| <<<home page | index to Virtues>>> |
Conferences on the Virtues
By Fr. Bruno Cocuzzi, ocd
Number 13
The Virtue of Abstinence
As you recall from last time, the
Subjective Parts of Temperance are Abstinence, Sobriety and Chastity. We will treat of Abstinence in this
Conference, and if space allows, try to get into Sobriety. (I’d really like to get in some “sobering
thoughts” about abstinence).
We all know that, in general, to abstain
means to refrain from something, or to forego something. When it has that very general meaning,
abstinence is neither good nor bad in itself, but indifferent. Thus to be termed either “good” or “bad”,
one would have to consider the circumstances.
When we do that, we are getting into the field of Morality. It may seem strange that one can do wrong by
“abstaining” from something, but it is so, as in the case of one “abstaining
from certain foods out of predominantly vain motives, or in the case of
a legislator who abstains from voting as his well-formed conscience dictates,
when he perceives that to do so would displease his constituents. When the abstinence is governed by “right
reason”, it then becomes a good moral act.
When one gets “into the habit” of abstaining according to right-reason-enlightened-by-faith-and-informed-by-charity,
it becomes the supernatural moral virtue of Abstinence., i.e., the
virtue which moderates the concupiscence for and the enjoyment of the delights
derived from taking bodily nourishment, with the result that one takes food and
nutritive drink in a “human” (and even “saintly”) way, namely insofar as it
befits the society in which one lives, one’s very own personal rank or dignity,
and the need to maintain physical, mental and spiritual health.
It is a special and unique virtue because
it protects the good dictated by reason against the assaults of the passion for
food. We all know by experience that
the desire for food and nutritive drink can be very strong and can easily cause
one to eat and drink in quantities that are all out of proportion to what is
necessary to conserve health of body, mind and soul.
The Three Degrees of
Abstinence…
1st: The
habitual, moderate use of food, or abstinence from excess in taking
nourishment. This is altogether
required by “natural law”, and thus acts of this kind retain the general name
of “temperance.”
2nd: A higher, but partial degree of
abstinence, by means of which one deprives oneself of certain “kinds” of food
(e.g. from flesh meats) either permanently or for a specified length of
time. It is a “higher” degree because
it does more than what is required by the 1st degree above. In other words, natural law does not require
this degree of abstinence, yet it is a kind that can be required by “positive”
or “man-made” law, and is one of the degrees of abstinence mandated by the
Church.
3rd. The third and highest degree, the other kind
also mandated by the Church, is perfect or total abstinence, that
is, in regard to quantity, namely, from all food, but only for a
time. It is given the special name fasting.
Fasting considered in
itself…
Catholic moral theology recognizes a natural
fast, which consists in complete abstinence from food or drink from
midnight on. (Hence our notion of
“break”-fast). Of itself, this is not
an act of virtue. Centuries ago it was
made an act of virtue by the Church, which prescribed it to be observed up
until after the reception of Holy Communion on any given day. It was the motive (in the life of Grace
motives can kill us or cure us) that made it an act of virtue, and not of
temperance but of “religion”, namely reverence for the Blessed Sacrament. That was what was termed the Eucharistic
Fast. Now-a-days the Eucharistic
Fast is still prescribed, but it is no longer the same as the “natural”
fast. The current Eucharistic fast is
defined by Canon 919 sec. 1: One who is to receive the Most Holy Eucharist
is to abstain from any food or drink, with the exception only of water and
medicine, for at least the period of one hour before Holy Communion.
Another kind of fast is labeled “moral”,
and it is the kind we are concerned with in this conference. It is itself sub-distinguished into philosophical
and Christian. The former for
mere human motives, namely, health of body and mind, so that one would be well
disposed and equipped to discharge one’s duties and responsibilities as a mere
human being. The other for supernatural
motives: to deepen the life of grace
and grow in holiness, so as to be well disposed and equipped to practice the
supernatural moral and Theological virtues and thus discharge one’s duties and
responsibilities as children of God by adoption, i.e., as baptized
Christians. When the Church prescribes
the latter, the Christian fast, it is then called a “Church fast”.
