“Make holy days great again”! It’s always struck me as a weak argument that it might be too difficult for American Catholics to attend Mass two days in a row. Let’s hope this clarification from Rome makes that silliness go away.
I don’t disagree, but with limited priests, that’s not always possible. As a working parent, I understand how hard it can be….but things that are worth doing are often hard.
It is rather interesting, that weekdays are harder for people to attend, everyone who attends on Sunday should be attending the weekday Holy Day Mass, and we therefore have fewer Masses for the Holy Day. ???
I can see how that would not be ideal for a working person, but as a stay at home mom I appreciate those times. Lunchtime or evening masses conflict with nap and bedtimes, and in my experience sleep deprived toddlers are the worst behaved children of all.
That said, I do think it odd to *only* offer a mid morning Mass on holy days. Our parish isn't staffed so well that they can offer a full Sunday schedule (including evening), but they try to get pretty close, and people come.
That's a good perspective. I can see the benefit for families with little kids and I thank you for reminding me of that.
Fortunately I haven't experienced the mid-morning mass being the only one offered, but I have definitely lived in places where the only evening holy day mass is the vigil, leaving me unable to attend holy day masses on the days themselves.
I agree with you about vigils. I like the Easter and Pentecost vigils because they are their own thing with their own traditions, but the other days don't have that feel to them, at least not anymore. I suppose I could broadly include Midnight Mass for Christmas in there too.
(This reminds me also that our parish is short on servers for the vigil of All Saints...hmmm...what would a lot of children be doing in the evening hours on October 31, I wonder...)
Children unavailable to serve would be a weekly problem in my parish, since religious ed is between the two middle Masses, and kids tend not to attend the earliest or latest Mass. We just have adult servers, problem solved.
I thought a major reason for the transfer of HDOs was not so much the working people, but more the working priests who nowadays are often manning multiple parishes, in some cases parishes that are 1-2 hours apart, and the priests have to scramble to provide Mass at reasonable times for all the parishes that one priest might be covering.
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.
What does this imply for the Feast of St. Joseph and the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul, which in the U.S. are neither obligatory nor transferred to a Sunday?
I believe that those are covered by particular law issued by the USCCB, which specifies that these are not HDOs in the US. But I am open to being corrected. This isn't new law from Rome, just an interpretation of an existing one, so presumably nothing has changed.
It seems the story is not December 9, but now all Saturday/Monday transfers as well as, noted by another commenter, St. Joseph and Sts. Peter and Paul.
Side note: can we send a dubia about getting Epiphany and Ascension back to their proper days, too?
Not quite. As the article notes, the USCCB retains the power to dispense or transfer obligations, so the other Saturday/Monday transfers remain in effect, as does St. Joseph's and Sts. Peter and Paul. They could do Immaculate Conception as well, they'd just have to revise the particular law as is currently written to cover the eventuality we see this year.
Yep, saw that paragraph more clearly reading through a second time. Thanks.
I knew that to be the case, but somehow reading this made me think the Dicastery was coming down on the practice here in the US (wishful thinking, most likely ;))
Where have I been all these years? I always thought that the Immaculate Conception, since it is our patronal feast, is ALWAYS a Holy Day of Obligation.
We had holy days during the week for decades and now we have vigil Masses, evening Masses, etc. I think the number of people from whom it is truly an extraordinary difficulty to attend Mass is in the minority. The "helping professions" and "service jobs" have always been exceptions.
I'm sure that varies a lot by location. If you live and work in a rural area, you might not have time to drive to the one Catholic church in the county and get to work on time while also taking care of family commitments. It would be nice if we all took vacation days on HDOs but not everyone here in the US gets sufficient paid time off.
My question precisely - I am wondering if I am over-simplifying the matter to think that the Conference could adopt an amendment to the norms at their upcoming meeting (obviously putting staff under a heavy time crunch) which would make the particular law match the praxis expressed in their published liturgical calendar.
It seems like the core of the issue is that the bishops disagree on what they want the praxis to actually be - I doubt they /want/ to have to vote on it, practicalities of getting it drafted aside
Wouldn’t the local law have the canonical force of custom at this point (32 years). I am no fan of “liturgical fizzbin” as I’ve called this, but, it is what people are accustomed to.
How appropriate given yesterday's Gospel: Luke11:46 --
"He said, “Woe to you teachers of the Law also! For you load men with burdens that are difficult to carry, and you yourselves won’t even lift one finger to help carry those burdens."
