Canon Law: Which holy days of obligation apply?

[Bookcat]

It seems to me that we don’t have to bother with questions of what the universal law is (c. 1246.1) since every place on earth has an episcopal conference which has particularized the law in accord with c. 1246.2, suppressing some days of obligation and/or transferring some to Sunday.

Since, practically, everybody is only bound by particular law on this issue, I’ll just go with c. 13 and say that travelers are not bound by any particular law.

In individual cases, there can also be dispensations of obligations but that is a separate (from c. 1246) issue.

Dan

(a I believe the Vatican observes them all for one!)

That is where the question comes in. Cause they are not local laws but universal laws. They are simply suppressed or transferred in some places.

See post #8 above.

Canon 12 discusses “Universal Laws” --and that they bind everyone for whom they are issued…and then note an exception of being present in a territory where they are not in force.

Canon 13 discusses travelers and “particular laws” and refer to the “laws of the territory in which they are present” so far as not being binding on travelers. So it has seemed that such would be referring to say if Ireland has St. Patrick as a Holy Day of Obligation (I do not say they do or do not) -and I visit there -cause it is a “particular law” of that territory I would not be bound to go to Mass. But if say they are to give up meat on Fridays - I would be bound cause THAT is a universal law - it simply was not changed there as it was in my country.

And note the very first part of Canon 13.1 is that particular laws are not presumed to be personal - but Territorial.

 

[Bookcat]

Dan

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3.HTM

Can. 12 §1. Universal laws bind everywhere all those for whom they were issued.

§2. All who are actually present in a certain territory, however, are exempted from universal laws which are not in force in that territory.

§3. Laws established for a particular territory bind those for whom they were issued as well as those who have a domicile or quasi-domicile there and who at the same time are actually residing there, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 13.

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;

2/ by the laws of the territory in which they are present, with the exception of those laws which provide for public order, which determine the formalities of acts, or which regard immovable goods located in the territory.

§3. Transients are bound by both universal and particular laws which are in force in the place where they are present.

---

It starts out discussing Universal Law and when that is not binding.

The it gets into “particular laws”–which are not presumed to be personal -but territorial.

Then it addresses when travelers are not bound.

13.2 seems to refer to “particular laws” for it notes “laws of the territory”. Not “universal laws” (those universal laws not in force in the territory where one is -where already address in 12.1)

And especially note that 13.3 says that transients (those without a place to live basically -not intending to reside in a place for three months etc–which is different than a traveler - different than a person on vacation) are bound by **BOTH **universal and particular laws which are “in force in the place where they are present”.

 

[Bookcat]

Again I am simply discussing this in a forum. And my discussion here -and ideas here can be incorrect.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12047131&postcoun

It can be quite the case that travelers are not bound by universal laws that are in effect in the places they are visiting. (I am not stating that they are bound). I am simply discussing the question. It is a good question.

 

[Bookcat]

And note the very first part of Canon 13.1 is that particular laws are not presumed to be personal - but Territorial. So the idea that one would follow the laws of ones own territory when outside of it - does not seem to be correct. (a personal dispensation can be a rather different matter…I am discussing particular laws of a place).

 

[Bookcat]

Again I am simply discussing this in a forum. And my discussion here -and ideas here can be incorrect.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12047131&postcoun

It can be quite the case that travelers are not bound by universal laws that are in effect in the places they are visiting. (I am not stating that they are bound). I am simply discussing the question. It is a good question…

 

[Bookcat]

…

Dan

Given your background -((Licentiate) in canon law) and likely access to better sources - perhaps you can shed more light on these things?

Like I noted before I would be happy either way. I would be very happy to say :“travelers are not bound to observe universal holy days if they are in effect where they are traveling - since they are particular laws and their home does not observe them”.

 

[Bookcat]

Again I am simply discussing this in a forum. And my discussion here -and ideas here can be incorrect.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12047131&postcoun

It can be quite the case that travelers are not bound by universal laws that are in effect in the places they are visiting. (I am not stating that they are bound). I am simply discussing the question. It is a good question…

 

[FrDavid96]

It seems to me that we don’t have to bother with questions of what the universal law is (c. 1246.1) since every place on earth has an episcopal conference which has particularized the law in accord with c. 1246.2, suppressing some days of obligation and/or transferring some to Sunday.

Since, practically, everybody is only bound by particular law on this issue, I’ll just go with c. 13 and say that travelers are not bound by any particular law.

In individual cases, there can also be dispensations of obligations but that is a separate (from c. 1246) issue.

Dan

Dan,

Dispensations do become relevant when the bishop of a particular diocese dispenses his own subjects from the obligation on that day. When (if) he dispenses them, then they are dispensed even if they leave the territory of the diocese.

