"A theologian analyzes the morality of the cancellation of public Masses and the closure of churches by the State — superb Thomistic treatment"

  • Thread starter Thread starter IanM
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

IanM

Guest
" A theologian analyzes the morality of the cancellation of public Masses and the closure of churches by the State — superb Thomistic treatment

The author of this letter, a priest and an experienced teacher of moral theology, shared the following text with Rorate Caeli. It was originally prepared as a letter to the priest’s local ordinary. I find it the best treatment I have read so far of these questions."

 
There are many people attacking the authorities for making the decisions that they believe best serve the interests of the people entrusted to their care. It is unfortunate, but there will always be those with an ax to grind.

I for one am glad that our Bishops and government has taken action to protect our health.
 
Last edited:
Which State or States have closed churches and cancelled public Masses? Where I live, the Diocese made the determination to suspend public Masses, and the churches themselves (or at the very least my parish church) are open for private prayer, Adoration, and Confession under certain restrictions, and baptisms and weddings are still happening, also under certain restrictions. All of these decisions were made by either the Bishop or the Pastor, neither of whom is an agent of the State.

ETA: Funerals are also still going on. Thought it might be relevant to include funerals given the reason for the restrictions.
 
Last edited:
The theologian hasn’t adequately examined the morality of putting people other than yourself at risk. The theologian brushes this off as “some vague possibility that they might spread contagion.”

As I understand it, we are giving up our privileges, for a time, in order to save the lives of neighbors and strangers, and it works.
 
Last edited:
Personally, I disagree with his analysis on several points. Obviously a large number of bishops do as well.

First of all, he writes:
First of all, the canonical legislation of the Church tells us that “the sacred ministers cannot refuse the sacraments to those who ask for them at appropriate times, are properly disposed and are not prohibited by law from receiving them” (Canon 843 § 1).
Click to expand...
If the government shuts you down, you are in fact prohibited by law from receiving the Sacraments, and everything he says after that is moot.
It follows that a priest may not refuse the sacraments to a Catholic who asks for them in a reasonable way… The reason for this is that the eternal good of the soul in question comes before even the physical health or even life of the minister. Just as soldiers, policemen and fire-fighters must risk their lives, so must priests when the occasion arises.
Click to expand...
Many communities have only one priest. I know of some churches that do not even have their own priest, but must share a priest with other neighboring churches. If the priest for a given community dies due to behaving recklessly during a pandemic, then all of the other souls in that priest’s community have now lost their priest. Is that what he is advocating as the best approach to save the most souls?
However, it seems obvious that the danger of contamination exists much more in the supermarket than in our churches.
Click to expand...
That does not seem obvious at all. I do not know where the author is writing from, but when I go to the supermarket, there is a long line of people waiting outside, all wearing masks and standing 6 feet apart, being let in one at a time. No more than 2 people per family are allowed in together, and no one is allowed in without a mask. Aisles are one-way, there are plexiglass barriers separating customers and cashiers, and no one in the store is allowed to be within 6 feet of anyone else.

I mean, sure, I’ve been to some Masses where there are 10 people in the whole church, including the priest. Obviously those Masses would be safe. But what about Masses where the pews are filled? Those would definitely be more unsafe then a supermarket. If you are really going to implement social distancing the way it is required in the “essential” venues, how do you choose who gets to go to Mass? It’s not like a store or a restaurant where you can let people in one at a time. Do you allow people to attend Mass only every other week? Every fourth week?

(Part 1 of 2)
 
It seems that what we witnessed during COVID-19 was unprecedented and, in my opinion, unwarranted and unjust, being contrary to one of the most fundamental rights of the Catholic faithful.
Click to expand...
It is not unprecedented. Similar measures were undertaken during the plague. See here, from no less reputable source than the Vatican’s own information service: Epidemics, quarantines, empty churches: historical precedents - Vatican News
However, if the state were to mandate closing of churches in general without the above conditions, it is clearly usurping a right it does not have…
Click to expand...
That is incorrect. Technically, the state can do whatever it wants, including execute people who choose to attend worship services, which is exactly what happened in the early days of Christianity. Many of us are fortunate to live in a time and a place where the government generally respects religious freedom, but that is certainly not something everyone in the world enjoys. Consider China, which is alleged to be executing Falon Gong practitioners in order to harvest their organs and using prison camps to “re-educate” the Uighurs.

The fact of the matter is, there are no inherent or natural limits on the power of the state, and we are lucky to be living in a time and a place where the state even allows religion to exist.
Consequently, whatever reason might be given by the state for the closure of churches, we are dealing, de facto, with a violation of religious freedom, even if this is denied by the said authorities and even if there is an apparent reason for their closure, the reason being that the Church answers directly to God. Should closure be required in the gravest circumstances (such as the plague under St Charles Borromeo), this must be decided by the Bishops, not by the state.
Click to expand...
The bishops can always choose to defy the state and reap whatever consequences the state chooses to impose. The state cannot compel anyone to do anything. It can only inflict violence and imprisonment on those who choose to defy it. The bishops choose to not defy the state, and personally I agree with them, not out of fear of violence or imprisonment, but because, in this case, it appears the state has very good reasons for its decision.