Not since the days of Msgr. George Higgins do we hear much about the duty of employers to provide paid holidays, leave time and stable work schedules to their employees so that they may carry out various duties and obligations of theirs, including holyday observances.
Maybe if the bishops were not quite so mute on this and less fearful of offending Big Business, they would not look as bad when they direct the lay faithful on weekday Mass attendance.
Non-Catholic employers have zero reason or obligation to listen to Bishops. It’s our job as lay people to advocate for our rights in that matter. This is why bishops and the church have been quite consistent supporters of unions.
If your bishop is your boss… that’s a different matter.
I guess you could also say that non-Catholic politicians have zero reason or obligation to listen to Bishops, so public policy positions should be the work of the laity with no need for commentary from the USCCB.
The Bishops are also citizens and have an obligation to inform their non-Catholic or otherwise political representatives on their moral views that is also informed by Catholic moral teaching like laity.
They are entitled to express that publically too. Heck, they’re even able to work together as a class a with with laity in directly advocating for particular policy positions as citizens of a democracy. How lucky we are!
WOW, the bishops can speak to politicians, cultural leaders, regular people, etc. but just need to keep their mouths shut when it comes to the all holy, high honorable barons of Big Business. Got it. God is above all expect Big Money.
Not what I said at all. Bishops give big businesses plenty of
grief, but labour organising by lay people are far more powerful than a bishop going up to Jeff Bezos et al, beretta in hand begging for human working conditions. I forget that Americans don’t have quite the same labour union movement and Catholic clerical activism that Australians do. Catholics founded the Labour Party in Australia with full and vocal support from the bishops. Up until the 60s and 70s that was unofficially the political wing of the Catholic Church until the bloody communists ruined it all and split the party. It’s been a messy decoupling and Labour Party these days do everything but advocate for labour rights that workers actually want.
Our Bishops still advocate and encourage unionism and labour organising, despite the face that most unions these days are utterly captured by lefty progressivism.
Glad things are different in Australia. In the USA, the conservative bishops are full toadies of Big Business and the money class. They even sell out pro-life for them.
Just so I have this right: my understanding is that Immaculate Conception was obligatory when it fell on a Monday or Saturday, and this held true because Immaculate Conception wasn't given the exception on Holy Days of Obligation on a Monday or Saturday.
Because I remember this happened in 2018 when the 8th Immaculate Conception fell on Saturday, and that there was a flow chart to explain how to fulfill your obligation, (e.g. an evening Mass on Saturday and a morning Mass on Sunday would satisfy your two obligations (even if both Masses are the Masses for the Sunday of Advent) -- we had to do the same last year for Christmas on Monday.
The contention here is whether or not Immaculate Conception is obligatory when the 8th falls on a Sunday and Immaculate Conception is bumped to the 9th?
As an aside: I agree that it isn't burdensome to ask Catholics to go to Mass two days in a row, but as it is now, it is burdensome to try to explain to people how to fulfill those obligations. There was no way for me to explain Christmas to my parents last year without sounding like a crazy person.
> There was no way for me to explain Christmas to my parents last year without sounding like a crazy person.
Because of my custody schedule, if I recall correctly I offered my two sons the option of two evening Masses on the same day (so they were both Christmas Eve Masses) or one evening Mass and one morning Mass... 1 kid wanted one and the other wanted the other (their idea of a good liturgy is "one that my brother is NOT AT") so I went to 3 Masses ... and in the overlapping Mass, one of them went down to the overflow Mass in the church basement (he got a seat and we were SRO upstairs) so they both, by some Christmas miracle, got their wish throughout.
So basically, the USCCB has the power to abrogate the HDO when it is transferred to a Saturday or Monday. However, the USCCB explicitly did *not* do so for the Immaculate Conception. Therefore, the Immaculate Conception has always been an HDO even when it is transferred to Saturday or Monday.
Glad that’s cleared up. Now do the same for the year-round Friday penance obligation.
Yes, it's always been the law in the US that IC is obligatory even when it falls on a Saturday or a Monday. The question here is whether that obligation follows it when it falls on a Sunday and is transferred to Monday.
The big question for me is not the result of this question, but why we have done it that way all along. This comes up every 5 or 6 years, and it was not obligatory in 2019. Why the change now?
While I don't have the "blood boiling" issue that Daniel has, I just appreciate definitive answers regarding Holydays. It used to be quite clear, now only as clear as mud. Aside from that, I am capable of discerning when I am culpable; my conscience is well formed.
