No go Countries as a Catholic

  • Thread starter Thread starter goyim
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
When traveling, don’t assume that just because a country is majority Catholic or has a large Catholic population that you will be able to get to church. When I volunteered in Guatemala City for a week two summers ago, I was not able to make my obligation because there was no church in the areas considered safe enough for foreigners.
 
Do you have scruples?
I am reading many knowledgeable people, including a Priest, answering your concerns.
You are raising concerns about the validity or morality of these answers.
I am quite confident the Father on this thread is amply qualified to answer your question. After all he spent a good deal of his young life in Seminary.
The Supreme Pontiff , Pope Francis, tells us to go out and spread the Gospel…
As did Jesus.

There are no “ no go countries”. We are not to shun our neighbors. Perhaps your concern is that you are from/in a country where Christians are persecuted?
 
Last edited:
My concern is that we are as laity taking too lighlty the ease with which westerners may forgoe the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass where Heaven and Earth touch, for a holiday in an obscure country for pleasure’s sake. His Holiness Pope Francis has spoken out against Westerners wasting food, I would imagine he would have similiar opinions about forgoing mass just to go travel and sightsee, something westerners seem to forget is a bit of luxury aforded to them, not a right. I was originally assuming this was something almost all Catholics agree with, but evidently not. More likely I think there is some general confusion about what it is I have scruples about. I do not have a problem with a genuine mistake, or emergency or actual obligation.

Or more simply, vacations are not a right, they are a luxury and we shouldnt forgoe the mass so simply in order to get some nice photos for our instagrams or show our families. Forgetting that countless Catholics, in the past, in the future and this very day risk their lives to celebrate the Sacrifice Christ made for us on the Cross.
 
Last edited:
I think everyone agrees that is fine as long as you are clear that this is your personal opinion, is not Church teaching, does not apply to Catholics as a whole, and is not the conclusion most people would make using prudential judgment.
 
The Church teaches Sundays are an obligation.
It teaches there are some exceptions.
Imagine two sets of excuses for not going to Mass
Set 1 includes: “I’m on my death bed and have the flu”
Set 2 includes: “I dont feel like it today”

Set 1 is not a sin
Set 2 is a sin.
(I really hope we can all agree with this)
There is going to be a point where it becomes sinful to be “vacationing” and missing Mass. I cant see how this isn’t Church teaching. Perhaps we can work backwards? There has to be a point at which vactioning for the sake of it is sinful if it means missing Mass. What if means purposefully missing mass for 3 years? An extreme case? But can you get a free pass on that one, without having to go to confession? Surely this falls under Church teaching?

Westerners take life and sanctity far to lightly imo. The rest of the world might not see things this way.
 
There is a difference between missing Mass deliberately and being in a location where it’s not possible to attend.

Nothing in Church teaching requires us to schedule our travel around the location of churches. No one would ever camp if that were the case. You’re free to hold this interpretation, but it’s binding on no one except you.
 
Yes, so where is the point? Westerners are in complete control of where they go and visit. Nothing in the Church teaches that you cant spend all your money on 90,000 egg McMuffins for yourself, its still a lack of prudence to do so and you shouldnt go to McDonalds to buy all 90,000.
 
Last edited:
To actually answer your question…

I’ve travelled extensively. Countries I couldn’t attend due to no church/distances too long:

Japan, Egypt, Morocco, Greece (attended orthodox), China, Syria. I’d like to add these countries probably all have access to catholic churches…we were just in a region where it wasn’t possible.

The vast majority of other countries visited, finding a catholic church was not as difficult to organise.
 
Last edited:
…Its an example of how “Nothing in Church teaching requires us to schedule our travel around the location of churches” isn’t a sufficient reason when dealing with prudential matters that extrapolate out to matters of Mortal sin. My point being that its at very best a venial sin, as its not prudent which the Church most certaintly does teach.
 
