaise, loc. cit., nn. 4-7.

⁹ N. 110, note 45.

¹⁰ Nouvelle Revue Theologique, vol. 30, p. 109.

Intrinsic force of the abrogation

20. III. Moreover, this abrogation has a most full efficacy, or in its intensity is very strong. The Supreme Pontiff wills that, from this promulgation of his, even those dispositions which materially sound like the ancient ones draw their force solely from it. Pius IX did not do thus in the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, but confirmed the ancient law in the parts which agreed with his Constitution, so that they received their force also from the authority of the old canons. Therefore, while in declaring the Constitution of Pius IX one immediately had to look back to the earlier jurisprudence, here, on the contrary, above all from our Constitution itself, as Pennacchi says,¹ that is, from the connected discourse, from the end of softening the law which the Legislator professes, questions are to be solved and the sense is to be determined.

Whether the suppressed Decrees are plainly useless

Only when this criterion is lacking, or remotely and secondarily, is appeal most usefully made to the understanding of the earlier age. For in this case the mind of the Supreme Pontiff becomes doubtful, and there is place for the principle of harmonizing the new law with the old. Cf. concerning these principles the letter Redditae Nobis, sections 9-13, which Benedict XIV, as a private Doctor, wrote on December 5, 1744.

¹ Op. cit., n. 34. Cardinal Gennari is somewhat otherwise in Monitor Ecclesiasticus, loc. cit., p. 14. Cf. also Wernz, n. 110, note 45.

Whether customs have been suppressed

21. IV. What of custom, I mean of a particular custom of places which has been contrary to this law?

1. No clause of the law abrogates particular customs of places, if they have been legitimate. For they are not taken away by a general law, "unless it is expressly provided in the law itself."¹ But in our Constitution no clause, not even generically, commemorates them, whereas the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis contains the most ample revocations of them. Nor does the end of our law demand this severity, so long as the matter concerns certain secondary mitigations which had prevailed even in those places where the laws of the Index undoubtedly were in force, and which can be composed with general obedience to our Constitution. We judge that these, if they have been legitimately prescribed, can still be retained. In explaining articles 7 and 41, examples of mitigations of this kind will occur. Genicot,² the Archiv fur katholisches Kirchenrecht,³ and several others are with us; nevertheless Wernz is against us,⁴ since he considers only our written Constitution.

What custom can be legitimate

But the custom of plainly setting aside those prohibitions which contribute so greatly to protecting faith and morals seems to many not to be capable of being reasonable. So Fessler.⁵ Gopfert denies that this reason is effective,⁶ since this custom tended only to this: that those who would read reprehensible writings without detriment would not commit a sin against ecclesiastical laws, a case which otherwise would be very frequent. And in truth, can the faithful not, by the counsels of a prudent confessor, avoid the excessive danger of delusion, on account of which that custom would seem unreasonable?

Nevertheless, a general exemption from the laws of the Index, even one resting on custom, cannot stand with the manifest intention of the Legislator, by which he commands that "Catholic men throughout the whole world obey these decrees religiously." Yet he prudently knows how to urge the force of his law. Cf. below concerning England.

¹ C. Licet 1, De Constitutionibus, in Sexto. Cf. Reiffenstuel, I, 4; or I, 2, nn. 498, 499; Laymann, Ius canonicum, in book 1, title 2, chapter 1 in Sexto, n. 12.

² Loc. cit., I, n. 455.

³ Vol. 78, p. 187.

⁴ N. 110, note 46.

⁵ Cited by Arndt, op. cit., n. 90, p. 104.

⁶ Op. cit., p. 322.

What value the reformed catalogue of the Index preserves

22. V. Once the new Index has been promulgated, the former one is abrogated. Yet it preserves usefulness for declaring doubtful points, if perhaps any things occur in the new Index that are obscurely stated, or even for correcting material errors if any have slipped in when ancient Decrees are being referred to. For the Legislator certainly does not wish to change the Decrees to which he refers his subjects.

Twofold aspect of the question

23. The question concerning the universal force of these laws has a twofold aspect:

Do these laws bind all persons, or are there some who, for example, on account of their dignity or knowledge, are exempt from them?

Do these laws bind in every place?

Reserving the first aspect for the commentaries on the articles (cf. art. 23), here we deal only with the second.

Of themselves they bind everywhere among nations

Proceed then: understood in this way, the universal force of these sanctions (apart perhaps from certain mitigations introduced by a particular and reasonable custom)¹ can no longer be doubted; and the controversy, if any remained, has been completely removed by this Constitution. For thus it states in the preface: "and let Catholic men throughout the whole world obey these [General Decrees] religiously"; and article 45: "Books condemned by the Apostolic See are to be held prohibited everywhere among nations." Thus the common opinion now holds, and it was confirmed by the Sacred Congregation of the Index when, on May 19-23, 1898, it responded affirmatively to the question "whether the said Constitution has obligatory force even for regions of the British language, which some think enjoy a tacit dispensation."

Nevertheless, Pennacchi writes² "that men of those nations are not to be disturbed who still wish to defend a custom introduced among themselves concerning exemption from the laws of the Index." A subjective excuse of good faith can indeed found a prudent dissimulation;³ yet this does not take away the actual efficacy of binding all, which the present law possesses of itself. Therefore, in order that very many may be freed from necessary solicitude, and the Bishops themselves may be immune from the obligation by which they are bound to promulgate new pontifical laws throughout their dioceses and bring them into use, we do not see another safe way available, except that which the distinguished Pennacchi² calls most advisable: namely, recourse to the Holy See.

¹ Cf. Aichner, ed. 1890, p. 146.

² Op. cit., n. 33.

³ Compare the Instruction of the Holy Office of February 1, 1871, concerning the admonition to be given to those who had incurred the censures of the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis. It is in the Collectanea Prop. Fidei, n. 1003, and is recited by Planchard, loc. cit., n. 10.

What now in England

24. The Bishops of England entered upon this way, and obtained ample faculties from the Holy See. Relying on these, His Eminence Archbishop Vaughan, in the 36th Synod of Westminster (1897), declared that each priest had the power prudently to permit the reading of prohibited books, saving, as is clear, the natural law.¹

At the same time, however, in order that they might act more gently and prudently, in the periodical The Tablet, December 18, 1897, they took care that by an article which bore the character of a communication not merely private but "official," the faithful should be admonished that nothing had been substantially changed in the discipline of England.² Then, by other encyclical letters, December 29, 1900, they commend the ecclesiastical laws concerning books and exhort the faithful to their diligent observance.³

**Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide**

Rome, May 31, 1897.

Most Eminent and Most Reverend, my most honored Lord,

Since the Apostolic Letters issued by the Supreme Pontiff **Leo XIII** on January 25 of the preceding month concerning the prohibition of evil books have given certain Prelates in England occasion to set forth grave difficulties which, on account of the peculiar circumstances of that region, stand in the way of Catholic men there being kept away from reading books of heretics; hence it has seemed opportune to this Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide to equip the sacred Prelates in England with due faculties, so that the rigor of the law may be tempered, according to the opportunity of the matter, by prudent counsel.

Therefore by the present letters, by the authority of the Apostolic See, a faculty is granted to Your Eminence, for as long as your episcopal office endures, of granting to the faithful of Christ of your Diocese who request it permission to read and retain, though under custody, prohibited books, even those treating against religion, except those which expressly deal with obscene matters. Your Eminence is to use this most ample faculty according to your prudence, when you shall judge it expedient in the Lord.

Meanwhile I most humbly kiss your hands.

Of Your Eminence,

the most humble and devoted servant,

**M. Cardinal Ledochowski**, Prefect.

**A.**, Archbishop of Larissa, Secretary.

To Lord Cardinal **Herbert Vaughan**, Archbishop of Westminster.

Then, by rescript of June 7, 1897, the clause "though under custody," which, as the Bishops thought, could create difficulties, was suppressed; that is, its use was committed to the prudent judgment of the Bishops.

He used these words: "Respecting the Apostolic Constitution on the Prohibition and Censorship of Books, by virtue of faculties granted by the Holy See, the Clergy are hereby allowed to give permission to all who apply to them to use their discretion as to the books they may read and retain; the natural law of course remaining in full force, which forbids people to expose themselves to suffer in their faith or morals by reading works that are likely to injure them in this way."

¹ The indult is of this kind:

² "In January last, the Holy See published a Constitution which in a considerable measure modified and simplified the provisions of the Index. Such a Constitution was naturally issued to the Church at large, and when it appeared in the Catholic press of this country, it necessarily, as we might expect, elicited from both clergy and laity the question whether this new constitution was or was not intended to supplant the status quo which had hitherto existed amongst us. The Cardinal Archbishop and Bishops of England addressed an inquiry to Rome upon the subject, and at once received from the Propaganda the 'most ample' faculties for dispensation, so that owing to 'the special circumstances of the country,' they should be fully empowered 'to modify the rigour of the law by their prudence and counsel according as the case might demand.' Rome's reply was thus as ready and as liberal as we could well desire. It contained an official recognition of our special circumstances to which we have referred, and it responded to it by investing the local ecclesiastical authorities with the fullest faculties to meet every need of our position. The possession of such faculties practically leaves the status quo substantially untouched, while the Constitution itself has the additional benefit of modifying the law for the universal Church."

³ A joint pastoral letter on the Church and liberal Catholicism by the Cardinal Archbishop and the Bishops of the Province of Westminster (December 29, 1900). The summary of that letter is in Civiltà Cattolica, series XVIII, vol. I, 1901, p. 156, the place which interests us.

25. The laws of the Index contain a few censures latae sententiae; they strictly command or forbid many things, with arbitrary penalties being threatened; they commend or advise some things; finally, they grant certain faculties.

General rule

On censures

1. That these censures latae sententiae are to be interpreted strictly, no one today doubts; formerly it was denied by Suarez.¹

¹ De Fide, disp. 20, sect. 2, n. 10. Cf. the responses of Schmalzgrueber, in book 5, title 7, n. 55; and Castropalao, treatise 4, disp. 20, point 10, section 1, n. 3.

On precepts and prohibitions

26. 2. That rigorous precepts and prohibitions are to be interpreted strictly is held by the common opinion,¹ against very few.²

Concerning the more benign opinion, which is ours, these three things must first be observed, lest it be understood wrongly.

The more benign opinion is safeguarded

a) We are dealing only with positive prohibition; when this has been removed, the obligations of natural prudence remain. By these we are forbidden to expose our faith or our morals to proximate danger, and to be a scandal to others. Moreover, if it is neither lawful nor expedient to increase the force of obligations beyond what is just, nevertheless our counsels ought to strive for this: that, as far as possible, they remove dangers of spiritual ruin. Therefore, when there is question of counsels to be given, we plainly agree with St. Alphonsus writing: "In this matter it is ordinarily expedient to follow the more rigid opinions."³

b) We consider and interpret the Constitution as it was enacted, that is, in relation to the universal Church. But if the very good circumstances of some diocese can bear and seem to demand more severe sanctions, the remedy is ready at hand, and its use has more than once been commended by the Holy See: namely, the faculty granted to the Bishop of supplying, by particular laws, that which is wanting in the general Law for his diocese. But private persons are not thereby permitted to have recourse to an arbitrary interpretation of the common law.

c) The canon concerning the restriction of an odious law does not give the supreme rule of interpretation. Therefore it can happen that, in appearance, it must be derogated from, in order to observe higher canons, which command us, for example, to adapt an explanation to the clear mind of the Legislator,⁴ or to interpret words in such a way that they have some effect.

And it is proved

These things having been laid down, our solution rests especially on the circumstances in which this Constitution was enacted. Their sum is this: the desire of reading everything has increased immensely; regard for authority and docility of minds have greatly diminished; the Church has been deprived of every support of secular power;⁵ in our mixed societies there is daily commerce with men of every opinion and religion; there is a daily publication of books and writings which of themselves would be worthy of a censorial mark, and yet, at the same time, on account of other merits, furnish to many a useful, not to say necessary, reading; hence there are innumerable reasons, both pretended and true, for keeping and reading writings of this kind; and the necessity of a more benign law has been declared more than once. In his preface, Leo XIII, according to his prudence, acknowledges that the Bishops both of France and of Germany, who insisted in this sense with weighty words, had asked what was equitable, by denouncing the scruples, anxieties, and most grave temptations of violating the law by which the consciences of Catholics were burdened more than was fair.⁶ Add finally that not one region professed itself immune from the rules of the Index, and that it was among the wishes of the Supreme Pontiff that universal observance of these sanctions be restored. To one weighing these things, unless we are mistaken, the following will easily be clear:

a) The common good demands a strict interpretation of the prohibitions, lest, from the inclination of minds to cast off a yoke of this kind, there would be too great a temptation to violate the law, and thus for too many there would be an occasion of sinning; lest "imperfect persons, unable to bear precepts of this kind, break forth into worse evils."⁷ But the common good, just as it is the supreme norm of making law, so also is it the supreme norm of interpreting law.

b) The wish and command of the Supreme Pontiff, who desires that "Catholic men throughout the whole world obey these sanctions religiously," demands a strict interpretation. Rigid explanations of this law will not greatly profit this end.

c) If we wish to take refuge in axioms: "Every odious law is to be interpreted strictly."⁸ But that law is understood as odious which imposes a burden, an encumbrance.⁹ Who can doubt that the present law is of this kind, since it prohibits and indeed under a grave penalty,¹⁰ especially if you look to the circumstances? And it is already enough that, since the prohibitions run far beyond the limits of natural prohibition, it directly restricts natural liberty.¹¹

d) The character of the present Constitution demands a strict interpretation of the prohibitions. By this law of his the Supreme Pontiff imitates "the maternal zeal of the Church: which indeed desires nothing so much as to impart herself benignly, and has always taken care, and takes care, to heal those born of her in such a way that she lovingly and zealously spares their infirmity." He acknowledged and professed the necessity of softening the laws of the Index. He wills that "to obey" these laws, "provided one is not of evil disposition, cannot be grave and arduous." Yet, being well aware of the difficult circumstances, when the Bishops of England requested it, he immediately granted the very great power of which we spoke in n. 24. A broad acceptance of the prohibitions corresponds little with these things. Apply, for example, this method in explaining article 11.¹² Will you not immediately seem to yourself to be carried away by excessive rigor?

e) Together with the prohibitions, this Constitution contains penalties; indeed, all the precepts are sanctioned by arbitrary penalties. All acknowledge that these are of strict interpretation.¹³

But if you understand the prohibitions broadly, it will happen that you take the same words in a different sense in the offense than in its sanction! Moreover, if, on account of the favor of faith, we must interpret the prohibitions broadly, shall we not be compelled from the same cause to take strictly the licenses or faculties of reading, and the articles which hold certain books as not prohibited?¹⁴ No one will fail to see how strange these things are, and how much they are opposed to received practice.

¹ Genicot, I, 451; Hollweck, Das kirchliche Bücherverbot, p. 20, V; Péries, op. cit., p. 55; Pennacchi, op. cit., nn. 34, 38, 49 and passim; Palmieri, op. cit., n. 794; the writer of Archiv, vol. 78, p. 187; Piat, Nouvelle Revue Théologique, vol. 32 (1900), p. 479; Wernz, op. cit., n. 110, IV; Ciolli, op. cit., n. 4, etc.

² Planchard, Revue Théologique Française, vol. 2, p. 159; Van Coillie, op. cit., nn. 9, 10; L. Van Ruymbeke (somewhat more temperately), in Nouvelle Revue Théologique, vol. 36 (1904), p. 98.

³ Appendix, chapter 5, n. 8.

⁴ We understand that mind which can be demonstrated from reason, the connected discourse, or the circumstances, so that it has been promulgated with the law. For a private declaration of the Legislator can no more be efficacious than a private will. Very well Wernz, I, n. 131, II, where the words are doubtful, says: "From the disposition of the law one must have recourse to the mind of the Legislator truly manifested in some other way."

⁵ If, as formerly, the matter concerned preventing the introduction of dangerous books into some region, the common utility of warding off common harms could easily demand that the commands given, especially those which are given to public powers, be accepted broadly; but prohibitions which affect individuals in particular are to be accepted otherwise. Just as you will understand more broadly a general prohibition by which men infected with plague are kept away, and a particular prohibition lest you approach a man suffering from plague.

⁶ Cf. the words in the Collectio Lacensis, vol. 7, p. 843; or in Péries, pp. 46, 47; or Pennacchi, op. cit., nn. 29, 30.

⁷ St. Thomas, Summa Theologiae, I-II, q. 96, art. 2, ad 2. Cf. also the body of the article.

⁸ Reiffenstuel, I, 2, 427; and cf. Rule 15 of Law in Sexto.

⁹ B. P., tract. 3, n. 381.

¹⁰ Cf. already Albitius, De inconstantia in fide, chapter 30, n. 224 ff.

¹¹ In this matter Reverend Father Van Ruymbeke seems to err in an otherwise learned dissertation, when he describes the laws of the Index as gentle and easy to observe of themselves. It is enough even briefly to question, I do not say impious men and haters of the Church, but Catholics and priests (provided they devote themselves to studies, for what does it matter with respect to others?), so that you may become more certain that those laws, both concerning prohibition and concerning previous censorship, are today held as most troublesome, and are far from being marked by that note which Suarez himself requires in order to indicate that prohibitions are favorable, that is: that they command something "moderate, and agreeable to the common manner of living of men" (De Legibus, book 5, chapter 2, n. 6).

¹² Cf. below, in the commentaries.

¹³ Lehmkuhl, I, 1073, 4; Van Gestel, De Iustitia in Lege civili, p. 185.

¹⁴ For example, article 4.

General rule concerning faculties

27. 3. But faculties either of reading and retaining prohibited books, or of granting this permission, seem to us to have, of themselves, an ample interpretation.

We say this of indults for granting faculties, such as Bishops obtain, because faculties of this kind are referred to privileges which are outside the law and not against the law.

We hold the same concerning indults for reading books, because they have the character of a faculty, not of a dispensation. For the law does not simply forbid reading, but forbids you to read without license. By reading with license, you observe the law, far from being dispensed from it.

But since a general faculty concerning the reading of books expressly obscene is never granted, the necessity on account of which you think yourself exempt from that prohibition seems to be to be taken strictly - I do not say scrupulously.

Which books prior to the Constitution are proscribed by the General Decrees

28. 1. On books published before the present law. The matter of a law of itself is not a past act.¹ Therefore sanctions which prohibit books of a certain kind because some solemnity, for example of seeking approval, prescribed to be observed by the publisher, has been omitted, affect only books which are published after this Constitution has been promulgated.² Certainly the new precaution will perhaps have been most prudently prescribed. But even dangerous subjects, of sacred instruction for example, could have been treated in a most useful way, and this in books which lack positive approval. Therefore danger is not a sufficient reason for extending the prohibition to past things, unless the Legislator has expressly declared this.³ What of the fact that the Legislator himself seems to join the prohibition of such books with the precept given to the publisher, as in article 20, or to employ words which look to future times, as in article 13: if they are published. Moreover, the precept could not have been violated before it was enacted; and if the Legislator had wished to proscribe books previously published, he could have said: if they are published or have been published.

Nevertheless, except the case in which books were already forbidden by a similar prohibition of the superior law now in force. I say, a prohibition now in force; for several sanctions had been greatly tempered by usage.

But a prohibition which does not follow upon a neglected solemnity, but rests upon an intrinsic reason, also affects books prior to this Constitution. For here there is no precept imposed upon the author, ignorance of which can be alleged. Nor, in proscribing a book, is the writer's mind or intention considered; but the book itself, as it lies there, is pronounced harmful and prohibited.⁴ Moreover, each one publishes a work at his own risk, and he cannot prevent the Church from consulting the safety of the faithful by its Decrees, whether general or special. Besides, special decrees are always and necessarily later than at least the first edition, so that of themselves they regard a past act of publishing.

For this reason, a book which defends propositions afterwards proscribed as heretical is to be assimilated to a book which defends heresies already proscribed.

¹ Suarez, De Legibus, book 3, chapter 4.

² So also Hollweck, Das kirchliche Bücherverbot, pp. 16, 17; Monitore Ecclesiastico, X, 2, p. 116; Ciolli, op. cit., n. 36.

³ Against Wernz, n. 110, V.

⁴ Therefore no mark is of itself imposed upon the writer, nor does justice require that he be able to set forth his reasons. Nevertheless, if the matter concerns a Catholic man who is distinguished by some reputation, and the work seems to be such that "with the things needing removal removed, it is recognized that it can come forth into public," Benedict XIV provided for his fair defense. For unless the writer himself is permitted to defend his own cause personally, a defender is appointed for him ex officio by the Sacred Congregation. Constitution Sollicita ac provida.

A prohibited book is prohibited as a whole. Separated parts

29. 2. Objective extension of a special prohibition. a) A book which is prohibited is prohibited as a whole, and not only the part which gave occasion to the proscription. Nevertheless, when this part has been separated (if it is established what part it is), by cutting it out, sealing it up, or obliterating it, the prohibition probably ceases.¹

On a work which consists of several volumes, or a periodical booklet of several fascicles

b) When the first volume or earlier volumes of some work have been condemned, if others are afterwards printed, these are not strictly marked by that special decree, to which they are later, but they are to be held as suspect unless the author has proved that he has corrected himself. Cf. above, n. 17, e, where we learned both these things from the Preface of the Index itself.

The same is to be said of fascicles of a periodical booklet which are later than its proscription.

But if the work, when it is condemned, has already grown into several volumes, and it is established that the cause of the prohibition is found in one only, Sanchez² denies that the others are prohibited, because they seem to be several books. Suarez does not admit that unless they are of diverse subject matter.³ Commonly they hold the doctrine of Lugo,⁴ who resolves the question from this point: whether or not the subject matter admits division. Thus, for example, in a universal history, a volume narrating ancient history is so distinguished from a volume destined for the description of the Middle Ages that they are, as it were, several works.

Yet in either case, if you remove the volume in which the error is contained, you separate the part which gave occasion to the proscription; and therefore, unless you wish to deny the opinion just recited here under a), the prohibition of the remaining volumes probably ceases.

New editions and versions

c) The proscription affects all editions and versions of the work which have been made before the decree, unless it is expressly provided otherwise in the Index. (Cf. the Preface of the Index.)

d) A new edition of the same book, even corrected, in whatever language it is made, is prohibited unless faculty has been granted by the Sacred Congregation of the Index (art. 31). This holds even if you refute the errors by notes, or if it was proscribed not absolutely, but with the added mention "until it is corrected."

Nevertheless, except books of authors whom they call classics, and which expressly treat or teach lascivious matters. For these, when well expurgated, are permitted to be handed over to children (art. 10).

Properly speaking, however, this is not an exception. For the books which article 31 forbids to be published again because they have been proscribed by the Holy See seem to be only those which are prohibited by a special decree of the Index, not by a general rule. So Cardinal Gennari and Palmieri on this article.

¹ St. Alphonsus, book 7, n. 283; D'Annibale, III, 141; B. P., op. cit., n. 14. The response of the Holy Office, July 26, 1848 (Collectanea Prop. Fidei, n. 1883), is by no means an obstacle, contrary to what Piat asserts, Nouvelle Revue Théologique, vol. 30, p. 58. For the matter there concerns translations of the New Testament which were already proscribed for this reason, that they had been made by non-Catholics. This defect is not removed by taking away the errors.

² In Decalogum, book II, chapter 10, n. 36.

³ De Fide, disp. 20, sect. 2, n. 9.

⁴ De Fide, disp. 21, n. 62.

What of compendia

30. e) Nevertheless, you do not publish a work anew by the fact that you have written a compendium of the work which is sufficiently distinct from the earlier work.

This, therefore, is to be judged in itself. One must indeed see whether perhaps it is touched by some general decree.

On the historical account of systems

Hence it appears what must be thought concerning those books which historically report the system and opinions of some heretical or unbelieving writer.

If these are so proposed, with arguments added and no response made, that they seem to defend heresies or errors, they will fall under the law by which books that defend such things are prohibited; if they were composed by a heretic and expressly treat religion, they will easily be touched by article 3, and so forth. You will estimate the doctrine of those books in itself.

What of literary miscellanies which excerpt places from prohibited books

31. f) What of literary miscellanies, "chrestomathies," which report passages from condemned works? They can be considered either as some new book, composed from various works of others, or formally as reporting passages of other works.

Under the first heading, their own proper character is to be weighed, and the General Decrees are to be applied to them as to any other work. For they can expressly oppose faith, morals, etc. But under the other heading, if they seem morally to exhibit some same proscribed work, they will share its proscription. But if, as generally happens, the condemned books contain few pages in number, the miscellanies themselves are not already prohibited on that account. The solution is confirmed by practice itself.

On a periodical booklet which reports a condemned work

32. g) But what if a certain book or work, proscribed by name, is previously or afterwards reported in a periodical booklet, which in its general character is good, or treats matters which do not concern religion?

Certainly it is not lawful to disseminate again, by periodical publication, a work already reproved, which would be entirely unworthy of a Catholic man. This is not in doubt.

But it has already happened that a work was condemned which had been taken up in good faith in a periodical booklet; and the question arises concerning those who read and retain the collection of the periodical booklet.

Must we hold as proscribed the volume in which that work is found? In the rigor of law, you would perhaps answer thus.

Yet no one fails to see that a special inconvenience underlies this, namely that on account of this insertion you can no longer possess some whole good and useful collection.¹

Again, as appears from the Constitution Officiorum itself, periodical booklets are to be judged from their successive course rather than from individual articles. Nor would you call a periodical permitted which, being habitually evil, happens to contain one or a few good treatments.

Therefore, because of this reason, and because a work in a periodical booklet seems to lose the figure of a book, we judge that a benign response can be given: those who preserve that volume in their collection are not to be troubled. Yet they will have to abstain from reading the proscribed work, unless they are equipped with a positive faculty.

And on newspapers in a similar case

You would say the same of newspapers which by chance have published a similar work in parts (en feuilletons, in serial installments). Here, however, the reason drawn from loss is usually of less benefit.

¹ They know that a collection is made of much less value because even one volume is lacking.

3. On the Signification of Various Words and Clauses

A) What is a Book?

A certain bulk is required

Whether newspapers, sheets, little works?

33. What is a Book? According to common acceptance, by this word there is designated a volume of a certain bulk, which offers to readers a subject matter of a certain unity.

a) Of a certain bulk, I say. Therefore newspapers, even more ample ones, sheets (imprimés),¹ and small opuscula are not understood, since they "are accustomed to be called by some other name, such as elegies, letters, or speeches, rather than books."² Many, after Schmalzgrueber,³ require ten sheets for a book. We understand these as whole sheets, so that an octavo work would be 160 pages, a sextodecimo work 320. This estimate seems sufficiently fair.⁴ Without denying, therefore, the material truth which this rule can generally have, we judge, with Lugo,⁵ that the formal reason of the solution is rather to be drawn from common usage.

We have some opponents, who, under the earlier law, either argue with B. P.⁶ from the fact that in the Decrees concerning books, the Legislator spoke of poems, images, etc.; or with Piat⁷ infer the same from certain words of an allocution of Pius IX. But the words of Pius IX, according to Villada,⁸ seem to be referred "to eleven newspapers which the same Supreme Pontiff, by express name, had prohibited for the Roman diocese through his Vicar, June 30, 1871." And by the response of the Holy Office, April 27, 1880, denying that excommunication is incurred by one reading "newspapers defending heresy," our opinion is strongly confirmed.⁹ Now an argument is added from the present Constitution, which in a distinct chapter, namely the eighth, treats of newspapers, sheets, and periodical booklets; and in article 13 distinguishes writings from books; and in articles 17 and 20 distinguishes booklets and sheets.¹⁰

b) Of a certain unity. Therefore smaller booklets bound together by chance are not books.¹¹ But if from the beginning they are destined to compose one volume, which is thus published in parts, the whole volume thus composed is to be held as a book; indeed, the individual parts also, even taken separately, which reach the bulk of a book.

¹ Avanzini, op. cit., Appendix 3.

² Planchard, Revue Théologique Française, loc. cit., n. 14.

³ Book 5, title 7, n. 55.

⁴ D'Annibale, op. cit., III, 141; Pennacchi, op. cit., n. 38; Génicot, op. cit., 454, against Planchard, loc. cit., 13, 14, though he remains doubtful.

