Letter to the Editor
Greetings
I am curious why the question isn't being asked of the bishops as to whether they are guilty of mortal sin for failure to do what is necessary (and possible) to make Eucharist more readily available (dereliction of duty) instead of closing or "merging"" parishes and having parishes endure weekends without Mass, all because of shortage of celibate clergy. They have both the power and authority to do so, and since this concerns not doctrinal matter but rather an issue of church discipline, seems like it could be accomplished in short order.
It seems to be a simple formula: The Church teaches that Eucharist is critical and central to our faith ("source and summit of our faith", according to VAT II documents) without which our faith cannot endure and grow. Also, the bishops continue to remind laity of the commandment-based teaching that laity is guilty of mortal sin if they do not participate in weekly Eucharist. If Eucharist is really this important and central to our faith, then if the bishops fail to take action to make Eucharist readily available, are they not also guilty of serious sin in failing to do so?
I would like to see this question posed to the bishops for their response. Seems like it should be one or the other - either Eucharist and weekly Mass are serious as they teach, so not doing what can be done to make Eucharist available should be a serious dereliction (sin) on the part of the bishops. OR, Eucharist is not all that central, and not participating in weekly Eucharist is not mortally sinful, and thus the bishops are under no moral responsibility to do what they can to make Eucharist available. It is either one or the other, but it can't be both. So, for the Bishops, which is it?
Dan Sparapani
