The Lord's Day (Third Commandment)

¹ "Remember that thou keep holy the sabbath day."

Ex. 20:8.

This precept, insofar as it is affirmative, commands the sanctification of feast days, or the external and public worship of God through the sanctification of certain days; but insofar as it is negative, it prohibits those days from being profaned, especially through servile works.

End and importance of the precept. a. This precept chiefly tends to this, that man, ceasing from labors, especially bodily labors, may enjoy the necessary rest by which he can attend to divine things and refresh himself as to soul and body. The precept is of the greatest importance because of the most salutary fruits which arise from its observance, both for individual life and for social life. Yet in order that these fruits may be perceived more abundantly, rest of the body ought suitably to be joined with religious sanctification of the day. The principal effects are these:

alpha. The health of the body is cared for: for the human organism is so constituted that from seven days it needs one for resting, lest it gradually fail from labor. Unless, however, feast days are passed religiously, they are customarily spent in leisure and pleasures which harm health and do not profit it.

beta. Readiness in undertaking labor is increased: for uniform labor, which is interrupted by no change of holidays, depresses the soul; rest which the worship of the divine majesty adorns raises the soul and suffuses it with holy cheerfulness.

gamma. Domestic life is promoted: for the members of the family, on working days usually scattered and distracted by various occupations, are all gathered together at the same time, they establish familiarity more fully, devote themselves more earnestly to the office of education, and nourish and foster mutual love by daily association.

b. The opposition between rich and poor is softened: for, mindful of his sublime destination and of his own personal dignity, the poor man before God acknowledges himself equal to the others and persuades himself that virtues are worthy of honor, but riches are vain.

c. Since these advantages of holidays which are held on feast days contribute very much to the good of the republic, the obligation falls upon civil authority of protecting the holidays of feast days and of forbidding servile works; this in some states (England, Germany) has partly been done and not without fruitful effect.

¹ St. Thomas, II-II, q. 122, a. 4. St. Alphonsus, l. 3, n. 263-332. Suarez, De virtute religionis, tract. 2, l. 2. Sporer-Bierbaum, Theologia moralis decalog. (Paderbornae: Typogr. bonifac., 1897), I, tract. 3, n. 482-541. Gasparri, De sanctissima eucharistia (Parisiis: Delhomme, 1897), II, c. 8. Ballerini-Palmieri, Opus theolog. morale^3, II, n. 711-814. E. Genicot, Theologiae moralis institut.^6 (Bruxellis: Dewit, 1909), I, n. 332-341.

The Third Commandment is: ‘“‘ Remember that thou keep holy the sabbath day.”¹ This precept of the Old Law is partly ceremonial, and in so far it has been abrogated by the preaching of the Gospel, and partly it belongs to the law of nature, which binds at all times and in all places. The sabbath, the day of rest, was the last day of the week under the Old Dispensation, and the manner of observing it was strictly regulated. The natural law prescribes that we should occasionally offer to God an external and public worship, inasmuch as he is the Creator of body and soul and the Author of human society. The necessity, too, of keeping up within us a lively sense of God’s existence and of our dependence on him compels us to give outward expression to our religious instincts, otherwise they will quickly evaporate. The Christian Church, using the power given to her by her divine Founder, and asserting her independence of the yoke of Jewish legalism, determined the natural law in this matter by assigning a definite time and mode for its observance. Instead of the last day of the week she chose the first, the day on which Christ rose from the dead, and the day on which the Holy Spirit came down on the Apostles. ‘This she called the Lord’s Day, and commanded her children to keep it holy by hearing Mass and resting from servile work.

¹ Exod. xx 8.

ECCLESIASTICAL laws of the early Christian centuries show us that the precept of hearing Mass on Sundays dates from the earliest times. This obligation is grave, for Innocent XI condemned a proposition¹ which asserted the contrary, Besides hearing Mass it is a laudable thing to spend some time on Sundays in other acts of piety and prayer, as all good Catholics do. Still there is no other positive obligation besides that of hearing Mass which binds under sin. It is not a sin, then, to omit evening service or Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament; and when it is impossible to hear Mass, there is no strict obligation to have private devotions instead.

In order to fulfil the precept of hearing Mass according to the mind of the Church, the whole of Mass must be heard, in the proper place, while bodily present where it is being celebrated, with devout attention. Something must be said on each of these points.

¹ Prop. 52.

The whole of Mass must be heard, so that at least a venial sin is committed if one be wilfully absent during any portion of it. The sin will not be grave unless a notable part of the Mass be missed. What is a notable part depends partly on its importance, partly on the length or quantity. Inasmuch as the essence of the Mass in all probability consists in the act of consecration, to be voluntarily absent during the consecration would be mortally sinful; one would not have heard Mass. Certainly it is a grave sin to be wilfully absent during both the consecration and the communion. Up to the offertory is called the Mass of the catechumens, and as this forms a kind of introduction to the Mass proper, to come in only at the offertory probably does not amount to more than a venial sin. We may take it as a general rule that a mortal sin is committed if a third part of Mass be missed, and less is sufficient for a grave sin when any action of special importance in the sacrifice is in the portion missed. In case of involuntary absence during a notable portion of Mass there will be an obligation of making it up by hearing that portion of another Mass if there be an opportunity of doing so on the same day. The consecration, however, and the communion must always be in the same Mass. There is no obligation to make up small portions of the Mass which have not been heard.

A proposition condemned by Innocent XI falsely asserted that one might satisfy the precept of hearing Mass by being present while two portions were being said by different priests.1

In order to satisfy the precept, Mass must be heard in + Proposs. the proper place. By a decree S.R.C. (January 23, 1899) the faithful may satisfy the precept by hearing Mass in any public church or public or semi-public oratory. A semi-public oratory is there defined as one which by the authority of the ‘Ordinary is erected in a place which is not absolutely public, but more or less private, for the use not of all the faithful, nor of a particular person or family, but of a community or society of persons. No one besides those who are mentioned in the indult can satisfy the precept by hearing Mass in a strictly private oratory, which by an indult of the Holy See is erected in a private house for the use of a particular person or family (Can. 1249). As Benedict XIV teaches,¹ Bishops cannot compel the faithful to hear Mass in their parish churches; they have no power to abrogate a universal law and custom of the Church or a decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites. The liberty, however, of hearing Mass in any place of worship except strictly private oratories, does not exempt the faithful from contributing to the support of their own pastors according to their means.”

¹ De Synodo, xi, c. 14.

One would not hear Mass so as to satisfy the precept if he were stationed apart at a considerable distance from the place where it was being celebrated, even though he might be able to see and hear what was being done. He must be morally present so as to form one of those who are together hearing and offering up the Holy Sacrifice. It is not necessary that he should be able to see the priest or the altar, nor even to hear what is said. It will be sufficient if he follows the principal parts of the Mass. So that a person could hear Mass if he were stationed in a side chapel of a great cathedral while Mass was being said at the high altar, though he might not be able to hear or see anything that was going on. Similarly, if Mass is being said for a large army or crowd of people, those on the outskirts of the multitude may hear Mass, though they are at a great distance from the altar. If the church is full and large numbers cannot get inside, still these latter may hear Mass being celebrated inside. On the other hand, if while Mass is being said in a church, someone were posted on the opposite side of a wide street or square, he could not hear the Mass so as to satisfy the precept, though he *-1 West., d. 235: 5. might be able.to see what was going on through the open door,

It is necessary to have the intention of hearing Mass, and it must be done with the requisite attention. The Church prescribes a human action to be performed in the service of God, and so there must be the necessary constituents of a human act. The act, then, must be voluntary; there must be the wish or the intention to hear Mass. was) forced to be present So that one who against his will, or who came to church merely as a companion to another, or to hear the music, would not hear Mass.

Attention is an act of the mind by which we advert to what is going on. This is attention in the proper sense of the term, and is called internal to distinguish it from external attention, which is the avoidance of any external action which is incompatible with internal attention. Thus if one is distracted during Mass and thinking of other things, but does no external action which is incompatible with hearing Mass, he has external, but not internal attention. If during Mass he engages in a prolonged conversation with a neighbour, or reads a profane book, or paints, he has not even external attention.

The Church commands at least external attention while Mass is being said, otherwise the precept will not be fulfilled. All, too, admit that voluntary distractions during Mass are venially sinful, just as they are during ordinary prayer. It is a disputed point among theologians whether internal attention is also necessary for the observance of the Church’s law. The more common opinion holds that it is. The contrary, however, is probable, for actual attention does not seem to be an essential element of prayer; the form of Extreme Unction, which is a prayer, is certainly valid even if said by a priest without internal attention. The Church’s law, therefore, which directly provides for external decorum in the service of God, would seem to be fulfilled, provided that there is at least external attention while hearing Mass. This opinion does not foster the careless hearing of Mass, but it does serve to relieve the scrupulous conscience from needless anxieties.

5. We have here to do with a positive precept, and any serious inconvenience or loss, spiritual or temporal, affecting one’s self or one’s neighbour, which would follow from hearing Mass, will excuse the faithful from fulfilling the obligation.

So that the sick, the convalescent who could not venture out of doors without danger, those who have to take care of the sick, mothers of families who have little children to attend to, those who live at such a distance that it would take them more than an hour to walk to church, all these are excused from hearing Mass regularly.

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.

(St. Thomas, II-II, q. 122, a. 4; St. Alphonsus, Theologia Moralis, bk. III, nn. 263-332; Homo Apostolicus, tr. 6.)

It is a natural precept that some time be appointed for divine worship. "The precept concerning the sanctification of the Sabbath... is moral indeed as to this: that man should appoint some time of his life for being free for divine things; for there is in man a natural inclination to this, that some time be appointed to each necessary thing, as to bodily refreshment, sleep, and other things of this kind; whence also for spiritual refreshment, by which man's mind is refreshed in God, according to the dictate of natural reason man appoints some time; and thus to have some time appointed for being free for divine things falls under a moral precept" (St. Thomas, II-II, q. 122, a. 4, ad 1; St. Alphonsus, III, 263).¹

But the determination both of the time and of the manner was and is of positive law (St. Thomas, II-II, q. 122, a. 4, ad 1 and ad 4; St. Alphonsus, III, 263, 265). Now divine positive law in the Old Testament had dedicated the Sabbath day to divine worship, and on that day had commanded cessation from servile work. Now, with ecclesiastical positive law considered, these things have force:

I. The supreme ecclesiastical authority alone can establish, transfer, or abolish feast days common to the universal Church. Ordinaries of places can prescribe special feast days for their dioceses or places, but only for an individual act (can. 1244).

II. The common feast days established by the supreme authority are: all and each of the Sundays, the feasts of the Nativity, Circumcision, Epiphany, Ascension, and the Most Holy Body of Christ, the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary, the gracious Mother of God, St. Joseph her spouse, Saints Peter and Paul the Apostles, and finally All Saints (can. 1247, § 1). Understand these things in this way:

1. Feasts not enumerated in the cited canon, by that very fact and by the law itself, are no longer of precept anywhere, even if in some nation, diocese, or place they previously had been of precept by particular law or custom, even centenary custom of the place, or by special concession of the Holy See.²

2. If anywhere some feast from those enumerated has legitimately been abolished or transferred, nothing is to be innovated without consulting the Apostolic See (can. 1247, § 3). As is drawn from the word if anywhere (that is, if in some place), the discussion concerns particular feasts, not however the feasts of Corpus Christi and St. Joseph, which were abolished by Pius X by the Motu Proprio Supremae disciplinae;³ these feasts have again been introduced by force of the Code itself.

3. Feast days of Patrons, as follows from what has been said, are not subject to ecclesiastical precept; but Ordinaries of places can transfer the external solemnity to the next following Sunday (can. 1247, § 2).

III. The reckoning of a feast day is to be made from midnight to midnight, saving the prescription of can. 923⁴ (can. 1246), and with the hours computed according to the common usage of the place; this seems to be drawn from can. 33, § 1, which does not count this law among laws in the observance of which an option of time is granted, and this, as it seems, both so that there may be uniformity in this law, and so that scandals easily arising may be forestalled.

IV. On feast days of precept, Mass must be heard, and one must abstain from servile works, forensic acts, and likewise, unless legitimate customs or particular indults provide otherwise, from public market, fairs, and other public purchases and sales (can. 1248). Several other things are counselled, especially that the faithful be present at the sermon and exercises to be instituted after noon (cf. cann. 1345 and 1348). With these things noted, we shall speak first of hearing Mass, then of cessation from certain works.

¹ Roman Catechism, part 3, chapter 4, on the third precept.

² Pontifical Commission, February 17, 1918 (Acta Sanctae Sedis 1918, p. 170).

³ July 2, 1911.

⁴ Canon 923 establishes: To gain an indulgence attached to some day, if a visit to a church or oratory is required, this can be made from noon of the preceding day up to the midnight which closes the appointed day.

I. Object of the precept. One must assist at Mass celebrated in a Catholic rite, which is one sacrifice, at the whole Mass, physically, religiously, and in the due place. It is said:

1. At Mass celebrated in a Catholic rite (can. 1249). But it is the same whether the celebration is done in the Latin rite or in another (cited canon).

2. At Mass which is one sacrifice. Thus the obvious and natural sense of the precept (St. Alphonsus, III, 311).

Corollary. He does not satisfy who simultaneously hears different parts of several Masses. This is clear from proposition 53 condemned by Innocent XI.¹ Nor does it suffice successively to assist at different parts of several Masses; nevertheless in the case the substance of the precept is satisfied, if the consecration and communion of each species are had from the same Mass; hence, at least if a just cause is present, further things are not to be urged (cf. St. Alphonsus, III, 311).

3. At the whole Mass. Nevertheless, with the prescribed assistance considered, Mass is judged to end with the Priest's blessing. Besides, voluntary omission even of the smallest part is a venial sin.

4. Physically; but physical presence is to be taken morally; in other words, it suffices that someone from various circumstances can be judged to make one with the others. Hence he satisfies: 1. who is in the church, provided that in some way (for example, from sight or hearing of the celebrant, from the actions or movements of others, from the sound of the little bell or the singing of the choir) he can discern what is being done; 2. who outside the church a) is in the sacristy or in another room attached to the church, provided he can see the celebrant or (for example, if the door is closed) hear him; b) is joined to the crowd in the street and from signs can grasp what is being done; nevertheless he must not be too distant from the crowd, even if he can see everything; c) from a house neighboring the church can attend to the Mass (St. Alphonsus, III, 312). He does not satisfy who, remaining at home, follows Mass by means of radio, as they say.

5. Religiously. There is required:

a) An intention of worshiping God; since a religious act is prescribed, which, if the said intention is lacking, would be lacking. Therefore it is not enough if someone assists merely in order to observe some ceremony. An implicit intention of worshiping God suffices, such as is had, for example, if someone assists with the intention of satisfying the precept, or of doing what the Church intends, etc. (St. Alphonsus, III, 313). Nor does assistance extorted by fear conflict with the required intention.

b) External attention, which consists in decent bodily composure together with the omission of external acts which cannot be combined with internal attention. Acts of this kind are sleeping, chattering, reading irrelevant writings. All concede that external attention is required, and it is drawn from the fact that the Church at least commands an act of external worship (St. Thomas, II-II, q. 122, a. 4; St. Alphonsus, III, 313).

c) Internal attention - that is, application of the mind to that which is being done, namely either to the thing which is performed by the celebrant, or to the meaning signified by the actions, or to other pious thoughts or prayers - internal attention, I say, is required by which someone can give an account of the things which are done at the altar, or by which he is constituted not plainly distracted from the sacrifice. The reason is that the hearing of Mass is prescribed (can. 1248); which word seems to involve at least the attention just explained. Further internal attention quite probably is not required; both because it is doubtful whether internal attention is required for the essence of prayer, and because a religious act probably suffices, for which physical presence together with the intention of worshiping God and the external and internal attention explained seems to suffice (St. Alphonsus, III, cited place).

Corollary I. Certainly those satisfy who are occupied in acts pertaining to divine worship (for example, playing the organ, collecting alms, etc.), provided they retain some attention to the sacred rite; and this has force even if at times they depart in order to seek necessary things (St. Alphonsus, III, 317).

Corollary II. Sacramental confession, at least a longer one, seems of itself to be capable of being combined neither with external attention nor with internal attention. For there is required an act of religion by way of one worshiping God in the sacrifice itself and the oblation of the victim. But the attention which one has who confesses sacramentally is not such, but is directed to declaring to the confessor the number, species, and circumstances of sins, to listening to his admonitions, corrections, penance, etc.² I said of itself, because in practice penitents seem not to be disturbed, if they are made attentive to the more principal parts. Indeed, if otherwise someone would have to remain for some time in the state of mortal sin or abstain longer from confessing, at least the Church is presumed to consent (St. Alphonsus, III, 314, 332).

6. In the due place. Moreover, he satisfies who assists at Mass celebrated:

a) In the open air (can. 1249); now even he who celebrates on the benches, or on the deck of a ship, is judged to celebrate in the open air; the same seems to have to be said about every Mass celebrated at sea.

b) In any church or public or semi-public oratory (can. 1249).

c) In the following private oratories: 1. in private cemetery chapels, of which in can. 1190 (can. 1249), that is, in chapels erected in a cemetery by families or private persons for their burial; these chapels are private oratories (can. 1190); 2. in private oratories of Cardinals and Bishops (can. 1189). In other private oratories only those can satisfy who are included in the indult. But, unless the tenor prevents it, the indultaries are judged to be included, and their blood-relatives, relatives by marriage, guests, table-companions, and household members.³ But what has been said about other private oratories also has force if someone, using the privilege of a portable altar, celebrates in a place in which of itself the obligation cannot be satisfied; in other words, in the case only those validly assist at Mass who either are expressly included in the privilege, or, considering the end of the privilege - for example, mission lands - are to be judged included.

d) Wherever Cardinals or Bishops celebrate, or where it is celebrated for their convenience. This is deduced from a response of the Sacred Congregation of Rites,⁴ which affirms that point concerning Bishops.

Therefore, of itself he does not satisfy who assists at Mass: 1. in a private oratory; 2. in an entirely private place, for example, in a room of some house. I said of itself because of the cases above and others perhaps excepted by indults.

The obligation of hearing Mass in the parish church has long since been abolished. Nevertheless the faithful should be admonished that frequently, where this can conveniently be done, they should come to their parish churches and there be present at the divine offices and hear the word of God (can. 467, § 2).⁵

¹ "He satisfies the precept of the Church concerning hearing Mass who hears two parts of it, indeed four, simultaneously from different celebrants" (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1203).

² Billuart, De religione, dissertation 6, article 1.

³ Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments, February 7, 1909.

⁴ June 8, 1896, n. 3906.

⁵ Cf. Council of Trent, session 22, decree on observances in the celebration of Mass.

II. Obligation of the precept. 1. The obligation of assisting at Mass celebrated in a Catholic rite, physically, and in the due place is grave.

2. The obligation of assisting at the whole Mass, and religiously, is grave from its genus. But the gravity of the matter in the case must be taken both from the quality and from the quantity of the part at which someone either in no way or not religiously assists. But as to quantity, note that parts of the Mass which do not always recur, such as the Creed, are computed less (St. Alphonsus, III, 310).

Corollary I. As to the obligation of assisting at the whole Mass: 1. with quantity considered, the matter seems grave if nearly a fourth part of the Mass is neglected, for example, those things which are done from the beginning up to the Offertory exclusively; 2. with quality considered, neglect of the Consecration and Communion is grave, or even of either one; 3. with both considered, the omission of those things which are done from the Consecration up to the Our Father exclusively is judged grave (cf. St. Alphonsus, III, 310); 4. finally note that omitted separate parts coalesce, as if someone omitted a part at the beginning and at the end.

Corollary II. As to the obligation of assisting religiously, the matter is grave if persons sleep, chatter, read newspapers, etc. for a notable time (St. Alphonsus, III, 317). But commonly grave defect is absent in those who sometimes chatter, sometimes attend; likewise in those who are occupied with vain or even dishonorable thoughts, or assist half-drunk or half-asleep (St. Alphonsus, III, 316).

Corollary III. He who arrives late is bound in this way:

1. Of itself he is bound to assist at another Mass, because assistance at one and the same entire Mass is prescribed. Nevertheless in practice a cause excusing from that obligation will easily be present, especially if the delay is inculpable; indeed, if only a slight part of the Mass has been completed, he is excused from hearing another Mass.

2. If he cannot hear another Mass, or is otherwise excused from the said obligation, he is certainly bound to assist at the remaining part, if he has arrived before the Consecration. If he has arrived after the Consecration, according to many he is bound to nothing further, because he can no longer be present at the essential act of the Sacrifice. But St. Alphonsus (III, 310, question 2) maintains the contrary, because the Church also intends all and each ceremonies, insofar as they accompany the Mass, abstracting from whether or not someone has been present at the essential act; this being supposed, the reason of the law seems to be preserved even in the ceremonies alone. Nevertheless in practice there will easily be a reason excusing, for example great embarrassment or even scandal that would arise.

Likewise, he who otherwise than by arriving late has omitted a notable part of Mass, and is excused from hearing another Mass, of itself is bound to make it up (St. Alphonsus, cited place); but more often there will be a cause excusing from the obligation of making it up.

III. Causes excusing from the precept are enumerated: impossibility, charity toward neighbor, office, and custom; all of which - except custom - can be reduced to a moderately grave inconvenience, one's own or another's (or its danger), in goods of soul, body, fortune, honor, reputation, or modesty. Hence St. Alphonsus says, "Any moderately grave cause excuses from hearing Mass, namely one which involves some notable inconvenience, or harm in goods of soul, either one's own or one's neighbor's" (III, 324). Therefore the following are excused:

1. The sick, convalescents, who reasonably fear notable inconvenience or delay of convalescence; likewise those who fear lest, for example, because of a storm or lack of clothing, they be affected by illness. In doubt each one can stand by the judgment of a physician or superior; indeed, if the doubt persists, he is excused, because the danger of notable inconvenience suffices (St. Alphonsus, III, 325).

2. Those who are far distant from a church. Of itself, according to St. Alphonsus (III, 329), a foot journey of one hour and a quarter suffices; nevertheless here account should be taken of the condition of the person, age, inclement weather, custom, also the place (for example, city or village), etc., which can bring it about that a lesser distance suffices; but because of distance he is not excused who without new expenses or with moderate expenses can use a carriage or vehicle.

3. Those who cannot leave a house, a sick person, children, or a flock; but if there are several guardians and several Masses are said, let each assist successively; if only one Mass is celebrated, let them assist alternately (St. Alphonsus, III, 326).

4. Those for whom "there is danger of grave offense of husband, parents, or masters" (St. Alphonsus, III, 327). If, however, servants are frequently forbidden without just cause to assist at the Sacred rite, let them seek another service.

5. Those who cannot fulfill the precept without grave embarrassment, for example because suitable garments are lacking, because a girl is pregnant from a hidden crime, etc.; nevertheless, one must see whether perhaps they can assist at the Sacred rite very early in the morning without the said inconvenience (St. Alphonsus, III, 330).

6. Those who by assisting at Mass would omit an opportunity of gain which, considering their condition, is extraordinary. "For in L. un. C. de sentent. quae pro eo, etc., great loss of profit is equated with grave harm. At least in such a circumstance it seems it must be said that the precept of the feast, as human, does not oblige with so great a loss" (St. Alphonsus, III, 301, 332). Indeed, if the very condition of one's office has a difficulty of assisting at Mass annexed to it, notable loss excuses; apply this to sailors, drivers, etc. (St. Alphonsus, III, 332).

7. By custom, in some places for a certain time women after childbirth, widows after the death of a husband, and brides whose banns are proclaimed are excused, unless however they can assist at another Mass (St. Alphonsus, III, 330).

8. It is disputed whether he is excused who cannot fulfill the precept except by privilege, for example the owner of a private oratory, who cannot go to church, but can conveniently have a priest. Moreover, with St. Alphonsus (III, 319, doubt 3) we have denied it (n. 201).

Note. He who ordinarily is excused from the ecclesiastical precept, according to several theologians, while others deny it, is bound sometimes either on Sunday to undergo a graver inconvenience, or on a weekday to make it up, because it is a divine precept that the faithful at times be present at the Sacrifice. Besides, to him who is excused from hearing the Sacred rite, it is advised that he make it up at home by prayers.

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.

The First Precept of the Church.—This precept commands that on Sundays and holydays of obligation Mass be heard and servile and other like works be omitted (Canons 1247-1249) by the subjects of church laws (427 sqq.).

(a) This precept is of natural and divine law as to its purpose and substance, for reason teaches and the Third Commandment of the Decalogue prescribes that man set aside some time for the external worship of God, and avoid those things that distract him from worship (Catechism of the Council of Trent, pp. 396 sqq,). Hence, even non-Catholics, though they do not sin by missing Mass (429, 430), are guilty of sin if they do not from time to time worship God externally.

(b) This precept is of ecclesiastical law only as to its details (i.e., the time set apart and the manner of worship and sanctification decreed). The Old Testament Law observed the Sabbath or last day of the Week in memory of the creation of the World, and it abstained most rigorously from work on the Sabbath, because there was a divine prohibition and because this rest was a figure of things to come. But in the New Law the ceremonial precepts of Judaism no longer have force, and the Christian precepts substituted for them were not instituted by Christ Himself but arose from the custom of the Church. During the lifetime of the Apostles themselves Sunday (or the first day of the week) came to be venerated as the Lord’s Day in memory of the Resurrection, which completed the work of Redemption (Acts, ii. 46, iii. 1, v. 12, xxi. 26); and from early times various special holydays were appointed and made days of obligatory worship, as had been the case with certain feasts in the Old Testament. As early as the third and fourth centuries laws were made confirming the primitive customs of assisting at Mass and resting on Sundays and holydays.

The Affirmative and Negative Parts of the First Precept.—The first precept of the Church has two parts, an affirmative (preceptive) part which commands the hearing of Mass, and a negative (prohibitive) part which forbids the doing of servile works. The law is therefore most salutary and simple, requiring that one take part in the greatest act of worship, the sacrifice which is a commemoration of Christ, and that one rest from the labors and cares of the week and be spiritually refreshed. In reference to the Mass, the precept requires that Mass itself be heard, and that it be an entire Mass and the same Mass.

(a) Thus, Mass itself must be heard, and hence one does not satisfy the Sunday obligation by attending other services that precede (e.g., the Asperges, blessing of palm), accompany (e.g., sermon), or follow (e.g., Vespers, Benediction) the celebration of Mass. Neither does this precept oblige one to attend other services on Sunday, although it is most suitable to do this, also to make internal acts of faith, hope and charity, and to read pious books and perform works of charity, and it is sometimes necessary as a natural obligation to attend the sermon or catechetical instruction (see 914 sqq.).

