Fasting and Abstinence

673. On the precept itself. The precept of abstinence, which here is considered separately from the precept of fasting, prohibits three things: a. flesh meat; b. eggs and milk foods; c. the mixture of foods. Furthermore, sometimes only flesh meat is prohibited; sometimes also eggs and milk foods with the mixture of foods are prohibited.

a. Although a canon cannot be adduced by which the precept of abstinence separated from fasting was first prescribed for the universal Church, nevertheless that a precept of this kind exists is certain from various constitutions of the supreme pontiffs, from catechisms, and from the practice of the universal Church.

b. The natural law commands voluntary abstinence from food and drink insofar as the effect to be obtained through fasting is necessary. According to St. Thomas, fasting greatly serves to restrain the desires of the flesh, to make satisfaction for sins, and to raise the mind more freely upward.¹ For fasting is undertaken first to repress the very desire of food and drink, and then all concupiscences of the flesh. But since fasting is more or less necessary for all, for in many things we all offend,² and in all the flesh lusts against the spirit,³ the Church by her laws determines the mode of fasting suitable for all. Nor is this surprising: for a. since our first parents brought ruin into the world by the illicit use of food, abstinence from the licit use of food is an excellent means of sanctifying man and expiating past sins; b. Christ the Lord commended fasting by his own example, when he began the work of redemption with a forty days' fast.

c. Since the Church intends by this precept to repress the concupiscence of the flesh, which is carried toward the delights of food and venery, she especially prohibits those foods which are more savory and nourish the body, and by nourishing the body abundantly excite to luxury. But the flesh of birds and terrestrial animals, and those things which come from them, namely the eggs of birds and the milk of animals, are more savory and nourishing; therefore these especially are prohibited by the Church on days of abstinence.⁴

¹ Summa II-II, q. 147, a. 3.

² Jas. 3.

³ Gal. 5:17.

⁴ Cf. St. Thomas, II-II, q. 147, a. 8.

674. Its declaration. 1. The precept of abstinence alone (without fasting), from the universal law of the Church, obliges: a. on Sundays in Lent (unless a dispensation is granted); b. on all Fridays, except the day of the Nativity of the Lord if it falls on a Friday;¹ c. on the Sabbath, unless an indult or legitimate custom excuses.

Whether abstinence on the Sabbath is prescribed by the universal law of the Church is not sufficiently established. This is certain: the universal law of abstinence on the Sabbath no longer exists now. Therefore Benedict XIV affirms that it is lawful to eat flesh meat on the Sabbath wherever its use is not forbidden by received custom.² But where this law of abstinence is in force, whether it was first introduced by precept of the Church or by custom, it must be considered as a universal law of the Church. Therefore travelers coming from a place where that law is not in force into a region where it is in force are bound to observe abstinence.³ If that law was never universal, by custom it has happened not only that abstinence was introduced, but also that it is considered as a universal law of the Church where it has been introduced.

2. The precept of abstinence obliges all the faithful having the use of reason, that is, those who have completed the seventh year of age: for it is an ecclesiastical precept, which does not oblige before the use of reason.

Before the seventh year of age has been completed, children are not bound to observe abstinence, even if they have already attained the use of reason; nevertheless parents are earnestly to be exhorted to accustom their children to abstinence as soon as possible: for afterwards they will more easily observe the precepts which they are accustomed early to observe.

3. The precept of abstinence of itself obliges under grave obligation, because its end and matter are grave; yet it admits smallness of matter.

a. All agree that matter is grave in that which notably nourishes; but in determining the quantity which notably nourishes, authors differ greatly. It seems it must be said that matter is grave which exceeds two ounces (60 gr.).

b. A greater quantity is required to constitute grave sin if not flesh meat properly so called, but something which comes from flesh meat, is eaten. Therefore he who eats an ordinary portion of vegetables seasoned with lard or broth made from meat does not sin gravely.⁴

4. A sin is committed against abstinence as often as flesh meat is eaten by morally distinct acts: for this precept, although already injured, can always be violated anew.

¹ From custom approved by Honorius III, c. Explicari 3, de observ. ieiuniorum (III, 46).

² De synodo, l. 11, c. 5, n. 5.

³ The Holy Office, Jan. 10, 1855, declared that travelers outside Belgium (where abstinence on the Sabbath is not in force) cannot eat flesh meat on the Sabbath in places in which the law of abstinence is in force.

⁴ Genicot I, n. 443.

675. What is signified by the name of flesh meat and fish. 1. As regards abstinence animals are divided into flesh meat and fish: for on days of abstinence flesh meats are prohibited, but fish are permitted, because their flesh nourishes less and is less savory. What comes under the name of flesh meat and fish in the ecclesiastical sense we must learn not from the theories of physicists but rather from the common estimation of the faithful and especially from custom.

a. The animals whose flesh is prohibited are mammals (Saugetiere) and birds; nevertheless from mammals the following are permitted (because ordinarily they live in water and are nourished, or were thought to be nourished, by fish): otters (Fischottern), beavers or castors (Biber), seals (Seehunde), walruses (Walrosse); from birds, divers (Tauchenten) and probably also coots (Wasser- u. Rohr-Huhner);¹ but by no means cormorants (Seeraben).

b. By the name of fish are understood not only fish in the strict sense but all animals which have cold blood: a. reptiles and amphibians, as frogs (Frosche) and tortoises (Schildkroten); b. mollusks, as snails (Schnecken), shells (Muscheln), especially oysters (Austern); c. crustaceans, as crabs (Krebse), lobsters (Meerkrebse).

a. Ancient authors say that prohibited flesh is the flesh of terrestrial animals or animals "resting and breathing on land" (Landtiere), but licit flesh of fish they say is the flesh of aquatic animals, which live and breathe in water (Wassertiere). To these they referred also otters, beavers, ducks, and coots, because, taking the criterion from the ordinary place of these animals, they thought that they lived in waters after the manner of fish, or at least were nourished by fish.²

b. Custom permits these animals alone; therefore where custom renders their use licit, they can be eaten, although it arose from error concerning natural things; but where this custom does not exist, they belong to prohibited flesh meats.

c. In doubt whether something is flesh meat or fish, it is lawful to eat it: for that which is not certainly established to be flesh meat is not prohibited.

2. By the name of flesh meat in the ecclesiastical sense come all parts of prohibited animals, therefore also blood, marrow of bones, parts of the brain, fat or grease, lard (Speck), unless something of these is permitted by custom or indult; but not the fruits of these animals, as eggs and milk. Therefore foods cooked with flesh meat are also prohibited of themselves, as meat broth and foods seasoned with fat or flesh meat.

a. Long ago fat was permitted for preparing foods (in place of oil); before, by this name only swine fat (Schweinfett) was granted, but now fat or grease of any animal (jede Art von Tierfett) is permitted;³ likewise when grease is permitted, one may also use butter as seasoning.⁴

b. Where the use of lard is permitted for seasoning foods (as in some places of Italy), the faculty must be interpreted in such a way that even those smallest little pieces which remain mixed with the lard liquefied by fire are licitly taken.⁵

c. The use of margarine is permitted not only for preparing foods but also by way of food or seasoning, the use of butter remaining lawful.⁶

d. On days of abstinence it is lawful to use the seasoning of broth invented by Maggi (Maggi's Suppenwurze), because it is not established that it is made from flesh meat; but it is not lawful to eat extracts of flesh meat which are called meat extracts (Fleischextrakt), since they certainly are made from flesh meat.

¹ From an indult granted by Pius VII to religious of the Order of Minims of St. Francis of Paola, who by vow must abstain perpetually from flesh meat, it is not lawful to infer that coots of themselves, not only from custom, are permitted on days of abstinence: for by the fact that, at the petition of those religious, that they might freely use that food (coots), the supreme pontiff kindly assented by way of grace, he permitted the eating of that flesh to pious religious, without intending to settle the theoretical question concerning the nature of this food. Cf. Ballerini-Palmieri II, n. 1110.

² St. Thomas, II-II, q. 147, a. 8; cf. Olfers, Pastoralmedicin (Freiburg: Herder, 1893), p. 46 ff.

³ Holy Office, May 31, 1889.

⁴ Holy Office, May 13, 1896.

⁵ Sacred Penitentiary, Nov. 17, 1897.

⁶ Holy Office, Sept. 6, 1899. Margarine is artificial butter (Kunstbutter) made from bovine fat and the purer part of milk.

676. From the precept of abstinence are excused those who cannot abstain from flesh meat without great inconvenience. Such are:

a. Poor beggars, who can eat flesh meat if they have nothing else.

a. If poor workers, who have no other seasoning, use some lard or fat for seasoning foods, they are not to be condemned in this matter.

b. Therefore flesh meat which cannot be preserved without danger of corruption until a non-prohibited day can be given to the poor who are excused from the law of abstinence.

b. The sick, convalescents, those laboring under weakness of stomach, those weak in strength, those who must take medicine whose efficacy is impeded by fasting foods, and finally pregnant and nursing women: the former indeed if they are weak or fear danger to health from fasting foods, the latter if they must nourish a sick child.

It is established that pregnant women sometimes labor under great appetite for flesh meat; if they do not satisfy this, the fetus could suffer harm. Olfers¹ and Capellmann² indeed deny that any harm arises to the fetus because this appetite, however great, is resisted; nevertheless Lehmkuhl (I, n. 1208) excuses pregnant women of this kind from sin "if sometimes they take a small morsel of flesh meat."

c. Workers who are devoted to very difficult labors or to labors taking away the appetite for food, as workers in foundries, glassworks or ironworks, in metallic or coal mines. To these can also be equated those who must tend furnaces in factories or locomotives.

d. Those who cannot have other foods:

a. Wives, children, servants, if the father of the family does not admit other foods, because they are in moral impotence of observing the precept; servants, however, of themselves are bound to seek another master.

b. Travelers who do not receive other foods in inns; nevertheless they are excused only if they need food for suitable refreshment and if they seriously asked for other foods.

c. A guest who on a day of abstinence is invited to a meal which he knows is to be prepared from flesh meat is of himself bound to refuse the invitation, and can accept it licitly only if from refusal he must deservedly fear notable inconvenience, as grave offense or enmities. A guest who, beyond expectation, finds an entire meal prepared from flesh meat licitly eats flesh meat if he can neither receive other foods nor depart without grave inconvenience.³

d. If by error the meal has been prepared from prohibited foods, one can distinguish in this way. If there is question only of seasoning from flesh meat, eating can be permitted: for since this is prohibited only under light obligation, a reasonable cause excuses. But if there is question of an entire meal prepared from flesh meat, the circumstances must be attended to, namely whether other foods can soon be prepared, whether the foods prepared from flesh meat can be kept without notable detriment until the following day, etc.; for if the prepared meal cannot be left without grave inconvenience, it is licitly taken.⁴

e. Those who receive only worse and more expensive foods are not excused from observing abstinence, except in the case where the foods are so bad that they do not provide suitable refreshment, or so expensive that they bring notable detriment in goods of fortune.

¹ Pastoralmedicin (Freiburg: Herder, 1893), p. 51.

² Medicina pastoralis (Aachen: Barth, 1893), p. 101.

³ Cf. Berardi, Praxis confessarii (Faenza: Novelli, 1899), II, n. 1463.

⁴ Cf. ibid., 1464 s.

677. On abstinence from eggs and milk foods. 1. The universal law introduced by custom prohibits eggs and milk foods. By the name of milk foods are understood milk and all those things which are prepared from milk, as butter, cheese, etc. Eggs and milk foods are prohibited when they come from those animals whose flesh meats are prohibited.

2. They are prohibited only in Lent, even on Sundays, unless a dispensation has been obtained; but on other days of fasting through the year they are not prohibited. For among other fasts the Lenten fast is more solemn; and therefore in any fast the eating of flesh meats is forbidden, but in the Lenten fast eggs and milk foods also are forbidden.¹

This prohibition is in force in Italy, France, Spain, etc.; but in our regions of Germany it has already long been abrogated by contrary custom. The chief reason for this custom is the scarcity of fasting foods, and especially of oil and fish. Yet even where the law is still in force, a dispensation is granted for eggs and milk foods for almost the entire Lent, with only a few days excepted, in almost the same way as among us a dispensation for flesh meat is granted.

3. This prohibition obliges in conscience, as is established from the declaration of the Church,² and indeed under grave obligation: for if the law of abstaining from eggs and milk foods obliges in conscience, since its matter is grave, it certainly obliges gravely, which the sense of the faithful and the consensus of theologians confirm.

To constitute grave matter in this precept a greater quantity is required than in the eating of flesh meat, because eggs and milk foods are not prohibited as principally as flesh meat. The opinion of those who require a twice greater quantity seems to be approved, so that four ounces (120 gr. = two hen's eggs) constitute grave matter.³

4. Eggs and milk foods are equated; hence one dispensed for milk foods is judged also dispensed for eggs. But flesh meats and milk foods are not equated; therefore one dispensed for milk foods is not by that very fact also dispensed for flesh meats. But one dispensed for flesh meats is by that very fact judged also dispensed for milk foods, because the lesser is contained in the greater.

Butter and milk are not equated, but stand as lesser and greater in the same species; hence if in a place in which milk foods are prohibited the use of butter is granted for seasoning foods, the use of milk also is not by that very fact granted.

¹ Cf. St. Thomas, II-II, q. 147, a. 8, ad 3.

² It is not evident that the custom of not eating eggs and milk foods in Lent obliges. Proposition 32 condemned by Alexander VII.

³ Genicot I, n. 443.

678. On prohibited mixture of foods. 1. This prohibition, which Benedict XIV issued, is contained in these words: he who by force of a dispensation can eat flesh meat, cannot licitly eat flesh meat and fish together in the same meal on days of fasting. For the indult or dispensation of eating flesh meat on days of fasting, by the will of the supreme pontiff, is granted and can be granted only on this condition: that flesh meats not be taken together with fish in the same meal.¹

a. By force of a dispensation: therefore those who licitly eat flesh meat on days of fasting not by force of a dispensation or indult, but for another reason, for example because of affected health, can also eat fish at the same time.² But those who by reason of age or labor are not bound to fast, as children after the seventh year or workers laboring gravely, who can take refreshment several times, are held by this law: for those who are not bound to fast by reason of age or labor can from this reason only refresh themselves more often, but they eat flesh meat in the meal by force of an indult.³

b. Can eat flesh meat: but he who is dispensed only for eggs and milk foods can at the same time also eat fish. Likewise for those who are dispensed not for flesh meat, but only for meat broth or for meat seasoning, it is not forbidden to eat fish at the same time with these.⁴

c. In the same meal: therefore he who, from dispensation, took flesh meat at dinner is not prohibited from eating fish at supper.

d. By the name of fish are understood fish in the broader sense, insofar as they are opposed to flesh meats (n. 675). Therefore it is not lawful to eat flesh meat together with shellfish or caviar (Kaviar)⁵ or frogs or snails or coots in those places in which coots are held as fish. But it is lawful to eat flesh meat together with fish broth or with seasoning made from fish, and conversely it is lawful to eat fish together with meat broth or with seasoning made from flesh meat: since broth and seasoning from flesh meat is not called flesh meat, and broth or seasoning from fish is not called fish; but flesh meats together with fish are prohibited.⁶

e. But it is not lawful to eat a dumpling seasoned with flesh meat cut into tiny pieces together with fish, or a dumpling seasoned with little fish cut into tiny pieces together with flesh meat: for flesh meat remains flesh meat and fish remains fish, even if they have been cut into little pieces; nor are those little pieces properly seasonings, but another substance joined to flesh meat or fish.

2. This prohibition, from the declaration of the same supreme pontiff, obliges under grave obligation,⁷ and indeed on all days of fasting; therefore: a. throughout the whole time of Lent even on Sundays;⁸ b. on Ember days and on vigils on which fasting is prescribed; c. in Advent; but it does not oblige those who on Friday and Saturday, when the law of fasting does not oblige, are dispensed from the law of abstinence.⁹

¹ Benedict XIV treats of this matter in three encyclical letters, but especially In suprema, Aug. 22, 1741; and the Sacred Penitentiary issued several decrees on this matter.

² Sacred Penitentiary, Jan. 9, 1899.

³ Holy Office, May 24, 1841; June 23, 1875.

⁴ Sacred Penitentiary, Feb. 8, 1828.

⁵ Sacred Penitentiary, Jan. 16, 1834.

⁶ Sacred Penitentiary, June 14, 1880.

⁷ Benedict XIV (July 8, 1744), Si fraternitas tua to the Archbishop of Compostella, n. 1.

⁸ Benedict XIV extends the precept about not mixing foods even to Sundays of Lent, although fasting need not be observed on those days. Ibid., n. 5.

⁹ Sacred Penitentiary, Feb. 15, 1834.

679. Notions. Fasting is distinguished as threefold: natural, which consists in abstinence from absolutely all food and drink; ecclesiastical, which consists in abstinence from foods according to the form prescribed by the Church for the faithful; moral, which is abstinence from food and drink according to a form diverse from that which the Church prescribes, as if someone fasts on bread and water, or eats only roots and herbs, or takes food only every other day. Ecclesiastical fasting is called strict if abstinence from flesh meats, eggs, and milk foods is prescribed; and non-strict if abstinence from flesh meats alone is prescribed.

The end of ecclesiastical (and moral) fasting is chiefly threefold: to repress the concupiscences of the flesh, to render the elevation of the mind to divine things easier, and to make satisfaction for sins.¹ Physiologists show that the ecclesiastical precept concerning abstinence and fasting does not harm health but rather benefits it.²

¹ St. Thomas, II-II, q. 147, a. 1 and 3.

² Cf. Moser, Das kirchliche Fasten- und Abstinenzgebot in gesundheitlicher Beleuchtung, Frankfurter zeitgem. Broschuren (Heft 6, 1907).

680. On the precept of fasting. 1. The precept of fasting, even as regards the solemn Lenten fast, is not of divine but of ecclesiastical law: for no trace of a divine law appears; moreover in the law of fasting, even the Lenten fast, there is such variety as to time and mode, etc., as cannot occur in divine law, since divine law must be observed by all in the same way and cannot be changed by custom.

It is certain that fasting, if it is considered in general, was introduced by the apostles, but it is equally certain that the Lenten fast does not descend from the apostles. It can be derived from Christ the Lord insofar as fasting, which originally was observed only for a few days before Easter, gradually was extended to forty days according to the example of the fast which he himself observed in the desert.¹

2. The precept of fasting of itself is twofold: one refers to the quantity of foods, the other to their quality; the former permits one meal, the latter prescribes abstinence from flesh meats. Therefore he who violates fasting as to both precepts commits two sins.

3. The precept of fasting is from its kind grave, because there is question of a grave matter, namely one which notably conduces to the spiritual good of the faithful. This is also established from the declaration of the Church;² yet it admits smallness of matter.

Authors disagree in assigning the quantity of food which constitutes grave matter. It seems it must be said that a quantity which exceeds four ounces (120 gr.) constitutes grave matter. It does not matter whether this quantity is taken together in one eating or divided into several times through the day, because small eatings taken through the day coalesce and together constitute grave matter, which is held from proposition 29 condemned by Alexander VII.³ Therefore grave sin against fasting is committed not only by him who dissolves the essence of fasting by a second meal, but also by him who violates fasting in grave matter, that is, who adds a grave quantity of four ounces, either at breakfast or at the evening collation or otherwise in the course of the day, to the quantity of food which on days of fasting can licitly be taken at breakfast and the evening collation.

4. Fasting from the common law and apart from dispensation is to be observed on the days of Lent (except Sundays), on Ember days, and on certain vigils (5).

The vigils on which one must fast are the vigils of Pentecost, of the holy apostles Peter and Paul, of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, of All Saints, and of the Nativity of the Lord. In antiquity fasting was prescribed on almost all vigils; but after some feasts (as of the apostles) were later abrogated, the fast of the preceding vigil was also abrogated. In place of the fast of these vigils was substituted the fast of Wednesday and Friday of Advent.

5. The precept of fasting as to one meal does not oblige the faithful before the twenty-first year of age has been completed. Because before this age a man ordinarily needs more abundant food, the Church did not wish to oblige adolescents with so great an inconvenience; and because the Church looks to things as they commonly happen, those who before this age already possess perfectly developed strength are not bound to fast.

¹ Cf. Linsenmayr, Entwicklung der kirchlichen Fastendisziplin bis zum Konzil von Nizaa (Munich: Stahl, 1877); Funk, Die Entwicklung des Osterfastens (Theol. Quartalschrift of Tubingen, 1893), p. 170 ff.

² He who breaks the fast of the Church does not sin mortally unless he does this from contempt or disobedience. Proposition 23 condemned by Alexander VII.

³ On a fast day, he who several times eats some little thing, even if in the end he has eaten a notable quantity, does not break the fast. Proposition 29 condemned by Alexander VII.

681. Essence of fasting. 1. The essence of fasting consists in only one daily meal. Therefore he who, whether advertently or inadvertently, has already essentially injured the fast by a second meal, is no longer bound to fast on that day: for once the essence of fasting has been injured, the precept of fasting can no longer be observed.

a. It does not matter whether someone again fully refreshes himself in one eating or by eating several times through the day, because the individual eatings coalesce. Therefore he who, besides one full meal, takes so much food through the day that the whole together makes another full meal, dissolves the essence of fasting.

b. Therefore to the question whether he sins mortally several times who takes several meals, it must be answered that he sins gravely only once, because fasting, insofar as it consists in one meal, can be broken only once, just as the natural fast or a vow of not drinking wine on this day can be violated only once: for according to the mind of theologians fasting was instituted by the Church in such a way that a second meal dissolves the essence of fasting; and once the essence is broken, fasting can neither be observed nor broken any further.

c. From these things is deduced what he must do who on a fast day, from forgetfulness, took an entire breakfast. Namely, if he refreshed himself fully at breakfast, he must abstain from a second meal; and if he did not refresh himself fully, he must abstain from the evening collation. For after breakfast has been taken, the precept can still be observed and must be observed, and only grave inconvenience excuses from its observance.

2. Abstinence from flesh meats does not belong to the essence of fasting, from which it follows that fasting can be separated from abstinence, that is, that fasting as to essence can be observed even if abstinence is not observed.

For a long time it was disputed among theologians whether abstinence from flesh meats was required for the essence of fasting, so that, when abstinence was removed, the essence and therefore also the precept of fasting ceased. Those who thought that abstinence from flesh meats belonged to the essence of fasting therefore also granted several meals to those dispensed concerning flesh meats. Benedict XIV finally removed the controversy; by the constitution Non ambigimus (May 30, 1741), he established that those dispensed concerning the eating of flesh meats on days of fasting are held to one meal.

