IV Sententiae d. 15, q.

3
Concerning Fasting
utrum ad jejunium ab ecclesia institutum
omnes teneantur absque dispensatione.

Article 2: Whether all are obliged without

dispensation to keep the fast instituted by the
Church.

ad secundum sic proceditur. videtur quod ad Sub-article 1: It would seem that all are obliged
jejunium ab ecclesia institutum omnes
without dispensation to keep the fast instituted by
teneantur absque dispensatione.
the Church.
praecepta enim ecclesiae obligant sicut
praecepta dei; unde apostolis dicitur luc. 10,
16: qui vos audit, me audit. sed ad
praecepta dei omnes tenentur absque
dispensatione. ergo et ad praecepta
ecclesiae.

Objection 1: For precepts of the Church bind as

(do) the precepts of God. Hence, the Apostle states
at Luke 10:16 "He who hears you, hears me." But
all are held to the precepts of God without
dispensation. Therefore so too are all held to the
precepts of the Church.

praeterea, illud quod utiliter statutum est,

Objection 2: Furthermore, that which is usefully
non potest sine nocumento relaxari. sed non decreed cannot be relaxed without harm. But the
sine utilitate statutum est ecclesiae
fasting decreed by the Church is not without use.
jejunium. ergo non potest per
Therefore it cannot be relaxed through
dispensationem sine nocumento relaxari.
dispensation without harm.
praeterea, secundum bernardum in lib. de
dispensatione et praecepto, in praecepto
superioris non potest inferior dispensare.
sed quaelibet singularis persona est inferior
quam ecclesia, quae jejunium sub
praecepto statuit, nisi forte ille qui est caput
totius ecclesiae, vel loco capitis, scilicet
papa. ergo nullus alius potest in jejunio
dispensare nisi papa.

Objection 3: Furthermore, according to Bernard in

his book "Concerning Dispensation and Precept",
the lesser cannot dispense of the higher precept.
But individual persons are lesser than the Church
which establishes fasting under precept, expect
perhaps that one who is the head of the whole
Church, or the place of the head, namely the Pope.
Therefore no one else can dispense of fasting
except the Pope.

sed contra, innocentius iii in quadam

decretali, loquens de materia ista, dicit,
quod non subjacet legi necessitas. ergo
necessitate imminente potest aliquis sine
peccato jejunium ab ecclesia institutum
praetermittere per dispensationem.

First on the contrary: Innocent III, speaking on this

very subject in his Decretals, says that the
necessity does not bind (one) to the law. Therefore,
in imminent necessity, one can overlook through
dispensation the fast instituted by the Church.

praeterea, praecepta legis naturalis non

possunt per aliquod statutum immutari. sed
praeceptum legis naturalis est ut homo ad
necessitatem cibum sumat. ergo si
necessitas exposceret, posset jejunii
abstinentiam non servare.

Second on the contrary: The precepts of the natural

law cannot be altered through a statute. But there
is a precept of the natural law that man by
necessity take food. Therefore if necessity
demands, one is able not to keep the abstinence of
the fast.

ulterius. videtur quod justi non teneantur ad Sub-article 2: It would seem that the just are not
jejunium ecclesiae,
held to the Church's fast.
2 corinth. 3, 17: ubi spiritus domini, ibi
Objection 1: (For there is) 2 Corinthians 3:17
libertas. sed justi spiritu dei sunt imbuti. ergo (which states) "Where the spirit of the Lord is, there

liberi sunt ab onere statutorum ecclesiae; et is freedom." But the just are imbued by the spirit of
sic non obligantur ad jejunium ab ecclesia God. Therefore they are freed from the burden of
institutum.
the statutes of the Church, and thus are not obliged
to the fast instituted by the Church.
praeterea, matth. 9, 15, dominus dicit: non
possunt filii, quamdiu cum eis est sponsus,
lugere. jejunium autem ad luctum pertinet.
sed cum justis sponsus ecclesiae christus
spiritualiter est; eph. 3, 17: habitare christum
per fidem in cordibus vestris. ergo cum
spiritualis praesentia corporali praeemineat,
videtur quod non teneantur ad jejunium.

