Mass obligations for families with small children et.

[puellapaschalis]

Going on a day out could be a valid reason for missing Sunday Mass? I don't know; that seems kind of odd to me, even with the proviso mentioned in the quote about it possibly being one's only day out in a long period of time.

[IcePrincessKRS]

Some of the reasons seem a bit of a stretch to me (I don't think they would apply to most people, and certainly wouldn't apply to me, but I can see how in some situations they may be applicable), but the "pleasure trip" one made no sense at all. I understand having to travel on a Sunday, but a "pleasure trip"? That seems to me like you're electing to go have fun instead of go to Mass... just doesn't seem right.

[StColette]

[quote name='IcePrincessKRS' post='1752020' date='Jan 15 2009, 01:59 PM']Some of the reasons seem a bit of a stretch to me (I don't think they would apply to most people, and certainly wouldn't apply to me, but I can see how in some situations they may be applicable), but the "pleasure trip" one made no sense at all. I understand having to travel on a Sunday, but a "pleasure trip"? That seems to me like you're electing to go have fun instead of go to Mass... just doesn't seem right.[/quote]

My point exactly. Some of the reasons just seemed to be stretching it a bit. The "pleasure trip" one was just odd.

[Ziggamafu]

The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath. Does this mean that God didn't mean business when giving the third commandment? Of course not. Does it mean we should use our commonsense? Obviously. We should go to mass whenever practically possible [b]and should still attempt to go when impractical or seemingly impossible. [/b]It is in the later scenario that we should realize that the grave obligation is lifted. It seems to me that the third commandment tells us to [i]be relaxed[/i], honoring God's festivals. The commandment cannot be kept if the festival becomes for us a source of tension or scandal. This seems to be the point that the Gospels emphasize in relation to the third commandment. It seems to me (sometimes) that the spirit of the pop-apologist would, just like the pharisee, argue with Christ in regards to his treatment of the Sabbath.

The deeper I dive into Catholic theology the more turned off I am by pop apologetics, especially in regards to the liturgy and church disciplines. Our religion is painted in a rich spectrum of colors, not merely black and white. I am no relativist; I merely see that Church teaching reveals itself not to be confined to dead letters on a page (as should be evidenced enough by the need for dogma). Our faith comes alive in the diversity and complexity of everyday life. It is the nature of the Church as a living organism to change and grow alongside the rest of humanity so that the rest of humanity may see how it in turn should change. I think that the Gospels illustrate this. Rather than the common traps of sloth and presumption amongst the liberals and common pits of scrupulosity and despair amongst the conservatives, the orthodox path - narrow as it may be - seems to be the path of commonsense.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

I have to agree with Jen. Missing Mass for a pleasure trip (or a business trip, for that matter) is not an excuse. It would be one thing if you were going to a place that incidentally had no Catholic Church (and it's different now that we have the internet and can look up Catholic churches in any given area).

What greater relaxation and re-creation can one get from any source outside the Mass?

CCC 2181 calls missing Mass grave matter. Taking a pleasure trip is not. Proportionalism is condemned in Veritatis Splendor, but even using it as the theologian you quote uses it, you still can't make any sense of a claim that a pleasure trip excuses you from Mass. Now, you could use the Principle of Double Effect, but even that would only excuse you from Mass for grave moral obligations (which does include, by the way, trying to drive to Mass in extreme weather conditions, which is why rain doesn't excuse us from Mass, nor does a few inches of snow to those who can safely drive in it, although one should call ahead to make sure that Mass is still on, but unsafe road conditions do excuse Mass, as do child care when the child cannot go to Mass (to clarify, that doesn't mean "when it's more convenient for the child to stay home"), and sickness, especially extreme or contagious).

I hate to cast doubt on this book because it may be fine, but unfortunately, we can't always trust a nihil obstat or an imprimatur. The Dutch Catechism, which was approved by all the Dutch bishops about that same time, was condemned by Pope Paul VI, who wrote the Credo of the People of God in response to it. Proportionalism was a very popular erroneous theology in those years and the Dutch and Germans were particularly deep in it (thus their catechism, which watered down everything in the faith, left out parts of the faith, and elevated secular and scientific theories and pop psychology to the level of doctrine).

Just be careful what you believe. It's best to learn how to think with the mind of the Church (as St. Ignatius put it) by reading magisterial documents and then weigh non-magisterial books against it (and if it's got a nihil obstat and imprimatur, that doesn't make it magisterial).

God bless,

Micah

[Ziggamafu]

It is one thing to say that the ordinary function of the Magisterium slipped every now and again for a book in a certain culture, at a given time. Quite another to say that 18 editions spanning [i]decades[/i], along with translations from nine different cultures, winning the approval of all in a time before the mass-liberalization that took place after Vatican II, [b]and being given nihil obstats, imprimi potests, and imprimaturs on [i]every[/i] occasion[/b] [i]were all wrong where you, Micah, are right. [/i]. Remember that while the nihil obstat is not infallible, it is nevertheless representative of the normative authority of the Church. Every time I have ever come across [i]any [/i]reference to Heribert Jone, it is with only the highest respect. As far as I can tell, he is regarded as one of the most - if not the most - brilliant and [i]orthodox [/i]moral theologians of the 20th century.

