Fast

Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more — all for only $19.99...

In general abstinence from food or drink, a term common to the various Teutonic tongues. Some derive the word from a root whose primary signification means to hold, to keep, to observe or to restrain one's self. The Latin termjejunium denotes an animal intestine which is always empty. Such abstinence varies according to the measure of restriction circumscribing the use of food and drink. Hence it may denote abstinence from all kinds of food and drink for a given period. Such is the nature of the fast prescribed by theChurch beforeHoly Communion (natural fast). It may also mean such abstinence from food and drink as is dictated by the bodily ormental dispositions peculiar to each individual, and is then known as moral orphilosophical fast. In like manner the term comprehends penitential practices common to variousreligious communities in theChurch. Finally, in the strict acceptation of the term, fasting denotes abstinence from food, and as such is an act of temperance finding itsraison d'être in the dictates ofnatural law and its full perfection in the requirements ofpositive ecclesiastical legislation.

InChristian antiquity the Eustathians (Sozomen,Church History II.33) denied theobligation, for the more perfectChristians, of theChurch fasts; they were condemned (380) by the Synod ofGangra (can. xiv) which also asserted incidentally the traditional antiquity of theecclesiastical fasts (Hefele-Leclercq, Hist. des Conciles. French tr.Paris, 1908, 1, p. 1041). Contrary to the groundless assertions of these sectaries,moralists are one in maintaining that anatural law inculcates the necessity of fasting because everyrational creature is bound to labour intelligently for the subjugation ofconcupiscence. As a consequence,rational creatures arelogicallyobliged to adopt means commensurate with the attainment of this end (seeMORTIFICATION). Amongst the means naturally subserving this purpose fasting lays claim to a place of primary importance. The function of positive law is to intervene in designating days whereon thisobligation must be observed, as well as the manner in which the sameobligation is to be discharged on days authoritatively appointed.

What pertains to the origin as well as to the historical development of thisobligation in theChurch may be gleaned easily from the articles onABSTINENCE andBLACK FAST. Thelaw of fasting,ecclesiastical in its genius, is unwritten in its origin, and consequently must be understood and applied with due regard for the customs of various times and places. See the corresponding historico-archaeological articles in the various modern dictionaries and encyclopedias ofChristian Archaeology, e.g.Martigny, Kraus, Smith and Cheetham, Cabrol and Leclercq. Details will be found underADVENT;LENT;VIGIL;EMBER DAYS.

In theUnited States of America all the days ofLent; the Fridays ofAdvent (generally); theEmber Days; the vigils ofChristmas and Pentecost, as well as those (14 Aug.) of the Assumption; (31 Oct.) of All Saints, are now fasting days. In Great Britain,Ireland,Australia andCanada, the days just indicated, together with the Wednesdays ofAdvent and (28 June) the vigil of Saints Peter and Paul, are fasting days. Fasting essentially consists in eating but one full meal in twenty-four hours and that about midday. It also implies theobligation of abstaining from flesh meat during the same period, unless legitimate authority grants permission to eat meat. The quantity of food allowed at this meal has never been made the subject of positive legislation. Whosoever therefore eats a hearty or sumptuous meal in order to bear the burden of fasting satisfies theobligation of fasting. Any excess during the meal mitigates against the virtue of temperance, without jeopardizing theobligation of fasting.

According to general usage, noon is the proper time for this meal. For good reasons this hour may be legitimately anticipated. Grievoussin is not committed even though this meal is taken a full hour before noon without sufficient reason, because the substance of fasting, which consists in taking but one full meal a day, is not imperiled. In like manner, the hour for the midday meal and the collation, may for good reasons be conscientiously inverted. In many of our larger cities this practice now prevails. According to D'Annibale (Summa Theologiae Moralis, 4 ed. III, 134) and Noldin (Summa Theologiae Moralis, n. 674) good reasons justify one in taking a collation in the morning, dinner at noon, and the morning allowance in the evening, because the substance of fasting still remains intact. Nothing like a noteworthy interruption should he admitted during the course of the midday meal, because such a break virtually forms two meals instead of one. Common sense, taking into consideration individual intention and the duration of the interruption, must finally determine whether a given interruption is noteworthy or not. Ordinarily an interruption of one half hour is considered slight. Nevertheless, an individual, after having commenced the midday meal and meeting with a bonafide interruption lasting for an hour or more is fully justified in resuming and finishing the meal after the termination of an interruption. Finally, unless special reasons suggest the contrary, it is not allowed to give immoderate length to the time of this meal. Ordinarily, a duration of more than two hours is considered immoderate in this matter.