⁵ De Fide, disp. 21, n. 38.

⁶ Treatise 7, section 4, nn. 12, 13.

⁷ Op. cit., p. 619.

⁸ Op. and loc. cit., n. 11.

⁹ Acta Sanctae Sedis, vol. 20, p. 368.

¹⁰ We argue from this deservedly, contrary to the opinion of C. V. C., loc. cit., since we have proved that prohibitions also are to be taken strictly. Add that it would be strange if you took the same word books in one way in the prohibition and in another way in the censure which is its sanction, and now, as Planchard observes, loc. cit., 14, part of the same law. Did the ancients do so?

¹¹ For the same reason we judge that newspapers are not to be placed among books, even if they are gathered into one volume. So also Sleutjes, De prohibitione, etc., p. 24, note 2. We do not know with what truth several, Cardinal Gennari, loc. cit., p. 155, and Hollweck, loc. cit., p. 26, bring forward to the contrary the response of the Holy Office alleged below in the text, from which those incur the excommunication of persons knowingly reading certain books of apostates, heretics, etc., who read periodical publications of the same "bound into fascicles." For in the obvious sense, since we are not accustomed by the name fascicle to designate the large volume which newspapers bound together make, the petitioner who used this expression in proposing the doubt does not seem to have been thinking of newspapers, but wished to describe those publications which, as Lehmkuhl explains (II, 923), "are published periodically in compact fascicles" (qui paraissent en fascicules); otherwise, "les revues," "le riviste." Nor does Arndt, p. 217, seem to have understood the matter otherwise.

Whether periodical booklets are to be held as books

34. What of periodical booklets, "reviews"?

What generally prevents them from being called books is the lacking unity, since they are accustomed to embrace disparate, indeed diverse, subjects and treatises. Yet if from their habitual subject matter they have some unity of kind or tendency, under this respect, and not under another, they will be equated with books as soon as they reach the bulk of a book. Therefore periodical booklets devoted to cultivating the sciences or to philosophy are to be held as books of the sciences or of philosophy.

But a volume which, among other things, contains a study written by a heretic is not to be treated as the book of a heretic.

And in a similar way, periodical booklets which are customarily published by heretical authors and habitually defend heresy are to be equated with books of heretics defending heresy. Therefore, wisely, on January 13, 1892, the Holy Office responded that the censure laid down against those reading books of heretics defending heresy is incurred by those who knowingly read periodical publications bound into fascicles, having a heretical author and defending heresy.¹

Summary concerning the laws by which they are governed

Because the matter is one of daily use, it is helpful here to set forth, as it were in summary, which positive laws must be obeyed in keeping or reading periodical booklets.²

First, indeed, we observe this: individual fascicles are generally of less bulk (cf. n. 33) than that they can be called books; yet today several periodical booklets appear whose individual fascicles, in number of pages, equal even a fairly large book. Proceed then:

1. The General Decrees concerning books seem to us to affect periodical booklets only then:

a) When you have in hand a volume or fascicle which by its bulk equals a book, and if, moreover:

b) By its general character or habitual course the periodical booklet itself, or the whole fascicle, has the quality or sins by the defect which is marked by the General Decrees.

Therefore, if the first condition is lacking, neither a book on religion, nor a book in which the Church is disparaged, nor a book teaching magic, is a separated article of a periodical booklet, or a whole fascicle not reaching the quantity of a book, although they treat of religion, disparage the Church, teach magic. Therefore articles 3, 4, 11, 12 of the Constitution Officiorum do not fall upon an article or fascicle of this kind.

But if the second condition is lacking, neither is a complete volume or a collection of several volumes a book of this kind, if in them, besides articles on religion, there are also other longer articles of profane subject matter, or besides articles in which the Church is disparaged or magic is taught, there are found others of a different kind, so that from the prior articles you cannot gather one character of the periodical booklet.

But, on the contrary, a book of heretics is a periodical booklet which heretics are accustomed to write; a book on religion is a periodical booklet which has been accustomed to treat religious subjects; and so forth, provided you look at a volume of just bulk.

2. But individual fascicles, even smaller ones, are governed as by their own law by the General Decrees which are sanctioned in articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution Officiorum.

3. But if a work, whether previously or subsequently proscribed by name, has been published in a periodical booklet in several successive articles, to read one of those articles truly separated from the others does not seem contrary to the positive law; but you will have offended against the law if you morally have all or almost all the articles before your hands. For in the first case you do not read the work, but a separated part of it (cf. n. 36); in the other, you read the work itself, which, even as it is in the periodical booklet, is prohibited by positive decree. Yet the collection itself, or series of volumes, will not therefore always have to be mutilated. Cf. n. 32.

¹ This, therefore, seems to us to be the proper force of that decree. By no means, contrary to what many think and what we ourselves previously thought, is it there defined that periodical booklets are to be held as books. Nor, even if the individual articles reach the bulk of a book, would we say that the fascicle is then virtually to be compared with several books, as Villada writes, op. cit., n. 12.

² The things which we say concerning periodical booklets can almost be transferred to newspapers.

Whether calendars

35. By its external figure itself, a calendar whose leaves are to be torn off on individual days (Calendrier à effeuiller), and which therefore is more like a newspaper, does not seem to us to have the character of a book. It is otherwise, however, if it has had the character of a stable volume.¹

¹ Schmalzgrueber, 5, 7, 33; Bucceroni, p. 339; in the second edition, p. 368.

Sheets separated from a book

36. Nor do several sheets separated from a book come under the name of book. Against Piat,¹ who brings forward many authorities.

¹ Op. cit., p. 620.

Whether a collection of images

37. Nor is a collection of images considered a book. Therefore, by this Constitution, obscene or impious images are not touched by positive prohibition.¹

¹ Pennacchi, op. cit., n. 40; Hollweck, op. cit., p. 32.

Whether manuscripts

38. Whether it is further necessary that it be printed with type, or whether a manuscript work comes under the name of book, is not entirely certain. Most include manuscripts, because the word book is older than the typographical art, and the reason of the law, or the danger of infection, also obtains here. This is preferred by St. Alphonsus,¹ Arndt,² and B. P.³ Others, however, to whom laws of this kind seem to be interpreted strictly, not improbably observe that in our days, by common usage, books are distinguished from manuscripts, and that the reason of the law is less urgent concerning these, since they are disseminated with more difficulty. This is maintained by D'Annibale,⁴ Avanzini,⁵ and Bucceroni;⁶ Göpfert, however, says the same is probable.⁷ And after the Constitution was issued, Cardinal Gennari,⁸ Planchard,⁹ Génicot,¹⁰ and Hollweck¹¹ are of the same opinion; Hollweck adds this excellent reason, that the use of a manuscript work is today so rare that concerning it this holds: "what is minimal the legislator does not consider." Palmieri now holds the same in Gury, II, 794.

But there is no reason why you should deny the character of a book to works which indeed are not printed with type, but by other methods (lithography, hectography) which can give place to similar diffusion.

¹ Book 7, n. 293.

² N. 101, pp. 118-121.

³ Loc. cit., n. 13. Cf. in Piat, loc. cit., p. 618, note 1, many, both of the earlier and of the present age, holding the same.

⁴ III, 141.

⁵ Op. cit., I, appendix 3, pp. 134, 135.

⁶ II, p. 339, n. 4.

⁷ Op. cit., p. 323.

⁸ Loc. cit., p. 132.

⁹ Revue Théologique Française, loc. cit., n. 12.

¹⁰ I, 454.

¹¹ Op. cit., p. 24.

Whether lithographed or printed codes

39. Furthermore, at least as regards the necessity of previous censorship, books are not regarded except insofar as they are published. Hence works set down lithographically, which professors are accustomed to prepare so that hearers may make a compendium of what is to be written, and which are not of public right, are not subject to this censorship.¹ We know this to be approved by Roman usage itself. We think the same must be said of treatises which, for the same reason, are even printed with type. In German they say: Als Manuskript gedruckt - printed as a manuscript. And here again we are confirmed by usage, which is the best interpreter of laws.

¹ Génicot, op. cit., I, 454.

What is a Booklet?

40. A booklet designates a work of smaller bulk, which does not reach the just quantity of a book, but nevertheless is composed of some pages. So also Pennacchi, op. cit., n. 58. Booklets are spoken of in articles 17, 20, and 21 of the Constitution Officiorum.

What precepts of the Church come to be considered. As many as have been prescribed by general laws of the Code or by particular laws, indeed or by use of jurisdiction, so many in truth are precepts of the Church. By this reason, in every part of moral theology there is speech about the precepts of the Church, and there are also many precepts which are necessarily passed over in moral books. Nevertheless, by a more restricted use of the word, by the name precepts of the Church there have customarily been called a few prescriptions, of very general use, which in catechism formulas are proposed to the faithful to be held by memory. These are now to be explained by us. To these, however, the laws concerning the censure and prohibition of books must be joined.

Moreover, these common precepts can conveniently be referred to the Christian virtues. For the precepts concerning annual confession and Paschal communion are connected with the general pursuit of justice and sanctity; the canons concerning the censure and prohibition of books are directed chiefly to protecting the virtue of faith; the obligation of sanctifying feasts coheres with the virtue of religion; but by the precept concerning fast and abstinence the virtue of temperance to be exercised is inculcated. The precepts concerning annual confession and communion, however, were proposed in the treatises on the Eucharist and Penance.

(cc. 1243-1249)

Utility. - I. Concerning positive sanctification. The apostolic man must first of all endeavor to persuade not a merely literal observation of the precept, but also the true religious intention of these prescriptions. For solving cases it will be especially useful to him to have distinct concepts concerning the necessity of assistance and of presence at Mass, and to discern well the causes of excuse. Yet he will admit these in such a way that at the same time he is solicitous for fostering religious learning and practice in those who are often compelled to be absent from sacred offices.

II. As to negative sanctification, an accurate, filial, non-Judaic manner of abstaining from servile works must be obtained from Christians. For himself the priest will have to form a criterion for estimating what things are certainly licit or not licit, and what are legitimate excuses.

— Appendix XVII belongs to this section. I. Historical. Cf. Appendix XVII.

II. Nature of the precept. The precept of sanctifying feasts is natural, insofar as it requires that some time be spent in worshiping God; insofar as it imposes some participation in the sacrifice of the New Law, it is of positive divine law; insofar as it prescribes Sunday and festive assistance at Mass and cessation from labor, it is of ecclesiastical law. For the divine law itself of the Old Testament concerning hebdomadal rest was abrogated by the promulgation of the New Law. And the positive part and negative part of the precept stand in an inverse manner in each Testament. In the Old Testament the principal obligation was of sabbatical cessation; in the New Testament the positive sanctification of feasts holds the first place with the Church and the faithful.

— By what power feasts are governed. Today, there is reserved to the supreme ecclesiastical authority not only the institution and abrogation, but also the translation of festive days, whether common to the universal Church or special; and it is conceded to local Ordinaries only that by way of an act they may command a feast day for their dioceses or places (c. 1244).

It is also sometimes indulged to them that they transfer the solemnities of certain feasts which are not of precept to the nearest following Sunday (except in a year when the feast falls on a Sunday), which is conceded by c. 1247, §2 itself concerning the feasts of patrons (of the kingdom and of the place).

— Feasts to be sanctified. "Feast days under precept in the universal Church are only: all and individual Sundays, the feasts of the Nativity, Circumcision, Epiphany, Ascension, and Most Holy Body of Christ, of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of the kindly Mother of God Mary, of Saint Joseph her spouse, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and finally of All Saints" (c. 1247, 1).

The legislator, however, did not will that, without the Holy See having been consulted, anything be innovated in places where some feast from those enumerated has been legitimately abolished or transferred. Meanwhile those regions will preserve their own particular discipline (c. 1247, §3).

With attention to the declarations of the Pontifical Commission, you would say that one must understand only particular discipline introduced by concordats, indults, or custom, but not that which resulted for the universal Church from the Motu Proprio Supremi disciplinae of Pius X, July 2, 1911. For by the said Motu Proprio, Pius X had abrogated the feasts of the Most Holy Body of Christ and of Saint Joseph, whose universal celebration nevertheless the Commission sufficiently urges by its responses.

The same Commission, by its various responses, regards as abrogated the proper feasts of regions not contained in the said catalogue, so that the words "in the universal Church" seem to be joined rather with the following word "are" than with the preceding words "under precept."

Therefore the signification is not: "With attention to the general law, only these must be observed," but rather this: "No others, in the universal Church, wherever you may be, are feast days under precept."

— Force of the precept. On feast days of precept, Mass must be heard, and besides, one must abstain from various works or acts. On the same days sacred ordinations can then be made for a grave cause (c. 1006); proclamations of banns also are made; and Mass must be celebrated by pastors for the people. By a response, however, of February 17, 1915, for Mass for the people, the catalogue of Urban VIII was restored, of which afterward a new quasi-promulgation was made by the Sacred Congregation of the Council, December 28, 1919 (A.A.S., XII, p. 42).

Therefore for that obligation of pastors these feasts are to be added: Monday and Tuesday after the Sunday of Easter and Pentecost; Finding of the Holy Cross; Purification, Annunciation, Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary; Dedication of Saint Michael; Nativity of Saint John the Baptist; days of the Holy Apostles Andrew, James, John, Thomas, Philip and James, Bartholomew, Matthew, Simon and Jude, Matthias; day of Saint Stephen; day of the Holy Innocents; day of Saint Lawrence; day of Saint Sylvester; day of Saint Anne; day of the holy patron of the place.

— Computation of the feast day, excepting the acquisition of indulgences (c. 923), is made from midnight to midnight.

— Gravity of the precept. The obligation of observing feasts is grave, as is also established from proposition 52 condemned by Innocent XI, and it binds all and only the baptized who enjoy the use of reason and have completed seven years (c. 12).

(cc. 1250-1254)

Usefulness. - The religious observance of this precept, with its spirit and evangelical foundation indicated, will have to be inculcated, especially as regards abstinence, by which many more persons are obliged. Fasting must be preached and explained in such a way that those who wish to fast may increase in number. But especially this must be urged: how much it is fitting that Christians renounce worldly feasts during the days which are destined for recalling the Passion of the Lord, for expiating sins, and for preparing paschal joy; at which time not only the memory of the Lord's Resurrection but also the spiritual resurrection of the faithful ought to excite and confirm holy joys.

Order. We shall follow this order: first to give a canonical exposition, then a moral exposition, of the ecclesiastical precept concerning temperance.

— Appendix XVIII belongs to this section. Historical. Cf. Appendix XVIII.

— Object of the precept. 1. The ecclesiastical precept contains two parts, today distinct: abstinence and fasting.

2. "The law of abstinence forbids one to eat flesh and broth from flesh, but not eggs, milk-products, and any condiments whatsoever, even from the fat of animals" (c. 1250).

Therefore the universal exclusion of non-fasting foods, which for a long time and through the whole of Lent had been in force, so that fasting foods were called Lenten foods, has been entirely removed.

Whatever, whether liquid or even not liquid, is used in a moderate quantity so that the more principal food may be rendered savory, has the character of a condiment.

Since any condiments whatsoever are permitted, even from the fat of animals, the so-called "margarine" is admitted; nor is one to ask about the origin of the so-called "gelatin" used, which is drawn from fish or from the bones of a calf. Lard is not admitted of itself except by way of condiment. But substances, such as "peptone," which in common use do not come under the name of flesh and do not have the taste of flesh, do not seem to be comprehended by the ecclesiastical prohibition of flesh.

What has the character of flesh must be defined not scientifically but by common estimation and custom. If use is lacking, the rule of St. Th., II-II, q. 147, art. 8, can be admitted, by which those terrestrial animals are judged prohibited by the law of abstinence which are accustomed to live for a long time outside water or which are filled with warm blood. As regards amphibians, Benedict XIV advises that one consider with which animals their flesh bears the greater likeness. In a probable doubt, one can answer for liberty. Moreover, by common acceptation, not only oysters, mussels, and squid are equated with fish, but also snails, tortoises, frogs, and locusts. Where custom favors it, coots or swimming birds of this kind are also tolerated on days of abstinence. Some also permit otters and beavers.

3. "The law of fasting prescribes that only one meal be made in the day; but it does not forbid taking something of food in the morning and evening, provided, however, the approved custom of places concerning the quantity and quality of foods is observed" (c. 1251, §1).

"It is not forbidden to mix flesh and fish in the same refection, nor to exchange the evening refection with dinner" (c. 1251, §2). Therefore:

a) by today's law, drink, as such, does not break the fast.

b) one meal, or full refection during the day, is a substantial part of this law. This is not to be prolonged beyond about two hours, unless, as some permit from custom, after two hours only sweets or lighter foods are set out, and the small evening refection is then omitted. The same full refection cannot be morally interrupted, i.e., at least not notably beyond half an hour. Yet if someone, half-dined, has been compelled to depart because of business, he will return to table without penalty, even after several hours, from the benign sense of the Church, lest he pass the day without any full refection.

c) Now by formal law a morning morsel is permitted, besides the little evening supper.

Concerning the quantity and quality of foods, approved custom is said to be observed in the morsel and little supper.⁽¹⁾ As regards quantity, they agree sufficiently that in the morning two ounces can be taken, i.e., morally 60 grams (more accurately, 63). In this quantity one cup composed of coffee and rather thin "chocolate" does not seem to have to be computed.

In the evening, everywhere they permit 8 ounces, i.e., 250 grams; in certain regions of a colder climate and broader use (Belgium, Germany), two ounces, or 63 gr., seem able to be added. And each one can take as much as he needs in order to be able to observe the fast without notable inconvenience. Where a morsel of bread cooked with water is taken, several, with St. Alph., l. 3, n. 1029, deny that 250 grams of bread can be taken, as if some fermentation had occurred. But since there is no fermentation, nor are the quantity of foods increased by alteration in water, Genicot-Salsmans, I, 327, depart from this severity on account of a probable reason. Of itself one must look to usages.

On the day before the Nativity of the Lord, sweets or more delicate foods can be added to the evening collation, so that the quantity can be doubled.

Concerning quality a rather great variety of use is seen. In a few places eggs themselves are permitted; in more places at least milk-products are admitted; in others, for example in Italy, only fasting foods; in Spain, if you except one or another diocese of the northern part, fish themselves or little fish are prohibited. And because approved custom is confirmed, a stricter abstinence must therefore be observed in Italy and in many places by all in the morning and evening than in the principal refection, where eggs are always permitted. As is plain of itself, that quality must be attended to only by those who are bound by the law of fasting. Others, on days of fasting only, will be able even to take flesh in the evening.

d) The hour of the principal refection is understood to be around noon; but the exchange of the evening refection with dinner is expressly permitted by c. 1251, §2.

By the same paragraph the law by which Benedict XIV (Const. In suprema, 22 Aug. 1741) had prohibited the mixture of flesh with fish in the same meal is entirely abolished.

⁽¹⁾ That custom in this place designates received usages by which, differently in different places, there has been a departure from the rigor of Lenten observance, which, excepting Sundays, permitted only one refection, and, not excepting Sundays, admitted only fasting foods. Therefore, where there has been no received use concerning the quality of food, only fasting foods would be licit in the morning and evening.

— Days under the precept. 1. The law of abstinence alone now obliges only on individual Fridays (c. 1252, §1).

2. "The law of abstinence and fasting is to be observed on Ash Wednesday, on Fridays and Saturdays of Lent, and on the Ember days, on the vigils of Pentecost, of the Mother of God assumed into heaven, of All Saints, and of the Nativity of the Lord" (c. 1252, §2).

It can be obtained rather easily that, in the time of Lent, Saturday abstinence can be transferred to Wednesday.

3. "The law of fasting alone is to be observed on all the remaining days of Lent" (c. 1252, §3). Yet Sundays are excepted. For:

4. "On Sundays or feasts of precept, the law of abstinence, or of abstinence and fasting, or of fasting only ceases, except a feast during the time of Lent; nor are vigils anticipated; likewise it ceases on Holy Saturday after noon" (c. 1252, §4).

Therefore, excepting the time of Lent, feasts of precept, whether from general law or from a particular statute, exclude the obligation both of abstinence and of fasting; but it is necessary that they actually be of precept, so that in regions where certain feasts have been suppressed, the law of abstinence or fasting is not touched by those feasts (cf. responses of the S. C. of the Council, 28 Aug. 1911 to the Archbishop of Mechlin, and 22 Nov. 1912 to Astorga).

By the new benefit of the Code, vigils, as regards fasting and abstinence, are no longer anticipated. Therefore the fast and abstinence of the vigil of the Nativity of the Lord and of the Assumption are suppressed in years in which those feasts occur on Monday.

The reasonable use of the third grace concerning Holy Saturday, entirely new, will be this: that on Holy Saturday, through the whole morning, you fast in the customary manner, so that you take only the morsel; but when noon has passed, i.e., after the twelfth hour has sounded, you can cease from the fast and abstinence begun. And if for some just cause you anticipate the refection, abstinence must be observed in it, which is prescribed on Saturdays of Lent.

— Subject of the law. "All who have completed the seventh year of age are bound by the law of abstinence; all from the completed twenty-first year of age to the beginning of the sixtieth are bound by the law of fasting" (c. 1254).

Therefore that strange privilege which some, without reason, wished to add for fifty-year-old women is rejected by the very silence of the Code.

— Dispensation from the law. Today, in the Code, under the common name of sacred times come both feast days and days of abstinence and fasting (c. 1243). But dispensation from them can be granted by the same persons whom we indicated where we treated of feasts to be observed (cc. 1245 and 514). Cf. n. 861.

Observe that the faculty is given of dispensing, but not of commuting. Therefore, for example, a pastor could not dispense from the quantity and at the same time enjoin that in the evening only those foods be used which are permitted to fasters, unless, as is said in n. 885, the very reason for the dispensation has to be completed. For the quality of foods to be observed in the evening and morning is part of the law of fasting; it is not a distinct law of abstinence from which he could dispense separately. From the law of abstinence Nuncios and Apostolic Delegates can also dispense by force of n. 10 of their faculties.

— Special rights. Contrary to what was said or insinuated concerning feasts, we are reminded by canon 1253 that by the canons concerning fasting and abstinence nothing is changed concerning indults, vows, constitutions, and rules of physical or moral persons.

This seems to us to be the sense of that canon: that all things which have been expressly sanctioned in these indults and vows remain intact as regards the substance of observance; but as regards the manner, unless something else is expressly defined, the present discipline is to be observed. For those who vowed fasting, if they wished to add nothing, referred themselves to present usages in such a way that they tacitly admitted variations of discipline. Wherefore the vow of fasting alone will no longer contain abstinence; nor will a vow of abstinence exclude eggs; nor will a vigil be anticipated. Wherefore rightly, in the year 1920, in Rome, the votive fast of the vigil of the Purification of the B. V. M. did not take place. Yet if the one vowing formally or virtually intended to vow fasting with abstinence, he will be held by both obligations. Ferreres also rightly says, Theol. mor., I, 596 and II, 1370, that the fast which by the Bull of the Crusade is to be observed on the Saturday before the day of the Nativity of the Lord is suppressed in a year in which that day of the Nativity falls on Monday.

— Abstinence can be violated and observed in several refections by distinct acts, while the observance of fasting is indivisible on individual days. Wherefore, he who has taken illicit foods at dinner will nevertheless be held in the evening by the law of abstinence, while he can dine a third time without penalty who, on a fast day, has twice been fully refreshed.

— Grave matter, in the law of abstinence, is placed below 15 grams of flesh by many, even by St. Alph., l. 3, n. 1029, with astonishing severity. Certainly better, with some, we shall require about 60 grams, especially in the principal meal, for grave matter. As regards eggs and milk-products, we seem able to extend grave matter to 130 grams (suppose two eggs), which will still have to be attended to by fasters in the evening collation. From Gousset, an ordinary portion of broth (brodo) is not grave matter.

— You ask what is to be said if dinner, in good faith, has been furnished with illicit foods. If in light matter, an excusing cause seems to be present. If the whole dinner has by error been composed of forbidden foods, the inconvenience which must be sustained to observe the law is to be weighed. The error of a public host does not permit clients in a tavern to eat forbidden foods; but the difficulty of deferring the dinner of a numerous family, quarrels which are feared, etc., will rather often be able to furnish an excuse according to the mind of the Church, if there is no opportunity of seeking a dispensation.

— When the violation of fasting has been completed, one sin is committed on each day of the precept of fasting: such is the received opinion (cf. I, 137); and after a second full refection, fasting becomes impossible of observance on that day. But several partial injuries, light or grave, can be committed on the same day. For, account being taken of opinions, a grave injury of fasting seems able to be estimated at 130 grams. And although small refections coalesce (the contrary proposition 29 was proscribed by Alexander VII), nevertheless by the general rule, quantity is to be taken more strictly when the whole is taken at once than if it is taken divided into parts.

But the fast is not broken by the division of dinner on account of business arising, or by the use of a dish which, after you had risen from table, was set out beyond your expectation; or if something is taken because of weakness or another reasonable cause, as ministers and table readers among religious are accustomed to taste something beforehand (e.g., a morsel). For they intend one refection.

Nor is it broken by the taking of electuaries (i.e., pastilles, jujubes, candies), which are taken by way of medicine to aid the digestion of foods, or of a sweet with a draught "lest the drink harm," provided this is not done in fraud of the fast and therefore not frequently in the day.

Coffee, tea also mixed with a moderate amount of sugar, a drink made from water and the juices of oranges or lemons, even frozen, preserve the character of drink, provided they do not contain a great quantity of substance. But the drinking of milk, broth, and similar things is assimilated to food, from its ordinary destination.

The substance of the fast does not seem to be violated by exchanging the morsel with the evening collation. Hence for a just cause this will not even be venial. But one who could not fast except in the inverted order is not bound to use this means.

One who advertently or inadvertently has taken almost the little supper in the morning, of himself must either defer dinner or reduce the evening collation almost to the morsel. But he will be excused by grave inconvenience.

— Causes excusing from abstinence. Infirmity or weakness which demands flesh; to this can also be referred the vivid appetites of pregnant and nursing women, for whom, however, provision is better made by dispensation.

Poverty, lest the poor be deprived of a rare occasion of eating flesh.

The grave labors of certain workers. And with many one must sufficiently dissimulate. For they are accustomed to be more remiss in observing precepts, and, on account of the constant use of flesh, they experience a greater difficulty in abstinence.

Those making a journey, who cannot obtain licit foods for a suitable refection without great difficulty. Yet good will is more often lacking to these than convenience. But in certain regions the law of abstinence is relaxed in inns.

The moral impotence of a wife and son who would incur the grave indignation of the father of the family or would not obtain sufficient foods. But servants who are habitually impeded from observing the law must seek and choose another service, yet not with great inconvenience. Hence they are rather often excused, if they are permitted to observe the other precepts well.

Those who possess the faculty of eating flesh cannot of themselves transfer it to guests. Wherefore on forbidden days they must either omit invitations or set out licit foods. And an invitation must be declined, unless a proportionate inconvenience excuses. But one who, beyond expectation, is invited to a dinner consisting of illicit foods will often be excused, to avoid offenses, scandal being cut off. But those who spend several days with parents or friends careless of ecclesiastical law can and must easily ask for licit meals, or, if another cause is added, will obtain a dispensation.

— Causes excusing from fasting. Labor excuses workmen and artisans who must exercise grave labors. And because they seem to have a proper title in custom itself, even the stronger are excused. Nor, if they rest on one or another day, do they then seem to be bound by the law.

They are presumed, in doubt, exempt who undertake laborious works of piety or charity: such as preachers who preach almost daily for about an hour; professors who teach the higher sciences for an hour, provided they prepare the lessons by study and labor; teachers of lower schools who daily teach for 4 or 5 hours; those who serve the sick with great labors.

By physical or moral impotence or excessive difficulty, the sick, the weak, convalescents, pregnant women, nursing women, and all who from fasting suffer notable pain of the head or stomach, are excused; the poor who feed on bread alone with legumes; and those who from experience or probable reason have drawn the persuasion of grave harm.

Labor or inconvenience joined with other accidental causes excuses many who of themselves are bound. Thus tailors, barbers, painters, scribes are excused, if they cannot combine the suitable exercise of their art with fasting; those who, in undertaking a journey, in frequently preparing sermons, in arduous studies, in hearing many penitents or clients, would experience notable inconvenience from fasting. Serious indignation of the husband will excuse the wife.

