: Quidlibet :

An Ex-Sede, the Motu Mass and Refusing Sacraments

A CASE TO RESOLVE: Father Romanus, a sedevacantist, is asked to offer Mass for and
address a small gathering of traditionalists in another state. The topic of his address: Why
one should not actively participate in “una cum” Masses — that is, Masses at which the
name of Benedict XVI is put into the first prayer of the Canon. (These include Latin Masses
offered under the aegis of Benedict XVI’s 2007 Motu Proprio, as well as those offered by
such groups as the Fraternity of St. Peter and the Society of St. Pius X.)

As Father Romanus is preparing the temporary altar for Mass, Titus arrives and
announces his intention to listen to the address and then assist at the Mass.

Titus was raised in a large and somewhat prominent traditionalist family and is known to
all present. For many years, Titus, together with his wife and children, traveled a great
distance to assist at the Mass of Fr. Romanus, and was to all appearances, a convinced and
highly articulate sedevacantist.

He and his family, however, tired of the travel, and under the influence of “conservative”
Catholics in their area, began to assist regularly at the Indult, later, the Motu Mass.

Fr. Romanus and his colleagues repeatedly and with considerable patience explained to
Titus why this course of action was wrong and attempted to dissuade him.

These efforts, alas, were to no avail, and sad news of the defection of Titus spread to
members of Fr. Romanus’ congregation. Indeed, the story was known to most of the
traditionalists present at the gathering at which Titus had unexpectedly arrived.

Fr. Romanus informed Titus privately that he commits a mortal sin by taking himself and
his family to the Motu Mass, and that Fr. Romanus was therefore obliged to deny him the
sacraments.

Titus became indignant, and accused Fr. Romanus of being “like the St. Pius V Society,”
which on spurious grounds publicly withholds the sacraments from various categories of
traditional Catholics.

Was the course of action of Fr. Romanus justified in this case?

RESPONSE: Based on the general principles of moral theology governing the refusal of
sacraments to the unworthy and upon the facts of this particular case, yes.

.
I. PRINCIPLES.
—————————————

The canonist Cappello lays down the following general principle:

“The minister of a sacrament is bound per se under pain of mortal sin to deny
sacraments to the unworthy … because they cannot obtain its effect, since they
are in the state of mortal sin without the will to amend.…”

“Sacraments must be denied to a public sinner, whether he asks for them

publicly or secretly. The reason is that in this case, a reason for administering
sacraments is lacking; indeed, administering the sacraments would give grave
scandal to the faithful.

“A public sinner is one whose unworthiness becomes common knowledge.…

 “Per se and ordinarily speaking, two things are required for someone to be
considered a public sinner: (1) That the sin be grave. (2) That it be continuous
and persevering, either by reason of the type of sin itself or at least by reason of
the scandal that proceeds from it.” (De Sacramentis 1:58, 63. Cappello’s italics
and bold.)

As some examples, Cappello gives concubinage, murder and neglect of Paschal communion
or confession, when it is publicly known.

.
II. APPLICATION:
—————————————

As regards how the foregoing applies to the case of Titus:

(1) Gravity of Sin: Titus’s active assistance at the Motu Mass, among other things, (a)
affirms that a sacrilegious and invalid rite (the Novus Ordo) is the “Ordinary Form of the
Roman Rite,” (b) affirms that a false religion (that of Vatican II) is the religion founded by
Jesus Christ, (c) places his family in a proximate occasion of mortal sin against the faith.

These acts are grave sins against religion, faith and charity.

To this is added the grave sin of scandal — “a word or deed (whether of commission or
omission) that (1) is itself evil, OR (2) has the appearance of evil, AND (3) provides an
occasion of sin for another.” (Prümmer, Moral Theology, 230.)

Other Catholics, knowing that Titus comes from a well-known traditionalist family would
conclude that assistance at a Motu Mass is not only permissible but laudable for a Catholic —
and thus be induced to imitate his sin.

(2) Continuous and Persevering: Titus’s assistance at the Motu was not simply one-time
or occasional, but continued and persevered.

(3) Public: His participation at the Motu Mass is not simply known to a few, but it is
somewhat widely known.

(4) Aggravating Circumstances: The point of the address that Fr. Romanus intended to
give was to explain why it is wrong to participate in una cum Masses. To have administered
sacraments to Titus, especially under those circumstances, would not only have condoned
Titus’s sinful example, but also contradicted the principles Fr. Romanus intended to explain.

(5) Imputability: While many (if not most) who assist at the Motu Mass may do so in good
faith or out of ignorance of the issues, such excuses would not hold in the case of Titus. He is
intelligent, clearly understood the issues, and has had the principles explained clearly to him
many, many times.

.
III. CONCLUSION.
—————————————–

For the foregoing reasons, Fr. Romanus was obliged to refuse the sacraments to Titus.

***

SOME lay Catholics may find the mere mention of such a conclusion to be distressing. And it
will set a-chattering a few lay controversialists who maintain that any valid Latin Mass is just
fine, and that for the administration of sacraments, the Prime Directive is “the consumer is
king.”

But here the priest is merely doing his job by applying to a particular case the principles of
moral theology and canon law that he learned in the seminary and that he applies every day.
He is supposed to judge the morality of acts — to separate right from wrong — and then
instruct the layman to act accordingly. If this is not the priest’s job, whose is it?

Finally, just as appealing to the correct principle “Outside the Church, no salvation” almost
inevitably leads to the accusation that one is a “Feeneyite,” so too, appealing to and applying
correct principles about the refusal of sacraments leads to accusations of being “like the St.
Pius V Society.”

But such accusations are merely emotional appeals based on honest misunderstandings (or in
a few cases, cynical manipulation), rather than real arguments that are based on objective
principles in theology or canon law.

That ignorant clergy consistently misapply the Church’s rules for refusing the sacraments
does not make these rules the exclusive property of the ignorant and then suspend their
application to all other cases.

There are, in fact, situations in which these principles oblige a priest to refuse to administer
sacraments to someone. And the case under discussion, alas, is one of them.
This was written by Rev. Anthony Cekada. Posted on
Tuesday, June 24, 2008, at 5:56 pm. Filed under Canon
Law, Trad Controversies. Bookmark the permalink.

Follow comments here with the RSS feed. Comments

are closed, but you can leave a trackback.