ABSTINENCE. – From the Latin *abs-teneo* “I hold myself back,” abstinence implies refraining from something either temporarily or entirely. From the alimentary point of view, abstinence is the refraining from a certain kind of food or drink. For sexual abstinence, see CHASTITY; CONTINENCE.
I. IN NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS
Abstinence from certain foods is found in the practice of all primitive religions, insofar as it is connected with the sacred character of the animal or plant from which the individual or group abstains precisely because of that sacrality, which is charged with a force that can cause harm to those who come into contact with it without the proper precautions: abstinence ceases when the animal is eaten in common by the group, which thereby receives an increase of strength and social cohesion. Sometimes abstinence does not refer to the entire sacred thing but only to a part of II. Those exempt from such abstinence are the elders of the group, since they possess a sacrality that immunizes them.In groups that have reached a higher degree of civilization and religious sensitivity, abstinence tends to exempt the individual from contact with foods considered impure so as to be in a state of purity before the divinity.
During the Hellenistic period, the liturgy of the mysteries, which aimed to bring the initiates to inner purity in view of initiation, presents many cases of qualitative abstinence.
At Eleusis, the initiates had to abstain from red mullet, poultry, pomegranates, and fava beans (Porphyry, *De abst.*, 4, 16); the Orphics and, in general, those who believed in metempsychosis abstained from meat; the Pythagoreans from fava beans; during the festivals of Cybele, abstinence from bread and wine tended precisely to this purification of the individual. The Neoplatonic emperor Julian explains the prescription to abstain from the part of plants that is enclosed within the earth (roots, etc.), because this is the dark prison into which the soul has fallen, while it is permitted to eat what develops externally because it symbolizes the soul’s ascent toward the heights (Julian, *Orat.*, V, 174a-177c). The fast of Cybele was called *castus Matris Deum* (*castus*, from *carere*, “to be deprived,” “to abstain”). Emperor Claudius never failed to observe it during the *Metoa* festivals of March, which he established.
The devotees of Isis also had to abstain from bread, pork, onions (Plutarch, *De Iside*, 6, 7, 8), meat, and wine (Apuleius, *Metam.*, XI, 23); those of the Syrian goddess abstained from fish.
The prohibition regarding the meat of certain animals, which still persists in some religions as if it were impure food, must be considered a survival of a belief that the sacredness of the animal has now been surpassed.
II. IN MORAL THEOLOGY AND CANON LAW
A) Legislation. The Catholic Church, which considers abstinence a meritorious and expiatory virtue, imposes it on the faithful, specifying the manner and time (3rd precept of the Church).a) The law does not concern beverages but only “meat and meat broth” (CIC, can. 1250).
Thus, the following are prohibited: 1) meat (including blood, fat, liver, bone marrow, brain, and intestines) and the broth derived from it, of animals “that live and breathe on land and in the air” (*Sum. Theol.*, II-II, q. 147, a. 8); 2) meat and broth concentrates, because they contain prohibited meat elements. The following are permitted: 1) vegetables, eggs, milk and its derivatives, fish, cold-blooded terrestrial animals (mollusks, crustaceans, crabs, turtles, frogs, oysters); 2) condiments of any kind, even if derived from animal fat (can. 1250), e.g., margarine, lard. “Nor should those who use substances, whatever they may be called, that, although derived from meat and have the same nutritive value, have nevertheless lost the taste of meat or broth, be disturbed in their conscience” (E. Génécot – I. Salsmann, *Theol. Mor.*, I, 16th ed., Brussels 1946, n. 442), e.g., gelatin, pepsin, peptones.
b) The time during which abstinence must be practiced is indicated by can. 1252 and includes: 1) all Fridays of the year, except when a holy day of obligation falls on that day (an exception is the feast of St. Joseph, which, falling during Lent, maintains the obligation of abstinence); 2) all Saturdays of Lent (except Holy Saturday from noon onward); 3) Ash Wednesday; 4) the four Ember Days; 5) the four vigils: of Pentecost, the Assumption of Mary, All Saints, and Christmas.
c) The subject of the law is every Christian who has reached the age of reason; this is legally computed from the completed seventh year (can. 88, § 3).
d) Dispensation. There may, however, be legitimate reasons that remove the obligation of abstinence: 1) physical or moral impossibility (illness, state of weakness, certain kinds of work, serious inconvenience); 2) a decision by the Church for particular reasons (periods of epidemics or persistent contagious diseases, distressing war situations, particular restrictions). Those who may grant dispensation are: 1) the Pope for the entire Church; 2) bishops for their own dioceses and parish priests for their parishes for individual persons or families; 3) superiors of exempt religious houses for individual subjects (including guests and domestic staff who stay day and night in the house [can. 1245]).
e) The obligation deriving from the Church’s precept is grave in itself; however, for the transgression to be a mortal sin, the gravity of the matter is required.
