Can Catholics FAST on a Feast Day or Solemnity? e.g. Solemnity of the Annunciation

Please pay close attention to the question I am asking: 

Can Catholics fast on a feast day or solemnity?

I ask you to pay attention because it's a question for which an answer is very difficult to find! Whenever I search for it on Google, it inevitably brings up the minimum requirements for fasting in the Church. It seems very few people ask about the permissibility of fasting on a feast day.

Most of the questions revolve around whether one is permitted to forego fasting on a particular day.

So, again I ask: can Catholics fast on a feast day or solemnity? In other words, are Catholics even permitted to fast on a feast day? It is wrong, inadvisable, etc? Let's talk about it.

Although I could not find a direct answer in the Catechism or in the Code of Canon Law regarding this, I was able to find some other sources which address this question.

St. Francis of Assisi
On a particular blog, I found a quote by St. Francis of Assisi. The version found there states:

When the question arose about eating meat on Christmas Day, because it fell on a Friday.  St. Francis replied to Brother Morico, "You sin, Brother, calling the day on which the Child was born to us a day of fast. It is my wish," he said, "that even the walls should eat meat on such a day, and if they cannot, they should be smeared with meat on the outside."

Saint Francis of Assisi
Celano, Second Life
Chapter CLI

From this quote, it seems clear that one of the Church's greatest saints was greatly opposed to fasting on a solemnity.

Catechism and Code of Canon Law:

These two sources, rather than discuss whether one is permitted to fast on a feast or solemnity instead lays out fasting requirements and indicates that fasting is not required on these days:

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.

So Canon 1251 addresses whether one is obligated to abstain from meat on a Friday which is also a feast or solemnity, but it doesn't address whether one is allowed to fast on such a day or if it would be wrong.

Is it advisable to fast on a feast day?

Unless I hear otherwise, I am a proponent of avoiding fasting on a solemnity or feast day even if it's on a Friday during Lent. By fasting on such a day, it seems we are missing the point. Jesus himself fasted for 40 days and nights but also tells people that fasting at certain times would be inappropriate.

Matthew 9 (14-15): The Question About Fasting.

14

g Then the disciples of John approached him and said, “Why do we and the Pharisees fast [much], but your disciples do not fast?”

15

Jesus answered them, “Can the wedding guests mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them? The days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast.

Feasts and Solemnities are times of celebration and joy, very similar to Sundays during the year. Although Lent is a penitential time, there are glimmers of joy even in this season, and we should not neglect those.

I feel that this is also partially about obedience. Sometimes pride can sneak into our fasting efforts. Some people may continue to fast on these celebratory days just to show they are able to or to "challenge" themselves. But again, I feel this is the wrong approach. Fasting is about growing spiritually closer to Jesus Christ our Savior. It's not about some personal achievement or accomplishment.

Today is the feast of the Annunciation, a day on which Mary was proclaimed to be the Mother of God. It is truly a time of great celebration and joy. To fast and deny ourselves on this day would seem inappropriate.

I would love to hear your thoughts in the comment section!

I hope you continue to have a blessed Lenten season!

"Instead of fasting from food, fast from..." and other nonsensical phrases

Something I've heard a lot in recent years is the expression that goes something like "This Lent, instead of fasting from food, fast from criticizing others (or judgment, meanness, anger, etc - the list goes on).

They may also say what to feast on, such as love, kindness, etc.

There is nothing wrong with this except the unnecessary contrasting of fasting from food with fasting from other actions and activities. They are hardly mutually exclusive concepts, as though you must choose one or the other.

In fact, fasting from food helps us in fasting from other vices which is why we are told to do so. If fasting itself had no beneficial effects or in fact makes us more judgmental, angry, jealous, etc, then why would Christ have implored us to do so? Remember, Jesus doesn't say if you fast, he says when you fast. Fasting is presupposed to the point where not only does he not have to tell people to do it or start doing it, he tells people how to do it correctly and points out those who do it wrong.

I find it highly misguided and inappropriate in our current time to set up this false dichotomy when speaking to people in our current era who have generally neglected fasting almost completely. When people do "fast", it is usually the mildest form of it. I once heard a woman say that she is fasting from one particular type of chocolate bar during Lent. Not chocolate in general, but one specific bar, such as Peanut Butter M&Ms or something. I'm sure St. Francis of Assisi is looking down from heaven in awe of this level of self-denial.

