The law of 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.

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).

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).

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“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.

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 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.

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.

485. Principles. - I. There exists an Ecclesiastical precept imposed on all the faithful of abstaining from flesh meats on certain days. It is established from various Constitutions of the Supreme Pontiffs, Catechisms, and universal custom, and by the consent of all theologians. Indeed the precept of abstinence is reckoned apostolic, not otherwise than the precept of fasting, from which in the first ages of the Church it was not separated.

II. This precept, besides 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, unless legitimate custom somewhere for some time of the year has prescribed otherwise.

But in most dioceses of France, from a peculiar 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.

III. The precept of abstinence obliges per se under grave sin, because the matter is per se grave; in it, nevertheless, according to the common opinion of theologians, smallness of matter is admitted. - St. Lig., n. 1030.

But just as from other positive laws, so also from this obligation there are given excusing causes, namely impotence, both physical and moral, or great difficulty, which is found in the observance of the law. - Thus all theologians with St. Lig., ibid.

486. Questions. - Q. 1. Whether flesh meats can be given to little children on those days on which they are prohibited?

Resp. It is affirmed if they have not attained the use of reason; otherwise, I deny it. - But if they possess the use of reason before the seventh year, it is disputed; St. Lig., de Leg., n. 155, more probably denies it. Yet it is expedient that children become accustomed to abstinence of this sort even before they are obliged. - Recall the things said in the Treatise on Laws, n. 93.

Q. 2. What quantity of flesh meat is required for grave sin?

Resp. It is greatly disputed. All agree that the matter which notably nourishes is grave; but this can scarcely be determined. According to many, grave matter must exceed half an ounce; but St. Lig., n. 1029, rejects this opinion, where he relates and seems to approve what the Salm. say, that small matter is only an eighth part of an ounce. Yet they say this about days on which, besides, fasting must be observed ¹.

¹ Therefore the things brought forward in this place from St. Alphonsus or the Salmanticenses do not bear on the matter, because they discuss the quantity of food which gravely violates the law of fasting, insofar as it forbids several eatings: but on those days on which only abstinence from flesh meats, and not fasting, is prescribed, their reasonings concerning foods which nourish little or much are wholly beside the matter, because the law of abstinence does not prevent anyone from nourishing himself as often and as much as he pleases.

Moreover, even if there is speech about fasting, the opinions related here by the Author will not easily be reconciled with those things which are said below, n. 494, concerning grave matter in food which is taken on a fast day outside the meal and the small supper. For does half an ounce of meat nourish more than two or three ounces of another food, for example, of bread, nourish?

Q. 3. Whether it is a mortal sin to eat pottage, lettuces, etc., seasoned with flesh meat or fat?

Resp. It is affirmed if that food is notably full of broth or gravy; otherwise it will be only venial. Hence it is mortal if the sauce of the pottage was cooked with a great quantity of flesh meat, and so concerning other things. But the poor are more easily excused from grave, or even light, sin, who, since they cannot buy butter, use a small quantity of fat for seasoning pottage.

487. • Q. 4. Who are considered to be excused from the law of abstinence?

Resp. 1. Begging poor persons; for they can eat whatever they receive as alms, as theologians commonly think.

2. Poor laborers who have nothing else except a little piece of fat or bacon for seasoning pottage or vegetables. - St. Lig., n. 1008.

3. The sick, for example, those laboring under fever, etc.; also those whose stomach is so weak that they cannot digest lawful foods; but hallucination must be guarded against, and religious and God-fearing physicians are to be consulted if it can easily be done. - St. Lig., ibid.

4. Those who daily give themselves to labors so arduous and wearying to the stomach that after the manner of the sick they do not experience hunger and they reject foods; of this sort are those who live their life in mines, or in glass and iron workshops. In the number of these there also seem to be reckoned drivers who, driving public carriages by day and night over the space of several days, can scarcely swallow one or another little piece of food; but not those who slowly drive carriages, horses, or mules, and spend the night in inns.

5. Travelers who find nothing in inns besides forbidden foods and cannot easily turn aside elsewhere. Yet they are bound seriously and insistently to ask for lawful foods. For the sole reason of a journey in no way exempts from the law of abstinence, even if perhaps it dispenses from fasting on account of too great weariness. 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 genus; otherwise almost all those making a journey would be exempted from this law.

6. Finally, soldiers staying in camps or quarters and nourished in common at the expense of the Government are excepted.

502. Principles. - I. By the precept of the Church the eating of flesh meat is forbidden to all the faithful using reason on every single fast day. Hence by the law of fasting a double precept is imposed, as Bened. XIV also defines, namely of abstaining from several meals, and of abstaining from flesh meats; therefore, contrary to what several older authors hold, one dispensed or impotent as to one is not for that reason to be excused from the other. - St. Lig., n. 1005.

