Christ among the Doctors of the Law

 

 

Tuesday, June 30, 2009

L'OR and the Loss of Reason

For most of my life L'Osservatore Romano has been a sleepy Roman rag that arrived weeks after its publication date, printed in cheap ink that soiled the fingers of those who felt the need to read page after page of boilerplate remarks on the latest ambassador from anywhere shown in his tuxedo presenting diplomatic credentials. Aside, I suppose, from an occasionally interesting book review, L'OR has for decades carried nothing of serious interest that could not be found much more quickly in a half-dozen other venues, ones, moreover, that didn't compel readers to wash their hands before handling anything beige or white.

But lately, L'OR has decided to become relevant. God help us.

Having just emerged, battered, but, I thought, moderately chastened after its embarrassingly naive and harmful editorial in praise of Pres. Obama, L'OR treats the world to a high-schoolish tribute to the highly talented and utterly pathetic entertainer Michael Jackson.

Jackson might not be fully responsible for the swirling chaos that was his life and death, but for L'OR even to mention his death - - without simultaneously urging Catholics to pray for his soul and the souls of all the faithful departed - - astounds me.

Worse, the L'OR report leaves Catholics little sense that much of Jackson's work was sexually exploitative, at times quasi-obscene; it dismisses as insignificant the terrible example that Jackson's chronic pursuit of superficial "beauty" gave to millions of young people; and, worst of all, it trivializes the serious, and in some cases unresolved, allegations of child sexual abuse made against him. L'OR need not assume the worst about Jackson's conduct in these cases, but it should never have implied that such allegations, even if they are true, cannot tarnish the world-wide esteem in which he is held! Good grief. Has L'OR completely lost its reason?

If the Vatican wants a newspaper to provide a Catholic perspective on the world, fine. Item Number One on the to-do list, though, should be to find Catholics who can write and edit such a paper coherently. Anyone can lurch from gaff to gaff.

In the meantime, if you really want to get in on the Jackson Praise Train, check out M-TV, dude. Their graphics are like way better than L'OR.

Other posts: AmericanPapist

posted by Dr. Edward Peters at This Permanent Link

Friday, June 26, 2009

The insordescence of Abp. Milingo demands response

Insordescence. It's not a likable word. It's not a likable thing. But Abp. Milingo is insordescent. And he needs to be dealt with.

Suspended in 2006 when he resumed cohabiting with his wife from a Moonie wedding, and excommunicated about the same time when he ordained some married men in America to the episcopate, Milingo's latest affront to the Church is to ordain to the episcopate sine mandato yet another married man, this time in Kenya, one of the Church's brightest spots in Africa.

In the old days (that is, before codified law), they had a term for an excommunicate who passed one (nb: one) year without seeking reconciliation: Insordescence, a status that made one (especially clerics) liable to heightened penalties. See Taunton, Law of the Church (1906) at 371. For clergy, these penalties were more or less along the lines of what we would today call "dismissal from the clerical state".

Though mentioned just once the Pio-Benedictine Code (see 1917 CIC 2340 and Pistocchi's Lexicon at 83), and not used at all in the Johanno-Pauline Code, the basic concept of insordescence nevertheless survives, I suggest, in such norms as 1983 CIC 1326.1.1: "A judge can punish the following more gravely than the law or precept has established: a person who after a condemnation or after the declaration of a penalty continues so to offend that from the circumstances the obstinate ill will of the person can prudently be inferred". Other norms reinforce this canon, but this one should suffice to get the ball rolling.

For three years (not just for one that triggered insordescence), Milingo has shown nothing but obstinate ill will. Thus, an additional penalty, one designed to address the scandal that he has given the faith community around the world and the chronic abuse he extends toward his holy state, is called for: namely, the expiatory penalty of dismissal from the clerical state.

And yes, I recognize the possibility that Milingo is mentally disordered; I think that, in accord with 1983 CIC 1323 and 1324, he should be allowed to raise that defense at his trial. But, at his trial. Speaking of trials, only the pope can put a bishop on trial (1983 CIC 1405.1.3), a rule that helps popes protect bishops from facing canonical prosecution from those below them; but it also means that if Rome does not act in this case, nothing will get done.

The Lugo case showed (those who needed convincing) that wolves in shepherd's clothing can petition for and be returned to the lay state. Milingo, whose acting out is as bad and in some ways worse than Lugo's, shows no interest in surrendering his clerical status; Rome should remove him from that distinguished state for our sake, if not theirs.

Some related posts: Catholic Culture News Briefs, and my

07 Sep 2008, Honk if you've had it with Milingo
24 Apr 2008, Rome's four options in regard to Bp. Fernando Lugo
25 Sep 2006, This time Milingo made it easy (two same-day installments)
19 Sep 2006, More on the Milingo mess

posted by Dr. Edward Peters at This Permanent Link

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

Three points on the recent SSPX ordinations

There really isn't any "news" associated with the recent SSPX ordinations in Minnesota--and there is certainly nothing surprising about them--though three comments seem in order.

