Canon Law – Page 6

Can You Attend the Catholic Wedding of a Non-Practicing Catholic?

A reader writes:

I am caught in the odd–maybe not uncommon–situation of my Catholic godson getting married in the Church to a non-Catholic, yet, based on reasonable presumption, not living a Catholic life, not attending Mass, not having anything to with the Church practically, etc. and presumably having no intention of doing so in the future.

If my presumptions noted above are accurate, I find it distasteful to be “using” the sacraments this way.

Perhaps, my godson will even be engaged in receiving the Sacrament of Marriage in mortal sin, thereby sacrilegiously receiving it.

Yet, it appears, my godson is being faithful to the Church’s mind since he is bound to be married in the Church, and he is doing so.

Despite the fact the Church still requires him to be married in the Church, is there not something to be said for witnessing to the seriousness of what is taking place by deciding my godson is not at the point of taking it seriously enough and therefore not attending?

Alternatively put, as godfather, might it be wrong or even sinful for me to be present and witness to my godson that he can act like a Catholic for this ceremony and then go on about his business as a non-practicing Catholic?

Thoughts on any or all of these fronts?

I take a strict line on attending weddings that are presumptively invalid. I never advise people to go to those because of the signal it will send to the participants–and others.

But if the marriage is presumptively valid, I don’t view it that way at all.

Who Else Is “Showing Up”?

After all, if God is willing to show up for the marriage (i.e., make it valid), and if the Church is willing to show up for the marriage (i.e., witness it, which is what the Church does, since the sacrament is performed by the parties themselves), then you should be able to as well.

I understand the distaste of a situation where the person may be celebrating a sacrament in a sacrilegious way (i.e., in a state of mortal sin). But the fact is that the sacrament will still be valid. God will still cause it to come into existence.

Big Trouble!

That’s a good thing because lots and lots of people are not in a state of grace at the time they get married.

That’s been the case since marriage between baptized persons was made a sacrament (and, frankly, it was the case even before marriage could be sacramental).

If not being in a state of grace invalidated marriage then we would be in big trouble.

So God has determined that, though it grieves him the parties are in a state of mortal sin, he is willing to go ahead and make their union a sacrament.

The Church’s Pastoral Judgment

The Church has also judged it pastorally prudent to go ahead and conduct such weddings, perhaps in part because it will help the people in question maintain contact with the Church and, though they aren’t leading a Catholic life now, the fact that the Church was willing ot marry them may help them return to the Catholic ife of faith later.

Marriages, like funerals and baptisms, are one of those moments in a person’s life that get really emotionally charged, and if they get alienated at that moment, it can do enormous–perhaps permanent and fatal–damage to their relationship with Christ’s Church.

As a result, the Church has judged it pastorally prudent to marry such people, even though the situation is not what it should be.

A Godfather’s Role

I would counsel you to do likewise. In other words, if you can reasonably go, go! Particularly in light of the fact you are the gentleman’s godfather. Like the priest or deacon who officiates at the wedding, you are also an official representative of the Church to this young man, and I would show the same attitude that the Church does.

In fact, staying away as a way of making a statement about the young man’s practice of his faith would send a mixed message that could appear to put you in opposition to the Church on this point. As a godfather to this young man, that’s a signal you don’t want to send.

I would also bear in mind that the young man may not be in mortal sin–or at least he may not incur a new mortal sin by getting married this way. If he is like many young people today, he may lack the knowledge needed to realize his situation, and thus one of the needed requirements for a mortal sin may be missing.

Ways to Help?

This is not to say that you might not be able to do things to help the young man.

Depending on your relationship with him (and this is always a judgment call), you might invite him to see this as an opportunity to renew and grow closer to his faith.

You might even mention going to confession before getting married, to make sure he’s right with God before undertaking this sacred step. (Though you might also check first to see if this is covered as part of his marriage prep, in which case you don’t need to bring it up).

If you yourself went to confession before getting married, you might speak of how it meant a lot to you to be able to approach the altar knowing that you were right with God–or whatever you think might best help him.

The Bottom Line

In any event, if you can reasonably go, I would say go–especially in view of the fact that you are his godfather.

