Canon Law: Which holy days of obligation apply?

[FrDavid96]

Sorry, still not understanding. How can a Holy Day of Obligation which doesn’t even apply to a whole country, but in the cited case to only PART of a county, be considered “universal law?”

Good question.
It is universal law. Corpus Christi is a Holy Day of Obligation under canon 1246
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P4N.HTM
It’s a universal law, from which some places are dispensed.
That’s an important point. It isn’t that there are different laws for different places (as there would be in a different example)—but there’s one universal law, and some places are exempted from it.

The practical effect might seem to be the same, but the difference comes in which of the other canons (those about dispensations and travelers) will apply. You ask about these later, so that’s coming…

And if § 2 of Canon 13 states that “Travelers are not bound by the laws of the territory in which they are present,” how does that relate to your earlier response that “You follow the rules of the place where you are?”

Because canon 13 doesn’t apply (it was posted just to give the bigger picture).
In this case, it’s not a “law of the territory” but a universal law (again, one that is dispensed in some places). That’s why he referred to canon 12 rather than 13, even though he still posted c. 13

Your citations would seem to say that Catholic travelers have a moral obligation, on pain of mortal sin, not just to attend Mass on Sundays wherever they may be, which is undisputed, but an equal obligation to research local Church law relating to Holy Days - so that if I find myself in Guadalajara on Thursday December 9 (St. Juan Diego), or in Ljubljana Slovenia on
Tuesday August 6 (Our Lady of Czestochowa - hypothetical example), then I am morally responsible to know whether in that city or district - and not necessarily even in that entire country - the local Ordinary has declared a Holy Day?

You make a good point.
The Church thought of that.
-]That’s why only universal laws bind travelers/-]*.
Make that: That’s why travelers are not bound by local laws.
This is exactly where canon 13 does apply. Since local feast days might not be known to travelers from other parts of the world, the Church, through canon 13, exempts these travelers from “laws of the territory” which they visit. This is done because the Church rightly decided that it would be an unfair burden to expect travelers to research local laws—just as you imply in the question.

---

*except those dealing with public order or other issues that would “naturally” bind even travelers, but that’s not the topic of this thread.

 

[twf]

Sorry, still not understanding. How can a Holy Day of Obligation which doesn’t even apply to a whole country, but in the cited case to only PART of a county, be considered “universal law?” And if § 2 of Canon 13 states that “Travelers are not bound by the laws of the territory in which they are present,” how does that relate to your earlier response that “You follow the rules of the place where you are?”

Your citations would seem to say that Catholic travelers have a moral obligation, on pain of mortal sin, not just to attend Mass on Sundays wherever they may be, which is undisputed, but an equal obligation to research local Church law relating to Holy Days - so that if I find myself in Guadalajara on Thursday December 9 (St. Juan Diego), or in Ljubljana Slovenia on
Tuesday August 6 (Our Lady of Czestochowa - hypothetical example), then I am morally responsible to know whether in that city or district - and not necessarily even in that entire country - the local Ordinary has declared a Holy Day?

Father David has already clarified that this is not the case. Please see his posts in this thread.

Father,
Perhaps you can clarify a real life example for me. I move around quite a bit for personal and work reasons. At present, as best as I can figure, I maintain a domicile in the Diocese of Nelson, British Columbia, Canada and a quasi-domicile in the Archdiocese of Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic. (Or they may both be true domiciles…not sure on that. I certainly have long term homes in both locations). In the Archdiocese of Santo Domingo, January 21 is both a civil holiday and a holy day of obligation, per particular law, as it commemorates Our Lady under her patronal title “Nuestra Señora de Altagracia”. January 21 is not so much as a feast of any sort in the Diocese of Nelson. If I happen to be in Santo Domingo on January 21, I would be bound by the obligation, but if I happen to be in Nelson, I would not be bound. Yes?
Another example. In the Archdiocese of Santo Domingo, the faithful are bound to abstain from meat during the Fridays of Lent as per universal law. In the Diocese of Nelson, as in the rest of Canada, even Lenten Friday abstinence can be substituted with another penance (which I personally consider most unfortunate, but it is the law of the land regardless). If I happen to be in Santo Domingo on a Friday of Lent, I would be bound to abstain, but if I happened to be in Nelson, I would not be bound?

 

[FrDavid96]

Father David has already clarified that this is not the case. Please see his posts in this thread.

Father,
Perhaps you can clarify a real life example for me. I move around quite a bit for personal and work reasons. At present, as best as I can figure, I maintain a domicile in the Diocese of Nelson, British Columbia, Canada and a quasi-domicile in the Archdiocese of Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic. (Or they may both be true domiciles…not sure on that. I certainly have long term homes in both locations). In the Archdiocese of Santo Domingo, January 21 is both a civil holiday and a holy day of obligation, per particular law, as it commemorates Our Lady under her patronal title “Nuestra Señora de Altagracia”. January 21 is not so much as a feast of any sort in the Diocese of Nelson. If I happen to be in Santo Domingo on January 21, I would be bound by the obligation, but if I happen to be in Nelson, I would not be bound. Yes?