I don't say these things in order to toot my own horn or say that I'm superior. I won't even mention what I may or may not be doing during this or other Lents. One of my prompts in writing this comes from my own reflection that we should make Lent a little more strenuous than usual so that we can grow spiritually during this season of penance. My point is that in an era where the practice of fasting has almost completely vanished, it seems odd that priests and others would implore us to leave behind fasting from food and to choose other sacrifices instead.

In my readings, I've been looking at what some Christians undertook as fasting for many centuries. They would give up all meat and animal products, many would only eat one meal a day after 3pm (and sometimes later). During Holy Week itself, many would subsist on bread and water alone. These practices weren't considered extreme and unusual, they were the norm in many places and for many people. In that bygone era, perhaps it would have made sense to remind these people to fast from other vices as well, or to even warn people not to go too far so as to damage their health. But such warnings seem almost silly in our time. It would be like speaking at an obesity conference and telling participants to focus on eating enough.

On the level of communication itself, we live in a time of imprecision. People throw around terms interchangeably without attempting to be precise. In my opinion, this has had the effect of rendering people less able to express specific ideas and has damaged theological and philosophical discussions. My point in mentioning this is that we shouldn't be using the term "fasting" in reference to things other than food. It's unnecessary and confusing. The English language especially has a very wide vocabulary and resorting to a specific word for use in other purposes seems unnecessary. It also waters down the concept of fasting. If fasting can mean refraining from not only food, but anger or jealousy or rudeness, then it takes away the idea that fasting from food is necessary and helpful. People start to believe that fasting from anything is the equivalent. The truth is Jesus specifically mentions fasting many times. He doesn't lump it together with various other practices. This highlights its importance.

Instead of "fast from anger", just say practice patience. Instead of "fast from criticism" say show mercy or show compassion. Instead of "fast from rudeness", perhaps say "show meekness". Not only is it more accurate, it is phrased in the positive. We don't just fast from pride, we pray for an increase in humility, for example.

Leave fasting as its own separate category. There are many spiritual fruits to be gained from this practice and watering it down is not the right thing to do in this era. Fasting is not an end in itself but rather a means to an end. By denying our bodies, we can focus more on the spiritual and growing closer to God.

This Lent, let's "fast" from watering down concepts and finding the easy ways out. I hope you have a blessed and fruitful Lent in anticipation of Christ's death and glorious resurrection and ascension at Easter.

Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen on Worshipping God vs. Worshipping Self

This is a great quote by a great man, Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen. If you stop and think about it, it's absolutely true. People come up with all kinds of wiggle words and ways to explain that they are not worshipping God, but when you see these people you realize they are behaving in a selfish and self-serving way, regardless of the fancy description they give to their way of life.

Also, it's an important point that he mentions in the second half. We do not worship God because somehow God is incomplete and requires praise of some sort. This is a mischaracterization often said by people who don't understand the faith. They'll ask: Why does God require that we worship him? They may even go so far as to wonder why God would have such pride or whatever. That is completely missing the point and totally false. God had no need to create us or even the universe at all. He is complete in himself and lacks nothing. He is perfect. Creation is a total act of love. We are created in the image and likeness of God and our ultimate calling is to dwell with God in heaven and to experience him fully in the beatific vision. That is what will ultimately make us happy. So worshipping God is for our good, not his.

Pet Peeve About Lenten Fasting - Probably not what you think

Happy Ash Wednesday.

As we begin the Lenten Season, I have a pet peeve about recent messages we receive during Lent concerning fasting. There is a new trend whereby the local parish or a priest or even just a friend on facebook will say something like "This Lent, instead of fasting from food, try fasting from [fill in the blank]"

A list of what can fill in the blank could be quite lengthy.

They'll say "Instead of food, fast from:

• Saying mean things to people
• Being impatient
• Complaining
• Grudges
• Speaking excessively
• Etc

The list is virtually endless. The basic point is instead of giving up food, give up one of these other things.

The problem is this would all make a lot more sense if fasting was more prevalent to begin with. If everyone was already fasting from food, but maybe needed work in other areas, then this would be a great message. There is a purpose to fasting from food. It can draw us closer to God spiritually and remind us of our dependence on Him. It can help us relate better to our neighbor who lacks food, shelter, clothing, or just has financial insecurity in general. It can help us mortify our flesh and help take our focus away from the physical and put it on the spiritual.

So there are a lot of spiritual benefits to fasting. It's probably the #1 go-to for mortification of the flesh and detachment from created things. So it should be the primary sense of the word "fasting" when used in the context of Lent.

I'm not against telling people to fast from other negative things or to fast from good things in order to grow spiritually. There is nothing wrong with that. But it seems we have completely jumped over the original and primary meaning of the word in order to broaden it to other uses.

Without fail each year around Lent, there will be an insert in the bulletin saying the message above. "Instead of fasting from food, fast from..." It has been like this for years. A much better message, in my opinion, would be to discuss the spiritual benefits of literal fasting and perhaps offer guidance in how to do so most effectively. After this has all been explained, perhaps go on to explain how we can fast from other things as well and how the ultimate purpose of fasting is to draw us closer to God.

There has become an almost false dichotomy when it comes to fasting. EITHER you fast from food or you go a "step further" and fast from anger and jealousy, etc.

I could be wrong, I have no idea really, but it seems fewer people are fasting from food in any context. Few Catholics now fast from flesh-meat on Fridays even though that requirement has never been abrogated:

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.

People will commonly say "Oh they got rid of no-meat Fridays during Vatican II." That's simply not the case. The rule of not eating meat on Friday has remained. The only difference is that people are allowed to substitute not eating meat with some other practice of charity. Are people even aware of this?

Many saints fasted very regularly, especially on Fridays. It was common practice. Now, fasting has fallen to the wayside for the majority of people. Jesus Christ himself says "When you fast", not "If you fast":

Matthew 6: 16

“When you fast,* do not look gloomy like the hypocrites. They neglect their appearance, so that they may appear to others to be fasting. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward.

17 But when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face,

18 so that you may not appear to others to be fasting, except to your Father who is hidden. And your Father who sees what is hidden will repay you. 

Fasting was just considered a normal part of life for the Jewish people, and continued to be so for Christians all through the centuries. It's for this reason that Jesus actually presumes that people are fasting. His job now is to instruct them more specifically on what they must do. It is only recently that people have abandoned the idea of fasting altogether. So it makes no sense at this time of confusion and laxity in observing these customs that our religious leaders never speak about the practice of fasting and instead focus on other "forms" of fasting.

I want to just reiterate that I am not tooting my own horn here, I'm not saying I'm good at fasting at all. I'm just saying we should hear more about literal fasting. Instead of 95% of messaging being about "other forms of fasting", it should be maybe 80-20: 80% of messages about fasting and 20% about other forms.

One last thing: part of the issue is that many of the alternate forms of fasting have other, more precise word attached to them already. "Fasting from anger" is called patience. "Fasting from judgment" means being merciful. "Fasting from talking too much" is called the virtue of silence. We don't need to use the word "fasting" to describe these virtues, they have their own names already. As an interesting aside, check out this thorough list of virtues prepared by Fr. Chad Ripperger.

Having said that, I hope you have a great and spiritually fruitful Lenten Season. Happy Ash Wednesday!

Blessed are the Poor, but who are they?

I'm definitely no expert in this area, but we often hear about the poor and how we ought to help them. I just wanted to offer a few thoughts on this.

First I want to say I don't think people should be classified as a category. It seems very permanent. Sometimes we lump poor people into a group and thinking of them as a collective. Or we see an individual as a poor person. I don't usually agree with political correctness as I think it has gone much too far, but a good point is not to categorize people in a one-dimensional way. Instead of saying "he's a poor person", it's better to say he is someone who is poor. Why do I say that? Because he could be poor at the moment, maybe he's hard on his luck, maybe he lost his job or has a substance abuse problem, who knows? But his poverty should not define who he is as a person. Beyond the financial poverty, he is a human being with an intellect, emotions, and aspirations, etc.

Also, just calling someone a poor person can tend to categorize them along with all the other poor people in the world. Rather than a specific circumstance this person finds himself, it becomes his collective identity and we start to think everyone who is poor is identical in almost every way.

Another trend I have noticed in the church is to refer to places like the Global South as being poor. This is a terrible way of thinking as it implies that everyone in the south of the globe has no choice but to be poor, and thus we must be their guardians and financial supporters or else there is nothing they can do.

I tend to take the approach that we all came here after thousands of generations. To get here, our ancestors had to carve out an existence. Often this happened in extremely difficult and grueling circumstances. We have endured famines, disasters, disease outbreaks, etc. and yet here we are to tell our story. Everyone has come from such a lineage. Therefore, we cannot think of entire groups of people as being completely incompetent and unable to make their own life. I think almost anyone can make something of themselves with the right kind of help, love, and support.