If God and the Church are doing their parts to help him have a valid marriage, I think it would be a good idea for his godfather to do so as well, despite the understandable concerns and discomfort about the way the situation appears.

I hope this helps, and I encourage people to keep the young couple–and all in similar situations–in their prayers.

Do Women Need to Wear Head Coverings at Mass?

The question of whether women need to wear head coverings (mantillas, chapel veils, etc.) at Mass keeps coming up.

With the greater freedom to celebrate the Extraordinary Form of the liturgy, it poses the question anew, since prior to the current rite of Mass head coverings were required for women.

If a woman is going to an Extraordinary Form Mass, does she have an obligation to wear one, in keeping with the law at the time?

I’ve blogged about the subject before. More than once, in fact.

But the question keeps coming up, and with the new twist based on the broadened permission to celebrate the Extraordinary Form, it’s worth looking into again.

So what’s the answer?

Head Coverings at Mass in Canon Law

The requirement that women wear head coverings at Mass was part of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, which provided:

Canon 1262

§2. Men, in a church or outside a church, while they are assisting at sacred rites, shall be bare-headed, unless the approved mores of the people or peculiar circumstances of things determine otherwise; women, however, shall have a covered head and be modestly dressed, especially when they approach the table of the Lord.

Notice that this didn’t establish a requirement for any particular form of head covering. It could be a mantilla, a veil, a hat, a scarf, etc.

But when the 1983 Code of Canon Law was released, it provided:

Canon 6

§1. When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated:

1° the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;

Laws which had been part of the 1917 Code, including canon 1262, thus lost their force and the legal requirement was officially ended. (The custom had already fallen into disuse in many places.)

Since it was the 1917 Code and not the Church’s liturgical documents that established the requirement, it would seem that when the 1917 Code lost its force, the obligation ceased for Latin Rite liturgies in general, regardless of whether they were celebrated according to the Ordinary or Extraordinary Form.

But wait . . . what about St. Paul’s mention of them in 1 Corinthians?

Head Coverings in the Bible

If St. Paul’s directive that women wear head coverings were binding today then it would apply to both the Ordinary and the Extraordinary Forms (as well as non-Latin Rite liturgies).

However, in 1976 the Congregation for the Faith dealt with the issue and judged that St. Paul’s directive on this point is not binding. In its declaration on the inadmissibility of women to the ministerial priesthood (Inter Insigniores), the CDF stated:

Another objection is based upon the transitory character that one claims to see today in some of the prescriptions of Saint Paul concerning women, and upon the difficulties that some aspects of his teaching raise in this regard. But it must be noted that these ordinances, probably inspired by the customs of the period, concern scarcely more than disciplinary practices of minor importance, such as the obligation imposed upon women to wear a veil on their head (1 Cor 11:2-16); such requirements no longer have a normative value.

So it would appear that neither canon law nor the Church’s liturgical books nor Scripture establish a requirement that women today must wear head coverings, at either Ordinary or the Extraordinary Form Masses.

Of course, women are still absolutely free to do so, and doing so can be a beautiful expression of devotion.

Common Sense & the Extraordinary Form

Given the natural expectations of many people at Extraordinary Form Masses, one can see a certain appropriateness to wearing them in that context.

People there would commonly expect the use of head coverings–precisely because there was an obligation in 1962–and not using them could cause puzzlement or consternation.

Still, it would be nice to have some additional insight on Rome’s thinking into this question, which leads us to . . .

Cardinal Burke on Head Coverings & the Extraordinary Form

I was pleased recently when I discovered that Cardinal Burke had addressed this question in a private letter that is now available on the EWTN web site.

This letter does not represent an official ruling, but since Cardinal Burke is head of the Holy See’s highest court, the Apostolic Signatura, his opinion carries weight and certainly gives insight on the kind of thinking that Rome applies to these issues. So here is what he said on the subject:

The wearing of a chapel veil for women is not required when women assist at the Holy Mass according to the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite. It is, however, the expectation that women who assist at the Mass according to the Extraordinary Form cover their heads, as was the practice at the time that the 1962 Missale Romanum was in force. It is not, however, a sin to participate in the Holy Mass according to the Extraordinary Form without a veil.

