Section — Prümmer, Manuale Theologiae Moralis
§ 3. On the Precept of Hearing Mass
The requisites for satisfying this grave precept and the excusing causes will be treated. Four things are required for satisfying the precept of hearing Mass, namely: 1. bodily presence; 2. an entire Mass; 3. religious assistance; 4. a due place.
476. The gravity and scope of this precept. Since the precept of hearing Mass is an essential part of the precept of observing Sunday and feast days, without any doubt it binds under grave sin, so that its violation is a mortal sin from its genus. This is also evident from proposition 52 condemned by Innocent XI and already cited above in n. 467. All the faithful of either sex, when after the first seven years of age they possess the use of reason, are obligated to hear Mass on Sundays and feast days. Therefore infants and the insane who lack the use of reason are exempt. Hence a child who after the age of seven has not yet attained the use of reason is not bound to hear Sunday Mass; but if he has certainly acquired the use of reason before the age of seven, he is not in himself bound to assist at Mass, since it has been established generally that those who, although they have attained the use of reason, have not yet completed their seventh year of age are not bound by merely ecclesiastical laws, unless the law expressly provides otherwise.649 In practice, however, parents are to be admonished to bring their children to Mass as soon as possible. The precept of hearing Mass also binds clerics, as is evident of itself; but a priest celebrating Mass (even in a private oratory) by that very fact satisfies this precept. The same seems to hold for the server of the Mass.
649 Code of Canon Law, c. 12.
477. 1. Bodily presence is the first requisite of the Sunday precept. This presence is judged to be sufficiently present when the person hearing Mass is morally united with the celebrant, so that it can truly be said that the one assisting has morally heard Mass and offered the Sacrifice with the celebrant. Therefore the following satisfy the precept as regards bodily presence:
a) all who are within the church, even if they stand in a side chapel or behind a column, where they can neither see nor hear the priest celebrating, provided, however, that from the sound of the bell or from the signs of others who stand nearer to the Mass they perceive in some manner what is being done by the celebrant;650
b) also those who stand outside the church near the door (even a closed door), and indeed even in a neighboring house, provided they can still perceive the ceremonies in some manner. Lugo651 and, after him, several others limit this by saying: provided that house is not more than thirty paces distant from the church; but in reality this cannot be determined mathematically. For if someone truly can attend religiously to the ceremonies of Mass, and there is a true moral union with the celebrant, sufficient moral presence seems to be present. Besides, this manner of assisting from a neighboring house and generally from a place outside the church cannot be permitted without a reasonable cause, for example, sickness. Sufficient bodily presence certainly does not seem to be present if someone hears Mass by means of the new invention which is called "Radio."
650 Cf. St. Alphonsus, l.c., n. 312.
651 De euchar. disp. 22, n. 21.
478. 2. Presence must continue during the entire Mass, that is, from the beginning of Mass through the priest's blessing inclusively. The Last Gospel does not seem to pertain to the integrity of the Mass. Hence it is said in the text of the Council of Agde cited above:652 "By a special ordinance we command secular persons to hear the whole Mass on Sunday, so that the people do not presume to depart before the priest's blessing. But if they should do so, let them be publicly confounded by the bishop." The reason is that in the ancient liturgies of the East and West no Gospel was read after the priest's blessing.653 But since, according to the universal liturgy now in force, the Gospel of St. John (or another Gospel) is always read at the end of Mass, it is irreverent if the faithful depart immediately after the priest's blessing without a sufficient reason. On the Nativity of the Lord and on other days654 on which priests can celebrate three Masses by common or particular law, the faithful are strictly bound to hear only one Mass. One who cannot assist at an entire Mass is bound at least to be present at an essential part, for example, the consecration or Communion, if this is possible. But one who is able to assist only at an accidental part, for example, through the Gospel, is bound to nothing. Therefore one who arrives before the consecration and cannot assist at another Mass is bound at least to remain until the end of Mass. But one who arrives after the consecration, according to several casuists, is no longer bound to assist at the remaining part. St. Alphonsus,655 however, asserts: "We say that he is indeed obligated to hear the remaining part of the Mass; for one who certainly cannot fulfill the precept imposed is bound at least, if he can, to fulfill it probably." Besides, all those things which follow after the consecration until the end are certainly a notable and essential part of the Mass, and consequently one who can hear that part is also bound to do so.