Permit me once again to quote my
textbook: Fasting is an act of
virtue because it is ordained to a good and “honest” purpose,
namely, (1) suppression and control of the concupiscence of the flesh so that
(2) the mind more freely and easily may be raised to the contemplation of
sublime truths, (3) as satisfaction and reparation for sins and (4) because of
the power it has in obtaining spiritual and temporal blessings when joined to
prayer. The Church praises God [in one
of the Lenten Prefaces of the Mass] who “by means of bodily fast subdues vices,
lifts up the mind, and bestows virtue and rewards”. And scripture and the Fathers [of the Church], following the
teaching and example of Christ, the Apostles and the first faithful,
[believers], commend fasting.
In order to be an act of virtue,
[fasting] must conform to right reason, which commands that two things
be observed, to wit, preservation of life and the strength to perform
obligatory tasks (fulfill one’s duties and responsibilities). Thus, (a):
Should one fast in order to die or in order to grow too weak to
discharge one’s obligations, that would be an act directly opposed to the
virtue of temperance, and if it were to bring about serious bodily harm
or incapacity, would be a serious violation thereof. If done out of motives of being singular (different from everyone
else), of vain glory or to have reason to boast, it would be less serious or
venial violation of temperance.
(b): If done not for wrong
motives but for good intentions and one nevertheless renders himself
incapable or less capable of discharging responsibilities, it is still a sin
against temperance, grave and venial respectively. If however, it causes a minor shortening of life, or the weakness
does not render one incapable of fulfilling his/her duties and responsibilities,
it is quite lawful, provided there is a proportionate reason for inflicting the
harm upon one’s bodily health.
[At this point I must say something about
St. Therese of the Child Jesus.
Although she did not shorten her earthly life by fasting, she did
shorten it significantly by a particular mortification she practiced for
years. Namely, she NEVER asked for more
blankets with which to keep warm at night.
The cold and the loss of sleep she endured as a consequence brought on
consumption, and as you know, she died at the tender age of 24. However, this did not prevent her from
fulfilling her duties and obligations as a child of God, and more specifically,
as a Spouse of Jesus Christ. Remember,
her vocation in the Church was TO LOVE, and TO SHARE in the Redemptive
sufferings of Jesus, her Bridegroom.
That she succeeded eminently in attaining the summit of perfection in
that vocation, beautifully and forcefully corroborates the teaching of the
Church on Fasting, a form of mortification that is contained in those last few
lines of the previous paragraph].
One might have noticed that fasting is
called an “act” of virtue rather than “a virtue”. My textbook goes on to amplify by stating that fasting is an
“elicited act” of the virtue of abstinence. This can be explained by remembering that as a good habit, a
virtue becomes “second nature”, so that one is always inclined to act in the
same way in given situations and does so “quasi-automatically”. It is true that one can acquire the “habit”
of “shying away from food” when in its presence, but because the word “fasting”
has a technical meaning, one may already be incapable of fasting at the
moment one “shies away from food”, and so that habitual response can only mean
that it is the virtue of abstinence that is operative.
However, fasting can be elicited by other
virtues as well as by abstinence, namely, charity, religion, penance, chastity,
etc., depending upon the motive or object in view. These may be (1) to love and (2) serve God better (3) to make
reparation for sin and (4) overcome lust.
In those instances fasting is not formally an act of the virtue of
abstinence, but of the virtues named, even though there may be present as a
lesser motive the intention of keeping the mind fit for its proper functions
and the pursuit of virtue in general.
From what we have just said we can
understand why fasting is considered a useful good, a means to achieve a
good end. Because the good ends
enumerated in the previous paragraph can be attained by other means as well, an
obligation to fast is not imposed by Natural Law upon everyone but only
upon those few for whom it becomes necessary. Given the fact, however, that fasting is generally very
useful for everybody, Holy Mother Church has seen fit to prescribe fasting to
be observed at particular times and in a particular manner for all healthy
adults.
The Church Fast…
In ancient times three conditions were
required to constitute the FAST prescribed by the Church: (a) the taking of ONE meal a day (b) the
time of day at which it is taken and (c) the quality of the food: i.e., omitting certain types of food such as
flesh meats and/or eggs and dairy products.