Cardinal Burke thus seems to envision a middle category of “expectation.” Not a legal requirement. And not something that must be fulfilled on pain of sin. But not a matter of complete indifference, either.

That corresponds to my sense as well. At the Ordinary Form there is neither a requirement nor an expectation that head coverings be used, though women are totally free to do so. And at the Extraordinary Form there is and expectation but not a requirement, certainly not one binding on pain of sin, that they be used.

What do you think?

Learning More

By the way, if you’re interested in liturgical matters like this, they are one of the topics I cover in my mailings to the Secret Information Club. If you’re interested, you should click here to learn more or sign up using this form:

Can You Pour out the Precious Blood?

When the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ at Mass, the change is permanent. It remains so long as the appearances of bread and wine do.

This has implications for how we treat the consecrated elements after Mass is over. Hosts that remain are stored in a Tabernacle, but what about the Precious Blood?

It cannot normally be reserved (the only exception being when it will be taken to the sick, and then special precautions have to be taken to keep it from spilling).

If there is a quantity of the Precious Blood left and it cannot be reserved, what are you supposed to do?

Pouring the Precious Blood into a Sacrarium?

Some have suggested pouring it out–not out on the ground or down an ordinary drain but down a special kind of sink known as a sacrarium.

Sacraria are typically found in the sacristy of a church, and they differ from an ordinary sink in a crucial respect: Instead of draining into the local sewer system, they drain down into the earth.

Sacraria are used for a variety of purposes, including these:

To dispose of ashes from objects that have been blessed and then destroyed by fire
To dispose of the water that has been used to wash the altar linens
To dispose of water that has been used to dissolve small particles of the host
To dispose of water that has been used to clean up places where the Precious Blood has spilled

Except for the first example, which deals with the ashes of former blessed objects, the other examples cited deal with water that is known to have or may have come into contact with the consecrated elements (since small particles of the host might be on the altar linens).

Given that, can you use the sacrarium to dispose of the Precious Blood itself? After all, it’s not like you’re pouring it into the sewer. You would be pouring it into something specially intended to deal with the remains of sacred things, right? So can you do this?

No. You can’t.

Throwing Away the Consecrated Species

It’s one thing to pour water into the sacrarium, even if that water has been used to dissolve the consecrated species. In that case, the appearances of bread and wine no longer remain, and so the Real Presence does not remain, either. It is another thing entirely to use it to throw away the consecrated species themselves.

According to the Code of Canon Law,

Canon 1367 A person who throws away the consecrated species or who takes them or retains them for a sacrilegious purpose incurs an automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; if a cleric, he can be punished with another penalty including dismissal from the clerical state.

This offense is one of those graviora delicta (graver offenses) that is reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, as noted in the instruction Redemptoinis Sacramentum, which provides:

[172.] Graviora delicta against the sanctity of the Most August Sacrifice and Sacrament of the Eucharist are to be handled in accordance with the ‘Norms concerning graviora delicta reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’, namely:

a) taking away or retaining the consecrated species for sacrilegious ends, or the throwing them away;

Pouring the Precious Blood into a sacrarium counts as throwing away the consecrated species, and so it cannot be done.

It Is Explicitly Forbidden

Recently I was questioned on this point by a member of the Secret Information Club, who had gotten the communique I send to members on the worst liturgical abuses (the graviora delicta). Citing the section where I said one can’t pour the Precious Blood into a sacrarium, the member wrote:

I believe you may have an error regarding the pouring of the Precious Blood. It’s forbidden to pour it down the sewer system, not the other way around.

I understand that people have been given incorrect information on this in some parishes, and there is a difference between a sacrarium and a sink that drains into the sewer system, but the point remains. In fact, pouring the Precious Blood into a sacrarium is explicitly forbidden in Remptionis Sacramentum, which provides:

[107.] In accordance with what is laid down by the canons, “one who throws away the consecrated species or takes them away or keeps them for a sacrilegious purpose, incurs a latae sententiae [automatic] excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; a cleric, moreover, may be punished by another penalty, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state”.

To be regarded as pertaining to this case is any action that is voluntarily and gravely disrespectful of the sacred species.

Anyone, therefore, who acts contrary to these norms, for example casting the sacred species into the sacrarium or in an unworthy place or on the ground, incurs the penalties laid down.

