Jimmy Akin

A reader writes:

Suppose that I have a very very close relative who is baptized in a mainstream protestant denomination, and who is living with his Catholic girlfriend.  This relative and his girlfriend get engaged to be married and live together right up through the wedding.  I try to charitably convince them that this behavior is sinful and harmful to them. May/should I attend the wedding under the following circumstances:

Before we get to the situations, let me say that the question of whether to attend any marriage is a question of prudence. You are never under a legal obligation to go (unless you are one of the parties getting married or have agreed to officiate at the wedding in some capacity required by canon law). As a result, I prefer not to give advice on whether you should attend. That’s a question of prudence, though in general it is prudent to attend the weddings of close relatives unless there is a reason not to do so (distance to travel, the marriage will be presumed invalid, etc.). So lemme answer in terms of whether I see a problem with you attending.

That said, on to the circumstances:

(1) The couple finds a priest who will marry them in a Catholic church. 

No problem (the marriage is presumed valid).

(2) They get married in the groom’s protestant church, but with a Catholic dispensation.

No problem (the marriage is presumed valid).

(3) They can’t find a Catholic priest to marry them or give them a dispensation, so they get married in a protestant church without obtaining a dispensation.

Problem (the marriage is invalid).

(4) They can’t find a priest to marry them, so the bride renounces her Catholicism and they get married in a protestant church.

Problem (the marriage is presumed valid, but the Catholic party has just committed a horrible sin against the faith for the sake of the marriage).

Finally, (5) suppose they see the light and stop living together, but they get married outside the Catholic church without a dispensation.

Problem (the marriage is invalid).

I can’t recommend that you attend a marriage that is known to be or presumed to be invalid. This covers situations (3) and (5).

Situation (4) is a special case. While the marriage will be presumed valid if the Catholic party has defected from the Church by a formal act, she has done something else that creates a problem: She has objectively and very gravely sinned against against the Catholic faith by defecting from the Church. Further, her doing this is directly linked to the marriage itself: This is the occasion that has caused her to defect.

For the sake of witnessing to the truth of the faith, I could not attend a wedding where one of the parties has just done this. The marriage may be presumed to be valid (assuming nothing else is known to block its validity), but I cannot by my attendance and thus my public witness endorse the overall complex of actions, which includes her defection from the Church for the sake of the marriage.

(Note: I put this in a different category than the sexual sin being committed before the marriage because that sin was not engaged in for the sake of the marriage but for its own sake, and a valid marriage will result in the behavior no longer being sinful. Defecting from the faith under these circumstances is for the sake of the marriage and will not stop being sinful after the marriage.)

A reader writes:

I have a sacrament and liturgy question; to wit:  In your reading of canon Law ( Canon 917 in particular), and any additional notations or opinions on that canon (or pronouncements from the US CCB), how many times may an individual (not the celebrant) receive communion in one day (my definition of "day" being one calendar day of the same date, vs. any 24 hour period)? 

Your definition of "day" is the same as the Code of Canon Law’s definition:

Can. 202 §1.
In law, a day is understood as a period consisting of 24 continuous hours and begins at midnight unless other provision is expressly made.

Since other provision is not made in Canon 917, that’s the definition of "day" that is operative there.

Canon 917 deals with the number of times one may receive Communion:

Can.  917
A person who has already received the Most Holy Eucharist can receive it a second time on the same day only within the eucharistic celebration in which the person participates, without prejudice to the prescript of can. 921, §2.

Canon 921, §2 deals with the case of Viaticum for the dying, so it does not concern us here.

As a result of canon 917 and Canon 202, a member of the lay faithful can receive holy Communion twice in a twenty-four hour period spanning midnight to midnight, barring the exception of receiving it a third time as Viaticum.

The reader continues:

The specifics arose recently when two Extraordinary Ministers for Holy Communion attended 2 funeral masses during the day on a Saturday (receiving Holy Communion at both), and then participated (as EMs) in the vigil mass that evening.  Should they have declined to receive communion at the vigil Mass? 

Yes, they should have declined, as per the above.

I understand the general rule is that one may receive communion at a second Mass if the whole sacrifice of the Mass is participated as part of the second reception. 

This is mostly correct, but there is no requirement that one be participating in the whole of the Mass at the second reception. Canon 917 simply refers to participating in the Mass, not participating in the whole of it or the whole of any part of it (if one is considering the sacrifice as occurring, e.g., in the Liturgy of the Eucharist). This provision of Canon 917 is meant to distinguish the second reception from Communion from cases where one receives it outside of Mass altogether. This is provided for in the following canon:

Can.  918
It is highly recommended that the faithful receive holy communion during the eucharistic celebration itself. It is to be administered outside the Mass, however, to those who request it for a just cause, with the liturgical rites being observed.

So the first time one receives Communion, it may be in a Mass or outside of Mass (Can. 918), but the second time it must be in a Mass in which one is participating (as opposed to one where one happens to walk through Church at Communion time). This would indicate substantial participation in the Mass, but not participation in all of it.

I argued with our pastor that the vigil Mass (considered as meeting our Sunday obligation) could be treated as Mass for the next day for the purposes of this "rule."    Is there anything published within the Church that further addresses or elucidates this matter?

Yeah, it seems to me that Canon 202 deals with the definition of "day." There isn’t anything in 202 or 917 allowing for a "vigil" Mass. This concept is never mentioned in the Code of Canon Law (the relevant canon simply speaking of fulfilling one’s Sunday/holy day obligation at a Mass falling on the evening of the preceding day, not a special "vigil" Mass occurring then). While Masses are celebrated on the vigils of certain days using the following day’s readings under liturgical law, it is not liturgical law that determines how many times one can receive Communion.

Canon law does that, and in the absence of a re-definition of the word "day" in Can. 917 to allow for this,  Can. 202 is going to govern the situation, meaning that one cannot receive twice and then receive again at a "vigil" Mass later in the day.

Hope this helps!

A reader writes:

Hi Jimmy,

You had a post on your blog about staying home from Mass when sick.
Beside infirmity, are there any other legitimate reasons for staying
home from Mass?  The particular situation I’m wondering about is going
away on a camping trip.

There are other reasons. The care of children is one, for example.

As to camping trips, business trips, and vacations, your obligation is to go to Mass if you reasonably can get to one on Sunday, based on where you are that day. The Church does not understand the obligation to ensuring that you are in a place where you can reasonably get to Mass. Thus if you are in a place where you cannot reasonably get to Mass on a Sunday or holy day, you do not have to go, and you are not legally obligated to cancel or avoid planned trips on this account.

As to what counts as being able to reasonably get to Mass, St. Alphonsus Ligouri spoke of having to ride to Mass for more than fifteen minutes by donkey as being enough. The donkey isn’t the essential part of this though, as people were used to travelling by donkey back then (it was easier for them to do this than it would be for us).