(b) A whole Mass must be heard, that is, all the ceremonies from the prayers at the foot of the altar until the blessing at the end, and it is irreverent to leave church without necessity before the priest has left the altar. He who can assist at only the essential and integral parts of the sacrifice (i.e., from the Consecration to the Communion), is obliged to so much; but he who arrives after the Consecration and cannot hear another Mass is not obliged according to one opinion to remain for the present Mass, since the Consecration, the essential part, is already past.

(c) The same Mass must be heard, and hence one cannot satisfy the obligation by hearing the first half of one Mass being said on one altar and the second half of another Mass being said simultaneously on another altar (see Denzinger, n. 1203), nor by hearing the Consecration in one Mass and the Communion in a previous or subsequent Mass, thus dividing the sacrifice. But if one may have heard from the Consecration to the end in one Mass, one may hear the omitted pre-Consecration parts, it seems, in another Mass that follows, and one should do this if possible.

How Mass Must Be Heard.—In reference to the person who hears Mass, the positive part of the precept calls for external assistance and internal devotion.

(a) Thus, the external or bodily assistance must be such that one can be said to take part in the divine worship. This happens when one is physically present, that is, when one is in the same building or place as the celebrant and can either see or hear him, or is morally present, that is, not in the same building but able to see or hear him naturally (e.g., by looking from the window of a neighboring house), or is unable to see or hear him but joined with the congregation (e.g., those who are outside the closed doors of the church but who can follow the bells and choir to some extent, those who are inside with the congregation but behind a pillar that shuts off the view). In a field Mass amplifiers can carry the voice far out to the edge of a vast crowd. But there does not seem to be a sufficient moral presence when Mass is “seen” by television or “heard” over the radio, since in these cases one is not present to the consecrated species or united to the worshippers.

(b) Internal or mental assistance requires the actual or virtual intention of the will to perform what the Church requires (see 2165), and the attention of the mind, external according to some, internal according to others (see 2166 sqq.). Thus, he who goes to church merely to hear the music or look at the pictures does not hear Mass for lack of intention; he who sleeps soundly all through the service does not hear Mass for lack of attention. One who knows what is going on before him, but whose thoughts are not on any religious matter, complies with the precept of the Church according to some, but he sins by irreverence and voluntary distraction. It suffices during Mass to think either on the Mass itself (which is the best attention), or to think on other pious subjects (e.g., to make an examination of conscience, to say the Rosary). Certain actions (e.g., those that are related to the Mass, such as ringing the bell, taking up the collection, playing the organ) do not exclude external attention, but others certainly exclude it (e.g., writing a letter), and others are doubtful (e.g., going to Confession).

Time and Place of Mass.—In reference to circumstances, the precept requires that Mass be heard at the proper place and the proper time.

(a) Place.—The precept may be complied with by attending Mass in any Catholic rite (Latin, Greek, etc.), and it makes no difference whether Mass is celebrated in the open air, in a church, or in a public or semi-public oratory (Canon 1249). But private chapels are for the benefit of the grantee alone.

(b) Time.—The precept must be complied with on the feast itself, that is, during the period of twenty-four hours from midnight to midnight. Sunday Mass cannot be anticipated on Saturday or put off till Monday. Likewise servile works are unlawful from midnight to midnight.

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.

Excuses from Observance of First Precept.—These reasons may be reduced to two classes, namely, external reasons (i.e., a dispensation or a lawful custom) and internal reasons (i.e., one’s own inability or necessity).

(a) External Reasons.—Dispensations may be given under certain conditions by local Ordinaries, by parish-priests, and by superiors of exempt clerical institutes (Canon 1245). Custom in certain places excuses from Mass for a month women who have just given birth to a child or who have lost their husband by death, and also—from the Mass in which their banns are to be proclaimed—those women who are about to marry. Custom further permits necessary labors, such as cooking, ordinary housecleaning, barbering, the work of railroad and garage men, etc.

(b) Internal Reasons.—Impossibility or serious inconvenience excuses from hearing Mass (e.g., those who have to walk an hour’s journey to church or ride a two hours’ journey, regarding which, in terms of distance travelled, it has been suggested that the figures should be more than three miles each way if one must walk, more than thirty miles if a car is available and the roads are good; those who will suffer great detriment to health, honor, fortune, etc., if they go; those who are kept away by duties of charity or employment or office that cannot be omitted). Necessity or duty to others permits one to work on Sunday at least to some extent (e.g., those who must labor on a Sunday in order to live, or to keep out of serious trouble, or to perform services or works of charity that cannot easily be done at another time). To avoid self-deception the faithful should consult their pastor or other prudent person if there is doubt about the sufficiency of the excuse.

Though the Church does not impose excessive Sabbatarianism, neither does she admit laxity in the important matter of the Lord’s Day.

(a) Hence, not every reason excuses from the church precept. Thus, those are guilty who unnecessarily place themselves in the impossibility of observing the law (e.g., by moving to a place where there is no church, by taking a position that requires work all Sunday morning, by starting on a vacation or auto trip to a churchless region), or whose excuses are frivolous (e.g., those who stay away from Mass because they dislike the priest, or who work on Sunday merely to keep busy).

(b) Reasons that excuse from part of the ecclesiastical precept do not excuse from all of it. Thus, those who are unable to hear Mass are not thereby justified in doing servile work, those who can hear the essential part of Mass (Consecration and Communion), but not the other parts, should hear the essential part; those who can hear Mass only on one Sunday a year are not excused on that Sunday.

(c) Reasons that excuse from the ecclesiastical precept do not excuse from the divine precept (see 2575) of worshipping God. Hence, those who are really obliged to work every Sunday should sanctify the Lord’s Day by whatever private prayer or devotion they can substitute. Some authors very rightly believe that those who can never go to Mass on Sunday are held by divine law to hear Mass on weekdays three or four times a year at least, when this is possible (see 2148, 2180).

The Prohibition against Trading.—(a) Meaning.—Trading as here understood is purely gainful merchandizing (i.e., buying an article at a lower price in order to sell it unchanged at a higher price) or industrial merchandizing (i.e., buying an article in order to sell it at a profit after it has been changed by hired labor). Hence, there is no canonical trading in commerce which lacks one of the conditions mentioned, for example, if one buys goods for one’s household or community and, on discovering that a superfluity has been purchased, sells at a profit what is left over (see 2134, 2135). Trading includes not only a business conducted personally or for personal profit, but also one conducted through agents or for the benefit of others, such as the poor or pious causes.

(b) Obligation.—The violation of this law is grave in itself, but a serious sin demands on the part of the subject that there be real trading (i.e., a number of acts morally united and proceeding from a purpose to continue in lucrative merchandizing), and on the side of the object that there be a large amount involved. Hence, it would be venial to engage in lucrative trading with a large profit once, and with a small profit twice or thrice.

(c) Excuses.—Necessity (e.g., if a cleric needs the money to live or to maintain his state, or if a business has fallen to him by inheritance and cannot be given up without loss) justifies trading, if there is permission.

What is the third precept of the Decalogue? - The third precept of the Decalogue is: Remember that you sanctify the sabbath day ... you shall not do any work in it. Ex. 20:8, 10. Two things are contained in this precept: that man be free on the sabbath for divine things, and that he cease from every servile work. This precept is natural insofar as it commands that some time be dedicated to public divine worship; but insofar as in the Old Law it designates the sabbath, in the New Law Sunday by the determination of the Church, and other feast days, it is positive. S. Th. 2. 2, q. 122, a. 4 ad 4.

This precept, as determined by the Church, insofar as it is negative, chiefly prohibits servile works on a feast day. But insofar as it is affirmative, it commands under grave obligation to be present at Mass on Sundays and other feast days. And this is clear: 1. from various places of Canon Law, especially from C. Missas 64, de Consecr., D. 1, likewise from C. Omnes 63, de Consecr., D. 1; 2. from all Catechisms, by which the indubitable precept of hearing Mass on these days is declared; 3. from proposition 52 condemned by Innocent XI. But each, both to be present at Mass and to cease from servile works, is more truly from the precept of the Church; for this third precept of the Decalogue as to the sabbath day was ceremonial; and otherwise the Church could not dispense in these things, at least as to Sundays. S. Th. l. c. Besides this, however, it commands nothing else under grave obligation, or even under light obligation per se. The reason is that in fact nothing else is found prescribed in Law, or legitimately introduced by custom.

Hence it is clear: 1. That in reality there is no obligation from the force of this precept, insofar as it is natural or insofar as it is ecclesiastical, under grave or under light obligation, per se, of assisting at the evening office on Sundays and feast days, or of hearing a sermon. From the force of this precept; for perhaps someone could sin against other virtues and obligations of his state by omitting a sermon, catechesis, and other works of piety. 2. That he who hears a single Mass on the day of the Nativity of Jesus Christ satisfies this precept. 3. That there is no obligation of hearing Mass on Ash Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday of greater week, nor on the days of Rogation, and on the day of all the faithful departed.

But this precept obliges all the baptized who have the use of reason, even priests not celebrating, but not infants before the completed seventh year, or catechumens. The first reason is because it is universal. The second reason is because then they are not yet regularly capable of observing it in a human manner. The third reason is because they are not subject to the Church.

Finally the obligation of a feast day begins from one midnight to another. For such is the present use of the Roman Church. Roman Catechism, n. 1 seqq.; L. 263-271, 308; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 122, a. 4; Struggl 12-14; Ithur., Cas. 20, nn. 1-4; E. M.

What is required for hearing Mass rightly? - For hearing Mass rightly it is required: 1. that the whole Mass be heard; 2. that it be heard in a due place; 3. with the body present; 4. with the mind attentive.

What sort is the obligation of hearing the whole Mass? - Mass must be heard entire under grave obligation; and consequently freely to omit a notable part of it is a mortal sin. This is proved: 1. from C. Missas, de Consecrat., D. 1; 2. from the common consent of theologians; 3. because in a thing of great moment and gravely prescribed, freely to omit a notable part is a grave sin. Now a notable part is a part pertaining to the essence of the sacrifice; half or even a third part of the whole Mass, pertaining to integrity, and it can even be a smaller part if the dignity of the omitted part compensates for duration. But there is no obligation of hearing Mass only in one's own rite. S. C. de P. F., 11 Dec. 1838; E. M. 642.

You will resolve: It is grave to omit together the consecration and Communion, because then the essential nature of the sacrifice is lacking; indeed even the consecration alone, because it is the most worthy part, in which at least chiefly it consists. Indeed, more probably, it is grave not to be present at even one consecration only, because the essence of the sacrifice more probably consists in both consecrations. L., H. A. 33: "Yet others, such as Lugo, Tamburini, Diana, Escobar, excuse from grave sin, even if the whole consecration is omitted, since it is not sufficiently established whether the essence of the sacrifice is truly in the consumption or consecration; and Elbel with Suarez, etc., think it probable, and Sporer, etc., strongly adhere... This opinion does not seem improbable." L. 110.

But whether to pass over only Communion is grave is controverted. The affirmative opinion is more probable to St. Alphonsus, who thinks that the essence of the sacrifice also consists in Communion. Yet the more common opinion places it essentially in the consecration alone. But Communion pertains to the integrity and fullness of the sacrifice.

Hence he does indeed satisfy the precept who successively hears two halves of Mass from different priests, if the consecration and Communion are found in the same part of the Mass, because then the integral nature of the sacrifice is had in the same part, although he hears them in reversed order, or with some interval of time interposed, but not beyond an hour, L. 311. But he by no means satisfies if the consecration and Communion are not in the same part, because he does not assist at a sacrifice substantially integral. L., H. A. 34. Successively; for if simultaneously, he does not satisfy, prop. 63 condemned by Innocent XI.

From this it also follows that he who arrives after the consecration is at least probably not bound to hear the rest, because the essence of the sacrifice is now lacking, and therefore the obligation of assisting at it ceases, since the precept cannot be fulfilled through this. Yet the opposite opinion also rests on a grave foundation, because assistance can be had at a notable part of the ceremony prescribed by the Church. After the consecration; for if he came before, "it must altogether be affirmed that he is bound, with Sanchez, the Salmanticenses, Lugo, Suarez, and the common opinion." And indeed then both a part altogether notable and the whole essence of the sacrifice are had. L. 310.

It is grave to omit all things up to the offertory inclusively, or all things before the gospel, and at the same time all things after Communion, because this is a notable part as to integrity. Likewise the omission of the canon from the Preface exclusively to the consecration, and from the consecration exclusively to the Pater exclusively, must be held grave, because it is a notable part by duration and dignity at the same time.

On the contrary, it is certainly light to omit all things up to the epistle exclusively, and more probably even inclusively; indeed probably even, according to St. Liguori, n. 310, up to the Gospel inclusively. Suarez, de Euch., d. 89, s. 3. Likewise it is light to omit all things which follow Communion; indeed to omit all things after Communion and all things before the epistle. The reason is that they do not constitute a notable part by reason of integrity, if attention is given: 1. that the Gospel of St. John at the end probably is not part of the Mass, because before it the people are already dismissed through the blessing; 2. that one account is had of the Mass of the catechumens, another of the Mass of the faithful, which extends from the offertory to the consumption.

But to omit all things up to the epistle inclusively, and all things after the consumption, "Bauny and Llamas also excuse; but Palaus, Suarez, etc., more commonly cited by Croix, contradict." L. 310. As to the Creed, since it is not a regular part, St. Alphonsus, n. 310, judges with others that no account is to be had of it. As to the offertory, its omission is reputed light, and the same is thought about the Preface, for neither pertains to the essence of the sacrifice, nor is either a notable part by reason of integrity or dignity. L. 310; E. M.

Note: Whether he who omits a light part of Mass is bound to supply it if he can: some affirm, because he is bound to hear Mass entire. But others probably deny, "because the precept has already been fulfilled substantially... and that manner of supplying it is very imperfect, and not much conducing to the integrity of the Mass... and because moral things are not to be weighed so rigorously, especially when they are lighter." Suarez, de Euch., d. 88, s. 2; L. 310.

What sort is the due place? - It suffices for satisfying the obligation of hearing Mass to hear it in some public church, in a public oratory, or in a semi-public oratory; nor is there an obligation to hear it in the parish church. But he does not satisfy the precept who hears Mass in a private oratory, a special privilege being excluded.

The first part is proved: 1. from regular privileges granted even after Trent. This is clear especially from C. of St. Pius V, Etsi mendicantium, a. 1567; 2. from legitimately prescribed custom; 3. from the very common and certain opinion of the doctors, and especially from Benedict XIV, de Syn., l. 11, c. 14, where he asserts that Decrees of Councils and Supreme Pontiffs establishing the obligation have been derogated by contrary universal custom, which constitutes a certain common law, against which Bishops cannot rise up either licitly or validly. Struggl 39; L. 320 seqq.

Private oratories are chapels erected in a private house from privilege granted by the Supreme Pontiff, so that divine mysteries may be performed there for the convenience of some private person or family. S. R. C., 23 Jan. 1899. Those oratories are not judged private, but are to be held public, which are legitimately erected in seminaries, monasteries, or houses of religious men or nuns, or of other communities, as in conservatories, prisons, hospitals, and also in the houses of Bishops and Cardinals. For these houses are not private. But because access is not freely open to all the Christian faithful in oratories of this sort, they are more properly called semi-public.

Sometimes, moreover, an oratory in the houses of private persons can simply be held as public. But for this it is required: 1. That entrance open onto a public road. 2. That it be subject to no servitude disapproved by Canon Law, and that access cannot be forbidden to anyone by the owner. 3. That it be dedicated in perpetuity to divine worship. 4. That revenues sufficient for divine offices be established. Cf. nn. 262, 273; L. 319, l. 6, n. 357; Benedict XIV, de Sacrif. missae, l. 3, c. 6, n. 6; S. R. C., 2 Jul. 1661, n. 1196.

A fixed chapel on ships is public for those sailing and for others, and therefore all who assist at Mass in the said chapel, even when the ship is in port, satisfy the precept. S. R. C., 4 Mar. 1901; 10 May 1901.

The second part is proved. From the very Briefs of concession it is had that those who are present at Masses in private oratories do not satisfy the precept, unless they are the owners; or their relatives, namely consanguineous and affinal relatives up to the fourth degree, who dwell in the same house and live at their expense, as St. Alphonsus, n. 318, wishes, or as Gatticus, n. 11, notes, although they do not constitute one family; or unless they are their noble guests, and also those who are invited to dinner by the privileged person; or unless they are domestics, namely those who are occupied in the service of the owner and live at his expense, and are domestics actually necessary for furnishing services, namely whose presence in the oratory at the time of Mass is necessary, although these dwell outside the house. They are present, and therefore the celebrating priest and the minister serving satisfy the precept.

But for these it is required that someone be actually present from those to whom the indult was principally granted. The indult, moreover, is understood to have been principally granted only to those to whom the Brief is directed, namely those persons who are named by their own name on the back of the same Brief, or who are named at the beginning of the Brief if the Brief is directed to the Ordinary of the place. But, from the Norms of S. C. de Sacram., a simple concession of an Oratory imports, besides one Mass and the determination of the place, satisfaction of the festal precept for the indultaries alone, with the twelve more solemn days excluded, and for France four.

The more solemn days from the Ceremonial, l. 2, c. 34, § 2, are: the feasts of the Nativity of the Lord, Epiphany, Thursday in the Supper of the Lord, the feasts of Easter, Ascension, Pentecost, Annunciation, Assumption, the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, All Saints, the Saint Titular of the Church and Patron, and the Dedication of the Cathedral Church. S. R. C., 10 Apr. 1896. Therefore the rescript must be attended to, because several extensions can be made. And if the concession is had for the day of the Nativity, three Masses can be celebrated. S. R. C., 20 Jan. 1725. And indeed on these feast days, if they are of precept, with Thursday of Greater Week excepted, it is altogether forbidden to celebrate in oratories of this sort. Yet if the festivity is transferred to the following Sunday, celebration on the proper day is not prohibited. S. R. C., 6 Mar. 1896, n. 3890. No day is excepted when the oratory is conceded by the Pontiff because of illness. Cf. 260 bis, 262, 273; L. 318, l. 6, nn. 357, 359; La-Croix, l. 3, p. 1, n. 626 seqq.; Gattic., de Orat. priv., c. 25, nn. 23, 24; E. M.

After the Motu Proprio of Pius X, Supremi disciplinae, 2 Jul. 1911, by which feast days were diminished, and also the Decree of S. R. C., Urbis et Orbis, 24 Jul. 1911, after the Motu Proprio had been promulgated, from the Decree of S. C. de Sacram., 5 Apr. 1913, Mass in private Oratories is not prohibited on the feast days of the solemn Commemoration of St. Joseph, the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the solemn Commemoration of the Most Holy Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and on the feast of the Patron of each place. Nor is it prohibited on the feast of the Most Holy Trinity, on the Sunday within the Octave of Corpus Christi, and on the Sunday on which the Nativity of St. John the Baptist is celebrated.

In private oratories in which Mass is celebrated, the Eucharist can also be distributed to communicants. Public oratories are to be consecrated or solemnly blessed. Private oratories are blessed only with the formula which is contained in the Ritual for a new house or place. S. R. C., 5 Jun. 1899, n. 4025. Private oratories, although blessed, are not judged to be polluted, and therefore do not need reconciliation. For obtaining the concession of a private Oratory, the Norms published concerning it by S. C. de Sacram., 7 Feb. 1909, are to be attended to. In Norms of this sort various extensions of the concession are had, as to those who can enjoy the Indult, as to the absence of the Indultaries, as to the number of Masses, as to days, and as to place.

What is the presence required? - For satisfying this precept moral presence of the body is required. This is proved: 1. from the common opinion of theologians; 2. because, without at least moral presence, the faithful are not judged, according to moral estimation, to assist the sacrificing priest and to hear Mass. Moral presence of the body is had when someone exists within the church, or outside it, yet in such a way that he can be said to be one of the number of those assisting and offering the sacrifice. And this is verified if he can follow the Mass as to its parts by hearing or seeing the principal parts, or by attending to the signs of others assisting, provided however that a great distance of place does not intervene between himself and the others assisting, if he is outside the church. L. 312.

You will resolve: He validly assists at Mass who, although he does not see the priest, nor hear the words, distinguishes the parts of the Mass by the sound of the little bell, the chant of the choir, or the movements of those assisting, to whom he is morally joined, although he is outside the church, in which the crowd cannot be contained. Likewise, he who stands behind the altar, behind a column, or behind a wall, or in the sacristy at the side of the altar or behind the altar, provided he can advert to the principal parts of the Mass.

Likewise, more probably, he who is in a nearby house, from which through a window or door he sees the altar or those assisting, or distinguishes the parts of the Mass, provided there is a small space between the church and the place in which he is. But otherwise if a great space or a street intervenes.

He does not assist at Mass who remains far away outside the church, even if he sees the temple, altar, and crowd, because in common usage he cannot be said to hear and be morally present. According to Lugo and others, the space of thirty paces from the crowd of those assisting does not seem so great as to impede someone from being present at Mass. L. 312.

What is the attention required? - For hearing Mass by reason of the precept under grave obligation, there is required and sufficient: 1. the will of hearing Mass, or the intention of worshiping God; 2. purely external attention. Attention: a twofold attention is distinguished, one internal, the other external. The former consists precisely in this, that someone adverts and applies his mind either to the words and actions of the priest, or to the mysteries of the sacrifice, or finally to God to be praised, adored, and worshiped by prayers or meditation. But the latter consists in this, that someone does not posit an external work incompatible with hearing Mass, although the mind internally, continuously, and voluntarily is distracted; provided, however, that he at the same time attends at least imperfectly to Mass in some way, or if in some way someone can give an account to himself at least of the more principal parts of the Mass. For he who would remain in the church during Mass, but thinking entirely of his own business affairs to be handled, so that he remembered nothing at all of the Mass heard, certainly would not hear Mass.

The first part is proved. Each is required; for if either is lacking, either a human act is not had, or a religious act exhibiting worship to God is not had, not even externally. The second part is proved. It suffices; for 1. many and grave theologians teach this, and those very theologians who teach the contrary hold this opinion as probable. L. 313; Struggl 37; Gur. 345. 2. Because internal attention is not required for the moral substance of external worship. For as Soto, Suarez, Sanchez, the Salmanticenses, Filliucci, etc., commonly teach, in this third precept only external worship is prescribed, both of abstaining from servile works and of hearing Mass. It is confirmed from S. Th. 2. 2, q. 122, a. 4, who teaches that we are not compelled to interior worship, but are moved by the Holy Spirit, "and therefore," he says, "in the third Precept exterior worship of God is prescribed." The Roman Catechism, n. 1, teaches the same: "by this precept of the law that external worship which is owed to God by us is prescribed rightly and in order." L. 264. It is confirmed again from S. C. Indulg., 13 Nov. 1893; E. M.

Note: According to the very opinion requiring internal attention, very little indeed is required for someone to satisfy the precept, so that no one ought to be anxious in this matter because of a scruple about attention not furnished. "According to this opinion," says St. Alphonsus, n. 313, "it suffices for satisfying, just as in the office, to have virtual attention, namely, that someone at the beginning have the intention of attending, and not change it; for if afterwards he is distracted, even advertently, but does not advert that he is being distracted from Mass or from the office, he also satisfies, because he, although he voluntarily distracts himself, nevertheless is not voluntarily distracted from Mass." St. Pius V, C. Cum primum, 6 Kal. Apr. 1566, §§ 4-6.

You will resolve: Those serving Mass satisfy the precept; for they attend sufficiently by exhibiting their ministry, by which they actually cooperate with the sacrifice, although they depart from the church for a brief time to take wine, incense, etc., or to ring the bells, because such departure is ordered to the sacrifice. The same must be said of sacristans, musicians, organists, drummers, etc., because their acts are referred to the worship of God and do not impede the necessary attention to those things which are performed at the altar. L. 309, 317. "But he who spends a great part of Mass in collecting alms is excused by many if he is in a small church, otherwise in a large one; thus Henriquez with others cited by the Salmanticenses, n. 52. But Lessius cited by Croix, n. 652, excuses them without distinction if they at the same time attend to Mass; and truly such distraction does not seem to be incompatible." L. 317.

He who during the time of Mass prepares himself for Confession certainly, speaking per se, hears Mass altogether sufficiently; for he can still sufficiently apply himself to those pious actions. But as to Confession which lasts for a notable interval of time, the more common and more probable opinion indeed denies that the precept is satisfied. But there are also several and grave theologians who affirm, if at the same time there is some attention to Mass in some way. "This opinion," says St. Alphonsus, n. 314, "does not seem altogether destitute of probability, and formerly I myself judged it probable; but because afterwards I observed that it was rejected by several grave doctors, now I do not dare to call it probable." Yet this opinion of his is not in reality destitute of probability. For several and grave more recent theologians approve it, either by tacitly reporting it and saying nothing to the contrary, or also by positively defending it. Gur. Baller. 346. Besides, those who defend the negative opinion, as La-Croix notes, l. 3, n. 655, bring forward diverse reasons; and St. Alphonsus himself adverts to this, which certainly is a sign that an altogether demonstrative reason for imposing the obligation is desired. Moreover, the reason for exempting from the obligation seems sufficiently solid. For "he has the intention of hearing Mass, as is supposed; he is present bodily, because he confesses in the church; he assists morally, because he is present in a human and religious manner; finally he can also attend to Mass; and although perhaps he does not actually attend, nevertheless he is occupied with a pious occupation, and therefore he is still judged to exhibit worship to God with the sacrificing priest and those standing around." La-Croix, l. c. And if someone satisfies the precept of hearing Mass by examining his conscience, he also seems to satisfy by confessing, since Confession is no more incompatible than examination of conscience with at least some attention to Mass, especially if in that Confession there is an intention of participating in the sacrifice through Communion. Nor indeed is internal attention altogether necessary for someone to satisfy this precept. But if the matter concerns servants, who otherwise would not confess, Lessius and La-Croix say that they satisfy well; for then at least it is presumed that the Church consents. And even St. Alphonsus, n. 332, seems to admit this. Lessius, Auctar. ad Comment. in 1. 2, v. Missa, c. 2, nn. 8, 9; L. 309.

What are the causes excusing from Mass? - Any moderately grave cause excuses from hearing Mass, or one which involves a notable and at least moderate inconvenience or harm in the goods of soul or body, one's own or a neighbor's, private or public. This is clear from common interpretation and custom, which is the best interpreter of laws. Moderately grave: a graver cause is required in servile and forensic works, because that part of the precept of the observance of a feast is graver. L. 324.

