<continued from last message>
9th Jan 1995
Subject: Sunday Mass obligation 2 of 4
THE HORNS OF A DILEMMA
Obviously, a conscientious, faithful Catholic who is unfortunate enough
to live within the boundaries of St. Alfred Loisy parish is confronted
by a predicament to which there is no satisfactory answer. He can
endure the Masses at St. Alfred, attend Fr. Benedict's Masses, go to the
Greek Orthodox liturgies or not go to Mass at all; but, as a practical
matter, he has no access to an unquestionably licit Mass celebrated
according to the liturgical norms by a priest in union with the
Successor of Peter. Thus the choice of any of the existing options
would necessarily invoke the principle of tolerance to avoid a greater
evil.
Moreover, we have issues here which may fall within the realm of the
internal forum and therefore transcend those canonical norms which are
limited to the external forum. In such conditions, sound spiritual
direction, fervent prayer and intense reflection on the discipline of
the Church are supremely important.
In the instant case, our first step is to determine as best we can the
validity of the altar bread used by Fr. Imbecillus. In the Latin Rite,
the hosts "must be made of wheat alone" (c. 924) and, in the Latin
tradition, must be unleavened (c. 926).
*****************************************************************
For the purposes of this discussion, however, we will assume that the
altar breads used at St. Alfred are illicit but still valid. We shall
further assume that there is no other invalidating factor present, such
as grave defect of intention on the part of the celebrant.
As long s the Masses at St. Alfred are valid, they would satisfy in the
strict sense our canonical obligation. Nonetheless, can one
legitimately consider whether attendance at Fr. Imbecillus' Masses would
give apparent approval of and lend support to this scandalous and
disrespectful behavior? Would such attendance give Fr. Imbecillus
reason to persist in his disobedience or, even worse, his possible
sacrilege? After all, if few people attended the Masses celebrated at
St. Alfred and there was a corresponding decrease in the income of the
parish, would the abuses still continue? If one can honestly answer
"yes" to the first two questions and "no" to the third, then I would
argue that the obligation imposed by C. 1247 still exists; but I also
believe that one could further argue by analogy, based upon the
well-known principle of double effect, that the spiritual goods obtained
be attendance at an "irregular" Mass, an Orthodox liturgy, or even an
extended time of family prayer in lieu of Mass, might well permit one to
tolerate the evil of an objective violation of the obligations to
"always maintain communion with the Church" (c. 209) and of obedience to
lawful authority (c. 212 1).
On the other hand, there are those who would prudently warn us
that by not attending the Masses at St. Alfred we could ourselves
become the source of scandal and that it would be better to stand
in silent sorrow beneath the cross with Our Lord which He is
scorned an mocked. Granted, this warning deserves our serious
attention. We must acknowledge that we cannot act from a posture
of self-righteousness and must avoid the temptation to set
ourselves up as the sole judge and jury; but I would answer that
we ought to remember as well our spiritual needs, the fact that
abuses are not of our doing and the possibility that our
absence, if joined by sufficient numbers of the faithful, might
lead to their end.
POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES
As in any dilemma, there are no satisfactory answers. Otherwise,
it would not be a dilemma. Moreover, I have admittedly compounded
the dilemma in this hypothetical situation by removing the
absolutely legitimate options of attending another parish Mass
celebrated without abuses, the Tridentine Mass celebrated with
episcopal permission or an Eastern liturgy in union with the
Catholic Church.
In evaluating the available options, the first question to be
considered is whether the Mass celebrated by Fr. Benedict or, in
his absence, a priest of the SSPX, would satisfy the obligation
imposed by c. 1247. This question has been debated for years by
canon lawyers and theologians. For example, in the 1991 issue of
*Roman Replies and CLSA Advisory Opinions*, published by the Canon
Law Society of America, there are two opposing opinions by Frs. J.
James Cuneo, J.C.D. and James H. Provost, J.C.D. in response to
the question: *Can Catholics attending the Eucharist in a
Traditionalist church fulfill their Sunday obligation?* Fr. Cuneo
concludes that they do, but, at the same time, may be violating
their separate obligation to maintain communion with the Church.
Fr. Provost takes the position that "It does not make sense to
speak of Catholics fulfilling an obligation they have within the
Catholic communion by participating at Mass outside that
communion" and that, therefore, such a Mass does not satisfy the
canonical obligations.
<continued in next message>
9th Jan 1995
Subject: Sunday Mass obligation 3 of 4
Taking all this into account and after consulting with four canon
lawyers, a theologian and a pastor, it is my view that the
Tridentine Mass is a Catholic rite and attendance would constitute
fulfillment of the obligation according to c. 1248 S1, even if the
Mass is celebrated without permission of the diocesan bishop. At
the same time we must not ignore our obligations of maintaining
communion with the Church and obedience to lawful authority. I
would assert that we are obliged to adopt an attitude of the
utmost caution regarding attendance at a Mass where there is any
question whatever about its regularity or liceity. This cautious
approach would apply to the Masses celebrated by Fr. Benedict,
priests of the SSPX and Eastern Orthodox liturgies. In view of
the pervasive and serious liturgical abuses perpetrated by him, I
believe it would apply equally as well to the Masses celebrated by
Fr. Imbecillus.
It should be noted that the situation regarding the liturgy of
Eastern Churches not in union with Rome is somewhat different.
According to the Ecumenical Directory, *Ad Totam Eccesiam*,
issued by the Secretariat for the Promotion of Unity of Christians
in 1967, Catholics attending these liturgies on reasonable grounds
such as "public office or function, blood relationships,
friendships, desire to be better informed, etc.," (No.50) are
"not then bound to assist at Mass in a Catholic Church. It is
likewise a good thing if on such days Catholics, who for just
reasons cannot go to Mass in their own church, attend the holy
liturgy of their separated oriental brethren, if this is
possible." (No. 47) Although the Ecumenical Directory does not say
that Orthodox liturgies satisfy the Sunday obligation in the
strict sense, there is no doubt that attendance would mean that we
would not be guilty of nonfulfillment if we did not later attend a
Catholic Mass. Certainly, the same reservations expressed in the
preceding paragraph would also apply. Incidentally, a new
Ecumenical Directory which I have not yet seen has been issued and
I am assuming it does not change these earlier norms.
<continued next message>
-- | CIN (619-449-6030) Fido: (1:202/1613) http://www.cin.org/cin | St. Gabriel Gift & Book Nook: http://www.stgabriel.com/gabriel