But under the name of flesh meat come all animals living and breathing on land, as theologians commonly admit from the rule handed down by St. Thomas; therefore fish, frogs, snails, tortoises, etc., are not prohibited. - St. Lig., n. 1011.

II. In the Lenten time eggs and milk products are also prohibited, namely all those things which draw their origin from flesh. This is established from the practice of the Church, from her dispensations, and from proposition 32 condemned by Alexander VII, which sounds thus: "It is not evident that the custom of not eating eggs and milk products in Lent obliges." Now, nevertheless, in very many places a general dispensation from that law is conceded to the faithful, if a few days are excepted. Indeed in many dioceses Bishops, from a faculty delegated by the Roman Pontiff, concede dispensation also as to the eating of flesh meat for the principal part of Lent.

Moreover, although the eating of eggs and milk products cannot, per se, be excused from grave sin according to the common opinion, nevertheless smallness of matter seems to be more easily admitted in these than in eating flesh meat.

503. Questions. - Q. 1. Whether abstinence from milk products must be observed also in fasting outside the Lenten time?

Resp. It is denied. Because an obligation of this sort is imposed by no general law. It is the common opinion, says St. Lig., n. 1009. Yet somewhere, for example at Rome, a custom having the force of law has prevailed, that on certain other days also, for example on Ember Days, abstinence of this sort be observed.

Q. 2. Whether abstinence from milk products must be observed on the Sundays of Lent?

Resp. It is affirmed, because neither law nor custom excepts the Sunday. - St. Lig., n. 1007, and others commonly against some, whose opinion is not probable according to St. Lig., ibid.

504. • Q. 3. Whether in the time of Lent it is lawful at the meal to eat breads made with eggs?

Resp. It is denied, unless eggs have been permitted; the reason is that their substance is not lost from the fact that it is mixed with flour. - St. Lig., n. 1009, etc.

Q. 4. Whether those dispensed for milk products are considered by that very fact also dispensed for eggs?

Resp. It is affirmed, because these are equated by custom, unless the distinction is clearly expressed in the dispensation.

Q. 5. Whether those dispensed for flesh meats on fast days can also eat fish?

Resp. It is denied, if there is question of eating fish in the same meal. This is established from the Constitution of Bened. XIV, Non ambigimus.

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.

663. 1. "The law of abstinence forbids eating meat and broth made from meat, but not eggs, milk products, or condiments of any kind, even those made from animal fat." Thus the Code of Canon Law, canon 1250.

a) By the name of meat are understood: α) the flesh of animals living and breathing on land and having warm blood; β) blood, bacon, meat broth,¹²³⁷ what is called "meat extract,"¹²³⁸ peptone,¹²³⁹ marrow of bones, and parts of the brain; but not the products of these animals, such as eggs, milk, and butter. In doubt whether something is to be considered as meat or fish, it is lawful to eat it. For in doubts there is liberty.

b) By the name of fish are understood not only fish strictly so called, but also all animals whose blood is cold, such as reptiles and amphibians, for example, frogs, turtles,¹²⁴⁰ oysters,¹²⁴¹ crayfish,¹²⁴² lobsters,¹²⁴³ caviar,¹²⁴⁴ etc. There are authors, such as Elbel, Holzmann, and Göpfert, who assimilate otters,¹²⁴⁵ beavers,¹²⁴⁶ and coots¹²⁴⁷ to fish; but it is said more correctly with Lehmkuhl,¹²⁴⁸ Aertnys,¹²⁴⁹ and others that the eating of all those animals which have warm blood is not lawful. If, however, a contrary common custom exists somewhere, it can certainly be observed.

c) Under the name of a condiment¹²⁵⁰ comes whatever (whether liquid or non-liquid) is employed in a moderate quantity so that the principal food may become savory, for example, small and few pieces of roasted bacon for seasoning vegetables.

2. The law of abstinence alone is to be observed on every Friday; but Fridays (outside Lent) on which a feast of precept is solemnly celebrated with a concourse of the people are excepted.¹²⁵¹ If, however, in some region, for example, in France or Switzerland, the external solemnity of certain feasts has been suppressed, Friday abstinence is to be observed although those feasts are celebrated in choir.¹²⁵²

3. The law of abstinence and fasting together is to be observed on Ash Wednesday, the Fridays and Saturdays of Lent, the Ember Days, and four vigils, namely, of the Nativity of the Lord, Pentecost, the Mother of God assumed into heaven, and All Saints. Fasting and abstinence, however, do not bind on these days outside Lent if a Sunday or feast of precept falls upon them.¹²⁵³ Therefore, for example, on the feast of St. Joseph, March 19, which always falls in Lent, the law both of abstinence and of fasting is to be observed.¹²⁵⁴ On Holy Saturday after noon, the law both of fasting and of abstinence ceases.

4. The law of abstinence binds all the faithful who possess the use of reason after their seventh year of age.¹²⁵⁵ Infants, therefore, and the perpetually insane are not bound by the law of abstinence; nevertheless, parents are to be exhorted to accustom children enjoying good health to the law of abstinence as soon as possible, even before completion of the first seven-year period, so that afterward they may observe the law more easily.