The good news, for anyone who has done this innocently not knowing that they shouldn’t, is that the excommunication does not apply to them (CIC 1323, no. 2).

But the rule remains: No pouring the Precious Blood down a sacrarium.

What You Are Supposed to Do

The actual answer is that any remaining amount of the Precious Blood should be consumed. Section 107 of Redemptionis Sacramentum continues:

Furthermore all will remember that once the distribution of Holy Communion during the celebration of Mass has been completed, the prescriptions of the Roman Missal are to be observed, and in particular, whatever may remain of the Blood of Christ must be entirely and immediately consumed by the Priest or by another minister, according to the norms, while the consecrated hosts that are left are to be consumed by the Priest at the altar or carried to the place for the reservation of the Eucharist.

Want to Learn More?

This is precisely the kind of thing I cover in my Secret Information Club mailings. If you’re not already a member, you can learn more at www.SecretInfoClub.com or sign up using this form:

Be sure to email me at jimmy@secretinfoclub.com if you have any trouble.

The Selection of Eastern Bishops

In this week’s podcast I dealt briefly with the fact that the current method of selecting bishops that is used in the Latin church does not apply in all of the Eastern Catholic churches.

Instead of the pope personally selecting the man who will be appointed bishop, he may–for example, under normal circumstances–pre-approve a number of men, one of whom is then elected bishop by the appropriate parties in the Eastern church in question.

By coincidence, a Vatican Information Service story that came out Monday touched on this fact. Also note that the Maronite Patriarch of Antioch is able to transfer bishops subject to him.

Here’s the story:

ACTS CONCERNING THE ORIENTAL CHURCHES

Vatican City, 16 June 2012 (VIS) – The Patriarch of Antioch of the Maronites, with the consent of the Synod of Bishops of the Maronite Church meeting pursuant to canon 85 paragraph 2 (2) of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, has transferred:

– Bishop Camille Zaidan, bishop of the Patriarchal Curia, to the office of archbishop of Antelias of the Maronites (Catholics 156,028, priests 162, religious 353), Lebanon. He succeeds Archbishop Youssef Bechara, who resigned from the pastoral care of the same archdiocese in accordance with canon 210 para. 1-2 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches.

– Bishop Francois Eid O.M.M., eparchal vicar of Cairo, Egypt, and of Sudan of the Maronites, to the office of patriarchal procurator before the Holy See, having received prior pontifical assent. Bishop Eid will receive the tile of eparchal bishop emeritus of his former eparchy, under the terms of canon 211 para. 1 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches.

The Synod of Bishops of the Maronite Church has elected the following archbishops and bishops, all of whom have received prior assent from the Holy Father:

– Fr. Moussa El-Hage O.A.M., superior of the convent of Sts. Sarkis and Bacchus in Edhen and Zghorta, as archbishop of Haifa and the Holy Land of the Maronites (Catholics 7,000, priests 11, religious 9), Israel, and as patriarchal exarch of Jerusalem and Palestine (Catholics 504, permanent deacons 1) and Jordan (Catholics 1,500, priests 2). The bishop-elect was born in Antoura, Lebanon in 1954 and ordained a priest in 1980. He studied in Jerusalem and in Rome and has held various offices in his religious order as well as being active in pastoral work and education. He succeeds Archbishop Paul Nabil El-Sayah, who had earlier resigned from the pastoral care of those circumscriptions to take up the office of bishop of the Patriarchal Curia.

– Fr. Paul Rouhana O.L.M., secretary of the Middle East Council of Churches, as bishop of the patriarchal vicariate of Sarba, Lebanon. The bishop-elect was born in Amchit, Lebanon in 1954 and ordained a priest in 1982. He studied in Belgium and in France and been active in education at “Saint Esprit” University in Kaslik. He succeeds Bishop Guy-Paul Noujaim, who resigned from the pastoral care of the same archdiocese in accordance with canon 210 para. 1-2 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches.

– Fr. Maroun Ammar, rector of the major seminary of Ghazir, as bishop of the patriarchal vicariate of Joubbe, Lebanon. The bishop-elect was born in Haje, Lebanon in 1956 and ordained a priest in 1983. He has served as pastor in various parishes and is a judge at the Court of Appeal of the Maronite Tribunal of Lebanon. He succeeds Bishop Francis Baissari, who resigned from the pastoral care of the same archdiocese in accordance with canon 210 para. 1-2 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches.

