When to Reinstate the Sunday Obligation?

As we head into what looks to be the merciful final stretch of the COVID-19 pandemic, Catholics around the country are beginning to ask the question "when do we return to normal at Mass?"  Bishops are also starting to answer this question.  For example, in my somewhat backyard, the Archdiocese of Detroit announced that the Sunday Obligation would be reinstated on March 13, albeit with 8 individual dispensations from Mass attendance.  My diocese of Lansing has given a tentative date of May 21st, but has shown a willingness to be flexible on that date.  Others are still pretty open ended.

My view on this is probably a minority position among those who air their opinions publicly, but I believe every diocese should reinstate the Sunday obligation on the concept of "Valve Time."  Valve Time is a somewhat endearing mocking of the Software Company Valve, whose deadlines for release are absolutely mere suggestions, as products are released "when they are ready."  This often leads to a level of polish and functionality that beats out their competition, but has led to some products just being delayed indefinitely or canceled outright without much hesitation.  For better and worse, evidence on the ground guides their conclusions, not fixed deadlines.  

The decision to reinstate the Sunday Obligation should follow similar guidelines.  In a lot of areas, it could probably be argued the dispensation never needed anything beyond a brief relaxation during the occasional surge.  Whereas in other localities there can be a legitimate question as to if the obligation should ever have been reinstated if it was.  These are not easy questions, as the spiritual health of the congregation must also be weighed as part of the "evidence" alongside public health.

Yet let's say we are reinstating the Sunday Obligation.  I think there's a bad way of doing it, and a lot of people are committing it.  It is often argued that the dispensation was granted out of those "legitimately afraid of contracting the virus."  Indeed, the Archdiocese of Detroit continues this dispensation from the obligation.  While fear of the virus is one thing, that is not even the main reason the dispensation was given.  The dispensation was given because of the high prevalence of community spread because of mass gatherings, and the risk that people may become infected at mass and infect the vulnerable, including those who were already staying away from Mass.  The only sense it was a concession to the individual was that the individual was dispensed from the sin of not attending Mass.

Likewise, people saying "if you are good enough to go to a bar, you are good enough to go to Mass" also miss the point of the original dispensation.  Our health wasn't necessarily the reason the dispensation was introduced, but rather, the health of others.  It was true, and remains true, that if you contract COVID, the overwhelming odds are you will be fine after 10-14 days.  Yet even a small percentage of significant suffering and death can inflict an immeasurable toll on families and societies, so to avoid that situation, a dispensation was given.

I also think the rush to end the dispensation doesn't understand the nature of the problem we are facing.  People by and large are not staying home from Mass due to the suspending of the dispensation.  They are staying home from Mass because there is a pandemic.  We found the same with the economic impact of the virus.  For a long time in 2020 there was a debate over whether or not lockdowns of various businesses was harming or hurting the economy, and our response to the pandemic.  The consulting giant McKinsey put their best minds to the subject and found that everyone was more or less wrong about something.  The lockdowns had far less to do with economic pain than the conditions on the ground.  Italy and France had some of the strictest lockdowns, and the biggest economic contraction.  Yet Sweden had some of the least restrictive conditions, and their economy performed almost identically to their Norwegian neighbor, and was less robust than South Korea, who also had a pretty stringent lockdown regimen.

There is quite frankly no reason to suggest that reinstating the Sunday obligation would do much to change the calculus of people.  Those who want to go to Mass are going to Mass, when they are able.  Cards on the table, I've attended Mass about 90% of the time since public masses resumed in my diocese.  My criteria for going is based on case loads and how likely my individual parish is to be packed.  Even if the obligation were in place, I would still largely operate by those guidelines, and I'd be acting entirely consistent with canon law in doing so, as the obligation is not an invitation to illness or risking others in vulnerable states.  The obligation exists to support the obligation man has to keep the Sabbath holy, and for us Catholics, there is no better way to do that than assisting at Mass on that day, for our own soul, or that of the local and global church, as well as society around us.  Yet these obligations are made to assist man, not entrap him.