Correct. If you are in Nelson, you are not bound by a Holy Day of Obligation in Santo Domingo.
Can. 13 §1. Particular laws are not presumed to be personal but territorial unless it is otherwise evident.
§2. Travelers are not bound:
1/ by the particular laws of their own territory as long as they are absent from it unless either the transgression of those laws causes harm in their own territory or the laws are personal
You are doubly exempt. c. 13.1 The law (the obligation) applies to the territory, not to you as a person, so when you leave the territory, the law does not go with you. And c. 13.2.1 more explicitly says that since you leave your home territory you are not bound by the law.

Another example. In the Archdiocese of Santo Domingo, the faithful are bound to abstain from meat during the Fridays of Lent as per universal law. In the Diocese of Nelson, as in the rest of Canada, even Lenten Friday abstinence can be substituted with another penance (which I personally consider most unfortunate, but it is the law of the land regardless). If I happen to be in Santo Domingo on a Friday of Lent, I would be bound to abstain, but if I happened to be in Nelson, I would not be bound?

Again, correct.

This depends on exactly how the law of abstinence is phrased for Canada. There are some really subtle points here that would probably make a thesis all by themselves. Suffice to say that you are “loosed from the law” (not precisely, but let’s leave it at that) by virtue of the fact that you are in a territory that allows everyone present in that territory to substitute another form of penance.

 

[FrDavid96]

Since you have a domicile in Canada, you would be in the right to say that the permission to substitute another form of penance instead of going meatless would travel with you when you are in Santo Domingo.

I missed that part of your question in my first response.

 

[Neofight]

Way tooooo much being said.

The typical lay person should never have any need to even open the Code of Canon Law.

Go to Mass every Sunday, and attend Mass on Holy Days of Obligation (if there is a Mass available for you to attend where you are).

Even if you received dispensation from another area, and a Mass is available, go anyway…there is no penalty for attending a Mass you have been given a dispensation for not attending!

If you know you are going to miss Mass (and are not sure you have a legitimate excuse), or want to miss Mass, ask for a dispensation first.

If the dispensation is denied, attend Mass.

If the dispensation is denied, and you chose not to attend Mass, understand the risk to your salvation, and take it to confession.

Other than that, the only reason you need to read or get an interpretation of CCL, is if it you are a player on Jeopardy, and the Code of Canon Law comes up as a category.

Peace and all good!

 

[FrDavid96]

Way tooooo much being said.

The typical lay person should never have any need to even open the Code of Canon Law.

Go to Mass every Sunday, and attend Mass on Holy Days of Obligation (if there is a Mass available for you to attend where you are).

Even if you received dispensation from another area, and a Mass is available, go anyway…there is not penalty for attending a Mass you have been are not required to attend!

If you know you are going to miss Mass, or want to miss Mass, ask for a dispensation first.

If the dispensation is denied, attend Mass.

If the dispensation is denied, and you chose not to attend Mass, understand the risk to your salvation, and take it to confession.

Other than that, the only reason you need to read or get an interpretation of CCL, is if it you are a player on Jeopardy, and the Code of Canon Law comes up as a category.

Peace and all good!

Actually, these are good and important questions.

People are much more likely, in our times, to travel abroad and visit other countries that have different Holy Days of Obligation and different norms for fast/abstinence.

We also have such a patchwork of Holy Days even within the United States (is this Thursday Ascension, or is it not? Depends on your province.) that it’s really hard to understand them.

It’s good for Catholics to understand the “bottom line” when it comes to question like this:

If you are loosed from the law at home, then you are loosed when traveling.
If you are bound by a local law at home, you are not bound by it when traveling.

If the territory you visit is loosed from the law, then you are loosed when visiting it.
If the territory you visit has its own particular law, you are not bound by it.

Notice that all 4 of those result in travelers being loosed (or not bound) by laws when they travel. The Church is generous! :extrahappy:

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

Fr. David, thanks for your very helpful responses. Your last post is very insightful: people ARE much more likely to travel abroad these days, and thus the clarifications you provided are good to know.

 

[CutlerB]

Fr. David, thanks for your very helpful responses. Your last post is very insightful: people ARE much more likely to travel abroad these days, and thus the clarifications you provided are good to know.

Indeed, thank you, Father. Very helpful!

 

[FrDavid96]

Way tooooo much being said.

The typical lay person should never have any need to even open the Code of Canon Law.
…

Exactly right.