682. On the meal itself. 1. On days of fasting only one full meal is permitted, to which now, from custom approved by the Church, there is licitly added a little supper or evening collation, and breakfast or morning morsel. For fasting as to the quality of foods, abstinence from flesh meats is also required of itself; therefore the foods which may be eaten on days of fasting are fasting foods, unless an indult or an excusing cause permits flesh meats. As regards quantity, however, ecclesiastical law prescribes nothing; the natural law of temperance must be observed. Hence it can happen that someone in that one meal violates the natural law of temperance, but does not injure the ecclesiastical precept of fasting.

If ever in another matter, certainly in this one custom has been very powerful in interpreting and mitigating an ecclesiastical precept. For in the first times of the Church the faithful observed almost a natural fast until sunset, and from the sixth century until the third hour after midday. Afterwards the evening collation began to be added to the one meal; as to its name it took its origin from monasteries: for on days of fasting, at the collationes or conferences which were customarily held in monasteries in the evening, something liquid was permitted to the monks, and "lest the drink do harm," also a morsel of bread or something from fruits. Seculars, observing the same custom of taking some food on ecclesiastical fast days, gradually added a greater quantity of foods, and the Church afterwards approved this custom. Then they began to take the meal at the ordinary hour of dinner, which was the twelfth hour; and finally in the morning they also took a little something for breakfast. The Church at length also approved this use.¹

2. The meal must be morally continuous: for if moral continuation were dissolved through interruption, it would not be one meal, but several. One meal remains both if only the space of an hour comes between one eating and the other, and if, even with a longer space intervening, someone withdraws from the table with the explicit or implicit intention of returning to the eating.

It is asked how great a space of time can licitly intervene between one eating and the other, or how great an interruption of dinner can licitly be made.

a. It is lawful to interrupt dinner lightly even without cause; an interruption is judged light which does not exceed half an hour. Hence if someone has already risen from table with the intention of not returning any more, he can eat again if within half an hour something is brought beyond expectation, because this morally belongs to the dinner.

b. It is lawful to interrupt dinner notably, that is, up to an hour, from a reasonable cause, provided the one interrupting had the intention of returning and was not refreshed fully before; if this is done without cause, it is a light sin. Therefore those who read at table, as is accustomed in religious communities, can licitly take some food before dinner: since this is done from a just cause and with the intention of dining afterwards, the taking is morally connected with dinner.

c. To interrupt dinner very notably (much beyond an hour) without just cause is grave sin, because eatings so interrupted are not united into one meal. But if someone not yet fully refreshed were forced to interrupt dinner, he could return to it even after two hours, because the Church does not require that one pass the day without sufficient refreshment.

¹ Cf. Noldin, Zur Erklarung des Fastengebotes (Zeitschrift f. Theol., 1903), p. 565 ff.

683. On the evening collation. 1. From the custom now received everywhere, in the evening collation, as regards the quantity of food, a fourth part of supper (dinner) or absolutely eight ounces (about 240 gr.) can licitly be taken even by those who would be fully refreshed by this quantity: for it is merely accidental that these foods satisfy someone. From a just cause even more can be taken, especially if the added quantity does not exceed light matter. But any cause by which someone needs more abundant food for suitably fulfilling his duties must be judged just, for example the complexion of the body, the kind of labors, the duration of the fast, the character of the region, lack of wine, etc.

a. The former determination of the licit quantity is relative: for since the quantity of dinner or a full meal necessary for sustenance in individual persons is very diverse according to the diverse quantity of foods, its fourth part is also diverse for different persons. But the latter determination is absolute and in general grants more than the former relative one.

b. There is a universal custom on the vigil of the Nativity of the Lord of taking a double quantity (the joyful fast).¹ In some places the same double quantity is also taken on other vigils of solemn feasts; where this custom is in force, it can licitly be observed.

c. Some say that into the aforesaid weight must be counted only that which has the character of solid food, but not what has the character of drink.² Others, however, rightly rejecting this opinion, establish that the weight of solid food must be diminished if the solid substance is cooked with water, wine, or another liquid by way of porridge or dumpling, so that it is lawful to take not eight but only five or six ounces of bread, flour, rice, etc., which are cooked.³

Note. The quantity of food which is licit in the evening on days of fasting can be determined from the instruction which some bishops propose to the faithful in the Lenten indult, so that it may be said that, besides the one meal, about half part of an ordinary supper can licitly be taken. Since by these words the quantity is determined which can licitly be taken besides the one meal, therefore at breakfast and collation, this rule does not differ much from that which was established above.

2. As to the quality of foods, in the collation only lighter foods that are not very nourishing are permitted, such as dumpling, bread, fruits, vegetables, legumes, sweets, etc.; but if stronger foods are taken, such as eggs, cheese, fish, etc., the quantity is to be diminished in due proportion. In this matter also one must stand by custom, which is one thing in warmer regions and another in colder regions. Therefore where custom permits nothing else, this prescription must be observed; but in our regions of Germany, from custom, no distinction of foods is made, so that all fasting foods are permitted indiscriminately in the quantity which I have mentioned.

¹ St. Alphonsus, n. 1025.

² Genicot I, n. 437; Berardi, Praxis confessariorum, 3rd ed., II, n. 1474.

³ St. Alphonsus, n. 1029; Lehmkuhl I, n. 1211.

684. On breakfast. 1. From universal custom it is lawful in the morning to take breakfast (coffee, chocolate, tea with a morsel of bread), but only in a small quantity, namely one which as to nutritive food does not exceed two ounces or about 60 gr.

2. From the declaration of the Sacred Penitentiary it is established that breakfast of this kind can be taken everywhere, even where the custom of breakfasting has not yet prevailed, and by all, even by those who could fast without breakfast.¹

¹ "Whether it can be permitted that in the morning on days of fasting coffee or chocolate be taken in a small quantity with a morsel of bread, as is done in the Canadian region." The Sacred Penitentiary replied Nov. 21, 1843, that those who follow such a use are not to be disturbed.

685. On the time of the meal. 1. From universal custom the time of the one meal is around midday; where, however, there is a custom of dining at the eleventh hour before midday, it is not necessary that on days of fasting one depart from this hour.

a. For breakfast and for the evening collation neither law nor custom prescribes a determined time; hence generally the former can be taken in the morning, the latter in the evening.

b. The time of the meal is determined insofar as the meal, from ancient custom, must have the character not of dinner but of supper. Therefore in antiquity the time of the meal was the evening time or the third hour after midday; from which it follows that to defer the meal to a later time is always lawful, but to anticipate it without cause is not lawful.

2. To anticipate the time of the meal even notably is not grave sin, because the circumstance of time is accidental with respect to fasting: for if only one meal is taken, the end intended by the precept is not frustrated as to substance. Anticipation is judged notable which exceeds an hour. Therefore to anticipate the meal within an hour even without a special cause is lawful, but beyond an hour only from a just cause.

a. St. Alphonsus indeed at first had proposed this opinion as the more common and more probable;¹ but afterwards he did not even hold it probable, and declared that the affirmative opinion, according to which notable anticipation would be grave sin, must altogether be held.² But the reason adduced, on which the denying opinion rests, is certainly probable.³

b. A just and reasonable cause of notably anticipating dinner would be, for example, a journey to be begun, urgent business to be dispatched, weakness of constitution, the custom of dining at such an hour, etc.

3. It is lawful to invert the time of dinner and the little supper, so that the collation is taken around the tenth or eleventh hour in the morning and the meal in the evening around the fourth or fifth hour, "if there exists some reasonable cause of the aforesaid inversion."⁴ In this case, however, before bed it is not lawful to take anything further except those things which do not break the fast. From a reasonable cause it is also lawful to take the collation in the morning, dinner at midday, and the morsel in the evening.⁵

4. Certainly it is not lawful to prolong the time of the meal immoderately without violating the precept of fasting; but it can be prolonged to two hours without any fault, and if a special cause were present, even beyond this time.

5. Alphonsus (n. 1020 at the end) has these words: "Elbel with Gobat grants up to three or four hours, at least for Germans according to their custom; but Croix rightly doubts whether this custom is approved, unless, as he says, after about two hours only desserts or lighter foods are placed, especially if afterwards the little evening meal is omitted. And this I neither approve nor reprove."

¹ Cf. l. 3, n. 1016.

² Cf. the second list of reformed questions, n. 13.

³ Ballerini-Palmieri II, n. 1118, who in this matter followed several ancient authors, as Laymann, Lessius, Sporer, Holzmann, Elbel, etc.

⁴ Sacred Penitentiary, Jan. 10, 1834.

⁵ D'Annibale III, n. 134.

686. What it is lawful to take outside the full meal (with collation and breakfast) without breaking the fast. That which has the character of food is prohibited on days of fasting; but that which has the character of drink can licitly be taken on days of fasting; hence the axiom has prevailed: liquid (that is, drink) does not break the fast. That has the character of food which principally serves nutrition, whether it is solid or liquid; that has the character of drink which, from common use, is taken to drive away thirst or as a vehicle of food to aid digestion.

a. Not only water has the character of drink, but also wine, beer, various liquids such as lemonade, sugared water, coffee, tea with a small quantity of sugar mixed in, although accidentally these also nourish, as beer does. But broth, oil, honey, sugar, chocolate, and of itself milk, do not have the character of drink, although these are liquid and are taken by drinking. It must be noted, however, that in some regions (of Tyrol), from use and custom, milk (cleansed of cream) is taken to drive away thirst, as elsewhere wine or coffee; there therefore milk of this kind without doubt belongs to the liquids which do not break the fast.

b. Apples, pears, grapes, and fruits of this kind rather have the character of food; and therefore they are not permitted, unless perhaps they are taken in a small quantity to extinguish thirst: for we say that these are eaten, not drunk. St. Alphonsus permits lozenges (Pastillen) and frozen liquor, but both only in a small quantity.

c. Outside the hour of the meal and collation, to take liquid (wine, beer, etc.) and, lest the drink do harm, a morsel of bread, of itself does not break the fast, because the bread is taken by way of medicine. But certainly it is not lawful to take bread as often as one likes to drink, but at most once or twice in a day; and especially this can be permitted to those who otherwise could not bear the fast, especially if the dinner happens to be deferred for a long time.

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

1. Because of weakness of body are excused:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

¹ St. Alphonsus, n. 1094.

688. Who can dispense: a. The supreme pontiff for the whole Church. His dispensation, from the known principles, is always valid and, when a just cause exists, also licit.

b. The bishop with his subjects from a just cause in particular cases, but without an indult not with an entire community; therefore neither with an entire diocese, nor with some parish, nor with some family.¹

In recent times there has been granted to bishops the faculty, for most grave causes, of dispensing in the law of abstinence if some solemn feast falls on Friday or Saturday, except in the times of Lent and Advent, on Ember days, and on vigils consecrated to fasting. This power is extended also to days on which extraordinary fairs are held with a great concourse of the people.²

c. The pastor, from custom, with his subjects in a particular case, that is, individual persons, but not with the whole parish nor with an entire family, not even for one day.

d. A regular superior with his subjects taken individually, but not with the whole community.

e. Confessors, unless they have been expressly delegated, have no faculty of dispensing, but can only declare whether an excusing cause is present; which, moreover, physicians also can do, and superiors of nuns.

In declaring inability to fast, especially if the excusing cause is not plainly certain, superiors and confessors should attend to what Sanchez wisely warns, that they provide for necessity with the least loss of the law: thus where it suffices to take the morning breakfast or the evening collation more indulgently, they should grant this, but by no means relax the fast entirely.³

¹ Constitution of Benedict XIV, Libentissime (June 24, 1745); nevertheless authors grant to the bishop the faculty of dispensing with some particular college or institute from an urgent cause, for example in an epidemic disease.

² This faculty was granted by Leo XIII through a decree of the Holy Office, Dec. 5, 1894, and Dec. 15, 1897. Cf. Acta S. Sedis XXVII, 512.

³ Consil. l. 5, c. 1, dub. 4, n. 3 s.

689. On the dispensation itself. 1. Universal dispensation by pontifical indult, whether immediately by the supreme pontiff or mediately through the bishop, ordinarily is granted only from the law of abstinence, but not from the law of one eating, because in this matter legitimate excuse suffices. But particular dispensation is customarily granted either from both laws or from either one.

a. An example is not lacking of a faculty generally granted of dispensing in both laws and of the dispensation itself: on Jan. 14, 1892, the supreme pontiff Leo XIII, because of diseases raging in that year, granted to all bishops of the world that they release the faithful from the law by which they are bound to observe abstinence and fasting. The same supreme pontiff, through the Lent of the year 1898, because of diseases raging at Rome, dispensed both from abstinence and from fasting.

b. From the will of Benedict XIV, particular dispensation is to be granted only on the advice of both physicians.¹ Therefore to the petition must be joined the testimony both of the pastor or confessor and of the physician; but in some regions this precept has fallen into desuetude.

c. Superiors inferior to the Roman pontiff cannot dispense from the law of not mixing foods without special delegation. Although this dispensation is granted very rarely, nevertheless some examples of it are not lacking.

2. If sometimes for many indeterminately a general dispensation from the law of abstinence is sought or granted, the cause of the dispensation must affect in some way all those for whom it is sought or granted; thus in places of baths, by reason of infirmity, a dispensation could be granted for all who live in an inn destined for bathers.

3. He to whom an indult is granted of eating flesh meats on days forbidden by the Church, with the law of fasting nevertheless preserved, can use this dispensation not only on days of abstinence, but also on days of fasting; but on days of fasting only for the meal, and by no means for the evening collation. But if he is not bound to observe fasting, he can eat flesh meats in all eatings.

¹ Constitution Non ambigimus, May 30, 1741.

690. Some documents concerning fasting, which are gathered from various decrees of the Holy Office and especially of the Sacred Penitentiary.¹

a. Those who, by reason of age or labor or infirmity, are excused from fasting (but not those who have been dispensed from a just cause), can, on days of fasting on which by the general indult of the bishop the eating of flesh meat is permitted, eat flesh meat as often as they take food,² unless the bishop dispensing by force of an apostolic indult restricts this faculty.³

Those who are excused from fasting from a just cause, by the will of the Holy See, unless from the same cause they are also excused from abstinence, are plainly dispensed from abstinence, unless the bishop establishes otherwise. But the Holy See does not extend this dispensation to those who are not bound to fast only by reason of dispensation. Therefore these need a special dispensation in order that they may eat flesh meat more often than is lawful through the Lenten indult.

b. A dispensation granted to the father of a family of itself is not extended to the whole family; wherefore, if it is permitted to children that in a case of this kind they eat flesh meat, this is not done because of the father's dispensation, but because of the impossibility in which they are placed of observing abstinence.⁴

c. Bishops dispensing in the eating of flesh meats from a pontifical indult are accustomed to enjoin on the faithful who use the dispensation some pious work (either certain prayers or alms). This precept obliges under light obligation and is affixed to the day; wherefore when the day has passed it ceases.

¹ Compare the decrees themselves in Lehmkuhl I, n. 1219 ss.

² Sacred Penitentiary, Feb. 24, 1819.

³ Sacred Penitentiary, May 27, 1863.

⁴ Sacred Penitentiary, Jan. 16, 1834; Dec. 19, 1862; Apr. 20, 1865.

691. On the Bull of the Crusade. 1. The Bull of the Crusade was first granted to the Spaniards by Julius II in 1509 and was enlarged by Gregory XIII. The same afterwards was granted also to the Neapolitans by Pius V in 1569.

2. The Bull of the Crusade contains various and great indults and privileges, the chief of which are reduced to these four:

a. Of eating flesh meats, eggs, and milk foods in the time of fasts of the whole year (with a few days excepted).¹

b. Of commuting simple vows into other pious works and some alms, except vows of chastity and religion and of pilgrimage overseas.

c. Of absolving from sins and censures reserved to any ordinary and even to the Apostolic See, except the crime of heresy and, as regards ecclesiastics, except the censure which is contained in the Bull Sacramentum poenitentiae.

d. Several indulgences, both partial and plenary.

3. In order that someone enjoy the graces and privileges of the Bull, he must receive the summary of the Bull, pay the assessed stipend, and guard the received summary with prudent diligence. The Bull received is valid for a year; hence each year, after the tax has been paid, it must be taken anew. The summary of the Bull can also be taken twice in any year, the assessed stipend being given for each; he who does this can enjoy the graces of the Bull twice in a year.

4. The Bull is granted "to all the Christian faithful who dwell in the whole Spanish territory, or who come into it within the year from the publication of the Bull, give alms for pious ends, and receive the summary of the same Bull."

5. It must be noted: a. The Bull is called of the Crusade because, in likeness to those bulls which once had been granted on the occasion of the "crusade" for recovering the Holy Land, it was granted to the king of the Spains for the conquest of unbelievers.

b. Although the reason because of which it was originally granted is no longer in force, the Bull itself nevertheless still has force, since it has been prolonged several times by the supreme pontiffs. The alms which are collected in this way are spent on other pious causes.

c. The Bull of the Crusade is not a personal privilege, but a local one; therefore outside Spain or the kingdom of Naples it is not lawful to use it.² The privileges of the Bull are to be interpreted broadly.

¹ This privilege is not properly contained in the Bull of the Crusade, but in an added apostolic indult for the use of flesh meats.

² Holy Office, June 2, 1897.

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.

I. Notion of Abstinence. Abstinence is a moral virtue inclining man to moderate the pleasure of touch and taste in the use of food and non-intoxicating drink. It is said:

1. The pleasure of touch and taste, that is, as we indicated above, the pleasure which flows either from the use of food and drink as such, or from the special flavor of this food or drink.

2. In the use of food and non-intoxicating drink. By these words abstinence is distinguished from sobriety, since sobriety is given for overcoming the special difficulty in the use of intoxicating drink.

II. Object of Abstinence. 1. The remote material object is constituted by foods themselves and non-intoxicating drinks; but the proximate object is the pleasures of touch and taste which arise in their use.

2. The remote formal object is the reason of debt of preserving the mean of right reason in the use of these things; but the proximate formal object is the special moral goodness shining forth in moderating the pleasure of touch and taste in the use of food and non-intoxicating drink.

III. Opposed Vices. By defect there is opposed gluttony strictly so called, or surfeiting, by which someone uses food and non-intoxicating drink beyond the measure of right reason; by excess there is opposed excessive abstinence, by which someone abstains from their use against right reason (St. Thomas, II-II, q. 148).

(St. Thomas, II-II, qq. 146-147; St. Alphonsus, Theologia Moralis, book III, nn. 1004-1050; Homo Apostolicus, tract 12, nn. 2-34.)

From history it is established that the law of abstinence and fasting is merely ecclesiastical; likewise, that the said law was introduced by custom rather than by law properly so called. From this it follows that it must be explained especially by custom. Having noted these things, receive the law of abstinence and fasting as it has now also been established by written law.

I. The law of abstinence alone is to be observed on each Friday (can. 1252, § 1).

II. The law of abstinence and fasting together is to be observed on Ash Wednesday, on the Fridays and Saturdays of Lent and of 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 (can. 1252, § 2).¹

III. The law of fasting alone is to be observed on all the remaining days of Lent (can. 1252, § 3).

IV. On Sundays or feasts of precept the law of abstinence, or of abstinence and fasting, or of fasting alone ceases, except on a feast during the time of Lent, nor are vigils anticipated; likewise, it ceases on Holy Saturday after midday (can. 1252, § 4). Moreover:

1. In view of can. 6, 6°, the following have been abrogated: 1° the law of abstinence on Saturdays outside Lent and the Ember Days;² 2° the law of fasting and abstinence on Wednesdays and Fridays of Advent, outside the Ember Days.³

2. The law of fasting persists if the feast of St. Joseph (19 March) falls on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday of Lent; the law of fasting and abstinence persists if it falls on Friday or Saturday.⁴

3. If some feast day to be observed under precept in the universal Church has been suppressed in some region, the law of abstinence persists;⁵ it likewise persists, if in some region or diocese a habitual dispensation has been granted by the Holy See, say for five years, from a feast day not suppressed; because the foundation of cessation falls away.

4. If some feast day which has a fast attached on the vigil falls on Monday, the fast ceases, so that it no longer has to be anticipated on the preceding Saturday, without prejudice, however, to particular law.⁶

Having noted these things concerning the time at which the laws mentioned oblige, we shall set forth each law distinctly.

¹ By force of an Apostolic Indult, the law of abstinence in the dioceses of Belgium is to be observed not on Saturday, except for the Ember Days, but on Wednesday and Friday through the time of Lent.

² Although it is not altogether established that the said law was universal in the full sense, nevertheless certainly in the places where it was in force it bound after the manner of a universal law, so that even travelers in those places were bound by it (S. Off., 10 June 1855). Hence can. 6, 6°, which speaks about universal laws, should be applied to it.

³ This law also possessed a universal character, both because it was once universal, and because, having fallen into desuetude, it was introduced anew by Clement XIV in many regions in place of a universal law, namely that of the abrogated Vigils (Brief Paterna caritate, 1771).

⁴ P. C., 24 Nov. 1920 (A. A. S. 1920, p. 573).

⁵ P. C., 17 Feb. 1918 (A. A. S. 1918, p. 170).

⁶ P. C., 24 Nov. 1920 (A. A. S. 1920, p. 573).

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

1. Meat; wherefore observe these things:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

¹ S. Poenit., 17 Nov. 1897.

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

³ N. K. Stemmen, 1909, p. 126.

⁴ Medicina Pastoralis, II, 868.

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

⁶ 16 Jan. 1834.

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

⁸ S. Off., 1 May 1889; 25 March 1895.

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

¹⁰ S. Poenit., 17 Nov. 1897.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

² 27 May 1863.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

² A. A. S. 1924, p. 157.

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.

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.

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 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.

Whether electuaries break fast? Electuaries are said to be those things which are made from chosen things, e.g., from sugar and juniper, etc. But they are not judged illicit on days of fast, if they are taken in the manner of medicine and in modest quantity. But any reasonable cause suffices for excusing from all fault, e.g., for the digestion of foods, strengthening the stomach, removing bad odor of the mouth, preserving the voice, and similar things. St. Thomas, 2. 2, q. 147, a. 6.