All teach that one who culpably does not hear a notable part of Mass sins gravely. But the casuists disagree greatly about what part is truly notable, although they agree on two things: 1. The notability of a part is to be judged not only from its duration, but especially from its dignity. Hence, if someone culpably omits the consecration and Communion, although he hears all the other parts, he certainly sins gravely, because he did not hear a notable part of Mass according to dignity. 2. Generally, one third of the Mass is judged a notable part and grave matter.656 Among the many diverse opinions reviewed by St. Alphonsus,657 the following are rather commonly admitted today:
The omission is judged light: everything from the beginning of Mass up to, but not including, the Offertory; likewise, everything after Communion; likewise, everything from the beginning through the Epistle together with everything which follows Communion.658
The omission is judged grave: everything from the beginning through the Offertory inclusively; likewise, everything from the beginning through the Gospel together with those things which follow Communion;659 likewise, from the Preface until after the consecration; likewise, from the consecration through the Agnus Dei, etc.
652 c. 64, D. 1, de consecratione.
653 Cf. concerning this matter Thalhofer, Handbuch der kathol. Liturgie II (1912), § 40.
654 The Day of the Commemoration of All the Faithful Departed. Code of Canon Law, c. 806.
655 Homo apost. tr. 6, n. 33; cf. also Theol. mor. l. 3, n. 310.
656 Thus St. Antoninus, S. theol. P. 2, tit. 9, c. 10, § 1.
657 L.c.
658 Cf. Lehmkuhl, Theol. mor. I, n. 718; Tanquerey, De virt. relig. n. 1023; Noldin, De praeceptis n. 265; Göpfert, Moraltheol. I, 344.
659 Al. Piscetta, Theol. mor. II, n. 237, thinks this omission is light.
479. Casuists are accustomed to ask here whether one satisfies the precept who, from two Masses, hears those parts which, joined together, constitute a whole Mass. For example, Peter arrives at church when Mass has already proceeded as far as the Canon; he assists at this Mass until the end; then from another Mass he hears everything through the Canon. Authors commonly teach: If the consecration and Communion are had in the same Mass, the precept is satisfied in this way; but not if the consecration and Communion do not pertain to the same Mass. The reason is that the consecration and Communion constitute the essence of the Mass.660 Therefore, if someone heard these parts in the same Mass, he had the essence of the Sacrifice; but if he heard the consecration and Communion from different Masses, he had the essence from neither Mass. Certainly, however, one does not satisfy the precept of hearing Mass who hears two or more parts of Masses celebrated simultaneously by different priests. This is established from proposition 53 condemned by Innocent XI: "He satisfies the precept of the Church concerning hearing Mass who hears two of its parts, or indeed four, simultaneously from different celebrants."661
From what has been said, certain practical resolutions follow:
You will resolve: a) Peter arrives after the Gospel has already been said. He is bound under light sin afterward to supply from another Mass the part of the Mass already said. Even a light inconvenience excuses from this supplementation.
b) Peter arrives at church after the Offertory has already been completed. He is bound either to remain until the end of this Mass and then hear from another Mass everything through the Offertory inclusively, or, having left the first Mass, to hear another whole Mass. This obligation is grave, and only a grave inconvenience excuses from it.
c) Peter arrives after the consecration. He is bound to hear another entire Mass; if he cannot do this, he is bound at least to remain at this Mass until the end, as was said above from St. Alphonsus.
Things to be noted for practice. In order to render a correct judgment concerning the gravity of the sin of those who approach the church after Mass has already begun, or who depart before Mass has been finished, attention is to be given not only to the material part omitted, but especially to their negligence and perverse will, namely, whether this was done without any sufficient reason, whether with great or slight negligence, and whether they could have heard another entire Mass. When there was grave negligence and a notable part was omitted, there is also a grave sin. If either of these is absent, grave sin also is absent.
660 Thus also St. Alphonsus (l.c., n. 311), who adduces and refutes several other opinions on this matter. There are several authors who reject the proposed opinion, especially Concina (De praec. Eccl. l. 1, diss. 3, c. 2, n. 6), citing Suárez and Azor for his opinion.
661 Denz. n. 1203. Diana, Bonacina, Busembaum, etc., held this proposition at least as probable; cf. St. Alphonsus, l.c. 3, n. 311.
