Much Obliged

It seems that in most places, the Sunday obligation is back – or returning soon.

In surveying reactions to this – as well as to the whole general discussion on it that’s evolved over the past year – I’m interested in a couple of points.

First, it’s always worth asking when you find someone who is quite exercised over the matter – in ordinary times, do you even care about the Sunday obligation? I mean…do you even think the “Sunday obligation” is legit?

Secondly, as per usual with me, in seeking to bring some depth to the discussion, I turn to history. Over the past year, I’ve listened to people fuss about the Sunday obligation – mostly in terms of “Don’t they want to keep us SAFE? They obviously have no interest in keeping us SAFE. If they wanted to keep us SAFE, they wouldn’t even think about reinstating the obligation -think of all the old people who think they have to endanger their lives because of the obligation!”

Well, I can pretty much promise that truly old people who were formed before Vatican II, unless they were catechized in some weird idiosyncratic way (which is possible, always..you do hear stories…), understand that someone who is at risk by going into public or groups isn’t under an obligation to attend Mass. I mean…they’re just not. Never have been. Never. They’re under an obligation to observe the day – that is, be joined to the global, universal Body of Christ in worship – in whatever way they can – read Mass readings, pray the prayers, watch Mass, refrain from labor – but actually physically attending Mass is not an obligation for the ill or those at serious risk. Never has been.

Let’s take a look at a book I got at random from the Internet Archive. Catholic Practice at Church and at Home, published in 1897 by Benzinger.

Here’s the text on the Sunday obligation. I’ve divided it out for ease of reading and commenting:

Just reasons for missing Mass on Sundays and holydays of obligation may be, for instance :

Sickness, such as confines the patient to the house, or such as is not so serious, but which exposure to the weather would probably aggravate so as to render it dangerous.

(In the late 19th century, germ theory was really still in its beginnings, and certainly had not filtered out into general perception or even medical practice. So fear of catching a disease transmitted by close encounters with others in a crowd wouldn’t really be a factor to be considered yet.)

The necessity for someone to remain at home, to watch the house, wait on the sick, prepare the food and the like.

Minding children on the part of mothers and nurses when they have no one to take their place. The husband is ordinarily obliged to mind the baby whilst the wife hears Mass, unless the child is sick or unusually cross.

(!! Dads can’t cope when the child is unusually cross?)

Great distance, that is, several miles from the church for those who are obliged to walk when the roads are bad. A great distance, likewise, for those who have to ride, when the weather and the roads are very bad, even for vehicles. Not sufficient riding-accommodation, so that some are obliged to remain at home when the others go to church; in which case, however, the members of the family are obliged to go in turns.

Inability to leave off one’s occupation, with danger of losing one’s position.

Great repugnance arising from modesty if one be exposed to public notice and comment under unavoidable circumstances.

(At a loss to understand what that means….)

The lack of sufficient and decent clothing in time of great poverty.

(If you peruse the book, you’ll find that there were certainly expectations related to dress. But of course, in this era, people dressed more formally in generally, even those with lower incomes – I would think that this is a reference to having nothing but rags. But even so….)

Changing times aside, you get the idea. The obligation was serious, but those bad old days weren’t as Un-Pastoral as you might have been led to believe.

This might interest you, as well – what follows:

If anyone may have missed Mass through these or other reasons, it is well to mention the fact in confession, even though the reason may have been legitimate, so that the confessor may give his approval or disapproval of the act, accordingly as the penitent may have acted conscientiously or unscrupulously.

Catholics easily get into the habit of missing Mass for insufficient and trifling reasons. The fact that one is obliged to work on a holyday of obligation does not of itself excuse from the grave duty of hearing Holy Mass on that day. In most places where there is a resident Priest, there is a special early Mass for such as have to work on holydays of precept. Working people who through carelessness fail to attend it, are guilty of a grievous sin.

Being a stranger in a place and not knowing where the church is, is not of itself a sufficient reason for missing Mass. We are obliged to make inquiries and efforts to find a Catholic church when in a strange place.

Neither is it a sufficient reason to miss Mass if the church at hand should be for the use of another nationality, the lan- guage of which we do not understand. The Mass itself is in the Latin tongue; attendance at it is binding upon all nationalities alike under pain of mortal sin. Those who are prevented from attending Mass on a Sunday or holyday of obligation, through any legitimate cause, do well to say the Mass-prayers at home at the time of .the Mass, if convenient, or perform some other devotion instead

Don’t come late to Mass !

It is a sin not only to miss Mass altogether, but also to come late to it through one’s own fault. It is a grievous sin, however, to miss the principal parts of the Mass by coming late through one’s own fault. The principal parts of the Mass are: the Offertory, the Consecration or Elevation, and the Communion. Whoever, therefore, has missed the Offertory by coming late through his own fault, and does not hear another Mass, is guilty of a grievous sin.

Some Catholics, however, would rather commit a mortal sin and omit Mass altogether, than be seen coming late to it. This is pride and human respect, if not gross ignorance. It matters not how late we may be for Mass, if we can still assist at the principal parts of it, we are obliged to go to it, even if we should enter the church after the sermon, if the latter takes place after the first gospel; unless there is a later Mass and we prefer to attend it. You may be a full hour late for the last Mass, which is ordinarily a High Mass with a sermon, and yet be able to hear the principal portions of the Mass.

Hearing Mass according to the precepts of the Church, means not only coming to Mass and being present at it during it of course ; it means also actually attending to it by following the action of the Priest, and performing some devotion at the same time.

Don’t remain In the rear of the church!

Those who purposely and by habit remain in the rear of the church in a great crowd of people and are consequently constantly distracted and unable to see, hear or follow the Priest properly at the principal parts of the Mass, and who at the same time perform no particular devotion, do not hear Mass according to the command and intentions of the Church, and are guilty of sin, which they are bound to confess, as though they had not gone to Mass at all.

Picky, picky, right?

Well, in navigating this seemingly foreign landscape, I’m helped by three things:

1. These formal, specific guidelines and expectations (and if you want to get more, peruse the book) evolved in times in which most public behavior, at all levels, in all situations, was regulated, either formally or informally, by codes, procedures and expectations. It was just life, in most communities enforced by laws, fines and other punishments.
2. The way that guidelines like this generally work is that they evolve in response to deep wisdom about human behavior. As in, yeah, most of us would take any reason to skip Mass once the fervor dissipates. And then, eventually, the whole system goes overboard, gets mired in a certain era, evolves into inflexible granularity and has to be reformed. And then in the shaking loose, important values are lost. At which point, people who are paying attention realized…maybe there was a reason for the rules, as crazy as they got.
3. You think that folks deeply and comfortably ensconced in post-Concilar ways and means don’t get picky and crazy about rules and processes? I invite you to the next meeting of your diocesan liturgical commission or perhaps to the planning meetings of the Synod-to-plan-the-Synod-for-the-Synod-about-Synodality.

Anyway, that’s this morning’s rabbit trail, inspired, as usual, by observing totally unnecessary freaking out.

Here’s the book, for your edification and perhaps entertainment: