And that of course would all be regardless of the actual physical distance between one place an another? Or is geographical proximity not the key factor in determining whether one physical object (i.e. a church) is nearby or far away from another physical object (i.e. another church)?
Or if one parish actually borders another parish, if a bishop decides that that parish is not ‘nearby’ does that mean that the other parish is not ‘nearby’ despite the fact that it actually touches the other parish?
So if the bishop determines that they are not nearby, then they are not nearby (even though they are)?
Is there a clerical parallel universe operating alongside the real world here?
Has common sense been replaced by clerical bureaucratic relativism?
I wish to alert you that I find your tone to be increasingly demeaning and condescending to we clergy.
A parish in a diocese must ALWAYS share borders with the surrounding parishes. Thus, there are never territories that exist in a diocese for which pastoral provision and the cura animarum is not made.
Geographical location would be one factor in determining what is “nearby” relative to the exercise of a norm. There are many other factors that are given their respective and proper weight in what is ultimately a pastoral evaluation.
You are using “nearby” as an absolute geographical term. The application of the norms in question are addressing pastorally whether there is adequate provision in place by relying on the Mass schedule of another parish or parishes (or other chapel where Mass maybe celebrated) when another place’s Mass is cancelled. Does what remains provide adequate pastoral care for those in the area desiring to receive the Eucharist or should a supplementary provision be made? Thus: Is the remaining place(s) to be considered effectively “nearby” for those negatively impacted such that what is available sufficiently supplies for the legitimate needs and expectations of the people. Such a decision, accounting of the nearby parish(es), should be taken based on a variety of factors beyond simply how many miles separate the places geographically.
I currently reside in a place where there are two parishes within a 10 minute walk. Of course, they are deemed “nearby” to each other. When a Mass is cancelled in one on a weekday (as now happens frequently), people need to adjust their routines to attend one of the other Masses. There is no substituting a Communion Service in this circumstance.
On the other hand, I was pastor of a parish where the neighboring parish was 15 miles away. Its one daily Mass was in the morning and our one daily Mass was in the evening. People who wanted a morning Mass could go there from my parish and people who wanted an evening Mass from that parish were welcomed at mine. Both of us contended with binating for frequent funerals so neither could add a second daily Mass and the Masses were coordinated to provide the maximum options possible.
The people were consulted and a sufficient number said they went to either Mass because the other could not fit their schedule at all.
For his evaluation, the bishop looked at the geographic distance. He also looked at the respective schedules of the Masses. He wanted to understand the routines of those who were attending daily Mass and how fitting the Mass into their schedules affected other aspects of their lives. He looked at the placement of the parishes relative to the rest of the diocese. And, yes, he said the distance was one factor among many that was relevant. The same distance, given other circumstances, could cause him to make an entirely different prudential judgement of about being “nearby.”
When either pastor could not celebrate the daily Mass for whatever reason, the bishop thus determined IN THIS INSTANCE that, for the purposes of these concrete circumstances, we were not in fact “nearby” as envisioned in the norms at hand and that Communion Services were indeed warranted. In view of the disruption to peoples’ lives and schedules, as well as our respective circumstances as priests, such a finding was deemed justified by the one who had the power to make it. Both pastors agreed with the bishop’s finding as did the Vicar Forane. In every sense, the matter was given the serious consideration the norms call for.
That ended the discussion, as there was an authoritative finding by the Father of the diocese.
Frankly, given the maxim in canon law that laws that are permissive are always given the broadest possible interpretation and that laws that are punitive are to be given the narrowest possible interpretation, one should not have to explain why something has been pastorally conceded but only why something was not pastorally conceded.
I also fail to see why one would wish to be miserly in the use of pastoral solutions that are at hand, approved for use, readily available and their use encouraged by the diocesan bishop. It is pastorally insensitive not to be generous in their use.
