The Laws of Fasting
I read in the news that some Protestant pastor in Mozambique tried a little too hard to walk in our Lord’s footsteps by fasting for forty days and forty nights. He made it to the 25th day, by which time, according to BBC News Africa, “he had lost a lot of weight to a point where he could not stand up, bathe or walk. Days later, at the insistence of relatives and believers, the 39-year-old was taken to a hospital, but attempts to bring him back to health were unsuccessful.” It’s a good example of how we can take fasting a bit too seriously, and should be a good lesson for any of us who are tempted to go beyond the Church’s relatively simple fasting rules. Do I need to say this here? Judging from your healthy appearance, none of you look like you’re about to drop dead from fasting, but we are, after all, only five days into Lent. It’s a cautionary tale that shows the value of moderation in all things, including eating, drinking—and fasting!
While I would doubt any of us would go to the extremes of our Protestant friend in Africa, we do need to make sure that any fasting we do will not interfere with our health. That covers both physical and mental health. There’s a reason why young people are not commanded to fast until they reach the age of 21. Children over seven can very easily keep to the laws of abstinence without affecting their health or behavior. When we abstain from eating meat, we don’t eat less, we just eat something else instead of the meat. In this country it’s very easy to find meat substitutes beyond just fish. We have a wealth of different cultures that provide a vast array of meatless delicacies. The Italians, for example, provide pizza, ravioli, dozens of pasta dishes, the French make very good quiche, the Jews have given us lox and bagels. Sushi from the Japanese, shrimp lo mein from the Chinese—our children are quite safe from the ravages of hunger every Friday. But when it comes to fasting, children are strongly discouraged from doing without the food they need.
And, let it be said, that goes for the elderly also. They need the nutrition. Once we reach the ripe old age of 59, the law of fasting no longer applies to us. As our appetite for food decreases with age, the dangers of under-eating become more lethal. After a lifetime of observing the Church’s laws on fasting, it somehow seems wrong to be snacking out during Lent on cheetos and peanuts all of a sudden. We feel quite capable of continuing our fasting as usual, and as good Catholics believe we should do so till the day we die. But that’s not quite true. If it were, the Church would encourage us to fast into our sixties and seventies if we were up to it. But while the Church doesn’t actually forbid us from fasting late in life, she discourages us nevertheless by simply dropping the obligation on our 59th birthday. After that blessed day, we need to start being a bit more careful. We sometimes do not appreciate the need for maintaining a healthy diet as we get older, and we should never become fixated on keeping a law that doesn’t apply to us. Let those who have ears, hear!
The other extreme when it comes to fasting, and this extreme is far more common unfortunately, is the lack of commitment to the Lenten fast. We might start out with great enthusiasm, but that has a tendency to wain as the days tick by. We begin to look for excuses why we shouldn’t fast, why we don’t need to fast, why we can’t fast. This clumsy search for reasons to give up should make us to turn to the example of our Lord. He fasted forty days and forty nights and was “an-hungered.” If we fasted that long and lived to tell about it, believe me, we would be “an-hungered” too! The slight pangs of hunger we feel because we had just one slice of toast for breakfast instead of two is hardly to be compared with the hunger our Lord felt, and yet he persevered. Even when the sly figure of Satan appeared to him and suggested he turn a rock into bread, which he could have easily done, our Lord persevered in his fasting. His infinite love for God the Father overcame any inclination to break his fast his human body may have had. It’s our job to emulate not the extent of our Lord’s fasting, but this sense of perseverance he had in keeping to it. Our Protestant friend in Mozambique would have done better faithfully keeping to one main meal a day and a couple of snacks, rather than starving himself to death.
The lesson for us today is of course to stay faithful to the Church’s laws of fast, no matter how annoying those little pangs of hunger may sometimes be. But are we ever permitted to break that fast? Are there circumstances in which we may eat more than the amount allowed by the law? The answer to this question is to follow the spirit of the law and not the letter. We are not pharisees and should not need to be reprimanded by our Lord for sticking to the fast when it would be imprudent or uncharitable, or even seriously inconvenient to do so. I think we’re all basically familiar with those circumstances when we can set aside the fast. Expectant mothers and nursing mothers are exempt for obvious reasons, as are those who are sick. If you have the flu, don’t try substituting a tuna sandwich for a good healthy bowl of chicken soup. If you have the type of occupation that involves heavy manual labor, then you need to eat properly to maintain sufficient strength to do your job. It’s less obvious but equally true that those who need to exercise mental strength to any serious extent are exempt from fasting. They used to say in general that “students” were exempt for this reason. I’d be a bit more specific these days, and limit the exemption to “serious” students, like those in law school preparing for the bar exam. If you’re just studying how many ways you can introduce transgender acceptance into the classroom, then don’t bother asking me for a dispensation.
Traveling is also a sufficient reason for not fasting. To qualify, however, the trip should be fairly substantial, and a drive to Columbus to go shopping would not entitle you to eat all the way there and back. Don’t use “travel” as an excuse to pig out at McDonald’s just because you had to drive there. Don’t descend into the habit of always looking for reasons why not to fast. Use prudence in these matters, and then confirm your decision by referring it to your conscience. Be honest.
Finally, let’s just go over and confirm in our minds some of those controversial items we’re not sure whether we should consume or avoid. If the item you wish to eat is flesh-based, it may be eaten only if the animal is fish, seafood, or an amphibian that lives in or under the water. Fish and seafood are obvious. As for amphibians, the French have obviously given this a great deal of thought, giving us frogs’ legs and snails in case you get hungry enough. Then the French came over to Louisiana and wasted no time in adding alligator to the list. So we’ve plenty to choose from when we get tired of fish sticks. As for what we can drink, we have to bear in mind that thick drinks count as solid food. We can drink milk at any time, but not milkshakes.
If you have any questions about whether or not you should be fasting, or what you can and can’t eat if you are fasting, bring it up in the confessional or shoot me an email. Just remember it’s the spirit, not the letter of the law that counts, so always do some other kind of penance if you’re not able or obliged to fast. The main point is that we’re doing something for God, something we otherwise wouldn’t do if it were left solely to our own will. When St. Augustine advises us to “love God and do what thou wilt,” he makes a point to put the “love God” part first. We should always put God first, and because of the love we have for him, we’ll find more enthusiasm in performing our feeble penances. We’ll also make up for at least some of our manifold offences. That’s what counts, so let’s do our best.