First, contrary to some reports, the Catholic Church does recognize these ordinations, by which we must understand, though, that 13 more men have taken the priesthood of Christ illegally from bishops acting in a schismatic manner. While there is no excommunication associated with such priestly ordinations per se (as there is for episcopal ordinations contrary to 1983 CIC 1382), objectively speaking, participation in these ceremonies was still gravely sinful.

Second, any comments that I might have offered concerning excommunication for (what seem clearly to be) new acts of schism under 1983 CIC 1364 seem pre-empted by Rome's gratuitous lifting of the excommunications against SSPX leadership last January. Indeed, I am hard-pressed to think of any canons that Rome appears willing to enforce against the SSPX.

But these two points suggest an ironic Third: the fewer sacramental acts that Rome defends against SSPX appropriation, the more the SSPX seems to resemble the Orthodox Churches and a few other groups--Rome recognizes the validity of their orders, too, but (per 1983 CIC 1) it does not attempt to impose canonical penalties on them for conferring those orders outside of its communion.

I thought lifting the SSPX excommunications was meant to bring them closer to Catholic unity; instead, it seems to confirm their drifting more distant.

posted by Dr. Edward Peters at This Permanent Link

Friday, June 19, 2009

If Safranek, et al., were professor-ministers at Ave Maria, would that make Monaghan their chancellor-pope?

Having spent over $ 8,500 on children's orthodontics this morning, I was ready for a good laugh this afternoon. Thomas S. Monaghan, the college drop-out who is Chancellor at Ave Maria "University", provided a real belly-buster.

As part of his efforts to avoid answering legally claims made against the treatment that Ave Maria has accorded several law school faculty members, Monaghan is, if I understand him correctly, arguing that his law school is fundamentally a religious organization, that its professors are essentially ministers therein, and that consequently no civil court can examine Ave's treatment of its ministers without running afoul of various constitutional barriers.

I say, "if I understand him correctly", because it's hard to believe that such a laugh-out-loud ridiculous argument would be tendered seriously. But apparently I'm not the only one thunder-struck here: Attorneys for the former faculty members begin their reply to Monaghan's brief by observing that Ave Maria is taking "a position so untenable it is difficult to absorb in one reading."

The colors on my civil law pennant are somewhat faded now, so I offer no observations on how civil lawyers for the faculty responded to Monaghan's latest legal ploy. But canon law is something I do keep up on, and canon law, I suggest, takes a dim view of casually labeling every Catholic who regards his faith seriously as presto! a "minister".

Though representing just the tip of an argument-iceberg here, the famous interdicasterial instruction "On certain questions regarding the collaboration of the non-ordained faithful in the sacred ministry of the priest" Ecclesiae de Mysterio (15 August 1997) went to great lengths to distinguish, in theory and in practice, the Catholic concept of "ministry" as something undertaken almost exclusively by the ordained in virtue of holy orders, from "apostolates", that is, as works performed especially by lay persons in virtue of baptism. Now, as much as the Catholic Church cherishes civil law and legal education, there is virtually no way that she views law school professors as being engaged in "ministry", and certainly not in a ministry on her behalf such that the Church would assert jurisdiction over their situation as she would have to assert for any number of genuinely ministerial works. Whatever monarchial religious models might shape Monaghan's perception of himself at Ave Maria as he leads all those souls to heaven, Ave law profs like Safranek saw themselves as degreed professionals engaged in an important educational apostolate, one befitting them as Catholic laity, and not as wanna-be clerics.

Still not clear yet? Okay, ask the local Catholic bishop whether he considers Ave Maria law school professors to be ecclesiastical ministers authorized by him to speak on behalf of the Catholic Church? Betcha he'll deny it faster than Tom Monaghan can say a Hail Mary, which is pretty darn fast. It is even more preposterous to assert that canon law considers ecclesiastical recognition of the Catholic character of a given school (assuming Ave Maria has that) as rendering the school immune from civil scrutiny in regard to the basic treatment it accords faculty (and students and staff, for that matter). That is goofiness.

But, however goofy it is, we should be clear: In the world beyond the moat behind which sits Tom's Town, the implications of his claim are very serious. Should Ave Maria's argument get so much as the time of day from the trial court, I predict we'll see amicus briefs from the grown-ups at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities, to name just two of the dozens of groups with a major stake in these matters, urging appellate courts to reject any theories by which denominational university faculty can be suddenly characterized as "ministerial employees" and consequently stripped of a variety of civil rights. Pity is, that many groups with real work to do - - and not blessed with millions of dollars to do it with - - would have to take valuable time to dispose of the dreck in Ave Maria's motion without marring a few points that might be (as is a stopped clock twice a day) accidentally correct therein, like, I dunno, that the Church does have some legitimate interests in Catholic higher education.

The history of relations between Church and State in regard to higher education in the United States is far more complex than Monaghan (who wonders whether Catholic schools can be franchised like pizzerias!) could possibly imagine. Among many titles here, see James Conn, Catholic Universities in the US and Ecclesiastical Authority (Gregorian JCD diss. 1991); Sharon Euart, Church-State Implications in the United States of Canon 812 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, Canon Law Studies No. 526, (Catholic University of America: Washington, DC, 1988); and R. McClory, "The implementation of Ex corde Ecclesiae in the United States" (Angelicum JCL Thesis 2000). I think that Church-State jurisprudence, both canonical and civil, has nobler purposes than to generate just enough smoke to obfuscate Monaghan's chronically questionable governance. And I think he should think so, too.