Objection 2: Furthermore, at Matthew 9:15, Our

Lord says: "Can the children of the bride-chamber
mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them?"
But fasting pertains to mourning. However, the
bridegroom of the Church, Christ, is spiritually with
the just - Ephesians 3:17 "That Christ may dwell in
your hearts by faith." Therefore since spiritual
presence excels that of the body, it would seem
that they are not held to the fast.

praeterea, nullus tenetur satisfacere qui non

peccavit. sed jejunium est quaedam
satisfactionis pars. ergo si sunt aliqui justi
qui nunquam peccaverunt, videtur quod
tales ad jejunium non tenentur.

Objection 3: Furthermore, no one is bound to make

reparation who has not sinned. But fasting is a part
of reparation. Therefore if there are just people who
have never sinned, it would seem that such are not
bound to the fast.

sed contra, apostolus perfecte justus fuit.

sed ipse corpus suum castigavit per jejunia
et alia corporalia exercitia, ut dicitur 1
corinth. 9, 27: ne forte reprobus efficiar. ergo
et alii justi debent jejunare.

First on the contrary: The Apostle was perfectly

just. But he chastised his body through fasting and
other corporeal disciplines, as is said at 1
Corinthians 9:27 "Lest I should become
disapproved." Therefore, the rest of the just ought
to fast.

praeterea, justitia hominis ordinem

ecclesiae non subvertit, sed perficit. sed
quamdiu manet ordo, manet obedientia
inferioris ad superiorem praecepta: quia hoc
eis est debitum. ergo per justitiam homo non
absolvitur quin teneatur jejunare, et alia
praecepta ecclesiae dei debeat servare.

Second on the contrary: The justice of man does

not destroy the order of the Church, but rather
completes it. But as long as the order remains,
obedience of an inferior to a superior precept
remains. Therefore, through justice, a man is not
absolved who does not keep the fast, and who
ought to preserve the other precepts of God's
Church.

ulterius. videtur quod etiam pueri teneantur Sub-article 3: It would seem that even children are
ad jejunium.
bound to keep the fast.
joel. 2, 15, dicitur: sanctificate jejunium; et
postea sequitur: congregate parvulos, et
sugentes ubera. ergo parvuli ad jejunium
tenentur.

Objection 1: (For there is) Joel 2:15 "Sanctify a

fast" and is followed later by "Gather the children
and those that suck at the breast." Therefore,
children are bound to keep the fast.

praeterea, magis propinquus est praecepto

puer quam bestia. sed jonae 2, 7, dicitur:
homines et jumenta... non gustent
quidquam, nec aquam bibant. ergo multo
magis pueri ad jejunium tenentur.

Objection 2: Furthermore, the precept is more

related to children than to beasts. But it is said at
Jonah 3:7 "Let neither men nor beasts...taste
anything...nor drink water." Therefore, all the more
are children bound to keep the fast.

praeterea, pueri plus possunt jejunare quam Objection 3: Furthermore, children are able to fast
(ut videtur) provecti, quia habent plus de
more (it would seem) than those advanced in
humido. sed qui plus habet, magis tenetur. years, since the former have more moisture. But he
ergo pueri magis tenentur ad jejunium quam who has more, is more greatly bound. Therefore,

provecti.

children are more greatly held to the fast than those

of advanced age.

sed contra, praeceptum ecclesiae

necessitatem cibi subtrahere non debet. sed
pueri indigent frequenti cibo: quia non
possunt semel tantum sine laesione
alimentum accipere quod eis ad totam diem
sufficiat, propter debilitatem naturae. ergo
ad jejunium non tenentur.

