Case XXVII: A Celebrant with a Disabled Index Finger

Father Alexius, an order priest, had the misfortune, on the first Sunday of Lent, to injure the index finger of his right hand so badly that the nail was entirely torn off. It was a matter of weeks, even months, before a new nail would form, and until then the finger had to remain bandaged. Father Alexius was about to resign himself to the sad necessity of abstaining from saying Mass, when the thought occurred to him: Is it really forbidden to use, in case of necessity, the middle finger in place of the index finger, in saying Mass? After some thought and recourse to manuals of Moral Theology, Father Alexius, with the approval of his local superior, continued to celebrate his daily Mass, the middle finger, not without difficulty, doing service in place of the index finger.

True, the rubrics explicitly require the priest, at holy Mass as well as in distributing holy Communion, to hold the form of bread invariably with thumb and index finger—pollice et indice. Nevertheless, the fact that this, as the convenient and natural way of handling, is prescribed, does not mean that holy Mass should be omitted rather than employ another finger. The rubrics prescribe many other motions in an exact manner; nevertheless, if on account of some hindrance on a particular occasion a certain motion could not be made in the exact way, one would without hesitation do the best one could.

Or, is there a particular significance in the use of the index finger, such as, for instance, in the fast before holy Communion, or a ratio mystica, as in mixing the wine with water? What particular significance could there be?

If it be objected that thumb and forefinger have been specially anointed for this purpose at ordination, it should be remembered that the whole palm of the hand is anointed together with the other fingers. The anointing of these two fingers is performed not as if they alone were anointed, but upon the thumb is begun the one and upon the index finger the other arm of the cross to be made upon the palm of the hand. Hence, it is hard to understand why St. Alphonsus and some others, who have in mind this supposedly special office of these two fingers, will not permit distribution of holy Communion with other fingers except in cases of extreme necessity.

Take the case of a deacon, for instance, none of his fingers are anointed, and yet on occasion of even slight need he may distribute holy Communion. Ballerini (Opus theol. morale, tom. IV., p. 640) says on this subject: On other occasions indeed they permit a layman (in necessity) to carry it or lift it from the ground; they permit the Eucharist to be sought for a reasonable cause from an excommunicated person or a sinner; and now they dispute about a finger!

To the objection whatever prevents the reception of an order prevents the exercise of that order. But he who has those fingers disabled is prevented from receiving the order, the same author replies: Reply. (1) I deny the antecedent; for many things befall a priest which do not prevent exercise, but which would nevertheless have prevented reception.

(2) One must judge differently concerning an antecedent and perpetual impediment, when the honor of divine worship requires that perfect and unblemished men be chosen; differently concerning an accidental impediment that occurs afterward.

(3) It is falsely supposed that whatever is prescribed has the same gravity; for the necessity of all the things required is not the same. Therefore a lesser, sometimes a very slight, cause excuses from some of them.

These answers cover partly the objection of irregularity. In our case it is irregularity in the general sense, the prohibition to execute the ordo which one can either not perform at all, or not with propriety. Even St. Alphonsus here advises: Continuat. And Tournely observes: If anyone lacks an index finger, he will be able to obtain a dispensation. And Palmieri holds (Op. mor. tom. VII., p. 375): Nor does there appear to be any difficulty in granting it, since the middle finger can perform just as much as the index finger in the sacred action. Yes, more: What reason could there be for doubting whether such a person is truly irregular? Nor is there any certain canon.

In fact, c. 7, de corpore vitiatis, refers to some one who lacks the thumb-nail, much needed for breaking the Host, and yet permits his promotio ad sacerdotium, provided the thumb is otherwise strong.

According to all this a dispensation, or special permission, to celebrate with the middle instead of the index finger is not even required. Even though only the Pope can dispense from the rubrics of the Mass, the principle that may be applied here is: Lex positiva non obligat cum incommodo proportionate gravi (here also mediocri).

To this view a Roman decision seems to be opposed which Gardellini-Mühlbauer quotes under the head Sacerdos digitis laborans. A priest of the diocese of Treves injured his index finger so badly that it became forever useless for celebrating Mass. His bishop appealed to Rome for dispensation with an array of important reasons, such as the priest’s worthiness, the prevailing lack of priests, etc., whereupon the Congregation granted: It rescripted in favor of the dispensation and habilitation according to the Bishop’s recommendation, after the matter had been discussed with His Holiness (26 Jan., 1861). That in this case the index finger was forever, and in our case only temporarily, unavailable, is for our question unimportant, the question before us, namely, whether while the impediment of the index finger remains it be allowed to celebrate with the middle finger, without formal dispensation. That a dispensation has on some occasions been granted does not prove that such dispensation is required, nor the need of applying for it, since in numerous instances Rome is unnecessarily petitioned without always eliciting the familiar Et amplius (ne proponatur). And the fact that a permission is given by high authority does not mean that this permission could not have been granted by a lesser authority. Concerning Father Alexius, he found, moreover, to his entire satisfaction, that through the communication of privileges in his Order the local superior is fer. II., post I. Dominicam Quadragesimae authorized to grant dispensation from any irregularities in his subjects, The superior had given his consent that Sunday evening, without giving thought to this particular faculty; his intention continued virtute on Monday, and should a dispensation be required this would suffice completely, according to quantum possum et tu indiges, which intention, without doubt, prevailed here. Joseph Schellauf, S.J.