— You ask whether on days of fasting you can undertake extraordinary labor by which you become unable to observe the law.

Provided the labor has true utility, and you have a just cause for not deferring it to another day, for example extraordinary profit or even loss of time, this seems licit according to the benign mind of the Church. The reason of delight from a journey, hunting, etc., does not suffice, unless sometimes, rarely, and not in fraud of the law, an equitable interpretation of the precept suggests an exception. Thus it does not seem that someone must be compelled through all of Lent to abstain from the honorable recreation of a long journey or of hunting. And there are works of charity, such as the service of the sick, so pleasing to the Church, that after taking counsel you can undertake them on days of fasting, as if commuting the precept into these works (cf. I, n. 221, 5).

— From fasting and abstinence a lesser cause can excuse through dispensation. To whom dispensation belongs we have already said, n. 876 and 861.

But from a particular cause of a great concourse of people or of public health, Ordinaries can dispense a whole diocese or some place in the diocese from fasting and abstinence (c. 1245, §2). That exorbitant faculty can be extended neither to other things to be dispensed, for example festive rest, nor to other causes. A particular cause, for example of an extraordinary feast or fair, can recur even annually.

Observe also that a dispensation from fasting of itself is not valid for abstinence; nor does a dispensation from abstinence dispense from fasting.

Finally, a Superior to whom the reason does not seem sufficient for dispensing could complete the reason by enjoining other pious works: prayers, alms.

N.B. Prayers or alms which are not rarely imposed on those who use the faculties of a general Indult oblige only under light obligation; and the prayers are a burden attached to the day. And because of the more benign laws of abstinence, the use of the Indult has become less daily.

— Use of the Confessor. 1. Today it is preferable not to incline to the stricter side in estimating those things which are licit for fasters, both because the mind of the Church is to be supposed benign toward the few who observe, and so that these may grow in number.

2. The excusing causes themselves, especially when there is question of fasting, because of weaker health and persuasions of impotence, are to be taken more benignly than formerly. The Holy See demonstrates this by the very example of its dispensations. Nor without hope of success is the good faith of those to be disturbed who, on account of lighter causes, especially with a physician consenting, think themselves immune from the law of abstinence.

3. Yet the received customs of persons or places must be considered diligently. For according as the law is fully vigorous or, on the contrary, rather commonly neglected, it is relaxed imprudently or urged incautiously. Great prudence is needed especially with those who would easily desert the sacraments. It is already notable that by seeking a dispensation they wish to profess obedience. Wherefore they are to be exhorted that they at least be willing to do this.

4. Often what is lacking to one cause is supplied by another: for example poverty joined with labor or with a certain weakness.

5. Again one must avoid facility which removes the sinew of discipline and gradually, through indiscreet dispensations, suppresses the law. Concerning fasting itself, let us clearly indicate those things which can be taken with the law intact, and let us strive to obtain, if not total, at least partial observation. But especially let us foster the spirit of mortification, and today greatly move Christians to lead a life less alien from the character of the time which has been dedicated by holy Mother Church to Christian piety and immolation and the commemoration of Christ suffering or to obtaining peculiar graces.

— The precept of paying tithes is no longer among the common laws of the Church. The Code, c. 1082, merely confirms particular rights in this matter: "As regards the payment of tithes and first-fruits, particular statutes and laudable customs are to be observed in each region."

— Canonical exposition. I. Today the precepts of abstinence and fasting are distinct; nor does a dispensation from abstinence dispense from fasting, or conversely.

II. The law of abstinence forbids the use of flesh and of broth from flesh; it excludes no condiments. A condiment is whatever, liquid or not liquid, is used so that food may be made savory.

What flesh is must be defined by common estimation and use. Terrestrial animals, which are accustomed to live a long time outside water or are filled with warm blood, setting aside a more benign custom, are judged prohibited. As regards amphibians, in probable doubt one must answer for liberty.

III. The substantial law of fasting permits one meal through the day; but something of food is granted to be taken in the morning and evening, provided the approved custom of places concerning quantity and quality is observed. As regards quantity, they agree sufficiently that in the morning two ounces (60-63 grams) can be taken. In the evening, everywhere eight ounces, i.e., 250 grams, are permitted, and even more in certain regions. And indeed it is licit for each one to take that by which he may fast without grave inconvenience. Quality in the morning and evening, outside days of abstinence, must be attended to only by those who are held by the law of fasting. The exchange of dinner with the evening refection is expressly permitted. Nor would the inversion of the morning morsel and the evening collation be grave. Today drink does not break the fast, unless it is commonly taken as food.

IV. Days under the precept. 1. The law of abstinence alone is in force on individual Fridays.

2. The law of abstinence and fasting is in force on Ash Wednesday, Fridays and Saturday of Lent; on the Ember days; on the vigils of Pentecost, of the Assumption of the B. V. M., of All Saints, and of the Nativity of the Lord. It is easily obtained that Wednesday be observed for Saturday as regards abstinence in Lent.

3. The law of fasting alone is in force on all remaining days of Lent, except Sundays.

Excepting a feast in Lent, every law of abstinence and fasting ceases on Sundays and feasts of precept, where those feasts truly remain of precept; and on Holy Saturday from noon; nor are vigils anticipated.

V. Subject of the law. All seven-year-olds who habitually possess the use of reason are held by the law of abstinence; the law of fasting holds all from the completed twenty-first year to the beginning of the sixtieth.

VI. The faculty of dispensing belongs to the same persons who can dispense from the sanctification of feasts and in the same manner. But nothing is changed concerning indults, vows, constitutions, and rules of physical or moral persons; however, the manner of fulfilling them, unless something else is expressly established, can be taken from the Code.

Moral exposition. - I. Abstinence can be violated and observed in several refections by distinct acts, while the observance of fasting is indivisible on individual days, so that of himself he who by one will has determined not to fast would commit one sin. Yet even when the substance of the fast is preserved, or when a second full refection has not yet been taken, one can sin gravely, as if you take illicitly up to 130 grams of food. But abstinence from flesh seems to be violated gravely by a quantity of 50 grams.

II. Excusing causes. 1. From abstinence. Infirmity, poverty, grave labors of certain workers, excessive difficulty of obtaining licit foods on a journey, moral impotence of a wife and of children who would incur the father's indignation or would not obtain sufficient foods.

2. From fasting. a) Workmen and artisans, even the stronger, are excused by custom itself; b) those are presumed exempt in doubt who fulfill laborious works of charity or piety, such as preachers and professors who preach for an hour almost daily or hand down the higher disciplines, provided they prepare the lessons; teachers of lower schools who instruct youths for 4 or 5 hours; c) those are excused who, on account of infirmity or weakness, from experience or probable reason have drawn the persuasion of grave harm; d) for a lighter cause dispensation excuses.

But from a particular cause of a great concourse of people or of health, Ordinaries can dispense a whole diocese or some place from fasting and abstinence. And by enjoining some pious work, the one dispensing could as it were complete the cause for dispensing.

Prayers attached to an indult of general dispensation oblige only under light obligation.

III. Action of the confessor. That more may fast, today it is preferable not to incline toward stricter parts in estimating what is licit for one fasting. The excusing causes themselves are not today to be taken rigorously. Yet attention must be paid to the customs of persons and places, lest we keep anyone away from the sacraments, or foster relaxation. Let us strive to obtain at least partial observation; and let us inculcate this, that Christians through the sacred Lenten time may lead a life less alien from the character of the sacred time.

N.B. Concerning tithes only particular rights are to be observed.

(cc. 1384-1405)

Usefulness. - The rules concerning the censorship of books are chiefly useful for clerics themselves; the rules concerning the prohibition of books affect all. In this matter one cannot first neglect what natural prudence already prescribes; then the faithful are to be warned that it is not enough that they attend to the Index of prohibited books, but that they must also look more to the general rules by which very many works are prohibited. Since writings come forth in such number, it will also help the priest to have at hand a book or periodical booklets which prudently instruct readers concerning the merit and dangers of works which are published in print.

— Appendix XIX belongs to this section. Historical. Cf. Appendix XIX.

— Introduction. In the fourth part of Book III, which is inscribed On the Ecclesiastical Magisterium, the Code assigns Title XXIII, consisting of cc. 1384-1405, to treating again the matter of the censorship and prohibition of books, which Leo XIII had entirely arranged anew by the celebrated Const. Officiorum ac Munerum, 25 Jan. 1897. And because it treats that matter anew, at the same time, from c. 22, it abrogates every earlier law, although in reality it differs little from the previous Constitution.

But while the latter had treated first of the prohibition and then of the censorship of books, now, with the order inverted, the chapter on censorship is placed before the chapter on prohibition.

By canon 1384, more general and introductory, the Church vindicates for itself the right of censorship and prohibition over the books of the faithful. At the same time it thus defines the extensive force of the canons, more clearly but more severely than before the Code, so that "what is prescribed under this title concerning books is applied to daily publications, periodicals, and any other published writings whatsoever, unless something else is clear."

Therefore, of themselves, leaving these distinctions aside, the rules fall on sheets and booklets just as on books; on periodicals just as on separate works; on lithographed writings just as on printed ones, provided, however, they are published, i.e., become public property, or are spread among the people, or stand open promiscuously to all, and are not merely destined for selected persons, for example hearers (to whom others may perhaps be joined per accidens), so that they can be considered as a manuscript.

But to the general extension, which is presumed, there are exceptions, which, however, must be proved so that the presumption may be overthrown. But an exception can be clear either from the nature of the thing or from the context of the speech, as is said in c. 188, 7°. From the nature of the thing: thus prior censorship of a daily paper or of an image will have to be made otherwise than of a book; from the context of the speech: thus c. 1386 itself distinguishes books from daily papers and periodical booklets.

— The censorship of a book must be distinguished from the license to publish it. Censorship, by the force of the word, means a sentence, a judgment; and from c. 1384 it is the authoritative review of a book by ecclesiastical power; wherefore it logically precedes license. Censorship immediately touches the book; license, the person writing. Censorship is necessarily particular and prior. License can be general, express, tacit, presumed; and its defect can be supplied by ratification. Ecclesiastical censorship by common law is assigned to the Ordinary of the place, because it is made concerning works which are rendered public property; license, from the Code itself, must also be given by the major Superior of a religion.

Voluntary omission of censorship, just as of license, is indeed of itself grave; yet omission of the latter more easily than of the former will be excused from grave sin on account of lightness of matter.

Therefore we shall separate license which is joined with censorship from separate license.

— Works to be subjected to censorship. "Unless ecclesiastical censorship has preceded, let there not be published, even by laypersons:

1° "Books of the Sacred Scriptures or annotations and commentaries on them (c. 1385);

2° "Books which regard the divine Scriptures, sacred theology, ecclesiastical history, canon law, natural theology, ethics, or other religious and moral disciplines of this sort; books and booklets of prayers, of devotion, or of religious, moral, ascetical, mystical doctrine and instruction, and other such things...; and generally writings in which there is anything which peculiarly concerns religion and uprightness of morals" (c. 1385).

What peculiarly concerns religion and uprightness of morals will often have to be judged from the circumstances of place or time. For it happens not rarely that a question of political or social government, on account of the circumstances of a region, cannot be resolved toward this or that side without religion itself receiving much utility or detriment therefrom. In this matter one must stand by the judgment of Ordinaries, as is plain, although recourse to the Holy See, at least in devolutive effect, will always lie open.

3° "Sacred images to be printed in any way, whether they have prayers or are published without them" (c. 1385).

Now all sacred images, not only new ones (Off. ac Mun., 15), are to be subjected to censorship. An image must be called sacred which is published for worship or for fostering piety; for if they are proposed as specimens of eminent art and works of famous artists, there is no reason why, the end of the law entirely ceasing, they should be approved by ecclesiastical Superiors.

4° "Those things which in any way pertain to causes of beatifications and canonizations of the servants of God..." (c. 1387);

5° "All books of indulgences, summaries, booklets, sheets, etc." (c. 1388);

6° Collections of decrees of the Roman Congregations, to be published again (c. 1389);

7° Liturgical books and their parts, likewise litanies approved by the Holy See (c. 1390);

8° Every new edition or translation into another language of an approved work" (c. 1392).

The Code itself notes that chapters excerpted from periodicals, published separately, are not to be considered a new edition.

— Author of the license to be granted after censorship. 1. Unless approval, according to the quality of the matter, is more reserved (e.g., for liturgical books, summaries of apostolic indulgences), "license to publish books and images... can be given either by the local Ordinary proper to the author, or by the Ordinary of the place in which the books or images are made public property or in which they are printed...; yet in such a way that if any one of these Ordinaries has denied license, the author cannot seek it from another Ordinary, unless he has informed the same of the license denied by the other" (c. 1385).

2. "If license seems to have to be denied, the reasons are to be indicated to the author asking, unless a grave cause requires otherwise" (c. 1391, 2).

The obligation is passed over, if there truly was one, for authors who live in Rome to obtain the approval of the Cardinal Vicar of the City or of the Master of the Sacred Palace (Off. ac Mun., 37).

— On the office and mention of censors (c. 1393). The office of a censor, if you look only at the words of the canon, is to judge concerning the doctrine of the book, not concerning its opportuneness; moreover he must give his judgment in writing. The recommendation is renewed that censors, in bringing judgment, follow not private opinions or opinions of their own school, but the common doctrine of Catholics and approved authors, all acceptance of persons being set aside.

Yet the censor will be able to warn the Ordinary concerning the inopportuneness of a book, indeed sometimes by the natural law of charity he will have to.

The censor's judgment is to be placed before the license to publish and, except in the rarest cases, his name. Yet this must never be revealed to the author before he has brought a favorable judgment.

Neither the words of the canon nor reason demand that the censor's name be indicated in the book itself. Not the words of the canon, for c. 1394 requires only that the license itself be published, with the name of the one granting it expressed; not reason: for mention is required so that there be evidence of some sponsor of the book. But for this it is enough that the censor's name be preserved in the archive. And in reality, both in Rome and outside Rome, the censor's name does not appear in many books.

— On license separate from censorship. 1. To the Ordinary of the place is reserved the judgment concerning the just and reasonable cause on account of which even Catholic laypersons may "write something in daily papers, sheets, or periodical booklets which are accustomed to attack the Catholic religion or good morals" (c. 1386, 2).

In an urgent case it will be licit to presume approval.

2. "Secular clerics are forbidden, without the consent of their Ordinaries..., to publish even books which treat of profane matters, and to write in daily papers, sheets, or periodical booklets or to direct the same" (c. 1386).

3. Religious, that they may publish a book on any matter whatsoever or write in daily papers, sheets, or periodical booklets or direct them, first need the license of their own major Superior and then of the Ordinary of the place (cc. 1385, 1386).

All will easily perceive the increased severity of the law. For the cause for writing something in periodicals which are hostile to religion or good morals is subjected to the judgment of the Ordinary. The prohibition formerly made to clerics of directing daily papers or periodicals is now extended to every cooperation of some moment, which, for example, will be had by repeated, even smaller, compositions. For thus we interpret the word "to write," since the Code itself uses other words for bad and for good periodicals. Yet lest someone abuse this interpretation, the prohibition made above (c. 889, 2°) of publishing without prior censorship whatever "peculiarly concerns religion and uprightness of morals" is to be noted.

Finally, all religious are assimilated to secular clerics in this matter, which is an extension of the old law both as regards things and as regards persons (Off. ac Mun., 42). The local Ordinary whose license religious need seems to be one of those three who are indicated in the preceding canon.

But the license of one's own Superior must precede the license of the local Ordinary. For c. 1385, §3 says: "Religious... must first obtain the license... of their own major Superior."

— Form of the license. "The license by which the Ordinary gives the power of publishing is to be granted in writing, to be printed at the beginning or at the end of the book, sheet, or image, with the name of the one granting it expressed, and likewise the place and time of the concession" (c. 1394).

But the obligation has been suppressed of printing in the title of the approved book the name and surname both of the author and of the publisher, and also the place and year of printing and edition. And here, unless we are mistaken, there is question only of the license which is connected with the censorship of books, so that books immune from censorship are not touched by this canon.

We have already admonished at n. 894 that the name of the one granting, but not likewise of the censor, must be printed; and for many writings it is practically admitted that there merely be placed: "With ecclesiastical approval."

— 1. General canon. Those things which are prescribed concerning books under title XXIII are to be applied to any published writings, unless something else is clear from the nature of the thing, as for the prior censorship of a daily paper and image; or from the context of the speech, as c. 1386 itself distinguishes books and daily papers from periodical booklets. Nor are penalties inflicted below under another title to be taken with the same extension.

I. Censorship and license. Censorship is the authoritative review of a book by ecclesiastical power; it is necessarily particular and prior; it is committed by common law to the Ordinary of the place; it immediately touches the book; and it logically precedes license, which is given to a person, can be general, express, tacit, presumed, and is supplied by ratification. This license must also be given by the major Superior of religious.

II. Works to be subjected to prior censorship. 1. Books of Sacred Scripture or annotations or commentaries on them.

2. Books which regard religious and moral disciplines; books and booklets of devotion or religious instruction; writings which contain anything which peculiarly concerns religion and uprightness of morals.

3. Sacred images with or without prayers.

4. Those things which pertain to the beatification or canonization of Servants of God.

5. Writings on indulgences.

6. Collections of decrees of the Roman Congregations, to be published again.

7. Liturgical books and their parts; litanies approved by the Holy See.

8. Every new edition or translation of a work to be approved or already approved. Yet excerpts taken from periodicals, published separately, are not a new edition.

The proper office of censors, according to the norm of c. 1393, is to bring judgment concerning the doctrine of the book, according to common teachings, with the opinions of their own school neglected.

Yet they are not prohibited from making the Ordinary attentive to reasons of the religious common good which could dissuade from the divulgation of the book and on account of which the Ordinary would opportunely deny license for publishing the book. But this pertains less properly to their office. Wherefore c. 1393 treats only of the doctrine of the book.

After judgment has been brought, excepting arguments to be submitted to the Holy See, license is given by the local Ordinary either of the author, or of the publisher, or of the printer. License denied by one must be manifested to another from whom it is sought. The reasons for denied license are of themselves to be indicated to the author asking. The license is to be printed in the book. But it does not seem to be required that the censor's name be made public property.

III. 1. For writing anything in daily papers and periodical booklets which are accustomed to attack religion or morals, of itself, if time is available, the Ordinary of the place must be approached by all.

But secular clerics are forbidden, without the consent of their Ordinaries, to publish even books concerning profane matters, to direct daily papers or periodicals, or to give work to the same as writers.

Religious need the license of their own major Superior besides the license of the Ordinary, who seems able to be the same one to whom recourse can be made for censorship.

— The competent author of prohibition (c. 1395).

The right and office of prohibiting books for a just cause belongs:

1° to the Roman Pontiff (by himself or through the Sacred Congregations) and to general Councils for the universal Church;

2° to particular Councils and local Ordinaries for their own subjects.

That exempt religious are immune from the prohibition of the Ordinary is the more probable now because there is already silence concerning his faculty of acting as a delegate of the Holy See. Besides, the prohibitions of Ordinaries are said to be valid for their own subjects.

3° to the Abbot of a monastery of its own right and to the supreme Moderator of an exempt clerical religion with his Chapter or Council for their own subjects; "and the same, if there is danger in delay, other major Superiors can do with their Council, under this law, however, that they refer the matter as soon as possible to the supreme Moderator."

A prohibition from which someone has appealed to the Holy See must be observed until the matter is decided in his favor.

— The force of prohibition.

We have proved in our On the Prohibition and Censorship of Books, 5th ed., n. 26, that not only penalties, but also prohibitions, as such, are to be interpreted strictly.

Those things which were everywhere and not completely stated in the old law are now proposed clearly: "The prohibition of books effects this: that without due license a book can neither be published, nor read, nor retained, nor sold, nor translated into another language, nor communicated with others in any way."

"A book prohibited in any way whatever cannot be published again, unless, after corrections have been made, he who had prohibited the book, or his Superior or successor, has given license" (c. 1396).

He publishes a book who, with his name given, spends effort on its diffusion, by which note he differs from one who merely prints a book. The author is very often at the same time the publisher. Therefore a book is published when it becomes public property. Miscellanies in which various excerpts even of a condemned book are contained are not a new edition of the book.

The reading of a book means the immediate use of the book for understanding the concepts of the writer: whether for this reason you survey the book with the eyes or with the fingers, as the blind do.

Therefore he does not read who hears one reading, for example a professor of apologetics while from a proscribed book he reads before his hearers passages afterward to be refuted; nor he who, to learn the art of reading unknown letters, merely strives, like children, to recognize and pronounce individual letters. Nor does he read the book who reads excerpts in another volume.

To sell books is not the same as to have them for sale. The sale of a book to him who has license to read and retain prohibited books is not prohibited. But no one can have prohibited books for sale unless he has obtained due license from the Apostolic See; nor then may he sell prohibited books to anyone unless he can prudently judge that they are legitimately sought by the buyer. Moreover, books obscene by profession are excluded (c. 1404). According to the rules of cooperation and with attention to the use of places, it will be able to be tolerated that sellers sell under the spear or at public auction another's library which contains prohibited books (yet not books merely obscene).

— Books prohibited by the law itself (c. 1399). By the law itself are prohibited:

1. An edition of the text of Sacred Scripture or of any version made or published by non-Catholics.

2. Books of any writers whatsoever which defend heresy or schism, or tend in any way whatsoever to overthrow the very foundations of religion.

Not everyone who utters heresy defends it, but only he who tries to uphold or defend it by added reasons.

The foundations of religion are those preliminary truths of the natural order for religious worship itself, such as the existence of God, free will, the spirituality of the soul; and truths which are necessary for an adult unbeliever so that he may be led to embrace the faith: the force of miracles for proving, motives of credibility in general, but not at the same time the principal dogmas of the faith itself.

"To overthrow in any way whatsoever" is circumscribed by no definite mode, provided the intention or attempt of overthrowing is shown.

3. "Books which intentionally attack religion or good morals."

Although most understand by the name of religion the Catholic faith, we think that here there is rather question of divine worship as such, which is attacked by atheist or materialistic books or daily papers. Good morals signify that manner of life which agrees with the laws of natural uprightness, especially as regards chastity. Therefore pornographic works are proscribed, and also those which strive to overthrow good morals theoretically, provided they do this intentionally, or with a directly contrary intention, and this in a notable part.

4. "Books of any non-Catholics whatsoever which treat of religion by profession, unless it is clear that nothing against the Catholic faith is contained in them."

Any non-Catholics whatsoever are also the non-baptized. Their books concerning a religious argument are condemned because of presumption, which, however, yields to truth.

5. Unless they bear due approval before them: a) texts, annotations, commentaries, versions of Sacred Scripture; b) books and booklets which recount new apparitions, revelations, visions, prophecies, miracles, or introduce new devotions, even under the pretext that they are private.

By the previous law there were also prohibited, on account of the mere defect of approval, books and booklets of prayers, or those which handed down ascetical or mystical instruction.

6. "Books which attack or deride any of the Catholic dogmas; which uphold errors proscribed by the Apostolic See; which detract from divine worship; which affect ecclesiastical discipline, the hierarchy, or the clerical or religious state with insults" (c. 1399, 6°).

7. "Books which teach or commend superstition of any kind, sorceries, divination, magic, evocation of spirits, and other things of this sort."

Other things of this sort would be arts of having prophetic dreams.

8. "Books which establish dueling or suicide or divorce as licit; which, treating of Masonic sects or other societies of the same kind, contend that they are useful and not pernicious to the Church and civil society."

That societies may be similar to Masonic sects, it is necessary that they be secret and at the same time machinate, openly or secretly, against the Church or the State.

9. "Books which by profession treat, narrate, or teach lascivious or obscene matters."

10. New editions of liturgical books which do not agree with the authentic ones approved by the Holy See.

Editors are not prohibited from repeating certain things in their own place for the sake of greater convenience.

11. "Books by which apocryphal indulgences, or those proscribed or revoked by the Holy See, are spread abroad."

12. Pious images "printed in any way... alien from the sense and decrees of the Church."

— Books proscribed by particular decrees. 1. Of itself, once a denunciation has been received or by its own inquiry, it now belongs to the special Section of the S. C. of the Holy Office to examine and prohibit books and to foster the zeal of Ordinaries in this matter (c. 247, §4). It is not repugnant that per accidens another Congregation proscribe a book concerning a matter of its competence. And there are examples.

2. C. 1397, §1 warns that it pertains under a particular title to Legates of the Holy See, to local Ordinaries, and to Rectors of Catholic Universities - which, moreover, is the office of all the faithful, especially of clerics, of those who occupy a dignity, or excel in doctrine - that, insofar as there is opportunity, even with the causes indicated, they refer books which they judge pernicious to local Ordinaries or to the Holy See. Provision is made for secrecy for them. And Ordinaries are warned that they be solicitous concerning books which are published in their territory.

3. Yet today it belongs to the Holy See alone to make the Index or catalog of prohibited books. Since that catalog contains particular decrees, it has by no means been suppressed by the Code. Wherefore it cannot be admitted what R. P. Prummer affirms, Manuale, iuris eccl., Q. 419, that because of the silence of the Code books listed in the Index are no longer prohibited otherwise than insofar as they fall under one of the just-mentioned classes of prohibited books. Moreover the new Index was published in the year 1922.

4. From the preface of the Index of Leo XIII we know: a) when some book is prohibited, all its editions and translations are prohibited, saving a formal exception; b) later volumes of a work whose first volume is proscribed are to be held as suspect unless there is proof of the author's repentance; c) the clause All works does not strictly condemn the individual works of an author, but only works which treat of religion; but it renders individual works suspect, unless it is clear that the same are condemned by no general rule recited above in n. 900. I.e., directly it is prohibited that all be read, not, however, individual ones.

394. - 1. Tender words, whether uttered orally or written:

They are most excellent between spouses, between parents and children, between brothers, indeed between friends, when they are dictated by a noble friendship and not by love;

They are honorable between betrothed persons;

They are reprehensible and dangerous among others if they express a futile, vain, sensual love;

They are certainly gravely blameworthy between persons who love one another lustfully. Among these persons, prolonged and unnecessary conversations already create a grave danger (St. Alphonsus, book 3, no. 422).

2. Prolonged conversations and narratives concerning gravely obscene things, for example concerning seminal emission or the manner of intercourse, held between unmarried persons, are of themselves to be regarded as gravely unlawful, especially among younger persons and if the matters are described. Custom, however, and related studies can diminish the force of conversations of this kind.

3. Isolated words or base jests, such as are uttered, for example, by reapers and muleteers, are not judged mortal. For these things are generally uttered in sport.

4. One who out of boasting recounts his own base sins easily sins by the sin of scandal; and if, as is likely, complacency in his own sin and, as it were, a new approval of it was present, there will be a new sin, whose gravity and species to be accused are determined by the object. Cf. what was said in no. 362.

5. To sing gravely obscene songs before others will be grave, at least because of scandal; it is otherwise if you sing alone and attend more to the melody (Palmieri, Opus theologicum, vol. 2, treatise 6, no. 989).

Wherefore, we judge that those who in the theater or in a public hall sing base things which, as such, will be received with applause can never be excused.

Nevertheless, as regards the proximate cooperation which by acting or singing is afforded to comedies not absolutely gravely base but notably immodest, they "excuse him who takes part by the acting itself or by singing, a depraved affection being excluded, because of the very grave poverty in which he would otherwise be placed, for a short time - Sanchez, Pontius, Castropalaus, Tamburini, In Decalogum, book 5, chapter 1, § 4, no. 28 - provided that, as much as he can, he moderate the lasciviousness ¹." Cf. also no. 408.

¹ Sanchez, De matrimonio, book 9, disputation 45, no. 37; Lehmkuhl, I, 1034, approved by Palmieri, vol. 2, no. 990.

As regards hearers, unless the base matter itself pleased them in itself, or unless by exciting and encouraging they were the authors of such a conversation or of its continuation, or unless, because of the position they hold and the authority with which they are clothed, they ought to have prevented it or at least could easily have done so, it is not imputed to them as a grave sin that, from a certain shame and human fear, they abstain from reproof, or indeed smile, especially if laughter is excited by the artifice of the speech rather than by the base matter itself ². As is evident, they sin in no way if they have a just cause for tolerating the matters, for example, because rebuke would move others to say or do worse things.