What quantity of food is judged grave matter if it is taken outside the meal and little supper? It is controverted. Matter which, added to the evening little supper, would make another meal is undoubtedly to be judged grave. But certainly a quantity of two ounces is to be held as light matter. Not a few judge the quantity equivalent to half a little supper, or four ounces, to be grave matter. Outside the meal; in the meal no quantity of foods is taxed; otherwise it is in the little supper. Cf. 1593. Outside the meal and little supper; therefore to these four ounces are to be computed those two ounces of the morning morsel, and therefore even outside that, the matter is grave beyond only two ounces. But, with the morning morsel now permitted from present custom, the illicit light and grave matter of two and four ounces seems now to be computed outside all permitted little meals. L. 1020, 1025.; St. Thomas, 2. 2, q. 147, a. 6.; 4 d. 15, a. 4, q. 3.

Whether he who culpably took two meals sins gravely if he adds a third? Resp. Negatively, at least more probably.

The reason is that the precept of fast urges in an indivisible mode during the day of precept; therefore he who once violated it does not sin again and again by eating. Therefore, once mortal sin has been committed through violation of fast, the whole law urging on such a day has been violated. Therefore. Yet he who breaks fast by eating forbidden flesh or milk foods several times sins as often as he eats. L. 1030.; H. A. 20.

Whether he who inculpably took two meals in a day, when the error has been detected or the excusing cause removed, is held under grave obligation to abstain from a third? Some affirm. The reason is that he injured fast only materially, not formally; wherefore as soon as he adverts to the law of fast, or sees the excusing cause cease, he is subject to the same law and is held to observe it as the rest; otherwise he would violate it formally. Thus probably Reuter de Leg. 176. Yet others more probably deny it, because since the essence of fast is situated in one eating, after two meals fast becomes impossible. L. 1030.; H. A. 20.

What if on a day of fast you inadvertently breakfasted? - If you have taken a little something, e.g., two, three, or almost four ounces of food, you ought indeed according to custom to fast, without leaving the meal and little supper at the customary hours; for the fast was not substantially injured. If you have taken a quantity equivalent to a little supper, you ought to transfer dinner to the evening time, or abstain from the little supper itself, or take a morsel in place of the little supper, unless this yields to you into grave inconvenience. But if a quantity of this kind were nearly equal either to a double little supper or to the customary meal, you ought, with dinner omitted, to take only the evening little supper, yet earlier if you cannot wait without grave difficulty. Moreover, you could increase this little supper according to the reason of necessity; or even take a morsel late, with the little supper anticipated at evening time. But there are not lacking those who think that one is no longer held to fast in this inverted order, not the usual order, since it is an extraordinary mode and as it were a privilege, which no one is held to use, and it is not without grave inconvenience. E. M.

Whether an evening collation is permitted? - Besides the customary meal, it is licit, from universal custom introduced for many centuries and tolerated by the Church, indeed tacitly also approved, to take toward evening a little meal from lighter foods. The evening little collation began in some way from monks, who in fasts introduced by their own rule, before or after sacred conversations, called collations or conferences, took some draughts of water, or of another drink, for refreshing strength. Afterward a morsel either of bread or of another food was added, lest the drink harm. But the faithful embraced this custom in the fasts of the Church; this custom came to this, that a small supper is had; that this custom is altogether legitimate at present is proved by custom received everywhere, and indeed indiscriminately as regards all, even if someone did not need it. Elbel 473.; L. 1024.

What quantity of food can be taken in the little supper? From present and common custom, at least speaking ordinarily, around eight ounces of food, or around 250 grams, can be taken. For a common ounce is equivalent to around 31 grams, and a Roman ounce around 29 grams. A pound of 16 ounces equals 500 grams. L. 1025. But others say that the fourth part of supper or dinner is to be permitted. But this doctrine is too vague or liable to scruples. - The quantity of eight ounces seems to be denied to no one, but a greater one is to be conceded to those for whom this would not suffice. Indeed no rule altogether fixed can be established, since attention also must be paid to constitution, duties to be performed, duration of fast, etc. It is licit in general to take as much as one judges necessary for avoiding an indisposition which impedes him from suitably performing his duties. Regard also must be had to one's own region, if somewhere a greater quantity of food is necessary. - L. 1024.

What excess is judged grave in the little supper? - All agree that an excess of two ounces is light matter. The stricter authors with Concina teach that an excess surpassing two ounces is grave; but others with Billuart hold that an excess is required which, taken separately, is equivalent to an entire little supper. Yet commonly the doctors require above the little supper an excess equivalent to another half little supper, or four ounces. In various places, from introduced custom, on the vigil of the Nativity, even on Saturday if the Nativity falls on Monday, likewise on the Supper of the Lord, it is licit to take a quantity twice as great; but this custom is not in force everywhere. - L. 1024, 1025.

What quality of foods can be employed in the little supper? - Lighter foods are permitted: bread, any fruits, also any vegetables, sweets of various kinds. But especially the custom of places is to be observed.

Several things are permitted in various dioceses or provinces which elsewhere are forbidden. L. 1024-1026.

Whether it is licit to eat eggs, cheese, butter in the evening little supper? - Resp. Negatively, generally; although a dispensation for milk foods is had, as is clear from the Decree of Benedict XIV and C. Appetente of Clement XIII, 20 Dec. 1759. Yet in certain places, from custom, it is licit to take some butter, or cheese, or milk; but eggs are by no means permitted, because they are of greatest substance, and therefore are rejected by custom, says St. Liguori 1027. Thus in Belgium milk and cheese are usually employed; in France and elsewhere generally it is licit from custom to feed on cheese. The privilege of cheese likewise in the diocese of Novara for the whole Vicariate of Intra was conceded by Innocent XII, through the organ of the Holy Office, 30 Jan. 1694. "Cheese or butter in the little supper is not conceded," says Kenrick tr. 4, c. 4, n. 46, "according to the general custom of the Church: but a contrary usage has obtained in these provinces. Milk also from a certain necessity is taken somewhere among us." They also assert that eggs are permitted from custom in Germany and in many regions of North America. In Latin America it is licit for all to use milk foods and also eggs. S. E. Neg. Extr. 6 July 1899. Cf. here n. 1573 bis.

Whether fish are permitted in the little supper? Resp. Affirmatively, if there is question of little fish, especially dried, and probably also of fresh and larger fish, with today's almost general practice considered. Yet St. Liguori thinks, 1208, that from these the weight of two or three ounces is not to be exceeded. In Spain, however, by force of custom, fish and little fish generally are not permitted. E. M.

Whether it is licit in the little supper to use broth from herbs cooked with water, vinegar, oil, or boiled wine? Resp. Affirmatively, probably, unless custom is certainly opposed: but then neither water nor wine is to be computed in the weight; but, according to Viva, that is to be computed which does not have the nature of drink, e.g., oil. L. 1209.

Whether it is licit in the little supper to take bread boiled with water and oil, or soupy bread? Resp. Affirmatively, from present custom, which even the timorous follow, and recent theologians commonly approve; yet with a quantity of solid food of bread less than eight ounces. Boiled: for it can be conceded that during the meal itself someone dip bread in water or wine, and thus also take eight ounces of bread moistened with wine: since here almost the same substance of bread remains: and the liquid, since it serves only as a vehicle, is not computed. L. 1029.

What quantity of boiled bread of this kind can be permitted, water prescinded? Theologians disagree. There are those who deny that it is licit absolutely to exceed eight ounces. But if an ounce of bread boiled in ten ounces of water with another ounce of oil were taken, what scruple would there be in permitting these twelve ounces? But others concede eight ounces of boiled bread, water prescinded. Yet on account of this boiling you have one food, which, although it does not constitute a greater quantity of nutritive substance, nevertheless from the greater volume generates greater satiety. Hence it seems that one cannot at least altogether prescind from the water. Therefore a middle opinion seems to be chosen, namely that five, or at least four, ounces of boiled bread can be permitted, with water and oil not computed. The same likewise will have to be said of other boiled preparations which likewise are usually placed in the little supper, e.g., from spelt, rice, legumes, etc. L. 1029.

What abstinence is prescribed in fast? - To all the faithful using reason, by the precept of the Church the use of flesh is now forbidden on many, but not all, days of fast. Hence by the law of fast a twofold precept is then imposed, namely of abstaining from several meals and of abstaining from flesh. On certain days eggs and milk foods also are prohibited under grave obligation, namely all those things which draw origin from flesh. - Moreover, although the use of eggs and milk foods could not be excused from grave sin of itself, according to the common opinion, nevertheless smallness of matter seems more easily to be admitted in these than in the use of flesh. But when by Indult it is licit to use bacon, fat, butter, margarine as seasonings, one can use them also in the little supper, although he fasts. Cf. 1572, 1572 bis.; L. 1005, 1006, 1007.; St. Thomas, 2. 2, q. 147, a. 3, 8.; Benedict XIV, Notif. 16.; E. M.

When must abstinence from milk foods be observed? - Resp. In Lenten time eggs and milk foods also were formerly prohibited under grave obligation, namely all those things which draw origin from flesh. But outside Lenten time this prohibition was not had. Yet somewhere, e.g., at Rome, a custom having the force of law prevailed, that even on certain other days, e.g., the Four Times, abstinence of this kind be observed. But at present one must stand by particular laws, privileges, indults. Cf. 1573 bis. In many places still, Bishops, by a faculty delegated by the Roman Pontiff, concede dispensation, even as regards flesh, for the principal part of Lent. - L. 1009.; St. Thomas, 2. 2, q. 147, a. 8 ad 3.; Struggl tr. 8, q. 2, n. 18.

Whether abstinence from eggs and milk foods also obliged on Sundays of Lent? - Resp. Affirmatively. The reason is that in Canon Law, C. Denique 6 d. 4, abstinence from milk foods is universally commanded on Lenten days. But it is certain that Sundays also are days of Lent. L. 1007.; St. Thomas, 2. 2, q. 147, a. 8.

Whether, when abstinence of stricter right is to be observed, it is licit in the meal to eat breads made with eggs? Resp. Negatively, unless eggs have been permitted; the reason is that their substance is not lost from the fact that it is mixed with flour. L. 1009.

Whether those dispensed for milk foods are by that very fact also judged dispensed for eggs? - Resp. Affirmatively, because these are equated by custom, unless a distinction is clearly expressed in the dispensation. Gury 504. Indeed, when on a day of simple abstinence, e.g., Friday, milk foods are permitted, eggs also are conceded. But those dispensed for flesh are judged also dispensed for eggs and milk foods; and those dispensed for eggs are judged dispensed for milk foods too; because to whom the greater is conceded, the lesser also is conceded. But to whom it is licit to eat milk foods, it is not therefore also licit to eat bacon and grease, because they participate in the substance of flesh and are judged as flesh. L. 1015. Cf. here 1573 bis.

Whether those dispensed for flesh are still held to fast? Resp. Affirmatively. This is proved from the prescription of Benedict XIV, B. In Suprema, 22 Aug. 1741, and more clearly B. Libentissime, 10 July 1745, Inst. 15, n. 20 seqq., de Syn. l. 7, c. 3, n. 1.; L. 1013, 1014, 1015. - Those dispensed; those who cannot abstain from flesh on account of grave inconvenience are more truly still held to one meal; although another thing seems to others. Benedict XIV, Not. 15, n. 19 seqq. But those who likewise on account of grave inconvenience cannot be nourished by one meal, are held to abstinence from flesh, which is the truer and certain opinion. Indeed this precept is divisible by reason of its matter, and the obligation can well remain for one part, the obligation ceasing for another, as is clear from particular laws for some places, and for others from the dispensation itself, which is usually given in Lent, and from the fact that those not yet having attained the twenty-first year of age, although they are not held to fast, are nevertheless held by the law of abstinence. Cf. n. 1573 bis, 1626.; Benedict XIV, cited Constitutions.; Collect. S. C. de P. F. n. 2057.; E. M.

Whether those dispensed for flesh can eat flesh and fish at the same time? - Those dispensed for flesh cannot on days of fast in the time of Lent and through the year, nor on Sundays of Lent, eat flesh and fish together, namely in the same eating. This is clear from three Constitutions of Benedict XIV: Non ambigimus, In Suprema, Libentissime. Those dispensed; for he who by reason of infirmity eats flesh, even several times, on a day of fast can eat both flesh and fish at the same time. S. Poenit. 9 Jan. 1899. For the forbidden mixing is a condition placed on those who eat flesh by force of an indult, although from a reasonable cause they are immune from the law of one eating. And these then can eat flesh as often as they eat, unless a restriction is placed in the indult, that those who also do not fast can eat flesh only once; this restriction is not added at Rome.

On days of fast; for on Fridays and Saturdays, he to whom it is licit to eat flesh from dispensation can eat fish at the same time. Days of fast; nevertheless the precept concerning not mixing each kind of food obliges also on Sundays of Lent. Flesh, not broth seasoned with flesh. Fish also comprehends marine shellfish, oysters, crabs, etc. Cf. here 1626.; L. 1013, 1014, 1015.; E. M. In Italy specifically, on the days on which fast is now prescribed, and also on Sundays of Lent, mixing is always and absolutely prohibited. The same prohibition is altogether had for Dalmatia. Cf. 1573 bis. An Indult has been conceded for Chile of mixing flesh and fish on those days on which dispensation from fast and abstinence had already been made. E. M.

Whether those dispensed for flesh can, without injury to the fast, eat flesh not wholesome, namely pork and similar things? "The doctors very commonly and indeed probably affirm; both because license for flesh generally imparted is not to be restricted to wholesome flesh alone, and because otherwise those dispensed would be subjected to many scruples, not rarely doubting which flesh harms or profits.... But, speaking in particular of pork, it does not seem that it can be called absolutely unwholesome." L. 1015. Those dispensed, namely individuals, not all universally; for then only wholesome flesh is permitted. Benedict XIV, C. Libentissime § 1. But this restriction, which previously was placed in the Indult at Rome, has now been omitted from the year 1897, as is to be seen in the Lenten Indult; and everywhere it has now become obsolete. E. M. 1626.

At what hour is the meal to be made? - In these our times, from universal custom, the meal is licitly taken almost at midday. L. 1016.; H. A. 9.; St. Thomas, 2. 2, q. 147, a. 7. "The one meal which is permitted on a day of fast was formerly taken after sunset in Lent, and at the ninth hour, or around three hours after noon, at the other times of the year; from the fourteenth century it has been taken around midday." Kenrick tr. 4, c. 4, n. 42.

"Whether the water bird named fulica (commonly folaga) is to be counted among fish, and whether it is lawful to eat it on those days on which meats are forbidden? The Religious of the Order of Minims of St. Francis of Paola, to whom meats are entirely forbidden, in order to remove the perplexity by which their consciences were troubled concerning this matter, presented a supplication to Pius VII that it be granted to them to be able freely to use that food. To them, through the Congregation of Regular Discipline, 22 Feb. 1804, the Most Holy Lord, the things narrated truly existing, kindly granted the grace according to the things requested, the Constitutions of the Order and all other things notwithstanding."

"Most Blessed Father, the Most Illustrious Bishops of Belgium asked His Holiness, in the year 1855, that he deign to take away the law by which eating meats on Saturday is prohibited. His Holiness did not abrogate that law; but he deigned to grant to the Most Illustrious Bishops of Belgium the faculty of dispensing concerning it with those who would ask dispensation.

Hence the undersigned doubt is most humbly set forth: Whether, after dispensation has been obtained, it is lawful for those traveling outside Belgium to eat meats in places in which that law is in force? - Resp. In the negative." S. I. C. 10 Jan. 1855.

Cf. On Laws, N. 93.

"Whether, where clocks are used, accommodated to mean time, one must stand by these, both for satisfying the burden of the divine office and for satisfying the natural fast; or whether one ought, or at least can, use true time? - Resp. That one can follow mean time, but is not bound." S. Poenit. 29 Nov. 1882.

When the Neapolitan Syndic had prescribed that all Neapolitan clocks, with some private ones excepted, in indicating noon should take their rule from Roman mean time, it happens that midnight differs from the true not only by reason of mean time, but also by reason of the different meridian of each city, so that the difference sometimes not slightly exceeds a quarter of an hour. Hence the Eminent Cardinal Archbishop asked the Sacred Penitentiary: "These things having been considered, can the faithful at Naples, in observing the natural fast and other obligations of the Church, follow the clocks indicating the hours according to Roman mean time, or rather ought they to follow those clocks which mark true Neapolitan time? - Resp. To the first part, in the affirmative; to the second, in the negative." S. Poenit. 18 June 1873.

"Whether it can be permitted... that in the morning, on days of fasting, coffee or chocolate be taken in a small quantity with a little morsel of bread? - Resp. Those who follow such a usage are not to be disquieted." S. Poenit. 21 Nov. 1843.

"Whether, when either through the Bull of the Crusade, or for another cause, an Indult is granted for the use of melted lard (commonly strutto) under the sole title of condiment, those who are bound to fasting can use that condiment also in the evening refection? - Resp. That those who are bound to fasting can lawfully use, also in the evening refection, the condiments permitted in the Indult; because those, by force of the Indult, take the place of oil; provided that in the Indult there is no restriction placed, that they can be employed in the one meal." S. Poenit. 16 Jan. 1834.

"Whether in a concession of condiments (commonly di grasso) there is understood to have been granted the use of condiment from the fat of any animal whatever? - The Sacred Penitentiary responded: That only swine condiment is to be used."

"Whether on Fridays and Saturdays, on which condiments commonly called di grasso are indulged, meat broth can be employed? - The Sacred Penitentiary responded: Under the terms condiment di grasso there is not comprehended broth of cooked meat."

"Can children under family authority eat meats at a forbidden time, the faculty of this kind being presupposed in the parents, or in one of them; and in the affirmative case, can the children eat meats without offense of conscience, when they are found in the circumstance of preparing two dinners? - Resp. In the negative, speaking speculatively; but practically the Confessor is bound to judge." S. Poenit. 20 April 1865.

"Whether by force of the response of the Sacred Penitentiary (16 Jan. 1834) conceived in these words: Persons who are in the power of a head of household, to whom a legitimate faculty of eating meats has been granted, are permitted to use foods indulged to the head of household, etc., when the head of household has been dispensed, the others of the same family also ought to be understood as dispensed? - Resp. The Sacred Penitentiary has never declared that dispensations granted to the head of a family extend to the whole family; but only gave directions for confessors in the practical act concerning those who are under power and must eat foods given by parents."

1. Whether the same response of the Sacred Penitentiary, 16 Jan. 1834, "has force everywhere on earth? 2. When in the same response it is said that it can be permitted, it is asked by whom this permission is to be given, and whether permission given by a simple confessor suffices? - Resp. As regards the first, in the affirmative. As regards the second, that permission made by a simple confessor suffices." S. Poenit. 27 May 1863.

"The faithful who, by reason of affected health, are exempted from the law of fasting or of the one meal, can lawfully on those days of Lent on which eating meats is permitted by Indult, eat meats as often as they eat during the day." S. Poenit. 16 March 1882. Cf. Acta S. Sedis Vol. 14, p. 568; Vol. 1, p. 427.

Seven doubts proposed to Benedict XIV and solved by him, Letter to the Archbishop of Compostela, 10 June 1745.

"1. Whether those things which in Our aforementioned Letters in the form of a Brief are prescribed concerning the one meal, and concerning foods not to be mixed, are forbidden under grave precept also? - Resp. That those granting the faculty of eating meats at a forbidden time are bound under grave obligation to give the same faculties in no other way than with these two conditions added, namely of one meal in a day and of foods not to be mixed. But those who use faculties of this kind are bound under grave obligation to fulfill those two conditions."

"2. Whether those to whom it has been granted to eat meats can, in the little evening refection, eat that quantity of meat which is permitted to those fasting? Resp. It is not lawful; but they need that food, and must use that portion, which men fasting with an upright and careful conscience use."

"3. Whether those who during the time of fasting are permitted to eat meats and must use one meal need to observe the hour prescribed for those fasting? - Resp. That it must be observed."

"4. What are the lawful foods, which it is forbidden to join with those interdicted? - Resp. That the lawful foods for those to whom it has been permitted to eat meats are the meats themselves; that the interdicted foods are fish, and therefore both cannot be used at the same time. Yet those to whom only the faculty of using eggs and milk foods is given are not prohibited from eating fish."

"5. Whether the precept concerning not mixing each kind of food also embraces the Sundays of Lent? - Resp. That it does embrace them."

"6. Whether this law also pertains to those who from the Bull of the Crusade can eat eggs and milk foods? Resp. That nothing has been established in Our aforesaid Apostolic Letters which regards the gracious Diploma of the Crusade. Therefore those who enjoy it should weigh its tenor strictly and considerately, and should conduct themselves according to its meaning. But let them beware lest by some empty excuse they judge themselves to be released from the laws prescribed there."

"7. Whether the two mentioned precepts urge outside Lent? Resp. That each precept urges outside Lent; namely, that of one meal with the remaining laws expressed in the second and third response to these petitions; and the other of not mixing lawful foods with interdicted ones, as has been defined in the fourth petition."

Other Declarations of the Holy Office and of the Sacred Penitentiary

"Whether the obligation of not mixing fish with meat on the days of Lent reaches all who, by force of an Indult, can eat meats, or only those who fast? - Resp. In the affirmative as regards the first part, in the negative as regards the second part; and let the Decree of 24 March 1841 be given, namely to the doubt: Whether the law concerning not mixing lawful and interdicted foods also regards those who are not bound to the one meal, such as young persons before they have completed the third seven-year period, and others reasonably excused from the same because of impotence or labor; the Most Eminent Fathers decreed: It is not lawful." S. I. C. 23 June 1875. Cf. Gury-Ballerini, Vol. 2, n. 1107.

"That meats can be mixed with any species whatever of vegetables is beyond doubt." S. Poenit. 8 Feb. 1828.

“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.

In many dioceses of Italy also, an indult concerning abstinence on Saturday is presently in force. Cf. the Indult for the City of Rome, no. 1626.

“…The Most Holy Father, …in view of the most grave causes adduced, wishing to meet the necessities and anxieties of souls, while preserving the ecclesiastical law of fasting and abstinence, and saving the excuses from that same law which remain admitted by the common law according to the rules of approved authors, as well as the special indults hitherto imparted to the individual ecclesiastical provinces and still in force for as long as they shall endure, resolved to grant for ten years, as he does grant, to all the Ordinaries of Latin America a faculty, subdelegable to parish priests, confessors, and other ecclesiastical men, of dispensing at their discretion each year, mention of the Apostolic delegation having been made, the faithful who request it—including religious of either sex, but with the consent of their ecclesiastical superiors—from the law of fasting and abstinence, provided that:

“1. The law of fasting without abstinence from meat is observed on the Fridays of Advent and the Wednesdays of Lent.

