I think that would be more confusing.  Though 58 inclusive or exclusive?

See, in many parts of the world, when you ask someone how old they are, there are different ways of counting vis-a-vis that 0 year.

My Dad, Hungarian, when someone asked his age, would always "add one" when compared to the US way of thinking about it.  When he was, say, 59 by US standards, he would say he's 60 when asked.  I asked him about it, and he would respond, "I'm in my 60th year."  For them, they counted 0-1 as Year 1 of life.

So Canon Law saying "not yet begun their 60th year" according to the same mindset as my Dad.  You COMPLETE your first year when you're 1 year old.  You BEGIN your 2nd year when you're 1 (by our standards).  So you always have to +1 from US standards.

So someone who is (by US standards) 59 is no longer obliged to fast.

This actually causes some confusion among computer programmers, by the way.  Some programmers count collections beginning with #1, and others 0.  In most computer languages, the first element of a collection starts with 0.  So if you have a list of 10 items, they would have the index or number from 0 to 9.

Canon Law, as per usual, tries to be very precise.  They couldn't just say, "you have to fast until you're 59."  Until 59 inclusive or exclusive?  What does it mean to be "59"?  So Canon Law defines it as having completed your 59th year, which would happen on your 59th birthday.

I realize that, but in vernacular American English, if you say "I am X years old", or "I am X", it means "I have had my Xth birthday".

Jone's manual was supposedly "Englished" and adapted to the customs of the United States, per the title page.  Phrasing it in the way that Americans generally speak and understand would seem to be the best way of doing that.

Don't even get me started on his deeply troubling comments about inchoate commission of peccatum illud horribile inter christianos non nominandum within marriage.  That passage totally destroys one's credibility when trying to use Jone as a reliable guide to traditional Catholic moral theology, and one's listener is both aware of it and dislikes traditional Catholic moral theology to begin with.  I really, really want to believe that something got lost in translation.

Rev. P. Chas Augustine, OSB, DD, says, in his Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law, 1918:

Old age is generally held to commence with the sixtieth year, which also frees from the obligation of fasting.

Here's what Jone says:




So the way I read it, that means 59, i.e., the day you turn 59, you have "begun your sixtieth year", and are thus no longer obliged to fast.

This may be a more "official" or "canonical" way of phrasing it, but it's confusing.  He just needed to say "from ages 21 through 58".

I have "aged out" of fasting, but I keep the Ash Wednesday and Good Friday fasts as best I can --- due to health reasons, I can never guarantee that I can do it precisely, and in practice, it works out something like "2/3 of a meal" three times a day, for a total of two full meals.  I do have to take liquid nutrition, as I must receive small amounts of some kind of food or drink throughout the day, I usually do this with dairy or protein beverages.

In today's sermon, Fr. pretty much said what you said, he said the law of fasting is binding until "a day after you turn 59, why 59? I don't know, I'm not a canon lawyer...."

YEP!!! 😂

😁

Rev. P. Chas Augustine, OSB, DD, says, in his Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law, 1918:
Old age is generally held to commence with the sixtieth year, which also frees from the obligation of fasting.

It's scary that I'm about 5 years from being considered elderly by the Church.

It's scary that I'm about 5 years from being considered elderly by the Church.

It's even scarier once you get there.

Just read in two different places (both sedevacantist) that fasting is required until age 59.

Just read in two different places (both sedevacantist) that fasting is required until age 59.

See, here's the difference.  What do you mean "until age 59" ... inclusive or exclusive?  I have no idea what you or Quo in the next post mean.

But Canon Law makes it clearly that you are no longer obliged to fast beginning on your 59th birthday.