You will resolve: Women are excused who do not have clothing decent according to their condition and state; as also those not having a maidservant or companion, without whom they would be suffused with great shame, are well excused from hearing Mass, provided they cannot be present at it either very early in the morning or in a remote church where the people by no means assemble. The same must be said about girls dishonorably pregnant, and about those who leave the church at the time when announcements for their marriages are made, if they would have to suffer great shame on account of this. Usage excuses, according to the custom of places, of not going out from the house for six weeks after childbirth, or for a month in the time of mourning on account of the death of a husband, and also of a sister or daughter. L. 330; H. A. 42.

Mothers and nurses are excused who have no one to whom they can leave little children, nor can they bring them to church without great disturbance of those standing by. If there are only two spouses, they will conveniently be able to be present at Mass by alternate turns. Those are excused who guard the flock or house, or who must prepare food, or perform similar necessary things; yet if several Masses are held, all, as far as can be done, must hear Mass successively. Travelers are excused for whom no place occurs where they may be present at Mass, or who cannot interrupt the journey because public coachmen, or companions on the road without whom the journey would not lack inconveniences or danger, refuse to stop. Servants are excused if they cannot omit their service without grave detriment to the master, or if they are prohibited by him. But when they are frequently and without just cause impeded from hearing Mass, they are bound to seek another master if they can do this without grave inconvenience. Struggl 53; L. 326-328.

The sick, the infirm, and convalescents are excused, whom it harms to go outside. Likewise he is excused who must guard a sick person who, being left by him, would suffer grave disturbance; and this even if another assistant were present, but the sick person thought that his assistance was necessary to himself, and otherwise would suffer grave sadness. Likewise those are excused who otherwise cannot prevent blasphemies, quarrels, thefts, etc. Hence also a wife is excused who "from going to Church would fear the indignation of her husband, or grave jealousy of the husband." Struggl 50. Distance from a church, by the space of a whole hour, excuses, with account taken of persons and weather. Very grave doctors teach that a distance of three miles, or a pedestrian journey of an hour and a quarter, and also something less if it should rain or snow, absolutely and without distinction excuses all. A mile corresponds to about a kilometer and a half. Therefore three miles are about four and a half kilometers.

Notable extraordinary gain to be made excuses. L. 325-327, 329, 332; H. A. 41; Collectan. S. C. de P. F., n. 2039.

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.

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

Q. What as to the case?

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

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

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

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

2. The second missionary simply erred in everything.

3. The prelate finally responded well in everything.

1. Fabritius entered the church, intending to seek a friend there because of a grave family business. He did not find the friend; but he found a priest beginning Mass at the altar. Seeing him, by a certain natural instinct, he stood there up to the end of the Mass.

2. Fridericus went to church in order to hear Mass, which was already beginning when he entered. But, since in a lateral part of the same church he saw some pilgrims piously making the Way of the Cross, he too at once joined himself to them and remained with them up to the end of the Mass and of the Way of the Cross.

3. Fidelis, assisting at Mass through the whole time of its celebration, looks at and admires the precious ornaments of the altar, the paintings, statues, columns, walls, and ceiling of the church; indeed, he considers them fixedly, on account of their perfection of art.

An officer of the police, charged with preserving order in a church on the occasion of a great solemnity, although by reason of his office to be exercised he had to stand outside the church, went to the open door of the church and, while standing outside, took care to hear Mass.

Q. What as to these cases?

R. To the first. Fabritius satisfied the precept. For although he did not enter the church with the intention of hearing Mass, nevertheless in fact he heard it. Moreover, the very fact that, although he did not find the friend, he nevertheless stood there from the beginning of the Mass up to its end, sufficiently proves the intention, at least then had, of hearing Mass. Otherwise, when he did not find the friend, he would have gone away.

To the second. Fridericus did not hear Mass, if the lateral part of the church where the Way of the Cross was being performed was wholly separated from the altar at which Mass was being celebrated. For then, since he was doing the Way of the Cross, at least externally, he was doing something else, pious indeed, but something else entirely, and not hearing Mass. But if that lateral part of the church was not separated from the altar, then Fridericus, while doing the Way of the Cross, could attend to the Mass externally and internally, and consequently hear Mass.

To the third. Fidelis, with his continuous and fixed view of the ornaments of the altar, the paintings, statues, columns, walls, and ceiling of the church, altogether lacks that internal and external attention which is required for hearing Mass, and is occupied with another thing, and consequently does not hear Mass.

To the fourth. The police officer, although he had to stand outside the church, nevertheless, when he had gone near to the open door of the church, he could there attend to the Mass which was being celebrated, and he did attend to it, since he procured this for himself by standing near the open door of the church, that is, in order that he might hear it. Therefore he truly heard Mass. For although he was materially outside the church, nevertheless, being very near to the place in which the Mass was being celebrated, he was, morally speaking, present in the church, or certainly present at the Mass. Besides, if someone hears Mass by standing in the window of his own house, from which the altar can be seen, and the public street does not lie too greatly interposed between the house and the church, so that by reason of the distance of the one hearing the Mass and of the too great distance of the place the moral presence required for satisfying the precept of the Church is not taken away, then certainly the police officer, in the case proposed, heard Mass. Cf. G. 39; Lig. 312; I. M. 642.

4. Antonia confesses that ten times she had come late to Mass on feast days. The confessor asks whether the Gospel had already been read when she came late. She responds: three times she came before the Offertory, the Gospel already having been read, and while the Creed was ending; twice she came after the Canon had already begun, but before the Consecration, and then she heard another Mass up to the Consecration exclusively; five times, finally, she came after the Gospel had been read, but before the Creed. But, she says, she always read the whole Mass in a prayer book. Moreover, she adds that she is disturbed with scruples concerning the time preceding the last confession. For she remembers that, on a certain feast day, she came late when the Consecration had already been completed in the last Mass, but she did not remain for the rest of the sacrifice. In fact, then she did not even read the Mass in the book. She remembers also that once she heard the Mass of a certain priest of an Oriental rite. The confessor, after hearing these things, says to her: Beware lest you do this again, because grave matter was present; nor were you excused from grave sin by the fact that you read the whole Mass; indeed, this can be omitted without any fault, provided that someone assists at the sacrifice and applies his mind to the actions of the priest, or to the mysteries signified, or to God in some other way. But since each one must hear Mass in his own rite, you certainly could not hear Mass in another rite.

Q. Did the confessor judge rightly?

R. To the first. He judged rightly concerning the omission of prayers, or that no obligation exists for reciting them. "The precept, as an affirmative precept, does not oblige to any other act of divine worship except that of the Mass. And therefore the faithful are not held to other prayers besides those which are contained in the Mass and are said by the priest or the minister.... And hence, if someone on a feast day is unable to hear Mass because he is justly impeded, he is not held to recite something in place of it or to exercise some other act of religion. Similarly, if someone omits Mass, justly or unjustly, he is not held to compensate for this on the same day by prayers or the next day by another Mass, etc." Suarez, De Religione, tom. 1, l. 2, c. 16, n. 1, 4, 16; I. M. 640.

To the second. The confessor was somewhat too severe concerning attention. For he requires precisely internal attention, by which someone adverts and applies the mind, either to the words and actions of the priest, or to the mysteries, or to God, praying or meditating. Practically it must indeed be counseled that internal attention is required. But for hearing Mass virtual and confused internal attention suffices, namely such that someone at the beginning at least had the intention of hearing Mass, and adverts, at least in some way, to what is being done, nor of his own accord is distracted from the Mass for a notable time, while fully adverting to his distraction from hearing Mass. But the opinion which holds external attention to suffice, namely that one does not place an external action which impedes the application of the mind to the sacrifice which is celebrated, such as writing, painting, etc., is not lacking true probability. Cf. St. Alph., H. A., tr. 6, n. 28; Op. Mor., l. 3, n. 313; I. M. 647, 648.

To the third. The confessor again was somewhat too severe when he asserted that there was grave sin in the remaining cases. First, indeed, many theologians think that he does not sin gravely who omits everything from the beginning up to the Gospel inclusively, even if the Creed also has been omitted. And St. Alphonsus does not think this opinion improbable, because Mass was once begun at the Offertory, according to St. Isidore, and because thus it is thought by Lugo, Palaus, Turr., Gobat, Granado, Leander, Pelliz. And Scavini says that this opinion is probable. And this same opinion, indeed, St. Alphonsus positively approves in Op. Mor., l. 6, n. 313, in which he says: "Who will deny that it is probable in this matter, which depends on human estimation, which is supported by so many and such great authors?" Cf. Laymann, l. 4, tr. 7, c. 4, n. 5; La-Croix, l. 3, p. 1, n. 734.

Then, this is also a probable opinion: "He satisfies the precept who hears one Mass from one priest up to the Consecration exclusively, and another from another priest from the Consecration up to the end; because he then hears the essence of the Mass from one priest." Laymann, l. 4, tr. 7, c. 4, n. 6; Navarr., Sà, Sotus, etc., cited by La-Croix, l. c. Nevertheless, in this case, as in any case of hearing two half Masses, all admit that, because of the disorder, such a one cannot be excused at least from venial sin. And this opinion, at least extrinsically probable, is affirmed by St. Alphonsus, l. c., who says: "It is probable, at least extrinsically, that he satisfies the precept who hears two half parts of Mass, successively, from two priests, even if the first part is heard after the second part, and even if the space of an hour intervenes, according to Mazzotta." And he adds: "But if someone hears the first part from one priest up to the Consecration exclusively, and the second from another from the Consecration up to the end, then we call it most probable that he satisfies the precept." Cf. I. M., l. c.

Moreover, as St. Alphonsus, H. A., l. c., n. 39, openly asserts as something to be held, since it is also probable that the essence of the sacrifice consists in the consumption, if someone comes after the Consecration of the last Mass, he is held to hear the remaining part. Fr. Gury, however, teaches the opposite; but the opinion of St. Alphonsus seems altogether probable. For then, far more probably, the essence of the sacrifice has not yet passed, and therefore there is an obligation of assisting at the essence of the Mass. Cf. Op. Mor., l. c.; I. M., l. c. But if someone, coming after the Consecration of the last Mass, can still assist at a notable part, then again he is probably held to hear the remaining part. For even if someone were present at the essence of the sacrifice, but omitted a notable part, he would sin gravely. Therefore if someone can be present at a notable part, he is held to be present. A similar case is found in the recitation of the canonical hours. For, "if you cannot recite Matins and Lauds, but can recite the rest of the hours, you are held to recite them; nor can you excuse yourself because you cannot recite the whole office; for the whole is not so integral that, if one part cannot be fulfilled, the other part is to be omitted." La-Croix, l. 4, n. 1385; and cf. prop. 54, condemned by Innocent XI: "He who cannot recite Matins and Lauds, but can recite the remaining hours, is held to nothing, because the greater part draws the lesser to itself."

To the fourth. The Propaganda Fide, on 11 Dec. 1838, to the question: "To satisfy the precept of hearing Mass on Sundays and feast days, is it necessary that each one hear Mass in his own rite; or is it enough to hear any Mass whatsoever?" responded: "To the first, negatively; to the second, affirmatively." I. M., l. c.; Collectanea, n. 1597.

5. Augustinus has the privilege of a private Oratory, which he uses in the city, in which he usually dwells, and in the countryside, where he betakes himself each year and remains through the whole autumn. The chapel, however, in each place is nothing else than a large hall, divided by a silk cloth, one part of which is deputed for the chapel. The altar, however, is of marble, in an ample cabinet, as it were, constructed in a deep cavity of the wall like a small room, which, the Mass having been finished, is closed by a decorated wooden door. One time, while Augustinus is dwelling in the countryside, his own feast day is celebrated; his relatives and many noble friends are invited for some days. But all hear Mass in the aforesaid Oratory on the feast day. And, since there are many of them, through the whole day that same hall is occupied by his nephews, and all sleep there at night.

Q. 1. What is a public, semi-public, private Oratory? 2. What as to the case?

R. To the first. Cf. Enchiridion Morale, De Eucharistia, n. 640; I. M. 644.

To the second. First, Augustinus can use the privilege of a private Oratory not only in the city, but also in the countryside, so long as he dwells there, provided he does not use both private Oratories at the same time. For a privilege of this sort is a personal privilege, and it is no obstacle that he dwells in the countryside only through the autumn; for it is a dwelling for a longer time, which, for that season, can also be called his usual habitation. Ferraris, Orat. Privat., a. 1, n. 41; Lig. 358.

Then, as to the hall divided by a silk cloth and the altar placed in that small room, as it were, built in the cavity of the wall and closed by a wooden door, this also does not seem to disturb anything. "It is not necessary," says St. Alphonsus, "that the Oratory be so separated from other places that it be enclosed by four walls with a door; but it suffices if there are three walls and a fourth, as it were, of tapestry or cloth, or some other similar thing, so that it can be opened and closed." L. 6, n. 359. St. Alphonsus indeed says again, n. 360, ibid.: "Fr. Fortunatus Brixia thinks it is not enough that the altar be placed within an ample cabinet existing in a cavity of the wall, furnished on the lateral parts and able to be closed after Mass." And in fact, without doubt it is far more fitting that the altar be placed within a fixed place, whether with four walls or three, and in some separate room. But St. Alphonsus adds, ibid.: "I know that several Oratories of this sort exist in the city of Naples, and have been approved by the Archbishop. For Oratories of this sort do not seem to be forbidden by the indult; indeed, the aforesaid lateral tablets sufficiently stand in the place of walls." But, to establish this more firmly, St. Alphonsus observes, "as F. Fortunatus also says, it is necessary that the wooden altar not be movable, but fixed to the wall, according to the decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, 3 Dec. 1661, and not have the appearance of a portable altar." But the Oratory of Augustinus is not really in an ample cabinet, constructed in a cavity of the wall, but in a deep cavity of the wall as in a small room constructed there with four walls.

Then, as to the occupation of the hall, and to the fact that at night the nephews and guests sleep there, no difficulty can arise either; because that is done rarely, namely once a year, on the feast day of Augustinus, and because of the necessity arising from the presence of many relatives and friends. "For in a case of necessity," says St. Alphonsus, "even churches can be used for eating, sleeping, holding assemblies, etc.; ... all the more, therefore, the Oratory, which is deputed to sacred use only by transitory deputation." L. 3, n. 460. Indeed, La-Croix thinks that "even if necessity does not excuse, this nevertheless does not exceed venial sin. For doctors say that, even in a consecrated church, the use of a profane use is not a mortal sin, unless it is used constantly and by habit as a profane place." L. 6, p. 2, n. 257. But in the case the hall itself properly is not the Oratory, since it is before the Oratory, which is constructed in the cavity of the wall and separated from the hall by the wooden door.

Finally, the relatives of Augustinus and noble friends, hearing Mass in that Oratory, satisfied the precept. For Augustinus was using his right. Moreover, by force of the indult, noble guests can be admitted, even "guests coming for only one day, and those invited to dinner, so that they participate in the privilege, provided that the privileged person is present." Lig., l. c., 361.

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.

"Remember that you sanctify the Sabbath day." Exod. 20. 8.

337. The third precept of the Decalogue is natural insofar as it commands that some time be dedicated to public divine worship; but insofar as it determinately designates the Sabbath day, it is ceremonial, and abrogated in the new law, since in place of the Sabbath day the Church has substituted the Lord's day, in memory of the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Besides Sunday, the Church instituted other feast days for recalling the benefits of our redemption, or the merits and examples of the Saints, and commands that they, no otherwise than Sunday, be sanctified.

This precept, insofar as it is affirmative, prescribes certain works, and insofar as it is negative, prohibits certain other things ¹; hence a twofold chapter.

¹ To the question whether this precept is affirmative or negative, St. Alphonsus (lib. 3, n. 264), after the Salamancans (tr. 23, c. 1, n. 14-15), responds that it is affirmative, since it does not oblige always and for always. Suarez, Sanchez, Palaus, Leander, Fagnanus with the Salamancans, n. 15, against Cajetan and Filiucci, etc., who maintain that it is negative, since in it nothing positive was prescribed to the Jews; but this is denied. See Roman Catechism, n. 11.

But in this doctrine the Salamancans thrust forward three things sufficiently incongruous. The first is in the reason for defining an affirmative precept, because it does not oblige for always, or, as they say, because many causes are given which excuse from this precept. But even negative precepts admit excusing causes, for example the precept of abstinence.

The second is that they mingle those things which the doctors disputed concerning this precept as it belonged to the Jews, and from this oppose doctors to doctors who can easily be reconciled. Thus they oppose Cajetan to Suarez, when Suarez alleges him on his own behalf and reconciles him excellently by saying (De Relig., tr. 1, lib. 2, c. 1, n. 7): "Formally nothing is prescribed there except a certain dedication of that time to the worship of God, which is called sanctification of it... But this dedication is made formally by cessation from work, which pertains to external worship declared by a negative sign."

The third is that to doctors affirming that this precept, insofar as it was proposed to the Jews, is negative, they oppose the Roman Catechism, where it speaks of the faithful of Christ.

“52. The precept of observing feast days does not oblige under mortal sin, scandal being set aside, if contempt is absent.” Proposition condemned by Innocent XI.

“Is it necessary to oblige under sin the faithful of the Vicariate of Chan-si, who cannot hear Mass because of a lack of priests, to assist on feast days, in place of Mass, at pious gatherings of the faithful? — Resp. The faithful who in the proposed case cannot hear Mass on feast days are not thereby freed from the obligation of sanctifying the feast through prayers or other pious works. They are therefore greatly to be exhorted, but not bound under guilt of sin—as though disobedient to a precept of the Church—to endeavor to be present at those pious gatherings in which they can be instructed and nourished by the food of the word of God and by other exercises of religion, and, united in prayer in the spirit of charity, can more efficaciously implore divine assistance.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 4 Jan. 1798; C. 2199.

“The doubt was proposed concerning the sense to be given to the formula relating to the faculty of dispensing poor Catholics, enabling them to work on feast days…. The formula is to be revised so that it reads: after, however, hearing Holy Mass, if it can be heard; but if it cannot, after supplementary prayers have been recited. Meanwhile, this Sacred Congregation can write to that Apostolic Vicar, making him understand that the supplementary prayers, naturally to be determined according to his prudent judgment, must be recited by the dispensed faithful under grave obligation, since they are substituted for the precept of Mass and, moreover, it is of divine law that the feast must in some manner be sanctified by prayers and pious works.” Holy Office, 12 March 1875; C. 2042.

“89. The fourteenth degree of the conversion of a sinner is that, when he has now been reconciled, he has the right of assisting at the sacrifice of the Church.” Proposition of Paschasius Quesnel condemned by Clement XI.

“53. He satisfies the precept of the Church concerning hearing Mass who hears two parts of it, indeed four, simultaneously from different celebrants.” Proposition condemned by Innocent XI.

“We cannot approve the plan of compelling the faithful to attend the Mass and instruction of the pastor on feast days, other churches or oratories being interdicted under reservation. For although We are persuaded what and how great assistance toward eternal life Christ’s flock would receive from frequenting that same salutary food of the word of God, it is nevertheless known to Your Amplitude that it was never the intention of the Apostolic See that this be commanded under precept and the bond of sin. Hence We judge that the faithful are instead to be persuaded by paternal and repeated admonitions to provide more advantageously for their souls by these means.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 30 June 1845.

“Whether, in order to satisfy the precept of the Church concerning hearing Mass on Sundays and feast days, it is necessary that each person hear Mass in his own rite, or whether it suffices to hear Mass. — Resp. In the negative to the first part; in the affirmative to the second.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 11 Dec. 1838.

“Since a fixed chapel on ships has recently been declared public for voyagers, and since it not rarely happens that, while ships are found in port, the families of voyagers and officers and other persons approach them for various reasons, the present chief chaplain of the Transatlantic Society of Barcelona set forth a doubt to the Sacred Congregation of Rites: Whether all who are present at the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the said chapel can hear it in fulfillment of the precept concerning hearing Mass on feast days. — Resp. In the affirmative according to the Decree Vicen. of 4 March 1901, without a special indult.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 10 May 1901. Cf. On Laws, n. 262; On the Eucharist, n. 640.

“Which truly are the more solemn days on which, for all who do not have a particular Indult, Masses are forbidden in private oratories? — Resp. Those are of themselves the more solemn days in the case which are described in the Ceremonial of Bishops, bk. II, c. XXXIV, n. 2, and are observed by precept.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 10 April 1896.

The Ceremonial of Bishops, loc. cit., has the following: “Therefore, unless he shall have been lawfully impeded, the Bishop can celebrate on the day of the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ; on the feast of the Epiphany of the Lord; on Thursday in the Lord’s Supper; on the Sunday of the Resurrection; on the day of the Ascension; on Pentecost Sunday; on the festivities of the Immaculate Conception, Annunciation, and Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary; on the feast of St. Joseph, Spouse of the Blessed Virgin Mary; on the feast of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul; on the feast of All Saints; on the feast day of the Titular of the church and of the Patron; on the anniversary day of the dedication of the cathedral church; or even, according to his judgment, on other festivities throughout the year, whenever it shall please him, with the ceremonies and solemnities which were explained above in chapter VIII of this book II, On Solemn Mass When the Bishop Celebrates.”

“That at the elevation of the Body of Jesus Christ they ought not to rise, nor to exhibit reverence to It, asserting that it would be an imperfection for them if they descended so far from the purity and sublimity of their contemplation that they should think anything concerning the ministry or Sacrament of the Eucharist, or concerning the Passion of the Humanity of Christ.” Error of the Beguards and Beguines condemned by Clement, Ad nostrum, 3, On Heretics.

“The law by which servile works are prohibited on certain days for the sake of divine worship is to be abolished.” Proposition condemned by Pius IX in the Encyclical Quanta cura.

"Is it necessary to obligate under sin the faithful of the Vicariate of Chausy, who cannot hear Mass because of the lack of priests, to assist on feast days, in place of Mass, at pious assemblies of the faithful? - Resp. The faithful who, in the proposed case, cannot hear Mass on feast days are not on that account released from the obligation of sanctifying the Feast through prayers or other pious works; and therefore they are greatly to be exhorted, but nevertheless not obligated under guilt of sin, as though disobedient to a precept of the Church, to strive to be present at those pious assemblies, in which they can be instructed and nourished with the food of the word of God and other exercises of religion, and, joined in prayers in the spirit of charity, can more efficaciously implore Divine aid." S. C. de P. F. 4 Jan. 1798.

Since man was born for society, and in reality lives in society, it is altogether fitting that worship be rendered to God not only private, but also social. The determination of worship of this kind, under the law of nature, would pertain to the presidents of society. But once the institution of supernatural religion is supposed, this determination pertains to God Himself, or to those to whom the care of spiritual things has been committed, namely to ecclesiastical authority.

¹ St. Thomas, II-II, q. 122, a. 4; Suarez, de Virt. relig., Tr. II, l. II; Billuart, de Relig., diss. VI; St. Alphonsus, n. 263-332; Sporer-Bierbaum, t. I, tr. 3, n. 482-541; Ballerini-Palmieri, n. 711-814; Berardi, t. I, n. 563-620; Noldin, n. 261-277.

1006. Historical exposition.² In reality God Himself, under the old law, selected the seventh day of any week as to be dedicated to divine worship: "Remember that thou keep holy the sabbath day. Six days shalt thou labor, and shalt do all thy works. But on the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: thou shalt do no work on it, thou, and thy son and thy daughter, thy manservant and thy maidservant, thy beast, and the stranger who is within thy gates."³ The reason assigned is chiefly twofold: one, on the part of God: for He rested on the seventh day, and blessed it, and sanctified it, or separated it from profane uses; wherefore we also ought to rest on the same day, for testifying our dependence upon God: "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them, and rested on the seventh day: therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and sanctified it"⁴... "See that you keep my sabbath: because it is a sign between me and you in your generations: that you may know that I am the Lord, who sanctify you."⁵ - But the other reason stands on the part of man, namely that the Jews and their servants may enjoy necessary rest: "Thou shalt not do any work therein, thou nor thy son... that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest, even as thyself. Remember that thou also didst serve in Egypt, and the Lord thy God brought thee out from thence with a strong hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore He commanded thee that thou shouldst observe the sabbath day."⁶ - The violation of this precept was punished by the penalty of death.⁷

² J. Gilfillan, The Sabbath viewed in the light of reason, revelation and history, Edinburgh, 1867; A. Villien, Hist. des Commandements de l'Eglise, first Commandment, in Rev. du clerge francais, t. XLI, 1905, p. 563-584; and t. XLIII, p. 339-366.

³ Exod. 20:8-10. - That the sabbath day was observed by the Patriarchs before Moses is very probable. Sayce, Hibbert's Lectures, p. 76-77, hands down that among the Assyrians there were certain sabbath days, or days of rest from work. Cf. M. d'Hulst, Careme 1893, p. 281-283.

⁴ Exod. 20:11.

⁵ Exod. 31:13.

⁶ Deut. 5:14-15.

⁷ Num. 15:32-36.

On the sabbath day not only was rest observed, but sacrifices were offered to God: "And this holocaust shall the prince offer to the Lord: on the sabbath day six lambs without blemish, and a ram without blemish."⁸ On the same day the loaves of proposition were renewed; besides, the Jews were accustomed to assemble in synagogues, to pray and to hear the word of God:⁹ "For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him in the synagogues, where he is read every sabbath."

⁸ Ezek. 46:4.

⁹ Acts 15:21; cf. 13:27.

1007. 2. Through the new law the ceremonial part of sabbath observances has been abrogated. For Christ declared that the Father is to be worshiped in spirit and in truth,¹⁰ and, to root out Pharisaic interpretations, taught that the sabbath was made for man, but not man for the sabbath.¹¹ Wherefore Paul reproved the Galatians, who, after conversion to the Christian faith, observed days and months and times and years,¹² according to the Mosaic law; and he admonishes the Colossians that the obligation of observing new moons and sabbaths is no longer in force.¹³ Yet Christ often inculcated the necessity of glorifying God not only interiorly, but also exteriorly; and to promote this worship He instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice, which, since it is the renewal of the sacrifice of the cross, is much more excellent than all ancient oblations.¹⁴ He Himself indeed did not determine the special day and manner by which God was to be worshiped, but left to the Church the power of establishing all these things.

¹⁰ John 4:23.

¹¹ Mark 2:27.

¹² Gal. 4:10.

¹³ Col. 2:16.

¹⁴ Cf. Treatise on the Eucharist, n. 157 sq.

