Mass obligations for families with small children et.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1751988' date='Jan 15 2009, 01:26 PM']1962.
I see no defensible reason why any position stated in the book would not still apply today.[/quote]

I apologize for veering off topic, but I really can’t help myself.

[quote]women or children who would incur the grave displeasure of their husbands or parents by attending Mass[/quote]

What on earth is this supposed to mean? First off all, I certainly do not appreciate women - adults - being put on the same level as children (for obvious reasons, maturity being one of them). Secondly, if a woman attending Mass "would incur the grave displeasure" of her husband, she is NOT to go to Mass? If the husband doesn't want her going to Mass, she can't go?

If the husband incurs the "grave displeasure" of his wife by attending Mass, does he also get a time-out from Church?

[Resurrexi]

What it's saying is that she doesn't [b]have [/b]to go to Mass in that circumstance. I don't really think that the Church would force women to go to Mass that means that they would get verbally or physically abused.

Edited January 16, 2009 by Resurrexi

[Resurrexi]

double post

Edited January 16, 2009 by Resurrexi

[Ziggamafu]

Right, plus the whole situation would cause scandal; a specific Holy Mass should not be turned into a [i]direct [/i]occasion for sin (which also ties in to other excuses listed).

I'm going to do some more research. In the meantime, I would expect Raphael to address my questions regarding his disgusting comparison between Jone and heretic theologians.

Also, I believe it is adamantly clear that (in regards to the original question that spawned this thread) a parent is not under grave obligation to take an infant (child under seven) to Mass. At this point, one would be a Protestant of Church teaching - or at least a "my way" Catholic - to say otherwise.

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='StColette' post='1752216' date='Jan 15 2009, 06:27 PM'] 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.[/quote]


Have you ever read, say, St. Francis de Sales against Protestantism? Or St. Thomas More's [i]Dialogue Concerning Heresy[/i]? When it comes to errors and misrepresentations of Church teaching - especially by those who represent a teacher's position (such as the flag-bearers of Phatmass) - the saints throughout history, the Apostles, and even our Lord Himself were FAR more "snarky" than I've been. All for the love of the Church! I have not merely listed Jone, but also the CCC, Canon Law, Jimmy Akin, Fr. Vincent Serpa, the Baltimore Catechism, etc., all in defense of our wise Mother's commonsense approach to the holy obligation of Mass. That all of this is not enough for some people is beyond belief.

[StColette]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1752853' date='Jan 16 2009, 09:53 AM']Have you ever read, say, St. Francis de Sales against Protestantism? Or St. Thomas More's [i]Dialogue Concerning Heresy[/i]? When it comes to errors and misrepresentations of Church teaching - especially by those who represent a teacher's position (such as the flag-bearers of Phatmass) - the saints throughout history, the Apostles, and even our Lord Himself were FAR more "snarky" than I've been. All for the love of the Church! I have not merely listed Jone, but also the CCC, Canon Law, Jimmy Akin, Fr. Vincent Serpa, the Baltimore Catechism, etc., all in defense of our wise Mother's commonsense approach to the holy obligation of Mass. That all of this is not enough for some people is beyond belief.[/quote]

Yes I've read St. Thomas More's [i]Dialogue Concerning Heresy[/i] but no I haven't read St. Francis de Sales against Protestantism, I'm not a particular fan of his writing style. He's a wonderful Saint, I just don't care for much of his writing, especially some of his writings on marital relations (lol, I'll explain the disliking of his opinion on marital relations in a PM but not on the public forum). I'm a little confused by this comment of your's " When it comes to errors and misrepresentations of Church teaching - especially by those who represent a teacher's position (such as the flag-bearers of Phatmass) " I'm not sure who in this thread was misrepresenting Church teaching. I conceded a while ago that it isn't a grave offense, at least I thought I did, if that wasn't clear then I apologize.

I do find it interesting that you came back to the thread with these comments after jokingly told me you were merely being "snarky" in a friendly type way.