B) Reasons for the law. – When imposing abstinence from meat, the Church does not follow the erroneous reasons from which the same practice derives in several heretical sects (Manichaeans, Montanists, etc.), which considered meat to be intrinsically evil and therefore absolutely inedible (cf. the penalties imposed by the Apostolic Canons [Denz.-U, no. 37] and the anathema pronounced by the 2nd Council of Toulouse in 447 [C. Kirch, *Euchir. fontium hist. eccles. antiquae*, no. 700]), nor does it do so out of a duty to conform to Mosaic law, which prohibited certain foods (Lev. 11; Deut. 14), because that law ceased with the coming of Jesus Christ (cf. the symptomatic episode of St. Peter [Acts 10:10-16] and the decision of the Council of Jerusalem: “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” [Acts 15:28-29]). It can also be said that, while appreciating them, the Church does not base its precept on philosophical, pedagogical, or medical considerations; rather, it derives it from the doctrine of its Founder. Jesus Christ said: “If
CANTI OF MANZO PECCA GRASSI
1. VITELLINE VERDE
2. MASCALI
3. MASCALI
4. MASCALI
5. MASCALI
6. MASCALI
7. MASCALI
8. MASCALI
9. MASCALI
10. MASCALI
11. MASCALI
12. MASCALI
13. MASCALI
14. MASCALI
15. MASCALI
16. MASCALI
17. MASCALI
18. MASCALI
19. MASCALI
20. MASCALI
21. MASCALI
22. MASCALI
23. MASCALI
24. MASCALI
25. MASCALI
26. MASCALI
27. MASCALI
28. MASCALI
29. MASCALI
30. MASCALI
31. MASCALI
32. MASCALI
33. MASCALI
34. MASCALI
35. MASCALI
36. MASCALI
37. MASCALI
38. MASCALI
39. MASCALI
40. MASCALI
41. MASCALI
42. MASCALI
43. MASCALI
44. MASCALI
45. MASCALI
46. MASCALI
47. MASCALI
48. MASCALI
49. MASCALI
50. MASCALI
51. MASCALI
52. MASCALI
53. MASCALI
54. MASCALI
55. MASCALI
56. MASCALI
57. MASCALI
58. MASCALI
59. MASCALI
60. MASCALI
61. MASCALI
62. MASCALI
63. MASCALI
64. MASCALI
65. MASCALI
66. MASCALI
67. MASCALI
68. MASCALI
69. MASCALI
70. MASCALI
71. MASCALI
72. MASCALI
73. MASCALI
74. MASCALI
75. MASCALI
76. MASCALI
77. MASCALI
78. MASCALI
79. MASCALI
80. MASCALI
81. MASCALI
82. MASCALI
83. MASCALI
84. MASCALI
85. MASCALI
86. MASCALI
87. MASCALI
88. MASCALI
89. MASCALI
90. MASCALI
91. MASCALI
92. MASCALI
93. MASCALI
94. MASCALI
95. MASCALI
96. MASCALI
97. MASCALI
98. MASCALI
99. MASCALI
100. MASCALI
(from flagelloni, *Fisiologia Umana*)
ABSTINENCE — Composition of Certain Foodstuffs
«If anyone wishes to come after me, let him deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me» (Mt 16:24). Interpreting these words, the Church insists on mortification and penance and imposes a specific practice upon Christians through abstinence from meat. This alone would be a sufficient reason. But there are others, recalled by St Thomas Aquinas (*Summa Theologiae*, II-II, q. 147, a. 1): this exercise of mortification aids prayer, preserves and repairs at the same time; we have a splendid and constant example of this in the lives of the saints.
III. PASTORAL MEDICINE
From the time of the Fathers, the precept of abstinence has been attacked with various arguments of a historical, dogmatic, and practical disciplinary nature, not least of an hygienic order, objecting to the supposed harm that a regime of abstinence—even partial and temporary—might have on health.St Jerome, in reply to the attacks of the heretical monk Jovinian, does not disdain even hygienic and medical arguments, such as could be provided by the scientific level of his time. He appeals to the dietary habits of ancient and contemporary peoples, cites testimonies of pagan philosophers and physicians whose word or example showed how, in every age, abstinence—even complete—from meat was compatible with excellent physical and mental health and with robust longevity.
