Case XLIX: The Priest’s Obligation of Daily Mass

Case.—Leo, the pastor of a suburban church, has during the past year omitted Mass very frequently. His habit is to say Mass on Sundays and Holidays, and not to go near the church during the rest of the week. His excuse is that he is only obliged to offer the Holy Sacrifice on Sundays; his people are not obliged to hear Mass on week days; that the church is distant from the rectory (about 10 minutes’ walk); that he needs the rest. It so happens that the thriving town in which he is located has a fairly large Catholic population, and many of the people would be glad to avail themselves of the opportunity of receiving Holy Communion daily. In fact the people criticise the pastor in this matter and desire a change.

Question.—What do you think of Leo’s attitude?

Solution.—It is hardly necessary to state that a priest who has charge of souls must see to it that the members of his flock can fulfil their obligation on Sundays and feasts of precept. On this point no fault can be found with Leo. In doing this he likewise satisfies the obligation that springs from his reception of the Sacrament of Holy Orders. By reason of his priesthood every priest is obliged to celebrate Mass several times a year (New Code of Canon Law No. 805). No account is to be taken of an obligation ex stipendio, as no mention is made of this in the statement of the case. There are two points that remain for consideration: The first is the existence of synodal or diocesan decrees made by the Bishop for the government of his diocese; the second is the custom in the diocese in conjunction with the needs and wishes of the people. There are dioceses where daily Mass is a matter of synodal or episcopal legislation. But evidently Leo’s diocese is not one in this category. For we can easily presume that he would not openly and wantonly disobey for so long a time in a matter of such extreme importance. Nor would such a breach of ecclesiastical discipline long escape the notice of the head of the diocese, who no doubt would not be slow in correcting such scandalous contumacity. Hence Leo’s action can only be judged by the second consideration—the needs of his flock.

Without fear of contradiction we can say that where many of his flock are anxious for daily Mass, then he is obliged to provide it for them. His obligation to care for their souls does not cease automatically at noon on Sunday. Every spiritual benefit that can accrue from Sunday Mass can also come to the faithful on week days through their reverential assistance at week-day Mass. He is obliged to foster the spiritual life in his parishioners; by his attitude he is neglecting this duty: he is depriving them of the immense spiritual advantage not only of the Mass, but of frequent Communion; he is thus doing them an irreparable harm. He is violating the wish of the Holy Father expressed so strongly in his decree on daily Communion. Nor can we fail to point out the fact that he is depriving God of the great honor and glory given to Him whenever the Holy Sacrifice is offered. This alone would be sufficient to condemn his slothfulness. Of the excuses given by him there is not a single one that saves him from just condemnation. Not a single one is worth a moment’s pause when weighed against the harm and the scandal that must necessarily spring from an attitude so worldly and so selfish. The people are justified in their criticism. Their desire is legitimate, and they are entitled to demand daily Mass as the means required for the fulfilment of their laudable desire of daily Communion. They should seek a change of policy or a change of pastor. Now this does not imply that a priest even in such a parish is bound to say Mass every single day of the year. For whenever a sufficient reason operates it will excuse. But such a reason will not be a permanent one (except in case of permanent disability—and then the pastor should supply another priest to take his place). Hence a priest, without sin of any kind, may omit daily Mass from time to time when grave inconvenience, sickness, etc., prevent. Where the reasonable custom exists, or the people—at least many of them—demand daily Mass, then no pastor can permanently omit this daily Mass without sinfully neglecting his duty. We are of the opinion that Leo is guilty of gross neglect of duty and sins grievously against the virtue of charity in refusing daily Mass to those of his flock who are anxious, as faithful Catholics, to have it.