Insight Scoop | The Ignatius Press Blog

"We’re making most of this up as we go."

"In the Light of the Law", the fine blog of canon lawyer and professor Dr. Ed Peters (he teaches at Sacred Heart Seminary in Detroit), is an essential and trustworthy source at any time, but perhaps especially during this unusual time, on the cusp of Pope Benedict XVI's final day as pontiff and on the verge of the conclave. As Dr. Peters notes, there is a real sense in which the Church is, well, winging it:

Aside from the resignation itself—the canonical legality of which is incontestable—Pope Benedict’s startling decision to leave office has occasioned much confusion in Rome and around the Catholic world. The simple fact is that the Catholic Church, at every level, has virtually no experience in dealing with ex-popes.

Beyond the barest of canonical points (c. 332 § 2), almost everything about Benedict’s future—his status under law (canonical and international), title(s), appropriate dress, relations with peers (assuming he has any), and so on and so on and so on—must be fashioned practically from scratch. One should not assume that any announcements being made about Benedict’s future are based on the authority of some arcane-but-accessible protocol tome for dealing with ex-popes, because there is no such tome. We’re making most of this up as we go.

And:

History’s not much help either. Setting aside some first millennium episodes that are almost too bizarre for words, the last pope to resign (Gregory XII) had been elected and tried to govern under conditions that would shock the conscience today. The only other pope to resign (Celestine V) was promptly arrested and died in prison. None of this is remotely useful for predicting Benedict’s future.

Read his entire post, "Some distinctly non-canonical musings on the status of an ex-pope." And be sure to keep up with his blog, which has been invaluable for many years, and will undoubtedly be the same during the eventful weeks ahead.

The Pope and the Philistines

The Pope and the Philistines | Tracey Rowland | Catholic World Report

Benedict XVI’s papacy has been one of imagination and urbanity hampered by bureaucracy

In Called to Communion, published in 1996, a decade before the beginning of his papacy, Joseph Ratzinger had some strong words to say about the bureaucratic machinery of the Church.  He wrote:

The more administrative machinery we construct, be it the most modern, the less place there is for the Spirit, the less place there is for the Lord, and the less freedom there is.

He added that in his opinion, "we ought to begin an unsparing examination of conscience on this point at all levels of the Church".  In a later collection of essays, titled Images of Hope, he observed that “the saints were all people of imagination, not functionaries of apparatuses.”

In recent days one senses that this unsparing examination of conscience might finally have begun.  One also senses that in the papacy of Benedict XVI the Church had one of the greatest theologians occupying the Chair of Peter in centuries, but that for all his high intelligence, he never quite managed to contend with the bureaucratic machinery and it often let him down. 

The decision to abdicate would not have been a decision made lightly given Benedict’s respect for historical precedent and the sacramental nature of his office.  He is the last person on the planet to think of the papacy as a job.  He never thought of himself as the CEO of a multinational corporation and he sharply rebuked those whose ecclesiology was borrowed from the Harvard School of Business or, worse, some Green-Left women's collective.  Christ was and is a Priest, a Prophet and a King, not a business manager.  Benedict believes that the Church is nothing less than the Universal Sacrament of Salvation and the Bride of Christ.  For him the keys of Peter are no mere mythic symbol.  So a decision to abdicate could only have been made on the basis that he thought worse things might happen to embarrass and confuse the Church's 1.2 billion faithful if he lacked the strength to govern. 

Possible Like-Minded Successors

The challenge in choosing Benedict’s successor is finding someone who has the strength and ability to deal with the administrative side of the office of the papacy while retaining at least some of the intellectual flair and imagination of Benedict and his predecessor.  There are many who think that either Cardinal Angelo Scola or Cardinal Marc Ouellet could carry these responsibilities.  Certainly both are exceptionally intellectually gifted and are men of imagination, not functionaries.  They are also in a similar intellectual mould to Benedict.  They share the same interpretations of the Second Vatican Council and they are very much across the theological anthropology and moral theology of Blessed John Paul II.

Continue reading on the CWR site.

The Pastoral Mandate, Politicians and Religious Liberty

The Pastoral Mandate, Politicians and Religious Liberty | Joe Tremblay | Homiletic & Pastoral Review

Is this threat to religious liberty a political problem, or is it a pastoral problem?

On January 19th, 2011, EWTN’s The World Over with Raymond Arroyo aired an interview with New York’s Archbishop Timothy Dolan. To his credit, Raymond Arroyo represented the concerns of many Catholics by asking the Archbishop about his pastoral position on discipline as it pertained to New York Governor, Andrew Cuomo. As most viewers know, Cuomo had long been an unapologetic advocate of abortion rights. In June of 2011, however, he took his public dissent from Catholic teaching to yet another level. The governor signed a bill making same-sex marriage legal in the state of New York. Cuomo, mind you, is a highly visible public figure who calls himself a “Catholic” and one who attends Mass from time to time. Accordingly, Raymond Arroyo asked where the governor of New York stood in relation to the Church to which he professed allegiance. Archbishop Dolan answered by saying that the talks between him and Cuomo are on-going, maintaining: “Our job is to invite people in and try to patiently change hearts—and not be throwing people out” (New York Daily News June 17th 2011).  I think it is fair to say that many U.S. bishops, especially in several of the archdioceses in the United States, concur with Archbishop Dolan on this form of dialogue.

Religious Liberty
The next day, January 20th, the Catholic News Agency reported that “the Department of Health and Human Services secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced that the administration would not expand a religious exemption for employers who object to its ‘preventative services’ mandate.” In other words, the Obama administration made it known that they would mandate that, against their will, Catholic agencies must provide abortifacients, contraception, sterilization, etc., in their health care coverage. In fact, these Catholic agencies have until August of 2013 to comply with the federal health care mandate. Archbishop Dolan did not mince words when he told the press what he thought of it. He said: “In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences.” In fact, a day earlier the Holy Father weighed in with these sobering words: “No one who looks at these issues realistically can ignore the genuine difficulties which the Church encounters at the present moment.” Indeed, Pope Benedict’s “Dictatorship of Relativism” is on the march in America.

