Article First. On the Mode of Hearing Mass

Required conditions. Five things are required for satisfying the precept of hearing Mass: a. due intention; b. due attention; c. an entire Mass; d. presence of the body; e. a due place.

262. Due intention, which indeed ought not to be the intention of obtaining the end of the precept, nor the intention of satisfying the precept, but of positing the work prescribed by the Church, that is, of hearing Mass. Wherefore he does not satisfy the precept who goes to church merely to hear music; but he does satisfy who goes there only from fear of his parents.

263. Due attention. A twofold attention is distinguished: external and internal. The latter excludes internal distraction; the former, external distraction.

External attention consists negatively in the removal of an external action which cannot stand at the same time with internal attention, for example sleeping, conversing; positively it consists in a certain confused attention, by which one adverts that sacrifice is being offered on the altar (n. 139).

1. For satisfying the ecclesiastical precept, external attention is certainly required, without which assistance would not be a human nor a religious action; therefore he does not satisfy who during the time of Mass attentively reads profane books, or attentively considers pictures, reads inscriptions, etc.

From the law of nature, or from the virtue of religion, internal attention is required under light obligation, which the reverence owed to God demands while we worship Him.

2. From the precept of the Church internal attention is not required, but external suffices; wherefore he satisfies the precept of hearing Mass who during the whole time of Mass is distracted, whether involuntarily or voluntarily. And indeed prayer does not require internal attention; therefore a fortiori the hearing of Mass does not require it.

a. Since for satisfying the precept of hearing Mass there is no need to pray, because the Church commands nothing other than an act of divine worship, the whole question comes back to this, whether an act of divine worship can truly be furnished with the mind distracted. Now just as prayer, so also any other act of external divine worship as to its substance can be exhibited with the mind distracted (n. 139).

b. For practice, there is scarcely a distinction between each opinion, namely that affirming and that denying that internal attention is required: since the patrons of the affirmative opinion with St. Alphonsus (n. 313) demand so slight an internal attention that from defect of attention the hearing of Mass is invalid only when the distraction has been total and voluntary; but it is valid, provided there be an attention by which in some way one adverts that sacrifice is being offered; but this attention is present, provided external distraction is excluded.

c. Therefore he does not satisfy the precept who sleeps heavily through a notable part of Mass, so that he does not advert to what is being done at the altar; but he who only dozes, yet in such a way that he can confusedly discern what is being done at the altar, satisfies the precept, even if this happens through a notable part of Mass. - He satisfies the precept who sometimes converses with a companion, because this does not impede the confused attention which suffices for satisfying the precept. - Likewise organists, singers, and those collecting alms satisfy, even if they are occupied with this matter the whole time, because these actions do not impede attention to the Mass. For the same reason, those who are half-asleep or half-drunk satisfy if they are present at the sacrifice of the Mass.

Whether he satisfies the precept who confesses his sins during the time of Mass. - He would not satisfy insofar as confession impeded external attention; but confession, just as the hearing of confession, does not exclude external attention, which several authors hold not improbably.¹

¹ Cf. Ballerini-Palmieri, II, n. 773 ff.; Genicot, I, n. 431.

264. Hearing an entire Mass. 1. It does not suffice to assist at the essential and integral part of the sacrifice, but by the precept of the Church one must assist at the whole Mass, that is, at the entire liturgical function from the psalm Iudica up to and including the priestly blessing.¹ The Gospel of St. John does not seem to pertain to the integrity of the Mass.

2. He who cannot assist at an entire Mass is held to assist at least at the essential and integral part, that is, the consecration and communion, if he can; he who cannot assist even at these parts is not held to assist at the accidental parts, because he can no longer fulfill the precept even as to its substance.

Therefore he who comes before the consecration and cannot assist at another Mass is held to hear the remaining part; but he who comes after the consecration is not held to hear the remaining part, because he does not assist at the essence of the sacrifice, for which the consecration is certainly required. Hence in this case he cannot satisfy the precept as to substance; but the Church does not command us to assist at ceremonies alone without the sacrifice. Therefore in practice in this case the obligation cannot be urged.²

3. Therefore to omit a part of Mass is a sin, and indeed grave or light according as the part omitted is notable or slight. But the gravity of the omitted part must be established not only from duration, but especially from its dignity; wherefore a third part of the Mass is judged notable, and if it is from the more worthy parts, even a lesser part can constitute a notable part. Accordingly:

a. A slight part, the omission of which is a light sin: from the beginning up to and including the Creed, or up to the offertory exclusively; all things after communion; up to the epistle exclusively and at the same time those things which follow communion; the offertory alone; the preface alone.

b. A notable part: alpha. by reason of duration, from the beginning up to and including the offertory; all things before the Gospel and at the same time those things which follow communion; beta. by reason of dignity: from the preface exclusively up to the consecration; from the consecration up to the Pater noster; consecration and communion together, even if the intervening parts are heard; the consecration alone, yet not (at least probably) the communion alone. - He who goes out of the church before the consecration and, the consecration having been completed, immediately enters, in rigor does not satisfy the precept. Yet because the time in which he is absent is very brief, he need not necessarily be compelled to assist at another Mass, provided the consecration and communion are not omitted together.³

c. For determining the sin of those who come to church later, when Mass has already begun, attention must be given not so much to the part of the Mass omitted, but chiefly to the greater or lesser negligence in caring for the integrity of the Mass and to the foresight of the danger to which they voluntarily exposed themselves of not hearing an entire Mass.⁴ For he who thinks that he will omit only a slight part unless he dispatches himself more quickly sins lightly, even if he finally comes after the offertory; but he who doubts or thinks that he will omit a notable part unless he dispatches himself more quickly, and culpably neglects this, sins gravely, even if he comes at the Gloria.

Whether he satisfies the precept who hears two half Masses. - He certainly does not satisfy if he hears them at the same time, because a Mass by its nature consists of successive parts.⁵ If he hears them successively and the consecration and communion are had in the same Mass, he satisfies, because he hears one entire Mass; but if the consecration and communion are not had in the same Mass, he does not satisfy, because the parts do not constitute one and entire sacrifice; but the Church commands assistance at one and entire sacrifice.

4. From these things is gathered the obligation of supplying the defect in another Mass, where it can be done, if someone has omitted a part of the Mass at which he was present for the consecration and communion: for since anyone is held to hear an entire Mass, he who omitted a notable part is held under grave obligation to supply it, and he who omitted a slight part, under light obligation; yet a little is accounted as nothing, and a reasonable cause excuses from the obligation of supplying a light defect.

¹ C. Missas 64, De cons., d. 1.

² Ballerini-Palmieri, II, n. 781.

³ Suarez, De eucharistia, q. 88, sect. 2, n. 6.

⁴ Genicot, I, n. 339.

⁵ This proposition (53) was proscribed by Innocent XI: He satisfies the precept of the Church concerning hearing Mass who hears two parts of it, indeed four, at the same time from diverse celebrants.

265. Bodily presence, which must be at least moral; but he is judged morally present who a. is morally joined with the celebrant, and b. whether standing inside or outside the church, can see or hear the celebrant or at least can follow the Mass from signs of those assisting. Hence he satisfies:

a. He who is inside the church, even if he stands in the choir behind the altar, or behind a wall or column, or in some chapel where he cannot see or hear the priest, provided that either from the sound of the bell or from the signs of others who hear Mass, he discerns what is being done by the celebrant. Likewise he who in a great church is even very far (beyond thirty paces) distant from the altar at which Mass is being celebrated, provided he can advert to what the priest does, because he is morally joined with the celebrant.¹

b. He who is in the sacristy or in another place near the altar, from which he can see the priest; or even if, the door being closed, he cannot see the priest, provided he hears what is being done at the altar. Likewise those who withdraw from the church for a brief time to ring the bells or to bring wine, because they do not morally withdraw: for they cooperate with the sacrifice and withdraw from the intention of cooperating.

c. He who is outside the church but near the door, even if closed, provided he can follow the Mass by hearing. Likewise he who is at some distance from the church, which cannot hold the multitude of the faithful, provided he is joined to the multitude. Finally also he who from the window of a private house looks at the altar, even if a street is interposed, provided the house is not more than thirty paces distant from the church (as de Lugo has it). But he does not satisfy who is outside the church at a distance which exceeds about thirty paces, even if he can follow the Mass, because he is no longer morally joined with the celebrant.

¹ St. Alphonsus, n. 312.

266. Due place. 1. The faithful can satisfy the precept of hearing Mass in any church or in any public or semi-public oratory.

a. The ancient law by which the faithful on Sundays and feasts were held to hear Mass in the parish church has long since been abrogated, both through privileges granted to mendicants¹ and through a contrary custom prevailing in the whole world. Therefore a bishop cannot command his faithful to hear Mass in the parish church, because he cannot abrogate a universal custom which has already put on the nature of common law.²

b. What from the common doctrine of authors has long since been brought into practice, namely that for satisfying the precept it suffices to hear Mass in a semi-public oratory, has recently been confirmed by an authentic declaration of the Holy See.³

2. With special privilege excluded, he who hears Mass in a private oratory does not fully satisfy the precept:⁴ for the precept is twofold, of hearing Mass and of hearing it in the due place; he satisfies the first, but not the other.

He who has an indult of a private oratory satisfies the precept by hearing Mass there. Yet in order that it be established who and when satisfy the precept by hearing Mass in a private oratory, the indults must be considered. Ordinarily these things are gathered from the indults:

a. Only one Mass can be celebrated on the same day.

b. On any day one Mass can be celebrated except on more solemn feasts. But these more solemn feasts which are excepted are: the Nativity of the Lord, Epiphany, Thursday in the Lord's Supper, Resurrection, Ascension, Pentecost, Immaculate Conception, Annunciation and Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, the feast of St. Joseph, of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul and of All Saints, the feast of the patron of the place.⁵

c. But when an indult of a private oratory is granted because of infirmity, no day is excepted; indeed, even on the day of the Nativity three Masses can be celebrated.

d. In order that it be lawful to celebrate in a private oratory, it is required that there be present at Mass someone from those to whom the indult has been principally granted; but the indult is understood to have been principally granted only to those to whom the brief of concession is directed, namely to those persons who are named by their proper name on the back of the same brief.

e. The following satisfy the precept: alpha. those to whom the indult has been principally granted; beta. their blood relatives and relations by affinity up to the fourth degree living in the same house; gamma. their guests; delta. their household members or servants whose service at the time of Mass is actually necessary, whether because they serve the Mass itself, or because they must accompany their masters.

3. He who has the privilege of a private oratory is not held to use the privilege for satisfying the precept if he cannot go to a church, even if he can conveniently have a priest. He is held to this neither by force of the privilege, because no one is held to use a privilege, nor by force of the precept, which does not obligate one to employ an extraordinary means so that the precept can be observed.

For the same reason a priest is not held to use the privilege of celebrating on a portable (movable) altar or in a private oratory for satisfying the precept of hearing Mass on a feast day.

¹ Const. of Pius V, Etsi mendicantium, 16 May 1567, Section 2, n. 8.

² Benedict XIV, De synodo, l. 14, n. 10.

³ S. C. R., 23 Jan. 1899.

⁴ Oratories which are erected with the license of the Holy See in the villas of religious are merely private oratories, because villas of this kind are not religious houses, but profane houses. Therefore in them the precept of hearing Mass cannot be satisfied by those who do not belong to the religious, unless this has been granted by a special privilege, as was granted by Gregory XIII to the Society of Jesus.

⁵ S. C. R., 10 Apr. 1896, n. 3896.

267. Excusing causes. From hearing Mass, generally, any moderately grave cause excuses, or any notable inconvenience or damage in the goods of one's own soul or body, or of a neighbor;¹ for since this precept does not pertain to the graver ones, any truly grave cause excuses from its observance. Four causes of this sort are numbered: a. moral impotence; b. charity; c. office; d. custom.

In judging in concrete cases the excusing causes, whether they are or are not sufficient, one must attend both to the condition of the person about whom the matter is in question, since what is grave for one person is not grave for another, and to the same person's state of conscience: for he who is of a timorous conscience will not easily exaggerate inconveniences nor seek pretexts for declining the obligation.

1. By reason of moral impotence, such as any grave inconvenience, the following are excused:

a. Those who are far distant from a church. According to St. Alphonsus, for all, even the healthy, a walking journey of one hour and a quarter excuses, and a lesser distance if the weather is adverse or if the person is weak in strength; but those who can ride are not excused unless the distance is at least twice as great.

Busenbaum rightly adds that in this matter account must be taken of the custom of the place; and indeed in the mountainous regions of our country no one holds himself excused because he is distant from the church by the space of an hour and a quarter, provided he is not of impaired health.

b. Those who fear loss of honor, as those who lack garments suitable to their state and condition, girls pregnant from hidden fornication, unless they can hear Mass very early in the morning.

c. Those who must make a necessary journey or cannot interrupt one already begun.

d. Those who fear loss in goods of fortune: damage arising or profit ceasing. Now the damage which someone must undergo excuses more easily than profit ceasing; but a notable loss of profit certainly excuses. Notable profit differs according to diversity of state and condition.

Therefore, in order that profit ceasing may excuse, it is required that it be extraordinary profit and notable with respect to the determinate man; profit of this sort is judged to be profit which is at least twice greater than the ordinary profit of a day. A greater cause would be required if servile labor also had to be undergone, and a still greater one if the wonder and scandal of the people were to be feared.

e. The sick and convalescents who fear grave damage to health or a notable delay of convalescence.

alpha. When such damage is truly to be feared must be determined by the judgment of prudent persons, nor is it necessary to have recourse to the judgment of a physician or confessor; but the sick person himself can judge of this matter, provided he is capable of forming a prudent judgment. Generally it can be said that he is excused who fears such an inconvenience on account of which he is accustomed to omit other business of equal labor, for example, going out to handle business, to buy necessities, etc.²

beta. According to the opinion of physicians, the corrupt air of a church can truly bring a more or less grave inconvenience and therefore can be a cause excusing from frequenting the church. Therefore those who experience a notable inconvenience in church, such as constrictions or faintings, are excused from hearing Mass. This rarely happens to healthy persons, more frequently to those who are of infirm health and easily suffer irritations of the nerves.³

f. Those laboring in workshops in which they cannot abandon a work already begun or extinguish a burning furnace. But if the necessity of labor does not press, the owner of the workshop is held to permit the workers a suitable time so that they can hear Mass.

g. Wives and children on account of grave indignation of husband or parents; soldiers, who would be exposed either to the vexation of officers or to long-lasting and strongly troublesome mockeries of fellow soldiers.

2. By reason of charity, that is, for helping a neighbor in necessity, whether bodily or spiritual, the following are excused:

a. those who assist the sick;

b. those who bring help to a neighbor in a fire or flood, etc.;

c. those who hope that by their presence they can impede sin.

3. By reason of office the following are excused:

a. Soldiers on guard posts; guardians of cities, flocks, even of individual houses, where only one Mass is celebrated; nevertheless superiors are held to take care that subjects can hear Mass.

b. Mothers and nurses who can neither leave little ones alone nor take them with them.

c. Servants who are impeded by necessary service; yet if without great trouble, for example by rising earlier, they can hear Mass, they are held to this. But if they are impeded by the master's evil will, they can obey if they fear a grave inconvenience; however, on account of a light inconvenience they are not excused, but ought to bear it patiently. If they are frequently impeded, when a suitable occasion has been obtained, they ought to seek another service.

d. Those who must prepare food or perform necessary things of this kind; yet if several Masses take place, care must be taken that they be present at Mass successively.

4. By reason of custom in certain places where custom prevails, the following are excused:

a. Women recently delivered of a child, who for a month or six weeks after birth do not go out of the house.

b. Widows, who after the death of the husband remain at home for a month.

c. Betrothed women, especially noble ones, who do not approach the church when their nuptials are proclaimed.

¹ Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 324.

² Ballerini-Palmieri, II, n. 803.

³ Cf. Capellmann, Medicina pastor., p. 90 s.

ECCLESIASTICAL laws of the early Christian centuries show us that the precept of hearing Mass on Sundays dates from the earliest times. This obligation is grave, for Innocent XI condemned a proposition¹ which asserted the contrary, Besides hearing Mass it is a laudable thing to spend some time on Sundays in other acts of piety and prayer, as all good Catholics do. Still there is no other positive obligation besides that of hearing Mass which binds under sin. It is not a sin, then, to omit evening service or Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament; and when it is impossible to hear Mass, there is no strict obligation to have private devotions instead.

In order to fulfil the precept of hearing Mass according to the mind of the Church, the whole of Mass must be heard, in the proper place, while bodily present where it is being celebrated, with devout attention. Something must be said on each of these points.

¹ Prop. 52.

The whole of Mass must be heard, so that at least a venial sin is committed if one be wilfully absent during any portion of it. The sin will not be grave unless a notable part of the Mass be missed. What is a notable part depends partly on its importance, partly on the length or quantity. Inasmuch as the essence of the Mass in all probability consists in the act of consecration, to be voluntarily absent during the consecration would be mortally sinful; one would not have heard Mass. Certainly it is a grave sin to be wilfully absent during both the consecration and the communion. Up to the offertory is called the Mass of the catechumens, and as this forms a kind of introduction to the Mass proper, to come in only at the offertory probably does not amount to more than a venial sin. We may take it as a general rule that a mortal sin is committed if a third part of Mass be missed, and less is sufficient for a grave sin when any action of special importance in the sacrifice is in the portion missed. In case of involuntary absence during a notable portion of Mass there will be an obligation of making it up by hearing that portion of another Mass if there be an opportunity of doing so on the same day. The consecration, however, and the communion must always be in the same Mass. There is no obligation to make up small portions of the Mass which have not been heard.

A proposition condemned by Innocent XI falsely asserted that one might satisfy the precept of hearing Mass by being present while two portions were being said by different priests.1

In order to satisfy the precept, Mass must be heard in + Proposs. the proper place. By a decree S.R.C. (January 23, 1899) the faithful may satisfy the precept by hearing Mass in any public church or public or semi-public oratory. A semi-public oratory is there defined as one which by the authority of the ‘Ordinary is erected in a place which is not absolutely public, but more or less private, for the use not of all the faithful, nor of a particular person or family, but of a community or society of persons. No one besides those who are mentioned in the indult can satisfy the precept by hearing Mass in a strictly private oratory, which by an indult of the Holy See is erected in a private house for the use of a particular person or family (Can. 1249). As Benedict XIV teaches,¹ Bishops cannot compel the faithful to hear Mass in their parish churches; they have no power to abrogate a universal law and custom of the Church or a decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites. The liberty, however, of hearing Mass in any place of worship except strictly private oratories, does not exempt the faithful from contributing to the support of their own pastors according to their means.”

¹ De Synodo, xi, c. 14.

One would not hear Mass so as to satisfy the precept if he were stationed apart at a considerable distance from the place where it was being celebrated, even though he might be able to see and hear what was being done. He must be morally present so as to form one of those who are together hearing and offering up the Holy Sacrifice. It is not necessary that he should be able to see the priest or the altar, nor even to hear what is said. It will be sufficient if he follows the principal parts of the Mass. So that a person could hear Mass if he were stationed in a side chapel of a great cathedral while Mass was being said at the high altar, though he might not be able to hear or see anything that was going on. Similarly, if Mass is being said for a large army or crowd of people, those on the outskirts of the multitude may hear Mass, though they are at a great distance from the altar. If the church is full and large numbers cannot get inside, still these latter may hear Mass being celebrated inside. On the other hand, if while Mass is being said in a church, someone were posted on the opposite side of a wide street or square, he could not hear the Mass so as to satisfy the precept, though he *-1 West., d. 235: 5. might be able.to see what was going on through the open door,

It is necessary to have the intention of hearing Mass, and it must be done with the requisite attention. The Church prescribes a human action to be performed in the service of God, and so there must be the necessary constituents of a human act. The act, then, must be voluntary; there must be the wish or the intention to hear Mass. was) forced to be present So that one who against his will, or who came to church merely as a companion to another, or to hear the music, would not hear Mass.

Attention is an act of the mind by which we advert to what is going on. This is attention in the proper sense of the term, and is called internal to distinguish it from external attention, which is the avoidance of any external action which is incompatible with internal attention. Thus if one is distracted during Mass and thinking of other things, but does no external action which is incompatible with hearing Mass, he has external, but not internal attention. If during Mass he engages in a prolonged conversation with a neighbour, or reads a profane book, or paints, he has not even external attention.

The Church commands at least external attention while Mass is being said, otherwise the precept will not be fulfilled. All, too, admit that voluntary distractions during Mass are venially sinful, just as they are during ordinary prayer. It is a disputed point among theologians whether internal attention is also necessary for the observance of the Church’s law. The more common opinion holds that it is. The contrary, however, is probable, for actual attention does not seem to be an essential element of prayer; the form of Extreme Unction, which is a prayer, is certainly valid even if said by a priest without internal attention. The Church’s law, therefore, which directly provides for external decorum in the service of God, would seem to be fulfilled, provided that there is at least external attention while hearing Mass. This opinion does not foster the careless hearing of Mass, but it does serve to relieve the scrupulous conscience from needless anxieties.

5. We have here to do with a positive precept, and any serious inconvenience or loss, spiritual or temporal, affecting one’s self or one’s neighbour, which would follow from hearing Mass, will excuse the faithful from fulfilling the obligation.

So that the sick, the convalescent who could not venture out of doors without danger, those who have to take care of the sick, mothers of families who have little children to attend to, those who live at such a distance that it would take them more than an hour to walk to church, all these are excused from hearing Mass regularly.

I. Object of the precept. One must assist at Mass celebrated in a Catholic rite, which is one sacrifice, at the whole Mass, physically, religiously, and in the due place. It is said:

1. At Mass celebrated in a Catholic rite (can. 1249). But it is the same whether the celebration is done in the Latin rite or in another (cited canon).

2. At Mass which is one sacrifice. Thus the obvious and natural sense of the precept (St. Alphonsus, III, 311).

Corollary. He does not satisfy who simultaneously hears different parts of several Masses. This is clear from proposition 53 condemned by Innocent XI.¹ Nor does it suffice successively to assist at different parts of several Masses; nevertheless in the case the substance of the precept is satisfied, if the consecration and communion of each species are had from the same Mass; hence, at least if a just cause is present, further things are not to be urged (cf. St. Alphonsus, III, 311).

3. At the whole Mass. Nevertheless, with the prescribed assistance considered, Mass is judged to end with the Priest's blessing. Besides, voluntary omission even of the smallest part is a venial sin.

