Servile Work

268. Distinction of works. 1. A threefold kind of works is distinguished: servile, liberal, and middle or common.

Those are called servile which are ordered to the advantages of the body, are exercised chiefly by bodily labor, and were anciently accustomed to be done by slaves, as to plow, dig, sow.

Those are called liberal which are ordered to the utilities of the mind, are exercised chiefly by the powers of the soul, and were accustomed to be done by free men, as to read, teach, study.

Those are called common which serve partly the advantages of the soul, partly of the body, and were exercised promiscuously both by free men and by slaves, as to hunt, play, make a journey.

a. It is clear that servile and liberal works are distinguished from each other from the very end of the work, but not from the intention of the one working, nor from the delay of time, nor from the fatigue of the body; wherefore a servile work does not cease to be servile and prohibited because it is done gratis, or for recreation, or from a holy end, or only for a brief time; and, by equal reason, a liberal work remains liberal and licit, even if it is exercised for pay and profit or from an evil end. Hence, for example, to sew garments is servile, even if with little labor, and to make a journey on foot is liberal or common, even if it is performed with great labor.

b. Which works are servile and which liberal is, indeed, in many cases manifest from their nature; but in others this does not depend upon the nature of the work alone, but much must also be deferred to the custom and estimation of men. Therefore it can happen that a work which in itself is servile is, from the usage and estimation of the faithful, licit; moreover, that what in one place is licitly performed is prohibited in another on feast days.

2. To these are added forensic works, by whose name a twofold kind of actions is designated: a. judicial actions; and b. civil actions or markets; for each is signified by the name of forum: the place where judgments are held, and the place where markets are held.

269. The precept of abstaining from certain works. 1. On Sundays and feasts the following are prohibited: a. servile works, and indeed for the whole day from midnight up to midnight, but not liberal nor common works;¹ b. forensic works: for although these works are not servile, nevertheless they are prohibited by special law,² because on account of the excessive distractions which they bring and on account of the contentions and discords which they are accustomed to cause, they impede religious quiet and application of the mind to divine things.

2. The precept of abstaining from servile and forensic works is of its kind grave. According to the opinion now received, labor of about two hours constitutes grave matter, so that it is a grave sin to labor, whether continuously or interruptedly, when labor much exceeds two hours, that is, two and a half hours, in very servile labor, and labor which extends to about three hours if the labor is of lesser bodily exertion. But in forensic works the gravity of matter is taken not so much from delay of time as from the quality of the work, as if a case were publicly conducted.

He who on a feast day commands six servants to labor for an hour does not sin gravely by himself, because the works of the servants, whether they labor simultaneously or successively, are not joined to form grave matter; but he would sin gravely who on a feast day commanded one servant several times to labor up to grave matter.³

¹ C. Omnes 1, De feriis (II, 9).

² Ibid.

³ St. Alphonsus, n. 206.

270. Servile, liberal, and common works. a. Certainly servile are: rural works, as to plow, dig, sow, reap, etc.; mechanical arts, as the works of masonry, smithery, carpentry, tailoring, shoemaking, weaving, sculpture, typography, etc.; labors of workers in factories, mines, foundries, etc.; light manual labors, even if they are done with slight fatigue of the body, as to make rosaries, scapulars, artificial flowers, etc.; likewise to pluck roses, peel fruits, etc.

b. Certainly liberal are works of letters and arts: to devote oneself to the study of letters, to teach, even for pay, to sing, to play musical instruments, to draw (Zeichnen), to write, transcribe, dance, etc.

c. Those which are certainly common are not prohibited, even if they are done with great fatigue of the body: to make a journey on foot, by horse, by carriage, by ship; likewise to hunt, to catch birds, to fish with a hook or reed or small nets, but not with large nets with great apparatus and great labor.

Since to make a journey in whatever way is licit on feast days, all those things also are licit which are necessary for obtaining this end, even if by their nature, as rowing, they are servile. Therefore in our time those labors are licitly undertaken which are necessary for transporting travelers either by railroad or by steamship.

d. There are several works whose character is doubtful: in judging these, attention must be given both to the nature of the work and especially to the custom, whether universal or particular, of the region. And so:

To draw, that is, to draw up plans of buildings (Entwurfe, Bauplane ausarbeiten), is licit, since it is a liberal work, in which the mind is exercised more than the body.

Sculpting is a liberal and licit art only if the matter is one of the final perfection of the work; otherwise, by the common estimation of men, it pertains to the mechanical arts.

To paint with a brush (malen) seems to be a liberal work, because it is ordered more to expressing the conceptions of the mind than to laboring; therefore it is licit to paint on feast days, excepting those actions which are done with much labor, as to mix colors, prepare panels, whitewash walls, and generally those things which constitute the daily labor of craftsmen during the week.

To embroider (sticken) does not seem to be a servile work.¹ Therefore it can be permitted where this work is taken up occasionally and incidentally; but it cannot be permitted where it constitutes daily labor. Other manual works of women, as to knit or crochet (stricken, hakeln), are of themselves servile and prohibited.

Photography seems to be a middle work, excepting the apparatus which is prerequisite and requires much labor.

Typography is certainly a mechanical art; therefore the printing of books is prohibited on feast days, unless necessity excuses, as in the printing of newspapers which must appear daily. Nevertheless there are some who permit the setting of type, unless it is done in a public workshop by many, because it is similar to transcription, which is not prohibited.²

Milling is not licit, since it is a servile work; yet if the mill is driven by wind or water and therefore moderate labor of men is required, with custom acceding, it can be permitted.

¹ St. Alphonsus, n. 281.

² St. Alphonsus, n. 279.

271. Judicial actions. All judicial acts which are done with judicial stir are prohibited, whether the cause is civil or criminal, whether secular or ecclesiastical; but actions which are done without stir are not prohibited.

a. Judicial stir is said to be required in the exercise of contentious jurisdiction, namely where a judicial process is instituted, but not in the exercise of voluntary jurisdiction, as is to dispense, absolve, etc.

b. The prohibited judicial acts, in which the judicial stir itself consists, are: to summon the parties, examine witnesses, demand a judicial oath, pronounce or execute sentence. Actions which are done without stir are these: to consult an advocate, inform a judge, interpose an appeal, etc. Judicial actions are not only prohibited, but also annulled; but markets are only prohibited.¹

¹ C. Conquestus 5, De feriis (II, 9).

272. Civil actions or markets. By this name two things are prohibited: public fairs and the act of trading, that is, contracts of buying, selling, leasing, etc. Hence by law not only all markets, both annual and weekly, but also all contracts of buying, selling, leasing are interdicted. But from present-day custom those things which follow are to be observed.

a. Annual fairs (Jahrmarkte), in which things are sold which the day before are brought to the place of the fair, are licit on feast days where the custom exists.

Weekly markets (Wochenmarkte) are prohibited;¹ wherefore if a feast day falls on the day of markets, these ought to be anticipated or transferred after the feast day; yet if the magistrate establishes otherwise, the faithful are excused on account of necessity.

Public sales by auction are not licit; nevertheless in some places they are tolerated after the divine offices have been completed, on account of the greater concourse of buyers.

Private sales, not only of those things which pertain to daily use but also of other things, even if they require much time, are licit by custom; but sales in public shops are prohibited. Wherefore merchants ought to close shops on feast days, unless a contrary custom prevails somewhere. For in very many places a custom has prevailed of opening shops for a time, both so that those things may be sold which are required for daily use, and in favor especially of those buyers who are unable to approach shops on other days.

b. Solemn contracts of selling, buying, leasing, etc., namely those which are made with instruments drawn up by notaries and with public authority, are prohibited on feast days, unless by contrary custom they are licit.

Private contracts of selling, etc., which are made without public instruments by private authority, are permitted by universal custom; thus everywhere on feast days workers are hired, beasts of burden are bought, horses are sold, houses are leased, etc.; indeed, according to the testimony of St. Alphonsus (n. 286), custom bears that contracts are celebrated even through instruments, as betrothals, sales, testaments, etc.

From these things it is now gathered what must be said about the acts of notaries. Namely, contracts of selling, leasing, etc., on feast days are of themselves prohibited under the name of market; gradually by custom it has come about that contracts of this sort without instruments and without the public authority of a notary were licitly entered into; finally custom has effected that contracts can be celebrated even with instruments drawn up by notaries, provided judicial stir is not required.

¹ Constit. Ab eo tempore of Benedict XIV, 5 Nov. 1745, n. 26.

273. A cause excusing from this law must universally be grave; and the longer labor is prolonged, the graver the cause required. Canon law itself mentions a twofold excusing cause, piety and necessity¹ (one's own, another's, common), to which custom is to be added.

Although, when a sufficiently grave cause exists, the faithful are of themselves excused from the law, nevertheless on account of the danger of error they are to be warned that they should nevertheless ask the parish priest whether in these circumstances it is licit to labor, or rather that they should seek a dispensation. This indeed they ought chiefly to do when the matter concerns public labors, so that by this means the danger of scandal may be forestalled.

By reason of piety those labors are licit which are necessary for divine worship to be exercised here and now. And so:

a. Servile works are permitted which are proximately ordered to divine worship, as to ring bells, carry a cross or banner in processions, etc.

b. But those are prohibited which concur only remotely with divine worship, as to whitewash walls, build a church, carry stones and wood for the building of a church, make ornaments of the church; nevertheless, that vestments and ornaments, such as chasubles and other vestments, flowers, purificators, corporals, rugs, etc., be made for some poor church can be permitted.

c. Actions intermediate between those which are proximately and those which are remotely ordered to divine worship, as to sweep churches, bake hosts, decorate altars and the church, erect platforms necessary for a festivity, etc., by universal custom now prevailing are to be done on the day before the feast; but if these without just reason are deferred to the feast day itself, a venial sin is committed. Although St. Alphonsus (n. 292), from the custom then prevailing, excuses this from even venial sin, nevertheless when a just reason exists they can be done without sin on the feast day itself.

¹ C. Liceat 3 and C. Conquestus 5, De feriis (II, 9).

274. By reason of one's own necessity the following are excused:

a. Servants who are forced by the master to labor and cannot easily or shortly find another master, unless they are forced to labor in contempt of religion.

b. The poor, who otherwise cannot sustain themselves and their own. Mothers of families who mend their own garments or those of their children, if they cannot do this on other days. Maidservants to whom during the week time is not granted so that they can mend and wash their garments. Workers who cultivate their own garden, if they must labor away from home through the whole week. These things indeed ought to be done secretly to avoid scandal.

c. Farmers who, on account of past or imminent rain, turn, bind, carry hay or crops, pluck fruits, etc.

d. Country folk who in the city buy things necessary for their own food or clothing, if they can migrate into the city only on feast days.

Whether the reason of avoiding idleness excuses. - The sole reason of avoiding idleness does not excuse from this precept; for idleness must be driven away by other occupations, and those licit. But if someone could not without difficulty be occupied with other things, and especially if there remained danger of spiritual damage or of sin from games or dangerous conversations, there would be a sufficient reason for permitting light labors to be done for some time at home, by which, namely, scandal may be forestalled.

Thus to a worker who, unless he is occupied with some labor, is accustomed to go to taverns and become drunk, some domestic labor can be permitted. To pious women who complain about the leisure of feast days, and yet do not have in temptations to sin an excusing cause for labor, it can be counseled that they make ornaments for churches or garments for the poor.¹

¹ Genicot, I, n. 337.

275. By reason of another's necessity the following are excused:

a. Tailors and shoemakers who make garments necessary for funerals or nuptials, which they could not complete the day before. But from this reason, that they had promised the garments, it is not licit for them to labor unless otherwise they would suffer grave damage; for they ought to take care, as far as they can without grave damage, not to cast themselves into this necessity by assuming labor which they cannot complete before the feast day.

In practice let the confessor show himself severe toward those who have contracted the custom of laboring on feast days, easy with those who sometimes do it: for these, not those, are usually excused by right.¹

b. Those who exercise works of mercy, although servile, for the support of the poor, as to make garments, bring wood, etc., when by reason of their own necessity the poor themselves could labor for themselves.

alpha. Not only for a determinate poor person, but also for the poor in general existing in common necessity, it is licit to make garments and other things which serve the uses of the poor; but it is not licit to labor to earn money afterward to be distributed among poor persons of this sort, unless they are in grave or extreme necessity, because in these circumstances it would be licit for the poor themselves.

beta. By reason of another's necessity, exercises are also licit which are instituted on feast days by societies destined for extinguishing fires (Feuerwehr), since those exercises cannot be done on weekdays by men impeded by other labors. But care must be taken lest they be withdrawn from ecclesiastical functions, neither those who perform the exercises nor those who gather to watch them.

c. Craftsmen who repair instruments which farmers or artisans need the following day.

d. Those who in extraordinary and urgent necessity, as in a fire, flood, or other misfortune, repair a road, mend a bridge, or assist in another way.

¹ Ballerini-Palmieri, II, n. 765.

276. By reason of common necessity or utility the following are excused:

a. Bakers, who make bread and cakes, both by reason of custom and by reason of necessity; but others are not permitted to make bread, nor bakers other foods which neither they themselves nor others need on that day.

b. Butchers, who kill and skin animals where this could not have been done the day before, as in great cities; but not in small towns, unless several feasts occur.

c. Those who in a public profane solemnity, for example, on account of the arrival of a prince or on account of victory, prepare and make those things which are necessary, as triumphal arches, fireworks, garments, decorations, etc.

These indeed ought of themselves to be prepared beforehand, lest the feast day have to be profaned by servile labors; nevertheless, if either culpably or without fault they had not been prepared, it is not necessary that the solemnity be omitted on that account, but they can licitly be done on the feast day. For to omit the solemnity is a grave inconvenience of the republic, to the undergoing of which the precept of the Church does not oblige. Yet those who deliberately defer labors of this sort to the feast day without sufficient cause, of themselves sin gravely.

277. By reason of custom: a. It is licit to prepare foods, even if for more sumptuous meals they need greater labor. Those things which are servile, as to kill and skin smaller animals, ought to be done on the day before if this can conveniently be done; but if on the day before, even culpably, it has not been done, it can be done on the feast day without sin. It is licit to make beds and clean garments with brushes.

b. Barbers licitly shave beards and cut hair.

c. It is licit to drive loaded carriages or ships not only when the journey is continued, but also when it is begun on a feast day, and the labors necessary for this end can be completed.

d. Light labors, as to make rosaries, scapulars, artificial flowers, etc., are indeed of themselves servile and therefore illicit, especially if they are exercised as is customarily done during the week by women gathered into one place; yet if they are done privately, by custom they can be licit.¹

¹ Cf. Gury-Ballerini, I, n. 356.2.

IN order that all, and especially the poor, may have the opportunity of fulfilling their religious duties, the Church has forbidden servile work to be done on Sunday. Servile work is the rougher and harder sort of manual labour which is done by common workmen and labourers, and which used to be done by slaves. It comprises ploughing, digging, building, sewing, and similar occupations. It is distinguished from liberal and from mixed work. Liberal work is done mainly by the intellect, and comprises writing, studying, painting, and so forth. Mixed work comprises a class of occupations which are neither exclusively liberal nor servile, but which are done indifferently by all conditions of men. In this class are hunting, fishing, travelling, and similar occupations. Of these only servile work is forbidden on Sundays, and in determining what is servile work, and therefore forbidden, we must consider not only the nature of the work itself, but also the way in which it is done, the light in which it is commonly regarded, and other circumstances. Thus it is usually held that although the rougher work of the sculptor is servile and unlawful, the more delicate is liberal and may be done on a Sunday. Similarly, fishing with rod and line is not unlawful, but going out to sea with a fishing-smack and plying the trade in the ordinary working-day way is forbidden. In the same way one who lives by photography should not ply his trade on a Sunday, but it would not be wrong for an amateur to do the same work on that day by way of recreation and amusement.

This part of the precept of keeping the Sunday holy also binds under pain of grave sin. If, however, the matter be light, the doing of a little servile work on a Sunday will be only a venial sin, and none at all if there be good reason for it. According to the common opinion, it would be necessary to work for well over two hours at something which is forbidden in order to commit a grave sin. Still longer time would be required for a mortal sin in doing servile work of a lighter kind, which had for it some sort of excuse on the ground that it helps on the cause of religion and charity. Making rosary beads or scapulars belongs to this category.

Public trading is also forbidden on Sundays, as well as judicial proceedings in the exercise of contentious jurisdiction, and the solemn and public taking of oaths (Can. 1248).

English municipal law goes farther than the law of the Church in its provisions for the due observance of the Lord’s Day. Thus not only is Sunday a dies non for the sitting of courts or the meeting of public bodies, but contracts such as are within the ordinary calling of tradesmen, workmen, labourers, or other persons of the same sort, made and completed on Sunday, are void, and abstention from work and even from play is required by a series of statutes.¹ Although these provisions of the civil authority do not impose an obligation in conscience under pain of sin, yet indirectly they have caused the Sunday to be observed among us with greater strictness than is absolutely required by ecclesiastical law.

¹ Encyclopedia of Laws, s.v. Sunday.

As we saw with regard to the hearing of Mass, so in this matter too, if the precept cannot be observed without serious inconvenience, it ceases to bind. And so, work in foundries or in agriculture which cannot be stopped without grave inconvenience and loss may be done on Sundays. Work, too, in the direct service of religion, or necessary works of charity connected with the care and nursing of the sick, or the burying of the dead, are not forbidden. Custom permits of the sweeping of the house and the cooking of meals, and certain other more or less necessary occupations on Sunday. Finally, ecclesiastical authority can, for good reason, dispense in the observance of this law. Not only Bishops, but priests who have the cure of souls, have discretionary power to give dispensations in particular cases.” 2-7 West., d. 23, n. 13 Can. 1245; sec. I.

I. Object of the precept. On feasts of precept the following are prohibited: 1. forensic acts; 2. unless legitimate customs or particular indults provide otherwise, public market, fairs, and other public sales and purchases; 3. servile works (can. 1248).

1. Forensic acts. Judicial acts are understood (both those concerning secular causes and those concerning ecclesiastical causes), which are exercised with judicial solemnity or apparatus, such as the citation of witnesses, the request for a judicial oath, the judicial investigation of a case, the pronouncement and execution of a sentence. But it is lawful to excommunicate, to dispense; likewise to perform preparatory actions privately, for example to consult an advocate, prepare a defense, etc. - Besides, where the prohibition is not observed, those whom it concerns are commonly excused on account of avoiding harm (St. Alphonsus, III, 284).

2. Public market. Therefore, of itself it is not lawful to sell or buy in public shops, much less in the forum. Yet custom and competition permit in many places that food and drink be sold in public shops, likewise, especially in the country, clothes, shoes, etc. (St. Alphonsus, III, 286). For the rest, however, today on account of the laws in force, those who sell with open doors are less easily excused.

3. Fairs; these likewise can be permitted on account of custom; if they fall on a feast day, in many places they are anticipated or deferred; but if this is not done, many nevertheless can attend fairs, either on account of custom or on account of an excusing cause (St. Alphonsus, III, 286).

4. Other public sales. Therefore purchases and sales made privately, even before a notary, are not prohibited. Contracts of lease, exchange, etc., are equated with purchases (St. Alphonsus, III, 285). Custom here and there permits some public sales, for example of doves which in French are called pigeons-voyageurs.

5. Servile works. Works are called servile which are exercised by the powers of the body rather than of the soul, and immediately serve the utility of the body, for example rural works, such as plowing, etc.; works of the mechanical arts, such as the shoemaking art, etc. They are called servile because they were formerly done by servants. Liberal works are those which are done by the powers of the soul rather than of the body, and immediately serve the utility of the soul or its cultivation, for example to study, to read, to teach, to play the organ, etc. They are called liberal because they were chiefly exercised by free men. Common or intermediate works are called those which are exercised promiscuously by all, such as making a journey, hunting, etc. (St. Thomas, II-II, q. 122, a. 4, ad 3; St. Alphonsus, III, 272, 279).¹ Besides, note that the servility or liberality of a work depends neither on the intention of the one working, so that it makes no difference whether it is done for the sake of utility or recreation, for oneself or for another, for gain or gratuitously; nor on bodily fatigue. Hence:

a) Liberal and common works are permitted, except those about which something was said under I, 1, 2, 3, and 4. Servile works are prohibited by the Church because "they are contrary to the observance of the Sabbath, insofar as they impede man's application to divine things" (St. Thomas, cited place). From the prohibition, however, are excepted works necessary for the nourishment and arrangement of the body and the house, which cannot conveniently, or are not customarily, anticipated, such as cooking food (even food to be prepared with greater skill, such as cakes), making beds, cleaning the house or clothing (St. Alphonsus, III, 298).

b) Concerning some works it is more difficult to determine whether they are servile, or at least whether and to what extent they are lawful. Practically these things can be established.

a) It is lawful to write and transcribe (even musical notes); likewise to correct books and to exercise other light accessory labors, for example by drawing necessary lines and gluing superposed paper; likewise it is lawful to form artists' drawings (St. Alphonsus, III, 279).

b) It is lawful to paint, provided one stops at the act of painting. "The reason is that painting, although it requires a material operation, nevertheless does not seem properly able to be called a servile action; indeed, it seems rather to be called liberal. For, just as writing expresses internal concepts, so painting expresses images of things" (St. Alphonsus, III, 280). It is said, provided one stops at the act of painting; for it is unlawful to grind and mix colors, to prepare and stretch panels. Likewise it is forbidden to dye cloths or walls.

c) What has been said about the act of writing and painting is also to be applied to some similar acts. Hence it is lawful: 1. to paint with a needle, but not to sew, nor to do what is called in Dutch breien, in French tricoter, in German stricken (cf. St. Alphonsus, III, 281); 2. to arrange type (St. Alphonsus, III, 279, 282), which nevertheless by common estimation in a public workshop is held to be unlawful; 3. to exercise the photographic art, insofar as it is done without notable labor, for example to form what is called a negative image; 4. to sculpt, insofar as it is a question of the final perfection of a statue; otherwise "the sculptural art commonly, at least in the estimation of men, is numbered among the mechanical arts" (St. Alphonsus, III, 281).

d) Whether to lead draft animals, ships, and carts loaded with merchandise is lawful in itself is disputed; but the accompanying labor of loading and unloading burdens seems to be unlawful or lawful according as it is great or slight (St. Alphonsus, III, 276 ff.).

e) Hunting, fishing, and fowling are lawful, unless they are done with great apparatus and labor (St. Alphonsus, III, 283).

f) Milling, in whatever way the mill is moved, is lawful, provided the application of man is moderate. Yet in our regions custom is opposed (St. Alphonsus, III, 277).

g) Finally, various works to be performed for the convenience of some establishment seem lawful, which bring with them scarcely any bodily labor, for example microscopic examination of milk or of some other material; nevertheless by common estimation they are held to be unlawful if they are performed in the public establishment itself.

