Category: Liturgical Year

A reader writes:

Mr. Akin,

You wrote last year about meat on the Solemnity of St. Joseph even though it was a feast day.

http://www.jimmyakin.org/2010/03/happy-meateating-friday.html

Would this apply to the Solemnity of the Annunciation this Friday, March 25?

Yes, it does. The Annunciation is a solemnity, according to the General Roman Calendar (I'm linking to Wikipedia rather than the official calendar for 2011 on the bishops' web site b/c the latter is in the evil pdf format, but it confirms the same thing).

And according to the Code of Canon Law, 

Can.  1251 Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.

Therefore, have fun eating meat (if you want) this Friday!

For some years here on the blog, I have hosted a collection of posts on the subject of Lent and what the Church’s law requires during it. Together, these posts are known as the Annual Lent Fight–because many of these questions have been disputed (at times harshly).

This is because there are a lot of popular ideas (read: legends) out there about Lent, often based on attempts to summarize the Church’s law in a popular manner that ends up slightly misstating it.

If you want a careful reading of what the Church’s documents actually saw, check out the material in the Annual Lent Fight.

Is Lent really 40 days long–or is that a traditional and biblically resonant number that is attached to the days of Lent, though current documents indicate a different literal period of time?

How much food can be eaten on days of abstinence? Do you have to measure the size of the “two smaller meals” you often hear about to make sure they don’t add up to a full meal? And how would you measure that anyway? Calories? Volume? Mass? Something else?

Do caloric beverages count toward this total?

What can be eaten on days of abstinence? Do you have to avoid animal fat? Why don’t eggs and fish count as meat? Is it true that the pope was trying to protect the Italian fishing industry by allowing fish? What about eating mammals like capybaras?

Do you have to give something up for Lent? And if you do, can you have it on Sundays?

Of course, keeping the spirit of Lent means going beyond what the letter of the law mandates. A minimalistic observation of Lent focused on the least one can get away with is contrary to the orientation toward spiritual growth that the season is meant to provide.

But that’s no excuse for getting the law wrong–or for failing to grapple with the questions people have about it.

And so, let the Annual Lent Fight begin!

To prepare yourself for the Annual Lent Fight, please check out the following links:

GENERAL

• BASIC INFO ON LENT
• LENTEN READER ROUNDUP
• Q & A ON LENT (THIS ROCK)

DURATION

• THE DURATION OF LENT
• LET’S COUNT THE DAYS OF LENT
• “FORTY” DAYS
• THE INFAMOUS SUNDAYS IN LENT CONTROVERSY: I, II, III, IV, V

PENANCE IN GENERAL

• THE GRAVITY OF PENANCE
• FOLLOWUP I
• FOLLOWUP II
• “SUBSTANTIAL OBSERVANCE”

FASTING

• THE LAW OF FAST: FOOD
• FASTING AND BEVERAGES
• FASTING AND “APPROVED LOCAL CUSTOM”
• FASTING AND “NO SECOND MEAL”
• FASTING AND “SOME FOOD IN MORNING AND EVENING”
• A SHORT PRIMER ON FASTING (BY SDG RATHER THAN JIMMY)
• MORE ON FASTING (BY SDG RATHER THAN JIMMY)

ABSTINENCE

• THE LAW OF ABSTINENCE
• FISHING INDUSTRY HOAX
• CAPYBARAS AND OTHER AQUATIC NON-FISH
• SOLEMNITIES THAT FALL ON FRIDAY DURING LENT
• SOUPS MADE WITH MEAT

ASH WEDNESDAY

• ASH WEDNESDAY (OVERVIEW OF THE CHURCH’S LAW)
• HOW LONG DO YOU KEEP THE ASHES ON?

HOLY THURSDAY

• SEVEN CHURCHES VISITATION

GOOD FRIDAY

• WHY IS IT CALLED “GOOD” FRIDAY?

FRIDAY PENANCE OUTSIDE OF LENT

• MORE ON FRIDAY PENANCE

What do you think?

Yes! It's true!

You can eat meat today!

Why?

Because it is the Feast of St. Joseph, and that day is a solemnity.

One property of solemnities is that if they fall on Fridays then they override the requirement to abstain from meat.

MORE FROM ED PETERS.

That means you can have meat today!

Woo-hoo!!! Meat! Wonderful God-created meat!

It's what's for dinner.