5. The law of abstinence (even apart from fasting) of itself obliges under grave sin; there is nevertheless lightness of matter in the transgression of this law, as was already said above. Theologians do not agree as to what matter is grave; nevertheless, the opinion defended by Stolz,¹²⁵⁶ Noldin,¹²⁵⁷ Tanquerey,¹²⁵⁸ and Vermeersch,¹²⁵⁹ asserting that there is no mortal sin unless two ounces of meat are knowingly and without any reason eaten, seems too benign. Since in practice the weight of meat cannot so easily be estimated by simple faithful, it is better to tell them that a mortal sin is present when someone knowingly and without any reason eats meat to the quantity of a walnut or of a small hen's egg. The law of abstinence is a negative law, and therefore someone sins as often as he eats meat on a prohibited day, as was already said; but in fact many transgressors think that they have sinned once even if they ate meat several times during the day. Therefore, a confessor is often not bound to ask a penitent who accuses himself of transgression of the law of abstinence how many times he ate meat on each day; but it suffices to know on how many days he did not observe abstinence.

6. The causes excusing from the law of abstinence are the same as those which will be brought forward below as excusing from the law of fasting. Ample dispensations concerning the law of abstinence are customarily granted to soldiers and sailors, who, with a few days excepted, can always eat meat. Similarly, servants employed in the homes of non-Catholics who cannot easily find equally good employment in Catholic homes can eat meat on prohibited days. In some regions, meat is lawfully eaten by guests who take supper in inns and cannot easily obtain other foods. Persons who are under the authority of the head of a household to whom the lawful faculty of eating meat has been given are permitted the foods which are allowed to the head of the household himself. The reason for this permission, however, is not the indult granted to the head of the household, but the moral inability in which the members of the household find themselves to observe the precept.¹²⁶⁰

¹²³⁷ Fleischsuppe [meat soup or broth].

¹²³⁸ Fleischextrakt [meat extract].

¹²³⁹ Vermeersch (Theol. mor. III, n. 873) thinks that peptone, since in common use it does not come under the name of meat and does not have the taste of meat, is not prohibited by the ecclesiastical law of abstinence. Nevertheless, peptone seems in reality to pertain to meat broth.

¹²⁴⁰ Schildkröten, tortues [turtles].

¹²⁴¹ Austern, Muscheln, huîtres, moules [oysters, mussels].

¹²⁴² Krebse, écrevisses [crayfish].

¹²⁴³ Hummer, homard [lobster].

¹²⁴⁴ Kaviar [caviar].

¹²⁴⁵ Fischotter, loutre [otter].

¹²⁴⁶ Biber, castor [beaver].

¹²⁴⁷ Wasserhühner, poules d'eau [waterhens, coots]. Thus, for example, Göpfert says: "Besides fish, the following are considered not forbidden: snails, turtles, oysters, shellfish, frogs, crayfish, lobsters; likewise also otters, beavers, and certain birds, customarily moorhens, black waterhens or coots, and little diving ducks" (Moraltheol. II, 240).

¹²⁴⁸ Theol. mor. I, n. 1458.

¹²⁴⁹ Theol. mor. l. 4, c. 2, a. 1.

¹²⁵⁰ In German: Zuspeise, Würze [accompaniment, seasoning].

¹²⁵¹ Code of Canon Law, canon 1252, §§ 1 and 4.

¹²⁵² Pontifical Commission, February 17, 1918 (Acta Ap. Sedis X, 173).

¹²⁵³ Code of Canon Law, canon 1252, §§ 2 and 4.

¹²⁵⁴ Pontifical Commission, November 24, 1920 (l.c. XII, 576).

¹²⁵⁵ Ib., canon 1254, § 1.

¹²⁵⁶ Trib. poenit. I, n. 528.

¹²⁵⁷ De praeceptis n. 674.

¹²⁵⁸ Synopsis Theol. mor. n. 1130.

¹²⁵⁹ Theol. mor. III, n. 879.

¹²⁶⁰ Cf. Sacred Penitentiary, January 19, 1834, and May 27, 1863.

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.

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.

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).

1248. The peculiar law by which the kingdoms and colonies of the Spains are governed as regards the present matter must be stated partly independently, partly dependently on the celebrated Bull of the CRUSADE.

A. Independently of the Bull of the Crusade, general dispositions and particular indults must be cited.

I. GENERAL DISPOSITIONS. 1. By legitimate custom abstinence from meats on Saturday (besides days of fast) has been abrogated. 2. From the year 1867, the fasts on vigils of St. John the Baptist and also of the Holy Apostles have been transferred to Fridays and Saturdays of Advent, excepted nevertheless two vigils of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul and also of St. James the Greater, which remain consecrated to fast on the very days to which they are affixed. 3. The law of fast and abstinence on the day of the Commemoration of St. Joseph (as one numbered among the feasts restored), by force of the Motu Proprio Supremi disciplinae, has been dispensed, the prohibition remaining firm lest mixed foods be set down in the same eating (S. C. C., 21 Nov. 1912).