4. Physically; but physical presence is to be taken morally; in other words, it suffices that someone from various circumstances can be judged to make one with the others. Hence he satisfies: 1. who is in the church, provided that in some way (for example, from sight or hearing of the celebrant, from the actions or movements of others, from the sound of the little bell or the singing of the choir) he can discern what is being done; 2. who outside the church a) is in the sacristy or in another room attached to the church, provided he can see the celebrant or (for example, if the door is closed) hear him; b) is joined to the crowd in the street and from signs can grasp what is being done; nevertheless he must not be too distant from the crowd, even if he can see everything; c) from a house neighboring the church can attend to the Mass (St. Alphonsus, III, 312). He does not satisfy who, remaining at home, follows Mass by means of radio, as they say.

5. Religiously. There is required:

a) An intention of worshiping God; since a religious act is prescribed, which, if the said intention is lacking, would be lacking. Therefore it is not enough if someone assists merely in order to observe some ceremony. An implicit intention of worshiping God suffices, such as is had, for example, if someone assists with the intention of satisfying the precept, or of doing what the Church intends, etc. (St. Alphonsus, III, 313). Nor does assistance extorted by fear conflict with the required intention.

b) External attention, which consists in decent bodily composure together with the omission of external acts which cannot be combined with internal attention. Acts of this kind are sleeping, chattering, reading irrelevant writings. All concede that external attention is required, and it is drawn from the fact that the Church at least commands an act of external worship (St. Thomas, II-II, q. 122, a. 4; St. Alphonsus, III, 313).

c) Internal attention - that is, application of the mind to that which is being done, namely either to the thing which is performed by the celebrant, or to the meaning signified by the actions, or to other pious thoughts or prayers - internal attention, I say, is required by which someone can give an account of the things which are done at the altar, or by which he is constituted not plainly distracted from the sacrifice. The reason is that the hearing of Mass is prescribed (can. 1248); which word seems to involve at least the attention just explained. Further internal attention quite probably is not required; both because it is doubtful whether internal attention is required for the essence of prayer, and because a religious act probably suffices, for which physical presence together with the intention of worshiping God and the external and internal attention explained seems to suffice (St. Alphonsus, III, cited place).

Corollary I. Certainly those satisfy who are occupied in acts pertaining to divine worship (for example, playing the organ, collecting alms, etc.), provided they retain some attention to the sacred rite; and this has force even if at times they depart in order to seek necessary things (St. Alphonsus, III, 317).

Corollary II. Sacramental confession, at least a longer one, seems of itself to be capable of being combined neither with external attention nor with internal attention. For there is required an act of religion by way of one worshiping God in the sacrifice itself and the oblation of the victim. But the attention which one has who confesses sacramentally is not such, but is directed to declaring to the confessor the number, species, and circumstances of sins, to listening to his admonitions, corrections, penance, etc.² I said of itself, because in practice penitents seem not to be disturbed, if they are made attentive to the more principal parts. Indeed, if otherwise someone would have to remain for some time in the state of mortal sin or abstain longer from confessing, at least the Church is presumed to consent (St. Alphonsus, III, 314, 332).

6. In the due place. Moreover, he satisfies who assists at Mass celebrated:

a) In the open air (can. 1249); now even he who celebrates on the benches, or on the deck of a ship, is judged to celebrate in the open air; the same seems to have to be said about every Mass celebrated at sea.

b) In any church or public or semi-public oratory (can. 1249).

c) In the following private oratories: 1. in private cemetery chapels, of which in can. 1190 (can. 1249), that is, in chapels erected in a cemetery by families or private persons for their burial; these chapels are private oratories (can. 1190); 2. in private oratories of Cardinals and Bishops (can. 1189). In other private oratories only those can satisfy who are included in the indult. But, unless the tenor prevents it, the indultaries are judged to be included, and their blood-relatives, relatives by marriage, guests, table-companions, and household members.³ But what has been said about other private oratories also has force if someone, using the privilege of a portable altar, celebrates in a place in which of itself the obligation cannot be satisfied; in other words, in the case only those validly assist at Mass who either are expressly included in the privilege, or, considering the end of the privilege - for example, mission lands - are to be judged included.

d) Wherever Cardinals or Bishops celebrate, or where it is celebrated for their convenience. This is deduced from a response of the Sacred Congregation of Rites,⁴ which affirms that point concerning Bishops.

Therefore, of itself he does not satisfy who assists at Mass: 1. in a private oratory; 2. in an entirely private place, for example, in a room of some house. I said of itself because of the cases above and others perhaps excepted by indults.

The obligation of hearing Mass in the parish church has long since been abolished. Nevertheless the faithful should be admonished that frequently, where this can conveniently be done, they should come to their parish churches and there be present at the divine offices and hear the word of God (can. 467, § 2).⁵

¹ "He satisfies the precept of the Church concerning hearing Mass who hears two parts of it, indeed four, simultaneously from different celebrants" (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1203).

² Billuart, De religione, dissertation 6, article 1.

³ Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments, February 7, 1909.

⁴ June 8, 1896, n. 3906.

⁵ Cf. Council of Trent, session 22, decree on observances in the celebration of Mass.

II. Obligation of the precept. 1. The obligation of assisting at Mass celebrated in a Catholic rite, physically, and in the due place is grave.

2. The obligation of assisting at the whole Mass, and religiously, is grave from its genus. But the gravity of the matter in the case must be taken both from the quality and from the quantity of the part at which someone either in no way or not religiously assists. But as to quantity, note that parts of the Mass which do not always recur, such as the Creed, are computed less (St. Alphonsus, III, 310).

Corollary I. As to the obligation of assisting at the whole Mass: 1. with quantity considered, the matter seems grave if nearly a fourth part of the Mass is neglected, for example, those things which are done from the beginning up to the Offertory exclusively; 2. with quality considered, neglect of the Consecration and Communion is grave, or even of either one; 3. with both considered, the omission of those things which are done from the Consecration up to the Our Father exclusively is judged grave (cf. St. Alphonsus, III, 310); 4. finally note that omitted separate parts coalesce, as if someone omitted a part at the beginning and at the end.

Corollary II. As to the obligation of assisting religiously, the matter is grave if persons sleep, chatter, read newspapers, etc. for a notable time (St. Alphonsus, III, 317). But commonly grave defect is absent in those who sometimes chatter, sometimes attend; likewise in those who are occupied with vain or even dishonorable thoughts, or assist half-drunk or half-asleep (St. Alphonsus, III, 316).

Corollary III. He who arrives late is bound in this way:

1. Of itself he is bound to assist at another Mass, because assistance at one and the same entire Mass is prescribed. Nevertheless in practice a cause excusing from that obligation will easily be present, especially if the delay is inculpable; indeed, if only a slight part of the Mass has been completed, he is excused from hearing another Mass.

2. If he cannot hear another Mass, or is otherwise excused from the said obligation, he is certainly bound to assist at the remaining part, if he has arrived before the Consecration. If he has arrived after the Consecration, according to many he is bound to nothing further, because he can no longer be present at the essential act of the Sacrifice. But St. Alphonsus (III, 310, question 2) maintains the contrary, because the Church also intends all and each ceremonies, insofar as they accompany the Mass, abstracting from whether or not someone has been present at the essential act; this being supposed, the reason of the law seems to be preserved even in the ceremonies alone. Nevertheless in practice there will easily be a reason excusing, for example great embarrassment or even scandal that would arise.

Likewise, he who otherwise than by arriving late has omitted a notable part of Mass, and is excused from hearing another Mass, of itself is bound to make it up (St. Alphonsus, cited place); but more often there will be a cause excusing from the obligation of making it up.

III. Causes excusing from the precept are enumerated: impossibility, charity toward neighbor, office, and custom; all of which - except custom - can be reduced to a moderately grave inconvenience, one's own or another's (or its danger), in goods of soul, body, fortune, honor, reputation, or modesty. Hence St. Alphonsus says, "Any moderately grave cause excuses from hearing Mass, namely one which involves some notable inconvenience, or harm in goods of soul, either one's own or one's neighbor's" (III, 324). Therefore the following are excused:

1. The sick, convalescents, who reasonably fear notable inconvenience or delay of convalescence; likewise those who fear lest, for example, because of a storm or lack of clothing, they be affected by illness. In doubt each one can stand by the judgment of a physician or superior; indeed, if the doubt persists, he is excused, because the danger of notable inconvenience suffices (St. Alphonsus, III, 325).

2. Those who are far distant from a church. Of itself, according to St. Alphonsus (III, 329), a foot journey of one hour and a quarter suffices; nevertheless here account should be taken of the condition of the person, age, inclement weather, custom, also the place (for example, city or village), etc., which can bring it about that a lesser distance suffices; but because of distance he is not excused who without new expenses or with moderate expenses can use a carriage or vehicle.

3. Those who cannot leave a house, a sick person, children, or a flock; but if there are several guardians and several Masses are said, let each assist successively; if only one Mass is celebrated, let them assist alternately (St. Alphonsus, III, 326).

4. Those for whom "there is danger of grave offense of husband, parents, or masters" (St. Alphonsus, III, 327). If, however, servants are frequently forbidden without just cause to assist at the Sacred rite, let them seek another service.

5. Those who cannot fulfill the precept without grave embarrassment, for example because suitable garments are lacking, because a girl is pregnant from a hidden crime, etc.; nevertheless, one must see whether perhaps they can assist at the Sacred rite very early in the morning without the said inconvenience (St. Alphonsus, III, 330).

6. Those who by assisting at Mass would omit an opportunity of gain which, considering their condition, is extraordinary. "For in L. un. C. de sentent. quae pro eo, etc., great loss of profit is equated with grave harm. At least in such a circumstance it seems it must be said that the precept of the feast, as human, does not oblige with so great a loss" (St. Alphonsus, III, 301, 332). Indeed, if the very condition of one's office has a difficulty of assisting at Mass annexed to it, notable loss excuses; apply this to sailors, drivers, etc. (St. Alphonsus, III, 332).

7. By custom, in some places for a certain time women after childbirth, widows after the death of a husband, and brides whose banns are proclaimed are excused, unless however they can assist at another Mass (St. Alphonsus, III, 330).

8. It is disputed whether he is excused who cannot fulfill the precept except by privilege, for example the owner of a private oratory, who cannot go to church, but can conveniently have a priest. Moreover, with St. Alphonsus (III, 319, doubt 3) we have denied it (n. 201).

Note. He who ordinarily is excused from the ecclesiastical precept, according to several theologians, while others deny it, is bound sometimes either on Sunday to undergo a graver inconvenience, or on a weekday to make it up, because it is a divine precept that the faithful at times be present at the Sacrifice. Besides, to him who is excused from hearing the Sacred rite, it is advised that he make it up at home by prayers.

The First Precept of the Church.—This precept commands that on Sundays and holydays of obligation Mass be heard and servile and other like works be omitted (Canons 1247-1249) by the subjects of church laws (427 sqq.).

(a) This precept is of natural and divine law as to its purpose and substance, for reason teaches and the Third Commandment of the Decalogue prescribes that man set aside some time for the external worship of God, and avoid those things that distract him from worship (Catechism of the Council of Trent, pp. 396 sqq,). Hence, even non-Catholics, though they do not sin by missing Mass (429, 430), are guilty of sin if they do not from time to time worship God externally.

(b) This precept is of ecclesiastical law only as to its details (i.e., the time set apart and the manner of worship and sanctification decreed). The Old Testament Law observed the Sabbath or last day of the Week in memory of the creation of the World, and it abstained most rigorously from work on the Sabbath, because there was a divine prohibition and because this rest was a figure of things to come. But in the New Law the ceremonial precepts of Judaism no longer have force, and the Christian precepts substituted for them were not instituted by Christ Himself but arose from the custom of the Church. During the lifetime of the Apostles themselves Sunday (or the first day of the week) came to be venerated as the Lord’s Day in memory of the Resurrection, which completed the work of Redemption (Acts, ii. 46, iii. 1, v. 12, xxi. 26); and from early times various special holydays were appointed and made days of obligatory worship, as had been the case with certain feasts in the Old Testament. As early as the third and fourth centuries laws were made confirming the primitive customs of assisting at Mass and resting on Sundays and holydays.

Excuses from Observance of First Precept.—These reasons may be reduced to two classes, namely, external reasons (i.e., a dispensation or a lawful custom) and internal reasons (i.e., one’s own inability or necessity).

(a) External Reasons.—Dispensations may be given under certain conditions by local Ordinaries, by parish-priests, and by superiors of exempt clerical institutes (Canon 1245). Custom in certain places excuses from Mass for a month women who have just given birth to a child or who have lost their husband by death, and also—from the Mass in which their banns are to be proclaimed—those women who are about to marry. Custom further permits necessary labors, such as cooking, ordinary housecleaning, barbering, the work of railroad and garage men, etc.

(b) Internal Reasons.—Impossibility or serious inconvenience excuses from hearing Mass (e.g., those who have to walk an hour’s journey to church or ride a two hours’ journey, regarding which, in terms of distance travelled, it has been suggested that the figures should be more than three miles each way if one must walk, more than thirty miles if a car is available and the roads are good; those who will suffer great detriment to health, honor, fortune, etc., if they go; those who are kept away by duties of charity or employment or office that cannot be omitted). Necessity or duty to others permits one to work on Sunday at least to some extent (e.g., those who must labor on a Sunday in order to live, or to keep out of serious trouble, or to perform services or works of charity that cannot easily be done at another time). To avoid self-deception the faithful should consult their pastor or other prudent person if there is doubt about the sufficiency of the excuse.

Though the Church does not impose excessive Sabbatarianism, neither does she admit laxity in the important matter of the Lord’s Day.

(a) Hence, not every reason excuses from the church precept. Thus, those are guilty who unnecessarily place themselves in the impossibility of observing the law (e.g., by moving to a place where there is no church, by taking a position that requires work all Sunday morning, by starting on a vacation or auto trip to a churchless region), or whose excuses are frivolous (e.g., those who stay away from Mass because they dislike the priest, or who work on Sunday merely to keep busy).

(b) Reasons that excuse from part of the ecclesiastical precept do not excuse from all of it. Thus, those who are unable to hear Mass are not thereby justified in doing servile work, those who can hear the essential part of Mass (Consecration and Communion), but not the other parts, should hear the essential part; those who can hear Mass only on one Sunday a year are not excused on that Sunday.

(c) Reasons that excuse from the ecclesiastical precept do not excuse from the divine precept (see 2575) of worshipping God. Hence, those who are really obliged to work every Sunday should sanctify the Lord’s Day by whatever private prayer or devotion they can substitute. Some authors very rightly believe that those who can never go to Mass on Sunday are held by divine law to hear Mass on weekdays three or four times a year at least, when this is possible (see 2148, 2180).

What is the third precept of the Decalogue? - The third precept of the Decalogue is: Remember that you sanctify the sabbath day ... you shall not do any work in it. Ex. 20:8, 10. Two things are contained in this precept: that man be free on the sabbath for divine things, and that he cease from every servile work. This precept is natural insofar as it commands that some time be dedicated to public divine worship; but insofar as in the Old Law it designates the sabbath, in the New Law Sunday by the determination of the Church, and other feast days, it is positive. S. Th. 2. 2, q. 122, a. 4 ad 4.

This precept, as determined by the Church, insofar as it is negative, chiefly prohibits servile works on a feast day. But insofar as it is affirmative, it commands under grave obligation to be present at Mass on Sundays and other feast days. And this is clear: 1. from various places of Canon Law, especially from C. Missas 64, de Consecr., D. 1, likewise from C. Omnes 63, de Consecr., D. 1; 2. from all Catechisms, by which the indubitable precept of hearing Mass on these days is declared; 3. from proposition 52 condemned by Innocent XI. But each, both to be present at Mass and to cease from servile works, is more truly from the precept of the Church; for this third precept of the Decalogue as to the sabbath day was ceremonial; and otherwise the Church could not dispense in these things, at least as to Sundays. S. Th. l. c. Besides this, however, it commands nothing else under grave obligation, or even under light obligation per se. The reason is that in fact nothing else is found prescribed in Law, or legitimately introduced by custom.

Hence it is clear: 1. That in reality there is no obligation from the force of this precept, insofar as it is natural or insofar as it is ecclesiastical, under grave or under light obligation, per se, of assisting at the evening office on Sundays and feast days, or of hearing a sermon. From the force of this precept; for perhaps someone could sin against other virtues and obligations of his state by omitting a sermon, catechesis, and other works of piety. 2. That he who hears a single Mass on the day of the Nativity of Jesus Christ satisfies this precept. 3. That there is no obligation of hearing Mass on Ash Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday of greater week, nor on the days of Rogation, and on the day of all the faithful departed.

But this precept obliges all the baptized who have the use of reason, even priests not celebrating, but not infants before the completed seventh year, or catechumens. The first reason is because it is universal. The second reason is because then they are not yet regularly capable of observing it in a human manner. The third reason is because they are not subject to the Church.

Finally the obligation of a feast day begins from one midnight to another. For such is the present use of the Roman Church. Roman Catechism, n. 1 seqq.; L. 263-271, 308; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 122, a. 4; Struggl 12-14; Ithur., Cas. 20, nn. 1-4; E. M.

What is required for hearing Mass rightly? - For hearing Mass rightly it is required: 1. that the whole Mass be heard; 2. that it be heard in a due place; 3. with the body present; 4. with the mind attentive.

What sort is the obligation of hearing the whole Mass? - Mass must be heard entire under grave obligation; and consequently freely to omit a notable part of it is a mortal sin. This is proved: 1. from C. Missas, de Consecrat., D. 1; 2. from the common consent of theologians; 3. because in a thing of great moment and gravely prescribed, freely to omit a notable part is a grave sin. Now a notable part is a part pertaining to the essence of the sacrifice; half or even a third part of the whole Mass, pertaining to integrity, and it can even be a smaller part if the dignity of the omitted part compensates for duration. But there is no obligation of hearing Mass only in one's own rite. S. C. de P. F., 11 Dec. 1838; E. M. 642.

You will resolve: It is grave to omit together the consecration and Communion, because then the essential nature of the sacrifice is lacking; indeed even the consecration alone, because it is the most worthy part, in which at least chiefly it consists. Indeed, more probably, it is grave not to be present at even one consecration only, because the essence of the sacrifice more probably consists in both consecrations. L., H. A. 33: "Yet others, such as Lugo, Tamburini, Diana, Escobar, excuse from grave sin, even if the whole consecration is omitted, since it is not sufficiently established whether the essence of the sacrifice is truly in the consumption or consecration; and Elbel with Suarez, etc., think it probable, and Sporer, etc., strongly adhere... This opinion does not seem improbable." L. 110.

But whether to pass over only Communion is grave is controverted. The affirmative opinion is more probable to St. Alphonsus, who thinks that the essence of the sacrifice also consists in Communion. Yet the more common opinion places it essentially in the consecration alone. But Communion pertains to the integrity and fullness of the sacrifice.

Hence he does indeed satisfy the precept who successively hears two halves of Mass from different priests, if the consecration and Communion are found in the same part of the Mass, because then the integral nature of the sacrifice is had in the same part, although he hears them in reversed order, or with some interval of time interposed, but not beyond an hour, L. 311. But he by no means satisfies if the consecration and Communion are not in the same part, because he does not assist at a sacrifice substantially integral. L., H. A. 34. Successively; for if simultaneously, he does not satisfy, prop. 63 condemned by Innocent XI.

From this it also follows that he who arrives after the consecration is at least probably not bound to hear the rest, because the essence of the sacrifice is now lacking, and therefore the obligation of assisting at it ceases, since the precept cannot be fulfilled through this. Yet the opposite opinion also rests on a grave foundation, because assistance can be had at a notable part of the ceremony prescribed by the Church. After the consecration; for if he came before, "it must altogether be affirmed that he is bound, with Sanchez, the Salmanticenses, Lugo, Suarez, and the common opinion." And indeed then both a part altogether notable and the whole essence of the sacrifice are had. L. 310.

It is grave to omit all things up to the offertory inclusively, or all things before the gospel, and at the same time all things after Communion, because this is a notable part as to integrity. Likewise the omission of the canon from the Preface exclusively to the consecration, and from the consecration exclusively to the Pater exclusively, must be held grave, because it is a notable part by duration and dignity at the same time.

On the contrary, it is certainly light to omit all things up to the epistle exclusively, and more probably even inclusively; indeed probably even, according to St. Liguori, n. 310, up to the Gospel inclusively. Suarez, de Euch., d. 89, s. 3. Likewise it is light to omit all things which follow Communion; indeed to omit all things after Communion and all things before the epistle. The reason is that they do not constitute a notable part by reason of integrity, if attention is given: 1. that the Gospel of St. John at the end probably is not part of the Mass, because before it the people are already dismissed through the blessing; 2. that one account is had of the Mass of the catechumens, another of the Mass of the faithful, which extends from the offertory to the consumption.

But to omit all things up to the epistle inclusively, and all things after the consumption, "Bauny and Llamas also excuse; but Palaus, Suarez, etc., more commonly cited by Croix, contradict." L. 310. As to the Creed, since it is not a regular part, St. Alphonsus, n. 310, judges with others that no account is to be had of it. As to the offertory, its omission is reputed light, and the same is thought about the Preface, for neither pertains to the essence of the sacrifice, nor is either a notable part by reason of integrity or dignity. L. 310; E. M.

Note: Whether he who omits a light part of Mass is bound to supply it if he can: some affirm, because he is bound to hear Mass entire. But others probably deny, "because the precept has already been fulfilled substantially... and that manner of supplying it is very imperfect, and not much conducing to the integrity of the Mass... and because moral things are not to be weighed so rigorously, especially when they are lighter." Suarez, de Euch., d. 88, s. 2; L. 310.

What sort is the due place? - It suffices for satisfying the obligation of hearing Mass to hear it in some public church, in a public oratory, or in a semi-public oratory; nor is there an obligation to hear it in the parish church. But he does not satisfy the precept who hears Mass in a private oratory, a special privilege being excluded.

The first part is proved: 1. from regular privileges granted even after Trent. This is clear especially from C. of St. Pius V, Etsi mendicantium, a. 1567; 2. from legitimately prescribed custom; 3. from the very common and certain opinion of the doctors, and especially from Benedict XIV, de Syn., l. 11, c. 14, where he asserts that Decrees of Councils and Supreme Pontiffs establishing the obligation have been derogated by contrary universal custom, which constitutes a certain common law, against which Bishops cannot rise up either licitly or validly. Struggl 39; L. 320 seqq.