“2. The law of fasting and abstinence from meat is observed on Ash Wednesday, the Fridays of Lent, and Thursday of Holy Week.

“But on days of fasting it will always be lawful for everyone, even regulars, although they have not sought a special dispensation, to use eggs and dairy products at the evening collation.

“3. Abstinence from meat without fasting is 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.

“4. In the individual regions, the conditions concerning the recitation of prayers and the distribution and destination of alms which have hitherto customarily been observed in the concession of pontifical indults are to be observed.

“But parish priests and other priests subdelegated by the bishops are forbidden to ask for or accept anything else on the occasion of the dispensations imparted by them.

“The privileges of Latin America granted in the Constitution Trans Oceanum of 18 April 1897 nevertheless remain firm….

“Notwithstanding anything whatsoever to the contrary.” Sacred Congregation for Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs, 6 July 1899. Cf. A. S. S., vol. 33, p. 511.

“1. Is it lawful for Greeks dwelling at Rome—at least for the avoidance of scandal—to eat meat on Saturday? — 2. Is it lawful for Greeks to have Latins in their service and to give them meat to eat on Saturday? — 3. Is it lawful for Greeks on the aforesaid day to offer meat to be eaten by Latin children and youths who are not attached to their service? — Resp. To 1. It is not lawful, and the Instruction of Clement VIII is to be observed, in which it is contained thus: The use of meat on Saturday is to be tolerated among the Greeks, where it can be done without scandal, yet only in their own places and among themselves. — To 2 and 3. Latin servants of Greeks are bound to observe the Latin rite, and therefore the Greeks sin by setting forbidden foods before their servants at a time when they ought to abstain from them.” Holy Office, 13 March 1727, C. 2050.

“Whether Greek priests in the Archdiocese of Rossano can compel persons living according to the Greek rite to the observance of the fasts and vigils of the Latin Church? — Resp. It is not lawful for private persons who have a Greek parish to observe, contrary to their own rite, the fasts and vigils of the Latins while omitting the fasts of the Greek rite. Nevertheless, it is lawful, provided that it is not compelled to do so, for the whole community, or for the greater part of the laity united with the parish priests and presbyters, to observe fasts and vigils in the manner of the Latins; nor does it follow from this that the community has passed over to the Latin rite.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 10 March 1760, C. 2055.

“With respect to Ordinations, it suffices to observe the fasts of the Ember Days; for Ordinations outside the Ember Days carry no obligation of fasting. — With respect to the Consecrations of Churches, the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites in Mechelen, 29 July 1780, no. 2519, response to 1, is to be observed, which is as follows: The fast prescribed in the Roman Pontifical is of strict obligation for the consecrating bishop and only for those who request that a church be consecrated for them; and that same fast is to be proclaimed on the day preceding the Consecration, according to the form of the Roman Pontifical.” Holy Office, 14 December 1898.

“The Most Eminent Fathers directed their attention to the words which are read in no. 27 of Formulas I and II and in no. 17 of Formula III, namely: Of dispensing, when it shall seem expedient, concerning the eating of meat, eggs, and dairy products during times of fasting and Lent; and they decreed that henceforth they were to be modified by adding after the word Of dispensing the following: not, however, by a general indult, but in particular cases.” Holy Office, 17 March 1883.

“Supplication is to be made to the Most Holy Father that he may deign to grant to bishops and other local Ordinaries the faculty of anticipating, on a day agreeable to themselves, and, for the most grave causes, even of dispensing from the law of fasting and abstinence whenever the feast, to be observed under both precepts, of a principal Patron or Titular, or some other solemn feast likewise to be celebrated with a great concourse of the people, falls upon Fridays or Saturdays during the year, except during the time of Lent, the Ember Days, and the vigils consecrated to fasting during the year; and that they may use the same power of anticipating or, for the most grave causes, even dispensing, for days on which extraordinary fairs are held, likewise with a great concourse of the people. — His Holiness ratified and confirmed the present decree and granted and attributed to all and each of the local Ordinaries, for all future times, the faculty in question, mention, however, of the Apostolic dispensation being made in the individual cases.” Holy Office, 5 December 1894.

“1. In order that a bishop may be able to dispense according to the tenor of the decree of 5 December 1894, is it necessary that the feast be celebrated with a great concourse of the people? — 2. Can a bishop dispense only when there is question of feasts of double precept, or also when there is question of another feast or another Catholic solemnity, e.g., centenaries, pilgrimages, and the like? — 3. How is a great concourse of the people to be understood: of people from elsewhere, or also of those of the same city or place? — 4. Can there be assigned among the most grave causes for which a bishop can not only anticipate but also dispense the grave danger that the abstinence to be anticipated will not be observed? — 5. On the excepted days consecrated to fasting, is it forbidden to bishops only to dispense from abstinence, or also to anticipate it? — 6. For a reasonable cause, can a bishop commit to parish priests the determination of the day on which abstinence ought to be anticipated? — Resp. To 1. Affirmatively. — To 2. Negatively to the first part; affirmatively to the second, provided that there is a great concourse of the people. — To 3. All things being considered, it can also be understood of a concourse of the city or place, after the matter was reported to the Most Holy Father. — To 4. Affirmatively, provided that the danger is general. — To 5. Affirmatively; that is, both are forbidden to bishops. — To 6. Affirmatively.” Holy Office, 18 March 1896.

“Whether Ordinaries, by force of the decree of 5 December 1894, can anticipate, or even for the most grave causes dispense from, the law of fasting and abstinence on the Fridays and Saturdays of Advent? — Resp. Negatively.” Holy Office, 15 December 1897.

“That a man ought not to fast or pray after he has attained a degree of perfection of this kind—namely, that he can advance no further in grace—because then sensuality is so perfectly subject to spirit and reason that a man can freely grant to the body whatever pleases it.” Condemned as an error in Clement V, Ad nostrum 3, On Heretics.

“23. One who breaks a 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.” Proposition condemned by Alexander VII.

“Whether it can be permitted…that in the morning on days of fasting, coffee or chocolate with a morsel of bread be taken in a small quantity? — Resp. Those who follow such a practice are not to be disturbed.” Sacred Penitentiary, 21 November 1843.

“29. On a day of fasting, one who several times eats a small amount does not break the fast.” Proposition condemned by Alexander VII.

“Can the time of the principal meal and the collation be inverted on days of fasting for some reason, e.g., studies, so that, according to the French custom, the collation is taken at eleven o’clock, but the principal meal at five o’clock in the afternoon? — Resp. They can be inverted for a reasonable cause; and let him consult approved authors.” Holy Office, 29 July 1857.

“Whether on days of fasting the time of eating can be inverted by taking the little evening refection between ten and eleven o’clock in the morning, but deferring the principal meal until four or five o’clock in the evening? On 10 January 1834 the Sacred Penitentiary judged that the response should be: If there exists some reasonable cause for the aforesaid inversion, penitents who use this custom are not to be disturbed.” Holy Office, 17 September 1862.

“32. It is not evident that the custom of not eating eggs and dairy products in Lent binds.” Proposition condemned by Alexander VII, 18 March 1666.

“The faithful who by reason of age or labor are not bound to fast can lawfully, in Lent when an indult has been granted, eat meat or dairy products permitted by that same indult, on all the days comprehended in the indult, as often as they eat during the day.” Sacred Penitentiary, 16 January 1824.

This, however, does not apply in a diocese whose bishop, by Apostolic authority, grants to the faithful that on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays of Lent they can once a day eat meat and eggs, but permits those who by reason of age or labor are not bound to fast to use eggs several times a day. Sacred Penitentiary, 27 May 1863.

“The faithful who, by reason of impaired health, are exempted from the law of fasting or of the one meal can lawfully, on those days of Lent on which the eating of meat is permitted by indult, eat meat as often as they eat during the day.” Sacred Penitentiary, 16 March 1882; A. S. S., vol. 14, p. 568; vol. 1, p. 427.

“From Your Lordship’s letter of 9 February last, I was able to gather that Your Lordship would be pleased to know the reason why, to the doubt, ‘Whether those who are excused from fasting by reason of infirm health are to be equated with those who are not bound to fast by reason of age or labor, so that it is likewise lawful for them to eat meat several times a day?’ the Sacred Penitentiary responded on 27 May 1863: They are not to be equated. Now, having obtained the appropriate information concerning the matter, I am in a position to signify to you that the reason why the infirm, with respect to the quality of foods on days subject to the prohibition of the Church, are not to be equated with those who are excused from fasting by reason of age or labor is that the latter can use forbidden foods solely by force of the indult, which can undergo lesser or greater limitations, while the infirm can use forbidden foods according to the state of their health and the judgment of the physician. Thus, for example, on certain days the indult might not permit seasoning with fat, and in that case one who is dispensed from fasting by reason of age or labor must abstain from the aforesaid seasoning; but the sick person, even on the excepted days, can eat fat foods if the state of his health so requires. It seems to me that such an explanation can serve to remove the uncertainties which you mentioned to me in your aforesaid letter. — Rome, 8 March 1864. Alexander Cardinal Barnabò, Prefect.”

Seven doubts proposed to Benedict XIV and resolved by him, Letter to the Archbishop of Compostela, 10 June 1745.

“1. Whether those things which in Our aforesaid Letters in the form of a Brief are prescribed concerning the one meal and concerning foods not to be mixed are also prohibited under a grave precept? — Resp. Those granting the faculty of eating meat during a forbidden time are bound under grave sin to give those faculties only with these two conditions added: namely, of one meal in the day and of foods not being mixed. But those who use faculties of this kind are bound under grave sin to fulfill both those conditions.”

“2. Whether those to whom it has been granted to eat meat can, at the evening refection, eat that quantity of meat which is permitted to those who fast? — Resp. It is not lawful; rather, they must use that food and that portion which fasting persons of an upright and delicate conscience use.” “3. Whether those who during the time of fasting are permitted to eat meat and are bound to use one meal must observe the hour prescribed for those who fast? — Resp. It is to be observed.”

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?

R. To the 1st. The Crusade is a Bull first conceded to the Spaniards, on account of the assault on infidels, in the year 1509 by Julius II, and was then amplified by other Pontiffs, but especially by Gregory XIII. This was also conceded by St. Pius V in the year 1569 to the Neapolitans for repelling pirates. This Bull, from its prorogation repeated many times by the Supreme Pontiffs, still prevails, although that first reason of concession has ceased, both in Spain and in the ancient kingdom of the Sicilies; and alms are expended for other pious causes.

To the 2nd. 1. The graces and indults of the aforesaid Bull, which are conceded to all the Christian faithful who dwell in the whole Spanish territory, or who come into it within the year from the publication of the Bull, who distribute alms for pious ends, and accept the Summary of the same Bull, Cf. the Summary of the same Bull, title and paragraph First, are the following:

1. Several Indulgences are conceded, both partial and plenary, which are related in the same Summary.

2. It is conceded that twice, namely once in life and once in death, they can choose any confessor approved by the Ordinary, and receive from him in the forum of conscience absolution from any sins and censures reserved to any Ordinary, and also to the Apostolic See, except the crime of heresy, and as to ecclesiastics except the censure of which the Constitution of Benedict XIV Sacramentum Poenitentiae treats, a salutary penance having been imposed, satisfaction having been made to the party, and other things enjoined which by law are to be enjoined. Cf. the cited Summary, par. So that.

3. It is conceded that by the same confessor simple vows can be commuted into other pious works and some alms, except vows of chastity, religion, and ultramarine pilgrimage. Cf. the cited Summary, par. So that.

4. It is conceded to the aforesaid Christian faithful that even in time of Interdict, provided that they themselves did not give cause to it, or that it did not stand by them that it not be removed, and faculty having been had for this from the Commissary General, even for an hour before day begins to dawn and for an hour after noon, within the said year, they can celebrate, if they are priests, or cause Masses and other divine offices to be celebrated in their own presence, and in the presence of their families and household members and blood-relatives, with doors closed, bells not rung, and excommunicates and specially interdicted persons excluded; and receive the Eucharist and other sacraments, except on Easter Day, both in churches in which, during the Interdict, other divine offices were in any way permitted to be celebrated, and in a private Oratory deputed only for divine worship, visited and designated by the Ordinary; and they can be present at divine services during the time of Interdict. Nevertheless on him who has used a private Oratory for the aforesaid use, it is imposed that as often as he has done this, he pour forth some prayers to God for the prosperity of the Church, the extirpation of heresies, the propagation of the faith, and the peace and concord of Christian Princes. Likewise, that bodies of the dead, unless they died bound by the bond of excommunication, can be buried with moderate funeral pomp at the same time of Interdict. Cf. the cited Summary, par. Likewise to those named above.

5. It is conceded that, during the aforesaid year from the publication of the Bull, and while dwelling in the aforesaid Spanish territory, not outside it, they can eat meats, by counsel of each physician, if necessity, or weak health of body, or any other cause should demand it, during the fasts of the whole year, even Lenten ones, and at the same time at will eggs and dairy products, so that those who are held to fast satisfy the fast by eating meats and by observing in the rest the law of fasting. In this indult are included religious of any Military Order; but from it are excepted Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops, inferior Prelates, regular ecclesiastical persons, namely priests, and secular priests, unless they are now sixty years of age; and outside Lenten time all these can use the same Indult as to eggs and dairy products. Cf. cited Summary, par. And likewise during. Wherefore the aforesaid excepted persons, namely Patriarchs, Archbishops, etc., are excepted from the Indult only of dairy products and only during Lenten time, but not from eating meats by counsel of each physician and from a just cause.

And here it must be noted: 1. From ancient custom and from the general concession of Pius VI, it is permitted in Spain to eat meats on Saturdays. Cf. Bened. XIV, de Syn. l. 11. c. 5.

2. Besides the Bull of the Crusade, another Indult is present in Spain, namely the Indult of Dairy Products, by which the Commissary of the Bull of the Crusade extends the same indult of dairy products, conceded to the rest of the Christian faithful in the Bull of the Crusade, to the persons excepted in the same Bull. But these persons must accept the Summary of the same Indult of dairy products and give the taxed alms. Nevertheless in this extension the exception of Holy Week is placed by the Commissary; and so that extension is restricted only to the preceding Lenten time.

3. Likewise another indult is present in Spain, namely the Indult of Meats, by which it is conceded to all Christian faithful of each sex, secular and ecclesiastical, even religious, except those who are bound to abstinence by vow, that they can eat wholesome meats, and so also eggs and dairy products, on all days, except Ash Wednesday, the sixth ferias of Lent, the fourth, fifth, sixth ferias and Saturday of Holy Week, the vigils of the Nativity of the Lord, Pentecost, the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul; and except also, for those who are of the clergy, or for priests, the second and third ferias of Holy Week. But the Summary of the Indult must be received, and the taxed alms must be paid, and at the same time the Bull of the Crusade must be received; and for ecclesiastics the Indult of Dairy Products must also be received, namely so that they can use them during Lenten time, if they have not yet completed their sixtieth year of age. Cf. the Summary of the same Indult. — Therefore on those excepted days, by force of the Indult of Meats, it is not lawful to eat meats, or eggs and dairy products by force of the Bull of the Crusade and by force of the Indult of Dairy Products, as they are permitted in that Bull and in this Indult. Cf. here par. 5, It is conceded, and par. 2, Besides.

4. The poor, in place of alms, are held only to pour forth some prayers according to the intention of the Supreme Pontiff, so that they may enjoy the Indult of Meats, and, as it seems, also the Bull of the Crusade. For in the Brief of Pius IX, 20 April 1866, the burden of a double alms is imposed only on the rich.

5. Someone can twice in any year take up the Summary of the Bull of the Crusade, the taxed alms being given for each one, and he will then be able to enjoy the aforesaid graces twice in the year. Cf. cited Summary, par. Likewise it is conceded similarly.

6. Other graces are conferred on the Commissary General himself, namely of dispensing from irregularity contracted because of a violated censure, and from other certain irregularities arising from delict; of revalidating the titles of benefices received with the same irregularity, but not of all; of celebration of Mass one hour before dawn and one hour after noon; of making composition as to restitution; of dispensing over the hidden impediment of affinity from illicit intercourse. Cf. Summary And to us and the Commissary General seqq.; — M. E. v. 1. p. 2. p. 181; p. 3. p. 88; v. 8. p. 1. p. 275 seqq.

To the 3rd. Xaverius the Spaniard acts illicitly at Rome by eating meats, eggs, and dairy products on prohibited days of abstinence and fast. For the Bull of the Crusade is not a personal indult, but local, as is expressly provided in the Summary itself of the Bull. And it is confirmed from Resp. S. O. 22 June 1897, Acta S. Sed. v. 30. p. 286 seq. The same would have to be said of Xaverius if he were Neapolitan, as is also clearly asserted in the Instruction of the same Indult recently published again. Cf. cited Monitore v. 8. p. 1. p. 275 seqq.

8. Ignatius, a Spaniard, took up only the Bull of the Crusade, without also taking up the Indult of Meats, and he uses it by eating meats and dairy products. — Does he act rightly?

488. • Ecclesiastical fasting is situated in abstinence from foods and from a certain quality of foods, which according to the form prescribed by the Church is to be observed especially in the time of Lent, of the Ember Days, and of certain vigils, namely of Pentecost, of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, of All Saints, and of the Nativity of Our Lord.

We must treat, 1. of the essence and obligation of fasting; 2. of the causes excusing from fasting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. DEFINITION.—To fast, broadly speaking, means to abstain from sensual pleasure or to mortify the senses from a virtuous motive. In a narrower sense it means to abstain from food and drink as a means of penance and moral perfection. Fasting, therefore, is an essentially virtuous act (actus virtutis abstinentiae).¹

¹ St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 147, art. 1 sq.; cfr. qu. 141, art. 1; qu. 146, art. 2.

The theologians distinguish a fivefold kind of fasting: (a) ieiunium spirituale, which consists in refraining from sin; (b) ieiunium naturale, which consists in abstaining from food and drink before the reception of the Holy Eucharist (also called ieiunium Eucharisticum);² (c) ieiunium morale, which consists in the moderate use of food and drink; (d) ieiunium ecclesiasticum, i. e., the bodily fasting (ieiunium corporale) enjoined by the third commandment of the Church; (e) ieiunium poenale, i. e., fasting for penitential reasons over and above the measure imposed by the Church.

² Cfr. this Handbook, Vol. II, pp. 128 sqq.

Fasting has a twofold signification, (a) moral-ascetical and (b) social. a) As a moral and an ascetical practice, fasting was known among the ancient heathen, and is partly recommended and partly enjoined by Divine Revelation³ for the reason that to abstain from permissible pleasures of the palate, if done as a matter of duty and for the purpose of strengthening the spiritual powers of the soul, is an excellent means of suppressing lustful appetites, doing penance for one’s sins, and advancing in grace and virtue. The angel said to Tobias “Prayer is good with fasting and alms more than to lay up treasures of gold.”⁴ Jesus declared that a certain kind of evil spirits “is not cast out but by prayer and fasting.”⁵ The Apostles and disciples are often described as fasting.⁶ The Church prays in her Lenten Preface: “O God, who by means of bodily fasting dost restrain the evil passions, uplift the heart and freely bestow virtue with its reward. . . .”⁷ St. Ambrose calls fasting “the food of the mind,” “the life of the angels,” “the death of sin,” “the root of grace,” and “the foundation of chastity.”⁸ In a sermon formerly attributed to St. Augustine fasting is described as “cleansing the mind, elevating the senses, and subjecting the flesh to the spirit.” It “disperses the mists of concupiscence, extinguishes the fires of lust, and kindles the light of charity.”⁹ St. Leo the Great says that nothing is more efficacious for bringing us nearer to God and resisting the blandishments of sin, than fasting. “Fasting has always been the food by which virtue is nourished.”¹⁰

³ Cfr. Deut. IX, 18 sq.; 2 Kings XII, 16; Jud. IV, 8; VIII, 6; Joel II, 12; Matt. IV, 2; 2 Cor. VI, 5.—St. Leo the Great says (Serm., XV [al. XIV], c. 2): “Among the number of these [duties of piety] is also the solemn fast of this tenth month, which is not therefore to be neglected because it was taken from the observance of the Old Law, as though it were among those things which have ceased among distinctions of foods, among differences of baptisms, and among sacrifices of birds and cattle. For when those things which bore figures of future things were fulfilled, the things which they signified came to an end. But the grace of the New Testament has not removed the usefulness of fasts and has embraced with pious observance continence of body and soul as always profitable.” (Migne, P. L., LIV, 175).

⁴ Tob. XII, 8.

⁵ Matt. XVII, 20.

⁶ Acts XIII, 3; XIV, 22.

⁷ Miss. Rom., Praef. in Quadrag.: “O God, who by bodily fasting repress vices, elevate the mind, and bestow virtue and rewards.”

⁸ De Elia et Ieiunio, c. 3, n. 4: “What is fasting but the substance and image of heaven? Fasting is the refreshment of the soul; fasting is the food of the mind; fasting is the life of angels, the death of fault, the destruction of sins, the remedy of salvation, the root of grace, and the foundation of chastity.” (Migne, P. L., XIV, 699).

⁹ Pseudo-Augustine, Appendix Serm., 73 (al. 230, De Temp.), n. 1: “Fasting purifies the mind, raises the sense, and subjects the flesh to the spirit. Fasting makes a contrite and humbled heart, which God does not despise. Fasting disperses the clouds of concupiscence, extinguishes the fires of lust, and kindles the light of chastity.” (Migne, P. L., XXXIX, 1887).

¹⁰ St. Leo M., Serm., XII (al. XI), c. 4: “There are three things which especially pertain to religious actions, namely, prayer, fasting, and almsgiving. . . . For by prayer God’s propitiation is sought; by fasting the concupiscence of the flesh is extinguished; by alms sins are redeemed (Dan. IV, 24); and at the same time through all of them the image of God is renewed in us, if we are always ready for His praise, unceasingly solicitous for our purification, and continually intent upon the support of our neighbor. This threefold observance, dearly beloved, embraces the effects of all the virtues. It attains to the image and likeness of God and makes us inseparable from the Holy Spirit. For in prayers right faith remains; in fasts, an innocent life; in alms, a kindly mind.” (Migne, P. L., LIV, 171).—IDEM, Serm., XVII (al. XII), c. 1: “What can be more efficacious than fasting, through whose observance we draw near to God and, resisting vices, overcome alluring sins? For fasting has always been the food of virtue. From abstinence proceed chaste thoughts, reasonable wills, and more wholesome counsels. Through voluntary afflictions the flesh dies to concupiscences and the spirit is renewed in virtues.” (P. L., LIV, 172).