I keep waiting for Ave Maria to find a bottom in how far it is willing to descend in its efforts to avoid treating certain Catholics (the sort Monaghan dismisses as "academic terrorists") with due dignity. But this month, Monaghan and Ave Maria tried to label its law school faculty as some sort of religious ministers, conveniently according their academic administrators a discretionary power over Ave Maria law faculty akin to that legitimately enjoyed by bishops over priests!

Looks like I'll just have to go on waiting.

posted by Dr. Edward Peters at This Permanent Link

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

Abp Weakland will not stop his attacks on Church teaching, so Rome must finally act

If, as George Neumayr writes in the July 2009 Catholic World Report, Abp. Rembert Weakland's autobiography really is, among other things, a "memoir in praise of homosexual behavior" in which the prominent prelate admits "several affairs with men" and "argues that the Church should endorse the 'physical, genital expression' of homosexuality", then Rome has, as I see it, no defensible choice but, in accord with canons 1405.1.3 and 1717, to launch an investigation into the allegation that Weakland has, in violation of Canon 1369, used "published writings or other . . . instruments of social communication . . . to gravely injure good morals" and visit upon him a fitting penalty. That Weakland is an archbishop should not shield him from canonical investigation and punishment, but rather serves to underscore the need for his correction under c. 1326.1.2. Moreover, the Order of St. Benedict should, I think, signal its willingness to participate in the process in accord with law (esp. cc. 696.1 and 705).

It's obvious that Weakland has no intention of stopping his attacks on various Church teachings or of refraining from giving protracted scandal to the faithful. The damage he has done, especially to the Church of Milwaukee, but to the Church Universal as well, is incalculable. What Rome should have done during the decades of defiance shown it by Weakland is a matter for historians to debate. The only question today, as I see it, is what, if anything, will Rome finally do to vindicate the faithful against the appalling and on-going scandal of Abp. Rembert Weakland?

posted by Dr. Edward Peters at This Permanent Link

Monday, June 15, 2009

Fire David Letterman

If you're sick of the King of Smug, and think that 14-year-old girls should be off-limits when it comes to CBS insult-mongers, then check out: http://www.firedavidletterman.com/ I did.

Update, June 16: If Sarah's satified, so am I. (Frankly, I think she let him off easy. Maybe she's just being a good example to the rest of us.)

posted by Dr. Edward Peters at This Permanent Link

Friday, June 05, 2009

State-sanctioned suicide and ecclesiastical funerals

My guest column, "State-sanctioned suicide and ecclesiastical funerals" is coming available in the New Oxford Review (June 2009) at 39-40. In the column, I ask whether the conditions for withholding ecclesiastical funerals from Catholics who kill themselves in accord with recent civil suicide legislation might be met. As American law continues its headlong pursuit of calling evil good (Isaiah V:20), Canon 1184 frames a question that, I fear, we Catholics are going to have to ask ourselves ever more frequently.

Update, 17 June. My original article has been made available at the NOR website.

posted by Dr. Edward Peters at This Permanent Link

Thursday, May 28, 2009

Fr. Alberto Cutie's schismatic act

I don't see why this should take very long.

Fr. Alberto Cutie's entry into the Anglican communion is an act of schism per 1983 CIC 1364.1, for which he is liable to (automatic) excommunication. A cleric, moreover, is also liable to dismissal from the clerical state "if contumacy of long duration or the gravity of scandal demands it". The publicity with which Fr. Cutie has garnished his act of schism, etc., sure seems to me call for his prompt dismissal from the clerical state.

posted by Dr. Edward Peters at This Permanent Link

Saturday, May 09, 2009

Lay ministers of holy Communion should stop offering "blessings-in-lieu-of-Communion" at Mass

Concerns about swine flu have prompted many parishes to discontinue the routine administration of the Precious Blood. Okay, fine.* But there's another Communion rite practice that should also cease if only out of concerns for public health. This time, however, it's a practice that (unlike distribution from the Cup) is an abuse per se, namely, that of lay ministers of holy Communion purporting to confer "blessings-in-lieu-of-Communion" on every Tom, Pat, and Harriet who comes up in line.

Lay ministers of holy Communion (by definition, extraordinary ministers thereof), in response to people approaching them without the intention to receive Communion (maybe such folks are non-Catholics** or are Catholic kids prior to First Communion), currently do one of three things: they (1) speak and gesture a sign of the cross over such folks, or (2) lay hands on such persons' heads or shoulders while voicing a blessing, or (3) waive the Eucharist over them while purporting to confer a blessing. I think all three actions are liturgical abuses.

Let's consider them in order of gravity:

1. Blessing the faithful with the Most August Sacrament is expressly reserved to the ordained. Lay persons may not confer any blessings with the Host (Eucharistic worship outside of Mass nn. 91, 97-99, and 1983 CIC 1168). This practice should therefore be immediately halted wherever it has cropped up.