Private oratories are chapels erected in a private house from privilege granted by the Supreme Pontiff, so that divine mysteries may be performed there for the convenience of some private person or family. S. R. C., 23 Jan. 1899. Those oratories are not judged private, but are to be held public, which are legitimately erected in seminaries, monasteries, or houses of religious men or nuns, or of other communities, as in conservatories, prisons, hospitals, and also in the houses of Bishops and Cardinals. For these houses are not private. But because access is not freely open to all the Christian faithful in oratories of this sort, they are more properly called semi-public.

Sometimes, moreover, an oratory in the houses of private persons can simply be held as public. But for this it is required: 1. That entrance open onto a public road. 2. That it be subject to no servitude disapproved by Canon Law, and that access cannot be forbidden to anyone by the owner. 3. That it be dedicated in perpetuity to divine worship. 4. That revenues sufficient for divine offices be established. Cf. nn. 262, 273; L. 319, l. 6, n. 357; Benedict XIV, de Sacrif. missae, l. 3, c. 6, n. 6; S. R. C., 2 Jul. 1661, n. 1196.

A fixed chapel on ships is public for those sailing and for others, and therefore all who assist at Mass in the said chapel, even when the ship is in port, satisfy the precept. S. R. C., 4 Mar. 1901; 10 May 1901.

The second part is proved. From the very Briefs of concession it is had that those who are present at Masses in private oratories do not satisfy the precept, unless they are the owners; or their relatives, namely consanguineous and affinal relatives up to the fourth degree, who dwell in the same house and live at their expense, as St. Alphonsus, n. 318, wishes, or as Gatticus, n. 11, notes, although they do not constitute one family; or unless they are their noble guests, and also those who are invited to dinner by the privileged person; or unless they are domestics, namely those who are occupied in the service of the owner and live at his expense, and are domestics actually necessary for furnishing services, namely whose presence in the oratory at the time of Mass is necessary, although these dwell outside the house. They are present, and therefore the celebrating priest and the minister serving satisfy the precept.

But for these it is required that someone be actually present from those to whom the indult was principally granted. The indult, moreover, is understood to have been principally granted only to those to whom the Brief is directed, namely those persons who are named by their own name on the back of the same Brief, or who are named at the beginning of the Brief if the Brief is directed to the Ordinary of the place. But, from the Norms of S. C. de Sacram., a simple concession of an Oratory imports, besides one Mass and the determination of the place, satisfaction of the festal precept for the indultaries alone, with the twelve more solemn days excluded, and for France four.

The more solemn days from the Ceremonial, l. 2, c. 34, § 2, are: the feasts of the Nativity of the Lord, Epiphany, Thursday in the Supper of the Lord, the feasts of Easter, Ascension, Pentecost, Annunciation, Assumption, the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, All Saints, the Saint Titular of the Church and Patron, and the Dedication of the Cathedral Church. S. R. C., 10 Apr. 1896. Therefore the rescript must be attended to, because several extensions can be made. And if the concession is had for the day of the Nativity, three Masses can be celebrated. S. R. C., 20 Jan. 1725. And indeed on these feast days, if they are of precept, with Thursday of Greater Week excepted, it is altogether forbidden to celebrate in oratories of this sort. Yet if the festivity is transferred to the following Sunday, celebration on the proper day is not prohibited. S. R. C., 6 Mar. 1896, n. 3890. No day is excepted when the oratory is conceded by the Pontiff because of illness. Cf. 260 bis, 262, 273; L. 318, l. 6, nn. 357, 359; La-Croix, l. 3, p. 1, n. 626 seqq.; Gattic., de Orat. priv., c. 25, nn. 23, 24; E. M.

After the Motu Proprio of Pius X, Supremi disciplinae, 2 Jul. 1911, by which feast days were diminished, and also the Decree of S. R. C., Urbis et Orbis, 24 Jul. 1911, after the Motu Proprio had been promulgated, from the Decree of S. C. de Sacram., 5 Apr. 1913, Mass in private Oratories is not prohibited on the feast days of the solemn Commemoration of St. Joseph, the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the solemn Commemoration of the Most Holy Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and on the feast of the Patron of each place. Nor is it prohibited on the feast of the Most Holy Trinity, on the Sunday within the Octave of Corpus Christi, and on the Sunday on which the Nativity of St. John the Baptist is celebrated.

In private oratories in which Mass is celebrated, the Eucharist can also be distributed to communicants. Public oratories are to be consecrated or solemnly blessed. Private oratories are blessed only with the formula which is contained in the Ritual for a new house or place. S. R. C., 5 Jun. 1899, n. 4025. Private oratories, although blessed, are not judged to be polluted, and therefore do not need reconciliation. For obtaining the concession of a private Oratory, the Norms published concerning it by S. C. de Sacram., 7 Feb. 1909, are to be attended to. In Norms of this sort various extensions of the concession are had, as to those who can enjoy the Indult, as to the absence of the Indultaries, as to the number of Masses, as to days, and as to place.

What is the presence required? - For satisfying this precept moral presence of the body is required. This is proved: 1. from the common opinion of theologians; 2. because, without at least moral presence, the faithful are not judged, according to moral estimation, to assist the sacrificing priest and to hear Mass. Moral presence of the body is had when someone exists within the church, or outside it, yet in such a way that he can be said to be one of the number of those assisting and offering the sacrifice. And this is verified if he can follow the Mass as to its parts by hearing or seeing the principal parts, or by attending to the signs of others assisting, provided however that a great distance of place does not intervene between himself and the others assisting, if he is outside the church. L. 312.

You will resolve: He validly assists at Mass who, although he does not see the priest, nor hear the words, distinguishes the parts of the Mass by the sound of the little bell, the chant of the choir, or the movements of those assisting, to whom he is morally joined, although he is outside the church, in which the crowd cannot be contained. Likewise, he who stands behind the altar, behind a column, or behind a wall, or in the sacristy at the side of the altar or behind the altar, provided he can advert to the principal parts of the Mass.

Likewise, more probably, he who is in a nearby house, from which through a window or door he sees the altar or those assisting, or distinguishes the parts of the Mass, provided there is a small space between the church and the place in which he is. But otherwise if a great space or a street intervenes.

He does not assist at Mass who remains far away outside the church, even if he sees the temple, altar, and crowd, because in common usage he cannot be said to hear and be morally present. According to Lugo and others, the space of thirty paces from the crowd of those assisting does not seem so great as to impede someone from being present at Mass. L. 312.

What is the attention required? - For hearing Mass by reason of the precept under grave obligation, there is required and sufficient: 1. the will of hearing Mass, or the intention of worshiping God; 2. purely external attention. Attention: a twofold attention is distinguished, one internal, the other external. The former consists precisely in this, that someone adverts and applies his mind either to the words and actions of the priest, or to the mysteries of the sacrifice, or finally to God to be praised, adored, and worshiped by prayers or meditation. But the latter consists in this, that someone does not posit an external work incompatible with hearing Mass, although the mind internally, continuously, and voluntarily is distracted; provided, however, that he at the same time attends at least imperfectly to Mass in some way, or if in some way someone can give an account to himself at least of the more principal parts of the Mass. For he who would remain in the church during Mass, but thinking entirely of his own business affairs to be handled, so that he remembered nothing at all of the Mass heard, certainly would not hear Mass.

The first part is proved. Each is required; for if either is lacking, either a human act is not had, or a religious act exhibiting worship to God is not had, not even externally. The second part is proved. It suffices; for 1. many and grave theologians teach this, and those very theologians who teach the contrary hold this opinion as probable. L. 313; Struggl 37; Gur. 345. 2. Because internal attention is not required for the moral substance of external worship. For as Soto, Suarez, Sanchez, the Salmanticenses, Filliucci, etc., commonly teach, in this third precept only external worship is prescribed, both of abstaining from servile works and of hearing Mass. It is confirmed from S. Th. 2. 2, q. 122, a. 4, who teaches that we are not compelled to interior worship, but are moved by the Holy Spirit, "and therefore," he says, "in the third Precept exterior worship of God is prescribed." The Roman Catechism, n. 1, teaches the same: "by this precept of the law that external worship which is owed to God by us is prescribed rightly and in order." L. 264. It is confirmed again from S. C. Indulg., 13 Nov. 1893; E. M.

Note: According to the very opinion requiring internal attention, very little indeed is required for someone to satisfy the precept, so that no one ought to be anxious in this matter because of a scruple about attention not furnished. "According to this opinion," says St. Alphonsus, n. 313, "it suffices for satisfying, just as in the office, to have virtual attention, namely, that someone at the beginning have the intention of attending, and not change it; for if afterwards he is distracted, even advertently, but does not advert that he is being distracted from Mass or from the office, he also satisfies, because he, although he voluntarily distracts himself, nevertheless is not voluntarily distracted from Mass." St. Pius V, C. Cum primum, 6 Kal. Apr. 1566, §§ 4-6.

You will resolve: Those serving Mass satisfy the precept; for they attend sufficiently by exhibiting their ministry, by which they actually cooperate with the sacrifice, although they depart from the church for a brief time to take wine, incense, etc., or to ring the bells, because such departure is ordered to the sacrifice. The same must be said of sacristans, musicians, organists, drummers, etc., because their acts are referred to the worship of God and do not impede the necessary attention to those things which are performed at the altar. L. 309, 317. "But he who spends a great part of Mass in collecting alms is excused by many if he is in a small church, otherwise in a large one; thus Henriquez with others cited by the Salmanticenses, n. 52. But Lessius cited by Croix, n. 652, excuses them without distinction if they at the same time attend to Mass; and truly such distraction does not seem to be incompatible." L. 317.

He who during the time of Mass prepares himself for Confession certainly, speaking per se, hears Mass altogether sufficiently; for he can still sufficiently apply himself to those pious actions. But as to Confession which lasts for a notable interval of time, the more common and more probable opinion indeed denies that the precept is satisfied. But there are also several and grave theologians who affirm, if at the same time there is some attention to Mass in some way. "This opinion," says St. Alphonsus, n. 314, "does not seem altogether destitute of probability, and formerly I myself judged it probable; but because afterwards I observed that it was rejected by several grave doctors, now I do not dare to call it probable." Yet this opinion of his is not in reality destitute of probability. For several and grave more recent theologians approve it, either by tacitly reporting it and saying nothing to the contrary, or also by positively defending it. Gur. Baller. 346. Besides, those who defend the negative opinion, as La-Croix notes, l. 3, n. 655, bring forward diverse reasons; and St. Alphonsus himself adverts to this, which certainly is a sign that an altogether demonstrative reason for imposing the obligation is desired. Moreover, the reason for exempting from the obligation seems sufficiently solid. For "he has the intention of hearing Mass, as is supposed; he is present bodily, because he confesses in the church; he assists morally, because he is present in a human and religious manner; finally he can also attend to Mass; and although perhaps he does not actually attend, nevertheless he is occupied with a pious occupation, and therefore he is still judged to exhibit worship to God with the sacrificing priest and those standing around." La-Croix, l. c. And if someone satisfies the precept of hearing Mass by examining his conscience, he also seems to satisfy by confessing, since Confession is no more incompatible than examination of conscience with at least some attention to Mass, especially if in that Confession there is an intention of participating in the sacrifice through Communion. Nor indeed is internal attention altogether necessary for someone to satisfy this precept. But if the matter concerns servants, who otherwise would not confess, Lessius and La-Croix say that they satisfy well; for then at least it is presumed that the Church consents. And even St. Alphonsus, n. 332, seems to admit this. Lessius, Auctar. ad Comment. in 1. 2, v. Missa, c. 2, nn. 8, 9; L. 309.

What are the causes excusing from Mass? - Any moderately grave cause excuses from hearing Mass, or one which involves a notable and at least moderate inconvenience or harm in the goods of soul or body, one's own or a neighbor's, private or public. This is clear from common interpretation and custom, which is the best interpreter of laws. Moderately grave: a graver cause is required in servile and forensic works, because that part of the precept of the observance of a feast is graver. L. 324.

You will resolve: Women are excused who do not have clothing decent according to their condition and state; as also those not having a maidservant or companion, without whom they would be suffused with great shame, are well excused from hearing Mass, provided they cannot be present at it either very early in the morning or in a remote church where the people by no means assemble. The same must be said about girls dishonorably pregnant, and about those who leave the church at the time when announcements for their marriages are made, if they would have to suffer great shame on account of this. Usage excuses, according to the custom of places, of not going out from the house for six weeks after childbirth, or for a month in the time of mourning on account of the death of a husband, and also of a sister or daughter. L. 330; H. A. 42.

Mothers and nurses are excused who have no one to whom they can leave little children, nor can they bring them to church without great disturbance of those standing by. If there are only two spouses, they will conveniently be able to be present at Mass by alternate turns. Those are excused who guard the flock or house, or who must prepare food, or perform similar necessary things; yet if several Masses are held, all, as far as can be done, must hear Mass successively. Travelers are excused for whom no place occurs where they may be present at Mass, or who cannot interrupt the journey because public coachmen, or companions on the road without whom the journey would not lack inconveniences or danger, refuse to stop. Servants are excused if they cannot omit their service without grave detriment to the master, or if they are prohibited by him. But when they are frequently and without just cause impeded from hearing Mass, they are bound to seek another master if they can do this without grave inconvenience. Struggl 53; L. 326-328.

The sick, the infirm, and convalescents are excused, whom it harms to go outside. Likewise he is excused who must guard a sick person who, being left by him, would suffer grave disturbance; and this even if another assistant were present, but the sick person thought that his assistance was necessary to himself, and otherwise would suffer grave sadness. Likewise those are excused who otherwise cannot prevent blasphemies, quarrels, thefts, etc. Hence also a wife is excused who "from going to Church would fear the indignation of her husband, or grave jealousy of the husband." Struggl 50. Distance from a church, by the space of a whole hour, excuses, with account taken of persons and weather. Very grave doctors teach that a distance of three miles, or a pedestrian journey of an hour and a quarter, and also something less if it should rain or snow, absolutely and without distinction excuses all. A mile corresponds to about a kilometer and a half. Therefore three miles are about four and a half kilometers.

Notable extraordinary gain to be made excuses. L. 325-327, 329, 332; H. A. 41; Collectan. S. C. de P. F., n. 2039.

1. Fabritius entered the church, intending to seek a friend there because of a grave family business. He did not find the friend; but he found a priest beginning Mass at the altar. Seeing him, by a certain natural instinct, he stood there up to the end of the Mass.

2. Fridericus went to church in order to hear Mass, which was already beginning when he entered. But, since in a lateral part of the same church he saw some pilgrims piously making the Way of the Cross, he too at once joined himself to them and remained with them up to the end of the Mass and of the Way of the Cross.

3. Fidelis, assisting at Mass through the whole time of its celebration, looks at and admires the precious ornaments of the altar, the paintings, statues, columns, walls, and ceiling of the church; indeed, he considers them fixedly, on account of their perfection of art.

An officer of the police, charged with preserving order in a church on the occasion of a great solemnity, although by reason of his office to be exercised he had to stand outside the church, went to the open door of the church and, while standing outside, took care to hear Mass.

Q. What as to these cases?

R. To the first. Fabritius satisfied the precept. For although he did not enter the church with the intention of hearing Mass, nevertheless in fact he heard it. Moreover, the very fact that, although he did not find the friend, he nevertheless stood there from the beginning of the Mass up to its end, sufficiently proves the intention, at least then had, of hearing Mass. Otherwise, when he did not find the friend, he would have gone away.

To the second. Fridericus did not hear Mass, if the lateral part of the church where the Way of the Cross was being performed was wholly separated from the altar at which Mass was being celebrated. For then, since he was doing the Way of the Cross, at least externally, he was doing something else, pious indeed, but something else entirely, and not hearing Mass. But if that lateral part of the church was not separated from the altar, then Fridericus, while doing the Way of the Cross, could attend to the Mass externally and internally, and consequently hear Mass.

To the third. Fidelis, with his continuous and fixed view of the ornaments of the altar, the paintings, statues, columns, walls, and ceiling of the church, altogether lacks that internal and external attention which is required for hearing Mass, and is occupied with another thing, and consequently does not hear Mass.

To the fourth. The police officer, although he had to stand outside the church, nevertheless, when he had gone near to the open door of the church, he could there attend to the Mass which was being celebrated, and he did attend to it, since he procured this for himself by standing near the open door of the church, that is, in order that he might hear it. Therefore he truly heard Mass. For although he was materially outside the church, nevertheless, being very near to the place in which the Mass was being celebrated, he was, morally speaking, present in the church, or certainly present at the Mass. Besides, if someone hears Mass by standing in the window of his own house, from which the altar can be seen, and the public street does not lie too greatly interposed between the house and the church, so that by reason of the distance of the one hearing the Mass and of the too great distance of the place the moral presence required for satisfying the precept of the Church is not taken away, then certainly the police officer, in the case proposed, heard Mass. Cf. G. 39; Lig. 312; I. M. 642.

4. Antonia confesses that ten times she had come late to Mass on feast days. The confessor asks whether the Gospel had already been read when she came late. She responds: three times she came before the Offertory, the Gospel already having been read, and while the Creed was ending; twice she came after the Canon had already begun, but before the Consecration, and then she heard another Mass up to the Consecration exclusively; five times, finally, she came after the Gospel had been read, but before the Creed. But, she says, she always read the whole Mass in a prayer book. Moreover, she adds that she is disturbed with scruples concerning the time preceding the last confession. For she remembers that, on a certain feast day, she came late when the Consecration had already been completed in the last Mass, but she did not remain for the rest of the sacrifice. In fact, then she did not even read the Mass in the book. She remembers also that once she heard the Mass of a certain priest of an Oriental rite. The confessor, after hearing these things, says to her: Beware lest you do this again, because grave matter was present; nor were you excused from grave sin by the fact that you read the whole Mass; indeed, this can be omitted without any fault, provided that someone assists at the sacrifice and applies his mind to the actions of the priest, or to the mysteries signified, or to God in some other way. But since each one must hear Mass in his own rite, you certainly could not hear Mass in another rite.

Q. Did the confessor judge rightly?

R. To the first. He judged rightly concerning the omission of prayers, or that no obligation exists for reciting them. "The precept, as an affirmative precept, does not oblige to any other act of divine worship except that of the Mass. And therefore the faithful are not held to other prayers besides those which are contained in the Mass and are said by the priest or the minister.... And hence, if someone on a feast day is unable to hear Mass because he is justly impeded, he is not held to recite something in place of it or to exercise some other act of religion. Similarly, if someone omits Mass, justly or unjustly, he is not held to compensate for this on the same day by prayers or the next day by another Mass, etc." Suarez, De Religione, tom. 1, l. 2, c. 16, n. 1, 4, 16; I. M. 640.

To the second. The confessor was somewhat too severe concerning attention. For he requires precisely internal attention, by which someone adverts and applies the mind, either to the words and actions of the priest, or to the mysteries, or to God, praying or meditating. Practically it must indeed be counseled that internal attention is required. But for hearing Mass virtual and confused internal attention suffices, namely such that someone at the beginning at least had the intention of hearing Mass, and adverts, at least in some way, to what is being done, nor of his own accord is distracted from the Mass for a notable time, while fully adverting to his distraction from hearing Mass. But the opinion which holds external attention to suffice, namely that one does not place an external action which impedes the application of the mind to the sacrifice which is celebrated, such as writing, painting, etc., is not lacking true probability. Cf. St. Alph., H. A., tr. 6, n. 28; Op. Mor., l. 3, n. 313; I. M. 647, 648.

To the third. The confessor again was somewhat too severe when he asserted that there was grave sin in the remaining cases. First, indeed, many theologians think that he does not sin gravely who omits everything from the beginning up to the Gospel inclusively, even if the Creed also has been omitted. And St. Alphonsus does not think this opinion improbable, because Mass was once begun at the Offertory, according to St. Isidore, and because thus it is thought by Lugo, Palaus, Turr., Gobat, Granado, Leander, Pelliz. And Scavini says that this opinion is probable. And this same opinion, indeed, St. Alphonsus positively approves in Op. Mor., l. 6, n. 313, in which he says: "Who will deny that it is probable in this matter, which depends on human estimation, which is supported by so many and such great authors?" Cf. Laymann, l. 4, tr. 7, c. 4, n. 5; La-Croix, l. 3, p. 1, n. 734.

Then, this is also a probable opinion: "He satisfies the precept who hears one Mass from one priest up to the Consecration exclusively, and another from another priest from the Consecration up to the end; because he then hears the essence of the Mass from one priest." Laymann, l. 4, tr. 7, c. 4, n. 6; Navarr., Sà, Sotus, etc., cited by La-Croix, l. c. Nevertheless, in this case, as in any case of hearing two half Masses, all admit that, because of the disorder, such a one cannot be excused at least from venial sin. And this opinion, at least extrinsically probable, is affirmed by St. Alphonsus, l. c., who says: "It is probable, at least extrinsically, that he satisfies the precept who hears two half parts of Mass, successively, from two priests, even if the first part is heard after the second part, and even if the space of an hour intervenes, according to Mazzotta." And he adds: "But if someone hears the first part from one priest up to the Consecration exclusively, and the second from another from the Consecration up to the end, then we call it most probable that he satisfies the precept." Cf. I. M., l. c.

Moreover, as St. Alphonsus, H. A., l. c., n. 39, openly asserts as something to be held, since it is also probable that the essence of the sacrifice consists in the consumption, if someone comes after the Consecration of the last Mass, he is held to hear the remaining part. Fr. Gury, however, teaches the opposite; but the opinion of St. Alphonsus seems altogether probable. For then, far more probably, the essence of the sacrifice has not yet passed, and therefore there is an obligation of assisting at the essence of the Mass. Cf. Op. Mor., l. c.; I. M., l. c. But if someone, coming after the Consecration of the last Mass, can still assist at a notable part, then again he is probably held to hear the remaining part. For even if someone were present at the essence of the sacrifice, but omitted a notable part, he would sin gravely. Therefore if someone can be present at a notable part, he is held to be present. A similar case is found in the recitation of the canonical hours. For, "if you cannot recite Matins and Lauds, but can recite the rest of the hours, you are held to recite them; nor can you excuse yourself because you cannot recite the whole office; for the whole is not so integral that, if one part cannot be fulfilled, the other part is to be omitted." La-Croix, l. 4, n. 1385; and cf. prop. 54, condemned by Innocent XI: "He who cannot recite Matins and Lauds, but can recite the remaining hours, is held to nothing, because the greater part draws the lesser to itself."

To the fourth. The Propaganda Fide, on 11 Dec. 1838, to the question: "To satisfy the precept of hearing Mass on Sundays and feast days, is it necessary that each one hear Mass in his own rite; or is it enough to hear any Mass whatsoever?" responded: "To the first, negatively; to the second, affirmatively." I. M., l. c.; Collectanea, n. 1597.

