Recent commentary surrounding the postponed Holy Mass at Lubaga (Rubaga) Cathedral requires an important clarification: it was not the Archbishop who originated the decision to postpone the Mass; it was the President who requested that it be delayed. The Archbishop responded to a directive from the Head of State. That distinction is significant. While the Archbishop may have acted calmly and pastorally in receiving the call, and while he avoided publicly politicizing the situation, the deeper ecclesial and pastoral question remains: what precedent does this set for the People of God?
The Holy Mass, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, is “the source and summit of the Christian life” (CCC 1324). It is not a political rally, nor is it a partisan platform. Yet neither is it subject to political permission. The Code of Canon Law is clear that the regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church (Canon 838 §1). A diocesan bishop possesses ordinary, proper, and immediate power required for the exercise of his pastoral office (Canon 381 §1). Moreover, the faithful have the right to receive the spiritual goods of the Church, especially the sacraments (Canon 213). While Canon 223 §2 allows ecclesiastical authority to regulate the exercise of rights for the common good of the Church, this does not transfer liturgical authority to civil power.
The Church has always upheld cooperation with civil authorities, but not subordination in spiritual matters. Vatican II’s Gaudium et Spes (76) affirms that the Church and the political community are autonomous and independent in their own fields. Dignitatis Humanae (3) teaches that religious freedom means no human power may coerce religious acts. The Catechism further states that citizens are not obliged in conscience to follow directives of civil authorities when they contradict the moral order (CCC 2242), and that political authorities must respect the Church’s autonomy (CCC 2244). Dialogue with civil leaders is prudent and often necessary, but dialogue does not imply surrender of ecclesial authority.
The pastoral concern, therefore, is not about confrontation but about precedent. If a civil authority may request the postponement of a Mass because it risks being politicized, what prevents future requests on grounds of security, public order, or political sensitivity? Would the Church then be asked to suspend Masses on Easter or Christmas due to national tensions? These questions are not speculative exaggerations; history provides sobering examples of state interference harming the faithful.
During the French Revolution, the State attempted to control clergy and suppress liturgical life, depriving many Catholics of the sacraments. In Nazi Germany, the regime sought to silence Church gatherings perceived as politically threatening. In modern times, in parts of China, state-controlled religious structures have restricted bishops and divided communities of faith. Even Uganda’s own history remembers the Uganda Martyrs, who were executed because their Christian allegiance was perceived as politically subversive. Each of these moments reminds us that when the State determines when and how the Church may worship, the People of God suffer first.
This is not to accuse the Archbishop of weakness. No, no, not at all. Our beloved Archbishop deserves our thanks for his pastoral care. Bishops are shepherds, and prudence often calls for restraint rather than public defiance. The Archbishop may well have acted to preserve peace and avoid escalation. That pastoral sensitivity deserves recognition. Yet the theological principle must remain clear: the authority to celebrate or regulate the Eucharist does not originate from civil office. It flows from Christ and is entrusted to the Church.
The Mass offered for the sick, the imprisoned, or any group of persons is not a political endorsement. The Church prays for all: rulers and prisoners, leaders and critics alike. As Scripture exhorts, prayers are to be offered for kings and all in authority. The altar is a place of intercession, not agitation. But neither is it a space that requires political authorization.
The separation of Church and State does not mean hostility between them; it means rightful autonomy. The Church engages society to serve, to heal, and to proclaim Christ. However, she must remain free to celebrate the sacraments without civil interference. The freedom of the Church to worship is not a privilege granted by the State. It is a divine mandate rooted in Christ’s institution of the Eucharist.
In defending this principle, one does not undermine civil authority; rather, one protects the integrity of both institutions. A healthy nation benefits when the Church is free to fulfill her spiritual mission. Ultimately, the People of God must have confidence that access to the Eucharist does not depend on political calculation but on the pastoral governance of the Church herself.
Do you have a story in your community or an opinion to share with us: Email us at Submit an Article
