51. On the Sanctification of Feasts

Silvius, established in a region of unbelievers, had more than two hundred artisans and workers, all pagans, whom he had called to work, paying to them a very rich salary. But since his artisans and workers were all pagans, he orders them to work even on Sundays and on feast days. And, being rebuked by a missionary, he responds that unbelievers are not subject to the laws of the Church, forbidding servile works to Christians on feast days. The missionary responded to Silvius that infidels indeed can work licitly on feast days, because, since they have not been baptized, they are not subject to the laws of the Church. For that reason also, he said to him, you can command them to do those things which are licit to them, although to you they are illicit. Nevertheless, he said to him, on the Lord's day or Sunday, you must altogether close your establishment, because unbelievers also are subject to the universal law given to all descendants of Adam, by which it is commanded, from paradise itself, that on each seventh day they abstain from servile works. Another missionary, however, who afterward came there, being asked by Silvius, responded that the establishment must be closed, not only on Sunday, but also on any feast day whatsoever; for a Christian is held to abstain from servile works on feast days, not only by himself, but also through another pagan, since he is then the true author of the work, by commanding what is prohibited to him, even if it is licit to others. For this reason Silvius wanted to impose rest on his workers on feast days and Sundays. But they responded to him: If you wish that we observe your laws, pay us the salary also for feast days and Sundays; otherwise we will seek another master of our own cult. But since this could not be done without very great loss to Silvius, therefore he ceased indeed to command work on feast days and Sundays, but allowed them to work. The prelate, however, who finally came to visit that mission, responding to Silvius, says that he sinned in no way, since he was merely permitting his artisans and workers to work on Sundays and feast days. For, he said, these gentiles are held to abstain from servile works neither on the other feast days nor on Sundays. Not on the other feast days, indeed, because they are not members of the Church. Not on Sundays either, because the precept of the Sabbath or of the seventh day, as determined for this or that day, was taken away by the death of Christ, with the other ceremonies of the Old Law. Nor is there any scandal in the case, because Silvius lives among gentiles, who know that on Sundays and feast days Silvius himself never works. Wherefore he concluded: Let him not command, but, as he had already begun to do, let him conduct himself passively, permitting them to work, after nevertheless having explained to them his will concerning the sanctification of feast days and Sundays, and having exhorted them to spend at least some time on these days in the worship of God.

Q. What as to the case?

R. St. Thomas says: "The precept concerning the sanctification of the Sabbath, literally understood, is in part moral and in part ceremonial. For it is moral in this, that man deputes some time of his life to divine things. For there is in man a certain natural inclination to this: that to each necessary thing some time is deputed, as to bodily refreshment, to sleep, and to other such things. Hence also, according to the dictate of natural reason, man deputes some time to spiritual refreshment, by which man's mind is refreshed in God. And according to this, that some time be deputed to attending to divine things, it falls under a moral precept. But insofar as in this precept a special time is determined in signification of the creation of the world, it is ceremonial.... The observance of Sunday in the New Law succeeds the observance of the Sabbath, not from the force of a precept of the law, but from the constitution of the Church and the custom of Christian people." 2. 2, q. 122, a. 4. Similarly the Roman Catechism says: "The word Sabbath signifies cessation and rest.... And although the Sabbath signifies the seventh day, nevertheless this rest, which God prescribed to be given to him, must not be referred to this day alone.... If indeed we consider a fixed and determinate time of the divine worship, that is, a determined day, the precept concerning the Sabbath is not fixed and constant, but mutable; nor does it pertain to morals, but to ceremonies. Nor is it natural, because nature did not teach or form us to give external worship to God on that day rather than on another; but from that time at which the people of Israel were freed from the servitude of Pharaoh, it observed the day of the Sabbath.... If one considers the worship and religion which is contained in the precept of the Sabbath, it is plain that it is such that it ought to be numbered among the moral precepts and those of natural law.... It pleased the Church of God that the worship and solemnity of the Sabbath be transferred to the Lord's day; for just as the light first shone upon the world on that day, so our life was recalled from darkness to light on the same day by the resurrection of the Redeemer, who opened the gate of eternal life to us. Wherefore the apostles also willed that it be called the Lord's day." P. 3, c. 4, q. 6, 7.

From these things, therefore, it follows: He who on a feast day commands others to work, if he sins, sins insofar as he induces others to work, and thus to what is prohibited to them, which indeed can be a grave or light sin. But he does not sin insofar as he directly transgresses the precept of sanctification. For the precept of sanctification contains only the precept of hearing Mass and of abstaining from servile works. But someone, by inducing another through command not to hear Mass or to be occupied in servile works, is not therefore himself not hearing Mass or being occupied in servile works. Hence, if the other is not held to hear Mass and can do servile works, the one commanding does not sin in any way. Thus the infirmarian and the one having care of the sick by command of the superior does not sin by commanding other religious not to hear Mass and to be occupied in necessary servile works for the care of the sick, since these are not bound to hear Mass in the case and can be occupied in those servile works. Similarly, someone commanding servants and workers to extinguish a fire, etc., does not sin.

No one indeed is held, with his own grave spiritual or temporal harm, to prevent others from sinning in something which depends entirely on their own free will. And no one is held to pay money to others lest they sin by transgressing a law which they could fulfill. I. M. 434.

Therefore: 1. The first missionary responded well concerning feast days; but concerning Sunday he erred in everything.

2. The second missionary simply erred in everything.

3. The prelate finally responded well in everything.