5. Augustinus has the privilege of a private Oratory, which he uses in the city, in which he usually dwells, and in the countryside, where he betakes himself each year and remains through the whole autumn. The chapel, however, in each place is nothing else than a large hall, divided by a silk cloth, one part of which is deputed for the chapel. The altar, however, is of marble, in an ample cabinet, as it were, constructed in a deep cavity of the wall like a small room, which, the Mass having been finished, is closed by a decorated wooden door. One time, while Augustinus is dwelling in the countryside, his own feast day is celebrated; his relatives and many noble friends are invited for some days. But all hear Mass in the aforesaid Oratory on the feast day. And, since there are many of them, through the whole day that same hall is occupied by his nephews, and all sleep there at night.

Q. 1. What is a public, semi-public, private Oratory? 2. What as to the case?

R. To the first. Cf. Enchiridion Morale, De Eucharistia, n. 640; I. M. 644.

To the second. First, Augustinus can use the privilege of a private Oratory not only in the city, but also in the countryside, so long as he dwells there, provided he does not use both private Oratories at the same time. For a privilege of this sort is a personal privilege, and it is no obstacle that he dwells in the countryside only through the autumn; for it is a dwelling for a longer time, which, for that season, can also be called his usual habitation. Ferraris, Orat. Privat., a. 1, n. 41; Lig. 358.

Then, as to the hall divided by a silk cloth and the altar placed in that small room, as it were, built in the cavity of the wall and closed by a wooden door, this also does not seem to disturb anything. "It is not necessary," says St. Alphonsus, "that the Oratory be so separated from other places that it be enclosed by four walls with a door; but it suffices if there are three walls and a fourth, as it were, of tapestry or cloth, or some other similar thing, so that it can be opened and closed." L. 6, n. 359. St. Alphonsus indeed says again, n. 360, ibid.: "Fr. Fortunatus Brixia thinks it is not enough that the altar be placed within an ample cabinet existing in a cavity of the wall, furnished on the lateral parts and able to be closed after Mass." And in fact, without doubt it is far more fitting that the altar be placed within a fixed place, whether with four walls or three, and in some separate room. But St. Alphonsus adds, ibid.: "I know that several Oratories of this sort exist in the city of Naples, and have been approved by the Archbishop. For Oratories of this sort do not seem to be forbidden by the indult; indeed, the aforesaid lateral tablets sufficiently stand in the place of walls." But, to establish this more firmly, St. Alphonsus observes, "as F. Fortunatus also says, it is necessary that the wooden altar not be movable, but fixed to the wall, according to the decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, 3 Dec. 1661, and not have the appearance of a portable altar." But the Oratory of Augustinus is not really in an ample cabinet, constructed in a cavity of the wall, but in a deep cavity of the wall as in a small room constructed there with four walls.

Then, as to the occupation of the hall, and to the fact that at night the nephews and guests sleep there, no difficulty can arise either; because that is done rarely, namely once a year, on the feast day of Augustinus, and because of the necessity arising from the presence of many relatives and friends. "For in a case of necessity," says St. Alphonsus, "even churches can be used for eating, sleeping, holding assemblies, etc.; ... all the more, therefore, the Oratory, which is deputed to sacred use only by transitory deputation." L. 3, n. 460. Indeed, La-Croix thinks that "even if necessity does not excuse, this nevertheless does not exceed venial sin. For doctors say that, even in a consecrated church, the use of a profane use is not a mortal sin, unless it is used constantly and by habit as a profane place." L. 6, p. 2, n. 257. But in the case the hall itself properly is not the Oratory, since it is before the Oratory, which is constructed in the cavity of the wall and separated from the hall by the wooden door.

Finally, the relatives of Augustinus and noble friends, hearing Mass in that Oratory, satisfied the precept. For Augustinus was using his right. Moreover, by force of the indult, noble guests can be admitted, even "guests coming for only one day, and those invited to dinner, so that they participate in the privilege, provided that the privileged person is present." Lig., l. c., 361.

338. Principles. I. All the faithful having the use of reason are bound under grave obligation on each Sunday and feast day to be present at Mass, unless they are excused by a just cause. This is clear: 1. from various places of canon law, especially from c. Missas 64, De Consecrat., dist. 1; likewise from c. Omnes 63, De Consecrat., dist. 1; 2. from all catechisms, in which the undoubted precept concerning Mass to be heard on these days is declared.

I said under grave obligation; for the matter is grave both in itself and according to the common estimation of the faithful and the unanimous consent of theologians.

We must treat: 1. of those things required for hearing Mass rightly; 2. of the causes excusing from it.

1020. This precept touches all the faithful who enjoy the use of reason, and also priests who are not celebrating, unless they are legitimately excused. It obliges under grave sin, as is clear from proposition 52 condemned by Innocent XI:¹ "The precept of observing feasts does not oblige under mortal sin, scandal being set aside, if contempt is absent." - Hence we shall speak: 1. of the requisites for hearing Mass; 2. of the causes excusing from hearing it.

¹ In Denzinger, n. 1069; cf. Viva on this proposition.

1031. Any grave cause, or any notable harm, whether one's own or that of neighbor, excuses from the precept of hearing Mass: for since there is question of a positive law, which in its determination is merely ecclesiastical, a proportionately grave cause excuses from its observance. Generally a fourfold cause is assigned: 1. moral impossibility; 2. charity; 3. duty to be fulfilled; 4. custom.

1032. 1. Impossibility, not only absolute and physical, but also moral. From this head the following are excused:

(a) The sick and convalescents who, on account of bodily weakness, roughness of the road, inclemency of the air, prudently fear some detriment to health: concerning this they themselves can judge, nor are they strictly held to recur to the judgment of a physician.

(b) Those who are far distant from church, so that they cannot go to church without notable fatigue or expense, all the circumstances of persons, roads, inclemency of the air, etc., being considered; in this matter the judgment of prudent men must be followed, which is diverse for various regions. Those who can easily be conveyed by horse or carriage are not as easily excused as those who must undertake the journey on foot.

(c) Those who cannot be present at the sacred rite without undergoing a notable loss of money; thus travelers who cannot interrupt or defer a necessary journey; those who otherwise incur grave loss, or are deprived of an opportunity of making notable gain; those laboring in workshops in which they cannot abandon work begun: in which case, nevertheless, the master of the workshop ought to order matters so that the workers successively have time for hearing Mass, as often as this can be done.

(d) Those who deservedly fear the loss of honor, for example, women who lack garments suitable to their condition (which today rarely happens, because decent garments are procured for a small price), or those pregnant from a crime, as long as their disgrace is hidden, unless they can be present at the sacred rite very early in the morning or in a church where they are unknown.

(e) Those who are not under their own right, and cannot hear Mass without undergoing indignation or vexations: thus wives, children, servants, soldiers, when they seriously fear that they will be subject to the very troublesome mockeries of husbands, parents, masters, commanders.

But, in all these adjuncts, those who are thus prevented ought seriously to attempt to remove the impediments as soon as morally possible.

1033. 2. Charity excuses those who are held to assist a neighbor in bodily or spiritual necessity, and cannot perform this without omitting Mass; for example, those who assist the sick, - bring help to neighbors who otherwise would suffer grave harm from fire, storm, or another calamity, - settle quarrels and disputes or impede grave sins.

1034. 3. Duty to be fulfilled excuses all those who are impeded by the duties of their state from being present at the sacred rite: mothers and nurses, servants, guards, soldiers keeping watch, who cannot be absent on account of a necessary ministry. Nevertheless servants who are frequently impeded by the bad will of the master ought, when opportunity is given, to seek another position.

1035. 4. Custom, where it is in force, excuses widows within the first month of widowhood; women after childbirth, for a month or six weeks; brides, on those days on which their nuptials are proclaimed, if they cannot be present at another Mass.

1036. Practical admonition. (a) When penitents confess that they have omitted the sacred rite, let the confessor ask about the cause, so that he may be able to judge the gravity of the sin, and also hand down opportune counsels for the future.

(b) If any are legitimately impeded from assisting at the sacred rite on Sundays and feast days, they are to be advised to supply this at home by prayers and good works. But if any are prevented throughout the whole year, they are to be exhorted to hear Mass sometimes on weekdays, lest they be altogether deprived of the most abundant fruits of the sacrifice; indeed, according to those who think that by divine law the faithful are held sometimes to be present at the sacred rite (Lehmkuhl, n. 567), they are obliged to this: and this opinion is not lacking in probability; for, given the institution of the Eucharistic sacrifice, it is very probable that Christ willed Christians sometimes to be present at it.

(c) Although there is no special obligation of assisting at Vespers and of performing the other pious exercises on Sundays and feast days, nevertheless this is earnestly to be commended.

4. The religious observance of Sundays and holydays of obligation implies: a) The performance of works of piety and charity, e.g., praying, listening to the word of God, spiritual reading, reception of the Sacraments, visiting the sick, etc. The main purpose for which we are commanded to abstain from bodily labor and business on Sundays and holydays of obligation, is that we may be able to devote ourselves more freely to the worship of God and to works of mercy. “We observe the Sabbath fully and perfectly,” says the Catechism of the Council of Trent, “when we render to God the duties of piety and religion; and this is evidently the ‘Sabbath’ which Isaias¹⁸ calls ‘delightful,’ for festivals are, as it were, the delight of God and of pious men. If, then, to this religious and holy observance of the Sabbath are added works of mercy, the rewards proposed to us in the same chapter are indeed very great and numerous.”¹⁹

¹⁸ Is. LVIII, 13.

¹⁹ Cat. Rom., P. III, c. 4, qu. 10; cfr. qu. 25–28.

To hear the word of God on Sundays and holydays of obligation is not contained in the letter, but is certainly demanded by the spirit of the commandment with which we are dealing. The Church, by compelling her ministers to preach on Sundays and holydays²⁰ clearly expects that the faithful will listen with fervor and devotion. Attendance at the sermon is demanded, first, by the reverence we owe to the word of God, and, secondly, by the duty we have of informing ourselves about the truths of our holy religion.²¹ To miss the sermon purposely and habitually indicates lukewarmness and dislike of God.²²

²⁰ Conc. Trid., Sess. V, De Ref., c. 2; Sess. XXII, De Sacrif. Missae, c. 8; Sess. XXIV, De Ref., c. 4.

²¹ Cfr. Matt. XXVIII, 19 sq.; Luke X, 16; Acts II, 37–41; IV, 4; VIII, 5 sq.; Rom. X, 14, 17.

²² Cfr. H. Busembaum, S.J., Medulla Theol. Mor., l. III, tr. 3, c. 1, dub. 3: “Attendance at a sermon is commanded, but not under mortal sin, except insofar as each person is bound to learn the things necessary for salvation. I said, except insofar, etc., because more uneducated men who are ignorant of the principal mysteries of faith, especially those which it has been said they are bound to know under grave obligation, are bound by the law of charity (if otherwise they cannot conveniently learn them) under grave sin to attend a sermon, or rather catechesis. Bonacina adds that in that case even a sermon is to be preferred to Mass.”—Cfr. St. Alphonsus, Theol. Mor., l. III, n. 308 (ed. Gaudé, I, 569).—Cat. Rom., P. III, c. 4, qu. 25: “The sacred sermon must be heard attentively and diligently by the faithful; for nothing is less tolerable or so truly unworthy as to despise the words of Christ or to hear them negligently.”

The word of God should be listened to earnestly, rever- ently, and with an ardent desire to utilize it for the good of the soul.²³

²³ Matt. XIII, 1 sqq.; Luke VIII, 4 sqq.

It has been asserted that towards the end of the Middle Ages the sermon ceased to constitute an integral part of divine service. This is an error. The medieval confession books, issued for the instruction of the faithful, inculcate the hearing of the sermon on Sundays and holydays as a strict duty, neglect of which is on a level with failure to hear Mass. Bernardine of Busti, an Italian Franciscan, who died in the year 1500, in a sermon declares that every Catholic is obliged under pain of sin to hear the word of God and that those who are uninstructed in the fundamental truths of salvation commit a mortal sin if they neglect to hear an occasional sermon. To the question what would be more meritorious,—to attend Mass or to hear the word of God, he replies that on week-days it is better to hear a sermon, whereas a distinction should be made in regard to Sundays and holydays of obligation: he who is familiar with the truths necessary for salvation must attend Mass in order not to violate the express commandment of the Church; but he who is not well instructed in these truths, must hear the sermon rather than attend Mass, because the latter is enjoined by a precept of the Church only, whereas the former is commanded by a positive law of God.²⁴

²⁴ Cfr. Der Katholik, Mayence 1899, I, 95 sq.

b) To hear Mass on Sundays and holydays of obligation is a strictly binding precept.²⁵

²⁵ Cfr. Vol. II of this Handbook, p. 133.

α) It implies assisting at a whole Mass. He who is unable to hear a whole Mass, should try to be present at least at the essential and integral parts of the Holy Sacrifice, i. e., consecration and communion. Should he be legitimately prevented from assisting at these essential portions, however, he is under no obligation to assist at the remaining ceremonies, which are merely accidental.²⁶

²⁶ H. Noldin, S.J., Summa Theol. Mor., Vol. II, p. 278; Ballerini-Palmieri, Opus Theol. Mor., II, n. 781.

Wilfully to miss any part of the Mass on Sundays or holydays of obligation is a sin,—either grave or light, according to the nature and length of the part missed. The more important parts of the Mass which may not be missed without grave sin are: (1) from the point of view of duration (ratione durationis), the part extending from the psalm Iudica to the offertory, inclusive; (2) from the point of view of dignity (ratione dignitatis), the part from the preface, exclusively, to the consecration; the part from the consecration to the Pater noster; the consecration and communion taken together, and the consecration alone, though not (probabiliter) the communion alone. One who leaves the church before and returns immediately after consecration, does not, strictly speaking, satisfy the precept.²⁷

²⁷ Suarez, De Eucharistia, qu. 88, sect. 2, n. 6; Noldin, Summa Theol. Mor., II, 278 sq.

To determine the guilt of those who come late to Mass, says Noldin, we must look, not so much to the part missed, as to the degree of negligence of which they are guilty and their awareness of the danger of not hearing the whole Mass. He who fails to hurry to church because he thinks he will miss only a small part of Mass, commits a venial sin, even if he arrives after the offertory, whereas he who is in doubt, or anticipates that he will miss an important part of the holy Sacrifice, sins grievously, even if he should arrive in time for the Gloria.²⁸

²⁸ Noldin, Summa Theol. Mor., II, 279.

Does one who hears one-half each of two different Masses comply with the law of the Church? If he hears the two halves simultaneously, he does not comply with his duty, because the Mass, by its very nature, consists of successive parts.²⁹ If he hears the two halves successively, one after the other, and the consecration and communion form part of the same Mass, he satisfies his obligation, because he hears one complete Mass; but if the consecration and communion do not form part of the same Mass, he does not satisfy his obligation because the parts at which he attends do not constitute an integral sacrifice.³⁰

²⁹ Innocent XI condemned the following proposition (n. 53): “He satisfies the precept of the Church concerning hearing Mass who hears two parts of it, indeed even four, at the same time from different celebrants.”

³⁰ Noldin, Summa Theol. Mor., II, 279.

From what we have said it follows that if one has not heard a complete Mass, he is bound, if possible, to supply the defect (obligatio supplendi), under pain of mortal sin if the parts omitted were important, under pain of merely venial sin if they were small and unimportant.³¹

³¹ Ibid.

β) The duty of hearing Mass on Sundays and holydays of obligation implies a bodily presence which is both moral and continuous (praesentia moralis et continua). A person is morally present at Mass, (1) if he is morally united with the celebrant, (2) if he kneels, stands or sits somewhere within the church or near it in a place from which he is able either to see or hear the celebrant, or at least to follow the sacred rite by watching those who can see or hear the priest at the altar.

Therefore Mass may be lawfully attended anywhere within the church, including the choir, even behind the organ, or in some side chapel, from which the celebrant can be neither seen nor heard, provided the hearer can follow the sacred ceremony by attending to the ringing of the bells or watching others who are able to see what is going on.

Mass may be lawfully heard also in the sacristy or some other place near the altar, from which the celebrant can be seen or, if the door is closed, can at least be heard.

Those who leave the church for a brief space to ring the bells or fetch the wine, remain morally present because they are participating in the sacrifice and their withdrawal from it is but temporary and for the purpose of co-operation.

One may also hear Mass outside the church, near the door, even though it is closed, provided the ceremonies can be followed by means of the sense of hearing.

The same is true of one who stands some distance away from the church and cannot approach closer because of the attending multitude.³²

³² Ibid., p. 280.

The precept of hearing Mass on Sundays and holydays of obligation may be satisfied in any church, in any public or semi-public oratory, and also in private chapels on cemeteries, but not in other private chapels, unless a privilege to this effect has been expressly granted by the Holy See.³³

³³ C. I. C., can. 1249; cfr. can. 1190.

Does one satisfy the obligation of hearing Mass if he goes to confession while the Holy Sacrifice is being of- fered? Since going to confession does not exclude a certain degree of external attention, Ballerini-Palmieri, Génicot, Noldin, and other authors hold that one who goes to confession in the course of one Mass need not assist at another in order to comply with his Sunday duty.³⁴

³⁴ Ballerini-Palmieri, Opus Theol. Mor., 2nd ed., II, n. 773; Génicot, Theol. Mor. Inst., 7th ed., Bruxelles 1909, Vol. I, n. 431; Noldin, op. cit., II, p. 278.

γ) Mass must be heard with a right intention and with due attention.

(1) One need not have the formal intention of complying with the commandment of the Church; it is sufficient to attend religiously, i. e., with a view to worship. Therefore, one who would go to church merely to hear the singing would not comply with his obligation, whereas a boy who went to Mass because he was compelled to go by his parents, would satisfy the ecclesiastical precept.

(2) Attention is internal or external, according as it excludes distraction from within or from without. External attention negatively consists in avoiding every outward activity incompatible with internal attention; positively, in a certain vague consciousness that one is assisting at the holy Sacrifice. External attention at least is necessary to hear Mass, because without external attention the act would be neither human nor religious. Therefore one does not satisfy his obligation if he reads profane books or attentively studies paintings or inscriptions while assisting at Mass. The moral law of nature and the virtue of religion furthermore require that internal attention which is part of the reverence man owes to God. The ecclesiastical precept does not demand internal attention, and, consequently, one would satisfy his obligation under the law even if he were (either voluntarily or involuntarily) distracted during Mass.

As the Church merely requires assistance at Mass, but does not prescribe any particular prayers to be recited during the ceremony, the question what kind of attention is necessary to satisfy the obligation resolves itself into this: whether an act of divine worship can be performed with a distracted mind. Opinions differ on this head; but, as Noldin points out, the opposing groups are not so far apart as it may seem, since those authors who insist on the necessity of internal attention require such a small degree thereof³⁵ that it really does not amount to much more than what the authors of the opposing group mean when they speak of purely external attention.³⁶ Therefore, he says, a man does not satisfy his obligation if he sleeps during a considerable portion of the Mass and is thus unable to realize what is going on upon the altar. But he who dozes so lightly as to be aware, at least in a confused manner, of what is going on, even though he nods during a considerable part of the Mass, satisfies his obligation. The same is true of one who gossips with another, because this act does not preclude that confused kind of attention which is sufficient to satisfy the law.

³⁵ St. Alphonsus, Theol. Mor., l. III, n. 313.

³⁶ Noldin, Summa Theol. Mor., II, p. 277.

Those who play the organ, sing, take up the collection, serve as ushers, and so forth, satisfy their obligation even though they are occupied throughout the whole Mass, because the acts they perform do not exclude the required attention. For the same reason one who would assist at the holy Sacrifice in a half-wake or semi-drunk condition would satisfy at least the letter of the law.³⁷

³⁷ Noldin, op. cit., p. 277.

c) It remains to deal with the reasons that excuse men from attending Mass on Sundays and holydays of obligation. As this precept does not belong to the graviora, any really weighty reason will excuse one from compliance with it. The more common reasons may be conveniently grouped under four heads:

(1) Moral impossibility; (2) charity; (3) office or occupation; (4) custom.

(1) By reason of moral impossibility are excused: (a) Those who live too far away from church. According to St. Alphonsus all, even those in good health, are excused from hearing Mass on Sundays if they have an hour and a quarter’s walk to church, or even less, if the weather is bad or the person weak. Those who are able to ride or drive are not excused, unless the distance is at least twice that which a man can walk in an hour and a quarter. Busembaum adds that due regard should be paid in this matter to the custom of the country or neighborhood.

(b) Those who are afraid of losing their honor or reputation either because they lack becoming clothes, or girls who have become pregnant in consequence of secret fornication, unless they have an opportunity to attend early in the morning. (c) Those who are compelled to travel or are unable to interrupt a necessary journey already begun. (d) Those who have reason to fear a notable loss of worldly goods; but this loss must be considerable, measured by the status and condition of the owner. (e) The sick and convalescent, who cannot attend Mass except with grave danger to their health or a notable retardation in their recovery. Whether such danger is really to be feared, does not necessarily require the decision of a physician or a priest, but may be determined by the patient himself, provided he is capable of forming a prudent judgment. Generally speaking, one is excused from attending Mass if his condition is such that he omits other important affairs involving an equal effort for fear of injury or relapse.³⁸

³⁸ Ballerini-Palmieri, Opus Theol, Mor,., I1,-n. 803,

Not a few persons in delicate health find the air in church oppressive. If it affects them seriously, for instance, by causing difficulty in breathing or fainting spells, they are excused from assisting at Mass.³⁹ (f) Those who work in offices or factories, and whose occupation is such that they cannot get away without grave inconvenience or danger. When there is no real necessity, however, the employer is in duty bound to give his employees time enough to attend Mass on Sundays and holydays of obligation. (g) Wives and children who cannot comply with their duty because it would excite the husband or father to furious anger; also soldiers who would incur vexations on the part of their officers or subject themselves to continuous and intolerable slurs on the part of their fellow soldiers.

³⁹ Capellmann, Medicina Pastoralis, pp. 90 sq.

(2) The demands of charity excuse the following persons from hearing Mass on Sundays and holydays of obligation: (a) Those in charge of the sick and infirm. (b) Those who assist others in case of fire or flood. (c) Those who have reason to hope that by their presence elsewhere they will be able to prevent sin.