² Lehmkuhl, I, 826. Cf. St. Alphonsus, book 3, no. 427.

But let them endeavor at least by a certain manner of silence to disapprove such things. It can also happen that from one's personal condition, for example that of a priest, a special scandal may arise unless he testifies that he is averse to these conversations.

6. Finally, you should observe that in workshops and offices where several young persons are gathered, the danger of conversations of this kind is so common that a change of place will scarcely be useful. Wherefore, rather let the confessor commend to workers and clerks, urging it gravely, that they not provoke these things nor have a notable part in them. Moreover, having observed the quality and authority of the persons and their natural fortitude, let him give them courage so that they may decline these things not fearfully and timidly but firmly and simply.

But a fuller remedy is to be sought either from the master of the workshop or the head of the office, if he possesses authority by which he can efficaciously restrain these things; or from an association of good men who are more numerous in the same workshop and mutually assist one another in correcting and removing this.

395. - 1. Those who write, or indiscriminately sell to all, books or newspapers which incite to lust or are hostile to good morals sin mortally, because it is certain that many will sin mortally therefrom.

Nor can it be tolerated that obscene newspapers be displayed in taverns and public places.

Sellers can be excused for a short time by the gravest necessity.

2. Without a sufficient cause, which literary studies or dealings with literature can furnish, to read base books, even from curiosity alone, will be at least venial, even with the proximate danger excluded, because a remote danger is certainly incurred.

But if, as wholly obscene books commonly do, they proximately dispose one toward carnal pleasure, this is to be judged rather mortal in unmarried persons. Those, therefore, can be excepted who by age or custom do not incur a danger of this kind.

Rarely, however, will there be a just cause for reading wholly obscene books, and younger persons are greatly to be turned away even from lightly immodest readings: anthropologists themselves testify that these are incentives to lust. And prolonged reading often ends in lustfulness.

And girls and women are especially to be turned away from novels in general, lest they hope for a chimerical life or, given over to vain dreams, lose time and moral vigor.

The ecclesiastical law must also be observed, which by the law itself condemns both books "which deliberately attack good morals" and books "which professedly treat, narrate, or teach lascivious or obscene matters" (canon 1399 of the Code of Canon Law).

Adolescents who, moved by curiosity, seek certain obscene words in dictionaries in order that they may know their meaning better commonly do not sin except lightly. Thus also Noldin, De sexto, no. 59.

396. - What has been said concerning words can generally be transferred to less decorous gestures, since these also are signs. Cf. Palmieri, vol. 2, treatise 6, no. 990, at the end.

1217 1º is confirmed by can. 1248; 2º can. 1252 §§ 2, 3; 3º can. 1252 § 1 for Friday only; 4º can. 859 and can. 906, 907; 5º can. 1108 § 2. - 1219-1223 are partly changed by can. 1250: "The law of abstinence forbids eating flesh and broth from flesh, but not eggs, milk foods, and any condiments whatever even from animal fat," and by can. 1252 § 2: "The law of abstinence together with fast is to be observed on Ash Wednesday, the Fridays and Saturdays of Lent and of Ember days, on the vigils of Pentecost, of the Mother of God assumed into Heaven, of All Saints and of the Nativity of the Lord." § 3: "The law of fast alone is to be observed on all remaining days of Lent." § 4: "On Sundays or feasts of precept the law of abstinence, or of abstinence and fast, or of fast only ceases, and vigils are not anticipated; likewise it ceases on Holy Saturday after midday." - 1224-1228; concerning these note can. 1251 § 1: "The law of fast prescribes that only one meal per day be taken; but it does not forbid taking some food morning and evening, with the approved custom of places nevertheless being observed concerning the quantity and quality of foods." § 2: "Nor is it forbidden to mix meats and fish in the same meal; nor to exchange the evening refection with dinner." - 1231 Qu. 2º can. 1251 § 2. - 1234 f) can. 1254 § 2, but even women up to the begun sixtieth year are held by the law of fast. - 1240 is confirmed by can. 1245. - 1242 Rule 2 has been taken away from can. 1251 § 2. - 1243 Qu. 1º is confirmed by can. 1253. - 1244 "The law of abstinence alone is to be observed on each Friday" from can. 1252 § 1. - 1245 is confirmed by can. 1254 § 1.

544. • The Church enjoys the faculty of establishing precepts obligating the faithful under grave sin. For Christ conferred legislative power upon her.

Many precepts of the Church exist, as is clear from Canon Law; but the principal ones, which regard all the faithful of whatever state or condition, are reduced to the six following, namely: 1° that the faithful honor the feasts instituted by the authority of the Church; - 2° that they assist at Mass at least on Sundays and feast-days; - 3° that they confess their sins at least once in each year; - 4° that at least at Easter time they approach the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist; - 5° that on certain days they abstain from flesh-meat; - 6° that they observe fasts at the appointed times.

545. • Holy Mother Church enjoys the power of instituting feasts and of prescribing their sanctification under grave sin to all the faithful, as one who received from Christ all power in order to the spiritual good of her children. No controversy concerning this is agitated among Catholics.

The precept of celebrating feasts, if you consider the obligation by which we are sometimes bound to venerate God by some worship, is certainly divine and natural; but as to the time and days to be consecrated to this worship, this in the old law is sanctioned by a ceremonial precept, in the new by an ecclesiastical precept.¹

The Pope alone can appoint feasts for the universal Church, because he alone enjoys jurisdiction over the universal Church. Bishops also can institute feast-days in their own diocese; for they have the faculty of making laws in their diocese. Yet, from the present discipline, lest feast-days be multiplied beyond measure by the excessive facility of Ordinaries, Bishops are forbidden to establish feasts when the Clergy and faithful are opposing them, or concerning some Blessed. - So commonly. L. II. Decr. Tit. IX. c. 5.¹ A vow of celebrating certain feasts of precept with vigil and procession, although confirmed by a Bishop, obligates only those willing.² Cf. n. 386, q. 3°.

Many feasts were formerly instituted which, in the course of times, because the fervor of the faithful grew cold or for the relief of the poor, have passed into desuetude, or have been abolished by the Ecclesiastical authority itself.

546. • The present discipline of this region, in most provinces, enjoins only nine feast-days per year to be observed from precept, namely: the Immaculate Conception of the B. M. V. (from Decree of Our Most Holy Lord Pope Pius IX, dated 24 Jan. 1868);³ the Nativity of the Lord; the Circumcision of the Lord; the Epiphany; the Annunciation of the B. M. V.; the Ascension of the Lord; Corpus Christi; the Assumption of the B. M. V. and of All Saints. In Louisiana and other southern States, and in certain western dioceses, only five feasts are celebrated, namely the Immaculate Conception of the B. M. V. (from the decree of Pius IX cited above); the Nativity of the Lord; the Ascension of the Lord; the Assumption of the B. M. V. and of All Saints.

547. • This precept is contained in Lateran Council IV, held under Innocent III in the year 1215, canon 21,¹ which reads thus: "Every faithful person of either sex, after he has arrived at the years of discretion, shall faithfully confess alone all his sins, at least once in the year, to his own priest," namely to the Pope, Bishop, Pastor, or a priest approved by the Bishop. - Benedict XIV.²

548. Questions. - Quaer. 1° When are children judged to have reached the years of discretion, so that they are bound by the precept of annual Confession?

Resp. When they are capable of mortal sin; and this is to be judged not from age alone, but chiefly from the degree of intelligence or of the discretion of good and evil. But sufficient discretion is judged to be present in those who already apprehend that lying, or disobedience, is evil, or who blush concerning certain impure actions, etc.

Hence pastors of souls are bound to prepare little children even of seven years for Confession little by little, and to absolve, at least within the year by force of the Lateran Council, those in whom they observe mortal sin, even doubtful.³ In doubt about discretion, let them be absolved conditionally.⁴

Therefore confessors err gravely, and cannot be excused, who never wish to absolve children committed to them before the age of first Communion.⁵

Quaer. 2° Is he who is not burdened with mortal sins bound, by reason of the precept of annual Confession, to confess venial sins?

Resp. In the negative, because the Church prescribes that confession only which is from Christ's institution. But Christ prescribed no other Confession except of mortal sins, as the Council of Trent explains.¹ - St. Alphonsus,² and others commonly.

Moreover, as to practice this question is of the least moment; for what faithful person, burdened only with venial sins, omits to confess at least once in the year, or is accustomed to approach the sacred Synaxis without having confessed from a year back?

Quaer. 3° Is one who for an entire year has not confessed bound to confess as soon as possible, or when an occasion occurs, if it is to be lacking to him through the remaining part of the year?

Resp. To each: in the affirmative. The reason as to the former is that the term of a year was not placed by the Church for ending the obligation, but only for urging it.³ The reason as to the latter is that inability cannot excuse one who places the voluntary cause of the same. Hence those who live in a place distant from the church and who are usually without every help of the sacred ministry ought to confess when a priest visits them, if they foresee that through the rest of the year there will be no supply of a confessor for them.

Quaer. 4° Must annual Confession, which is not made to the Pastor or to another with the Pastor's permission, be judged valid?

Resp. In the affirmative. - So commonly; and today, says St. Alphonsus, it is certain from universal custom. Compare what is to be said concerning the Sacrament of Penance.

See more concerning Confession in the Treatise on the Sacrament of Penance, nn. 1356, 1357.

549. • I. The precept of Easter Communion, no otherwise than the precept of annual Confession, is divine as to substance, but ecclesiastical as to the determination of time. This precept is clear from the perpetual practice of the Church, from innumerable Councils and Pontifical Constitutions, and especially from the Council of Trent:¹ "If anyone shall deny that all the faithful are bound in each year, at least at Easter, to communicate, according to the precept of Mother Church, let him be anathema." - Easter time, from the declaration of Eugene IV, begins from Palm Sunday and ends on Low Sunday. "But since the scarcity of priests and the distances of places have rendered it almost impossible that among us, in so brief a space of time, all can approach the Sacred Synaxis, the prelates in the first Provincial Council of Baltimore humbly asked the Holy See that ... faculty might be granted them of prolonging the time of Easter Communion from the first Sunday of Lent to Trinity Sunday inclusive; and the Roman Pontiff Pius VIII benignly assented to their prayers."² Yet some Bishops have circumscribed that time by narrower limits. Let each one consult the statutes of his own diocese. Therefore among us the year of obligation will be computed from the time at which the beginning of Easter time shall have been fixed by the Bishop. Cf. Ben. 14. S. d. 1. lz. c. 6 n. 10.

II. Easter Communion is to be received in one's own parish, as is openly gathered both from various Constitutions of the Supreme Pontiffs and also from the general practice of the Church.

Hence the precept of receiving the Eucharist is threefold: 1° it regards Communion itself, 2° the time, 3° the place; but where either the last or the second cannot be fulfilled, the two others, or certainly the first, are to be satisfied. Whether and to what extent these things pertain to us will have to be resolved according to what was said at n. 1138.

550. Questions. - Quaer. 1° Is he who has omitted Communion at the prescribed time bound to communicate as soon as he can?

Resp. In the affirmative. The reason is that the time has by no means been determined for ending the obligation, but for urging it. For from what has been said the precept of communicating is divine in itself; therefore when the Church commands that this precept be fulfilled at Easter time, she is not judged to dispense from it. It is clear also from the practice of the Church, which not rarely, after Easter time had elapsed, compelled the faithful by censures to satisfy the precept.¹

But before Easter time has begun, no one is bound to obey this precept, even if he foresees that afterward he will be impeded; but, once that time has begun, he is bound 1) to satisfy this obligation as soon as possible, if he foresees an impediment; 2) to remove impediments, even grave ones, since it is a divine and grave precept; 3) to communicate again, even if, on account of a future foreseen impediment, he has already anticipated Holy Communion.²

Quaer. 2° Does he sin gravely who defers Communion to the first or second day after Easter time has elapsed?

Resp. In the affirmative, of itself. The reason is that, although a delay of this kind can seem small in itself, nevertheless for Easter time it is sufficiently notable. Nor are those to be excused from mortal sin who from grave negligence approach indisposed on the last day of Easter time, so that they must be remitted by the confessor to another time. By accident those are excused who in good faith judge it sufficient if they then approach a confessor for the sake of beginning Confession.

Quaer. 3° Does the precept of communicating in the parish oblige under grave sin? See (B), p. 469.

551. Principles. - I. There exists an ecclesiastical precept, imposed upon all the faithful, of abstaining from flesh-meat on certain days. This is clear from various Constitutions of the Supreme Pontiffs, from Catechisms, from universal custom, and from the consensus of all theologians. Indeed the precept of abstinence is reputed Apostolic, no otherwise than the precept of fasting, from which in the first ages of the Church it was not separated.

II. This precept outside the time of fasting urges 1° on Friday of any week in the whole Christian world, unless the Nativity of the Lord falls on this day; 2° on Saturday. Yet abstinence on Saturday, from the indulgence of the Apostolic See, among us, formerly for twenty years, now when Bishops recur in particular, is relaxed.¹

III. The precept of abstinence obligates of itself under grave sin, because the matter is grave of itself; yet in it, according to the common sentence of theologians, smallness of matter is admitted.²

But as from other positive laws, so also from this obligation there are excusing causes, namely inability, both physical and moral, or a great difficulty which is found in the observation of the law. - So all theologians with St. Alphonsus.³

552. Questions. - Quaer. 1° Can flesh-meat be given to little children on those days on which it is prohibited?

Resp. In the affirmative, if they have not acquired the use of reason; otherwise, in the negative. - But if they possess the use of reason before the seventh year is completed, St. Alphonsus more probably denies.⁴ Yet the affirmative sentence does not seem improbable to him.⁵ But it is expedient that children of this kind, even before they are obligated, be accustomed to abstinence. - Recall what was said at n. 110.

Quaer. 2° What quantity of flesh-meat is required for grave sin?

Resp. It is very much disputed. All agree that the matter is grave which notably nourishes; but this can scarcely be determined. According to many, grave matter ought to exceed half an ounce; but St. Alphonsus rejects this sentence,¹ where he reports, and seems to approve, what the Salmanticenses say: that small matter is only the eighth part of an ounce.

Quaer. 3° What is to be said about the use of fat?

Resp. Unless there is a legitimate custom (which among us, according to Kenrick,² exists even in the little collation), or unless it is a question of those who earn so little that they cannot buy butter, it is not licit to season foods with it. An indult, if there is one, is to be understood of liquefied fat alone (before the cooking of the food, or in the cooking itself); and that, unless another also is granted, is to be understood as pork fat; and, unless the contrary is expressed, it is valid also for the little collation. It is not to be used as a relish. (y) p. 470.

553. • Quaer. 4° Who are judged to be excused from the law of abstinence?

Resp. 1° Poor beggars; for they can eat whatever they receive in place of alms, as theologians commonly hold.

2° Poor workers, who have nothing else except a little piece of grease or bacon for seasoning pottage or lettuces.³

3° The sick, for example those laboring under fever, etc.; also those who are so weak in stomach that they cannot digest licit foods; but hallucination is to be guarded against, and religious and timorous physicians are to be consulted, if it can easily be done.⁴ (v) p. 474.

4° Those who daily apply themselves to labors so arduous and fatiguing to the stomach that, like the sick, they do not experience hunger and reject foods; of this kind are those who pass their life in mines, or in glass and iron workshops. In the number of these also seem to be judged drivers who, over the space of several days, driving public coaches by day and night, can scarcely swallow one or another morsel of food; and this, in the same circumstances, will also be valid for those who drive cars on railroads (conductors, brakemen, etc.), but not for those who slowly drive carts, horses, or mules, and rest at inns by night.

5° Travelers who find nothing in inns except prohibited foods and cannot easily turn elsewhere. Yet they are bound seriously and insistently to ask for licit foods. For the mere reason of a journey in no way exempts from the law of abstinence, even if perhaps it dispenses from fasting because of excessive weariness. Hence travelers cannot be excused because of human fear, fear of displeasing companions, mockeries, and other difficulties of this kind; otherwise almost all who make journeys would be exempted from this law.

6° Finally soldiers are excepted who live in camps or barracks, and who are nourished in common at the expense of the Government. Moreover, "Pius IX granted, at the prayers of the Bishop of Buffalo, that American soldiers and sailors should be exempted universally from the law of abstinence, six days excepted, namely Ash Wednesday, the last three days of Holy Week, and the Vigils of the Assumption of the B. M. V. and of the Nativity of the Lord. This is to be understood of those who are actually serving in camps, ships, and garrisons, but not of those who are absent by leave. Families using common board with them enjoy that privilege; not likewise those which live far away."¹

554. • Ecclesiastical fasting is placed in abstinence from foods and from a certain quality of foods, and in these provinces is to be observed in the time of Lent, the Ember Days, and certain vigils, namely of Pentecost, the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, All Saints, and the Nativity of Our Lord, and in most dioceses on the Fridays of Advent.¹ Coll. Lac. T. 3. p. 58. c. p. 61. 62. a-d.

We must treat 1° of the essence and obligation of fasting; 2° of causes excusing from fasting. (x) p. 475.

555. • I. All the faithful, from the twenty-first year of age completed, are bound under grave sin to observe fasting on the appointed days, unless they are legitimately excused, or dispensed by Superiors. It is a most ancient obligation, which is said to have been handed down by the Apostles themselves. Moreover, concerning this obligation there is proof from various Constitutions of the Supreme Pontiffs, and from all the Catechisms of the ecclesiastical Provinces.

I said: 1° under grave sin; because the law regards grave matter, since it is something which greatly conduces to the salvation of souls. It is clear moreover from Proposition 23 condemned by Alexander VII, p. XIV.

I said: 2° from the twenty-first year completed; because the Church, as a pious mother, does not wish to impose upon boys and adolescents a law surpassing their strength. This is clear from universal custom and from all Catechisms.

II. Ecclesiastical fasting consists, as it were, in three parts, namely 1° in one meal through the twenty-four hours of the day, with an evening little collation added; - 2° in abstinence from flesh-meat, and in Lent from milk-products; - 3° in the time determined for taking the meal. - Yet observe that the custom of places and times contributes very much to determining, or modifying, or restricting the nature and obligation of ecclesiastical laws, especially of fasting.

556. Principles. - I. The one meal is the primary condition of fasting; for in this especially is situated its essence, and when this is removed, no one is ever said to fast, while on the contrary a fast is conceived without abstinence from flesh-meat and milk-products.

II. But small eatings which are done besides are venial sins when taken separately; but, if repeated more often on the same day, they can coalesce into grave matter, as is clear from Proposition 29 condemned by Alexander VII, p. XIV, and because otherwise fasting would be done away with.

III. The fast is not broken by a draught of water, wine, and other drinks which of themselves are ordered, and are commonly used, to quenching thirst, although according to the first discipline of the Church Christians abstained altogether from wine and similar liquors. Hence the axiom: Liquid does not break the fast.¹ But by liquid is understood everything which, from the common estimation of the faithful, is held as drink, even if perhaps, as beer, it nourishes.²

557. Questions. - Quaer. 1° Does wine drunk for allaying hunger break the fast?

Resp. In the negative, more probably. The reason is that the law of fasting prescribes only abstinence from food, but not from drink, and according to St. Thomas³ "the statute of positive law does not attend to the intention of the one observing, but to the act itself, because the mode of virtue does not fall under precept, but is the end of the precept." - St. Alphonsus.⁴

Quaer. 2° Does a draught of coffee and tea break the fast?

Resp. In the negative, unless an excessive quantity of sugar is mixed in; because these do not have the nature of food, but of drink or medicine. - So the common sentence. - Moreover from custom it is permitted that in the morning with coffee or tea a little crust of bread (of two ounces) be taken. On this matter see the Response of the Sacred Penitentiary for Canada (z), p. 470.

558. • Quaer. 3° Does a draught of water mixed with sugar, or made from the juices of oranges or lemons, break the fast?

Resp. In the negative of itself, that is, unless you mix in a great quantity of their substance, which is judged to have the character of food. - So commonly. - The reason is that all these things from the common estimation are regarded as drinks. Moreover St. Alphonsus² grants that this very thing is licit even if these have been congealed by ice.

Quaer. 4° Does a drink of chocolate break the fast?

Resp. In the affirmative, if, rich as is the custom outside the time of fasting, it supplies nourishment to you. - But in the negative, if a moderate quantity of chocolate is taken, as is accustomed among us,¹ and is done only once in the day. The reason is drawn from general custom.² - What quantity can be taken? The holy Author says that not less than an ounce and a half of chocolate is accustomed to be put into ordinary cups; for thus, by a practice tolerated by the Church and observed commonly by pious faithful, it is accustomed to be done.

Quaer. 5° Is it licit to mix coffee and tea with milk?

Resp., as to the question concerning chocolate; for the same reason is valid here, yet preserving in Lent the law of abstinence from milk-products, unless derogation has been made from it by custom or dispensation has been granted in it.

559. • Quaer. 6° Is it licit on a day of fasting to taste some food, for example an ounce before drink, lest this do harm?

Resp. This certainly is not licit as often as one pleases, although Diana, Leander, and others also grant it; for then the law of fasting would be ridiculous. Therefore it can be permitted only once or twice in the day.³

Quaer. 7° Do electuaries break the fast?

Resp. Electuaries are those things which are made from selected things, for example from sugar and juniper, etc. But they are not judged illicit on fast-days if they are taken in the manner of medicine and in moderate quantity. Any reasonable cause suffices for excusing from all fault, for example for the digestion of foods, strengthening the stomach, tolerating the foul smell of the mouth, conserving the voice, and similar things. - St. Thomas,¹ Sporer, Elbel. - St. Alphonsus² adds that probably those also are excused who take something lest their strength fail, when they must delay dinner beyond the common hour. - Indeed the obligation of taking something will urge, if this is necessary for observing the fast. Namely, if by using this help you can bear a fast which otherwise you would not bear, the obligation itself of fasting requires of you that you use that help. See Croix.³ From this it is clear that certain men deserve entirely badly of fasting when, either under pretext of a custom which has not yet prevailed in their own province, they forbid the faithful to take anything in the morning, or they restrict this very thing to a mere small drink, with a little crust forbidden. For thus they effect this one thing: that many who otherwise would bear the yoke of fasting entirely cast it off.

560. • Quaer. 8° What quantity of food is judged slight matter, if it is taken outside the meal and the little supper?

Resp. A quantity of two ounces. So St. Alphonsus.⁴

Quaer. 9° Does he who culpably has taken a double meal sin gravely if he adds a third?

Resp. In the negative, at least more probably. The reason is that the precept of fasting urges in an indivisible way during the day of precept; hence he who has once violated it does not sin again and again by eating. Therefore, once mortal sin has been committed by violation of the fast, the whole law urging on that day has been violated. Therefore, etc. - St. Alphonsus,⁵ Mazzotta, Roncaglia, and others commonly.

Yet he who breaks the fast by eating forbidden flesh-meat or milk-products several times sins as often as he eats.⁶

561. • Quaer. 10° Is he who inculpably has taken a double meal in the day, once the error has been detected, bound under grave sin to abstain from a third?

Resp. In the affirmative, more probably. The reason is: because he harmed the fast only materially, not formally; wherefore, as soon as he adverts to the law of fasting, he is bound to observe it, as the rest do; otherwise he would violate it formally. So St. Alphonsus in the Homo Apostolicus,¹ who, on account of the observation alleged in the Vindiciae Alphonsianae,² p. LXXXVIII. 2., seems here to be preferred to the Larger Work,³ where the denying sentence is also called probable. Add that the holy Doctor in the work Conf. diretto per le conf. della gente di camp.⁴ reports only the affirmative sentence, while in the work Istr. e pratica pei confess. he only adds that he does not reprobate the denying sentence. Cf. p. LXXXIX. 4.

562. • Quaer. 11° What if on a fast-day you have taken breakfast inadvertently?

Resp. 1° If you have taken only a little, for example two ounces of food, you indeed ought from custom to fast, without leaving the meal and the little supper at the customary hours; for the fast was not substantially harmed.

2° If you have taken a quantity equivalent to the little supper, you must transfer dinner to the evening time, or abstain from the little supper itself, unless this falls to you into grave inconvenience.

3° Yet if a quantity of this kind was equal either to almost a double little supper or to the accustomed meal, you ought, having omitted dinner, to take only the evening little supper, yet take it earlier if you cannot wait without grave difficulty. Moreover you could increase this little supper according to the measure of necessity.

Besides the customary meal it is licit, from universal custom introduced over many centuries and tolerated by the Church, indeed also tacitly approved, to take toward evening a little refreshment from lighter foods. - So all.

563. Questions. - Quaer. 1° What quantity of food can be taken in the little supper?

Resp. From present and common custom, about eight ounces of food can be taken, at least speaking ordinarily.⁶ - But others say that a fourth part of supper is to be permitted. But this doctrine is too vague or liable to scruples. - A quantity of eight ounces is to be denied to no one, but a greater is to be conceded to those for whom this would not suffice. - St. Alphonsus,¹ Elbel, Lacroix. - Certainly no entirely fixed rule can be established, since attention must also be paid to constitution, duties to be performed, the duration of the fast, etc. In general it is licit to take as much as one judges necessary for avoiding an indisposition which impedes him from suitably fulfilling his offices. - Scavini, Gousset. - Account also must be taken of one's own region, if somewhere a greater quantity of food is necessary.

564. • Quaer. 2° What excess is judged grave in the little supper?

Resp. All agree that an excess of two ounces is slight matter.² See what was said above, n. 560, q. 8°.

Quaer. 3° Must sugar and milk, which are mixed with coffee or tea, be computed among the eight ounces?

Resp. By distinguishing according to those things which we said at n. 557, q. 2°, and n. 558, q. 5°.

Quaer. 4° What quality of foods can be used in the little supper?

Resp. Bread, any fruits whatever, any vegetables also, and sweetmeats of various kinds. But especially the custom of places is to be observed. For many things are permitted in various dioceses or provinces which are forbidden elsewhere: thus, for example, among us and elsewhere generally it is licit to eat cheese.

565. • Quaer. 5° Is it licit to eat eggs and butter in the evening little supper?

Resp. In the negative, generally, although dispensation is had for milk-products, as is clear from the Decree of Benedict XIV and Clement XIII. Yet among us, from present custom, it is licit to take some butter or cheese; but eggs are by no means permitted, because they are of very great substance,³ unless a contrary custom or dispensation is present.

Quaer. 6° Are fish permitted in the little supper?

Resp. In the affirmative, if it is a question of little fish, especially dried, and probably also of larger fish; yet St. Alphonsus⁴ thinks that with regard to these the weight of two or three ounces is not to be exceeded.

566. Principles. - I. To all the faithful using reason, by the precept of the Church the eating of flesh-meat is forbidden on each day of fasting. Hence by the law of fasting a double precept is imposed, as Benedict XIV also defines, namely of abstaining from several meals, and of abstaining from flesh-meat; therefore contrary to what several of the older authors hold, one dispensed or unable as to one is not for that reason and by this very fact to be excused from the other.¹ - Under the name of flesh-meat come all animals living and breathing on land; therefore frogs, tortoises, etc., are not prohibited. In doubt, if custom is lacking, one should attend to whether the animal is similar to what is forbidden and whether it nourishes more strongly. If the doubt persists, the Holy See should be approached.²

II. In the Lenten time eggs and milk-products also are prohibited, namely all those things which draw their origin from flesh. This is clear from the practice of the Church, from its dispensations, and from Proposition 32 condemned by Alexander VII, p. XIV. Now, however, in most places an almost general dispensation from that law is conceded to the faithful. Indeed today Bishops, from an indult conceded by the Roman Pontiff, grant to the whole diocese a dispensation also as to the eating of flesh-meat for the principal part of Lent. On the use of fat see what was said at n. 552, Quaer. 3°.

Moreover, although the eating of eggs and milk-products could not be excused from grave sin, of itself, according to the common sentence, nevertheless smallness of matter seems more easily to be admitted in these than in the eating of flesh-meat.

567. Questions. - Quaer. 1° Must abstinence from milk-products be observed also in fasting outside the Lenten time?

Resp. In the negative. Because an obligation of this kind is imposed by no general law. It is the common sentence, says St. Alphonsus.³ Yet somewhere, for example at Rome, a custom has prevailed, having the force of law, that abstinence of this kind is to be observed also on certain other days, for example on Ember Days.

