A reader writes:
Is there any rule about having to actually attend the a mass that you have said for someone? Does attending somehow increase the grace that the person receives from the mass?
There is no rule that you have to attend a Mass that is being said for a special intention of yours. This is clear from the fact that people often make offerings to religious orders in distant locations to say Masses for their intentions. It is also clear from the Church’s legislation regarding Mass offerings
As you can see, these canons do not make any provisions regarding what the laity of give Mass offerings must do. The burden is all on the priest to make sure that the Mass is celebrated in a timely manner. The faithful are not bound to do anything after they have made the offering. In fact, the Code provides that:
Can. 954
If in certain churches or oratories more Masses are asked to be celebrated than can be celebrated there, it is permitted for them to be celebrated elsewhere unless the donors have expressly indicated a contrary intention.
This means that if your church is getting too many requests for Masses that your priest can e-mail his priest buddy up in Alaska and ask him to celebrate Mass for your intention–unless you indicated otherwise (he’ll also need to PayPal your the Mass offering to his priest buddy in this case; see can. 955).
The Code thus does not envision people having an obligation to attend the Masses celebrated for their intentions.
It may be customary in some places–particular in parish settings–for folks to show up at the Masses being celebrated for their intentions, but this is not required or suggested by the Church’s law.
As to the grace that would be given to a person for whom you are having Mass said, your attendance or non-attendance has no bearing on the intrinsic efficacy of the Mass. The person will receive whatever grace God wants them to have on the basis of having Mass said for them.
That being said, if you do attend then it can show an extra level of concern on your part (you went out of your way to personally unite yourself with the prayers of this Mass for this person) and that can serve as a kind of "extra prayer" that you are "saying" by your actions for your friend.
This practice of giving monetary offerings in exchange for having Masses celebrated for a certain intention has always bothered me. I know that it isn’t technically wrong, but it seems to me that it gives the appearance of at least leaning in the direction of simony.
I mean, isn’t this similar to the granting of indulgences in exchange for monetary contributions? I know that this practice with regard to indulgences wasn’t intrinsically wrong, but nevertheless the Church wisely ended the practice because of the abuses and misunderstandings that stemmed from it. I’m not aware of any similar abuses with Mass stipends, but I do see the potential for both abuse and misunderstanding. Is it just me?
Paul,
No it’s not just you.
I would love to hear what the church teaches for this process, and in particular what the church teaches about the benefits of the Mass, both for the donor and for the person for whom the Mass is said.
I don’t think I have ever “paid” more than $10 to have a Mass said for someone, which is something I do often. I think that money goes, for the most part, to cover the costs associated with the Mass cards that they give you, or to offset the cost of those who can’t afford to pay a nominal fee to have a Mass said for someone. (e.g., Senior citizens, poor college students the week after Spring Break, etc.) I doubt any parish would deny someone a Mass card for lack money.
…for lack “of” money, even. (typo)
Canon 954 calls the person the “donor”. To me, that seems to say it’s a donation, not a fee.
Paul, I’ve had the same thoughts myself. Now I think of it more like paying for a wedding mass. I suspect you don’t see that as leaning towards simony, yes? And wedding fees tend to be a lot more than mass intentions too.
The key difference in how these areas differ from indulgences in their perception is in one case you’re paying for physical items: the priests time, the facilities, mass cards, candles, etc.. In the case of indulgences, since there is no physical “service” paid for, it is much easier for people to make the false correlation you speak of.
Do to others whatever you would have them do to you. I wouldn’t want anyone to pay money for prayers on my behalf.
I would.
People use money for all kinds of purposes. Here is a chance to use it for something that is an unequivocal good. These people are not “buying” prayers.
Most protestant ministers accept an “honorarium” in exchange for performing a marriage ceremony. This does not mean that the couple are somehow bribing the minister to marry them. It’s just a small recognition of the worth of the service.
What do you want people to donate to a church? Chickens?
“People use money for all kinds of purposes. Here is a chance to use it for something that is an unequivocal good.”
When you hand the money over to the church, you play the lottery on how it will be used. The ladies at the church said it went to buy decorations for the building. That raised a few eyebrows from the donors.
When a priest agrees to offer a Mass for a requested intention, he is obligated to do so whether or not an offering is made.
I am aware that priests “in the missions” often depend heavily on the offerings that Americans send them for Mass intentions. The money may be used for the priest’s own food, housing, clothing.
.
Judas’ eyebrows got raised when Mary of Bethany wasted a year’s wages by pouring ointment on Jesus’ feet
P.S. to Tim J.
Priests in poorer countries sometimes do receive chickens, a bag of rice, etc., as offerings.