480. 3. Religious assistance is commanded. Merely physical presence during Mass does not suffice; otherwise one who slept deeply throughout the whole Mass would also satisfy the precept, which certainly no one will say. For a truly religious act is prescribed, which cannot be had without at least some religious intention and attention.
a) First of all, a due intention is required, namely, of worshiping God or hearing Mass.662 Wherefore one does not satisfy the precept who, for example, approaches the church solely to hear the music or to accompany another. But I say: solely for that or another profane end; for if, besides the end, although principal, the true worship of God is still intended, the precept is satisfied. Hence a young man who approaches Mass principally from fear of his parents or from the motive of seeing a girl, but at the same time wishes to satisfy the precept, truly satisfies it, although he sins because of the perverse principal motive. Thus the common opinion.663
b) Next, due attention is required. Those things which were said above in n. 354 concerning the diverse modes of attention are to be recalled. To satisfy the precept of hearing Mass, external attention is certainly required, that is, the omission of an external work incompatible with internal attention. Thus all teach. Wherefore one does not satisfy the precept who during a notable part of Mass attentively reads profane books for the sake of study or recreation, who writes, who converses during almost the whole Mass, who sleeps during a notable part of Mass, etc. But one who merely dozes sleepily satisfies the precept, because he has at least imperfect attention. According to several followers of Lugo,664 no internal attention is required by the precept of the Church, but external attention suffices, so that even one who is voluntarily distracted during the whole Mass and thinks about very sinful things nevertheless satisfies the precept.665 Their reason is that nothing other than the worship of God is commanded by the Church. But the worship of God can subsist even with voluntary distraction. Therefore someone can satisfy the ecclesiastical precept even if he is voluntarily distracted. Moreover, they say, prayer itself does not necessarily require anything other than external attention. Therefore, a fortiori, external attention suffices for hearing Mass. According to St. Alphonsus,666 however, and many other authors, it is more probable that, in addition to external attention, at least some imperfect internal attention to the essential parts of Mass is required. And in truth, both arguments of the opposite opinion seem to be futile. For above in n. 355 we already proved that true moral prayer is impossible with voluntary distraction. Indeed, to will to elevate the mind to God through prayer, and at the same time directly to will to direct the mind to something altogether disparate, seems to be impossible and to imply a contradiction. Next, the true worship of God does not seem able to coexist with wholly voluntary distraction during Mass. For every rightly instructed Christian knows that wholly voluntary distractions during Mass are sinful, especially if the thoughts concern unlawful objects. How, then, can one and the same man will to worship God and at the same time explicitly will to be distracted and consequently to offend God? Therefore I think that voluntary distraction destroys the very intention of worshiping God. Nevertheless, in practice so great a difference does not exist between the two opinions; for it is scarcely possible that someone should will to hear Mass and nevertheless also will to be distracted throughout the whole Mass. Therefore, by force of the initial intention, some internal attention already seems to be present. Now the second opinion teaches that any, even the least, internal attention suffices for satisfying the precept.
Since prayer properly so called is not required for satisfying the precept of hearing Mass, but the worship of God and religious assistance suffice, those sufficiently satisfy the precept who during Mass read a pious book, perform an examination of conscience, sing, play the organ, collect alms, etc., provided that from intention they attend in some manner to the rite of the Mass.
662 Cf. I, n. 223.
663 Concina teaches the contrary (De praec. Eccl. l. 1, c. 4, n. 2), who does not seem rightly to allege St. Antoninus for his opinion, since the latter speaks of those who assist at Mass solely for a perverse end, "who otherwise would not hear it." Cf. what was said above in I, n. 122 concerning the influence of the end upon the morality of an act.
664 De euchar. disp. 22, nn. 27-31.
665 Cf. Noldin, De praeceptis n. 263.
666 Theol. mor. l. 3, n. 313.
481. It is asked especially: whether one who confesses his sins during the whole time of Mass or during a notable part of it satisfies the precept? Several authors, such as Ballerini,667 Génicot,668 Noldin,669 Göpfert,670 and Tanquerey,671 think that confession probably does not impede external attention and consequently that the one confessing satisfies the precept. This opinion can be admitted only with difficulty in theory.672 For if conversation, as the cited authors themselves agree, impedes external attention and consequently the satisfaction of the precept, the same must be said of confession, which is speech requiring very serious and intense attention on the part of the penitent. In practice, however, confessions during Mass can be permitted for the following reasons: a) because almost always penitents of this kind cannot conveniently receive the Sacrament of Penance at another time, either because of the multitude of their own labors or because of the scarcity of confessors, and therefore Holy Mother Church is presumed in these cases to interpret the precept of hearing Mass benignly; b) because such confessions often last only through a small part of Mass, and then they certainly do not impede the satisfaction of the Sunday precept. But if they last for a longer time, let the confessor command the penitent to remain silent for a short time and attend to the Mass, at least during the consecration and Communion, so that he may thus satisfy the precept at least according to its substance. Thus also runs the practice of confessors.673
667 In the notes to Gury, Comp. theol. mor. I, n. 346.
668 Cas. consc. I, 341.
669 L.c.
670 Moraltheol. I, n. 345.
671 De virt. relig. n. 1027.
672 St. Alphonsus says of it (l.c., n. 314): "It does not seem altogether destitute of probability; and I myself formerly judged it probable. But because I later observed that it was rejected by several grave doctors, I now do not dare to call it probable."