Quaer. 2° Must abstinence from milk-products be observed on the Sundays of Lent?

Resp. In the affirmative, because neither law nor custom excepts Sunday. - St. Alphonsus,¹ and others commonly against some, whose sentence is not probable according to St. Alphonsus.

568. • Quaer. 3° In the time of Lent is it licit in the meal to eat breads made with eggs?

Resp. In the negative, unless eggs have been permitted; the reason is that their substance is not lost from the fact that it is mixed with flour.²

Quaer. 4° Are those dispensed for milk-products judged by that very fact also dispensed for eggs?

Resp. In the affirmative, because these are equated from custom (n. 145), unless a distinction is clearly expressed in the dispensation.

Quaer. 5° Can those dispensed for flesh-meat on days of fasting also eat fish?

Resp. In the negative, if it is a question of eating fish in the same meal. This is clear from the Constitution of Benedict XIV Non ambigimus. See also Response concerning Fasting, questions 5 and 10, pp. L, LI. It is said in question 10 "on days of fasting"; for that a mixture of this kind is licit outside Lent, when only abstinence is to be observed, is clear from the Response to question 6, p. LI. (e) p. 481.

569. • Quaer. 6° Whether the faithful exempt from the law of fasting because of laborious arts, in the time of Lent, when the eating of flesh-meat and milk-products is permitted to all for one meal, can eat flesh-meat and milk-products several times in the day, no otherwise than on the Sundays of the same Lent, on which the obligation of fasting does not urge?

The Sacred Penitentiary (on 16 Jan. 1834) responded: "The faithful who, by reason of age or labor, are not bound to fast, can licitly in Lent, when an indult has been granted, on all days comprehended by the Indult, eat flesh-meat or milk-products permitted by the same Indult, as often as they eat through the day." But this is not valid in a diocese whose Bishop by apostolic authority concedes that on certain weekdays of Lent it is licit once in the day to eat flesh-meat and eggs, at the same time permitting those who by reason of age or labor are not bound to fast to use eggs more often in the day. So the same Penitentiary, 27 May 1863. The Acta compose each response very well (f) p. 481.

570. • Quaer. 7° What is to be said about Catholics who on days of abstinence supply flesh-meat to non-Catholics with whom it happens that they are at table?

Resp. They are not to be blamed, if either 1° this is permitted to them from the Apostolic Indult which our Bishops have by force of the Extraordinary Faculties C. (see p. LXXII. 5); or 2° some just cause concurs, provided nevertheless that in either case scandal and contempt of the ecclesiastical law are absent.

In our times, from universal custom, the meal is licitly taken almost about noon.¹

571. Questions. - Quaer. 1° Does the hour of the meal pertain to the essence of fasting, so that he sins gravely who notably, for example by an hour, anticipates it without grave cause?

Resp. The sentence which affirms is probable only according to St. Alphonsus.²

Quaer. 2° Is the fast broken if the little supper is taken at midday, but the meal in the evening?

Resp. It is not broken essentially, and therefore if it is done without cause, it does not exceed venial sin. But even from this venial sin a reasonable cause, and the custom of the place or condition, excuses. Indeed in many places by present custom the little supper can be taken at the tenth hour in the morning, and the meal in the evening. The Response to question 1 among the Responses concerning fasting, p. L, agrees.

Quaer. 3° How long can dinner be prolonged?

Resp. Nothing absolutely can be determined concerning this; but it does not seem that without some fault it can be prolonged beyond two hours. - St. Alphonsus,³ Lacroix, Billuart, etc.

572. • Quaer. 4° Does he break the fast who interrupts the meal and, after an interval has elapsed, approaches it again?

Resp. 1° If the interruption is slight, for example of a sesquiquadrans, or even of half an hour, it lacks every fault, even if it is done without reason.⁴

2° If it is of one hour and without reason, the fast is judged morally interrupted.

3° If the interruption, even for one hour, is made from a just cause, for example for doing some business, it will be excused entirely from all fault.

But however great an interruption there may be for a just cause, there is no sin in returning to table when the preceding meal was not sufficient and the fast cannot be borne without grave inconvenience; because the Church never intends to obligate one to pass the day without sufficient refreshment.¹

Quaer. 5° Can he who has risen from table with the intention of eating no more sit again at the table?

Resp. In the affirmative, probably, if the fellow diners are still eating, or if a new dish is placed on the table which he did not know was to be placed, or if the interruption was slight. The reason is that it is still judged morally the same dinner.²

Quaer. 6° If someone in the morning, for the sake of a journey, has taken breakfast, is he bound to fast if afterward he does not set out?

Resp. In the affirmative, of itself. The reason is that, since the essence of the fast has not yet been destroyed, its obligation continues to urge. Yet make exception if, through that one eating, he cannot conveniently fast for the rest of the day.³

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.

769. By natural and positive law, writings dangerous to faith or Christian life are prohibited in diverse ways. - By natural law we are obliged to avoid every danger of great moment for faith and morals; hence, apart from all human and ecclesiastical laws, it is regularly unlawful to disseminate or to read writings dangerous to faith or good morals. Hence:

1. Bishops, parish priests, fathers of families, legislators, magistrates, teachers, etc., must use the greatest vigilance that pernicious books be kept far from the eyes and hands of those for whom they are to render an account to God (can. 1405, § 2; 1397, § 4).

2. Even if books are not prohibited by human and ecclesiastical law, nevertheless they can be dangerous and prohibited for a determined person by reason of special danger, for example, for a youth.

3. Hence if books are not entered in the Index, they can be prohibited by the natural law, either generally, or for a determined person.

4. And if some have been furnished with the faculty of reading prohibited books, or if the laws of the Index did not flourish somewhere, nevertheless they could not read all things, namely, if by their nature they are dangerous for all, or if they know or experience that reading of this kind is harmful to them, or proximately dangerous, for example, if they do not know how to discern truth from error (can. 1405, § 1).

5. In this matter it is ordinarily expedient to follow the stricter opinions, says St. Alphonsus, namely, when it is a question of avoiding the proximate danger of formal sin.

6. But in addition, by ecclesiastical law, for example, of the Index, or by the Supreme Pontiff or by a bishop by name, writings can be interdicted¹ (can. 1395); and then, even if they were read without danger, nevertheless they remain prohibited: by natural law indeed they are prohibited on account of the very danger of perversion in the particular case, but by positive law on account of the presumption of common danger (n. 345, and can. 21).

¹ Cf. the treatise De Ecclesia, where concerning the power of the Church; likewise the Council of Trent, sessions 4, 18, and 25. Concerning the law of the Index one can consult: Vermeersch, De Prohibitione et Censura librorum; Salsmans, Het Index; Kiselstein, L'Index; Marc-Gestermann, in Th. M. I, appendix.

Concerning this positive law of the Index and its general and special rules we must now speak specifically; it prohibits three kinds of writings, namely, those regarding Sacred Scripture, or faith and morals, or worship, devotion, and liturgy.

770. As regards Sacred Scripture, by a general rule, by the law itself there are prohibited:

1. "Editions of the original text and of ancient Catholic versions of Sacred Scripture, even of the Eastern Church, published by any non-Catholics whatsoever" (can. 1399, § 1).

2. "Versions of the same into any language whatsoever, made or published by the same" (can. 1399, § 1).

3. "Books of the Sacred Scriptures or annotations and commentaries on the same, if they have been published without the prescriptions of the canons being observed" (can. 1385, § 1, and 1399, § 5), that is, without previous censorship, even by laymen.

4. "Versions of the Sacred Scriptures into the vernacular tongue... unless they have been approved by the Apostolic See, or unless they are published under the vigilance of the Bishops and with annotations principally excerpted from the holy Fathers of the Church and from learned and Catholic writers"² (can. 1391 and 1399, § 5). This holds for editions after the year 1897: for the law does not have retroactive effect; but before the year 1897 the approval of the bishop was not required, but for Catholic editions a version with annotations sufficed.

² "Books of any writers whatsoever (even Catholics) which defend heresy or schism"1 (that is, not merely stating it in passing, with few words and as if doing something else, but attempting to persuade by adding reasons, proving or defending it); - "or which strive in any way to overthrow the very foundations of religion" (whether directly, by reasons, or indirectly, by insults; whether by serious attack, or even by jokes and derision) (can. 1399, § 2).

But it should be noted: a) the exception of can. 1400: "The use of the aforesaid books... is permitted only to those who in any way devote themselves to theological or biblical studies, provided the same books have been faithfully and integrally published and the dogmas of Catholic faith are not attacked in their prolegomena or annotations." They are permitted, namely, to professors, students, and those who, after their studies have been completed, continue to study Scripture; that is, whoever habitually, not by a merely passing act, cultivate these studies, whether in schools or privately;

b) there is no longer any prohibition of reading Scripture in the vernacular tongue, nor an obligation of asking permission from the parish priest or confessor, provided the edition is approved.

1. This must be taken copulatively (com. int. May 20, 1923). - Paraphrastic versions seem to be assimilated to versions with annotations.

2. Annotations which set forth profane science, geography, archaeology, etc., can be drawn from profane authors.

771. As regards faith and morals, by a general rule, by the law itself there are prohibited:

Heresy is error in Catholic faith. Schism is understood as perfect and complete, by which someone refuses obedience to the Supreme Pontiff; but not simple disobedience, nor contempt of a particular law, nor rebellion against a bishop. The foundations of religion are preliminary truths of the natural order which found the Catholic religion (for example, the possibility of a miracle, prophecy, revelation, or motives of credibility in general, etc.) or every religion (for example, the existence of God, the spirituality of the soul). Hence books defending atheism, pantheism, skepticism, agnosticism, positivism, theosophy (June 16, 1919), and many modern philosophical works are prohibited.

2. "Books which deliberately attack religion" (Catholic, or at least natural religion) "or good morals" (can. 1399, § 3), that is, they do not touch upon them in passing, but professedly attack them, or from intention and by design; this can be manifested either explicitly or by multiplied attacks from the fact that it is done in a notable part, for example, several times, or through several pages or an entire chapter.

Hence sectarian writings are prohibited, and many socialist writings, and those which habitually narrate or describe immoral things.

3. "Books of any non-Catholics whatsoever" (namely, apostates, heretics, schismatics, or the non-baptized) "which professedly treat of religion" (that is, with the intention of teaching, principally, in a notable part, for example, one chapter), "unless it is clear that nothing" (of any moment) "is contained in them against Catholic faith" (can. 1399, § 4).

Books of non-Catholics treating of sacred doctrine, of dogmatic or moral matters, of canon law or ecclesiastical history, of philosophical truths which are the foundation of religion and theology, are presumed erroneous and dangerous in faith, unless the contrary is clear, as for example, in the case of Leibniz, Systema theologiae, or Hugo Grotius, De Religione. Therefore they are not to be read without previous information. - On the contrary, works of Catholics who afterward became heretics.

4. "Books which attack" (by arguments) "or deride any one whatsoever of the Catholic dogmas" (not only deny them), - "which support errors proscribed by the Apostolic See" (either immediately by the Supreme Pontiff or mediately by a Sacred Congregation with pontifical approval, for example, the errors of the Syllabus: thus S. C. Ind., May 23, 1898), "who defend them" (that is, professedly), - "which detract from divine worship" (not in passing but notably, so that its reputation is harmed or it is held in less esteem), - "which contend to overthrow ecclesiastical discipline" (for example, celibacy, the Index), that is, they professedly intend to change it and make it waver, - "and which deliberately" (studiously, advisedly, by design) "affect with insults the ecclesiastical hierarchy" (whether of order or of jurisdiction), "or the clerical or religious state" (not as private persons, but because they pertain to the hierarchy or the state) (can. 1399, § 6).

5. "Books which teach" (so that others may learn and do) "or commend superstition of any kind, sorceries, divination, magic, evocation of spirits, and other things of this kind" (can. 1399, § 7).

Such are those which teach effects of the devil, modes which are known to be insufficient without the intervention of the devil, or true spiritism by which the evocation of spirits or intercourse with them is intended; but not books which hand down merely natural occultism.

6. "Books which state that dueling, or suicide, or divorce" (not only of the civil contract but of the bond itself of marriage) "is lawful" (in conscience), that is, they do not affirm it in passing but attempt to demonstrate it by reasons, - "which, treating of Masonic sects or other societies of the same kind, contend that they are useful and not pernicious to the Church and to civil society," not incidentally but in a notable part (can. 1399, § 8).

Societies of that kind are clandestine sects, such as the Carbonari, Nihilists, Anarchists, etc., also the Fenians (Holy Office, January 12, 1870); but not socialists, who form a political sect, unless nevertheless they were secretly united to overthrow the State.

7. "Books which professedly" (not in passing, but principally, or directly and notably) "treat, narrate" (vividly so that they entice, for example, pornographic books), "or teach lascivious or obscene things," that is, theoretically approve them, for example, free love, Malthusianism, contraceptive means (can. 1399, § 9). - But not theological, scientific, or surgical works, unless under a scientific pretext they appear to have been written to nourish wicked curiosity or to excite venereal appetite.

It should be noted that formerly there existed an exception in favor of teachers for obscene classical works, but this has been removed. Hence if a professor, or judge, or newspaper writer, or official must read an obscene book by office, he should ask permission; but if he had to read it altogether immediately, he could suppose, for this case alone, that the law does not oblige and that its obligation here and now ceases.

1. Custom has excepted the writings of more ancient heretics, such as Tertullian, Origen, Pelagius, etc., whose errors have long since become obsolete.

772. As regards worship, devotion, and liturgy, by a general rule, by the law itself there are prohibited:

1. "Books and booklets which narrate new apparitions, revelations, visions, prophecies, miracles" (as supernatural), that is, they do not report them in passing by the way, but professedly or in a notable part; "or which introduce new devotions" (notably different from ancient and approved ones), "even under the pretext that they are private, if they have been published without the prescriptions of the canons being observed" (can. 1399, § 5).

This holds for books published after 1897, for the law does not have retroactive effect. Books of prayers, devotion, or theological doctrine and religious, moral, ascetical, or mystical instruction are no longer prohibited: they can also be read and retained without approval. Likewise the canon does not hold for apparitions approved by the Church, such as those of the Immaculate Blessed Virgin Mary of Lourdes, the revelations of St. Bridget, St. Margaret Mary, etc.

But several novelties were reproved: the cult concerning the blood of Mary (January 13, 1875), the title of friend of the Sacred Heart of Jesus (May 4, 1892), the title of the Blessed Virgin Mary as Lady of the Sacred Heart because she exercises dominion over the Son (February 23, 1875), the special cult to be attributed to the Face of the Redeemer in the manner in which it was proposed by the priests of the Holy Face (May 4, 1892), the title of the penitent Sacred Heart of Jesus (July 9, 1893), the prayer for the dominion of Christ and Mary Immaculate over all creatures (June 19, 1895), the private cult of the divine hands of Christ (April 17, 1896, Index), the image of the Eucharistic Heart of Jesus (May 27, 1891), the image of the Blessed Virgin Mary clothed in priestly vestments (April 8, 1916).

2. "Editions of liturgical books" (for example, the missal, breviary, ritual, pontifical, and ceremonial of bishops) "approved by the Apostolic See, in which anything has been changed, so that they do not agree with the authentic editions approved by the Holy See" (can. 1399, § 10).

3. "Books in which apocryphal indulgences, or those proscribed or revoked by the Holy See, are published" (can. 1399, § 11). Hence also small sheets with apocryphal indulgences are prohibited (can. 1388, § 1).

4. "Images printed in any way whatsoever" (by printing properly so called, engraving, photography, lithography, phototype, etc.) "of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Angels and Saints or other Servants of God, alien from the sense and decrees of the Church" (can. 1399, § 12).

Statues or painted images are not prohibited.³ Nor artistic images which have as their principal end to reproduce art; but pious images, destined for public or private worship. Nor simply images not approved, but new ones. Whether medals are comprehended is uncertain, because they are rather struck than printed.

³ These, for their admission in churches or use in worship, can fall under can. 1279.

773. What is prohibited under the name of books? - Under the name of books manuscripts do not come (even lithographic or polygraphic ones), unless they have been published and made public, handed on or sold to all; but "those things which are prescribed concerning books are to be applied to publications, newspapers, periodicals, and any other published writings whatsoever, unless something else is clear" (can. 1384). Hence:

530. Already for centuries⁷⁹ the Church with watchful vigilance has proscribed bad books and forbidden the reading of them under grave penalties. There will be speech below about those ecclesiastical penalties in the treatise on censures. Almost nothing is so pestiferous for true religion and good morals as the reading of bad books. Hence Leo XIII says: "In the struggle [against the doctrine of Christ] the wiles and arts of harming of the enemies are indeed various and innumerable; but among the first is the full-of-dangers intemperance of writing and disseminating among the people the things which have been written badly. For nothing more pernicious can be thought of for staining souls through contempt of religion and through the many allurements of sinning."⁸⁰ The same Pontiff established certain new general rules for discerning the categories of prohibited books. These rules indeed are renewed in the Code of Canon Law c. 1399. Thus are prohibited, e.g.: "Books of any writers whatsoever defending heresy or schism, or in any way overthrowing the foundations of religion itself; books which deliberately attack religion or good morals; books of any non-Catholics whatsoever which professedly treat of religion, unless it is certain that nothing against the Catholic faith is contained in them; ... books which establish as licit duel, suicide, or divorce, which treat of Masonic sects or other societies of the same kind and contend that they are useful and not pernicious to the Church and civil society; books which professedly treat, narrate, or teach lascivious or obscene matters." - All these books are prohibited on account of the imminent danger to faith and good morals. But if in a particular case for an individual man such danger does not exist on account of the firmness of his character, nevertheless the law of prohibition perseveres.⁸¹ But then the faculty of reading prohibited books is easily obtained from the competent authority, if a reasonable cause exists.

Note. No more efficacious way is given of preventing the reading of bad books and papers than to provide good books for the people to read, and especially good daily or periodical papers. Hence with the best fruit in diverse regions associations operate for spreading good books.⁸²

⁷⁹ On the history of the prohibition of books, see Jos. Hilgers, Der Index der verbotenen Bucher (Freiburg, 1904), 2 sqq., Geschichtl. Uberblick des kirchl. Bucherverbotes.

⁸⁰ Const. "Officiorum et munerum," January 25, 1897.

⁸¹ Compare what was said above (n. 218) about law founded on the presumption of common danger.

⁸² E.g. in Germany: the Borromaeusverein; in other regions: l'oeuvre de la bonne presse.

649. Notion. Abstinence taken generally signifies the withdrawal of food. In this general sense it is not a virtue, but something indifferent, which from circumstances can become good or evil. Thus he who abstains from foods from vanity commits an evil act; but he who abstains from foods on account of the right dictate of reason and virtue performs a good act.¹¹⁹⁵ The moderate use of foods is prescribed not only by the virtue of abstinence, but also by the medical art, but in different ways. For medicine demands this moderate use principally in order to bodily health, whereas the virtue of abstinence commands the same moderation in order to man's moral good.

It is to be observed that, although abstinence is said to concern the moderate use of foods, it also moderates the use of drink, insofar as drink serves for nourishment; but not the use of intoxicating drink, the moderation of which pertains to the virtue of sobriety. Hence, if someone drinks milk immoderately, he does not sin against sobriety but against abstinence; but if he drinks wine immoderately, he sins against sobriety, not against abstinence.

Definition. Abstinence is a moral virtue inclining one to the moderate use of foods, according as right reason (or faith) shall have determined for the moral good.

If natural right reason is applied as the sole rule of abstinence, there is the natural acquired virtue of abstinence; but if reason illuminated by the virtue of faith is the directing rule, there is the supernatural virtue of abstinence. That abstinence understood in this manner is a true and special virtue is evident, since it rightly orders a special object, namely, the pleasures of foods, which not rarely withdraw man from the good of reason.¹¹⁹⁶

The act of the virtue of abstinence is fasting and abstinence strictly so called, namely, abstinence from certain determined foods. For the sake of clarity we distribute all things which must be said concerning the virtue of abstinence into four sections: 1. on fasting in general; 2. on the extent of the ecclesiastical law of fasting; 3. on the ecclesiastical law of abstinence; 4. on causes excusing from the law of fasting and of abstinence from meat.

¹¹⁹⁵ Cf. S. theol. 2, 2, q. 146, a. 1.

¹¹⁹⁶ Ib., a. 2.

650. Notions. The word fasting is taken: 1. for total abstinence from every food and drink, or from everything which is transmitted into the stomach by way of food. I say: by way of food; whence such a fast is not broken if by chance something enters the stomach by way of saliva, for example, if someone swallows some blood proceeding from the teeth or nose, or if by chance a fly enters the mouth and stomach, etc. It is then called a natural fast, or even the fast of one who is fasting. Such a fast from midnight is required for the reception of the Eucharist, unless a special permission is present, concerning which there is treatment in the tract on the Eucharist. 2. It is taken for abstinence from food and drink according to the common rules of temperance, in order to its proper end, which is a good disposition of body and mind for performing their functions perfectly. This fast is called a moral or philosophical fast, and it is sometimes employed by men without any respect to religion, solely on account of some honorable good. 3. It is taken for abstinence from food and drink in a determined degree, and indeed a greater one than moral abstinence requires. Such a fast is customarily determined by either a general or a particular positive ecclesiastical law, and it is employed on days of fasting determined for the whole Catholic Church, or also at other times for certain religious orders. This fast is called ecclesiastical or arbitrary. 4. Finally, fasting is taken in a metaphorical sense for abstinence from vices and sins.¹¹⁹⁷ These things having been explained, the following propositions are to be noted:

1. A natural fast is not of itself an act of virtue, since it consists in mere negation; nevertheless, it becomes meritorious if it is undertaken on account of an honorable motive.¹¹⁹⁸

2. A moral fast is an act of the natural or acquired virtue of abstinence. For the virtue of abstinence moderates the pleasures of food and drink according to right reason. But a moral fast is nothing other than abstinence from foods made according to right reason.

3. An ecclesiastical fast is a good act elicited by the virtue of abstinence, and moreover it is a good act which is commanded by diverse other virtues, for example, by religion, by penance, etc. For in an ecclesiastical fast there is reasonable abstinence from foods, which indeed is commanded by diverse virtues insofar as it is undertaken on account of diverse good ends.

¹¹⁹⁷ "Is not this rather the fast that I have chosen? Loose the bands of wickedness ..." (Isa. 58:6). Cf. S. theol. 2, 2, q. 147, a. 2 ad 1.

¹¹⁹⁸ S. theol. 2, 2, q. 146, a. 2.

651. Excellence of fasting. Fasting performed in a right manner and according to right reason is commended by so many examples and admonitions in Sacred Scripture and by the holy Fathers that it is astonishing how several persons, especially Protestants, have dared to disparage so efficacious an exercise of Christian virtue. Christ Himself sanctified fasting by His example, observing it for forty days, and foretold that the disciples would fast. The Apostles and the first Christians fasted.¹¹⁹⁹ Whence St. Paul admonishes: "Let us exhibit ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, ... in fastings, in chastity,"¹²⁰⁰ and already in the Old Testament fasting had been prescribed: "Be converted to me with all your heart, in fasting, and in weeping, and in mourning."¹²⁰¹ The holy Fathers wrote entire books in praise of fasting; for example, St. Augustine commended the Lenten fast in seven sermons.¹²⁰² St. Jerome wrote a little book against Jovinian, who disparaged fasting.¹²⁰³ Since these things are so, the Catholic Church can deservedly prescribe fasting at certain times, and indeed under grave sin.

Concerning the excellence of fasting St. Thomas writes:¹²⁰⁴ "Fasting is undertaken principally for three things. First, for repressing the desires of the flesh; whence the Apostle says: 'in fasting and chastity,' because through fasts chastity is preserved. For, as Jerome says: 'Without Ceres and Bacchus, Venus grows cold'; that is, through abstinence from food and drink lust grows tepid. Secondly, it is undertaken so that the mind may be raised more freely to contemplate sublime things; whence it is said that Daniel, after a fast of three weeks, received a revelation from God. Thirdly, for making satisfaction for sins; whence it is said: 'Be converted to me with all your heart, in fasting, and in weeping, and in mourning.' And this is what Augustine says in a certain sermon concerning prayer and fasting: 'Fasting purifies the soul, raises the mind, subjects one's own flesh to the spirit, makes the heart contrite and humbled, disperses the clouds of concupiscence, extinguishes the ardors of lust, and kindles the light of chastity.'"

¹¹⁹⁹ Cf. Acts 13:3; 14:22.

¹²⁰⁰ 2 Cor. 6:4.

¹²⁰¹ Joel 2:12.

¹²⁰² Migne, Patr. lat. 38, 1039ff.

¹²⁰³ Ib. 23, 312.

¹²⁰⁴ Cf. S. theol., l.c., a. 1.

652. Scholion. On the development of the ecclesiastical law of fasting. Before we treat in particular of the extent of this precept and of excusing causes, it is useful to note with Cajetan:¹²⁰⁵ "Since the whole matter of ecclesiastical fasting is almost solely of positive law, custom and dispensation over the passage of time can change the discipline of fasting greatly. Hence it has come about that what formerly was law is no longer of the necessity of law, and what formerly was forbidden is afterward lawful." But St. Alphonsus¹²⁰⁶ skillfully observes: "The authority of more recent doctors, although fewer, who alone can testify concerning later modern custom, must be esteemed more and without doubt preferred to the authority, even though more common, of older authors, who could know nothing of the custom to be introduced afterward."¹²⁰⁷

For confessional practice it cannot be sufficiently noted that in the matter of fasting the customs of places and the diverse circumstances of times have very great force. Hence almost everything must be taken from the so-called episcopal mandates which are customarily published at the beginning of each Lent in individual dioceses. Certain moralist authors do not attend sufficiently to the fact that in our times the same determinations concerning the law of ecclesiastical fasting can no longer be given which theologians of great name gave in the Middle Ages. Thus, for example, until the twelfth century only one meal, and that taken after sunset, was in use during the time of the Lenten fast; but in the thirteenth century, while St. Thomas was living, this one meal was taken at the third hour of the afternoon; in the fourteenth century, however, the same meal was taken about noon, a custom which is still in use, at least in most regions. In the eighteenth century St. Alphonsus taught with many other authors that the inversion or anticipation of the time of the one meal was gravely unlawful; today several theologians rightly teach¹²⁰⁸ that the one meal can be taken at any hour of the day for a reasonable cause. This opinion today is morally certain, since the Code of Canon Law, canon 1251, § 2, simply establishes: it is not forbidden to interchange the evening meal with dinner. Omitting, therefore, those things which were prescribed concerning fasting in ancient times, and likewise omitting those precepts which are observed by particular law in certain regions or institutes, only the presently prevailing discipline of ecclesiastical fasting is explained.

¹²⁰⁵ Comm. in 2, 2, q. 147, a. 7.

¹²⁰⁶ Theol. mor. l. 3, n. 1025.

¹²⁰⁷ Concerning the historical development of the law of fasting, see: Thomassin, Traité des jeûnes de l'Église, Paris 1680; Funk, Kirchengesch. Abhandl. I, 247-250. Leo XIII and Pius X enacted special laws concerning fasting for Latin America by the Constitution Trans Oceanum of April 18, 1897, and January 10, 1910. For Italy Pius X greatly tempered the law of fasting and abstinence by a Decree of September 5, 1907, and likewise for Dalmatia and other places. For Spain and Portugal Benedict XV greatly mitigated the rigor of fasting on December 31, 1914, and August 12, 1915 (Act. Ap. Sed. VII, 554ff.). Likewise, ample indults were granted for Switzerland.

¹²⁰⁸ Cf. Lehmkuhl, Moraltheol. I, n. 1468; Tanquerey, Synopsis Theol. mor. II, n. 1114; Noldin, De praeceptis n. 674.