Again, I'm not sure who you are still arguing with on the position of children going to Mass? As I said before I conceded a while ago, and from what I read most everyone else has too and are now asking questions about some of the excuses listed in the book by Jone. Asking questions regarding a particular Theologian's interpretation or opinion is not a crime. Not everyone is familiar with every Theologian. I'll be honest and tell you I've never heard of Jone, so of course I'm going to ask questions about someone I've never heard of or read about, that's just commonsense. As Micah pointed out, and no I'm not comparing Jone to the Dutch Catechism, but the Dutch Catechism was condemned by the Church. It was also on the New York Times bestsellers list and sold over 75,000 copies in its first week of print. It has been printed in several language. It also held an imprimatur from a Cardinal. This Catechism led many people astray and still does today because people are afraid to ask questions when they see support like that. So it is important for us to ask questions when we are not familiar with a Theologian or document.

Another Theologian people ask questions of Von Balthasar's theology all the time. He is by far my favorite Theologian. People have called him unorthodox and a heretic merely because they don't understand his position (mostly due to his writing style). These same people often stick to their bad opinion and don't bother asking questions about his Theology in order to better understand why he holds a certain position and how exactly it applies to Church teaching. It is good to ask questions about the positions that any Theologian takes. If we don't question and just take in everything that any Theologian says then we may find ourselves in error. So I hope you see now why we've been, or at least Ihave been, questioning the positions that Jone has taken with some of the excuses to miss Mass.


Okay now with all that being said...

I believe my problem lies with the original way in which this whole conversation began. It started because of the following comment that you made

[quote]No, the Church requires neither children under seven, nor their caretakers to fulfill the ordinarily grave obligation.[/quote]

I live in an area where a comment like that would cause serious problems. Many parents would take such a comment as to mean that since they have a child who is under the age of seven then they should not even bother taking that child to Mass until they reach the age of seven (or age of reason). I'm in an are area that is mostly influenced by Protestant teaching. You know the teaching where it doesn't matter if you go to Church as long as Jesus is your good ol' buddy. So you can see how a comment like that, without full explanation, could give people license to abuse the Church's teaching. They would look at your statement and go "Oh, that means my kids and I don't have to go to Mass". And they would think this not because it would be difficult to take their children to Mass (say if the kids are particularly unruly or what have you) but because their understanding would be that since the Church doesn't require it then that means I don't have to do it. I hope that helps you to see where I was coming from. I know that they aren't required to under grave obligation but such a statement without explanation that the Church highly recommends it of you is dangerous, at least in my poorly catechized area. So I'm sorry for being on the defensive when you wrote that statement.

God Bless,
Jennie


PS I'm still having an issue with the Pleasure Trip excuse. lol I mean I understand if you are floating on a boat out in the middle of the ocean, it might be a little difficult to go to Mass lol. So I guess that's what Fr. Jone is meaning. Also a little confused about this excuse "who would suffer injury to their good name or possessions by going to Church."

[MithLuin]

Maybe there is some confusion between obligation and opportunity?

Everyone is welcome at mass all the time (I mean, except in the situation mentioned where a parish asked a person not to attend).

It is good for people to go to mass. This includes babies, toddlers, small children, etc.

All baptized Catholics who have reached the age of reason are [i]required[/i] to attend mass on Sundays....assuming they can make it.

There are valid reasons why a person could not make it. In those cases, the person is not [i]obligated[/i] to attend, though of course it would be great if they could attend anyway.

If you are a caregiver to a sick/invalid person, you are not required to attend mass on Sunday. However, if you can arrange for someone else to come in and watch your charge for an hour or so, allowing you to go - all to the good. But let's say you can't find someone one week - are you guilty of mortal sin for missing mass? Of course not. The Church has given dispensation from the requirement to those in your predicament.

Thus, children and babies are welcome at mass, and parents have the responsibility to make attendance at Sunday mass a habit before the age of 7. But if a child misses one Sunday, they have not broken an obligation that never applied to them in the first place. The Church leaves particular decisions about particular children....up to the families.

[StColette]

On another topic, not about children but about those in RCIA and their obligation toward Mass.

Now Canon 1247 says,

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

Which understanding that this would not include children under 7, the unbaptized, or those that aren't able to make it for one reason or another. Now the "unbaptized" would include some of those that are in the RCIA program that have not been baptized correct?

