. But, I can’t help but wonder, and I think you might see this too, if we aren’t scrambling to define a time for something that wasn’t defined in the Canon. You know, first we look to the Bishop, but that doesn’t work, so we look to the Eastern Bishop, but he hasn’t defined it, so then we look to when that particular Eastern rite says evening prayer. . . you get the picture.
I’d like your thoughts on that, if you could share them.
Anyway, that being said,
VC,
Here’s the thing.
Somebody has to define it. We have atomic clocks that officially define “what time it is.” We have laws that define daylight savings time. That means that answering the question “what time is it?” is simply to state an objective fact to which no reasonable person could disagree.
Now, what is meant by the word “evening?” television broadcasters define it as 6:00 PM for purposes of advertising rates. Individuals might define evening as “when I leave work at the end of the day”, or “whenever it gets dark.” Restaurants define evening as the time when they switch over from the smaller portions and prices of lunch to the larger ones of dinner. It goes on and on.
Evening is a very relative term. So in order for the parishes in the diocese to understand what the Church means by “evening” some legitimate authority must make a decision. That’s what I mean–a decision has to be made. Now, who makes that decision? The canon law society? Their role is to advise, not to govern. The bishop’s role as pastor of his diocese is to govern his diocese. Since someone necessarily must make the decision, it’s only logical that the bishop be the one to do this. He might very well rely on the advice of the canon law society to make his decision. He might delegate that decision to the local pastors (although this would be rare as it would cause chaos) or the director of Liturgy, or the vicar general, or whomever.
There’s noting “ambiguous” about it (as the authors say). The bishop is the pastor of his diocese and has every authority to interpret the canons. That doesn’t mean he can change the Mass on his own authority. The authors are trying to somehow equate a situation of a bishop overstepping his authority on the one hand with the bishop exercising his pastoral ministry of governing on the other hand.
This is what gives the bishop that authority:
If he does not regulate it
somehow, the result would be chaos. We would have priests saying that they have a “vigil Mass” at 8 AM on Saturday or some other non-sensical practice under the pretense of “the Church doesn’t define evening, therefore it means whatever I want it to mean.” (we see enough of that kind of nonsense already).
What if I declare that 7 PM on a Friday constitutes “Saturday evening”? What would stop me? After all, to the Jewish people, once the stars begin to show on Friday, it is considered Saturday. Ergo, 7PM on a Friday is “Saturday evening.”
How about if I say that 6PM on Wednesday is considered Saturday evening? After all, if I can interpret it for myself, who’s to stop me?
If no one is competent to define what’s meant by evening, then that means that everyone is competent to decide for himself. Since someone must do it, it falls to the bishop.
In any issue of canon law (any issue) the bishop interprets the canons for his own diocese. If someone disagrees, that person may appeal to a higher authority. If Rome disagrees, Rome can step-in and change it. Bishops can be wrong. Of course, he has to answer for his interpretation, so if he interprets it in a way that is contrary to an interpretation that comes from the Holy See on a similar matter, he will be held accountable (if he gets “caught”). But I must disagree with the authors entirely when they say that the bishop is not competent to interpret what the canon means by “evening.”