653. Principle. The essence of ecclesiastical fasting consists in one complete meal.¹²⁰⁹

The older authors quite commonly placed the essence of fasting in three things, namely, in one meal, in a determined hour for that meal, and in abstinence from certain foods, namely, from meat, eggs, and milk products.¹²¹⁰ Certainly, even in our times these three things pertain to the perfection of fasting, so that it is not altogether perfect unless these three are observed, but they by no means pertain to its very essence. The reason is that the essence of ecclesiastical fasting can still be present even if the second or third condition is lacking. Hence, for example, the essence of ecclesiastical fasting is still present although meat is eaten at dinner and eggs or milk products at the evening meal. But if anyone has taken two complete meals in one day, the essence of ecclesiastical fasting has been destroyed. There is indeed no authentic declaration of the Church determining that the essence of ecclesiastical fasting is situated in one complete meal; but since the Church permits the faithful to eat milk products and the hour of the complete meal to be changed, and since, on the other hand, the Church cannot be accused as though she had permitted the essence of ecclesiastical fasting to be changed in the course of time, it follows that the essence of fasting consists solely in one complete meal, just as it was always prescribed from the beginning of the Church. St. Thomas already intimates the same thing not obscurely when he writes:¹²¹¹ "Fasting is instituted by the Church for restraining concupiscence, yet in such a way that nature is preserved. For this, however, one eating seems sufficient, through which man can satisfy nature and yet detract something from concupiscence by diminishing the number of eatings. And therefore it was established by the moderation of the Church that those fasting should eat once in the day." From this excellent principle, that ecclesiastical fasting ought so to restrain concupiscence that nature is preserved, it follows that the Church can reasonably permit a milder practice on account of changed circumstances, and especially on account of the increased weakness of the human race and enervating labors, without the essence of fasting nevertheless being injured or its end perishing. Hence, in our times the Church permits that there be taken: 1. dinner; 2. an evening collation; 3. a morning morsel.

Concerning these three eatings, the following things are to be noted in relation to the quantity and quality of food and the hour of eating.

¹²⁰⁹ Cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 1251.

¹²¹⁰ Cf. Billuart, De ieiunio a. 3.

¹²¹¹ S. theol. 2, 2, q. 147, a. 6.

654. 1. On dinner on fast days.

a) The hour of dinner, according to modern discipline, is left to the free disposition of the one fasting, as was already said above. Hence dinner can be taken at the fifth or sixth hour in the afternoon, as is customary in America and other regions. Dinner can also be taken at the eleventh hour in the morning if there is a reasonable cause.¹²¹²

b) Dinner must be morally continuous and not immoderately prolonged. For if dinner is notably interrupted, it is no longer one meal, but there are two meals. What interruption is notable, however, depends upon the estimation of a prudent man and upon the reason for which the interruption occurs. In general, however, an interruption of one half-hour is considered slight. Hence he who, dinner now being finished, eats again within half an hour (even meat, if the eating of meat is permitted) has still made one eating. But as regards the prolongation of dinner, authors after St. Alphonsus¹²¹³ commonly permit a space of two hours. From this, however, it cannot be inferred that someone may lawfully eat again after an hour and a half if he previously dined for the space of one half-hour. For there would be a notable interruption.

c) The quantity of food at dinner is not determined by ecclesiastical law, so that one can eat unto satiety. If, however, someone eats too much at dinner on fast days, he injures the virtue of temperance, although he does not violate the precept of ecclesiastical fasting.

d) The quality of food was indeed determined in ancient times, but today, on fast days which are not at the same time days of abstinence, any foods whatsoever are permitted by ecclesiastical law; indeed, it is not even forbidden to mix meat and fish in the same meal.¹²¹⁴

Whenever meat is permitted on fast days, those who by reason of labor, age, or infirmity are unable to fast may lawfully eat meat several times during the day. The Sacred Penitentiary expressly decreed this.¹²¹⁵ A bishop can, however, decree for his diocese that even those who are dispensed from fasting are not to eat meat except once in the day. Apart from an express decree of this kind, however, the general rule holds: on days of fasting alone, all those who are not bound to fast can eat meat several times.

¹²¹² Code of Canon Law, canon 1251, § 2. Cf. Lehmkuhl, Theol. mor. I, n. 1468, and Noldin, De praeceptis n. 685.

¹²¹³ Theol. mor. l. 3, n. 1020.

¹²¹⁴ Code of Canon Law, canon 1251, § 2.

¹²¹⁵ Sacred Penitentiary, May 27, 1863, and March 16, 1883.

655. 2. On the evening collation on fast days.

a) The hour of this collation is free, since it is evident from what was said above that it can be taken at the eleventh hour in the morning and can freely be interchanged with dinner.

b) The quantity of food permitted at the collation is assigned differently by different authors. Some permit a fifth part, others a fourth part, of a complete meal. Better, or at least simpler and easier, is the opinion of St. Alphonsus, which modern authors most commonly follow. These are the words of St. Alphonsus:¹²¹⁶ "It is better to follow the opinion of others commonly received today, as Castropalaus, Roncaglia, the Salmanticenses, Viva, Bonacina, Holzmann, Tamburinus, Elbel, Diana, Sporer, Milante, Croix, Mazotta, etc., testify, which indiscriminately permits to all (even to those who need little food, as they also commonly say) the quantity of eight ounces, and something else, namely, two other ounces, which is slight matter, to him who would need greater nourishment." Eight ounces are equivalent to 240-250 grams, or half a pound. The same theologians add that even he who would be satiated by this quantity of food can nevertheless eat such a quantity with a safe conscience, because this would be a sign that he has a weak stomach and consequently is not bound to so strict a fast.

¹²¹⁶ Homo apost. tr. 12, n. 16.

656. Lehmkuhl teaches:¹²¹⁷ "But when porridge is cooked from foods mixed with water, oil, etc., there is scarcely anyone who would concede that, apart from the liquid, eight ounces of solid food may be taken. And indeed attention ought to be given not only to the nutritive power of foods, but also to the satiety which is actually induced.... Therefore, it is rightly permitted that no more of a porridge of this sort be taken than what is cooked from four or five ounces of flour, beans, dry bread, rice, etc., without counting that small condiment of oil and vinegar." This opinion, which is also held by several other authors, ought not to be urged too much in practice. Certainly, if a notable quantity of oil, milk, or another nutritive liquid is employed in cooking foods of this sort, it would then not be lawful to take a further eight ounces of solid food; but if only water, wine, or another non-nutritive liquid is employed, or only a moderate quantity of some nutritive liquid, no reason appears why something should then be subtracted from the quantity of solid food. For a law seems sufficiently arbitrary which would permit someone, for example, to take eight ounces of bread and then drink half a liter of wine, but which would forbid under mortal sin that someone dip or cook the same quantity of bread in even a smaller quantity of wine. Nor do the reasons brought forward by those authors seem valid. For the concept of fasting according to common judgment by no means demands such a limitation. On the contrary, it would seem sufficiently curious to simple persons if eight ounces of bread and half a liter of wine were permitted, provided they were taken separately at the collation, while, on the contrary, they would be gravely forbidden when taken together. Nor is the reason valid that a man would have a greater sensation of satiety from porridge of this kind; for nowhere has the Church prohibited the sensation of satiety. Experience, moreover, establishes that the sensation of satiety is very deceptive and is sometimes had even after a small amount of food has been taken. Since these things are so, the opinion of many authors, both older¹²¹⁸ and modern, seems preferable, who in every case permit the quantity of eight ounces of solid (but light) food at the evening collation. This opinion was already called most probable by the very illustrious Elbel.¹²¹⁹

For the vigil of the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, St. Alphonsus permits a quantity twice as great at the collation; for he says that there is then a "joyful fast."¹²²⁰ On the vigil of Easter, however, the fast ceases after noon.¹²²¹

c) The quality of food permitted at the collation depends upon custom and particular statutes. Certainly, eggs, milk products, and larger fish are not of themselves excluded; nevertheless, all modern authors teach that it is not lawful to take the entire collation from such highly nutritive foods. Hence no moralist, as I think, would permit someone to eat four hens' eggs at the collation, which have a weight of about eight ounces; or that someone take two eggs and, in addition, four ounces of bread. It seems more conformable to the mind of Holy Church if lighter foods, and foods not so strongly seasoned with fat, are taken for the evening collation on fast days.

¹²¹⁷ L.c. n. 1462.

¹²¹⁸ See those authors in St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 3, n. 1029, and Homo apost. tr. 12, n. 18.

¹²¹⁹ Cf. also Göpfert, Moraltheol. II, 203; Vermeersch, Theol. mor. III, 873. Capellmann (Pastoralmed. 120) rightly calls the contrary opinion "a peculiar opinion of the moralists," and Génicot (Theol. mor. I, 437) writes: "Nor does it seem equitable to permit the richer man to dip eight ounces of bread in wine while he eats them (which St. Alphonsus thinks lawful), but to prohibit the poor man from cooking the same quantity in water. Indeed, if recourse is had to common estimation and the end of the law, by which reasons Lehmkuhl n. 1211 [1462] endeavors to support the opinion of St. Alphonsus, this poor man, at least in our regions, will be judged to fast and exercise mortification better than the rich man using wine."

¹²²⁰ Theol. mor. l. 3, n. 1025.

¹²²¹ Code of Canon Law, canon 1252, § 4.

657. 3. On the morning morsel on fast days.

Today, even in religious communities and among God-fearing faithful, there exists the custom on fast days of taking in the morning a morsel of bread or another lighter food. The Church knows and tolerates this custom.¹²²² Moralists most commonly teach that this morsel can lawfully contain the quantity of two ounces, or about sixty grams, of solid food. Liquid, for example, coffee or tea with a small quantity of sugar or milk, ought not to be counted.

¹²²² Ib., canon 1251, § 1.

658. Time of fasting. The days of ecclesiastical fasting by common law are:

a) The time of Lent, that is, from Ash Wednesday until after noon on Holy Saturday. Sundays are excepted, but not even feasts of precept.

b) The Ember Days, namely, Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday within the third week of Advent, the first week of Lent, within the octave of Pentecost, and the third week of September.

c) Four vigils, namely, of the Nativity of the Lord, Pentecost, the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and All Saints. But if these vigils fall on a Sunday or a feast of precept, fasting and abstinence neither bind nor are to be anticipated.¹²²³

d) The day before the consecration of a church, both the consecrating bishop and the people who ask that the church be consecrated for them must fast. Hence, if a parish church is consecrated, besides the consecrating bishop all the faithful belonging to the parish must fast, provided that they built the church at their own expense; otherwise, the parishioners are not bound to fast. But if a religious church is consecrated, the consecrating bishop and the religious attached to that church seem to be bound to fast.¹²²⁴

¹²²³ Code of Canon Law, canon 1252, §§ 2 and 4.

¹²²⁴ Ib., canon 1166, § 2; cf. Pontificale Romanum, title De ecclesiae dedicatione; Sacred Congregation of the Council, July 3, 1909 (Acta Ap. Sedis I, 624f.), and Pontifical Commission, July 20, 1929 (Act. Ap. Sed. XXI, 573). In the ordination of clerics which takes place outside the Ember seasons, no obligation of fasting exists for anyone (cf. Gasparri, De s. ordinat. II, n. 771).

659. For Latin America, the Antilles, and the other islands of the Caribbean Sea, the law of fasting and abstinence has been almost abolished. For:

1. fasting and abstinence from meat are prescribed only on the following days of Lent: Ash Wednesday, Thursday of Holy Week, and all Fridays of this season. Therefore, on Holy Saturday it is lawful to eat meat;

2. fasting without abstinence is to be observed on the Fridays of Advent and the Wednesdays of Lent;

3. abstinence from meat without fasting is to be observed on the four vigils of the feasts of the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Pentecost, the Assumption into heaven of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul.

Religious of each sex also (who are not bound by a special vow), with the consent of their superiors, can use these indults as regards the abstinences and fasts prescribed in their own rule or statutes, at least if the religious are outside the cloister. Regular superiors, however, are to be exhorted to take care, as far as possible, to abstain from the use of an indult of this kind within the cloister.¹²²⁵ The law of fasting and abstinence has also been greatly mitigated for Switzerland.

¹²²⁵ Cf. Act. Apost. Sedis II, 215-217; cf. also Sacred Congregation for Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs, December 13, 1911, and December 10, 1912 (Act. Apost. Sedis III, 669, and IV, 230).

660. Persons bound to fast. All the baptized, from the completion of the twenty-first year of age to the beginning of the sixtieth, are bound by the precept of ecclesiastical fasting, unless they are excused by some just cause.¹²²⁶ There will be discussion below of these excusing causes.

The reason why adolescents are exempted from fasting is assigned excellently by St. Thomas:¹²²⁷ "In children the cause for not fasting is especially evident: both because of the weakness of nature, from which it follows that they need frequent food, and not much taken at once; and also because they need much nourishment on account of the necessity of growth, which is made from the residue of nourishment. And therefore, as long as they are in a state of growth, which in most lasts until the end of the third period of seven years, they are not bound to observe ecclesiastical fasts. Nevertheless, it is fitting that even during this time they exercise themselves in fasting, more or less according to the measure of their age."

Protestants and, in general, all non-Catholics, since they are subject to ecclesiastical laws, are of themselves bound to the observance of ecclesiastical fasting; nevertheless, since they are often in good faith and almost always have excusing causes, they are not to be condemned for mortal sin when they do not fast.

¹²²⁶ Code of Canon Law, canon 1254, § 2.

¹²²⁷ S. theol. 2, 2, q. 147, a. 4 ad 2.

661. Quality of the obligation. 1. The precept of ecclesiastical fasting obliges of its kind under grave sin; the transgression of this precept nevertheless admits of lightness of matter.

Thus all Catholic moralists teach. That ecclesiastical fasting is prescribed under mortal sin is evident from proposition 23 condemned by Alexander VII: "He who breaks a fast of the Church to which he is bound does not sin mortally unless he does this from contempt or disobedience, for example, because he does not wish to subject himself to the precept."¹²²⁸ That this precept admits of lightness of matter is evident from the unanimous doctrine of theologians. Theologians do not agree, however, as to what is slight matter in the transgression of this precept. The matter is slight if, besides the eight ounces of the evening collation and the two ounces of the morning morsel, a further two ounces are eaten.¹²²⁹ Therefore, it would not be a mortal sin if someone bound to fast were to take, besides the one complete meal, a further twelve ounces of food in one day. Whether it would be a grave sin if someone were to take fourteen ounces is not certain. Small eatings taken on the same day coalesce and can constitute grave matter, as is evident from proposition 29 condemned by Alexander VII: "On a fast day, he who eats a little something rather often does not break the fast, even if in the end he shall have eaten a notable quantity."¹²³⁰

2. The precept of abstinence from meat is negative, but the precept of fasting is affirmative.

Thus holds the common opinion. Consequently, he who eats meat several times on prohibited days commits as many sins as the times he unlawfully eats meat.¹²³¹ But he who, either culpably or inculpably, has violated the fast, for example, by taking a second complete meal, probably does not commit a new sin if he eats a third or fourth time. Thus St. Alphonsus¹²³² and with him almost all modern authors, although very many of the older authors, for example, Navarre, Billuart, Wigandt, etc., contradict them. It must be acknowledged that the reasons which Billuart¹²³³ brings forward for his opinion are not to be despised; nevertheless, since mortal sins are not to be multiplied without evident necessity, and since the Church even today has determined nothing concerning this controversy, the opinion of St. Alphonsus seems to be preferred in the confessional. But without sufficient reason it is taught by some theologians that he who culpably took two complete meals on a fast day indeed does not commit a mortal sin, but commits a venial sin by taking a third meal, because such a man acts against the end of the law, namely, by neglecting mortification. For the end of the law does not fall under the law, as the commonly admitted adage holds; nor can it be said that a man of this kind sins against prescribed mortification, for there does not exist on fast days a special positive precept of mortification besides the precept of fasting. Nor is the natural precept of mortification violated by a threefold meal; otherwise, even on other days a threefold meal would be a venial sin, as being contrary to the natural precept of mortification.

¹²²⁸ Denzinger, n. 1123.

¹²²⁹ Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 3, n. 1025.

¹²³⁰ Denzinger, n. 1129.

¹²³¹ St. Alphonsus, l.c. n. 1030; Homo apost., l.c.

¹²³² L.c.

¹²³³ De ieiunio diss. 2, a. 5.

662. Scholion. On liquid on fast days. "Liquid does not break the fast," says the common adage. Hence it is lawful to take liquid several times on days of ecclesiastical fasting. Thus, at least, according to modern practice; for in ancient times it seems that during an ecclesiastical fast even liquid drink, and especially wine, was prohibited.¹²³⁴ Those things which are commonly taken as a vehicle for food have the character of liquid and drink; but not all those things which, although liquid, nevertheless have notable nutritive power. Therefore milk, melted chocolate, and broth, at least in a notable quantity, are excluded, for a little is reckoned as nothing; but wine, light beer, coffee, tea, water (even mixed with a small quantity of sugar), lemonade, etc., are permitted. Electuaries¹²³⁵ are also permitted, at least if they are taken in a small quantity. St. Thomas writes to the point:¹²³⁶ "Electuaries, even if they nourish in some manner, nevertheless are not principally taken for nourishment, but for the digestion of foods. Hence they do not break the fast, just as neither does the taking of other medicines; unless perhaps someone fraudulently takes electuaries in a large quantity by way of food."

¹²³⁴ Cf. Tertullian, De ieiunio c. 12, 5, 9, and Constitutiones apostolicae 5, 18.

¹²³⁵ Commonly Kompott, Latwerge, confiture, electuary [compote, medicinal confection, preserve, electuary].

¹²³⁶ S. theol. 2, 2, q. 147, a. 6 ad 3.

663. 1. "The law of abstinence forbids eating meat and broth made from meat, but not eggs, milk products, or condiments of any kind, even those made from animal fat." Thus the Code of Canon Law, canon 1250.

a) By the name of meat are understood: α) the flesh of animals living and breathing on land and having warm blood; β) blood, bacon, meat broth,¹²³⁷ what is called "meat extract,"¹²³⁸ peptone,¹²³⁹ marrow of bones, and parts of the brain; but not the products of these animals, such as eggs, milk, and butter. In doubt whether something is to be considered as meat or fish, it is lawful to eat it. For in doubts there is liberty.

b) By the name of fish are understood not only fish strictly so called, but also all animals whose blood is cold, such as reptiles and amphibians, for example, frogs, turtles,¹²⁴⁰ oysters,¹²⁴¹ crayfish,¹²⁴² lobsters,¹²⁴³ caviar,¹²⁴⁴ etc. There are authors, such as Elbel, Holzmann, and Göpfert, who assimilate otters,¹²⁴⁵ beavers,¹²⁴⁶ and coots¹²⁴⁷ to fish; but it is said more correctly with Lehmkuhl,¹²⁴⁸ Aertnys,¹²⁴⁹ and others that the eating of all those animals which have warm blood is not lawful. If, however, a contrary common custom exists somewhere, it can certainly be observed.

c) Under the name of a condiment¹²⁵⁰ comes whatever (whether liquid or non-liquid) is employed in a moderate quantity so that the principal food may become savory, for example, small and few pieces of roasted bacon for seasoning vegetables.

2. The law of abstinence alone is to be observed on every Friday; but Fridays (outside Lent) on which a feast of precept is solemnly celebrated with a concourse of the people are excepted.¹²⁵¹ If, however, in some region, for example, in France or Switzerland, the external solemnity of certain feasts has been suppressed, Friday abstinence is to be observed although those feasts are celebrated in choir.¹²⁵²

3. The law of abstinence and fasting together is to be observed on Ash Wednesday, the Fridays and Saturdays of Lent, the Ember Days, and four vigils, namely, of the Nativity of the Lord, Pentecost, the Mother of God assumed into heaven, and All Saints. Fasting and abstinence, however, do not bind on these days outside Lent if a Sunday or feast of precept falls upon them.¹²⁵³ Therefore, for example, on the feast of St. Joseph, March 19, which always falls in Lent, the law both of abstinence and of fasting is to be observed.¹²⁵⁴ On Holy Saturday after noon, the law both of fasting and of abstinence ceases.

4. The law of abstinence binds all the faithful who possess the use of reason after their seventh year of age.¹²⁵⁵ Infants, therefore, and the perpetually insane are not bound by the law of abstinence; nevertheless, parents are to be exhorted to accustom children enjoying good health to the law of abstinence as soon as possible, even before completion of the first seven-year period, so that afterward they may observe the law more easily.

5. The law of abstinence (even apart from fasting) of itself obliges under grave sin; there is nevertheless lightness of matter in the transgression of this law, as was already said above. Theologians do not agree as to what matter is grave; nevertheless, the opinion defended by Stolz,¹²⁵⁶ Noldin,¹²⁵⁷ Tanquerey,¹²⁵⁸ and Vermeersch,¹²⁵⁹ asserting that there is no mortal sin unless two ounces of meat are knowingly and without any reason eaten, seems too benign. Since in practice the weight of meat cannot so easily be estimated by simple faithful, it is better to tell them that a mortal sin is present when someone knowingly and without any reason eats meat to the quantity of a walnut or of a small hen's egg. The law of abstinence is a negative law, and therefore someone sins as often as he eats meat on a prohibited day, as was already said; but in fact many transgressors think that they have sinned once even if they ate meat several times during the day. Therefore, a confessor is often not bound to ask a penitent who accuses himself of transgression of the law of abstinence how many times he ate meat on each day; but it suffices to know on how many days he did not observe abstinence.

6. The causes excusing from the law of abstinence are the same as those which will be brought forward below as excusing from the law of fasting. Ample dispensations concerning the law of abstinence are customarily granted to soldiers and sailors, who, with a few days excepted, can always eat meat. Similarly, servants employed in the homes of non-Catholics who cannot easily find equally good employment in Catholic homes can eat meat on prohibited days. In some regions, meat is lawfully eaten by guests who take supper in inns and cannot easily obtain other foods. Persons who are under the authority of the head of a household to whom the lawful faculty of eating meat has been given are permitted the foods which are allowed to the head of the household himself. The reason for this permission, however, is not the indult granted to the head of the household, but the moral inability in which the members of the household find themselves to observe the precept.¹²⁶⁰

¹²³⁷ Fleischsuppe [meat soup or broth].

¹²³⁸ Fleischextrakt [meat extract].

¹²³⁹ Vermeersch (Theol. mor. III, n. 873) thinks that peptone, since in common use it does not come under the name of meat and does not have the taste of meat, is not prohibited by the ecclesiastical law of abstinence. Nevertheless, peptone seems in reality to pertain to meat broth.

¹²⁴⁰ Schildkröten, tortues [turtles].

¹²⁴¹ Austern, Muscheln, huîtres, moules [oysters, mussels].

¹²⁴² Krebse, écrevisses [crayfish].

¹²⁴³ Hummer, homard [lobster].

¹²⁴⁴ Kaviar [caviar].

¹²⁴⁵ Fischotter, loutre [otter].

¹²⁴⁶ Biber, castor [beaver].

¹²⁴⁷ Wasserhühner, poules d'eau [waterhens, coots]. Thus, for example, Göpfert says: "Besides fish, the following are considered not forbidden: snails, turtles, oysters, shellfish, frogs, crayfish, lobsters; likewise also otters, beavers, and certain birds, customarily moorhens, black waterhens or coots, and little diving ducks" (Moraltheol. II, 240).

¹²⁴⁸ Theol. mor. I, n. 1458.

¹²⁴⁹ Theol. mor. l. 4, c. 2, a. 1.

¹²⁵⁰ In German: Zuspeise, Würze [accompaniment, seasoning].

¹²⁵¹ Code of Canon Law, canon 1252, §§ 1 and 4.

¹²⁵² Pontifical Commission, February 17, 1918 (Acta Ap. Sedis X, 173).

¹²⁵³ Code of Canon Law, canon 1252, §§ 2 and 4.

¹²⁵⁴ Pontifical Commission, November 24, 1920 (l.c. XII, 576).

¹²⁵⁵ Ib., canon 1254, § 1.

¹²⁵⁶ Trib. poenit. I, n. 528.

¹²⁵⁷ De praeceptis n. 674.

¹²⁵⁸ Synopsis Theol. mor. n. 1130.

¹²⁵⁹ Theol. mor. III, n. 879.

¹²⁶⁰ Cf. Sacred Penitentiary, January 19, 1834, and May 27, 1863.

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.

205. Existence of the obligation. Principle 1. The actual reception (in re) of the Eucharist is necessary to no one by necessity of means.

This proposition is of defined faith against several Greeks and Calvinists. For the Council of Trent says: "If anyone says that Eucharistic Communion is necessary for little children before they have arrived at the years of discretion, let him be anathema."¹⁵⁵ But what is defined here for little children holds also for adults. For by necessity of means nothing is necessary for salvation except sanctifying grace and those things which God has prescribed as absolutely necessary. But sanctifying grace is not given by the Eucharist; rather, it is presupposed as already given, since the Eucharist is a sacrament of the living. Moreover, it cannot be proved that God absolutely prescribed the actual reception of the Eucharist, as, for example, He prescribed actual faith for adults. Hence, without any doubt, one would be saved, for example, an adult pagan, who, rightly disposed, received Baptism and, after receiving it, died suddenly before he could receive the Eucharist.

¹⁵⁵ Session 21, can. 4 (Denz., n. 937).

206. Principle 2. The reception of the Eucharist in desire (in voto), at least implicit, is necessary by necessity of means, so that without it salvation cannot be obtained.

Thus St. Thomas¹⁵⁶ seems to teach: "Through Baptism a man is ordered to the Eucharist; and therefore, from the very fact that children are baptized, they are ordered to the Eucharist through the Church; and thus, just as they believe through the faith of the Church, so through the faith of the Church they desire the Eucharist." The Angelic Doctor elsewhere¹⁵⁷ confirms this doctrine, saying: "This sacrament [of the Eucharist] of itself has the power of conferring grace; nor does anyone have grace before receiving this sacrament except from some desire for it, either through himself, as adults, or through the desire of the Church, as little children." The reason for this doctrine is that the Eucharist is: a) the immolated Flesh of Christ, which is at once the price of our redemption and the principle of our sanctification; b) the end of all the sacraments, since they tend toward union with Christ, which union is greatest in the Eucharist; c) a necessary means for persevering in the state of sanctifying grace. The desire to receive the Eucharist must be explicit in an adult who knows the Eucharist and the precept of Christ: "Unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood, you shall not have life in you."¹⁵⁸ But in infants an implicit desire suffices, just as implicit faith also suffices in them.

¹⁵⁶ S. theol. 3, q. 73, a. 3. St. Alphonsus (Theol. mor., l. 6, n. 192), John Nicolussi, Die Notwendigkeit der Eucharistie (Bozen, 1917), and the Roman Catechism, p. 2, c. 4, q. 41, think in the same manner. But Cajetan (Commentary on S. theol. 3, q. 80, a. 12; q. 1, a. 6) and many moderns, such as Bucceroni, Génicot, Pesch, Cappello, etc., teach the contrary.

¹⁵⁷ Q. 79, a. 1 ad 1; cf. also q. 80, a. 11.

¹⁵⁸ John 6:54.

207. Principle 3. The actual reception (in re) of the Eucharist is necessary for all who have the use of reason by necessity of precept, both divine and ecclesiastical.

a) The divine precept of receiving the Eucharist is manifestly gathered both from the words cited above, "Unless you eat...," and from the words of Christ uttered after the institution of the Eucharist: "Do this in commemoration of Me."¹⁵⁹ St. Paul indeed applies these words not only to priests, but also to all the faithful.¹⁶⁰ The Council of Trent¹⁶¹ acknowledges this divine precept: "But the Savior wished this sacrament to be received as the spiritual food of souls, by which those living by the life of Him who says, 'He who eats Me, he also shall live because of Me,' may be nourished and strengthened." St. Thomas¹⁶² says: "It is manifest that a man is bound to receive this sacrament not only from the statute of the Church, but from the command of the Lord."

¹⁵⁹ Luke 22:19.

¹⁶⁰ 1 Corinthians 11:26.

¹⁶¹ Session 13, c. 2 on the Eucharist (Denz., n. 875).

¹⁶² S. theol., loc. cit.

208. Time of the obligation. If it is now asked when this divine precept binds, nothing else can be said except that it binds: 1. sometimes in life after the use of reason has been attained; 2. most probably also at the point of death.¹⁶³

1. That the Eucharist must be received by divine law sometimes in life is altogether certain and is manifestly gathered from the texts of Sacred Scripture cited above. Christ did not determine how many times in life the Eucharist is to be received, but left this to be determined by the Church.