If Churches want to mitigate this, they need to come up with strategies to accommodate those attending Mass.  "Extra cleaning and sanitizing" doesn't help much, it is "Hygiene Theater" as Derek Thompson describes it.  Even the required six feet of social distancing is mostly guesswork, and in many other areas of society, the insistence on it as opposed to other measures made matters worse.  What seems to work best?  Wearing a face mask tends to mitigate a little bit.  Wearing an N-95 mask mitigates it even more.  Limiting mass gatherings of relatively close proximity indoors is still the best bet.  We need more masses with fewer people in them.  Yet there are very good reasons that canon law generally limits the amount of masses a priest can say over a weekend.

Until we have something approaching herd immunity, Mass attendance isn't going to rise, no matter what we do with the obligation.  What we should be doing is being realistic in ensuring that the Masses we currently offer are safe for those who wish to attend, and finding ways to bring others afraid to attend without bringing risk to an unacceptable level.  Parishes also need to offer a more authentic experience of Catholicism, so as to make their parishes a welcoming and valuable experience.  (This is way beyond having more reverent liturgies and is a separate discussion.)  There is a real fear that people will not come back to Mass once the obligation is reinstated.  Yet that fear has nothing to do with the obligation, and everything to do with how badly the Catholic Church has managed to screw things up throughout the various crises that existed before the pandemic.  The abuse scandal, culminated in the disgrace of Theodore McCarrick did more to destroy confidence in the Church than anything regarding the obligation.  The Church losing her social voice (whether it be on matters of abortion, economics, race, there's plenty of failure to pass around) and mostly shrugging as politics became the sacred institution of American Catholics isn't going to be fixed because the bishops who have zero moral legitimacy now say "hey everyone, get your butts back to Mass!"

Emphasize safety, do your best to promote vaccination, make your Catholicism something tangible.  If you were doing these things, your parish is probably okay right now.  Hurting, but okay.  Once things return to a semblance of normal, you will probably be okay, hurting, but okay.  Others will not be so lucky.  The pandemic forced people around the world to reassess what is important:  it is up to us to make sure they determine Catholicism still is.  Otherwise, all the obligations in the world won't help.

Pope's Solution to the Spiritual Decay in the Church: Fewer Masses

 This comes via way of Fr. Z, among various other places.  This morning the Vatican released an unsigned decree banning private masses at St. Peter's Basillica.  If you want to celebrate Mass there, it has to be concelebrated, has to have singing, etc.  There isn't really a rationale given for this kind of change, which we will get to.  To mitigate the impending pastoral disaster (as the Extraordinary Form and pilgrim/tourist groups celebrate loads of these masses every week) they are funneling all of these into one room, with no explanation for how that works logistically.

The decree is almost certainly real, but left unsigned so it can be withdrawn once it either generates significant opposition or flops.  The truth is the liturgical reformers have always hated private masses.  While some of your more high minded critics (often in bad faith) will point out that these are nearly non-existent in most Eastern Catholic settings, the reality is that private masses are a fact of life in the Latin Rite, even today in the Novus Ordo, where celebrations occur on side altars in cathedrals or in small group settings in major basilicas.  

The objection to this practice is not new.  The liturgical reform tried to eliminate it entirely originally, but faced pushback from the likes of Cardinal Ottaviani.  The liturgical reformers did not reject the Mass being about the worship of God, they just placed a far higher priority on the primary purpose of Mass being the instruction and edification of the faithful.  The original definition, changed because it was certainly heretical, said as follows about the Mass:

The Lord's Supper or Mass is a sacred meeting or assembly of the People of God, met together under the presidency of the priest, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. Thus the promise of Christ, "where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them"

As noted, this definition was struck, and in its place Paul VI promulgated a definition of the Mass that explicitly referenced the Mass being the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ on the cross, made present to us in an unbloody matter. Yet its ethos lived on in the spirit of the liturgical reformers, who Ottaviani described as such in his now famous Intervention:

1. Ultimate End. This is that of the Sacrifice of praise to the Most Holy Trinity according to the explicit declaration of Christ in the primary purpose of His very Incarnation: "Coming into the world he saith: 'sacrifice and oblation thou wouldst not but a body thou hast fitted me' ". (Ps. XXXIX, 7-9 in Heb. X, 5).