Asking Important Questions
The question then becomes: Is this threat to religious liberty a political problem, or is it a pastoral problem?

Continue reading at www.HPRweb.com.

Cardinal Burke: Theologians’ mandatum should be required by colleges

From the "Campus Notes" blog on the Cardinal Newman Society site:

Catholic families have a right to know which theology professors have the mandatum, and Catholic colleges and universities should require it as a condition for employment, affirmed the Vatican’s chief judge Cardinal Raymond Burke in a new report prompted by recent concerns from Pope Benedict XVI.

Cardinal Burke and several bishops, canon law experts, and theologians discussed the mandatum with The Cardinal Newman Society in an online report published today at www.cardinalnewmansociety.org.

The report, titled “A Mandate for Fidelity,” follows upon a May 5^th address by Pope Benedict to several American bishops during their ad limina visit to Rome.  The Pope expressed concern that “much remains to be done” toward the renewal of Catholic identity in U.S. Catholic colleges and universities, “especially in such areas as compliance with the mandate laid down in Canon 812 for those who teach theological disciplines.”

He cited “the confusion created by instances of apparent dissidence between some representatives of Catholic institutions and the Church’s pastoral leadership.”

Canon 812 of the Catholic Church’s canon law states, “Those who teach theological disciplines in any institutes of higher studies whatsoever must have a mandate from the competent ecclesiastical authority.”

As implemented by the U.S. bishops, a theology professor requests a “mandate” (commonly identified by the Latin mandatum) from the bishop presiding over the diocese where the theologian is employed.  The professor commits, in writing, “to teach authentic Catholic doctrine and to refrain from putting forth as Catholic teaching anything contrary to the Church’s Magisterium,” according to U.S. guidelines.

But in the United States, many Catholic colleges and universities have not required theology professors to have the mandatum, or even to disclose to students and their families which professors have the bishop’s recognition.  The 1990s saw vigorous opposition to the mandatum by some theologians and the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities, but the controversy has since cooled down, largely because in practice the mandatum has not had much relevance to students and college leaders.

Now Pope Benedict’s concern about a lack of “compliance” with Canon 812 renews questions about Catholic colleges and universities’ obligations relative to the mandatum.  The Cardinal Newman Society asked several experts including Cardinal Burke, archbishop emeritus of St. Louis and prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, the Vatican’s highest canon law court, to explain what canon law requires.

Citing Pope Benedict’s description of the mandatum as “a tangible expression of ecclesial communion and solidarity,” Cardinal Burke said:

It’s tangible in the sense that it’s a public declaration, in writing, on the part of the ecclesiastical authority that a theologian is teaching in communion with the Church, and people have a right to know that so that if you, for instance, are at a Catholic university or parents are sending their children to the Catholic university, they know that the professors who are teaching theological disciplines at the university are teaching in communion with the Church. They are assured in that by the public declaration of the diocesan bishop.

“The fact that I teach in accord with the Magisterium is a public factor,” added Cardinal Burke. “That’s not some private, secret thing between myself and the Lord.”

Read the entire post.

Canon Law Was Not the Problem

Canon Law Was Not the Problem | by Michael Kelly | Catholic World Report

Neglect of canon law, not adherence to it, contributed to the covering up of child abuse by Irish priests.

“Catholic bishops covered up abuse by priests because they relied on canon law rather than the civil law”—it’s a familiar line in the media and from politicians when bishops or religious superiors have been shown to have mishandled abuse allegations. This side of the Atlantic, at least, it’s hard to have a conversation about the issue without this claim being raised—even by faithful Catholics.

It is, of course, true that many bishops did grievously fail children and the Catholic community at large by failing to respond properly to allegations of abuse against priests and religious. However, on closer inspection it becomes obvious that at the heart of the crisis was not only a failure to report a crime to the civil authorities, but also a failure to apply the Church’s own rules, rather than an overreliance on canon law.

Revealing new statistics published by the Archdiocese of Dublin in May offer a decade-by-decade breakdown of when abuse reported to Irish authorities is alleged to have occurred.

The analysis of allegations of abuse made against 98 priests of the archdiocese over a 70-year period shows that the alleged abuse began to skyrocket in the 1960s. Approximately 2 percent of accused priests are alleged to have abused in the 1940s, 4 percent in the 1950s, 23 percent in the 1960s, 27 percent in the 1970s, 34 percent in the 1980s, 9 percent in the 1990s, and 1 percent in the 2000s.

This is very similar to the pattern found in other countries. What explains the fact that the problem became so bad in that particular period—the 1960s to the 80s?

Continue reading at www.CatholicWorldReport.com.

One month into the AOD-Voris/RCTV matter...

... Dr. Ed Peters, who has been following the situation closely, offers detailed comments, beginning with this introduction:

Just over a month has passed since the AOD – Voris/RCTV matter unleashed a flash flood of cyber-commentary. Much of that commentary struck me as thinly reasoned and off-point (and occasionally, ad hominem), but amid it all some reasonable questions surfaced, too. While debates attempted without agreed-upon rules or recognized referees (i.e., internet debates!), can never be ‘won’ or ‘lost’, good can nevertheless come from assisting others to think through certain issues rather than watching them simply react to them. To that end, my personal observations on this matter, now that things have calmed down a bit, follow.

Canon 216 states that “no undertaking is to claim the name Catholic without the consent of the competent ecclesiastical authority.” Now, among the many reacting to the AOD statements on Voris/RCTV and Canon 216, no one, it seems, seriously questions that canon law prohibits any undertaking from assuming the name “Catholic” without prior ecclesiastical authorization, and no one, it seems, suggests that Voris/RCTV have such permission from the AOD or, apparently, from anyone else.

So what, exactly, has the flurry of commentary been about?

As far as I can tell, it’s been about nearly everything except what canon law requires of the Christian faithful before claiming the name “Catholic” for their undertakings: ecclesiastical permission.

Continue reading on the "In the Light of the Law" blog.