In the ideal sense, says Bishop Linsenmann,¹¹ to fast means to abstain from sin.¹² It has never been the wish of the Church that abstinence from material food and drink should supplant fasting in this ideal or spiritual sense, but she regards bodily fasting, both in its ascetic aspect (mortification) and from the religious and mystical point of view (sadness, penance) as a condition of sanctification, its beginning and means, because it is only by religious exercises and bodily abstinence that men are enabled to appropriate the fruits of the atonement and thereby attain forgiveness of sin.¹³

¹¹ Moraltheologie, p. 383.

¹² Cfr. Is. LVIII, 2 sqq.; Pastor Hermae, Simil. V, c. 1, 4–5; c. III, 5–6 (Funk, Patres Apostolici, Vol. I, 2nd ed., pp. 530, 535; Kirsopp Lake’s ed. in The Apostolic Fathers [Loeb Classical Library], Vol. II, pp. 153, 159 sq.)—St. Augustine, Tract. in Ioann., XVII, n. 4: “The great and general fast is to abstain from iniquities and from the unlawful pleasures of the world, which is a perfect fast.” (Migne, P. L., XXXV, 1529).

¹³ St. Jerome, Epist., 130 (al. 8), n. 11: “You ought so to fast that you do not palpitate or can scarcely breathe and are carried or dragged by the hands of your companions, but so that, with the appetite of the body broken, you do no less than usual in reading, in the Psalms, or in vigils. Fasting is not a perfect virtue but the foundation of the other virtues; and sanctification and chastity, without which no one will see God, furnish a step for those ascending to the heights; nevertheless, if it is alone, it will not be able to crown a virgin.” (P. L., XXII, 1116).—IDEM, Epist., 148 (al. 14), n. 22: “Take care lest, if you begin to fast or abstain, you think yourself already holy. For this virtue is an aid, not the perfection of holiness. . . . Then, I say, is abstinence illustrious; then is chastisement of the body beautiful and magnificent, when the soul fasts from vices.” (P. L., XXII, 1214).—St. Leo the Great, Serm. XIX (al. XVIII), c. 2: “Since all vices are destroyed by continence, and whatever avarice thirsts for, whatever pride aspires to, whatever luxury desires, is overcome by the firmness of this virtue, who does not understand how great a protection is bestowed upon us through fasts? In them it is commanded that we be temperate not only from foods, but also from all carnal desires. Otherwise it is superfluous to undertake hunger and not put away an unjust will, to be afflicted by cutting off food and not draw back from a sin conceived. It is a carnal, not a spiritual, fast where the body alone is not spared, while perseverance continues in things more harmful than all delicacies. What does it profit the soul outwardly to act as mistress and inwardly to serve as captive, to command its own members and lose the right of its own liberty? And deservedly it very often suffers a rebellious servant, since it does not render due service to the Lord. Therefore, while the body fasts from foods, let the mind fast from vices and judge earthly cares and desires by the law of its King.” (P. L., LIV, 187).

Bodily abstinence (ieiunium corporale) is a means of spiritual or perfect abstinence, as may be gathered from the liturgical prayers of the Church, who again and again during the Lenten season declares: “as we abstain from food in the body, so may we abstain from sin in the mind.”

“Bridle gluttony,” says Thomas à Kempis, “and thou shalt the more easily restrain all carnal inclinations.”¹⁴

¹⁴ De Imit. Christi, l. I, c. 19 (ed. Pohl, II, 34). Cfr. Stöhr-Kannamüller, Handbuch der Pastoralmedizin, 5th ed., pp. 530 sqq.; Antonelli, Medicina Pastoralis, Vol. II, 3rd ed., Rome 1909, pp. 487 sqq.

“At all times and every day during this our earthly life,” observes St. Leo the Great, “fasting makes us stronger in combatting sin; it conquers the carnal inclinations, drives away temptations, curbs pride, softens anger, and aids the will in striving after virtue, provided that it is accompanied by benevolence and charity and wisely exercises itself in works of mercy.”¹⁵

¹⁵ St. Leo the Great, Serm., XV (al. XIV), c. 2 (Migne, P. L., LIV, 175).

b) The social value of fasting consists not merely, nor even principally, in the substitution of almsgiving for abstention from food, but in supplementing that act of mortification by works of corporal and spiritual mercy. Already in the Shepherd of Hermas the faithful were exhorted to give to the poor and needy what they saved by fasting.¹⁶ “Let the refreshment of the poor be the abstinence of the one fasting,” says St. Leo.¹⁷ The Church has always taught that fasting without almsgiving, i. e., without the simultaneous exercise of charity, is an act of covetousness rather than of self-denial. “Let our fasting be rich in fruits of liberality,” says Pope St. Leo, “and fertile in generous donations for Christ’s poor. In this even those who are not wealthy should not grow careless, thinking that what they might be able to save would be but little. The Lord knows the ability of each and, seeing through everything in justice, knows how great or how small is the measure with which each one gives. Inequality of possessions prevents equality in giving, but in most cases the unequal gifts are equalized by merit, for the intention may be the same, even though the means differ.”¹⁸

¹⁶ Past. Herm., Simil. V, c. 3, 7 (Funk, Patr. Apost., Vol. I, 2nd ed., p. 534).

¹⁷ St. Leo the Great, Serm., XIII (al. XII), c. 1: “Because the salvation of our souls is not acquired by fasting alone, let us supplement our fasting with mercies toward the poor. Let us devote to virtue what we withdraw from pleasure. Let the refreshment of the poor be the abstinence of the one fasting. Let us devote ourselves to the defense of widows, the advantage of orphans, the consolation of mourners, and the peace of those at variance. Let the stranger be received, the oppressed be helped, the naked be clothed, the sick be cherished, so that whoever of us has offered to God, the Author of all goods, the sacrifice of this piety from his just labors may deserve to receive from Him the reward of the heavenly kingdom.” (Migne, P. L., LIV, 172).

¹⁸ Cfr. St. Leo the Great, Serm., XV (al. XIV), c. 2: “For fasting without almsgiving is not so much the purification of the soul as the affliction of the flesh, and is to be referred more to avarice than to continence when someone so abstains from food that he also fasts from piety. Therefore, dearly beloved, let our fasts abound in fruits of generosity and be fruitful in kindly gifts to the poor of Christ. Nor let men of moderate means be delayed in this work because what they can take from their resources is little. The Lord knows the powers of all, and the just Inspector knows from what measure each gives what he can. Dissimilar fortunes cannot have similar expenditures, but what differs in expenditure is often equaled in merit, because an intention can be equal even where the property is unequal.”—IDEM, Serm., XLIX (al. XLVIII), c. 6: “With the supreme Father, he who has not been in the charity of his brethren will not be counted among the sons. In the distribution of alms and the care of the poor let Christian fasts also grow rich, and let each spend upon the weak and needy that which he withdraws from his own sins.” (P. L., LIV, 175, 305).

If the law of fasting and abstinence were obeyed in the right spirit by all, its enforcement would undoubtedly exercise a wholesome economic influence by causing men to use the good things of this earth with greater moderation and thereby preventing extreme and wide-spread poverty. The example of self-denial given by the rich would induce the poor to bear with greater patience and fortitude the privations imposed on them by bitter necessity. If the law of fasting oppresses the poor, instead of alleviating their lot by almsgiving and the decreased consumption of utilities, and still more, if it can be evaded by the rich through the use of substitutes or purchased dispensations, then it does not fulfil the social purpose for which it was imposed.

The Church expects the individual Christian, impelled by love and the spirit of penitence, to do more than the letter of the law commands. The rich man is in duty bound to give alms even aside from the requirements of the law of fasting, whereas the poor man is not required to give that which he saves by fasting to others who are no needier than he.¹⁹

¹⁹ Cfr. F. X. Linsenmann, Lehrbuch der Moraltheologie, pp. 388 sq.

To the evangelical commandment which bids us pray for those who persecute us,²⁰ the Didaché adds the exhortation to fast in their stead.²¹ This precept, which is mentioned nowhere else, is hardly to be interpreted in the sense of Hermas, who recommends that the food saved by fasting be given to the poor, or in the sense of the ninth beatitude which Origen says he read “in some book” and credits to the Apostles, namely, “Blessed is he that fasts in order to feed the poor.” What the unknown author of the Didaché probably meant was that fasting is useful for strengthening the prayers a man offers for those who persecute him on account of his religion.²²

²⁰ Matt. V, 44.

²¹ Doctr. XII Apost., c. 1, 3: “Bless those that curse you, and pray for your enemies, and fast for those that persecute you.” (Funk, Patr. Apost., Vol. I, 2nd ed., p. 4; Kirsopp Lake, The Apostolic Fathers, Vol. I, p. 309).

²² Cfr. J. H. Kurtz, Lehrbuch der Kirchengeschichte, Vol. I, 13th ed., Leipsic 1899, p. 179.

READINGS.—St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 146 sq.—J. B. Ferreres, S.J., Compendium Theol. Mor., Vol. I, pp. 389 sqq.—H. Noldin, S.J., Summa Theol. Mor., Vol. II, pp. 697 sq.—Ad. Tanquerey, Synopsis Theol. Mor. et Past., Vol. II, pp. 631 sq.

The subject-matter or content of the ecclesiastical law of fasting (ieiunium ecclesiasticum), or, in other words, the thing it commands, is twofold, viz.: (a) abstention from food both with regard to quantity and to quality (ieiunium, i. e., fasting proper) and (b) abstinence from certain kinds of food, particularly flesh meat (abstinentia), on certain prescribed days.

1. The days of fasting and abstinence (ieiunium cum abstinentia, ieiunium plenum) are:

a) ASH WEDNESDAY AND THE FRIDAYS AND SATURDAYS OF LENT.—This is a modification of the former law, which made all the days of Lent, from Ash Wednesday to Easter, with the exception of Sundays, days of fasting and abstinence.¹

¹ F. X. Funk in Kirchengeschichtliche Abhandlungen und Untersuchungen, Vol. I, pp. 241 sqq.; Kellner, Heortology, pp. 88 sqq.; Villien, History of the Commandments of the Church, pp. 254 sqq.

The early Christians seem to have fasted on all Wednesdays and Fridays throughout the year.

This pious custom is mentioned in the Didaché², in the Shepherd of Hermas³, and in the writings of Tertullian.⁴ That fasting should form an essential feature of the commemoration of the Passion was indicated in Christ’s words: “Can the children of the bridegroom mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? The days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then shall they fast.”⁵ The days when the Divine Bridegroom was taken away were held from the first to be those in which Jesus lay in the grave,—Good Friday and Holy Saturday. These days were nearly everywhere kept as obligatory fast-days of the strictest kind.⁶ About the middle of the third century in many places men fasted the entire Holy Week on water, bread, and salt, while on the last two days they ate nothing whatever. Soon the fast came to be extended over several weeks. In the fourth century the forty days’ fast is a well-established institution. The fifth canon of the first Nicene Council mentions Lent as a common observance, though the Festal Letters of St. Athanasius bear witness that it was not yet kept everywhere. The fare on fast-days consisted of water and broth made with flour, fruit, oil, and bread. The Lenten fast must have commenced on the Monday after Sexagesima.⁷ St. Leo the Great in his sermons explains the object and significance of the Lenten fast. He says Lent was appointed in order to prepare the souls of the faithful for a fruitful commemoration of the mystery of Easter. It was to be a time for purification and sanctification,—a time, first of all, for doing penance for past sins and breaking off sinful habits; a time also for the exercise of all virtues, especially almsgiving, and reconciliation. Fasting was to form only a part, though the most essential part, of this penitential preparation, and Leo declares it to be incumbent upon all, not only the clergy, but the laity as well. He regarded the forty days fast before Easter as an Apostolic institution.⁸ The term became fixed, no doubt for the reason that Jesus had fasted forty days in the desert.⁹

² Doctr. XII Apost., c. 8.

³ Past. Herm., Simil. V, c. 1.

⁴ De Ieiunio, c. 1, 10, 14.

⁵ Matt. IX, 15.

⁶ Tertullian, op. cit., II, 13, 14.

⁷ Villien, op. cit., pp. 261 sqq.

⁸ St. Leo, Serm., XLVII (al. XLVI), c. 1; Serm., XLIV (al. XLIII), c. 1 (Migne, P. L., LIV, 294, 285, 287).—Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 147, art. 8, ad 3.

⁹ Kellner, Heortology, pp. 88 sqq., 94 sq.

Originally, it seems, the forty days’ fast (quadragesima) was taken to mean the days before Easter as a whole, Sundays excluded. This gave for a period of six weeks only thirty-six fast-days, and, where Saturday was not kept, only thirty. To rectify this mistake, the number of actual fast-days was increased to forty, with the result that, in the West, the beginning of Lent (caput ieiunii) was put back four days. In the East, where only five days in each week were fast-days, it had to be put back still further. There Lent began eight weeks before Easter, and since the Saturdays (Holy Saturday excepted) were not fast-days, extended actually over forty-one days instead of forty. Abstinence from flesh meat began on the Monday after the eighth Sunday before Easter, corresponding to the Latin dominica sexagesima, which is called “the Sunday of Abstinence from Flesh Meat.” From the following Sunday, called “the Sunday for Eating Cheese,” milk products (lacticinia) were forbidden.¹⁰

¹⁰ Kellner, Heortology, pp. 95 sq.

b) The Ember Days are days of sacred fasts (angariae), dedicated to the Lord every three months, and corresponding to the four seasons of the year, from whence they derive their Latin name, Quattuor Tempora. The Ember tides are peculiar to the Western Church. In Rome they were observed from the earliest times, so that Leo the Great was inclined to regard them as of Apostolic origin. He connects them with the four seasons of the year¹¹ and says that during these days we should give due honor and praise to God for the gifts He bestows on us to support our bodily life, abstain from luxuries, and be generous to the poor. The Ember tides in general, especially that of December, St. Leo connects directly with agriculture and the harvest,¹² and the earliest liturgies contain prayers for a good crop.¹³ Dr. Kellner thinks that these indi- cations give us the clue to the origin of the Ember fasts, and says they were most likely heathen practices, which were taken over by the Church and given a Christian form and character.¹⁴

¹¹ Serm., XIX (al. XVIII), c. 2: “The [fasts] have been distributed through the circuit of the whole year so that the law of abstinence might be assigned to all seasons.”

¹² Serm., XVI, c. 2: “And when the gathering of all the fruits has been completed,” etc.

¹³ Morin quotes passages from the Leonine and Gelasian sacramentaries; see Migne, P. L., LV, 153 sqq.

¹⁴ Heortology, p. 184.

Pope Gelasius commanded that ordinations of priests and deacons should be held on all Ember tides and in the middle of Lent, whereas in St. Leo’s time ordinations took place at Easter only.

In the earliest service books, the Ember fasts were called, respectively, ieiunium primi, quarti, septimi et decimi mensis, and fell in March, June, September, and December. It does not appear that the original object of the Ember days was to petition God to raise up worthy priests in His Church, for this purpose is not mentioned until after the popes had appointed the Ember days as fixed times for ordinations.¹⁵

¹⁵ Ibid., p. 186.

For a long time it remained uncertain in which week of the months in question the Ember days should be observed. At Rome they were kept in the first week of the month.¹⁶ Elsewhere the practice differed, until Gregory VII¹⁷ put an end to all doubts and variations by establishing the present usage, which is as follows: Ember Days are the Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday after the third Sunday of Advent (ieiunium hiemale); the Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday after the first Sunday of Lent (ieiunium vernum), the Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday after Pentecost (ieiunium aestivum); the Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday after the feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, which falls on the third Sunday in September (ieiunium autumnale). This arrangement may be remembered by means of the following verses:

¹⁶ Ibid., p. 189.

¹⁷ Micrologus, c. 24; cfr. Villien, History of the Commandments of the Church, pp. 234 sqq.

After Lucy, Ashes, after the Holy Spirit and the Cross,
the following Wednesday gives the four seasons.

c) THE VIGIL FASTS are those kept on the days preceding Pentecost, the Assumption of the B. V. Mary, All Saints, and Christmas.¹⁸

¹⁸ C. I. C., can. 1252, § 2.

A vigil originally was the watch vigiliae which used to be kept on the nights before important feasts. The practice of spending such nights in public prayer is at least as old as Christianity itself. Vigils are mentioned by Tertullian,¹⁹ and the Apostolic Constitutions²⁰ tell of one maintained till “cock-crow” on Holy Saturday. St. Jerome²¹ defends the custom against Vigilantius, admitting, however, that the watches were sometimes accompanied by gross immoralities. It was probably these and other abuses which led to the discontinuance of the practice.

¹⁹ Ad Uxorem, II, 5.

²⁰ Const. Apost., V, 10.

²¹ Epist., CIX; Adv. Vigilant., n. 9.

The obligation of fasting on the vigils did not begin till later. Villien says it would be difficult to give the precise date of its origin.²² Perhaps the linking of the fast with the vigil is an extension of the ancient fast by which the faithful prepared themselves for the celebration of Easter. Both the discipline of the watch and the motive of the fast are indicated in a synodal decree of Auxerre, adopted in the last third of the sixth century. The principal object of the vigil, says this decree, is prayer in preparation for the approaching feast; the fast is its necessary accompaniment, so to speak. The fast is observed because the watch is kept in church and to enable the faithful to communicate at Mass.²³

²² History of the Commandments of the Church, p. 236.

²³ Op. cit., p. 241.

For quite a while the tendency was to increase the number of vigils on which fasting was obligatory. Besides the vigils of Easter, Christmas, Pentecost, and the Assumption, there were those for most of the feasts of the Apostles.²⁴ To them custom or episcopal constitutions in course of time added other diocesan or provincial vigils. It is likely that the feast of the patron saint was everywhere preceded by a vigil. To the feasts of the Apostles were ultimately added those of St. Lawrence, and St. John the Baptist, and, in the Frankish countries, that of St. Martin of Tours.

²⁴ Op. cit., p. 247.

Of late the tendency has been rather to diminish the vigils. In the United States only four were observed (before Christmas, Pentecost, the Assumption, and All Saints), the same that have now been made universal by the New Code.²⁵

²⁵ C. I. C., can. 1252, § 2.

2. The law of abstinence from flesh meat (abstinentia, ieiunium semiplenum) obliges on all Fridays of the year except when Christmas or some other holyday of obligation falls on that day.²⁶

²⁶ C. I. C., can. 1252, § 3.

Formerly Wednesday and Friday were widely observed as days of fasting and abstinence in commemoration of the death and burial of Christ. Regino of Prim inserted into his canonical collection a text of Rufinus, which says that the fasts of Wednesday and Friday must not be dispensed with except in case of grave necessity,—Wednesday, because it is the day on which Judas decided to betray our Lord; Friday, because on that day Christ was crucified.²⁷

²⁷ De Eccl. Disc., Append. I, c. XVII; Villien, op. cit., p. 283.

Later the practice declined. Fagnani, following the teaching of Innocent IV, affirms that, according to the common opinion, the Friday fast is merely of counsel, not of precept, like abstinence from flesh meat on Wednesday.²⁸

²⁸ In c. “Consilium,” n. 23; Villien, op. cit., p. 276.

The discipline of the Saturday abstinence outside of Lent, which survived in some countries until the promulgation of the New Code, began in the West at a comparatively late date.²⁹ The Code marks its end.

²⁹ Villien, op. cit., p. 287.

Abstinence from flesh meat on Friday is obligatory upon all Catholics who are not excused by sickness, by the nature of their work, or by a dispensation, as granted, e. g., in the “Bula de Cruzada.”³⁰

³⁰ For an account of the privileges of the Bulla Cruciata see Ferreres, Compend. Theol. Mor., Vol. II, pp. 771 sqq. and the same author’s book, La Nueva Bula de Cruzada Española y sus Extraordinarios Privilegios, 3rd ed., Madrid 1915.

READINGS.—St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 147, art. 5 sqq.—St. Alphonsus, Theol. Mor., l. III, n. 1004 sqq. (ed. Gaudé, II, 384 sqq.).—A. Linsenmayer, Entwicklung der Kirchl. Fastendisziplin, Munich 1877.—F. X. Funk, “Die Entwicklung des Osterfastens” in Kirchengeschichtliche Abhandlungen und Untersuchungen, Vol. I, pp. 241 sqq.—V. Ermoni, Le Carême, 2nd ed., Paris 1907.—K. A. H. Kellner, Heortology, London 1908, pp. 88 sqq.—G. Berthelet, Traité Historique et Moral de l’Abstinence, Rouen 1731.

1. The law of fasting (ieiunium plenum) involves three points.

a) With regard to quantity, it permits but one full meal a day (unica per diem comestio).¹

¹ C. I. C., can. 1251, § 1.

The taking of but one full meal a day constitutes the essence of the strict fast. Were one to take several meals a day he could not be said to be fasting.

However, the law of fasting does not forbid the taking of some food in the morning and again in the evening, provided approved local custom be observed with regard to the quantity and quality of the food taken.² Legitimate custom permits a collation (collatio vespertina) in the evening and a light breakfast (frustulum matutinum, ientaculum) in the morning. The noon and evening meals, i. e., the prandium and the collatio, may be reversed ad libitum.³

² C. I. C., can. 1251, § 1.

³ C. I. C., can. 1251, § 2.

The fast is not broken by liquids which, per se, serve to satisfy thirst rather than hunger; but to consume excessive quantities of liquids, or to drink with a view to circumvent the law (in fraudem legis) would be sinful and contrary to the mind of the Church.⁴

⁴ J. B. Gury, Compendium Theol. Mor., Vol. I, n. 507: “The fast is not broken by a drink of water, wine, and other beverages which of themselves are ordered and commonly employed to quench 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. By liquid, however, is understood only that which according to common usage is taken after the manner of drink, not after the manner of food, as milk,” etc.—Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 147, art. 6, ad 2: “That [fast of the Church] is broken only by those things which the Church intends to forbid in instituting the fast. But the Church does not intend to forbid the taking of drink, which is taken more for the alteration of the body and the digestion of foods consumed than for nutrition, although it nourishes in some way; and therefore those fasting are permitted to drink several times. But if someone uses drink immoderately, he can sin and lose the merit of his fast, just as if he consumes food immoderately in one meal.”—IDEM, ibid., ad 3: “Electuaries, even if they sometimes nourish, are nevertheless 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 after the manner of food.”—IDEM, Comment. in Sent., IV, dist. 15, qu. 3, ad 4, dub. 1, n. 17.