¹ This distinction of works used to rest, and still rests, partly on custom; which custom indeed has been tempered somewhat, so that, for example, works which formerly could be servile are now common. We have tried to treat the matter in such a way that every difficulty arising from different custom seems excluded.

II. Obligation of the precept is grave from its kind. Moreover, in servile works, according to St. Alphonsus, for grave matter it is required that the labor be prolonged for two and a half hours (whether continuous or interrupted); if there is question of lighter labor, three hours can be established (St. Alphonsus, III, 305, coll. 282). In judicial apparatus and in market the gravity of the matter depends more on the quality of the business which is transacted (St. Alphonsus, III, 286, 307).

One who commands several persons to work, with grave scandal excluded, more probably does not sin gravely if none of them is objectively guilty of a grave transgression. The reason is that, since the obligation of keeping feast is personal, the transgressions of different persons are not considered to coalesce into one (St. Alphonsus, III, 306).

III. Excusing causes from the precept are enumerated: one's own or another's necessity, charity, piety, and custom.

1. One's own or another's necessity, that is, grave spiritual, bodily, or temporal harm to be averted from oneself or from a third party. Especially excused are:

a) The poor, who otherwise cannot provide for themselves and their own as to food or clothing. Likewise female servants, who otherwise lack time for mending or washing clothes (St. Alphonsus, III, 297). Although, if someone is known as poor, scandal ought to be absent, it is nevertheless better, as far as can be done, to work secretly.

b) Subjects who are compelled by a master to work; yet if servants must often work on Sunday, let them seek another service (St. Alphonsus, III, 296).

c) Bakers and butchers, who otherwise cannot satisfy those asking (St. Alphonsus, III, 298, 299). Nevertheless they are not excused, unless perhaps on account of competition, if the law forbids it, for example, to bakers.

d) Tailors and other workmen, if the matter is urgent, for example for impending weddings or funerals. Yet let them take care that, without a special cause, by taking on more work, or by refusing a sufficient number of workmen, they do not place themselves in such necessity (St. Alphonsus, III, 303).

e) Pharmacists providing necessities to the sick, unless they have agreed among themselves - as is done rather often today - that only one or another should sell on feast days.

f) Farmers, if from a storm or a similar cause grave harm is imminent (St. Alphonsus, Homo Apostolicus, tr. 6, n. 21).

g) Barbers are excused partly on account of necessity, partly on account of custom (St. Alphonsus, III, 290).

h) Blacksmiths who shoe "the horses of travelers, or of those who (on the following day) will set out on a journey at very early morning or go out into the field to work.... Likewise the plowshares of those who otherwise would not be able to work on the following day can be repaired. So also roads, bridges, etc., can be repaired" (St. Alphonsus, III, 300).

i) Whoever cannot interrupt works once begun without grave harm, as those who labor in foundries, and sometimes also in butter-making establishments (St. Alphonsus, III, 300).

j) Those who prepare things which are necessary for a public festivity, for example on account of the arrival or birthday of a Prince, and which cannot conveniently be prepared beforehand. "The reason is that such signs of joy are morally necessary for the commonwealth" (St. Alphonsus, III, 304).

k) Those who would miss an occasion of gain extraordinary in view of their condition, as was explained in n. 704.

l) Avoiding idleness does not excuse by reason of itself; yet by reason of avoiding sin it excuses those who, morally speaking, will not abstain from sin unless they work, for example prisoners who cannot occupy themselves with works lawful in themselves (St. Alphonsus, III, 302). - But to those who complain of idleness, it can be permitted that they perform lighter works for the benefit of a poor person or of a needy church. If these things cannot be done less conveniently, by epikeia it can be permitted (at least if otherwise there is danger that they will run about) that for some hours they be occupied with other labors, though lighter ones. Likewise light domestic labor is lawfully conceded to a workman who otherwise would be exposed to the danger of making himself drunk, etc.

2. Charity permits someone to serve the sick, bury the dead, and generally to do for another what that other could lawfully do for himself.

Question. To what extent is it lawful to work for the poor?

Resp. 1. It is certainly lawful to work to assist either a determined poor person placed in grave necessity, or a community placed in such necessity (St. Alphonsus, III, 293).

Resp. 2. It is certainly unlawful in common necessity to work or make things so that the gain received from the labor or the things may be granted to the poor.

Resp. 3. It is disputed whether in common necessity it is lawful to make things, for example clothes to be distributed to the poor. With St. Alphonsus and others, against some, it seems it must be denied; for, if that opinion were admitted, it would already be lawful for all and always to work; which seems to oppose the sense of the Church (St. Alphonsus, III, 293).

3. Piety permits servile works as follows:

a) Works which are proximately ordered to divine worship are permitted. Such are: ringing bells, playing organs, blowing them, etc. (St. Alphonsus, III, 291).

b) Works which are ordered to divine worship only remotely or by accident are prohibited unless necessity requires them. Such are, for example, "to cultivate the fields of the church, to carry stones and timber for its building, to whitewash the walls of the temple" (St. Alphonsus, III, 293). Nevertheless, with sufficient probability it is lawful "to labor at making necessary ornaments for a needy church" (St. Alphonsus, cited place).

c) Works which are ordered to divine worship neither so proximately nor so remotely are prohibited at most under light sin, indeed according to St. Alphonsus with sufficient probability not at all. Such are: "to sweep the church, to bake hosts, to adorn the altar and church with tapestries, to erect platforms necessary for a festivity or sepulcher, and similar things." Yet "knowingly to prepare platforms on a feast day for viewing a procession is, of itself, a grave sin; but if they were not made the previous day, they are lawfully made on the feast day" (III, 292).

4. What custom permits has been sufficiently indicated above (n. 705).

5. Finally, in doubt whether a sufficient excusing cause is present, a dispensation is required, about which see n. 183; note, however, that a sufficient cause is undoubtedly present if grave danger of notable harm is imminent.

Servile Works.—The prohibitory part of the precept is concerned with servile works, that is, labor of a kind that tends to make one unfit for devotion or that shows disrespect for the sacredness of the day, even though the labor be done gratis, or for recreation, or out of devotion. Hence, the law forbids:

(a) works given to the service of the devil, that is, sins that deprive one of holiness, such as riotous recreations, gambling, drunkenness, reading improper matter, and attendance at evil movie performances. But these works are opposed to the end, not to the text, of the law; and hence the circumstance of time aggravates their malice but does not give them a new species (see 2314);

(b) works given to the service of the body (servile works properly so called) or to the service of external goods (forensic and commercial works). Servile works in the strict sense cause bodily fatigue and are taken up with material things, and hence they distract the mind from religious thoughts. Such are manual labors (e.g., plowing, digging, housecleaning) and mechanical or industrial labors (e.g., printing, building, plastering, shoemaking). Forensic and commercial labors (e.g., arguing in court, auctioneering) are also of a very worldly kind and unsuitable for the quiet and recollection of Sundays and holydays.

The prohibitory part of the Sunday precept does not affect works which are no impediment to devotion and which cast no dishonor on the day. Such are:

(a) works devoted immediately to the service of God. The purpose of the law is to allow leisure for these works, and hence manifestly their performance is not forbidden. Such works are saying Mass, preaching, administering the Sacraments, singing in church, and visiting the poor and sick (John, vii. 23; Matt., xii. 5). But works that are only remotely related to divine worship (e.g., cleaning the church, painting the altar, repairing the vestments, decorating the shrines) should not be done on Sunday without necessity;

(b) works devoted to the service of the mind (liberal works). These works are of a more elevated kind, do not require great bodily exertion, and are not looked upon as unsuitable to the Sabbath. Such are intellectual works (e.g., teaching, reading, writing, studying), artistic works (e.g., playing the organ, singing, drawing, painting a picture, embroidering), and works of recreation (moderate sports or diversions such as baseball, tennis, and chess).

Other Kinds of Works and Sunday Observance.—(a) Common works are those that stand between the liberal and the servile, since they are exercised equally by mind and body, such as walking, riding, hunting, and fishing that is not very laborious. These are lawful.

(b) Doubtful works are those that are now non-servile, now servile, according to the manner in which they are conducted, such as the work of painters, sculptors, typists, seamstresses, and photographers. Thus, it is a liberal work to paint a portrait, a servile work to paint the walls of a house. In settling the character of various kinds of work, one must be guided by the prudent opinion of one’s locality, and in case of doubt and need must seek a dispensation. (For a history of the theology of servile works see Franz X. Pettirsch, S.J., “A Theology of Sunday Rest,” Theology Digest, Vol. VI, no. 2, Spring 1958, pp. 114 ff.; for a survey of modern studies on the problem see Proceedings of the Catholic Theological Society of America, 1957).

Is it lawful without necessity to hire the servile work of non-Catholics on Sunday, if these persons are not thereby impeded from the natural duty of worshipping God and no scandal is given? (a) If the non-Catholics are infidels and not bound by church laws, this is lawful. The same would be true of those who lack the use of reason (see 427 sqq.). (b) If the non-Catholics are heretics, it is not lawful in the case given to make them work on Sunday.

What works are prohibited on a feast day? - On a feast day all servile works, that is, labors, are prohibited. Thus the doctors commonly from C. 1, de Feriis.

A servile work is one which is chiefly exercised by bodily powers, immediately serves the convenience of the body, and regularly is usually done by servants. Therefore a servile work depends not only on the intrinsic nature of the work, but also and especially on the custom and estimation of men. A servile work is contradistinguished from a liberal work, which depends especially on the powers of the soul, immediately serves the convenience of the soul, and regularly is usually done by masters. But there is a middle work between servile and liberal, which can serve the convenience both of the soul and of the body, and is usually done both by servants and by masters. Of the first kind are plowing, sewing, and other mechanical works; of the second are studying, teaching, writing, singing, and other liberal works; but of the third kind are hunting, fishing, making a journey, and similar common works.

A work which of its own nature is liberal does not become servile because it is done for gain; nor does that which of its own nature is servile become liberal because it is done without pay. The same must be said whether the work is done with this or that pious, vain, or base intention. It is also irrelevant whether it is done with fatigue and labor or not; whether for a brief or long time, for contracted wages, or for the sake of recreation, etc., because none of these changes the nature of the work. Of its own nature; for since in fact in this matter the common opinion and estimation of men has very great force, as is drawn from the very definition of servile work, hence it happens that the extrinsic element of gratuity of the work, for example, can sometimes be present, at least so that there be some greater reason for excusing. And thus also to fish, for example, if it is done for the sake of recreation with a rod or light net, is usually held common and is permitted; although it is judged servile and is not licit if it is done for acquiring gain with great apparatus and labor. L. 272-274, 278; Struggl 7; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 122, a. 4 ad 3; E. M.

You will resolve: It is licit on a feast day not only to write, but also to transcribe, even if this is done for wages, and whether someone writes with a pen or with the American machine commonly in use. It is probably also licit on a feast day for printers to arrange type, because the work seems to pertain to the mind in the same way as the preceding writing, although it is done with greater bodily fatigue. But if it is exercised in a public workshop by many, by reason of the base apparatus and common estimation, it is held as servile work. Moreover, scandal can easily also be present. But the printing of books is altogether illicit, as being a work altogether servile. L. 278, 279, 292; Struggl 8; Laymann 3.

It is sufficiently probable that it is licit on a feast day to paint, and much more to draw, yet excluding great apparatus and labor, for example, mixing colors, planing boards, etc. For if the action is not liberal, it certainly is a middle action, and common to servants and free persons, while we often commonly observe noble men not blushing to learn and exercise this art of painting. Hence girls are also excused who with a needle reproduce images on cloth; and likewise those exercising the photographic art, unless it is done with base apparatus. But to sculpt, says St. Alphonsus, is commonly, at least in the estimation of men, numbered among the mechanical arts. "Yet Sporer excepts when goldsmiths sculpt very delicate things in moderate matter, in which almost no labor of the body, but the whole labor of mind and skill, intervenes." Struggl 8; L. 280, 283; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 212, a. 4 ad 3. "It is licit on a feast day to hunt, to catch birds, and to fish, without great apparatus and for the sake of recreation. The reason is that similar things, with greater apparatus and labor set aside, are not servile works, but common to masters and servants. Indeed similar things, if they are done without great apparatus, are also licit from custom, even if they are done for the sake of gain. But if they are done with great apparatus and labor, they are servile and illicit." Struggl 8; L. 283.

It is licit on a feast day to make a journey on foot, by bicycle, horse, carriage, automobile, ship, litter, railway, airplane, dirigible, etc. The reason for this is that making a journey is not a servile work, but natural and common to all men. Thus the doctors commonly; and besides, universal custom so has it. Moreover, by this very fact that it is licit to make a journey on a feast day in the aforesaid ways, it is also licit to perform the works which are necessary and conducive to this, as for example, to prepare horses, to join a carriage, to carry a litter, and to draw oars in water. The reason is that the accessory follows the nature of its principal. Struggl 8; L. 275.

Sanchez grants that it is licit to grind on feasts "if it is a mill which is driven by water or wind; but not if it is driven by beasts, and in which great labor and occupation is required. From which doctrine Tamburini, n. 14, and La-Croix, n. 578, sufficiently probably infer that when the cooperation and application of man is moderate, it is not illicit, at least gravely, even to grind with beasts." L. 277. Likewise distillation is licit if, without base apparatus and not in a public workshop, it is done for physical experiment, or without fatigue of the body. L. 328.

What is grave matter in servile work? - For mortal sin labor less than two hours does not suffice. This is proved: 1. because even two hours are in reality a moderate part of the day, as being a twelfth. 2. Because theologians commonly think so. Struggl 12; L. 305.

What more determinately is grave matter in servile work performed on feast days? - If the works greatly fatigue the body and are very servile, such as cutting stones, digging earth, etc., according to the more probable and more common opinion, it is not a mortal sin unless someone labors much beyond two hours, say two and a half hours, or at least somewhat more than two hours, or certainly completes two hours, which limits of time St. Alphonsus, n. 305, H. A. 25, La-Croix 594, etc., generally establish as commonly received. Nor indeed are there lacking theologians who require three hours, speaking generally, for grave fault. "It seems hard," says Busembaum cited by St. Alphonsus, n. 305, "to condemn as mortal if someone spends two or three hours."

If the works are lighter and not very servile, for example, making artificial flowers, a greater space of time is required for grave matter than in laborious and very servile works, as St. Alphonsus, n. 282, hands down. If, in carrying out servile works, another excusing element enters in, for example, necessity in those laborious works, piety in other lighter works, by making scapulars, for example, or rosaries, then as a greater reason for permitting such works is present, so also there is a greater reason for permitting them for a greater space of time. L. 293; H. A. 25. But this must be noted as to these lighter works: that piety can favor them only when they are undertaken merely without pay and merely for fostering piety. For if they are done for wages, now those works are altogether servile, as being mercenary, nor does piety raise them to pious works. And this is confirmed by the common custom and sense of the faithful.

You will resolve: As to those who drive carts or loaded beasts on a feast day, "the more probable opinion, at least today, judges that it is altogether licit not only to continue a journey begun, but also to begin one. The reason is that in such labor muleteers do not spend a notable time; and, if sometimes it is notable, they are excused either on account of avoiding grave harm, or on account of public utility, or finally because universal custom is present, which Mazzotta deservedly asserts to be present. And he says the same about sailors." L. 276.

He who on a feast day commands six servants to labor for an hour, more probably does not per se sin gravely, because the works of the servants, whether they labor simultaneously or successively, do not coalesce into one in order to form grave matter. And indeed each one sins only venially, if no cause is present excusing them. L. 306.

Are other works also prohibited? - This precept, insofar as it is negative, prohibits not only all servile works, but also civil works, namely market-trade and public negotiation of merchandise, and three forensic things: namely suit, judgment unto death, and oath. Thus the common opinion of theologians from C. 1, 3, and ult., de Feriis. And St. Pius V, C. Cum primum, 6 Kal. Apr. 1566, § 7, commanded that all on feast days "abstain from every illicit and servile work, that markets not be held, and that profane negotiations and the noise of judgments be quieted." L. 284.

By market-trade is understood the public exercise of commerce, or a market, with noise, as are annual or weekly fairs, etc. Public sales of merchandise are prohibited by reason of scandal; "hence, as usage bears, goods can be sold behind closed doors," Scav., ed. 12, Mediol. 1874, l. 2, nn. 95, 239. But in this matter custom must be observed, both universal and also particular to places; for this can abrogate a human law in whole or in part, and here has already abrogated the law in great part. Hence, on account of generally received custom, fairs established for a certain day are excepted if they fall on a feast day. Benedict XIV so declared, C. Ab eo tempore, 5 Nov. 1745.

Likewise, from received custom, food, drink, shoes, candles, cloth for making clothes, and other things of this sort are licitly sold and bought in public shops. Yet merchants ought to close their shops, so that they may show that they distinguish Sunday from other days; but here also the custom of places and necessity, varied for various places, claims very much for itself. Public auctions are also tolerated in some places after the divine offices have been performed, because on other days there would be fewer attending, etc. Likewise it is tolerated that merchants of things of small moment carry, show, and sell goods from one place to another.

Houses, horses, oxen, and other merchandise are licitly sold and bought, whether present or absent, whether in small or great quantity, even if a notable time is spent in this, provided these things are done between private persons; both because the usage of the God-fearing so bears, and because the Church prohibited only sales in public shops, by reason of scandal. From the custom of the wise, all contracts are licit if they are made without instruments and the authority of a judge. Indeed St. Alphonsus notes that custom bears that they may be celebrated not only privately, but even through instruments, provided they do not require judicial noise, for example, testaments, instruments of betrothals, sales, etc.; "although," the holy Doctor adds, "notaries in some places are accustomed for this to ask general license from the Ordinary, which for the rest is commonly granted." L. 286, 289; Benedict XIV, de Syn., l. 7, c. 3, nn. 2, 3.

By suit is understood a civil sentence or the hearing of civil causes in judgment. By judgment unto death is understood the citation of the accused to judgment, his examination, condemnation, and execution of the sentence. Now then, judicial processes are prohibited on feast days, and are void by the law itself from C. ult., de Feriis. Except, however, if a cause is present both of necessity and also of piety, as is clear from the same Cap. ult., de Feriis, and from the common authority of theologians.

Therefore it is licit on a feast day to excommunicate, dispense, inform a judge privately, consult an advocate, prepare counsels, etc., because these things are done outside judgment and consequently do not require judicial noise. It is said to be judicial noise where the cause is contentious and litigious, and where questions and disputes are handled; and indeed judicial noise consists in citation, from which the cause chiefly seems to begin, in the formation of process and the cognition of the cause, and in the pronouncement of sentence. Therefore acts of voluntary jurisdiction are not prohibited on a feast day, nor extrajudicial acts. Suarez, l. 2, c. 38; Cajetan, 2. 2, q. 122, a. 4; Schmalz., l. 2, t. 9, nn. 52, 53; Struggl 6; Bonacina, t. 2, d. 5, q. un., p. 2, n. 25; L. 284, 287, 294, 295. "Necessity ceasing, it is not licit to wage war on feast days." S. Th. 2. 2, q. 40, a. 4. For war is against the rest and sanctification of the feast day, which is ordered to being free for divine things. But if necessity is present, as other works become licit from necessity, so also to wage war. S. Th. 2. 2, q. 122, a. 4; C. Treguas, de Tregua et pace.

By oath finally is understood an oath before a judge, or a judicial oath. L. 284; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 89, a. 10.

Note: In these forensic and judicial works, the quantity of matter sufficient for grave sin is not taken from the quantity of time, but from the quality of the work. L. 307.

What are the causes excusing from prohibited works? - There are chiefly six excusing causes: dispensation, custom, piety, charity, necessity, utility, as is clear from the common opinion of theologians. L. 288.

Dispensation. In the precept of abstaining from servile work, as also of hearing Mass, the following can dispense: 1. The Pontiff, as supreme legislator and pastor, in all festivities and for the whole Church. 2. Bishops and vicars of the chapter, the See being vacant, in their dioceses. 3. Regular Prelates toward their own religious subjects and their domestics. 4. Parish priests, even when the Bishop is present, from custom now received. But Bishops, regular Prelates, and parish priests are able to dispense only in particular cases. L. 288.

Custom. Hence from general custom received almost everywhere these are excused: 1. Barbers, who besides are also excused from this, that otherwise they would be abandoned by very many to their grave detriment. 2. Those things which pertain to the neatness of the house, for example, making beds, washing vessels, and those things which regard the arrangement of the person, such as trimming the beard, cleaning dust from clothes, and the rest of the same kind. 3. Those things which are necessary for food: slaughtering cattle, baking bread, indeed even preparing finer foods. Struggl 23; Suarez, l. 2, c. 21, nn. 3, 4; L. 289, 298; Benedict XIV, Inst. 43.

Piety toward God. Through this works are licit which proximately, not remotely, regard the worship of God; such as laying floors for a festivity, sweeping and adorning the temple, altar, roads; but by no means building a church, repairing it, cultivating the fields of the church, etc., without actual necessity. And thus it is permitted to make necessary ornaments for a needy church. For the precept of worshiping God by abstaining from servile works is of a higher order than free works of piety. L. 291-293.

Charity toward the neighbor. Hence on a feast day it is licit: 1. To do what is necessary for relieving the sick. 2. To dig a grave for burying a dead person. 3. To labor for some determinate poor person, for whom by reason of grave necessity it would be licit to labor; yet, according to grave theologians, not for poor persons in general, unless the matter concerns making clothes or other things of this sort which must serve for the use of the poor, but not for gaining money to be distributed to the poor. L. 292, 294.