2. That Viaticum is to be received at the point of death by divine law can be known from the universal practice of the Church. Reason is added. For if the Eucharistic food ought ever to strengthen the soul, certainly it ought at the point of death. Nor does it stand in the way that in ancient times the Eucharist was sometimes denied even at the point of death to certain great sinners and to those condemned to death. For such a usage never existed in the universal Church, but only in certain places. But when bishops or provincial councils established something similar, especially through the excommunication called "anathema maranatha," they nevertheless customarily added, "unless he shall repent."¹⁶⁴

The point of death at which Holy Communion is to be received as Viaticum ought not to be understood in a strict sense, namely, when death is now inevitably imminent, but more broadly for any grave danger of death. Thus Viaticum ought to be given, for example, before a dangerous surgical operation; during a raging plague, if the danger of contagion and death is very imminent; to soldiers before battle; before childbirth which is extraordinarily dangerous; to those condemned to death before execution, etc. It is expedient that Viaticum be given to those condemned persons at least one hour before death, so that at the execution the Eucharistic species may already be dissolved.

When someone has received Viaticum sacrilegiously, he has not satisfied the divine precept; therefore, he must receive the Holy Eucharist again, at least if this can be done without infamy. It belongs to a prudent confessor to judge what is to be done in a case of sacrilegious Viaticum. Before all else, the dying person must worthily receive sacramental absolution; then care is to be taken that he receive Communion again on the following day. Nevertheless, lest wonder arise, the dying person can request Communion for the sake of devotion. But if for a reasonable cause not even this can be done, there seems to be a sufficient reason for carrying Viaticum secretly, which even a religious confessor can do, lest he disclose the sick person's sacrilege. Thus Noldin¹⁶⁵ and Aertnys.¹⁶⁶ I think, however, that this last course is rarely expedient, because the matter would easily be discovered, the seal of confession would be endangered, and other inconveniences would arise.

¹⁶³ Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor., l. 6, nn. 290 and 295.

¹⁶⁴ Cf. Synod of Rheims, A.D. 900 (in Hardouin VI, 1, 467); Billuart, De euchar., diss. 6, a. 3, dico 6.

¹⁶⁵ De sacr., n. 137.

¹⁶⁶ Theol. mor. II, n. 91, q. 9.

209. You ask: Since, according to the most probable opinion, Viaticum must be received by divine precept, is one who received Communion out of devotion a short time before or even on the same day bound to receive Viaticum when a sudden danger of death overtakes him? For example, is a priest who said Mass in the morning and, having been struck by apoplexy in the afternoon, is in danger of death, bound to receive Viaticum?

That Viaticum can be received in such a case is today beyond doubt and is manifestly gathered from the Code of Canon Law, cc. 857 and 864, § 2; for the reason which some authors oppose, that no one can receive Communion twice in one day, is futile. Do not so many priests who celebrate two Masses on every Sunday and feast day receive Communion twice in one day? But that Viaticum must be received in such a case cannot be proved either from divine or from ecclesiastical law. Certainly, every adult is bound under grave sin to receive Viaticum at the point of death; but one who received Holy Communion a short time before seems to have had the interpretative intention of receiving Viaticum, since everyone is presumed to wish to fulfill a grave precept which he could fulfill through his act. And this is safe in practice, at least if the person received Holy Communion during an illness which, having suddenly grown worse, brings on the point of death. Nevertheless, repeated reception of the Holy Eucharist is strongly to be counseled, as it is most efficacious for overcoming the dangers of the final agony.¹⁶⁷

Therefore, in practice it seems that the matter should be stated briefly thus: One who worthily received Communion within the preceding week is not strictly bound, when danger of death is imminent, to receive the Holy Eucharist again as Viaticum; but one who received Communion even on the same day is strongly advised to receive Viaticum when a sudden danger of death overtakes him.¹⁶⁸

¹⁶⁷ Thus also the Code of Canon Law, c. 864, § 2.

¹⁶⁸ Code of Canon Law, c. 864, § 2. Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor., l. 6, n. 258, doubts 2 and 3.

210. b) The ecclesiastical precept of receiving the Eucharist.

The reception of the Eucharist is also prescribed and determined by ecclesiastical law. The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) established that "every faithful person of either sex, after he has arrived at the years of discretion, shall confess all his sins alone at least once a year ... reverently receiving the sacrament of the Eucharist at least at Easter."¹⁶⁹ The Council of Trent defined the same: "If anyone denies that each and every one of Christ's faithful of either sex, when they have arrived at the years of discretion, are bound to receive Communion every year, at least at Easter, according to the precept of holy Mother Church, let him be anathema."¹⁷⁰ The Code of Canon Law, c. 859, prescribes the same.

¹⁶⁹ Denz., n. 437.

¹⁷⁰ Session 13, can. 9 on the Eucharist (Denz., n. 891).

211. First Communion is to be received after a person has arrived at the years of discretion, but not before.¹⁷¹ When the sufficient use of reason required for this sacrament begins cannot be mathematically defined, since it depends upon the maturity of intellect and the instruction received by each person. As a general rule, the teaching of the Angelic Doctor can be held: "When children now begin to have some use of reason, so that they can conceive devotion toward this sacrament, then this sacrament can be conferred upon them."¹⁷² These words are indeed cited and approved by the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments on August 8, 1910,¹⁷³ which further declared that the age of discretion required for Confession and Communion is the same. "But the knowledge of religion which is required in a child, that he may suitably prepare himself for First Communion, is that by which he perceives, according to his capacity, the mysteries of faith necessary by necessity of means, and distinguishes Eucharistic bread from common and bodily bread, so that he may approach the Most Holy Eucharist with that devotion of which his age is capable."¹⁷⁴

Bishops of each region are generally accustomed to determine at what age children may be admitted to First Communion; nevertheless, to judge whether a particular child is sufficiently disposed to receive Holy Communion belongs to the parents (and those who take their place) and to the confessor.¹⁷⁵ "But it is the duty of the pastor to watch (even by an examination, if he shall prudently judge it opportune) that children do not approach the sacred banquet before attaining the use of reason or without sufficient disposition; and likewise to take care that those who have attained the use of reason and are sufficiently disposed are refreshed with this divine food as soon as possible." Thus the Code of Canon Law, c. 854, § 5. In northern regions, the suitable age for receiving solemn First Communion has been fixed by some bishops as the ninth year; but in southern regions a younger age can suffice.

It is to be noted that the right of admitting children to First Communion is by no means a parochial right.¹⁷⁶ Therefore, any confessor can privately admit a child to First Communion. Nevertheless, it is strongly to be counseled that children ordinarily be admitted to First Communion either by the pastor or by him to whom their religious instruction has been entrusted. But if a child before the time established for First Communion falls into danger of death, there is a grave obligation to give Communion by way of Viaticum to that child who has sufficient use of reason, after a brief instruction has first been given.¹⁷⁷

¹⁷¹ Code of Canon Law, c. 854, § 1.

¹⁷² S. theol. 3, q. 80, a. 9 ad 3. The Angelic Doctor says: it can be conferred; but he does not say: it must be conferred. Hence some speak incorrectly when they say: Immediately after attaining the use of reason, everyone must by divine law receive the Most Holy Eucharist.

¹⁷³ Acta Ap. Sedis II, 581 (Denz., nn. 2137–2144).

¹⁷⁴ Ibid., n. 3 (Denz., n. 2139), and Code of Canon Law, c. 854, § 3.

¹⁷⁵ Roman Catechism, p. 2, c. 4, q. 49, and Code of Canon Law, c. 854, § 4.

¹⁷⁶ Cf. Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, March 14, 1908 (Analecta ecclesiastica XVI [1908], 142); Code of Canon Law, c. 854, § 4.

¹⁷⁷ Cf. decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments cited above (Denz., n. 2144); Code of Canon Law, c. 854, § 2.

212. Easter Communion is prescribed partly by divine law and partly by ecclesiastical law: by divine law, insofar as it includes the Lord's precept of receiving the Eucharist sometimes; but by ecclesiastical law, insofar as the time of this reception is determined.

Concerning the ecclesiastical precept of Easter Communion, it is useful to note the following briefly:

1. The Easter season extends from Palm Sunday through Low Sunday; nevertheless, it can be extended generally by local Ordinaries for their territory from the Fourth Sunday of Lent through the feast of the Most Holy Trinity.¹⁷⁸ Pastors and confessors can, when a legitimate impediment exists, prolong the Easter season for an individual person.¹⁷⁹ Since the prolongation of the Easter season in force in most regions is a local privilege, all those having a quasi-domicile, or vagrants, or travelers, who licitly receive Communion outside their own parish, participate in this privilege, even if it is not in force in the place of their domicile.

One who without a grave cause delays Communion even by one day beyond the Easter season sins gravely. Thus the common opinion, which teaches that this precept does not admit parvity of matter.¹⁸⁰ One who did not receive Communion during the Easter season is afterward bound to approach the sacred table as soon as possible and cannot wait until the following Easter season. Thus the more probable opinion. For the Easter precept was imposed not to terminate but to urge the obligation of receiving Communion. Hence the Code of Canon Law, c. 859, § 4, establishes: "The precept of Easter Communion still urges if anyone for any cause has not fulfilled it within the prescribed time."

Easter Communion is not satisfied by a sacrilegious Communion. This is certain from proposition 55 condemned by Innocent XI,¹⁸¹ and from the Code of Canon Law, c. 861.

2. The place of Easter Communion is one's own parish.

Thus it is from various decrees of the Supreme Pontiffs.¹⁸² The end of this law is twofold, namely: a) that the pastor may be able to know his own sheep; and b) that the faithful may profess their subjection toward him. This circumstance of place indeed no longer binds strictly; nevertheless, the faithful are to be advised that each fulfill the Easter precept in his own parish; and those who have fulfilled it in another parish should take care to inform their own pastor that the precept has been fulfilled.¹⁸³ Easter Communion can licitly be received in any oratory or church situated within the boundaries of the parish.

One who during the Easter season has received Viaticum from the pastor or his delegate is considered to have satisfied the precept of annual Communion.

¹⁷⁸ Code of Canon Law, c. 859, § 2.

¹⁷⁹ Thus from the Fourth Lateran Council (Denz., n. 437) and from c. 859, § 1.

¹⁸⁰ Lehmkuhl, Theol. mor. II, n. 1452; Noldin, De praecept., n. 695; Marc, Inst. mor. II, n. 1570.

¹⁸¹ Denz., n. 1205.

¹⁸² For example, Benedict XIV, constitution Magno cum animi, § 21, June 2, 1751.

¹⁸³ Code of Canon Law, c. 859, § 3.

213. Exceptions. The following are exempt from the obligation or counsel of receiving Easter Communion in the parish church:

a) A priest, who satisfies it everywhere through the celebration of Mass.¹⁸⁴

b) Religious of either sex and the members of their household who share their table, who can receive Communion in their own chapels. The same holds for men or women living in common without vows.

c) Soldiers, prisoners, students residing in colleges, and others who by particular law or legitimate custom can satisfy the precept in their own chapels.

d) Travelers absent from their own parish during the Easter season, and likewise vagrants, can receive Easter Communion in any church or oratory.¹⁸⁵

¹⁸⁴ St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor., l. 6, n. 300.

¹⁸⁵ Ibid.

214. Scholion. On Communion under both species. In the Latin rite Communion is to be given entirely under the species of bread alone.¹⁸⁶ Communion under both species is necessary only for him who celebrates Mass. The contrary is taught by the Hussites (especially those who were called Utraquists or Calixtines), Luther, Calvin, and the Eastern schismatics. For in the ancient Church Communion was often given under one species only; especially the faithful who carried the Eucharist into their own homes did this under the species of consecrated bread. The Eucharist was given to infants under the species of wine alone.¹⁸⁷ From the most ancient times, on Friday in Parasceve, in the Mass of the Presanctified, the priest received Communion under one species. Therefore, the Council of Trent rightly defined: "If anyone says that, by the precept of God or by necessity of salvation, each and every one of Christ's faithful ought to receive both species of the sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist, let him be anathema."¹⁸⁸

The reasons why the Church introduced the discipline of Communion for the laity under one species, namely bread, are, for example: the danger of spilling if the chalice is distributed to a great multitude; the danger of contagion if someone drinks from a chalice from which another infected with a contagious disease has drunk; a natural aversion to drinking with others from the same chalice; the difficulty of obtaining pure wine in certain regions; and so forth. These reasons are altogether sufficient for the laity to receive the Eucharist under the species of bread alone, in which they receive the whole Christ in an equally perfect manner as if they received Communion under both species.

But Communion under both species is permitted to the united Easterners. Leo XIII¹⁸⁹ permitted that even laymen of the Latin rite could receive Communion according to the rite of the Easterners in those places where, because of the remoteness of the distance, they cannot without grave inconvenience go to a church of their own rite.¹⁹⁰ Pius X further extended this permission, establishing that even for the sake of devotion all the faithful of any rite may receive the Eucharistic sacrament confected in any rite.¹⁹¹

¹⁸⁶ Code of Canon Law, c. 852.

¹⁸⁷ Cf. St. Cyprian, De lapsis, c. 25 (Migne, Patr. lat. 4, 500).

¹⁸⁸ Session 21, can. 1 on Communion (Denz., n. 934).

¹⁸⁹ Constitution Orientalium dignitas, November 30, 1894.

¹⁹⁰ Cf. Drouven, De re sacr. I, 432 ff., concerning Communion under both species.

¹⁹¹ Constitution Tradita ab antiquis, September 14, 1912 (Acta Ap. Sedis IV, 616). Cf. Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, March 27, 1916 (Acta Ap. Sedis VIII, 106); Code of Canon Law, c. 851, § 2.

Many particular precepts of the Church exist; here we shall speak only of those which regard all the faithful, of whatever state or condition they may be. In proposing them, Doctors and Catechisms differ not a little, although this difference consists rather in the manner of speaking than in the very substance of the matter. Yet to obtain uniformity, which in this matter is wholly necessary, we shall follow that order which the Catechism recently published by order of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore employs. Therefore there they are stated thus.

I. - To hear Mass on Sundays and other feast days.

II. - To observe fasting and abstinence on certain days.

III. - To confess sacramentally at least once in the year.

IV. - To receive the Sacred Eucharist within Easter time.

V. - To contribute some support for the suitable sustenance of Pastors.

VI. - To abstain from the celebration of marriage in those circumstances in which the Church prohibits it.

Heretics CRY OUT wailing against this truly effective Antidote, whose complaints Bellarmine refutes, Lib. 3. de Laicis, cap. 20. Suarez disp. 20. sect. 2.

Nor is this remedy new in the Church, for in Actorum 19. many brought vain and superstitious Books to be burned.

St. CLEMENS, Lib. 1. constitut. Apost. cap. 7. reports that the Books of the Gentiles and of false prophets were prohibited to the faithful by the Apostles; and in the Council of Nicaea, by the testimony of Nicephorus, Lib. 8. cap. 18. it was decreed that the Books of Arius be burned, and Constantine added the penalty of death for those who concealed them.

IN the Fourth Council of Carthage, can. 16. it is permitted to Bishops alone, in case of necessity, to read the Books of heretics; and Theodosius, in the Lege damnato, Cod. de haereticis, by the precept of the Council of Ephesus, ordered the Books of Nestorius to be burned. Leo I. epist. 91. and Gelasius, in cap. Sancta Romana, dist. 15. prohibited the Books of heretics; and Leo adds that those Bishops are to be judged heretics who would permit Books of this kind in the houses of the faithful. The same is evident from the Fifth Synod, act. 1. and by L. quicunque, §. nulli, and §. omnes, Cod. de haeret. all the Books of Eutyches are prohibited and adjudged to the fire, by the precept of the Council of Chalcedon, act. 3. See the Allegati Doctores reporting other things, with Basilio Pontio in Appendice, post Lib. 12. de matrimonio, cap. 2.

The RATIO is from D. Bonaventure, in Diaeta, tit. 6. cap. 3. because sincere instruction is necessary to us for salvation and the knowledge of God; for we draw spiritual things through corporeal ones. Two senses are chiefly those by which the discipline to be learned is taken in, Sight, and Hearing. And indeed by sight we read the book of creatures, and therefore we rise up into the knowledge of God. For the invisible things of God, being understood by those things that are made, are seen, Rom. 1. We also read Books cut with letters; and truly the Books of Scripture are most apt for this: whence also Christ, Lucae 24. He opened their sense, that they might understand the scriptures. See therefore on the contrary how much books teaching heresies can harm; for they are more subversive and pestilential, since they contain sacrilegious doctrines. For these move most powerfully, since they are more diligently elaborated, and they endure. Hence the Gentiles cautiously prohibited Books adverse to their sects, as Valerius Maximus reports, Lib. 1. cap. 1. and Tullius, Lib. 1. de natura Deorum.

Let the Heretics not grieve that the reading of the Books of the Gentiles is permitted to us, for the Books of Heretics are adorned for that very end with specious titles and doctrines, to seduce: but the Books of the Gentiles report errors already outworn and exploded, which are not so dangerous. Indeed certain Books of the Jews and Turks are prohibited, in which there are some things more dangerous.

But the Books of Heretics are prohibited in the Bull of the Supper which contain heresy, or treat of religion.

He includes, moreover, there also one epistle of a heretic, as Suarez brings forward, disp. 20. sect. 2. Hugolinus in him, Megala 3. p. lib. 3. cap. 1. num. 55. Farinacius de haeresi quaest. 180. num. 70.

OTHERS, however, deny it with sufficient probability: Sanchez 42 cap. 10. num. 20. Durandus, and Bonacina, whom Palao reports and follows, primo Tract. 4. disp. 2. part. 10. Layman, Pottel, and Sousa, whom Diana brings forward and seems to approve, p. 1. Tract. de Bulla Cruciata, resol. 34. and Card. Lugo disp. 21. sect. 2. §. 1. The ratio is, because odia are rather to be restricted. It is confirmed, because although it is not licit to print books without the author's name on sacred subjects, the prohibition of the Council of Trent sess. 4. remaining in force, usage itself has nevertheless declared that these small writings are not contained under that decree, as Azorius testifies, Tract. 1. Lib. 8. cap. 8. cap. 17. quaestio 4. Lugo num. 33.

ALL persons, however, are included in this prohibition, according to the decree of Urban VIII. de motu proprio, 2. Aprilis 1631.

But those are excommunicated who read, or retain, print, or in any way whatsoever defend them, for any cause whatever, publicly or secretly, by any device or pretext. See Cardinal Lugo, and what was said Tomo 4. disp. 17. de conscientia, quaest. 10. ad proposit. ultimam.

THE distinction between Sacrifice and Oblation is that of genus and species; for every Sacrifice is an oblation, but not the reverse. Among oblations the chief are First-fruits and Tithes; formerly both were paid by force of the ceremonial law, at least in respect of some determination; but now they are usually paid for the sustenance of the Church's ministers, or in recognition of natural gratitude.

On First-fruits nothing special remains to be explained beyond what has already been said; for although various chapters of Law, and likewise the Fathers and councils, intimate for them an obligation equal to that of Tithes, as in Suarez, cited in the place above, yet in various places they have fallen into disuse, either on account of the perversity of Heretics, or because the Ministers of the Churches are sufficiently sustained by Tithes and other means. Wherefore I shall here subjoin only a few things about Tithes. It should be noted, moreover, that Tithes take their name from the number ten, which among all numbers is the most perfect, as I shall show below; whence those offering this perfect number to God retain the imperfect for ourselves, arguing as it were that every perfect thing is to be rendered back to God; from which head D. Paul was inferring the greatness of Melchisedech, who prefigured Christ for us: consider (he says) how great this one is, to whom even Abraham the Patriarch gave tithes out of the chief things.

HERETICS, according to their custom, reprehend this holy practice of paying to the Church a tenth part of fruits or of other things: Valentia reports them disp. 6. quaest. 5. punct. 1. This error is condemned in the Council of Const. sess. 8., and is the eighteenth among the errors of Wyclif; and therefore the Council of Trent sess. 25. cap. 12. declares: Those who withhold or hinder tithes are to be excommunicated; nor are they to be absolved from this crime except after full restitution has been made. Understand, however, with Navar. cap. 21. num. 32., when restitution can be made before absolution, when no necessity presses, such as death or other, in order that absolution may come first. And in the Clementina Cupientes, de poenis, Religious are excommunicated who in sermons dissuade the payment of tithes.

MOREOVER, God had instituted tithes to be paid in the time of the old law, to honor God as rewarder, and to profess faith in the Redeemer, as D. Bonav. teaches in 4. dist. 1. p. 2. quaest. 3., and for the institution of a right life.

FIRST, indeed, God the rewarder is honored by tithes, (says the holy Doctor). For the number ten is the most perfect, because it has three perfections in itself. The first is of unity, which is perfect, since it is the beginning of every number. The second of the ternary, which is a perfect number consisting of all its parts, both aliquot and non-aliquot. The third of the senary, which consists of all its aliquot parts. And these together make up the denary, in which is the state [of perfection]: for those wishing to ascend again resume counting: undenarius, duodenarius, etc., adding units to the denary up to the hundredth number, from which one sheep went astray. This is the reason of Chrysost. homil. 1. Imperf. apud Suar. c. 11. n. 5.

SECOND, tithes are ordered to the professing of faith in the Redeemer. For man is expressed by the tenth drachma that was lost; which, when found, completes the ten choirs in heaven, as Beda says in Glossa ad 15. Lucae, and at that place the holy Doctor, with the Gloss, understands by the woman wisdom; by the ten drachmas, or denarii, the nine choirs of Angels and the tenth of man, which God fashioned, hewn from His own image. Hence, they say, God commanded tithes to be brought to Himself to signify the redemption of man, and gave the ten commandments. See the holy Doctor excelling there in his distinction.

THIRD, tithes are ordered to the institution of a right manner of life; for while a tenth part is given to God, that which is the perfection of our life is referred to Him, and the remainder, which is imperfect, is left to us. See the holy Doctor.

THIS payment is indeed excellently proved by D. Bonav. ad 10. Lucae from those words: But in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they have: for the labourer is worthy of his hire.

FURTHER he proves it from 1 Cor. 9, not only by the authority but by the arguments of the Apostle: Who ever serves in the army at his own charges? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its fruit? Who feeds a flock and does not eat of its milk? etc. For it is written in the law of Moses: You shall not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treads out the corn. Does God care for oxen? Or does he speak indeed for our sakes? For these things are written for us, that he who ploughs ought to plough in hope, and he who threshes, in hope to receive fruit. If we have sown spiritual things among you, is it a great matter if we reap your carnal things?

HENCE he proves it from 6. ad Galatas: Let him that is taught in the word communicate to him that teaches him, in all good things.

THE SAME is found in 1 Timot. 5: The Priests that rule well are worthy of double honour: especially they who labour in word and doctrine. For the Scripture says: You shall not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treads out the corn.

THE holy Doctor confirms it with the argument of Christ: For the labourer is worthy of his hire, which sense is also expounded by D. August. in Psalm. 146. et lib. 10. homiliarum, homil. 48., who says most beautifully: Our forefathers abounded in all riches because they gave tithes to God and paid tribute to Caesar. But now, since devotion to God has withdrawn, the exaction of the fisc has come in. We refused to share tithes with God; now the whole is taken away: the fisc takes what Christ does not receive. Valentia also uses these means disp. 5. quaest. 5. punct. 1., and Suar. tract. 2. l. 1. cap. 10. et sequent.

THE SAME is proved from the Decretals tit. de decimis. See Valentia loc. cit. and Suar.

But by what right tithes are paid.

THE holy Doctor supposes in 4. dist. 1. p. 2. quaest. 3. that tithes were introduced by the law of nature, and soon also established by Divine law; for thus all the Jews gave tithes to the Priests, and these gave a tenth of the tithes to the Pontiff, Numer. 18, and this was called the tithe of the tithe, as D. Bonav. notes ad Psal. 64.

THE holy Doctor, on the title of Psalm 93, which is inscribed quarta Sabbathi, observes that this fourth of the Sabbath is Wednesday, on which the Lights were created, and in it the brightness of the Church itself was shadowed forth; and therefore the four Ember seasons begin on Wednesday, and Lent on Wednesday. For we ought to offer the first-fruits of the times, that is, the four Ember seasons, and the tithe of the days, that is, Lent. Wherefore we give a tenth rather than a ninth or eleventh; because the tenth order of Angels fell, which is to be restored to men.

DOCTORS indeed dispute: what quota ¹, that which is the tithe itself, is still owed by Divine law to the Ministers of the Church. ¹ N. Editor's note: the print reads 'an quota partis' (hyphenated 'par-tis' across a line break), an obvious print typo; rendered as 'quota pars' (what portion) because 'partis' is ungrammatical here.

INNOCENTIUS in Rubr. de decimis, and the Gloss on cap. 1. de decimis, lib. 6., and other Jurists cited by Couar. l. 1. var. cap. 17. and by Nauarro Man. cap. 21. num. 28., think that by Divine law men are bound not only to pay something for the sustenance of the Church's ministers, but to a quota, that is, a tithe.

THE FOUNDATION of these is, that the Pontiffs in the Decretals extra, de Decimis say that tithes are to be paid by divine precept. Likewise that they were not established by men but by God: C. Parochianos, C. Tua nobis, C. Cum non sint, and C. In quibusdam.

THE TRUE opinion, however, is that the quota, that is, the tithe, is not to be paid from an old, but now from an Ecclesiastical precept. But from a Divine precept a sufficient recompense is to be given to the ministers of the Church for their sustenance. So D. Thom. art. 1., Suar. cap. 10. n. 1., Nauar., Couar. above, Valentia quaest. 5. punct. 1., who says this is common to the Theologians, whom Suar. cites. Indeed Maior in 3. dist. 37. quaest. 36. reprehends the opposite opinion as Judaizing.

This is without doubt the opinion of D. Bonav., who ad 10. Lucae and in the other places cited understands the payment of tithes in that sense alone, as is clear to the reader, and he expounds the Scriptures above adduced by the holy Doctor from the New Testament in this way.

TO the Decretals the Theologians cited by Valentia reply that an exemplary or imitative observance is meant, that is, that tithes are to be paid by Ecclesiastical law, imitating the ancient Divine precept; hence he who precepts it after the manner of the divine law asserts its greater firmness, as Suar. notes cap. 10.

I would add that those Decretals register the institution of this rite, but that the Church changed the modes and retained that in which we are still bound now that the Redemption is already accomplished, namely to pay something to God the rewarder.

From what has been said I conclude, with the common opinion, that the law of tithes as regards the quota can be abolished by a contrary custom. The reason, as given by Valentia puncto 2., is that it is a human law, which can be abrogated by a reasonable and prescriptive custom.

ON this Suar. treats more fully cap. 34.

IT IS DECREED by law that tithes be paid from all things justly divided, and hence from the fruits of lands and of other fruitful things, and of mills, fishponds, etc., which are called praedial tithes. Likewise from the profit of any personal trade, military service, hunting, which are called personal tithes. And also of cattle and sheep, which can be called mixed; because they are ascribed partly to the fruits of lands, by which they are fed, partly to industry.

Coelestinus III asserts that tithes are to be paid from all these: C. Non est, extra de Decimis. By custom, however, only the praedial ones are in use, and some mixed ones, as Navar. notes num. 31. cap. 31., Valentia p. 3., Suar. cap. 10., Bassaeus v. Decimae. But the personal ones, by a now-prescribed custom, are not paid anywhere in the world. See the Doctors in Fag. praec. 5. l. 1. cap. 2., Bonac. de decimis, p. 2., Bassaeo num. 40.

I ASSERT first that tithes are to be paid not to Laymen but to the ministers of the Church: C. Quamvis grave, de decimis; and he seems to understand it of those only who have the care of souls, cap. Cum contingat de decimis. So D. Bonav. intimates ad 10. Lucae.

But from the tithe-revenues of these, curates and their clerics are accustomed to be fed, as Valentia notes punct. 4. quaest. 5. And given the precept of the Church, they are to be paid also to the body of Ecclesiastics; so D. Thom. quaest. 87. art. 3. and others cited by Bass. num. 10.

I. The prohibition of books is ancient, and is found in Acts chapter 19: And many of them who had followed curious arts, brought together their books, and burnt them before all. The Council of Nicaea commanded the books of Arius to be burned, as Socrates narrates, book 1, chapter 6.