The moralists are not agreed as to what constitutes a collation. Some permit the fourth part of an ordinary meal, whereas others allow but three or four ounces of food. St. Alphonsus⁵ permits from eight to ten ounces (an ounce being equal to thirty grains). To us it seems that no definite and universal rule can be set up in a matter of this kind, where so much depends on climate, temperament, physical constitution, and other factors, which vary in different persons and regions.⁶ Some men ordinarily eat two and three times as much as others and naturally find it more difficult to keep the fast. St. Thomas says: “The quantity of food can- not be the same for all men because of the difference of bodily constitution, on account of which one needs more food than another.”⁷

⁵ Theol. Mor., l. III, n. 1025 (ed. Gaudé, II, 405).

⁶ Cfr. A. Koch, “Zur kasuistischen Behandlung des Fastengebotes” in the Theologische Quartalschrift, Tübingen 1904, pp. 60 sqq.

⁷ Loc. cit.

(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.

At the end of the second century, St. Irenaeus, in Eusebius, H. E. (P. G., 20, 501), bears witness to the Paschal fast, by which, relying on Luke 5,35, "when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, they shall fast," Christians were accustomed to observe a complete and continuous fast "on the days on which the bridegroom was taken away," that is, Friday in Parasceve and Holy Saturday; with some extension, many enlarged this to the whole Holy Week, from Monday to the night after Holy Saturday.

Besides, since they did not wish to yield in fervor to the Pharisees, who (cf. Luke, 18, 12) fasted twice in the week, on Monday and Thursday, they themselves, on station days, or Wednesday and Friday, observed a half fast, by which they were refreshed only with bread and water after sunset. Certain more fervent persons began to observe this also on Saturday. This was done regularly, for certain days were excepted. They did not fast in Paschal time, because then the Lord is with us (St. Jerome, cited in Dist. 76, c. 7).

St. Leo the Great (440-461) testifies that at Rome there was a fast for forty days morally so called, referring this usage to the Apostles themselves. Already in the fourth century the Council of Nicaea (325) speaks of Lent. This prepared for Baptism and for absolution, and it included fasts of varying character and duration (it was not daily). In general, this fast consisted in a single meal, from which meat, eggs, milk foods, and wine were excluded.

St. Leo the Great also testifies for us to a spring fast in Lent, a summer fast at Pentecost, an autumn fast in the month of September, and a winter fast in the tenth month (Dist. 76, c. 6). First three times in the year, then four times, that fast was strictly prescribed (cf. Decree of Gratian, D. 76, c. 1).

They fasted also on the vigils of the principal feasts.

In the seventh century the number of forty days was completed in place of thirty-six, by which it was judged that as it were tithes of the year were offered to God (Cassian, Collat., 21, c. 24, 25).

Down to the twelfth century, he who ate before Vespers was not considered to fast. Wherefore, so that his officials could dine at a suitable time, Charlemagne permitted Vespers to be celebrated earlier in Lent, so that one could already eat at the second hour. Then many began to eat at the ninth hour (or the third after midday), which St. Thomas demonstrates to be just. From this came the Flemish name: noenmaal. At the end of the thirteenth century, supper was placed at the sixth hour (midday). Yet so that they could defer eating until after Vespers, Vespers were anticipated.

From the sixteenth century many mitigations were introduced.

From the seventh century, the Rule of the Master testifies that it was permitted to take some liquid around evening. In the thirteenth century drink outside meals is permitted. St. Thomas, 2, 2, q. 147, art. 6, ad 2, allows electuaries to be added. This becomes general usage in the fourteenth century. Thus, at the end of the Middle Ages, a certain refection from herbs and fruits was permitted, during which the Conferences of Cassian were read, whence it was called by the name Collation.

Fish were introduced by usage; the scholastic doctors admitted this usage (2, 2, q. 147, art. 8, ad 2).

The permission of drink and the doctrine of St. Thomas concerning electuaries led to a little morsel, which was formally permitted in the response of the Sacred Penitentiary for the Canadian region, November 21, 1843.

Down to Benedict XIV, a probable opinion joined the two precepts of abstinence from meats and fasting inseparably, so that when one ceased, the other ceased. Then he himself, in the encyclical letter Non ambigimus, May 31, 1741, for those dispensed in the eating of meats, confirmed the obligation of one meal, and besides decreed that meats and fish should not be set out together as dishes; which he prohibited under grave sin.

The sanction was sometimes very severe. A Capitulary of Charlemagne punishes with death him who should eat meat through holy Lent.

For a long time it was doubted concerning the age at which the obligation began. The opinion of St. Thomas prevailed, who placed the beginning at the end of the third seven-year period (2, 2, q. 147, art. 4).

Workers formerly were not simply dispensed. Eugene IV dispensed them from fasting around the year 1440.

Among the Greeks abstinence must be observed at least for 180 days in the year. On fast days this abstinence imposes xerophagy, which prohibits meat, fish, eggs, milk foods, oil, and wine. Less rigorous abstinence prohibits meat, eggs, and milk foods, and sometimes fish. Monks never use meats; and, except for a few days, they are bound to xerophagy.

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.

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.

S. Th. II-II, q. 147, a. 1, 2, 3, 6.

949. Notion of fasting. - Fasting is one thing when it is natural, which consists in abstinence from food and drink from some hour: this of itself is not an act of virtue; nevertheless it can be ordained to virtue, and thus it is prescribed by the Church before the reception of the Eucharist, in which case it pertains to religion because it is prescribed in reverence for the sacrament, and is customarily called eucharistic. But the fasting concerning which we speak in the present matter can be called moral, and consists in abstinence from food and drink according to reason, that is, according to the proper ends of the virtue of abstinence, whether on account of human reasons, for example, on account of bodily health, a good disposition of the mind for studying, and then it is philosophical, or on account of supernatural reasons, for example, on account of restraining concupiscence and subjection of the body to the mind so that we may better exercise supernatural virtue, and then it is Christian. This, having been prescribed by the Church according to a special mode to be observed at a determined time, is then called ecclesiastical.

Hence moralists customarily distinguish threefold fasting: eucharistic - moral - ecclesiastical.

950. Fasting is an act of virtue, because it is ordained to some honest good, namely, 1) to repressing concupiscences of the flesh (II Cor. VI, 5-6); 2) to this, that the mind may be more freely elevated to contemplating sublime things (Dan. X); 3) to satisfying for sins (Joel II, 12); moreover it has the power of impetrating spiritual and temporal benefits, especially when it is joined to prayer. Hence the Church praises God who "by bodily fasting represses vices, elevates the mind, grants virtue and rewards"; and the Scriptures and Fathers, by the warnings and examples of Christ, the Apostles, and the first faithful, commend fasting (Acts XIII, 3; XIV, 22; II Cor. VI, 5; Joel II, 12; Aug., 7 serm. on fasting; Jerome, book 1 against Jovinian).

But in order that it be an act of virtue, it must be conformed to right reason, which commands two things to be observed in temperance, namely, the preservation of life and of the power for due works. Hence a) if from evil intention someone abstains, for example, so that he may die or be weakened, or be incapable of carrying out due offices, it is an act directly opposed to the virtue of temperance, and gravely so whenever notable harm or impotence for a gravely intended office follows; likewise, if it is done from the intention of singularity, it will be a venial sin of vainglory or boasting; b) if it is done not from an evil intention but from a motive of virtue, yet in such a way that someone renders himself incapable for a due work, it will be a grave or light sin as was said; but if it only shortens life or contracts infirmity without impotence for due offices, it is done licitly, provided the reason for abstaining is so great that it is equivalent to the harm brought about; otherwise illicitly.

951. Fasting is per se an act elicited by the virtue of abstinence. - For every act of virtue belongs to that virtue which establishes the mean in that matter. But fasting is concerned with foods, in which the virtue of abstinence finds the mean. Therefore.

Yet it can be done also for other ends and be commanded by other virtues: by charity, religion, penance, chastity, etc., for example, that we may love God better, that we may satisfy for sin, that we may flee lust. Hence it will not always be an act of abstinence formally, but then only if also, at least partially, it is done from the proper motive of abstinence, namely, that the mind may be more suitable for its functions and for virtue.

952. The precept of fasting. - Fasting is a useful good and therefore is not prescribed per se, but only in order to the end for which it is useful. Now the utilities of fasting enumerated can ordinarily be obtained otherwise, and therefore by the law of nature it is not prescribed absolutely for all, but only relatively for those for whom it is necessary and insofar as it is necessary for them. Yet because generally it is very useful for all, therefore the Church determined the law of nature and established the time and mode of fasting to be observed commonly by all.¹

¹ On the history of ecclesiastical fasting, cf. Tanquerey, Th. M. fundamentalis, nn. 1108-1110; Prummer, Th. M., II, n. 652; and Vermeersch, Th. M., III, in the appendix.

Therefore ecclesiastical fasting is that which is done according to the mode prescribed by the Church, introduced by custom.

The mode consisted in three things, namely, in taking a single meal in the day, to be held at a fitting hour, without forbidden foods, namely, meats and sometimes also eggs and dairy products which have their origin from flesh. Thus it includes several very diverse parts, and indeed three principal ones: one essential, without which fasting is not even conceived, a single meal in the day; and two integral parts, the hour at which the meal is to be held, and abstinence in the meal from a certain quality of foods. From these things it is established that the precept of fasting is virtually multiple and divisible; whence one part can be prescribed by the Church without the others, for example, abstinence from flesh without fasting; and also one part can be dispensed without the others, for example, in abstinence and not in fasting, or conversely; and one must be observed when the other becomes impossible to observe.²

² Benedict XIV, Non ambigimus, 30 May 1741.

In fact the Church imposes abstinence upon those who are not bound to fast, as a distinct precept, so to speak; and fasting remains prescribed for those who are dispensed in abstinence. Hence the new Code of law already considers these as a twofold precept: fasting strictly so called and abstinence, so that not only is abstinence prescribed without fasting, but now sometimes fasting is prescribed without abstinence, which formerly did not happen.

953. The time of fasting is indicated by can. 1252: "The law of abstinence and fasting together is to be observed on Ash Wednesday, on Fridays and Saturdays³ 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.

³ In Belgium, by indult, Wednesday in place of Saturday.

"The law of fasting alone is to be observed on all the remaining days of Lent.

"On Sundays or feasts of precept the law of abstinence, or of abstinence and fasting, or of fasting alone ceases, except for a feast in the time of Lent, nor are vigils anticipated."

The faculty of dispensing from the aforesaid law was granted to Ordinaries. Yet that faculty by the Decree of the Congregation of the Council of 28 January 1949 was restricted in such a way:

1. that abstinence be observed on each Friday;

2. that the law of abstinence and fasting together be observed on Ash Wednesday, on Friday of Great Week, and on the vigils of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Further, however, the obligation of ecclesiastical abstinence and fasting on the vigil of the Assumption was transferred to the vigil of the Feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, on 7 December (S. C. Conc., 25 July 1957), and moreover the grace was granted of anticipating the obligation of abstinence and fasting from the twenty-fourth day, the vigil of the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, to the twenty-third day of the month of December, and this for all the faithful of the Catholic world (S. Congr. Conc., 3 Dec. 1959).

It should especially be noted that the final words of can. 1252: "likewise it ceases (the law of abstinence and fasting) on Holy Saturday after noon," no longer have force. For the liturgical order of Holy Week having been changed by decree of the S. C. of Rites (16 Nov. 1955), the law of fasting and abstinence ceases only at midnight on Holy Saturday.

Thus according to the universal law; besides this, a particular obligation can exist:

a) An Ordinary can impose a day of fasting by way of act (can. 1244, § 2).

b) Before the consecration of a church, the consecrating Pontiff and those who ask that the church be consecrated to them must fast through the day which precedes the consecration (can. 1166, § 2): thus among others the pastor, but not the people, unless the people itself had built the church at its own expense or had asked that it be consecrated to itself (S. C. C., 3 July 1909).

c) From a vow a physical or moral person can be obligated: thus, for example, at Rome fasting is to be observed on the vigil of the Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary (S. C. C., 18 Feb. 1911; 25 Feb. 1912).

d) The constitutions and rules of a religion or approved institute can prescribe fasting for its members.

In all these things nothing was changed by the new code of law (can. 1253); whence if someone is exempted from the obligation of the universal law, he is not thereby yet exempted from a precept by which he would be bound particularly: thus, for example, religious can be bound before the twenty-first year and after the sixtieth.

S. Th. II-II, q. 147, a. 4.

965. The Code (can. 1254) defines the subject of the law of fasting and abstinence:

"§ 1. By the law of abstinence all are bound who have completed the seventh year of age.

"§ 2. By the law of fasting all are bound from the completed twenty-first year of age to the begun sixtieth."

Hence:

1. All the faithful, having the use of reason, after the completion of the seventh year, unless they are excused or dispensed, are bound by the law of abstinence.

2. All the faithful, having the habitual use of reason, after the completion of the twenty-first year and until the sixtieth year has been reached, are bound by the law of fasting, unless they are excused or dispensed. Therefore women also are bound after the fiftieth year, whatever some once taught; and before the twenty-first year one is not bound, because at that age more abundant food is needed for growth and strength.

It has now been declared, according to can. 34, § 3, that the obligation begins at midnight and terminates at midnight. Hence, if someone was born after midnight, the obligation begins after the anniversary day on which the seventh or twenty-first year is completed; and fasting ceases after the anniversary day on which the fifty-ninth year is completed, or the sixtieth begun.

973. The law of fasting and abstinence obliges under grave obligation, because it conduces greatly to spiritual good, to mortification, and to the repression of concupiscence. Hence its violation is mortal from its kind; nevertheless the matter can be light, unless the observance is required as a confession of faith, or for some similar reason.

1. Proposition 23 condemned by Alexander VII: "He who breaks a fast of the Church to which he is held does not sin mortally, unless from contempt or disobedience; for example, because he does not wish to subject himself to the precept."

974. Violation of fasting. - 1. The precept concerning the meal is indivisible: if it is broken by a second eating, it cannot afterward be kept or broken further in the same way; for abstaining from a third or fourth eating does not much serve mortification, nor is it prescribed.

2. It is negative, but with a limitation: for the law does not say simply, "do not eat more than once," but rather, "do not eat twice." Hence it obliges until it is broken; after it has been broken, it no longer obliges in the same way. Therefore one sins gravely if he takes a second notable quantity; but he does not sin gravely again, by reason of fasting, if after a second notable quantity already culpably taken he adds a third or fourth.

3. It is affixed to the day. Hence several light eatings coalesce into one grave nourishment; otherwise the law would be rendered vain.1

Therefore:

a) He sins gravely not only who takes a second complete meal, but also he who adds a notable quantity to the meal, the collation, and the little morsel, whether this is done at once or at several times, by increasing the collation or little morsel, or by taking something besides them.

St. Thomas, 2. 2, q. 147; St. Alphonsus, III, 1004; ed. G., II, p. 384; Billuart, de Jejunio; Fagundez, Quaest. in quinque Eccl. praec.; Righetti, Del digiuno eccl.; Ferraris, v. Jejunium; Villien, Histoire des commandements de l'Eglise, c. VII; Wernz, Jus Decr., III, n. 408.

To be treated: 1. concerning the obligation of fast; 2. concerning the form of fast prescribed by the Church; 3. concerning causes excusing from fast.

1218. FAST, in general, imports abstinence from food.

A threefold fast is distinguished: 1. natural, or abstinence from every food and drink absolutely, such as is required for receiving the Holy Eucharist; 2. moral (the fast of virtue), or abstinence from food taken immoderately; 3. ecclesiastical, which is abstinence from food, defined by the precepts of the Church.

1219. The days of ecclesiastical fast are: 1. LENTEN TIME, which was instituted by the Apostles themselves, for imitating the fast of our Lord, so that the faithful may thus duly prepare themselves for the paschal solemnity. It commonly begins from Ash Wednesday, endures up to the feast of Easter, exclusively; although the Milanese church retains the use of beginning only from the first Sunday of Lent exclusively. Yet Sundays are excepted, on which only abstinence is prescribed, although fast, at least from present discipline, is not prohibited if it is observed for the sake of mortification (cf. St. Thom., 2. 2, q. 147, a. 5, ad 3).

2. THE FOUR TIMES, which likewise are said to have taken beginning from the Apostles (Eusebius being witness, Hist. Eccl., l. 5, c. 23) and were instituted for this end, both that the Christian faithful at every time of the year expiate their crimes and demand graces for themselves, and that they obtain good ministers from God. But the Four Times are celebrated on Wednesday and Friday and Saturday, after the third Sunday of Advent, after the first Sunday of Lent, after Pentecost Sunday, and finally after the feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross.

3. Certain VIGILS, namely of the Nativity of the Lord, Pentecost, Assumption, St. John the Baptist, of the individual Apostles (excepted the vigils of Sts. Philip and James, and also St. John the Evangelist) and of All Saints. The end of these fasts is that the coming feasts may be celebrated worthily and devoutly.

1220. PRINCIPLES. I. Moral fast is prescribed by the natural law itself. For thus St. Thomas teaches: "It has been said that fast is useful for the deletion and restraint of fault and for the elevation of the mind into spiritual things. But each one from natural reason is held to use fasts so much as is necessary for himself for the aforesaid things. And therefore fast in common falls under the precept of the law of nature" (2. 2, q. 147, a. 3).

1221. II. The precept of ecclesiastical fast obliges, under grave matter, all baptized persons having use of reason, unless they are totally or partly exempted. It is established from the practice of the Church and the common opinion of Doctors (III, 1035; cf. Billuart, a. 3). See n. 194.

We have said: 1. Under grave matter; because the law regards matter grave per se, inasmuch as it conduces notably to the salvation of souls. Hence this proposition 23 was condemned by Alexander VII: "One breaking the fast of the Church, to which he is held, does not sin mortally, unless from contempt

or disobedience he does this." Yet smallness of matter is admitted (cf. n. 1225 and 1226).

2. Baptized persons having use of reason, namely in the sense explained in the treatise on Laws, n. 195 ff.

3. Unless they are exempted; but legitimate custom exempts, or at least excuses; for since the law is of positive and human Right, just as it is confirmed by the consent of those using it, so by contrary custom it is weakened and taken away. Wherefore, at diverse times and in diverse regions, the form of ecclesiastical fast is diverse (III, 1025). b) A special cause, for example impotence, labor, piety, etc., as will be explained below (n. 1232 ff.).

4. Totally or partly; for the obligation of fast is divisible, and he who is excused or dispensed from one part, for example from abstinence from meat, is not for that reason freed from the other conditions of fast, as is established from definitions of the Apostolic See (III, 1005). Cf. n. 1242.

Note. a) The fasts of vigils have almost everywhere by pontifical indult been reduced, or transferred (as in the dear City the fasts for vigils of the Apostles, the vigil of Sts. Peter and Paul excepted) to Fridays and Saturdays of Advent. In France, by Decree of Card. Caprara, 9 Apr. 1802, the obligation of fasting on the vigils of suppressed feasts was taken away, even of those whose solemnity is transferred. In Belgium, from the year 1896, the same law has force. From a declaration of the S. C. C. it is established that vigils of suppressed feasts must be observed if up to now they have been observed from precept or vow. Cf. Decrees of 18 Sept. 1911 and 25 Feb. 1912 (A. A. S., III, p. 480; IV, p. 142).

b) The fast on the day before the consecration of a church, prescribed in the Roman Pontifical, is of strict obligation for the Bishop consecrating, and only for those who ask that the church be consecrated for them; therefore also for the rector of the church, but for him alone, if he alone presented the suppliant petition for asking the consecration. S. R. C., n. 2519.

1222. There are three CONDITIONS which ecclesiastical fast requires: 1. abstinence from certain foods (the law of quality); 2. one meal in the day (the law of quantity); 3. the suitable hour of this meal. Each must be treated.

To be noted. a) Essentially, ecclesiastical fast consists in one meal. This is gathered from the Constitution Non ambigimus of Benedict XIV. For thus the primary end of fast is efficaciously reached, namely mortification of the flesh and diminution of the fervor of passions. Thus St. Alphonsus (III, 1030, q. 1) with St. Thomas.

b) The precept of abstinence from meats or other foods is the necessary complement of the things said above.

c) Determination of the hour of the meal is a less principal part of the whole precept.

1223. PRINCIPLES. I. The Church, on each day of fast, forbids the use of meat. It is established from universal custom, whose fittingness St. Thomas thus expresses (2. 2, q. 147, a. 8): "Fast was instituted by the Church for repressing the concupiscences of the flesh; and therefore the Church forbade to those fasting those foods which in eating especially provoke man to venereal things. Of this kind are the meats of animals born on the earth and breathing..."

1. By the name MEAT, understand not only the substance of animals, but also blood, fat, and lard, extract of meat, indeed even broth expressed from meat.⁰¹ But they are not to be disturbed, as the S. Poenit. declared, 17 Nov. 1897, who on days of abstinence use oil in which meat has already been cooked.

Animal fat, although it is to be reduced to the notion of meat, is nevertheless permitted under the notion of condiment (S. Off., 1 May 1889). Little pieces of lard similarly can be eaten if they continue to be part of a condiment (S. Poenit., 17 Nov. 1897); but they are prohibited if they are taken separately (Ami du Cl., 1914, p. 281).

Peptones, which are nothing other than the nutritive parts of nitrogenous foods (especially meats), made digestible by chemical process, seem, if they proceed from meats, to be comprehended under the name of meat (cf. Antonelli, II, 868, against Genicot, I, 442). As regards the condiment of broth invented by Maggi, it is not established that it is made from meat.

2. But by the name of meat which is forbidden, do not understand the substance of animals which are rather recalled to the genus of FISHES (H. Ap., XII, 2).

For discerning whether animals are to be recalled to the genus of fishes, "more attention must be given to the common estimation of the faithful and the judgment of physicians, if they regard them as meats or fishes" (III, 1011). But common estimation in our times establishes a GENERAL RULE: animals of warm blood are prohibited, but animals of cold blood are permitted on days of abstinence and fast. Yet experts add that, if in some region commonly certain animals of warm blood are recalled to the genus of fishes, one must stand by this estimation, although per se the eating of them would be prohibited.

In doubt whether the food set before you is meat or not, you can eat from it; because the law of abstinence is a prohibiting law, and until the prohibition is established, it does not bind your liberty (H. Ap., XII, 2). Cf. n. 46 and 55.