II. PARTICULAR INDULTS. 1. Common soldiers and their decurions (cabos, sargentos) through the whole time of actual service, whether they are occupied in war or in garrisons, have received a most absolute dispensation from laws regarding fast or abstinence in any way whatever (Brief Cum in regis, 16 Dec. 1803).

2. Leaders superior to decurions enjoy the same most absolute dispensation, but only when they set out for waging war or are actually occupied in an expedition (ib.). The dispensation in the same circumstances is extended to physicians, military chaplains, etc.

3. The same leaders, actually exercising their office in garrisons, at the same time enjoy dispensation, excepted: a) as regards fast and abstinence from meat together: Ash Wednesday, the seven Fridays of Lent; Wednesday, Thursday, and Saturday of Holy Week; b) as regards fast alone, without any abstinence, not even from mixed foods: the seven Saturdays of Lent and Monday and Tuesday of Holy Week (ib.).

4. The families, servants, table-companions of soldiers and leaders can use respectively the same privileges as parents, masters... but as regards abstinence alone (the law of fast remaining firm, insofar as it permits only one meal); yet under a double condition: a) that they habitually eat from their table; b) that the principally privileged are not absent for three days (ib.).

5. On 20 Mar. 1906 it was conceded for ten years that chaplains, travelers, carriers, and all others in whatever way staying in ships of the Transatlantic Society of Barcelona can enjoy the same privileges as common soldiers, the following days excepted, on which only the law prohibiting the mixing of fish and meat is to be observed, namely: the seven Fridays of Lent and also Wednesday, Thursday, and Saturday of Holy Week.

[B. Dependently on the Bull of the Crusade] are ordered the dispensations usually conceded to other Spanish faithful and also to foreigners staying in Spain, beyond those enumerated above. Hence it is plain that the Bull of the Crusade, as regards what pertains to the present matter, both has the force of an indult, and confers strength and value on the two indults attached to the same.

Addendum link: see the Addendum to n. 1248 B on the Bull of the Crusade.

These two indults are commonly called the Bulls of meat and milk-foods. From their names the matter of the dispensations is shown.

I. OBJECT OF THE BULLS. The Bulls regard only dispensations from the law of abstinence as introduced by common Right; whence 1. those who by natural Right itself exist certainly dispensed from the positive precept of abstinence do not need the Bulls; 2. but neither are helped by the Bulls those Regulars who by a special vow have bound themselves to preserving perpetual abstinence; 3. the Bulls similarly leave untouched the law of fast, insofar as: a) it permits only one meal; b) it excludes eggs and milk-foods from the little supper (hence those not dispensed from fast can use conceded foods in the meal alone; but those dispensed as often as they wish to eat); c) insofar finally as it prohibits the mixing of fishes and meat in the same eating.

Note. Summaries of the three indults have been prepared in which both the privileges of the Bulls and the conditions or limitations of the privileges (where they have been added) are set forth. Moreover four Declarations have been issued by the Reverend Congregations, namely: S. Off., 4 Mar. 1891, 23 Jan. 1901, as regards Regulars; 31 Mar. 1906, as regards sexagenarian secular priests; S. C. C., 23 Jan. 1910, as regards the poor; which necessarily must be consulted.

II. GENERAL CONDITIONS REQUIRED FOR VALIDITY. The Bulls and their summaries present privileges. Therefore they do not profit the unwilling. These privileges are: 1. personal: whence they must be applied to individual privileged persons; 2. onerous: whence individual persons must accept individual summaries and apply them personally to themselves, and also according to their condition pay the stated taxes from their own goods; 3. temporal: the value of the summaries endures from the day of taking until the next following promulgation in the place where the privileged person resides; but this promulgation must be made each year; whence each year each one must procure new summaries for himself; 4. local: whence both the Bulls must be taken in Spain by persons existing or staying there, and the legitimate use of the privileges (as regards meats conceded unconditionally) is circumscribed by the limits of Spanish territory; 5. unequally distributed according to the diverse state of persons; hence each one should attend to restrictions perhaps pertaining to himself.

III. THE BULL OF THE CRUSADE (properly the Lenten Indult) of itself confers two privileges: 1. the unconditional right of using eggs and milk-foods through the whole Lenten time, no day excepted; 2. the conditional right of eating meats, no time of year, no day excepted. But a double condition is added: a) a grave cause, that is, sufficient for introducing doubt whether you are dispensed by natural Right itself or not; b) the counsel of both physicians. From the use of this other privilege (the conditions having been verified) no one is excluded.