It is exceedingly confusing, this transferring of feasts, to begin with. Then having "bank-shot" holy days instead of well-known and easily remembered dates....
When pretty bright bishops like Lopes and Paprocki come up with different answers, is it any wonder we bulletin-reading types will, too?
No "side" but "precepts should be bright lines," here.
Well, for those who don't think highly of ZbK, they and in particular one of their largest constituent organizations, the KAB (Catholic Workers Association), have been very effective in keeping Sundays and Holydays as paid days off in Germany.
1) It's weird to me when people try to find ways to spend less time with Christ in the Eucharist l, though perhaps that's because I am still waiting to be reunited with Him and still weep openly about this often at Sunday Mass.
2) It would be great if it was easier for working people to be able to attend daily Mass generally but especially on Holy Days. This year, I had to go to another parish for Good Friday because mine only had 1 time for retirees. I think fixing this would help make this a lot less of an issue.
Rob - the importance of Mass and Eucharist and the need to "put God first" as much as we can is a mindset / habit that most people need to work at adopting. I myself was a very sporadic Mass-goer for a couple decades because I was "too busy" and simply didn't prioritize it. When I consciously decided to prioritize the Lord, my attitude towards Mass attendance changed, now it's one of the more important parts of my day/ week even though sometimes it's a pain to find a Mass in the area or get to the Mass. I think for some people there's also an additional element of not liking to be "told what to do" by the Church authority.
Unfortunately the priest shortage can make it hard for them to cover all the necessary days and provide Mass times that work well for all of us. Hopefully some day we'll have more priests and more options, but until then the Lord just expects us to do the best we can.
I think a good faith attempt to follow the parish calendar would be categorized as invincible ignorance.
“Make holy days great again”! It’s always struck me as a weak argument that it might be too difficult for American Catholics to attend Mass two days in a row. Let’s hope this clarification from Rome makes that silliness go away.
See my comment above: Diocese need to help make ot easier for working people to attend weekdays.
I don’t disagree, but with limited priests, that’s not always possible. As a working parent, I understand how hard it can be….but things that are worth doing are often hard.
It is rather interesting, that weekdays are harder for people to attend, everyone who attends on Sunday should be attending the weekday Holy Day Mass, and we therefore have fewer Masses for the Holy Day. ???
Well, if parishes are sensible about their mass schedules.
A small pet peeve of mine is the 9am weekday holy day mass
I can see how that would not be ideal for a working person, but as a stay at home mom I appreciate those times. Lunchtime or evening masses conflict with nap and bedtimes, and in my experience sleep deprived toddlers are the worst behaved children of all.
That said, I do think it odd to *only* offer a mid morning Mass on holy days. Our parish isn't staffed so well that they can offer a full Sunday schedule (including evening), but they try to get pretty close, and people come.
That's a good perspective. I can see the benefit for families with little kids and I thank you for reminding me of that.
Fortunately I haven't experienced the mid-morning mass being the only one offered, but I have definitely lived in places where the only evening holy day mass is the vigil, leaving me unable to attend holy day masses on the days themselves.
I agree with you about vigils. I like the Easter and Pentecost vigils because they are their own thing with their own traditions, but the other days don't have that feel to them, at least not anymore. I suppose I could broadly include Midnight Mass for Christmas in there too.
(This reminds me also that our parish is short on servers for the vigil of All Saints...hmmm...what would a lot of children be doing in the evening hours on October 31, I wonder...)
Children unavailable to serve would be a weekly problem in my parish, since religious ed is between the two middle Masses, and kids tend not to attend the earliest or latest Mass. We just have adult servers, problem solved.
I thought a major reason for the transfer of HDOs was not so much the working people, but more the working priests who nowadays are often manning multiple parishes, in some cases parishes that are 1-2 hours apart, and the priests have to scramble to provide Mass at reasonable times for all the parishes that one priest might be covering.
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.
What does this imply for the Feast of St. Joseph and the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul, which in the U.S. are neither obligatory nor transferred to a Sunday?
I believe that those are covered by particular law issued by the USCCB, which specifies that these are not HDOs in the US. But I am open to being corrected. This isn't new law from Rome, just an interpretation of an existing one, so presumably nothing has changed.
I don’t think those have ever been obligatory in my memory, and I didn’t know until now that they were for the rest of the world.
It seems the story is not December 9, but now all Saturday/Monday transfers as well as, noted by another commenter, St. Joseph and Sts. Peter and Paul.