Besides a complete meal, theChurch now permits a collation usually taken in the evening. In considering this point proper allowance must be made for what custom has introduced regarding both the quantity and the quality of viands allowed at this repast. In the first place, about eight ounces of food are permitted at the collation even though this amount of food would fully satisfy theappetites of somepersons. Moreover, the attention must be paid to eachperson's temperament,duties, length of fast, etc. Hence, much more food is allowed in cold than in warm climates, more to those working during the day than to those at ease, more to the weak and hungry than to the strong and well fed. As a general rule whatever is deemednecessary in order to enable people to give proper attention to theirduties may be taken at the collation. Moreover, since custom first introduced the collation, the usage of each country must be considered in determining the quality of viands permitted thereat. In some places eggs, milk, butter, cheese and fish are prohibited, while bread, cake, fruit, herbs and vegetables are allowed. In other places, milk, eggs, cheese, butter and fish are permitted, owing either to custom or to Indult. This is the case in theUnited States. However, in order to form judgments perfectly safe concerning this point, theLenten regulations of eachdiocese should be carefully read. Finally, a little tea, coffee, chocolate or such like beverage together with a morsel of bread or a cracker is now allowed in the morning. Strictly speaking, whatever may be classified under the head of liquids may be taken as drink or medicine at any time of the day or night on fasting days. Hence, water, lemonade, soda, water, ginger ale, wine, beer and similar drinks may be taken on fasting days outside meal time even though such beverages may, to some extent, prove nutritious. Coffee, tea, diluted chocolate, electuaries made of sugar, juniper berries, and citron may be taken on fasting days, outside meal time, as medicine by those who find them conducive to health. Honey, milk, soup, broth, oil or anything else having the nature of food, is not allowed under either of the two categories already specified. It is impossible to decide mathematically how much food isnecessary to involve a serious violation of thislaw.Moralists as well as canonists concur in holding that an excess of four ounces would seriously militate against theobligation of fasting, whether that much food was consumed at once or at various intervals during the day becauseAlexander VII (18 March, 1666) condemned the teaching of those who claimed that food so taken was not to be regarded as equalling or exceeding the amount allowed (Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorum et Definitionum, tenth ed. Freiburg im Br., 1908, No. 1129).

ThoughBenedict XIV (Constitutions, Non Ambiginius, 31 May, 1741; in superna, 22 Aug. 1741) granted permission to eat meat on fasting days, he distinctly prohibited the use of fish and flesh at the same meal on all fasting days during the year as well as onSundays duringLent. (Letter to theArchbishop of Compostella, 10 June, 1745, in Bucceroni Enchiridion Morale No. 147). This prohibition binds all exempted from fasting either because they are compelled to labour or because they are not twenty-one years old. Furthermore this prohibition extends to those allowed meat on fasting days either bydispensation or by Indult. Sin is Committed each time the prohibited action takes place.