Fr. Pavone, John Wesley, and "particular churches"

Canon lawyer Dr. Ed Peters remarks upon a recent interview given by Fr. Frank Pavone with Al Kresta:

In his interview Pavone recounted for Kresta that, while he was a seminarian, he had on the wall of his dorm room a map of the world underneath which was written Methodist John Wesley’s famous line “All the world is my parish” (Pt. I, 21:30 ff). Granted, a Catholic sense can be given Wesley’s point, but such a slogan falls well short of the Catholic vision of pastoral organization, and its continued use by Pavone is telling.

Wesley’s low ecclesiology let him see the world as a sort of parish, but Catholics can see more. We have "particular churches" known as dioceses (c. 368) under the direction of bishops (c. 381) who have the fullness of Orders, and it is within the context of the particular Church that most Catholic men ordained to diocesan priesthood are called for most of their lives to work out their salvation, yes, in fear and trembling. Pavone and many of his allies, however, are applying Wesley’s model of the Church against Zurek.

Consider: However Methodism might expect its ministers to graduate from seminary and find communities to serve, diocesan Catholic priests such as Pavone are not ordained for at-large ministry wherever they decide to carry it on. Church law knows of extra-diocesan priestly work and makes certain provisions for it, but paradigmatic ordained Catholic ministry is generally offered, and will always be offered, by clergy working over extended periods in a specific place under a local ordinary. It is Pavone’s style of national (for that matter, international) priestly ministry that needs special authorization, and not Zurek’s exercise of authority that needs to be tailored to Pavone’s perception of his mission.

Read the entire post on the "In the Light of the Law" blog. In addition to the Code of Canon Law, see paragraphs 813ff of the Catechism of the Catholic Church for important statements about "particular churches", the unity of the Church, and the authority of bishops.

Dr. Ed Peters remarks on the Bp. Zurek-Fr. Pavone dispute ...

... on his "In the Light of the Law" blog. Highly recommended to anyone looking for a careful, knowledgeable guide to the various (and sometimes complex) canonical issues involved.

For helpful background information on the story, see this post on the Catholic World Report blog by managing editor, Cate Harmon.

UPDATE (Sept. 17, 2011): Dr. Peters has written another excellent post, "Some non-canonical reactions to Fr. Pavone’s latest statement", in which he states, "I write here, then, not as a canonist, but as a reasonably intelligent Catholic man, about the same age as Fr. Pavone, sharing the same Creed and sacraments and pope, familiar with pro-life work, who has worked with clergy and seminarians most of his adult life." Recommended!

Where does Call to Action end and The New York Times begin?

Gail Deibler Finke, who recently reviewed the pro-priestette "documentary", Pink Smoke Over the Vatican, for Ignatius Insight takes a look at the cozy relationship between The New York Times and Call To Action:

Call to Action may be dwindling in numbers, budget, and influence, but apparently it’s still got the ear of the “newspaper of record.”

In late July the New York Times ran two stories (here and here) featuring a letter of support for excommunicated Maryknoll Father Roy Bourgeois, supposedly signed by 157 “priests in good standing,” but not giving the text of the letter or the identities of the priests.

Here is what may be the text of the letter:

Dear Father Dougherty,

As priests in good standing within the Roman Catholic Church, we want to make clear that we support our brother Fr. Roy Bourgeois, MM in his priesthood and his right to speak from his conscience.

Signed,

This text is on Call to Action’s web site, at the top of a form for priests to fill out. It requires signees to fill in their first and last names, dioceses, and email addresses. 

Good enough for me!

What’s that? Not good enough for you? Well, that’s all you get. Take it or leave it. Call to Action told me it will release the text and the identities of the 157 priests at its national conference in November -- after staff has tracked down all the men who signed it and made sure that they’re okay with their names being known.

It seems to me that they should have done so before sending out the press release, but hey, that’s just me. Due diligence, journalistic ethics, and all that still mean something to me.

But not the New York Times, which pretty much ran with the CTA press release (PDF file) for its July 23 story -- reporting the CTA’s view that goings-on Ireland and Australia are tied into Fr. Roy’s supporters in the USA and indicate a current of dissent in the Catholic Church.

Imagine that! Dissent in the Catholic Church!

Sorry, I got carried away. The second story is at least more honest: it openly profiles Call to Action and its views, outlines its changing acceptance (or lack of such) by the current bishop of its home city of Chicago, and even includes a zinger of a quote from what it calls an “outspoken conservative and critic” of the group.

But what it doesn’t do is tell you who signed the letter, a key point in being able to evaluate what the letter means. CTA’s spokeswoman told me that the Times has a copy of the letter and the names of all the priests who signed it. She also said that CTA provided the paper with contact information for the priest who headed up the letter project, which she said was conducted by phone and not by mail or through its web site.

And that may be all the information one needs to know. The Sunday piece quoted one of the signers, a retired Chicago priest the Times says is “unfazed by possible reprisals,” Fr. Bill Kenneally. He told the Times that “since I’m retired, it’s not like they can take a church away from me” for speaking out -- not exactly a rare voice of moral courage, but presumably an honest one.

If Fr. Kenneally is indeed representative of the men who signed the letter, it would not be surprising. Most of Call to Action’s clergy and religious members are close to retirement or retired. If all they did to get people to sign the letter was call up their priest members, or priest friends of members, then it would be no surprise if the result was 150 or so retired priests. Anyone with a list of CTA members could probably predict most of the names.

But it is not a news story that members of a dissident group signed a letter supporting a dissident priest, especially if they are men who have been dissident priests since the 1970s. Moreover, if the real letter is the same as the letter CTA has on its web site, they don’t even have to be all that dissident to sign it. I’m sure a lot of priests “support Fr. Roy in his priesthood and his right to speak from his conscience,” no matter what wacky things he does. He is a hero of the anti-war movement and a Nobel Peace Prize nominee. Many people who believe in his work with School of the Americas Watch -- which gets plenty wacky at times -- are willing to cut him a world of slack.

The problem is, Fr. Roy went way past “speaking from his conscience” to doing something wrong. Maybe all those giant puppets and theatrics at School of the Americas Watch made it seem like no big deal, but what he did was participate in the “ordination” of his friend and protege, Janice Sevré-Duszynska. Canon law says that anyone who does so automatically excommunicates himself or herself. Given the chance to recant (Rome is actually amazingly lenient on this kind of thing) Fr. Bourgeois metaphorically thumbed his nose at the Church and is currently awaiting laicization while on what the NYT calls “a 34-city speaking tour” explaining his personal gospel of social justice.

