About the Gravity of Lenten Fasting and Abstinence

I recently saw a reply to question about the gravity of fasting and abstinence during Lent in which a priest said that it is not a sin to violate Lenten abstinence and fasting requirements, but this is not correct. Moreover, the reasoning that he gave for this answer is demonstrably incorrect. He wrote: "In order for a merely disciplinary norm to be binding on pain of sin, the legislator has to make it so. The legislator (i.e., John Paul II, who issued the 1983 Code of Canon Law) has made the Sunday obligation gravely binding (hence a grave sin if deliberately disobeyed). He decided *not* to do so for the fasting and abstinence laws. Therefore, it does not bind on pain of sin. It is similar in status to the rule that religious congregations have."

 The controlling document in this case is Paul VI’s apostolic constitution Paenitemini, which says of the days of penance, "Their substantial observance binds gravely." You point to the 1983 Code of Canon Law as essentially abrogating this prior law, but the Code of Canon Law is very specific about what prior laws are abrogated in Canon 6:

 "1. the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;" - Paenitemini was not part of this code

 "2. other universal or particular laws contrary to the prescripts of this Code unless other provision is expressly made for particular laws;" - The law as given in Paenitemini is not contrary to anything in the 1983 code. If there are any doubts about this, see the final few paragraphs about the US Bishops’ judgment on the question.

 "3. any universal or particular penal laws whatsoever issued by the Apostolic See unless they are contained in this Code;" - Paenitimini did not address penal law

 "4. other universal disciplinary laws regarding matter which this Code completely reorders" - The 1983 Code does not completely reorder the laws of fasting and abstinence (indeed, even debates about the controversial question of whether fasting is obliged on Fridays throughout the year always center of Paul VI's Paenitimini and documents which appeal to it's authority. Whether a person argues that Friday abstinence is required year- round or not, that person is always pointing to Paenitimini because it is still the document of legal force on these matters.) Again, see below on the US Bishops, who even note that parts of Paenitimini are "almost identical" to the Code.

 As Jimmy Akin notes, "In fact, the Code has so little to say about penance that one cannot determine what the Church’s law is without consulting Paenitemini. For example, the Code does not provide any explanation of what the law of fast entails. It states who is subject to it (Can. 1251), but it does not explain what the law itself is. To find that out, you have to consult Paenitemini." (Canon 1251 does give some more detail about the law of abstinence, but Jimmy is correct: if we want to know anything about what the Church means when legislating that we must fast, we need to look at the Apostolic Constitution. If we don’t consider Paenitimini, then we don’t know whether fasting means no food at all, eating only once, eating as usual but lighter, etc. The “one full meal and two snacks” thing comes – albeit in corrupted form – from Paenitimini.

In it's information on fasting and abstinence, the USCCB itself still points to it's own 1966 Pastoral Statement on the topic because although coming before the 1983 code, everything in it is, having been based on Paenitimini and not on Canon law (either 1917 or the then-not-yet written 1983 code), still relevant.

 Even the 1983 code of canon law uses the language of binding, such as in canon 1252 which reads, "The law of abstinence binds those who have completed their fourteenth year."

 All of this should be sufficient evidence, but the US Bishop's 1983 Complementary Norms to Canon 1253 provide perhaps the clearest. The complementary norm 1) Refers to Paenitemini as authoritative, 2) Appeal to Paeitimini's authority to support the changes that the US Bishop's wanted to make to age requirements for fasting, and 3) Explicitly declares that the US Bishop's 1966 norms, which are based on Paenitimini and which say that Lenten fast/abstinence binds under pain of sin, are not contrary to the 1983 code and so do not fall under Canon 6 as provided above.

The US Bishops' 1966 document, which recall is unquestionably still legally binding and confirmed by their 1983 complementary norms, also says: " In keeping with the letter and spirit of Pope Paul's Constitution Poenitemini, we preserved for our dioceses the tradition of abstinence from meat on each of the Fridays of Lent, confident that no Catholic Christian will lightly hold himself excused from this penitential practice." [Emphasis added]

Thus, AT A MINIMUM, Lenten penance binds under pain of sin in the United States. This is explicit according to the Bishops' 1966 norms which are confirmed in the 1983 complementary norms to remain in force. However, based on all of the reasons given above it should be quite clear that Paenitimini remains in force for the entire Latin Church - a belief certainly held by the US Bishops' Conference - and the Bishops' norms really just confirm this for us more than anything.

 God bless