Side note: can we send a dubia about getting Epiphany and Ascension back to their proper days, too?
Not quite. As the article notes, the USCCB retains the power to dispense or transfer obligations, so the other Saturday/Monday transfers remain in effect, as does St. Joseph's and Sts. Peter and Paul. They could do Immaculate Conception as well, they'd just have to revise the particular law as is currently written to cover the eventuality we see this year.
Yep, saw that paragraph more clearly reading through a second time. Thanks.
I knew that to be the case, but somehow reading this made me think the Dicastery was coming down on the practice here in the US (wishful thinking, most likely ;))
Where have I been all these years? I always thought that the Immaculate Conception, since it is our patronal feast, is ALWAYS a Holy Day of Obligation.
We had holy days during the week for decades and now we have vigil Masses, evening Masses, etc. I think the number of people from whom it is truly an extraordinary difficulty to attend Mass is in the minority. The "helping professions" and "service jobs" have always been exceptions.
I'm sure that varies a lot by location. If you live and work in a rural area, you might not have time to drive to the one Catholic church in the county and get to work on time while also taking care of family commitments. It would be nice if we all took vacation days on HDOs but not everyone here in the US gets sufficient paid time off.
That's correct. I lived in a rural area.
So, for clarity sake, the USCCB dies have competence to issue norms on this, and to abrogate the obligation on certain days, right?
For clarity sake, could +Paprocki re-issue the norms with this new clarification incorporated?
My question precisely - I am wondering if I am over-simplifying the matter to think that the Conference could adopt an amendment to the norms at their upcoming meeting (obviously putting staff under a heavy time crunch) which would make the particular law match the praxis expressed in their published liturgical calendar.
It seems like the core of the issue is that the bishops disagree on what they want the praxis to actually be - I doubt they /want/ to have to vote on it, practicalities of getting it drafted aside
Wouldn’t the local law have the canonical force of custom at this point (32 years). I am no fan of “liturgical fizzbin” as I’ve called this, but, it is what people are accustomed to.
How appropriate given yesterday's Gospel: Luke11:46 --
"He said, “Woe to you teachers of the Law also! For you load men with burdens that are difficult to carry, and you yourselves won’t even lift one finger to help carry those burdens."
Not since the days of Msgr. George Higgins do we hear much about the duty of employers to provide paid holidays, leave time and stable work schedules to their employees so that they may carry out various duties and obligations of theirs, including holyday observances.
Maybe if the bishops were not quite so mute on this and less fearful of offending Big Business, they would not look as bad when they direct the lay faithful on weekday Mass attendance.
Non-Catholic employers have zero reason or obligation to listen to Bishops. It’s our job as lay people to advocate for our rights in that matter. This is why bishops and the church have been quite consistent supporters of unions.
If your bishop is your boss… that’s a different matter.
I guess you could also say that non-Catholic politicians have zero reason or obligation to listen to Bishops, so public policy positions should be the work of the laity with no need for commentary from the USCCB.
The Bishops are also citizens and have an obligation to inform their non-Catholic or otherwise political representatives on their moral views that is also informed by Catholic moral teaching like laity.
They are entitled to express that publically too. Heck, they’re even able to work together as a class a with with laity in directly advocating for particular policy positions as citizens of a democracy. How lucky we are!
WOW, the bishops can speak to politicians, cultural leaders, regular people, etc. but just need to keep their mouths shut when it comes to the all holy, high honorable barons of Big Business. Got it. God is above all expect Big Money.
Not what I said at all. Bishops give big businesses plenty of
grief, but labour organising by lay people are far more powerful than a bishop going up to Jeff Bezos et al, beretta in hand begging for human working conditions. I forget that Americans don’t have quite the same labour union movement and Catholic clerical activism that Australians do. Catholics founded the Labour Party in Australia with full and vocal support from the bishops. Up until the 60s and 70s that was unofficially the political wing of the Catholic Church until the bloody communists ruined it all and split the party. It’s been a messy decoupling and Labour Party these days do everything but advocate for labour rights that workers actually want.
Our Bishops still advocate and encourage unionism and labour organising, despite the face that most unions these days are utterly captured by lefty progressivism.
Glad things are different in Australia. In the USA, the conservative bishops are full toadies of Big Business and the money class. They even sell out pro-life for them.
Well, technically every soul in a diocese owes obedience to the bishop. Most of them just flout the responsibility.
