Mass Suspensions: The Moral Order and Obedience

How should we view Mass suspensions in light of the moral order and obedience? The virtue of obedience seems especially relevant now as we finish the Triduum without Mass and head into another week of quarantine. Thinking that the prohibition is irrational and that it is based on exaggerated fears tempted me more than ever as I watched the online version of the Tridium take place in empty Churches.

Padre Pio

A friend recently brought up Padre Pio as someone we might consider during this time of strict social distancing orders that sometimes seem overboard. Padre Pio followed the orders of his superiors even when they appeared foolish and ill-intentioned.  To Padre Pio following these orders meant doing God’s will because as he expressed it, “The will of the authorities is the will of God.” Of course, Padre Pio said this with full knowledge that he was in the right and very likely aware that his detractors had turned the pope against him.  However, rather than defend himself, his attitude towards his superiors showed his meekness. According to Renzo Allgri’s biography Man of Hope, Padre Pio told an acquaintance “If my superiors ordered me to jump out of the window, I wouldn’t argue. I would jump” (102). Padre Pio’s obedience seems overboard until compared to Christ’s death on a cross. Saint Paul says in Philippians that “[Christ] humbled Himself and became obedient unto death—even the death of the cross” (Philippians 2:8). Padre Pio, like Christ, saw obedience as the road to glory.

Padre Pio’s example of obedience can seem almost dangerous. After being forbidden to have a public ministry and being told that he could only offer a private Mass, Padre Pio remained uncomplaining, suffering not only the skepticism and doubt of the Church but also the real pain of his stigmata. His obedience brought him to the point of copying a statement saying that reports that he was “being constrained or persecuted by Church authorities” were false (Allegri, 233) when they clearly were demonstrably true. Yet his trust in God was childlike. In the end, the pope realized his mistake and was deeply sorry. All things worked out for the saint. His obedience won him glory.

Of course, we have not made vows of obedience. Nonetheless, we find ourselves in a situation where obedience to Church and state is required. It is a time that may raise questions about our duty as Catholic citizens.

Obedience to the Church Always Comes First

In answering the question of obedience, the Catechism turns to the Fourth Commandment which deals with obedience to parents. The state represents a family on a grander scale, and, as far as this analogy holds, the Catechism recommends obedience to the state. However, when the state breaks with the teachings of the Church, “Citizens are obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order. ‘We must obey God rather than men’(Acts 5:29)” (CCC 2256).  These words recall Christ’s injunction to “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God, the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21). Christ also sees a clear distinction between Church and State and recommends living in both these worlds at once. There can and should be a union between the moral order and the order of the state, but, in our fallen world, this may prove less than perfect. Christ’s statement raises an important point; a Christian may act morally even when paying taxes to a corrupt and brutal state. These questions demand more expertise than I have.

According to Catholicculture.org, the moral order itself means two things to the state and the church. To the Catholic Church it means “The proper direction of human actions to a person’s ultimate end, namely the eternal destiny. On a universal scale, the relationship of all human actions, under divine Providence, toward the final purpose that God has for the human race.” Whereas to state and even Church law it means “the legally established body of rights and duties among human beings either in general or in a given society.” These two concepts of the moral order, the legal and the supernatural, can work together harmoniously, and the legal should even take its directives from the supernatural end of humans.

Our Present Situation

Arguably, the Church views the present crisis in terms of these two concepts, the moral order of the state and of the Church, coming together. However, the authorities like those of Christ’s day do and say things that show ignorance and imperfection. Mayor Bill DeBlasio overstepping his authority and expressing hostility to the church, threatened to “take additional action up to the point of fines and potentially closing the building permanently” in reference places of worship not in compliance with the quarantine. DeBlasio, a democrat, might enjoy permenantly closing a dissenting Church for other reasons such as abortion. While these secular leaders often show disregard for human life and hostility to the Church, the Bishops believe obeying the quarantine protects and saves lives even when it precludes other moral goods such as Mass.

Mirroring this opinion, my local bishop explained the suspension of Mass as necessary for the protection of the vulnerable.

The Mass is our central act of worship, the source and summit of our Catholic faith, and it goes without saying that this difficult decision was not made lightly. It was done after prayerful consideration of the critical health threat that now confronts us. The gravity of it demands that we take whatever action is needed, despite the hardship, to protect the good of all, especially those who are most vulnerable at this time.

The response of this bishop aligns completely with the statements of governors, mayors, and, doubtless, bishops across the country who argue that closing down the country is the moral choice.  This point of view may hold water, but, as the quarantine goes on and we face the prospect of an expansion, I think we need to ask tough questions as we interpret the Catechism’s injunction to follow the moral order. The “prayerful consideration” mentioned in the statement should lead us to consider placing every possibility on the table.

Saints Who Went Without the Eucharist

We should never forget that receiving the Sacraments is a privilege of which many saints and sinners couldn’t always depend. As we head into the end of Tridium banned from Mass, I’m reminded of the saints who went days, months, or even years without receiving the eucharist. Out of the many examples, Saint Issac Jogues may be better known. After having his hands deformed by a tribe of hostile, North American Mohawks, Saint Issac Jogues was barred from celebrating Mass because of a rule in the Church at the time.  Eventually, he received a dispensation and, heroically, asked permission to return to America. He’s a great model for us now of the courage we should have when faced with apparent setbacks to our faith and our mission. We might also look for inspiration to Bl. Victoire Rasoamanarivo of Madagascar who went three years without Mass after Catholic priests were expelled from her country. During these years, she gathered believers together for communal prayer every Sunday, writing, beautifully, “I place before my mind the missionaries saying the Mass, and mentally attend all the Masses being said throughout the world.” Her devotion to the Mass can inspire us to renew our own devotion as, perhaps, we make a spiritual act of communion. There are many other examples of such saints in the Aleteia article “Saints Who Have Had to Live Without the Eucharist.” Whatever happens, Catholics can take these examples to heart and know that obedience will bring us glory.