whether they can prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt,
I doubt McMaster that the average Catholic should be held to a rule-of-thumb which is beyond the range of a court of law. The extent is usually not beyond
a reasonable doubt but within
a reasonable doubt.
The expression "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" is the one commonly used in American courts of law to mean proof that leaves no real reason to doubt the guilt of a defendant charged with a crime. I use it here because, in every case I have yet seen, the claim that Catholics should stay away from daily Communion rather than receive it at "NO" Masses arises from a view that Catholics are participating in some kind of wrongdoing merely by attending those Masses and receiving Communion at them. Those who wish to accuse their fellow Catholics of participation in wrongdoing should be prepared to prove the accusation beyond a reasonable doubt, or else to withdraw it. Which will you have? (Hint: the better course would be simply to acknowledge that Catholic parents can attend daily "NO" Masses, take their children to them, and receive Holy Communion at them, without participating in any wrongdoing.)
It has freed many a man from prison - some of them guilty.
Yes, I know. In this case, though, it would serve only to free innocent Catholics from false accusations.
Reasonable doubt is what keeps traditional Catholics from the Novus Ordo line-ups for the "eucharist".
Reasonable doubt about what
? About whether the consecration of the Host is valid, as suggested by your quotation marks around "eucharist," spelled with a small "e" and not preceded by "Holy"?
If so, please (1) state one or more supposed reasons for doubting its validity, and (2) say whether you think it might be all right for traditional Catholics to receive Communion at "NO" Masses if there is no reasonable doubt that they are receiving a validly consecrated Host and they do not receive from the chalice. And, of course, explain why you say so or don't say so.
If not, please say what the reasonable doubt is supposed to be about.
We rely on our senses to convey information to our intellect [...]
We do not rely only
on our senses to convey information to our intellect; if we did, our Catholic faith would be doomed from the start. Ironically, it was the Modernists who insisted that we did, and indeed that we must:
Modernists place the foundation of religious philosophy in that doctrine which is usually called Agnosticism. According to this teaching human reason is confined entirely within the field of phenomena, that is to say, to things that are perceptible to the senses, and in the manner in which they are perceptible; it has no right and no power to transgress these limits. Hence it is incapable of lifting itself up to God, and of recognising His existence, even by means of visible things [St. Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, 6].
[...] and when we see corruption on our altars we can safely assume - with reason - that they should be avoided [...]
And when we see, with the eyes of faith and not the senses, that Our Lord is really present in the Holy Eucharist on the Church's altars even at "NO" Masses, we can safely adore Him and receive Him there. Yes or no?
Please note (again) that anyone who has a real
doubt whether it is lawful to receive Communion at "NO" Masses could actually sin by doing so, whether the doubt is objectively a reasonable
one or not. If you see what you suppose to be corruption instead of the Holy Eucharist on the altar, you would sin by receiving the supposed corruption, even if it's really the Holy Eucharist. This is because even an erring conscience binds, though it does not excuse [see St. Thomas Aquinas, S.T. I-II, Q. 19, Art. 5-6].
On the other hand ...
and we should urge others to do so.
No, that would be true only if you were right
--and no one should believe you're right in making such an astounding claim without proof. But far be it from me to rely merely on a high standard
of proof (i.e., beyond a reasonable doubt). By what standard do you
think it would be fair to require you to prove that Catholics should stay away from daily Communion rather than receive it at "NO" Masses--and are you prepared to prove it by that standard?