And let us not forget the reason that we are able to have meat this day: St. Joseph.

Maybe you'd care to . . . 

FIND OUT MORE?

 One of the interesting phrases in Paenitemini occurs in this norm:

II. 1. The time of Lent preserves its penitential character. The days of penitence to be observed under obligation throughout the Church are all Fridays and Ash Wednesday, that is to say the first days of "Grande Quaresima" (Great Lent), according to the diversity of the rites. Their substantial observance binds gravely.

So the substantial observance of the days of penitence binds gravely. What does that mean?

Clearly the inclusion of the word "substantial" is meant to qualify what is being said. (The word "substantial" is a qualifier. Duh!) Pope Paul VI could have simply said "Their observance binds gravely." But he didn't. He included the word "substantial."

This suggests that it would be possible to fail to observe the days of penitence in some lesser degree and it would not result in a grave sin.

This would not be worth pointing out if we were talking about people who forgot it was Friday and ordered a hamburger for lunch and ate it without realizing. In that case we have innocent ignorance preventing the commission of a mortal sin. 

It also would not be worth pointing out in the case of someone who forgot it was Friday, ordered a hamburger, and realized it was Friday only after having taken a bite out of it and then quickly swallowing the bite, not knowing what else to do. In that case we would have lack of full consent preventing the commission of a mortal sin.

Finally, it would not be worth talking about this in the case of necessity–e.g., someone with a medical condition–because the necessity would excuse from the obligation to observe the elements of penitential law they impinge on.

In the first two cases we would have mortal sin averted because one of the conditions needed for mortal sin (knowledge or deliberate consent) would be lacking. In the third case the obligation itself would cease.

So Paul VI could have simply said, "Their observance binds gravely," and the ordinary application of the principles of moral and pastoral theology would have allowed for inadvertent, non-deliberate, or necessary failures to observe the law to be non-grave.

But he included the word "substantial," suggesting that there could be some degree of knowing, deliberate, non-necessary failure to observe the penitential days and yet it would not result in mortal sin.

Only "substantial" failure to observe them would be grave matter and thus potentially mortally sinful.

Then there would be the question of whether substantial failure of a single day of penance or of the whole complex of penitential days would be gravely sinful.

So it's understandable that people would wonder exactly what Paul VI meant here. I haven't tried to determine the answer in detail, but I have noted that the inclusion of the word "substantial" is meant to have a softening effect, in keeping with Paul VI's overall relaxation of penitential discipline. I don't see how it could be otherwise since he could have just said, "Their observance binds gravely," and left it at that.

Oh, and here's . . . 

THE BIG RED DISCLAIMER: I'm just trying to explain the law here. That doesn't mean I personally favor the content of the law. I'm just trying to be clear and honest about what the law is. If you think my understanding of the law is wrong, fine. Feel free to show evidence to the contrary. If you don't like the law itself, feel free to say so, but bear in mind that I'm not the one who made the law.

Recently I was reading in Canon Law Digest, and in the volume (vol. 6) that covers the year Paenitemini was released (1966), I found a couple of items of interest.

The first is that, at the front of CLD's presentation of the norms of Paenitemini, there is a footnote which says,

A notable commentary by Bertrams on what constitutes substantial observance was published in L'Osservatore Romano of 20 Feb, 1966. See Note following the reference at the end of this document.

"Bertrams"–who is not otherwise identified except as a priest–I believe to be Wilhelm Bertrams, S.J., a noted canonist who taught for many years at the Greg and who was active in this period.

L'Osservatore Romano, at the time, was much more of a house organ than it is today. If something was printed in it, you could treat it as a significant indicator of the Holy See's thought. 

Now they'll take anything. Reviews of The Simpsons, top ten lists of rock albums, kissy-kissy pieces for President Obama, anything! They're so into being "hip" and "relevant" now that they've jettisoned their gravitas and converted from being a reliable indicator of Vatican thought to just an orthodox Catholic publication that the Vatican happens to own.

But back in 1966, publishing a commentary on a papal document in L'OR meant something–and it especially meant something if it appeared February 20th, just three days after Paenitemini was signed on February 17th. Given the lag between signing and publication, it very well may have appeared in the same issue of L'OR as a companion commentary on the main document (something the Holy See often does).