2. Touching many persons' hair, faces, and/or garments while serving food (albeit divine Food) to the public has to be a violation of some health and safety regulation somewhere, not to mention its being poor manners. If the swine flu makes distribution from a common Cup an issue, surely touching hair and heads while serving others food from a common Plate is a problem. This particular practice should therefore be halted promptly, regardless of what one might think about lay blessings during Mass.

3. Ministers of holy Communion have, I suggest, no authority by their office*** to confer any sort of blessing on anyone. Neither the General Instruction on the Roman Missal nor the Book of Blessings (which later source makes provisions for laity to administer certain blessings) authorizes ministers of Communion to confer blessings during Mass. Given that lay persons serving as extraordinary ministers of holy Communion have no liturgical duties besides the administration of Communion, the introduction of a mini-blessing rite to be performed by them seems to me a plain violation of Canon 846. This practice should, I think, be halted pending a study of its liceity by qualified persons and, if appropriate, its authorization by the competent authority (1983 CIC 838, 1167).

In brief, I suggest that lay ministers of holy Communion have no authority to bless anyone in Communion lines, they should refrain from touching people while distributing holy Communion, and they should immediately cease using the Blessed Sacrament for mini-Benediction rites.

If it takes swine flu to provide the occasion of halting these liturgically illicit, and hygienically unsound, lay blessing practices during Mass, so be it.

+ + +

* Personally, while I appreciate the enhanced sign value (Sacrosanctum Concilium 55) of receiving from the Cup on special occasions, say, at First Communions or weddings, or maybe at Easter, I find the every-Sunday, even every-day, administration of the Precious Blood to be a time-consuming process that regularly exposes the Sacred Species to profanation. I have directly witnessed at least a half-dozen spills over the last several years, and I'm not counting dribbles on shirts or dresses, or reports from others. Whatever reason is being offered for discontinuing this excessive use of the Cup, I'm for it.

** Non-Catholics are eligible for certain blessings (1983 CIC 1170), but what's at issue here are blessings by lay persons in the context of Mass.

*** Clergy enjoy a spiritual authority over their people, as do parents over their children. Such figures may and should extend blessings to their charges at appropriate times (1983 CIC 1167-1169). But what authority do extraordinary ministers of holy Communion have over the faithful? None. Who put extraordinary ministers of holy Communion in charge of anything besides distributing holy Communion? No one. Liturgical experts should explore whether the Communion procession ought to be allowed to morph into a "blessing procession" in the first place but, even if "blessings-in-lieu-of-Communion" during Mass are found licit, surely they should be conferred only by priests or deacons.

Update: I see Fr. Edward McNamara recently dealt with the same question and came down largely against the practice of lay conferral of blessing during the Mass. He quotes from a November 2008 (in ecclesiastical times, that's yesterday!) private letter signed by an undersecretary of the Congregation of Divine Worship. Okay, such a letter is not law, I grant, but it's pointing pretty clearly against the practice criticized above. Here's hoping Rome can issue its answer quickly.

posted by Dr. Edward Peters at This Permanent Link

Thursday, May 07, 2009

A response to Abp. Wuerl's claims that canon law supports his inaction in regard to Nancy Pelosi

Abp. Donald Wuerl of Washington DC continues to defend his refusal to withhold holy Communion from Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi in a number of ways, but his recent claims that canon law supports his inaction attract my attention. I think the prelate's canonical claims are wrong.

First, Wuerl claims that "there's a question about whether [Canon 915] was ever intended to be used to bring politicians to heel . . . I stand with the great majority of American bishops and bishops around the world in saying this canon was never intended to be used this way.''

Okay, for starters, "the great majority of American bishops and bishops around the world" (that's more than 3,000 men!), have not made any comments about the impact of Canon 915 on politicians, let alone have they made statements holding Canon 915 inapplicable to politicians. There's no need to belabor this exaggeration further.

More importantly, I wonder: exactly where is "the question" about whether Canon 915 was "intended to bring politicians to heel" (that's a derogatory description of Church leaders and Catholic politicians alike) being raised? Who poses the problem in this manner? I'd be happy to examine such sources for the claim as one might care to offer, but I rather doubt any serious ones can be found. Why? Because no canon in the Code was written with the intention of bringing politicians to heel. That's a disingenuous way to frame this issue.

Canons are designed to advance the salvific mission of the Church (c. 1752). They help to establish an ecclesial order rooted in Scripture and Tradition (JP2, ap. con. Sacrae disciplinae leges, esp. para. 16). To hold, therefore, that any canon is intended to bring a particular secular grouping of people "to heel" is to misunderstand what canon law is for. But the mistake is compounded when one goes on to use that mischaracterization of canon law to avoid the correct application of canon law.

Let's consider this matter from another angle: Catholic politicians are members of the Catholic Church and thus subject to its discipline (c. 11). Right? Of course right. But one may still wonder whether Catholic politicians might enjoy some express or implied exemptions from canon law.

Actually, they do!

"Heads of state", for example, can be tried only by the pope (c. 1405), certain civil officials are exempt from testifying about official secrets (c. 1548), and others enjoy the privilege of choosing the place wherein their testimony must be offered (c. 1558). Rare cases, I grant, but clearly, if the 1983 Code wants to make exceptions for politicians, it knows how to. So, does Wuerl think there are other exemptions?

