Case LXIV: Celebration and Saying a Second Mass After Breaking the Fast

The villages M. and G. are about two miles apart. One Sunday morning, having said Mass, and breakfasted shortly afterward, I was called from M. by a messenger to the pastor of G., who had been suddenly taken ill and who wished me to officiate in his stead at High Mass, as otherwise his congregation would go without Mass. Even if they had betaken themselves to M., where there was another Mass, they could have reached the church only after the elevation, as the sermon (according to custom there) was preached after the Communion. “The same case,” so writes Holzmann, “recently happened, or at least could have happened, at Ried in my native country, where the Reverend Parish Priest was suddenly taken ill on a feast day and rendered unable to celebrate on that day. A messenger was sent to... the Benedictine monastery at Ursin with a request that a priest be sent to conduct the divine offices in place of the Parish Priest. But since the messenger arrived only around or after the tenth hour, all the priests had already celebrated, except only the Most Reverend Lord Prelate and Abbot Bernard; who therefore immediately prepared himself for the journey and, conveyed by carriage to Ried, there offered sacrifice at the altar with the greatest edification and consolation of the people.” Abbot Bernard was of course in the fortunate position to render the asked assistance, not having broken the jejunium naturale; I, however, had, as already mentioned, partaken of ablution and of food before becoming aware of the embarrassment of the pastor in G., and I therefore gave, regretfully, a declining answer. He, however, considered my view a rigoristic one, and expressed his belief that in this case I might, even after breaking the fast, celebrate Mass, because if the Mass were omitted the people would be given scandal. That scandal would not be absent, he, as pastor, were better able to judge than I, a stranger, and for this reason he advised me to lay aside my opinion and be guided by his. The people not understanding that the prohibition to say Mass after breaking the fast, and concerning only the individual person of the priest, was more binding than the obligation of a whole parish to hear Mass. “But,” I replied, “how can the people be scandalized, if it is made known to them that the pastor has been unexpectedly disabled, and that the summoned priest, not having foreseen the case, had broken the fast and therefore is prevented from celebrating a second Mass? In my opinion the people, if properly instructed, are more appreciative than you assume. Besides, those well disposed and those less critical will not give much heed to the matter beyond some surprise, and in simple faith they will take for granted what is told them.” This was the extent of my reply. My offer to hold a devotion instead of saying Mass was not accepted, and I was dismissed in disfavor. That same day I looked over Holzmann’s Moral Theology, not from any uncertainty, but to reassure myself, and there I found, besides the above extract, also the following passage: “But if, therefore, in this case the aforesaid Most Reverend Lord himself had already celebrated previously, no other priest who might offer sacrifice in place of the Parish Priest could have been sent, because, on account of the ablution taken in the Mass already read, no one was fasting any longer.” Nevertheless, had the pastor been able to convince me, or could I have convinced myself, that without doubt, or even only probably, through the omission of the Mass scandal for the people would have ensued, that is to say, “grave offense of the people, danger of grave suspicion or slander against the priest, or the danger that several persons, although they can and ought to go elsewhere to hear Mass, may take occasion from that unforeseen case to neglect Mass with grave sin” (LEHMKUHL, Theol. Moral, II, n. 162), then it would not have been unlawful for me to say a second Mass, after breaking the fast, as, what is here presupposed as conditio sine qua non, my defectus jejunii was neither known, nor could have easily become known to the people.

In confirmation of what has been said I add a few more lines from Holzmann: “You will say: if scandal should arise among the people from not saying a second Mass, a priest who was no longer fasting would be permitted to celebrate; therefore it will also be permitted in our case. The answer is made by granting the antecedent under the stated supposition and denying the consequent. The difference is that, in a case where scandal would arise, it would be permissible to use epikeia and to interpret the mind of the Church as not wishing a repeated celebration to be forbidden to a priest, even one no longer fasting; since the precept not to give scandal, being of natural law, ought to prevail over the ecclesiastical precept that the Sacred Mysteries be celebrated by a fasting priest and ought to be observed more strictly. It is otherwise in our case, in which no scandal intervenes, since the people are not scandalized if they are instructed that the Parish Priest suddenly fell ill, while the other priests, not foreseeing the Parish Priest’s case, had already celebrated and therefore, because of the lack of the natural fast caused by taking the ablution, could not celebrate a second time, and that the parishioners are excused from sin because of their inability to hear Mass, although they do not hear Mass on that feast day.” (Theol. Moral, II, n. 379).

All this fits my case. Similar cases occur not infrequently, and each individual case should be well weighed and considered. Ordinarily there ensues from the omission of Holy Mass, and the solemnity joined to it, a regret only, but no scandal. Even if some ignorant people, or the roundtable at the tavern, may be given an opportunity to hold forth against the priest who inadvertently broke the jejunium, this would be by no means sufficient reason to ignore the ecclesiastical precept. But if one might have to fear what I am about to relate? What in such case?

I once heard a malicious person say that a certain priest was not in the state of grace, and that he purposely partook of some food to have a pretext for not saying Mass, to escape in this way the mortal sin of celebrating sacrilegiously. Where such suspicions and calumny are to be feared (a case not likely to happen often) a priest, to prevent the same, may, if possible, keep his mishap secret, and in good conscience celebrate Holy Mass.

It may happen, and this would be more likely, that some people in town or country, if Mass was not said in their own church, would not take the trouble to go to another church within their reach, and thus sin grievously. In this case, likewise, if no other priest were obtainable, a sacerdos non jejunus could say Mass. Provided of course the defectus jejunii is neither known to the people, nor likely to become known. I have repeatedly noticed how priests, videnti populo, partook of the ablution, and later said another Mass. This was wrong, although the people believed this could be done in case of necessity (and in every one of these instances fortunately they so regarded the case). If at other times a priest in distraction should do something similar, it will not be easy for him to avoid talk, if he makes this (correctly) the ground for not saying Mass.

BERNARD DEPPE.