Question VI: What length of servile labor makes a grave violation of a feast

A notable part of the day, for mortal sin, they say is one hour. So Azorius part. 2. lib. 1. cap. 28. quaestio 5. Bonacina Tract. de legibus, d. 5. quaest. unica, puncto 3. Reginaldus Tom. 2. lib. 16. cap. 3. num. 53. Fagundez indeed, so that avarice may creep in, adds a quarter of an hour lib. 1. de primo praecepto Ecclesiae, cap. 14. citing Azorius, as if he thought one hour insufficient for grave matter; but he is cited falsely.

Suarez indeed says Tom. 1. de Relig. lib. 2. de diebus festis, cap. 31. that the time of one hour is too narrow; just as, on the contrary, too lax is the opinion of certain jurists, who say that the quantity of time is not to be taken in itself, but in comparison with the whole day, and therefore that a third part of the day is not grave matter. Fagundez rejects them num. 2.

On the same foundation Diana part. 1. Tract. 15. primo Miscell. resol. 36. says that two hours are a light part. So also Philiarch. Tomo 2. tract. 27. cap. 11. num. 105. Then p. 2. loco citando, he adds also Granado controv. 6. tract. 2. d. 2. sect. 6. num. 54. But Marchant. cap. 3. q. 2. says even three hours are light matter.

Some also say that the matter of labor is continued over the individual feasts, and thus, if one labored a half hour at servile works on all feasts, he would sin mortally; so Toletus lib. 4. cap. 15. Fagundez lib. 1. cap. 14. num. 3. But others rightly deride this, with Bassaeus 3. num. 4. §. Nota.

I confess that I do not perceive this continuation of matter across feasts that are disjoined, indeed even across contiguous ones. For continuous things are those whose limits are one: but where is here the unity of time?

Hence I argue ad hominem. Fagundez posits that an hour and a quarter is grave matter num. 2.; then num. 3., if on two or three feasts they labor three hours, one hour on each, he excuses them. If they are continued, they are already grave matter. Wherefore I judge, with Diana part. 2. tract. 5. resol. 8., that opinion to be too rigid and without foundation.

He concludes that to labor two hours on individual feasts is not a lethal time, because time must be measured in comparison with the whole day of twenty-four hours: but two hours are a very small part.

Hence Diana infers that he who invites many to a labor of one or two hours does not sin mortally, because the labor of each is slight. So also Bonacina de legibus, d. 5. quaest. unica, punct. 3. Bassaeus loc. cit. §. Sed petes.

They excuse a girl working with the needle on a feast day in order to avoid idleness: Sà, see festum, Ioan. de la Cruz part. 1. praecep. 3. art. 1. d. 1. Villalob. Manuali confessar. cap. 22. num. 99. et in summa, tomo 2. tract. 31. d. 4. num. 10. Others cite for this opinion St. Antoninus, Angelus, and Sylvester. But it is not probable, as Diana himself holds.

It is asked here: Whether those who adorn the walls of churches with tapestries and hangings can do this on feast days.

Conradus answers negatively in resp. part. 2. quaest. 233. et alii.

Yet Diana asserts here with Bonacina d. 5. quaest. unica, punct. 3. de legibus, citing Caietanus, Suarez, and Toletus, to whom Fagundez is added praecepto 1. lib. 1. cap. 14. num. 1.