[Ziggamafu]

That is my understanding. And it forms part of the tradition of dismissing the RICA class before the creed (thereby avoiding the essential matter of the obligation altogether). I have not until this moment thought about the fact that most people in RCIA classes (at least in my area) are already baptized from their Protestant background. It would therefore seem that they should fall under the usual obligations of all the baptized...yet I *think* it is an actual rubric of the RCIA program to dismiss the whole class before the creed...interesting...

St. Colette, I was referring to Raphael more than you, although I admit I was blind to any concession made by you. I should also add that it is precisely because I respect you that I got "snarky" (a word which does not cease to make me smile). Raphael also is a very helpful resource on this forum. Finally, since moral theology is not an exact science I do understand that anyone's thoughts - even one as esteemed and endorsed as Jone - are not beyond scrutiny and subsequent correction. What irked and astonished me is how he was so easily dismissed. To me, questioning Jone's orthodoxy in moral theology would be like questioning Ratzinger's orthodoxy in doctrinal theology (for the sake of a more proper comparison, say, before he was made pope); acceptable and even good in a sense, but not very profitable, and certainly surprising from anyone other than a dissenter.

[quote]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. [b]But 27? In nine languages and cultures? Spanning from the 40's to '62? From an eminently respected theologian? [/b]Give me a break. I know of [b]not a single other non-magisterial document[/b] that comes [b]close [/b]to that level of universality in magisterial approval and endorsement.[/quote]

Certainly - especially from those in teaching positions - great caution and thought is required when explaining disagreements with so highly respected a work. Blithe, unsubstantiated comparisons to heretics do not reflect such care, and, by extension, could possibly demonstrate a disrespect for the general teaching authority of the Church, which, on top of the sense of the faithful of the time, formally endorsed the book as being without any moral error 27 times over.

Edited January 16, 2009 by Ziggamafu

[Lil Red]

[quote name='StColette' post='1752022' date='Jan 15 2009, 12:05 PM']My point exactly. Some of the reasons just seemed to be stretching it a bit. The "pleasure trip" one was just odd.[/quote]
+J.M.J.+
it seems like the book meant a 'once in a lifetime' trip; like say, winning/being offered tickets to the Super Bowl or DisneyLand or overseas?

[MithLuin]

[quote name='StColette' post='1752878' date='Jan 16 2009, 11:57 AM']PS I'm still having an issue with the Pleasure Trip excuse. lol I mean I understand if you are floating on a boat out in the middle of the ocean, it might be a little difficult to go to Mass lol. So I guess that's what Fr. Jone is meaning. Also a little confused about this excuse "who would suffer injury to their good name or possessions by going to Church."[/quote]

I guess I take it to mean that Catholics are not obligated to forego a trip/vacation just because they might miss Mass on Sunday while travelling. Obviously, if you can get to mass and still have your 'pleasure trip,' that's great too. But like you said, you don't have to never get on a boat if it might be out of port on Sunday. To be fair, he did clarify it by saying if it were your [i]only[/i] opportunity to get away and have a vacation, not that you could blithely take weekend trips all the time while skipping mass.

As for suffering the injury of your good name or possessions - there are plenty of families that would disown you for becoming Catholic, or something similar. If it's a choice between feeding your kids (or having a roof over your head) and attending mass, that is obviously a different situation than just wanting to sleep in on Sunday. [I'm thinking specifically of the sacrifices made by JRR Tolkien's widowed mother.] Or more importantly, a country that has outlawed the practice of Christianity, so that attending mass can get you arrested.

Not that we should [i]want[/i] to be 'secretly' Catholic, but there are situations where there is a real risk, and in those cases, mass attendance is [i]not[/i] mandated - no one is going to force you to become a martyr.

Edited January 16, 2009 by MithLuin

[Lil Red]

+J.M.J.+
like i told my junior high students after telling them that missing Mass on Sunday was a mortal sin (and they were coming up with all these "What ifs"): If you can go to Mass, you should.

