Case XXIX: May a Person Be Dispensed from Hearing Mass on Sundays If Going to Mass Becomes a Proximate Occasion of Sin?

The case is this: One Robert Smith, a farmer and the father of several children, is greatly addicted to strong drink, and in consequence his farm is heavily encumbered. In other regards he is a good father, and during the week keeps quite sober and is industrious and economical. But when he comes to town on Sundays to hear Mass he can not resist the temptation to visit the saloons, where he spends the entire day in drinking, and returns home Sunday evenings regularly in a sad state of intoxication. In this way he becomes, every Sunday, a source of scandal for the whole congregation, and sinks his family into ever deeper misery.

He means well, however, and is thoroughly conscious of his miserable condition, and, in utter dejection, he goes to Confession and says: "Father, I don't know what I shall do to save myself from this fatal weakness. I have tried repeatedly all the means you recommended. I have prayed. I have firmly resolved to return home immediately after Mass. I have even requested a friend of mine to accompany me, etc., but all to no purpose. Every time that I come to town I am drawn irresistibly to the saloon, and in spite of all my good resolutions I seem to be utterly powerless in the presence of the temptation. Now, I sometimes think to myself, it would be better not to come to Mass at all on Sundays than to come to Mass and get drunk. I think it would be better for me if I remained at home altogether on Sundays for a while, until I get this passion for drink under control. But I should like to have your advice in the matter."

"Very good," answers the confessor. "If you think that staying at home on Sundays is the only means left you for overcoming the drink habit, I will dispense you from hearing Mass on Sundays. Remain at home for some Sundays, and endeavor to get control of yourself in this matter. Then come to Mass again. In the meantime, however, say your Mass-prayers at home."

Question.—Did the confessor act rightly?

Answer.—We think that he did, and for the following reasons:

1. Smith is here in the presence of two conflicting duties. On the one hand, he is bound to avoid the proximate occasion of sin, which, in the present instance, is his attendance at Mass on Sunday. On the other, he is bound to fulfil the precept of the Church, namely, to hear Mass on Sundays and holydays of obligation. But since the obligation of avoiding the proximate occasion of sin is imposed by a law of nature, absolute and negative, it takes precedence over the obligation of hearing Mass on Sunday, which is imposed by a law of the Church, hypothetical and affirmative. For this reason alone, Smith may be dispensed from the obligation of hearing Mass on Sunday, since attendance at Mass becomes for him, per accidens, a proximate occasion of sin.

2. A precept of the Church, at least in so far as it is of an affirmative character, in general does not oblige “under grave inconvenience or harm, or proximate danger of grave harm.” But in regard, particularly, to hearing Mass, St. Alphonsus says: “Any moderately grave cause excuses from hearing Mass, namely, one that involves some notable inconvenience or harm to the goods of one’s own soul or body or those of another” (Lib. III. n. 324).

These passages excuse Smith from hearing Mass, for, as things stand at present, attendance at Mass is for him a "proximum gravis damni periculum," which involves a "notabile damnum in bonis animae" for him. Under the circumstances, therefore, the confessor acted rightly in dispensing Smith from attendance at Mass—that is, in declaring authoritatively that for the present there is no obligation for Smith to hear Mass on Sundays or holydays.

The circumstance that the "occasio proxima" and the "proximum gravis damni periculum" are of Smith's own creation does not oblige him to hear Mass, for St. Alphonsus says expressly in regard to this: “Even an inability to which you previously gave cause by sin excuses, provided you are truly sorry for this” (Lib. I. n. 176).

It is true, indeed, that Smith, owing to his excessive indulgence in drink, has created for himself an "impotentia moralis audiendi missam." But as he is heartily sorry for this, it is not right, in this particular instance, to hold him to the consequences of his fault, unless we wish to make the evil even greater than it is.

Here another question may be asked: Is it lawful for the confessor to allow Smith, who is an "occasionarius" and "recidivus," to remain so long a time away from Mass? Undoubtedly it is, provided only that the confessor knows for a certainty that Smith has diligently employed all the other means recommended by him for avoiding the proximate occasion, and uprooting the bad habit, especially the frequent reception of the sacraments, and, nevertheless, has always fallen back into the old sin. In this case the confessor must use extreme measures, since it is an axiom in morals that the "occasio moraliter necessaria" (and such is the case under consideration) must be given up “at the cost of any harm or inconvenience whatsoever, if the penitent, even after employing the means, relapses in the same manner.” The confessor, therefore, has the right, since all ordinary means have failed, to have recourse to extreme remedies; that is, to dispense the penitent from attendance at Mass on Sundays for such a period of time as shall seem to him necessary for the removal of the proximate occasion. Smith may be protected against the danger of becoming careless about hearing Mass on Sunday by being obliged to perform some special acts of devotion at home on such days. Although a person is not obliged to perform any special devotions or acts of piety, or to hear Mass on weekdays, if he is prevented from hearing Mass on Sunday, still, as Lehmkuhl says ( I. n. 567), “one who was prevented throughout the whole year from assisting at Mass on Sundays and feast days ought to make up for it a few times on weekdays (e. g. three or four times).”

In this case the confessor should not neglect to hold Smith to some special acts of devotion on Sundays, v. g., to the recitation of the Rosary, because it is Smith's own fault that he Is not in a position to hear Mass on that day.

Another question suggests itself in connection with this case, namely: Will not this dispensation, which is granted to Smith to absent himself from Mass on Sundays, cause grave scandal in the parish, especially when it becomes known that Smith has been dispensed from hearing Mass for such a long period of time? To this question, Lehmkuhl replies as follows: “If because of my action it will be difficult for my neighbor to abstain from sin, a proportionately grave cause is required on my part for me to be able to act; therefore, the cause must be graver the greater the other person’s difficulty and the greater the sin” (I. n. 633). It is very likely that Smith's absence from Mass on Sundays will cause scandal among the members of the parish. Nevertheless, the reason for permitting the scandal is so grave that there is no occasion for any qualms of conscience. The penitent may also forestall the scandal in large measure by stating openly his reason for staying away from Mass on Sundays, saying that he is acting on the advice of his confessor, and as a last means of conquering his appetite for strong drink. Nor does such a statement contain any personal defamation. On the contrary, the good will and sincere desire to reform revealed by such an admission will contribute largely to repair the scandal given in the past.