This end has disappeared: from the Offertory, with the disappearance of the prayer "Suscipe, Sancta Trinitas", from the end of the Mass with the omission of the "Placet tibi Sancta Trinitas", and from the Preface, which on Sunday will no longer be that of the Most Holy Trinity, as this Preface will be reserved only to the Feast of the Trinity, and so in future will be heard but once a year.

2. Ordinary End. This is the propitiatory Sacrifice. It too has been deviated from; for instead of putting the stress on the remission of sins of the living and the dead, it lays emphasis on the nourishment and sanctification of those present (No. 54). Christ certainly instituted the Sacrament of the Last Supper putting Himself in the state of Victim in order that we might be united to Him in this state but his self- immolation precedes the eating of the Victim, and has an antecedent and full redemptive value (the application of the bloody immolation). This is borne out by the fact that the faithful present are not bound to communicate, sacramentally.

To the reformer, Mass without a congregation is pointless.  If the Mass is about feeding the congregation, why have a Mass?  A Mass limited to a small group only would be an abomination, as the primary purpose of the Mass for them is "feeding the flock" via the Eucharist and the proclamation of the Word.  Outside of Benedict XVI, this has been the attitude of every pope who has presided over the liturgical reform since the Council.  Pope Francis is no different.  He has repeatedly said both that the liturgical reform was a smashing success in the Church, and yet that its work remains unfinished.  While he may not put liturgical matters front and center, he still very clearly believes more of the reform needs to be carried out.  The suppression of private Masses should be read in that light.

If such a decision sounds absurd..... it is.  The solution to spiritual decay is not fewer Masses.  It is more Masses, better Masses, and a faithful more engaged in Masses.  This is even more the case in Rome, where tourists, visiting St. Peters, had a chance to hear the Mass in their own language.  If one wants to say every Catholic should be proficient in the Mass in Latin, welcome to traditionalism, beer is in the fridge.  Yet we are not there now, nor will we be in 40-50 years.  This kind of move is rotten theology, and even worse pastoral application.

The icing on the cake is the obvious contempt this decree has for the Extraordinary Form.  Now, contra some others, I don't think this was a deliberate snubbing and spiting of traditionalists by the Pope.  I think he's genuinely understood spending the first few years trolling and edgelording .1% of the Church for kicks and favorable media headlines was a really bad strategy, and its one he has mostly abandoned the past few years.  I'm just guessing he really wanted to ban private masses because he can't comprehend why anyone would like them.  When it was pointed out this would functionally ban the Latin Mass in St. Peters, he decided to give them a Mass in a crypt, because that's a pastoral thing to do, and he is a pastoral pope. So he repeats a thousand times.

Yet it is pretty clear traditionalists would not take being relegated to a private crypt at restricted times of day, by "authorized priests", in only 3 times before 9am, in a space they now have to fight for with tourist groups, as a "win."  There's also the whole institutional memory of forcing traditionalists into small crypts via the Indult so their liturgical tradition would not trouble the Church at large.  Yet this is honestly par for the course in this pontificate with his "pastoral" initiatives, they are "pastoral" in the sense that people who craft headlines say they are pastoral, and because people tell the pope he's being pastoral, not because he's actually meeting any spiritual need of the faithful with his decisions.

In the grand scheme of things, is this among the worst things he's done?  Probably not.  (That would go to attacking abuse victims as needy and greedy,  also covering for McCarrick.)  Yet it is instructive of a mindset this Pope has, which people will try to tell you he doesn't:  he is a son of the Revolution in the Church, and it is the goal of the sons of the revolution to make perpetual war upon the traditions and identity of the Catholic Church.  That he might go years without such attacks, and that he does good things elsewhere, does not mean he has changed his ways.