IV. THE BULL OF MEAT permits unconditionally the use of meat, on any days of the year whatever consecrated both to fast and to simple abstinence, besides the following: a) outside Lent, the vigils of the Nativity of the Lord, Pentecost, the Assumption of the B. V. M., and of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul; b) within Lent, Ash Wednesday, the seven Fridays, and also Wednesday, Thursday, and Saturday of Holy Week.

Note. 1. Participants in the privileges (III, IV) are: a) Fully: all whether laymen or clerics, or regulars not distinguished by the priesthood, and also secular priests born sixty years (31 Mar. 1906). b) Outside Holy Week: regular priests living the cloistered life (S. Off., 4 Mar. 1891). But regular priests who are sexagenarians, but live outside cloisters, can use milk-foods indeed without limitation of days, but meats only outside Holy Week.

2. Entirely excluded from the use of the same are: priests, both secular and regular living outside cloisters, who are not born sixty years. But this exclusion is not extended to the conditional privilege conferred on all through the Bull of the Crusade, as we have seen above.

3. To regulars not priests it is insinuated by counsel that they fast in the same way as priests of regular Orders (23 Jan. 1901).

V. THE BULL OF MILK-FOODS is a certain remedy, which those entirely excluded from the use of the privileges (III, IV) are able to use for obtaining participation in the aforesaid privileges; yet under a threefold condition: that for milk-foods alone they prepare for themselves the double summary, namely of the Crusade and of milk-foods; for milk-foods together with meats the triple summary of Crusade, of meat, and of milk-foods; and that they are able to enjoy the grace conceded only outside Holy Week.

Note. In the present matter, Holy Week does not comprehend Palm Sunday.

VI. THE NECESSITY OF THE BULLS must be taken disjunctively, so namely that those who are not exempt from paying the tax either take the Bulls or are held under grave matter to observe the law of abstinence most strictly.

VII. EXEMPT from the burden of taking the Bull of the Crusade are the poor and almost poor, accepted in a somewhat broader sense. These fully enjoy the privilege of each Bull, one Pater and Ave having been recited as often as they eat meats (S. C. C., 23 Jun. 1910).

The Lesser Brothers of St. Francis are excused from taking the Bull of meat, with the faculty of eating milk-foods through the whole of Lent, and meats up to Wednesday of Holy Week exclusively, if they are not priests; if priests, of eating both dishes up to Palm Sunday inclusively. From the burden of the Bull of milk-foods all are free, except non-sexagenarian priests living in the world or outside cloisters.

VIII. SCHEMA. 1. As regards the Bull of milk-foods. a) The poor need none; b) almost all the rest, one; c) only non-sexagenarian priests living in the world or outside cloisters, two.

2. As regards the Bull of meat and milk-foods. a) The poor need none; b) Lesser Brothers, one; c) almost all the rest, two; d) only non-sexagenarian priests, commonly three.

Note. See a fuller exposition of the whole Bull in the Salmanticenses, Tamburini, Croix, Ferraris, and other older theologians. Among more recent authors see Pavone, La luce fra le tenebre; Michael Sanchez, Expositio Bullae Cruc.; Mach, Tesoro del sacerdote.

S. Th. II-II, q. 147, a. 8.

961. The ecclesiastical law of abstinence prohibits the eating of meats and broth from meats; but not eggs, dairy products, and any condiments, even from animal fat (can. 1250). - The reason is assigned by St. Thomas: "Fasting was instituted by the Church for repressing the concupiscences of the flesh, which are concupiscences of touch concerning foods and sexual matters. And therefore the Church forbade to those who fast those foods which both give the palate the greatest delight and also very greatly move to sexual matters. Such are the meats of animals living on land and breathing, and the things which come from them, as dairy products from animals living on land, and eggs from birds. For since such things are more conformed to the human body, they give greater pleasure and contribute more nourishment to the human body; and thus from their eating more superfluity remains to be converted into seminal matter, the multiplication of which is the greatest incitement to lust. And therefore the Church established that those who fast especially abstain from these foods."

By meats are understood the flesh of animals which live on land, or the flesh of mammals and birds, which have warm blood and are formed on land; by contrast, there are not included fish and other aquatic animals, or those which have cold blood, as crustaceans, sea urchins, mollusks, also reptiles and amphibians, and likewise insects. Hence those animals are regarded as fish which, by the estimation of men, are judged as such; for example, whales, otters, beavers, seals, walruses. But aquatic birds, which are not born or live except on the water, such as wild ducks, coots, teals, mergansers, cormorants, are not permitted, unless a special custom excuses, as in Belgium, in some places, for teals and coots.