1008. The Apostles and the first Christians for some time, together with the Jews, assembled on the sabbath day to praise the Lord.¹⁵ But soon they had special assemblies, and there they prayed and celebrated the Eucharistic supper;¹⁶ and the custom prevailed that they assemble in this manner on the day following the sabbath, or on the first day of the week, which afterward was called the Lord's day.¹⁷ In reality, already in the second century, from various documents it is clear that this practice was universal.¹⁸ And so by apostolic authority and universal custom of the Church it came about that Sunday was substituted for the sabbath. Hence the Apostolic Constitutions (fourth century) attribute the institution of the Lord's day to the Apostles Peter and Paul: "I Peter and I Paul decree that servants work for five days, but on the sabbath and the Lord's day be free in church on account of the doctrine of religion."¹⁹ In the same place it is asserted that the Lord's day was selected in commemoration of the day of Christ's resurrection. "On the day of the resurrection of the Lord, which we call the Lord's day, assemble without any interruption for giving thanks to God, and for professing the benefits with which God has affected us through Christ... so that your sacrifice may be without blame."²⁰

¹⁵ Acts 2:46; 3:1; 5:12; 21:26.

¹⁶ Acts 2:42.

¹⁷ Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2; Apoc. 1:10. - According to Nicephorus Callistus, H.E., l. VII, c. 46, the emperor Constantine willed that this day be called the Lord's day.

¹⁸ You will find the testimonies in A. Villien, l.c., p. 565-566.

¹⁹ Constit. Apost., l. VIII, c. 33, Mansi, t. I, 579.

²⁰ Ibid., l. VII, c. 31, Mansi, 506.

1009. From the testimonies cited, and many others, it is clear that Sunday was consecrated to God not only by cessation from work, but also by prayers, preaching of the word, and especially by the offering of the sacrifice of the Mass. Already at the beginning of the fourth century, the Council of Elvira imposed canonical penalties on those who neglected to assist at Mass for three Sundays: "If anyone placed in a city shall not have gone to church for three Sundays, let him abstain for a short time (from Communion), so that he may seem to have been corrected."²¹ - In the sixth century, Caesarius of Arles exhorts the faithful to sanctify the whole day, and commands that they assist at the sacred rite: "Therefore let him to whom it is possible come to the evening and nightly celebration, and let him pray there in the assembly of the Church to God for his sins. But he who cannot do this, let him at least pray in his own house, and not neglect to pay his vow to God and render the payment of servitude: but during the day let no one separate himself from the sacred celebration of Masses, nor let anyone remain idle at home."²² And elsewhere he adds that the omission of any prayer and reading on Sunday is a grave sin: "If on the whole Lord's day we neglect to attend to reading and to supplicate God, we sin against God not lightly."²³ At the same time the Council of Agde (a. 506) prescribed "that Masses on the Lord's day be held whole by laymen... so that the people not presume to go out before the blessing of the priest."²⁴

²¹ Elvira, c. 21, in Mansi, t. II, 9.

²² Serm. 280, among the works of Augustine, P.L., XXXIX, 2275.

²³ Serm. 281, ibid., 2270.

²⁴ Council of Agde, c. 47, Mansi, t. VIII, 322.

1010. Besides Sunday, certain feasts in the course of the centuries were instituted by the Church, and celebrated in the same manner. Since Bishops were able to institute feast days of precept, the discipline of various churches in this matter was diverse.

By common law, from the Constitution Universa of Urban VIII, Sept. 13, 1642, thirty-six days besides Sundays were to be observed by precept.²⁵ But Pius X retained only eight days,²⁶ namely the feasts of the Nativity, Circumcision, Epiphany, and Ascension of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of the Blessed Mary Mother of God, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and of All Saints.²⁷

²⁵ The Nativity of the Lord, Circumcision, Epiphany, Monday and Tuesday after Easter, Ascension, Monday and Tuesday after Pentecost, the Feast of Corpus Christi, the Finding of the Holy Cross; Purification, Annunciation, Assumption, Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, (the Immaculate Conception, added to the catalogue by Clement XI), Saints Peter and Paul, St. Andrew, St. James, St. Bartholomew, St. Matthew, Saints Simon and Jude, St. Matthias, St. Stephen Protomartyr, the Holy Innocents, St. Lawrence Martyr, St. Sylvester Pope, St. Joseph, St. Anne, the Feast of All Saints; one of the more principal patrons in any kingdom or province; another more principal patron in any city, town, or village.

²⁶ Motu proprio Supremi disciplina, July 2, 1911, A.A.S., III, p. 305.

²⁷ Feast days of patrons are not subject to ecclesiastical precept. But local Ordinaries can transfer the exterior solemnity to the nearest following Sunday.

From the Code, c. 1247, two feasts must be added to these, namely that of the most holy Body of Christ and of Saint Joseph (March 19).

By particular law, in France and other regions, from the concession of Cardinal Caprara on Apr. 9, 1802, the feasts to be celebrated outside Sundays were reduced to four: the Nativity and Ascension of the Lord, the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the feast of All Saints. The solemnity of certain principal feasts is transferred to the following Sunday.

In Great Britain, the feasts to be observed by precept remain seven: the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Circumcision, Epiphany, Ascension, Saints Peter and Paul, Assumption, and the feast of All Saints.

For the Federated States of America, there are likewise six feasts of precept: the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary; the Nativity of the Lord; Circumcision; Ascension; Assumption; the feast of All Saints. The feast of Saints Peter and Paul is transferred, as to solemnity, to the following Sunday.

1011. Conclusion. The law which prescribes the hearing of Mass and cessation from servile work on Sundays and feast days rests indeed on divine law, but has received its determination from ecclesiastical law.²⁸

²⁸ This conclusion differs little from that which St. Thomas hands down, II-II, q. 122, a. 4, ad 1: "The precept concerning the sanctification of the sabbath, understood literally, is partly moral, but partly ceremonial. It is moral indeed as to this, that man assign some time of his life for attending to divine things... But insofar as in this precept a special time is determined as a sign of the creation of the world, thus it is a ceremonial precept. Similarly it is ceremonial according to its allegorical signification, insofar as it was a sign of the rest of Christ in the sepulcher, which was on the seventh day." And he adds in the same place, ad 4: "The observance of Sunday in the new law succeeds to the observance of the sabbath, not by force of a precept of the law, but from the constitution of the Church and the custom of the Christian people." Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 263.

(A) Certain theologians thought that not only the institution of the sabbath, but also the substitution of Sunday in place of the sabbath, is of divine law.²⁹ But it is commonly held that this substitution is of ecclesiastical law, as is clear from what was said above, n. 1008. (B) Others said that the sanctification of Sunday is only from ecclesiastical law,³⁰ since through the new law the precept of sanctifying the sabbath was abrogated, and only from the authority of the Church was Sunday substituted for the sabbath.

²⁹ Sporer-Bierbaum, tract. III, n. 485.

³⁰ Suarez, de relig., tr. II, l. II, c. 1-4.

(C) Nevertheless we think, with certain others,³¹ that the matter must be distinguished thus: (a) the sanctification of one day per week seems to be from divine law; for God Himself instituted the division of time into weeks, and commanded that the seventh day be devoted to divine worship; the ceremonial part of this precept, namely the choice of the sabbath, was abrogated; but nothing proves that the precept was altogether deleted as regards the obligation of specially sanctifying one day per week. (b) But the selection of Sunday in place of the sabbath, as well as the mode of sanctifying this day by hearing Mass and cessation from servile work, proceeds from the authority of the Church. It was indeed very fitting that, once the institution of the Eucharistic sacrifice was posited, the faithful be held sometimes to hear Mass, especially on Sundays; but sound exegesis does not permit one certainly to infer this from the text³² "Do this in commemoration of Me." Likewise, that God may be better worshiped on this day, it is altogether expedient that men abstain from works which turn the mind away from divine things; but what these works are, how many hours one must cease from them, was defined only by ecclesiastical law.

³¹ Fr. Schmid, Worin grundet die Pflicht der Sonntagsruhe, Quartalschrift Linz, 1900, p. 12 ff.; Noldin, n. 261.

³² Luke 22:19.

1012. From this it follows that the universal abrogation of this law is not to be expected. This even the defenders of the second opinion admit, among whom is Lehmkuhl, n. 546: "The universal abrogation of this law cannot therefore be made, because a sufficient reason can scarcely be conceived; and this law is to be conserved all the more holily, because it is traced back to apostolic institution, indeed in some way to the very origin of things, and precedes every institution of the old law." - But particular dispensations both from the hearing of Mass and from cessation from work can be granted, and in fact are granted not only to individual citizens, but also to communities.

These things having been set forth, we shall speak: 1. of the social utility of the sanctification of Sunday; 2. of the precept of hearing Mass; 3. of the precept of abstaining from servile works.

1013. Thesis: The sanctification of Sunday, although it is not prescribed by natural law, but by positive law, is nevertheless most fitting both on the part of God and on the part of man.

It is explained. Natural law indeed prescribes that God be worshiped by man, from what was said above, n. 856, but it determines neither the mode nor the time in which worship is to be rendered. Likewise experience establishes that man needs rest, so that he may be able to work better, and perfect and develop his faculties: yet nothing is defined by natural law as regards the duration of this rest. Nevertheless, from the almost unanimous consent of Christian peoples, and also from long experience, it is established that sabbatic or Sunday rest, with the pious exercises which are celebrated on this day, bears before it very great social utility.

1014. It is proved: 1. On the part of God. (A) For although God can and ought to be adored daily, it is altogether expedient, indeed morally necessary, that certain times be determined in which special worship is rendered to Him. For man, oppressed by continual labors for sustaining himself and his own, often distracted by various cares and solicitudes, and allured by many pleasures, by no means rarely forgets his Creator and Lord; if at some time the thought of honoring God occurs, many put off this duty until tomorrow, because other duties, as they think, urge immediate fulfillment; thus first the exercise of religion is deferred, then soon altogether neglected; thus man, forgetful of God and of his last end, thinks only of temporal things, of increasing wealth, of pleasures; he scarcely cares for the moral law and the practice of virtues, and little by little declines toward animal life. - But, on the contrary, if on any week a certain day is prefixed, on which we are held to cease from work and pay praises to God, divine worship already becomes easier. For when servile work ceases, the mind soon ascends to the Lord, becomes solicitous concerning the last end and the means of attaining it, and pays due praises to the supreme Creator and Governor of all. Sacred sermons, which devout Christians hear, pious readings of the Scriptures, prayers recited in church, and especially the celebration of Mass, which vividly commemorates the Passion of Christ and the benefits of Redemption, surely contribute much to this; also the works of charity or beneficence which on these days we perform more solicitously.

1015. (B) Besides, not only internal and private worship is owed to God, but also social worship, n. 859. Now, unless certain days are assigned on which Christians may pray together, social worship becomes impossible: for each one, either alone, or with parents, relatives, and a few friends, will pay praises to God privately. But if on any week, on a prefixed day, all Christians are gathered into churches, and there through Christ, and with Him, and in Him, pour forth prayers with one accord and glorify God; if they devoutly assist at the same sacrifice in which the Most Holy Trinity, in the name of the whole Church, is adored, praised, and receives thanksgiving, all easily understand that they are members of the same body, sons of the same heavenly Father; and they pay social worship to God not only as private men, but as members of the human family.

1016. 2. On the part of man. The celebration of Sunday confers many advantages upon man: bodily, moral, and religious.

(A) Bodily advantages: the physical powers of man, as limited, are easily diminished by continual labor; and unless they are restored by weekly rest, they are soon thoroughly exhausted.¹ This indeed is more true whenever labor becomes more intense, and demands greater application of mind and tension of nerves, as the matter stands today in most industrial workshops. But unless a certain day of rest is assigned, it will scarcely be possible for workers to cease from work. For by force of the unavoidable competition which prevails everywhere, masters do not wish machines, acquired at great expense, to remain unproductive on any day, and therefore often demand from workers that they labor daily; not a few, whether from hope of greater gain or from fear that they be thrown out of the workshop, in reality perform this, and soon, broken in strength, contract long-lasting diseases, or must abstain from work for a long time, not without great detriment to the family. Therefore it is necessary that on certain days servile works be prohibited, with the exception of those which are necessary for the public good. Experience likewise establishes that on any week one day of rest is morally necessary;² and it is altogether fitting that this day be Sunday, since it has already been observed for many centuries among Christian nations.

¹ To the point Heyl de Herrnsheim, in the international congress held at Berlin concerning Sunday rest, in the year 1890 (p. 48, official Paris edition): "For thousands of years, the seventh day has been a day of rest. At all times, it has been recognized as necessary that man periodically interrupt his work in order to repair his strength. If he does not do this, his body wears out rapidly, his strength and his power of work diminish gradually and end by being prematurely annihilated. It is therefore in the interest of humanity to prescribe one day of rest per week. As for the choice of this day, Germany is of the opinion that it ought to fall for each person on Sunday, which, moreover, by tradition is already consecrated to rest; and, following the example given by England, Austria, and Switzerland, the German authority proposes to extend to adults, by legislative means, the obligation which already exists for minors of interrupting all industrial work on Sunday, except in case of absolute necessity." - In reality, in most cultivated nations, laws have been passed concerning Sunday rest; A. Morel, Le repos dominical, Paris, p. 15-32, exhibits a summary of them; and in France a law concerning this matter will soon be promulgated, which the socialists themselves earnestly demand.

² At the time of the French Revolution, it was established by law that on every tenth day the people should cease from labor; but the experiment had an unhappy outcome, and soon it was necessary to return to the observance of Sunday.

1017. (B) Moral advantages. For man lives not by bread alone, but ought to cultivate his intellectual and moral faculties; otherwise, in the manner of acting, he scarcely differs from brute animals. But, once the necessity of laboring daily for sustaining the body is posited, most men would hardly find any opportune time for investigating truth and the moral law, unless on certain days they were held to abstain from servile work: for they would consume all time in temporal affairs, and would postpone the study of truth indefinitely. - But given the opportunity of ceasing from manual labor, man can raise his eyes and mind to higher things, think of the last end, of moral matters, of duties to be fulfilled. He can hear sermons, read the best books, cultivate the higher faculties, and thus become more humane.³ In reality, wherever Sunday is honestly and Christianly sanctified, a greater culture of minds flourishes, more refined manners are formed, and the moral law is observed more perfectly.

³ M. d'Hulst, Careme 1893, p. 189-190, explains this excellently: "The day of God frees the worker. It is not for him the day of inaction; it is the glorious day on which the rest of his members sets free the activity of his soul. To shake off the yoke which weighed upon it, to take its flight toward the heights, his thought has no need of the initiations of science: religion has prepared for it a better initiation, higher and more elementary all at once. It is not through the long deductions of reasoning which gropes and seeks; it is by the straight avenues of adoration that it makes its way toward the sublime Ideal. And when it has found Him, it communicates in Him with the thought of the scholar, the philosopher, and the artist; it attains Truth in its source, Good in its substance, Beauty in the hearth from which it radiates; it bathes in a divine atmosphere, and there renews the forces of courage and hope, of resignation and love." - Cf. Gilfillan, op. cit., p. 192-202; 225-236.

Thus also the domestic life of families can be kept intact. The various members of a family often are occupied in different works during the week; especially in industrial workshops, spouses are separated from one another, children from parents, and when in the evening hours they are united, generally, broken in strength, they can scarcely enjoy the consolations of domestic life. But if all cease from manual labor on Sunday, they can come together in the paternal home, converse together, enjoy the society of parents, relatives, and friends, and all the consolations which are found in the family.⁴

⁴ Cheysson explained this splendidly, in an address delivered at Paris, Mar. 9, 1898 (in Morel, op. cit., p. 51-52): "Without Sunday there is no possible family. It is only on that day and in that blessed center of the domestic hearth, of the home, that, together with the tired muscles of the father of the family, his brain, his heart, and his soul relax. It is only on that day that his wife and children possess him, that the family affirms itself and unfolds itself in its moral beauty and beneficent healthfulness, that the worker, bent for six days over his trade and enslaved to the panting work of production, rises upright; that he lays aside cares with his work clothes; that instead of belonging to the workshop, to the employer, he belongs to himself, and he belongs to his dear surroundings; that he becomes again father, husband, finally man, in the magnificent acceptance of this word." Cf. Gilfillan, op. cit., p. 236-249.

1018. (C) Religious advantages. For experience establishes that religion flourishes the more perfectly according as Sunday is more perfectly observed. This is easily understood if the psychological dispositions of each one are inspected. For those who are occupied about material things the whole time, and cling to them unceasingly, easily omit all other things: they think of temporal things, of acquiring wealth, of business, of pleasures, of honors, and thus become earthly and care by no means for heavenly things. Prayers, which from infancy they had been accustomed to recite, duties of religion which they previously paid to God, first indeed are shortened, and soon omitted. But since the virtue of religion, like the other virtues, is little by little diminished and at length thoroughly extinguished unless it is frequently exercised, it is necessary that a certain day be established for cultivating religion especially. Among Christians, this day is Sunday: on this day they can devote themselves to the study of religion, think of God and eternal things, pour forth prayers more abundantly, fulfill religious duties; but if they have performed this, on the other days also they will not be altogether forgetful of God, nor of Christian virtues; but, before they begin the day's work, they will raise their eyes rather easily to God, and will keep in mind that the acquiring of riches and the attainment of temporal things profit little, unless they use these as means for attaining the last end.

1019. Practical corollary. Therefore it must be attempted with all strength that Sunday be sanctified more and more. Two principal means greatly help toward this: (a) private associations, in which those who sincerely promise that they will promote Sunday rest are joined in a friendly league, whether at home and among neighbors, or even among merchants, for example by favoring those who sell nothing on Sunday. It is well enough known that certain societies of this kind have already been instituted in various regions.⁵ Sometimes congresses are held, whether national or international, and often indeed with a happy outcome: for in these practical means are devised and commended for promoting the universal observance of Sunday. (b) The intervention of the State: for since, especially in great industrial and commercial undertakings, it is morally impossible to cease from labor, on account of the competition prevailing everywhere, unless the same law be imposed on all, it is necessary that by an opportune law the day of rest be determined. This has already been performed in many regions, and soon, with all Christians and honorable men favoring it, it will be performed in every region.

⁵ Thus, in France, the societies which are called: L'oeuvre dominicale de France, - L'association pour l'observation du repos du dimanche, - La ligue populaire pour le repos du dimanche en France, etc. - Concerning the practical means hitherto employed for promoting Sunday rest, cf. A. Morel, op. cit., p. 94-116; F. Gibon, La croisade du Dimanche.

1020. This precept touches all the faithful who enjoy the use of reason, and also priests who are not celebrating, unless they are legitimately excused. It obliges under grave sin, as is clear from proposition 52 condemned by Innocent XI:¹ "The precept of observing feasts does not oblige under mortal sin, scandal being set aside, if contempt is absent." - Hence we shall speak: 1. of the requisites for hearing Mass; 2. of the causes excusing from hearing it.

¹ In Denzinger, n. 1069; cf. Viva on this proposition.

The precept of hearing Mass on Sundays and feast days comprises three things: bodily presence, - religious assistance, - and indeed in a due place.

1021. Since those who assist at the sacred rite, together with the celebrant, in some way offer the sacrifice, that presence is required and suffices which is necessary so that they can be said to be morally united to the priest celebrating, and to follow his actions, during the whole time in which Mass is celebrated.

(A) Presence of this kind is moral, namely that which, according to the estimation of prudent men, suffices so that those assisting are judged to be present at the sacred rite which is offered.

Therefore they satisfy the precept: (a) who are within the church, even if they stand behind the altar, a wall, or a column, - or in a chapel where they can neither see nor hear the priest, provided that from the movements of those assisting, the sound of the little bell, or other external signs, they can notice what is being done by the priest; this holds even if, in a large church, they are very far distant from the altar. (b) Likewise those who are in the sacristy, or in another place from which they can see or hear the priest; and also those who for a short time withdraw from the church to ring the bells or to perform something else connected with the sacred rite. (c) Indeed those who, outside the church, stand near the door, so that they are judged joined with the others assisting; indeed, those who are in a nearby house, from which through a window or door they can see the ceremonies of Mass, provided nevertheless that the house is not far distant from the church.²

² "Not beyond thirty paces," says Lugo, De Eucharistia, disp. XXII, n. 21. But the matter cannot be determined mathematically; moreover here one cannot be permitted without a reasonable cause.

1022. (B) Presence ought to be continuous during the whole time of the Mass, that is, from the psalm Judica up to and including the priestly blessing. Therefore they sin who, without cause, omit a part of Mass, and indeed gravely or lightly according as the part omitted is notable or small. Moreover, the gravity of the part omitted ought to be judged not only from duration, but especially from its dignity. Generally a third part of the Mass is judged notable, but if there is question of an essential action, a smaller part is held as grave.

1023. The omission of those things which precede the offertory, - the omission of the offertory alone, or of the preface, or of those things which follow Communion, is judged a light sin.

But it is grave to omit all things up to and including the offertory, - the whole canon, or from the consecration up to the Pater noster, because it is an essential part, - indeed even the consecration alone, which pertains to the essence of the sacrifice, - Communion alone, according to those who think that it pertains to the essence of the sacrifice, - to omit at the same time all those things which precede the Gospel and those which follow Communion.

He does not satisfy the precept who hears two or more parts of Mass from different priests celebrating at the same time, for example, the beginning of Mass up to the Canon from one priest, and at the same time the rest from another priest celebrating at a nearby altar. This is clear from the condemnation of this proposition 53 by Innocent XI: "He satisfies the precept of the Church concerning hearing the sacred rite who hears two of its parts, indeed four, at the same time from different celebrants."³ - But if someone hears these parts successively, yet so that he is present at the consecration and Communion of the same Mass, he strictly satisfies the precept, because he hears one whole Mass as regards the essentials, and supplies the rest; but otherwise, if he is present at the consecration of one Mass and the Communion of another, because he is not present at one and the same whole sacrifice.

³ Denzinger, n. 1070; Viva on this proposition.

From these things it is gathered that he who cannot assist at an entire Mass is held to assist at least at the essential and integral part, that is, the consecration and Communion, if he can. But if he can assist only at accessory parts, for example, the prayers which precede the Gospel or follow Communion, he is not strictly held to this. - He who was present at the essential and integral part of Mass, and omitted the rest, is held to supply these things, if he can, by assisting at another sacred rite.

1024. Things to be noted for practice. For judging the sin of those who come to church when Mass has already begun, attention must be paid not only to the aforesaid rules, but also to their mind, namely to the greater or lesser negligence of which they are conscious, and to the more or less clear foresight of the danger of not hearing the whole Mass.

Where many Masses are celebrated, those who have come late are altogether to be exhorted to hear the whole following Mass, if they easily can: Christian piety and the abundance of fruits which are derived from this surely advise it.

1025. It is not enough to be corporally present at the sacred rite; but the assistance ought to be religious, since the sacrifice is an act of religion. This involves two things: intention and attention.

(A) On the part of intention, there is required and suffices at least the implicit intention of worshiping God. Therefore he does not satisfy the precept who goes to church for this end alone, that there he may wait for a friend, or hear music, without any respect to divine worship; - but he who is present there from fear of parents or from another human motive, but at the same time wills to worship God, satisfies the precept.

1026. (B) Some attention of mind is likewise required, the notion of which we declared above, n. 870. (a) For satisfying the precept, at least external attention is certainly required, by which every action incompatible by its nature with internal attention is excluded; wherefore he does not satisfy the precept who, during Mass, attentively reads profane books, or writes or paints, plays, converses, attentively considers images or pictures, without religious affection.

(b) As regards internal attention, it is controverted: according to Lugo⁴ and others, it is not strictly required, because an act of divine worship can be performed even by those distracted in mind: for to this it suffices that at the beginning of the action there be the intention of worshiping God, and at the same time attention to the action which is placed, and that both virtually persevere; this can happen provided external attention is had. According to St. Alphonsus (n. 313) and others, more probably, internal attention is required, at least remiss, extending to the principal parts of Mass: for the Church prescribes an act by which God is worshiped; but God is not worshiped by merely external attention, internal attention having been voluntarily omitted. But according to St. Alphonsus, virtual attention suffices, that is, the intention of attending had at the beginning and not retracted; wherefore if someone is even voluntarily distracted, without nevertheless noticing that he is being distracted from Mass, he satisfies the precept of the Church, although he commits a venial sin. - In practice, serious effort must be made that the mind be occupied with pious thoughts and prayers; but he who has a general intention of worshiping God and strives with common diligence to turn his mind to prayers, or mysteries, or God Himself, ought not be anxious.

⁴ Lugo, De Eucharistia, disp. XXII, n. 27-41.

1027. Those sufficiently satisfy the precept who, during Mass, recite the breviary or rosary; read a pious book; perform an examination of conscience; doze a little, provided they notice the principal parts of Mass; indeed probably, according to some, those confessing their sins: this can be admitted if the confession is brief, or cannot be deferred to another time without grave inconvenience.

So that more abundant fruits may be gathered from the sacred rite, the faithful are to be exhorted to unite themselves to the priest, and especially to Christ Himself the high priest, and to pour forth prayers with Him, especially those which are found in the missal; or to think piously of the mysteries of the Passion; or to perform acts corresponding to the four ends of the sacrifice, according to the method of St. Leonard of Port Maurice.

1028. Although formerly, for several centuries, in many dioceses it was prescribed to hear Mass in the parish church,⁵ today the faithful can satisfy the precept in any church, and in any public or semi-public oratory, and in private cemetery chapels erected by families or private persons for their own burial; and also in the erected oratories of Cardinals and of residential or titular Bishops.⁶ - Nevertheless assistance at parish Mass is altogether to be recommended, so that the sheep may know their pastor and hear the word of God.

⁵ A. Villien, l.c., pp. 575, 578. - From this law there was first derogation through privileges granted to the mendicants (Pius V, Const. Etsi mendicantium, May 16, 1567, § 2; n. 8); afterward through contrary custom now in force in the whole world.

⁶ According to the Code, can. 1188, § 2, an oratory is: "1. Public, if it has been erected chiefly for the convenience of some college or even of private persons, yet so that all the faithful, at least during the time of divine offices, have a legitimately approved right of going to it; 2. Semi-public, if it has been erected for the convenience of some community or gathering of the faithful coming together there, and it is not free for everyone to approach it; 3. Private or domestic, if it has been erected in private houses for the convenience of some family only or private person." Moreover, from can. 1189-1190, "Oratories of Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church and of Bishops, whether residential or titular, although private, nevertheless enjoy all the rights and privileges by which semi-public oratories rejoice. - Chapels in a cemetery erected by families or private persons for their own burial are private oratories."

1029. But, excluding a special privilege, they do not fully satisfy the precept who hear Mass in merely private oratories, except those who are expressed in the concession itself of the indult; wherefore the tenor of the indult must be carefully inspected.