[philothea]

[quote name='MithLuin' post='1752952' date='Jan 16 2009, 01:23 PM']I guess I take it to mean that Catholics are not obligated to forego a trip/vacation just because they might miss Mass on Sunday while travelling. Obviously, if you can get to mass and still have your 'pleasure trip,' that's great too. But like you said, you don't have to never get on a boat if it might be out of port on Sunday. To be fair, he did clarify it by saying if it were your [i]only[/i] opportunity to get away and have a vacation, not that you could blithely take weekend trips all the time while skipping mass.[/quote]
That's how I read it too.

And it's a relief, because honestly, every trip I go on (work or vacation, doesn't matter) I locate churches and mass times and print out maps and program the GPS. And maybe 25% of the time can I actually [i]find[/i] the church and it has masses when my research showed.

That's WITH internet access and GPS. 10+ years ago it was almost hopeless.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='philothea' post='1752334' date='Jan 15 2009, 06:54 PM']Right, obviously in some societies and circumstances (including, probably, the modern USA) that wouldn't be applicable. Like I said, if a person is looking for reasons to avoid mass, there's a whole other issue. However, if going to mass in the condition/situation you are in (and cannot at present get out of) will cause you irreparable long-term harm, I think it's reasonable that people are excused.

Don't you think?[/quote]
If you could call the harm "grave" then yes, but I do not see how any of the following could in any regular circumstance be considered grave: not having suitable clothing, going on a pleasure trip, the threat of defamation.

I address this to you, philothea, and to Ziggamafu,

First, I spoke with the priest-in-residence at my parish. He's working on his dissertation for his STD in moral theology. He says he's never heard of such a theologian as Fr. Heribert Jone. This makes me doubt that he was quite as eminent a theologian as TAN books makes him sound, especially since the priest I know was recently at a Vatican conference on the moral implications of advances on the medical subject of brain death. He's not a lowly theologian, he does a lot of important work that requires him to know much moral theology. Certainly one could reasonably expect him to have heard of this theologian, let alone to have read his work, if it was hailed "universally" as "authoritative and was recognized everywhere as the best book of its type" and if the theologian is "regarded as one of the most - if not the most - brilliant and orthodox moral theologians of the 20th century."

Now, since it had so many editions and translations, it doesn't seem at all uncommon for it to have received so many nihil obstats and imprimaturs, but if you consider that from the Second Vatican Council, many of the people present were on the liberal side (in fact, it's been said by theologians who studied the council that the documents were often ambiguous compromises and that JPII wrote so many encyclicals and commentaries based on Vatican II because he wanted to make sure there was an orthodox precedent set for interpretation of the council). It seems that even a book which is mostly good but contains some bad judgments would probably get past the censor and the bishop. I'm not calling the priest in question a heretic, I'm simply saying that I think some of his conclusions regarding specific situations are inaccurate.

For what it's worth, aside from a few references to the book and theologian by orthodox individuals, the only positive references I can find to the text online are from sites that condemn the Novus Ordo and other similar sites. I find that a bit sketchy. Just this morning, I found a book by Fr. Leonard Feeney in print from a popular (and, as I understand it, orthodox) Catholic publisher, despite the bad situations and scandal associated with his name. I do not mean this post to be an attack on TAN publications any more than I do on the theologian himself.

As you know, the Catechism gives only two examples of reasons grave enough to miss Mass. None of these are at issue. I think it's also reasonable not to expect a document from the Magisterium specifically condemning one reason or another, simply because moral theology deals generally in principles and only in specifics when such situations arise.

So my [i]opinion[/i] regarding the excuses above is as follows:

With regard to suitable clothing, it's quite clear that our attire should show that we respect the Mass. However, taking the parable of the wedding garment with a more spiritual than corporeal tone, I think the inside is far more important. From Jesus' comments to the Pharisees in the Gospels, I am inclined to believe He would agree. Now, not all people can afford suitable clothing, and yet we are taught in moral theology about the preferential option for the poor; certainly Jesus would not turn away those poor who could do no better. Regarding those who are wearing scandalous clothing (bikinis, for those unscrupulous folks in resort towns who go to Mass dressed only in their swimwear), I would say that they should not go to Mass until they've had a chance to change, and if, through their own fault, they did not have the opportunity to change (perhaps they chose to swim right up to 10 minutes before Mass) then they should not go to Mass, but that is on them, as it was through their own fault. If by some mistake they do not have the opportunity to change into something appropriate before Mass, then they should look for another Mass and, if no other Mass is available, then I would not think they are culpable, however, they should not have an attitude of rejoicing because they have missed Mass, but their intention should be not to scandalize others. They should be sorrowful and commit some time to prayer (as Canon Law would commend those who can't get to Mass). I think this way because there are some things which are certainly grave enough regarding clothing. A man who is stark naked should not go to Mass. I think a bikini is nearly as offensive in a sacred setting.