The ecclesiatical law of fasting embodies a seriousobligation on allbaptizedindividuals capable of assumingobligations provided they have completed their twenty-first year and are not otherwise excused. Thisdoctrine is merely a practical application of a universally accepted principle ofmoralists and canonists whereby the character ofobligation in human legislation is deemed serious or light in so far as the material element, involved in thelaw bears or does not bear a close and intimate relation to the attainment of a prescribed end. Inasmuch as fasting considered as a function of the virtue of temperance bears such a relation to the promotion of man's spiritual well-being (see Lenten Preface in the RomanMissal), it certainly embodies anobligation generally serious. To thisa priori reason may be added whatChurch history unfolds concerning the grave penalties attached to transgressions of thislaw. The sixty-ninth of theApostolic Canons decrees the degradation ofbishops,priests,deacons,lectors or chanters failing to fast duringLent, and theexcommunication oflaymen, who fail in this way. The fifty-sixth canon of the Trullan Synod (692) contains similar regulations. FinallyAlexander VII (24 Sept., 1665) condemned a proposition formulated in the following terms: Whoso violates the ecclesiastical law of fasting to which he is bound does notsin mortally unless he acts through contempt or disobedience (Denzinger, op. cit., no. 1123). Though thisobligation is generally serious, not every infraction of thelaw is mortallysinful. Whenever transgressions of thelaw fail to do substantialviolence to thelaw, venialsins are committed. Inability to keep thelaw of fasting and incompatibility of fasting with theduties of one's state in life suffice by their very nature, to extinguish theobligation because as often as theobligation of positivelaws proves extremely burdensome or irksome theobligation is forthwith lifted. Hence, the sick, the infirm, convalescents, delicatewomen,persons sixty years old and over,families whose members cannot have the necessaries for a full meal at the same time, or who have nothing but bread, vegetables or such like viands, those to whom fasting brings loss of sleep or severe headaches, wives whose fasting incurs their husband's indignation, children whose fasting arouses parent's wrath; in a word, all those who can not comply with theobligation of fasting without undergoing more than ordinary hardship are excused on account of their inability to fulfil theobligation. In like manner unusual fatigue or bodily weakness experienced in discharging oneduty and superinduced by fasting lifts theobligation of fasting. However, not every sort of labour, but only such as is hard and protracted excuses from theobligation of fasting. These two conditions are not confined to manual labour, but may be equally verified with regard to brain work. Hence bookkeepers, stenographers, telegraph operators, legal advisers and many others whose occupations are largelymental are entitled to exemption on this score, quite as well as day-labourers or tradesmen. When these causes begetting exemption by their very nature, do not exist, lawfully constituted superiors may dispense their subjects from theobligation of fasting. Accordingly the Sovereign Pontiff may always and everywhere grant validdispensations from thisobligation. Hisdispensations will be licit when sufficient reasons underlie the grant. In particular cases and for good reasons,bishops may grantdispensations in their respectivedioceses. Unless empowered by Indult they are not at liberty to dispense all their subjects simultaneously. It is to be noted that usuallybishops issue just beforeLent circulars or pastorals, which are read to the faithful or otherwise made public, and in which they make known, on the authority of theApostolic See, the actual status of obligation,dispensations, etc. Priests charged with the care ofsouls may dispenseindividuals for good reason. Superiors ofreligious communities may dispense individual members of their respective communities provided sufficient reasons exist. Confessors are not qualified to grant thesedispensations unless they have been explicitly delegated thereunto. They may, however, decide whether sufficient reason exists to lift theobligation.

Those who have permission from theHoly See to eat meat on prohibited days, may avail themselves of this concession at their full meal, not only on days of abstinence but also on fasting days. When age, infirmity or labour releasesChristians from fasting, they are at liberty to to eat meat as often as they are justified in taking food, provided the use of meat is allowed by a generalindult of theirbishop (Sacred Penitentiaria, 16 Jan., 1834). Finally, theHoly See has repeatedly declared that the use of lard allowed by Indult comprehends butter or the fat of any animal.

No student of ecclesiatical discipline can fail to perceive that theobligation of fasting is rarely observed in its integrity nowadays. Conscious of the conditions of our age, theChurch is ever shaping the requirements of thisobligation to meet the best interests of her children. At the same time no measure of leniency in this respect can eliminate the natural and divine positive law imposingmortification and penance on man on account ofsin and its consequences. (Council of Trent, Sess. VI. can. xx)

CONTACT US |ADVERTISE WITH NEW ADVENT