So let's look at what Fr. Bertrams said in his note:

We think that the word "substantial" was chosen designedly, especially in order the better to show the personal responsibility of each one before God, so that every one may practice penance in spirit and in truth, without insisting too much on the traditional distinctions of casuistry between grave and light matter in the violation of the law. Consequently, a single violation could not be considered a grave sin, but the repeated and habitual violation would certainly be grave.

Hence the more serious and sincere is the will to practice penance on the days and in the manner prescribed by the church, the less inclined one should be to consider a partial violation as grave. The more serious the reason which prevents the observance of the law, the less grave will be the transgression. If the reason is really proportionately grave, it is certain that all obligation ceases. This may occur in case of illness, where one cannot take other food because of infirmity, where meals must be taken in common, in travelling when there is no choice, and so on. but when these excuses occur, there remains the obligation of divine law to practice penance in some other way according to the particular condition of the person.

It is clear that Fr. Bertrams, and thus L'OR before it decided to try to be hip, sees Paenitemini as trying to get away from the traditional manual theology way of (e.g., "This particular violation would be light matter and so a venial sin; this other violation would be grave matter and thus could be a mortal sin"). Rather than having people try to cut the pie that way, the message is: Just be serious and sincere in your intent to observe the laws regarding penance and don't worry so much about an individual infraction. As long as you mean to do what the Church does, an individual infraction won't be mortal.

In the second paragraph, though, Bertrams starts talking about cases where there would be partially or fully excusing reasons, which would have applied even before Paenitemini, so this introduces an element of confusion.

Perhaps not surprisingly, a year later the Sacred Congregation for the Council (predecessor of the modern Congregation for Clergy) published a dubium on this issue, which is found in the same volume of Canon Law Digest:

Questions: I. Whether the substantial observance of days of penance, which is declared to be of grave obligation in the dispositive part of the Constitution Paenitemini, II, § 2, of 17 February, 1966, refers to the individual days of penance which are to be observed as a matter of obligation in the whole Church;

II. Or does it refer rather to the whole complexus of penitential days to be observed with the penances attached to them.

Replies: The S. C. of the council replied, with the approval of the Supreme Pontiff Paul VI:

I. In the negative.

II. In the affirmative; that is, one sins gravely against the law, who, without an excusing cause, omits a notable part, quantitative or qualitative, of the penitential observance which is prescribed as a whole.

Given at Rome 24 February 1967.

I find this less helpful than it could be, but it again seems to be backing off the idea of focusing attention away from the individual penitential day to the observance of penitential discipline as a whole. So if, "without an excusing cause, one omits a notable part . . . of the penitential observance which is prescribed as a whole"–not apparently on a individual day per Fr. Bertram and the answer to question I–then one sins gravely.

There is still a lot that is obscure here, but it does seem that by the inclusion of the word "substantial" before "observance," Paul VI was trying to do something encouraging people not to focus so much on the scrupulous fulfillment of particulars and more on the overall spirit of doing penance.

To wrap up our treatment of the law of fasting, let's look at a question that has occurred to lots of people upon reading Paenitemini's provision that:

The law of fasting allows only one full meal a day, but does not prohibit taking some food in the morning and evening, observing—as far as quantity and quality are concerned—approved local custom.

The question that occurs to people is how much this constrains when people can eat their full meal and their two lesser amounts of food. Do they have to confine one of the smaller portions to the A.M. hours, eat a big lunch as their full meal, and then have only a small amount in the evening (whenever that starts)?

On its face, the passage seems to reflect the eating practice of having only a small breakfast, a big midday meal, and a small evening meal. This practice is common in Italy, and in some other parts of the world, such as (formerly) in the American South (I remember as a boy that my family in Texas referred to the larger midday meal as "dinner" and the evening meal as "supper") and other places where agriculture was a key means of making a living (you need those calories while you're still working, not when you're done or near done for the day). 

Is the pope mandating this eating pattern for Catholics all over the world on days of fast, regardless of their culture and what their bodies are used to?

This does not seem plausible.

First, as we have noted (and will see further in my Monday post), the overall project here is one of relaxing the legal requirements regarding penance. This is obvious just from looking at the dramatic drop in the number of days on which fasting was required. Prior to Paenitemini there were waaaaay more days of fast on the calendar than afterwards. This document dropped it from dozens to two.

Combine this with the following passage from the 1917 Code of Canon Law regarding the law of fasting and an interesting situation results.

Can. 1251 §2. It is not forbidden to mix meat and fish in the same meal; or to exchange the evening meal with lunch.