Let’s say that someone lives in a diocese in northern California and the bishop of that diocese dispenses his subjects from the obligation to attend Mass on January 1 (which is typical, but not an absolute). Let’s say that’s a Wednesday. If a family from that diocese decides to drive a short distance and go camping at a park in Oregon, from Tuesday to Thursday, they are still dispensed from the obligation on that day; even if the bishop of that diocese in Oregon has not given a dispensation. They family take the dispensation with them when they travel.

I’ve tried to research the Holy Days in Germany. It’s a real patchwork. The way their calendar works is completely different than what we do in the US. Part of what I’ve read is that a day can sometimes be a day of obligation for only parts of a given diocese.

The bottom line, though, is that when a Catholic is loosed from the law in his home territory, he continues to be loosed from the law when he travels (with certain exceptions, of course, but not anything having to do with this thread).

 

[Bookcat]

Holy days normally are not a matter about a personal dispensation (of a person of all members of a Bishops flock). It could happen -like when there is bad weather or something like that. But normally holy days are handled differently.

See here for more: adoremus.org/CanonSunHolyDay.html

(read the entire page)

(And note the very first part of Canon 13.1 is that particular laws are not presumed to be personal - but Territorial.)

 

[dans0622]

Given your background -((Licentiate) in canon law) and likely access to better sources - perhaps you can shed more light on these things? …

I’ll see what I can do/find but… I don’t recall the major commentaries entering into a discussion of this particular issue (i.e., how the obligations of c. 1246, universal and particular, fit into the norms of cc. 12-13).

Dan

 

[dans0622]

… Dispensations do become relevant when the bishop of a particular diocese dispenses his own subjects from the obligation on that day. When (if) he dispenses them, then they are dispensed even if they leave the territory of the diocese. …

Hello,

Yes, I agree entirely with this (and what I deleted from your comment).

Dan

 

[Bookcat]

I’ll see what I can do/find but… I don’t recall the major commentaries entering into a discussion of this particular issue (i.e., how the obligations of c. 1246, universal and particular, fit into the norms of cc. 12-13).

Dan

Thanks.

 

[FrDavid96]

This is one of those times when I say to myself that I wish people could experience what it’s like to hear confessions in real life.

Scrupulous people look for excuses to accuse themselves of sin when no sin has occurred–that’s the nature of the condition.

It’s very common for scrupulous people to visit Catholic web forums looking for ways to justify themselves. I can absolutely assure any reader here that scrupulous people use these types of online communities to bolster their arguments with their own priest-confessors who are trying to assure them “you did not commit a mortal sin, no matter what you read on some forum.” The problem is: that’s not what they want to hear. A priest-confessor who tries to reassure a scrupulous penitent that there was no sin is in a very difficult position when that scrupulous penitent trusts “what I read in the forum” rather than the priest-confessor, precisely because the person wants to think that there was a sin. Given our (often confusing) situation in the U.S. with regard to Ascension Thursday being moved in some diocese and not others, there are plenty of scrupulous people out there doing internet searches and reading online forums for ways to justify their scrupulosity when they go to confession on Saturday. The last thing those people (and their confessors) need is misinformation that reinforces that.

A few posts ago, we heard from a military wife about how much stress this causes; trying to figure-out the local holy days of obligation. The last thing a military family needs is more stress. What someone in a situation like that does need is reassurance that that there was not a sin (because, first and foremost, it is true that there was no sin); and most especially not speculation based on an incomplete understanding of how the Church’s laws are applied.

 

[Bookcat]

Since scrupulosity has been brought up above -In terms of those who are scrupulous or who struggle with scruples - it is very important for them to have a “regular confessor” whom they look to for their direction (internet forums are not regular confessors -and what is read in a forum can be problematic for one who struggles with such). This is the* age old practice* in the Church.

So yes readers with that difficulty - see your regular confessor.

And the fact that those with scruples are readers - is yes important to take into account when posting in a forum. Though of course it is a forum -where things get discussed- so discussion still goes forward. But yes care ought to be taken (and perhaps some things ought not be said -or said in a particular way).

 

[Sariaru]

I In addition, the Archdiocese for the US military covers you, so you have a “diocesan residence” with them, no matter where you are physically located at the moment.

I’m not with the US military, though. My husband is part HM Armed Forces - British Military. So, would I follow whatever these guys’ obligations are?

Oh, forget it all. Canon law is far too confusing for this baby Catholic. I’ll just go to Mass every day. That ought to cover it. It’s not like daily Mass ever did anyone any harm.