But an even bigger question is "who is poor?" It might seem easy to classify anyone with little money as being poor. But one thing I have come across many times in spiritual writings is the pre-eminence of spiritual matters over temporal ones. As people living in a secular world, we tend to focus on the material, the immediate, the visible, and less on the immaterial and invisible.

The poorest person is the one who has the least connection with God, ultimately. Our goal as human beings is to enter into communion with God. Many saints had no money at all, many had little food and would fast for extended periods of time, yet because of their closeness and love of God, they were the richest people on Earth. If we think primarily in terms of spiritual matters, then things become a lot more clear.

So I think we need to change our attitude about poverty, in my opinion. Spiritual poverty is the greatest kind. When it comes to financial poverty, we cannot save the world on our own. I don't think God has designed us that way. Instead, he asks us to care for those around us and to do what we can to bring about the Kingdom of God. I think all too often people get caught up in the concept of saving the world and they start to believe they can actually do so. People donate money to distant charities while neglecting those around them. But this isn't how we are built.

I'm not saying we shouldn't donate to far off causes, but I think we need to humanize people and focus on those around us. Plus, we must realize that spiritual poverty is much worse than material poverty. With that point of view, we help the "poor" a lot more by growing in our relationship with God through Jesus Christ and spreading the joy that comes with it, than by only throwing money at things.

Do Catholics have to give 10% to charity?

Right now in Canada, we are at the deadline for submitting our income tax forms, which is April 30th. In the US it is April 15th. You mostly need to worry about that if you owe money to the government. But the question often arises about how much Catholics should give to charity. A person close to me said we needn't give much because we pay so much taxes, which in turn pays for social services, such as hospitals, schools, welfare and other services. I understand this point. But I think we still ought to give money to charity. The question remains, how much?

In the Bible, we remember when someone asked Jesus if they should pay taxes. He said give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and give to God what is God's. I think this is the philosophy we need to take in our modern day. Taxes do pay for many services, but we as a community take advantage of these. I do not necessarily pay for things directly related to myself. I might pay for my children, spouse, parents, friends, etc. I would not say, well I buy food for my children, so I shouldn't give to charity. Taxes pay for the common good. But we must remember that we are commanded to help build the Church.

Giving taxes is the right thing to do, but that does not support the mission of the Church, which is of vital importance, perhaps now more than ever. And we can be sure that money we give to the Catholic Church will go to a good cause, whereas money given to the government could easily go to sinister activities which contravene our faith. For example, taxes go to support abortion, embryonic stem cell research, gay marriage, sex-change operations, adoption of children to gay couples, contraception, Planned Parenthood, etc. We cannot control this, and we are not morally culpable for supporting these activities by paying taxes. However, if all we give is taxes, how do we expect the Church to combat these evils?

The primary role of the Church is a spiritual one. It is there for the salvation of souls. By its very nature, it is intrinsically involved with the day-to-day affairs of the world. The Catholic Churches is a strong voice for good in the world, and our charitable contributions to the Church help it in this. By giving money to the Church, we support its mission which is to evangelize people and bring them into union with Christ. When this happens, the ills of the world decrease, because light overcomes darkness. By giving money, you support mission work, crisis pregnancy centers, church building funds, pilgrimages, Catholic education and health care, Catholic literature, books, pamphlets, and tracts, etc. You also support the Church's mission throughout the world, in poor countries. The Catholic Church, believe it or not, is the largest charitable organization in the world.

Many say giving 10% is impossible because they do not earn enough money. You are not obliged to give 10%. There is no absolute rule that you must give that much. You cannot neglect your most important duties to your vocation, such as caring for your family. But let's look at a hypothetical situation. Just say a man is making $50,000 per year. He says he can only give about $1000 per year, or 2% of his income. He says $5,000 per year would be simply impossible. But it is quite conceivable that he could receive a raise and start earning $55,000 per year. If he continued his previous lifestyle, he would be able to give the surplus $5,000 to the Church no problem. However, this seldom happens. It is more likely that when people start earning more, they start spending more. This really contradicts the whole idea of charity. Charity is not giving so little that we hardly notice it. Charity is about giving as much as we possibly can. We must realize how fortunate we are, and try to support others.

Many people receive many spiritual benefits from giving money, for a couple of reasons. For one thing, it lessens their dependence and desire for material wealth and brings them to a closer union with God. They realize only he can fulfill their lives and that money never will. Also, helping others is part of being the hands and feet of Christ on Earth. Jesus commands us to pray, fast, and give alms. As we continue in the Easter Season, let us be as generous as we can.