Are these valid reasons for missing Mass on an HDO?

[z_0101]

I beg to differ. If the OP is studying on a sports scholarship, and maintaining that scholarship is essential to completing his education, then jeopardizing that education by not fulfilling his sports commitments would not be expected of him. A scholarship athlete is expected to maintain a very high level of training and missing even a single practice can compromise training.

It would be no different than someone’s work obligations that prevent fulfilling the HDO, or being obliged to miss Mass to write an exam.

Please don’t try to place an excessive burden on someone’s shoulders without knowing all the facts. We are not legalists, and the Church allows for legitimate exceptions to Mass attendance on HDOs.
**
If the OP is in doubt, I recommend instead of getting an answer here, to ask his pastor for advice, and if necessary, a dispensation.**

(emphasis mine)

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I know on HDOs one is supposed to attend Mass, and that tomorrow is the Feast of the Immaculate Conception. The Churches near me are offering Masses at various times, in most cases one in the morning and one in the evening. However, I have school and cannot make the morning Mass, and I cannot come in late since I have a test first thing in the morning. I am also committed to a sport which is practicing that evening, where missing practice could have negative consequences for me. I truly want to attend Mass but also do not want to roll back on my other commitments. Would these circumstances be a valid reason for missing mass on an HDO? Also, would practicing for a sport be a case of failing to appropriately rest on an HDO?

I would say studying for a test and a sport practice do not constitute not being at the foot of the Cross of your God at Mass.

My wife is working full time today, has a doctors appointment, is in her final week of her MBA and has tons of schoolwork is pregnant with our fifth. Yet we will attend Mass this evening. Afterward we will go to our regularly scheduled adoration. This may mean she is up late preparing for work and school.

A sporting commitment NEVER supersedes a commitment to your God.

 

[Pieman333272]

Thanks for the advice everyone. I ended up going to Sunday evening Mass (as I already went to Sunday Morning Mass to fulfill that obligation) to fulfill the Obligation for the Feast of the Immaculate Conception. I will keep this option in mind for the future.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Thanks for the advice everyone. I ended up going to Sunday evening Mass (as I already went to Sunday Morning Mass to fulfill that obligation) to fulfill the Obligation for the Feast of the Immaculate Conception. I will keep this option in mind for the future.

First things first. Let me say that I personally am of the opinion that you did indeed satisfy both obligations. Or at least to the extent that you would have a clean conscience. BUT there are other issues to be debated.

Because it would appear that the obligations are seperate, one would need to treat them as such. You seemed to do that.

Here is Ed Peters on the subject.
canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2014/12/05/two-identical-obligations-require-two-distinct-satisfactions/

He an Father Z are discussing if ONE Mass would suffice ( the Sunday evening Mass.) For both obligations.

But you added an interesting twist. What if you went to two Masses for two separate obligations.

On one hand I think it can be argued that you in fact made that attempt. But on the other, If the Mass was not a vigil Mass for the HDO then it could be argued that you just fulfiilled your Sunday Obligation twice.

Would’nt the whole thing have been easier if you just made the priority of Mass on Monday for our Lady, the Mother of God, the most important thing? Do you feel you missed out on the HDO because your readings and intentions of the Mass were not the same?



Ah what tangled webs we weave!

Humans can make simple things soooooo complex!

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I beg to differ. If the OP is studying on a sports scholarship, and maintaining that scholarship is essential to completing his education, then jeopardizing that education by not fulfilling his sports commitments would not be expected of him. A scholarship athlete is expected to maintain a very high level of training and missing even a single practice can compromise training.

It would be no different than someone’s work obligations that prevent fulfilling the HDO, or being obliged to miss Mass to write an exam.

Please don’t try to place an excessive burden on someone’s shoulders without knowing all the facts. We are not legalists, and the Church allows for legitimate exceptions to Mass attendance on HDOs.

If the OP is in doubt, I recommend instead of getting an answer here, to ask his pastor for advice, and if necessary, a dispensation.

I played football on a scholarship. Missing practice for a legitimate religious obligation would never be a reason to lose one’s scholarship. I cannot imagine the lawsuit that would ensue. Most of my teammates were religious and religion in general plays a large role in sports at the collegiate level, even at the most secular schools. We had Muslim teammates that broke practice for prayer. And I knew several Jewish and Mormon athletes that missed practice for religions reasons. Personally I never had a conflict. I would satisfy an HDO even with two a days, and finals. If you got time to party, you have time to worship!

 

[z_0101]

I played football on a scholarship. Missing practice for a legitimate religious obligation would never be a reason to lose one’s scholarship. I cannot imagine the lawsuit that would ensue. Most of my teammates were religious and religion in general plays a large role in sports at the collegiate level, even at the most secular schools. We had Muslim teammates that broke practice for prayer. And I knew several Jewish and Mormon athletes that missed practice for religions reasons. Personally I never had a conflict. I would satisfy an HDO even with two a days, and finals. If you got time to party, you have time to worship!