962. Under meats there are comprehended:

1. All things which belong as integral or constituent parts to the animal, such as cartilage, nerves, cerebral parts, blood, the marrow of bones, lard, fat, grease;

2. The juice of meats, and broth from flesh, in which are subtler parts of meat, drawn out from it by boiling and diluted, commonly called in French bouillon, in Dutch sop;

3. Foods seasoned with meat.

On the contrary, these are not prohibited:

1. Condiments which are added to food only to make it tastier and easier to cook or prepare: those made from eggs or dairy products, from butter or margarine, from animal fat or lard, also if, after the fat has been extracted by frying, some minute fragments remain, because they are still regarded as only part of the condiment.

2. Extracts of meat, insofar as they are not used as food but as medicine, according to what was said above, n. 957.

In practice, concerning prepared condiments whose origin is uncertain, note:

a) Certainly prohibited are extracts of meat which are still truly the juice of meat, such as the extract of Liebig and similar products.

b) They are permitted if they are certainly prepared only from herbs, or if there remain in them only the residues of salt destined to make a liquid tasty.

c) If there is practical doubt of fact whether they are made from meat, the doubt must be solved before use; if it cannot be solved, one must abstain. Nor is the assertion of the inventor or producer sufficient if he does not manifest the process by which it is prepared. But if there is a speculative or legal doubt whether the thing is to be counted as meat or as fish, it can be taken.

d) Gelatin is licit if made from fish; perhaps also if made from the bones of calves; but it is illicit if it is made from meat broth.

e) As to peptone, some products are probably licit; but peptone properly so called, made from meats, is prohibited. Genicot and Vermeersch permit it, because it lacks the delight and taste of meat and, as they think, is counted among medicines. But this does not satisfy. For if one asks what the Church prohibits, the origin is looked at, not the taste; and peptone is derived from meats. Nor does the special name suffice for saying that it is no longer meat, since even broth and extracts have special names and nevertheless are prohibited. Hence with Damen we think it is not permitted.¹

¹ Aertnijs-Damen, Th. M. I, n. 1041. Thus also Antonelli, Medicina Pastoralis, II, n. 868; Marc, Th. M. I, n. 1227; Prummer, Th. M. II, n. 663; Lehmkuhl, Th. M. I, n. 1458.

963. The time of abstinence. - According to can. 1252, abstinence from meats is prescribed:

1. On all Fridays, in memory of the Passion and death of the Lord, unless outside Lent there occurs a feast of precept in that place where the precept is observed; also in Belgium the feast of the Circumcision of the Lord, where it is not a feast of precept.

2. On Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday of the Ember Days.

3. On Ash Wednesday and all Saturdays of Lent; in some places, as in Belgium, by special indult, on Wednesday instead of Saturday.

4. On the vigils of the Nativity, Pentecost, the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary into heaven, and All Saints, unless they fall on Sunday; for then they are no longer anticipated.

Yet many Ordinaries use the faculties granted to them for dispensing, so that days of abstinence are each Friday of the year, Ash Wednesday, Good Friday, the vigil of the Immaculate Conception, and December 23, as was noted above, n. 953.

5. By the decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, Maxima Redemptionis, 16 November 1955, the abstinence of Holy Saturday no longer ceases after noon, but endures until midnight.

964. Observations. - 1. Today, by the general law of the Church, these are no longer prohibited: 1) fat or grease by way of butter or condiment; 2) fruits or products of animals, namely eggs and dairy products, such as milk, butter, cheese; 3) the promiscuity or mingling of meats and fish, which from Benedict XIV was a necessary condition for the dispensation of meats on days of fasting.

Hence those who are not fasting can take these as often as they wish; but those who are fasting can take them at the meal, not at the collation or the little morsel, unless an approved custom exists.

2. Travelers in regions where abstinence is observed on Wednesday instead of Saturday must abstain on one or the other day, at their choice, scandal being removed (S. C. C., 9 February 1924).

I say 1st. 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).

Therefore on days of abstinence two things are forbidden, meat and broth from meat; all other things are permitted: fish, eggs, dairy foods, and any condiments from the fat of animals.

Question 1. What comes under the name of meat, eggs, and dairy foods?

Response. Under the name of meat come all animals living and breathing upon the earth, as theologians commonly admit from the rule handed down by St. Thomas; or, as St. Alphonsus suggests, n. 1011, animals which have warm blood; or that which the custom of the region has as meat; or, if neither custom is at hand, the doubt can be solved by considering the mind of the Church in sanctioning the choice of foods, that it might provide for restraining and diminishing the concupiscence of the flesh through salutary abstinence. Let it be examined whether an animal of this kind is similar or dissimilar to those whose eating is forbidden, and whether its flesh is discerned as fit for nourishing and strengthening the human body more powerfully; and if it appears thus, that flesh is to be placed among forbidden things. Benedict XIV, De syn. dioec., lib. 11, c. 5, n. 12. These four things will serve much for solving every doubt.

But under the name of eggs and dairy foods are understood all those things which derive their origin from flesh and have the nature of food.

Eggs and dairy foods and condiments even from the fat of any animals whatsoever are permitted; the use is no longer restricted to the fat of swine's flesh. Moreover butter is permitted, and margarine.