Are Catholic politicians not bound by, say, the canons on the Sunday obligation (cc. 1246-1248) or the laws of fast and abstinence (c. 1252)? Are they exempt from the canons on marriage (c. 1108) or from the duty to educate their children in the Catholic faith (cc. 1136, 1366)? Do Catholic politicians (of all people!) not have the responsibility "to imbue and perfect the order of temporal affairs with the spirit of the Gospel and thus give witness to Christ" (c. 225)?

If, as I feel sure, Wuerl would not regard Catholic politicians as exempt from any of these canonical requirements, where does he find an exemption for them (or for anyone else) from Canon 915? The answer is, he cannot: there simply is no "politician" exemption from Canon 915.

If Wuerl wants to argue that Pelosi has not acted in a way as to make herself liable to consequences under Canon 915, he's free to make his case. (I think he'd lose that argument, but he's free to make it.) But he cannot gratuitously assert that Canon 915 was never "intended" to apply to the Pelosis of this world and leave the matter thus. Canon 915 unquestionably applies to all Roman Catholics regardless of their civil status or secular profession.

Second, Wuerl asserts, "Pelosi, as a San Franciscan, isn't part of my flock!"

Wuerl is the chief shepherd over the territory assigned to him (cc. 369, 372, 381) and chief presider over the Eucharist celebrated therein (c. 835 and Catechism of the Catholic Church 1142, 1369, 1561). Canons on sacramental discipline are universally applicable to Roman Catholics (cc. 12, 915). None of these norms is thwarted by the fact that a specific member of the faithful might have a "foreign" domicile, quasi-domicile, or residence if that individual is acting within the territory of the arch/bishop.

Consider moreover, by way of analogy, that if Pelosi's actions in Washington were canonically criminal (that is not my claim here), Canon 1412 would authorize Wuerl to take penal action against her regardless of her "foreign" status. Now, if Wuerl is authorized to take the harsher route of penal action against someone based only on the fact that his or her actions occurred within his territory, it is difficult to see how he is suddenly forbidden from taking merely disciplinary action against anyone who is acting contrary to sacramental law in his territory.

There is, I conclude, simply no question but that an arch/bishop is authorized by canon law to take the steps necessary to protect the sacraments (especially the Eucharist, cc. 897-898) from unworthy administration in his territory and his people from the danger of scandal that might be given by such reception.

The only question I see here is whether, and if so when, Wuerl will take that action. +++

A final note: The ultimate solution to this problem is, of course, for Nancy Pelosi to give up her unrelenting campaign against unborn babies, or, in default of that, at least to refrain from approaching holy Communion (c. 916). Unless she takes either step, however, I see no choice for Abp. Wuerl but to order enforcement of Canon 915 against her. In the meantime, however, I must say, nothing gives the forces of darkness greater pleasure than to see those committed following Christ at serious odds with one another. Such disputes must, in a fallen world, arise, but we should strive to resolve them correctly as quickly as possible and, once settled, to go on more united than ever toward the next struggle. There is no place for brooding over one another's failures, or for gloating over one another's corrections.

posted by Dr. Edward Peters at This Permanent Link

Monday, May 04, 2009

"Faculties" for baptism?

An unsigned article in Sydney Morning Herald states that Brisbane Fr. Peter Kennedy, finally removed from his parish for a long list of good reasons, faces further restrictions on his "ministry" given his continuing antics. An archdiocesan spokesman apparently said that Brisbane Abp. John Bathersby might "revoke Fr. Kennedy's priestly faculties - that is, his authority to perform weddings, baptisms, preach and hear confessions." Fine by me, of course, with one question: What can removal of one's faculties to perform baptism mean?

Granted, pastors have a certain right to perform baptisms in their parish per 1983 CIC 530, but Kennedy, it seems, is already out as pastor, so what is there to remove? No one can deprive Kennedy, or anyone else for that matter, of the power to perform baptisms, however illicit such baptisms might be (1983 CIC 861, CCC 1256, and assuming Kennedy has decided that valid baptisms should be performed). So, something's a little off, either in the spokesman's remarks or in SMH reporting of this long-standing mess.

posted by Dr. Edward Peters at This Permanent Link

Thursday, April 30, 2009

Dunnigan is worth reading on Legion debacle

Michael Dunnigan, a canon and civil lawyer, has just published in Christifidelis (27/2, May 1, 2009) a very interesting analysis of the stagnant mess that is the Legion of Christ and Regnum Christi. (How unfortunate that such a sentence must even be written.)

Anyway, Dunnigan explores several canonical questions that others have only been able to suggest, and he does so, I think, with balance and insight. I won't try to recap those points here; instead, I just pass along that, for those interested in seeing the LC/RC disaster settled as best one can, Dunningham's observations should be considered.

Update: Until the Dunnigan article appears on the Christifidelis website, you can read it here: http://krestaintheafternoon.blogspot.com/2009/04/sign-and-counter-sign.html. Best, edp.

posted by Dr. Edward Peters at This Permanent Link

Wednesday, April 29, 2009

Beyond parody: a priest wearing a Nazi arm-band

The stunt pulled by a priest* who was recently pictured outside a Catholic Church sporting a Nazi swastika armband is beneath contempt.