Necessity, whether one's own or another's, both of soul and of body. Hence these are excused: 1. Poor persons who otherwise cannot feed themselves and their own; shoemakers, tailors, and other workers who otherwise would be abandoned by buyers, provided they labor privately and scandal is excluded; servants compelled to labor, if they cannot easily and quickly find another master without great inconvenience; wives and children compelled by the father to labor, if however this is not in contempt of religion. Likewise all these are also excused if they mend their clothes, when on working days they do not have convenient time for this. Yet masters can from a grave cause impose upon servants that they do servile works and abstain from Mass; and each then is consequently licit for the servants. 2. All those whose works once begun cannot be interrupted without great harm, such as those pouring iron; those gathering fruits lest they be corrupted, or lest they be stolen; those baking lime, bricks, glass. 3. Tailors who make funeral or nuptial garments, or others necessary for honorable dress, which they are not able to finish before the feast either by themselves or through others. 4. Farmers who, on account of past or threatening rain, cut, turn, bind, or carry hay or grain. 5. Blacksmiths who shoe horses on the road or brought by rustics, or who restore plowshares necessary for farmers on the following day; and also those who repair carts broken by accident, bridges, or public roads, if the work cannot be deferred without loss of the public good. The reason of avoiding idleness does not excuse per se, except in the rare case in which temptation would press which could not otherwise be conquered except by laboring. L. 295-304; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 122, a. 4; Struggl 15.

Utility. Hence these are excused: 1. Those who labor for the public utility, when some necessity is urgent, for example, if the matter concerns celebrating a victory, preparing a feast for the arrival of a Prince, or for the sake of another public rejoicing. 2. Those also are probably excused, on account of the circumstance of notable extraordinary gain, who sustain themselves by labors, because for these to omit such gain is the same as to suffer grave harm. L. 301, 304.

Tullius, a preacher, about to hold a conference concerning the observance of feast days, says that, in order to discern servile works from non-servile, one must chiefly attend to these things: whether a work is done gratuitously or for pay; whether it is ordered to gain or for the sake of recreation; whether, finally, it brings with it great or light bodily fatigue. Hence he infers that a work cannot be considered servile if, for example, it is done with no hope of gain and by way of recreation, or so that idleness may be avoided, or if it can be exercised with light bodily fatigue: such as knitting stockings by hand, making rosaries and scapulars, painting images with a needle, setting type, photography, and other such things.

Q. What as to these things?

R. To the first. Cf. I. M. 652 seqq.

To the second. 1. A servile work is that which is exercised directly and immediately through the powers of the body, and by its intrinsic nature tends directly and immediately to the utility of the body, and which is usually done by servants. Wherefore the criterion of a servile work is partly intrinsic, namely from the nature of the work itself; and partly extrinsic, namely from common custom and from the common estimation of men. It is false, therefore, that one must chiefly attend to gratuity, intention, and bodily fatigue. For gratuity, and intention or end, since they are merely extrinsic circumstances, do not change the intrinsic nature of the work. Bodily fatigue, moreover, is also had both in liberal works and in common works. Therefore the work of plowing another's field, even gratis and only from charity, is certainly a servile work. But to play the organ, to dance, to walk, is not a servile work, even if this is done for a long time and with much fatigue. Nor, again, is transcription, though long and laborious, a servile work, even if it is done for gain. Therefore Tullius errs in the criterion assigned.

2. To knit stockings by hand, considered in itself, is a servile work, and such also by the common estimation of men. But the light fatigue can make it licit for a longer time, from a just cause; yet it does not make it simply licit.

3. To make rosaries and scapulars is also a servile work, if considered in itself, and there is little matter whether rosaries and scapulars are made, or chains for watches and handkerchiefs; for the distinction is material. Yet an extrinsic element can enter which excuses, namely piety, or which altogether permits, namely legitimate custom, as happens in certain places, provided that these things are done merely to foster piety; for then, by common opinion and estimation, such work is regarded as a work of piety proper to nuns or to other pious persons, and not as servile work. A case, for example, would be if, during the sacred time of a mission, such things had to be distributed to the faithful.

4. To paint images with a needle cannot be regarded as servile work. For this does not agree with the definition given, and it is chiefly a work of ingenuity, which is also exercised by noble women.

5. The composition of type is not in itself a servile work. For it is equivalent to writing, and is exercised chiefly through the powers of the mind. And although, indeed, an illiterate person can materially arrange the letters, nevertheless he can never in this way form coherent words and sentences. Yet if it is done in a public workshop, then it is servile by the common estimation of men and by custom; because the faithful abhor that apparatus and manner of mercenary and artisan work. Hence all condemn typographers working on feast days.

6. Finally, photography is not servile work. For it is a work of ingenuity and science, and by professors of the natural sciences it is reckoned among the works by which natural science is advanced. Besides, it is equivalent to painting, which pertains to the liberal arts, and it is exercised by nobles themselves. And finally, neither by common opinion and estimation, nor by custom, has it been prohibited on feast days. At most it could be regarded as servile work if it were done with base apparatus and in a gross manner. Cf. Scav., 12th ed., Milan, 1784, l. 2, n. 260.

We must treat: 1. of works prohibited on feast days; 2. of the causes on account of which they are sometimes licitly exercised.

Three principal causes are numbered, namely charity, piety, necessity.

360. • I. Charity toward neighbor. Hence on a feast day it is lawful: 1. to do what is necessary for relieving the sick; 2. to dig a grave for burying the dead; 3. to labor for some determinate poor person, to whom by reason of grave necessity it would be lawful to labor ¹; yet, according to grave theologians, not for the poor in general, unless there is question of making clothes or other things of this sort which ought to serve the use of the poor, but not for gaining money which is to be distributed to the poor ². - St. Alphonsus, n. 294; Hom. apost., n. 17.

¹ Thus, for example, since it is lawful for a poor person to mend his clothes or clean them, it will be lawful also for others to furnish these services to him gratuitously.

² ** By this distinction the Doctors who seem at first glance to dissent are reconciled, as if some required an extreme or certainly grave necessity of the poor person for undertaking certain works for the poor (see St. Alphonsus, lib. 3, n. 293), while others judge that a common necessity suffices. These latter, namely, are treating of things, for example clothes, to be granted for their use; but the former of making a work, the payment for which may be given to them as alms. Consequently St. Alphonsus writes less to the matter (l.c.) to the question, Whether on feast days it is lawful to make clothes for the poor: "Viva, Tamburini, Sporer, Roncaglia, and the Salamancans say that it is then only lawful to labor when the poor person is actually in grave need." But these Doctors do not raise the question about making or mending a garment for a poor person, but about him who labors so that afterward he may distribute alms from the profit.

II. Piety toward God. On account of piety it is lawful: 1. to do all works closely serving the worship of God, such as to adorn the church, the altar, etc.; 2. to sweep the Church, and to prepare other things which pertain to its cleanliness. But it is not lawful to build a Church, repair it, cut stones for this, make ornaments, etc.; because these serve divine service more remotely. - St. Alphonsus, n. 292-293; Hom. apost., n. 17. ³.

³ Among works of the former kind St. Alphonsus, from the opinion of others, which he reports without censure (lib. 3, n. 293), also reckons making ornaments for a needy Church, namely one which does not have revenues equal to these things, as, for example, to arrange silk flowers, to sew carpets, altar cloths, purificators, corporals, chasubles, and other things of this sort, etc.

But as regards the latter things, although he judges as more probable the opinion which denies that these are lawful, nevertheless he admits (l.c.) that labors of this sort are lawful if the church is poor. Then from the opinion of the Salamancans and others he adds: "Because nearly all churches and monasteries in these times labor under want, therefore for these, and for hospitals, confraternities, and similar places, men can lawfully labor by building churches, reaping crops, cultivating fields, etc."

Yet note two things as regards practice: 1. in reality these labors are not accustomed to be undertaken unless pious places truly labor under poverty; 2. faculty from the Ordinary has been accustomed to be sought also for avoiding the scandal of the people.

361. • III. Necessity, either one's own or another's, both of soul and of body. Hence:

1. The poor are excused who otherwise cannot support themselves and their own, provided they labor privately and with scandal excluded.

2. All are excused whose works already begun cannot be interrupted without great damage, such as those pouring iron, etc.

3. Bakers likewise are excused, who must have fresh bread so that they may satisfy buyers.

4. Likewise tailors who make funeral or nuptial garments, which neither by themselves nor through others are they able to complete before the feast.

5. Likewise farmers who, on account of past or imminent rain, turn, bind, or carry hay or crops.

6. Likewise servants compelled to labor, if they cannot easily and quickly find another master without great inconvenience.

7. Smiths are excused who shoe horses on the road or brought by rustics, or repair plowshares necessary for farmers on the following day; and also those who repair carriages accidentally broken, bridges, or public roads, if the work cannot be deferred without loss of the public good.

8. Those also are excused who labor for public utility while some necessity urges, for example if there is question of celebrating a victory, of preparing a feast for the arrival of a Prince, or for the sake of some other public rejoicing.

9. Those also are probably excused who labor on account of the circumstance of notable and extraordinary profit, because for them to omit such a profit is the same as to suffer grave damage ⁴. - St. Alphonsus as regards all these things, from n. 296 to n. 304.

⁴ The reason from St. Alphonsus (lib. 3, n. 301) is that those who sustain themselves by labors have rare occasions of acquiring such great profit, and judge that they sustain great damage when they lose a great profit; for to lose something and to be prohibited from acquiring what cannot be acquired further coincide in the same thing.

But although as many as have been enumerated thus far do not need a dispensation, nevertheless the faithful are to be advised that, if they conveniently can, they should ask leave from the ecclesiastical Superior, lest, namely, deceived by cupidity, they labor without a cause sufficient for excusing and with the scandal of others. But here the Superior is understood especially as the Bishop; although he cannot give a general dispensation for all his subjects, much less a permanent one, since that would be equivalent to the suppression of feast days, yet as regards some acts with particular persons he can dispense from a reasonable cause; indeed custom grants this faculty even to the parish priest.

10. But they are not to be excused, indeed they are severely to be rebuked, who more often extend labor begun after midnight into the feast day even under the pretext of necessity; because for the most part that necessity is voluntary for them, since very often they cast themselves into it, either by assuming more works to be completed by a certain day than they can fulfill, or by not applying that number of workers which the work would require, or by wasting time during the week on useless things. You would more easily excuse those to whom a work to be completed for the following feast day had been handed over on the preceding day.

362. • Q. Whether the reason of avoiding idleness excuses?

Resp. No, speaking commonly. For that reason is altogether insufficient for setting aside so grave a law of the Church. Laymann, Mazzotta, etc., make an exception if the idleness induces a probable danger of sinning; because, they say, if danger of temporal damage excuses, a fortiori danger of spiritual damage ought to excuse. But St. Alphonsus, n. 362, more willingly restricts this to the case in which a temptation would urge, which could not be overcome otherwise, which rarely happens. - See Cases, n. 354 and following.

1037. So that Christians might more easily sanctify Sunday, the Church at various times prohibited those works from being performed which are morally incompatible with hearing Mass or with the exercise of religion. At the close of the second century, Tertullian testifies that the faithful devote themselves to rest on Sunday.¹ The emperor Constantine, in the year 321, prohibited forensic works and the exercise of mechanical arts on the same day, yet permitted farmers to give their work to cultivation, on account of the intemperate weather often prevailing.² Around the end of the fourth century, the Council of Laodicea established (can. 29): "Let Christians not Judaize, nor be idle on the sabbath day, but let them labor; but let them specially honor the Lord's day, and, if it can be done, not labor on it."³ But among works, servile works were especially prohibited, which are exercised chiefly by the body, and formerly were accustomed to be done by servants; and forensic works, which pertain to market, fairs, and judicial acts: for by these the mind is especially turned away from divine things. But what must be understood by servile works was never determined by a general definition, but must be defined from particular decrees, the custom of places, and the common opinion of theologians.⁴ In this matter, the various customs of times and places and the estimation of prudent men must especially be attended to: for discipline was not the same in all times and places. Moreover, for judging whether some work is prohibited or not, it must be inspected whether it so occupies the mind that it turns it away from divine things.

¹ Apologet., n. 16, and Ad nationes, I, n. 13, P.L., I, 371 and 579.

² Cod. Justin., l. II, t. XII, De feriis, law 3.

³ Mansi, t. II, p. 569. - From this it follows that the obligation of abstaining from servile work at that time was not altogether strict. But, in the sixth century, Caesarius of Arles taught that the glory of the Judaic sabbatism had been transferred to Sunday, and therefore that from the evening of the sabbath day to the evening of the Lord's day one must abstain from every business and rural work (P.L., t. XXXIX, 2238 and 2274-2275). Yet this excessive severity was wisely mitigated by the Third Council of Orleans (538), whose statutes you may read in Mansi, t. IX, p. 19; cf. Villien, Rev. du clerge fr., t. XLIII, p. 342-344.

⁴ How difficult it is to define servile work is clearly established from the controversy which was debated among various authors in the periodical Revue du Cl. francais, t. XXXVII (1903), p. 83; t. XXXIX (1904), p. 194 and 436; t. XL, p. 103.

1038. On Sundays and feast days, servile and forensic works are prohibited, throughout the whole day from midnight to midnight, and indeed of themselves under grave sin. Matter is judged grave when labor is prolonged beyond two hours.

1. So that it may be better understood what servile works are, theologians are accustomed to distinguish a threefold genus of works: (a) servile, so called because they were formerly exercised by servants, are those which are performed chiefly by bodily labor and are immediately ordered to the utility of the body, such as plowing, digging, sewing; (b) liberal, so called because they were accustomed to be exercised by free men, are those which proceed chiefly from the mind and regard the cultivation of the soul, such as reading, teaching, singing, playing the organ; (c) common, or intermediate, which were done indiscriminately by servants and free men, and serve either the body or the soul, for example, making a journey, hunting, playing.

1039. (A) But what works are servile in species must be defined not from the intention of the worker, the length of time, or bodily fatigue, but from the nature itself of the work, custom, and the estimation of prudent men.

Thus the following are certainly servile: rural works, such as plowing, sowing, digging, collecting the harvest; - mechanical works, for example, the exercise of the tailor's, shoemaker's, or blacksmith's art; - industrial works in factories, mines; - certain manual works, even if they demand modest labor, for example, making rosaries, scapulars, or artificial flowers, picking roses, peeling apples. - On the contrary, those works are not forbidden which are done daily on account of some necessity, such as cooking foods, making beds, sweeping the house, etc.

But there are many works whose character remains doubtful in itself, and can be determined only from circumstances and custom: - to sculpt is a liberal and licit work if there is question of the final perfection of the work, but is held as mechanical work if wood or marble is first cut. - To paint with a brush is a liberal work when there is question of a truly artistic painting, but a servile work if walls are painted, as is done by ordinary workmen. To embroider can be held as a liberal work if it is done for the sake of recreation, or for avoiding idleness, but as servile if directly for the sake of gain. - To fish is not prohibited if it is done for the sake of recreation, otherwise when it is exercised for gain. - To set type, if it is done privately, seems to certain persons a liberal work, because it does not differ much from writing, but it is servile when in a workshop, for the sake of gain. - To grind is in itself a servile work, but if the mill is driven by wind, water, or steam, with slight labor of man, it is held by some as licit.

In these and other works of this kind, in our judgment, all those ought to be held as prohibited which, from common estimation, are judged to be the exercise of a lucrative art, which of itself turns the mind away from the sanctification of Sunday.

Certainly liberal are works which regard the cultivation of letters, sciences, or liberal arts, even if they are exercised for pay, such as teaching, writing, transcribing, drawing, singing, playing the organ or other musical instruments, etc. - Certainly common, and therefore not prohibited in themselves, are these and similar works: making a journey on foot, on horseback, by carriage, ship, railroad; hunting, bird-catching, fishing with a hook or small nets for the sake of recreation, etc. - These works are licit in themselves, unless from common persuasion they are held as prohibited; but to be occupied in the same for the whole day, so that Sunday is in no way sanctified, is a grave sin.

1040. (B) Forensic works are also prohibited: (a) judicial acts of the forum, whether civil or ecclesiastical, which are done with noise, for example, to cite parties, examine witnesses, exact a judicial oath, pronounce sentence, etc.; but acts which are done without noise are licit, for example, to consult an advocate, inform a judge, dispense, absolve, etc.; - (b) markets, or commercial acts, solemn contracts; thus public fairs, unless they are excused by custom; public sales by auction, unless they likewise are tolerated by custom after divine offices have been completed; solemn contracts, which are completed by notaries; but not private contracts which are entered privately.

1041. 1. Necessity or very great utility excuses from labor whenever this cannot be omitted without grave inconvenience or harm. By this reason the following are excused:

(a) Farmers, who, on account of past or imminent rain or hail, must collect crops or fruits; (b) workmen who cannot interrupt works begun without very notable loss; such are those melting glass or iron, burning lime or bricks; those who, in a case of necessity, repair bridges, public roads, machines in workshops; blacksmiths, if they shoe the horses of travelers or of those who are about to set out very early the following day; those repairing the machines of those who otherwise would not be able to work on the following day; (c) shoemakers and tailors who make shoes or garments necessary for funerals, weddings, or other solemnities which cannot be deferred; or finish garments which they promised to hand over on the appointed day, provided that by their own fault they have not wasted time uselessly, nor are accustomed to undertake more works than they are able to complete;⁵ (d) public bakers and butchers, who in large towns are morally compelled daily to bake bread or kill animals; but not those who in small towns can do this for two days, unless several continuous feast days occur; (e) servants, wives, children, who are compelled to labor by a master, husband, or parent, when they cannot resist without founded fear of grave inconvenience; (f) poor persons, who otherwise are not able to sustain themselves and their own, or would be deprived of extraordinary gain.⁶

⁵ Let the richer also take care not to demand more quickly the garments which they hand over to tailors or seamstresses to be made; otherwise they are the cause why workers are morally compelled to labor at night and also on Sundays even unwillingly.

⁶ Led by this reason, Alexander III (Decretals, lib. II, tit. IX, De feriis, c. 3), permitted fishermen the capture of fish which in shoals approach the land at certain times: "We grant that it be licit for your parishioners on Sundays and other feasts (except on the greater solemnities of the year), if herrings have inclined themselves toward the land, to attend to their capture when necessity presses: in such a way that after the catch has been made they provide a fitting portion to the surrounding churches and to Christ's poor." Likewise S. Cong. Prop. Fid., Sept. 30, 1848, by authority of the Sovereign Pontiff, granted to certain apostolic vicars the faculty of dispensing poor Christians, who greatly need their own works, so that they may be able to labor servilely on Sundays and feast days, yet after hearing Mass (Collectanea, Paris edition, n. 1232; cf. n. 1226-1227; Ami du Clerge, t. XII (1899), p. 246).

1042. 2. Piety toward God excuses those who perform servile works proximately regarding divine worship, such as adorning altars, sweeping the church, covering the walls with tapestries; but it is to be counseled that these things be done the day before, if possible. But those things are prohibited which serve worship only remotely, such as building a church, whitewashing walls, making ornaments, unless another cause accedes, for example, an urgent necessity of worship.

1043. 3. Charity toward neighbor renders licit works, otherwise servile, by which we assist the grave necessity of neighbor, for example, to serve the sick; to plead the causes of the poor; to labor for the poor for whom, by reason of necessity, it is licit to labor, for example, to make garments, when winter is raging, for those who otherwise would perish from cold.

1044. 4. From custom, where it is in force, certain works otherwise prohibited are permitted; thus it is licit for barbers to shave a beard on a feast day; for gardeners to water vegetables; for farmers to turn or separate crops on the threshing floor; for merchants to sell drinks and food, even in public shops, etc. But what is licit from this head in any region depends on the particular usage of places.

1045. 5. To these causes is added dispensation granted by one's proper superior, namely by the Sovereign Pontiff for the whole Church, by the Bishop or capitular Vicar for the diocese, and by Prelates having quasi-episcopal jurisdiction. These cannot dispense without a just cause, which nevertheless can be less grave than that which of itself excuses from the law. - From the Code, c. 1245, pastors can, from a just cause, in individual cases, dispense individual faithful or individual families, even outside the territory, from the common law concerning the observance of feasts.

1046. Practical corollaries. (a) It is asked whether the reason of avoiding idleness excuses from servile work. - This indeed by itself alone does not excuse, since idleness can be driven away by licit occupations. But circumstances can be given in which idleness is a proximate danger of sinning, and at the same time can scarcely be driven away otherwise than by being occupied in servile work for some time: then it is licit to labor as long as is necessary for putting temptations to flight. In this case it can be counseled to girls and women that they make garments for the poor, or ornaments for churches.

1047. (b) It is likewise asked whether it is licit for workmen dwelling in a city to spend some time on Sunday in cultivating gardens which are rented or given to them. - Scandal being removed, this can be permitted, with deference to better judgment, whenever otherwise the workers are exposed to a grave danger of going to taverns and making themselves drunk, or of consenting to other temptations, - or when they are so poor that they need this work for sustaining themselves or their own, - or when the labor is so modest that it can be held as recreation and solace, - but especially when these three motives concur together.⁷ But it must be attempted with all strength that they first hear Mass, and for some time devote themselves to the study of Christian doctrine; nor should they labor longer.

⁷ Ami du Clerge, t. XXV (1903), p. 968; Rev. du Clerge francais, t. XXVII (1903), p. 83.

But let it never recede from the mind that the virtue of religion is among the most excellent moral virtues, and that God, best and greatest, repays a hundredfold those who, vain cares and solicitudes having been put aside, sincerely and devoutly promote divine worship.

2. Sunday is not only a day of prayer, it is also a day of rest. As man requires a certain number of hours daily for sleep, so he needs a periodical respite from work. That the observance of Sunday as a day of rest corresponds to a deep-seated need of human nature is evident from the venerable age of this institution, as well as from the fact that, when the French government, at the time of the Revolution, attempted to substitute the tenth for the traditional seventh day, the people refused to accept the change.

The universal experience of mankind shows that servile work on Sunday is unhygienic and economically unprofitable. Sunday observance increases the laboring man’s capacity for work and tends to lengthen his life.⁹

⁹ Cfr. P. Barth, Schlaf und Sonntag, Basle 1899.

3. Sunday is also a day of recreation and innocent amusement, by which men may recuperate from their labors and regain some of the lost joy of life.