It’s sad. It’s sad when someone who started out trying to dedicate his life to peace ends up dedicating it to his own pet theories. It’s sad when people intoxicated with what they think is life and freedom and newness end up forty years later as rabble rousers incapable of rousing any rabble but themselves. It’s sad when an organization that says it wants to renew the Church sends out press releases attacking it. And it’s sad when a newspaper that once prided itself on providing “all the news that’s fit to print” finds it fit to print any old club to hit the Catholic Church with, even if that club is a story so flimsy a volunteer writer for a radio station can tear it apart from her home office with half an hour of research and a few phone calls.

Read Gail's July 29th piece, "Pink Smoke Gets In Your Eyes".

"Flawed arguments against applying Canon 915 in the Cuomo case persist,..."

... perhaps because sound arguments against applying the canon apparently don’t. Jesuit Fr. William J. O’Malley’s essay in America (20-27 June 2011) is just the latest example.

Before addressing O’Malley’s claims, though, I pause to wonder why he bothered to respond to this lawyer’s arguments about law in the first place? After all, O’Malley believes that laws are chiefly necessary “for people unable—or unwilling—to think.” The vacuity of that claim I address below; the condescension that O’Malley shows toward those who consider legal questions important, I will ignore.

O’Malley opines that “the first sign of a dying society is a new edition of the rules.” Good grief, how fatuous can a claim about jurisprudence be and yet be found worthy of printing in America magazine?

The specific rule that O’Malley dismisses is Canon 915, part of the Johanno-Pauline Code of Canon Law. Now, if O’Malley’s Maxim is right and “the first sign of a dying society is a new edition of the rules”, then, must we not conclude that the promulgation of the new edition of the Code in 1983 signaled the onset of the Catholic Church’s death throes some 28 years ago? Apparently, that dotty old Church is taking her sweet time a-dying.

But wait, if O’Malley’s Maxim is right, should not the promulgation of the Pio-Benedictine Code have been the first sign that the Catholic Church was dying in 1917, nearly one hundred years ago? Which first sign is first?

Why stop there?

Read it all on the "In the Light of the Law" blog. Yep, Dr. Ed Peters is on a roll. His posts on the Cuomo case and related matter have been, I must say, both instructive and entertaining. Just like his canon law classes.

Also see:

• "The Cuomo-Communion Controversy" by Edward N. Peters (Catholic World Report, May 2011)

Fr. Richard McBrien proves that illiterate "ultraconservative Catholics" are smarter than...

... dissenting, self-identified "Catholics" with doctorates, theology chairs, and—like, wow!—books and stuff. I'll show you how so in a moment.

First, frankly, I think Fr. McBrien should consider firing whatever eighteen-year-old college freshman is apparently writing his columns for him (I say "apparently because she could, in fact, be a sophomore in high school). I know that sounds harsh, but surely it would benefit her in the long run. But, seriously, how else to explain this sort of laughable, embarrassing nonsense, freshly flung up on the National "Catholic" Reporter website:

One of the most perplexing aspects of the sacking of William Morris, bishop of the Australian diocese of Toowoomba, Queensland, is Pope Benedict XVI’s claim that the Catholic Church’s prohibition of the ordination of women to the priesthood is the product of an infallible teaching. ...

However, if it were not for the constant drumbeat of criticism on the part of ultraconservative Catholics -- most or all of whom have had no formal education in theology, Scripture, liturgy, or canon law -- and the appointment of another ultraconservative as Apostolic Visitor -- Charles Chaput, Archbishop of Denver -- Morris would not have been removed from his diocese.

My interest here is not really the ins-and-outs of how and why Morris was removed from office (see pieces by Dr. Jeffrey Mirus and Fr. Z for background and details) but on this bizarre claim by McBrien:

Ratzinger noted that the teaching on women’s ordination “has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium,” as well as by the 1998 apostolic letter of Pope John Paul II, Ad Tuendam Fidem (“For the defense of the faith”), accompanied by a commentary written by Ratzinger, who said essentially the same thing as he is now saying as pope.

But canon 749.3 stipulates that if there is any doubt about the infallible nature of a teaching, it is not infallible. The canon reads: “No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless it is clearly established as such.”

Therefore, even if then-Cardinal Ratzinger concluded that Pope John Paul II’s teaching on women priests in Ordinatio sacerdotalis was infallible, it could not be considered infallible because it was not “clearly established as such.”

And even if a pope, such as Benedict XVI, wished to argue that a specific teaching of one of his predecessors was infallible, canon 749.3 would also seem to preclude such an argument.

Actually, McBrien's "argument" is not so much "bizarre" as blatantly silly. And even disingenuous. Here's why (see if you illiterate ultraconservative Catholics can follow!):

The Cuomo-Communion Controversy: Are canon law and pastoral practice really opposed?

The Cuomo-Communion Controversy | Are canon law and pastoral practice really opposed? | Edward N. Peters | Catholic World Report

Hardly a generation ago, a canon lawyer’s remarks that a divorced man openly cohabiting with a divorced woman was ineligible to receive Holy Communion would have been greeted with a polite yawn, as if to say, “Of course he can’t be given Communion. Tell us something we don’t already know.” But then, a generation ago, most Catholics were generally aware of the fundamentals of sacramental discipline, or, at the least, of those aspects of sacramental discipline that went back to the Apostolic Age.

Earlier this year, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, a divorced Catholic man who lives with television celebrity Sandra Lee (also divorced, but not Catholic), was given Holy Communion at a well-publicized Mass celebrated by Bishop Howard Hubbard of Albany. But my comments against Cuomo’s taking Communion, instead of occasioning yawns, provoked dozens of broadcast news segments, hundreds of newspaper articles, and thousands of web posts. My assertion that some things besides personal opinion can impact a Catholic’s eligibility to receive the Eucharist garnered nervous comments by bishops, open ridicule by left-leaning politicos, and several minutes of appallingly vacuous criticism by the odd quartet who make up The View.