(3) By reason of their office or occupation the following are excused from hearing Mass on Sundays and holydays of obligation: (a) Soldiers on duty; watchmen in cities and villages; shepherds in care of flocks; the custodians of buildings in places where but one Mass is celebrated, etc. The superiors of all such persons, however, are in duty bound to permit their subjects or employees to hear Mass whenever possible. (b) Mothers and nurses who can neither leave their charges nor take them along to church. (c) Servants who cannot get away because of urgent duties. These are, however, obliged to hear Mass if they can do so without great inconvenience, e. g., by rising earlier in the morning. In case they are prevented by their employers, they may acquiesce if they have reason to fear serious consequences, but if the inconvenience to be apprehended is light, they should do their duty and bravely make the sacrifice which it involves. If they are regularly or frequently prevented from going to church on Sundays, servants should seek another position. (d) Those who have to prepare food or provide other necessaries of life; but where there are several Masses, such persons, with a modicum of good will, ought to be able to attend one of them.

(4) Custom in some countries or places ex- cuses certain classes of persons from attendance at Sunday Mass. Among these classes we will mention: (a) Women for a month or six weeks after childbirth. (b) Widows who remain secluded at home for a month after the death of their husbands. (c) Brides in countries where it is not customary for them to attend Mass on the Sundays when the banns of marriage are proclaimed.⁴⁰

⁴⁰ In the above we have followed Noldin, Summa Theol. Mor., II, pp. 282 sqq.

— Substance of the obligation. What it is to hear Mass. "On feast days of precept, Mass must be heard": i.e., human, bodily, and devout presence must be exhibited to it.

That it may be human, there is required the intention of furnishing this act of external worship, or of honoring the sacrifice by one's presence, but not the intention of satisfying the precept (cf. I, n. 198).

That it may be bodily, it is required that the faithful person externally be and appear present, whether from the place where he is: the church; or through conjunction with those who surround the altar, when the crowded multitude is not contained by the church, or hears Mass under the open sky; or through the external manner by which he manifests attention, when, for example, from a neighboring house, behind a wall, in the sacristy, he intends to participate in the Mass. He is not considered present who by the aid of a telescope observes Mass in a distant place.

That it may be devout, at least the attention which is called external must be furnished, i.e., that the faithful person externally do nothing alien to divine worship, or by which he is prohibited from at least confusedly turning his mind to the fact that the sacrifice is being offered there. It does not stand in the way that he himself does not attend internally.

All attention of itself is internal. Yet they distinguish the just-named external attention, which rather negatively excludes external distractions, from the interior attention by which one positively wills to apply his mind to sacred things, whether by observing the sacred rites of the priest (superficial attention), or by considering their signification (literal attention), or by thinking again on God or divine things (spiritual attention) (cf. Lugo, d. 22, n. 25).

Wherefore it is not necessary that someone pray during Mass, or truly notice the various or principal actions of the priest, as if pious reading or contemplation has occupied the whole man. Therefore they satisfy the precept who play the organ: the playing refers to the Mass itself; who collect alms: that good work is a certain accession to the sacrifice and does not impede every attention; who serve at Mass, even while they withdraw for certain moments to seek wine, a host, incense, lights, or to ring the bell for the consecration: they are not considered absent; who pray at another altar, perform the way of the cross, make confession: those pious works do not impede confused attention, and the mind of the Church is not opposed to this benign interpretation; who now converse, now attend, if not too much time is spent in conversation. A priest who celebrates can hear another Mass at the same time.

They do not satisfy the precept who sleep for a notable time, although involuntarily, or trifle, play, laugh, fixedly look at other things, read profane things, even learn a sacred text by memory: for these things take away either bodily or devout assistance.

One who half-asleep preserves a certain confused consciousness of his presence at Mass is not compelled to hear another Mass (St. Alph., l. 3, n. 316); and by epikeia he is dispensed from another attempt who, from his physical state, is exposed to too great a danger of new sleep.

— Mass must be heard when celebrated in some Catholic rite, under the open sky or in a non-private oratory, excepting private cemetery chapels (c. 1249).

Therefore it is not established that he does not satisfy the precept who hears a Mass which a true priest of a schismatic or heretical sect has celebrated in a Catholic rite: although formal communication with a celebrant of this kind is prohibited, and therefore his Mass must not be heard.

Oratories of a religious or pious house are not considered private, unless there is question of a Mass which is said in the room of a private person, even a religious, for example because of infirmity. The oratory of a private house is recognized by this sign, that a pontifical indult is required so that Mass may habitually be celebrated there. In the indult are numbered the persons who can satisfy there the precept of hearing Mass. And the one serving the Mass, as also the celebrant himself, seems to satisfy the precept in such an oratory.

The precept is also satisfied by him who hears a Mass celebrated by a cardinal or bishop, or for the convenience of either. For concerning a bishop the Sacred Congregation of Rites responded this on June 8, 1896.

— Mass must be heard whole, i.e., from the beginning up to the last Gospel exclusively. An omission is mortal which affects grave matter. Gravity depends both on quantity, if this reaches the third part of an ordinary Mass, and on the dignity of the part omitted, or proximity to the substance of the sacrifice. Wherefore a brief absence during the part which extends from the canon to communion more easily becomes grave. We add certain moral estimations:

It is not certainly grave: to omit the Mass of the catechumens, or all things up to the offertory exclusively (at least if then the last Gospel is heard); or all things after the reception of the Holy Blood; to omit all things up to the epistle exclusively and all things after the reception of the Blood.

It is not grave to omit only the first Gospel (even if it is the Passion of the Lord), or only the offertory, or only the preface.

It is reputed grave to omit all things from the canon to the consecration, or from the consecration to the Pater noster. It is grave to omit both the consecration and communion. The omission of communion alone, especially since it is sufficiently established that it is not essential to the sacrifice, can be held light. With greater reason several condemn as mortal the omission of the consecration, whether of either species or certainly of both. On account of extrinsic authority, however, the more benign opinion can be held, which rather, with Lehmkuhl, I, 718 note, we explain thus: when a momentary withdrawal has as its cause a very brief necessity, which is not considered to have interrupted moral conjunction with the others standing by (cf. Lugo, d. 22, n. 45).

He is excused from grave sin (from all sin, if the cause is reasonable) who hears successively two half Masses; provided that, as after St. Alphonsus, l. 3, n. 311, they commonly require, he is present at one whole sacrifice, and therefore the consecration and communion are of the same sacrifice: the law receives this benign interpretation.

To supply the light part which has been omitted is best; but concerning a strict obligation of such imperfect reparation it is not established. But he who has arrived only after the consecration does not now seem to be held to hearing the remaining part, since he cannot satisfy the substance of the precept.

— Excuse. From hearing Mass, besides the impossibility under which, for example, one labors who is at once blind and deaf, there excuses any notable or moderately grave inconvenience, whether in mind, or in body, or in goods of fortune, or in honor, reputation, shame, which is reasonably feared (Lehmk., I, 722). Yet habitual omission can be conceded with more difficulty, since from the divine precept itself Mass seems sometimes to have to be heard. Wherefore those who are regularly impeded on Sunday should be present at least at some Masses through the year, on another day. Therefore he is excused:

who by reason of health prudently omits visits to friends; or has to fear notable heaviness of the head, weariness of strength, or delay in convalescing. And in doubt that precept does not seem to have to be urged;

who must guard a city, flock, or infants; or must be a comfort to a sick person who would suffer at least grave disturbance or sadness. If from two spouses one is retained at home, there is at least great fittingness that they exchange turns;

who does not seem able to hear Mass without grave offense of husband, parents, masters. If, however, this happens rather often, inquiry must be made about another means, e.g., about changing service. It is licit for a father, for correction, to keep a son closed at home, even if thus he omits Mass; it is licit for a master to require service which is thought necessary from servants with the same foresight. The servants themselves must take care with moderate diligence that they be able to be present at Mass; nevertheless they are not bound to bear a notable diminution of sleep from this;

who otherwise would lose a convenient occasion of travel. Otherwise, he is forbidden to set out on Sunday unless before the journey or on the journey he hears Mass;

who would have too great a distance to overcome. By a pedestrian journey of one good hour or five quarters (understand this of the going alone), all seem absolutely to be excused, and a lesser distance excuses if from the condition of weather, road, or person, the trouble is increased. But for one to whom, without new expenses in some way serious, there is easily available a private or public carriage (tramway) or even a "bicycle," a greater distance is needed for him to be excused;

who, from the custom of the country, is not accustomed to go out, for example in time of mourning or after childbirth;

who would suffer notable embarrassment, whether because he lacks suitable clothes (unless in the first hours or in another church the cause ceases), or would have to hear the proclamation of his own marriage, etc.;

who wishes to avoid another's scandal, e.g., a young man by whom a girl is loved desperately;

who would lose extraordinary profit and profit notable to himself (e.g., double the profit of one day), or in exercising the office of driver, sailor, miller, would suffer notable loss;

who is dispensed for a just, although lesser, cause. In individual cases, local Ordinaries and pastors can, by force of c. 1245, dispense for a just cause individual faithful subject to themselves or individual families even outside the territory, and, in their own territory, even pilgrims.

The same power, after the manner of a pastor, is had by Superiors in an exempt clerical religion, as regards professed members, novices, or others dwelling in the religious house day and night by reason of service, or education, or hospitality, or infirm health (c. 1245, §3).

— Must someone use a privilege for hearing Mass? We think one must respond with this distinction. It need not be arranged that Mass be said from a privilege; but if it is said, one must assist at it, at least if it is said in that place where the precept can of itself be satisfied, for example in an open place on a ship.

— Things to be desired. Two things are chiefly to be striven for in this matter: 1. that the faithful formally and therefore also by other exercises strive to sanctify feasts, and chiefly use that occasion for learning religion better; 2. that the faithful, even the humbler, be taught a reasonable manner, at once pious and accessible, in which they may be present at Mass, so that, as befits man, they may be able to esteem the most august things by their own consciousness.

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:

1. 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;

2. 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;

3. 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;

4. 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:

1. 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;

2. mothers and nurses who can neither leave little children alone nor bring them with them to church;

3. soldiers, guards of cities and flocks, several officials on the railway, and certain laborers in factories who must attend to and supervise machines;

4. 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.

We must treat: 1° of those things which are required for hearing Mass rightly; 2° of causes excusing from it.

Three things are required: 1° presence of body; 2° attention of mind; 3° due place.

A moral and continuous presence of body is required.

399. • I. Moral, namely, one must be present where Mass is taking place, so that he can be said to be one from the number of those assisting and offering the Sacrifice; but for this it suffices that he be in a place from which he can follow Mass as to the principal parts, whether by seeing, or by hearing, or by attending to the signs of the others assisting.

II. Continuous, that is, persevering from the beginning to the end of Mass, so that he sins gravely who omits a notable part of it, and venially who omits a slight part, unless a just cause excuses him.

You will resolve. - 1° He validly assists at Mass who, although he neither sees the priest nor hears the words, distinguishes the parts of the Mass by the sound of the bell, by the chant of the choir, by the movements of those assisting, to whom he is morally joined, although he is outside the Church, in which he cannot be contained because of the crowd. Likewise he who stands behind the altar, behind a column, or behind a wall, provided he can advert to the principal parts of the Mass.

2° Likewise, not improbably, he who is in a neighboring house, from which through a window he sees the altar, although a road intervenes, provided that the space between the Church and the place in which he is be small. But otherwise if a great space intervenes, as is more commonly taught.

3° He who remains a great distance away does not assist at Mass, although he sees the church, the altar, the crowd, because in common use he cannot be said morally to hear and to be present. According to Lugo and others, a space of thirty paces from the crowd assisting does not seem so great that it impedes someone from being present at Mass; yet St. Alphonsus¹ does not admit this.

400. Questions. - Quaer. 1° What omission is to be reckoned grave or light in Mass?

Resp. It cannot easily be determined; for although according to all, a third part of Mass is notable, nevertheless it is not established what the third part is, since a notable part ought not to be judged only from duration. Yet according to the common opinion these things seem able to be established.

1° It is grave to omit everything up to the Offertory inclusively, or up to the oblation of the bread exclusively. But certainly it is light to omit everything up to the Epistle exclusively, and more probably even inclusively; indeed probably also, according to St. Alphonsus,² up to the Gospel inclusively, although the Holy Doctor holds the opposite opinion as more probable. The reason for these things is that what precedes does not properly pertain to the Sacrifice, but is only as it were preparation for it. - Lugo, etc.

2° According to all, it is grave to omit all things before the Gospel and at the same time all things after Communion; but not to omit only those things which follow Communion, indeed not even to omit all things before the Epistle and all things after Communion. - Lacroix,¹ St. Alphonsus.²

3° The omission of the Canon from the Consecration up to the Pater exclusively must be held grave, because it is a notable part in duration and dignity. But the omission of the Offertory, that is, of all things which are done from Dominus vobiscum after the Creed up to the Preface, is reckoned light; for in this broader sense³ the Offertory comes here; - likewise the omission of the Creed, because it is not a regular part of Mass.⁴ But the Gospel of St. John at the end more probably is not a part of the Mass, because before it the people are already dismissed by the blessing.

4° It is grave to omit the Consecration and Communion; indeed even the Consecration alone, because it is the most worthy part, in which, at least principally, the nature of the Sacrifice consists. Nay more, more probably and more commonly it is held that it is grave not to be present at even one Consecration or Communion alone, because the essence of the Sacrifice more probably consists in both the Consecration and in Communion, and St. Alphonsus practically adheres to this opinion.⁵

401. • Quaer. 2° Does he satisfy the precept who hears two half Masses from different priests, either simultaneously or successively?

Resp. 1° Negatively, if he hears them simultaneously. The reason is drawn from the interpretation of the common law, which is confirmed by Proposition 53 condemned by Innocent XI (p. XVII).

Resp. 2° But affirmatively, probably, if successively, if the Consecration and Communion are found in the same Mass, after another Mass has previously been heard up to the Consecration. Yet that without a just cause is at least venial.

Quaer. 3° Must he hear the remaining things who arrives after the Consecration at the last part of Mass?

Resp. Affirmatively, very probably, because the opinion is also sufficiently probable that the essence of the Sacrifice consists in the Consumption, and this opinion must be held in practice also for another reason, namely this, that a notable part of the ceremony prescribed by the Church can be heard.¹

Quaer. 4° Is he who omits a light part of Mass bound under light sin to supply it, if he can?

Resp. Affirmatively, more probably, because he is bound to hear an entire Mass; except if there is question of a very slight part. - Thus St. Alphonsus,² the Salmanticenses against others. For the rest, a sufficiently light reason can exempt from this obligation of supplying.

402. • Attention to Mass is distinguished as twofold: 1° internal, by which someone actually adverts and applies his mind to those things which are being done by the priest; 2° external, which consists in avoiding any external action which impedes the application of the mind, for example to converse, paint, ... etc.

But internal attention is threefold: 1° one to the words or actions of the priest; 2° another to the sense of the words or mysteries; 3° another to God Himself through prayers or pious meditations.

Principles. - I. For hearing Mass validly there is altogether required at least external attention; because in no way can he be said to be present at Mass who posits actions incompatible with internal attention; indeed he impudently mocks God and the Church. - Thus all.

II. Some internal attention is required besides, and at least the will of hearing Mass; because this is entirely required so that the hearing or presence may be human, moral, and religious from its object. - Suarez.⁴

III. But any internal attention from the three just explained suffices. The reason is that by any one of them the mind is sufficiently applied to the divine worship which is intended through the Sacrifice.

IV. No vocal prayer is absolutely required; because religious assistance honors God, and nothing else is prescribed.¹ - Yet in practice the faithful, especially the uninstructed, must be persuaded to recite some prayers, especially the customary prayers for the hearing of Mass, or the rosary of the most blessed Virgin, lest they be exposed to too many distractions.

403. Questions. - Quaer. 1° For fulfilling this precept, is internal attention required under grave sin?

Resp. The matter is very doubtful. The FIRST OPINION, from St. Alphonsus more common and more probable, affirms. For an act by which God is worshiped is prescribed by the Church; but God cannot be worshiped by mere physical presence; therefore.... Therefore the Church, by directly prescribing the external act of hearing Mass, seems to prescribe indirectly attention, at least some, as a condition without which the formal external act would not consist. - Thus St. Thomas, Billuart, Elbel, the Salmanticenses, and not a few others.

The SECOND OPINION denies. The reason is that assistance with voluntary attention, even merely external, is a sufficiently religious act, and it is not established that anything else is prescribed by the Church. - Thus Lugo, with many others, and St. Alphonsus² does not judge it improbable.

For the rest, in practice there does not appear so great a difference between each opinion. For according to the prior opinion, attention in a remiss degree altogether suffices, namely to the principal parts of Mass; but according to the later, there is required: 1° a pious movement of soul, or a true intention of honoring God; 2° such attention that the one assisting at Mass can render an account to himself that he is really assisting at Mass, and consequently that he adverts at least confusedly to its principal parts. Hence the faithful are not easily to be accused of grave fault because of defect of sufficient attention in Mass, but rather are lovingly to be exhorted to direct the mind piously and diligently to the divine Mysteries. For, says St. Alphonsus,³ after Elbel, Sporer, and Tamburini, no one ought to be anxious because of a scruple of attention not furnished, because it suffices to have had the general intention of worshiping God.

404. • Quaer. 2° Does he satisfy the precept who confesses sins during the time of Mass?

Resp. Negatively, both because he posits an action which impedes internal attention, since one confessing cannot be a witness of those things which are being done; and because he does not assist as one exhibiting worship, but as a guilty person. Nevertheless he is excused if the Confession is either easy and brief, since this does not impede continuous presence, or necessary, lest he remain for some time in mortal sin; for if a grave temporal inconvenience excuses from this precept, a fortiori a spiritual one will excuse.¹

Quaer. 3° Does a cleric reciting the Breviary during the time of Mass satisfy the precept of the Church?

Resp. Affirmatively. The reason is that recitation of the divine Office does not impede someone from being able to be present at the Sacrifice of Mass and to exhibit moral presence to it. - Thus commonly.² (See n. 134.)

405. You will resolve. - 1° Those ministering at Mass satisfy the precept; for they attend sufficiently by exhibiting their ministry, by which they actually cooperate with the Sacrifice. The same must be said of sacristans, musicians, organists, drummers, etc.; because their acts are referred to the worship of God, and do not impede the necessary attention to those things which are done at the altar.³

2° Those who collect alms satisfy, provided they attend to the Mass at least confusedly;⁴ but if they foresee that they cannot furnish this attention, let them hear another Mass, if they conveniently can.

3° Those who examine conscience during the time of Mass, so that they may confess, fulfill sacramental penance, or even make a prayer owed by whatever title, satisfy; because by these the mind is directed to God, and from elsewhere two precepts can be satisfied at the same time, if the things prescribed can be furnished at the same time. - Thus commonly. - Likewise those who read some spiritual book, but not sacred histories with the mind of learning the style.⁵

4° Those also satisfy who are distracted involuntarily, even during the whole time of the Sacrifice, unless they are so carried away by alien thoughts that they in no way attend; for then they satisfy no more than those who sleep involuntarily through a notable part of Mass, although they are excused from sin. Thus commonly. But one dozing sometimes during Mass satisfies, or at least does not offend gravely, provided in some way he adverts to that which is being done.

5° Those also satisfy as to the substance, or are excused from grave fault, who voluntarily are distracted, even during the whole time of Mass, provided they at the same time attend; for this sometimes can happen if the distractions are not so vehement, since a man can think about several things at the same time. - Reuter.²

6° But they by no means satisfy who through a notable part of Mass converse about a serious thing (or even about a light thing, but in such a way that external attention is impeded), or attentively consider images, survey with their eyes the furnishings of the church, read inscriptions or other profane things, meditate on sciences, paint, or perform other similar things, unless these are done interruptedly, or in such a way that they do not altogether impede attention.³

406. • Omitting those things which theologians hand down concerning private oratories, it suffices to note these two things for these provinces.

1° The precept is satisfied wherever by force of the Faculties (n. 1329. q. 3°) it is licit to celebrate.

2° The priest who otherwise could not hear Mass is bound, on Sundays and feasts of precept, to use the privilege of celebrating on a portable altar which is customarily conceded to priests in these provinces, provided nevertheless that he is able reverently to undertake so great an office in those adjuncts of things in which it happens that he is placed. For the rest, if on a journey he is living alone among non-Catholics, he is not bound to celebrate, since the reverence due to the Sacrifice can scarcely be observed.⁴

407. • Any moderately grave cause excuses from hearing Mass, or one which involves some notable inconvenience or damage in the goods of soul or body of oneself or one's neighbor. This is established from the common interpretation and custom, which is the best interpreter of laws. - Thus commonly.¹

408. You will resolve. - 1° The sick, the infirm, and convalescents are excused, whom either going out or being in church harms. (A) p. 474. Likewise those who must guard the sick.²

2° Travelers are excused, to whom no place occurs where they may be present at Mass, or who cannot interrupt the journey, because public drivers, or companions on the way, without whom the journey would not be without inconveniences or danger, refuse to stop.

3° Those are excused who guard the flock or house, or who must prepare food, or perform similar necessary things; yet if several Masses are held, all ought successively to hear Mass, insofar as it can be done.³

4° Mothers and nurses are excused who have no one to whom they can leave little children, nor can they lead them to the Church without great disturbance of those standing by. But if there are only two spouses, they will conveniently be able to be present at Mass by alternate turns.⁴

5° They are often excused who are distant far from the Church, so that they cannot go to it without great difficulty, especially in wintertime.

6° Those who dwell in the country and enjoy the supply of a priest once in a month in a church which is for them as if parochial, according to Kenrick,⁵ are not bound to make the journey elsewhere on feast days and Sundays on which the priest is absent, unless, I would except, they are distant less than three miles from some other church.

7° Those seem to be excused, for the sake of demonstrating affection toward parents and relatives, who sometimes betake themselves to places in which there will be no faculty of hearing Mass. For the rest, this must not be done often, nor lightly, nor for a long time.⁶

8° Those who, for the sake of health or of lawful recreation of mind, betake themselves elsewhere for some fixed weeks, as is the custom of many here, are excused from violation of the precept, even if the supply of hearing Mass will be lacking to them while making the journey; for that leisure and relief of mind is sometimes necessary and very often useful, nor are they compelled always to remain in a place in which there is a supply of Mass.⁷

9° In some rural places there is a custom that neighbors, especially non-Catholics, visit others in the morning of the Lord's Day, to remain with them the whole day, whereby Catholics are detained from hearing Mass. Whether in this case those are excused who remain at home lest they seem to be lacking in company and friendship must be defined from circumstances. Thus, if there is the faculty of going to church and returning to furnish the rights of hospitality, it is clear that Mass must be heard by most members of the family, although someone can remain at home for the sake of companionship; but scarcely do we judge, says Kenrick,¹ that all can ever remain at home, especially if guests have come by design, not once or twice, but rather often. - This must especially be said if Catholics visit Catholics. "For the rest," he adds, "we do not condemn him who, to avoid grave offense of others, sometimes remains at home with guests."