First on the contrary: The Church's precept ought

not to deny the necessity of food. But children
frequently are in need of food since they are not
able at only one sitting to take the nourishment
which would be sufficient to them for the entire day
without harm, and this on account of the weakness
of their nature. Therefore, they are not bound to
keep the fast.

praeterea, jejunium est ordinatum ad

satisfaciendum, et concupiscentiam
comprimendum. sed satisfactio pro peccatis
praeteritis non competit pueris; quia
innocenti vita degunt, et a puritate pueri
dicuntur; similiter nec est in eis
concupiscentia impugnans, etsi habitus eis
insit, ut augustinus dicit. ergo non tenentur
ad jejunium.

Second on the contrary: Fasting is ordained to the

making of reparation, and for the restraining of
concupiscence. But reparation for sins committed
is not appropriate to children since they live the life
of innocence, and are called "children" (pueri) from
(the word) "purity" (puritas). In a similar fashion,
resisting concupiscence is not in them, even if the
habitus is in them, as Augustine says. Therefore,
they are not bound to keep the fast.

ulterius. videtur quod provecti et sani non

excusentur a jejunio propter
peregrinationem.

Sub-article 4: It would seem that the aged and the

healthy are not excused from fasting on account of
a pilgrimage.

est enim dimittendum illud quod non est

necessitatis, ut servetur id quod est
necessitatis. sed peregrinatio non est
necessitatis. cum ergo jejunium ab ecclesia
institutum sit necessitatis, quia cadit sub
praecepto; videtur quod non debeat propter
peregrinationem aut iter, jejunium intermitti.

Objection 1: For one ought to be released from that

which is not of necessity so that that which is
necessary may be attended to. But a pilgrimage is
not of necessity. Therefore since fasting instituted
by the Church is of necessity, and since it falls
under precept, it would seem that it ought not to be
neglected on account of pilgrimage or journey.

praeterea, videtur quod nec ratione

paupertatis. quia paupertas de se inducit ad
jejunandum. ergo non est causa quare
aliquis jejunare non debeat.

Objection 2: Furthermore, it would not seem (to be

excused either) by reason of poverty, since poverty
in itself induces one to fast. Therefore, it is not the
cause why someone ought not to fast.

praeterea, videtur quod nec ratione operis Objection 3: Furthermore, one would not seem to
alicujus servilis quis a jejunio excusetur.
be excused from fasting by reason of some sort of
quia lucrum spirituale debet praeponderare servile work, since spiritual gain ought to outweigh
lucro corporali. sed hujusmodi opera ad
bodily profit. But work of this kind is ordained to
lucrum corporale ordinantur, jejunium autem bodily profit, while fasting is ordered to spiritual
ad spirituale. ergo non est jejunium propter gain. Therefore, the fast is not to be left aside on
hujusmodi opera intermittendum.
account of this kind of work.
sed contra, afflictio non est addenda afflicto.
sed omnia praedicta habent de se
afflictionem. ergo aliquo modo excusantur
ab afflictione jejunii.

On the contrary: Affliction is not to be added to

affliction. But all of the aforesaid things have of
themselves affliction. Therefore, in some way they
are excused from the affliction of fasting.

respondeo dicendum ad primam

quaestionem, quod per praecepta juris
positivi, ut dictum est, removentur aliqua

I respond to the 1st. question (sub-article 1) saying

that through the precepts of the positive law (as
was said), some things are denied which are not of