On a visit to family in the Philippines, I saw one of my aunts, a doctor, receive payment in the form of a cartload of coconuts from a country farmer.
.
Quote: Paul, I’ve had the same thoughts myself. Now I think of it more like paying for a wedding mass. I suspect you don’t see that as leaning towards simony, yes? And wedding fees tend to be a lot more than mass intentions too.
Actually, I don’t particularly like the idea of wedding fees either. (And do some parishes actually have set fees for weddings? When my wife and I got married, we made a donation to the parish, but we weren’t aware of a set fee.) It seems to me that if I am a member of a particular parish, and if I make regular and generous donations to that parish in the weekly collection, then shouldn’t that be enough? If there is a monetary donation (whether the donation is required or “suggested”) linked to a particular sacrament, then that just doesn’t seem quite appropriate to me, because of the danger that it could be misunderstood as something akin to simony.
But again, I’ll stress that I don’t think that any of these practices (wedding fees, Mass stipends, etc.) are wrong per se — I just think that they can potentially give the appearance of being inappropriate.
And of course I do appreciate Fr. Stephanos’s point that some missionary priests do rely heavily on such donations. So from a practical standpoint, it wouldn’t make sense to change this practice without having some alternate way of providing for the needs of these priests.
That the priest is obligated whether or not an offering is made doesn’t change the perception of deal making which arises because of the clear association between money and the expectation of some service or return.
What is the name of a woman who offers a service but to not break the law she accepts donations only.
Fr. Stephanos do you know where you would go to get one of these priests “in the mission” to offer a mass for you?
Our church is overbooked for mass intentions and I’d rather help some poor priest out overseas then some other random church around here.
Catholic Near East Welfare Association is a Papal organization that we have supported for many years. We often have masses said through them. Their website is: http://www.cnewa.org and you can click on “mass intentions”. They have really nice cards that they will send you, too.
The ladies at the church said it went to buy decorations for the building. That raised a few eyebrows from the donors.
The widow’s mite was not given to other poor people but to the support of the temple.
“What is the name of a woman who offers a service but to not break the law she accepts donations only.”
And what is the name of a man who expects to live off of the work of others? Or a man who takes the five-finger discount at the grocery store?
Any honorable person would wish to pay his own way. Any generous person would wish to pay enough, not only for himself, but for the poor man as well.
This is, in fact, what happens. A small number of people pay for the church building, the lights, the heat, the staff salaries… and a lot of other pew-sitters enjoy the benefits, many of whom complain every time the priest mentions giving.
My parents taught me a word for people who want everything for free.
I was wondering if anyone knew what the relevant canons say regarding multiple intentions for a single Mass. I often see Masses being offered for the intention (I assume an offering is collected from all of these donors) of up to 10 people while only one priest is offering the Mass. Does anyone know the rules regarding this?
I don’t see what the problem is here. I’ll give money to the Church for services rendered and frankly I think it’s inappropriate to make such a big deal about how this money is going to be used. This is a gift I give to the Church and I don’t expect anybody to do what I wish with something I gave. Yes I don’t want my money to be used for questionable things but in the end a gift is a gift and if I had to make sure that the money I give a beggar wasn’t going to be used for something sinful then I would never give!!
I give not because I approve but because my goal is to give without measure as the Lord does and I know I do a poor job at it, but one thing I wouldn’t dare doing is to question the fact that money is traditionally given for services, shame on you!
“Priests in poorer countries sometimes do receive chickens, a bag of rice, etc., as offerings.”
I don’t doubt it, Father. I’ll bet they are glad to have them, too!
M-m-m-m… chicken and rice…
“I’ll give money to the Church for services rendered… This is a gift I give to the Church”
It’s not a “gift” if it’s given for something in return. It’s payment “for services rendered”.
Hey, anonymous-
So what do you call someone who needlessly sponges off the generosity of others?
You don’t seem to want to hear it, but it has already been pointed out that people can have Mass said and can get married without paying a penny. It’s just that most people have the common (?) decency to help out with the expenses they have helped incur.
I mean, when I’m invited to dinner at someone’s house I always ask if I can bring a pie or a bottle of wine or something… does that make the host some kind of prostitute in your thinking?
Of course I notice you didn’t answer my other questions either.
Well, enjoy your money.
“So what do you call someone who needlessly sponges off the generosity of others?”
Who are you calling a sponge? Like I posted, it was the donors who were surprised at how the money was used. It is they who freely give so much to the church in money and time who were questioning why the Church chooses to link prayers and money. It’s not like they wouldn’t give if the Church didn’t chain the two together. So why does the Church feel it needs to have that link?
