Something about this makes my blood boil. Perhaps it's the short notice. (I have tried to be careful with my understanding of the canonical norms regarding holy days of obligation and thought I had found a clear statement, though not directly from the Code of Canon Law, that transferred holy days were not of obligation.) Perhaps it's the…
Something about this makes my blood boil. Perhaps it's the short notice. (I have tried to be careful with my understanding of the canonical norms regarding holy days of obligation and thought I had found a clear statement, though not directly from the Code of Canon Law, that transferred holy days were not of obligation.) Perhaps it's the way that the difficulty of attending Mass on a work day is discarded so casually, at least according to the summary here. The possibility of attending Mass on a work day you can't take off depends heavily on the Mass times provided by nearby parishes and on your work schedule, and "ordinary difficulties of attending Mass during the working week" can be substantial. Maybe for a bishop, playing hooky at the Dicastery isn't a big deal. For a professor or a doctor, the situation can be quite different. It seems like that should be a case-by-case question of conscience, not a blanket "no".
But it shouldn't be! I understand the shortage of vocations but Bishops need to help people out by asking priests to travel if necessary to ensure at least one evening Mass everywhere on Holy Days. How is a failure to do so not leaving the sheep to the wolves?
My observant Jewish colleagues use some of their vacation days for high holy days. Not everyone reading has the option to do this, I'm sure, but I was eventually struck by their example (worship requires leisure) and resolved to do the same in instances of holy days of obligation when I reasonably can.
> Perhaps it's the way that the difficulty of attending Mass on a work day is discarded so casually
We should rejoice at the opportunity to do something merely inconvenient and we should reject temptations to scrupulosity when we have an "opportunity" to do something that actually we cannot do and therefore are not expected to do. The enemy, if he cannot convince people to believe "I don't ever need to go to Mass", will turn around and try to convince them "I am going to hell if I don't go to Mass although I currently have pneumonia" or similar (and throw in judgment of other people and pride and vanity if scruples are not currently possible); he works both ends of any range.
Exactly so. Keep the very great *gift* to your right and the very light *yoke* to your left (to mix metaphors viciously), and you will not mistake the path by much or for long.
I hear you, Daniel. Mass is offered in my home diocese (Grand Rapids) between 7a and 7p at parishes within a 20-minute drive from my home and office. If your work commitment does not allow you to attend (e.g., because you're a doctor or nurse working a mandatory 12-hour shift), the DDF already makes clear -- and Canonist Flynn confirms -- that you're "in the clear" (because of the impossibility of attending) and no specific dispensation is required.
Is what makes your blood boil a function of not having enough time to modify your calendar to ensure that you could attend to the obligation?
It's more how it tends to be phrased by the canonists who work directly for the Vatican dicasteries. I haven't managed to find, for instance, that "what is impossible is not required" in canon law. Or, in the article above, the dicastery's representative is indicated as expressing that a work obligation does not in fact excuse you from the Mass obligation.
Real-world canonists and pastors know these things. Laymen who have access to such people therefore know these things. But what about well-meaning laymen who happen to have pastors who don't care?
I just wish the Vatican could state these things more carefully. Otherwise it encourages despair through the dual issues of scruples and apathy.
Expressed in a more blood-boiling form: They bent over backwards so hard to accommodate blessings for individuals who were members of couples in irregular situations, can the Catholics who try to stay on the right side of the divine law get the same treatment?
Can. 1752 In cases of transfer the prescripts of can. 1747 are to be applied, canonical equity is to be observed, and THE SALVATION OF SOULS, WHICH MUST ALWAYS BE THE SUPREME LAW IN THE CHURCH, IS TO BE KEPT BEFORE ONE'S EYES.
You are right, you won't find it explicitly in the Code, you will however find it in the Regulae Iuris (of the Liber Sextus), which are the basic interpretive framework of canon law. The Sixth maxim is "No one can be held to the impossible."
Your point, however, that it would be difficult to find a typical layman who would be familiar with such things, certainly stands.