In practice, because of the several distinct elements, the church would at
times separate them and prescribe them individually. That is, enjoin abstinence-without-fasting and would dispense
from abstinence without dispensing from the fast. With the revised Code of Canon Law that came out in the early
part of this century, (20th) the Church began to distinguish between
Fasting in the strict sense of the word and Abstinence, such that one
could be prescribed without the other for a given day or time. And even the notion of the “strict fast” was
mitigated at that time. Instead of the only
one meal a day, two additional “light” meals were also permitted. I am aware of still another kind, whose age
and origin I do not know, and it is called “fasting on bread and water”. It is this kind of fast that Our Lady has
been asking for in the messages she has been giving at Medjugorje, Yugoslavia.
Book IV, Title II, Chapter II, of the
most recent revision of the Code of Canon Law contains the current
legislation. Book IV is entitled The
Office of Sanctifying in the Church:
Title II is Sacred Times, and Chapter II is Days of Penance
We noted above that fasting could be elicited as an act of any one of several
virtues; here we see that the Church orders that we do it as an act of the
virtue of Penance, one of the virtues which is a sub-division of the Cardinal
Virtue of Justice. Because we are all
Carmelites, and because the Spirit of Carmel includes a penitential character
as one of its essential components, I am going to cite all five Canons of
Chapter II here:
Canon 1250 – All Fridays
through the year and the time of Lent are penitential days and times throughout
the universal Church.
Canon 1251 – Abstinence
from eating meat or another food according to the prescriptions of the
conference of Bishops is to be observed on Fridays throughout the year unless
they are solemnities; abstinence and fast are to be observed on Ash Wednesday
and on the Friday of the Passion and Death of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Canon 1252 – All persons
who have completed their fourteenth year are bound by the law of abstinence;
all adults are bound by the law of fast up to the beginning of their sixtieth
year. Nevertheless, pastors and parents
are to see to it that minors who are not bound by the law of fast and
abstinence are educated in an authentic sense of penance.
Canon 1253 – It is for
the Conference of Bishops to determine more precisely the observance of fast
and abstinence and to substitute in whole or in part for fast and abstinence
other forms of penance, especially works of charity and exercise of piety.
To my knowledge the United States
Conference of Bishops does not require abstinence from flesh meat on Fridays
outside of Lent anymore, nor am I aware of them substituting abstinence from
some other kind of food on those days.
Nevertheless, ALL Fridays of the year remain days of penance (Can.
1250). We are told specifically, though,
what is meant by fasting during Lent for all Catholics 18 years of age but not
yet 59. “Those bound by this rule [on
the prescribed days] may take only one full meal. Two smaller meals are permitted if necessary to maintain strength
according to one’s needs, but eating solid foods between meals is not
permitted”.
Our bishops also lessen the rigor of the
law even while emphasizing its seriousness and importance, particularly in
Lent: “Failure to observe individual
days of penance is not considered serious, but failure to observe any
penitential days at all or a substantial number of such days must be considered
serious.” (Taken from the Lenten
Regulations on Fast and Abstinence as appearing in the 1992 Catholic Family
Appointment Calendar published by the J.S. Paluch Company, Inc.) And as you all
know, Section XI, paragraph 1) of our OCDS Local Statutes for the United States
prescribes additional days of fast for all members, unless excused by reason of
illness.
In commenting on the necessity and
suitability of fast and abstinence at specific times and instances, my textbook
makes several interesting observations.
The general rule is that because fasting is by nature effective in
obtaining removal of guilt and in raising the mind to supernatural realities,
it ought to be observed WHENEVER one desires to be freed of the effects of sin
and desires devoutly to raise one’s mind to God in worship and love. In addition to Lent, especially the days of
immediately preceding Easter, and the vigils of the principal Feasts of the
Church, also listed, as appropriate occasions are the days preceding an
ordination to the Priesthood and the Dedication of a Church. Those who would prepare themselves
“fittingly” on those occasions include the ones to be ordained, the Ordaining
and Consecrating Bishop, and the faithful who will most benefit from the
ordination of the new priests and the consecration of the Church.
-
- -
There is still quite a bit to say about
abstinence, one of the subjective parts or species of temperance, so I will
continue the subject next month.
* * * * * * * * * * *
MISSION STATEMENT: This web site was created for the purpose of completing the work of Fr. Bruno Cocuzzi, O.C.D These conferences may be reproduced for private use only. Publication of this material is forbidden without permission of the Father Provincial for the Discalced Carmelites, Holy Hill, 1525 Carmel Rd., Hubertus, WI 53033-9770.