– Fr. Joseph Mouawad, vicar general of the eparchy of Jbeil-Byblos, Lebanon, as bishop of the Patriarchal Curia. The bishop-elect was born in Mayfouq, Lebanon in 1970 and ordained a priest in 1995. He studied in Rome and has been active in pastoral work, as well as teaching theology at “La Sagesse” University in Beirut and “Saint Esprit” University in Kaslik.

– Fr. Georges Chihane, patriarchal administrator of Haifa and the Holy Land of the Maronites, Israel, and patriarchal exarch of Jerusalem, Palestine and Jordan, as eparchal vicar of Cairo, Egypt and Sudan of the Maronites (Catholics 5,500, priests 6, religious 3). The bishop-elect was born in Haret Sakhr, Lebanon in 1953 and ordained a priest in 1979. He has served as pastor in various parishes in Lebanon, France and Jordan.

Just another couple of illustrations of Catholic diversity-in-unity.

Sisters in Crisis Special

This week the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome mandated a thoroughgoing reform of the largest leadership conference for women religious in the United States.

In an exclusive interview, Ann Carey joins Jimmy Akin to go in-depth on this dramatic announcement, why it happened, what it means, and what may happen next.

Ann Carey is a journalist who has been covering the subject of women religious for many years. She is the author of the book Sisters in Crisis: The Tragic Unraveling of Women’s Religious Communities.

According to the Vatican report, there are serious doctrinal problems associated with the activities and publications of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious–some which challenge the core of the Christian faith itself.

The leadership of the LCWR has also flouted the authority of the bishops, as when they publicly sought to neutralize the U.S. bishops’ leadership during the 2010 health care debate in Congress and when they later honored Sr. Carol Keehan, CEO of the Catholic Healthcare Association, which also broke with and defied the bishops over the issue of health care.

You can read more about this subject in an article Jimmy authored, which you can read online here.

How the LCWR will respond to the mandated reform is unknown, but in this interview Ann and Jimmy preview the dramatic developments that may lie ahead of us.

Thank you for letting others know about this program and sharing with friends!

Click Play to listen . . .

or you can . . .

CLICK HERE!

. . . or subscribe another way (one of many ways!) at JimmyAkinPodcast.Com.

JIMMY AKIN PODCAST EPISODE 035 (04/21/12)

Today’s Music: Joy Trip (JewelBeat.Com)

WHAT’S YOUR QUESTION? WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO ASK?
Call me at 512-222-3389!
jimmyakinpodcast@gmail.com
www.JimmyAkinPodcast.com

Join Jimmy’s Secret Information Club!
www.SecretInfoClub.com
Copyright © 2012 by Jimmy Akin

Get the Jimmy Akin Cast app for Android at Amazon.com.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Holy See Mandates Reform of U.S. Women Religious’ Conference

In a dramatic move, the Holy See has mandated the reform of the largest leadership body for women religious in the United States.

The mandate was issued with the approval of Pope Benedict XVI at the conclusion of a doctrinal investigation of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR), which was conducted under the auspices of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF).

The LCWR is an association of more than 1,500 leaders of U.S. congregations of women religious. Together they represent more than 80% of the 57,000 women religious in America.

In 2008, the Holy See initiated two simultaneous investigations of the state of women’s religious life in the U.S.

The first was a general survey of nearly 400 institutes conducted by the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life (CICLSAL). Its results have not been announced.

The second was a more focused doctrinal assessment of the LCWR. Details of the doctrinal assessment as well as the mandate for the reform of the organization were made public in an eight-page document issued by the CDF on April 18 and published on the U.S. bishops’ website.

Reasons for the Assessment

According to the document, during an April 2008 meeting in Rome, the CDF prefect, Cardinal William Levada, notified the LCWR presidency of an impending doctrinal assessment. He cited three principal reasons for the investigation.

KEEP READING.

Can Catholics Be Buried in Non-Catholic Cemeteries?