“I mean, when I’m invited to dinner at someone’s house I always ask if I can bring a pie or a bottle of wine or something.”
That’s YOU doing the asking. Not the host.
“It’s not like they wouldn’t give if the Church didn’t chain the two together. So why does the Church feel it needs to have that link?”
Have you not read?
1 Cor 9:13 Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings?
14: In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.
Luke 10:1 After this the Lord appointed seventy others, and sent them on ahead of him, two by two, into every town and place where he himself was about to come.
7 And remain in the same house, eating and drinking what they provide, for the laborer deserves his wages…
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Did Jesus ask for money for baubles and decorations when people came to him? Eating and drinking from the offerings is not the same as hitting people up who come looking for prayers. The difference is in the appearance, and for those who question the appearance, it can be troubling.
Did Jesus ask for money for baubles and decorations when people came to him?
Matt 8:2 and behold, a leper came to him and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, if you will, you can make me clean.”
3: And he stretched out his hand and touched him, saying, “I will; be clean.” And immediately his leprosy was cleansed.
4: And Jesus said to him, “See that you say nothing to any one; but go, show yourself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a proof to the people.”
He also accepted money and gifts.
Luke 21:1 He looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury;
2: and he saw a poor widow put in two copper coins.
3: And he said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all of them;
Matt 26:7 a woman came up to him with an alabaster flask of very expensive ointment, and she poured it on his head, as he sat at table.
8: But when the disciples saw it, they were indignant, saying, “Why this waste?
9: For this ointment might have been sold for a large sum, and given to the poor.”
10: But Jesus, aware of this, said to them, “Why do you trouble the woman? For she has done a beautiful thing to me.
“Eating and drinking from the offerings is not the same as hitting people up who come looking for prayers.”
Again, did you not read the command He gave us:
1 Cor 9:14 In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Did Jesus ask for money for baubles and decorations when people came to him?
Your answer is no, he didn’t. In Matthew 8:2-4, Jesus pointed the healed to the priest with regard of an offering afterwards. The person’s request was satisfied before any mention of any offering was made.
“Again, did you not read the command He gave us 1 Cor 9:14”
1 Cor 9:13-14 deals with whether preachers of the gospel are entitled to make personal use of the offerings (e.g. eating their food from the temple and sharing in sacrifical offerings). I don’t think anyone has much concern over that. The issue rather is the setting of a price tag and appearance of trafficking in prayers. Canon 947 expressly prohibits “the semblance of trafficking or trading” in regard to Mass offerings.
Neither Luke 21:1 nor Matthew 26:7-10 has anything to do with an appearance of trafficking or setting a price tag on prayers. They are verses about giving and selflessness, not running a financial prayer trading company.
Trafficking? Setting a price tag?
Golly, I looked in our church bulletins, but I couldn’t find their advertised price for prayers. I couldn’t find one instance of asking money for prayers.
You keep ignoring the fact that it is a pious custom, anonymous, and not a transaction because any poor person (or skinflint) can have a Mass said FOR FREE ANY TIME THEY ASK.
You said it yourself “Canon 947 expressly prohibits “the semblance of trafficking or trading” in regard to Mass offerings.”.
Which is why it isn’t being done!
If I perform any service and people are free to pay me for it or not, then I am not selling my service. If anything, this canon is a recognition that Mass offerings are very common and that there is nothing wrong with them!
“The person’s request was satisfied before any mention of any offering was made.”
Oh, well that changes everything. So if a man wanted to make a prostitute into an honest woman, he should just pay afterward, rather than before? I doubt any vice cop would see the difference. How quickly you turn to hair-splitting when confronted with evidence.
“Golly, I looked in our church bulletins, but I couldn’t find their advertised price for prayers. I couldn’t find one instance of asking money for prayers.”
Try calling.
Canon 952 (1) The provincial council or the provincial Bishops’ meeting is to determine by decree, for the whole of the province, what offering is to be made for the celebration and application of Mass. Nonetheless, it is permitted to accept, for the application of a Mass, an offering voluntarily made, which is greater, or even less, than that which has been determined.
(2) Where there is no such decree, the custom existing in the diocese is to be observed.
(3) Members of religious institutes of all kinds must abide by the decree or the local custom mentioned in 1 and 2.
“any poor person (or skinflint) can have a Mass said FOR FREE ANY TIME THEY ASK.”
Canon 952 (2) It is earnestly recommended to priests that, even if they do not receive an offering, they celebrate Mass for the intentions of Christ’s faithful, especially of those in need.
“If I perform any service and people are free to pay me for it or not, then I am not selling my service.”