The Cuomo-Communion controversy cannot be written off as hype generated by the secular media’s selective zeal for the separation of Church and state (a separation routinely invoked against Catholics critical of, say, legalized abortion, but conveniently ignored when Catholics support, say, social spending programs). Cuomo’s consistent support for legalized abortion and “gay marriage” has canonical implications, to be sure, and those must eventually be faced, but most of the media storm focused on my analysis of the governor’s being given Holy Communion despite his living arrangements, not his politics. It was, in other words, largely an issue internal to the Church. So, the widespread opposition-bordering-on-outrage leveled against my assertions must spring from deeper wells than partisan politics.

Indeed it does.

The Cuomo-Communion controversy revealed several “fault lines” in Catholics’ understanding of the relationship between canon law and pastoral practice, fault lines that can be traced, I think, to the antinomian earthquakes that shook Church and state in the 1960s and which fractures in thinking are still active today. Deeply distrustful, even resentful, attitudes toward canon law arose in Catholic circles immediately after Vatican II. While perhaps somewhat muted today, significant antinomian attitudes still linger, leaving many in the Church deprived of a proper understanding of the vital role that Church law should play in the life of faith.

Read the entire essay at www.CatholicWorldReport.com...

When Bad Advice in Confession Becomes a Crime

When Bad Advice in Confession Becomes a Crime | Dr. Edward N. Peters | Homiletic & Pastoral Review

The canonical crime of solicitation is likely more widespread than many may suppose.

All would agree that if a given piece of advice is bad in the confessional, then a priest’s giving it to a penitent would be, at a minimum, a failure in pastoral care. Depending on circumstances, a priest’s proffering of bad advice in confession might even, as a violation of charity or justice, be sinful. But, that the giving of bad advice in confession could be a crime under Church law would be startling. And yet, exactly this reading of Canon 1387 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law is required, I suggest, in light of sound canonical tradition and recent Roman curial norms.

Canon 1387 states: “A priest who in the act, on the occasion, or under the pretext of confession solicits a penitent to sin against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue is to be punished, according to the gravity of the delict, by suspension, prohibitions, and privations; in graver cases he is to be dismissed from the clerical state.” The image of solicitation that springs to mind here is, of course, that of a priest using the confessional to propose carnal liaisons to a female penitent.1 To be sure, such reprehensible behavior is criminalized by Canon 1387. But neither the text of Canon 1387 (specifically the phrase, “solicits a penitent to sin against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue”) nor the tradition behind the modern canon construes the crime of solicitation that narrowly.

First, the canonical crime of solicitation is not limited to cases wherein a confessor’s bad advice given is only toward a penitent’s sexual misconduct with the priest himself. John Martin, commenting on Canon 1387 in the British-Irish canonical commentary Letter & Spirit (1985) at 799, observes: “The offence is committed whether the priest encourages the penitent to sin either with the priest himself or with any third party.” Thomas Green, writing in the 2000 CLSA New Commentary (at 1591), agrees: “The delict might also be verified if the solicited sexual activity involves the penitent and a third party, not necessarily the priest and the penitent.” And Leon del Amo in the 2004 Code of Canon Law Annotated (at 1077), notes: “The offense consists in soliciting the penitent to sin against the sixth commandment, either with the person soliciting or with a third party.” No commentator on the 1983 Code disputes the understanding of solicitation in Canon 1387 as embracing not only a confessor’s advice toward sexual sin between the penitent and the confessor himself, but also between the penitent and a third party. But to see clearly how a confessor’s giving a penitent objectively immoral advice, even if such advice is directed toward the solitary acts of the penitent alone, can also constitute a form of solicitation, a review of  canonical commentary on the crime of solicitation under the earlier, 1917 Code, is helpful.

Read the entire article on HPRweb.com...

Man: "I was forced out of the Church". Canon lawyer: "Get real"

First, the man, as reported on the KOAT site (Albuquerque, N.M.):

A Belen man said he’s being forced to leave the Catholic Church and is fuming over a letter recently read in his parish.

Pasqual Armijo has been a Catholic his entire life.“I love the Catholic Church. I don’t want to leave it, but I don’t have a choice,” Armijo said.

Armijo was married in the church and he and his wife had children, but later divorced. He has remarried, but said he isn’t living a lifestyle acceptable to Jesus Christ, according to the Catholic Church.

Armijo said he could get his first marriage annulled and his second blessed by the church, but is worried that an annulment will negatively affect his children.

“My kids were born legally. Me and my wife were married in the church, and now they want me to make them something else? No, I’m not going to say the word, but I think everybody knows what I’m saying,” Armijo said.

If anyone might know what Armijo is trying to say, it would be a good canon lawyer. Enter Dr. Ed Peters, who is not impressed by either Armijo's strange claims, or by the approach taken by the reporter, Royal Dá:

Bereft of any news actually worth reporting one day, Dá spent on-air time interviewing one of the tens of thousands of Catholics who are divorced and remarried outside the Church about, well, being one of tens of thousands of Catholics divorced and remarried outside the Church. Poor soil, one might think, from which to grow a real news story.

Undeterred, Dá allowed her subject to, among other things, mangle for viewers the canon law on legitmacy of children (a status utterly unimpacted by nullity proceedings), snipe at “the Church” for “accepting” his money (as if the archbishop of Sante Fe gets a memo everytime some nice guy drops a buck in the collection plate), and generally to play the hero for his refusing “to say the word” that would assure him of his annulment and make peace with the Church. Now folks, this is 10 years in tribunals and 10 more teaching canon law talking here, and I’m here to say, if there’s a 'magic word' that will get a Catholic his or her annulment, I’ve never heard it.

What Dá really works, though, is vintage MSM “victim advocacy” journalism.

Read Peters' entire response on the "In the Light of the Law" blog.

Universae Ecclesia Instruction on application of "Summorum Pontificum"

Via the Vatican Information Service, here is the full text of the just-released instruction for the application of "Summorum Pontificum":

UNIVERSAE ECCLESIA INSTRUCTION

VATICAN CITY, 13 MAY 2011 (VIS) - Today the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei" published the Instruction on the application of Benedict XVI's Apostolic Letter Motu Proprio "Summorum Pontificum".