The first part of this refers to a prior requirement (prior to the 1917 Code) that prohibited mixing meat and fish during the same meal on days of fast (but not abstinence) during Lent.

The second part expressly permits exchanging lunch and supper as the full meal (I'm avoiding the word "dinner" to avoid confusion).

This was part of the law up until Paenitemini, when the Church's laws regarding penance were integrally reordered.

Ordinarily when something expressly allowed in the former law is not repeated in the newer law, it could be a signal that this allowance is revoked, but that seems remarkably implausible in this case, given Paul VI's unmistakable intent to relax legal requirements and allow even greater adaptation to local situations and the exigencies of (rapidly changing) 20th century life.

It seems much more plausible that he simply took it as obvious that the two meals could be exchanged.

One reason is that, even before the 1917 Code expressly allowed the switching around of the meals, it had already become a recognized and accepted practice. See the article on Fasting in the Original Catholic Encyclopedia, which predates the 1917 Code.

Also note this: He doesn't identify when the full meal can be taken. He doesn't say anything about lunch or noon or midday.

Given only what he says, you could have the full meal at 12:01 a.m. or 11:59 p.m. (eat fast if you want to get it done before midnight!) and then also have "some food in the morning and evening."

Another thing to keep in mind is that Italians themselves don't eat the midday meal exactly at noon. Depending on the region of the country you're in, they may start it around 12:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m., and they may finish eating it as late as 4:30 p.m. So there is considerable flexibility there as well.

The subject of when evening begins is a thorny one in canon law. You hear different starting times for it, ranging from noon to 5:30 p.m. In the absence of a legal definition, and in keeping with the trend of the foregoing considerations, the broader interpretation (i.e., any time after noon) may be presumed in terms of legal requirement (per can. 14).

So, while Paul VI may have been thinking in terms of the normal Italian eating pattern of the time, it does not seem plausible to think he was legally mandating it on days of fast for Catholics the world over.

I consequently don't see any reason why one could not legitimately do any of the following eating patterns on days of fast:

• (AM) full meal + some food; (PM) some food
• (AM) some food + full meal; (PM) some food
• (AM) some food; (midday-ish) full meal; (PM) some food
• (AM) some food; (PM) full meal + some food
• (AM) some food; (PM) some food + full meal.

That's assuming you exercise the full amount of eating. You don't have to do that, of course.

What is less clear is the status of patterns like this:

• (AM) nothing; (PM) some food + full meal + some food
• (AM) full meal + some food + some food; (PM) nothing

In other words, if you're going to have "some food" twice in the day, does one of the instances have to be AM and the other PM?

I can see opinion legitimately diverging here. My sense of the legislator's intent isn't strong enough. 

I could see one legitimately holding that Paul VI is simply being illustrative and not normative regarding the times, in which case you could have "some food" twice in either the A.M. or the P.M. (but not both).

I could also see one saying, "No, he says 'morning and evening' and means it; if someone has a really compelling reason to need to eat in a different way then that reason itself will excuse from the law of fast."

So I could go either way on that question, at least at the present state of my thought.

I expect this'll be the last I post on this topic (at least for a while), but regarding the idea that the two times you can take "some food" on a day of fast can't add up to a second full meal, a reader writes down yonder:

Perhaps it is simply from the fact that one is allowed only "one full meal" and thus ….since one is allowed only one…and yet are permitted 'some food' at two other times…it is simply the case that these can not add up to 'a full meal' for one is only allowed one 'full meal' (if the other two add up to another full meal…well then you will have had 2 full meals!)

This makes sense to me. (of course each persons judgment of a full meal may be different)

Let's look again at Paul VI's language:

The law of fasting allows only one full meal a day, but does not prohibit taking some food in the morning and evening, observing—as far as quantity and quality are concerned—approved local custom.

The possibility that the reader raises is consistent with the first part of what Paul VI says. He could have meant:

(a) The law of fasting allows only one full meal a day, but does not prohibit taking some food in the morning and evening, so long as they don't add up to a second full meal.

But he could also have meant:

(b) The law of fasting allows only one full meal a day, but does not prohibit taking some food in the morning and evening, so long as neither is a full meal.

If the pope had said either of these things, we would know what he meant and nobody would be charging that the added statement (the part in red) contradicts the first part of what he said. The two added interpretations in red are thus both consistent with the first part of the statement.