“The prospect of one day of rest frequently intervening,” says Andrew Carnegie, “gives a toiler something bright to look forward to, without which his life must stretch before him as one unceasing, unvarying drag. In this one blessed day his slavery ceases, the shackles fall. He is no longer a brute—fed and clothed solely because of his physical powers, his capacity to bear burdens—but a higher being, with tastes, pleasures, friends. Life becomes worth living. The man puts on his best clothes—and there is much in this—the woman gives her cottage an extra brushing up. Something extra is prepared for dinner—there is a great deal in this, too—and, in short, the day is marked by a hundred little differences from those of labor—a stroll in the fields, a visit to relatives, or a meeting with neighbors at church, all in their best; and then the swelling organ and the choir—these things lie closely at the root of all improvements; and if ever the race is to be lifted to a higher platform—and who shall dare doubt it?—the weekly day of rest will prove itself an agency in the good work.... The best mode of improving its most precious hours for the toiling masses is therefore a question of infinite moment, apart altogether from the question of its divine character, and viewed only as a human enactment of the highest wisdom. It would seem clear that to make this only respite from manual labor a day exclu- sively set apart for the mournful duty of bemoaning our manifold shortcomings—which must at best give rise to gloomy thoughts—would defeat the purposes I have indicated. I want a compromise—church service in the morning, with a sermon ‘leaning to the side of mercy,’ as Sidney Smith suggested, which meant that it should not exceed twenty minutes, for, as one wit says, ‘a minister who can’t strike ile [oil] in twenty minutes should quit boring’—and then the fields and streams for the toilers who are cooped up in factories and workshops all the week long, or a visit to picture galleries, or to musical concerts of a high order,... to anything that would tend to brighten their existence. I am now convinced that there is an important change to be made in the mode of keeping our Sundays—the cessation of labor as far as it is possible, to remain a cardinal point, but better facilities to be provided for cultivating the higher tastes of our poor workers, that the day may be to them indeed ‘the golden jewel which clasps the circle of the week.’”¹⁰

¹⁰ Andrew Carnegie, Round the World, New York 1884, pp. 326 sq.

“The old privileges,” says Bishop von Keppler, “which came from no over-lord, but were due simply to God and the sun, were called ‘sun-rights.’ In the same sense, Sunday may be called the people’s ‘sun-right.’ What rights and what joys are lacking in the individual life when Sunday counts as nothing, when servile work burdens the Lord’s Day or debauchery dishonors it! The day is made a day of real joy through a wonderful combination of the natural and supernatural pleasures contributed by godly rest, the loosening of labor’s yoke, the united worship of God, the sermon at high mass, the outing in the fields and woods, and the hours of quiet enjoyment at the family hearth. In the Hymelstras¹¹ Brother Stephen gives a charming description of the father of a family taking ‘his little folk’ to the sermon and afterwards asking them what they have heard, supplementing their observations with his own. Then he gets his little drink and sings his good little song, and ‘thus he and his little flock were happy in the Lord.’”¹²

¹¹ Published at Augsburg, Germany, in 1484.

¹² P. W. von Keppler, More Joy, tr. by Jos. McSorley, C.S.P., St. Louis 1914, p. 93.

In his Book of Childhood, Bogumil Goltz has described the fascination of Sunday for the child mind: “Ah! on this day nothing was the same as on school days and work days. We felt the difference in the air we breathed and the soil we trod; we drank it in with the very water. The sunbeams flashed it into the soul; the sparrows twittered it among the notes of the church organ; the trees told it to one another with rustling leaves. Before sunrise, in the grey dawn, the coming hours of happiness were borne on the wings of the morning wind to this chosen day. O Lord, my God, in very truth it was Sunday, —Sunday in every hour and minute, in every twinkling of an eye, in every flash of a sunbeam, in every throb of the pulse, in every drop of blood, in all the body and all the soul. One could hear and see nothing, be aware of nothing, will nothing, think nothing, but just that it was Sunday, the sacred day. All that one looked at or experienced, was different from that on other days,—the same and yet not the same, for it was illumined, hallowed, and invested with the mysterious radiance of Sunday.”¹³

¹³ Quoted by Keppler, op. cit., pp. 93 sq.

3. In regard to Sunday rest the Church forbids:

a) Servile labor (opera servilia), i. e., the rough and harder sort of manual work which is ordinarily done by common workmen and which used to be done by slaves. This prohibition is based on the very object for which the Sunday observance was instituted. The day could not be devoted to the service of God were men to engage in their usual pursuits.¹⁴

¹⁴ Lev. XXIII, 25; Ex. XX, 8 sqq.—Cat. Rom., P. III, c. 4, qu. 21: “By these words we are first instructed altogether to avoid whatever things can hinder divine worship. For it can easily be perceived that every kind of servile work is prohibited, not indeed because it is shameful or evil in its own nature, but because it draws our mind away from divine worship, which is the end of the precept.”

Any work that is in itself servile, retains this characteristic even if performed for pleasure or to while away the time.’ Contrariwise, any occupation that is not in itself servile, does not become such if performed for material gain or accompanied by bodily fatigue, for the intention of the doer does not change the nature of the work.¹⁵

¹⁵ H. Busembaum, S.J., Medulla Theol. Mor., l. III, tr. 3, c. 1, dub. 1, resp. I, n. 1: “Whether it is done for profit or recreation, with this or that intention—pious, vain, or shameful—is irrelevant to the nature of servile work.”—Ibid., n. 2: “It is likewise irrelevant whether it is done with fatigue and labor or not, whether for a short or a long time, etc., because none of these things changes the nature of the work.”

Opposed to servile labor, and consequently permitted on Sundays, are (1) the so-called opera liberalia or artes liberales, i. e., all work predominantly intellectual and aiming at the development of the mind, such as reading, writing, instructing others, etc.; (2) the so-called opera media sive communia, mixed work which serves both the bodily and the spiritual interests of man, such as traveling, fishing, hunting, etc.; (3) do- mestic labors (opera domestica) that cannot be postponed or performed in advance, such as cooking food, feeding cattle, and so forth.

Among the causes which excuse a man from the observance of the law forbidding servile labor on Sundays and holydays of obligation are: dispensation, legitimate custom, necessity, charity (nursing the sick, burying the dead, etc.), piety (the erection of altars, decoration of streets and houses for religious ceremonies, etc.), and the public welfare or security (postal service, running the railroads, etc.).

In determining what is servile work and therefore forbidden, says Fr. Slater, “we must consider not only the nature of the work itself, but also the way in which it is done, the light in which it is commonly regarded, and other circumstances. Thus it is usually held that although the rougher work of the sculptor is servile and unlawful, the more delicate is liberal and may be done on a Sunday. Similarly, fishing with rod and line is not unlawful, but going out to sea with a fishing smack and plying the trade in the ordinary working-day way is forbidden. In the same way one who lives by photography should not ply his trade on a Sunday, but it would not be wrong for an amateur to do the same work on that day by way of recreation and amusement.”¹⁶

¹⁶ A Manual of Moral Theology, I, 264 sq.

The exercise of the barber’s trade is generally regarded as licit on Sunday because it appertains to the necessary care of the body. Barbers are not, however, on that account dispensed from hearing Mass. One compelled to stay away from Mass would be bound in conscience to look for another position and meanwhile would be excused from hearing Mass only in case obedience to the law of the Church would be likely to cost him his job.

It is to be regretted that so many men are now-a-days compelled to work on Sunday, often under conditions which make it impossible for them to go to church. Thus the Lord’s Day is withdrawn from its sublime purpose and degraded to profane and worldly uses.

The inhabitants of large cities should by all means be given an opportunity to get out into the open and enjoy nature, and the farmer has the right occasionally to visit the city on Sunday without incurring loss of time or money. Traveling is a biological necessity that does not, in itself, contravene the commandment of keeping holy the Sabbath day.

b) The Church further forbids business and court proceedings (opera forensia), such as public sales, the hearing of witnesses, etc., in so far as they disturb the public peace and are thus opposed to the sanctification of the Lord’s Day. Annual fairs that are customarily held upon a holyday of obligation had better be transferred to another day. Theatrical performances, baseball games, and similar entertainments may be permitted on Sundays and holydays of obligation for the reason that, as St. Alphonsus says, “such dem- onstrations of joy are morally necessary to the common weal.”¹⁷

¹⁷ Theol. Mor., l. III, n. 304: “The reason is that such signs of joy are morally necessary to the commonwealth and are therefore permitted by custom.” (Ed. Gaudé, I, 567).

The prohibition of servile labor and of business and court proceedings obliges, generally speaking, under pain of mortal sin, but admits of parvitas materiae (operis seu temporis). According to a more probable opinion, now held by most theologians, it is not a mortal sin to work, say, two or two and one-half hours on Sunday, provided the work engaged in is not extremely servile in character and does not exhaust the body. Scandal or disturbance of the peace may render even a shorter period mortally sinful. In regard to opera forensia the determining factor is not the duration of the proceedings (quantitas temporis), but the nature or character of the work done (qualitas operis).

— "On feast days of precept... one must abstain from servile works, forensic acts, and likewise, unless legitimate customs or particular indults carry otherwise, from public markets, fairs, and other public purchases and sales" (can. 1248).

After the old law has been abrogated, this obligation is wholly ecclesiastical (cf. St. Th., II-II, q. 122, art. 4 ad 4), as history itself demonstrates, since the first law concerning festive rest was passed by Constantine the Great. Cf. more things, Questions concerning Religion, at n. 109, Supplement, or Appendix XVII.

Concerning the individual prohibitions, these few things seem to have to be handed down.

— I. Servile works. 1. Under the New Law, at first thought seems to have been given to granting vacation to servants. Then, or almost at the same time, for a fuller sanctification of the Lord's day, profane works were excluded; finally a quasi-philosophical notion of servile work was investigated: by this, servile work is said to pertain to that servitude by which, after original sin, man is compelled to serve the earth that he may obtain its fruits, which otherwise he would have received as things offered freely to a king. Therefore they are labors by which neither a sufficiently proximate cultivation of the soul nor the immediate care of the body is intended, but work is spent in changing exterior matter (mechanical art). In these works the powers of the body hold the first parts, and the mind of itself is impeded from higher things and depressed to the lowest things. Wherefore those who are of a more honorable condition are accustomed to appoint servants, i.e., in a broader sense, domestics assigned to some ministry, to exercise them. Thence the reason for the name and another criterion.

In a matter, however, which has been introduced by custom, not only abstract reason but use must decide many things.

Liberal works are opposed to servile works. And there are certain middle or common works. When there is question of a work properly servile or properly liberal, questions concerning the intention of profit or recreation, of fatigue, or of time spent are irrelevant; not so, however, when there is question of common works.

2. It is servile to exercise agriculture or a trade; to place merchandise on beasts of burden, wagons, a ship, but not to drive them. Wherefore if a great time is not to be spent in loading a wagon, the whole seems licit: yet one must not depart from received usages, at least because of scandal.

It is also servile to spin, to make little nets or lattice-work.

3. It is not servile to care for one's own or another's body, to study, to write, to transcribe (by hand or machine), to draw an image, indeed to paint with colors (but it is servile to whitewash walls), to embroider with a needle. They speak more strictly concerning sculpture, unless there is question of finishing a statue. Yet Genicot-Salsmans, I, 334, assimilates the proper art of a sculptor to painting. To draw lines on paper on which you write is not permitted except as accessory to writing: therefore not of itself, or independently of writing. To take photographic images is not servile; but servile is the preparation "which is required beforehand and demands much labor" (Noldin, Praec., n. 270). The labors of typographers are reputed servile, if you except the arrangement itself of the letters.

4. Certain works are probably licit which are done principally by the aid of nature, beasts, machines, when the cooperation and application of man is moderate: for example in mills which are moved by water, wind, beasts, or even steam. But take care lest you understand this of large workshops, in which labor is done no less than elsewhere.

5. Fishing and hunting are of those works which are licit for the sake of recreation, but not if they are laborious and from office, as by fishermen on the sea.

Because it is licit to make a journey, those things which are consequently necessary can also be done: to join the wagon, to carry burdens for the use of the journey, etc.

— You ask concerning grave matter. Today they hold rather commonly that work through a space notably exceeding two hours, i.e., two and a half hours, is required. Considering the time which is customarily spent in laboring during the day, that part is shown to be truly notable. Yet in lighter labors, they require three hours; indeed certain rather light labors which neither greatly occupy the mind nor very much fatigue the body are permitted by many, provided they are not prolonged beyond two hours: to make rosaries, scapulars, wax images, artificial flowers. The intention of piety is easily added. And a motive remote from profit permits matter below three hours to be esteemed light. The works of various workers who are occupied individually for two hours by one master do not seem to coalesce.

— II. Forensic actions. 1. Lest sacred days be disturbed by disputes or dissensions, and lest the mind be drawn too much to diverse things, the sessions of tribunals and actions which regard decisions of causes, both civil and criminal, in either the civil or ecclesiastical forum, are prohibited. Hence to cite parties, to exact a judicial oath, to pronounce or execute a sentence is not licit. But it is lawful to excommunicate, to suspend from informed conscience, to confer benefices, to dispense, to inform a judge privately, to consult an advocate, etc., because these things do not require judicial noise. Nor are contracts written by notaries properly prohibited.

2. N.B. By earlier law there had also to be vacation from judgments at least through Holy Week and the octave of Easter: which time by the common norms of Pius X (c. 5) was reduced to four days before and two after Easter. But now, from c. 1639, only the last three days of Holy Week are held as ferial. One must strive that also in the civil forum the use of keeping holiday then be preserved.

3. Grave matter will be estimated here rather from the quality of the work. Thus a session of a tribunal will be thought grave, less grave the hearing of one or another witness by an instructing judge.

— III. 1. Public markets, fairs, and other public purchases and sales are prohibited of themselves (c. 1248).

Public markets by a kind of collective name designate those many purchases and sales which are made by merchants gathered by design. If they recur after fixed days, they are fairs. Other public purchases and sales are certainly auctions, sales by the spear. Purchases and sales in public shops also seem to be such of themselves. Yet custom rather generally permits purchases of things which have a certain and definite price, in the sale of which, therefore, a very small labor is spent (cf. d'Annibale, I, 112 and 16). In not a few places it was required that, as a sign of reverence, shops remain half-closed: this pious usage is to be inculcated. But purchases and sales privately made are licit, as are rentals of a house, horse, etc. Even notaries are not strictly prohibited from drawing up instruments.

2. Grave matter would be, for example, every solemn sale or market. But cf. the excusing causes.

— Excusing causes. 1. Custom excuses many things, for example fairs which, when they fall on a feast day, are not customarily transferred; and in not a few places, markets for several hours, for the convenience of country people who are accustomed then to approach the city; purchases in public shops. C. 1248 itself admits these customs while it mentions them. According to several, custom is also the cause why barbers are permitted to exercise their art. (This, however, because it immediately affects care of the body, already draws from this fact a certain excuse.)

2. Piety toward God permits all things which are proximately referred to divine worship, such as to ring bells, to carry sacred images in procession; things which are only remotely referred, such as to sweep the church, are reputed only venial sins when, without reason, they are deferred to a feast day.

For a poor church it is lawful to arrange silk flowers, tapestries, linens, purificators, corporals, to sew sacred vestments. If the works put on the character of a public work, for example the building of a church, it at least befits one to seek a dispensation.

3. Charity toward neighbor permits judicial acts of the poor, and, in a certain measure, servile labors done for them. These are licit when done for the poor who are pressed by grave necessity. It seems that clothes of common kind can also be made for the poor. But it is not licit to sew clothes and pour back the price of the labor upon poor persons of this kind.

4. One's own or another's necessity, of body or soul, i.e., a proportionate loss, excuses from a precept of this kind. Thus judges in an urgent cause are excused; servants and maids compelled by a master (if, however, this happens frequently, they must seriously inquire into another service), or those who repair their own clothes, when they cannot do this on another day; the poor who cannot otherwise feed themselves and their own; a worker who, having been impeded through the whole week, completes something in his garden (but today daily labor is restricted in such a way that this excuse is scarcely had), especially if by using better clothes he testifies to the observance of the day; craftsmen who have an urgent work to execute, suppose the restoration of a public bridge, the repair of a plowshare or instrument of those who could not labor on the following day; tailors in necessary works. But here take care of the abuses of those who, by accepting too many things, cast themselves into a habitual necessity of laboring on a feast day. Because of danger lest fruits be spoiled or stolen, it is licit to gather them.

They are accustomed here also to allege cooks, culinary workers, bakers, who are permitted to prepare foods for the use of the day. But these are already licit from another source, because they have a personal destination. Yet custom permits that cooks prepare more delicate foods which could have been cooked the day before, and perform certain accessory things. And if with venial sin they omitted what had to be done the day before, nevertheless on the feast day it will be supplied without sin (Lehmkuhl, I, 707). Bakers, however, cannot without cause reserve to feast days the preparation of foods for the week.

The necessity of avoiding idleness excuses, when idleness brings danger of sin which is scarcely overcome otherwise. Cases can occur in foreign missions. Wherefore, even in our regions, care must be taken that workers learn to use prudently the leisure obtained for themselves.

5. Common utility permits necessary works to be completed on the arrival of a prince, on the occasion of a great solemnity.

Indeed a special occasion of profit which, for the condition of the one acquiring, is esteemed great, also seems to excuse.

6. Dispensation for a reasonable cause can be imparted by the same persons who can dispense from the positive part of the precept. And in the cases just brought forward it is preferable, by a dispensation sought, to render the excuse more certain and to exercise Christian humility.

— Filial observation of the precept. The festive rest of Christians must not savor of Judaic rigor. Filial observation is to be commended most highly. For most grave reasons this frequent raising of the mind above earthly things is recommended. And what can be seen with the eyes is greatly to be grieved over: by threats and disturbances those interruptions of labor are now exacted which it was denied could be conceded to religion and piety. But this is chiefly to be procured for all: that they consult not only bodily or physical recreation, but reserve a sufficient part for spiritual offices and exercises. And that these may be obtained more easily, everywhere there should be at hand books at once of solid piety and of not unpleasant reading; everywhere with decorum, and, insofar as supply is given, with participation of the people, sacred functions should be celebrated.

— Concerning certain common precepts of the Church one must treat, which are connected with the virtues. But the precept of annual confession and communion, which coheres with the general pursuit of justice and sanctity, has been explained in the sacraments of the Most Holy Eucharist and Penance.

I. Origin of the precept of sanctifying feasts. Some time must be spent worshiping God by the law of nature. Participation in the sacrifice of the New Law is of positive divine law; but Sunday and festive assistance at Mass and cessation from labor today pertain to ecclesiastical law.

The supreme authority alone can stably institute, transfer, and abrogate feasts. And besides Sundays, in the universal Church only these are of precept: Nativity, Circumcision, Epiphany, Ascension, Most Holy Body of the Lord, Immaculate Conception, Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Saint Joseph (March 19), the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and All Saints. Where, from those enumerated, some feast has been legitimately abolished or transferred, nothing is to be innovated without consulting the Holy See.

Feast days are to be observed under grave obligation; they are computed from midnight to midnight, excepting the acquisition of indulgences.

II. Positive sanctification. 1. On feasts of precept, there must be exhibited to Mass presence of religious intention, bodily presence, so that, whether from the place where we are, or through conjunction with those who surround the altar, or through the external manner by which we attend, we externally are and appear present; devout presence, by which at least we externally do nothing alien to divine worship or by which we are prohibited from applying the mind to the sacrifice or to divine things. This attention is called external.

2. Mass must be heard in some Catholic rite, under the open sky or in a non-private oratory, excepting private cemetery chapels. In a private oratory only the persons numbered in the indult satisfy, besides the priest celebrating and the one serving him.

3. Mass must be heard whole. The gravity of omission depends on quantity: a third part of an ordinary Mass, or on the dignity of the part omitted: from the canon to communion a brief absence more easily becomes grave. He is immune from grave sin who successively hears two half Masses, at least if the consecration and communion pertain to the same sacrifice. Concerning a strict obligation of supplying a light omission it is not established.

4. Excusing causes are any notable or moderately grave inconvenience, whether in mind (from grave offense of husband, parents, masters), or in body (from health which probably impedes, or from a distance to be overcome of one hour and a quarter of pedestrian journey), or in goods of fortune (if extraordinary and relatively notable profit is to be lost or a notable loss is to be made in exercising the office of driver, etc.); or in honor, reputation, shame (e.g., if women, from the custom of the country, keep themselves at home in time of mourning or after childbirth). The reason of charity, for avoiding another's scandal; an occasion of a journey otherwise to be lost, can also excuse. In this matter, the frequency of omissions is to be observed. For a lesser cause, yet a just one, local Ordinaries and pastors dispense individual persons and families subject to themselves, even outside the territory; and in the territory even pilgrims and vagi.

It is to be desired that the faithful sanctify feasts also by other exercises, by acquiring for themselves a better knowledge of religion; and that even the humbler themselves be taught to participate in Mass formally.

III. Negative part. 1. On feast days one must abstain: a) from servile works, or works in which the powers of the body hold the first place and the mind of itself is impeded from higher things and depressed to the lowest things. Which these are, however, use also must teach. Besides servile works, to which liberal ones are opposed, there are certain middle or common works, in which the manner, for example pursuit of profit, must be attended to: fishing, hunting. Grave matter is considered labor prolonged notably beyond two hours; or for three hours in lighter works. Certain rather light labors are simply permitted for two hours; b) from actions of the judicial forum. But acts of non-contentious jurisdiction are licit, such as excommunication itself or suspension from informed conscience. From judgments also one must abstain through the last three days of greater week. Grave matter here depends more on the quality of the action; c) from public markets, fairs (or markets which recur on fixed days), public purchases and sales. Every solemn sale or market would be grave matter.

2. Excusing causes: a) custom, especially for fairs; b) the end of divine worship: this excuses works proximately connected, while remotely connected ones are only venial. And for a poor church it is lawful at least to labor privately; c) charity toward the poor, through works directly made for them (not indirectly from a price poured back); d) one's own or another's necessity of body or mind: or a proportionate inconvenience; e) danger of sin from idleness; f) special occasion of profit; g) dispensation for a reasonable cause by persons who can dispense from the positive part of the sanctification of feasts.

Filial, accurate observation is to be inculcated, but without Judaic rigor.

St. Alphonsus, III, n. 272; ed. G., I, p. 551; H. Ap., VI, 7; Genicot, I, n. 333; Berard, Prax. conf., I, s. III; Gopfert, I, § 57; Benger, Pastor. Theol., III, 149; Ami du Cl., General Table, v. Servile works; Villien, op. cit., c. 3.

In this chapter there must be treated: 1. of works which, on Lord's days and feasts, are forbidden; 2. of the causes on account of which servile works are permitted.