Generally, in order that it be licit to celebrate in a private oratory, it is required that one of the persons to whom the indult was principally granted, or to whom the brief is directed, be present at Mass. Moreover, only one Mass can be celebrated on the same day; indeed, unless the indult was granted by reason of infirmity, the celebration of Mass is prohibited on the more solemn feasts of the Nativity of the Lord, Epiphany, Easter Sunday, Pentecost, Thursday in the Supper of the Lord, Ascension, Immaculate Conception, Annunciation, Assumption, St. Joseph, the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, All Saints, and the feast of the patron of the place.⁷ - In these oratories, the following satisfy the precept: those to whom the indult was principally granted; - their blood relatives and relatives by marriage up to the fourth degree, when they live with the privileged master in the same house; - guests who lodge with the master; - servants and household members who at the time of Mass are necessary for serving the masters.

⁷ S.C. Rit., Apr. 10, 1896, n. 3896, new edition.

1030. Disputed question. When those who enjoy the privilege of a private oratory cannot go to church, it is asked whether they are held to use the privilege, if they can conveniently have a priest. (a) Some deny this, because no one is held to use a privilege, and besides the precept does not oblige one to employ an extraordinary means. (b) Others, with St. Alphonsus (n. 319), affirm this, and indeed more reasonably, as we think: for the privileged are held not by force of the privilege, but by force of the precept, which obliges all who are able to fulfill it without grave inconvenience to hear Mass.

1031. Any grave cause, or any notable harm, whether one's own or that of neighbor, excuses from the precept of hearing Mass: for since there is question of a positive law, which in its determination is merely ecclesiastical, a proportionately grave cause excuses from its observance. Generally a fourfold cause is assigned: 1. moral impossibility; 2. charity; 3. duty to be fulfilled; 4. custom.

1032. 1. Impossibility, not only absolute and physical, but also moral. From this head the following are excused:

(a) The sick and convalescents who, on account of bodily weakness, roughness of the road, inclemency of the air, prudently fear some detriment to health: concerning this they themselves can judge, nor are they strictly held to recur to the judgment of a physician.

(b) Those who are far distant from church, so that they cannot go to church without notable fatigue or expense, all the circumstances of persons, roads, inclemency of the air, etc., being considered; in this matter the judgment of prudent men must be followed, which is diverse for various regions. Those who can easily be conveyed by horse or carriage are not as easily excused as those who must undertake the journey on foot.

(c) Those who cannot be present at the sacred rite without undergoing a notable loss of money; thus travelers who cannot interrupt or defer a necessary journey; those who otherwise incur grave loss, or are deprived of an opportunity of making notable gain; those laboring in workshops in which they cannot abandon work begun: in which case, nevertheless, the master of the workshop ought to order matters so that the workers successively have time for hearing Mass, as often as this can be done.

(d) Those who deservedly fear the loss of honor, for example, women who lack garments suitable to their condition (which today rarely happens, because decent garments are procured for a small price), or those pregnant from a crime, as long as their disgrace is hidden, unless they can be present at the sacred rite very early in the morning or in a church where they are unknown.

(e) Those who are not under their own right, and cannot hear Mass without undergoing indignation or vexations: thus wives, children, servants, soldiers, when they seriously fear that they will be subject to the very troublesome mockeries of husbands, parents, masters, commanders.

But, in all these adjuncts, those who are thus prevented ought seriously to attempt to remove the impediments as soon as morally possible.

1033. 2. Charity excuses those who are held to assist a neighbor in bodily or spiritual necessity, and cannot perform this without omitting Mass; for example, those who assist the sick, - bring help to neighbors who otherwise would suffer grave harm from fire, storm, or another calamity, - settle quarrels and disputes or impede grave sins.

1034. 3. Duty to be fulfilled excuses all those who are impeded by the duties of their state from being present at the sacred rite: mothers and nurses, servants, guards, soldiers keeping watch, who cannot be absent on account of a necessary ministry. Nevertheless servants who are frequently impeded by the bad will of the master ought, when opportunity is given, to seek another position.

1035. 4. Custom, where it is in force, excuses widows within the first month of widowhood; women after childbirth, for a month or six weeks; brides, on those days on which their nuptials are proclaimed, if they cannot be present at another Mass.

1036. Practical admonition. (a) When penitents confess that they have omitted the sacred rite, let the confessor ask about the cause, so that he may be able to judge the gravity of the sin, and also hand down opportune counsels for the future.

(b) If any are legitimately impeded from assisting at the sacred rite on Sundays and feast days, they are to be advised to supply this at home by prayers and good works. But if any are prevented throughout the whole year, they are to be exhorted to hear Mass sometimes on weekdays, lest they be altogether deprived of the most abundant fruits of the sacrifice; indeed, according to those who think that by divine law the faithful are held sometimes to be present at the sacred rite (Lehmkuhl, n. 567), they are obliged to this: and this opinion is not lacking in probability; for, given the institution of the Eucharistic sacrifice, it is very probable that Christ willed Christians sometimes to be present at it.

(c) Although there is no special obligation of assisting at Vespers and of performing the other pious exercises on Sundays and feast days, nevertheless this is earnestly to be commended.

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.

Five are chiefly enumerated: necessity or very great utility, piety toward God, charity toward neighbor, custom, dispensation. But in all these cases, at least some time should be devoted to divine worship, if this can be done.

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.

Man, being dependent upon God every moment of his life, and constantly enjoying His blessings, naturally owes Him supreme worship and adoration always. The devout Catholic must, therefore, make his whole life, as it were, an act of uninterrupted divine service. But since it is impossible for him to worship His Maker actually at every moment, without interruption, the divine and the ecclesiastical law has set aside certain seasons in which he is bound to serve God more assiduously and to worship Him in a special manner.

“By this [the third] precept of the Law,” says the Roman Catechism, “‘is prescribed in due order that external worship which is due by us to God; for this is as it were a fruit of the preceding precept. Led by the faith and hope that we repose in Him, to worship Him piously in our inmost souls, we cannot but adore Him with external worship and thanksgiving. And as this is a duty which cannot be easily discharged by those who are detained by the occupations of human affairs, a fixed time has been appointed, when it may.be conveniently performed.”¹

¹ Cat. Rom., P. III, c. 4, qu. 1: “By this [third] precept of the law that external worship which is owed by us to God is rightly and orderly prescribed; for it is, as it were, a certain fruit of the preceding precept, since we cannot but venerate with external worship and give thanks to Him whom we piously worship in our inmost affections, moved by faith and by the hope which we have placed in Him. And since these things cannot easily be performed by those who are occupied with human affairs, a certain time has been established in which they may conveniently be accomplished.”

The sanctification of the days and seasons thus appointed by the Church constitutes an essential part of divine worship. “To this it will materially conduce,” says the same authority, “if the people be given to understand and see clearly, how just and reasonable it is that we have some certain days which we should devote entirely to the divine worship, and on which we should acknowledge, adore, and venerate our Lord, from whom we have received supreme and innumerable blessings.”²

² Cat. Rom., P. III, c. 4, qu. 26: “It is of very great value that the people should understand and plainly perceive how just and consonant with reason it is that we should have certain days which we devote wholly to divine worship, and that we should acknowledge, worship, and venerate our Lord, from whom we have received the greatest and innumerable benefits.”

And again: “The worship of God and the practice of religion, which are expressed in this precept, exist in the law of nature, since it is ordained by nature that we should spend some hours in those things that belong to the worship of God, a proof of which is that we find among all nations certain fixed public festivals, which were consecrated to the performance of sacred and divine things.”³

³ Ibid., qu. 6: “The worship of God and religion which is expressed by this [third] precept has its origin in the law of nature, since nature has arranged that we should occupy some hours in those things which pertain to the worship of God. As proof of this, we see that among all nations there have been certain fixed and public feast days which were consecrated to sacred and divine things.”

1. Under the New Dispensation Sunday takes the place of the ancient Jewish Sabbath. The commandment which bade men to keep holy the Sabbath day was partly moral and partly ceremonial. It was moral in so far as man is obliged by the moral law of nature to devote some time exclusively to the worship of God; it was purely ceremonial in so far as it fixed the time to be devoted to this service. As a ceremonial precept, the law was susceptible of being changed, and was actually changed for prudent reasons by the Apostles.⁴ Whereas the Jewish observance of the Sabbath served as a reminder of the creation of the world, which was the first creative act of God, the celebration of the Christian Sunday is intended to remind us of the second or higher creation, namely, the redemption of the human race by the Son of God, more especially His Resurrection and the sending of the Holy Ghost, the seal and assurance of redemption. The true meaning of the commandment is that man shall set aside a certain period of time during which he refrains from bodily labor and devotes himself to divine worship.⁵

⁴ Acts XX, 7; 1 Cor. XVI, 2; Apoc. I, 10.—St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 122, art. 4, ad 4: “The observance of the Lord’s day in the New Law succeeds the observance of the Sabbath, not by force of the precept of the law, but by the institution of the Church and the custom of the Christian people.”—Cat. Rom., P. III, c. 4, qu. 18.

⁵ Gen. II, 3; Ex. XX, 8–11; XXXI, 17; Deut. V, 12 sqq.—St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 1a 2ae, qu. 103, art. 3, ad 4: “The Sabbath, which signified the first creation, is changed into the Lord’s day, on which the new creation begun in the resurrection of Christ is commemorated.”—Cat. Rom., P. III, c. 4, qu. 1: “The true and proper sense of this precept tends to this, that man should apply both mind and body to this care: that, at a certain appointed time, free from business and bodily labors, he piously worship and venerate God.”—J. Winkler, Der Sonntag, Lucerne 1847, pp. 46 sqq.; G. Müller, Sabbat und Sonntag, Bremen 1898; J. Hehn, Der Israelitische Sabbat, Münster 1909.

2. Besides Sunday, the Church has set aside certain festival days, known as holydays of obligation. This was done with a twofold purpose, first, to recall to the faithful particular mysteries of the Redemption and to induce them to venerate the Saints,—men and women in whom the grace of Jesus Christ has proved itself extraordinarily effective; secondly, to spur them on to insure their own sanctification by following the example of Christ and His Saints. The feasts of the Saints are in the last analysis, feasts of our Lord Himself, who has given them the grace to conquer sin, death, and the world. These feasts should serve primarily to glorify God, through whom the Saints were able to practice virtue; secondarily, to thank Him, the Giver of all good things, for the graces and favors by means of which He has chosen them for His fa- vorite children and made them co-heirs of Heaven. These festivals should, moreover, serve to remind us of our own helplessness. Being unworthy sinners, who have no right to be heard by God, we ask the Saints to intercede for us at the throne of mercy.⁶

⁶ 1 Cor. XV, 57; 1 John V, 4.—Cat. Rom., P. III, c. 4, qu. 19: “Other feast days, however, were instituted from the beginning of the Church and then in subsequent times by the apostles and our holy Fathers, so that we might piously and holily cultivate the memory of God’s benefits. Among them those days are held most celebrated which are consecrated by religion because of the mysteries of our redemption; then those which are dedicated to the most holy Virgin Mary, then to the apostles and martyrs and the other saints reigning with Christ, in whose victory the goodness and power of God are praised, due honors are paid to them, and the faithful people are incited to their imitation.”—St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 13, art. 1, ad 2: “God is praised in His saints insofar as the works which God effects in the saints are praised.”—On the relation of the Old Testament holydays to those of the New Testament see St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 1a 2ae, qu. 103, art. 3, ad 4.

Holydays of obligation must be kept in the same way as Sundays.

The commandment to keep holy the Sundays and holydays of obligation involves a twofold duty, namely, to abstain from servile work and to participate in certain prescribed acts of worship.

1. Abstaining from servile labor and attending religious services are integral constituents of the one and eternal idea that has found expression in the Decalogue, and can no more be separated than body and soul in man. The body honors God by resting, the soul by participating in divine worship. In both respects the sanctification of the Sunday corresponds to a necessity of human nature and is to be regarded as part of the natural law, which has merely been determined in a more precise way by positive law.⁷

⁷ F. X. Linsenmann, Lehrbuch der Moraltheologie, pp. 370 sq.

The ethical, economic, and hygienic importance of the Christian observance of Sundays and holydays is now pretty generally acknowledged, and there is hardly a civilized State that does not consider it part of its duty to enforce Sunday rest and the observance of such additional holidays as it officially recognizes.⁸

⁸ G. Uhlhorn, Ueber die Sonntagsfrage in ihrer sozialen Bedeutung, Leipsic 1870; P. Niemeyer, Die Sonntagsruhe vom Standpunkte der Gesundheitslehre, Berlin 1876; R. Engelbert, Der Sonntag, Leipsic 1898; P. Engelmann, Le Repos du Dimanche dans l’Industrie, Paris 1899; Jos. Husslein, S.J., The World Problem, New York 1918, p. 82.

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).

4. The religious observance of Sundays and holydays of obligation implies: a) The performance of works of piety and charity, e.g., praying, listening to the word of God, spiritual reading, reception of the Sacraments, visiting the sick, etc. The main purpose for which we are commanded to abstain from bodily labor and business on Sundays and holydays of obligation, is that we may be able to devote ourselves more freely to the worship of God and to works of mercy. “We observe the Sabbath fully and perfectly,” says the Catechism of the Council of Trent, “when we render to God the duties of piety and religion; and this is evidently the ‘Sabbath’ which Isaias¹⁸ calls ‘delightful,’ for festivals are, as it were, the delight of God and of pious men. If, then, to this religious and holy observance of the Sabbath are added works of mercy, the rewards proposed to us in the same chapter are indeed very great and numerous.”¹⁹

¹⁸ Is. LVIII, 13.

¹⁹ Cat. Rom., P. III, c. 4, qu. 10; cfr. qu. 25–28.

To hear the word of God on Sundays and holydays of obligation is not contained in the letter, but is certainly demanded by the spirit of the commandment with which we are dealing. The Church, by compelling her ministers to preach on Sundays and holydays²⁰ clearly expects that the faithful will listen with fervor and devotion. Attendance at the sermon is demanded, first, by the reverence we owe to the word of God, and, secondly, by the duty we have of informing ourselves about the truths of our holy religion.²¹ To miss the sermon purposely and habitually indicates lukewarmness and dislike of God.²²

²⁰ Conc. Trid., Sess. V, De Ref., c. 2; Sess. XXII, De Sacrif. Missae, c. 8; Sess. XXIV, De Ref., c. 4.

²¹ Cfr. Matt. XXVIII, 19 sq.; Luke X, 16; Acts II, 37–41; IV, 4; VIII, 5 sq.; Rom. X, 14, 17.

²² Cfr. H. Busembaum, S.J., Medulla Theol. Mor., l. III, tr. 3, c. 1, dub. 3: “Attendance at a sermon is commanded, but not under mortal sin, except insofar as each person is bound to learn the things necessary for salvation. I said, except insofar, etc., because more uneducated men who are ignorant of the principal mysteries of faith, especially those which it has been said they are bound to know under grave obligation, are bound by the law of charity (if otherwise they cannot conveniently learn them) under grave sin to attend a sermon, or rather catechesis. Bonacina adds that in that case even a sermon is to be preferred to Mass.”—Cfr. St. Alphonsus, Theol. Mor., l. III, n. 308 (ed. Gaudé, I, 569).—Cat. Rom., P. III, c. 4, qu. 25: “The sacred sermon must be heard attentively and diligently by the faithful; for nothing is less tolerable or so truly unworthy as to despise the words of Christ or to hear them negligently.”

The word of God should be listened to earnestly, rever- ently, and with an ardent desire to utilize it for the good of the soul.²³

²³ Matt. XIII, 1 sqq.; Luke VIII, 4 sqq.

It has been asserted that towards the end of the Middle Ages the sermon ceased to constitute an integral part of divine service. This is an error. The medieval confession books, issued for the instruction of the faithful, inculcate the hearing of the sermon on Sundays and holydays as a strict duty, neglect of which is on a level with failure to hear Mass. Bernardine of Busti, an Italian Franciscan, who died in the year 1500, in a sermon declares that every Catholic is obliged under pain of sin to hear the word of God and that those who are uninstructed in the fundamental truths of salvation commit a mortal sin if they neglect to hear an occasional sermon. To the question what would be more meritorious,—to attend Mass or to hear the word of God, he replies that on week-days it is better to hear a sermon, whereas a distinction should be made in regard to Sundays and holydays of obligation: he who is familiar with the truths necessary for salvation must attend Mass in order not to violate the express commandment of the Church; but he who is not well instructed in these truths, must hear the sermon rather than attend Mass, because the latter is enjoined by a precept of the Church only, whereas the former is commanded by a positive law of God.²⁴

²⁴ Cfr. Der Katholik, Mayence 1899, I, 95 sq.

b) To hear Mass on Sundays and holydays of obligation is a strictly binding precept.²⁵

²⁵ Cfr. Vol. II of this Handbook, p. 133.

α) It implies assisting at a whole Mass. He who is unable to hear a whole Mass, should try to be present at least at the essential and integral parts of the Holy Sacrifice, i. e., consecration and communion. Should he be legitimately prevented from assisting at these essential portions, however, he is under no obligation to assist at the remaining ceremonies, which are merely accidental.²⁶

²⁶ H. Noldin, S.J., Summa Theol. Mor., Vol. II, p. 278; Ballerini-Palmieri, Opus Theol. Mor., II, n. 781.

Wilfully to miss any part of the Mass on Sundays or holydays of obligation is a sin,—either grave or light, according to the nature and length of the part missed. The more important parts of the Mass which may not be missed without grave sin are: (1) from the point of view of duration (ratione durationis), the part extending from the psalm Iudica to the offertory, inclusive; (2) from the point of view of dignity (ratione dignitatis), the part from the preface, exclusively, to the consecration; the part from the consecration to the Pater noster; the consecration and communion taken together, and the consecration alone, though not (probabiliter) the communion alone. One who leaves the church before and returns immediately after consecration, does not, strictly speaking, satisfy the precept.²⁷

²⁷ Suarez, De Eucharistia, qu. 88, sect. 2, n. 6; Noldin, Summa Theol. Mor., II, 278 sq.

To determine the guilt of those who come late to Mass, says Noldin, we must look, not so much to the part missed, as to the degree of negligence of which they are guilty and their awareness of the danger of not hearing the whole Mass. He who fails to hurry to church because he thinks he will miss only a small part of Mass, commits a venial sin, even if he arrives after the offertory, whereas he who is in doubt, or anticipates that he will miss an important part of the holy Sacrifice, sins grievously, even if he should arrive in time for the Gloria.²⁸

²⁸ Noldin, Summa Theol. Mor., II, 279.

Does one who hears one-half each of two different Masses comply with the law of the Church? If he hears the two halves simultaneously, he does not comply with his duty, because the Mass, by its very nature, consists of successive parts.²⁹ If he hears the two halves successively, one after the other, and the consecration and communion form part of the same Mass, he satisfies his obligation, because he hears one complete Mass; but if the consecration and communion do not form part of the same Mass, he does not satisfy his obligation because the parts at which he attends do not constitute an integral sacrifice.³⁰

²⁹ Innocent XI condemned the following proposition (n. 53): “He satisfies the precept of the Church concerning hearing Mass who hears two parts of it, indeed even four, at the same time from different celebrants.”

³⁰ Noldin, Summa Theol. Mor., II, 279.

From what we have said it follows that if one has not heard a complete Mass, he is bound, if possible, to supply the defect (obligatio supplendi), under pain of mortal sin if the parts omitted were important, under pain of merely venial sin if they were small and unimportant.³¹

³¹ Ibid.

β) The duty of hearing Mass on Sundays and holydays of obligation implies a bodily presence which is both moral and continuous (praesentia moralis et continua). A person is morally present at Mass, (1) if he is morally united with the celebrant, (2) if he kneels, stands or sits somewhere within the church or near it in a place from which he is able either to see or hear the celebrant, or at least to follow the sacred rite by watching those who can see or hear the priest at the altar.

Therefore Mass may be lawfully attended anywhere within the church, including the choir, even behind the organ, or in some side chapel, from which the celebrant can be neither seen nor heard, provided the hearer can follow the sacred ceremony by attending to the ringing of the bells or watching others who are able to see what is going on.

Mass may be lawfully heard also in the sacristy or some other place near the altar, from which the celebrant can be seen or, if the door is closed, can at least be heard.

— Substance of the obligation. What it is to hear Mass. "On feast days of precept, Mass must be heard": i.e., human, bodily, and devout presence must be exhibited to it.

That it may be human, there is required the intention of furnishing this act of external worship, or of honoring the sacrifice by one's presence, but not the intention of satisfying the precept (cf. I, n. 198).

That it may be bodily, it is required that the faithful person externally be and appear present, whether from the place where he is: the church; or through conjunction with those who surround the altar, when the crowded multitude is not contained by the church, or hears Mass under the open sky; or through the external manner by which he manifests attention, when, for example, from a neighboring house, behind a wall, in the sacristy, he intends to participate in the Mass. He is not considered present who by the aid of a telescope observes Mass in a distant place.

That it may be devout, at least the attention which is called external must be furnished, i.e., that the faithful person externally do nothing alien to divine worship, or by which he is prohibited from at least confusedly turning his mind to the fact that the sacrifice is being offered there. It does not stand in the way that he himself does not attend internally.

All attention of itself is internal. Yet they distinguish the just-named external attention, which rather negatively excludes external distractions, from the interior attention by which one positively wills to apply his mind to sacred things, whether by observing the sacred rites of the priest (superficial attention), or by considering their signification (literal attention), or by thinking again on God or divine things (spiritual attention) (cf. Lugo, d. 22, n. 25).

Wherefore it is not necessary that someone pray during Mass, or truly notice the various or principal actions of the priest, as if pious reading or contemplation has occupied the whole man. Therefore they satisfy the precept who play the organ: the playing refers to the Mass itself; who collect alms: that good work is a certain accession to the sacrifice and does not impede every attention; who serve at Mass, even while they withdraw for certain moments to seek wine, a host, incense, lights, or to ring the bell for the consecration: they are not considered absent; who pray at another altar, perform the way of the cross, make confession: those pious works do not impede confused attention, and the mind of the Church is not opposed to this benign interpretation; who now converse, now attend, if not too much time is spent in conversation. A priest who celebrates can hear another Mass at the same time.

They do not satisfy the precept who sleep for a notable time, although involuntarily, or trifle, play, laugh, fixedly look at other things, read profane things, even learn a sacred text by memory: for these things take away either bodily or devout assistance.

One who half-asleep preserves a certain confused consciousness of his presence at Mass is not compelled to hear another Mass (St. Alph., l. 3, n. 316); and by epikeia he is dispensed from another attempt who, from his physical state, is exposed to too great a danger of new sleep.

— Mass must be heard when celebrated in some Catholic rite, under the open sky or in a non-private oratory, excepting private cemetery chapels (c. 1249).

Therefore it is not established that he does not satisfy the precept who hears a Mass which a true priest of a schismatic or heretical sect has celebrated in a Catholic rite: although formal communication with a celebrant of this kind is prohibited, and therefore his Mass must not be heard.

Oratories of a religious or pious house are not considered private, unless there is question of a Mass which is said in the room of a private person, even a religious, for example because of infirmity. The oratory of a private house is recognized by this sign, that a pontifical indult is required so that Mass may habitually be celebrated there. In the indult are numbered the persons who can satisfy there the precept of hearing Mass. And the one serving the Mass, as also the celebrant himself, seems to satisfy the precept in such an oratory.

The precept is also satisfied by him who hears a Mass celebrated by a cardinal or bishop, or for the convenience of either. For concerning a bishop the Sacred Congregation of Rites responded this on June 8, 1896.

— Mass must be heard whole, i.e., from the beginning up to the last Gospel exclusively. An omission is mortal which affects grave matter. Gravity depends both on quantity, if this reaches the third part of an ordinary Mass, and on the dignity of the part omitted, or proximity to the substance of the sacrifice. Wherefore a brief absence during the part which extends from the canon to communion more easily becomes grave. We add certain moral estimations:

It is not certainly grave: to omit the Mass of the catechumens, or all things up to the offertory exclusively (at least if then the last Gospel is heard); or all things after the reception of the Holy Blood; to omit all things up to the epistle exclusively and all things after the reception of the Blood.

It is not grave to omit only the first Gospel (even if it is the Passion of the Lord), or only the offertory, or only the preface.

It is reputed grave to omit all things from the canon to the consecration, or from the consecration to the Pater noster. It is grave to omit both the consecration and communion. The omission of communion alone, especially since it is sufficiently established that it is not essential to the sacrifice, can be held light. With greater reason several condemn as mortal the omission of the consecration, whether of either species or certainly of both. On account of extrinsic authority, however, the more benign opinion can be held, which rather, with Lehmkuhl, I, 718 note, we explain thus: when a momentary withdrawal has as its cause a very brief necessity, which is not considered to have interrupted moral conjunction with the others standing by (cf. Lugo, d. 22, n. 45).

He is excused from grave sin (from all sin, if the cause is reasonable) who hears successively two half Masses; provided that, as after St. Alphonsus, l. 3, n. 311, they commonly require, he is present at one whole sacrifice, and therefore the consecration and communion are of the same sacrifice: the law receives this benign interpretation.

To supply the light part which has been omitted is best; but concerning a strict obligation of such imperfect reparation it is not established. But he who has arrived only after the consecration does not now seem to be held to hearing the remaining part, since he cannot satisfy the substance of the precept.

— Excuse. From hearing Mass, besides the impossibility under which, for example, one labors who is at once blind and deaf, there excuses any notable or moderately grave inconvenience, whether in mind, or in body, or in goods of fortune, or in honor, reputation, shame, which is reasonably feared (Lehmk., I, 722). Yet habitual omission can be conceded with more difficulty, since from the divine precept itself Mass seems sometimes to have to be heard. Wherefore those who are regularly impeded on Sunday should be present at least at some Masses through the year, on another day. Therefore he is excused:

who by reason of health prudently omits visits to friends; or has to fear notable heaviness of the head, weariness of strength, or delay in convalescing. And in doubt that precept does not seem to have to be urged;

who must guard a city, flock, or infants; or must be a comfort to a sick person who would suffer at least grave disturbance or sadness. If from two spouses one is retained at home, there is at least great fittingness that they exchange turns;

who does not seem able to hear Mass without grave offense of husband, parents, masters. If, however, this happens rather often, inquiry must be made about another means, e.g., about changing service. It is licit for a father, for correction, to keep a son closed at home, even if thus he omits Mass; it is licit for a master to require service which is thought necessary from servants with the same foresight. The servants themselves must take care with moderate diligence that they be able to be present at Mass; nevertheless they are not bound to bear a notable diminution of sleep from this;

who otherwise would lose a convenient occasion of travel. Otherwise, he is forbidden to set out on Sunday unless before the journey or on the journey he hears Mass;

who would have too great a distance to overcome. By a pedestrian journey of one good hour or five quarters (understand this of the going alone), all seem absolutely to be excused, and a lesser distance excuses if from the condition of weather, road, or person, the trouble is increased. But for one to whom, without new expenses in some way serious, there is easily available a private or public carriage (tramway) or even a "bicycle," a greater distance is needed for him to be excused;

who, from the custom of the country, is not accustomed to go out, for example in time of mourning or after childbirth;

who would suffer notable embarrassment, whether because he lacks suitable clothes (unless in the first hours or in another church the cause ceases), or would have to hear the proclamation of his own marriage, etc.;

who wishes to avoid another's scandal, e.g., a young man by whom a girl is loved desperately;

who would lose extraordinary profit and profit notable to himself (e.g., double the profit of one day), or in exercising the office of driver, sailor, miller, would suffer notable loss;

who is dispensed for a just, although lesser, cause. In individual cases, local Ordinaries and pastors can, by force of c. 1245, dispense for a just cause individual faithful subject to themselves or individual families even outside the territory, and, in their own territory, even pilgrims.