From these things you conclude: a) Prohibited animals (because they have warm blood) are: mammals, or mammifers, oxen, sheep, goats, etc. Likewise beavers or castors, otters, seals, walruses; yet these, if custom is present, can be permitted. All birds, even coots, wild ducks, aquatic or sea crows. But with custom and common estimation standing in some region, those birds are not prohibited. The eating of coots is read to have been conceded to the Fathers Minims by grace.

b) Animals conceded (because their blood is cold) are: all fishes; other animals, as reptiles, frogs, tortoises, snails, shells, oysters, crabs, lobsters, etc. Cf. Antonelli, II, n. 867 ff.

1224. II. In the time of Lent, besides meat, eggs and milk-foods are prohibited (even under grave matter). By the name milk-foods are understood milk, butter, cheese: namely all those things which draw their origin from flesh. It is established from the practice of the Church, and from proposition 32 condemned by Alexander VII: "It is not evident that the custom of not eating eggs and milk-foods in Lent obliges." Except Germany and northern regions, in which, by force of custom or of an always renewed dispensation, that law has become obsolete (III, 1029, 3).

It was said: in the time of Lent, namely on account of the greater solemnity of the fast. Whence: 1. This obligation does not comprehend other days of fast through the year; because it cannot be proved by common Right. Yet if somewhere (as at Rome) such a custom or special law has force, it must be observed under grave matter, since the matter is grave per se. 2. By common Right, it comprehends all Lenten days, even Sundays, because they are not exempted from the law of abstinence (III, 1007 and 1009, dub. 3). But see the things to be said n. 1242.

Note. a) In Italy abstinence from all those things which draw origin from flesh (namely milk, butter, cheese, eggs, and condiments from any animal fat whatever) is to be observed only 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 (S. Off., 7 Sept. 1906, n. 2). See below n. 1247.

b) But if meats, eggs, and milk-foods are considered in relation to one another, it must be said that eggs and milk-foods are equated, so that one dispensed in one is also dispensed in the other; but meats and milk-foods are not equated, but stand as greater to lesser, as will be plain below n. 1242.

c) The use of margarine is licit when butter is permitted (S. Off., 6 Sept. 1899).

1225. Questions. QUAER. 1. Whether, in Lent, it is licit to eat breads made with EGGS, or any food seasoned with EGGS?

Resp. Negatively, because the substance of eggs is not lost from the fact that they are mixed with flour or applied as condiment. The Response of S. Poenit., 17 Nov. 1897, agrees, where it was declared that condiment from eggs, when eggs are prohibited, is not licit.

QUAER. 2. What matter is judged grave in violation of fast or abstinence?

Resp. 1. As regards MEATS. St. Alphonsus with the Salmanticenses thinks the eighth part of an ounce (3 1/2 gr.) is grave matter. More recent Authors generally state that he commits grave sin who would exceed two ounces (60 gr.). The reason is that in this matter only that is called grave which notably nourishes. Indeed they say that a greater quantity is required if not meat properly so called, but something which proceeds from meat, is eaten.

2. As regards EGGS and MILK-FOODS. Authors always required, for grave matter, a greater quantity than for meat. More recent authors think grave matter is present if someone eats 3-4 ounces (90-120 gr.). Cf. St. Alph., III, 1029 and 1009, fin.; H. Ap., XII, 20; Lehmkuhl, I, 1450, 1466; Noldin, II, 674, 677; Berardi, Theol. mor. (1905), IV, n. 45.

3. As regards ESURIAL FOODS. Berardi says (l. c.) that four ounces constitute grave matter; because those foods nourish less than the aforesaid.

Note. The Roman ounce (about which it is here a question) is equivalent to 29 grams and 20 hundredths of the new weight; but the pound (of 12 ounces) to 350 grams. The German ounce exceeds the Roman ounce in weight.

1226. PRINCIPLES. I. "By the moderation of the Church it has been established that those fasting eat once in the day." Thus St. Thomas (2. 2, q. 147, a. 6). In this, as we noted above, consists the essence of fast.

Hence: 1. He who SEVERAL TIMES eats some little thing outside the meal sins mortally when he has come to a notable quantity. It is established from proposition 29 condemned by Alexander VII: "On a day of fast, he who several times eats some little thing, even if at the end he has eaten a notable quantity, does not break the fast."

But it is permitted to take a little food, for example an ounce, for driving away weakness, as is commonly taught. Some permit this as often as one must drink, lest the drink harm; but this, as others rightly say, scarcely can be permitted once and again in the day (H. Ap., XII, 11).

2. He who without cause INTERRUPTS the meal for a notable time, for example for an hour, no longer preserves the form of fast.

Nevertheless: a) With cause, it is licit to interrupt the meal for an hour; indeed, some concede up to two hours: but this is licit by right and deservedly, says Holzmann, only when someone has not been refreshed by sufficient food, and cannot tolerate the fast without grave inconvenience: then he can resume the meal, because the Church never intended to oblige someone to pass the day without sufficient refreshment. b) Without cause, and although someone had finished the meal, he can eat again if the table-companions continue to dine, or if other dishes which were not expected are brought to the table; because the same meal is still morally judged to endure. Indeed it is generally conceded that another food can be taken after one and a half quarters of an hour (III, 1020; H. Ap., XII, 10).

3. He who PROTRACTS the meal immoderately likewise offends the law of fast.

Probably, however, it is licit to protract it up to two hours; others, with Elbel, admit up to three or four hours, at least for Germans, with attention to

their custom, which St. Alphonsus neither approves nor disapproves (III, 1020, q. 5). But he adds with Cuniliati: "To protract the meal to several hours, if it is not done in fraud of fast, is not mortal" (Istruz., XII, 10, fin.).

1227. II. The law of fast permits several times taking those things which have the nature of true drink or medicine. The axiom is known: "Liquid does not break the fast." It is said: several times, that is, indeterminately, both outside the meal and the double little refreshment; nor do those things which are taken coalesce. But by liquid is understood only that which, from common sense, is taken by the mode of drink only, for quenching thirst or by the mode of medicine; but not that which is taken by the mode of food, for quenching hunger and nourishing the body, as milk, juice of fruits, broth, etc. (III, 1021).

Hence: 1. Wine is not prohibited; although the faithful, in the first times of the Church, abstained from it. If it nourishes someone, this is per accidens and therefore it does not break the fast, although it is drunk for quenching hunger; for intention does not change the nature of the act, nor does it fall under the precept (H. Ap., XII, 13). Wine to which soluble principles of meat would be mixed is without doubt permitted, since it is a true medicine.

2. Beer is not prohibited, nor drink of coffee or tea, or even water mixed with sugar, or made from the juices of oranges or lemons; unless too much milk, sugar, etc., is mixed in; because, with the restriction posited, these and similar things do not have the nature of food, but of drink or medicine. Nor does it matter if they have been frozen: for freezing does not change the nature of the thing (ib., 14).

3. Whey is not prohibited; for it is held as drink or medicine (Muller, Theol. mor., II, § 165, 7).

4. Electuaries or confections made from choice things (for example from sugar and juniper) are not prohibited if they are taken in moderate quantity on account of a reasonable cause, for example for helping digestion, for preserving the voice, for taking away odor of the mouth, and other things of this kind. Thus commonly with St. Thomas (2. 2, q. 147, a. 6, ad 3). See St. Alph., III, 1019; 1. El. qq. ref., n. 42.

5. Whether the drinking of chocolate is prohibited is more disputed. St. Alphonsus indeed denies that chocolate can be regarded as drink, because it truly nourishes; but nevertheless he permits drinking it, by reason of custom, once in the day, and in moderate quantity, if namely one ounce and a half (44 gr.) of chocolate with water is placed in ordinary cups.⁰¹ But milk cannot be mixed in, unless this is conceded through dispensation concerning milk-foods: in which case account of it must be had in the weight of the food.

It must be observed: a) If someone uses drink immoderately, he sins against the end of the precept, and easily loses the merit of the fast, as St. Thomas warns (2. 2, q. 147, a. 6, ad 2). b) If someone can, by applying the aid of a drink of coffee, chocolate, etc., tolerate a fast which he otherwise would not tolerate, he is held, by the law itself of fast, to apply that aid, even if such a custom has not yet prevailed in his province (Croix, III, P. 2, n. 1325).

1228. III. It is licit to take, on days of fast, in the morning a little refreshment, and, toward evening, a little supper. The first is established from the Response of S. Poenit., 21 Nov. 1843, and from almost universal use. The second was similarly introduced by custom. "There is no doubt for anyone," says St. Alphonsus (H. Ap., XII, 16), "that in antiquity fast was observed more rigorously; but, according to modern discipline, the little evening refreshment is admitted by all."

In these matters attention must be given to what custom permits, both concerning the quantity and concerning the quality of foods.

Further: 1. Concerning the QUANTITY conceded in the little refreshment, use teaches that only two ounces are licit. As regards the little supper, "the opinion commonly accepted today permits indiscriminately to all (even to those who need little food)... the quantity of eight ounces (233 gr.); and something else (namely two other ounces, which is small matter) to him who would have need of greater nourishment.

On the vigil of the Nativity of the Lord, a little collation twice as great, namely of 16 ounces, is commonly admitted, by reason of the solemnity" (III, 1025; H. Ap., XII, 16). Yet see the things to be said at once n. 1229.

2. Concerning the QUALITY of foods, again both custom and dispensation must be considered: for those things which are permitted in some regions, these same things are forbidden in others.

Generally in the little refreshment only milk, coffee, tea, chocolate, and bread are conceded (Ami du Cl., 1912, p. 464). For the little supper, only lighter foods with bread are permitted, for example fruits, vegetables, small fishes, or even two or three ounces of a larger fish (III, 1028). Eggs and milk-foods are not permitted, unless somewhere a custom has force, for example of taking some cheese or butter, or unless an express dispensation has been given. But neither to those dispensed for meats, but not from fast, is another food permitted in the little collation, except that which is permitted to those not dispensed. See n. 1242, Rule 4.

1229. Let it be noted: a) From chemical analysis it is established that milk in a thousand parts contains almost 130 grams of elements which nourish. Yet from this it does not follow that, in the little supper, for example, it is licit if someone drinks two liters of milk, under the pretext that only 260 grams of principles which truly nourish are taken. Attention must also be given to the satiating force of the food. Thus therefore Authors permit for the supper 500-700 gr. of milk, if this alone is drunk. But for breakfast it certainly would not be licit to take 1/2 liter of milk (Ami du Cl., 1911, p. 252).

b) Eight ounces of bread cooked in water with oil may not licitly be taken in the little supper. The reason is not that through cooking a diverse substance arises, but because all these things satiate more. Thus custom interprets the law. Some indeed contradict, leaning on the general principle that for foods which contain much watery humor, the assigned quantity can be increased. Cf. Berardi, l. c., n. 23; Antonelli, II, 878. This principle indeed is not to be rejected absolutely, and can be applied for some foods; yet in our case, attention must primarily be given to custom. Cf. Lehmkuhl, I, 1462.

1230. Questions. QUAER. 1. How many sins does one commit who breaks fast through meals CULPABLY repeated?

Resp. 1. If he breaks the fast through eating non-esurial foods, as often as he eats, so often he sins, and therefore the number of acts must be declared in confession: because the precept of abstinence is negative, which obliges always and for always, as the Doctors say (III, 1029, 3).

Yet the sin would be venial if, once in the day, a small quantity were eaten (cf. n. 1225, q. 2).

2. If he breaks the fast by eating esurial foods several times in the forbidden quantity, from the common and more probable opinion, he commits only one grave sin against the precept of the Church; and the stronger reason is that the essence of fast consists in one eating: wherefore, the essence of fast having been destroyed through the second meal, the precept ceases in the third or fourth meal.

But they most commonly say that in these last meals venial sin is committed, because they are against the end of the law, which is mortification of the flesh; and indeed more probably, because to go against the end of the law is a certain inordination, which does not seem excused from every fault (III, 1030, Question 1).

QUAER. 2. Whether he who INCULPABLY refreshed himself twice in the day is held to abstain from a third meal?

Resp. It is controverted. Yet the affirmative opinion pleases the Holy Doctor more (H. Ap., XII, 20; Conf. dir., XII, 6; cf. note of Gaude, II, p. 415). The reason which he brings forward is the following: He who materially violated the fast by refreshing himself twice is held to abstain from a third meal, lest he seem to approve the material violation of fast. Yet this reason does not settle the controversy.

QUAER. 3. What ought he to do who on a day of fast inadvertently breakfasted in the morning in the accustomed way?

Resp. 1. If the breakfast was moderate, not morally exceeding the quantity of a little refreshment, he is held to observe the fast, as also others.

2. If the quantity of the breakfast is equated with the little supper, he is held (short of grave inconvenience) either to remit the meal to evening, or rather to take a lesser quantity of food in the evening. The reason is that the substance of fast can still be preserved, although attention can no longer be given to something accidental.

3. If finally the quantity must be almost assimilated to a meal, in the best way in which it can be done, the other prescriptions of fast should be observed. Yet the little supper can be more abundant, indeed it could be anticipated. Cf. St. Alph., III, 1030.

1231. In antiquity the hour of the meal was in the evening, after sunset (at least in Lent). Then in the lapse of time it was anticipated to the hour of None, and finally from the fourteenth century to the hour of Sext, namely to midday (H. Ap., XII, 21; cf. St. Thom., 2. 2, q. 147, a. 7).

Questions. QUAER. 1. Whether notably anticipating the HOUR OF THE MEAL is a grave sin?

Resp. Authors are not lacking who hold the negative opinion probable; but to St. Alphonsus only the affirmative opinion seems to be held, and this is proved both from Canon Law (Can. Solent, 50. D. 1, de Consecr.), where those anticipating "are by no means to be believed to fast"; and from St. Thomas (4. D. 15, q. 3, a. 4, ad 3), who says: "He who too notably anticipates dissolves the fast"; and from reason, since delay of the meal pertains much to mortification of the body, which the Church intends. It is confirmed by a Response of Benedict XIV (Brief Si Fraternitas, Enc. Libentissime): We declare that the prescribed hour is to be observed by those fasting (n. 8, ad 4). Cf. ed. G., II, p. 395. Therefore from this opinion, he who notably, that is, by one whole hour, anticipates the meal without cause violates the law of fast and sins mortally. Yet a light cause excuses a brief anticipation, a grave cause a notable anticipation.

Note. Recent Authors commonly teach that sin is not committed if the hour of the meal is notably anticipated. Nevertheless, as Aertnys rightly notes (l. IV, n. 11), until it is proved that today's custom has derogated from the ancient grave precept and ancient custom, those without doubt prevail. St. Alphonsus states the same (III, 1016).

QUAER. 2. Whether the fast is dissolved if the LITTLE SUPPER is taken toward midday, but the MEAL in the evening?

Resp. It is not dissolved as regards essence; and therefore, from a just cause, for example by reason of weakness, affairs, studies, hunting, or even custom, it is licit to order the time of eating in this way (III, 1024).

Indeed, to the question: "Whether, on days of fast, the time of eating can be inverted, by taking the evening little refreshment within the tenth and eleventh morning hour, but deferring the meal to the fourth or fifth evening hour," S. Poenit., on 19 January 1834, judged that it must be responded: "If some reasonable cause of the aforesaid inversion exists, penitents who use this custom are not to be disturbed." Cf. Gaude, II, p. 415.

QUAER. 3. Whether it is licit to invert the order of meals so that in the morning collation is taken, at midday the meal, in the evening the little refreshment?

Resp. Of itself, negatively; because thus in some way the law of fast would be eluded; yet the fault is not grave. Whence from a reasonable cause dispensation can easily be had. Cf. Lehmkuhl, I, 1468; Ami du Cl., 1909, p. 944.

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

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

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

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

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

1233. Impotence exempts, whether physical or moral.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Besides the Authors cited at the beginning of chapter I, cf. Berthelet, Traite historique et moral de l'abstinence; Villien, op. laud., c. VIII; Lehmkuhl, I, n. 1455.

1244. PRINCIPLES. I. The ecclesiastical precept of abstaining from meats urges, besides days of fast, on Friday of any week and on Saturday. The first part of the proposition enunciates the common law, which must be observed even on Sundays of Lent. The second part, as regards Saturday, states the customary law by which most places of the Latin Church are governed (Can. Quia dies, 31, de Consecr., D. 5). If a feast falls on Friday or Saturday, the law of abstinence ceases, as we noted above n. 1240, 1.

From the law of abstinence on Saturday are immune, besides Greece, the kingdoms of the Spains and Italy (S. Off., 7 Sept. 1906, n. 4). Likewise, in certain dioceses of France and Belgium, the Saturdays occurring between the Nativity of the Lord and the Purification of the B. V. M. are excepted (Benedict XIV, Synod., l. XI, c. 5).

But in some places abstinence must be observed also on Rogation days and on the vigil of St. Mark; in this matter the custom of the place must be held.

1245. II. The precept of abstinence obliges under grave matter all baptized persons having use of reason, at least if they have completed the seventh year. Under grave matter: because the law is concerning a matter grave per se; yet smallness of matter is admitted (cf. n. 1225, Question 2). All baptized persons having use of reason, on account of the arguments explained above n. 194 and 195. Yet there excuses: 1. impotence whether physical or moral; 2. dispensation of a Superior.

1246. Corollaries. 1. They are legitimately EXCUSED from the law of abstinence:

a) Begging poor persons, who can eat whatever they receive in alms. Likewise, poor workers who, since they cannot buy butter or oil, licitly use a little piece of grease or lard for seasoning porridge or lettuces (III, 1008, 1033).

b) The sick and those weak in stomach, who namely cannot eat esurial foods without grave inconvenience.

By which title certain workers also are excused, for example in mines or workshops of glass or iron, on account of the extraordinary harshness of the labor. Likewise pregnant or nursing women, if the offspring is sick, or the mother is very weak.

c) Wives and children of a family, who would suffer grave indignation of husbands or parents; provided the eating of meats is not commanded in contempt of the law or of religion. Cf. nevertheless the things said n. 154, 3, v. fin.

Likewise servants and workers to whom licit foods are not furnished, if they cannot leave the master or seek another without grave inconvenience; yet they ought to contradict, insofar as prudence permits this.

d) Soldiers living in camps or messes who are nourished in common at the expense of the government.

But leaders are not excused who refresh themselves privately and at their own expenses; nor soldiers traveling privately, or dwelling in the paternal house, although for a brief time, unless they are excused by indult or custom (as exists in France). Cf. n. 1234; Ami du Cl., 1905, p. 1031.

Note. To American soldiers and sailors (but not to those who are absent with permission from camps, ships, garrisons) only six days of abstinence are assigned: Ash Wednesday, the last three days of Holy Week, the vigil of the Assumption of the B. V. M. and of the Nativity of the Lord (Coll. Lac., III, App. ad Conc. pl. Baltim., II, col. 573).

e) 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; nor are they ever excused on account of fear of displeasing others or provoking mockeries (cf. n. 522).

f) Those invited to a meal, if, contrary to expectation, they find the meal prepared from forbidden dishes.

Understand: Unless this was done in hatred of religion; or unless the one invited is a priest, or such a one who, by eating, brings in grave scandal; or unless on account of confidence other dishes can be asked for. Further, to depart, or to attend the whole meal eating nothing or only bread, on one side would require almost heroic virtue, on the other would provoke great disturbance, indeed, for the most part, enmity. Thus Berardi (Theol. mor., IV, n. 12, p. 15).

Note. As regards innkeepers see n. 522.

2. Catholics who, on days of abstinence, furnish meats to their non-Catholic guests are not to be blamed if either a) this is permitted to them by force of an apostolic indult, which many Bishops are accustomed to obtain and communicate to confessors; or b) some just cause concurs; provided nevertheless, in either case, scandal and contempt of ecclesiastical law are absent; or c) because for non-Catholics the Church is judged not to urge those positive laws which directly turn to the sanctification of souls, lest sins be multiplied (cf. n. 198).

3. Those same can dispense from the law of abstinence who can dispense from the law of fast, and in the same cases (cf. n. 1240).

1247. Italy. On 7 Sept. 1906 (A. S. S., 39, p. 455) the law of abstinence and fast was reformed, for this end that local customs (even immemorial ones) be taken away and uniformity (except the case of vow) be found everywhere.

I. The OBLIGATION OF FAST will be present for those not excused: in Lent; in Advent (on Fridays and Saturdays); in the Four Times; on the vigils of the Nativity of the Lord, Pentecost, Sts. Peter and Paul, the Assumption of the B. V. M., and All Saints.

Note: 1. Promiscuity of meat and fishes on these days and in the same meal is forbidden to all, even on Sundays of Lent.

2. On Sundays of Lent, there is neither fast nor abstinence.

II. The OBLIGATION OF ABSTINENCE suffers four distinctions:

1. Most rigorous abstinence. In all meals even eggs and milk-foods are prohibited, indeed also condiments of fat, lard, butter, margarine, etc. Even those not fasting are held by this prohibition. This prohibition urges on Fridays of the Four Times in Lent and of Holy Week, on the vigils of the Nativity of the Lord and of the Assumption of the B. V. M.

2. Rigorous abstinence. Eggs and milk-foods, condiments of fat, butter, etc. are permitted. Yet in the little supper, those fasting (by reason of fast) cannot use them. This abstinence has force: on the first day of Lent, on Fridays and Saturdays of Lent and Advent (excepted the Fridays concerning which above), on the vigils of Pentecost, Sts. Peter and Paul, and All Saints.

3. Mitigated abstinence. Meats and meat broth are also permitted, but only in the meal, for those fasting. This abstinence obliges on ordinary days of Lent which were not mentioned above.

4. Ordinary abstinence. Use of meat is forbidden; in any licit eating all other things are licit. This is the abstinence of Friday of each week through the year.

Note. In the year 1911 (A. A. S., III, 361) the indult for Italy was extended to the regions of Dalmatia, with a few things changed.

Latin America, the Philippine Islands, and the Antilles. On the first day of January 1910, the Supreme Pontiff, the privileges and indults of the Bull of the Crusade and of the Summaries which were attached to this being abrogated, promulgated a new indult for ten years.

1. Fast without abstinence is to be observed on Fridays of Advent and Wednesdays of Lent.

2. Fast with abstinence is to be observed on Ash Wednesday, Fridays of Lent, and Thursday of Holy Week.

3. Abstinence without fast is to be observed on the vigils of the Nativity of the Lord, Pentecost, Sts. Peter and Paul, the Assumption of the B. V. M.