658. Preliminary notes. 1. A threefold genus of works is usually distinguished, namely: a) Servile works, which are exercised by the body and immediately ordered to the utility of the body, as to dig, to sew, etc.; they are called servile because they are accustomed to be done by slaves. Among these certain ones are less servile, as is explained n. 659, 3. b) Liberal works, which proceed chiefly from the soul and look to cultivating the mind, as to read, to teach, to sing, to play organs; they are called liberal because they are exercised by free men. c) Common or middle works, which are accustomed to be done indiscriminately by free men and slaves, as to make a journey, to hunt, etc.

To these are added d) Forensic works, which look to the market, or to the forum concerning decisions of cases, such as citation of parties, compilation of the process, examination of witnesses, etc., which are prohibited by special law.

2. To judge the servile character of the work of which there is question, attention must be given primarily to the nature of the work, and this is the positive, primary mark of works prohibited on the Lord's day. Do not attend to the negative mark, namely whether the work is done for the sake of gain or recreation, with fatigue or not, for a brief or long time. Thus, for example, to knit stockings by hand, which of itself is servile, is not so grave to the body as to play organs, which is liberal. Attention must also be given to the common estimation which brings decisive weight for many works of doubtful nature; or to other adjuncts, for example to the vile apparatus of the work.

Therefore a fourfold genus of principles must be brought forward: concerning servile, forensic, liberal, and common works.

659. PRINCIPLES. I. Of themselves, all servile works are forbidden on Lord's days and feast days. This is established from what was said n. 656. - Read what St. Alphonsus wisely admonishes (l. c.) that you may know what works are reputed as servile. Let each person also consult the particular responses which are given in the periodicals of each region. For there much attention is given to local customs.

Hence there are forbidden: 1. Rural works, as to plow, to sow, to gather the harvest, etc. Likewise works of mechanical arts, as of the tailor's, shoemaker's, carpenter's, mason's, blacksmith's, typographical art, etc. Several authors admit that typographical characters can licitly be arranged, led by this reason, that such occupation is similar to writing. Nevertheless, if it is exercised in a public workshop by many, by reason of the servile apparatus and common estimation, it is held as servile.

2. Likewise the work of grinding is forbidden, if the mill is worked with beasts and requires much cooperation of man for itself; but not if the mill is turned by water or wind or electrical force. To skin larger beasts; to exercise the work of a butcher; to hunt, to cast a net with many accompanying; to bake bread, in a case in which the baker can provide for himself on the preceding day: these are numbered among servile works.² Measurement of fields, distillation, are judged servile if they are done with great apparatus, after the manner of fulfilling a duty (Ami du Cl., 1903, p. 637).

3. By the nature of the work there is forbidden the making of rosaries, wax images, artificial flowers, but not artistically arranged ones; cf. Ami du Cl., 1902, p. 40; multiplication of copies, polycopy, if it lasts long; labor with a hook, crocheting, travail au crochet, hakeln. But such occupations are less servile, and participate somewhat in the nature of liberal works. Therefore, that there be grave matter, a greater space of time is required. Indeed, with some cause, they will be able to be permitted without any fault, if they are continued for a short time, or at least not beyond two hours, says St. Alphonsus (l. c.). Indeed, custom acceding, such things, since they require very little apparatus, can become licit even without cause. Say the same of plucking roses, peeling fruits, drawing musical lines, threading gems onto a string for making a necklace, and similar lighter labors, at least if they are not done for as long a time as on a weekday.

660. II. Forensic works are forbidden, that is, judicial actions and markets. This is established from the last c. de Feriis.

Therefore there are forbidden: 1. Judicial actions, namely those which regard any litigious cases whatsoever, where judicial process, judicial apparatus, and noise are required. Hence it is not licit to cite the accused, examine witnesses, receive a judicial oath, pronounce or execute a sentence, unless necessity or piety demands otherwise. But the exercise of voluntary jurisdiction is not forbidden; whence it is licit: to excommunicate, to dispense, to confer benefices; to make testaments, to consult an advocate, to inform a judge privately, and to complete other similar acts before a notary which lack judicial noise (III, 284, 287).

2. Markets, namely those which are held with noise, or in public shops, because they greatly distract the soul and turn it away from the sanctification of feasts. Yet annual fairs affixed to a certain day are permitted when they fall on a feast day. As regards weekly markets, these of themselves are prohibited; except in those places where a legitimate custom is in force, as Benedict XIV declared (Const. Ab eo tempore, of the year 1745; III, 285). Also permitted are sales and purchases of houses, horses, merchandise, etc., among private persons. Indeed, in certain places, after the divine offices have been completed, public sales under the spear, auctions, are tolerated, because on other days fewer buyers would come together. Also tolerated in most places are sales in shops which are opened very early in the morning so that things necessary for daily use can be bought.

661. III. Liberal works are not forbidden. This is established from the absence of a prohibitive law and from the practice of the timorous.

Hence: 1. It is licit on feast days to devote oneself to the study of letters, to teach, to sing, to play musical instruments, to draw, to write, indeed to transcribe, or to use a typewriter (III, 278; Ami du Cl., 1908, p. 399).

2. It does not seem illicit to PAINT; for painting, provided there is not notable labor in preparing colors and panels, seems rather a liberal than a servile work, since the mind of the painter works more than the hand (III, 280; H. Ap., VI, 10).

Nor similarly does the photographic art seem illicit, unless it requires many preparations. Thus Berardi (Prax. conf., 372); D'Annibale (III, n. 121).

3. According to several, it is licit for women to paint images with a needle: for this, they say, is referred more to exercising ingenuity than to working. But others excuse girls painting with a needle, that they may learn, or that they may avoid idleness.

4. On the contrary, it is not licit to sculpt; for the sculptural art, at least in the estimation of men, is numbered among the mechanical arts. Except, if it is a question of the final perfection of the work (III, 281).

662. IV. Common works are not forbidden, provided they are not done with great labor, noise, or apparatus. This is established from universal practice.

Hence: 1. It is licit to make a journey on foot, by horse, carriage, or ship; whence even the things necessary for these are licit, although perhaps they are servile, for example to row. 2. It is likewise licit to hunt, fish, catch birds, unless this is done with great labor, noise, etc. (III, 274, 283).

663. Questions. QUES. 1. What matter is judged GRAVE in prohibited works?

Resp. 1. If it is a question of servile works, some say grave matter is three hours: which opinion is too lax. Others say one hour, which from the other side is too rigid. Others judge two hours, whether continuous or interrupted, and this especially if the labor is very servile, as to dig earth, cut stones, etc. Yet there are many others who require something more for mortal sin, namely two and a half hours: which opinion, as more common and more probable, as Croix has it, has now been received.³ 2. If it is a question of forensic and judicial works, the gravity of matter is to be taken not so much from quantity of time as from the quality of the work; for here the solemnity of the act is rather attended to (III, 307).

QUES. 2. Whether he sins gravely who on a feast day commands six servants to labor for an hour?

Resp. Negatively, more probably, whether they labor at the same time or successively; because, since the individual servants sin only venially, the master also inducing them to labor sins only venially. "Otherwise it would certainly be if the master should command one servant to labor several times on a feast day up to grave matter." Likewise, by reason of scandal, labor protracted for half an hour can be grave matter (III, 306; ed. G., I, p. 568).

If it is a question of non-baptized servants, recall what was said n. 653.

QUES. 3. What in doubt whether a work is servile?

Resp. It is a doubt concerning the extension, and therefore concerning the existence of the law, whence liberty possesses.

664. There are numbered chiefly six, namely: 1. dispensation; 2. legitimate custom; 3. piety toward God; 4. charity toward neighbor; 5. necessity; 6. utility.

I. Servile works are permitted ON ACCOUNT OF DISPENSATION of the Superior, namely of the Supreme Pontiff in the whole Church; of the Bishop, or, the see being vacant, of the capitular Vicar, in his own diocese, not only for diocesan feasts, but also for those which are common to the universal Church; with this distinction, however, that on feasts established by common law the Ordinary cannot dispense without just cause, nor give a general and permanent dispensation; but on local feasts he dispenses without cause validly, although illicitly. The dispensation of a regular prelate is also valid toward his own subjects; likewise of a parish priest toward parishioners, by force of custom: yet under this law, that each dispenses only for a time, in a particular case, therefore more sparingly, and only for individuals or for a restricted group, and from a just cause (cf. n. 234, 3). Thus St. Alphonsus, III, 288; D'Annibale, III, n. 128.

But here it is useful to note: 1. If the cause of laboring, or of omitting Mass, is manifestly sufficient, dispensation is not required. Yet let the faithful see that they are not led by avarice rather than by reason. 2. A confessor, although he cannot dispense, can nevertheless interpret the law through epikeia, and thus concede permission for forming the conscience of those doubting (III, 288).

665. II. They are permitted ON ACCOUNT OF legitimate CUSTOM. For, as Gerson rightly observes (de Praec. Decal., c. 7), concerning servile works not to be exercised, the custom of the place and of persons tolerated by prelates determines more and more frequently than another written law.

Therefore it is licit, where custom is in force: 1. to use a carrying chair borne by men; 2. to lead vehicles or animals loaded with merchandise; 3. to irrigate vegetables, to turn or separate crops on the threshing floor; 4. to cook and prepare foods, even superfluous ones, or seasoned for pleasure; 5. to kill and skin smaller animals, if on the preceding day this could not be done; 6. to sell and buy, even in public shops, drinks and foods; likewise shoes, candles, and similar things whose price is determined. Yet merchants are held to close their shops, so that thus they show that they distinguish feast days from other days (III, 275 ff.; H. Ap., VI, 15).

Likewise it is permitted to barbers on a feast day to shave the beard, both from general custom and from necessity, because rustics especially and workers are for the most part impeded on the other days. Hence, if barbers did not furnish their office to those coming on a feast day, they would be deserted with grave harm (III, 290). For the rest, to shave one's own beard is not a servile work; whence it is not illicit to furnish that office to others.

666. III. They are permitted ON ACCOUNT OF PIETY toward God. And by this title works are permitted which proximately look to worship, for example to ring bells, to carry statues in processions, to erect platforms necessary for festivity, or the Lord's sepulcher, etc. It is also licit, at least from custom, to bake hosts, sweep the temple, spread carpets, adorn altars and churches, etc. (III, 291; H. Ap., VI, 16).

Nor does it seem to be disapproved if someone on the Lord's day, after divine offices, should make rosaries to be distributed gratis among the poor; or if pious women should labor at making ornaments necessary for some poor church; or if someone should make pious images for promoting devotion among his own or among others (III, 293).

But, more probably, it is not licit to cultivate the fields of the church, whitewash the walls of the church, carry stones or wood for building a church, etc., unless necessity is present,

or great utility approved by the Bishop; for these things concur only remotely toward divine worship. Likewise, it is not licit to erect platforms for seeing a procession, unless when no other time would be available (H. Ap., VI, 17).

667. IV. They are permitted ON ACCOUNT OF CHARITY toward neighbor. - By this title it is licit to serve the sick; to conduct the cases of the poor, of orphans, or of widows; to dig a grave; to sell to country people, who on other days are impeded from buying; to labor for some determined poor person, for whom by reason of necessity it would be licit to labor; or even for the poor in general, if a grave and certain necessity is in force in some place (III, 293 seqq.).

668. V. They are permitted ON ACCOUNT OF NECESSITY, one's own or another's, of soul or of body, namely if some work cannot be omitted without grave inconvenience or loss (III, 295 seq.).

By this title there are excused:

1. Those who perform those works to which, because of necessity, daily attention must be given, and which conveniently neither can nor usually are anticipated or postponed, as to cook foods, make beds, wash, sweep the house, and the like (H. Ap., VI, 21).

2. The poor, if otherwise they cannot nourish themselves and their family, scandal being excluded; likewise, if they mend their own clothes and those of their own people, which they are not able to repair on other days.

3. Likewise servants, wives, and children compelled to labor, whether by force or by fear of grave harm or loss; and extend this to workers who print newspapers or notices to be made public. But they would by no means be excused if the compulsion were made in contempt of the feast day itself. But the more frequently any servant is held to undergo coercion of this kind, the more strictly he is obliged to seek another master for himself, and the graver the cause required so that he can be excused from this obligation (III, 295, 296).

4. Similarly, public bakers and butchers, at least in large towns, both on account of custom and on account of the necessity of the people. But to make bread or pastries is scarcely licit except from necessity, as, for example, if several feasts concur, and bread baked beforehand would become less fit for food (III, 298, 299). Similarly those are excused who train themselves so that they may furnish help in extinguishing fires.

5. Likewise all those are excused whose works once begun cannot be interrupted without great harm, as those smelting iron and glass, burning lime or bricks, etc. And these can sometimes even be begun on a feast day, to avoid grave harm (III, 300).

6. Likewise blacksmiths, if they shoe the horses of travelers, or of those who on the following day at very early morning are about to make a journey, or to go out into the field for laboring; likewise, if they repair the plowshares of those who otherwise on the following day would not be able to labor. Likewise those are excused who in a case of necessity repair bridges, fountains, public roads, machines in workshops (H. Ap., VI, 19).

7. Shoemakers and tailors are excused who make shoes and clothing necessary for imminent weddings, funerals, and similar solemnities, or who mend clothing for a pilgrim; or even if the promised garments are so expected that, unless they finish them, they are about to suffer great harm (III, 303). But they are not to be excused, indeed they are to be severely rebuked, if under pretext of necessity they more frequently prolong labor already begun after midnight into the feast day; because for the most part that necessity is voluntary for them, since very often they cast themselves into it, either by taking on more works than they can complete, or by wasting time during the week on useless things (Gury, n. 360).

8. Likewise farmers who, because of past or imminent rain, turn, gather, or carry hay or crops. So likewise, so that harm may be avoided, and by custom in many regions, it is permitted to gather fruits, although not necessary for the use of that day, so that they may be better preserved; especially if there is danger of imminent rain (III, 298; H. Ap., VI, 21). In certain regions, with a shortage of workers standing, this necessity can be greater (Ami du Cl., 1910, p. 115). As regards artisans who, besides daily labor in a workshop, have undertaken the cultivation of a garden or field, it seems that it can be tolerated that on Sunday they complete those things which reasonably they cannot perform on another day: always with assistance at the sacrifice of Mass saved, and scandal excluded.

9. Finally those are excused who by office make a journey, or carry merchandise. To these today are to be numbered those who are detained by necessary occupation on railroads or in public electrical workshops, as directors, conductors, stokers, etc.; but not, unless some other reason accedes, those who are occupied in distributing or receiving merchandise.

Note. Sometimes for directors of a Catholic daily paper there is present a moral necessity, even on Sundays and feast days, of printing their sheets, both so that they may at once blunt the attack of the enemies of the Church, and so that they may impede the diffusion of depraved newspapers.

669. VI. They are permitted ON ACCOUNT OF extraordinary UTILITY; for this is equated with necessity.

Hence: 1. Those are excused who labor on account of a cause of public joy or splendor, for example if it is a question of celebrating a victory, of preparing a feast on account of the birth, arrival, etc., of a prince. For such signs of joy are morally necessary for the peace of the people; whence by custom labors are permitted which could not have been anticipated (III, 304; H. Ap., VI, 24).

2. Likewise probably those are excused who labor on account of great and extraordinary gain; for great profit ceasing is equated with grave harm; but the third precept, insofar as it is human, does not oblige with grave inconvenience or harm. This is confirmed from c. Licet, de feriis, in which Alexander III is reported to have dispensed so that herrings could be caught on Sundays and feasts, lest otherwise the occasion of catching them should be passed over (III, 301).

It is asked. Whether the reason of avoiding idleness excuses?

Resp. Generally it does not excuse; because idleness can easily be avoided by other remedies, and indeed better ones, for example by going to church, reciting the rosary, visiting the sick, reading some spiritual book. In particular, the reason of avoiding idleness excuses if by the labor there must be avoided a truly probable danger of falling into sin, namely if thus the danger is avoided of playing, drinking with companions, speaking shameful things, etc. (III, 302). Certainly it will also help to hear the opinion of Suarez (l. 2, c. 26, n. 4 and 5): "(A less servile work) can be excused from a certain colored title of moral necessity; because a man, especially a secular and one not accustomed to it, cannot devote a whole entire day to reading or prayer: and therefore, lest he be idle ..., he morally needs some operation, and therefore that moderate operation ... can reasonably be permitted."

488. The precept of sanctifying Sundays and feast days is at once affirmative and negative. Insofar as it is affirmative, it commands the due worship to be rendered to God through hearing Mass, as has thus far been explained. But insofar as it is negative, it commands abstention from certain works which impede the worship of God.

Distinctions. In the present matter a fourfold genus of works is distinguished: servile, liberal, common, and forensic works.

1. Servile works are those which a) are accomplished chiefly by bodily labor, b) are immediately ordered to the utility of the body, and c) in ancient times were customarily done by servants.⁶⁹⁵ Such works are, for example: rural works, such as digging, plowing, sowing, reaping, etc.; mechanical works, such as spinning, sewing, constructing walls, making shoes, etc. It is to be carefully noted for practice that servile works are to be judged from the end of the work, and in no way from the end of the worker, nor from the duration of time, nor from the fatigue joined with the work. Therefore a work which is accomplished chiefly by bodily labor and immediately serves bodily convenience does not cease to be servile if it is done for the sake of recreation, without remuneration, from a holy end, or for a brief time. Hence, for example, a woman who spins or sews to make clothing for the poor truly performs a servile work and sins unless there is an excusing cause, which will be discussed below in n. 496.

2. Liberal works are said to be those which a) proceed chiefly from the powers of the soul, b) immediately regard the cultivation of the mind, and c) were customarily done by free men, such as reading, teaching, singing, playing the organ, writing, drawing, etc. Such works remain liberal even if they are performed with great fatigue and are undertaken to obtain wages. Hence, for example, it is lawful to teach, sing, etc., on Sundays and feast days, even if this is done for the sake of remuneration.

3. Common works (also called intermediate and natural) are those which are performed indiscriminately by free men and servants and serve especially for the daily care of the body, such as eating, playing, hunting, and making a journey.

4. Forensic works are those which include a twofold genus of actions: a) actions of a judicial forum, such as judging in a tribunal, accusing, defending a defendant, etc.; b) actions of a commercial forum, such as buying, selling, leasing, etc.

⁶⁹⁵ Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 3, n. 273.

489. Note. There are several works whose character is doubtful and which cannot certainly be numbered among either liberal or servile works. To resolve a doubt of this kind, one must attend not only to the nature of the work, but also to the estimation of men. Therefore it can happen that a work which is of itself servile is held lawful on Sundays and feast days because of the estimation of men. For example, rowing and guiding horses as a driver are of themselves servile works; but if they are done for the sake of recreation on feast days, they are held lawful from the common estimation of men. Making rosaries and sewing scapulars are of themselves servile works, but by a sufficiently common estimation they are held lawful on days of precept, provided they are done for the sake of devotion and not profit.

490. Special doubts concern the following works:

1. Whether it is lawful to write and transcribe on a feast day? The response is: It is lawful to write, even by means of a machine, since this is a liberal work in which the mind chiefly acts. Thus all teach. Transcribing (at least sometimes) certainly seems to be a liberal work, for example, if it is done for the sake of aiding memory, teaching, learning, preaching, etc., because then it serves to cultivate the mind. But if someone transcribes as a mere copyist, and especially by means of a machine, to make a profit, such a work can only with difficulty be numbered among liberal works,⁶⁹⁶ since many transcribe things which they do not understand at all. In practice, the common estimation existing in a particular region is to be attended to. But since copyists of this kind are often oppressed by poverty, they are to be judged benignly if for a few hours on feast days they have transcribed for the sake of profit. Typesetting is similar to transcription, because today both transcription and the composition of type are customarily done by means of a machine; and therefore St. Alphonsus⁶⁹⁷ thinks it lawful to compose type on feast days. But according to the common estimation in our regions, the typographic art is held to be mechanical and the composition of type is considered a servile work; hence it is not lawful on Sundays and feast days without necessity or another excusing cause.

2. Are drawing, painting with a brush, and sculpting servile works? The response is: Drawing is a liberal work, provided it is done in an artistic manner, because it is accomplished by the mind rather than the body. But if it is done in a mechanical manner, with a stencil or pattern, then the same seems to hold as was said concerning transcription. For such drawing is not unlike transcription. Painting with a brush seems to be a liberal work, provided it is done in an artistic manner and not with great apparatus. For if writing is a liberal work, a fortiori painting artistically with a brush is a liberal work, since it serves to express concepts of the mind. Painting in a manner that is mechanical rather than artistic is a servile work. Hence those who whitewash walls or paint upon walls in a decorative manner cannot lawfully do this on days of precept; and in our regions a true scandal would arise if a painter, for the sake of profit, adorned, for example, the walls of a church with his decorative art on days of precept. Sculpting is commonly held among the mechanical arts,⁶⁹⁸ but artistically finishing an already nearly completed work by sculpting is deservedly judged a liberal work, because such completion of a work requires almost no bodily labor but great spiritual attention.

3. Are the diverse manual works which women customarily perform in a more or less artistic manner servile works? The response is: This seems to depend upon the art or at least the attention required for those works. For if almost no art or special attention of mind is necessary in performing a particular work, such a work is mechanical and servile, as, for example, knitting, crocheting, and embroidering with a needle; but if special attention and art are required, such a work is judged to be liberal, as, for example, artistic embroidery with a needle. Generally it can be said: Those manual works of women which can also be performed by means of a machine (although not in so perfect a manner) are held to be mechanical and servile works, such as spinning, sewing, weaving, etc.; but those works which necessarily are handmade can be considered liberal. Besides, it will be said below in n. 496 how women's manual works can sometimes be permitted in practice on days of precept.

4. Are photographs, phototypes, and other reproductions perfected by means of light servile works? The response is: If works of this kind require great attention of mind and little bodily labor, they can be considered liberal works; otherwise, mechanical and servile works. In practice, a sufficient cause is rather easily present for permitting photography and other similar arts on days of precept.

⁶⁹⁶ Cf. Billuart, De relig. diss. 6, a. 3; Cajetan, Commentary on 2, 2, q. 122, a. 4, n. 12.

⁶⁹⁷ Theol. mor. l. 3, n. 279.

⁶⁹⁸ St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 3, n. 321.