A reader writes:

As a practicing Catholic, can I be buried in a non-Catholic cemetery. No one in my family is Catholic except me and I would like to be buried with my family.

It’s a logical question, and an understandable desire.

It’s a logical question because many Catholic parishes and dioceses have cemeteries, and it would seem natural–as a Catholic–to be buried in one of these.

It’s an understandable desire to want to be buried with one’s family, where after your death your loved ones may still visit your grave, take care of it, and remember you. It’s a way of maintaining a connection with those you have left behind.

I could imagine someone saying, “Well, if your family isn’t Catholic, they won’t pray for you when they visit your grave. But if you were buried in a Catholic cemetery, then people would, and that would help you out even more after your death.”

Maybe.

You might get some extra prayer if you’re in a Catholic cemetery, but the Church prays for all of the departed, regardless of where they are buried. Also, you might get more prayer from non-Catholic relatives than you think. The heart knows things about the way to the dead that the head sometimes doesn’t, and I’ve seen non-Catholic members of my own family talk (i.e., pray) to departed loved ones–out loud–even though this isn’t part of their theological tradition. It’s only natural to also ask God to help, be merciful to, etc., one’s departed loved one, and the same thing happens in non-Catholic families, simply because the heart demands it, even if there is no theological rationale for it that they hear preached in church.

There’s also the fact that not being buried with one’s family could send a very confusing signal to them. In at least some cases it could be taken as a rejection of the family. That might not be rational, but–trust me–people get irrational at funeral time. And I can see a person judging that, in their own family’s case, it would be evangelistically unwise to set up a Catholic Church vs. the family paradigm in the minds of the bereaved.

I think it’s fair to say, then, that this is a complex and sensitive subject, with decisions being best made by those most involved, with the most knowledge of their own family situation.

Here is what the Code of Canon Law has to say

Can. 1180

§1. If a parish has its own cemetery, the deceased members of the faithful must be buried in it unless the deceased or those competent to take care of the burial of the deceased have chosen another cemetery legitimately.

§2. Everyone, however, is permitted to choose the cemetery of burial unless prohibited by law.

The statement that if a parish has its own cemetery then the faithful “must” be buried is not intended to restrict the ability of the faithful to choose where they will be buried. Rather, it is meant to ensure that they will be able to be buried in the parish cemetery (i.e., the pastor is to grant permission for and preference to parishioners over non-parishioners if room is limited, etc.). That it is not meant to limit the ability to of the faithful to choose their place of burial is made explicit by the remainder of this canon, in which the ability of each person to choose the cemetery in which he will be buried is expressly protected as long as no other law is being violated.

The reference to other prohibitions by law appears to refer to particular laws that may exist in specific countries or dioceses. The Church’s universal law does not appear to contain any such prohibitions.

So the faithful have the ability to chose their place of burial, and it doesn’t have to be a Catholic cemetery. They are free to be buried in their family plot unless something else intervenes, which is highly unlikely if you’re just wanting to be buried with your family.

What happens in that case?

Sometimes people are concerned about whether they will be buried in “consecrated ground,” such as is found in a Catholic cemetery. While there graves can be blessed, and while this is desirable, it is not a sacrament and will not affect one’s eternal destiny. It is a way that the Church intervenes on behalf of the dead to implore God’s blessing on them. It is not, however, something available only in Catholic cemeteries. In another place, the Code of Canon Law provides:

Can. 1240 §1. Where possible, the Church is to have its own cemeteries or at least areas in civil cemeteries that are designated for the deceased members of the faithful and properly blessed.

§2. If this cannot be achieved, however, then individual graves are to be properly blessed.

So, in the case of a Catholic being buried in a family plot that belongs to a non-Catholic family, the thing to do would be to simply have that person’s grave blessed (the rite for this is found in the Order of Christian Funerals—the Church text used in this case). So one need not scruple on this point.

If the reader feels that it is best to be buried with the family, the Church’s law provides for this.

Extraordinary Form Holydays of Obligation?