Canonically speaking, I think Fr. Angelo Idi is in plain violation of, among various other norms, Canon 285.1, which requires priests to "refrain from all those things which are unbecoming to their state". Now, this general canon can easily be supplemented by a specific personal precept (c. 49) against wearing Nazi gear, and such a precept could in turn be enforced by penalty (c. 1321). Personally, I think an excellent penalty for a priest honoring Nazism would be his dismissal from the clerical state (cc. 290, 1425). Yes, I understand that c. 1319 might be raised as an obstacle to my proposal, but I think there are canonically sound ways to address that concern, albeit discussion of these ways exceeds the limits of a blog post.

As a layman, Mr. Idi might be ignored as just one more kook; but as a priest, Fr. Idi's execrable stunt is being flashed around the world. We need no more disasters in the priesthood. When a cleric shows himself so obviously unfit for sacred ministry, I say, expel him (and try to figure out, if possible, how he ever got ordained in the first place.) + + +

*Same day update: There are now some French and Italian sources that identify Idi as a (lay) "sacristan". Well, that would simplify things nicely. The Italian source in particular indicates that the local diocese is "taking action." Good.

posted by Dr. Edward Peters at This Permanent Link

Monday, April 27, 2009

Mary Ann Glendon brings good out of evil

I see Dr. Mary Ann Glendon's refusal to provide cover for Notre Dame's inexcusable conferral of honors on a prominent pro-abortion politician as an application of Canon 209.1 "The Christian faithful, even in their own manner of acting, are always obliged to maintain communion with the Church", or of Canon 225.2 "According to each one's own condition, [laity] are also bound by a particular duty to imbue and perfect the order of temporal affairs with the spirit of the gospel and thus to give witness to Christ, especially in carrying out these same affairs and in exercising secular functions."

The evil that ND President Jenkins and his Board of Trustees committed has, Deus laudetur, occasioned one of the most striking displays of episcopal fortitude I can remember, mobilized hundreds of thousands of American Catholics against another quiet surrender to the Culture of Death, and effected notice to several once great Catholic institutions that it's time, finally, to decide where they stand.

I say, God bless Ambassador Glendon.

posted by Dr. Edward Peters at This Permanent Link

Friday, April 24, 2009

Three thoughts occasioned by Fr. Mullady's Q&A column

The Q&A column by Fr. Brian Mullady, op, in Homiletic & Pastoral Review always teaches me something, if not something new in substance, then at least a new way of explaining difficult concepts. Occasionally though, I find an explanation that, while correct, I think should have been put another way. Mullady's column in the April 2009 HPR has three such instances which I'd like to raise for consideration.

First, after correctly stating that a priest who attempts confection of the Eucharist with certain altered words acts invalidly, Mullady adds "The communicants would receive a spiritual communion, but not the true body and blood of Christ." I see what Mullady's getting at, I think, but I don't think we should put things quite that way.

Central to the typical act of "spiritual communion" is the intention to receive Christ spiritually. But persons in a Communion line at Mass do not have that intention; they intend to receive Christ sacramentally. It's not clear, then, how one can perform a specific spiritual act without the intention of performing that spiritual act. Persons receiving un-consecrated hosts in good faith commit no sin and God recognizes the good of their actions toward receiving the Eucharist, but one can offer such reassurances without parlaying would-be communicants' actions into their having made a "spiritual communion", at least not without some allusion to issues of implied or contructive intentionality. The blunt fact is that, because the celebrant grievously (Mullady's good description) violated liturgical and sacramental law, he deprived the faithful of the graces they strove for and placed them in a position of committing material idolatry. Such a priest should be punished in accord with 1983 CIC 1379.

Second, Mullady correctly explained that couples who attempt marriage with the positive intention to contracept for a time would, according to current canonical jurisprudence, presumably marry validly. But I would have been more cautious about adding, as Mullady did, that they also marry licitly.

Anyone who receives a sacrament with the specific intention to commit a gravely sinful act after that reception seems to me to receive that sacrament illicitly, notwithstanding its validity. Even the possibility that contraception-oriented couples receive the sacrament of matrimony "formlessly" (because of their evil intentions) raises, I suggest, questions about the liceity of such reception (1983 CIC 843, CCC 1131). In addition, as to whether a priest should proceed to witness such a wedding, the question needed more space than Mullady could give it, obviously, but I'd point people to 1983 CIC 1066 and 1075 for starters.

Third, in the same question, Mullady said that marriages attempted "with the intention never to have a child can be annulled." This seems poor phraseology. Marriages aren't "annulled" as if something is done to them by a tribunal; rather, some marriages are "declared null", which means that something is determined about them by a tribunal, namely, their nullity. It's a terminological distinction that is hard to get across, but that we should always strive to respect.

Ssi.

posted by Dr. Edward Peters at This Permanent Link

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

A canonical look at Saint Louis' new archbishop

Mixed feelings, of course: Bp. Robert Carlson will be sorely missed here in Michigan, but he's a terrific choice for the Archdiocese of Saint Louis. While others can better describe his work with, say, the Institute for Priestly Formation, Cursillo, or Charismatic Renewal, it's Carlson the canonist who interests me.