Edited to add: That wasn’t quite meant to come out sounding like new-Catholic paranoia/scruples, although I suppose it does, now that I reread it. Mostly just "daily Mass is super cool, and it has the bonus effect of covering your tail for whichever Holy Day whatever half of your diocese in whatever residence you may or may not be in may or may not have dispensed you from which probably, but not always goes with you when you travel. Instead just do this!

 

[FrDavid96]

I’m not with the US military, though. My husband is part HM Armed Forces - British Military. So, would I follow whatever these guys’ obligations are?

Oh, forget it all. Canon law is far too confusing for this baby Catholic. I’ll just go to Mass every day. That ought to cover it. It’s not like daily Mass ever did anyone any harm.

Edited to add: That wasn’t quite meant to come out sounding like new-Catholic paranoia/scruples, although I suppose it does, now that I reread it. Mostly just "daily Mass is super cool, and it has the bonus effect of covering your tail for whichever Holy Day whatever half of your diocese in whatever residence you may or may not be in may or may not have dispensed you from which probably, but not always goes with you when you travel. Instead just do this!

I’m not sure about the military Bishopric. The wiki article misuses terms (no surprise there), by using the word “ordinariate” which may or may not apply. For example, for the US military, it is most certainly not an ordinariate, it is an archdiocese (it was promoted from Ordinariate many years ago ). That’s merely to illustrate that I don’t trust the wiki website.

I cannot say for certain that things are the same for the UK as the US, but in principle, they should be the same. The military bishopric calendar applies to you, whether it’s a diocese or a personal prelature (ordinariate).

A dispensation does go with you when you travel (just ignore comments that it doesn’t, please). This is a basic principle in canon law.

If you can get to Mass daily, that’s great, and I applaud you for doing it! But not everyone can do that. The Church realizes this and that’s why canon law is setup the way that it is—for the good of souls, to be the least burdensome as possible (not that Mass is a burden, but I’m talking about fulfilling obligations), and to be as generous as possible whenever someone is loosed from a law.

Canon law is not meant to cause you, or anyone else, stress or hardship. The most important law is the good of souls. In fact, the Church calls that the “supreme law” of the Church.

 

[Vico]

Per Giga-Catholic:

US 1939.11: Established as Military Vicariate of United States of America
1986.07.21: Promoted as Military Ordinariate of Archdiocese for the Military Services of the United States / United States of America
CA 1951.02.17: Established as Military Vicariate of Canada
1986.07.21: Promoted as Military Ordinariate of Military Ordinariate of Canada / Canada

 

[Digitonomy]

Per Giga-Catholic:

US
1939.11: Established as Military Vicariate of United States of America
1986.07.21: Promoted as Military Ordinariate of Archdiocese for the Military Services of the United States / United States of America

This is interesting. So there is both an ordinariate and an archdiocese. Are they one and the same, or are there situations where one is not part of the ordinariate but nonetheless part of the archdiocese?

 

[Vico]

This is interesting. So there is both an ordinariate and an archdiocese. Are they one and the same, or are there situations where one is not part of the ordinariate but nonetheless part of the archdiocese?

Military Ordinariates are like a diocese. The ordinary has the duties of a diocesan bishop unless the nature of things or statutes determine otherwise.Par. 1 Ordinariatui militari, ut proprius, praeficitur Ordinarius dignitate episcopali pro norma insignitus, qui omnibus gaudet iuribus Episcoporum dioecesanorum eorundemque obligationibus tenetur, nisi aliud ex rei natura vel statutis particularibus constet.
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_19860421_spirituali-militum-curae_lt.html

There are six kinds of particular churches in the 1983 Canon Law (CIC). The military ordinariate was described later in SMC (above) in 1986:

Missionary areas — governed in the name of the Supreme Pontiff: 1. Apostolic Prefecture (next step after mission sui iuris) – usually not a bishop
2. Apostolic Vicariate/Exarchy (next step after Apostolic Prefecture) – usually a bishop
3. Apostolic Administration (Stable) – as needed, with defined (limited) powers
Established: 4. Diocese/Eparchy – governed by bishop/eparch
5. Territorial Prelature – territory governed by prelate
6. Territorial Abbacy – territory governed by abbot

 

[dans0622]

I did a little bit of looking around. There is at least one doctoral thesis that might be informative but I don’t have access to it at the moment. There are some articles in journals I can’t access or understand (in another language). Commentaries tend to look at c. 1246 in the light of c. 12, and vice versa. So, my comment about c. 13 being the proper lens through which one can determine obligations imposed by c. 1246 is (perhaps) unique and without corroboration. I prefer to think of my idea as being “outside the box” and “creative.” I still think there is something to my proposal but don’t really want to bother with it at this time. I’ll ponder it…maybe see what other canon lawyers think about it…

Dan