With regard to going on a pleasure trip, I think it was probably more understandable in those days, when one would not necessarily know if Mass would be available (or when) in a given town where a person was visiting. In such a case, it would be excused assuming that the person did not find out the time and place of Mass and simply decide not to go. However, I do think the person should be at least somewhat solicitous to find out the time and place of a Mass so that he can go. I would have a hard time seeing how the person would be excused if he doesn't even ask around a bit. If a person, however, feels that the goal of rest and relaxation during a pleasure trip excuses him from going to Mass, then 1) he has the wrong impression of Mass, thinking that it is less than the source and summit of true relaxation, and 2) he is guilty of skipping Mass.

With regard to the threat of defamation or otherwise losing face over going to Mass (or for that matter, damage to personal property, which I think was in the same category), I don't see this as reasonable. We are called to carry crosses for Jesus. Not going to Mass because someone might think ill of me or harm my (ultimately worthless) property is not a reasonable excuse. Holding my reputation higher than my duty to worship God is a sin of pride. That goes also for those who would be pregnant out of wedlock and may fear being chastised.

God bless,

Micah

[StColette]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1752918' date='Jan 16 2009, 12:47 PM']St. Colette, I was referring to Raphael more than you, although I admit I was blind to any concession made by you.[/quote]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s=&showtopic=89455&view=findpost&p=1751946"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...t&p=1751946[/url]

you responded to that post by saying that you completely agreed lol I said in that post that it may not be a "grave" obligation for the parents to bring their children under seven to Mass, but I believe it's the obligation, not grave, of the parent to bring their child to Mass, I should have said as often as possible, and help them grow in the faith.

[quote]What irked and astonished me is how he was so easily dismissed. To me, questioning Jone's orthodoxy in moral theology would be like questioning Ratzinger's orthodoxy in doctrinal theology (for the sake of a more proper comparison, say, before he was made pope); acceptable and even good in a sense, but not very profitable, and certainly surprising from anyone other than a dissenter.[/quote]

I didn't dismiss him, but merely asked questions about his validity, even with the information the nihil obstats, etc. I'm not familiar with Jone so I had no background into what type of Theologian he is. I know you wouldn't intentionally quote someone who is heretical or unorthodox. I questioned the quotes you gave from him about children under the age of reason, because I did not see that phrase mentioned in any of the quotes that you first gave from Jone. I wasn't questioning his orthodoxy; I was just trying to figure out where in those quotes he spoke about children under the age of reason. You yourself said that the quotes you gave from Jone didn't specific mention children under the age of reason. You said it was buried somewhere deeper in Jone or was possibly in Prummer, but I never saw you give the quote which you said Jone or Prummer mentioned it. My questioning the excuses that he listed wasn't out of disrespect or because I thought he was incorrect, but merely trying to understand how he came to those particular excuses. That's why I asked when the book was written, because I could see certain of those excuses to apply more easily in earlier periods of time. As someone pointed out, I forgot who, that certain websites make traveling and attending Mass easier which would lessen the need to miss Mass while traveling, but the occasion does still happen when you may have to miss Mass while traveling, not intentional but just because that's the way things are sometimes.

[quote]That is my understanding. And it forms part of the tradition of dismissing the RICA class before the creed (thereby avoiding the essential matter of the obligation altogether). I have not until this moment thought about the fact that most people in RCIA classes (at least in my area) are already baptized from their Protestant background. It would therefore seem that they should fall under the usual obligations of all the baptized...yet I *think* it is an actual rubric of the RCIA program to dismiss the whole class before the creed...interesting...[/quote]

Yeah, it's part of the RCIA program to dismiss the entire class before the creed, even those who have valid baptism. So since they're in the RCIA program would that mean that they are required to attend Mass, at least up to the point before their dismissal? Or because they are not received into the Church yet, then they aren't required to come?