673 Cf. Göpfert, l.c.
482. 4. A due place is required for satisfying the precept.
The ancient law by which the faithful on Sundays and feast days were bound to hear Mass in the parish church has long since been abrogated, both by privileges granted to the Mendicant Orders by the Supreme Pontiffs674 and by contrary custom. Hence no bishop or pastor can now strictly command that the faithful must hear Mass in the parish church. The people can, however, be admonished to approach their parishes frequently, at least on Sundays and the greater feasts.675 According to the discipline now in force, all the faithful can satisfy the precept of hearing Mass a) in any church, b) in a public or semipublic oratory, c) under the open sky, and d) in private chapels of cemeteries.676 In private oratories, however, only those who enjoy a special indult can satisfy this precept. When by special permission Mass is said in another profane place, those for whom the permission was given satisfy the precept. The local Ordinary can give such permission to say and hear Mass, but only by way of an act,677 that is, in an extraordinary case, and only when a just and reasonable cause exists.678
674 Cf. Leo X, Const. Intelleximus, a. 1517; Paul III, Const. Christifideles, a. 1549; St. Pius V, Const. Etsi Mendicantium, 16 May 1567.
675 Council of Trent, sess. 22, de observ. et evit. in celebr. Missae. Benedict XIV treats this question excellently, De syn. dioec. l. 11, c. 14, n. 10, where he teaches: "A bishop today cannot command his subjects to present themselves at the parish Mass, because he cannot abolish a custom which, since it flourishes throughout the whole world, has now assumed the nature of common law." Nevertheless, for a grave reason a bishop can command that the faithful not be admitted to hear Mass in a particular oratory on Sundays and feast days.
676 Code of Canon Law, c. 1249.
677 Ib., c. 822, § 4.
678 Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments, 22 March 1915 (Acta Ap. Sed. VII, 147). Code of Canon Law, c. 1194.
483. A public oratory is a place which, by the authority of the bishop, has been perpetually dedicated to public worship, blessed, or even solemnly consecrated. It is required, moreover, that at least during the time of divine Offices the right of the faithful universally to approach it be legitimately established.679
679 Sacred Congregation of Rites, 23 Jan. 1899 (Decr. auth. n. 4007). Code of Canon Law, c. 1188, § 2. Even ships' chapels which have a fixed place on the ship are judged public oratories for those sailing, and consequently Sunday Mass can be heard in them (Sacred Congregation of Rites, 4 March 1901 ad V, Decr. auth. n. 4069).
484. Semipublic oratories are judged to be: a) "those which, although they have been erected by authority of the Ordinary in a place that is in some manner private or not absolutely public, nevertheless serve for the convenience not of all the faithful, nor only of a private person or family, but of some community or assembly of persons. As the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass can be offered in these by authority of the Ordinary, so all who are present at it can satisfy the precept of hearing Mass. Oratories of this kind are those which belong to seminaries and ecclesiastical colleges; to pious institutes and societies of simple vows and other communities under a rule or at least under statutes approved by the Ordinary; to boarding schools and residences destined for the instruction of youth in letters, sciences, or arts; to hospitals, orphanages, and also to fortresses and prisons; and similar oratories in which by institution some assembly of the Christian faithful is accustomed to convene to hear Mass. To these must be added chapels duly erected in a cemetery, provided that at the celebration of Mass access is open not only to those to whom they belong, but also to other faithful";680 b) those which can be erected by privilege in the houses of Cardinals, bishops (even titular bishops681), and religious orders and congregations. For in the cited decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites it is added: "But His Holiness willed that the rights and privileges of oratories which the Most Eminent Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, the Most Reverend Sacred Prelates, and regular orders and congregations enjoy remain whole and intact." Therefore the Ordinaries of exempt religious still seem able to erect oratories (even several) in their houses, and this without special permission of the diocesan bishop.682 The faithful can satisfy the precept of hearing Mass in oratories of this kind.