10° Innkeepers are not excused who on Sunday neglect Mass so that they may receive those going to the inn and are going to obtain great gain; for this is done with detriment of religion and great offense of all.²

11° Servants are excused if they cannot omit their service without grave detriment of the master, or if they are prohibited by him, nor can they easily find another master. Resolve the same concerning a wife and a son of the family, for whom grave indignation of the husband or parents is to be feared.³

12° Almost the same, proportion observed, resolve concerning those who accept or retain an office - for example in railroads - or are occupied with a trade - for example of a barber - by which ordinarily or very often they are impeded from Mass. Namely, they seem to be excused, provided: a) by leaving the office or trade they would suffer a grave inconvenience, or certainly would obtain a much worse or doubtful condition of life; b) from neglect of Mass they have not fallen or will not fall into indifferentism. Yet in every case they are to be exhorted to devote themselves to exercises of piety at home on that very day or on other days; but they are not easily to be admonished concerning a grave obligation of renouncing the office or trade, both because often this will be established only with difficulty, and because the admonition will often not be profitable.

409. Questions. - Quaer. 1° What distance excuses from Mass?

Resp. It cannot be assigned absolutely, but must be determined from the adjuncts of persons, places, and times. But regularly a distance of three miles, or a walking journey of one hour and a quarter, excuses, and even somewhat less, if it is raining or snowing, or another cause is present.¹

Yet Kenrick² judges that those who can be carried by horse or carriage are not always excused for this reason, that they are distant even ten miles from the church; "for a journey of this sort," he says, "they perform almost daily for the sake of their business; but generally," he adds, "six or seven miles are for an excuse for women, boys, and others who have not grown accustomed to a longer journey." I would add that attention must also be given to the condition of roads and of rainy or very cold weather, etc.

Quaer. 2° Is a sick person excused from Mass in doubt whether the inconvenience is sufficiently grave?

Resp. In this case one must stand by the counsel of a physician, Superior, Pastor, Confessor, or another prudent man. Indeed the sick person can also acquiesce in his own judgment if he judges thus prudently. But what if, counsel having been sought, he still remains doubtful? - Absolutely he is not bound to Mass, because while the danger of grave harm stands, one must judge that Mother Church does not obligate. - Thus very probably, says St. Alphonsus.³ - In practice it is better that dispensation be sought if it can easily be sought. Cf. n. 66. 2° and 67. c).

Quaer. 3° Does the occasion of making notable gain excuse?

Resp. Affirmatively, probably, because precepts of the Church do not obligate with very grave inconvenience, as is established from what was said n. 137. But a gain of this sort ought to be extraordinary (n. 417. 9°).⁴

Quaer. 4° Are the following excused: a) women not having clothes becoming to their state; b) girls dishonorably pregnant; c) those whose banns before marriage are being made; d) women after childbirth?

Resp. to a) Affirmatively, unless they can hear Mass very early in the morning, or in a church in which they are unknown.

Resp. to b) Affirmatively, unless they can be present at Mass secretly and without notice.

Resp. to c) Affirmatively, if either 1) they suffer notable shame because of them, or 2) somewhere there is a custom of this sort, unless nevertheless they can easily be present at Mass in which the proclamations are not made.

Resp. to d) Affirmatively, for the time determined by the custom of places,¹ unless they are already going out from the house to other places. (u) p. 474.

I. Object of the question. - Just as fidelity toward God is commanded by the first precept, and reverence by the second, so service is commanded by the third precept of the Decalogue. Natural reason itself dictates, and the law of nature prescribes, that some time in human life be reserved for the service of divine worship; but by positive law that time and the manner of worshiping God are to be determined more. In the old law, indeed, positive divine law commanded: Remember to sanctify the sabbath day; this precept together with the other ceremonial prescriptions of the Old Law was abolished by the death of Christ; but now by ecclesiastical law the first day in the week is established to be observed, which by this reason is called the Lord's day.

The precept is at once negative and affirmative: namely, it prohibits servile and forensic works because they are more wont to draw away from the service of God, and it commands assistance at the sacred sacrifice of the altar as the most excellent work of public worship. These things are customarily set forth sufficiently completely in manuals of moral theology; hence here we only set beneath certain practical admonitions for confessors.

II. Rules and principles to be attended to by confessors. - As regards the third precept it is altogether necessary to note that it is opportune for confessors to act not more indulgently but rather more severely, because if the unlearned transgress it habitually, they will now never pray, nor any longer care sufficiently about religion; indeed they will shortly lose due knowledge of the truths of faith and morals because they are never present at sermon or religious instruction. As Berardi well says, Praxis confessariorum, n. 367:

"Very many, occupied the whole week in affairs and labors, if on a feast day they do not provide for the most grave necessities of their own soul by serious reflections and effective remedies, when will they provide? Especially as regards the obligation of hearing the word of God, which being neglected, innumerable Christian faithful live immersed in the mire of vices until death, we have the following from Trent, sess. 24, c. 4: 'Let the Bishop diligently admonish each one that he is bound to be present in his own parish, where this can conveniently be done, for hearing the word of God.'"

Wherefore:

1. Those who are always bound to work on Sundays and can never be present at the sacred rite must obtain another office or service for themselves, at least if they can without great inconvenience, and meanwhile employ means so that they may satisfy the precept both of knowing the doctrine of religion and of praying.

2. Those who on Sundays can never be present at the sacred rite, even if this does not altogether harm their religious life, must obtain another service for themselves insofar as they can without great inconvenience; or, if this is not possible, several times in the year they must assist at the sacred rite during the week, because there is also a natural and divine precept of assisting at the sacrifice several times.

3. Wives and children of families should not easily yield to the husband or father prohibiting the hearing of the sacred rite, even to avoid blasphemies or anger or great indignation, at least if this happens frequently, because otherwise no religious practice would be permitted to them; unless nevertheless they feared grave striking or beating. But if it were demanded in contempt of religion, even then it would not be lawful to do it, but they should never yield.

4. Those who labor on account of legitimate reasons should take care, to avoid scandal, that they do not do this publicly; or, if this is necessary, that the legitimate excuse at least be known by others.

5. Let them also know that a small labor, continued for a brief or at least not long time, nevertheless can, by reason of scandal, be gravely sinful: thus, for a very brief time, for example, publicly to plow land for a quarter of an hour, and similarly to command several persons to labor for one hour, can be a grave sin by reason of scandal.

6. Those are to be blamed who voluntarily place a proximate impediment to the fulfillment of the precept, as if by reason of curiosity, recreation, or a lighter motive they begin a journey on Saturday evening or on Sunday before the first Mass and arrive at another place after the last has ended; for this is not lawful unless the journey is truly necessary and at the same time cannot be made on another day.

7. In practice one must especially attend to certain categories of works:

a) Lest women or girls think lighter feminine works lawful for themselves, such as spinning, sewing, weaving by hand, making lace-work, artificial flowers or images of wax, silk, paper, etc., because they easily exercise such things and thus gradually pass over to many other things. But if they think they have some motive, let them ask a dispensation from the pastor.

b) Lest tailors and shoemakers, without a valid reason, pretend a necessity of working on Sunday to finish a work lest they lose customers: if this is truly so, there is a sufficient reason for working; but often they spontaneously bring themselves into such a necessity, by not employing due solicitude or by losing time at the beginning of the week, or by undertaking more works than they can complete; indeed they work also for those who would not in fact be alienated at all by a delay of the work.

c) Lest farmers exercise rural works and the cultivation of gardens, unless permission has first been obtained from the pastor.

III. Observations. - 1. "Let confessors carefully note that, especially as regards persons of conscience little careful, they ought not easily to approve their manner of acting, as many do who, with the matter by no means weighed, immediately say: go, act, if you have necessity you can work. The matter is on one side too harmful, and on the other too subject to hallucinations: for each one very easily persuades himself that he works from necessity, even when a true, grave, and unavoidable necessity is by no means present... Indeed let them admonish lest, relying on vain reasons, they think themselves not to sin mortally." Thus Berardi, o.c., n. 409.

2. Let confessors know that they have no power in dispensing concerning the precept of observing Sunday; but that this is reserved to the pastor and to those who are in the place of the pastor, and indeed only in particular cases.

3. Let those reading books of moral theology attend lest from theologians of other regions they introduce new customs into their own.

St. Alphonsus, III, n. 308; ed. G., I, p. 569; H. Ap., VI, n. 27 and 38 (where private oratories are treated); Lehmkuhl, I, n. 713; Van Gameren, de Oratoriis; Heiner, Kirchenrecht (1905), p. 342; Weiss, Apol. d. Christ., IV, p. 901; Villien, op. cit., c. 2.

670. The precept of hearing Mass on each Sunday and feast day obliges all the faithful having the use of reason; therefore also priests not celebrating, and all others not legitimately excused. This is established from what was said n. 653 and 656.

It remains here to be treated: 1. of the requisites for hearing Mass; 2. of the causes excusing from hearing it.

Those who assist at the sacred rite are judged to sacrifice together with the celebrant; whence there are required: presence of body, religious assistance, and due place; in other words: material and formal assistance in a due place is required.

The hearing of Mass is imposed primarily; the due place only secondarily. Therefore he who could not hear Mass except in a private oratory would certainly be held to this, as is established from the doctrine set forth in n. 224 and 634. Whence the S. C. de Prop. Fid., on 17 Aug. 1914, for the Greek-Ruthenians in America, established these things: "The Ruthenian faithful are held to frequent their own churches ...; nevertheless in regions where churches and priests of their own rite are lacking, and where because of the distance of their church they cannot go to it without grave inconvenience, it is necessary for them to hear Mass in a Catholic church of another rite" (A. A. S., VI, p. 461).

671. Principles. I. Presence or assistance must be human and moral. This is considered to be had if someone: a) is in such a place where the sacred rite is performed that he can be said to be joined to those who are in sight of the altar; b) or from external signs can gather what is being done by the priest, even if by accident he sees or hears nothing.

Hence: 1. Deaf-mutes, if they are also blind, are not obliged to hear Mass, unless, which happens very rarely, they are sufficiently instructed and admonished (III, 271).

2. He satisfies the precept who stands in the choir, behind the altar, behind a column or wall of the church, or at a window which opens into the church, even if he does not see the priest: provided that from the signs of those assisting, the sound of the little bell, etc., he can advert to what is being done by the celebrant. Likewise, he who is in the sacristy with the door open,¹ or outside the church, provided he is united with the people who are within it, although a greater distance is present.

3. Nor improbably does he satisfy who is in a neighboring house, from which through a window or door he sees the altar, although a road intervenes, provided the distance is small. Lugo (disp. 22, n. 21) with others judges a distance of 30 paces to be small. Yet this opinion does not please St. Alphonsus (III, 312).

Note. Attend to this, that for absolution St. Alphonsus requires (VI, n. 429; ed. G., III, p. 423) a distance at most of about 20 paces. There he adds: a lesser distance is required in confession than for a sermon and Mass.

672. II. Presence must be continuous, that is, through the entire Mass; so that he sins gravely who omits a part of it notable either by duration or by dignity. For the Church commands assistance not only at those parts in which the essence of the sacrifice consists, but at the whole sacred ceremony (III, 310, q. 2).

Hence: 1. It is grave to omit everything from the beginning up to the offertory inclusively. Likewise, to omit the canon from the consecration up to the Pater noster exclusively; because it is a notable part by duration and dignity. Likewise, to omit the consecration and communion, indeed even the consecration alone; because it is an altogether essential part. And the same is more probably to be said of communion alone; because either it itself more probably pertains to the essence of the sacrifice (cf. n. 1589), or at least it is a part notable by dignity and inseparable from the sacrifice. He also sins gravely who at the same time omits both the things which precede the Gospel and the things which follow communion; for he omits a part notable by duration (H. Ap., VI, 33).

2. But it would be a light sin to omit the offertory alone, or the Creed alone, or the preface alone, or a small part of the canon, or everything before the epistle, or everything after communion, or even, more probably, these last two together. Nor is it improbable that one coming before the offertory sins only lightly; because formerly, as St. Isidore testifies, only then did Mass begin. But the Gospel of St. John at the end probably is not a part of the Mass; because before it the people are already dismissed by the blessing (cf. H. Ap., l. c.; Inst. Cat., P. I, c. 3).

673. Note. Since assistance must last through the entire Mass, authors resolve particular cases thus:

1. He who hears two halved Masses simultaneously does not satisfy the precept. This is established from the 53rd proposition condemned by Innocent XI.

2. He who hears two halved Masses successively, so that he hears the Mass of one priest up to the consecration exclusively, but the rest in the Mass of another, although he sins venially if he does this without cause, nevertheless probably satisfies. The reason: all things essentially required for the sacrifice were heard in one Mass. But he would not satisfy if he behaved otherwise, namely by assisting in one Mass up to the consecration inclusively, but at the other parts in another.

3. He who arrives when the consecration has already been made is held to assist at the other parts of the Mass, because, whatever authors hold concerning the essence of the sacrifice of Mass, a notable part of the public worship prescribed by the Church must be heard. - For the rest, it is by no means improbable that communion pertains to the essence of the Mass, with consecration. Therefore he who comes after the consecration is held to assist up to the end: for the precept here possesses (H. Ap., VI, 33).

4. He who omits a small part of the Mass, more probably, according to some, is held under light obligation to supply it; except if some reason excuses (cf. Salmant., tr. 5, c. 6, n. 15). - Others think that he is held to nothing, because the precept was fulfilled in the greater and substantial part. Nevertheless he is altogether held to supply who omits a part notable by dignity, for example the consecration, although this does not happen from his fault (III, 310, q. 3). The contrary opinion, namely that of Suarez (de Euch., q. 88, s. 2, n. 6), would be reasonable if someone from sudden necessity were forced to withdraw; for then union with those standing by would still morally endure.

This is placed in the intention of hearing Mass, and at the same time in attention of mind.

674. Principles. I. There is required an intention, at least implicit, of worshiping God. For the Church commands a human act of religion, by participating in the sacrifice, which cannot even be conceived without the will of worshiping God.

Hence, he who should be present at Mass for this sole end, that he might observe the beauty of the church, or that he might wait for a friend, or because he was violently detained there, would not satisfy the precept. Nevertheless he would satisfy if he were present because of fear alone of father, mother, or master; although from another head he would sin, namely from the depraved will of omitting the sacred rite, if he could. But the intention of satisfying the precept is not required, as is already established from what was said (n. 212, 213). Cf. St. Alph., I, 163; H. Ap., VI, 27.

675. II. Attention of mind is required. Attention in general is defined: Application of the mind to that which is being done. It is a) EXTERNAL, when no action is posited which is incompatible with the intention of worshiping God, as to chat, to write, to cast one's eyes here and there, etc.; b) INTERNAL, when attention is given either to the words and actions of the celebrant, or to the mysteries signified by the words and actions of the celebrant, especially to the mysteries of the Passion and death of Christ, or, generally, to God Himself, to be praised and prayed to through prayers, meditations, and pious affections (III, 313; IV, 177).

These things having been premised: 1. It is certain that external attention is required for hearing Mass, according to the precept of the Church; because the defect of it would be a mockery of God and of the Church.

Hence, he does not satisfy who during the time of Mass writes, paints, reads profane books, or sacred ones indeed, but for the sole cause of erudition, curiosity, or study. Nor does he satisfy who for a notable time converses, attentively considers images, reads inscriptions, etc. (H. Ap., VI, 28).

2. It is certain, from the virtue of religion, that some internal attention is required, at least under venial sin. For the reverence which we owe to God and to the sacred mysteries requires attention of this kind.

But whether this internal attention is required under grave obligation for fulfilling the precept of the Church is disputed. Some deny it, led chiefly by this reason, that an act of religion, as regards its substance, can subsist without internal attention; nor is it established from another source that anything else is prescribed by the Church. - But others, more commonly, affirm it, and although they do not require actual or intense attention, nevertheless they require internal attention which is remiss, and which extends to the principal parts of the Mass. The reason of these is that the Church commands an act by which God is worshiped; but God is not worshiped if someone is only physically present at the sacred rite, internal attention having been omitted. "I think," says St. Alphonsus, "this second opinion to be more probable and indeed to be advised. But I do not judge the contrary improbable; at least, with the authority standing of so many doctors who defend it, the matter is rendered very doubtful, whether there is present this law of the Church obliging the faithful to assistance at Mass with internal attention" (H. Ap., l. c.).

Therefore after the fact resolve thus: It suffices that someone had the general intention of worshiping God, and so conducted himself that he could have been a witness of those things which were done at the altar. Cf. Vermeersch, o. c., n. 113.

676. From these things conclude with St. Alphonsus (III, n. 315 seq.; ed. G., p. 579):

1. Those satisfy the precept who, within Mass, recite the breviary or rosary; musicians, organists, those collecting alms;¹ those meditating, reading some spiritual book, examining their conscience; provided that from the beginning they had the due intention and did not revoke it, and in some way advert to the rite of the Mass.

2. More probably also he satisfies who suffers ecstasy; for ecstasy does not take away free choice; indeed, during ecstasy attention to God is present in a more perfect way than in others.

3. Similarly he satisfies, or at least does not sin gravely, who sometimes dozes during the time of the sacred rite, provided he in some way adverts to the words and action of the priest.

4. All those satisfy who have distractions which do not impede them from following the action of the priest with the mind of worshiping God.

Otherwise, those who are so distracted that they in no way attend to Mass. Otherwise also the drunk, or those given over to sleep through the whole Mass.

5. Finally, those satisfy who confess their sins, provided the confession is easy and brief, and is not made during the time of consecration. For in a long and difficult confession, on the part of the penitent, the required external attention to the oblation would be lacking (III, 314). Croix with Lessius wishes servants who are in need of confessing at this time to be held excused (III, l. c.). Cf. Vind. Alph., P. III, q. 11. The reason is the presumed connivance of the Church.

Indeed the holy Doctor (III, 332) concedes with Lessius (in Auct., v. Mass, cas. 2) and others that those are excused who omit Mass so that they may confess, lest they remain for some time in the state of mortal sin. The reason is an immense gain of the soul, which otherwise would be lost. Cf. Ami du Cl., 1913, p. 689.

677. Principle. By common law, Mass can be heard in any public church or in any public or semi-public oratory, for fulfilling the ecclesiastical law. The precept formerly in force of assisting at parochial Mass has been abrogated by contrary custom. But recently Leo XIII, in the Decree of the S. R. C., 23 Jan. 1899 (n. 4007), discussing semi-public oratories, declared: "In these, as by authority of the Ordinary the most holy sacrifice of Mass can be offered, so all who are present at the same can satisfy the precept of hearing the sacred rite." From which declaration it is sufficiently and more than sufficiently manifest that the Bishop cannot command his subjects to present themselves at parochial Mass.² Nevertheless the faithful are to be induced that on Sundays and feasts they be present at this Mass, because, besides the fact that such assistance is of good example, Mass is applied for the parishioners, and therefore a richer fruit is perceived from it (III, 322; VI, 424).

We have said: by common law; for, by privilege, all the faithful satisfy the precept who assist at the Mass which Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church or Bishops, whether diocesan or titular, celebrate in any place, or cause to be celebrated for their convenience (S. R. C., 8 Jun. 1896, n. 3906). Likewise those who enjoy the Indult of a private oratory, as we shall see below. As regards Regulars, if it is a question of the principal oratory, the question must be solved from common law; if of other secondary oratories, cf. n. 680, q. 1.

But what public, semi-public, and private oratories are, the Decree of 23 Jan. 1899 authentically defines.

678. 1. PUBLIC oratories are those "which, by authority of the Ordinary, dedicated perpetually to the public worship of God, blessed, or even solemnly consecrated, have a door on the road, or from the public road open free entrance to the faithful universally." Therefore it matters nothing whether the oratory has been built in the houses of private persons or in the midst of fields, provided that from the public road an altogether free access lies open to it, through the court of the house or through an area.

2. SEMI-PUBLIC oratories are those "which, although in some manner in a private place, or in one not absolutely public, have been erected by authority of the Ordinary; nevertheless they serve the convenience not of all the faithful nor of only a private person or family, but of some community or group of persons. In these, as by authority of the Ordinary the most holy sacrifice of Mass can be offered, so all who are present at the same can satisfy the precept of hearing the sacred rite. Of this kind are the oratories which pertain to Seminaries and Ecclesiastical Colleges; to pious Institutes and Societies of simple vows, and other Communities under a rule or statutes at least approved by the Ordinary; to Houses devoted to spiritual exercises; to boarding-houses and hospices destined for youth to be instructed in letters, sciences, or arts; to Hospitals, Orphanages, and also to Fortresses and Prisons; and similar oratories, in which by institution some group of the Christian faithful is accustomed to convene for hearing Mass. To these must be joined Chapels duly erected in a Cemetery, provided that in the celebration of Mass access lies open not only to those to whom they pertain, but also to other faithful." A semi-public oratory therefore serves primarily for the uses of the Community, secondarily for the convenience of outsiders.

Noldin (III, n. 198) notes the following: An oratory does not become public precisely from this, that it has a door on the road, but because the faithful possess a strict right that free access not be impeded. That right imposes on the owner the burden of preserving free access. If the owner is not pressed by that burden, the oratory, whatever may be the case about the door, will remain semi-public. Thus also clearly Many, de Locis sacr., tit. 2, n. 65 seqq., where there are old responses of the Sacred Congregations; and Wernz, Jus Decr., III, n. 449, indicates the same.

679. PRIVATE oratories in the strict sense are called those "which in private buildings have been erected for the convenience of some person, or family, from an Indult of the Holy See," for sacrificing there.³ The Ordinary, beforehand, can and must visit it, so that he may inspect whether all things have been duly ordered; not likewise afterward, unless something against the reverence of the place should occur. His license is needed so that baptism, penance, and matrimony can be administered in it. But the reception of the Holy Eucharist, from the declaration of the S. R. C., 8 May 1907 (A. S. S., vol. 40, p. 589), is always included in the concession of a private oratory, saving parochial rights. Therefore Easter communion, as also viaticum, are excepted. For the rest, the privilege of a private oratory is regularly personal, and therefore to be interpreted strictly, as derogating from common law; and when the one to whom it was granted has died, it vanishes by the law itself. For some religious families there is given a privilege of a private oratory which is rather local; whence also secular priests can there celebrate duly, and the faithful can satisfy the precept of Mass (Angelus a SS. Corde Jesu, Man. Reg., II, n. 919).