Therefore, from the language of the first part alone, we cannot rule out either interpretation.

But there are additional considerations that allow us to decide which interpretation is correct:

1) In law liberty is presumed. Therefore the less restrictive interpretation (b) is presumed until the more restrictive interpretation (a) is proved.

2) The overarching thrust of Paul VI's labors in this document is a relaxation of ecclesiastical discipline (more on that a couple of posts from now, when I deal with the question of "substantial observance"). Therefore, if it is known that the mind of the legislator is an overall relaxation of discipline and one has two interpretations of what he says–one more restrictive and one more relaxed–it seems unwarranted to suddenly assume the more restrictive interpretation. This is inconsistent with the overall tone of what the legislator is trying to accomplish.

3) This one is the real clincher: While both interpretations in red are consistent with the first part of what the pope says, there is also the second part, in which he goes on to say: "observing—as far as quantity and quality are concerned—approved local custom." This explicitly kicks the question of the quantity of the two "some food" down to the local area. He is thus not dealing with the question of how much (quantity) you can eat on one of these occasions. If the pope expressly refers us to approved local custom to determine the quantity of this food then we cannot insist that the quantity be restricted to any particular amount based on what he said. (Beyond the obvious that each be less than a full meal, per the first part of what he said.)

4) Since our previous post (so far as I can tell) demonstrates that there is no approved local custom in America that restricts the two occasions where we can take "some food" to less than a second meal, the restrictive interpretation above (i.e., option [a]) does not obtain in the United States.

Finally, even if the above line of reasoning is wrong, it still shows that there is a substantial doubt as to whether the law requires this. That triggers canon 14, which is as follows:

Can. 14 Laws, even invalidating and disqualifying ones, do not oblige when there is a doubt about the law. When there is a doubt about a fact, however, ordinaries can dispense from laws provided that, if it concerns a reserved dispensation, the authority to whom it is reserved usually grants it.

Next: The Morning and Evening Issue

Down yonder, a reader writes:

Hi, I have a question. This has sort of been bothering me, although I undertake a stricter fast this question is mostly academic for me anyway. What are the limits of "Ash Wednesday"? Sundown to sundown? Sundown to sunup on thursday? Midnight to midnight? Whenever you go to bed to whenever you wake up?

Ash Wednesday–like the liturgical day in general–runs from midnight to midnight. According to the General Norms for the Liturgical Year and the Calendar:

3. Each day is made holy through the liturgical celebrations of the people of God, especially through the eucharistic sacrifice and the divine office. The liturgical day runs from midnight to midnight, but the observance of Sunday and solemnities begins with the evening of the preceding day.

Note the difference between the "observance" of certain days beginning on the evening of the preceding day even though they day itself doesn't begin until midnight. 

Ash Wednesday is not a solemnity and so does not have a preceding evening celebration of this sort.

Oh, and for what it's worth, the day also (typically) runs from midnight to midnight in canon law (as opposed to liturgical law). The Code of Canon Law provides:

Can. 202 §1. In law, a day is understood as a period consisting of 24 continuous hours and begins at midnight unless other provision is expressly made; a week is a period of 7 days; a month is a period of 30 days, and a year is a period of 365 days unless a month and a year are said to be taken as they are in the calendar.

§2. If time is continuous, a month and a year must always be taken as they are in the calendar.

Recently I noted that Paenitemini allows that on days of fast one may eat one full meal and also take “some food” in the morning and evening. It also states that the quantity and quality of this food may be regulated by approved local custom.

I then noted that the U.S. bishops do not have a complementary norm further specifying the quantity of food and that, as far as I know, no bishop has legally bound his subjects on this matter.

Therefore, so far as I know, American Catholics are not canonically required to adhere to the common idea that the two times they can eat “some food” on days of fast must not add up to a second full meal. That’s not what Paenitemini says, and I know of no requirement that they do this–which is problematic anyway since meals vary in size, and size can be measured in different ways (e.g., calories vs. volume vs. weight vs. fillingness or satiety).

People certainly can try to apply this rule if they wish. One may well choose to keep a stricter fast than what the law allows, and it can be very praiseworthy to do that, but this is a separate issue than what is legally required.

In response, a reader writes:

Regarding the “approved local custom”…does not the fact that it is expressed in this way constantly in the USA…in parish bulletins or diocese newspapers etc and that it is actually then the way it is observed…
does that not amount to “approved local custom”???