quae non sunt de se mala et semper; unde themselves and always evil. Hence, in some
in aliquo casu possunt esse bona et
situation they can be good and necessary which
necessaria quae talibus prohibentur
sort are prohibited by precepts. Thus, it was not the
praeceptis; et ideo non fuit intentio
intention of the legislator that his precept always be
legislatoris ut semper observaretur
observed, except in those situations in which the
praeceptum suum, nisi in illis casibus in
good of virtue can be preserved. Thus it is to be
quibus bonum virtutis potest conservari. et said to the first question concerning natural and
ideo dicendum ad primam quaestionem de positive law, that the positive law is said to proceed
jure naturali et positivo, quod jus positivum from the natural law insofar as the way of
a jure naturali procedere dicitur, inquantum observing the natural law is determined through
per jus positivum modus observandi jus
the postive law, since the intention of any legislator
naturale determinatur; quia intentio
is to lead men to virtue, as is said in Book II of the
cujuslibet legislatoris est inducere homines Nicomachean Ethics, which pertains to the natural
ad virtutes, ut dicitur in 2 ethic., quae
law. However, the mode of observing these things
pertinent ad jus naturale. modus autem
which are of the natural law cannot be uniform in
observandi ea quae sunt de lege naturali, all situations because of the differences which are
non potest esse uniformis in omnibus
found among the particulars, just as the same
propter diversitates quae in singularibus
mode of cure cannot be employed for all of those
contingunt, sicut nec idem modus curationis suffering the same illness. Therefore, the legislator
potest adhiberi omnibus laborantibus
cannot impose a precept which does not allow, in
eadem aegritudine; et ideo legislator non
some cases, to be put aside. Nevertheless,
potest aliquod praeceptum ponere quod non considering what occurs for the most part, he
oporteat in casu aliquo praetermitti. tamen determines a law, and in those situations in which
considerans quod frequentius accidit, legem the mode determined by law is not appropriate, he
ponit, in illis casibus in quibus modus
reserves judgment to those to whom it belong to
determinatus per legem non competit
determine this; and this is the dispensation that is
judicium reservans aliquibus qui hoc
given out by prelates with respect to the fast
habeant definire; et haec est dispensatio
instituted by the Church, and with respect to other
praelatis commissa in jejunio ab ecclesia
such precepts.
instituto, et in aliis hujusmodi ecclesiae
praeceptis.
ad primum ergo dicendum, quod praecepta
dei sunt de eo quod est de necessitate
salutis secundum se; et ideo in quolibet
casu observare illa oportet; sed praecepta
ecclesiae quamvis vim obligandi habeant
ex actu praecipientium, non tamen semper
obligant propter materiam in qua
proponuntur.

Response to the first objection: The precepts of

God are of that which concern the necessity of
salvation itself. Thus, in any situation whatsoever it
is appropriate to keep (them). But the precepts of
the Church, even though they have the force of
obligation by reason of the activity of (her)
teachers, nevertheless they do not always bind on
account of the situation for which they are put forth.

ad secundum dicendum, quod secundum

utilitatem quae ut frequentius accidit, utiliter
hujusmodi praecepta instituta sunt; sed
propter necessitatem in aliquo casu
emergentem etiam utiliter dimittuntur.

Response to the second objection: Precepts of this

sort are usefully instituted according to use which
happens for for the most part. But in some
situations they are usefully released according to
an arising necessity.

ad tertium dicendum, quod inferior potest

Response to the third objection: The lesser is able
dispensare in praecepto superioris quando to dispense of the precept of the superior when the
dispensatio sibi a superiori relinquitur.
dispensation that he receives is released by the

ad secundam quaestionem dicendum, quod

praeceptum a legislatore positum, tunc
solum ad observandum non obligat, quando
observatio intentionem legislatoris evacuat
vel impedit, qua intendit homines inducere
ad virtutem, vel bonum statum eorum quibus
legem proponit. cum autem justitia
profectum jejunii quem legislator intendit,
non impediat, sed augeat, quia efficitur
magis meritorium ex hoc quod aliquis est
justus, non absolvitur a jejuniorum
observatione.

superior.
I respond to the 2nd question (sub-article 2) saying
that the precept set down by the legislator does not
bind one to observance only at that time when the
observance destroys the intention of the legislator
or impedes it, by which he intends to draw men to
virtue, or the good condition of those for whom he
sets forth the law. For when justice does not hinder
but rather increases the progress of the fast,
because it (the fast) produces to a greater extent
the merit because of which a person is just, then a
person is not absolved from observation of fasts.

ad primum ergo dicendum, quod libertas

quam spiritus dei inducit, est libertas
justitiae, quae opponitur servituti peccati,
sed conjungitur servituti dei; et ita ad
obedientiam mandatorum ejus, et eorum qui
vicem dei gerunt in terris obligatur.