II. For a twofold reason the books of Heretics are prohibited: both that the evil of seduction may be impeded, and that the Heretics may be confounded. Heretical books are proscribed in the Bull Coenae. Under this prohibition are not comprehended the books of the Jews, of the Mahometans, or of the Heathen. This prohibition has annexed to it the penalty of excommunication when four conditions concur: 1. That the books be those of Heretics. 2. That they teach Heresy, or treat of Religion. 3. That they be knowingly read, retained, or printed. 4. That this be done without the authority of the supreme Pontiff. Those books treat of Religion which expound sacred Scripture and Theology; which interpret the affairs of Monks, of Clerics, the worship of the Saints, and rites; but not those which handle philosophical and historical matters and other inferior arts.

III. He who reads a book of a catholic author in which the errors of the Heretics were described is not subject to the penalties of the Bull, because the book is not a Heretic's, but a Catholic's. The same must be said of one reading a book of a catholic author in which certain heresies were written through ignorance. Nor does it matter whether the books of Heretics are written by pen or published in type. He who reads a sermon, an oration, an epistle, or a disputation of a Heretic containing heresy is subject to the penalties of the Bull — whatever Sanchez teaches to the contrary. Wherefore the opinion of Fr. Sporer is not to be admitted, who with Sanchez, Laymann, and others teaches that he does not incur the excommunication who should read a writing of a Heretic of fewer than ten leaves. There is, however, a parvity of matter in this reading. What is it? Azor assigns one or two little verses; Suarez, two or three lines; Sanchez, a page of a leaf; Fagundez assigns a page and a half; and each speaks according to his own pleasure. A certain rule cannot be designated. Deliberate reading is not free of venial fault. Wherefore the one safe way is to abstain altogether from this reading. Yet the circumstances of the person reading, of the thing read, and other things of this kind must be regarded, that the gravity of the fault may be defined.

IV. He who reads a book of a Heretic which in no way treats of Religion is not subject to the penalties enacted in the Bull Coenae. Yet the books of the Heresiarchs — of Luther, of Calvin, and of the others — are all forbidden, in whatever matter.

V. That anyone may incur the penalties contained in the Bull, he must read knowingly; that is, knowledge is required both of the law and of the fact: he must know both that the reading of a heretical book is forbidden, and that the book which he reads is heretical. To the same penalties is subject he who hands a heretical book to another to be read, that he may hear the reader. But he who by fortuitous chance hears another reading is not subject to the penalties contained in the Bull, but can sin more or less according to the diversity of circumstances. A Theologian, a Preacher, a Confessor, when grave necessity presses, can read the books of the Heretics, either to confound the Heretics or to confirm the Catholics. Yet this rarely happens.

VI. Those who have obtained a license, either from the supreme Pontiff or from the Congregation of the Holy Office, to read heretical books, if they suffer danger of seduction, and feel their mind shaken by grave temptations, sin mortally in reading such books. For no pontifical license can free from the duty of avoiding an occasion that gravely allures. But those who suffer no temptation do not sin gravely, even if they read from mere curiosity. Not only do they sin gravely who without legitimate faculty read heretical books, and incur the reserved excommunication; but also those who retain them for any cause whatsoever, whether for show and ornament, or to fill their libraries.

VII. Printers of heretical books sin mortally, and contract the excommunication — as do all those who lend helping hands to the printers, who hand over the book to be printed, who furnish inks or types: because all contribute to the printing, and favor the Heretics.

VIII. In the Tridentine and Roman Index, besides the books of the Heresiarchs, many books of Catholics are prohibited. The former are named of the first class, the latter of the second. Those books of Catholics are prohibited which contain errors hostile to the doctrine of faith or of morals, or which instill a suspicion of error, or offend pious ears, or furnish scandal, or contain lax opinions. Books of this class are sometimes prohibited until they be corrected. This happens when in the book absolutely sound doctrine is contained, but some proposition, which is not capital, has fallen from the author's pen beside his intention, or from a slip of the mind, or through ignorance. Such books are prohibited under mortal sin, and an excommunication not reserved.

IX. There are several other kinds of books prohibited in the aforesaid Index. First, all books treating of Magic. Secondly, books of astrology. Thirdly, all obscene books are prohibited by the law itself; nor does any faculty or license avail for the reading of these, for they are by their nature pestilential. Finally, in the fourth rule of the Roman Index the reading of the sacred Bible in the vernacular tongue is forbidden without the license of Superiors. A book proscribed in one language is proscribed in every other, unless there be a difference, and a correction have been made.

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

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

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

3. What is to be said of the case?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Titius, a missionary priest in England, in order that he may be able, in accordance with the First Council of Westminster, diligently to explain the laws of fasting at the beginning of Lent to the people committed to him, goes through a certain recent author and, from the reading of him, proposes for solution certain difficulties that have arisen. He asks in particular:

1. Is milk allowed whenever food or drink is taken?

2. What kinds of food and how much are allowed at the collation?

3. Many could fast by interchanging the little breakfast and the collation. Are they bound to this if they are unable to fast otherwise?

4. How often in the day may those dispensed from fasting eat meat when meat is permitted by indult?

5. Does Titius have the power to dispense from fasting, and whence does he have it?

1. Is milk allowed on fast days whenever the faster eats or drinks?

No; lacticinia, i.e., milk, butter, and cheese are by the common law forbidden at least during Lent whenever flesh meat is forbidden.¹ In some places lacticinia are also forbidden on other fasting days outside Lent. In England milk and butter are allowed by custom at the full meal outside Lent, and at least by indult in Lent at the full meal. By concession of the Holy See² milk, butter, and cheese are allowed by way of condiment at collation, also on all fasting-days except Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.

1 Proposition 32, condemned by Alexander VII.

2 Sacred Office, March 18, 1880.

2. How much food and of what sort is allowed at collation?

About eight ounces of lighter food, excluding always flesh meat and eggs, are allowed at collation. In some places eggs also are allowed. According to an instruction issued by the archbishop and bishops of England in 1883, when fish is taken at collation, the quantity of it should not exceed two or three ounces.

3. Many could fast by taking the collation in the morning and two ounces of food in the evening. Are those who can not otherwise fast bound to adopt this method?

No; it is indeed allowed to fast in that way for some good reason, but as it is not the usual way of fasting in England, there is no obligation to adopt it.

4. How often may those who are dispensed from fasting eat meat on days when meat is allowed at the principal meal to fasters by indult?

That depends on the extent of the dispensation, but unless there is an express limitation, it is generally understood that they may eat meat as often as they please.

5. Have missionary priests in England the power of dispensing from fasting, and whence do they obtain it?

They seem to obtain the power of dispensing those who are committed to their charge from custom, the source whence parish priests obtain it. The existence of the power seems to be implied in the First Council of Westminster, decree XXIII, no. 3.

Titius, the Rector of a mission, when during a political disturbance he did not receive the stipend due to him, deserted the mission of which he was in charge, because no one is bound to work without pay, although his confessor opposed him, saying that innocent sheep ought not to be handed over to the wolf by the shepherd. Then the Bishop, after taking useless pains to make Titius return to the mission, in virtue of holy obedience ordered a priest who did not have the care of souls to act in place of the fleeing Rector; but he too refused to obey. Hence it is asked:

1. Do secular priests have a right to receive support?

2. Can one with the care of souls abandon residence because he does not receive the stipend due to him?

3. What is the force of the Apostolic oath commonly pronounced by priests of England?

4. What is to be said of the priests in the case?

The case was proposed in the Diocese of Northampton, 1901?

1. Have secular priests a right to their decent support?

Yes, the Church forbids any one to be promoted to sacred Orders without a title, i.e., a provision for his decent support. If a bishop culpably ordains a priest without a title, the bishop is bound to provide for his support until he can provide for himself.¹

1 will answer in the words of Gasparri: “ But, having received the priesthood, a priest is so incardinated in the diocese to which he belongs that he cannot depart without the permission, or without the letters, as they say, of excardination of his Bishop. The Bishop can deny permission to depart, provided that he assigns a suitable support to the priest. But if the Bishop both denies permission and cannot or will not assign a suitable support, the priest cannot on that account depart by his own will, but has recourse to the Sacred Congregation. The Bishop can recall one departing without his permission or that of the Sacred Congregation, even by censures, even if the priest had obtained a residential benefice in another diocese. This doctrine is most certain, and the Sacred Congregation has handed it down rather often.” (De Sac. Ordin., n. 860).

2. Can one who has the cure of souls abandon his charge because he does not receive the pension which is due to him?

3. What is the force of the Mission oath commonly taken by English priests?

By the terms of the Mission oath the cleric swears that he will not enter into any Religious Order after he is promoted to sacred Orders without special leave of the Holy See. He further swears that he will work for the salvation of souls in the diocese for which he is ordained, under the authority of the bishop. The formula of the oath is given in Concilia Westmon., p. 385.

4. The case. Titius should not have abandoned his post. He should have applied to the bishop whose duty it was to try to make provision for the decent support of Titius, and if this could not be done, to remove him to another post. Even if the bishop improperly refused to do anything for him, Titius should not have left the place, but should have appealed to Rome. The other priest on being ordered by his bishop to fill the vacancy was bound to obey, and he sinned in not obeying; but he also had a claim on the diocese for his decent support if he had no other title.

2 Gasparri, De Sacra Ordin., n. 612.

Julius, who is a good Catholic, noticed some time back that a young woman, a near relative of his, who cares little about religion or the Church, is passionately fond of the Memoirs of Casanova, which she actually devours herself, and lends to others to read. In order to prevent the spiritual harm done by such reading, Julius borrows the Memoirs from the young woman and hides them where no one can get at them. Some time after this he hears, accidentally, that no one is allowed even to keep in his possession books forbidden by the Index. Thereupon he calls upon his pastor and consults him as to what he ought to do with these Memoirs, of which there are several volumes.

Answer.—Casanova's Memoirs are on the Index, decree of July 28, 1834.

Therefore, 1. Julius dare not keep these Memoirs in his possession, no matter how praiseworthy his purpose, without the permission of the Holy See. St. Alphonsus says:

“A person is not excused who keeps a book either in another’s house, or under another’s name, or with the intention of not reading it” (L. vii., n. 297).

Dr. Hollweck, in his work on the Index, comments on these words as follows:

"Concerning the having in one's possession books forbidden by the Index, we must emphasize the fact that it makes no difference whether you keep the book in your own possession or give it to others to keep for you; whether the book belongs to you or to somebody else; whether you intend to read it or no. Moreover, you must have had the book in your possession for a considerable length of time before you become guilty of a mortal sin, and incur the censure attached to the transgression of the law. St. Alphonsus calls one or two days parvitas temporis (l. c. n. 295). The Popes have usually named eight days as the limit of time for giving up bad books. With this fact in mind, it may be safely said that one must keep in one's possession a forbidden book over one week in order to be adjudged guilty of a serious infraction of the law and to have incurred the censure attached to it. One may keep the forbidden book in one's possession, even longer than one week, if one does so in order to await a more favorable opportunity of turning the book over to the bishop or vicar-general, or to get the necessary permission to keep it. But one should not keep the book longer than one month, for a month is ample time to get the necessary faculties from the Holy See." Thus far Dr. Hollweck.

2. Julius may not burn the book, or otherwise destroy it, because it is not his property.

3. Although the borrower or depositary of another's property is bound to restore the same to the owner upon his demand, or at the stipulated time, still in the case of Julius there is the exception to be made, of which St. Thomas writes: “When a thing to be restored appears to be gravely harmful to the person to whom restitution is to be made, or to another, it ought not then to be restored to him. Nevertheless, the person who thus retains another’s property ought not appropriate it to himself, but either reserve it so that he may restore it at a suitable time, or even hand it over to another for safer keeping” (2, 2, q. 62, ad. 1).

St. Alphonsus, Lessius, Lugo, and others, teach the same.

Julius would sin against charity, or the love he owes his neighbor, if, without more ado, he were to return the forbidden book to the owner, foreseeing the harm that would come to her or to others from its perusal. We say, "without more ado," because if Julius can not refuse to return the forbidden book to its owner, without serious inconvenience to himself, "sine gravi incommodo," he may return the book at once (Cf. Marc, n. 1020).

4. Since, therefore, Julius may not return the book to its rightful owner, simply upon her demand, and since he may not keep it any longer in his possession without the permission of the Church authorities, he should either get the permission to retain the book in his own possession or he should give it to some third person for safe keeping who has the faculty to retain forbidden books.

Perhaps, in the course of time, the young woman may be prevailed upon to waive her right to the book, and no longer to consider it her own property.

1. There are many persons, especially women endeavoring to lead a holy life, who occupy themselves a great deal with so-called revelations made to pious persons, even to the exclusion of all other spiritual reading matter. Sometimes such persons study the revelations made to some particular saint, drawing all their spiritual nourishment from them; then having their appetite whetted by the perusal of one book of this kind, they eagerly devour anything of the same nature that they are able to lay hold of. They believe in these revelations as firmly as they believe in the Gospels and are strongly disposed to brand as heretics, or at least as suspects, all who do not put the same faith in them as they do themselves. This disposition alone is sufficient to prove that the perusal of these private revelations is not a healthy, spiritual exercise for all indiscriminately, and it becomes necessary from time to time to instruct the faithful on this head.

2. That there may be, that there have been, and that there are at present revelations made to private individuals is beyond question. We are speaking, of course, of revelations made to holy and devout persons, which have been investigated by the Church and declared to contain nothing against faith or good morals. No positive ecclesiastical approbation is ever given to such revelations.

3. When the Church revises and approves revelations and visions in this sense, all she does is to certify that these visions and revelations contain nothing against the "rule of faith," the "regula fidei"; so that the faithful may believe them without injury to their faith (pie creditur) and use them as a guide to conduct without fear of believing or doing anything unauthorized by the Church. Where the Church has thus given her approval to any particular private revelation, it is no longer permitted to ridicule or to despise it. “It is not lawful,” says Card. Franzelin, “to despise such revelations” (de div. trad. 22). To do so were to fail in the respect due to the Church. But not to believe the revelation is no sin against the obedience we owe the Church. For the Church, by her approval or quasi-approval of these revelations, has no intention of obliging the faithful to believe them. Whoever believes in them, does so "fide humana," and not "fide divina," at least not "fide divina Catholica."

"In spiritual things," says Catherine Emmerich, "I never believed anything except what was revealed by God and proposed formy belief by the Catholic Church. What I saw in visions I never believed in this way."

4. The body of revealed truth, necessary to salvation and bearing the seal of infallibility, was completed and closed, once for all, by the teachings of Christ and the apostles. When the Church defines a new dogma, she simply declares authoritatively that it is contained in the teachings of Our Lord and the apostles. Just as private revelations do not bear the seal of infallibility, so neither do they bear the mark of inerrancy. There is no divine inspiration guaranteeing the correct recording of private revelations, as is the case with the Holy Scriptures, even though the fact of the revelations has been established.

Private revelations are exposed to a threefold danger. The understanding may err in receiving the revelation. The memory may fail in recording orally or in writing the contents of the revelation. The tongue may err in its effort to clothe the revelation in human words.

Moreover, as Bened. XIV remarks, notions and ideas acquired previous to the revelation may be confounded by the person receiving the revelation with the things learned in the revelation, and thus the saints have sometimes considered things to have been revealed to them which were in nowise revealed. Hence the contradictions in different revelations.

5. The supernatural communication, therefore, as well in its reception as in its transmission, may be unwittingly falsified. The Holy Scriptures alone are preserved from such falsifications. And thus it happens that the private revelations of different holy persons contradict one another openly, and in many things.

6. All that the Church says, therefore, when she lends her approval to the private revelations of the saints or other holy persons, is that these revelations may be believed "fide humana," and that they are adapted and may be used for the edification of the faithful.

The declaration of Bened. XIV does not contradict this: "When the Church has examined and approved these visions, no one may any longer doubt their supernatural and divine origin." The Pope speaks only of their origin, and not at all of their contents, nor of their correct reproduction. And even a refusal to believe in their divine origin would not be a sin against Catholic faith.

7. After these theoretical remarks let us add a few words of a practical nature. The reading of these visions and private revelations is in nowise adapted to the needs of ordinary people, even though they may have correct notions about the credibility of private revelations. Many of these revelations are beyond the needs and the intelligence even of persons already far advanced in the spiritual life, and are often clothed in language quite unintelligible. And herein precisely lies a new source of anxiety, because a new danger, namely, the danger of understanding the revelation in a wrong sense, which may easily lead to positive error and sin against the "rule of faith."

8. Besides the danger just mentioned there is another, namely, the danger of a one-sided and an imperfect direction in holiness, and of laying great stress on trifles and things of secondary importance. But what is worst of all is that the reading of these revelations gives rise to secret spiritual pride and makes silly pious people, for it is such persons that are most addicted to this kind of reading, that imagine themselves farther advanced in the ways of perfection than others and think that they know more about matters of faith and morals than most other people, even more than the priests themselves.

9. It may cause some surprise if we add a warning for members of religious orders, especially of women. As a general rule, it is not advisable to make use of histories of private revelations, made to pious and holy persons, for general community reading. And those in authority in religious communities should be very slow to allow individual members of the community to make use of the same for their private reading. Women in religious orders who are endeavoring to lead holy lives are more apt to evince a weakness for what is extraordinary than for what is ordinary in their quest of perfection, than their sisters in the world. They prefer the revelations of St. Brigitta or of St. Gertrude to an ordinary introduction to the spiritual life. And it is precisely those who are by no means firmly grounded in the spiritual life who hanker after what is higher before they understand or put into practice the most ordinary and necessary requirements of spiritual growth. In the case of religious the evil effects of this kind of reading are more pronounced and more disastrous than in the case of lay people, and they sometimes create disturbance and division in an entire convent.

10. Some may think these remarks and warnings too severe and even exaggerated. And such indeed were the case did we apply them, a priori, to all private revelations. They hold good only for those who read indiscriminately, and without selecting, especially revelations made to holy persons in times long gone by, and which are profoundly mystic, not to say apocalyptic in their presentation.

Simple books, and books that may be readily understood, like the visions of Catherine Emmerich concerning the life and sufferings of Our Lord and His Blessed Mother, are much to be preferred to others, and we would even recommend them.

Mr. B., a firm believer in modern methods of public sanitation, has made provision in his will that after his death his body shall be cremated. May he receive the last Sacraments and Christian burial, and why is the Church so opposed to cremation?

Answer. All civilized nations, both ancient and modern, have regarded the burial of the dead as a religious rite. In ancient Rome, it took precedence over every other service, whether public or private. The Roman soldier could demand leave of absence from the army, not only to bury his dead, but also for the feast of the purification of the family, called feriae denicales, which occurred nine days after the burial. Not only were the last rites of the dead considered religious or sacred, but the burial place also, by virtue of the laws, enjoyed a religious character. It was quite natural, therefore, that, in the nascent Church, the Christians, professing a different religion from the Romans, should also differentiate themselves from the pagans in the manner and place of burying their dead. The common practice in pagan Rome, at the beginning of the Christian era, was to burn the bodies of the dead. This had not been the ancient custom, even among the Romans, and at the dawn of Christianity there still prevailed among them the practice of cutting off a bone from the corpse, or rescuing one from the fire, in order to deposit it in the earth. The reason for this was that the burial of the ashes of the dead after cremation did not render the burial place sacred; it acquired a religious or sacred character and was brought under the protection of the laws only by the burial of some part or bone of the body, that had not been cremated. Each family had its own burial place, restricted to the parents and children and brothers and sisters, and a few intimate friends and favorite freedmen. The idea of a general burial place for all the inhabitants of a town or district was unknown to the ancients. The indiscriminate burial of friends and foes, relatives and strangers, in one monument where their ashes would be mingled together, was especially abhorred by the people and severely punished by the law. It was to be expected, therefore, that the Christians, who believed in the resurrection of the body as one of the great articles of the new faith, should have had, from the very beginning, a great religious care for the bodies of their dead and for all the rites attending their burial. They adhered to the more ancient custom of the Romans, as well as of the Jews, of burying their dead in the ground. They detested the practice, prevailing at that time among the Romans, of burning the bodies of the dead, just as they abhorred the other religious rites and practices of the pagans. Minucius Felix, in the third century, says that the Christians execrate the funeral pile and condemn burial by fire. “We follow,” he says, “the ancient and better plan of burying in the ground.”

From the early writers and Fathers of the Church, we gather many reasons why the Christians preferred rather to bury the bodies of their dead in the ground than to burn them. Burning the dead was a pagan religious rite of the time, from which, as from all the religious rites of the pagans, the Christians wished to dissociate themselves. One of the central truths of the Christian faith was the resurrection of the body. Cremation seemed to deny this doctrine. The Saviour was buried in a tomb, from which He rose triumphant over death. The disciple desired to be buried after the manner of his Master, hoping to rise again in the body, like his Master, from the grave. The immortality of the soul and the resurrection of the body were two great beacon lights that illumined the darkness and the sufferings of the first Christians. Burning the body of the dead seemed to them a confession of the total annihilation of the whole man. It shocked their sense of reverence and affection for the dead, but more especially their religious sense. And thus, from the very beginning of Christianity, burying the bodies of the dead in the ground became intimately associated with the Christian faith, and all the rites and ceremonies of the Church that accompany the burial of the dead, the prayers of the Missal and of the Ritual have grown up around and been developed according to the custom of burying the dead in the ground. When we have the bodies of our dead near us we are reminded to pray and offer sacrifice for them, we erect monuments over them that stimulate our piety and proclaim aloud our belief in the resurrection of the body and life everlasting. The custom fosters reverence for the dead, whose bodies have been sanctified by so many Sacraments. It is not as repugnant to our natural instincts to allow our dead to return to dust by the slow processes of tender mother earth, as to violently burn and destroy them by fire. These are but a few of the reasons why the Church, throughout the ages, has preferred to bury the bodies of her children in the earth rather than to destroy them by fire.

Cremation does not necessarily deny any truth of revelation. It does not necessarily imply a denial either of the immortality of the soul or of the resurrection of the body. Whether the body returns to dust slowly by the action of the forces of the earth, or quickly by the action of the fire, is, in itself, a matter of indifference.

The Church permits her missionaries, as in India, where cremation is the ordinary method of disposing of the bodies of the dead, to remain passive in cases where they know that the bodies of neophytes are to be burned. (Cong. de prop. fide, Sept. 27, 1884.)

But circumstances may add a very definite character to something that is quite indifferent in itself. And this is the case with cremation, generally speaking. The Church is cognizant of the fact, that the cremation of human bodies, to-day, is not only a departure from the time-honored and world-wide Christian custom of burying in the ground, but that it is meant, as a rule, to be a protest against the Christian faith, The promoters of cremation are endeavoring to rehabilitate the ancient pagan custom of disposing of the bodies of the dead in order to put an end to Christian cemeteries and Christian burial rites and practices, in order to destroy the powerful evidence they bear to the Christian faith, and the influence they exert in promoting Christian piety. By cremating the human body, they wish to signify the total annihilation of man by death. Thus cremation becomes, per accidens, a profession of heresy and an attack on the Christian faith. Hence the Church forbids it. In particular circumstances, as, v. g., during an epidemic, the Church makes no objection to the burning of the human body. The only argument that can be urged in favor of cremation is the argument founded on the consideration of the public health. But the public health is already amply protected by the laws of the Church regarding the location of cemeteries and the manner of burying the body.

The Congregation of the Holy Office has repeatedly, in the last twenty-five years, issued decrees prohibiting the cremation of the bodies of the dead. The following is a summary of these decrees:

It is forbidden for Catholics to belong to any society or organization whose object is the cremation of the bodies of the dead; and if such society be in any way affiliated to the Masons, its members fall under the ban of excommunication.

It is forbidden for a Catholic to order his own body, or the body of any one else, burned; a Catholic may sometimes co-operate, materialiter, in cremating the bodies of the dead, either as officials or as workmen, if such co-operation is not desired precisely because the officials or workmen are Catholics, and as a sign of contempt for the Catholic faith and if the cremation contain no profession of Masonry.

It is not allowed to give the last Sacraments to a dying man or woman, if he or she insists that after death the body shall be cremated; neither is it allowed to give the remains Christian burial, if it be known publicly that the deceased continued in this mind to the end of life.

It is not allowed to say Mass for such persons publicly or in the name of the Church, but Mass may be offered privately.

It is lawful to perform the last rites over the dead, either at their home or else in the Church, but not at the crematory, if it was not the will of the dead that his body be cremated, but the will of those in charge of the funeral, provided, of course, that all scandal be removed.

Again, it is permitted to give Christian burial to those who order that after their death their bodies shall be burned, provided they are ignorant of the Church’s prohibition; also to those who, after having made such provision in defiance of the Church’s laws, desired sincerely, before their death, to revoke the provision, but who for some valid reason were unable to do so.

Common sense, as well as the teaching of the Church, tells us that it is wrong without good reason to put ourselves in the proximate occasion of committing sin. We very soon learn that the reading of bad books is a proximate occasion of sin. If we want a healthy body we must give it healthy food; and if we want a healthy mind, healthy food must be given to it, too. Impure literature is bad for the soul, and so is infidel and heretical literature. Balmes, the well-known Spanish writer of the last century, was obliged to read many infidel and heretical books in order to defend Catholic doctrine from their attacks. He found that such reading had a bad effect on him; it left a bad taste in the mouth, which he used to counteract by reading a chapter of the Imitation of Christ.

It is the duty of the Catholic Church to guide and instruct her children in all that concerns faith and morals. She is the Shepherd of our souls, and it is her right and duty to provide us with healthy food for our souls and to warn us to avoid unhealthy pastures. One of the ways in which she has done this from very early times is by prohibiting bad books against faith or morals. In the new Code of Canon Law the regulations on the subject which have been made from time to time are codified. A dozen canons, some of them containing many subsections, are devoted to the subject. We are told that not only the Pope can prohibit books for the whole Church, but that particular synods, local Ordinaries, and Religious Prelates with the Chapters may do the same for their own subjects.

When a book has been condemned by the Holy See, all translations of it into other languages are also forbidden. A number of general rules are laid down forbidding certain kinds of books in general, but particular books are often condemned by name. This usually happens because someone has denounced such books to ecclesiastical authority as being dangerous to faith or morals. When a book has been prohibited, it is thereby forbidden to publish, read, keep, sell, translate, or in any way to give it to others without leave. Leave for reading and keeping forbidden books may be obtained from the Holy See by those who need it. Local Ordinaries can give particular leave to read and keep a book for good reason to their subjects, and sometimes they receive more ample faculties from the Holy See.

Like other laws of the Church, the laws about forbidden books bind under pain of mortal sin in grave matter, but no special penalty is incurred by transgressors except in the cases mentioned in Canon 2318. That Canon may be translated thus:

“The publishers of the books of apostates, heretics, and schismatics which propound apostasy, heresy, and schism ipso facto incur excommunication specially reserved to the Holy See, as also do those who defend or knowingly without proper leave read or retain the same books, or others prohibited by name by apostolic letters.

“Authors and publishers who procure the printing of books of Holy Scripture or of notes and commentaries on them without proper leave by the very fact incur excommunication reserved to no one.”

It is obvious that no very large class of books is prohibited under pain of incurring this censure. Only those books come under it which propound apostasy, heresy, or schism, and which are written by apostates, heretics, or schismatics. A book which does not propound apostasy, heresy, or schism, though written by an apostate, heretic, or schismatic, is not included under the censure, nor is a book which propounds apostasy, heresy, or schism, but which was written by an infidel. To propound apostasy, heresy, or schism is to maintain and defend it by advancing reasons in its behalf. A merely incidental heresy occurring in a book written by an apostate, heretic, or schismatic would not bring the book under the censure.

Not only the publishers of such books, but also those who defend them or who, knowing that they are forbidden under pain of censure, read or keep them without the required permission, incur excommunication.

Books are condemned by this Canon, not newspapers or articles in magazines, even though they defend heresy or schism and are written by heretics. A few books have been condemned by name, and the faithful have been forbidden to read them under pain of incurring excommunication, by Letters or Briefs or Bulls of the Pope himself. As examples may be mentioned Fénélon’s Explanation of the Maxims of the Saints, and the Spiritual Guide, by Molinos. These books are included under Canon 2318. A Catholic who desires to publish any portion of Holy Scripture or notes or commentaries on Holy Scripture must obtain permission to do so from the Bishop. Authors and publishers who neglect to do this and who have such productions printed incur excommunication, but any approved confessor can absolve them from the censure on repentance.