Carlson's licentiate thesis (written at CUA in 1979*) was entitled "The mission of the diocesan priest to preach in light of the Second Vatican Council." I've not read it, but it seems an earlier indicator of what would be an abiding interest for the future arch/bishop: helping priests become, among other things, more effective preachers in a world that desperately needs to hear Good News.

Among Carlson's canonical academic works, two caught my eye over the years: first, an address he gave at the 1982 CLSA convention entitled "Chancery issues: impediments and dispensations, validity of acts, relationships between bodies", see Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 44 (1982) 093-104, which was a solid, very practical look at three important areas of chancery practice, namely marriage dispensations, administrative acts, and consultative bodies; and second, his essay on "The rights and responsibilities of bishops: a canonical perspective", published in L. O'Donovan, ed., Cooperation between Theologians and the Ecclesiastical Magisterium: a Report of the Joint Committee of the Canon Law Society of America and The Catholic Theological Society of America (CLSA, 1982) at 31-52, written at a time when the distinctive roles of theologians and bishops needed especial clarification.

It's no secret that the Archdiocese of Saint Louis is a remarkable place in terms of bishops. Native sons (mostly by birth, some by service) now shepherd millions of souls in New York**, Philadelphia, Memphis, Knoxville, Kansas City MO and Kansas City KS, Springfield IL, Colorado Springs, Jefferson City, Belleville, Bismarck and even in Bolivia, while Abp. Raymond Burke directs Rome's supreme administrative court, the Signatura. More remotely, Saint Louis builds on an episcopal legacy founded by the missionary Rosati, the theologian Kenrick, the builder Glennon, the champion of racial equality Ritter, and the erudite Carberry, to name a few.

Abp. Carlson, I suggest, will serve that tradition admirably.

*Carlson's JCL class was small (only 13) but interesting. One classmate is now an archbishop (Schnurr in Cincinnati), another ran the CLSA for a number of years (the Franciscan Espelage), and several others are names that I recognize as having made various contributions to canonistics over the years.

**Come to think of it, Carlson might make his trip to Rome to receive his archepiscopal pallium (1983 CIC 437) at the time that Abp. Timothy Dolan goes to receives his for New York. Wouldn't a middle seat on that trans-Atlantic flight be worth scrunching-in for?

posted by Dr. Edward Peters at This Permanent Link

Sunday, April 19, 2009

Are "family annihilators" owed a Church funeral?

Pretty obviously, the term "family annihilator" is one that Catholic pastoral ministers are going to have to add to their lexicon.

Men who kill their families, and then often take their own lives, are not found only amid the unchurched or even the fallen-aways; the Sueppel family last year, and the Wood family this year, are proof of that. Both families appear to have been active members of their respective Catholic parishes, active, that is, until the day their husbands/fathers, with all the appearances of deliberate planning and sufficient awareness of the evilness of their acts, killed their wives and children before killing themselves.

I can scarcely imagine a clearer example of "a manifest sinner" who "cannot be granted [an] ecclesiastical funeral without scandal for the faithful" per 1983 CIC 1184, than a murderous husband and father.

Last year, Steven Sueppel was granted an ecclesiastical funeral alongside the wife and children he murdered. I thought that was wrong. Murderers should not be treated with the same deference as their victims. This year, the question of according Alan Wood the same funeral rites as his victims will probably be raised. I, for one, hope the answer will be No.

In any case, it is surely not too much to suggest that the canonical, pastoral, and liturgical questions raised by "family annihilator" cases are not likely to go away on their own, and that therefore canonists, bishops, and liturgists should spend some time thinking through these cases before answers are demanded of them in the midst of shock, and grief, and media spotlights.

posted by Dr. Edward Peters at This Permanent Link

Thursday, April 16, 2009

RIP Dr. Thomas Dillon

In your charity, kindly remember the soul of Dr. Thomas Dillon, President of Thomas Aquinas College, who was killed in a car crash yesterday. He was a real hero in Catholic higher education who, among many services, successfully fought some years ago an attempt by certain accrediting agencies to impose their own weird criteria for "Great Books" college curricula. It was a victory that benefits sound Catholic colleges and universities to this day. Thank you, edp.

posted by Dr. Edward Peters at This Permanent Link

Thursday, April 09, 2009

Fr. Jenkins discovers canon law. Not.

Update, 22 April 2009: Bp. Darcy's letter of today correcting Fr. Jenkins purported "canonical defense" is a must-read.

Original post:

Notre Dame President Fr. John Jenkins continues to flail about for an adequate response (though short of resigning, there isn't an adequate response) to his monumental gaff of bestowing an honorary doctor of laws degree on a president who has spent his entire political career seeing to it that millions of human beings are excluded from the protection of law. Jenkin's latest lunge is for the life ring stamped "canon lawyers we consulted". Figures.