Response to the first objection: Freedom which

draws one to the spirit of God is the freedom of
justice which is opposed to the servitude of sin, but
is conjoined to the servitude of God. And so, one is
bound to the obedience of His mandates and of
those whom bear the duty of God on this earth.

ad secundum dicendum, quod duplex est

jejunium; luctus, et exultationis; et dicitur
jejunium luctus, quod quidem cum
amaritudine peccatorum vel praesentis
miseriae geritur; jejunium vero exultationis,
cum ex spirituali jucunditate a carnalibus se
abstrahit; quia gustato spiritu, desipit omnis
caro justis. ergo semper habitu spiritualiter
sponsus praesens est, sed non est semper
actu; immo quandoque est eis praesens ut
judex, cum sua peccata recogitant, vel quae
fecerunt, vel in quae cadere possunt, nisi
carnem cohibeant; et tunc eis competit
jejunium moeroris. aliquando autem est eis
praesens actu, ut sponsus, quando ejus
dulcedine perfruuntur: et tunc competit eis
exultationis jejunium, et non maeroris.

Response to the second objection: Fasting is twofold, namely of mourning and of exultation. The
fasting of mourning is so called since it is borne in
the bitterness of sins or the presence of miseries.
The fasting of exultation (is so called) since it
withdraws one from carnal things because of the
enjoyment of spiritual matters. For having tasted of
the spirit, the (desire for the) flesh is insipid in every
way to the just. Therefore, the bridegroom is
always present, spiritually in habitus, but not
always actually. Sometimes, on the other hand, he
is present to them as a judge when they consider
their sins which they have committed or into which
they can fall, unless they restrain their flesh. And
then to these belongs the fasting of mourning.
Sometime, however, he is actually present to them,
as a bridegroom, when they thoroughly enjoy his
sweetness. And then to these belong the fasting of
exultation and not of mourning.

ad tertium dicendum, quod jejunium non

tantum inducitur pro peccatis praeteritis, sed
etiam ad praeservandum a futuris; et ideo in
his quae non peccaverunt, competit ut
medicina praeservans. tamen praesens vita
sine peccato omnino agi non potest,
quamvis a criminibus aliquis abstineat, ut
augustinus in lib. de poenitentia dicit; et
ideo sicut omnibus in hac vita existentibus
competit poenitentia, ita et jejunium.

Response to the third objection: One is impelled to

fasting not only for his past sins, but also to be
preserved from future ones. And so, with respect to
those who have not sinned, (fasting is) appropriate
(to them) as a preserving medicine. Nevertheless,
the present life cannot be wholly conducted without
sin, although some abstain from offenses, as
Augustine says in his book Concerning Penance.
And so, just as penance belongs to all abiding in
this life, so too does fasting.

