Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 1.djvu/96

ABSTINENCE "twice in a week" (Luke, xviii, 12). Apropos of this passage Duchesne says that Monday and Thursday were days of fasting among the pious Jews ("Christian Worship", London, 1903, 228).

—In the first portion of his Gospel St. Matthew relates how Christ passed forty days in the desert, during which time neither food nor drink passed his lips. No doubt this penance of the God-man was not only expiatory, but also exemplary. True, Christ did not explicitly define the days nor the weeks wherein his followers would be obliged to fast and abstain. At the same time his example, coupled with his reply to the disciples of the Baptist, is an evidence that the future would find his followers subjected to regulations whereby they would fast "after the bridegroom had been taken away". The only piece of clearly defined legislation concerning abstinence embodied in the New Testament was framed by the Council of Jerusalem, prescribing "abstinence from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled" (Acts, xv, 29). Nevertheless the Acts of the Apostles give evidence of a tendency on the part of the Church, as an organized body, to prepare the way for important events by abstinence and fasting (Acts, xiii, 3; xiv; 22). In fine, St. Paul sets forth the necessity of abstinence when he says that "everyone striving for the mastery must abstain from all things (I Cor., ix, 25); and "let us exhibit ourselves as the ministers of Christ in labours, watchings, and fastings " (II Cor., vi, 5), which he had often practiced (II Cor., xi, 27).

—Throughout the Latin Church the law of abstinence prohibits all responsible subjects from indulging in meat diet on duly appointed days. Meat diet comprises the flesh, blood, or marrow of such animals and birds as constitute flesh meat according to the appreciation of intelligent and law-abiding Christians. For this reason the use of fish, vegetables, mollusks, crabs, turtles, frogs, and such-like cold-blooded creatures is not at variance with the law of abstinence. Amphibians are relegated to the category whereunto they bear most striking resemblance. This classification can scarcely preclude all doubt regarding viands prohibited by the law of abstinence. Local usage, together with the practice of intelligent and conscientious Christians, generally holds a key for the solution of mooted points in such matters, otherwise the decision rests with ecclesiastical authority. Furthermore, on many fasting days during the year the law of abstinence bars the use of such viands as bear some identity of origin with flesh meat. For this reason eggs, milk, butter, cheese, and lard are interdicted (St. Thomas, Summa, II-II, Q. cvii, art. ult., ad 3). The Church enjoins the ways and means whereby her subjects must satisfy the obligation of doing penance inculcated by natural law. Many of the Fathers allude to the exercise of ecclesiastical authority in reference to the obligation of abstinence. The disciplinary canons of various councils bear witness to the actual exercise of authority in the same direction. Texts of theology and catechisms of Christian doctrine indicate that the obligation of abstaining forms an element in one of the Commandments of the Church. Satisfaction for sin is an item of primary import in the moral order. Naturally enough, abstinence contributes no small share towards the realization of this end. As a consequence, the law of abstinence embodies a serious obligation whose transgression, objectively considered, ordinarily involves a mortal sin. The unanimous verdict of theologians, the constant practice of the faithful, and the mind of the Church place this point beyond cavil. They who would fain minimize the character of this obligation so as to relegate all transgressions, save such as originate in contempt, to the category of venial sin are anathematized by Alexander VII [Cf. Prop. 23, ap. Bucceroni, Enchiridion Morale, 145 (Rome, 1905)]. In fine, the Trullan synod (can. 58, ap. Hefele, "History of the Councils of the Church", V, 231, Edinburgh, 1896) inflicts deposition on clerics and excommunication on laymen who violate this law. Furthermore, theologians claim that a grievous sin is committed as often as flesh meat is consumed in any quantity on abstinence days (Sporer, Theologia Moralis super Decalogum, I, De observ. jejunii, § 2, assert. II), because the law is negative, and binds semper et pro semper. In other words, the prohibition of the Church in this matter is absolute. At times, however, the quantity of prohibited material may be so small that the law suffers no substantial violation. From an objective standpoint such transgressions carry the guilt of venial sin. Moralists are by no means unanimous in deciding where the material element of such minor disorders passes into a material disorder of major importance. Some think that an ounce of flesh meat suffices to constitute a serious breach of this law, whereas others claim that nothing short of two ounces involves infringement of this obligation. Ordinarily, the actual observance of the law is confined to such circumstances as carry no insupportable burden. This is why the sick, the infirm, mendicants, labourers, and such as find difficulty in procuring fish diet are not bound to observe the law as long as such conditions prevail.

(1) Friday.—From the dawn of Christianity, Friday has been signalized as an abstinence day, in order to do homage to the memory of Christ suffering and dying on that day of the week. The "Teaching of the Apostles" (viii), Clement of Alexandria (Strom., VI, 75), and Tertullian (De jejun., xiv) make explicit mention of this practice. Pope Nicholas I (858–867) declares that abstinence from flesh meat is enjoined on Fridays. There is every reason to conjecture that Innocent III (1198–1216) had the existence of this law in mind when he said that this obligation is suppressed as often as Christmas Day falls on Friday (De observ. jejunii, ult. cap. Ap. Layman, Theologia Moralis, I, iv, tract. viii, ii). Moreover, the way in which the custom of abstaining on Saturday originated in the Roman Church is a striking evidence of the early institution of Friday as an abstinence day.

(2) Saturday.—As early as the time of Tertullian, some churches occasionally prolonged the Friday abstinence and fast so as to embrace Saturday. Tertullian (De jejunio, xiv) calls this practice continuare jejunium—an expression subsequently superseded by superponere jejunium. Such prolongations were quite common at the end of the third century. The Council of Elvira (can. xxvi, ap. Hefele, op. cit., I, 147) enjoins the observance of one such fast and abstinence every month, except during July and August. At the same time the fathers of Elvira abrogated the "superposition" which had up to that time been obligatory on all Saturdays (Duchesne, op. cit., 231). Moreover, Gregory VII (1073–85) speaks in no uncertain terms of the obligation to abstain on Saturdays, when he declares that all Christians are bound to abstain from flesh meat on Saturday as often as no major solemnity (e.g. Christmas) occurs on Saturday, or no infirmity serves to cancel the obligation (cap. Quia dies, d. 5, de consecrat., ap. Joannes, Azor. Inst. Moral. I, Bk. VII, c. xii). Various authors have assigned different reasons to account for the extension of the obligation so as to bind the faithful to abstain not only on Fridays, but also on Saturdays. Some hold that this practice was inaugurated to commemorate the burial of Christ Jesus; others