I would LOVE to see dioceses organize better staggered Mass times: maybe at each individual parish, 6pm works for the greatest number of people, but within a reasonable drive of my home/work/the route between I have like 20 6pm options... and absolutely nothing else
(And pastors, please please please put your holy day Mass times on your website's home page. Honestly if your parish doesn't have anyone who knows how to that, I will do it for you)
This reminds me that before the most recent round of parish mergers in my area there was confession every day within a very decent driving radius. I know there's fewer priests, but it seems like after the mergers it's still pretty close to the same amount of time, but many parishes have it simultaneously now.
There is of course the humility of requesting an appointment or keeping to one regular confessor, but man was it nice to know, "I gotta get to confession, good thing I know St. A has it on Monday and St. B on Tuesday," etc.
In my experience, the difficulty of attending mass during the working week is often lessened when it is clear that it is obligatory because priests schedule more mass times. What tends to make me more upset is when (because the obligation is abrogated) there are very few masses available other than the midmorning "retirees mass" even if, as a working person, you desire to celebrate the feast day.
As a busy professional myself, it's not that hard to attend an HDO Mass, particularly given that parishes schedule extra ones in the evenings the night before and the day of. Plus, the number of HDOs is very small. I bet that professor or doctor would make time to celebrate his wife's birthday or his kid's big hockey game, so he should be able to spare an hour for a Mass, as we're supposed to be putting God first in our lives. If it was truly not possible to attend (for example due to the doctor needing to rush to an emergency call at Mass time) then it's not a sin to miss Mass. The fact that a Mass obligation on one day to honor Our Blessed Mother and the patroness of the USA makes your "blood boil" is just sad in my opinion.
I never said that it did. I said the short notice and the disdain for the varying levels of struggle that working people can have made my blood boil. I'm all for celebrating HDO's on transferred days as long as the schedule is known sufficiently in advance and as long as the obligation is clear. But if we're talking about mortal sin related to canonical matters, those doing the binding and loosing have an obligation not to bind too tightly. As far as I can see, they are not taking that obligation seriously, though it's dangerous for me to make that conclusion without seeing the full text.
My response has nothing whatsoever to do with disrespect for Our Lady. God forbid that I should hold her privileges in disdain.
Something about this makes my blood boil. Perhaps it's the short notice. (I have tried to be careful with my understanding of the canonical norms regarding holy days of obligation and thought I had found a clear statement, though not directly from the Code of Canon Law, that transferred holy days were not of obligation.) Perhaps it's the way that the difficulty of attending Mass on a work day is discarded so casually, at least according to the summary here. The possibility of attending Mass on a work day you can't take off depends heavily on the Mass times provided by nearby parishes and on your work schedule, and "ordinary difficulties of attending Mass during the working week" can be substantial. Maybe for a bishop, playing hooky at the Dicastery isn't a big deal. For a professor or a doctor, the situation can be quite different. It seems like that should be a case-by-case question of conscience, not a blanket "no".
I think it is a case-by-case question of conscience, and for some people, the difficulty of attending Mass during the working week is extraordinary.
But it shouldn't be! I understand the shortage of vocations but Bishops need to help people out by asking priests to travel if necessary to ensure at least one evening Mass everywhere on Holy Days. How is a failure to do so not leaving the sheep to the wolves?
My observant Jewish colleagues use some of their vacation days for high holy days. Not everyone reading has the option to do this, I'm sure, but I was eventually struck by their example (worship requires leisure) and resolved to do the same in instances of holy days of obligation when I reasonably can.
Yep, I scheduled All Saints Day off because helloooooo, three-day weekend!
My union contract, in addition to vacation and sick leave, also has three days off per year with pay for religious obligations.
That's wonderful! I've never heard of such a provision, what a blessing for you!
As the saying goes -- "Live Better, Work Union"
I believe Kurt works and lives in Germany if I recall?
> Perhaps it's the way that the difficulty of attending Mass on a work day is discarded so casually
We should rejoice at the opportunity to do something merely inconvenient and we should reject temptations to scrupulosity when we have an "opportunity" to do something that actually we cannot do and therefore are not expected to do. The enemy, if he cannot convince people to believe "I don't ever need to go to Mass", will turn around and try to convince them "I am going to hell if I don't go to Mass although I currently have pneumonia" or similar (and throw in judgment of other people and pride and vanity if scruples are not currently possible); he works both ends of any range.
Exactly so. Keep the very great *gift* to your right and the very light *yoke* to your left (to mix metaphors viciously), and you will not mistake the path by much or for long.