ad tertiam quaestionem dicendum, quod

I respond to the 3rd question (sub-article 3) saying
pueri indigent multo cibo, eo quod cibus in that children stand in need of much food in that
eis non solum exigitur ad actum nutritivae, food is required by them not only for the activity of
sed etiam ad actum augmentativae virtutis, the nutritive power, but also of the augmentative.
quia de residuo nutrimenti fit augmentum. et For from whatever remains over and above (what
quia virtus naturae in eis nondum convaluit, is required for) nutrition, an increase of growth
non possunt simul multum de cibo
arises. And since the natural power has not yet
assumere, quia naturalis virtus illud
grown strong in them, they are not able to take
convertere non posset; et ideo indigent
much of food at one sitting, since the natural power
frequenti cibi sumptione; et propter hoc eis is not able to convert it (into the quantities required
non competit jejunium, dum sunt in
for their health and growth). And thus, they stand in
augmento. tempus enim augmenti,
need of the frequent taking of food. Because of this,
secundum philosophum, est usque ad finem fasting is not appropriate to them while they are in
tertii septennii ut in pluribus, quia res
their stage of growth. For the time of growth,
naturales non currunt semper eodem modo, according to the Philosopher, is up to the end of
sed ut frequenter; et ideo ante hoc tempus their 21st year for many, since natural affairs do not
non arctantur pueri ad omnia jejunia
always proceed in the same way, but only for the
ecclesiae servanda. sed quia quanto ad
most part. Thus, before that time, children are not
terminum praedictum appropinquant, tanto bound to every obligatory fast of the Church. But as
virtus naturae magis roboratur, et
they approach the aforesaid limit, so much more is
augmentum tardius procedit, cum in primis the natural power made stronger, and growth
quinque annis perveniat puer ad
proceeds more slowly, since the child arrives at the
medietatem totius augmenti, ut philosophus mid-point of his entire growth in the first five years,
dicit; ideo secundum quod magis
as the Philosopher states. Thus, the more they
appropinquant ad praedictum terminum,
approach the aforesaid limit, the more are they
sunt eis jejunia magis commensuranda.
made suitable to fasting.
ad primum ergo dicendum, quod loquitur in Response to the first objection: (This text) is said of
casu quando magna tribulatione imminente a situation where in great and immanent trouble, a
major afflictio ad placandum deum
greater affliction is to be taken upon oneself so as
superaddenda est.
to placate God.
et similiter dicendum ad secundum.

Response to the second objection: And in a like

fashion is the second objection to be answered.

ad tertium dicendum, quod quamvis pueri

plus habeant de humido quam provecti;
quia tamen illud est minus inspissatum,
citius potest a calore consumi; et ideo
frequentiori refectione indigent.

Response to the third objection: Although children

have more moisture than the aged, nevertheless,
because it is less thickened, it can be more quickly
consumed by heat. Thus they stand in need of food
more frequently.

ad quartam quaestionem dicendum, quod

sicut dictum est, intentio legislatoris est
conservare homines et inducere ad bonum
statum virtutis; qui quidem consistit in
conservatione vitae, et valetudine sufficienti
ad opera quae quis facere debet; nec tamen
suo praecepto exigit ab homine totum quod
potest, cum non intendat ordinare statum
hominis quantum ad unum diem vel ad
parvum tempus, sed ad totam vitam; a quo
deficeret, si semel homo totum quod posset,

I respond to the 4th. question (sub-article 4) saying

that, as has been said, the intention of the
legislator is to preserve men and to draw them
towards the good condition of virtue. This consists
in the preservation of life and in a state of health
sufficient for the work which one has to do. Not by
any means does he, by his precept, exact from a
man the whole of what he is capable. For he does
not intend to order a man's condition for one day, or
for a short time, but rather for the whole of his life.
And he would fail (in his intentions for this man) if

faceret; et ideo sive aegritudine imminente,

sive labore viae, sive quocumque alio, cum
quo simul et jejunio praedictus status
conservari non potest, non tenetur ex
praecepto jejunare; sed secundum
dispensationem superioris, ut supra dictum
est, jejunium solvere potest.