Strange thing is, that’s exactly what many letter of the law ladies of the night claim. They tell their men that they can pay if they’re “satisfied.” They’ll even suggest a recommended “tip”. They know the law. So does the church. Is the church a prostitute? Is a woman who behaves in that way a prostitute? I’m not judging. I just ask the questions.
“So if a man wanted to make a prostitute into an honest woman, he should just pay afterward, rather than before?”
Does that change the intent behind it, or has only the form changed? They say if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck…
In the story with Jesus and the healing, there was no indication in the story that any offering was requested, suggested, implied, hinted at, or whatever before the healing. A person was in need. There was no lady answering phones telling you how much a recommended donation was, singing a song of woe that the church would really appreciate it, no gift shop selling cards, no exchange of money, none of that. Jesus mentioned the offering only after the person had been healed, and he did so because a sacrifice of goats, chickens, etc. was required by the law of Moses.
If you tell someone, “I really would appreciate a gift,” when they come to ask something of you, and then they act upon that out of guilt or obligation, you turn what could have been a gift to them into a transaction.
Mary of Bethany anointed Jesus’ feet with ointment. Judas protested: “Why this waste? Why wasn’t this ointment sold for a year’s wages and the money given to the poor?” St. John points out that Judas didn’t care about the poor. He was a thief who used to help himself to the money that people donated to Jesus. Methinks Anonymous doth protest too much.
“In the story with Jesus and the healing, there was no indication in the story that any offering was requested, suggested, implied, hinted at, or whatever before the healing.”
Wrong. The “gift that Moses commanded” was well known to both Jesus and to the one he healed, which is why Jesus didn’t have to specify what the gift actally was. It was, in the words of the canon “local custom”.
And, since Jesus was the first to mention this gift, do you compare him to a prostitute, also?
“…no gift shop selling cards, no exchange of money, none of that.”
Wow. You throw a wide net. No exchange of money? I ask again, how do you think a church pays the utility bills, with chickens?
If you want that badly to hang on to your money, then do so. You obviously have better things to spend it on than the maintenance of God’s house. But, why should it irritate you that other people donate to the Church? Your cynicism smacks of self-justification.
The Bethany story does not involve the seeking of prayers or any asking for money. Jesus was not soliciting gifts in connection with promises of prayers.
The Bethany story involves the protest over how money was spent and the motivation behind the protest.
“which is why Jesus didn’t have to specify what the gift actally was. It was, in the words of the canon “local custom”.”
Like I said before, Jesus didn’t even mention a gift when the person came to him for help. He only mentioned it after the person was healed because the law required it. However, Canon law does not require a gift, yet the Catholic Church doesn’t even wait until after healing before mentioning one.
“And, since Jesus was the first to mention this gift, do you compare him to a prostitute, also?”
Jesus didn’t mention a gift before the person was healed. And a woman is not a prostitute if a payment is required by law.
“No exchange of money? I ask again, how do you think a church pays the utility bills, with chickens?”
There were no cash registers ringing and no pleas for money before Jesus healed. A person walked up, said “Please heal me”, and they were healed. And mind you, Jesus works miracles. He doesn’t just mention a persons name or join them in hopeful dreams.
“If you want that badly to hang on to your money, then do so. You obviously have better things to spend it on than the maintenance of God’s house.”
A slave has no money to spend that is not his Master’s.
“But, why should it irritate you that other people donate to the Church?”
It doesn’t irritate me in the slightest. To the contrary, I am quite happy to pass along the concerns I hear.
“A slave has no money to spend that is not his Master’s.”
And the Master established a Church with His authority. He sent it forth with His authority to teach all that He commanded. What it binds is bound in Heaven, what it loosens, is loosed in Heaven.
The canon law you quoted show what has been established even if you, no-name, disagree.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
“A slave has no money to spend that is not his Master’s.”
Oh, that’s rich!!
Every dollar YOU spend is a gift to God, so you don’t need to bother supporting your church.
Very clever.
And may I ask you No-Name to stop comparing the Bride of Christ, my mother, to a prostitute. She is spotless and blameless because Christ laid His life down for her.
Have a prayerful Lent.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Since I’m the one who made the initial comment which seems to have sent this discussion in a particular direction, I’d just like to clarify my opinion, for the record:
I absolutely agree that we have a grave obligation to give generous monetary support to the Church, and I hope that I am living up to that obligation, though obviously there is always room for improvement. I hope that none of my comments on this matter are construed as me trying to get out of giving money to the Church, as that is not my motivation behind the comments at all. It’s only the close linking of “suggested” donations with particular sacraments that bothers me (e.g., Mass stipends, wedding fees/donations, etc.). I may not speak for Anonymous, but I just wanted to make sure that my position was clear. 🙂