The same power, after the manner of a pastor, is had by Superiors in an exempt clerical religion, as regards professed members, novices, or others dwelling in the religious house day and night by reason of service, or education, or hospitality, or infirm health (c. 1245, §3).

— Must someone use a privilege for hearing Mass? We think one must respond with this distinction. It need not be arranged that Mass be said from a privilege; but if it is said, one must assist at it, at least if it is said in that place where the precept can of itself be satisfied, for example in an open place on a ship.

— Things to be desired. Two things are chiefly to be striven for in this matter: 1. that the faithful formally and therefore also by other exercises strive to sanctify feasts, and chiefly use that occasion for learning religion better; 2. that the faithful, even the humbler, be taught a reasonable manner, at once pious and accessible, in which they may be present at Mass, so that, as befits man, they may be able to esteem the most august things by their own consciousness.

— "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.

Preliminary Note. Since this article is rather long, it is divided into four sections: 1. on the nature and origin of this worship; 2. on the utility of this worship; 3. on hearing Mass, which is the first part of this worship; 4. on cessation from servile works, which is the other part of this worship.

This article treats of all those things which are prescribed both in the third precept of the Decalogue: "Remember that thou keep holy the sabbath day,"⁶²⁶ and in the first precept of the Church concerning the observance of feast days.

⁶²⁶ Ex. 20:8.

471. Alas, sad experience demonstrates more than sufficiently that, in those regions and families in which the sanctification of Sunday and feast days is little esteemed, faith soon vanishes, morals become corrupt, family life perishes, and even industrial progress is impeded. On the contrary, the due sanctification of Sunday and feast days produces the greatest benefits. For through it there is produced:

472. 1. The preservation of man's natural powers.

The physical powers of man, since they are limited, are quickly consumed unless they are restored by at least weekly rest. This rest is obtained much more certainly and efficaciously if determined days are appointed at fixed intervals, on which not only ordinary labors are interrupted, but spiritual refreshment also is furnished through religious worship. Certainly a man could also choose a day of rest of his own accord and worship God in a private manner, but this end is attained much more efficaciously if a determined day is established for all men by ecclesiastical and civil law. For by the force of the unavoidable competition existing everywhere, many men (especially laborers and artisans) would be compelled to labor more than is just, so that no time of rest would remain, if the law itself did not command Sunday and feast-day rest.

473. 2. A precious aid for the whole spiritual life.⁶⁴⁷

For man, oppressed by continual labors to sustain himself and his own, often distracted by various cares and anxieties, and enticed by many pleasures, gradually becomes totally immersed in material things; as the sad experience of all ages and peoples, among whom the faithful practice of religion was neglected, demonstrates. Witnesses are the ancient pagans, whose detestable vices and altogether irrational life St. Paul describes so graphically.⁶⁴⁸ "Bread and Circuses" cried those pagans, thus manifesting that they desired nothing other than sustenance and pleasure. But if on Sundays and feast days all are bound by force of law to cease from servile works and apply themselves to religious exercises, hearts are raised above matter to spiritual and heavenly things. After Sunday rest has been duly completed, men return eagerly, equipped with new powers of mind and body, to their daily labors, which they perform with greater energy. Hence it has happened that those peoples who faithfully observe Sunday rest are accustomed to surpass, even in commerce and industrial affairs, other nations which are accustomed to make little of the observance of Sunday. Therefore Sunday rest in no way impedes even the industrial progress of peoples. To this is added that, through religious exercises performed on Sundays and feast days, the moral and religious life of man is efficaciously promoted. Through sermons heard concerning matters of religion and morals, and through graces received in religious exercises, man is greatly assisted to detest vices and to lead a well-ordered life.

⁶⁴⁷ Cf. Tanquerey, l.c., n. 1014, and Gilfillan, The Sabbath Viewed in the Light of Reason, Revelation, and History. Edinburgh, 1867.

⁶⁴⁸ Rom. 1:21ff.

474. 3. The integrity of family life is fostered.

For the various members of a family are often compelled to occupy themselves with different labors throughout the entire week. Spouses are separated from one another, and parents from their children; but when they are reunited in the evening hours after their labors have been completed, they generally cannot, being tired in their powers, sufficiently enjoy the consolations of domestic life. But if Sunday rest is well observed, then all the members of the family can converse pleasantly together at least once in the week and foster mutual love. Especially, the good education of children is almost impossible without Sunday rest. For unless children are incited by the example of their parents to religious worship, they scarcely, if indeed at all, guard against irreligion and bad morals.

475. 4. The propagation of social worship, and even of the true Church herself, is obtained.

Christ founded a visible Church and consequently also requires visible worship performed by His Church. Such worship is social, that is, it must be performed by ecclesiastical society. Further, it is impossible for social worship to be completed in the due manner unless all the faithful are bound to assemble in churches at determined times. Moreover, it is very fitting and efficacious that such assemblies take place on Sundays and feast days, as perpetual experience demonstrates. It is likewise evident how good an influence religious services performed in our churches on Sundays and feast days exercise even upon non-Catholics who may be present. Therefore very many conversions have taken their beginning from attendance rendered at religious services. Thus the true Church is propagated through the social worship of Sunday and feast days.

From these things it is apparent that every effort must be made so that the observance of Sunday and feast days may take root more and more in the Christian people. Hence those associations founded for the protection of Sunday rest are to be fostered; hence civil laws already in force in several kingdoms concerning the observance of Sunday are to be commended; hence violators of Sunday rest are to be prudently admonished, and indeed, if they cause public scandal, they are to be denounced to the competent superior; hence, finally, let each person, by most religiously observing the Sunday precept, furnish a good example to others and procure spiritual profit for himself.

652 is confirmed by can. 1243 and 1244 § 1. Note can. 1244 § 2. - 654 can. 1247 § 1. Al. As regards 1º can. 1247 § 3; 2º from § 1 the feasts of Corpus Christi and of Saint Joseph are to be added; 3º is confirmed by § 1; 5º can. 1252 § 4 and can. 1245 § 2: add Holy Saturday after midday, when the law of abstinence and fast ceases.

656 is confirmed by can. 1248. - 658 sqq. can. 1248. - 664 I can. 1245 §§ 1 and 3. - 670 sqq. can. 1248. - 677 can. 1249 and 1190. - 678 1º can. 1188 § 2 n. 1; 2º n. 2. - 679 can. 1188 § 2 n. 3; ibid. 2º can. 1195 § 1. As regards more solemn feasts, the concession of the celebration of Mass can be made by the Ordinary from just causes, distinct from the causes of an indult from § 2. - He who has an indult etc. is confirmed by can. 1192 and 1193. Let it be noted from can. 1190 that small chapels erected in a cemetery by private persons are private oratories. See, however, can. 1194.

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.

S. Th. II-II, q. 122, a. 4.

685. From what law and to what does the precept of the observance of feasts oblige. - From the law of nature there is a precept of assigning some time to the external worship of God: for there is in man a natural inclination to this, that some time be deputed to every necessary thing, such as bodily refreshment, sleep, and other things of this sort; hence also to divine worship, by which the mind is spiritually refreshed. But positive law establishes the determination of this time and the mode of externally worshiping God: in the Old Testament, indeed, the divine Mosaic law established the observance of the sabbath, but this determination, as being purely ceremonial, ceased when the New Law came, along with the other ceremonies of the Old Law, so that it was not changed into another but was totally abrogated; but in the New Testament, from the time of the Apostles, a custom was introduced and gradually made obligatory, establishing the observance of the first day of the week. To this day the Church has still joined several other feasts, which today are those of the Nativity, Circumcision, Epiphany, Ascension, and most holy Body of Christ, the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary, the gracious Mother of God, St. Joseph her Spouse, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and finally All Saints (can. 1247).

But in certain regions, as in France and Belgium, by territorial privilege they have been reduced to four: the Nativity and Ascension of the Lord, the Assumption of the B. M. V., and the Feast of All Saints. Hence if a Frenchman or Belgian is staying outside his fatherland in a place where the other feasts have not been abolished, he is bound to observe them.

Moreover, the precept of observing feasts includes a twofold part: the one negative, of abstaining from one midnight to the next from servile and forensic works (can. 1248), which are especially apt to draw the faithful away from divine worship; - the other positive, of assisting at the sacrifice of the Mass, concerning which it will be said where sacrifice is treated.

688. The precept of abstaining from prohibited works obliges under grave obligation all the faithful who have the use of reason from the age of seven onward;³ nevertheless it admits lightness of matter. Authors generally judge:

³ Hence proposition 52 was condemned by Innocent XI: "The precept of keeping feasts does not oblige under mortal sin, scandal set aside, if contempt is absent."

a) with regard to servile works, it is certainly mortal to labor beyond two hours, or two and a half hours for a very laborious work, and up to about three hours for a lighter work;

b) if the matter is so light that it is in no way contrary to the end of the law, and is reckoned as almost nothing, it is not a sin, for example, to sew one or another stitch;

c) with regard to forensic works, the gravity of matter is determined more from the quality and importance of the work (and from scandal) than from its quantity itself; for example, a sale of a house with great solemnity, or a session of a tribunal, would be mortal, even if it is done in a brief time;

d) prohibited works, performed without an excusing cause within the same day, coalesce, provided they are exercised by the same person; hence one does not sin gravely who orders six servants to labor for an hour, unless however there is scandal.

397. Principles. - I. All the faithful, having the use of reason, and who can morally advert to Mass, are bound under grave sin to be present at it on single Sundays and feast days, unless a just cause excuses them. This is established from various places of Canon Law.²

I said: under grave sin; for there is question of a thing grave both in itself and according to the common estimation of the faithful and the unanimous consent of theologians.

398. • II. Besides this, the faithful are bound by force of the precept to furnish nothing else, at least under grave sin. The reason is that nothing else is found certainly prescribed. This is the common doctrine of theologians.

I said: at least under grave sin. For most theologians add: nor under light sin of itself. For although servile works are prohibited for this reason, that the faithful may be able more easily to be vacant for divine things, nevertheless these are prescribed by no law. Moreover the end of the precept does not fall under the precept. - Thus Suarez,¹ Elbel,² and many others, as even Concina admits, who calls this opinion common.

Hence one excused from Mass on Sunday is not bound by reason of the precept to complete at home the prayers which he would have recited during the time of Mass, or is accustomed to recite. - Suarez.³

III. Yet per accidens the faithful can be bound to something else, not indeed by force of this precept, but because it can be necessary for fulfilling another obligation. For they are bound to be present at sermons or catechesis on feast days if the sermon is necessary for Christian instruction or for the ordering of morals; because he who is bound to the end is also bound to the means necessary for this end. - Billuart and others commonly. - For the rest, the faithful are earnestly to be induced to exercise other pious works besides Mass, to pour forth more abundant prayers, etc.

We must treat: 1° of those things which are required for hearing Mass rightly; 2° of causes excusing from it.

Three things are required: 1° presence of body; 2° attention of mind; 3° due place.

A moral and continuous presence of body is required.

399. • I. Moral, namely, one must be present where Mass is taking place, so that he can be said to be one from the number of those assisting and offering the Sacrifice; but for this it suffices that he be in a place from which he can follow Mass as to the principal parts, whether by seeing, or by hearing, or by attending to the signs of the others assisting.

II. Continuous, that is, persevering from the beginning to the end of Mass, so that he sins gravely who omits a notable part of it, and venially who omits a slight part, unless a just cause excuses him.

You will resolve. - 1° He validly assists at Mass who, although he neither sees the priest nor hears the words, distinguishes the parts of the Mass by the sound of the bell, by the chant of the choir, by the movements of those assisting, to whom he is morally joined, although he is outside the Church, in which he cannot be contained because of the crowd. Likewise he who stands behind the altar, behind a column, or behind a wall, provided he can advert to the principal parts of the Mass.

2° Likewise, not improbably, he who is in a neighboring house, from which through a window he sees the altar, although a road intervenes, provided that the space between the Church and the place in which he is be small. But otherwise if a great space intervenes, as is more commonly taught.

3° He who remains a great distance away does not assist at Mass, although he sees the church, the altar, the crowd, because in common use he cannot be said morally to hear and to be present. According to Lugo and others, a space of thirty paces from the crowd assisting does not seem so great that it impedes someone from being present at Mass; yet St. Alphonsus¹ does not admit this.

400. Questions. - Quaer. 1° What omission is to be reckoned grave or light in Mass?

Resp. It cannot easily be determined; for although according to all, a third part of Mass is notable, nevertheless it is not established what the third part is, since a notable part ought not to be judged only from duration. Yet according to the common opinion these things seem able to be established.

1° It is grave to omit everything up to the Offertory inclusively, or up to the oblation of the bread exclusively. But certainly it is light to omit everything up to the Epistle exclusively, and more probably even inclusively; indeed probably also, according to St. Alphonsus,² up to the Gospel inclusively, although the Holy Doctor holds the opposite opinion as more probable. The reason for these things is that what precedes does not properly pertain to the Sacrifice, but is only as it were preparation for it. - Lugo, etc.

2° According to all, it is grave to omit all things before the Gospel and at the same time all things after Communion; but not to omit only those things which follow Communion, indeed not even to omit all things before the Epistle and all things after Communion. - Lacroix,¹ St. Alphonsus.²

3° The omission of the Canon from the Consecration up to the Pater exclusively must be held grave, because it is a notable part in duration and dignity. But the omission of the Offertory, that is, of all things which are done from Dominus vobiscum after the Creed up to the Preface, is reckoned light; for in this broader sense³ the Offertory comes here; - likewise the omission of the Creed, because it is not a regular part of Mass.⁴ But the Gospel of St. John at the end more probably is not a part of the Mass, because before it the people are already dismissed by the blessing.

4° It is grave to omit the Consecration and Communion; indeed even the Consecration alone, because it is the most worthy part, in which, at least principally, the nature of the Sacrifice consists. Nay more, more probably and more commonly it is held that it is grave not to be present at even one Consecration or Communion alone, because the essence of the Sacrifice more probably consists in both the Consecration and in Communion, and St. Alphonsus practically adheres to this opinion.⁵

401. • Quaer. 2° Does he satisfy the precept who hears two half Masses from different priests, either simultaneously or successively?

Resp. 1° Negatively, if he hears them simultaneously. The reason is drawn from the interpretation of the common law, which is confirmed by Proposition 53 condemned by Innocent XI (p. XVII).

Resp. 2° But affirmatively, probably, if successively, if the Consecration and Communion are found in the same Mass, after another Mass has previously been heard up to the Consecration. Yet that without a just cause is at least venial.

Quaer. 3° Must he hear the remaining things who arrives after the Consecration at the last part of Mass?

Resp. Affirmatively, very probably, because the opinion is also sufficiently probable that the essence of the Sacrifice consists in the Consumption, and this opinion must be held in practice also for another reason, namely this, that a notable part of the ceremony prescribed by the Church can be heard.¹

Quaer. 4° Is he who omits a light part of Mass bound under light sin to supply it, if he can?

Resp. Affirmatively, more probably, because he is bound to hear an entire Mass; except if there is question of a very slight part. - Thus St. Alphonsus,² the Salmanticenses against others. For the rest, a sufficiently light reason can exempt from this obligation of supplying.

402. • Attention to Mass is distinguished as twofold: 1° internal, by which someone actually adverts and applies his mind to those things which are being done by the priest; 2° external, which consists in avoiding any external action which impedes the application of the mind, for example to converse, paint, ... etc.

But internal attention is threefold: 1° one to the words or actions of the priest; 2° another to the sense of the words or mysteries; 3° another to God Himself through prayers or pious meditations.

Principles. - I. For hearing Mass validly there is altogether required at least external attention; because in no way can he be said to be present at Mass who posits actions incompatible with internal attention; indeed he impudently mocks God and the Church. - Thus all.

II. Some internal attention is required besides, and at least the will of hearing Mass; because this is entirely required so that the hearing or presence may be human, moral, and religious from its object. - Suarez.⁴

III. But any internal attention from the three just explained suffices. The reason is that by any one of them the mind is sufficiently applied to the divine worship which is intended through the Sacrifice.

IV. No vocal prayer is absolutely required; because religious assistance honors God, and nothing else is prescribed.¹ - Yet in practice the faithful, especially the uninstructed, must be persuaded to recite some prayers, especially the customary prayers for the hearing of Mass, or the rosary of the most blessed Virgin, lest they be exposed to too many distractions.

403. Questions. - Quaer. 1° For fulfilling this precept, is internal attention required under grave sin?

Resp. The matter is very doubtful. The FIRST OPINION, from St. Alphonsus more common and more probable, affirms. For an act by which God is worshiped is prescribed by the Church; but God cannot be worshiped by mere physical presence; therefore.... Therefore the Church, by directly prescribing the external act of hearing Mass, seems to prescribe indirectly attention, at least some, as a condition without which the formal external act would not consist. - Thus St. Thomas, Billuart, Elbel, the Salmanticenses, and not a few others.

The SECOND OPINION denies. The reason is that assistance with voluntary attention, even merely external, is a sufficiently religious act, and it is not established that anything else is prescribed by the Church. - Thus Lugo, with many others, and St. Alphonsus² does not judge it improbable.

For the rest, in practice there does not appear so great a difference between each opinion. For according to the prior opinion, attention in a remiss degree altogether suffices, namely to the principal parts of Mass; but according to the later, there is required: 1° a pious movement of soul, or a true intention of honoring God; 2° such attention that the one assisting at Mass can render an account to himself that he is really assisting at Mass, and consequently that he adverts at least confusedly to its principal parts. Hence the faithful are not easily to be accused of grave fault because of defect of sufficient attention in Mass, but rather are lovingly to be exhorted to direct the mind piously and diligently to the divine Mysteries. For, says St. Alphonsus,³ after Elbel, Sporer, and Tamburini, no one ought to be anxious because of a scruple of attention not furnished, because it suffices to have had the general intention of worshiping God.

404. • Quaer. 2° Does he satisfy the precept who confesses sins during the time of Mass?

Resp. Negatively, both because he posits an action which impedes internal attention, since one confessing cannot be a witness of those things which are being done; and because he does not assist as one exhibiting worship, but as a guilty person. Nevertheless he is excused if the Confession is either easy and brief, since this does not impede continuous presence, or necessary, lest he remain for some time in mortal sin; for if a grave temporal inconvenience excuses from this precept, a fortiori a spiritual one will excuse.¹

Quaer. 3° Does a cleric reciting the Breviary during the time of Mass satisfy the precept of the Church?

Resp. Affirmatively. The reason is that recitation of the divine Office does not impede someone from being able to be present at the Sacrifice of Mass and to exhibit moral presence to it. - Thus commonly.² (See n. 134.)

405. You will resolve. - 1° Those ministering at Mass satisfy the precept; for they attend sufficiently by exhibiting their ministry, by which they actually cooperate with the Sacrifice. The same must be said of sacristans, musicians, organists, drummers, etc.; because their acts are referred to the worship of God, and do not impede the necessary attention to those things which are done at the altar.³

2° Those who collect alms satisfy, provided they attend to the Mass at least confusedly;⁴ but if they foresee that they cannot furnish this attention, let them hear another Mass, if they conveniently can.

3° Those who examine conscience during the time of Mass, so that they may confess, fulfill sacramental penance, or even make a prayer owed by whatever title, satisfy; because by these the mind is directed to God, and from elsewhere two precepts can be satisfied at the same time, if the things prescribed can be furnished at the same time. - Thus commonly. - Likewise those who read some spiritual book, but not sacred histories with the mind of learning the style.⁵

4° Those also satisfy who are distracted involuntarily, even during the whole time of the Sacrifice, unless they are so carried away by alien thoughts that they in no way attend; for then they satisfy no more than those who sleep involuntarily through a notable part of Mass, although they are excused from sin. Thus commonly. But one dozing sometimes during Mass satisfies, or at least does not offend gravely, provided in some way he adverts to that which is being done.

5° Those also satisfy as to the substance, or are excused from grave fault, who voluntarily are distracted, even during the whole time of Mass, provided they at the same time attend; for this sometimes can happen if the distractions are not so vehement, since a man can think about several things at the same time. - Reuter.²

6° But they by no means satisfy who through a notable part of Mass converse about a serious thing (or even about a light thing, but in such a way that external attention is impeded), or attentively consider images, survey with their eyes the furnishings of the church, read inscriptions or other profane things, meditate on sciences, paint, or perform other similar things, unless these are done interruptedly, or in such a way that they do not altogether impede attention.³

406. • Omitting those things which theologians hand down concerning private oratories, it suffices to note these two things for these provinces.

1° The precept is satisfied wherever by force of the Faculties (n. 1329. q. 3°) it is licit to celebrate.

2° The priest who otherwise could not hear Mass is bound, on Sundays and feasts of precept, to use the privilege of celebrating on a portable altar which is customarily conceded to priests in these provinces, provided nevertheless that he is able reverently to undertake so great an office in those adjuncts of things in which it happens that he is placed. For the rest, if on a journey he is living alone among non-Catholics, he is not bound to celebrate, since the reverence due to the Sacrifice can scarcely be observed.⁴

407. • Any moderately grave cause excuses from hearing Mass, or one which involves some notable inconvenience or damage in the goods of soul or body of oneself or one's neighbor. This is established from the common interpretation and custom, which is the best interpreter of laws. - Thus commonly.¹

408. You will resolve. - 1° The sick, the infirm, and convalescents are excused, whom either going out or being in church harms. (A) p. 474. Likewise those who must guard the sick.²

2° Travelers are excused, to whom no place occurs where they may be present at Mass, or who cannot interrupt the journey, because public drivers, or companions on the way, without whom the journey would not be without inconveniences or danger, refuse to stop.

3° Those are excused who guard the flock or house, or who must prepare food, or perform similar necessary things; yet if several Masses are held, all ought successively to hear Mass, insofar as it can be done.³

4° Mothers and nurses are excused who have no one to whom they can leave little children, nor can they lead them to the Church without great disturbance of those standing by. But if there are only two spouses, they will conveniently be able to be present at Mass by alternate turns.⁴

5° They are often excused who are distant far from the Church, so that they cannot go to it without great difficulty, especially in wintertime.

6° Those who dwell in the country and enjoy the supply of a priest once in a month in a church which is for them as if parochial, according to Kenrick,⁵ are not bound to make the journey elsewhere on feast days and Sundays on which the priest is absent, unless, I would except, they are distant less than three miles from some other church.

7° Those seem to be excused, for the sake of demonstrating affection toward parents and relatives, who sometimes betake themselves to places in which there will be no faculty of hearing Mass. For the rest, this must not be done often, nor lightly, nor for a long time.⁶

8° Those who, for the sake of health or of lawful recreation of mind, betake themselves elsewhere for some fixed weeks, as is the custom of many here, are excused from violation of the precept, even if the supply of hearing Mass will be lacking to them while making the journey; for that leisure and relief of mind is sometimes necessary and very often useful, nor are they compelled always to remain in a place in which there is a supply of Mass.⁷

9° In some rural places there is a custom that neighbors, especially non-Catholics, visit others in the morning of the Lord's Day, to remain with them the whole day, whereby Catholics are detained from hearing Mass. Whether in this case those are excused who remain at home lest they seem to be lacking in company and friendship must be defined from circumstances. Thus, if there is the faculty of going to church and returning to furnish the rights of hospitality, it is clear that Mass must be heard by most members of the family, although someone can remain at home for the sake of companionship; but scarcely do we judge, says Kenrick,¹ that all can ever remain at home, especially if guests have come by design, not once or twice, but rather often. - This must especially be said if Catholics visit Catholics. "For the rest," he adds, "we do not condemn him who, to avoid grave offense of others, sometimes remains at home with guests."

10° Innkeepers are not excused who on Sunday neglect Mass so that they may receive those going to the inn and are going to obtain great gain; for this is done with detriment of religion and great offense of all.²

11° Servants are excused if they cannot omit their service without grave detriment of the master, or if they are prohibited by him, nor can they easily find another master. Resolve the same concerning a wife and a son of the family, for whom grave indignation of the husband or parents is to be feared.³

12° Almost the same, proportion observed, resolve concerning those who accept or retain an office - for example in railroads - or are occupied with a trade - for example of a barber - by which ordinarily or very often they are impeded from Mass. Namely, they seem to be excused, provided: a) by leaving the office or trade they would suffer a grave inconvenience, or certainly would obtain a much worse or doubtful condition of life; b) from neglect of Mass they have not fallen or will not fall into indifferentism. Yet in every case they are to be exhorted to devote themselves to exercises of piety at home on that very day or on other days; but they are not easily to be admonished concerning a grave obligation of renouncing the office or trade, both because often this will be established only with difficulty, and because the admonition will often not be profitable.

409. Questions. - Quaer. 1° What distance excuses from Mass?

Resp. It cannot be assigned absolutely, but must be determined from the adjuncts of persons, places, and times. But regularly a distance of three miles, or a walking journey of one hour and a quarter, excuses, and even somewhat less, if it is raining or snowing, or another cause is present.¹

Yet Kenrick² judges that those who can be carried by horse or carriage are not always excused for this reason, that they are distant even ten miles from the church; "for a journey of this sort," he says, "they perform almost daily for the sake of their business; but generally," he adds, "six or seven miles are for an excuse for women, boys, and others who have not grown accustomed to a longer journey." I would add that attention must also be given to the condition of roads and of rainy or very cold weather, etc.

Quaer. 2° Is a sick person excused from Mass in doubt whether the inconvenience is sufficiently grave?

Resp. In this case one must stand by the counsel of a physician, Superior, Pastor, Confessor, or another prudent man. Indeed the sick person can also acquiesce in his own judgment if he judges thus prudently. But what if, counsel having been sought, he still remains doubtful? - Absolutely he is not bound to Mass, because while the danger of grave harm stands, one must judge that Mother Church does not obligate. - Thus very probably, says St. Alphonsus.³ - In practice it is better that dispensation be sought if it can easily be sought. Cf. n. 66. 2° and 67. c).