1. The PRIVILEGE of hearing Mass of precept in private oratories, from the customary tenor of the pontifical Indult, is granted "to the lord, his children and domestics, or blood-relatives and relatives by affinity living with him, servants actually devoted to his service, and noble guests, that is, in whatever way noble and more worthy." - But those who are not of the household, and domestics not actually necessary, are excluded by force of the customary clause: "But we will that domestics of your service who at the said time, namely of Mass, are not actually necessary, being present there at Mass of this kind, are by no means to be judged free from the obligation of hearing Mass in a church on feast days of precept." Nor does the minister satisfy who assists the celebrant, unless he himself is necessary, that is, unless another is lacking who can and wishes to serve (Ferraris, v. Oratory, n. 64).

2. The CONDITIONS and EXCEPTIONS of the Indult must be observed, for example: a) that on individual days only one Mass be celebrated; b) that it not be celebrated except in the presence of the principally privileged person, namely to whom the Brief was directed; c) that the days of Easter, Pentecost, the Nativity of the Lord, and other more solemn feasts be excepted, namely Epiphany, Thursday in the Supper of the Lord, the feasts of the Ascension, Assumption, SS. Peter and Paul, All Saints. See other things below, n. 1627.

Nevertheless the privileged person is not bound by these exceptions if the Indult was granted by reason of infirmity (III, n. 319, claus. 8; ed. G., I, p. 584; VI, n. 359; ed. G., III, p. 349). Cf. Decree of 2 Apr. 1913, S. C. de Sacr. (A. A. S., V, p. 183), in which it is said that on the feasts of St. Joseph (solemn Commemoration), the Annunciation, Corpus Christi, the Most Holy Trinity, St. John the Baptist, and the Patron of the place, Mass can be celebrated in private oratories.

He who has received an ordinary Indult, in which namely the mentioned exceptions are indicated, in the case where difficulties arise, should approach the Bishop so that the private oratory may be erected as semi-public. For the right of erecting semi-public oratories, so that, at least on days of obligation, they may be open to all, has not been diminished for the Ordinary. Ami du Cl., 1910, p. 111.

680. Questions. QUES. 1. Whether secondary oratories, sometimes erected in houses of Regulars, are to be held as private or semi-public?

Resp. 1. We call secondary oratories those which, from an Indult or privilege of the Holy See, are erected besides the principal oratory, whether on account of the number of priests so that Mass can be said by all, or in favor of the sick, who cannot go to the chapel or principal oratory. S. R. C., 8 Mar. 1879, n. 3484, ad 2.

2. It can be disputed; for, strictly speaking, the definition of an oratory strictly private, nor the definition of a semi-public one, agrees with those oratories (Genicot, I, 342). Private letters of a certain Most Reverend Consultor of the S. R. C., sent to us long ago, affirm the mind of the Sacred Congregation to be that they are equated with private ones, and therefore that only Members, but not other faithful, satisfy the precept of Mass in these oratories. The matter needs an authentic declaration. Cf. Ami du Cl., 1914, p. 590, and the things we noted above n. 679.

QUES. 2. Whether an Indultary is held to use the privilege, if he cannot go to a church?

Resp. Affirmatively, more probably, according to St. Alphonsus, III, 324, if he can have a priest gratis or with a light stipend. And both the lord himself and his household are held to this, not indeed by force of the privilege, because no one is held to a privilege as such; but by force of the precept, which obliges all those to hearing Mass who are able to fulfill it without grave inconvenience (cf. also III, 319, dub. 3).

Lehmkuhl, Noldin, and others contradict. But let it be weighed whether the axiom praised by all has more weight: he who is held to the law is held to the easy means by which he can observe the law. Cf. what was said n. 670, fin.

St. Alphonsus (III, 324; ed. G., I, p. 591) states the general principle thus: Any moderately grave cause excuses from hearing Mass, namely one which involves some notable inconvenience or harm in the goods of soul or body, one's own or another's.

Four CAUSES, besides dispensation (concerning which n. 664), are usually brought forward, which exempt from the obligation of hearing Mass: namely impotence, charity, office, custom.

681. I. IMPOTENCE excuses, whether physical, or spiritual, or even moral.

By reason of physical, or absolute, impotence there are excused: the gravely sick, captives, those for a just cause sailing on the sea (cf. Ami du Cl., 1908, p. 982), or pilgrims in regions where Mass is not celebrated.

By reason of spiritual impotence there are excused: the excommunicated and interdicted. For the hearing of Mass is interdicted to them. If, however, they could obtain absolution easily, and neglected it, they would sin against the precept (III, 325; H. Ap., VI, 39).

By reason of moral impotence, that is, of some notable inconvenience, there are excused:

1. Those who, because of weakness of body, roughness of the road, inclemency of the weather, or distance of places, prudently fear for themselves no light inconvenience or danger to health.⁴ But the distance of places which excuses from the sacred rite varies according to the variety of persons, place, and time. Commonly as sufficient there is held a distance of three miles, or a pedestrian journey of one hour and a quarter, which nevertheless would not excuse for absence that is too long, for example through a year; indeed less, if it were raining, snowing, or another cause already partly excusing were present (III, 329). - But those who can be carried by horse or carriage are not excused unless the distance is twice, indeed three times, longer. In doubt, see n. 248. He who with only light inconvenience can use a railway carriage is not excused. Cf. Kenrick, tr. 4, p. 2, n. 19.

2. Travelers who cannot depart from companions continuing the journey without notable expense, or without danger of grave inconvenience. Likewise, coachmen, millers, or other workers who would be deprived of a suitable opportunity of making notable gain, or servants who, more or less, are compelled by the master to furnish work in hunting (III, 332; H. Ap., VI, 43).

3. Those laboring in foundries and similar workshops, where they cannot desert work already begun, nor have others who may succeed them; or workers returning at very early morning from nocturnal labor.

4. Women lacking garments suitable to their condition, or pregnant from crime, as long as their shame is hidden. And yet they are not excused if, without loss of reputation, they can hear Mass in a remote place, or at an earlier hour, which can easily be done in cities (III, 330).

5. All who are not of their own right: such are servants whom either necessary ministry or the very bad will of the master keeps away from hearing the sacred rite. But they would not be excused if they easily found another service, or if without great trouble, for example without notable deprivation of sleep, they could intervene at Mass. - Likewise wives and children of the family are excused, for whom grave indignation of husband or parents would have to be feared; soldiers who, from hearing Mass, would be liable to the vexation of their leaders, or to the very troublesome mockeries of fellow-soldiers (H. Ap., VI, 40).

Nevertheless all these must diligently strive that, as much as they can, they remove the impediments (cf. n. 225, 226).

6. Drivers, carriers of merchandise, workers, and generally all who, by assisting at Mass, would lose notable gain (III, 332). Gobat, whom the holy Doctor does not contradict, excuses a poor man on account of the gain of one ducat; and another of slender fortune, of two.

682. II. CHARITY excuses those who have care of the sick, from whom they cannot depart without undue anxiety on the part of the sick, and they are excused even if another assistant were present; - likewise those who bring help to neighbors suffering grave harm from fire, storm, flood, or other calamities; - likewise those who have hope that by their presence quarrels, lawsuits, grave brawls, thefts, duels, or shameful acts will be impeded (cf. n. 512).

But it is not licit to omit Mass in order to accomplish a work not commanded, although of higher merit (III, 326, 332, vers. fin.).

Note. Charity can persuade a girl who knows that she is shamefully desired by someone to omit Mass; nevertheless she is not always held to remain at home (III, 331). See what was said n. 512. He also will preserve charity toward himself who omits Mass, at least sometimes, lest he expose himself to a probable danger of becoming drunk, from the fact that ordinarily he cannot conveniently return at once, and friends invite him to drink (Ami du Cl., 1906, p. 1048).

683. III. OFFICE excuses soldiers acting as guards, guardians of a house or of a flock; who nevertheless, if they are several, and only one Mass is said, are held by alternate turns to assist at the sacred rite. Likewise nurses and mothers who have no one to whom, without danger, they may leave little children, whom they cannot bring with them into the church without notable disturbance of those standing by.

Concerning this matter St. Alphonsus speaks thus (III, 326): "If it is necessary for husband or wife to remain at home for guarding, the husband cannot compel her to remain always at home, since she is a companion, not a maidservant, who conversely could be compelled: but also the master could sometimes remain at home, so that the maidservant might hear Mass; for the utility of that woman would excuse the master." Certainly in our times the husband will rather be exhorted that he sometimes leave to his wife or to a faithful maidservant the office of guard to be fulfilled.

684. IV. CUSTOM received in many places excuses from Mass widows within the first month of widowhood; women after childbirth, for a month or six weeks, provided nevertheless that they do not go out in public for other causes. Likewise, in some places it excuses brides when their wedding banns are proclaimed; yet if another Mass is celebrated, they are held to assist. "But by no reason can that custom be reputed licit, or, to speak better, that abuse, by which girls, lest they go out in public, abstain from hearing the sacred rite." Thus St. Alphonsus (H. Ap., VI, 42).

685. Practical rules. It is useful in this place, by way of conclusion, to add the questions which the holy Doctor suggests should be asked of the unlearned by a confessor (Prax. conf., n. 32 seqq.):

1. As regards the obligation of HEARING THE SACRED RITE on feast days, he should ask the penitent whether sometimes he omitted the sacred rite, or rather should ask: whether he adverted to the omission? whether he doubted at the time at which he could hear the sacred rite? For often, when the penitent delays hearing the sacred rite to a late hour, although by chance he found the sacred rite and was present at it, nevertheless without just cause he cast himself into the danger of omitting it; and concerning this the unlearned do not accuse themselves. Likewise, if the penitent accuses himself of having omitted the sacred rite, let him ask about the cause, whether on account of necessity, etc.

2. As regards SERVILE WORKS let him ask: whether he labored on a feast? and if the penitent affirms, let him be asked: a) How much time did he labor, and what genus of labor did he exercise ... But if the penitent confesses that he labored, sometimes more, sometimes less, let him be asked how often he labored while judging that he was laboring in grave matter? But there is need that he teach him that to labor for a long time, even secretly, and for consolation of mind, and gratis, is also a sin. - b) Let him be asked why he labored, whether by the custom of the region? whether on account of necessity, or compelled by a master, by parents, etc.?

Note. Let the pastor of souls use all the authority by which he has power, so that he may exhort to assistance at Mass the men whom he has known to be negligent or indifferent, especially to hearing that Mass in which a sermon is had, that thus little by little he may confirm in faith those whom the divine will has committed to him. Cf. Ami du Cl., 1907, p. 305. If he has found that some exercises of piety have been introduced, for example evening prayers made in common, let him not suppress them unless grave reasons are present (Ami du Cl., 1910, p. 1087).

I Say 1st. All the faithful having the use of reason are held under grave obligation to be present at Mass on individual Sundays and feast days, as is clear from canon 1248. - I said under grave obligation; for it is a question of a grave matter, both in itself and according to the common estimation of the faithful and the unanimous consensus of theologians.

I Say 2nd. Beyond this, by virtue of the positive precept, the faithful are held to perform nothing else. For although servile works have therefore been prohibited so that the faithful can more easily devote themselves to divine things, nevertheless these are prescribed by no law; otherwise the end of the precept would not fall under the precept. - I said by virtue of the positive precept, for by natural law they would be held to assist at sermons or catechesis on feast days if the sermon is necessary for Christian instruction or the formation of morals. - Cf. Suarez, de Relig., tract. 1, lib. 2, chap. 16, n. 4. - Elbel, nn. 385 and following.

For Mass, however, to be heard rightly, three things are required: 1st, presence of body; 2nd, attention of mind; 3rd, due place. Concerning each one it will be said specially.

I Say. For Mass to be heard rightly there is required a moral and continuous presence of body: moral, insofar as someone ought to be so present where the Sacred Rite is taking place that he can be said to be one from the number of those assisting and offering the Sacrifice; but continuous, insofar as someone ought to persevere from the beginning to the end of Mass, so that he sins gravely if he omits a notable part of it, and venially if he omits a small part.

Question 1. Is it required for such moral presence that someone see the priest or hear his words?

Response. Not at all, negatively; for he is truly said to be one of those assisting who distinguishes the parts of the Mass by the sound of the bell, by the chant of the choir, etc., even if he is behind a column or wall, or also stands outside the church itself in which the crowd of the faithful cannot be contained, provided, however, that he is not very far from the door. But how great this distance can be, although to Lugo a space of thirty paces does not seem too great, must be determined from the circumstances of places. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 312. - Lugo, de Euchar., disp. 22, n. 21. - Baller., note (a), p. 334.

Question 2. What omission in Mass is to be regarded as grave or light?

Response. It cannot easily be determined; for although, according to all, a third part of the Mass is notable, nevertheless it is not clear what the third part is, since a notable part ought to be judged not only from duration, but also from dignity. Yet according to the common opinion these things can be established:

1st. It is certainly light to omit everything up to the Epistle exclusively, and more probably also inclusively, indeed probably also up to the Gospel inclusively, although St. Alphonsus regards the opposite opinion as more probable. And this must be said even if the Creed is omitted, because the Creed is not a regular part. Hence one present at Mass while the priest greets the people before he reads that little verse which formerly was called the antiphon, and now is called the offertory, can be excused from mortal sin. The reason is that the things which precede do not pertain to the sacrifice, but are remote preparation for it. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 310.

2nd. It is grave, according to all, to omit everything before the Gospel and at the same time everything after communion; but not to omit only those things which follow communion, indeed not even to omit everything before the Epistle and everything after communion. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 310. - Lacroix, n. 666.

3rd. Grave is the omission of the canon from the consecration up to the Pater exclusively, because it is a notable part by duration and dignity. But the omission of the offertory is reputed light, taking this word according to its twofold acceptance, namely for the recitation of the little verse which in the Missal is placed after the Gospel, and for the oblation of bread and wine. But the Gospel of St. John at the end is probably not part of the Mass, because before it the people are already dismissed by the blessing.

4th. It is grave to omit the consecration and communion; indeed also one consecration alone, because it is the most dignified part, in which, at least principally, the nature of the sacrifice consists. Indeed it is more probably grave to be absent from one consecration only, because the essence of the sacrifice more probably consists in each consecration. - But whether to pass by communion alone is grave is controverted; the affirmative opinion is more probable to St. Alphonsus, because he judges that the essence of the sacrifice also consists in communion. But the more common and truer opinion places it in consecration alone. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, Hom. Ap., n. 33.

Question 3. Does he satisfy the precept who hears two halves of Masses from diverse priests, either simultaneously or successively?

Response. Negatively, if he hears simultaneously. The reason is deduced from the common interpretation of the law, and is confirmed by proposition 53 condemned by Innocent XI, which sounds thus: "He satisfies the precept of the Church concerning hearing the Sacred Rite who hears two parts of it, even four at the same time from diverse celebrants." But if he hears successively, again one must deny it if the consecration and communion are not in the same part; because the Church commands the faithful to be present at an entire and perfect sacrifice. But that is not had, at least as regards integrity, unless both consecration and communion come together in the same Mass. Otherwise, however, one must say probably, if the consecration and communion are found in the same part of the Mass, because then the entire nature of the sacrifice is had in the same part. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 311; and Hom. Ap., n. 34.

Question 4. Must one hear the remainder, who comes after the consecration?

Response. Negatively, probably, because the essence of the sacrifice is now lacking; therefore the obligation of assisting at that Mass ceases, since the precept cannot be fulfilled by this means. But he who comes before the consecration is held to the remaining part of the Mass for the contrary reason, and by the common authority of the Doctors. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 310. - Baller., note (b), p. 336.¹

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1144, n. 116.

Attention at Mass is distinguished as twofold, namely internal and external. The first is had when someone applies his mind to those things which are being performed by the priest, and this again is distinguished in three ways according as the mind is applied either to the material words themselves and actions of the priest, or to the sense of the words and mysteries, or finally to God himself through pious prayers and meditations. - But external attention consists in avoiding any external action which impedes application of the mind, for example, conversing, painting, etc.

I Say. Any internal attention from the three ways just set forth suffices for rightly hearing Mass, but external attention alone, joined with the will of hearing Mass, is required for fulfillment of the precept. The reason of the first is both because by any of those attentions the mind is directed to divine worship, and because all theologians, even the more rigid, agree in this. But the reason of the second is that by external attention together with the will of hearing Mass there is sufficiently had a human, moral, and religious presence, and consequently one suitable for worshiping God. But exactly this, and this alone, is required for satisfying the precept. Therefore. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 313. - Lugo, de Euchar., disp. 22, n. 23.

Question. Does he satisfy the precept who confesses sins during the time of Mass?

Response. It is controverted; but certainly they are not to be disturbed, not only those who, guilty of some grave sin, cannot put off confession to another hour without great inconvenience, at least because then they are excused from the hearing of Mass, but neither pious penitents who complete confession in a few moments. But those who make a more prolonged confession probably, according to many, satisfy, provided nevertheless that they attend to the Mass in some way. - Cf. Baller., note (a), p. 339.

You Will Resolve. 1st. Sacristans, musicians, organists, tympanists, etc., satisfy the precept of Mass, because their acts are referred to the worship of God, nor do they impede the necessary attention to those things which are performed at the altar. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 317.

2nd. Those who collect alms satisfy, provided they attend to Mass at least confusedly. But if they foresee that they cannot give this attention, let them hear another Mass, if they conveniently can.

3rd. Those who examine their conscience during the time of Mass in order to confess, or discharge sacramental penance, or also make prayer owed by whatever title, satisfy; because in that way the mind is directed to God, and besides two precepts can be satisfied at once, if the things commanded can be performed at the same time. Likewise those who read some spiritual book, but not sacred histories with the mind of learning style. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 314.

4th. Those also satisfy who are involuntarily distracted, even during the whole time of the sacrifice, unless they are so carried away by alien thoughts that they do not attend at all; for then they do not satisfy any more than those involuntarily sleeping through a notable part of Mass, although they are excused from sin. But one dozing at times during the Sacred Rite satisfies, or at least does not gravely fail, provided he in some way adverts to that which is being done. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 316.

5th. But by no means do those satisfy who converse about a serious matter for a notable part of Mass, or attentively consider images, survey the furnishings of the church with their eyes, read inscriptions or other profane things, paint, or perform other similar things, unless these are done interruptedly or in such a way that they do not altogether impede attention. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 317.

He satisfies the law concerning hearing the Sacred Rite who is present at Mass, by whatever Catholic rite it is celebrated, under the open sky or in any church or public or semi-public oratory and in private cemetery chapels mentioned in can. 1190, but not in other private oratories, unless this privilege has been granted by the Apostolic See (Can. 1249).

Chapels erected in a cemetery by families or private persons for their own burial are private oratories (Can. 1190).

I Say 1st. § 1. An oratory is a place destined for divine worship, yet not for this chief end, that it should be for use by the whole people of the faithful for publicly cultivating religion.

§ 2. But an oratory is:

1st. Public, if it has been erected chiefly for the convenience of some college or even of private persons, yet in such a way that all the faithful, at least at the time of divine offices, have a legitimately proved right of approaching it;

2nd. Semi-public, if it has been erected for the convenience of some community or assembly of the faithful coming together there, and it is not free for each one to approach it;

3rd. Private or domestic, if it has been erected in private houses for the convenience of only some family or private person (Can. 1188).

§ 1. Public oratories are governed by the same law as churches.

§ 2. Wherefore in a public oratory, provided it has been dedicated in perpetuity to the public worship of God by the authority of the Ordinary through blessing or consecration, according to the norm of can. 1155, 1156, all sacred functions can be celebrated, with the contrary prescription of the rubrics saved (Can. 1191).

§ 1. Semi-public oratories cannot be erected without the license of the Ordinary.

§ 2. Let the Ordinary not grant this license unless first, by himself or by another ecclesiastical man, he has visited the oratory and found it decently furnished.

§ 3. But once the license has been given, the oratory cannot be converted to profane uses without the authority of the same Ordinary.

§ 4. In colleges or boarding schools for instructing youth, in gymnasia, lyceums, citadels, military posts, prisons, hospitals, etc., besides the principal oratory, let other smaller ones not be erected, unless in the judgment of the Ordinary necessity or great utility requires it (Can. 1192).

In semi-public oratories legitimately erected, all divine offices or ecclesiastical functions can be celebrated, unless the rubrics stand in the way or the Ordinary has excepted something (Can. 1193).

In private cemetery chapels mentioned in can. 1190, the Ordinary of the place can habitually permit even the celebration of several Masses; in other domestic oratories, only of one Mass, by way of act, in some extraordinary case, for a just and reasonable cause; but let the Ordinary not grant these permissions except according to the norm of can. 1192, § 2 (Can. 1194).

A chapel having a fixed place on a ship is to be held as public for those sailing; and in that chapel, even while the ships are found in port, all those being present at the most holy sacrifice of the Mass fulfill the precept. S. R. C., March 4, 1901, to V; May 10, 1901.

§ 1. In domestic oratories by indult of the Apostolic See, unless something else is expressly provided in the same indult, after the Ordinary has visited the oratory and approved it according to the norm of can. 1192, § 2, one Mass, and that a read Mass, can be celebrated on individual days, except on more solemn feasts; but let other ecclesiastical functions not be made there.

§ 2. But the Ordinary, provided just and reasonable causes are present, different from those on account of which the indult was granted, can permit by way of act the celebration of Mass also on more solemn feasts (Can. 1195).

§ 1. Domestic oratories can be neither consecrated nor blessed in the manner of churches.

§ 2. Although domestic and semi-public oratories are endowed with the common blessing of places or houses, or with no blessing, nevertheless they must be reserved for divine worship alone and free from all domestic uses (Can. 1196).

I Say 2nd. It is certain that all who are comprehended in the Indult satisfy the precept of hearing Mass in a private Oratory, namely the master of the oratory with his own people and domestics who, being assigned to his service, are actually necessary to him by reason of service at the time of Mass. The days of principal feasts are excepted, namely Easter, Pentecost, Christmas of the Lord, Epiphany, Ascension, Assumption, St. Peter, and All Saints; Thursday in the Supper of the Lord; and indeed on these days it is altogether interdicted to celebrate in oratories of this kind, unless the contrary is expressly obtained. But outsiders do not satisfy, as is clear from the words of the Indult, which ordinarily sounds thus: "We will that those who are not of the family are not judged free from the obligation of hearing Mass in a church." - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 319 and following.

Question. Is the master held to use the privilege, if he cannot go to church?