A bishop can erect for himself an oratory in any becoming place (and not only in his own house), so that any priest can celebrate there and the Christian faithful can satisfy the precept of hearing Mass on feast days.683
The local Ordinary can indeed by his own authority grant one public or semipublic oratory to all the institutes and communities enumerated above; and indeed, if necessity or great utility requires it, several semipublic oratories. But he cannot by his own authority grant the reservation of the Most Holy Eucharist in any public or semipublic oratory,684 unless it is the principal oratory of some pious or religious house, or of some ecclesiastical college governed by secular clerics or religious.685 By the very fact, however, that a parish or quasi-parish church is legitimately erected, permission to reserve the Most Holy Sacrament is judged to have been granted. The same holds for churches annexed to a house of exempt religious, whether of men or women.686
680 Thus the Sacred Congregation of Rites, 23 Jan. 1899 (Decr. auth. n. 4007). Chapels erected in a cemetery by families or private persons for their burial are indeed of themselves private oratories, as are also the oratories of Cardinals and bishops (Code of Canon Law, c. 1189ff.); nevertheless, the precept of hearing Mass can be satisfied there.
681 Sacred Congregation of Rites, 19 May 1896 (Decr. auth. n. 3906). Code of Canon Law, c. 1189.
682 Cf. Code of Canon Law, c. 1192, § 4.
683 Sacred Congregation of the Council, 16 Dec. 1893 (Collect. de Prop. Fide n. 1855), and Sacred Congregation of Rites, 19 May 1896; Code of Canon Law, c. 1189.
684 Sacred Congregation of Rites, 8 March 1879 (Decr. auth. n. 3484).
685 Code of Canon Law, c. 1265, § 1, n. 2.
686 Code of Canon Law, c. 1265, § 1, n. 1.
485. Private oratories are those which have been erected by an indult of the Holy See in private buildings for the convenience of a determined person or family. In them Communion can indeed be distributed to all the Christian faithful who assist at the Sacrifice of the Mass (with the rights of parishes preserved),687 but only those who are enumerated in the pontifical indult can satisfy the precept of hearing Mass.688 Several clauses and restrictions are customarily placed upon indults of this kind, for example, the indult is granted for only one low Mass on any day; certain principal feasts are excepted, on which Mass is prohibited;689 Mass cannot be celebrated unless the holder of the indult is present, etc. Therefore all these clauses and restrictions are to be diligently observed. If they seem excessively restrictive, a broader indult can rather easily be obtained from the Holy See, provided a reasonable cause subsists. Ordinarily, the indult is customarily extended to the blood relatives and relatives by marriage of the holder of the indult through the fourth degree; likewise to his servants actually necessary; finally, to noble guests. Under the name of guests come also those who have been invited only to dinner; but all those are judged actually necessary servants who are necessary for the becoming dignity of the holder of the indult.
It is asked: If the holder of the indult of a private oratory cannot approach a church or public oratory to satisfy the precept of hearing Mass, is he bound to use his privilege by procuring Mass in his private oratory? The response is made with a distinction. If the holder of the indult cannot procure Mass without great inconvenience, he is not bound to use his privilege. Thus all teach. But if Mass can be procured without inconvenience, certain authors690 still teach that the holder of the indult is not bound to use his privilege, because every privilege is a favor which no one is bound to use. More rightly, however, others with St. Alphonsus691 affirm the obligation of using the privilege; because everyone is bound under grave sin to hear Mass on days of precept unless excused by notable inconvenience. But in this case there is no notable inconvenience. Therefore the holder of the indult is bound to procure that Mass be said in his private oratory. A fortiori, a priest having the privilege of a portable altar and able to celebrate without inconvenience seems to be obligated to celebrate if otherwise he himself (and others) would not hear Mass on days of precept. For example, a lame priest who has the privilege of a portable altar and all things prepared for Mass, but is unable to go to a distant parish church, seems to sin if he does not say Mass on days of precept.692
687 Sacred Congregation of Rites, 8 May 1907 (Decr. auth. n. 4201).
688 What concerns private oratories in cemetery chapels was said above in n. 484, note 675, and what concerns the celebrating priest and the serving minister in n. 476.
689 The bishop can permit that in a particular case Mass be said in a private oratory even on these excepted days (Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments, 22 March 1915); Code of Canon Law, c. 1194.
690 Thus Noldin, De praeceptis n. 267; Ballerini in the notes to Gury, Comp. theol. mor. I, n. 348.
691 Theol. mor. l. 3, nn. 319 and 324.
692 Cf. above I, n. 267. For fuller doctrine concerning oratories, see the canonists, for example, Many, Praelect. de locis sacris n. 65ff.