That’s the whole point about the Church being generous. The Church realizes that it is a burden on the average Catholic to expect him to know these finer points of the law, and a burden to require a Catholic to research Holy Days of Obligation that apply only to a certain location; while at the same time, rightly expecting Catholics to follow universal Holy Days of Obligation (but still without any undue burdens).

Is going to Mass a good thing? Certainly. If someone is traveling to an unfamiliar place and learns about a feast day that applies only to that place, going to Mass is a very good thing, and certainly encouraged. However, at the same time, the Church does not impose the burden on the traveler of needing to consult particular (ie local) canon law on obligations when visiting.

 

[twf]

Exactly right.

That’s the whole point about the Church being generous. The Church realizes that it is a burden on the average Catholic to expect him to know these finer points of the law, and a burden to require a Catholic to research Holy Days of Obligation that apply only to a certain location; while at the same time, rightly expecting Catholics to follow universal Holy Days of Obligation (but still without any undue burdens).

Is going to Mass a good thing? Certainly. If someone is traveling to an unfamiliar place and learns about a feast day that applies only to that place, going to Mass is a very good thing, and certainly encouraged. However, at the same time, the Church does not impose the burden on the traveler of needing to consult particular (ie local) canon law on obligations when visiting.

Thank you for answering my questions Father. Yes, the Church is indeed generous. It would be very unlikely that the average tourist (and the Dominican is a MAJOR tourist destination) would clue into the fact that universal feasts of Our Lady, such as the her Immaculate Conception or her Assumption, are not binding, while a local feast, unknown in the wider Church, is binding…
There are two Marian feasts celebrated as civil holidays: Altagracia and Mercedes. Now that I think of it I am uncertain, after three years of spending time down there, if the latter is binding as a day of obligation. Altagracia definitely is…and the icon of Our Lady of Altagracia is found in every single sanctuary in the country in a place of honor.

 

[MissRose73]

When I was traveling a few years ago, I missed Sunday Mass as I had no transport to get there, and walking was not feasible as the nearest Mass was in a different segment of town I was not familiar, also the transport cost was high to get there. One priest I consulted after the fact said my circumstances said I did not sin as it was not deliberate & I had no way to go safely. I did go to Confession not long after my return, and mentioned the same thing, and that priest said I did commit a sin, and I should have tried harder to get to Mass. If only all priests were consistent in their advice!

 

[Bookcat]

I agree with some of what 1ke posted (I say some cause I may not have read all…)

As I have understood it - the Holy Days of Obligation are “universal laws” (CIC 12) and thus bind on all Catholics of the Roman Rite.

In some places one or more is not in effect (or are transferred) -and thus if you are visiting there - one is not bound by the law. (CIC 12.2). One is actually present there and so are exempt.

If however in your home territory one or more are not in effect -but you travel to another territory where they are in effect - one is bound to observe them. Why? because they are “universal laws” (CIC 12) and are not “particular laws”. So since “universal laws” are binding on all (CIC 12) -which refers to all members of the Latin Church - they are binding upon one when one is not longer in a place where they are “not in effect” via the decision of the Conference of Bishops.

Same for the *universal law *to abstain from meat on Fridays. I am in a place where that is substituted etc -I do not need to abstain.

If in my home territory I do not have to abstain -but I travel say to Poland or the UK (as I recall) where one is obliged to abstain -I am to abstain. Why? because it is a universal law and I have left the territory where it was not in effect and now where it is. The Universal Law in my case comes back into effect.

Same for Holy Days of Obligation.

They are not particular laws but universal laws that in some places have been suppressed etc. When I am somewhere where the it not suppressed etc -the universal law remains in effect -I go to Mass (this has happened).

Such has been my understanding.

 

[FrDavid96]

…

If however in your home territory one or more are not in effect -but you travel to another territory where they are in effect - one is bound to observe them. Why? because they are “universal laws” (CIC 12) and are not “particular laws”. So since “universal laws” are binding on all (CIC 12) -which refers to all members of the Latin Church - they are binding upon one when one is not longer in a place where they are “not in effect” via the decision of the Conference of Bishops. …

Actually, since the traveler is loosed from the law in his home territory, he is likewise loosed from the law when he travels.

I do see what you mean about universal laws binding everywhere, and agree with that part. But what makes this different is that such a person has already been released (or loosed) from the obligation (ie the obligation to attend Mass on Thursday, because the one to participate in the Mass on Sunday still applies), and that release from the obligation travels with the person.

 

[Bookcat]

Actually, since the traveler is loosed from the law in his home territory, he is likewise loosed from the law when he travels.

I do see what you mean about universal laws binding everywhere, and agree with that part. But what makes this different is that such a person has already been released (or loosed) from the obligation (ie the obligation to attend Mass on Thursday, because the one to participate in the Mass on Sunday still applies), and that release from the obligation travels with the person.

Not personally.

If he perhaps is dispensed by his pastor -that could be (?) a different story -that is a personal dispensation.