It is paradigmatic of the theological Left to ignore canon law when it poses the slightest inconvenience for its plans, but to hide behind canons (or at least behind canonists, even anonymous ones) when they afford some cover (however thin) for obvious blunders or malfeasance. And so Jenkins, invoking unidentified canon lawyers, holds that the USCCB's 2004 statement, "Catholics in Political Life", merely restricts Catholic institutions from honoring Catholics whose public record evidences disdain for fundamental moral principles.

Is the man serious?

Does Jenkins really think that Catholic bishops would countenance a Catholic institution honoring a philanthropic murderer, or a free-speech crusading pornographer, or a right-to-privacy pimp, provided merely that the awardee was not a Catholic? Really, that's too bizarre for words.

But speaking of words, Jenkins' unnamed canon lawyers (assuming, by the way, that they were answering the question Jenkins thought he was asking, and that Jenkins understood and is accurately conveying their response) tell him that "by definition, only Catholics who implicitly recognize the authority of Church teaching can act in 'defiance' of it." Huh?

What's this "by definition" stuff? What definition? A definition of "defiance"? The word "defiance" is not in the Code. Even the Latin pertinacia does not seem to apply to our facts, so, what exactly is Jenkins talking about here? I don't know, but whatever Jenkins or his canonists hope it means, the sentence he/they put so much stock in was obviously not drafted to stand up to close textual parsing. Else, all a Catholic would have to do to avoid the charge of acting in "defiance" of Church authority would be to decline recognizing Church authority in the first place!

Likewise, watch how Jenkin's claim that bestowing an honorary doctorate on the pro-abortion movement's most powerful politician ever does not "suggest support" for the politician's pro-abortion record, can be parsed into a defense of Jenkins: an honorary doctorate of law does not "suggest" support for a politicians' legal philosophy, no, instead it screams it. Therefore, Jenkins is not guilty of "suggesting" support. Aren't word games fun?

Seriously, what I wonder is, why, amid the canon lawyers Jenkins claims to have consulted, not one, it seems, pointed out the most obvious solutions to their client's problem:

The USCCB's statement applies only to "Catholic institutions", right? Well, all Jenkins and the ND board need do is declare that Notre Dame is not a "Catholic institution", and poof! all these problems disappear. Notre Dame could confer honorary doctorates in law on anybody it wants after that, even on people who have built a career out of denying unborn babies the protection of law, and nary a bishop would say a word about it.

posted by Dr. Edward Peters at This Permanent Link

Wednesday, April 01, 2009

A few thoughts on "de-baptism"

Britons, we are told, have downloaded some 100,000 "de-baptism" forms, and another 1,500 blokes have paid $ 5 each for a "de-baptism" parchment. Presumably, people sign these forms and what, we're not sure, hang them up on the wall or something.

A few thoughts, beginning with: there's no such thing as "de-baptism".

Once you are baptized, you are baptized. It's not just a "church rule" that one can't cancel a baptism, it's divine law. I can no more cancel my baptism than I can cancel having been born in Missouri. Admittedly, folks who deny there is a God will also deny that 'divine law' makes impossible de-baptism, but that's a problem for apologetics, not canon law. Anyway, as cheesy as internet "de-baptism" certificates might be, at least they provide the inimitable Jeff Miller over at Curt Jester with fodder for humor: Says Miller, Julian the Apostate, when he wanted to renounce his baptism, had himself drenched in bull's blood. Such a stunt, quips Miller, is "just as ineffective as an internet certificate, but it at least shows commitment." LOL!

Second, the "de-baptism" fad does occasion (or, re-occasion, as the case may be) some questions about whether, notwithstanding the indelible character of baptism, one might be able to renounce one's Catholicism, indeed, one's Christianity. There are good arguments for and against the possibility that one can cancel one's membership in the Catholic Church or even abrogate one's identity as Christian (without "voiding" one's baptism, which is impossible). I mention this only to caution against overly-hasty resort to pithy expressions like Semel Catholicus semper Catholicus or Semel Christianus semper Christianus when what might have been meant was only Semel baptizatus semper baptizatus and what exactly that means.

Third, signing these "de-baptism" forms does not, of itself, suffice for a "formal act of defection" under canon law (for an excellent article on this complex area of the 1983 Code, see J. Huels, "Defection from the Catholic Church by a formal act and the Circular Letter of 13 March 2006", Studia Canonica 41 (2007) 515-549), but signing such a form is certainly at least a step toward, indeed, objectively speaking, a sinful step toward, such defection. Moreover, the proliferation of these documents (not just in Britain, but around the world) is going to force some closer attention to several related issues in canon law, e.g., in criminal and matrimonial law, to say nothing of its serving as an topic for evangelization and catechesis focus.

Finally, recognizing that the folks using such forms need our prayers (even if they don't recognize it), we might encourage the hundreds of thousands of persons coming into the Church this Easter to pray especially for those who wish to leave her. The newly baptized, and the newly received, flush with great graces, would make powerful prayer allies in this matter!

+++

PS: I had to laugh when radical secularist Terry Sanderson, who sells de-baptism certificates for about $ 5 each, said "The fact that people are willing to pay for the parchments shows how seriously they are taking them." Yeah, right. I remember when folks would pay $ 15 for a pet rock. That only showed us how serious people were about being dopes.

posted by Dr. Edward Peters at This Permanent Link