(he exacted from him) the performance of the

whole of what he is capable. And therefore, during
impending illness, the suffering of life, or of any
such like thing, one is not bound by the precept to
fast, when the aforesaid status (of the preservation
of life and a state of health sufficient for one's work)
cannot be preserved together with the fast. In
accordance with the dispensation from one's
superior, as was said previously, the fast can be
broken.
ad primum ergo dicendum, quod si sit talis Response to the first objection: If it is the kind of
peregrinatio quae possit sine incommodo
pilgrimage which can be postponed without
differri, debet peregrinationem differre, si
inconvenience, one ought to defer the pilgrimage if
simul cum ea jejunare non potest. si autem one is unable to fast at the same time during it.
peregrinatio commode differri non potest,
However, if the pilgrimage cannot be deferred
vel quia tempus jejunii hominem in via
conveniently; or because the time of the fast
praeoccupat, vel quia dies festus alicui
preoccupies man along the way; or because a
imminet, ad quem ex devotione homo
feast day is close to the pilgrimage which one
pergere cupit, vel quia mora in poenitentia desires to undertake out of devotion; or because a
periculum habet vel spirituale vel corporale, delay in penance will pose a danger to either spirit
potest cum dispensatione sui superioris
or body; in any of these cases, one is able, with a
omnia praedicta pensantis peregrinari, et
dispensation from one's superiors (who have
jejunium solvere. hoc tamen intelligitur de weighed the matter carefully), to undertake one's
his qui labore itineris adeo affliguntur, quod pilgrimage and to be released from the fast. This,
simul cum jejunio itinerari non possunt. nec however, is to be understood of those who are
obstat quod praeceptum debet praeponi
afflicted to such an extent by the labor of the
consilio; quia intentio praeceptum
journey which, together with the fasting, they would
hujusmodi dantis non est alias pias et magis not be able to undertake. It does not matter that the
necessarias causas excludere. secus autem precept ought to have more weight than a counsel
est de praeceptis legis naturae, quae hoc
because the intention of the one who has given
prohibent quod secundum se et semper
this kind of precept is not to exclude other pious
malum est.
and more necessary causes. However, it is
otherwise concerning the precepts of the natural
law which prohibit that which is in itself and always
evil.
ad secundum dicendum, quod paupertas
non semper excusat a jejunio, sed in illo
casu quando simul habere non potest
tantum hora comestionis quod ad victum
totius diei sufficiat, sicut frequenter egenis
contingit, qui frustatim eleemosynas
quaerunt; vel etiam quando ex praecedenti
inedia tantum debilitati sunt quod jejunium
sufferre non possunt.

Response to the second objection: Poverty does

not always excuse one from fasting, but (only) in
that situation where one is not able to have at the
hour of taking food what suffices for one's
nourishment for the entire day, as frequently
happens with the very poor who seek alms in a
piecemeal fashion; or (in that situation) where by
reason of a previous lack of food, they would be
weakened to such an extent that they are not able
to endure fasting.

ad tertium dicendum, quod de operariis

distinguendum videtur: quia si jejunando
possunt competenter victum pro persona

Response to the third objection: It would seem that

one ought to make some distinctions concerning
works. For if, by fasting, they are able fittingly to

sua habere, et pro familia cujus cura eis

incumbit (sive quia alias divites sunt, sive
quia de eo quod minori labore fit, qui secum
jejunium compatiatur, lucrari sufficientia
possunt), a jejunio non excusantur. si autem
alias non possunt tantum laborare quod
victum sufficientem acquirant, nisi jejunium
frangendo; possunt secundum
dispensationem sacerdotis sui jejunium
solvere, et laborare. ex quo patet quod
intentio majoris lucri non necessarii eos a
peccato non excusat, si jejunium frangant:
nec iterum illi a peccato immunes sunt qui
operarios conducere nolunt nisi tali pacto ut
jejunium solvant, nisi forte sit causa
necessaria, quae festinationem operis pro
quo laboratur, exposcat.

have nourishment for their own persons, and for

the families whose care is incumbent upon them
(or because the others are rich; or they are able to
acquire, through less work, that which is agreeable
with fasting itself; or they are able to obtain what is
sufficient), (in these situations) they are not
excused from fasting. If, however, they are not able
to work to the point where they acquire sufficient
nourishment, except by breaking the fast, they can
quit the fast and work in accordance with a
dispensation from their priest. From this, it is clear
that the intention of the greater benefit does not of
necessity excuse them from sin if they break the
fast. Nor, again, are those immune from sin who
are unwilling to take up their work except by some
kind of agreement so that they are released from
fasting, unless by chance there is a necessary
reason which demands the hastening of work on
behalf of which it is endured.

Stephen Loughlin
(sjl1@desales.edu)

The Aquinas Translation Project

(http://www4.desales.edu/~philtheo/loughlin/ATP/index.html)