491. Subdivision of servile works. Works which are chiefly prohibited on Sundays and feast days are called servile according to that precept of the Old Testament: "You shall do no servile work on it."⁶⁹⁹ Under the Jewish Law, prohibited servile works were enumerated in particular; but in the New Law a far milder practice exists. St. Thomas⁷⁰⁰ observes excellently: "A work is called servile from servitude. Now there is a threefold servitude: one, indeed, by which man serves sin, according to the saying: He who commits sin is the servant of sin.⁷⁰¹ And according to this, every work of sin is called servile. Another servitude is that by which man serves man; but a man is the servant of another not according to the mind, but according to the body, and therefore servile works according to this are called bodily works in which one man serves another. The third is the servitude of God, and according to this a servile work could be called a work of latria, which pertains to the service of God."

⁶⁹⁹ Lev. 23:7.

⁷⁰⁰ S. theol. 2, 2, q. 122, a. 4 ad 3.

⁷⁰¹ John 8:34.

492. Principle 1. On Sundays and feast days a servile work taken in the first and second sense is prohibited; but a servile work in the third sense (although it is joined with bodily labor) is in no way prohibited, but rather commended.

a) Servile works taken in the first sense, that is, sins (especially external and public sins), are most opposed to the sanctification of Sunday and feast days and to divine worship. Wherefore the Angelic Doctor⁷⁰² teaches: "Because man is impeded from divine things more by a work of sin than by a lawful work, although it be bodily, therefore he who sins on a feast day acts more against this precept than one who performs another lawful bodily work. Hence Augustine⁷⁰³ says: 'A Jew would do better to perform something useful in his field than to be seditious in the theater; and their women would do better to work wool on the sabbath day than to dance immodestly the whole day at their new moons.'" Therefore all theologians teach that an external sin committed on days of precept is graver than if the same sin were committed on another day. Thus at least objectively; for subjectively several of the faithful do not notice the difference of the days. Although, however, an external sin of this kind is graver, nevertheless the circumstance of sacred time does not constitute a grave and new moral species, so that this would have to be explained in confession, at least if a special reason of grave scandal is absent. Thus Cajetan,⁷⁰⁴ Sylvester Prierias,⁷⁰⁵ Sylvius,⁷⁰⁶ Billuart,⁷⁰⁷ St. Alphonsus,⁷⁰⁸ and commonly all modern authors teach more probably, against Concina⁷⁰⁹ and several ancient authors cited by him. For although every sin is more against the worship of God than any other bodily work, nevertheless it cannot be called a servile work except in a metaphorical or mystical sense;⁷¹⁰ but in the third precept of the Decalogue servile works are prohibited only in the literal sense. Next, the precept of avoiding sins is a general precept, while the precept of sanctifying Sunday and feast days is a particular precept. Finally, the same is established from the universal practice both of confessors and of devout penitents, of whom neither are the latter accustomed to accuse themselves, nor the former to interrogate them, concerning the circumstance of sacred time, unless there was a special reason of grave scandal, as, for example, in public and scandalous drunkenness. But if St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, St. Antoninus, and other grave authors say that sins are against the observance of the sabbath, this is most true insofar as the virtue of religion commands especially that sins not be committed in sacred time, since they not only impede the worship of God, but are also against the end and spirit of the third precept of the Decalogue. But from this it by no means follows that through sins committed on those days the virtue of religion is wounded in a specifically diverse manner. Hence confessors and preachers indeed act well when they proclaim that sins of lust, drunkenness, quarrels, etc., are greatly opposed to the sanctification of feast days and Sunday; but let them by no means teach that a twofold grave sin specifically diverse is thereby committed, which must necessarily be declared in the confessional.

b) A servile work taken in the second sense, that is, one which is accomplished chiefly by bodily powers and immediately serves the necessities of the body, is directly prohibited on Sundays and feast days. Thus the Code of Canon Law expressly establishes in c. 1248. The reason is that such a servile work a) absorbs the application of the worker and hinders him from elevating his mind to divine things; b) is accustomed to cause great bodily fatigue; and c) is perceived by others, who can easily suffer scandal from it. Wherefore from servile works performed without necessity in sacred time are induced all the moral and social inconveniences which arise from violation of the third precept and which were discussed above in n. 471. Certainly man can also be impeded from the worship of God by liberal works performed in sacred time (as if someone, for example, attentively read a profane book throughout the whole Sunday); nevertheless, this does not happen so frequently nor exercise so evil an influence upon others, since they do not perceive it so easily. Hence liberal works impede the worship of God accidentally rather than of themselves, and therefore they are not prohibited in the third precept of the Decalogue. Nevertheless, one would certainly sin who neglected divine worship in sacred time even because of liberal works.

c) A servile work taken in the third sense is lawful, because through it the mind is not only not withdrawn from divine worship, but rather is induced to honor God. It is required, however, at least commonly, that these works immediately serve divine worship and be done gratuitously and without material wages; because otherwise their principal end would not be the worship of God but the obtaining of material wages. Servile works of this kind are: on Sundays and feast days to carry crosses, images, and banners, to ring bells, to adorn altars with garlands and candlesticks, to wash purificators, to make vestments, etc. But if a sacristan or others receive wages for these works, they then approach servile works strictly so called and are not lawful except because of the necessity either of worship or of the worker. Servile works which serve divine worship not immediately but remotely, such as sweeping a church, making garlands for altars, cutting or transporting stones or wood for constructing a church, manufacturing chalices, washing altar cloths, etc., are gravely prohibited unless necessity or legitimate dispensation excuses. Such a dispensation can be granted rather easily if the church is so poor that it cannot expend suitable wages so that works of this kind be performed on weekdays.

⁷⁰² Cf. S. theol. 2, 2, q. 122, a. 4 ad 3.

⁷⁰³ Sermon 9 (al. 96) de tempore, c. 3.

⁷⁰⁴ Commentary on 2, 2, q. 122, a. 4.

⁷⁰⁵ Summa Summ., s.v. "Confessio" I, n. 11.

⁷⁰⁶ In Suppl. 9, a. 2.

⁷⁰⁷ De relig. diss. 6, a. 2.

⁷⁰⁸ Theol. mor. l. 3, n. 273.

⁷⁰⁹ De praec. Eccl. l. 1, diss. 2, c. 2.

⁷¹⁰ Thus also St. Thomas, 3, dist. 37, a. 5, sol. 2 ad 2.

493. Principle 2. Besides the servile works enumerated above, forensic works and public markets are also prohibited on Sundays and feast days.

Thus from the law of the Decretals,⁷¹¹ which has been modified in some manner by the Code of Canon Law establishing:⁷¹² "On feasts of precept ... there must be abstention ... from forensic acts, and likewise (unless legitimate customs or particular indults provide otherwise) from public markets, fairs, and other public purchases and sales."

The following seem to be established for practice: 1. Abstention from forensic (and servile) works binds from midnight to midnight, for example, from midnight on Saturday to midnight on Sunday.⁷¹³ Forensic works are also prohibited on the last three days of Holy Week (at least for ecclesiastical tribunals). The forensic acts which are prohibited are: serving citations, holding hearings, examining parties and witnesses, receiving proofs, rendering, pronouncing, and executing decrees and sentences, unless, however, necessity, Christian charity, or the public good should demand otherwise in the judgment of the judge.⁷¹⁴ Acts which are done without judicial contention are not prohibited, for example, consulting an advocate, lodging an appeal, etc.

2. Under the name of public markets are understood not only fairs (whether annual or weekly⁷¹⁵), but also all clamorous acts of trading, for example, contracts of public purchase, sale, lease, etc. Hence the following acts seem to be unlawful: a) public sales at auction of greater things. For such auctions are accustomed to be conducted with great clamor, which accords little with Sunday rest. But when a reasonable cause exists, it can be permitted that small things be sold at auction on days of precept. b) solemn contracts of sale, purchase, lease, etc., namely, those which are completed before a public authority and with instruments drawn up by notaries.

The following acts seem lawful: a) fairs in which small things are sold, such as flowers, small images, and certain foods, such as apples, pears, cherries, grapes, etc.; nevertheless, these things must be brought to the place of the fair not on the feast day, but on the day before, at least if they are of a greater quantity. b) private contracts of purchase, sale, etc., in shops. Hence universal custom holds that things necessary for daily use are bought and sold even on days of precept, for example, butter, bread, meats, etc. Likewise, country people who, because of continual labor, are not accustomed to approach the city except on feast days lawfully buy for themselves in shops shoes, clothing, and other things of lesser importance.⁷¹⁶ Likewise, it is lawful to hire workers, lease houses, and indeed, according to certain authors,⁷¹⁷ buy beasts of burden and sell horses. This last, however, cannot lawfully be done except where such a universal custom exists. Happily, it has also been established by the civil laws of many regions that workshops and commercial shops must be closed on days of precept, or at least not opened except for a few hours.

⁷¹¹ c. 1, X 2, 9.

⁷¹² c. 1248.

⁷¹³ c. 1246.

⁷¹⁴ Code of Canon Law, c. 1639.

⁷¹⁵ Jahr- und Wochenmärkte [annual and weekly markets].

⁷¹⁶ Cf. Billuart, De relig. diss. 6, a. 2.

⁷¹⁷ Thus St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 3, n. 285.

494. Principle 3. The precept of abstaining from unlawful servile and forensic works is grave from its genus, but admits slightness of matter.

Thus all teach. But authors do not agree on what constitutes grave matter in the transgression of this precept. The Salmanticenses⁷¹⁸ adduce seven diverse opinions in this controversy, which it would be long to recount here. The two extreme opinions are these: 1. There is no grave transgression unless someone spends a third part of the whole day in servile labors; or, one does not sin mortally unless he labors for eight hours without any excusing cause. 2. It is a grave sin if someone performs servile works for one complete hour. Each opinion is evidently false. Today theologians commonly teach that the matter is grave, and consequently the sin grave, if someone without any excusing cause performs truly servile works for more than two hours (whether continuously or with intervals interposed and the parts of the labor coalescing into two hours). But if the labor is not so servile, but rather light or in some manner liberal, a space of three hours seems to constitute grave matter.⁷¹⁹ In forensic works, however, the gravity of matter is derived not so much from the duration of time as a) from the quality of the work⁷²⁰ and b) from the scandal arising from it. The Church even today has determined nothing concerning this controversy. In practice, in order to judge the gravity of a transgression one must also attend to whether scandal arose, whether not even the least excusing cause was present, and whether the worker acts with an erroneous conscience. Thus, for example, a master who commands ten workers to perform servile works for one hour does not indeed sin mortally by transgressing the positive precept of Sunday rest, because the works of the laborers are not united to form grave matter, and each matter taken individually is light matter;⁷²¹ but he can easily commit a grave sin because of scandal or contempt. But if the same master commands one worker to labor for ten hours, without doubt he sins gravely, since he commanded a gravely evil work. Therefore in the first case the master commanded ten venial sins; but in the other case he commanded one mortal sin.

⁷¹⁸ Curs. theol. mor. tr. 23, c. 1, n. 319.

⁷¹⁹ Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 3, n. 305.

⁷²⁰ Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 3, n. 307.

⁷²¹ Cf. Billuart, De relig. diss. 6, a. 2, and St. Alphonsus, l.c., n. 306. Concina, De praec. Eccl. l. 1, diss. 2, c. 8, teaches the contrary vehemently.

495. The causes excusing from this law can be reduced to three categories, which are: 1. one's own or another's necessity; 2. legitimate custom; 3. legitimate dispensation. Certain authors also enumerate piety toward God among the excusing causes. For servile works which are immediately ordered to divine worship are permitted, such as ringing bells, carrying banners, etc. Above in n. 492, in the first principle, we proved from St. Thomas that works of this kind not only do not turn the mind away from the worship of God, but rather lead it thereto, and consequently are lawful. If, however, such servile works conduce only remotely to divine worship, as, for example, whitewashing the walls of a church, building a church, transporting stones and wood, etc., then they are not of themselves lawful; but they are sometimes permitted by legitimate authority if they are done gratuitously for poor churches.

496. 1. By reason of one's own or another's necessity, whether this is of the body or of the spirit, the following are excused:

a) farmers who, because of past or imminent rain, must immediately gather crops or fruits. In practice, it is better that the pastor of the place in these circumstances declare publicly that agricultural labors are permitted on such a day. For thus both scandal and the danger of deception are avoided;

b) tailors, shoemakers, and other craftsmen who must make or repair altogether necessary clothing, for example, for impending weddings or funerals. The same are excused if otherwise they would have to suffer great harm;

c) the poor who truly cannot sustain themselves and their own without labor performed on days of precept;

d) servants, wives, and children who are compelled to labor by a master, husband, or parents, provided, however, that such compulsion does not proceed from hatred of religion;

e) workers who must keep watch over machines in large factories; repairers of bridges, railways, etc., if there is danger in delay. Next, all who immediately prepare foods necessary to be eaten on Sundays and feast days. For if a man is not bound to fast on those days, he also has the right that necessary foods be prepared for him. Hence the labors of a cook and his assistants are lawful. But labors which are necessary for the remote preparation of foods are not lawful, for example, slaughtering an ox to obtain meat;

f) some necessity also exists if there is a danger of sinning from idleness. Hence a confessor can readily permit women to perform certain light manual works with a needle and other instruments on days of precept; likewise, that young persons take photographs. Certain clauses, however, are to be imposed, namely: that such labors not last for too long a time; that no scandal arise therefrom; that such workers piously assist at Mass and other religious exercises; that the workers receive no material wages therefrom. When these conditions are fulfilled, it is much better that someone perform a light labor on days of precept than spend the time in dangerous idleness, or in reading novels, or in dangerous games and conversations, or in frequenting a tavern. Nor let anyone say that these persons can apply themselves to other lawful liberal works or pious readings and thus shake off idleness; for this is sometimes morally impossible because of diverse circumstances. Besides, every difficulty vanishes if these women make ornaments for poor churches or clothing for the poor,⁷²² because then there is always the excusing cause of piety.

⁷²² Cf. St. Alphonsus, l.c., n. 302.

497. 2. By reason of custom the following are excused:

a) barbers, whether they shave their own or another's beard. Likewise, in barbers' shops it is lawful that hair be cut, washed, etc.;

b) drivers, whether of public carriages⁷²³ or even private carriages, for transporting persons, but not (at least in our regions) for guiding carts laden with merchandise, unless necessity compels. In the time of St. Alphonsus⁷²⁴ a milder practice seems to have existed in Italy;

c) hunters and fishermen, provided, however, that they act without great bodily labor. Hence, for example, it seems lawful to fish with a hook on feast days,⁷²⁵ but not with large nets;

d) sellers of things of lesser importance in public streets, for example, those who go through the streets to sell newspapers, flowers, fruits, postcards, etc.

⁷²³ Commonly Kutscher, cocher [coachman].

⁷²⁴ Cf. l.c., n. 276.

⁷²⁵ Cf. l.c., n. 285.

498. 3. The following can dispense in the law concerning the observance of Sunday and feast days: the Supreme Pontiff for the whole Church; in a particular case, Ordinaries of places for their district; in exempt clerical religious institutes, superiors for their individual subjects, after the manner of a pastor. A reasonable cause, however, is always required for both the validity and liceity of the dispensation, since this law is not merely ecclesiastical, but also partly divine. A pastor also can in individual cases by his own authority dispense individual faithful or individual families subject to him, even outside the territory, and within his own territory even travelers.⁷²⁶ A confessor, although he cannot dispense, can nevertheless for a just cause declare that the law does not bind the penitent in a particular case.

⁷²⁶ Code of Canon Law, c. 1245, § 1.

499. Scholion. On offerings, first fruits, and tithes. St. Thomas⁷²⁷ also numbers among the acts of religion and worship offerings, first fruits, and tithes given for carrying out divine worship or for sustaining the ministers of the Church. Canonists treat this matter more broadly. Let the following be noted very briefly as pertaining to Moral Theology.

An offering generally is the bestowal of some thing not requested; but the offering which is treated here is a spontaneous bestowal for divine worship and the sustenance of sacred ministers. The offerings which are in use today are especially the so-called "collections" made for pious causes and manual stipends for Masses.

First fruits are the first fruits of the earth and of animals which are offered for divine worship as a sign of reverence and gratitude toward God. Today first fruits of this kind are in use almost nowhere.

Tithes (ecclesiastical), by force of the name, are the tenth part of fruits to be rendered to the ministers of the Church for their suitable sustenance. Since, however, not always a tenth part, but sometimes a twelfth or twentieth part of revenues is to be expended for this end, tithes are better called certain taxes imposed upon the faithful for the suitable sustenance of the pastoral clergy.⁷²⁸ These taxes or subsidies according to their substance are prescribed by natural and divine law itself; but according to their determined quantity they are of positive human law. Wycliff taught that tithes were not strictly due but mere alms which the faithful could deny at will; but this doctrine was condemned by the Council of Constance.⁷²⁹

Since natural law commands the external worship of God, as was proved above in n. 327, and since this worship cannot be had in a suitable manner without churches, ornaments, ministers, etc., the faithful are bound through offerings to procure that the things necessary for external worship be had. Wherefore St. Thomas⁷³⁰ writes: "For natural reason dictates that the people furnish the necessities of life to those who ministered in divine worship for the salvation of the whole people; just as the stipends of life are also owed by the people to those who watch over the common utility, namely, princes and soldiers and others of this kind. Hence the Apostle also proves this through human customs, saying: 'Who ever serves as a soldier at his own expense? or who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its fruits?'"

The divine law of both the Old and New Testaments expressly prescribes that due sustenance be rendered by the faithful to the ministers of the altar. In the Old Testament God carefully and abundantly provided for the sustenance of priests and Levites;⁷³¹ in the New Testament St. Paul writes: "Know you not that they who work in the sanctuary eat the things that are of the sanctuary; and they who serve the altar partake with the altar? So also the Lord ordained that they who announce the Gospel should live by the Gospel."⁷³² Hence even the Waldenses returning to the bosom of the Church had to profess: "We believe that tithes, first fruits, and offerings are to be paid to clerics by the precept of the Lord."⁷³³

Ecclesiastical law, c. 1502, prescribes concerning this matter: "As regards the payment of tithes and first fruits, particular statutes and laudable customs are to be observed in each region."⁷³⁴

From these things it follows that those who defraud the taxes necessary for divine worship commit a twofold sin, namely, of irreligion and injustice, and consequently, strictly speaking, are bound to restitution unless the Church freely renounces the exaction of this restitution. Although in certain regions a special ecclesiastical precept has been issued concerning the payment of tithes or other offerings necessary for worship,⁷³⁵ nevertheless the Church does not seem to urge her right, or at least renounces the exaction of restitution for defrauded ecclesiastical taxes. Indeed, the faithful who deny or diminish this subsidy or tax are not readily to be accused of a grave sin committed, unless thereby priests are compelled to indigence and the rest of the faithful to excessive contributions. Hence Kenrick⁷³⁶ deservedly says: "So long as the burden is imposed and defined by no certain law, we do not dare to condemn of mortal sin one who omits to contribute an equitable portion, whenever there is no danger that priests should be in need for that reason or that other faithful should be too heavily burdened." A fortiori, such faithful are not to be compelled, under threat that absolution will be denied, to pay all ecclesiastical taxes. Most worthy of note are the words of St. Thomas⁷³⁷ concerning this matter: "The ministers of the Church ought to have greater care for promoting spiritual goods among the people than for collecting temporal goods; and therefore the Apostle did not wish to use the power handed down to him by the Lord, namely, that he receive the stipends of life from those to whom he preached the Gospel, lest some impediment be given to the Gospel of Christ." Besides, experience establishes more than sufficiently that clerics who labor strenuously for the honor of God and the salvation of souls never lack suitable sustenance.

⁷²⁷ S. theol. 2, 2, qq. 86 and 87.

⁷²⁸ Commonly Kultussteuer, denier du culte, support of the pastors.

⁷²⁹ Proposition 18 was condemned: "Tithes are pure alms, and parishioners can withdraw them at their own will because of the sins of their prelates" (Denz. n. 598).

⁷³⁰ S. theol. 2, 2, q. 87, a. 1.

⁷³¹ Cf. the whole of chapter 18 of Numbers.

⁷³² 1 Cor. 9:13ff.; cf. Matt. 10:10ff.

⁷³³ Denz. n. 427.

⁷³⁴ Cf. also c. 1504.

⁷³⁵ The Third Council of Baltimore (cf. tit. IX, c. 3) ordered that the following be inserted into the catechism as the fifth precept of the Church: To contribute some subsidy for the suitable sustenance of pastors. In Germany also ecclesiastical taxes (Kirchensteuer) exist.

⁷³⁶ Theol. mor. tr. 4, n. 64.

⁷³⁷ S. theol. 2, 2, q. 87, a. 1 ad 5.

We must treat: 1° of works prohibited on feast days; 2° of the causes because of which they are sometimes licitly exercised.

410. • Works of three kinds must be distinguished: 1° servile works or works of the body, or those which both serve the utility of the body and are exercised rather by the powers of the body than of the mind, and are called servile because they are customarily done by servants or hirelings; 2° works of the mind, which are performed rather by the powers of the mind and pertain to cultivating the mind, and are called liberal because ordinarily they are exercised by free persons; 3° common or intermediate works, which are done indiscriminately by all. Forensic works are also distinguished, which look to the judicial forum or to the market.²

Meanwhile this must generally be set down beforehand: that the nature of servile work is to be taken neither from the intention, nor from the profit received, indeed neither from bodily fatigue. Thus it will be servile to plow another's field, although this is done from mere charity and altogether gratis; on the contrary, the playing of organs, or dancing, will not be servile, however long-lasting and laborious, nor will transcription be servile when prolonged through the whole day for the sake of gain.

411. Principles. - I. Properly so-called servile works are prohibited of themselves under grave sin to all the faithful on entire feast days, that is, through the whole natural day, from midnight to midnight. This is established from Canon Law,¹ from the custom and perpetual practice of the Church.

II. Forensic works also are prohibited, namely forensic actions which are had with judicial apparatus, as to interrogate parties, hear witnesses and advocates, pass sentence, etc. Thus from Canon Law.²

III. By the same law markets, fairs, public sales, and other similar things which are done with noise are prohibited. Yet fairs constituted for a certain day are excepted where legitimate custom is in force, if they fall on a feast day. - Thus Benedict XIV declared,³ St. Alphonsus.⁴

IV. Liberal works, common works, and some works which seem servile but are required for daily use, food, necessity, and the disposition of the body, clothing, or house, are licit, as to cook food, spread beds, sweep the house, and other things which conveniently either cannot or are not customarily deferred or anticipated. Thus from common practice and the judgment of all.

