Case XLVIII: The Duty to Hear Mass on Sundays

Case.—Bertha, a Catholic, employed in a large department store, was ordered to work three successive Saturday nights to help taking stock. She obeyed the order, so as not to be deprived of her breadwinning position. On these Saturdays she reached home after midnight, exhausted from the long hours and tiresome labors of the day. She slept then till 1 P. M. the following day,‘and thus did not hear Mass. She felt she was not obliged to be present at Mass on any of these three Sundays. Her confessor, to whom she made her monthly confession, agreed that, under the circumstances, she was fully excused, and that she therefore committed no sin in absenting herself from the Holy Sacrifice in order to get the rest she felt she needed.

Questions.—Do you think the confessor’s verdict was justified? What about her employer?

Solution.—Employers are bound by the laws of justice and of charity in dealing with those whom they employ. As Leo XIII. said, in his encyclical on Labor: “Working people are not the slaves of the employer, and it is shameful and inhuman to treat men like chattels for profit, or to look upon them merely as so much muscle or physical power.” It seems to us that on this point the owner of the department store has grievously offended. To make any woman or girl work from 8 A. M. until midnight means to pay no heed to the fact that she is a human being. Sixteen hours of labor would be deemed too much even for a beast of burden, and it is not short of criminal when imposed upon working girls. The civil law itself is gradually recognizing that eight or ten hours a day should be the limit for all who are compelled to labor for their daily bread. Stock-taking may be necessary for the proper conduct of business, especially in large department stores, but it should be done in a way that aims at safeguarding the health of those who labor. Mere greed for the saving of money cannot outweigh the claims of God and of nature upon those who must earn their bread by the sweat of their brow.

Again the encyclical says: “The employer must never tax his workpeople beyond their strength, nor employ them in work unsuited to their sex or age.” It is evident that the demands of nature referred to by the Pope were wantonly ignored, and inexcusably so. No mere business method will warrant so gross a jeopardizing of the health of the employed. Moreover, the encyclical lays stress on the fact that religion is one of the concerns of the working class, and hence, the employer is “bound to see that the worker finds time for the duties of piety.” It is clear that the commands of the employer here seriously interfered with God’s claim to special worship on Sunday. Hence the employer is at fault.

On the other hand, we cannot decide that Bertha’s absence from Mass was justifiable. It may be allowed that she needed a good, long rest. But for this she could have taken nine consecutive hours, and still be present at the late Mass in the parish church. God’s service demands sacrifice of us, and the sacrifice here would not have been too great. The last Mass in city churches is usually at eleven o’clock. That allowed ample time for a reasonable amount of rest before going to church, and did not prevent a further indulgence in the afternoon. The fact is that Bertha might, on these three Sundays, have given the remainder of the day to wholesome rest. She could have fulfilled her duty to her God by going to Mass at the cost of no too great sacrifice, and we hold she was bound in conscience to do so. If the last Mass in her vicinity was much earlier than eleven, we are inclined to think she would have been excused, but we see no reason justifying her absence from the eleven o’clock Mass. Even if Bertha could not rest in the afternoon, we still think that nine hours’ sleep, on these exceptional occasions, would truly satisfy the demands of tired nature, at least as far as health is concerned. We think that the confessor erred in his lenient judgment of the case.