The Only Mass In San Antonio!

As I covered in yesterday's post, Bp Lopes gave a less than clear policy guidance to his clergy regarding whether to cancel masses during the pandemic. The operant passage in his memo was

I will not require Masses or the celebration of Sacraments to be suspended. The general rule and best practice is to keep informed and follow local diocesan protocol. Please send an e-mail to Fr. Perkins, and cc Laurie to let him know if you have cancelled Masses according to local protocol and the duration of time they will be cancelled.

In San Antonio, Abp Gustavo issued a decree dispensing Sunday mass obligation and suspending masses in the diocese at least through March 31. I've heard, though, from two San Antonio Catholics who said that on one hand, there was no announcement of any sort on the Our Lady of the Atonement web page, and in fact OLA did hold masses -- the only masses in San Antonio, as one informed me.

So Bp Lopes issued a sorta-kinda policy, but not really, as long as Fr Lewis left a message with Laurie or something.

I have some reflections. Bp Lopes himself in his e-mail said

[CCC] §2181 states: “The Sunday Eucharist is the foundation and confirmation of all Christian practice. For this reason the faithful are obliged to participate in the Eucharist on days of obligation, unless excused for a serious reason (for example, illness, the care of infants) or dispensed by their own pastor. Those who deliberately fail in this obligation commit a grave sin

The bishops who suspend masses also dispense their faithful from the Sunday mass obligation in the same announcement. But Bp Lopes has made no general announcement on ordinariate policy. Instead, he's explicitly told his priests he won't suspend masses, and he's issued no decree dispensing obligations. How does this apply to ordinariate members who regularly attend mass at now-closed diocesan parishes?

And since there's no general policy in Bp Lopes's "diocese" on suspending mass, this leaves the faithful in a state of uncertainty. The local bishop, for instance, will have dispensed his diocese from the obligation, but ordinariate masses that are canceled in response to local practice won't have their faithful dispensed in the same way. Shouldn't Bp Lopes, as the bishop of those faithful, make things clearer in the same way the local bishops publish their dispensations?

Next, I wonder about the appearances here: Abp Gustavo suspends masses. Bp Lopes allows Fr Lewis to continue to hold them. This turns out to be the only mass in San Antonio. What does this do for relations between the ordinariate and the archdiocese? Also, a visitor noted that San Antonio civil authorities have banned gatherings of 500 or more. But the OLA mass. as the only one in town, attracted more people than usual, which in the visitor's judgment may have put the mass over the limit. What are the implications there? Does anyone in Houston care? (I betcha Abp Gustavo will also have a reaction.)

And let's take up the question of communion in the hand. Bp Lopes's instruction is that, although local dioceses have suspended communion on the tongue, the ordinariate is going to push on with it -- indeed, I believe OLA administers the Sacrament by intinction, no exceptions. This strikes me as problematic from a best-practices point of view -- the advice from health authorities is to avoid contact, direct or indirect, between other people's hands and your face. But with intinction, the priest or deacon is dipping the Host into the wine -- certainly a humid environment -- and then pressing the Host onto the communicant's tongue.

At our parish, probably more than half have been receiving on the tongue, and contact between the EM's fingers and the communicant's tongue or face, unavoidable practically speaking, is pretty common. For the duration, reception on the tongue has been suspended at our parish. This seems like ordinary prudence and even charity toward the faithful. But Bp Lopes says push on! How will this play, not only with local bishops, but with the health authorities?

Someone will say the pastor can announce prior to the distribution that those who do not wish to receive the Sacrament on the tongue are free to remain in the pew or come forward for a blessing. But in that case, why come to mass physically at all? You'll get the same benefit by watching mass on TV, which is what the bishops and other Catholic spokesman are telling the faithful to do in any case.

The message being sent by Houston strikes me as passive-aggressive in the best Vaughn Treco style -- celebrate the hospital masses ad orientem, no matter it upsets the sisters who run the place. That served both poor Treco and the ordinariate counterproductively, it seems to me. No matter what the local bishop does, if you want to do things otherwise, screw the guy and go ahead. No matter how bad it looks, even if communion in the hand is licit and much healthier, screw 'em, don't mess with controversy, just tell 'em it's your way or the highway!

And if anyone genuinely wants to know the ordinariate's policy on masses in the pandemic, screw 'em! Follow the local bishop, or not, as the case may be! Questions? Just don't bother us in Houston! We're busy!

I wonder if Bp Lopes's pain meds or whatever else may be affecting his judgment.