486. The causes excusing from the obligation of hearing Mass can all be reduced to physical or moral inability or, as others say: necessity, charity, and office excuse from the obligation of hearing Mass.
Since the precept of hearing Mass is not reckoned among the greater precepts of divine law and pertains rather to ecclesiastical law, "any moderately grave cause excuses, namely, one which involves some notable inconvenience or harm in the goods of the soul or body of oneself or one's neighbor."693 Dispensation in this law will be discussed below in n. 498.
a) By reason of necessity the following are excused:
the sick and convalescents who, because of bodily weakness, prudently fear some detriment to health from assistance at Mass. In doubt, the judgment of a physician, confessor, or another prudent and religious person suffices. To the sick in this matter are to be equated hysterical persons, pregnant women, and other persons who can breathe the air of the church only with difficulty;
those who are far distant from a church, so that they cannot approach the church without notable labor or expense. But what constitutes a long distance that excuses cannot be determined mathematically, because this depends greatly upon the particular circumstances of the person, place, time, inclemency of the air, etc. Thus a journey of one hour is not a grave inconvenience for most persons when the weather is clear and the road level and easy; but it is an excusing cause if one must proceed in snow, under rain and cold, or along a rough road. Likewise, the elderly and other weak persons are more easily excused than robust young persons, as is evident of itself.
Here it is useful to note briefly that those Catholics who dwell in regions of infidels or non-Catholics far from any Catholic church do not indeed sin by omitting the hearing of Mass, since they are in moral inability to approach a church; nevertheless, they must strive according to their powers to leave such regions as soon as possible, because, as sad experience testifies, otherwise they are endangered in the orthodox faith and gradually neglect all religious exercises. Travelers are not of themselves excused from hearing Mass unless the journey was undertaken for a just and proportionate cause. Since in present times very many travelers make journeys for the sake of recreation alone, they are to be exhorted not to omit hearing Mass on days of precept because of excursions of this kind. Cf., however, what was said above in I, n. 237 concerning causes excusing from a human law;
those who deservedly fear loss of honor, for example, those who lack suitable clothing; girls pregnant from a fault, unless, however, their fault is already publicly known. Wherever it is judged unbecoming for a girl to assist at a Mass in which her betrothal is proclaimed, such a custom is indeed to be condemned; but while it remains in force, the girls seem to be excused from the precept of hearing Mass;
wives and children because of the grave indignation of a husband or parents. If, however, such indignation arises solely from hatred of religion, it must be resisted with all one's strength and is not of itself a sufficient excusing cause. The same is to be said of soldiers, who are excused from hearing Mass if they must thereby suffer grave vexations from commanders and fellow soldiers.
693 Thus St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 3, n. 324.
487. b) By reason of charity and office the following are excused:
those who must assist the sick during the time of Mass; those who hope that by their presence they can prevent the grave sins of others. For example, a servant suspects that his fellow servant is going to commit a sin of lust with a maidservant during the time of Mass, and hopes that the former will be prevented from this sin if he himself remains at home and does not go to church. In this case it is lawful to omit Mass in order to prevent the grave sin of another;
mothers and nurses who can neither leave little children alone nor bring them with them to church;
soldiers, guards of cities and flocks, several officials on the railway, and certain laborers in factories who must attend to and supervise machines;
generally, all who would undergo notable material harm from hearing Mass, for example, drivers, sailors, barbers, bakers, etc. Although these are sometimes excused from hearing Mass, nevertheless they are not always excused; hence let them either leave their office, if this can be done, or at least sometimes assist at Mass on weekdays. For since the Eucharist is the greatest gift granted to the world, some authors not without reason think that hearing Mass is commanded not only by ecclesiastical law, but also sometimes by divine law, just as every priest is also sometimes bound by divine law to celebrate Mass. Wherefore one who can never assist at Mass on Sundays and feast days is bound at least sometimes to assist on weekdays.694
Practical admonition. The faithful are to be earnestly exhorted to assist diligently at Mass on days of precept. For although the omission of Mass is sometimes not a sin because of excusing causes, nevertheless, as experience testifies, repeated omission is accustomed to produce the worst effects: for faith and religion gradually grow lukewarm; man becomes immersed in earthly things; he becomes weak in temptations; he easily falls into many sins.
694 Cf. Lehmkuhl, Theol. mor. I, n. 724, who thinks that by divine law a man is bound to hear Mass at least three or four times a year.