Response. Negatively, because no one is compelled to use a privilege granted only in his own favor, unless an obligation arises from another head (Can. 69). Besides, what is granted on account of someone's favor is not to be turned back to his detriment. - Cf. Ball. Palm., n. 800. - Genicot, n. 344.

Since enough was said concerning the obligation and mode of hearing Mass on Sundays and feast days, and likewise concerning abstinence from servile works, where the third precept of the Decalogue was treated, here only something will be set forth concerning the author and the number of these feasts, both by common law and by particular law in force among us.

I. It belongs to the supreme ecclesiastical authority alone to establish, transfer, or abolish feast days common to the universal Church. ... Ordinaries of places can prescribe peculiar feast days for their dioceses or places only by way of an act. - Cf. Can. 1244. The reason for the first is that the Pope alone has jurisdiction over the universal Church. The reason for the second is that they have jurisdiction in their own dioceses; the use, however, is limited lest feast days be multiplied with too great facility.

II. Many feasts were once instituted which, in the course of time, the fervor of the faithful growing cold, went into disuse or were abolished by the ecclesiastical authority itself. For Urban VIII, Const. Universa, Sept. 13, 1642, suppressed many feasts and established a new list of feast days as follows:

"By Apostolic authority we decree and declare that only the days written below are to be observed as feasts of precept ... namely the Sundays of the whole year; of the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ; of the Circumcision; Epiphany; Resurrection with the two following weekdays; Ascension; Pentecost with likewise the two following weekdays; the Most Holy Trinity; the Solemnity of the Body of Christ, and the Finding of the Holy Cross, and also the festivities of the Purification, Annunciation, Assumption, and Nativity of the Virgin Mother of God; the Dedication of St. Michael the Archangel; the Nativity of St. John the Baptist; of Saints Peter and Paul, St. Andrew, St. James, St. John, St. Thomas, Saints Philip and James, St. Bartholomew, St. Matthew, Saints Simon and Jude, and St. Matthias; likewise St. Stephen, protomartyr; the Holy Innocents; St. Lawrence, martyr; St. Sylvester, Pope and Confessor; St. Joseph, also Confessor; and St. Anne, Mother of the Mother of God; the Solemnity of All Saints; and one of the more principal Patrons in any kingdom or province, and another likewise more principal in any city, town, or village, where it happens that these Patrons are had and venerated."

To this catalog must be added the feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, which Clement XI wished to be had as of precept through the Constitution Commissi Nobis, Dec. 6, 1708.

The Sacred Congregation of the Council, assenting to the wishes of many Ordinaries, "according to the norm of the Constitution Universa per orbem of Urban VIII, dated September 13, 1642, determined that the following index of suppressed feasts, on which, according to the prescriptions of canons 339, § 1, and 466, § 1, of the Code, there is in the universal Church the burden of offering the Holy Sacrifice for the people, should be published, that is:

The Monday and Tuesday after the Sunday of the Resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ and Pentecost; the Day of the Finding of the Holy Cross; the Day of the Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary; the Day of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary; the Day of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary; the Day of the Dedication of St. Michael the Archangel; the Day of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist; the Day of the Holy Apostles: Andrew, James, John, Thomas, Philip and James, Bartholomew, Matthew, Simon and Jude, Matthias; the Day of St. Stephen, Protomartyr; the Day of the Holy Innocents; the Day of St. Lawrence, Martyr; the Day of St. Sylvester, Pope; the Day of St. Anne, mother of the Blessed Virgin Mary; the Day of the Patron Saint of the Kingdom; the Day of the Patron Saint of the place. Given at Rome, from the Secretariat of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, on December 28, 1919."

III. In these United States up to these latest times nine feast days were observed among many dioceses, but among others great variety was in force. Wherefore the Fathers of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore had the following statute under n. 111: "To promote the salvation of souls through greater uniformity in feasts, it seemed good to the Fathers to offer suppliant prayers to the Apostolic See, that from all the feasts now in force among us, only those be retained whose observance, considering the devotion of the faithful and public morals, can more happily be hoped for. But such seem to be the six which follow:

The Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary; the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ; the Circumcision of Our Lord Jesus Christ; the Ascension of Our Lord Jesus Christ; the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary; the Feast of All Saints." The Holy See consented to the petition of the Fathers.

§ 1. Feast days under precept in the universal Church are only: all and each Sunday, the feasts of the Nativity, Circumcision, Epiphany, Ascension, and Most Holy Body of Christ, the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary, the gracious Mother of God, St. Joseph her spouse, the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and finally All Saints.

§ 2. Feast days of Patrons are not subject to ecclesiastical precept; but Ordinaries of places can transfer the exterior solemnity to the next following Sunday.

§ 3. If anywhere some feast from those enumerated has legitimately been abolished or transferred, let nothing be innovated without consulting the Apostolic See (Can. 1247).

Therefore among us the same feasts of precept remain as before.

Feasts which are not enumerated in this canon 1247, § 1, by that very fact and by the law itself, are nowhere any longer of precept, even if in some nation, diocese, or place they were previously of precept by particular law or custom, even centenary custom of the place, or by special concession of the Holy See. ... Thus the Pontifical Commission for authentically interpreting the canons of the Code, Feb. 17, 1918.

A certain bishop permitted a certain congregation of nuns to establish a new convent in a certain city; but, lest the faithful be absent from the one parish church, he did not wish to permit lay people to be admitted to hear Mass in the convent chapel. Sometimes, however, it would be much more convenient if guests and friends of the convent who remained for a time either within the convent itself or in a neighboring house could satisfy the precept within the convent, since the church was more than a thousand paces distant. The superioress did not wish to refer the matter to the bishop, but asked Paul, the priest who was giving the annual exercises to the nuns, what it was lawful to do in the case. He, however, asks:

1. What conditions must be fulfilled in order that the precept of hearing Mass on feast days may be satisfied?

2. What are public, semi-public, and private oratories?

3. Can bishops derogate from the common law of the Church?

4. What is to be said of the case?

1. What are the conditions to be complied with in order to satisfy the precept of hearing Mass on days of obligation ?

The whole of Mass must be heard, in the proper place, with bodily presence, and with attention.¹

1 See Manual of Moral Theology, vol. i, p. 258.

2. What are public, semi-public, and private oratories?

An authentic answer to this question was given by the decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, Jan. 23, 1899: “Moreover, it is established that public oratories are those which, by authority of the Ordinary, have been perpetually dedicated to the public worship of God, blessed or even solemnly consecrated, and have a door on the street, or from a public street open a free entrance to the faithful universally. Private oratories, on the contrary, in the strict sense are said to be those which have been erected in private houses for the convenience of some person or family by an indult of the Holy See. Those which hold a middle place between these two, as the name itself indicates, are and are called semi-public oratories.”

3. Can bishops derogate from the common law of the Church?

No; Benedict XIV gives expression to this principle of canon law in several places of his well-known work De Synodo Dioecesana: “It is known to everyone that a bishop cannot relax a law enacted by a superior, nor impart to another that permission which he cannot grant to himself.”² “The common laws, rites, and customs of the Church received everywhere can be removed or changed only by the authority of him to whom belongs authority and power over the universal Church; otherwise an immense disturbance of ecclesiastical discipline and hierarchy would arise.”³ “Today a bishop cannot command his subjects to present themselves at the parish Mass, because he cannot abolish a custom which, since it is in force throughout the whole world, has now assumed the nature of common law.”⁴

2 Book xi, chapter 9, no. 5.

3 Book xiii, chapter 18, no. 11.

4 Book xi, chapter 14, no. 10.

4. The case. A certain bishop allowed a Congregation of nuns to found a convent with a chapel in a certain town, but he forbade them to admit lay people to hear Mass of obligation in their chapel so that the only church in the place might not be deprived of its worshipers. Sometimes the nuns had guests and friends staying either in the convent itself, or in a house in the neighborhood, and as the church is over a mile distant it would be convenient if they could hear Mass in the convent so as to satisfy the precept. The Superioress did not like to refer the matter to the bishop, but she asked the advice of Paul, a priest who was giving a retreat to the nuns, about what was lawful in the circumstances. Paul will know that inasmuch as the common law of the Church allows the faithful to satisfy their obligation of hearing Mass on Sundays and holidays in public and semi-public oratories they can validly fulfil the precept of the Church by hearing Mass in the convent chapel, as it is a semi-public oratory. However, the bishop had a perfect right to make the regulation which is mentioned in the case, and the Superioress should loyally observe it. She may presume that the bishop had no intention of making the guests within the convent go outside to the church to hear Mass, so they may be admitted to hear it in the convent chapel. Friends outside should go to the church, unless there be reason for making an exception in a particular case, and then the Superioress might avoid difficulties by arranging with the parish priest.

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.

It is a common practise to hear confessions during the early Mass on Sundays and on holidays of obligation. It often happens that people who go to confession at this time do not think of hearing any other Mass, and, especially in the country, it would frequently be impossible for them to do so. On ordinary Sundays, in the towns also, there are many people, chiefly servants, who could hardly find another opportunity for confession than during the time when they are hearing their obligatory Mass. It is therefore a question of practical importance whether they obey the commandment of the Church requiring us to hear Mass on Sundays and holidays, if they make their confession during this Mass. A discussion of the matter would be particularly opportune, because several theologians have answered in the negative.

Answer (1).—In order to elucidate the subject fully, we may begin by calling to mind the general principles laid down with reference to the positive commandment requiring us to hear Mass on Sundays and holidays of obligation. Dr. Joh. Ev. Pruner writes: " In order to comply with the command, it is requisite (a) to hear a complete Mass said by a priest who is not excommunicated... (b) to participate with presence of body and soul. We satisfy the first requirement if we are immediate witnesses of the sacred act performed at the altar, or if we join the congregation and observe the acts by which they express their participation in the holy Mass.... Presence of the soul demands α that we should assist at Mass voluntarie et libere, that is to say, with the intention of honoring God and performing a religious act. Simply to be present in order to see the church, or from motives of curiosity, would not be a religious act, but such is necessary in order to obey the commandment; β that we should assist at Mass with attentio externa, i. e., we must set aside any occupation incompatible with paying attention to the sacred action, and we must have at least that degree of attentio interna without which the act cannot be called a humanly free act in the species of religion; in other words we must have attention of spirit, so far as to be aware that the sacred act, at which we intend to assist in order to practise the virtue of religion, is now being accomplished at the altar " (Lehrbuch der katholischen Moraltheologie, p. 316, etc.).

The question under consideration is whether confession is a transaction incompatible with hearing Mass, or, in other words, " Is the commandment of the Church observed by people who go to confession during Mass on Sundays and holidays, but have the intention to assist at holy Mass at the same time? "

Unless their confession is unusually long, so as to occupy the chief part of holy Mass, and unless it is made during the most important part of the Mass, there can scarcely be any doubt that they fulfil their obligation;1 it is not questioned even by theologians who have a great tendency to rigorism.

(2) The case is different, however, where the confession lasts a long time, perhaps through the whole of Mass, or the greater part of it, and especially if it is going on during the most important actions of the Mass. Under such circumstances very many theologians deny that the duty of hearing Mass has been fulfilled. As

1 Cf. Goepfert, Moraltheologie, (2d ed.), I. 408, c; Lehmkuhl, Theol. mor., I. 538. members of the older school who take this view, we may mention Suarez, Bonacina, Lugo, Kollet, Natalis, Alexander, Antoine, S.J.1 and St. Alphonsus.2

Among more recent writers, Dr. Pruner writes as follows on the subject: "Confession during Mass cannot be regarded as fulfilling the obligation to assist at the Holy Sacrifice, if it absorbs the penitent's whole attention for so long that he cannot be said to have been present at a complete Mass" (S. Lig., n. 314).

Gury may also be quoted; in answer to the question: "Does one who confesses his sin during Mass satisfy the precept?" he says: "Negatively, at least if the confession is lengthy—that is, if it lasts throughout the whole Mass or the greater part of it—because then both internal and external attention are lacking; for one who confesses his sins acts the part of the accused, not of one offering sacrifice with the priest, nor is he morally judged to hear Mass."3

The question is answered in the negative also by Cardinal Gousset, Paul Palasthy, and Friedhoff. Gousset writes: " It is generally assumed that a person satisfies the obligation [to hear Mass] if, during the Mass, he examines his conscience with a view to confession, or reads devoutly some spiritual book, such as the ' Following of Christ/ or says his Office. It is improbable, however, that he can (at the same time) hear Mass while making his confession."4

1 Theologia moralis universa, Romae, 1757, pars prima. Tract. de virtute religionis, cap. II. quaest. V. resp. 4.

2 Theologia moralis, lib. III. n. 314 and 315.

3 Compendium Theol. moralis, Ratisbon, 1874, Manz. ed. in Germ., V. p. 1, n. 346.

4 This opinion is expressed rather more decidedly than that of St. Alphonsus Liguori, who admits that there are not unimportant grounds for supposing that it is possible to hear Mass and go to confession at the same time; but hesitates to pronounce this view as probable (although he previously considered it so for internal reasons), because his modesty prevents him, for external reasons, from contradicting the eminent authorities who consider it improbable.

Friedhoff and Palasthy speak as if it were certain that a person cannot go to confession and at the same time fulfil his obligation to hear Mass. Both rely upon internal reasons, which St. Alphonsus knew perfectly well, and which certainly were familiar to those other theologians who, in spite of them, did not feel bound to adopt this opinion. These internal reasons, therefore, are not of such a nature as to justify the certainty with which Friedhoff and Palasthy speak.

(3) If we ask what the internal reasons are upon which the above-mentioned opinion is based, we are told that in order to hear Mass we ought to pray; but making a confession, though a religious act, is not a prayer; a penitent is enumerating his sins, not praying. Confession is, however, undoubtedly an act of worship, and very weighty authorities teach that it is enough to hear Mass with the intention of worshipping God. This argument then seems to prove nothing, as is admitted by St. Alphonsus and others, who maintain that a negative answer should be given to the question under discussion. They proceed therefore to say: Confession is certainly an act of worship, but not one that is compatible with hearing Mass; for the penitent does not act as one who sacrifices with the priest, but as one who acknowledges his sins: "he acts the part of the accused, not of one offering sacrifice with the priest" (Gury). Self-accusation has nothing to do with sacrifice: the accusation or the role of the accused does not pertain to the sacrifice; the recital of sins is not a thing pertaining to the sacrifice. The penitent, being engaged in enumerating his sins, is so distracted with regard to the Mass as hardly to give it a thought; he is absent in spirit, and therefore we cannot say in a moral sense that he was present at the holy Sacrifice. "It is lawful to do sacred and pious reading and to pray from a book or breviary; only those things that would draw the mind away from the Mass may not be done—for example, making confession or reading profane works." (Palasthy) Friedhoff uses similar language.

(4) Other moralists, amongst them theologians of repute, " haud parvi nominis theologi" (Kenrick, tract. 4, p. 2, n. 12), answer the question affirmatively. Edmund Voit, S.J.,1 who follows Lacroix, writes: "One who makes confession for a long time during Mass hears Mass, because he has the intention of hearing it, as I suppose; he is present in body because he confesses in the church; he assists morally because he is present in a human and religious manner; he can pay sufficient attention, and although perhaps he does not actually attend, he is nevertheless occupied in a pious action and is judged to offer worship to God with the celebrant and those present."— It would of course be possible to argue that not every actio pia can be regarded as compatible with hearing Mass, otherwise, as Cardinal Lugo points out, this would be applicable not only to confession, but also to attendance on the sick, etc. The only act of worship compatible with hearing Mass is one which has reference to the sacrifice. No sound answer can be given to this objection, but we must ask whether there is really no reference to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, when a person does not merely state what he has done amiss during a given period, but with contrite heart makes his confession to a priest as God's representative, and forms good and serious purposes of amendment in the sight of God.

(5) We cannot possibly adopt the opinion underlying the abovementioned doctrine, viz., that a Catholic confessing his sins to God and His representative with contrition, imploring grace and mercy, and purposing amendment, in reliance on the grace of Christ, whence all our strength proceeds, is accomplishing a religious act

1 Theologia moralis, Wirceburgi, 1769, pars secunda, n. 480. Cf. Busenbaum, Medulla theol. mor., lib. III. tract. III. cap. 1, dub. III. edit. Monasterii Westphaliae, 1659. that has no reference whatever to the Eucharistic sacrifice, and that in this respect may be placed on a level with the study of the inscriptions in the church, wilful distractions, or the reading of profane books. If we seriously consider the close connection between the unbloody renewal of the sacrifice of the Cross and the Sacrament in which sins committed after baptism are forgiven, we shall certainly arrive at the conclusion that a Catholic obeys the positive command to hear Mass on Sundays and holidays of obligation, if he makes his confession during this obligatory Mass, even though it should occupy the greater part of it. Is not the Eucharistic sacrifice κατ’ ἐξοχήν the sacrifice of reconciliation, and therefore also a sacrifice of participation in the grace of justification through the Sacrament of penance, which is certainly something more than a mere enumeration of sins?

We are told that a penitent confessing his sins appears as a sinner, not as one doing sacrifice, but do I not participate in the sacrifice of reconciliation on the altar, when I confess my sins with true contrition to Christ in the person of His representative, if I do so in the spirit of the penitent thief and with the intention of hearing Mass? if I implore mercy and make good resolutions for the sake of the most holy Sacrifice? if I bring my sacrifice of penance to unite it with that offered by our Saviour on the altar? If once it is admitted that we do nothing incompatible with hearing Mass if we confess our sins to God with true contrition, why should we not do so in sacramental confession, where it is to Him principaliter that we confess them? No one objects to our fixing our minds during the whole of Mass upon the Confiteor, Kyrie eleison, Agnus Dei, or some other prayer for forgiveness, and such a devotion is quite in keeping with hearing Holy Mass. In a genuine confession there is the same devotion, in all essentials, and therefore we believe that the commandment of the Church, requiring us to hear Mass on Sundays and holidays of obligation, is obeyed, if during that Mass a person makes his confession, having the intention to hear the Mass at which he is bodily present.

(6) In our opinion, those who take the contrary view lay far too little stress upon the penitent disposition, contrition for the sake of Christ, who was an offering for our sins. The sacramental confession is the outward expression of this contrition, and by overlooking this fact they come to regard confession as an enumeration of sins and a conversation with the confessor. Such an impression would probably be made upon any one reading the following passage in Antoine (l. c.): "One who makes confession during a notable portion of Mass does not satisfy the precept, for he lacks the attention required for Mass—namely, attention to God and the divine mysteries—which cannot be present while recounting and investigating sins and their circumstances and in conversation with the confessor." A similar impression is given by the comparison of confession during Mass with wilful distractions (Friedhoff), and with reading profane books (Palasthy), although in each case the comparison is made only by way of illustration to show the incompatibility of going to confession and of hearing Mass.

Gury 1 and others admit that a person obeys the commandment of the Church with regard to hearing Mass, if he spends his time during Mass in examining his conscience; and therefore we can not see why the same admission should not be made if any one in a spirit of contrition confesses the state of his conscience to the representative of Christ. We may ask, with Gobat, "Who will deny that one who confesses his sins to Christ satisfies the Mass?" When we confess to a priest as God's representative, we confess to God Himself.

1 Gury, l. c., n. 347: Those who examine their conscience during Mass in order to confess satisfy the precept. (7) We believe, therefore, that there are good internal grounds for our opinion; but what is to be said, if a priest doubts whether this view is to be regarded as justifiable? Even in this case it would be well to avoid the rigorism of Natalis Alexander, who would have a confessor inquire whether any penitent, entering the confessional during the last Mass, has already heard Mass, and if the answer is in the negative, he thinks the confessor should refuse to hear the confession until Mass is over—he might hear it then or on some other day.

St. Alphonsus is far more lenient. Although he thinks that it is impossible to go to confession and hear Mass at the same time, he sanctions confession during Mass in a case where the penitent would otherwise have to remain some time out of the state of grace, and he adopts the theory that servants who cannot go to confession at another time satisfy the requirements of the Church if they make their confession during Holy Mass. The Saint goes so far as to quote, without any adverse criticism, an opinion expressed by the Jesuit Lacroix, who says that we may even advise servants and others, who otherwise could not perhaps go to confession at all, to do so during the Mass that they are hearing. "But if confession would otherwise have to be omitted, as would often happen with maids and servants, it may be advised that it be made during Mass, because the will of the Church is presumed to be rather that Mass be heard in this way and confession be made than that Mass be heard more attentively and confession not be made."1—Josef Schweizer.

1 Lehmkuhl takes the same view, for he writes: "But if someone was fully absorbed in enumerating his sins during the principal part of the Mass, he indeed does not seem to have satisfied the precept; nevertheless, sometimes from this very fact arises a cause excusing him from hearing another Mass. Namely, if time for another Mass is unavailable, and thus a choice is given either to omit confession and hear Mass, or to omit Mass and make confession, the latter may safely be chosen by one who otherwise, since he needs reconciliation with God, would have to remain for some time in the state of sin, or for whom it would be too grave to remain long deprived of the Sacrament of Penance. Thus also Lacroix, I, number 676." Theol. moralis, 1901, I. n. 558.

Case.—Bertha, a Catholic, employed in a large department store, was ordered to work three successive Saturday nights to help taking stock. She obeyed the order, so as not to be deprived of her breadwinning position. On these Saturdays she reached home after midnight, exhausted from the long hours and tiresome labors of the day. She slept then till 1 P. M. the following day,‘and thus did not hear Mass. She felt she was not obliged to be present at Mass on any of these three Sundays. Her confessor, to whom she made her monthly confession, agreed that, under the circumstances, she was fully excused, and that she therefore committed no sin in absenting herself from the Holy Sacrifice in order to get the rest she felt she needed.

Questions.—Do you think the confessor’s verdict was justified? What about her employer?

Solution.—Employers are bound by the laws of justice and of charity in dealing with those whom they employ. As Leo XIII. said, in his encyclical on Labor: “Working people are not the slaves of the employer, and it is shameful and inhuman to treat men like chattels for profit, or to look upon them merely as so much muscle or physical power.” It seems to us that on this point the owner of the department store has grievously offended. To make any woman or girl work from 8 A. M. until midnight means to pay no heed to the fact that she is a human being. Sixteen hours of labor would be deemed too much even for a beast of burden, and it is not short of criminal when imposed upon working girls. The civil law itself is gradually recognizing that eight or ten hours a day should be the limit for all who are compelled to labor for their daily bread. Stock-taking may be necessary for the proper conduct of business, especially in large department stores, but it should be done in a way that aims at safeguarding the health of those who labor. Mere greed for the saving of money cannot outweigh the claims of God and of nature upon those who must earn their bread by the sweat of their brow.