Note. a) No tax, or alms, for the use of the indult can be imposed; nor is it required that individual faithful or heads of families express a petition for the use of the indult.

b) This indult, with the consent of Superiors, Religious of either sex can use, not bound by special vow, although they are from the family of the Order of Minors, even as regards abstinences and fasts prescribed in their own statutes.

c) On days of fast, even regulars can, in the evening collation, use eggs and milk-foods. But in the morning little refreshment, only milk-foods are permitted.

d) The privileges conceded to Blacks and Indians, through the Constitution Trans Oceanum, 18 Apr. 1897, remain firm, and they can use the privileges of the new indult. Whence they are held to fast only on Fridays of Lent, nor can they be obligated to fast on Holy Saturday and on the vigil of the Nativity of the Lord (13 Dec. 1911).

e) The prohibition of mixing meats with fishes remains firm. The State of Chile is excepted, for which, on account of grave reasons, in the year 1911 the prohibition was abolished. Cf. for all these things A. A. S., p. 215, 272; III, 184; IV, p. 730.

East India. 1. There are only nine days of fast: namely Fridays in Lent, the vigils of the Nativity of the Lord and of Holy Saturday. 2. The days of abstinence are, besides days of fast, all Fridays through the year and Wednesdays in Lent (Kalend. archid. Bombay).

Scotland. On 27 Jan. 1911 the Supreme Pontiff conceded for the faithful of the kingdom of Scotland a partial relaxation of fast, so that (Lent excluded), on Saturdays of the Four Times and on vigils which are followed or preceded by a Friday or another day of abstinence, they can freely eat meat (A. A. S., III, p. 58).

I say 1st. It belongs to the supreme ecclesiastical authority alone to establish, transfer, or abolish days of abstinence and fasting common to the universal Church. Ordinaries of places can prescribe peculiar days of abstinence and fasting for their dioceses or places only by way of an act. - Cf. Can. 1244. - Let what was said in n. 327 be compared.

I say 2nd. The law of abstinence forbids eating meat and broth from meat, but not eggs, dairy foods, and any condiments whatsoever, even from the fat of animals (Can. 1250).

I say 3rd. § 1. The law of fasting prescribes that only one meal be taken per day; but it does not forbid taking some food morning and evening, while nevertheless the approved custom of places concerning the quantity and quality of foods is observed.

§ 2. Nor is it forbidden to mix meat and fish in the same refection, nor to exchange the evening refection with dinner (Can. 1251).

I say 4th. § 1. The law of abstinence alone is to be observed on each Friday.

§ 2. The law of abstinence and fasting together is to be observed on Ash Wednesday, the Fridays and Saturdays of Lent and the Ember days, and 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 fasting alone is to be observed on all the remaining days of Lent.

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

I say 5th. By these canons nothing is changed concerning particular indults, concerning vows of any physical or moral person, or concerning the constitutions and rules of any approved religion or institute, whether of men or of women living in common, even without vows (Can. 1253).

I say 6th. § 1. All who have completed the seventh year of age are held by the law of abstinence.

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

The aforesaid canons clearly set forth what it is licit to eat, how much to eat, what kind of thing to eat, and when to eat, according to the law of abstinence and fasting.

The precept of abstinence, of fasting and abstinence together, and of fasting alone, although according to the common opinion it admits smallness of matter, obliges under grave matter all those for whom it is enacted. For the matter of the law of each is grave; the law is held as grave by all theologians, and therefore it simply obliges gravely, whether you regard the law of abstinence alone, or of fasting alone, or of both conjointly.

But since the feasts among us which are of precept remain the same as before, "for these, not for the rest ... the faithful can enjoy the relaxation or dispensation from observance of the law of fasting and abstinence granted by the very recent Motu Proprio." Cf. Sacred Congregation of the Council, Aug. 28, 1911.

"In Apostolic indults, by which mitigations or dispensations are conceded from abstinence and fasting in regions within and outside Europe, especially in Latin America," there are comprehended "Religious families, as regards abstinence and fasting prescribed by the general law of the Church, unless religious are excluded from the indult"; but as regards the aforesaid, there are not comprehended those things "established by their own Rules and Constitutions, unless in the indult mention is expressly made of this dispensation"; "therefore those not observing abstinence and fasting do indeed transgress the Rule and Constitution, but not the law of the Church, and therefore incur only the fault and penalty established by the Constitutions and Rules." Thus the Sacred Congregation for Religious, Sept. 1, 1912.

I say. § 1. The law of abstinence alone is to be observed on every Friday.

§ 2. The law of abstinence together with fasting is to be observed on Ash Wednesday, on Fridays and Saturdays of Lent and on 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 fasting alone is to be observed on all the remaining days of Lent.

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

By this canon the days are assigned on which abstinence alone is commanded; abstinence and fasting; fasting alone; and on which the command of one, the other, or both ceases. Finally, the anticipation of vigils is removed.

Wherefore outside Lent no day is of fasting alone; within Lent no day of abstinence alone is enumerated; outside Lent the days of fasting together with abstinence are thirteen, namely the nine weekdays of the Ember Days and four vigils; within Lent the days of fasting and abstinence are fifteen and a half, namely the first and second Wednesday, and all the Fridays and Saturdays except the afternoon of Holy Saturday. The remaining days of Lent, except Sundays, are days of fasting alone; the remaining Fridays of the year are days of abstinence alone. But if the law of which we are treating falls on some feast of precept, the law of abstinence, fasting, or both together ceases, except for a feast in the time of Lent.

The Advent fasts which formerly existed among us in some places are abolished. - Cf. Can. 6, 1244.

Abstinence and fasting are commanded on Ash Wednesday, on Fridays and Saturdays of Lent, and on 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. On these days meat and broth from meat, and more than one eating, are forbidden; in this meal, with meat and broth from meat excluded, any other foods are permitted; the morning and evening little refections are also conceded, in which the quantity and quality are to be determined according to approved custom.

Finally, the days on which the law of abstinence, the law of abstinence and fasting, or the law of fasting only ceases are determined; these are Sundays or feast days of precept, except for a feast in the time of Lent. In the future vigils are not anticipated, and thus the very obligation of fasting and abstinence falls. Moreover, from noon of Holy Saturday the faithful are bound by neither the law of fasting nor of abstinence.¹

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1125, n. 81; p. 1107, n. 50.

I say. § 1. All who have completed the seventh year of age are held by the law of abstinence.

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

The terminus from which of the law of abstinence is the seventh year completed; of the law of fasting, the twenty-first completed. The terminus to which of the law of abstinence is the term of life; of the law of fasting, the sixtieth year begun.

Heretics, whose God is the belly, so hunger after gluttony that not only do they abolish every precept of fasting, but moreover fasten upon it the charge of superstition; thus, being carnally wise, after they have lost all sense of Chastity and modesty, they beslaver themselves with the delicacies of foods, and, captivated in their eyes, they cannot see the clearest testimonies of sacred Scripture, which extol the merit of fasting; because they will not.

FIRST of all the Aëtians gave origin to this error, who in the time of the Fasts fed themselves on sumptuous dishes in contempt of the precept; Jovinian followed these, as Bonerius reports from St. Jerome, and St. Augustine in 2. exam. de fidei unitate; then the Manichaeans, Waldenses, and Lollards followed at divers times, and transmitted their heresies, though so often cooked, nevertheless raw, to the most recent sectaries, whom I shall recall and refute in dubitatione 3.

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.

In a lenten regulation is found the customary provision: “In special cases we hereby give the priests and confessors of our diocese the power to dispense individual persons for important reasons.” In this same diocese Caius comes to Father Titius, to whom he usually goes to Confession, and requests for good reasons dispensation from fasting. Titius grants it. Then Caius, for similar reasons, asks also the dispensation of his wife, who is not a penitent of Titius. May Titius also dispense her?

Answer.—Yes. First of all the fact that the wife of Caius does not appear personally is no obstacle. There is no requirement that the dispensation must take place in the confessional, it may take place in writing, or by messenger, provided inquiries can be made as to whether sufficient grounds for the dispensation prevail. Thus the answer depends entirely upon the fact how the word confessor must be understood. If it is to be taken in the restricted meaning, i. e., if the power is granted to confessors only for their own penitent, then, of course, Titius cannot dispense the wife. If, on the contrary, the expression has a wider meaning, for instance, that all who have jurisdiction to hear Confession, have also the jurisdiction to grant this dispensation, then Titius can dispense the wife: at least if he has jurisdiction to hear her Confession, in case, therefore, that she does not live outside his diocese. The latter view, it seems to us, should be held in preference. Of themselves both definitions of the term confessor have a perfectly reasonable meaning. Then, however, the rule governs: Beneficia sunt amplianda. It is true that, as a rule, an individual dispensation must be strictly interpreted; not, however, the faculty to dispense. This is regarded as a beneficium, and hence the principle Beneficia sunt amplianda applies,

Dubium. United States soldiers are dispensed from the law of abstinence, except on six days of the year, (1) Does this apply to officers who live in their own houses and do not have to depend on the common mess, though living on the military reservation?

(2) Does this dispensation apply to enlisted men, who live on territory adjacent to the reservation, or even on the reservation, but, receiving a commutation of rations, can and do supply their own tables as any civilian?

(3) Do soldiers of the U. S. Army still have to observe abstinence on Holy Thursday, one of the six days appointed for their observance?

A full discussion and answer would enlighten a number who seem unable to find a proper solution to some of these doubts.

Answer.—Soldiers and sailors in the service of the United States were dispensed by Pope Pius IX. from the law of abstinence from flesh meat on all days of the year, except Ash Wednesday, Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, Holy Saturday, the vigil of the Assumption B. V. M., and the vigil of Christmas. With the exception of these six days, the soldiers and sailors of the U. S. Army and Navy may eat meat on all days of the year. Archbishop Kenrick, tract 4, part 2, n. 37, of his Moral Theology, says: "Pius IX granted, at the request of the Bishop of Buffalo, that American soldiers and sailors should be exempted universally from the law of abstinence, with six days excepted, namely, Ash Wednesday, the last three days of Holy Week, and the vigils of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary 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 absent on leave. Families sharing a common table with them enjoy that privilege, but not those who live far away."

The second plenary council of Baltimore (1866) records this indult of Pius IX. in the words of Archbishop Kenrick.

I. Now it is asked: Does this papal indult include or exclude the officers of the U. S. Army and Navy? No mention is made of officers in the indult. The soldiers and sailors have a common mess, provided by their government. They have no choice of rations, but must eat whatever is provided by the commissary. With the officers it is different. They are not obliged to partake of the common mess, but provide their own food according to their pleasure.

The question, therefore, naturally arises: Are the officers dispensed from the common law of abstinence by the indult of Pius IX.? There seems to be no reason why they should be included along with the men, in the papal exemption. Their condition does not differ from the condition of other professional men in the various walks of life. There would seem, therefore, to exist no more reason for exempting them from the common law of abstinence than for exempting other professional men from the same law.

In the first place, it must be noted that no authoritative interpretation of the above indult has been issued by the Holy See. We are thrown back, therefore, for an interpretation of it, on the general rules of Canon Law for determining the meaning and scope of indults, as well as on the opinion of theologians, and on custom. In other words, we can give only an interpretatio doctrinalis et usualis, gathering the meaning of the indult from the unauthoritative explanations of the theologians and from the common usage, or the manner of using or enjoying the indult, followed by those who enjoy it. Now, one of the rules for the interpretation of papal indults is:

Favores sunt ampliandi. As generous an interpretation as possible, consistent with the words and the scope of the indult, may be given to it when its character is favorable; that is, when it grants exemptions from the common law of the Church. There can be no doubt but that the officers of the Army and Navy of the United States are soldiers and sailors. The doubt is, whether it was the intention of the Holy See to exclude them from the enjoyment of favors granted to the rank and file. In dubio, favores sunt ampliandi. According to the rules of interpretation, the exemption from abstinence may be extended to the officers. "Ubi lex non distinguit, nec nos distinguere debemus." The indult makes no distinction between officers and men; therefore neither are we obliged to make any distinction.

This indult to our soldiers and sailors is the same, practically, as those granted to the soldiers and sailors of the different European countries. It is nothing more than an extension to our soldiers and sailors of a privilege that had been enjoyed by European soldiers and sailors for many years.

It ought to be interpreted, therefore, in the same way that such indults to the soldiers and sailors of Europe are interpreted. Now, Mgr. Gousset, Archbishop of Reims, France, says, concerning the interpretation of a like indult to the French soldiers:

"Soldiers are dispensed from the law of fast and abstinence. Does this double dispensation apply to officers also, as well as to the private soldiers, even in time of peace? French officers believe that it does, relying on the common practise generally followed by them for the last fifty years. We do not approve of this practise, but neither do we condemn it. We tolerate it, and we think that confessors ought to tolerate it."

"Les soldats sont dispenses du jeune et de l'abstinence. Mais cette double dispense est-elle pour les officiers comme pour les simples soldats, meme en temps de paix? Les officiers francais le croient, se fondant sur l’usage généralement suivi par eux depuis environ cinquante ans. Nous n’approuvons point cet usage, mais nous ne le condamnons pas; nous le tolérons, et nous pensons que les confesseurs doivent le tolérer” (Theol. moral. I, 313).

Father Génicot numbers among those exempted from the law of fast and abstinence:

“Soldiers, at least those who are maintained at government expense; indeed, very often by custom approved or tolerated by the bishops, all soldiers whatsoever, including officers and their families. In Belgium permission is granted annually to all of them to eat meat throughout the whole year, except Good Friday. Once this general dispensation has been granted, soldiers who are permitted to return home for a short time, or even habitually eat outside the barracks, now seem able to eat meat; for the indult is given universally to all who are actually counted among the soldiers, and it does not require a moral impossibility, which is not ordinarily present for officers and their families” (Theol. moral. I, 449).

If this holds good for Belgian soldiers, including officers and their families, there is no reason why it should not hold good for American officers and soldiers, since all the circumstances are practically identical.

Much depends on custom or usage. But it seems to be a well-established custom among the officers of the Army and Navy of the United States to consider themselves included among the beneficiaries of this papal indult. Thus I am informed by a learned and conscientious priest, who was a chaplain for many years in the United States Navy, that he as well as the Catholic officers themselves always considered themselves as included in the papal exemption, and that when he entered the service as chaplain, this construction of the indult was handed down to him, as a long-established usage.

From this we conclude that the officers of the U. S. Army and Navy, together with their families, may tuta conscientia be included among the soldiers and sailors of the United States, who by papal indult are exempted from the law of abstinence, common in the Catholic Church, on all days of the year except the six days mentioned in the indult.

(2) Does this dispensation apply to enlisted men, who live on territory adjacent to the reservation, or even on the reservation, but who, receiving a commutation of rations, can and do supply their own tables like any civilian?

Yes, the dispensation applies to them, whether officers or enlisted men, whether living on the reservation or outside of it and furnishing their own food, provided only that they belong actually to the service. The exemption from abstinence applies, as Father Génicot says, "universally to all who are actually counted among the soldiers, including those who habitually eat outside the barracks." In Father Génicot's opinion the officers and men enjoy and may use the exemption even when absent on leave for a short time, ad breve tempus (Ibid.).

(3) Do soldiers of the U. S. Army still have to observe abstinence on Holy Thursday?

They do not. Besides their own particular exemptions, they also enjoy any exemptions granted by the Holy See, generally, to all the faithful of the United States.

Now Leo XIII., in a special indult, known as the Quadragesimal indult, to be renewed every ten years, granted to the bishops of the United States permission to allow the use of flesh meat to all the faithful on certain days throughout the year, one of which days is Holy Thursday. As the soldiers and sailors of the U. S. Army and Navy must be reckoned among the faithful of the United States, and as the indult is general, it includes the soldiers and sailors.

With reason, therefore, Father Slater, S.J., says: "The preceding indult, allowing the use of meat on Holy Thursday, extends also to the soldiers and sailors of the United States" (Theol. moral., vol. I, on fasting). Father Slater goes farther, and says that if the soldiers and sailors of the U. S. Army and Navy can be regarded as workingmen, they can also enjoy the indult pro operariis, which would excuse them from abstinence on the eve of the Assumption also. Thus their days of abstinence would be reduced to four; namely, Ash Wednesday, Good Friday, Holy Saturday, and the vigil of Christmas. Even that is three days more than the soldiers of Catholic Belgium are obliged to observe.

John, a business man, was in the diocese of P. on business, on a Friday, when a dispensation from the abstinence from flesh meat was granted by the Holy See to the whole diocese of P. John was not a diocesan of P. but knowing that all the Catholics of the diocese had permission to eat meat on that Friday, he also ate it. He did the same on another occasion, being invited by a friend to spend a few days with him. On New-Year's day, which fell on a Friday, he went to a neighboring city, outside of his own diocese, purposely to eat meat, because in his own diocese no dispensation from the abstinence had been announced, whilst in the neighboring diocese such a dispensation had been published. Did John commit a sin in any of these instances?

Answer.—John did not commit any sin, either in the first or the second instance. This is evident from the very nature of the law of abstinence itself. A law differs from a personal command or precept in this, that a personal precept affects the individual person, following him like his shadow, say the canonists, and "sticking to his bones" (adhaeret ossibus), whilst a law affects immediately a definite territory and only mediately the inhabitants of the territory. A personal mandate or precept follows the individual to whom it has been given wherever he goes and is not restricted to any territory or district. Thus if a bishop issues faculties to a priest, with the condition that they are revoked ipso facto the first time the priest enters a saloon to drink, then it makes no difference whether the priest enters a saloon within the limits of the diocese, or outside the limits, he loses his faculties, because he transgresses a personal precept, given to him individually, and which is not restricted by the limits of the diocese. But if a bishop makes a general rule for all the priests of his diocese, that they are suspended ipso facto, for entering a saloon, then such a rule is a law and is operative only within the limits of the diocese, and if a priest of the diocese transgresses outside the diocese, he does not incur suspension.

Those, therefore, who are outside the territory affected by a law, are not bound by the law. The law of abstinence from flesh meat on Fridays is a general law of the Church and binding on all Catholics in all places, except where certain places or persons have been exempted by special dispensation. The diocese of P. on the Friday mentioned was exempted from the law. The exemption affected immediately the territory and only mediately the inhabitants of the district. Any inhabitant of the diocese of P. who on that Friday left the diocese would be bound by the law of abstinence, as soon as he crossed the diocesan border, and anyone living outside the diocese, would be exempted from abstinence the moment he entered the diocese. The law does not oblige anyone to remain within its domain, but obliges those who are within the territory affected by the law to keep the law.

In the third instance, cited above, where John leaves his own diocese on purpose to evade the law, the common opinion of theologians is also that he does not commit any sin, as far as the Church's law of abstinence is concerned. He might sin by gluttony or scandal, but not against the law of abstinence. The law of abstinence binds John as long as he remains within the territory or district subject to the law, but the law does not forbid John to leave the district, even in order to evade the law. Therefore, when John left his own diocese on New-Year's day, where he believed the law of abstinence to be in force, and went to a neighboring diocese, where the law was suspended, he only made use of his right to go where he pleased, as long as it was not forbidden by the law.

It cannot be maintained that the will of the Holy See, in granting a dispensation from the Friday abstinence to a certain diocese, is that only the bona fide inhabitants of the diocese are to enjoy it. For, since such will of the Holy See would be contrary to the very nature of law, it must be clearly proven to exist before it can be allowed. In some particular instances the Holy See has expressly forbidden leaving the territory to evade the law in fraudem legis; as, for example, Urban VIII. forbade leaving the territory to evade the law of clandestinity in marriage, and Clement VIII. forbade leaving the territory to escape reservation. But unless it be expressly forbidden, everyone is free to withdraw from a territory affected by a law, in order to evade or escape the law. This must be regarded as the general principle and the prohibition to leave the district in fraudem legis is the exception. Therefore, as far as the Church's law of abstinence from flesh meat on Friday is concerned, John did not in any way sin against this law by leaving the territory where it was binding and going elsewhere, where it did not bind, even though he did so purposely, in order to escape the law.

But independently of the law of abstinence, it is very possible that John may have sinned in this third instance against the law of God, forbidding gluttony and scandal. But under ordinary circumstances, such gluttony or scandal would scarcely amount to a mortal sin.

Case.—Arcadius, a young priest, was assigned one ember day by his pastor, who was suddenly called from home, to give a sermon during the triduum services to be held that evening. The work was gladly accepted, Arcadius saying to himself it would stand as a quid pro quo, in place of the fast prescribed for that day. A few days later, on another fast day, he settled down to a strenuous day’s work, laboring zealously in preparing his paper for the conference, writing his sermon for Sunday, etc., with the conviction that his efforts of the day were sufficient to excuse him from the obligation of fasting. Upon the pastor’s return the young priest acquainted him with the aforesaid facts, and was promptly told that the reasons set forth were not sufficient to excuse from so serious a law.

Question.—Was the pastor right?

Solution.—The obligation of fasting is a grave one, so that weighty and serious reasons are required to free the children of the Church from the binding force of this law. Such reasons make the law morally or physically impossible of fulfillment. Are the reasons alleged by Arcadius of such a nature? We do not think so. In the first instance, the preparation and delivery of one sermon, even under the given conditions of haste, etc., are usually not attended by such mental or physical fatigue as not to be compatible with even a rigorous compliance with the demands of the Church in the matter of fasting. There is a strain, of course, but our contention is that it is only a moderate one, and does not cause wear and tear enough to be seriously considered a legitimate excuse. Besides, we are not justified in substituting what we wish for any definite obligation that we are apt to find irksome. However, nothing is said in the statement of the case of the physical state of our young friend. If his health is not good, and this extra labor, even though moderate in itself, or when added to other labors of the day, would make it morally impossible for him to observe the strict fast, without injury to his weakened condition, or interference with his priestly duties, then, of course, his view of the case would be a perfectly proper one; his reason would be a valid one. But we fear there is nothing of this nature in the case, and must decide that Arcadius was wrong and his pastor was right.

In the second instance, the pastor was again in the right. The intense labor assumed on the fast day was not necessary for that day, was undertaken freely on that day in preference to other days, and for the sole motive of escaping the obligation of fasting on that day. This extraordinary labor brought no special benefit that could not be gained on any other day not a fast day. We know that the doing of corporeal or spiritual works of mercy, even undertaken freely on a fast day, are sufficient to relieve one of the obligation when found incompatible with it, because they bring a greater good than mere fasting. But no greater good accrues in this case. Arcadius would do well to mend his conscience.