 The document, approved by the Pope, bears the date of 30 April in liturgical remembrance of Pope St. Pius V. It is signed by Cardinal William Levada and Msgr. Guido Pozzo, respectively president and secretary of the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei".

 I. Introduction

1. The Apostolic Letter "Summorum Pontificum" of the Sovereign Pontiff Benedict XVI given Motu Proprio on 7 July 2007, which came into effect on 14 September 2007, has made the richness of the Roman Liturgy more accessible to the Universal Church.

2. With this Motu Proprio, the Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI promulgated a universal law for the Church, intended to establish new regulations for the use of the Roman Liturgy in effect in 1962.

3. The Holy Father, having recalled the concern of the Sovereign Pontiffs in caring for the Sacred Liturgy and in their recognition of liturgical books, reaffirms the traditional principle, recognised from time immemorial and necessary to be maintained into the future, that "each particular Church must be in accord with the universal Church not only regarding the doctrine of the faith and sacramental signs, but also as to the usages universally handed down by apostolic and unbroken tradition. These are to be maintained not only so that errors may be avoided, but also so that the faith may be passed on in its integrity, since the Church's rule of prayer (lex orandi) corresponds to her rule of belief (lex credendi)."1

4. The Holy Father recalls also those Roman Pontiffs who, in a particular way, were notable in this task, specifically Saint Gregory the Great and Saint Pius V. The Holy Father stresses moreover that, among the sacred liturgical books, the Missale Romanum has enjoyed a particular prominence in history, and was kept up to date throughout the centuries until the time of Blessed Pope John XXIII. Subsequently in 1970, following the liturgical reform after the Second Vatican Council, Pope Paul VI approved for the Church of the Latin rite a new Missal, which was then translated into various languages. In the year 2000, Pope John Paul II promulgated the third edition of this Missal.

5. Many of the faithful, formed in the spirit of the liturgical forms prior to the Second Vatican Council, expressed a lively desire to maintain the ancient tradition. For this reason, Pope John Paul II with a special Indult Quattuor abhinc annos issued in 1984 by the Congregation for Divine Worship, granted the faculty under certain conditions to restore the use of the Missal promulgated by Blessed Pope John XXIII. Subsequently, Pope John Paul II, with the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei of 1988, exhorted the Bishops to be generous in granting such a faculty for all the faithful who requested it. Pope Benedict continues this policy with the Motu Proprio "Summorum Pontificum" regarding certain essential criteria for the Usus Antiquior of the Roman Rite, which are recalled here.

6. The Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI and the last edition prepared under Pope John XXIII, are two forms of the Roman Liturgy, defined respectively as ordinaria and extraordinaria: they are two usages of the one Roman Rite, one alongside the other. Both are the expression of the same lex orandi of the Church. On account of its venerable and ancient use, the forma extraordinaria is to be maintained with appropriate honor.

7. The Motu Proprio "Summorum Pontificum" was accompanied by a letter from the Holy Father to Bishops, with the same date as the Motu Proprio (7 July 2007). This letter gave further explanations regarding the appropriateness and the need for the Motu Proprio; it was a matter of overcoming a lacuna by providing new norms for the use of the Roman Liturgy of 1962. Such norms were needed particularly on account of the fact that, when the new Missal had been introduced under Pope Paul VI, it had not seemed necessary to issue guidelines regulating the use of the 1962 Liturgy. By reason of the increase in the number of those asking to be able to use the forma extraordinaria, it has become necessary to provide certain norms in this area.

Among the statements of the Holy Father was the following: "There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the Liturgy growth and progress are found, but not a rupture. What was sacred for prior generations, remains sacred and great for us as well, and cannot be suddenly prohibited altogether or even judged harmful."2

8. The Motu Proprio "Summorum Pontificum" constitutes an important expression of the Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff and of his munus of regulating and ordering the Church's Sacred Liturgy.3 The Motu Proprio manifests his solicitude as Vicar of Christ and Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church,4  and has the aim of: a) offering to all the faithful the Roman Liturgy in the Usus Antiquior, considered as a precious treasure  to be preserved; b) effectively guaranteeing and ensuring the use of the forma extraordinaria for all who ask for it, given that the use of the 1962 Roman Liturgy is a faculty generously granted for the good of the faithful and therefore is to be interpreted in a sense favourable to the faithful who are its principal addressees; c) promoting reconciliation at the heart of the Church.

II. The Responsibilities of the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei"

Bishop Aquila: Reception of Communion by pro-abort politicians "only creates grave scandal"

California Catholic Daily has posted excerpts from "the March 18 keynote address by Fargo, North Dakota, Bishop Samuel J. Aquila (bio) at the 10th Annual Symposium on the Spirituality and Identity of the Diocesan Priest, held in Philadelphia:

One must honestly ask, how many times and years may a Catholic politician vote for the so called "right to abortion", "murder" in the words of John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae (58), and still be able to receive Holy Communion? The continual reception of Holy Communion by those who so visibly contradict and promote a grave evil, even more than simply dissent, only creates grave scandal, undermines the teaching and governing authority of the Church and can be interpreted by the faithful as indifference to the teaching of Christ and the Church on the part of those who have the responsibility to govern. If we honestly pray with the Gospel we can see that hesitancy and non-accountability is not the way of Jesus Christ, but rather it is a failure in the exercise of governance.

Bishops and priests, as an act of loving obedience to Christ, must return to a full exercise of the governing authority of Christ witnessed in the Gospel. If we do not exercise that authority, are hesitant to exercise it, or doubt it, then it only leads to the ―father of lies‖ taking hold of the minds and hearts of the faithful, and their continuing to act in the ways of man and not the ways of God.