A reader writes:

I usually attend the extraordinary form of the mass. But I couldn't make mass this Friday, when the epiphany was celebrated in the extraordinary form. Now if I go to the extraordinary form on Sunday, I will, in some way, be going to mass according to the requirements of the holydays in the u.s. as per the epiphany, but I won't actually attend an epiphany mass since the extraordinary mass will not be the epiphany mass. Is there any definitive say from the church on how to handle this? It seems to me that the spirit of the law would be that I should try to get to an epiphany mass, but that by the letter of the law I am really only obliged to attend mass on the day appointed — just like if I went to an eastern rite mass on the holy day. Am I correct?

You are certainly correct regarding the fact that you are not obligated to attend the Ordinary Form of Mass this Sunday in order to hear an Epiphany-themed Mass.

The way the law is written, the obligation is to go to Mass on a particular day (or the evening before), not to hear a particular set of readings or liturgical prayers. The law expressly guarantees the faithful's right to fulfill this obligation by attending Mass in any Catholic rite, even if that rite is not celebrating the same saint or event.

Now, on certain days like Christmas, every Catholic rite lines up with a common celebration, but when it comes to other holydays of obligation, they may differ dramatically in what they are celebrating.

In the United States (1) January 6th was abolished as a holyday of obligation and (2) the liturgical celebration of Epiphany transferred to the Sunday between January 2 and January 8 in the Ordinary Rite. (See here.)

The first part of that applies to all Latin Rite Catholics in the United States, whether they normally attend the Ordinary or the Extraordinary Form.

No legal obligation has been created for Extraordinary Form attendees to do anything special on the Sunday between January 2 and January 8, whether they attended the Extraordinary Form on January 6th or not.

This is equally true of other holydays of obligation that have been abolished or transferred in the United States. There are no special "Extraordinary Form holydays of obligation." There is one set of holydays obligation that bind all Latin Rite Catholics in the United States.

They could change that in the future, but that's the way the law is written now.

So you do need to go to Mass this Sunday, but because it's a Sunday. You are not obligated to go to an Ordinary Form Mass in order to hear an Epiphany-themed service. You are free to go to an Extraordinary Form Mass or a Mass in a non-Latin Catholic rite.

As to whether the spirit of the law suggests going to an Epiphany-themed Mass since you missed the Extraordinary Form celebration on January 6th, I think it depends on what you mean by "the spirit of the law."

Sometimes this phrase is meant to imply that you would be doing some thing wrong (even if allowed according to the wording of the law) by violating the law's intent.

If this is what is meant then I don't think you are violating the spirit of the law. If the Church wanted to impose such a requirement it would not allow you to fulfill your obligation to attend on holydays by going to other Catholic rites that may not be celebrating the same thing.

John Paul II knew full well when he approved the relevant canon–canon 1248

Sunday Rest Special: What Can You Do on Sunday?

Can you spend money on Sunday? Can you mow the lawn? Can you cook dinner? Can you go out to a restaurant? Can you go to a sporting event? Do you have to sit in a chair and read the Bible?

Just what can and can't you do on Sunday?

And how can you have a positive rather than legalistic attitude toward Sunday?

How can Sunday help you grow closer to the Lord?

These are among the questions we explore in this week's episode of the Jimmy Akin Podcast!

Click Play to listen . . .

or you can . . .

CLICK HERE!

. . . or subscribe another way (one of many ways!) at JimmyAkinPodcast.Com.

SHOW NOTES:

JIMMY AKIN PODCAST EPISODE 024 (12/10/11)

* MARK FROM OREGON ASKS ABOUT SPENDING MONEY ON SUNDAY

Dies Domini:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_05071998_dies-domini_en.html

CCC 2184-2188:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7O.HTM

WHAT'S YOUR QUESTION? WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO ASK?
Call me at 512-222-3389!
jimmyakinpodcast@gmail.com
www.JimmyAkinPodcast.com

Join Jimmy's Secret Information Club!
www.SecretInfoClub.com

Today

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Tough Questions on Confession

Can a priest force you to confess your crimes to the police? How about your parents? Or your teachers? Or your spouse? Or the IRS?

What should you do if a priest doesn't say "I absolve you" in confession? How should you handle cases of doubtful absolution? What should you say to the bishop?

Is it possible to be reconciled with God without going to confession? What about Protestants who commit mortal sins? When is general absolution warranted? And what about the dying who can't confess?

These are among the questions we explore in this week's episode of the Jimmy Akin Podcast!

Click Play to listen . . .