HD:
Keep in mind, that it is currently the societal norm (as it has been since the Passion) to give no leniency to christians, especially Catholic Christians; thus, whereas any action taken against someone of another faith: Jewish, Muslim, Mormon, etc… would result in lawsuits as being anti-Semitic or discriminatory - most likely nothing would occur if that same action is taken against a Catholic Christian.

We have no idea OP’s obligations and requirements and the only really sound advice we can, and should IHMO, offer is to talk with his Pastor as soon as possible.

As for this situation… OP’s intent was to follow the Church’s requirements and if in doubt we have a loving and merciful God, He sees OP’s heart and that is all that matters at this point - can’t sin if the intent wasn’t there!

 

[Brandon_Cal]

First things first. Let me say that I personally am of the opinion that you did indeed satisfy both obligations. Or at least to the extent that you would have a clean conscience. BUT there are other issues to be debated.

Because it would appear that the obligations are seperate, one would need to treat them as such. You seemed to do that.

Here is Ed Peters on the subject.
canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2014/12/05/two-identical-obligations-require-two-distinct-satisfactions/

He an Father Z are discussing if ONE Mass would suffice ( the Sunday evening Mass.) For both obligations.

But you added an interesting twist. What if you went to two Masses for two separate obligations.

On one hand I think it can be argued that you in fact made that attempt. But on the other, If the Mass was not a vigil Mass for the HDO then it could be argued that you just fulfiilled your Sunday Obligation twice.

The same Ed Peters whom you cite has stated in other posts that the “kind” of Mass does not matter. canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2014/12/06/have-you-been-told-that-only-the-right-mass-counts/ The OP indeed fulfilled both obligations separately on the same day.

I’ve also read elsewhere that this year there were ZERO anticipatory masses for the Feast of the Immaculate Conception since Sundays of Advent outrank the feast. All Sunday masses (masses from 12AM Sunday - 11:59PM Sunday) are for the readings of the Second Sunday of Advent on 12/7/2014.

Would’nt the whole thing have been easier if you just made the priority of Mass on Monday for our Lady, the Mother of God, the most important thing? Do you feel you missed out on the HDO because your readings and intentions of the Mass were not the same?

Ah what tangled webs we weave!

Humans can make simple things soooooo complex!

I think you’re presuming way too much about the OP and are putting her under a burden heavier than your own church does.

HD:
Keep in mind, that it is currently the societal norm (as it has been since the Passion) to give no leniency to christians, especially Catholic Christians; thus, whereas any action taken against someone of another faith: Jewish, Muslim, Mormon, etc… would result in lawsuits as being anti-Semitic or discriminatory - most likely nothing would occur if that same action is taken against a Catholic Christian.

Utter nonsense. I can’t speak for all states in the US but as a university professor in California I was reminded in no uncertain terms that it is illegal to not grant “reasonable accommodation” for students who have a religious obligation that conflicts with the syllabus.

The onus, however, is upon the student to give the professor/coach/etc. sufficient notice in order to actually accommodate the obligation. Since the obligation to assist at Mass on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception is never abrogated or transferred in the United States, and the feast always falls on December 8th, the OP should’ve mentioned her obligation to her teachers and coaches the very first week of the semester or quarter.

As a professor I had no problem rescheduling exams or creating alternative assignments on a case-by-case scenario when I was given at least a couple weeks notice. The most obnoxious, and frankly irresponsible, thing students would do is come to me mere days before an exam informing me that they “suddenly” remembered some religious obligation they had and requesting that I allow them to take an exam after everyone else has already taken it. I routinely refused such requests.

We have no idea OP’s obligations and requirements and the only really sound advice we can, and should IHMO, offer is to talk with his Pastor as soon as possible.

I agree.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

The same Ed Peters whom you cite has stated in other posts that the “kind” of Mass does not matter. canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2014/12/06/have-you-been-told-that-only-the-right-mass-counts/ The OP indeed fulfilled both obligations separately on the same day.

I’ve also read elsewhere that this year there were ZERO anticipatory masses for the Feast of the Immaculate Conception since Sundays of Advent outrank the feast. All Sunday masses (masses from 12AM Sunday - 11:59PM Sunday) are for the readings of the Second Sunday of Advent on 12/7/2014.

I think you’re presuming way too much about the OP and are putting her under a burden heavier than your own church does.

.

The same Ed Peters whom you cite has stated in other posts that the “kind” of Mass does not matter. canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2014/12/06/have-you-been-told-that-only-the-right-mass-counts/ The OP indeed fulfilled both obligations separately on the same day.

I’ve also read elsewhere that this year there were ZERO anticipatory masses for the Feast of the Immaculate Conception since Sundays of Advent outrank the feast. All Sunday masses (masses from 12AM Sunday - 11:59PM Sunday) are for the readings of the Second Sunday of Advent on 12/7/2014.

