By Father William Hoffman

Editor’s note: This is the second of three articles on Holy Day obligations in preparation for a poll to be taken in the archdiocese on the subject.

Holy days — how will reform affect them? Should the Church change the status of holy days, making them non-obligatory, or by transferring them to the nearest Sunday? Should they remain as they are now?

Several factors and questions come to mind: Do the feasts in question have a key part in the overall Christian life, or only have a very minor role (e.g., Ascension is more central to the mystery of Jesus than is the Immaculate Conception).

What has been the results of previous disciplinary relaxations? Fasting and abstinence practically disappeared from the formal scene once those disciplines were relaxed. This may well point to what was the de facto connection between motives and compliance with the disciplinary laws—after many years the motive has disappeared and a moribund form remained, and finally the form was quietly retired. Is the same operative re the holy days? One way to determine whether the motive (presumably because of the feasts “popularity” or its close connection with the Christian revelation) remains is to remove the obligation of Mass on those days. In that way, the popularity, at least, of certain feasts would be quite obvious, as would be their relevancy to the masses of Christians.

Then there is the question of historical origins. During the Middle Ages and the feudal system, the Church with reason could multiply holy days (holy days were also holidays for the serfs and holy days those engaged in wars had a holiday—ah! The days of Christendom!). But once the modern nations emerged and the division of Western Christianity became a fact of life, the Church might with equal reason drop some or all such feasts not occurring on Sunday, or change them so they occur on Sundays.

The question of reforming the holy days brings to the writer two images: a flock and a people. The first image takes its origin in Scripture where the image refers to the members of the Church, e.g., the flock (Church) in relation of Christ and to Peter. The image of a people emerges from documents of the Second Vatican Council, where the members of the Church are called a people. A flock not only needs but wants specific directives, wants to be told what is best, when to do what. The Church has many members who fit into that image—like the man who slips into the last pew most Sundays and pleas for no further changes because it is still the obligation which moves him to come to Mass and he admits that it does him some good and he is afraid that he would not even do that were the obligation removed. He needs obligations. But a people is not like a flock. A people will require leadership to keep them working cooperatively and direct them wisely into the future, but a people need not be given detailed directives—the paraphrase Pope John: in essential things—unity; in non-essential things—freedom; in all things—charity.

The “flock” might need the obligation of attending on holy days if the holy days are retained unchanged. A “people” might not need the obligation on holy days. Both “flock” and “people” together might be better served by changing the feasts to occur always on Sundays.

The whole question of any obligation at all to attend Mass (at least as that obligation is generally phrased: it’s a mortal sin to miss Mass) might be raised. Suggestions or directives are one thing, but laws requiring public worship? Rather than spend our time working out better formulations for laws or getting hung-up on obligatory attendance, we should spend our time and talents making our worship so appealing and relevant that it will draw people—not because it happens to be our denomination’s thing, or to fulfill a law, or to avoid sin, but because it is meaningful and beautiful in itself.