The state is not shutting down churches because of a lack of respect towards religion or an animosity towards the faithful. The state is acting, in this scenario, with the well-being of its own citizens in mind. The bishops seem to recognize that.

(Part 2 of 2)
 
Last edited:
Bithynian said:
“If I step off this ledge and fall…”
Click to expand...
LOL! The health risks of gathering for Mass are less predictable than stepping off ledges, but nevertheless the science is sufficiently well understood that we know that widespread attendance of Mass would spread the disease (and death) to people beyond the parish.
 
Last edited:
White_Tree said:
The bishops can always choose to defy the state and reap whatever consequences the state chooses to impose.
Click to expand...
There would also be consequences imposed by nature – the spread of disease to people, first within the parish, and then beyond. The reputation of the Church would be greatly harmed if it held Mass for its own sake while disregarding the public health.
 
I don’t call over 80,000 graves in the US alone as being “vague.” Nor do I respect opinions given in anonymous letters.
 
The author, placing an article in Rorate, builds part of his argument on the need to adhere to Canon Law. But Rorate itself is in opposition to Canon Law, as well as Pascendi and V2 document on the Media.

No one would object to his writing to his bishop Ordinary, or to the Metropolitan or Papal Nuncio if needed. Did he do that?

What possible good can come from writing to an organ as Rorate rather than a Catholic publication? If the Church is untrustworthy, why trust the Church’s Canon Law, which he assumes is authority?
 
Last edited:
White_Tree said:
If the government shuts you down, you are in fact prohibited by law from receiving the Sacraments, and everything he says after that is moot.
Click to expand...
Canon law, in canon 843, is speaking of a prohibition that is in canon law, not a prohibition that is part of secular law.

Dan
 
We are now suspending Masses under the same sort of conditions that prevailed when it was done for the Spanish flu pandemic.

The good news is that there is a very promising vaccine for MERS that is in human trials. This greatly improves the chances that a vaccine for the very closely-related SARS-CoV-2 may be available sooner rather than later. Things won’t be “normal” again until the most vulnerable populations among us can be vaccinated and we can visit our relatives and friends who are in hospitals and long-term nursing care again.

This is such a weird debate–I can understand it back in February, but now. The situation endured around Milan looks like a “vague” possibility? I think not. It was one thing to doubt when there wasn’t so much experience concerning how bad this disease can be when it starts to become prevalent in the community.

Heaven forbid, but if the Holy Father were to get this, we could easily have a lot of vulnerable cardinals trying to figure out how to hold a conclave without wiping out five or ten or even fifteen percent of them and perhaps more than that.
 
Last edited:
commenter said:
No one would object to his writing to his bishop Ordinary, or to the Metropolitan or Papal Nuncio if needed. Did he do that?
Click to expand...
I don’t know if “no one would object” but your point is worth considering. Your question is a good one, too. He prepared the letter for his own “local ordinary” but did he send it? I would suppose so, but…
commenter said:
What possible good can come from writing to an organ as Rorate rather than a Catholic publication?
Click to expand...
I’m not sure. Perhaps it was sent to multiple outlets. The content of the letter, in my view, warrants consideration. The public dissemination of the letter…I probably would not do such a thing anonymously. But, that’s just me.

Dan
 
White_Tree said:
First of all, the canonical legislation of the Church tells us that “the sacred ministers cannot refuse the sacraments to those who ask for them at appropriate times, are properly disposed and are not prohibited by law from receiving them” (Canon 843 § 1).
Click to expand...
In addition to your other excellent points, the word “appropriate” in that sentence must be given some meaning. The relevant bishops have decided this time is not appropriate. I think they are correct.
 
It follows that a priest may not refuse the sacraments to a Catholic who asks for them in a reasonable way. This reasonableness is presumed unless it is clearly contradicted. …

It would seem therefore that a priest may not be prevented in any situation from administering the sacraments to his people, for the simple reason that the faithful have a right to them and he has a duty to administer them. It does not seem to be within the competence of the sacred minister (and this includes the bishop) to deny the sacraments to a Catholic who is properly disposed.
Click to expand...
His reasoning is completely flawed - the conclusion in the second paragraph I’ve quoted, simply doesn’t follow from the first. It’s certainly true that the faithful cannot reasonably be refused the sacraments - however what is reasonable is obviously determined by the particular circumstances. In places where civic leaders, acting on advice from public health authorities have determined that it is not safe for people to go out except for essential (i.e. necessary for life) services then it is clearly unreasonable for a person to ask to receive the sacraments (other than in extremis) since to do so would be placing themselves, the priest and others at risk.
 
White_Tree said:
If the government shuts you down, you are in fact prohibited by law from receiving the Sacraments, and everything he says after that is moot.
Click to expand...
Kind of like what happened in the first century, right? Was all 19 centuries of Church history after the first persecution also moot? I don’t see how the question of whether the gov’t has presumably prohibited the sacraments has any bearing on the canonical subject of whether the Church can restrict sacraments. It’s an entirely different topic.
 
Fr. Benedict Groeschel† C.F.R. gave a talk about the three theological virtues of Faith, Hope and Love.

He wryly commented:
“They are not called the three theological virtues because theolgians necessarily have them”
Click to expand...
He almost killed me with that one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top