Pope Benedict XVI, in his conversation with Peter Seewald in the book Light of the World, made the following observation concerning the sexual abuse crisis among clergy, after speaking with the Archbishop of Dublin. In their conversation they spoke to a mentality prevalent after Vatican II. ―The prevailing mentality was that the Church must not be a Church of laws but, rather, a Church of love; she must not punish. Thus the awareness that punishment can be an act of love ceased to exist. This led to an odd darkening of the mind, even in very good people. Today we have to learn all over again that love for the sinner and love for the person who has been harmed are correctly balanced if I punish the sinner in the form that is possible and appropriate. In this respect there was in the past a change of mentality, in which the law and need for punishment were obscured. Ultimately this also narrowed the concept of love, which in fact is not just being nice or courteous, but is found in the truth (emphasis added). And another component of truth is that I must punish the one who has sinned against real love" (Pages 25-26).

As the Holy Father notes love corrects for the good of the person. Correction can be difficult and painful, as parents know, yet as a shepherd I am willing to suffer the rejection and anger of another when I speak the truth for the good of the person and the Bride of Christ. To correct and/or to punish someone who has gravely sinned against real love is an act of servant love and is found in the truth!

No word yet if Fr. Thomas Reese has told this or that media outlet that Bishop Aquila is "that guy in Fargo". The entire address can be accessed as a PDF file on the Diocese of Fargo website.

Annulment Nation: A Special Report

Annulment Nation | Jeff Ziegler | Special for Catholic World Report

The United States, with 6 percent of the world’s Catholics, accounts for 60 percent of the Church’s annulments.

Apart from the papacy, few doctrines divide the Catholic Church from non-Catholic ecclesial communities as does the doctrine of the indissolubility of a consummated Christian marriage. Eastern Orthodox Christians are permitted three marriages; King Henry VIII’s desire to remarry helped lead to the formation of the Anglican Communion. Martin Luther permitted divorce in the cases of adultery, desertion, failure to fulfill conjugal duties, and “where husband and wife cannot get along together.”

The Catholic Church holds that the teaching of Jesus Christ is clear: husband and wife “are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.… Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery” (Mark 10:8-12).

Thus, in 1563, the Council of Trent decreed that

if anyone shall say that the Church has erred in having taught, and in teaching that, according to the teaching of the Gospel and the Apostles, the bond of matrimony cannot be dissolved, and that neither party—not even the innocent, who has given no cause by adultery—can contract another marriage while the other lives, and that he, or she, commits adultery who puts away an adulterous wife, or husband, and marries another; let him be anathema.

In our own time, Pope John Paul II taught that “it is a fundamental duty of the Church to reaffirm strongly…the doctrine of the indissolubility of marriage” (Familiaris Consortio, 1981). He affirmed the discipline of “not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried,” adding that

reconciliation in the sacrament of penance, which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples.

Declarations of nullity

While most New Testament passages on marriage make no exception for divorce, our Lord says in St. Matthew’s Gospel that “whoever divorces his wife, except for porneia (unchastity), and marries another, commits adultery.” Catholic exegetes have debated the meaning of porneia for centuries, with the Navarre Bible explaining that “it is almost certain that the phrase refers to unions accepted as marriage among some pagan peoples, but prohibited as incestuous in the Mosaic Law and in rabbinical tradition. The reference, then, is to unions radically invalid because of some impediment.… They had never in fact been joined in true marriage.”

This explanation speaks to the development of the annulment, the declaration by Church authorities that a putative marriage never truly existed because of reasons such as consanguinity or lack of consent. In the West, popes and bishops were declaring marriages invalid in the early Middle Ages, with Pope St. Gregory VII beginning to systematize ecclesiastical court procedures in the 11th century.

Read the entire piece on www.CatholicWorldReport.com...

The grave scandal of hurting the feelings of co-habitating, pro-abort Catholic politicians

The New York Times efficiently describes the average U.S. Catholic:

He goes to Mass, though not every Sunday. He considers himself a practicing Roman Catholic, yet avoids calling himself devout. He opposes the death penalty, as church leaders do. But he is divorced. And he supports same-sex marriage and abortion rights, stances sharply at odds with church teaching.

The name of the average Catholic featured in the Times is Gov. Andrew W. Cuomo of New York:

In other words, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo of New York shares the churchgoing habits and social views of a sizable number of the 68 million Americans who have identified themselves as Catholic in recent surveys. His brand of faith is so commonplace — at least in New York — that it was barely mentioned during his campaign last year for governor.

But now that he is the governor, the everyday complications of Mr. Cuomo’s religious identity have become a lightning rod in a decades-old culture war between conservative Catholics and those, like Mr. Cuomo, who disagree with the church’s positions on various issues, including abortion and divorce.

Ah yes, those "conservative Catholics"—such as the Pope, we should note—who believe that being a Catholic somehow involves knowing Church teaching and living in accord with said teaching. Of course, if you are a self-described Catholic who disagrees with the Church's teaching about the validity and licitness of the Novus Ordo, or the rejects in some way the Church's teachings on religious liberty, the New York Times won't be as sympathetic or understanding. The point being that the so-called newspaper of record is ardently pro-Catholic when the Catholicism in question adheres to the Gray Lady's black-and-white stances on the morality of abortion, the beauty of "gay marriage", and the need for divorce; in short, the Times likes non-Catholic "Catholicism". Thus, Gov. Cuomo, if not exactly a hero, is apparently a true disciple of this faux Catholicism, even if it means being a martyr (albeit in the service of a faux martyrdom):

The conflict over the governor’s faith began last month, when Edward N. Peters, who teaches at the seminary of the Archdiocese of Detroit and holds an appointment as an adviser to the Vatican on canon law, wrote that Mr. Cuomo should not be allowed to receive holy communion because he is divorced and living with his girlfriend, the Food Network host Sandra Lee, in what Mr. Peters called “public concubinage.”

In early March, Mr. Cuomo said he would be unable to meet with the bishops because of a scheduling conflict, a move that some in Albany interpreted as a deliberate snub in response to Dr. Peters’s criticism.

All was eventually patched up: Mr. Cuomo found time on March 8 to meet the bishops for lunch at his residence. Afterward, Bishop Howard J. Hubbard of Albany said that the question of whether the governor should receive communion was between Mr. Cuomo and his pastor.

Yet friends of the governor’s who were interviewed in recent days said Mr. Cuomo was disturbed at so promptly being thrust into the spotlight of conservative Catholics’ moral disapproval — rough treatment previously accorded only to the most high-profile Catholics, like Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts or former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani when they ran for president.