Pepsin is not prohibited on days of abstinence, nor, as it seems to us, gelatin. On the contrary, bovine flesh prepared with peptone (peptonized beef), meat extracts, as they are called, are prohibited. You may see The Encyclopedia Britannica, v. 10, p. 613; v. 21, p. 131. By equal reason, stock, i.e., the essence of meat cooked with bones, etc., is prohibited.

Question 2. What must be said concerning the use of lard?

Response. It is certain that it is not licit to eat it in pieces and after the manner of a side-dish, because thus it is reputed as meat. Yet it is licit to use it, even in the evening collation, either as a condiment or for cooking foods, provided that it has previously been liquefied. But this condition, which seems to be required by the Sacred Penitentiary, is sufficiently observed if the lard is liquefied in the very cooking of the foods and the fleshy and thicker particles are separated.

Question 3. What is meant by broth from meat?

Response. Broth properly is the liquid of those things which are cooked (broth); broth from meat is the liquid of cooked meat: chicken-broth, mutton-broth, beef-broth, etc. Fat is distinguished from gravy; "the former," says Alberti in the book On Ecclesiastical Fasting, "is a light substance which floats above in a vessel, but the latter remains dissolved in water."

Question 4. Whether for those who are not held to fasting, and to whom it is licit by virtue of an indult to eat meat, it is licit to eat these several times in the day?

Response. Affirmatively, provided that the Bishop in the concession of the indult has not placed an express limitation; but the Sacred Penitentiary declared in a response to the Bishop of Buffalo that to place this limitation "is not expedient." Wherefore, except in the case of this limitation, it will be licit for those who are not held to fasting, whatever may finally be the cause why they are not held to it, to eat meat several times in the day, whether the Ordinaries of places have declared this lawfulness, or whether they have said nothing. - I said, whatever may finally be the cause why they are not held to it; for considering the practice which today is in force at Rome and the doctrine which is handed down there, and with the declarations of the Sacred Penitentiary weighed more carefully, it does not seem that a distinction is to be made, as far as this question is concerned, between those who are exempt from fasting by virtue of labor or age, and those who are simply dispensed by legitimate authority. - Cf. Acta S. Sedis, vol. 1, p. 426, nn. 7 and 8 with notes; and vol. 14, p. 568. - Nouvelle Revue Theologique, vol. 14, pp. 251 and following.

FIRST, essential is abstinence from flesh meats, as far as Lent is concerned cap. Statuimus, dist. 4. Quoad caetera ieiunia, cap. de esu carn. de consec. dist. 3, and the Council of Gerona c. 3, and the perpetual tradition of the Church. So D. Bonaventure above, cir., and D. Thomas q. 147 art. 8.

Yet snails, tortoises, and fishes are granted, and animals that approach these more than they do land animals and birds, as Balaeus notes, verbo Ieiun. 1 num. 3, Bonacina disp. ultim. quaest. 1 puncto 2, Pasqualigo de ieiun. decif. 67.

In Lent eggs also are forbidden, because they are seminal. Denique, dist. 4, which is from D. Gregory the Great to Augustine in England, where he does not establish a new precept, but declares the old one. Therefore some speak badly who say it is forbidden by custom alone.

Likewise dairy foods are forbidden in Lent, unless a received custom otherwise admit, as the common doctors teach with D. Thomas quaest. 147 art. 8 ad 3. But use is duly introduced where there is a scarcity of oil. It is enough, however, if the custom endure for some years, in the judgment of upright men, as Tannerus says disput. 3 quaest. 3 dub. 5, warning that the same is to be observed in the other circumstances of fasting, setting forth the common sense from D. Augustine epist. 86 et 119, with D. Bonaventure in speculo animae, cap. 3.

In some places abounding in oil, dairy foods are forbidden even outside Lent, where the just customs are to be observed, as the Holy Doctor said with D. Jerome.

But where they are granted, lard or fat drippings is not admitted; for these approach flesh, whatever Diana may say part. 1 tract 9 resol. 21; Pasqualigo decif. 74. Indeed, rightly: to whom flesh is granted, these things also are granted, and eggs, etc. But one dispensed in Lent as to eggs remains bound by the fast; for these stand together with fasting, as Pius V declares in the Bulla Cruciatae. So Sylvester ad loc. cit., D. Thomas art. 4, Sanchez lib. 4 cap. 11 num. 49, Llamas 3 part. method. cap. 5 §. 26, Balaeus V. Ieiun. 1 num. 4.

SECOND, the one fasting must abstain from several refections, so that within the space of the natural day he be refreshed heavily but once. All agree with D. Bonaventure above and D. Thomas art. 6, apud Valentiam loco cit, and Balaeum num. 8.

It is so, however, that if outside that meal you drink broth or milk, you break the fast, but not if wine, as the common doctors teach with D. Thomas art. 6, D. Bonaventure in confess. cap. 2 particula 7, apud Valentiam and Balaeum.