That is a good point!

I think you’re presuming way too much about the OP and are putting her under a burden heavier than your own church does.

Perhaps you are the one presuming. I am placing no burden on the OP at all. In fact I am on record as saying the OP did satisfy the obligation.

I was just furthering the discussion.

You may be looking for an argument that is not existent in regards to me.

Probably the professor in you.

 

[z_0101]

Utter nonsense. I can’t speak for all states in the US
but as a university professor in California.

Brandon,
as ***you ***say
You can not speak for all the U.S.
California law - A.B. 1964 – the Workplace Religious Freedom Act of 2012
applies **specifically to your situation **and not to the US in general.

In the remainder of the country, no such protections are assured/available; thus, we’re back to not placing undue burden upon OP and the fact (and it is a fact, simple review of US history will prove me right) that christians, especially Catholic Christians, are given very little regard when it comes to our faith and the obligations we honor to the Lord and our Church when it comes to our work and other secular obligations.

To call my statement utter nonsense is unwarranted and overly broad… a simple review of U.S. History will show how Christians, especially Catholic Christians, in this country have been discriminated against for over a hundred-plus years in various ways (
++ Discrimination Against Catholics ;
++ America’s True History of Religious Tolerance
The idea that the United States has always been a bastion of religious freedom is reassuring—and utterly at odds with the historical record)

 

[Brandon_Cal]

That is a good point!

Perhaps you are the one presuming. I am placing no burden on the OP at all. In fact I am on record as saying the OP did satisfy the obligation.

I was just furthering the discussion.

You may be looking for an argument that is not existent in regards to me.

Probably the professor in you.

Touché, Hoosier Daddy! Pardon the misunderstanding.

 

[Brandon_Cal]

Brandon,
as ***you ***say
You can not speak for all the U.S.
California law - A.B. 1964 – the Workplace Religious Freedom Act of 2012
applies **specifically to your situation **and not to the US in general.

I mentioned my state in order to give me enough weasel room, if necessary
Nevertheless, the vast majority of universities in the United States have similar policies either due to similar law, or by virtue of the common understanding that alienating religious students doesn’t further the objectives of higher education. When I searched for “religious accommodation university” I found numerous statements from schools spanning states as wide as North Carolina, Colorado, California, Nevada, Massachusetts, Virginia, Montana, Washington, and New York (those were just the first 5 pages of search results).

In the remainder of the country, no such protections are assured/available; thus, we’re back to not placing undue burden upon OP and the fact (and it is a fact, simple review of US history will prove me right) that christians, especially Catholic Christians, are given very little regard when it comes to our faith and the obligations we honor to the Lord and our Church when it comes to our work and other secular obligations.

To call my statement utter nonsense is unwarranted and overly broad… a simple review of U.S. History will show how Christians, especially Catholic Christians, in this country have been discriminated against for over a hundred-plus years in various ways (
++ Discrimination Against Catholics ;
++ America’s True History of Religious Tolerance
The idea that the United States has always been a bastion of religious freedom is reassuring—and utterly at odds with the historical record)

That Catholics have been discriminated against in the US historically doesn’t justify your statement that “it is currently the societal norm (as it has been since the Passion) to give no leniency to christians, especially Catholic Christians; thus, whereas any action taken against someone of another faith: Jewish, Muslim, Mormon, etc… would result in lawsuits as being anti-Semitic or discriminatory - most likely nothing would occur if that same action is taken against a Catholic Christian.”

The protections provided to students of other faiths are also provided to Catholic students.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I mentioned my state in order to give me enough weasel room, if necessary
Nevertheless, the vast majority of universities in the United States have similar policies either due to similar law, or by virtue of the common understanding that alienating religious students doesn’t further the objectives of higher education. When I searched for “religious accommodation university” I found numerous statements from schools spanning states as wide as North Carolina, Colorado, California, Nevada, Massachusetts, Virginia, Montana, Washington, and New York (those were just the first 5 pages of search results).

That Catholics have been discriminated against in the US historically doesn’t justify your statement that “it is currently the societal norm (as it has been since the Passion) to give no leniency to christians, especially Catholic Christians; thus, whereas any action taken against someone of another faith: Jewish, Muslim, Mormon, etc… would result in lawsuits as being anti-Semitic or discriminatory - most likely nothing would occur if that same action is taken against a Catholic Christian.”

The protections provided to students of other faiths are also provided to Catholic students.

This is playing out now. While we are not to the point of crying genocide, or “fatwa” Arguments can certainly be made for how history will view this period. The fact that we must pay to have our children killed is an chilling thing.

Make no mistake by thinking our society is somehow more civilized than the past persecutions. Does it matter that the Chaldeans in Iraq who’s babies are being cut in half by swords are suffering like the mothers who are tricked and lied and pressured into killing a child in the womb?
Just because one has three letters at the end of their name and a stethoscope does not make them any less of a soldier of death to God’s children.