If the Universal Law is just not in effect in his territory - and he is somewhere the universal law is in effect -I have understood that yes it is binding on him. Be it abstinence from meat or a Universal Holy Day. I have encountered both in my travels. Made sure I gave up meat and went to Mass (but not on the same day!).

 

[CutlerB]

Tell you what, why don’t I ask my Canon Law professor about this? He’s been called to the Pontifical Gregorian university, so I assume he’d be qualified enough to answer.

 

[FrDavid96]

Tell you what, why don’t I ask my Canon Law professor about this? He’s been called to the Pontifical Gregorian university, so I assume he’d be qualified enough to answer.

Please do.

I’d like to hear what he has to say.

If a person is dispensed, the dispensation goes with the person. So, if the bishop dispenses his diocese (as the bishops of California typically do on January 1), the dispensation still applies even outside the territory.

However, with regard to the Ascension Thursday being moved in some provinces and not others, how does the law apply? Let’s remember that this is not a dispensation—it’s moving a feast day.

I’m inclined to say that the law which looses in the home territory likewise looses the traveler because laws that loose are interpreted loosely while laws that bind are interpreted strictly.

 

[Bookcat]

Please do.

I’d like to hear what he has to say.

If a person is dispensed, the dispensation goes with the person. So, if the bishop dispenses his diocese (as the bishops of California typically do on January 1), the dispensation still applies even outside the territory.

However, with regard to the Ascension Thursday being moved in some provinces and not others, how does the law apply? Let’s remember that this is not a dispensation—it’s moving a feast day.

I’m inclined to say that the law which looses in the home territory likewise looses the traveler because laws that loose are interpreted loosely while laws that bind are interpreted strictly.

Usually it is a matter not of dispensation (and I still would think what I noted is the case

But even it it is - I think if it is a “territorial dispensation” - applies only in his territory. Like a Bishop dispenses those in his diocese from abstaining from meat on St. Patrick’s day on a Friday of Lent -and I live in that diocese but fly to Germany - I would think I still need to abstain. I am no longer in his territory.

I am only referring to universal laws that have a local change. Not to “*local *holy days” -such as are not universal - they would not bind as I read the law.

 

[Bookcat]

As I noted -such has been how I have understood matters -due to those Holy Days and Days of Abstinence from meat being - universal law that is simply exempted in a local territory. And when one is not in that territory but where that universal law is in effect one is bound (unless perhaps “dispensed”? by ones Pastor etc.)

But according to my wife - I am* a times* not correct - so of course if I am incorrect I will jot it down on the small piece of paper I keep track of such on…

(though she may have a large 8 volume blank book serious somewhere - filled with her notes of such in my case…).

Anyhow - hopefully such will be able to be established one way or the other.

(certainly if the place where you “actually are present” the Holy Day or the Abstinence is not in effect -one is not obliged --the question is - if it is a universal law -that locally is in effect where one is but not in effect in ones home - is one bound).

 

[FrDavid96]

Usually it is a matter not of dispensation (and I still would think what I noted is the case

But even it it is - I think if it is a “territorial dispensation” - applies only in his territory. Like a Bishop dispenses those in his diocese from abstaining from meat on St. Patrick’s day on a Friday of Lent -and I live in that diocese but fly to Germany - I would think I still need to abstain. I am no longer in his territory.

I am only referring to universal laws that have a local change. Not to “*local *holy days” -such as are not universal - they would not bind as I read the law.

It doesn’t work that way. If a person is dispensed in his home territory, the dispensation travels with him. This is a “given” in canon law. The only time it does not apply is if the one granting the dispensation attaches a condition—which usually does not happen with regard to Holy Days. It would be rather odd for a bishop to do that.

A dispensation does not become void if the one who has been granted it leaves the territory.

 

[Bookcat]

It doesn’t work that way. If a person is dispensed in his home territory, the dispensation travels with him. This is a “given” in canon law. The only time it does not apply is if the one granting the dispensation attaches a condition—which usually does not happen with regard to Holy Days. It would be rather odd for a bishop to do that.

A dispensation does not become void if the one who has been granted it leaves the territory.

As I noted it seems a dispensation can be a different matter. But that is not I think what is at issue here.

If my Pastor or Bishop dispensed me -I would think that yes I am dispensed anywhere normally (or said "I dispense all the Faithful under my Pastoral care from…anywhere they are).

Normally though we are talking about Conferences of Bishops surpressing a Holy Day that is on the Universal Calandar -for their territory. Or they have made abstinence from meat not obligatory or permitted substitution.

Hence it has seemed to me in the past that such would still be in effect if I say traveled to a country where they were not. I would attend Mass and on Fridays abstain from Meat (I would not say - oh in my country I do not need to abstain…so I will not here). Again if I am not correct …it would be good to know.