I hear you, Daniel. Mass is offered in my home diocese (Grand Rapids) between 7a and 7p at parishes within a 20-minute drive from my home and office. If your work commitment does not allow you to attend (e.g., because you're a doctor or nurse working a mandatory 12-hour shift), the DDF already makes clear -- and Canonist Flynn confirms -- that you're "in the clear" (because of the impossibility of attending) and no specific dispensation is required.
Is what makes your blood boil a function of not having enough time to modify your calendar to ensure that you could attend to the obligation?
It's more how it tends to be phrased by the canonists who work directly for the Vatican dicasteries. I haven't managed to find, for instance, that "what is impossible is not required" in canon law. Or, in the article above, the dicastery's representative is indicated as expressing that a work obligation does not in fact excuse you from the Mass obligation.
Real-world canonists and pastors know these things. Laymen who have access to such people therefore know these things. But what about well-meaning laymen who happen to have pastors who don't care?
I just wish the Vatican could state these things more carefully. Otherwise it encourages despair through the dual issues of scruples and apathy.
Expressed in a more blood-boiling form: They bent over backwards so hard to accommodate blessings for individuals who were members of couples in irregular situations, can the Catholics who try to stay on the right side of the divine law get the same treatment?
What makes my blood boil is the absence of any message to bosses to help accommodate their workers spiritual obligations.
With respect, Daniel:
Can. 1752 In cases of transfer the prescripts of can. 1747 are to be applied, canonical equity is to be observed, and THE SALVATION OF SOULS, WHICH MUST ALWAYS BE THE SUPREME LAW IN THE CHURCH, IS TO BE KEPT BEFORE ONE'S EYES.
You are right, you won't find it explicitly in the Code, you will however find it in the Regulae Iuris (of the Liber Sextus), which are the basic interpretive framework of canon law. The Sixth maxim is "No one can be held to the impossible."
Your point, however, that it would be difficult to find a typical layman who would be familiar with such things, certainly stands.
I would LOVE to see dioceses organize better staggered Mass times: maybe at each individual parish, 6pm works for the greatest number of people, but within a reasonable drive of my home/work/the route between I have like 20 6pm options... and absolutely nothing else
(And pastors, please please please put your holy day Mass times on your website's home page. Honestly if your parish doesn't have anyone who knows how to that, I will do it for you)
This reminds me that before the most recent round of parish mergers in my area there was confession every day within a very decent driving radius. I know there's fewer priests, but it seems like after the mergers it's still pretty close to the same amount of time, but many parishes have it simultaneously now.
There is of course the humility of requesting an appointment or keeping to one regular confessor, but man was it nice to know, "I gotta get to confession, good thing I know St. A has it on Monday and St. B on Tuesday," etc.
In my experience, the difficulty of attending mass during the working week is often lessened when it is clear that it is obligatory because priests schedule more mass times. What tends to make me more upset is when (because the obligation is abrogated) there are very few masses available other than the midmorning "retirees mass" even if, as a working person, you desire to celebrate the feast day.
As a busy professional myself, it's not that hard to attend an HDO Mass, particularly given that parishes schedule extra ones in the evenings the night before and the day of. Plus, the number of HDOs is very small. I bet that professor or doctor would make time to celebrate his wife's birthday or his kid's big hockey game, so he should be able to spare an hour for a Mass, as we're supposed to be putting God first in our lives. If it was truly not possible to attend (for example due to the doctor needing to rush to an emergency call at Mass time) then it's not a sin to miss Mass. The fact that a Mass obligation on one day to honor Our Blessed Mother and the patroness of the USA makes your "blood boil" is just sad in my opinion.
I never said that it did. I said the short notice and the disdain for the varying levels of struggle that working people can have made my blood boil. I'm all for celebrating HDO's on transferred days as long as the schedule is known sufficiently in advance and as long as the obligation is clear. But if we're talking about mortal sin related to canonical matters, those doing the binding and loosing have an obligation not to bind too tightly. As far as I can see, they are not taking that obligation seriously, though it's dangerous for me to make that conclusion without seeing the full text.
My response has nothing whatsoever to do with disrespect for Our Lady. God forbid that I should hold her privileges in disdain.