You are obviously correct that there is no mention what so ever about calories /…/
When we talked about what constitutes drink vs food were were told not to only consider the form (i.e. solid vs liquid), but rather it’s intent or purpose. The basic concept was that drink satisfies thirst and food satisfies hunger /…/
I know that the hunger vs thirst is not distinguished in canon law, but it would seem to follow if something is consumed to satisfy hunger then it should be considered food. My concern with simply saying all liquid is drink is that many people would simply replace a meal with a nutrition shake (or perhaps “drink” their tomato soup) /…/
I can tell you from working at a hospital form many years that is is perfectly possible to live without “eating food” for week on end. If we simply all just liquefied our food, then we could say we were on a perpetual fast. That doesn’t seem to jive with the intent of fasting.
I agree that the laws need to be updated. /…/ I’ve been a vegetarian for 25 years I could simply chose to ignore the penitential nature of Fridays and say I am following the letter of the law, but I think we are supposed to follow both the letter and intent of the law
You are confusing distinct realities
One question is the relative benefit derived from different forms of fast & abstinence. A fast of bread & water is more meritorious than the canonical fast…until, of course, such a voluntary fast either damages one’s health or impedes the ability to fulfill the duties of one’s state in life. In that case, you’ve not acquired merit but you’ve acquired moral guilt…possibly mortal. That’s why physical penances, outside the normal mean, should be submitted to the judgment of a spiritual director trained in moral theology
This is a question of a canonical fast. “It seems to me” and “the spirit of the law” are beyond the point at question. An assessment is made strictly on the language of the legislative text. It’s first read through the use of maxims of interpretation. The maxim to be applied is: laws that are restrictive must be read strictly…laws that are permissive are to be read broadly. You’re using an inverse formula that, by its very purpose, is to make a restrictive law even more restrictive. That’s repugnant to the interpretation of law. Beyond that, what should be the canonical definition of food is what really is food – not what could potentially be seen as food
One uses the text of the law to ascertain what is
obliged. One can certainly go beyond what the law obliges but it is wholly wrong and a violation of the virtue of justice to read the law in such a way that you cause it to place an unnecessary burden on another, obliging more than law, in fact, does. That applies to marriage law, punitive law or, for that matter, legal processes. It’s not your prerogative to make provision of law more restrictive for another
Let us be clear: when I’ve answered a post here, I’m not saying what I choose to do. I’m saying what another is obliged by law to do. That’s the crucial distinction
Canon law establishes what an obligatory fast means: it is a mortification of the quantity of food a specified person consumes on a day of fast: one meal and two collations and one does not eat between those three episodes of eating. It does not address a prescriptive need to feel
hunger. It does not address
calories. If you think that is what the law should be, you need to work to change the law
I am more than well aware that a person can live for extended periods of time without solid nourishment – I lived it for years with two terminally ill parents, thank you very much, and I do not need someone to explain the concept to me. It’s insulting.
When one in hospital is receiving nourishment, either liquid by mouth or by direct NG intubation, is the term “meal” being applied to what nourishment they are receiving? I’ve never encountered a circumstance in which one properly applies the word
meal or
collation to such nourishment. Because it should not be applied. A meal or collation consists in what one eats. That is why the Latin maxim is
Liquidum non frangit ieiunium. That’s also why canon law uses the conventional terms it does. It’s not suppose to be confusing.
Discussions of intent have nothing to do with the Code of Canon Law on fasting. If someone wishes to do a devotional fast – without the prescriptions and penalty of law – they are free to do so and according to their whim though, again, experts in the spiritual life say such penances should be done with the advice and counsel of a spiritual director. We’re not talking about that in fasts prescribed by canon law. The answer there begins and ends with what the law prescribes, in so far as answering what must be done. Once that is delineated, one may say “I’m going further.” But one has to be clear where is the border before one can choose to go beyond what is obliged
And, frankly, one who would contemplate being a deacon should know and appreciate that distinction because the law is there to protect the members of the flock as it is also there to guide, to push, and to restrain
I don’t understand why Americans apply constraints to established law in order to do the reverse of what a legal maxim prescribes. It is to turn law on its head. Do you do this, for instance, on your nation’s civil tax law? If the law establishes X as the threshold you are legally obliged to pay, do you say…“well, you know the intent of taxes is to finance programmes of social benefit – so actually we want to read the law in such a way that you will end up paying as much as you can possibly afford”? In point of fact, in doing that you would not be in the area of lawful taxes…you are in the area of charitable gift. That’s the best analogy of what you propose to me on fasting, as one who taught this topic
