When I arrive at work at 8 in the morning, the daily Mass is just beginning.
About a half hour later, I can see the congregation leaving—the same people every day.
They don’t all file out at once, get in their cars, and drive off. They come out chatting with each other and the pastor; they linger on the steps and the sidewalk and only gradually drift away.
Most of the daily congregation is advanced in age, which may be inevitable on weekday mornings. One man more shuffles than walks to and from his car; another uses crutches to make his way up and down the church steps.
These people, who I guess are “die-hards,” came to mind recently when I was reading Father Kenneth Doyle’s syndicated question-and-answer column, which appears in my diocesan newspaper.
Father Doyle’s correspondent asked why the Church doesn’t dispense with holy days of obligation inasmuch as the “only people at Mass are the true die-hards.’’
Father Doyle explained that canon law provides for ten holy days but gives the bishops’ conferences in each country a great deal of latitude with respect to when and now those days are observed.
In Canada, for example, the bishops have retained only two—the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception (December 8) and Christmas Day. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops retains five of the traditional holy days and allows individual dioceses to transfer a sixth, the Feast of the Ascension, to the following Sunday.
Father Doyle acknowledged the low attendance and the confusion and wrote, “If we are to maintain the six holy days of obligation for the United States, we probably need to do a better job explaining their meaning and their importance.”
May I add that while we’re doing that, we should reassess the use of the term “obligation” with respect to holy days and even Sunday Mass.
Like most English words, this one has shades of meaning.
For example, while the primary definition is “something one must do because of a law, rule, or promise,” a meaning further down the ranks is “a debt of gratitude.”
But the term usually doesn’t evoke an action that one takes with enthusiasm—in fact, an action one would take even if there were no “obligation.”
That problem was implied by what the correspondent told Father Doyle: “Please encourage the bishops to put the celebrations on Sunday or take away the obligation.”
Does that mean that without the obligation the Mass holds no attraction?
While the canonical obligation does exist, the first incentive for attending any Mass is the opportunity to encounter the Lord in his word, in the Eucharist, and in the assembly of his people.
When we’re explaining the meaning and importance of the holy days, as Father Doyle urges, this is what we should emphasize before we stress the “obligation.”
If we believe what we say we believe about the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and about his presence in his word and among two or more who gather in his name, then wouldn’t we rather attend Mass than do anything else?
Wouldn’t we rather attend Mass than excuse ourselves because there is no “obligation,” or is that only for “die-hards”?
This post first appeared in The Catholic Spirit, Diocsese of Metuchen.
Charles Paolino is a member of the RENEW staff and a permanent Deacon in the Diocese of Metuchen.