The vegetarian regime (*V. VEGETARIANISM*) has been employed in every age for religious or hygienic reasons, from the most rigorous fruitarians to ordinary vegetarians who add to their diet certain animal products: butter, eggs, milk. Persons of primary importance in the pagan world advocated or practiced it; thus Pythagoras, who died a centenarian; the Neoplatonist Porphyry, his biographer, who wrote a treatise on abstinence from meat; Epicurus, Seneca, Plutarch, Ovid. In the full Renaissance, the noble Paduan Alvise (Luigi) Cornaro, already advanced in years and burdened with ailments from a life of intemperance in every sphere, adopted a strict vegetarianism, regaining his health and dying at ninety-one (1475–1566); to illustrate the foundations of his regimen he published *Discorsi della vita sobria*, which went through many editions.
In practice, the abstinence prescribed by the Catholic Church is, for the great mass of Christians, identified with the elimination of meat for limited periods of time; hence the diet resolves mainly into a reduction of the daily protein intake, particularly at the expense of animal proteins.
It is well known that, alongside carbohydrates (starches and sugars), lipids (neutral fats and lipoids), mineral substances (water and salts), and vitamins (*v.*), proteins (albuminoid or protein substances) represent indispensable and irreplaceable elements of nutrition, serving as plastic substances to repair the wear and tear of the flesh of our organism. One of the most debated problems of modern nutritional physiology has been that of the minimum protein ration necessary to cover the daily needs of man. Toward the end of the last century (1875), C. Voit, using statistical inquiry into the “quantum” of food consumed by a large group of men on a free diet, calculated 118 g of protein as necessary for an adult man of 67 kg performing moderately heavy work for 8–10 hours a day (mason, carpenter). The American Atwater raised this protein quota to 125 g. Russell H. Chittenden, conducting new research (1903–1905) by experimental methods and considering statistical methods deceptive—inasmuch as, while it is true that the palate is the “dietetic conscience” of the individual, there are many degenerate palates—arrived at results less than half as high. Experimenting on individuals who voluntarily submitted to very reduced diets, in particular the American O. Fletcher, author of *The Art of Eating Little*, he concluded that to cover the quota of organic protein wear and tear, about 55 g of protein per day are sufficient.
At present physiologists agree that for an adult man the daily protein ration should be about 1 g of protein per kilogram of body weight (about 70 g daily); this quota should be raised to 1.5 g per kilo in individuals still developing. To complete the ration, an adult is considered to require about 500 g of carbohydrates and 100 g of lipids daily.
Now the question arises whether abstention from meat—even complete and permanent, as practiced by certain religious orders (Carthusians, Carmelites, Minims, Camaldolese, Poor Clares, etc.)—represents a danger to health through insufficient compensation for protein wear and tear. This can be ruled out with the utmost certainty in view of the most modern studies on the qualitative and quantitative composition of various foods.
It is easy to see (see table of foods) that valuable protein substances are not lacking but are abundantly contained even in vegetable foods (beans contain more than meat itself), so that even with complete exclusion of meat from the diet one can easily obtain a daily quota of 80–85 g of protein and about 2,500 calories using only bread (250 g), pasta (100 g), an egg, cheese (100 g), milk (250 g), potatoes (200 g), legumes (50 g), with appropriate additions of fats (50 g between butter and oil), sugar (20 g), fresh vegetables, fruit, and lemon juice for the necessary vitamins.
From the qualitative point of view it is now held that of the total protein intake, one third should consist of proteins of animal origin, because only these can supply certain indispensable amino acids for development (histidine, leucine, lysine, methionine, tryptophan, etc.) that are absent from vegetable proteins and cannot be synthesized by the human organism. Even with the exclusion of meat, however, these amino acids can be amply supplied by indirectly animal foods (milk, cheese, eggs) or by fish—foods, especially the first, that are commonly consumed by ordinary vegetarians and by Catholics even during the strictest periods of abstinence.
It is widely held that a diet including meat is necessary or at least highly beneficial for intellectual workers, since it is more stimulating and invigorating. We have already noted how strict vegetarianism was favored by famous pagans renowned for their intelligence, to whom they attributed its merit; thus the moralist Seneca affirms (Epistle 108) that after a year of vegetarian diet his intellectual faculties had further developed. Porphyry, the Neoplatonist, maintains (De abstinentia) that a vegetarian diet is best suited to sharpen philosophical acumen. Many Fathers of the Church, many great monks of the patristic era, with their vegetarian and abstemious diet, even to the point of fasting, demonstrated through their powerful and keen intellects that meat is not absolutely necessary for the development and proper exercise of intelligence.