We always add Masses for Holy Days of Obligation, and even for non-obligatory Solemnities if they are important to our parish.
Just so I have this right: my understanding is that Immaculate Conception was obligatory when it fell on a Monday or Saturday, and this held true because Immaculate Conception wasn't given the exception on Holy Days of Obligation on a Monday or Saturday.
Because I remember this happened in 2018 when the 8th Immaculate Conception fell on Saturday, and that there was a flow chart to explain how to fulfill your obligation, (e.g. an evening Mass on Saturday and a morning Mass on Sunday would satisfy your two obligations (even if both Masses are the Masses for the Sunday of Advent) -- we had to do the same last year for Christmas on Monday.
The contention here is whether or not Immaculate Conception is obligatory when the 8th falls on a Sunday and Immaculate Conception is bumped to the 9th?
As an aside: I agree that it isn't burdensome to ask Catholics to go to Mass two days in a row, but as it is now, it is burdensome to try to explain to people how to fulfill those obligations. There was no way for me to explain Christmas to my parents last year without sounding like a crazy person.
> There was no way for me to explain Christmas to my parents last year without sounding like a crazy person.
Because of my custody schedule, if I recall correctly I offered my two sons the option of two evening Masses on the same day (so they were both Christmas Eve Masses) or one evening Mass and one morning Mass... 1 kid wanted one and the other wanted the other (their idea of a good liturgy is "one that my brother is NOT AT") so I went to 3 Masses ... and in the overlapping Mass, one of them went down to the overflow Mass in the church basement (he got a seat and we were SRO upstairs) so they both, by some Christmas miracle, got their wish throughout.
So basically, the USCCB has the power to abrogate the HDO when it is transferred to a Saturday or Monday. However, the USCCB explicitly did *not* do so for the Immaculate Conception. Therefore, the Immaculate Conception has always been an HDO even when it is transferred to Saturday or Monday.
Glad that’s cleared up. Now do the same for the year-round Friday penance obligation.
Yes, it's always been the law in the US that IC is obligatory even when it falls on a Saturday or a Monday. The question here is whether that obligation follows it when it falls on a Sunday and is transferred to Monday.
The big question for me is not the result of this question, but why we have done it that way all along. This comes up every 5 or 6 years, and it was not obligatory in 2019. Why the change now?
Well, it’s not about changing it now. It’s about realizing we’ve not been following the law of Church as it is written up until now.
While I don't have the "blood boiling" issue that Daniel has, I just appreciate definitive answers regarding Holydays. It used to be quite clear, now only as clear as mud. Aside from that, I am capable of discerning when I am culpable; my conscience is well formed.
And, by the way, I love Canon Law. Not a JCL, but work in a Tribunal and love it.
It is exceedingly confusing, this transferring of feasts, to begin with. Then having "bank-shot" holy days instead of well-known and easily remembered dates....
When pretty bright bishops like Lopes and Paprocki come up with different answers, is it any wonder we bulletin-reading types will, too?
No "side" but "precepts should be bright lines," here.
Well, for those who don't think highly of ZbK, they and in particular one of their largest constituent organizations, the KAB (Catholic Workers Association), have been very effective in keeping Sundays and Holydays as paid days off in Germany.
Broken clocks are still right twice a day.
I'm still happy for the times they are correct. Good job ZdK and KAB!
Two thoughts on this:
1) It's weird to me when people try to find ways to spend less time with Christ in the Eucharist l, though perhaps that's because I am still waiting to be reunited with Him and still weep openly about this often at Sunday Mass.
2) It would be great if it was easier for working people to be able to attend daily Mass generally but especially on Holy Days. This year, I had to go to another parish for Good Friday because mine only had 1 time for retirees. I think fixing this would help make this a lot less of an issue.
Rob - the importance of Mass and Eucharist and the need to "put God first" as much as we can is a mindset / habit that most people need to work at adopting. I myself was a very sporadic Mass-goer for a couple decades because I was "too busy" and simply didn't prioritize it. When I consciously decided to prioritize the Lord, my attitude towards Mass attendance changed, now it's one of the more important parts of my day/ week even though sometimes it's a pain to find a Mass in the area or get to the Mass. I think for some people there's also an additional element of not liking to be "told what to do" by the Church authority.
Unfortunately the priest shortage can make it hard for them to cover all the necessary days and provide Mass times that work well for all of us. Hopefully some day we'll have more priests and more options, but until then the Lord just expects us to do the best we can.