412. You will resolve. - 1° Rural works are prohibited on feast days, as to plow, dig the earth, sow, reap, cultivate vineyards, etc. Likewise works of the mechanical arts, for example of masonry, ironwork, carpentry, tailoring, cobbling, roofing, etc. Likewise most works which serve the typographical art. They probably except the setting of type. - Elbel,⁵ Laymann, Sporer, Tamburini, St. Alphonsus.⁶

2° Likewise it is not licit to make certain things which require light labor and which are customarily made by Nuns, for example rosaries, scapulars, wax images, artificial flowers, etc.; because these in common use are counted among servile works. Nevertheless, since those works and similar others are rather light, according to several authors they can be permitted, provided they are not prolonged beyond two hours. Similarly the same Doctors excuse maidservants who are occupied in plucking roses or peeling apples, even with urgent necessity excluded. - Thus Elbel,⁷ Bonacina, Filliuccius, etc. - But it seems rather that it must be said that in these works a greater space of time is required for lethal fault to be present. Thus St. Alphonsus opines.¹ - Yet they are not to be accused of any fault who are occupied with such occupations for a slight time.

3° Licitly, where custom has prevailed, food, drink, shoes, candles, cloths for making clothing, and other things of this kind are secretly sold and bought in public shops. Nevertheless merchants are exposed to the danger of penalties established by the civil laws of this region. As to innkeepers, see what was said n. 310. e) and 408. 10°.

4° Houses, horses, oxen, and other goods are licitly sold and bought, whether present or absent, whether in a small or great quantity, even if notable time is spent in this, provided these things are done among private persons. Yet by our civil law contracts are generally rescindable if they are entered into on Sundays.

413. Questions. - Quaer. 1° Is it licit to write or transcribe on a feast day?

Resp. to the first. Affirmatively, because this work is altogether liberal, since in it the mind principally acts. - Thus all.

Resp. to the second. Affirmatively, also more probably, because to transcribe, like to write, is ordered to instructing the mind. - Thus commonly with St. Alphonsus,² against Billuart and others.

Hence 1° it is also licit to draw out the designs of artisans and craftsmen, to form musical notes. - Elbel.³

2° Likewise it is permitted also to correct books, whether this is done by deleting lines or by placing glued paper over them. For although this seems servile, nevertheless it is accessory, since it is done accidentally by the corrector himself. - Elbel,⁴ etc.

Quaer. 2° Is it licit to carve or paint?

Resp. to the first. Negatively, of itself, because sculpture is commonly held among mechanical arts.⁵ - Yet probably an exception must be made if there is question only of the perfection of the work.

Resp. to the second. It is disputed.

The FIRST OPINION affirms, because painting is a liberal art, or at least intermediate between liberal and servile arts; for it is something very similar to writing, provided nevertheless that painting is done without great labor, such as would be had by mixing colors, preparing tablets, etc. - Thus Laymann, Azor, Sporer, etc.

The SECOND OPINION denies, because the action cannot be called liberal, since it is not directed, as writing is, to cultivating the mind, and because painting is almost the same as sculpture, which is a servile work. - Thus the Salmanticenses, Sanchez, Suarez, etc. - St. Alphonsus deservedly calls each opinion probable. What I have said about painting, I would say the same about photography.

414. • Quaer. 3° Is it licit to embroider images with a needle?

Resp. It is disputed. Many excuse it; for this is referred more to exercising ingenuity than to working.¹ - Sporer.²

Quaer. 4° Is it licit to hunt and fish?

Resp. Affirmatively, because these are not servile works, and they are tolerated by custom, provided they are not done with great labor, effort, noise, or apparatus. St. Alphonsus,⁴ and others commonly against a few.

Quaer. 5° Is it licit to make a journey on foot, by horse, by carriage? - Likewise is it licit to lead a loaded carriage or beasts of burden or ships?

Resp. to the first. Affirmatively, as is openly established from universal practice. The opposite opinion must be left as antiquated, says St. Alphonsus,⁵ after Ronesglia.

Resp. to the second. It is disputed, outside the case of necessity. The opinion now more probable affirms that it is licit, not only for continuing a journey begun, but also for beginning it, provided enormous and long-lasting labor is not required for loading the carriage; from which labor, however, the cause of avoiding grave damage, or of procuring public utility, or custom which perhaps has prevailed somewhere to the contrary, easily excuses.⁶

Quaer. 6° Is it licit to grind on a feast day?

Resp. Affirmatively, more probably, if the mill is turned by water or wind, because little or almost no labor of men is required. But otherwise if it is driven by beasts, unless the cooperation of man is slight. - St. Alphonsus, pace Tamburini, etc.⁷

415. • Quaer. 7° Is it licit for barbers to shave beards on a feast day?

Resp. Affirmatively, with a law prohibiting it and which is commonly observed excluded. The reason is drawn: 1° from general custom; 2° because generally only on feast days do workmen and especially country people seek the shops so that their beard may be shaved. Therefore if barbers did not furnish service to these asking, they would be left with great detriment to themselves. - Thus St. Alphonsus,¹ Viva, Tamburini, Gousset, Bouvier, etc. - I said: with a law prohibiting it and which is COMMONLY OBSERVED excluded. For if it is not commonly observed, the reasons recur because of which it is licit.

Quaer. 8° What matter is grave in work performed on feast days?

Resp. Many require at least three hours. St. Alphonsus,² several opinions having been brought forward, approaches more the opinion of Lacroix generally concluding that the more common and more probable opinion now is that it is not mortal unless one labors at least much beyond two hours, say two and a half hours. - And in the Homo Apostolicus,³ he says with Mazzotta that even a greater space of time is excused by some necessity. He adds,⁴ in forensic and judicial matters the quantity of matter is taken not from the quantity of time, but from the quality of the work.

Quaer. 9° Does he sin gravely who on a feast day orders six servants to work for an hour?

Resp. Negatively, more probably of itself, whether the servants work simultaneously or successively, because the works of servants are not united into one, and the individual servants sin only venially; therefore the master inducing them to the work forbidden under venial fault sins only venially. - St. Alphonsus,⁵ and others more commonly.

Three principal causes are numbered, namely charity, piety, necessity.

416. • I. Charity toward one's neighbor. Hence it is licit on a feast day: 1° to do what is necessary for relieving the sick; 2° to dig a grave for burying the dead; 3° to labor for some determinate poor man, to whom it would be licit to work by reason of grave necessity; yet, according to grave theologians, not for the poor in general, unless in grave and certain necessity.

II. Piety toward God. It is licit because of piety: 1° to do all works proximately serving the worship of God, as to adorn the church, the altar, etc.; 2° to sweep the Church, and prepare other things which pertain to its cleanliness. But it is not licit to repair the Church (unless it is very poor), to cut stones for this, etc.; because these serve divine service only more remotely.¹

417. • III. Necessity, whether one's own or another's, both of soul and of body. Hence:

1° The poor are excused who otherwise could not feed themselves and their own, provided they work privately and with scandal excluded.

2° All whose works once begun cannot be interrupted without great damage are excused, as those casting iron, etc.

3° Bakers likewise are excused who must have fresh bread so that they may satisfy buyers, for example in a populous city.

4° Likewise tailors who make funeral or wedding clothes, which they cannot complete before the feast day either by themselves or through others.

5° Likewise farmers who, because of past or imminent rain, turn, bind, and carry hay or crops.

6° Likewise servants, wives, and sons of the family in those cases which we reported n. 408. 11°.

7° Blacksmiths are excused who shoe horses on the road or brought by farmers from a certain necessity, or repair plowshares necessary for farmers on the following day; and also those who repair wagons broken by accident, bridges, or public roads, if the work cannot be deferred without loss of the public good.

8° Those also are excused who labor for the public utility when some necessity presses, for example if there is question of celebrating a victory, of preparing a feast for the sake of some public rejoicing.

9° Probably those are excused who sustain themselves by labor, because of extraordinary gain (but not of daily wage), because to omit such gain is the same for them as to suffer grave damage.

10° "On feasts many things are generally done which are servile and little agreeable to ecclesiastical laws; the rigor of these laws has been greatly relaxed by custom in this region, since from the beginning few Catholics were living among non-Catholics, who could not observe them without grave damage,² which even now happens to very many. Therefore shops are open, business is transacted and works. Yet the faithful are to be urged to hear at least Mass."¹ What Kenrick here asserts was true almost everywhere at the time when he was writing; yet now in many places, with the number of Catholics increasing day by day and their condition improved, these things are no longer true so universally. Therefore nowadays it will not be licit for confessors and pastors of souls to use altogether the same benignity in this matter as before; but places will have to be distinguished, and in the very places in which feasts can now more easily be commonly observed by Catholics, account will have to be taken of the condition of individuals, whether merchants, craftsmen, or laborers. It will also be necessary to distinguish between those who compel their Catholic workers to labor and those who leave this to their judgment; for these are more easily excused than those. - There are besides some who enjoin servile works to be exercised on Sunday upon men not baptized, or permit non-Catholics to labor on a feast day. Each seems to be excused: the former indeed because, although heretics of themselves are bound by the laws of the Church, nevertheless the Church does not urge the observance of feasts in their regard in regions where heresies rage unpunished; but the latter because the opinion² of those who derive the whole observance of the Lord's Day from the law of the Church is the truer one. Yet care must be taken lest these things be done with scandal of others, especially on Sunday.

11° Butchers who kill animals are excused, if this cannot conveniently be done the day before, or because of summer heat meats cannot be preserved for the following days.³

12° There is no fault on Sundays in placing vessels under trees from which sugar liquid flows, and thereafter pouring it into another vessel, when it happens that within a few more days the liquid is flowing.⁵

13° Since tobacco cannot be planted except in moistened soil, those are easily excused who plant it on Sunday after rains fallen the preceding day, if it is to be feared that another opportunity will be lacking.⁶

But although however many have been enumerated up to now do not need dispensation, nevertheless it must be advised to the faithful that, if they conveniently can, they should ask leave from an ecclesiastical Superior, namely lest, deceived by cupidity, they labor with scandal of others without sufficient cause for excusing. But by Superior here is understood especially the Bishop; who, although he cannot grant a general dispensation for all his subjects, and much less a permanent one (since that would be equivalent to suppression of feasts), nevertheless as to some acts with particular persons he can dispense from a reasonable cause; indeed custom also grants this faculty to the pastor.

14° But those are not to be excused, indeed are to be severely rebuked, who rather often prolong work begun after midnight into the feast day, even under pretext of necessity; because generally that necessity is voluntary for them, since very often they throw themselves into it, either by undertaking more works to be completed for a certain day than they can finish, or by not employing that number of workers which the work would require, or by wasting time during the week on useless matters. You would more easily excuse those to whom a work to be completed on the following feast day was handed over on the preceding day.

418. • Quaer. Does the reason of avoiding idleness excuse?

Resp. Negatively, commonly speaking. For that reason is wholly insufficient for setting aside a law of the Church so grave. Laymann, Mazzotta, etc., make an exception if idleness induces a probable danger of sinning; because, they say, if danger of temporal damage excuses, a fortiori danger of spiritual damage ought to excuse. But St. Alphonsus¹ more willingly restricts this to the case in which a temptation would press which could not otherwise be overcome, which rarely happens.

Honor thy father and thy mother.¹

This precept primarily and directly regards the obligations of children toward parents; but secondarily and implicitly it looks to the obligations of parents toward children, and also the mutual obligations of other Superiors and inferiors.

I. Object of the question. - Just as fidelity toward God is commanded by the first precept, and reverence by the second, so service is commanded by the third precept of the Decalogue. Natural reason itself dictates, and the law of nature prescribes, that some time in human life be reserved for the service of divine worship; but by positive law that time and the manner of worshiping God are to be determined more. In the old law, indeed, positive divine law commanded: Remember to sanctify the sabbath day; this precept together with the other ceremonial prescriptions of the Old Law was abolished by the death of Christ; but now by ecclesiastical law the first day in the week is established to be observed, which by this reason is called the Lord's day.

The precept is at once negative and affirmative: namely, it prohibits servile and forensic works because they are more wont to draw away from the service of God, and it commands assistance at the sacred sacrifice of the altar as the most excellent work of public worship. These things are customarily set forth sufficiently completely in manuals of moral theology; hence here we only set beneath certain practical admonitions for confessors.

II. Rules and principles to be attended to by confessors. - As regards the third precept it is altogether necessary to note that it is opportune for confessors to act not more indulgently but rather more severely, because if the unlearned transgress it habitually, they will now never pray, nor any longer care sufficiently about religion; indeed they will shortly lose due knowledge of the truths of faith and morals because they are never present at sermon or religious instruction. As Berardi well says, Praxis confessariorum, n. 367:

"Very many, occupied the whole week in affairs and labors, if on a feast day they do not provide for the most grave necessities of their own soul by serious reflections and effective remedies, when will they provide? Especially as regards the obligation of hearing the word of God, which being neglected, innumerable Christian faithful live immersed in the mire of vices until death, we have the following from Trent, sess. 24, c. 4: 'Let the Bishop diligently admonish each one that he is bound to be present in his own parish, where this can conveniently be done, for hearing the word of God.'"

Wherefore:

1. Those who are always bound to work on Sundays and can never be present at the sacred rite must obtain another office or service for themselves, at least if they can without great inconvenience, and meanwhile employ means so that they may satisfy the precept both of knowing the doctrine of religion and of praying.

2. Those who on Sundays can never be present at the sacred rite, even if this does not altogether harm their religious life, must obtain another service for themselves insofar as they can without great inconvenience; or, if this is not possible, several times in the year they must assist at the sacred rite during the week, because there is also a natural and divine precept of assisting at the sacrifice several times.

3. Wives and children of families should not easily yield to the husband or father prohibiting the hearing of the sacred rite, even to avoid blasphemies or anger or great indignation, at least if this happens frequently, because otherwise no religious practice would be permitted to them; unless nevertheless they feared grave striking or beating. But if it were demanded in contempt of religion, even then it would not be lawful to do it, but they should never yield.

4. Those who labor on account of legitimate reasons should take care, to avoid scandal, that they do not do this publicly; or, if this is necessary, that the legitimate excuse at least be known by others.

5. Let them also know that a small labor, continued for a brief or at least not long time, nevertheless can, by reason of scandal, be gravely sinful: thus, for a very brief time, for example, publicly to plow land for a quarter of an hour, and similarly to command several persons to labor for one hour, can be a grave sin by reason of scandal.

6. Those are to be blamed who voluntarily place a proximate impediment to the fulfillment of the precept, as if by reason of curiosity, recreation, or a lighter motive they begin a journey on Saturday evening or on Sunday before the first Mass and arrive at another place after the last has ended; for this is not lawful unless the journey is truly necessary and at the same time cannot be made on another day.

7. In practice one must especially attend to certain categories of works:

a) Lest women or girls think lighter feminine works lawful for themselves, such as spinning, sewing, weaving by hand, making lace-work, artificial flowers or images of wax, silk, paper, etc., because they easily exercise such things and thus gradually pass over to many other things. But if they think they have some motive, let them ask a dispensation from the pastor.

b) Lest tailors and shoemakers, without a valid reason, pretend a necessity of working on Sunday to finish a work lest they lose customers: if this is truly so, there is a sufficient reason for working; but often they spontaneously bring themselves into such a necessity, by not employing due solicitude or by losing time at the beginning of the week, or by undertaking more works than they can complete; indeed they work also for those who would not in fact be alienated at all by a delay of the work.

c) Lest farmers exercise rural works and the cultivation of gardens, unless permission has first been obtained from the pastor.

III. Observations. - 1. "Let confessors carefully note that, especially as regards persons of conscience little careful, they ought not easily to approve their manner of acting, as many do who, with the matter by no means weighed, immediately say: go, act, if you have necessity you can work. The matter is on one side too harmful, and on the other too subject to hallucinations: for each one very easily persuades himself that he works from necessity, even when a true, grave, and unavoidable necessity is by no means present... Indeed let them admonish lest, relying on vain reasons, they think themselves not to sin mortally." Thus Berardi, o.c., n. 409.

2. Let confessors know that they have no power in dispensing concerning the precept of observing Sunday; but that this is reserved to the pastor and to those who are in the place of the pastor, and indeed only in particular cases.

3. Let those reading books of moral theology attend lest from theologians of other regions they introduce new customs into their own.

686. Servile works to be avoided are those which a) are performed principally by the powers of the body, and b) tend immediately to bodily use, and therefore c) formerly were usually exercised by servants, now by domestics and workers. They are opposed to liberal works, which principally tend to the powers of the soul, or at least to cultivating the soul, and which are usually exercised by free men or masters, or by all indiscriminately. From this definition it is plain that there are no common works; nor does a work become servile because it is exercised for the sake of profit, or for a long time and with great bodily weariness, or vice versa; but the matter depends upon the nature of the work and its intrinsic end.

According to the aforesaid definition, liberal works are: works which regard the exercise of letters or sciences: studying, reading, teaching, disputing, preaching, writing or transcribing, by hand or machine, even for profit; - works of the liberal arts, such as singing, playing musical instruments, painting artistically, sculpting more subtle works or completing greater ones, delineating figures, exercising the photographic art unless it is done with great apparatus; - making a journey and all things which are necessary for this: arranging and guiding horses, preparing a vehicle, carrying baggage, the labor of coachmen, sailors, and attendants of railway carriages; - engaging in bodily games: military, nautical, theatrical, dancing; - hunting, fowling, and fishing, unless they are done with great apparatus (for example, at sea) or labor; - banquets, feasts, drinking-parties, conversations, etc.

On the contrary, servile works are: rural works, such as plowing, digging, sowing, reaping, gathering harvests, cultivating vineyards, cutting trees, measuring fields, plucking or peeling fruits; - works of the mechanical arts: masonry, smithing, carpentry, tailoring, shoemaking, roofing, weaving, typography even in composing type, which is not immediately ordered to the expression of concepts but to the printing of letters or forms; - drawing musical lines, multiplying transcriptions, for example, polycopy; - labors in factories, mines, foundries; exercising the works of a butcher and skinning beasts, baking bread, making distillations of liquors with great apparatus; - painting not artistically, or preparing colors, a board, or a wall for artistic painting with notable labor, doing preparatory works of greater labor or works pertaining to sculpture; - women's works, such as spinning, sewing, making netted or checked work, weaving by hand, making lacework, - indeed, embroidering images with a needle or reproducing them on cloth, not only by means of a machine but also by hand, unless it is done with singular art; in which case one must still beware lest women think any ornaments whatever are lawful; - stringing gems on thread, making rosaries, scapulars, cords, artificial flowers, images of wax, silk, paper, etc.; - and more probably: driving loaded beasts of burden, or with their help loaded wagons and ships, and a fortiori, placing burdens on beasts, wagons, or a ship; likewise grinding, etc.; but in these things the custom of places is to be considered.¹

¹ Custom is not to be understood of great workshops in which there is no less labor than elsewhere.

Works of three kinds are to be distinguished: 1st, servile works or works of the body, namely those which are exercised through the body, and are immediately ordered to the utility of the body, and are customarily done by servants or wage-workers; 2nd, liberal works or works of the mind, which are rather performed by the powers of the mind, and pertain to cultivating the mind, and are ordinarily exercised by free persons; 3rd, common or natural works, which are done by all indiscriminately. Forensic works are also distinguished, which pertain to the judicial forum or to the market. Yet note that the best method of distinguishing among these diverse works is to be taken from custom and the common estimation of men. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 272. - Kenrick, tract. 3, n. 78. - Baller., note (a), p. 347.

I Say 1st. On feast days of precept Mass must be heard; and one must abstain from servile works, forensic acts, and likewise, unless legitimate customs or peculiar indults bear otherwise, from public market, fairs, and other public buyings and sellings (Can. 1248).

Therefore from this canon there are prohibited, from midnight to midnight of the feast, and indeed under grave obligation, for all the faithful:

1st. servile works properly so called;

2nd. Forensic works, namely forensic acts, which are had with judicial apparatus, such as interrogating parties, hearing witnesses and advocates, pronouncing sentence, etc.; if a criminal case already begun could not be interrupted without grave inconvenience or damage, the law would not urge;

3rd. Public market, fairs, and other public buyings and sellings, unless custom or indults permit otherwise.

I Say 2nd. Liberal works, common works, and some works which seem servile but are required for daily use, sustenance, necessity, and arrangement of the body, clothing, or house, are licit, such as cooking food, making beds, sweeping the house, and other things which conveniently cannot be, or are not customarily, deferred or anticipated. Thus from common practice and the sense of the faithful.

Among liberal works the use of a machine suited for typewriting is to be numbered.

Question 1. Is it licit to sculpt or paint on a feast day?

Response. Affirmatively, to each, at least probably, because those arts are held and are liberal, or something intermediate between liberal and servile. Besides, they are something very similar to writing, which is certainly licit. Yet except that kind of sculpture or painting which requires great exercise of the body, and perhaps in this way St. Alphonsus is to be understood, who says that sculpture is illicit. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 280 and following; and Hom. Ap., n. 10.

Question 2. Is it licit to have the commerce of taverns or inns on a feast day?

Response. Concerning this matter the Fathers of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore speak thus, n. 113. - "Since not only that which is certainly evil, but also that which has the appearance of evil, and still more, that which is accustomed to lead to evil, ought to be diligently avoided by a Christian man, let our Catholics generously renounce all recreations and avocations which are less fitting to the holiness of the Lord's Day or even of their own accord lead to the transgression of laws, whether divine or human. Among things of this kind, certainly the commerce of taverns or inns on this day occupies the highest place, from which so many and such great harms spring forth against religion and society. Therefore let pastors work energetically and use admonitions, beseechings, threats, indeed even penalties where it shall have been necessary, for rooting out this evil; and thus for their part let them help, that the almost single stain which more and more among us obscures the splendor of the Lord's Day may be erased."

Question 3. Is it licit to grind on a feast day?

Response. Affirmatively, more probably, if the mill is turned by water or wind, because then no or almost no labor of men is required. But otherwise if greater cooperation of man is demanded. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 277. - Lacroix, n. 578.

Question 4. Does he sin gravely who on a feast day commands six servants to labor for one hour?

Response. Negatively, more probably of itself, whether the servants labor simultaneously or successively, because the works of the servants are not united into one, and each one sins only venially; therefore the master who induces them to a work prohibited under venial fault sins only venially. A fortiori they do not sin, at least against this precept, who enjoin upon non-baptized men, for example, Chinese dwelling among us, that they exercise servile works on Sundays. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 306. - Kenrick, tract. 3, nn. 75 and 76.