[MithLuin]

As far as RCIA goes, the candidates have not yet been accepted into the Church, so I do not see why Church disciplines would apply to them yet. I mean, are they required to abstain from meat on Fridays during Lent, prior to the Easter Vigil? I would think not. If, however, their goal is to become a member of the Church...of course you [i]would[/i] do these things. It just isn't binding. Does that make sense?


[b]Raphael[/b], I didn't interpret it as 'people thinking ill of me' - I interpretted it as 'my sole supporter and provider would cut me off if I attended mass' or 'my gov't will arrest/imprison/kill me if I am caught attending mass.' In those cases, certainly, the person should still go to mass when they can, but it isn't going to be every Sunday. A similar case to "the nearest church is 100 miles away and my main method of transportation is my feet" - it just isn't feasible to attend. The members of the persecuted church certainly should attend church when possible - but it isn't really fair for us to complacently sit in our free societies with churches everywhere around us and say that there's 'no reason' why they can't go as often as we can.

That being said, I agree with you - being ashamed of attending church is something that makes me scratch my head. It sounds a bit bizarre. But I imagine culture is a pretty fluid thing, so what was considered scandalous or unacceptable in one time and place might not be in another. Maybe different language would have been used, had this book been published in the USA in 2008.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='MithLuin' post='1753051' date='Jan 16 2009, 04:24 PM']As far as RCIA goes, the candidates have not yet been accepted into the Church, so I do not see why Church disciplines would apply to them yet. I mean, are they required to abstain from meat on Fridays during Lent, prior to the Easter Vigil? I would think not. If, however, their goal is to become a member of the Church...of course you [i]would[/i] do these things. It just isn't binding. Does that make sense?


[b]Raphael[/b], I didn't interpret it as 'people thinking ill of me' - I interpretted it as 'my sole supporter and provider would cut me off if I attended mass' or 'my gov't will arrest/imprison/kill me if I am caught attending mass.' In those cases, certainly, the person should still go to mass when they can, but it isn't going to be every Sunday. A similar case to "the nearest church is 100 miles away and my main method of transportation is my feet" - it just isn't feasible to attend. The members of the persecuted church certainly should attend church when possible - but it isn't really fair for us to complacently sit in our free societies with churches everywhere around us and say that there's 'no reason' why they can't go as often as we can.

That being said, I agree with you - being ashamed of attending church is something that makes me scratch my head. It sounds a bit bizarre. But I imagine culture is a pretty fluid thing, so what was considered scandalous or unacceptable in one time and place might not be in another. Maybe different language would have been used, had this book been published in the USA in 2008.[/quote]

I'm not so sure. For fairness' sake, I should specify that I am not by expertise or by preference a moral theologian (I wouldn't want to be a moral theologian...the issues are far too complicated and convoluted and the conclusions are rarely as normative and widely-applied as I'd like).

Part of me wants to agree with you because certainly if you can miss Mass because of illness, you can miss Mass because going to Mass would mean certain death.

However, at the same time, when you're sick, you're staying from Mass to keep from infecting others and to make sure that you take good care of yourself, whereas when there is danger of death (or less severely speaking, persecution), you are staying from Mass to avoid a situation where you'll be tested, but I suppose that trying to avoid death or real persecution (more severe than people speaking ill of you) would be grave, and it would be heroic virtue that would allow a person to go to Mass anyway, but heroic virtue is not required by Canon Law.

I suppose, then, that my main issue would probably be with the way these things are phrased in the book; it should be clearer to show exactly how severe the circumstances would have to be.

I'm still not buying the woman pregnant out of wedlock thing, btw. I mean, I highly doubt that a pregnant woman out of wedlock is going to get persecuted in an intense way or face certain death because she shows up to Mass.

Avoiding Mass because of possible damage to your reputation is not an excuse.

[CatherineM]

See, I am in moral theology because I thought biblical was too hard. I think my problem with this issue is that we should be looking for ways to get to church rather than loop holes to avoid it.