So in saying this, you’re accusing me, as well as everyone else on the thread who has echoed what I’ve said, of encouraging others to sin. I wouldn’t do such a thing. I used common sense to apply my knowledge of moral theology, Canon Law, and pastoral practice. I, and many others, have answered your question to the effect that there is no list of countries you can’t go to if it would put you out of reach of Mass because the Church does not say that we cannot travel to places that put us outside of access to Mass.

You asked the question, you didn’t get the answer you wanted, and then you said you’d take the matter to a priest with a moral theology degree and two canonists. And what will you do if they give you the same answer all of us have? Will you continue to litigate this online? Will you continue to agonize over it? What’s really the issue here?

-Fr ACEGC
 
I’m not accusing, but using hypotheticals to try and find the point when we can say defintively that this something (or anything) is wrong. Which is why I used the example of someone taking a 3 year holiday where they wouldn’t get to Mass. As hard as I’m trying to understand the arguments made, they just seem to fall so short. The only accusation I have made is that buying 90,000 egg McMuffins is probably a venial sin. Anything other is conjecture. emphasized text
 
Last edited:
Why are you so desperate to say that it’s wrong when it’s pretty reasonable to say that it’s not? It sounds like you’ve made up your mind what is right, and no matter how many people with how much qualification tell you what’s right, you’re going to keep hammering away.
 
Also if I get the same answer, I will accept it with obedience(because the Internet is never the best place to find your answers)but will reason upon my own time as to the point which I can accept such an idea and not hold opposing thoughts. I’m not unaware, most likely the accusation is that I’m airing toward janesanism which I will try to avoid. However something here doesn’t logically fit which is my concern.
 
Last edited:
Then why did you bother to ask online?

I would say you are erring toward Jansenism, or at least a very rigorist approach to things.

Here’s the idea:

An obligation to attend Mass is a discipline of the Church. It hasn’t always been one. The obligation is a relatively recent development in church history. The obligation could be dropped tomorrow.

There’s an old canonical principle that favors are to be multiplied and burdens restricted. If a law imposes a burden, it is to be interpreted as strictly as possible. If it grants a favor, it is to be interpreted very broadly. Relaxing an obligation is a favor, so it can happen under the broadest of circumstances. So if you go somewhere that Mass is not available, you aren’t able to fulfill the obligation, so the obligation does not hold. Those able to dispense obligations can do so quite readily for almost any reason, though I have run into almost no cases where it was even necessary. Most of the time, if someone was impeded from going to Mass, even willingly, it wasn’t a situation where a dispensation was called for.

You seem to be conflating a disciplinary practice with something that would be an absolute good. We are under no moral obligation always and everywhere to go to Mass no matter what, or else the law would not allow for a relaxation of the obligation sometimes. As for why this is okay, it’s better to have standards the help keep us on the path that can be lightened as much as necessary, than an untenable set of rules and regulations that would just enslave us. Law is meant to direct us toward the good, not to be served as an end unto itself.

I’m not sure how to make it any clearer, and I realize I’m on the internet, and I only have a mere Master’s degree (well two, in theology, with another in Bioethics in progress) and only a mere four semesters of Canon Law. But I hope this helps.
 
I asked not because the Internet is a bad source, but because it allows answers like this in a quicker format with a greater emphasis on common knowledge.

Thank you that is what I was looking for. Believe me I’ll be researching that canonical principle with rigour too, but it gives me a sense of ease. Maybe someone’s said earlier, or maybe I seen somewhere but the obligations vs favours is very enlightening.

I’m assuming the idea that we would “make every effort possible” is more like a standard that we should strive, but which we takes into account our own Human Nature?

I still have questions as for when the favours cannot be extended. But I’ll leave that for another post maybe. Apologies if I was too blunt. I’ll pray a Rosary for you all. strong text
 
Last edited:
First world problems for those fortunate enough to be able to visit these ‘obscure’ countries. Think of the good you could do while in one of them, do some volunteer work, instead of taking a holiday. Build a well, vaccinate the children, teach food safety, install a solar grid.
Build a church or an Altar… I am sure these Catholics would appreciate a sturdy Altar.
I love this photo.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top