Case LI: Unlawful Mass Intentions

Case.—In a certain locality, the two priests, Fr. Philip and Fr. James, observed a totally different attitude in accepting stipends for Mass intentions. Fr. Philip would reject many intentions as not in accord with the rules of the Church, while Fr. James would accept them. The latter held that some of these intentions were lawful, and, in the case of others, he enlightened the stipend givers and induced them to agree to a modification of their intentions. Amongst the intentions rejected by Fr. Philip are the following:

1. For a child who died without Baptism.

2. For a deceased Protestant.

3. For a deceased publicly excommunicated priest.

4. For the recovery of a sick Jewess, and for a good position for a Protestant girl.

5. For a Catholic suicide.

Question.—In how far does the acceptance and performance of these intentions oppose the Church’s precepts?

Solution.—Above all it would be well to recommend to these two priests a uniform and harmonious procedure in this matter, for their present practice is calculated to cause, amongst Catholics and non-Catholics, scandal, misinterpretation, and gossip.

1. Regarding the Holy Mass asked for the child that died without Baptism, the principle applies: “by divine law those who are already in their final state are plainly incapable of receiving for themselves any fruit of the Mass, namely: 1. the damned; 2. the blessed, who possess God inseparably—though if the sacrifice of the Mass is offered for the latter, this may be done for their praise and to give thanks to God for the benefits bestowed upon those blessed ones; 3. infants who died without Baptism” (Lehmkuhl Cas. Consc. II. n. 192-194). Hence it follows: “Since, therefore, it is impossible to apply the Mass efficaciously for them, a priest who attempted it would sin gravely” (I. c.). “For deceased baptized children the Holy Mass may be offered as a sacrifice of thanksgiving, or, indirectly, to obtain for them that which will bestow accidental glory” (Göpfert III. 6 n. 83 p. 120). If Fr. James made to the stipend-giver the following proposition: “Since Holy Mass can in no wise be of benefit to an unbaptized child that has died, let us offer it as thanksgiving to God for the natural gifts He bestowed upon the child, for it was indeed a great blessing that God created it at all,” and if the stipend-giver is satisfied with this intention, and no scandal or misunderstanding is to be feared, there would hardly be anything forbidden by Divine or ecclesiastical law in the acceptance or performance.

2. If the Protestant who died in heresy, was in good faith and therefore saved, he was jure divino capax of the fruits of the Mass, but de jure ecclesiastico the principle holds: “We have no communion in death with those who in life were not in communion with us” (Innocent III.). For deceased non-Catholics Mass can in no case be said publicly and solemnly, not even in the case of a ruling prince or executive. For this reason, as Göpfert (III. 6 n. 84) states, the Apostolic See has repeatedly decreed that Mass foundations for the dead members of a family, some of whom had been Catholic and others Protestant, would be restricted to the Catholic members. A private and quite secret application, known only to the priest and the stipend-giver, is allowed for a deceased heretic only when apparently he was in guiltless error, for if he died in manifesta haeresi, then, according to the decision of the Holy Office, April 7, 1875, even this is expressly forbidden. “All those die in manifest heresy who depart this life in an external and notorious profession of heresy” (Noldin III. 8 n. 176, 4). Much less, as Göpfert points out, can it be applied to deceased Jews and heathens.

If Fr. James seeks a modification of this intention, that may be proposed, he will find it in Marc n. 1601, 9, 2, who is also supported by others, and who says: “But if a stipend is offered to a priest for some deceased heretic in particular, he can answer that he is able to apply the Mass (for the dead) for all the faithful departed with the intention of assisting also the soul of that deceased person, if this is acceptable before God.”

3. Fr. Philip declined also to say Mass for a deceased publicly excommunicated priest, and quite correctly so, because as vitandus this priest had lost “omnem communionem suffragiorum publicorum et ecclesiasticorum.” Only in the event that before his death he had given signs of repentance, and at least after death had been loosed from the excommunication, could Holy Mass be offered for him secretly (occulte). This applies to deceased excommunicati vitandi; regarding those still living St. Alphonsus remarks (L. 6. n. 308): “Nevertheless a priest may lawfully offer Mass privately for an excommunicated person who is to be avoided, insofar as it is the personal work of his private person, but not in the name of the Church or as a minister of Christ.” Aertnys (l. VI. 115) appears to restrict this to the personal devotion and memento of a priest, while Göpfert permits also the acceptance of a stipend, and, therefore, the formal application of the Mass.

4. The fourth case concerns a Mass for a Jewess and for a Protestant, both still living.

a) Regarding all unbaptized persons, St. Alphonsus writes (L. VI. 309): “More probably, Mass can be offered for unbelievers: both because under the Old Law the Jews were accustomed to sacrifice for the nations, and because the celebrant is thus conformed more closely to Christ, who offered Himself for all.” This agrees with the response of the S. Office (July 12, 1865), which permits acceptance of stipends and intentions from Turks and unbelievers, provided that scandal, superstition, etc., are excluded.

b) For heretics and schismatics the Church allows only the intention for the grace of conversion to the true faith, as the answer of the S. Office of April 19, 1837, sets forth. A Mass may, therefore, be said for the recovery of the Jewess, but not one for the Protestant girl’s intention, for the Church is more severe with disobedient children than with those who are strangers to her. It may be regarded as permissible, however, for Catholic friends to have a Mass said for her, as, of course, they have in the first place her conversion to the true faith in view. Compare Lehmkuhl (Cas. Consc. n. II. 3.195 p. 111). For living non-Catholic executives of a nation even public and solemn celebration is allowed, as it concerns not merely their person but the welfare of the state.

5. For a Catholic suicide, if Christian burial was not denied him, Mass may be offered publicly if no scandal is to be feared; otherwise, occulte (Noldin III 3 n. 176). The expression occulte, privatim, etc., in opposition to public solemnization, means, according to Göpfert: a merely inner intention without announcing names or using such in the liturgy, also without special oration, etc.