[b]And it is [i]exactly [/i]in the discernment of a situation pertaining to the [u]interpretation [/u]and / or [u]application [/u]of an established Church teaching that just such an authority as Jone is necessarily turned to.[/b] Neither the Catechism nor Canon Law has all the answers; the Magisterium exists precisely for the purpose of figuring out how to clarify, interpret, and apply the dogmas of the faith for each new generation, and to do this the Magisterium turns to the theologians that have produced works such as Jone's to aide them in figuring it all out for the benefit of the Church. I have never, [i]ever [/i]known an orthodox Catholic to question Jone - I've only known liberals to do that until your post. Really. Google the book. Let me know where the negative comments come from. Tell me how many thousands of pages offer nothing but the admonishment to follow the book in all but the disciplines that were adjusted by Vatican II.

If the book were originally written in the 60's or 70's by a priest who was not already known for his faithful orthodoxy, I would likely be cautionary with a single nihil obstat and imprimatur. But 27? In nine languages and cultures? Spanning from the 40's to '62? From an eminently respected theologian? Give me a break. I know of not a single other non-magisterial document that comes [i]close [/i]to that level of universality in magisterial approval and endorsement.

Edited January 15, 2009 by Ziggamafu

[StColette]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1752157' date='Jan 15 2009, 04:37 PM'][b]And it is [i]exactly [/i]in the discernment of a situation pertaining to the [u]interpretation [/u]and / or [u]application [/u]of an established Church teaching that just such an authority as Jone is necessarily turned to.[/b] Neither the Catechism nor Canon Law has all the answers; the Magisterium exists precisely for the purpose of figuring out how to clarify, interpret, and apply the dogmas of the faith for each new generation, and to do this the Magisterium turns to the theologians that have produced works such as Jone's to aide them in figuring it all out for the benefit of the Church.[/quote]

Well, if the [b]Magisterium exists precisely for the purpose of figuring out how to clarify, interpret, and apply the dogmas of the faith for each new generation, and to do this the Magisterium turns to the theologians that have produced works such as Jone's to aide them in figuring it all out for the benefit of the Church. [/b] wouldn't it be correct to say that some of the excuses that Jone brings up do not apply to the generation of today?

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='StColette' post='1752189' date='Jan 15 2009, 05:56 PM']Well, if the [b]Magisterium exists precisely for the purpose of figuring out how to clarify, interpret, and apply the dogmas of the faith for each new generation, and to do this the Magisterium turns to the theologians that have produced works such as Jone's to aide them in figuring it all out for the benefit of the Church. [/b] wouldn't it be correct to say that some of the excuses that Jone brings up do not apply to the generation of today?[/quote]

It is of course correct that they may not. Nevertheless, it would have to be demonstrated how and why a particular teaching would no longer apply. It would seem almost certain to apply in some sense, even if the technology is outdated, for the spirit of the law remains the same from age to age. The situations and environments that determine the culpability and applicability regarding moral law do not alter the objective nature of the law itself, for morality has its source in the absolute nature of all-holy God.

[StColette]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1752202' date='Jan 15 2009, 05:06 PM']It is of course correct that they may not. Nevertheless, it would have to be demonstrated how and why a particular teaching would no longer apply. It would seem almost certain to apply in some sense, even if the technology is outdated, for the spirit of the law remains the same from age to age. The situations and environments that determine the culpability and applicability regarding moral law do not alter the objective nature of the law itself, for morality has its source in the absolute nature of all-holy God.[/quote]

Okay, for example "those who lack clothing becoming to their social standing." How and why would this apply today? I mean, the period in which my dad was growing up would have been around the time the Jone' book was written and I know the dress was much stricter for Mass during that time. How could such an excuse apply today when most people do not even bat an eye at someone wearing jeans to Mass? I guess I'm not understanding how lacking clothing "becoming" one's social standing could keep you from going to Mass. I mean, to me that would be someone not being honest by keeping up a social status facade. What's more important, your social standing or God?

Also could you give me the Cf stated in this part of the quote "One may miss Mass for the sake of a pleasure trip once or twice if he has no other opportunity during the year, or if it is the last opportunity he will ever have for a certain excursion. [b](Cf. 60.)[/b]" Merci

[CatherineM]

My social standing is so low that anything above a potato sack would be fitting. That one does sound a bit pre-Vatican II, not that Vatican II said anything about clothes, but just the time period involved.

[Ziggamafu]

Since there may be people here who respect pop-apologists more than eminent theologians, I thought I might offer some friendly help with a name you might recognize:

[quote]March 28, 2007
Bringing Children to Mass

(Jimmy Akin)

A reader writes:

I have a baptized daughter who is a few months old. My wife and I went home to my parents this weekend. They went to Church Saturday night as we were visiting other relatives. On Sunday morning my mom offered to watch our daughter while we went to Church. I agreed.

On the way to church I began to wonder if not brining my daughter to church was a sin. Was it? And how grave was it? I abstained from communion because I wasn't sure.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not clear from your answer whether you took your daughter to Mass Saturday or if it was just Sunday morning when you didn't take her to Mass. Either way, [b]it doesn't matter, because a child that young is not required to attend Mass.[/b] The Code of Canon Law provides:

[b]Can. 11 Merely ecclesiastical laws bind those who have been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it, possess the efficient use of reason, and, unless the law expressly provides otherwise, have completed seven years of age.[/b]

The law regarding who has to go to Mass on Sunday (or Saturday evening; either satisfies the Sunday obligation) does not specify an age. It simply says:

Can. 1247 On Sundays and other holy days of obligation, the faithful are obliged to participate in the Mass.

Moreover, they are to abstain from those works and affairs which hinder the worship to be rendered to God, the joy proper to the Lord’s day, or the suitable relaxation of mind and body.

[b]Since there is no specification of age here, canon 11 means that children under 7 years of age (or people who lack the use of reason or people who are not baptized) are not bound to attend Mass.[/b]

It thus was not a sin to leave your daughter in the care of your mother.

Parents do have a moral obligation to ensure that as their children age, they get in the habit of going to Mass so that once the obligation kicks in at 7 years of age they're used to it, but [b]this is not an obligation that means they have to be there every single Sunday, and it certainly does not mean that children less than a year old have to be taken to Mass. Children that young are incapable of forming the habit of going to Mass.[/b]

[url="http://www.jimmyakin.org/2007/03/bringing_childr.html"]http://www.jimmyakin.org/2007/03/bringing_childr.html[/url][/quote]

That may help those of you who think that someone like Jimmy Akin holds more weight than 27 nihil obstats, imprimaturs, and imprimi potests.

[StColette]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1752212' date='Jan 15 2009, 05:16 PM']Since there may be people here who respect pop-apologists more than eminent theologians, I thought I might offer some friendly help with a name you might recognize:

That may help those of you who think that someone like Jimmy Akin holds more weight than 27 nihil obstats, imprimaturs, and imprimi potests.[/quote]

someone is being snarky. I'll come back to this topic when you stop making jabs at people who may not agree with your particular taste in Theologians or those who may not be familiar enough with a particular Theologian. That being said I'm gone to pick up the little one.

[Ziggamafu]

LOL.
Hey, I'm the one whose theological orthodoxy was on trial. Only friendly snarkiness here.

[MithLuin]

The general rule of thumb is that attending mass on Sundays in an obligation, other days is optional. You should definitely make every effort to attend mass on Sunday, but if you *can't*, then you can't.

Being somewhere where there is no Catholic church, or being without transportation, or having to work (assuming you made some effort to get out of it) or having to watch someone who is sick, or being sick, or terrible weather....all obvious reasons why you cannot make it to mass.

As for the clothing, I would think that 'come as you are' is more appropriate than skipping, but if someone were truly ashamed....? That is a different case than showing up in jeans because you couldn't be bothered to change. I don't want to presume to tell someone else that isn't a serious reason, but for me, that would not be a reason not to go.

The idea is to avoid sliding into, "But the kids have soccer games, so of course we can't go..." or something frivolous and/or planned like that. Church-going should be a habit, and if you have to miss one week, you have to miss. I am not going to speak for everyone here, but I highly doubt any of us have attended mass every single Sunday since our baptism (unless maybe we were a recent convert ).

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='StColette' post='1752210' date='Jan 15 2009, 06:12 PM']Okay, for example "those who lack clothing becoming to their social standing." How and why would this apply today? I mean, the period in which my dad was growing up would have been around the time the Jone' book was written and I know the dress was much stricter for Mass during that time. How could such an excuse apply today when most people do not even bat an eye at someone wearing jeans to Mass? I guess I'm not understanding how lacking clothing "becoming" one's social standing could keep you from going to Mass. I mean, to me that would be someone not being honest by keeping up a social status facade. What's more important, your social standing or God?

Also could you give me the Cf stated in this part of the quote "One may miss Mass for the sake of a pleasure trip once or twice if he has no other opportunity during the year, or if it is the last opportunity he will ever have for a certain excursion. [b](Cf. 60.)[/b]" Merci [/quote]

See, I take that as a respect for the Mass issue. Whatever your income level, you should where your "Sunday best", as they say, to Mass. If for some reason you don't have access to fitting cloths you should still go - but if you chose not to or were too embarrassed, you would have an excuse sufficient enough to wave the grave obligation. This is of course a matter of interpretation. I find it interesting that you looked at the text and found a loophole for lazy Catholics while I looked at the text and found a commonsense representation of the solemnity of the Mass. If I was a member of a kingdom in which the king invited me to daily audiences, but stressed that not showing up on certain important days without a moderately serious excuse could mean execution, it would make sense that losing my tux and having only a Simpsons tee-shirt and Bermuda shorts would qualify as a "moderately grave" reason for my absence. To show up in the presence of any of this world's rulers in attire that is beneath your capabilities would demonstrate a profound disrespect. But the measure of respect due to any ruler is equal to the power and goodness of that ruler; so what of all-powerful, all-holy God? No, although a person who lacks attire befitting their capabilities should go anyway, they would have a valid excuse - at least on that one occasion.