My only issue with a pregnant out of wedlock woman attending is if it causes scandal. Priests are actually prohibited from rushing to marriage just because the bride to be is pregnant. They are supposed to take more time, not less. In that case, attending mass can only be seen as gaining strength for the trials ahead.

However, what of a situation where a woman has made the decision that she wants to have a child, and has no desire to marry, goes to the sperm bank, and makes all of this very public. Explaining stuff like this to kids is hard enough. I'm not saying that she should be excluded. I don't actually know what I'm saying, just that I can understand why this would have been a much larger issue 50 years ago.

The issue of not attending under threat of death has been faced since the earliest days of the church. One of the vestment patterns I was handed down was for a quilt that was actually a chasuble. The priest could hide it as a bed roll so as not to get arrested if he was stopped on the road between churches. We can't know what someone else is capable of enduring for the faith.

[cmotherofpirl]

I think it is well to consider we are talking about church discipline here, not dogma or doctrine.
Some of these seem questionable and archaic:
Therefore, the following are excused: the sick, convalescents, persons who cannot endure the air in church (e.g., certain neurotic persons and sometimes pregnant women in the first or last months of pregnancy)[color="#0000FF"]so people with neuroses are permanently excused from church? this was the days before air-conditioning[/color];
those that have a long way to church, people hindered by the duties of their state (e.g., shepherds, watchmen, policemen on duty, cooks, and those working in mills that may not shut down over Sunday)[color="#0000FF"]common sense[/color];
women or children who would incur the grave displeasure of their husbands or parents by attending Mass [color="#0000FF"]is this seriously an issue in the US?
[/color] ; servants whose masters do not permit them to attend Mass (should this happen consistently the servants should seek other employment) [color="#0000FF"]this is illegal[/color],for the sick, rescue workers in time of fire or flood [color="#0000FF"]this is common sense[/color],
reason to think that by staying home they can hinder sin; or who would suffer injury to their good name or possessions by going to Church. (Thus: unmarried women who are pregnant, may remain home if by doing so they can avoid disgrace [color="#0000FF"]judgementalism[/color];
similarly, those who lack clothing becoming to their social standing [color="#0000FF"]this sounds judgemental today as well[/color],
; those on a journey; those who would suffer the loss of extraordinary gain by attending Mass)[color="#0000FF"]does this one make sense?. [/color]
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. (Cf. 60.) [color="#0000FF"]so vacations trump church?[/color]
Finally, custom in certain localities excuses such as, for example, lying-in women, widows in the first days of their bereavement, engaged persons whose marriage banns are published in the only Mass they can attend [color="#0000FF"]again does this make sense today?[/color]

[Ziggamafu]

"Reasons such as the necessity to work to support one's family, child care, personal sickness or the care of the sick, necessary travel etc. would excuse a person on particular occasions. Those who have continuing reason to be excused should consult their pastor."

[url="http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/sunday_mass.htm"]http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/sunday_mass.htm[/url]

***

"Any cause which is moderately grave excuses from the precept- namely, [b]any reason which involves [u]some notable inconvenience[/u] or harm to [u]mind[/u] or body [u]either of oneself or of another.[/u][/b]"

[b]St. Alphonsus [/b](Theol. mor. book 3; 324)

***
[b]
Can. 1323 The following are not subject to a penalty when they have violated a law or precept:[/b]

[b]1. a person who has not yet completed the sixteenth year of age;[/b]

2. a person who without negligence was ignorant that he or she violated a law or precept; inadvertence and error are equivalent to ignorance;

3. a person who acted due to physical force [b]or a chance occurrence which the person could not foresee or, if foreseen, avoid;[/b]

4. a person who acted coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or due to necessity [b]or grave [u]inconvenience[/u][/b] unless the act is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls;

5. a person who acted with due moderation against an unjust aggressor for the sake of legitimate self defense or defense of another;

6. a person who lacked the use of reason, without prejudice to the prescripts of cann. 1324, §1,n. 2 and 1325;

[b]7. a person who without negligence thought that one of the circumstances mentioned in nn. 4 [/b]or 5 was present.

***

...more coming, as I get the time.