It must be said that a diet, if not entirely vegetarian at least tending in that direction, is most advisable for the so-called intellectuals, whose characteristic is a sedentary life ordinarily conducted under poor hygienic conditions because of a lack of muscular exercise and pure open-air respiration. The capital vice of such a way of life is indeed a tendency toward endogenous and exogenous intoxication, to which must be added the harmful effects of substances taken for stimulant or pleasurable purposes (coffee, alcohol, tobacco). Moreover, a meat diet is for the organism the strongest source of uric acid, so that those suffering from lithiasis (calculosis), gout, or arteriosclerosis—whether already afflicted or potential candidates—especially if intellectuals and sedentary, should adopt vegetarianism. Another advantage is that it gives rise to very few toxic putrefactive processes in the digestive tract, and conversely produces more abundant waste that, by stimulating intestinal peristalsis, combats constipation, so common among those who work more with their minds than with their arms.
Numerous experiments conducted with rigorous scientific method by physiologists and scholars of nutrition have shown that a diet, even a strictly vegetarian one, not only maximizes the potential and duration of physical labor (the strength of porters in Thessalonica and Constantinople, who subsist solely on cereals, rice, and fruit, excluding meat and wine entirely, is proverbial), but also accords well with excellent intellectual potential and high mental performance.
Finally, one particular advantage of a diet poor or entirely lacking in meat should be fully emphasized: reduced excitability and easier control of the sexual function. All of Christian antiquity unanimously recommends abstinence from meat and wine in order to facilitate chastity. Origen (PG 13, 518), St. Athanasius (PG 28, 264-65), St. Jerome (PL 22, 892, 897, 1116): “If you wish to be perfect, it is good not to drink wine or eat meat,” St. Bernard (PL 183, 1096-97): “I will abstain from meat, lest while it nourishes the flesh too much, it also nourishes the vices of the flesh at the same time,” St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 147, a. 8), and many others likewise extol the anaphrodisiac virtue of a frugal and abstemious diet.
Modern studies on the physiology of material and energy metabolism and on nutrition have demonstrated, as already noted, that a meat diet is characterized by being, at equal volume, more energetic than a vegetarian one, by producing a greater quantity of toxic waste (urea, uric acid), and by more readily predisposing to intestinal stasis due to the small volume of non-assimilable residue (the woody, cellulosic portion of plant foods). Hence there is a greater likelihood of slipping into either protein or energy excess in diet; a greater danger for the organism of becoming intoxicated through overburdening the renal function (which is unequal to eliminating urea) or through the accumulation of purine waste (uric acid) in the blood; and a deficiency in the excretory function of the intestine due to the greater ease of constipation. This combination of harms represents a strongly negative factor in the struggle that the individual must wage against the assaults of the powerful sexual drive. Indeed, if for the proper equilibrium of bodily health a metabolic balance that does not result in deficit is necessary, every excess in diet, whether qualitative or quantitative, sooner or later ends up harming not only the physical organism but also that right relationship that must bind the energy of the body to the strength of the spirit. Such excess is easier for the intellectual, who, in keeping with a sedentary life, requires a daily caloric intake much lower than that of a laborer (2,200–2,400 calories compared to 4,000–5,000) and who more readily consumes meat and heavily seasoned foods. It is moreover well known how intestinal stasis (constipation) easily leads to congestion of the organs contained in the small pelvis, among which are the sexual organs (prostate, seminal vesicles, ampullary portion of the deferent ducts; ovaries, fallopian tubes, uterus).
Undoubtedly, alongside a hygienically healthy life in which exercise, fresh air, proper muscular activity, and a well-balanced distribution of work and rest, waking and sleep follow sanely natural principles; a simple diet, lacking or very poor in stimulants, moderate, free from energy overload (calories ingested) and qualitative excess (excess of proteins and purines)—into which, as has been said, it is easier to slip with a meat diet, particularly for sedentary intellectuals—a diet of this kind represents an excellent aid in the struggle to maintain chastity (cf.).
Abstinence from meat, therefore, particularly from that of land animals, as the Church prescribes on certain days or periods, is by no means harmful to human health; on the contrary, it is a source of certain physical advantages (“...for with many meats there will be infirmity... Through gluttony many have died; but he who abstains adds to his life” — Sir 37:32-3), and moral ones as an excellent aid in the struggle against the concupiscence of the flesh (“...by bodily fasting you curb vice, elevate the mind, bestow virtue, and grant rewards” — Preface of Lent).