Question 5. What matter is grave in a work performed on feast days?

Response. Many distinguish thus: if the labor is very servile, about two hours are required, if little servile, at least three hours, for the matter to be judged grave. But St. Alphonsus, having brought forward several opinions, approaches more to the opinion of Father Lacroix generally concluding that the more common and more probable opinion now is that it is not mortal unless one labors at least much beyond two hours, say two and a half. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 305; and Hom. Ap., n. 25.

From these solutions, which have been given as examples, it is now clear what is to be held concerning many similar cases. But now it is useful to indicate something practically concerning the three principal causes by virtue of which the obligation of abstaining from servile works ceases. Therefore:

I. By reason of charity, on a feast day it is licit, 1st, to do what is necessary for relieving the sick; 2nd, to dig a grave for burying the dead; 3rd, to labor for some determinate poor person, for whom, by reason of grave necessity, it would be licit to labor; but not for the poor in general, unless a peculiar necessity also urges. Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 294; and Hom. Ap., n. 17.

II. By reason of piety it is licit, 1st, to do all works proximately serving the worship of God, such as adorning the church, altar, etc.; 2nd, to sweep the church and prepare other things which pertain to its cleanliness. But it is not licit to build a church, repair it, cut stones for this, make ornaments, etc.; because these serve divine service more remotely. Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 292 and 293; and Hom. Ap., n. 17.

III. By reason of necessity, whether one's own or another's, of both soul and body, the following are excused: 1st, the poor who otherwise cannot feed themselves and their own, provided they labor privately and with scandal excluded; 2nd, all whose works begun cannot be interrupted without great damage, such as iron founders, etc.; 3rd, bakers who must have fresh bread, so that they may satisfy buyers; 4th, tailors who make funeral or nuptial garments, which neither by themselves nor by others are able to be completed before the feast; 5th, farmers who on account of past or imminent rain turn, bind, and carry hay or crops; 6th, servants compelled to labor, if they cannot easily and quickly find another master without great inconvenience; 7th, blacksmiths who shoe horses on the road or brought by countrymen, or repair plowshares necessary for farmers on the following day; and also those who repair wagons broken by accident, bridges, or public roads, if the work cannot be deferred without loss of the public good; 8th, those who labor for public utility when some necessity is urgent, for example, if it is a question of celebrating victory or for the sake of another public rejoicing; 9th, those who sustain themselves by daily labor if they would have to lose a notable and extraordinary gain; 10th, all those who plant tobacco, if after rains fallen the day before it is to be feared that another opportunity may be lacking; 11th, those who place vessels under trees from which a sugary liquid flows, and afterward transfer it into another vessel, when it happens that the liquid flows for only a few days more. Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 296 and following. - Kenrick, nn. 90, 91 and 93.

The FIRST opinion is that the extrinsic end of the worker makes liberal works servile, and that they are forbidden on the feast day. So hold many interpreters of Canon and civil Law on cap. 1. de Feriis, and on leg. omnes Iudices, Cod. de Feriis, and others, as Angel. and Rosella, Tabiena V. Feria, Richardus 3. dist. 37. art. 2. quaest. 4. Sylvester under the word Dominica, quaest. 4.

The SECOND opinion is that no liberal work directed to gain thereby becomes servile. So hold very many: Caietanus 2. 2. quaest. 122. art. 4. and in summa, v. Festorum violatio, Sotus lib. 2. de Iustitia, quaest. 4. art. 4. Navar. in manuali lat. cap. 13. Tolet. lib. 4. summa, cap. 24. Sayrus lib. 7. cap. 2. Philiarchus part. 2. lib. 3. cap. 23. Fum. V. fest. num. 23. Medin. Instruct. lib. 1. cap. 24. quaest. 1. Lopez Instit. p. p. cap. 52. Bonacina tom. 2. disp. 5. quaest. unic. puncto 2. num. 25. Laym. lib. 4. tract. 7. cap. 2. num. 3. P. Eligius Bassaeus V. festum, 2. num. 8. Azor 2. part. Inst. lib. 1. cap. 28. quaestio 1. Suarez tract. 1. de Rel. lib. 2. de festis, cap. 19. Fagundez on the first precept of the Church, lib. 1. cap. 10. This is the opinion of D. Bonaventure sermone 4. in decem praecepta, about the middle, where he adds that some mechanical works too are lawful for pleasure, and that no servile work is forbidden if elsewhere necessity or a just excusing cause occurs: to this Suarez subscribes.

I ASSERT with this opinion that a liberal work, with gain superadded, does not for that reason become servile.

It is PROVED from D. Bonaventure loco cit. and in 3. dist. 37. dub. 3. and in serm. 2. Sabbathi sancti: For God professes to forbid only work servile by its very nature: but an extrinsic end does not make servile that which is not intrinsically such; otherwise all the sciences and liberal arts would at once become mechanical from the end of the one who knows or learns them, which is exploded by the Philosophers. For the reason of liberality is taken from the end of the art, not from the extraneous end of the craftsman.

The ARGUMENTS on the contrary side collapse, by denying that those works become servile from an extrinsic end of mechanical gain. See Fagundez.

A servile work can thus be described by St. Bonaventure, serm. 4. in decem praecepta, et in 3. dist. 37. dub. 3. litt. D. Thom. ibidem art. 5. quaest. 2. ad 2. whom Suarez follows, Tom. 1. de Relig. lib. 2. de diebus festis, cap. 10. Fagundez in primum Eccl. praeceptum, lib. 1. cap. 10. num. 6. Servile works are those to whose exercise the mechanical arts are directed, distinct from the liberal arts. Others add, besides these, that we are accustomed also to employ and assign servants. D. Bonaventure: etiam servos adhibere, et deputare solemus. — "we are accustomed also to employ and assign servants."

THEREFORE not all bodily works are servile, but only those exercised by the mechanical arts, and those which are habitually done by servants, according to some; but of this I shall speak below.

The holy Doctor admirably enumerates the mechanical arts, and their sufficient enumeration, in the Opusculo, Reductio artium ad Theologiam, et serm. 4. in decem praecepta, together with Hugh of St. Victor lib. 2. Didasc. cap. 22.

SEVEN therefore are counted: wool-working, armor-making, agriculture, hunting, navigation, the theatrical art, medicine.

He sets out their sufficiency thus: every mechanical art is either for solace, whether to banish sadness or need; or for utility, whether it benefits or delights. If it is for solace and delight, then it is the theatrical art, which is the art of games, containing every kind of game, whether in songs, or in instruments, or in images, or in gestures of the body.

But if it is ordered to utility, or the profit of the outward man, this can be either with respect to covering, or with respect to nourishment, or with respect to both supports. If it is with respect to covering: either that is of soft and gentle material, and so it is wool-working, linen-working, and silk-working; or it is of strong material, and so it is armor-making, or the smith's art of all arms for defense and offense, whether of metal, or wood, or stone, as ramparts, towers, etc. walls, citadels, houses. But if they help with respect to nourishment, this can be twofold, because we are fed by vegetables and by sentient things. If with respect to vegetables, it is agriculture. If with respect to sentient things, then it is hunting, fishing, fowling. Or in another way: because helping with respect to food can be twofold, either with respect to the generation and multiplication of foods, and so it is the cultivation of fields; or with respect to the preparation of foods, and so it is hunting, fowling, fishing, and every preparatory art of foods; such as are those of bakers, cooks, innkeepers. All these are included under the name of hunting, on account of its preeminent excellence in preparing choice and abundant fare. But if toward both supports, this is twofold: either by supplying a lack, and so it is navigation, under which is contained all commerce, whether of things pertaining to covering or to nourishment; or by removing impediments, such as harms; and so it is medicine, whether that which consists in the compounding of electuaries, potions, ointments by the apothecaries (who also prepare spices and the like for the wholesome seasoning of foods;) so too surgery is ordered to the care of wounds, incision, etc. But the theatrical art is unique. This St. Bonaventure sets forth in the cited opuscule.

From which the holy Doctor deduces that not only those works are mechanical which we are accustomed to perform through servants, but also certain others, such as hunting, fishing, fowling, which are also practiced by nobles, to which add playing musical instruments, preparing foods, etc., as Fagundez also concedes cap. 11. num. 1. Wherefore he does not rightly place, cap. 10., in the definition of a mechanical work, that it is exercised by servants. Better are almost all mechanical works called servile, because servants are employed for them, at least for some of them. So in hunting, stretching the nets, etc.; rather are they called mixed and common. There are also certain others which are reduced to works of the soul, such as reading, writing, studying, and transcribing: there are yet others, though not servile, nevertheless forbidden by the Church, namely markets and the exercises of the forum.

Of all these I shall treat briefly here.

The holy Doctor asserts first, serm. 4. citato, that merely servile works are forbidden, necessity being set aside.

It is proved from Exodus 20, Levit. 23 and other passages cited, quaest. 4. There follow D. Thom. 1. 2. quaest. 122. art. 4. ad 3. D. Antonin. 2. part. tit. 9. cap. 7. §. Quantum ad tertium, Alens. 3. part. quaest. 32. memb. 4. art. 4. Richardus 3. dist. 37. art. 2. quaest. 5. Angel. and Tabien. see Feriae, Sylvester see Dominica, quaest. 3. Toletus lib. 4. cap. 24. Clavis Reg. lib. 7. cap. 1. Suarez Tom. 1. de relig. lib. 2. de diebus Festis, cap. 20. Fagundez lib. 1. cap. 11. and commonly the rest, collected by Bassaeus, see Festum 2.

He asserts secondly that certain servile works are permitted on a feast day on account of ordinary necessity, such as cooking and preparing foods. Although so many labors in the seasoning and preparation of foods were not in use in ancient times, yet they are now permitted by custom, as Suarez notes cap. 21. Fagundez cap. 10. in fine, et cap. 11. a num. 19. The reason of D. Bonaventure is, because necessity is not bound by laws; these are natural works, not simply servile, and necessary for living.

In the same way, and advancing further, are the works necessary in the medical art.

Nor do other works of nature press less, such as eating, drinking, clothing oneself, undressing, washing oneself, etc. So also Suarez num. 2. Fagundez num. 9. cap. 11. Bassaeus loco cit. and others among them.

Likewise making a journey is necessary, not servile, whether on foot or on horseback. So Angel. see Feriae, num. 15. Rosella num. 26. Azor below, Suarez loco cit. num. 27. Diana part. 4. tract. 4. miscel. resol. 221. Per accidens, however, it can be forbidden, if it is done with great labor in procuring a horse, a carriage, etc. So Azor Tom. 1. lib. 1. cap. 27. quaesito 8. Suarez loco cit. and others: and Caietanus quaest. 121. art. 4. Sà in Aphorism. see Festum, say these are servile works; but permitted by custom; and Sà adds, when accompanied by much baggage: Fagundez indeed num. 9. says this is to be understood when a Prince or Prelate makes the journey. Diana moreover adds p. p. tract. 15. resol. 36. et part. 2. tract. 1. miscellaneor. resol. 36. et 4. part. tract. 4. resol. 221. that grooms and the like can, without mortal sin, having heard Mass, lead laden beasts of burden, indeed even load them. Nevertheless, if in loading they spend a notable time, which must exceed two hours, it will be a mortal sin. So also others with Bassaeus num. 10.

But sweeping the whole house for many hours is forbidden, says Fagundez.

The holy Doctor asserts thirdly that certain mechanical arts instituted for mere pleasure are licit on a feast. But he calls these the moderate theatrical art, such as song and instrumental music. The reason is, because the Church permits them on account of our infirmity. So also Fagundez cap. 10. Tolet. lib. 4. cap. 24. Tannerus disp. 5. quaest. 6. num. 7. and others among them, and Bonacina punct. 2. num. 25. Bassaeus 2. num. 10.

IT IS DOUBTED: Whether on these days fishing, hunting, fowling, and the like are licit.

The first opinion is that such works are liberal, if done on feast days for recreation. So Angelus, see Feriae, num. 26. Sylvester, see Dominica, numero 7. Sotus lib. 2. de Iustitia, quaest. 4. art. 4. Rosella, see Feriae, num. 15. and others collected by Azor part. 1. lib. 1. cap. 27. quaesito 7. But Granado 2. 2. tract. 12. disp. 14. sect. 7. num. 65. following Medina, Navarro, and Lopez adds, that neither hunting done for gain, etc. is a servile work, and says that only that fishing is servile which consists in carrying nets, rowing, and performing similar labor. Filliucius indeed teaches tom. 2. tract. 27. cap. 9. num. 172. that hunting and fishing as an office, which consist wholly in the weariness of the body, are servile, not that which is devoted to recreation. Azor loco cit. subscribes; all are cited by Diana part. 4. Tract. 4. miscell. resol. 222. and he attends to those who disagree. Almost subscribes Bassaeus num. 12.

The second opinion judges altogether that hunting, etc. is a servile work. So Suarez cap. 28. Fagundez lib. 1. cap. 11. num. 16. Yet by reason of custom it is licit to hunt, but not to fish, unless on account of urgent necessity. Toletus indeed lib. 1. cap. 24. Caietanus art. 4. quaest. 122. Sotus above, all say that by custom all are licit.

The holy Doctor serm. citato, better than all, says that hunting, etc. is indeed a servile and forbidden work, yet that with respect to those things ordered to sustenance it is licit, for instance, to catch a hare on that day.

That they are servile works is proved from Dialectic, where among the mechanical arts even servile ones are counted. It is confirmed, because they consist in great labor. That they are also illicit is proved from cap. licet, de feriis.

That they are licit with respect to sustenance is proved, because just as seasonings for preparing are licit, so is preparing what is to be seasoned. For they are natural works, necessary in this respect.

IT IS DOUBTED secondly: Whether barbers may shave beards on feasts.

Diana answers p. p. Tract. 15. miscell. resol. 54. that on account of the parvity of matter they do not sin if they shave the beard of one or another, and he cites Graffius decis. part. 1. lib. II. cap. 23. Navarr. cap. 13. Vega Tom. 1. cap. 114. casu 2. Rodriguez tract. 1. c. 21. Sayrus lib. VII. cap. 2. Molfesius Tom. 1. tract. 11. cap. 17. num. 68. Azor lib. I. cap. 28. quaestio 5. Tom. 2. He adds, if they shave all who come, they are excused by reason of custom, if it exists; for since the things forbidden on a feast day were introduced by human custom, nothing prevents their being removed by a contrary custom, tolerated by prelates, as Sotus and Caietanus note, cited by Reginaldus tom. 2. lib. XIX. cap. 3. and others, cited in the Clavis Regiae lib. VII. cap. 2. Fernandez adds, in exam. part. 1. cap. 7. that they are also excused for another reason, namely cessation of gain, because on weekdays, on account of occupations, they do not come for haircutting; and he relies on cap. licet, where the Pontiff grants fishing for herrings on feasts for this cause: But I say with Reginaldus Tom. 2. lib. XIX. cap. ciu. num. 51. Suarez cap. 33. Diana above, that the reason is unlike; for that fishing is granted because it occurs at a fixed season of the year and passes; but it is not the same with daily hair-cutting; otherwise it will be licit to frequent almost all servile works.

Indeed Fagundez lib. I. cap. 14. with others says, that one hour will be light, if they cut hair on one or another feast; but if they continue on every feast, it will be lethal, by reason of the continuation of matter. But this is not proved to me, for the time of one hour of this Sunday is not continued with the hour of the future Sunday.

IT IS DOUBTED thirdly: Whether it is licit to paint on a feast day.

Ludovicus Lopez p. p. Institut. cap. 25. Medina Instruct. lib. I. cap. 14. assert that it is licit even for gain.

Others deny that it is licit for gain, but only without gain. So Azor Tom. 2. lib. II. cap. 27. quaestio 6. Sylvester, see Dominica, quaest. 5. Armill. see Festum, Angelus, Rosella, Tabiena, under the word feria, Saytus lib. VII. cap. 2. num. 16. and others cited by Pasqualigo decis. 142.

Suarez cap. 26. Caietanus art. 4. Fagundez cap. 11. num. 10. judge the art of painting to be mechanical and altogether forbidden; who, num. 13., proclaims it altogether prohibited, even gratis. And so they reprehend this license: for painting is a mechanical art in itself, nor does it change its nature from an extrinsic liberal end, as I said above, as Fagundez notes loco citato, and Bassaeus num. 7.

Nor does it help that certain nobles sometimes exercise it; for this is per accidens.

You will ask fourthly: Whether fighting (bellari) is forbidden on a feast day.

It is answered, that it is a mechanical work. So Suarez cap. 28. Fagundez num. 12. with D. Bonaventure serm. 4. citato, and the Opusc. Reductio artium ad Theol. For the military art is mechanical, as is clear from Dialectic. Yet it seems to have been introduced by custom, that the art of fencing may be licitly learned on feast days.

Yet acts of warring can be licit on account of necessity, as is clear from cap. Quod non licet, de reg. iuris, in 6. where among the things not licit on a feast day is placed military action, unless on account of necessity. See the Doctors in Bassaeus num. 13.

A truly defensive war is licit, of which is understood leg. omnes Iudices, Cod. de feriis, et leg. Divus, ff. de feriis. But an aggressive one is not ordinarily licit, unless through Epikeia in a just war there be an occasion of victory.

You will ask fifthly: Whether transcribing is forbidden on a feast.

Caius, a young Catholic who seeks a livelihood for himself by the photographic art, asks a confessor, a missionary priest in England, whether it is lawful for him to develop and finish on Sundays photographs taken on days during the week. The confessor judges that the work is servile, but, because of the young man’s poverty, judges that there is cause for dispensing; he doubts, however, since he himself is only an assistant missionary, whether he is able to grant the necessary dispensation or not. Hence it is asked:

1. What kinds of works are prohibited on feast days?

2. What causes excuse from that law?

3. Who are able to dispense from the said law?

4. What is to be said of the case?

1. What sort of work is forbidden on days of obligation?

Servile work, or that which used to be done by slaves, and which is now done by servants and laborers, and which chiefly employs strength of body, is forbidden on days of obligation. Common estimation and custom also have weight in deciding what is servile work. Mental or artistic work, usually done by a higher class of society, is not forbidden. Nor are occupations forbidden which are common to all ranks of society, such as traveling. But besides servile work, public buying and selling, taking oaths, and giving sentence in courts of justice, are also prohibited.¹

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. i, p. 264.

2. What is sufficient to excuse from that law?

Dispensation granted for just cause by a competent authority, custom, the service of God, charity, necessity, and some utility of importance.¹

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. i, p. 266.

3. Who can grant a dispensation from this law ?

The Pope can dispense any or all of the faithful from this law; bishops can dispense their subjects in particular cases, as also can parish priests. This power of dispensing their parishioners in particular cases which custom gives to parish priests may be extended to such priests in England and the United States as have the cure of souls.²

2 The same work, p. 267.

4. The case. Caius, a young Catholic, made his living by photography. He asked his confessor whether he could develop on Sundays the photographs taken during the week. His confessor thought that this would be servile work, but he also thought that the young man should be dispensed from the law on account of his poverty. He doubted, however, whether he had power to dispense him, as he was only a curate or assistant priest on a mission.

The confessor judged rightly that developing photographs in the way of business is servile work, and forbidden on Sundays and holidays. However, if the young man belongs to the mission which he serves, the confessor may dispense him, as necessity is a sufficient cause. If the necessity were grave, it would excuse him from the law without a dispensation. ‘

James is a cigar maker and has a little business of his own. He is accustomed, on Sundays, after going to Mass, to spend five or six hours in his shop, making cigars. He does not give any scandal because no one knows it. He does it, he says, in order to escape from idleness, and besides, it seems to him much better to be engaged in some decent work at home, than to spend the time loafing around, or in saloons. Are his reasons sufficient to justify him?

Answer. The following are the chief kinds of work that are permitted on Sundays:

1. Works demanded by our own personal need or the need of our neighbor;

2. Works in the direct service of religion;

3. Works of charity, care and nursing of the sick, burying the dead;

4. Works permitted by custom, as cooking, sweeping the house, etc.;

5. Works permitted by dispensation obtained from legitimate authority.

Now it is very evident that the work done by this cigar maker does not come under any of the heads of this category. Therefore it is work that may not lawfully be done on Sunday, except for other reasons than those advanced by James.

James says that he works on Sundays in order to shun idleness. But this is not a sufficient excuse, because there are other and lawful ways of shunning idleness on Sundays, such as praying, meditating, attending vespers and benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, reading good literature, etc. There are authorities that permit servile work on Sundays simply as a means of shunning idleness, if there were good reason to fear that idleness, in this instance, would lead one into sin. But St. Alfonsus thinks that even in such a case, servile work would be permitted only if it were the only means of conquering the temptation to sin. Certainly this cannot be said of this cigar maker. In fact, it would be very rare that it could be said of anybody.

The other excuse that James gives for working on Sunday is equally untenable. He says it is better to be decently employed at home on Sundays, than to be idling about or drinking and gambling in the saloons. It certainly is better, or at least less sinful. But it is not necessary to do either. It is lawful to choose the lesser evil, when that is the only way of escaping the greater evil. But this is not true of James. He does not have to make cigars on Sunday in order to keep out of the saloons. If this were the only means for James to keep out of the saloons, he would be allowed to use it. And in a particular case, it might be. But it is not true of James. He has other and lawful means at hand to escape idleness and the saloons.

Speaking in the abstract, therefore, we would say that this cigar maker, by engaging in servile labor on Sundays, without a valid reason and for a considerable time, that is for longer than two hours, commits a mortal sin, because he violates the commandment to sanctify the Lord’s day, in a serious manner and without a justifying reason or excuse. And even though he works only an hour now and again during the day, if all the time he works, when added together, amounts to considerably more than two hours, then he commits a grievous sin, because the work thus done on Sundays, even though interruptedly, coalesces, as the theologians say.

We say, theoretically speaking, James commits a grievous sin. Practically, we think that for the want of sufficient knowledge, James did not commit a grievous sin. He acted in good faith, believing honestly that he had ample justification for working as he did on Sundays. But once he is instructed regarding his case, if he nevertheless continues to engage in this labor on Sundays, we do not see how he can be excused from mortal sin. Still, even then, James' own peculiar mental character must betaken into account, before a just decision can be reached.