They add, against D. Thomas 4 dist. 15 quaest. 3 art. 4 quaest. 1, Sylvius 1 2 quaest. 147 art. 6, that even if wine be drunk, so that hunger be driven off, it breaks the fast: Vega tract. 2 cap. 14 casu 2, Homob. de exam. part. 2 tract. 8 cap. 7 quaestio 20, Fillincinus cap. 2 tract. 27 part. 2 quaest. 10, Molfesius tom. 1 tract. 10 cap. 3 num. 25, Fagundez tract. 4 lib. 1 cap. 3, Diana p. p. tract. 9 resol. 23, Lezana V. Ieiun, Balaeus there num. 8. Yet the contrary is probable; and indeed even D. Bonaventure loco cit reprehends these potations.

Nor does a drink before the meal violate the fast. So commonly the teachers (TT). See Villalobos tom. 1 tract. 23 diff. 8, Homob. loco cit.

One may also, lest wine harm him, take some tiny thing, say 6 almonds, provided it not be done often in fraud; or something of a medicinal antidote may be taken. So Tannerus num. 90, Diana p. p. tract. 9 resol. 24, with others.

You will ask: Whether you sin as often as you eat much.

Diana answers resol. 53: sin is committed only in a second notable eating, by which the fast is broken. So also Villalobos tom. 1 tract. 23 diff. 6, Sanchius select. dist. 14 num. 42, Tannetus disp. 3 quaest. 3 dub. 5 num 95, bringing forward many against others who say one sins as many times. See also Bassaeum num. 10. If, however, you eat flesh meats, you will sin as many times, for these are forbidden without exception; but the precept or vow of fasting forbids only the breaking, which is done in the first eating. See those cited.

You will ask what smallness of matter excuses from breaking.

Diana part. 5 tract. 5 resol. 11, with Turrianus part. 5 cap. 256 dub. 27 and others, judge that two ounces are small matter.

This they grant also in the eating of flesh: Sanchez lib. 2 cap. 8 num. 17, Tannerus disp. 3 quaest. 3 num. 95, Bonacina disp. ult. de praecep. Eccles. quaest. 1 punct. 2, Diana part. 1 tract. 9 resol. 45 et part. 5 tract. 5 resol. 32, who says it is such as cooks taste. Pasqualigo, however, decis. 41, says it is that which does not suffice for nourishing.

It is DOUBTED: Whether one who interrupts his meal on account of business may return without breaking the fast.

Fagundez answers lib. 1 cap. 14 in 4 praecep. Eccles, Fernandez part. 2 cap. 8 §. 3, Toletus lib. 6 cap. 2, Bassaeus num. 15, Portel. V. Ieiun, and others apud these, that it is licit, provided he has departed with the mind of continuing, and this is true even if a notable delay intervene; which Portel. marks as half an hour, but Sanchius disp. 52 even two hours; better Reginaldus tract. 1 lib. 4 cap. 14 num. 177, Azor p. p. lib. 7 c. 11 quaestio 1, Diana resol. 32, who commit it to the judgment of a good man.

But if he depart with the mind of not returning, and a grave delay intervene: Diana, with others, asserts it is licit to return by changing the intention; others say it is licit if the delay be small, say a quarter or half an hour. See Portellum, Fernandez, Sanchium above, Bassaeum num. 15.

Although in the fast there is given only one notable refection, yet a collation is permitted even for nourishment, as the common doctors teach apud Bassaeum num. 9, Lublinum part. 2 sum. v. Ieiunium. Of this something must be said in the following doubts.

The Doctors heap up many questions concerning the occasion given to others of violating the fast. I shall indicate them in a few words.

Some say that he who is not bound by the fast may invite to supper a friend whom he knows to be accustomed to violate the fast. So Diana p. t. tr. 9 Resol. 58.

But this is to invite to sin, as Fagundez warns praecept. 4 lib. 1 cap. 10, Sylvius 2 2 q. 147 art. 5 quaestio unic, and others with Bassaeo num. 12.

Others say one may from courtesy invite a friend who will justly sup. See Pasqualigum decis. 573; for thus one is invited if it is licit, and to what is licit.

These courtesies seem to me pernicious; for to these is given the occasion of ruin.

HENCE innkeepers in the places of Catholics impiously give flesh to a guest bound [to fast], and are to be punished by law.

Likewise these men cannot set out flesh in places of heretics, if they can do otherwise without grave loss.

Nor is it licit for an innkeeper to set out a supper for guests by which they break the fast, if he can refuse it without great inconvenience.

But if they demand it in contempt of the precept, it is never licit. See Pasq. decis. 368, Bassaeum num. 13.

But in doubt whether the guest is bound, the innkeeper can provide for this, who is in possession of ministering, as Bassaeus says, who deservedly urges the innkeeper rather to ask the guest most politely whether he wishes to eat flesh?

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.