“I’d say he was hurt, on his own behalf and on behalf of Sandra,” said John Marino, a family friend and a past chairman of the state Democratic Party.

Because, you see, stating the obvious and objective truth about public sins—especially those of a high profile, powerful, and wealthy politician—is hurtful. Unlike, say, the scandal such sins cause serious, orthodox Catholics who continue to think and believe, contrary to the wisdom of the masters of mainstream (im)morality, that being Catholic involves "an assent of the intellect and will to the self-revelation God has made through his deeds and words" (CCC, 176), and that the "Church is the mother of all believers" (CCC, 181). For some average U.S. Catholics, however, spurning the advice of Mother Church is preferable to losing the accolades of the Gray Lady and her handmaids.

UPDATE (Mar. 22, 2011): A number of readers have expressed frustration or concern over this quote in the Time's piece:

In e-mailed responses to questions, Dr. Peters, whose canon law blog is called “In the Light of the Law,” said there were only three ways to resolve what he referred to as “the scandal” that Mr. Cuomo was causing the church.

“He should cease cohabiting without benefit of matrimony, or he should cease presenting himself for holy communion, or the sacrament should be withheld from him,” he wrote. “As a general rule of Catholic morality, men and women are not supposed to live together without benefit of matrimony.”

Joseph Zwilling, spokesman for the Archdiocese of New York, said the controversy did not arise during the governor’s “cordial” lunch with the bishops.

“Thank God it didn’t,” Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan told reporters after the meeting, “because it was a bit of a tempest in a teapot.”

It would seem, based on the above, that Abp. Dolan is dismissing the importance of Dr. Peters' remarks and Gov. Cuomo's actions/positions. But, in fact, it appears that the Times has neatly taken the Archbishop's quote out of its proper context. Here is a section from a March 9, 2011, piece from the Associated Press:

 Although Dolan said he discussed few specifics with the Democrat, the archbishop said he felt progress was made to support Catholic schools more with state aid after the state "gets its fiscal house in order." Dolan recently testified in a legislative budget hearing that nonpublic schools are taking a deeper hit than public schools in Cuomo's proposed budget, and the state owes Catholic schools money from past years' commitments.

"I said, 'Look, you all tell us in the government that you want quality education, you need to save money, and you need more room,"' Dolan said, relaying his conversation with Cuomo in the executive mansion. "We can help you in all three: We do the best job around, we'll do it at half the price and we got room. It's a no-brainer. Can't we cooperate? He said, 'Yeah, let's do it.' ... So there will be follow up."

Then Dolan turned on his renowned wit to avoid some touchy issues. He said he didn't feel snubbed when Cuomo wasn't in Albany recently to meet with the archbishop earlier.

"It was a bit of a tempest in a teapot," Dolan said. "Hey, it worked out better. We got lunch out of it."

Cuomo spokesman Josh Vlasto said the governor enjoyed the lunch and will work closely with the bishops.

The New York Daily News reports the same thing, but adds:

Dolan also said the bishops did not bring up the recent comments of a Vatican adviser who said Cuomo should be denied Communion because of his relationship with live-in girlfriend Sandra Lee.

"Our religion would also say it is not good to judge a person," Dolan said.

Of course, judging the eternal state of someone's soul is not at issue; rather, it's a matter of judging public actions, which is a completely legitimate and necessary part of, well, life.

UPDATE #2: (March 22, 2011): The New York Times piece has been updated/revised:

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: March 22, 2011

An earlier version of this article misstated the context of the quotation by Archbisop Dolan,  “it was a bit of a tempest in a teapot.”

Ah.

Dr. Peters remarks on Coon's contrition, NCReporter's omission

The opening of a new post by Dr. Ed Peters:

Norma Jean Coon, excommunication, reconciliation, and the National Catholic Reporter

I read with bemusement the National Catholic Reporter story on the recent reconciliation of Norma Jean Coon, the San Diego woman who was ‘ordained’ a deacon but has since repented of her actions. My reactions to the Coon case and NCRep’s story on it fall into three parts.

Fair Warning: You’re gonna think I’m making the first part up.

1. About a week and a half ago I was contacted by a writer for the NCRep and asked to respond to several questions on the Norma Jean Coon case. There followed the usual journalist “I’m on a tight deadline” plaint.

Now, the Coon case is obviously important, so I took time from a very busy schedule and prepared responses which I sent in promptly (within about 4 hours). I also offered to be available for any follow-up questions. And what happened?

Read the entire post on the "Light of the Law" blog.

Dr. Peters on the real relationship between canon law and pastoral practice

Another great post by Dr. Ed Peters:

There is a line of thought emerging in regard to the Cuomo-Communion controversy that runs as follows: “Okay, maybe Peters has a point about the canon law of this case, but c’mon, questions about individual reception of holy Communion are really matters of pastoral practice.”

You know, as if canon law and pastoral practice were two entirely different things.

Let’s think about this.

Certainly, there are many canons in the Code that scarcely impact pastoral practice. It’s difficult (not impossible, just difficult) to see a pastoral application for, say, Canon 141 on priority among successive delegees, or for Canon 707 on residence options for a retired religious bishop, or for Canon 1601 on a judge’s discretion over time limits for filing briefs in tribunal cases. No one seriously argues that the faithful are bound to recall such canons in daily life or at least to think about them during the Communion rite.

But, while many canons do not have immediate pastoral relevance, many other canons do have obvious pastoral implications, and surely the canons on the reception and administration of holy Communion count among them. Indeed, the whole purpose of Canons 915 and 916 is to direct concrete pastoral practice!

Canons 915 and 916 boast aged, even ancient, nay apostolic, roots, and both norms are illuminated by copious and consistent canonical commentary reflecting many centuries’ worth of . . . . . what? . . . . . pastoral practice. In other words, one cannot discuss Canons 915 and 916 without discussing pastoral practice at the same time. The two disciplines are inextricably related. And not because I say so, but because they are.

Do read the entire post. And don't miss Dr. Peters' response, in an endnote, about "the just-plain-dumbest accusations of hypocrisy" made against him.

• In appreciation of Dr. Ed Peters (March 1, 2011)