He also suggests:

perhaps Pope Paul VI was not speaking the language of Canon Law when he said ‘approved local custom’??? …and of course it came out prior to the 1983 Code….

Actually, Paul VI was speaking in canonical terms when he referred to approved local custom. The 1917 Code of Canon Law has a section on custom that is quite similar to the parallel section in the 1983 Code. One of the things that both Codes require for a local custom to attain the force of law is that it must be approved by the competent authority. Paul VI’s phrase “approved local custom” is a direct reference to the 1917 Code’s requirements for custom being able to regulate this subject.

Since the 1983 Code’s treatment of custom is very similar, and thus not an integral reordering of the law on this point, Paenitemini’s statement regarding approved local custom will still apply today (mutatis mutandis).

But the “two smaller meals that don’t add up to a second meal” concept simply does not have the status of an approved local custom in the United States under the Code of Canon Law.

To see why, consider the following canons:

Can. 23 Only that custom introduced by a community of the faithful and approved by the legislator according to the norm of the following canons has the force of law.

Can. 24 §1. No custom which is contrary to divine law can obtain the force of law.

§2. A custom contrary to or beyond canon law (praeter ius canonicum) cannot obtain the force of law unless it is reasonable; a custom which is expressly reprobated in the law, however, is not reasonable.

Can. 25 No custom obtains the force of law unless it has been observed with the intention of introducing a law by a community capable at least of receiving law.

The basic difference between a law and a custom is that a law originates with a legislator, while a custom originates with a community. The community cannot make its customs legally binding, however, without the consent of the legislator, though, which is part of the point of canon 23. Rome doesn’t want communities of the faithful telling their members that they must (or must not) do something unless the legislator competent for that community approves.

The custom also has to be reasonable, per canon 24 (more on that in a moment).

The canon also alludes to the difference between customs contrary to law and customs that go beyond the law. The alleged “can’t add up to a second meal” custom would be the latter since it adds an additional condition not found in Paenitemini.

Paenitemini just says that besides one full meal you can also have “some food” in the morning and evening. It goes beyond this law to add, “provided that this doesn’t add up to a second full meal.”

Finally, per canon 25, the custom the community of the faithful must observe the custom with the intention of introducing a law.

That did not happen in this case.

At no point has the community of faithful Catholics in America gotten together and said, “Hey, let’s start observing a custom that goes beyond the law Paenitemini establishes by requiring that the two receptions of “some food” doesn’t add up to a second meal, and let’s do with with the intention that it will eventually attain the force of law by the approval of our conference of bishops and thus restrict our actions beyond what Paenitemini requires.”

The basic condition required by canon 25–that the community of faithful, apart from its legislator, starts observing a custom with the intent that their future freedom be bound upon obtaining the legislator’s approval–simply has not happened.

This means that we don’t even have to get into the question of whether the legislator has approved the custom. The community of the faithful, nationally, has not introduced a custom with the intent of restricting their future freedom beyond what universal law requires.

If you went to 999 out of 1,000 Catholics (let’s make it among those who have heard the “can’t add up to a second meal” idea) and said, “Did you know that the law allows us to have one full meal and also take ‘some food’ in the morning and evening, without further specifying quantity?” they would say, “Huh?”

This shows that they don’t understand the “can’t add up to a second meal” idea as a matter of a custom introduced by the community.

They think it’s a law introduced by the legislator.

Which simply means that the law has been explained to them badly.

Some noble soul, out of a well-intentioned desire to offer pastoral guidance to help the faithful observe the spirit of the law, decided at some point to add the “can’t add up to a second meal” idea to his explanation of the law and it caught on as an ecclesiastical meme.

But a meme that misstates the law does not have legal force.

Badly explaining the law to someone does not restrict their actual legal freedom, much less create an approved legal custom.

It’s just making people mistakenly think they have less freedom than they do.

Now, as I said, I think the requirements regarding fast and abstinence today are quite mild, and I would certainly encourage people–if they are willing and able to do so–to go beyond those requirements.

But we should be clear about what the law actually is.

On another note, it appears that the “doesn’t add up to a second meal” idea does not pass the test of reasonableness required by canon 24. Given the fact that meal sizes vary and that “size” can be measured in different ways (some of which are noted above), this rule is so vague that it will frustrate and foster scruples among the faithful as they try to apply a test this confusing and ambiguous.

Hope this helps!