On second thought, I probably do not question the prudence of doing so, since I expect it is done for the same reason as other translations of holy days or dispensation of their obligation on Saturdays or Mondays – Recognizing that many of the faithful do not keep the obligation at such times, the bishops remove an occasion of sin?
Is it really right to remove obligation just because a lot of people will skip? It seems to me that people having New Year’s Eve parties and staying up late is why most will miss, but that doesn’t seem like a good enough reason. I know in my parish cluster, there was a 5p on New Year’s Eve, a few masses at the usual Daily Mass time on Jan. 1st, and then an evening Mass that day as well. Seems like one of those timeframes should be doable.Titivillus:
On second thought, I probably do not question the prudence of doing so, since I expect it is done for the same reason as other translations of holy days or dispensation of their obligation on Saturdays or Mondays – Recognizing that many of the faithful do not keep the obligation at such times, the bishops remove an occasion of sin?
I might still prefer improved catechesis on the matter, especially since the Solemnity of Mary seems recently to be treated as the red-headed step-child of holy days. In my area one is lucky to have a Mass scheduled on the evening of the 31st and the morning of the 1st, while other holy days usually have at least one more Mass scheduled, on the evening of the day itself. I have known more than one person to miss the day because they expected a later-in-the-day opportunity for Mass, only to find there was none.
I suppose priests enjoy taking New Year Day off as much as the next fellow?
Looking into it, a dispensation and abrogation are different. The Bishop does have the power to dispense the entire diocese of their obligation to go. An abrogation is authoratative and removes the obligation in the first place (rather than excusing for not not going). A Bishop can only do this with Vatican approval.
I agree that the author seems quick to be “right”, but I think he feels the Bishop made a wrong choice. All language seems to be abrogation, no dispensation. The parish bulletin from one of the diocese churches says “Because it falls so close to a weekend, there is no obligation.” That is abrogation. Dispensation is excusing the obligation, but the obligation is there. Other sources seem to also be using the term abrogation. Perhaps, the Bishop used the wrong “legal” avenue to excuse everyone from Mass. Should he have? I don’t know. It seems to just be conforming to secular society to me.
Since the diocese is using the term abrogated in official documents, I would assume that the abrogation was approved by the Vatican.
I just think that the bishop deserves the benefit of the doubt that he acted with good intentions and with proper authority. The article took a single quote, full of qualifiers, from an anonymous canon lawyer, and proceeded to outline everything that could happen if it were true that he had violated canon law.
There is a difference for the one who carries out the act (a dispensation is a “singular administrative act”–an act of executive authority–but “abrogaton” is a legislative act that changes the law itself) but not for those who are subject to the authority who acts (either way, the obligation to attend Mass on that day…and observe the other requirements of a day of obligation…is no more).
I don’t know about the diocese in Salt Lake, but our diocesan office was closed on Dec 24-26 and Dec 31-Jan 1. And most employees were on vacation the other days and they had only a skeleton crew on Dec 27-29.