Quaer. 3° Does the occasion of making notable gain excuse?

Resp. Affirmatively, probably, because precepts of the Church do not obligate with very grave inconvenience, as is established from what was said n. 137. But a gain of this sort ought to be extraordinary (n. 417. 9°).⁴

Quaer. 4° Are the following excused: a) women not having clothes becoming to their state; b) girls dishonorably pregnant; c) those whose banns before marriage are being made; d) women after childbirth?

Resp. to a) Affirmatively, unless they can hear Mass very early in the morning, or in a church in which they are unknown.

Resp. to b) Affirmatively, unless they can be present at Mass secretly and without notice.

Resp. to c) Affirmatively, if either 1) they suffer notable shame because of them, or 2) somewhere there is a custom of this sort, unless nevertheless they can easily be present at Mass in which the proclamations are not made.

Resp. to d) Affirmatively, for the time determined by the custom of places,¹ unless they are already going out from the house to other places. (u) p. 474.

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.

Remember that thou sanctify the Sabbath day. - Exod. xx, 8.

The third precept of the Decalogue is natural, insofar as it commands that some time be dedicated to public divine worship; but insofar as it determinately designates the Sabbath day, it is divine and to be counted among ceremonial things, but abrogated in the new law; since in place of the Sabbath day the Church substituted the Lord's Day in memory of the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. Besides the Lord's Day, however, the Church instituted other feast days for recollecting the benefits of our Redemption, or the merits and examples of the Saints, and commands that they, no otherwise than Sundays, be sanctified.

This precept, insofar as it is affirmative, commands certain works, and insofar as it is negative, prohibits certain others.

Sacred times are feast days; and to these are added days of abstinence and fast (Can. 1243).

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 markets, fairs, and other public buyings and sellings (Can. 1248).

§ 1. Not only Ordinaries of places, but also pastors, in singular cases and for a just cause, can dispense subjects individually committed to them, individual faithful or individual families, even outside the territory, and in their territory also pilgrims, from the common law concerning the observance of feasts and likewise concerning the observance of abstinence and fast, or also both.

§ 2. Ordinaries, from a peculiar cause of great concourse of the people or of public health, can dispense a whole diocese or place from fast and abstinence or also from both laws at once.

§ 3. In an exempt clerical religion the Superiors have the same power of dispensing in the manner of a pastor, as regards persons mentioned in can. 514, § 1 (Can. 1245).

These persons are professed, novices, or others living day and night in a religious house by reason of service or education or hospitality or infirm health. - Cf. Can. 514, § 1.

The reckoning of a feast day, and likewise of a day of abstinence and fast, is to be made from midnight to midnight, with the prescription of can. 923 saved (Can. 1246).

I Say 1st. All the faithful having the use of reason are held under grave obligation to be present at Mass on individual Sundays and feast days, as is clear from canon 1248. - I said under grave obligation; for it is a question of a grave matter, both in itself and according to the common estimation of the faithful and the unanimous consensus of theologians.

I Say 2nd. Beyond this, by virtue of the positive precept, the faithful are held to perform nothing else. For although servile works have therefore been prohibited so that the faithful can more easily devote themselves to divine things, nevertheless these are prescribed by no law; otherwise the end of the precept would not fall under the precept. - I said by virtue of the positive precept, for by natural law they would be held to assist at sermons or catechesis on feast days if the sermon is necessary for Christian instruction or the formation of morals. - Cf. Suarez, de Relig., tract. 1, lib. 2, chap. 16, n. 4. - Elbel, nn. 385 and following.

For Mass, however, to be heard rightly, three things are required: 1st, presence of body; 2nd, attention of mind; 3rd, due place. Concerning each one it will be said specially.

I Say. For Mass to be heard rightly there is required a moral and continuous presence of body: moral, insofar as someone ought to be so present where the Sacred Rite is taking place that he can be said to be one from the number of those assisting and offering the Sacrifice; but continuous, insofar as someone ought to persevere from the beginning to the end of Mass, so that he sins gravely if he omits a notable part of it, and venially if he omits a small part.

Question 1. Is it required for such moral presence that someone see the priest or hear his words?

Response. Not at all, negatively; for he is truly said to be one of those assisting who distinguishes the parts of the Mass by the sound of the bell, by the chant of the choir, etc., even if he is behind a column or wall, or also stands outside the church itself in which the crowd of the faithful cannot be contained, provided, however, that he is not very far from the door. But how great this distance can be, although to Lugo a space of thirty paces does not seem too great, must be determined from the circumstances of places. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 312. - Lugo, de Euchar., disp. 22, n. 21. - Baller., note (a), p. 334.

Question 2. What omission in Mass is to be regarded as grave or light?

Response. It cannot easily be determined; for although, according to all, a third part of the Mass is notable, nevertheless it is not clear what the third part is, since a notable part ought to be judged not only from duration, but also from dignity. Yet according to the common opinion these things can be established:

1st. It is certainly light to omit everything up to the Epistle exclusively, and more probably also inclusively, indeed probably also up to the Gospel inclusively, although St. Alphonsus regards the opposite opinion as more probable. And this must be said even if the Creed is omitted, because the Creed is not a regular part. Hence one present at Mass while the priest greets the people before he reads that little verse which formerly was called the antiphon, and now is called the offertory, can be excused from mortal sin. The reason is that the things which precede do not pertain to the sacrifice, but are remote preparation for it. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 310.

2nd. It is grave, according to all, to omit everything before the Gospel and at the same time everything after communion; but not to omit only those things which follow communion, indeed not even to omit everything before the Epistle and everything after communion. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 310. - Lacroix, n. 666.

3rd. Grave is the omission of the canon from the consecration up to the Pater exclusively, because it is a notable part by duration and dignity. But the omission of the offertory is reputed light, taking this word according to its twofold acceptance, namely for the recitation of the little verse which in the Missal is placed after the Gospel, and for the oblation of bread and wine. But the Gospel of St. John at the end is probably not part of the Mass, because before it the people are already dismissed by the blessing.

4th. It is grave to omit the consecration and communion; indeed also one consecration alone, because it is the most dignified part, in which, at least principally, the nature of the sacrifice consists. Indeed it is more probably grave to be absent from one consecration only, because the essence of the sacrifice more probably consists in each consecration. - But whether to pass by communion alone is grave is controverted; the affirmative opinion is more probable to St. Alphonsus, because he judges that the essence of the sacrifice also consists in communion. But the more common and truer opinion places it in consecration alone. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, Hom. Ap., n. 33.

Question 3. Does he satisfy the precept who hears two halves of Masses from diverse priests, either simultaneously or successively?

Response. Negatively, if he hears simultaneously. The reason is deduced from the common interpretation of the law, and is confirmed by proposition 53 condemned by Innocent XI, which sounds thus: "He satisfies the precept of the Church concerning hearing the Sacred Rite who hears two parts of it, even four at the same time from diverse celebrants." But if he hears successively, again one must deny it if the consecration and communion are not in the same part; because the Church commands the faithful to be present at an entire and perfect sacrifice. But that is not had, at least as regards integrity, unless both consecration and communion come together in the same Mass. Otherwise, however, one must say probably, if the consecration and communion are found in the same part of the Mass, because then the entire nature of the sacrifice is had in the same part. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 311; and Hom. Ap., n. 34.

Question 4. Must one hear the remainder, who comes after the consecration?

Response. Negatively, probably, because the essence of the sacrifice is now lacking; therefore the obligation of assisting at that Mass ceases, since the precept cannot be fulfilled by this means. But he who comes before the consecration is held to the remaining part of the Mass for the contrary reason, and by the common authority of the Doctors. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 310. - Baller., note (b), p. 336.¹

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1144, n. 116.

Attention at Mass is distinguished as twofold, namely internal and external. The first is had when someone applies his mind to those things which are being performed by the priest, and this again is distinguished in three ways according as the mind is applied either to the material words themselves and actions of the priest, or to the sense of the words and mysteries, or finally to God himself through pious prayers and meditations. - But external attention consists in avoiding any external action which impedes application of the mind, for example, conversing, painting, etc.

I Say. Any internal attention from the three ways just set forth suffices for rightly hearing Mass, but external attention alone, joined with the will of hearing Mass, is required for fulfillment of the precept. The reason of the first is both because by any of those attentions the mind is directed to divine worship, and because all theologians, even the more rigid, agree in this. But the reason of the second is that by external attention together with the will of hearing Mass there is sufficiently had a human, moral, and religious presence, and consequently one suitable for worshiping God. But exactly this, and this alone, is required for satisfying the precept. Therefore. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 313. - Lugo, de Euchar., disp. 22, n. 23.

Question. Does he satisfy the precept who confesses sins during the time of Mass?

Response. It is controverted; but certainly they are not to be disturbed, not only those who, guilty of some grave sin, cannot put off confession to another hour without great inconvenience, at least because then they are excused from the hearing of Mass, but neither pious penitents who complete confession in a few moments. But those who make a more prolonged confession probably, according to many, satisfy, provided nevertheless that they attend to the Mass in some way. - Cf. Baller., note (a), p. 339.

You Will Resolve. 1st. Sacristans, musicians, organists, tympanists, etc., satisfy the precept of Mass, because their acts are referred to the worship of God, nor do they impede the necessary attention to those things which are performed at the altar. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 317.

2nd. Those who collect alms satisfy, provided they attend to Mass at least confusedly. But if they foresee that they cannot give this attention, let them hear another Mass, if they conveniently can.

3rd. Those who examine their conscience during the time of Mass in order to confess, or discharge sacramental penance, or also make prayer owed by whatever title, satisfy; because in that way the mind is directed to God, and besides two precepts can be satisfied at once, if the things commanded can be performed at the same time. Likewise those who read some spiritual book, but not sacred histories with the mind of learning style. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 314.

4th. Those also satisfy who are involuntarily distracted, even during the whole time of the sacrifice, unless they are so carried away by alien thoughts that they do not attend at all; for then they do not satisfy any more than those involuntarily sleeping through a notable part of Mass, although they are excused from sin. But one dozing at times during the Sacred Rite satisfies, or at least does not gravely fail, provided he in some way adverts to that which is being done. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 316.

5th. But by no means do those satisfy who converse about a serious matter for a notable part of Mass, or attentively consider images, survey the furnishings of the church with their eyes, read inscriptions or other profane things, paint, or perform other similar things, unless these are done interruptedly or in such a way that they do not altogether impede attention. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 317.

He satisfies the law concerning hearing the Sacred Rite who is present at Mass, by whatever Catholic rite it is celebrated, under the open sky or in any church or public or semi-public oratory and in private cemetery chapels mentioned in can. 1190, but not in other private oratories, unless this privilege has been granted by the Apostolic See (Can. 1249).

Chapels erected in a cemetery by families or private persons for their own burial are private oratories (Can. 1190).

I Say 1st. § 1. An oratory is a place destined for divine worship, yet not for this chief end, that it should be for use by the whole people of the faithful for publicly cultivating religion.

§ 2. But an oratory is:

1st. Public, if it has been erected chiefly for the convenience of some college or even of private persons, yet in such a way that all the faithful, at least at the time of divine offices, have a legitimately proved right of approaching it;

2nd. Semi-public, if it has been erected for the convenience of some community or assembly of the faithful coming together there, and it is not free for each one to approach it;

3rd. Private or domestic, if it has been erected in private houses for the convenience of only some family or private person (Can. 1188).

§ 1. Public oratories are governed by the same law as churches.

§ 2. Wherefore in a public oratory, provided it has been dedicated in perpetuity to the public worship of God by the authority of the Ordinary through blessing or consecration, according to the norm of can. 1155, 1156, all sacred functions can be celebrated, with the contrary prescription of the rubrics saved (Can. 1191).

§ 1. Semi-public oratories cannot be erected without the license of the Ordinary.

§ 2. Let the Ordinary not grant this license unless first, by himself or by another ecclesiastical man, he has visited the oratory and found it decently furnished.

§ 3. But once the license has been given, the oratory cannot be converted to profane uses without the authority of the same Ordinary.

§ 4. In colleges or boarding schools for instructing youth, in gymnasia, lyceums, citadels, military posts, prisons, hospitals, etc., besides the principal oratory, let other smaller ones not be erected, unless in the judgment of the Ordinary necessity or great utility requires it (Can. 1192).

In semi-public oratories legitimately erected, all divine offices or ecclesiastical functions can be celebrated, unless the rubrics stand in the way or the Ordinary has excepted something (Can. 1193).

In private cemetery chapels mentioned in can. 1190, the Ordinary of the place can habitually permit even the celebration of several Masses; in other domestic oratories, only of one Mass, by way of act, in some extraordinary case, for a just and reasonable cause; but let the Ordinary not grant these permissions except according to the norm of can. 1192, § 2 (Can. 1194).

A chapel having a fixed place on a ship is to be held as public for those sailing; and in that chapel, even while the ships are found in port, all those being present at the most holy sacrifice of the Mass fulfill the precept. S. R. C., March 4, 1901, to V; May 10, 1901.

§ 1. In domestic oratories by indult of the Apostolic See, unless something else is expressly provided in the same indult, after the Ordinary has visited the oratory and approved it according to the norm of can. 1192, § 2, one Mass, and that a read Mass, can be celebrated on individual days, except on more solemn feasts; but let other ecclesiastical functions not be made there.

§ 2. But the Ordinary, provided just and reasonable causes are present, different from those on account of which the indult was granted, can permit by way of act the celebration of Mass also on more solemn feasts (Can. 1195).

§ 1. Domestic oratories can be neither consecrated nor blessed in the manner of churches.

§ 2. Although domestic and semi-public oratories are endowed with the common blessing of places or houses, or with no blessing, nevertheless they must be reserved for divine worship alone and free from all domestic uses (Can. 1196).

I Say 2nd. It is certain that all who are comprehended in the Indult satisfy the precept of hearing Mass in a private Oratory, namely the master of the oratory with his own people and domestics who, being assigned to his service, are actually necessary to him by reason of service at the time of Mass. The days of principal feasts are excepted, namely Easter, Pentecost, Christmas of the Lord, Epiphany, Ascension, Assumption, St. Peter, and All Saints; Thursday in the Supper of the Lord; and indeed on these days it is altogether interdicted to celebrate in oratories of this kind, unless the contrary is expressly obtained. But outsiders do not satisfy, as is clear from the words of the Indult, which ordinarily sounds thus: "We will that those who are not of the family are not judged free from the obligation of hearing Mass in a church." - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 319 and following.

Question. Is the master held to use the privilege, if he cannot go to church?

Response. Negatively, because no one is compelled to use a privilege granted only in his own favor, unless an obligation arises from another head (Can. 69). Besides, what is granted on account of someone's favor is not to be turned back to his detriment. - Cf. Ball. Palm., n. 800. - Genicot, n. 344.

I Say. Any moderately grave cause excuses from hearing Mass, or one which involves a notable and at least moderate inconvenience or damage in the goods of the soul or body, one's own or the neighbor's. This is clear from the common doctrine of theologians, and from the custom of the faithful, which is the best interpreter of laws. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 324.

You Will Resolve. 1st. The sick, the infirm, convalescents whom going outdoors harms are excused, even if this harm should appear only probable. Likewise those who must guard the sick. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 325.

2nd. Those who guard the house, or who must prepare food, or perform similar necessary things, are excused. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 326.

3rd. Mothers and nurses who have no one to whom they may leave little children, nor can they bring them to church, are excused. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, ibid.

4th. Often those are excused who are distant far from the church, so that they cannot approach it without great difficulty, especially in winter time.

5th. Servants are excused if they cannot omit their service without grave detriment to the master, or if they are prohibited by him, and cannot easily find another master. Nevertheless they ought diligently to take care to remove impediments, if they can. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 327. - Reuter, n. 288.

6th. Those are excused who, if they heard Mass, would lose the occasion of notable gain. Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 332. - Elbel, n. 368.

7th. Those are excused who would suffer notable embarrassment if they went to church; for embarrassment, especially for women, is regarded as a greater inconvenience than cold or a long journey on foot. Wherefore women pregnant from a delict can be excused, or those who do not have decent clothing suitable to their proper state, or when their matrimonial banns must be made. Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 330. - Kenrick, tract. 4, part 2, nn. 20 and 21.

Question. What distance excuses from Mass?

Response. It cannot be assigned absolutely, but is to be determined from the circumstances of persons, places, and times. - According to many, regularly the distance of three miles excuses, or a journey on foot of one hour, and even something less if it were raining or snowing. But this distance among us could often seem small, especially in cities, where carriages are at hand, and also in the country, where men often and very easily use horses. Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 329; and Hom. Ap., n. 41. - Kenrick, tract. 4, part 2, n. 19.

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.

Since enough was said concerning the obligation and mode of hearing Mass on Sundays and feast days, and likewise concerning abstinence from servile works, where the third precept of the Decalogue was treated, here only something will be set forth concerning the author and the number of these feasts, both by common law and by particular law in force among us.

I. It belongs to the supreme ecclesiastical authority alone to establish, transfer, or abolish feast days common to the universal Church. ... Ordinaries of places can prescribe peculiar feast days for their dioceses or places only by way of an act. - Cf. Can. 1244. The reason for the first is that the Pope alone has jurisdiction over the universal Church. The reason for the second is that they have jurisdiction in their own dioceses; the use, however, is limited lest feast days be multiplied with too great facility.

II. Many feasts were once instituted which, in the course of time, the fervor of the faithful growing cold, went into disuse or were abolished by the ecclesiastical authority itself. For Urban VIII, Const. Universa, Sept. 13, 1642, suppressed many feasts and established a new list of feast days as follows:

"By Apostolic authority we decree and declare that only the days written below are to be observed as feasts of precept ... namely the Sundays of the whole year; of the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ; of the Circumcision; Epiphany; Resurrection with the two following weekdays; Ascension; Pentecost with likewise the two following weekdays; the Most Holy Trinity; the Solemnity of the Body of Christ, and the Finding of the Holy Cross, and also the festivities of the Purification, Annunciation, Assumption, and Nativity of the Virgin Mother of God; the Dedication of St. Michael the Archangel; the Nativity of St. John the Baptist; of Saints Peter and Paul, St. Andrew, St. James, St. John, St. Thomas, Saints Philip and James, St. Bartholomew, St. Matthew, Saints Simon and Jude, and St. Matthias; likewise St. Stephen, protomartyr; the Holy Innocents; St. Lawrence, martyr; St. Sylvester, Pope and Confessor; St. Joseph, also Confessor; and St. Anne, Mother of the Mother of God; the Solemnity of All Saints; and one of the more principal Patrons in any kingdom or province, and another likewise more principal in any city, town, or village, where it happens that these Patrons are had and venerated."

To this catalog must be added the feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, which Clement XI wished to be had as of precept through the Constitution Commissi Nobis, Dec. 6, 1708.

The Sacred Congregation of the Council, assenting to the wishes of many Ordinaries, "according to the norm of the Constitution Universa per orbem of Urban VIII, dated September 13, 1642, determined that the following index of suppressed feasts, on which, according to the prescriptions of canons 339, § 1, and 466, § 1, of the Code, there is in the universal Church the burden of offering the Holy Sacrifice for the people, should be published, that is:

The Monday and Tuesday after the Sunday of the Resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ and Pentecost; the Day of the Finding of the Holy Cross; the Day of the Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary; the Day of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary; the Day of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary; the Day of the Dedication of St. Michael the Archangel; the Day of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist; the Day of the Holy Apostles: Andrew, James, John, Thomas, Philip and James, Bartholomew, Matthew, Simon and Jude, Matthias; the Day of St. Stephen, Protomartyr; the Day of the Holy Innocents; the Day of St. Lawrence, Martyr; the Day of St. Sylvester, Pope; the Day of St. Anne, mother of the Blessed Virgin Mary; the Day of the Patron Saint of the Kingdom; the Day of the Patron Saint of the place. Given at Rome, from the Secretariat of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, on December 28, 1919."

III. In these United States up to these latest times nine feast days were observed among many dioceses, but among others great variety was in force. Wherefore the Fathers of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore had the following statute under n. 111: "To promote the salvation of souls through greater uniformity in feasts, it seemed good to the Fathers to offer suppliant prayers to the Apostolic See, that from all the feasts now in force among us, only those be retained whose observance, considering the devotion of the faithful and public morals, can more happily be hoped for. But such seem to be the six which follow:

The Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary; the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ; the Circumcision of Our Lord Jesus Christ; the Ascension of Our Lord Jesus Christ; the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary; the Feast of All Saints." The Holy See consented to the petition of the Fathers.

§ 1. Feast days under precept in the universal Church are only: all and each Sunday, the feasts of the Nativity, Circumcision, Epiphany, Ascension, and Most Holy Body of Christ, the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary, the gracious Mother of God, St. Joseph her spouse, the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and finally All Saints.

§ 2. Feast days of Patrons are not subject to ecclesiastical precept; but Ordinaries of places can transfer the exterior solemnity to the next following Sunday.

§ 3. If anywhere some feast from those enumerated has legitimately been abolished or transferred, let nothing be innovated without consulting the Apostolic See (Can. 1247).

Therefore among us the same feasts of precept remain as before.

Feasts which are not enumerated in this canon 1247, § 1, by that very fact and by the law itself, are nowhere any longer of precept, even if in some nation, diocese, or place they were previously of precept by particular law or custom, even centenary custom of the place, or by special concession of the Holy See. ... Thus the Pontifical Commission for authentically interpreting the canons of the Code, Feb. 17, 1918.

As God is immense, so He bound His worship to certain places, namely temples, so that it is unlawful without sin to perform anything profane in them: so too, though He is Eternal, He commanded that certain days be kept free for Him and rested from every servile work. But just as God ordained many other things in the law of grace so as to leave their execution to His Church according to place and time, so too the sanctification of the feast day, though it has a Divine origin, nevertheless has its determination of time from the Church, as will appear from what follows immediately.

The observance of the feast day is called the sanctification of that time to the honor and worship of God and the veneration of the saints. So Scripture speaks, Exodi 20.: Remember that you sanctify the Sabbath day. Therefore it adds: you shall not do any work in it, because this consecration is made through cessation from servile works. So S. Bonavent. 3. dist. 37. dub. 3. litt. and in serm. 4. de decem praeceptis, D. Thom. 2. 2. quaest. 122. art. 4. ad 3. Suarez Tom. 1. de Relig. lib. 2. de diebus festis, cap. 2. Azor Tom. 2. cap. 1. Fagundez lib. 1. cap. 3. Since therefore the feast day is ordered to the worship and sanctification of God, the question arises: whether mortal sin is prohibited by this precept, in such a way that to sin lethally on that day be called a transgression of the feast.

The first opinion is affirmative. So expressly D. Thom. loco cit. Ales. 3. part. quaest. 32. memb. 3. art. 2. ad ult. and memb. 5. art. 2. Albertus memb. 3. dist. 37. D. Antonin. 3. part. tit. 9. cap. 7. §. 3. and 5. part. tit. 14. cap. 19. §. 7. and tit. 17. cap. 17. §. 4. and 5. where Lyranus cap. 20. Exodi, where the same is taught by Abulensis quaest. 11. and 12. Medina Cod. de oratione, quaest. 10. and 19. Maior 4. dist. 14. quaest. 4. Angelus V. feria, num. 36. and V. Interrogationes circa tertium praeceptum. and V. Praeceptum, Rosella V. confessio, 2. num. 7. Catherinus lib. 5. contra Caietanum, Corduba lib. 1. quaest. 6. who says the opposite opinion is not safe, and he brings forward many.

The same hold Scotus, and Gabriel. 3. dist. 15. and the same Gabriel in 4. dist. 17. quaest. 1. conclusione 4. Angestus in moral. cap. 8. Nidet in 3. praecepto, cap. 1. and cap. 9. The same seems to be the sense of D. Ambrosius on Lucae 13. as at D. Thom. D. Augustinus epist. 119. and lib. de decem chordis, cap. 5. and cap. consideret. initio de poenit. dist. 15. v. In tempore, and V. orationi conflicto: And it seems to be the approved opinion in the Council of Cologne, convoked in the year of the Lord 1536. In the Tractate on exterior penance, fol. 180. where it teaches that he sins twice who spends the Lord's day with harlots and quarrels, fistfights, and obscenities. Fagundez says it is probable lib. 1. cap. 9. bringing forward also D. Bonaventuram in 3. dist. 37. dub. 3. litt. and in speculo animae, cap. 1. Add also serm. 4. de decem praeceptis. Therefore if the Seraphic Doctor is led to it, all the ancient and illustrious Theologians have it as patrons.

The second opinion, on the contrary, denies that the precept of the observance of the feast day specially forbids all mortal sins. So Suarez Tom. 1. de relig. lib. 2. de diebus festis, cap. 18. Azor tom. 2. cap. 28. quaestio 10. Caietanus prima secundae, quaest. 7. art. 1. and 2. 2. quaest. 122. art. 4. and in summa v. festorum violatio, and in opuscul. quaest. 27. quod, 10. Sotus in 4. dist. 18. quaest. 2. art. 4. lib. 2. de Iustitia, quaest. 4. art. 4. Victoria in summa, de sacram. tit. de confess. num. 195. Abulensis in 4. dist. 17. quaest. 1. Sylvester V. Dominica, quaest. 8. dist. 4. and in Rosa aurea casu 65. where he says the most learned men of his order commonly hold thus. Navarras in cap. consideret, num. 22. and Manuali Lat. cap. 6. num. 9. Fumus V. Fevia, num. 12. Tabiens ibi, num. 47. Angles in floribus, quaest. 9. de confess. pag. 288. Couar. in cap. Alma mater, part. 1. §. 5. num. 3. and lib. 3. var. cap. 19. Guttierr. lib. 1. can. qq. cap. 31. Fagundez num. 1. who brings forward also D. Thom. 4. dist. 32. art. 5. quaest. 1. and in 3. dist. 37. art. 5. quaest. 2. ad 2. Bonacina puncto 2. Bassaeus 1. num. 3.

AS TO D. Bonaventure, he indeed seems clearly for the first opinion. Yet if it be thoroughly considered, he asserts indeed that the end of this Precept is the sanctification of the soul through good works, so that for that reason he wills that abstention be made from servile and worldly labors, that we may be free in quiet for the service of God; and so to act against the end intended by God is to yield, for he indeed does not labor in servile physical works, but only in works of sins, which indeed are metaphorically servile, and therefore he says that he does worse who applies himself to sins, frequenting theaters, luxury, drunkenness, than he who labors on the feast, because such a one, although he esteems one mean of being free for God from distracting servile works, yet operates other means contrary to the end, and more diametrically opposed to the Divine law, as overturning the end; and therefore in the places cited, and serm. 2. Sabbathi sancti, he complains with D. Augustinus that thus the Sabbath is not observed to the end intended by God; nevertheless he does not seem to impose anything except that we be free from physical servile works, and so he alleges the precept of the Divine law Exodi 20. and 35. and Levit. 23. and in 3. dist. 37. he says that cessation from servile works is imposed, and to signify that one must abstain from the servile works of sin, and as such it was significative, not only moral, and wittily for the full impletion of the other morals. And he says that especially by this precept servile works are forbidden, especially those directed to gains. Nor only these, but indeed more and more diligently carnal works, drunkenness, luxury, etc. and he adds the testimony of D. Augustinus saying: Not to keep the feast day according to the mind of God, in which manner the Jews observe it with carnal idleness; for they will to observe it for their trifles and luxuries; and therefore it would be a lesser evil on feasts, if they labored, than to dance all day impudically at the neomeniae. And explaining the testimony of D. Augustinus, he says: But he says this, not because one must cease on solemn days from the business of exterior acts; but because the Prelates of the Church, whose it is to institute these feasts, and to determine how and in what manner one must cease from exterior work, must rather call back from those things which offer a greater occasion of sinning. Whence to avoid idleness, or unfit solace, Augustine says that they ought rather to exercise themselves in works of piety than to apply to disordered and lascivious businesses: On which account on those days they ought to frequent the Churches, hear Masses, etc.

HENCE I gather quite soundly, that that precept of sanctifying the feast by abstaining from sins is indeed not the end of the precept, but only imposes a means of abstaining from servile works; and of applying oneself to some work of Religion, which is deputed in the Mass; Moreover it falls more to the Prelates to call the peoples back from sins.

He says in serm. 4. cited that this is truly the perfect vacation, which has joined to it a good operation, and forbids the servile one. Where he seems to intend the perfection indeed of the vacation of the feast, but not to constitute its essence in good works and the turning aside from sins. Therefore it is not so clearly for the first opinion. Which more, in the third argument, I will show from his words, with which he seems to me to embrace the second.

I ASSERT first, that the former opinion can be defended with probability, namely that mortal sins committed on the feast add a circumstance of malice.

It is PROVED by the authorities brought for it. First indeed by D. Bonav. from D. Augustino epist. 119. and lib. de decem chordis: The Jew would do better on the Sabbath something useful in his field; than if he were seditious in the theater. And their women would do better to work wool on the Sabbath day, than to dance all day impudically at the neomeniae.

Yet it can be answered that the S. Father intends only that the works of mortal sin against the law of nature are more against the end intended by God in the sanctification of feasts, than servile labors against the human precept of the feast day.

It is PROVED second from cap. Consideret. initio 15 de poenit. dist. 1. §. under the word In tempore, and the word orationi constituto, where it is prescribed that we confess the circumstance of the feast time in mortal sin.

Yet it can be answered with Navarro ibi num. 32. Guttierr. lib. 1. de qq. can. cap. 31. Suarez loco cit. num. 17. Fagundez n. 7. that this is a counsel, not a decree commanding, as appears from the tenor of the words.

The Council of Cologne above is also brought forward, but it was Provincial, not confirmed by the Apostolic See, and erring even in the matter of justification, as Fagundez notes num. 12. with Guttier. num. 36.

It is PROVED third by D. Bonavent. serm. 2. de Sabbatho sancto, and other places from Levit. cap. 16. It is the Sabbath of rest, and you shall afflict your souls, and you shall be cleansed from all your sins, and cap. 23. You shall afflict your souls, etc. You shall do no servile work on this day; every soul that shall not be afflicted on this day shall perish from its people, that the Lord may be propitious to you.

Guttierr. num. 33. Cano, and Couarruvias answer, to whom Fagundez subserves himself num. 12. from D. Bonavent. sermone 4. cited, where he says: But if we understand, as the Jews, who say that a universal cessation must be made from every servile work, so it is insinuated to the Christian that he must abstain from every sin, and so it is figurale. If we understand, that we must abstain from certain things, so it is moral, not as in the precept, and as in the bene esse, and it remained as in the Ecclesiastical institution it is a precept: I say servile works, mechanical works, etc. These things S. Bonaventure, by which he shows that there the sermon was about propitiation, or ceremonial sanctification; but that to abstain from sin is indeed signified by the precept of vacation from servile works, not commanded: For sin is servitude only metaphorically, as Suarez notes num. 7. Fagundez num. 3.

Moreover, that servile work which is forbidden by this precept is mechanical, as D. Bonav. says here, D. Thom. and others at Fagundez. From which you have that the Seraphic Doctor seems to be for the first opinion.

It is PROVED fourth by S. Thomas in the places cited, and D. Thom. loco cit. by the argument which the others use: the end of the law is the soul of the law: But the end of the law of sanctifying the feast is the application of man to the service of God. To this mortal sins are more repugnant than manual mechanical works. If therefore by these the feast day is violated, much more is it violated by mortal sins.

It is ANSWERED, that not only by this precept is the end of the law, which is Charitas, not commanded, but neither every means; but only that which is properly expressed, which is to be free from servile labor, by which we are distracted; but sins are sufficiently forbidden always by the individual precepts. But if by this precept all impediments were forbidden, we would now be bound to be free the whole day for prayer and other pious works; to avoid walks, conversations, etc.

I ASSERT second, that the second, negating opinion is more probable.

It is PROVED first from D. Bonavent. in the cited sermon, in the words brought, by the reason which is the chief foundation, as Fagundez says num. 2. for that precept forbids only truly servile works, for Exodi 20. it is thus had: Remember that you sanctify the Sabbath day. Six days shall you labor, and shall do all your work. But on the seventh day you shall not do all your work, you, and your son, and your daughter, your manservant, and your maidservant, your beast of burden, and the stranger that is within your gates; for in six days God made heaven, and earth, the sea, and all things that are in them, and on the seventh day He rested. Therefore He blessed and sanctified it. Scripture has similar things cap. 12. 16. and 23. where under the name of servile work mechanical works are explained.

From these words S. Thomas draws that the work forbidden by this precept is that which is with the middle labor of the seven days of the week, with the aid of servants, maidservants, or beasts of burden; but this is not sin, but they are mechanical works, which he enumerates as seven, and they are referred to the following quaest.

It is CONFIRMED; for that rest is to commemorate the work of the making of the world. Therefore S. Thomas proves it deeply from the law itself.

S. Thomas DEDUCES moreover at the end, that one is bound to abstain from servile works, not only the lord himself, but to bring it about that also those abstain who are under his power, as sons, wife, maidservants, servants, and beasts of burden. But he intersperses some excellent Mystical things, which see there.

It is confirmed, because the work of sin, as sin, is not a servile work, as I showed.

It is PROVED second from D. Bonavent. in the places cited. The extrinsic end of the precept is not precepted, but only the expressed means, as they teach commonly with D. Thom. 1. 2. quaest. 100. art. 9. and 1. 2. q. 44. art. 1.

It is CONFIRMED, for neither was it ever understood by the Jews that by this precept all sins were forbidden, since they are sufficiently forbidden by their own precepts: Therefore much less to the Church, for to it many things are conceded which were not lawful to the Jews, as to walk, etc. as D. Bonavent. notes in 3. loco cit.

Corduba strives to overturn these most solid foundations.

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.

Charles, a young Catholic, joins a cyclists’ society, or bicycle club, and is accustomed to leave home with his companions on Saturday afternoon in order to visit distant places celebrated either in history or otherwise, and to return home on Sunday afternoon. If there is a Catholic church in the place, Charles hears Mass; otherwise he spends the time going about the place. When, however, on a certain occasion he heard an instruction about hearing Mass, being moved by stings of conscience, he asked his confessor whether he had acted lawfully or not. Hence it is asked:

1. How do causes which excuse from a law and causes which exempt from it differ?

2. Is it lawful to place such causes in the way of fulfilling the law?

3. What is to be said concerning the case?

1. See this question answered, p. 80.

2. This question is answered, p. 81.

3. The case. Charles, a young Catholic, joins a bicycle club and is accustomed to go with other members of the club on Saturday afternoons to distant places of resort. They stop at the place for the night and return home on Sunday afternoon. If there is a Catholic church in the place, Charles hears Mass on Sunday morning, otherwise he spends the time in sight-seeing. An instruction on hearing

Mass puts a scruple into his head about this matter, and so he asks his confessor whether he had acted lawfully. Charles would have done wrong if he had chosen places of resort on account of there being no Church there where he could hear Mass. But this he did not do. The question for solution resolves itself into this: May a man for the sake of recreation put himself in circumstances in which he foresees that he will not be able to hear Mass on a day of obligation? Theologians answer that he may not do this on the day itself nor during the time when the law begins to impose an obligation to make ready to fulfil the law. It is difficult to determine the exact time when we are obliged to make preparations for, or not to put impediments in the way of hearing Mass of obligation. Some approved authors say that the obligation does not arise until a few hours before the day on which Mass is to be heard. Thus Génicot says: “It is lawful to undertake a journey even without a special cause, although it is foreseen that this will be an impediment to satisfying, after several days, the precept of hearing Mass. It is not lawful to undertake a journey merely for recreation when the hour for hearing Mass is now imminent. It would be lawful, from mere pleasure, to enter upon a journey which would impede attendance at Mass throughout the whole of Saturday up to one or another hour before Sunday.”¹ According to this opinion Charles did not commit sin in what he did, but he should be warned not to do it too often, and to take care not to become negligent about hearing Mass on Sundays.

1 Gury, vol. i, n. 111; Instit. Theol. Mor., vol. i, n. 116.

A certain bishop permitted a certain congregation of nuns to establish a new convent in a certain city; but, lest the faithful be absent from the one parish church, he did not wish to permit lay people to be admitted to hear Mass in the convent chapel. Sometimes, however, it would be much more convenient if guests and friends of the convent who remained for a time either within the convent itself or in a neighboring house could satisfy the precept within the convent, since the church was more than a thousand paces distant. The superioress did not wish to refer the matter to the bishop, but asked Paul, the priest who was giving the annual exercises to the nuns, what it was lawful to do in the case. He, however, asks:

1. What conditions must be fulfilled in order that the precept of hearing Mass on feast days may be satisfied?

2. What are public, semi-public, and private oratories?

3. Can bishops derogate from the common law of the Church?

4. What is to be said of the case?

1. What are the conditions to be complied with in order to satisfy the precept of hearing Mass on days of obligation ?

The whole of Mass must be heard, in the proper place, with bodily presence, and with attention.¹

1 See Manual of Moral Theology, vol. i, p. 258.

2. What are public, semi-public, and private oratories?

An authentic answer to this question was given by the decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, Jan. 23, 1899: “Moreover, it is established that public oratories are those which, by authority of the Ordinary, have been perpetually dedicated to the public worship of God, blessed or even solemnly consecrated, and have a door on the street, or from a public street open a free entrance to the faithful universally. Private oratories, on the contrary, in the strict sense are said to be those which have been erected in private houses for the convenience of some person or family by an indult of the Holy See. Those which hold a middle place between these two, as the name itself indicates, are and are called semi-public oratories.”

3. Can bishops derogate from the common law of the Church?

No; Benedict XIV gives expression to this principle of canon law in several places of his well-known work De Synodo Dioecesana: “It is known to everyone that a bishop cannot relax a law enacted by a superior, nor impart to another that permission which he cannot grant to himself.”² “The common laws, rites, and customs of the Church received everywhere can be removed or changed only by the authority of him to whom belongs authority and power over the universal Church; otherwise an immense disturbance of ecclesiastical discipline and hierarchy would arise.”³ “Today a bishop cannot command his subjects to present themselves at the parish Mass, because he cannot abolish a custom which, since it is in force throughout the whole world, has now assumed the nature of common law.”⁴

2 Book xi, chapter 9, no. 5.

3 Book xiii, chapter 18, no. 11.

4 Book xi, chapter 14, no. 10.

4. The case. A certain bishop allowed a Congregation of nuns to found a convent with a chapel in a certain town, but he forbade them to admit lay people to hear Mass of obligation in their chapel so that the only church in the place might not be deprived of its worshipers. Sometimes the nuns had guests and friends staying either in the convent itself, or in a house in the neighborhood, and as the church is over a mile distant it would be convenient if they could hear Mass in the convent so as to satisfy the precept. The Superioress did not like to refer the matter to the bishop, but she asked the advice of Paul, a priest who was giving a retreat to the nuns, about what was lawful in the circumstances. Paul will know that inasmuch as the common law of the Church allows the faithful to satisfy their obligation of hearing Mass on Sundays and holidays in public and semi-public oratories they can validly fulfil the precept of the Church by hearing Mass in the convent chapel, as it is a semi-public oratory. However, the bishop had a perfect right to make the regulation which is mentioned in the case, and the Superioress should loyally observe it. She may presume that the bishop had no intention of making the guests within the convent go outside to the church to hear Mass, so they may be admitted to hear it in the convent chapel. Friends outside should go to the church, unless there be reason for making an exception in a particular case, and then the Superioress might avoid difficulties by arranging with the parish priest.

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. ‘

Caius, a priest destined by his superiors for a mission in South Africa, obtains a special privilege of celebrating Mass on a ship during the voyage. He would like, however, to become more certain whether he himself is bound on Sundays to celebrate Mass in order to satisfy the ecclesiastical precept, whether he is bound to notify other Catholics who may happen to be sailing with him that Mass will be celebrated, and whether they are bound to seize the opportunity and hear Mass. Hence it is asked:

1. Under what conditions is it lawful to celebrate Mass on a ship?

2. Is there an obligation of using a privilege?

3. What is to be said of the case?

1. On what conditions may Mass be said on board ship?

Mass may not be said on board ship without an Apostolic indult, which is granted only on the following conditions: “(a) That the vessel be safe and be far distant from shore; (b) that the sea be calm; (c) that there also be present with the celebrant another person, either a priest or a deacon, who, if any motion should arise from which there would be danger that the Chalice might be overturned, can rescue the Chalice from a danger of this kind with his hand.” The Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith brought these conditions to the notice of priests dependent on its authority in an instruction issued March 1, 1902, and added: “If on the ship there is no proper chapel or fixed altar, let the missionaries take every care that the place chosen for the celebration of Mass present nothing indecent or unbecoming; which would certainly occur if the most august mystery of the Altar were celebrated in cabins destined for the private uses of travelers.” This, however, must not be understood too literally, as the same Congregation explained to a certain bishop, Aug. 13, 1902: “The decree regards abuses only; the celebration in cabins, however, is not absolutely prohibited when all the circumstances remove dangers of irreverence.”¹

1 Mocchegiani, Jurisprudentia Eccles., tom. ii, n. 810 f.

2. Is there an obligation to use a privilege?

The case is this: One Robert Smith, a farmer and the father of several children, is greatly addicted to strong drink, and in consequence his farm is heavily encumbered. In other regards he is a good father, and during the week keeps quite sober and is industrious and economical. But when he comes to town on Sundays to hear Mass he can not resist the temptation to visit the saloons, where he spends the entire day in drinking, and returns home Sunday evenings regularly in a sad state of intoxication. In this way he becomes, every Sunday, a source of scandal for the whole congregation, and sinks his family into ever deeper misery.

He means well, however, and is thoroughly conscious of his miserable condition, and, in utter dejection, he goes to Confession and says: "Father, I don't know what I shall do to save myself from this fatal weakness. I have tried repeatedly all the means you recommended. I have prayed. I have firmly resolved to return home immediately after Mass. I have even requested a friend of mine to accompany me, etc., but all to no purpose. Every time that I come to town I am drawn irresistibly to the saloon, and in spite of all my good resolutions I seem to be utterly powerless in the presence of the temptation. Now, I sometimes think to myself, it would be better not to come to Mass at all on Sundays than to come to Mass and get drunk. I think it would be better for me if I remained at home altogether on Sundays for a while, until I get this passion for drink under control. But I should like to have your advice in the matter."

"Very good," answers the confessor. "If you think that staying at home on Sundays is the only means left you for overcoming the drink habit, I will dispense you from hearing Mass on Sundays. Remain at home for some Sundays, and endeavor to get control of yourself in this matter. Then come to Mass again. In the meantime, however, say your Mass-prayers at home."

Question.—Did the confessor act rightly?

Answer.—We think that he did, and for the following reasons:

1. Smith is here in the presence of two conflicting duties. On the one hand, he is bound to avoid the proximate occasion of sin, which, in the present instance, is his attendance at Mass on Sunday. On the other, he is bound to fulfil the precept of the Church, namely, to hear Mass on Sundays and holydays of obligation. But since the obligation of avoiding the proximate occasion of sin is imposed by a law of nature, absolute and negative, it takes precedence over the obligation of hearing Mass on Sunday, which is imposed by a law of the Church, hypothetical and affirmative. For this reason alone, Smith may be dispensed from the obligation of hearing Mass on Sunday, since attendance at Mass becomes for him, per accidens, a proximate occasion of sin.

2. A precept of the Church, at least in so far as it is of an affirmative character, in general does not oblige “under grave inconvenience or harm, or proximate danger of grave harm.” But in regard, particularly, to hearing Mass, St. Alphonsus says: “Any moderately grave cause excuses from hearing Mass, namely, one that involves some notable inconvenience or harm to the goods of one’s own soul or body or those of another” (Lib. III. n. 324).

These passages excuse Smith from hearing Mass, for, as things stand at present, attendance at Mass is for him a "proximum gravis damni periculum," which involves a "notabile damnum in bonis animae" for him. Under the circumstances, therefore, the confessor acted rightly in dispensing Smith from attendance at Mass—that is, in declaring authoritatively that for the present there is no obligation for Smith to hear Mass on Sundays or holydays.

The circumstance that the "occasio proxima" and the "proximum gravis damni periculum" are of Smith's own creation does not oblige him to hear Mass, for St. Alphonsus says expressly in regard to this: “Even an inability to which you previously gave cause by sin excuses, provided you are truly sorry for this” (Lib. I. n. 176).

It is true, indeed, that Smith, owing to his excessive indulgence in drink, has created for himself an "impotentia moralis audiendi missam." But as he is heartily sorry for this, it is not right, in this particular instance, to hold him to the consequences of his fault, unless we wish to make the evil even greater than it is.

Here another question may be asked: Is it lawful for the confessor to allow Smith, who is an "occasionarius" and "recidivus," to remain so long a time away from Mass? Undoubtedly it is, provided only that the confessor knows for a certainty that Smith has diligently employed all the other means recommended by him for avoiding the proximate occasion, and uprooting the bad habit, especially the frequent reception of the sacraments, and, nevertheless, has always fallen back into the old sin. In this case the confessor must use extreme measures, since it is an axiom in morals that the "occasio moraliter necessaria" (and such is the case under consideration) must be given up “at the cost of any harm or inconvenience whatsoever, if the penitent, even after employing the means, relapses in the same manner.” The confessor, therefore, has the right, since all ordinary means have failed, to have recourse to extreme remedies; that is, to dispense the penitent from attendance at Mass on Sundays for such a period of time as shall seem to him necessary for the removal of the proximate occasion. Smith may be protected against the danger of becoming careless about hearing Mass on Sunday by being obliged to perform some special acts of devotion at home on such days. Although a person is not obliged to perform any special devotions or acts of piety, or to hear Mass on weekdays, if he is prevented from hearing Mass on Sunday, still, as Lehmkuhl says ( I. n. 567), “one who was prevented throughout the whole year from assisting at Mass on Sundays and feast days ought to make up for it a few times on weekdays (e. g. three or four times).”

In this case the confessor should not neglect to hold Smith to some special acts of devotion on Sundays, v. g., to the recitation of the Rosary, because it is Smith's own fault that he Is not in a position to hear Mass on that day.

Another question suggests itself in connection with this case, namely: Will not this dispensation, which is granted to Smith to absent himself from Mass on Sundays, cause grave scandal in the parish, especially when it becomes known that Smith has been dispensed from hearing Mass for such a long period of time? To this question, Lehmkuhl replies as follows: “If because of my action it will be difficult for my neighbor to abstain from sin, a proportionately grave cause is required on my part for me to be able to act; therefore, the cause must be graver the greater the other person’s difficulty and the greater the sin” (I. n. 633). It is very likely that Smith's absence from Mass on Sundays will cause scandal among the members of the parish. Nevertheless, the reason for permitting the scandal is so grave that there is no occasion for any qualms of conscience. The penitent may also forestall the scandal in large measure by stating openly his reason for staying away from Mass on Sundays, saying that he is acting on the advice of his confessor, and as a last means of conquering his appetite for strong drink. Nor does such a statement contain any personal defamation. On the contrary, the good will and sincere desire to reform revealed by such an admission will contribute largely to repair the scandal given in the past.

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.

It is a common practise to hear confessions during the early Mass on Sundays and on holidays of obligation. It often happens that people who go to confession at this time do not think of hearing any other Mass, and, especially in the country, it would frequently be impossible for them to do so. On ordinary Sundays, in the towns also, there are many people, chiefly servants, who could hardly find another opportunity for confession than during the time when they are hearing their obligatory Mass. It is therefore a question of practical importance whether they obey the commandment of the Church requiring us to hear Mass on Sundays and holidays, if they make their confession during this Mass. A discussion of the matter would be particularly opportune, because several theologians have answered in the negative.

Answer (1).—In order to elucidate the subject fully, we may begin by calling to mind the general principles laid down with reference to the positive commandment requiring us to hear Mass on Sundays and holidays of obligation. Dr. Joh. Ev. Pruner writes: " In order to comply with the command, it is requisite (a) to hear a complete Mass said by a priest who is not excommunicated... (b) to participate with presence of body and soul. We satisfy the first requirement if we are immediate witnesses of the sacred act performed at the altar, or if we join the congregation and observe the acts by which they express their participation in the holy Mass.... Presence of the soul demands α that we should assist at Mass voluntarie et libere, that is to say, with the intention of honoring God and performing a religious act. Simply to be present in order to see the church, or from motives of curiosity, would not be a religious act, but such is necessary in order to obey the commandment; β that we should assist at Mass with attentio externa, i. e., we must set aside any occupation incompatible with paying attention to the sacred action, and we must have at least that degree of attentio interna without which the act cannot be called a humanly free act in the species of religion; in other words we must have attention of spirit, so far as to be aware that the sacred act, at which we intend to assist in order to practise the virtue of religion, is now being accomplished at the altar " (Lehrbuch der katholischen Moraltheologie, p. 316, etc.).

The question under consideration is whether confession is a transaction incompatible with hearing Mass, or, in other words, " Is the commandment of the Church observed by people who go to confession during Mass on Sundays and holidays, but have the intention to assist at holy Mass at the same time? "

Unless their confession is unusually long, so as to occupy the chief part of holy Mass, and unless it is made during the most important part of the Mass, there can scarcely be any doubt that they fulfil their obligation;1 it is not questioned even by theologians who have a great tendency to rigorism.

(2) The case is different, however, where the confession lasts a long time, perhaps through the whole of Mass, or the greater part of it, and especially if it is going on during the most important actions of the Mass. Under such circumstances very many theologians deny that the duty of hearing Mass has been fulfilled. As

1 Cf. Goepfert, Moraltheologie, (2d ed.), I. 408, c; Lehmkuhl, Theol. mor., I. 538. members of the older school who take this view, we may mention Suarez, Bonacina, Lugo, Kollet, Natalis, Alexander, Antoine, S.J.1 and St. Alphonsus.2

Among more recent writers, Dr. Pruner writes as follows on the subject: "Confession during Mass cannot be regarded as fulfilling the obligation to assist at the Holy Sacrifice, if it absorbs the penitent's whole attention for so long that he cannot be said to have been present at a complete Mass" (S. Lig., n. 314).

Gury may also be quoted; in answer to the question: "Does one who confesses his sin during Mass satisfy the precept?" he says: "Negatively, at least if the confession is lengthy—that is, if it lasts throughout the whole Mass or the greater part of it—because then both internal and external attention are lacking; for one who confesses his sins acts the part of the accused, not of one offering sacrifice with the priest, nor is he morally judged to hear Mass."3

The question is answered in the negative also by Cardinal Gousset, Paul Palasthy, and Friedhoff. Gousset writes: " It is generally assumed that a person satisfies the obligation [to hear Mass] if, during the Mass, he examines his conscience with a view to confession, or reads devoutly some spiritual book, such as the ' Following of Christ/ or says his Office. It is improbable, however, that he can (at the same time) hear Mass while making his confession."4

1 Theologia moralis universa, Romae, 1757, pars prima. Tract. de virtute religionis, cap. II. quaest. V. resp. 4.

2 Theologia moralis, lib. III. n. 314 and 315.

3 Compendium Theol. moralis, Ratisbon, 1874, Manz. ed. in Germ., V. p. 1, n. 346.

4 This opinion is expressed rather more decidedly than that of St. Alphonsus Liguori, who admits that there are not unimportant grounds for supposing that it is possible to hear Mass and go to confession at the same time; but hesitates to pronounce this view as probable (although he previously considered it so for internal reasons), because his modesty prevents him, for external reasons, from contradicting the eminent authorities who consider it improbable.

Friedhoff and Palasthy speak as if it were certain that a person cannot go to confession and at the same time fulfil his obligation to hear Mass. Both rely upon internal reasons, which St. Alphonsus knew perfectly well, and which certainly were familiar to those other theologians who, in spite of them, did not feel bound to adopt this opinion. These internal reasons, therefore, are not of such a nature as to justify the certainty with which Friedhoff and Palasthy speak.

(3) If we ask what the internal reasons are upon which the above-mentioned opinion is based, we are told that in order to hear Mass we ought to pray; but making a confession, though a religious act, is not a prayer; a penitent is enumerating his sins, not praying. Confession is, however, undoubtedly an act of worship, and very weighty authorities teach that it is enough to hear Mass with the intention of worshipping God. This argument then seems to prove nothing, as is admitted by St. Alphonsus and others, who maintain that a negative answer should be given to the question under discussion. They proceed therefore to say: Confession is certainly an act of worship, but not one that is compatible with hearing Mass; for the penitent does not act as one who sacrifices with the priest, but as one who acknowledges his sins: "he acts the part of the accused, not of one offering sacrifice with the priest" (Gury). Self-accusation has nothing to do with sacrifice: the accusation or the role of the accused does not pertain to the sacrifice; the recital of sins is not a thing pertaining to the sacrifice. The penitent, being engaged in enumerating his sins, is so distracted with regard to the Mass as hardly to give it a thought; he is absent in spirit, and therefore we cannot say in a moral sense that he was present at the holy Sacrifice. "It is lawful to do sacred and pious reading and to pray from a book or breviary; only those things that would draw the mind away from the Mass may not be done—for example, making confession or reading profane works." (Palasthy) Friedhoff uses similar language.