Month: May 2008

New CDF Document! New CDF Document!

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is not normally tasked with adding provisions to canon law, but under the direction of the pope, it can do whatever he wants it to.

And it has.

A new CDF document provides a latae sententiae (automatic) excommunication for those who attempt to ordain women and for those women who receive such attempted ordinations.

TEXT:

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

General Decree

On the delict of attempted sacred ordination of a woman

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in virtue of the special faculty granted to it by the Supreme Authority of the Church (cf. Can. 30, Code of Canon Law), in order to safeguard the nature and validity of the sacrament of Holy Orders, decreed, in the Ordinary Session of December 19, 2007:

In accordance with what is disposed by Can. 1378 of the Code of Canon Law, he who shall have attempted to confer holy orders on a woman, as well as the woman who may have attempted to receive Holy Orders, incurs in a latae sententiae excommunication, reserved to the Apostolic See.

If he who shall have attempted to confer Holy Orders on a woman or if the woman who shall have attempted to received Holy Orders is a faithful bound to the Code of Canons of the Oriental Churches, he is to be punished with the major excommunication, whose remission remains reserved to the Apostolic See, in accordance with can. 1443 of the same Code (cf. can. 1423, Code of Canons of the Oriental Churches).

The present decree enters in force immediately after its publication in L’Osservatore Romano.

William Cardinal Levada
Prefect
Angelo Amato, s.d.b.
Titular Archbishop of Sila
Secretary

First, HERE’S CANON 1378 IN THE CIC.

And HERE’S CANON 1443 OF THE CCEO.

Now, SOME COMMENTARY BY ED PETERS.

Finally, a few thoughts of my own:

It’s interesting, as Ed points out, that the Holy See has gone in the direction of creating a new latae sententiae penalty rather than continuing the trend of abolishing them.

On the part of bishops there may be something of a preference for latae sententiae penalties in that they do not require the bishop to himself take the action of imposing a canonical penalty on one of his subjects–an action that is bound to be portrayed in terms of the harsh disciplinarian stereotype in the popular press. It is much easier for a bishop to say "So-and-so has excommunicated himself/herself by these actions" than "I hereby excommunicate so-and-so for these actions."

I think that in this case, though, there may be an additional and perhaps more fundamental reason for the penalty (at least in the Latin rite) being a latae sententiae one: These ordinations frequently occur in secret.

That’s how they got started, after all: If the claims of the original group of female ordinands are to be believed, they found a Catholic bishop somewhere who was willing to perform the initial ordinations. That man’s identity has not been revealed.

And subsequent to that event, some of these women have simulated ordination in secret or at least without their identities initially being known to their bishops.

The use of a latae sententiae penalty in this case sends a signal that simply keeping the identities of the parties a secret will not keep them from suffering excommunication. You can’t tell yourself, if you are a bishop or a prospective ordinand, "I’m free of canonical penalties as long as nobody knows I did this so that no penalties can be imposed on me."

Instead, the latae sententiae penalty in this case says, "The Church takes this crime so seriously that it provides for excommunication even when the parties, or even the fact, of the crime are unknown."

The same can be said of all the other latae sententiae penalties, such as the excommunication provided for abortion.

One might still question whether we should have latae sententiae penalties in the Latin rite, but I think that the reason for this one is more than just a desire to get bishops "off the hook" for having to impose a penalty. It’s a sign of the Church’s particularly strong desire to alert those who attempt these ordinations to the gravity of their actions.

Since the current decree is not retroactive, it will not touch those who have previously attempted these ordinations (including the original bishop, assuming that there was one), but it does send the signal going forward to all who would participate in them.

Of Raiders and Crystal Skulls

Why RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK is the greatest action–adventure film in history.

Why INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL is worth catching.

Eight years ago, before Decent Films existed, I jotted down a few quick sentences on Raiders as part of a list of 35 or so movies I particularly liked and recommended. Those sentences wound up on the first version of Decent Films, and have remained on the site ever since… until yesterday, when I finally posted a full-length review. I hope to get around to writing up Temple of Doom and Last Crusade sometime soon… I’ll have to see how it goes.

Incidentally, it occurs to me that as an "action–adventure film," Raiders straddles two overlapping but distinct genres: Not all adventure films are action films, and not all action films are adventure films.

For instance, consider Star Wars and Die Hard. Star Wars is a classic adventure story, but I wouldn’t call it an "action film." Likewise, Die Hard is one of the pinnacles of action moviemaking, but I wouldn’t call it "adventure."

Raiders, on the other hand, is clearly both action and adventure. That’s part of the reason that, while all three are four-star classics in my book (though Die Hard in particular certainly isn’t for everyone), Raiders would probably make my personal all-time top 10 list, if I ever drew one up, while Star Wars and Die Hard wouldn’t. (They’d probably make the top 100, though.)

Sacramental Marriage

When is a marriage sacramental?

This is a question that is subject to significant confusion. For a start, some individuals use the word "sacramental" when they mean "valid." In other words, they are under the impression that any marriage that is not sacramental is invalid.

This is not the case. Many people have marriages that are valid in the eyes of God, yet these marriages are not sacramental.

Why?

Because marriage as a sacrament can exist only between two baptized persons. Therefore, if either or both persons are not baptized then their marriage is not a sacrament. That doesn’t mean that it’s invalid. It’s just not a sacrament.

But what about marriages between the baptized? What makes their marriages sacramental? Is it the act of getting married itself that results in the sacrament or, as I’ve heard more than one person suggest recently, is it the act of consummation that makes a marriage between the baptized sacramental?

The answer is found in the Code of Canon Law.

Canon 1055 states:

Can.  1055 §1. The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized.

§2. For this reason, a valid matrimonial contract cannot exist between the baptized without it being by that fact a sacrament.

This means that as soon as the matrimonial contract comes into existence between two baptized persons, they have a sacramental marriage. The moment of sacramentality does not wait upon consummation or anything else.

We can show this, for example, by reading a few additional canons:

Can.  1061 §1. A valid marriage between the baptized is called ratum tantum [established only] if it has not been consummated; it is called ratum et consummatum [established and consummated] if the spouses have performed between themselves in a human fashion a conjugal act which is suitable in itself for the procreation of offspring, to which marriage is ordered by its nature and by which the spouses become one flesh.

So there are two kinds of valid–and thus sacramental–marriages between the baptized: those that are established but unconsummated (ratum tantum) and those that are established and consummated (ratum et consummatum). Hence consummation is not necessary for validity or, between the baptized, for sacramentality.

If that’s the case, what does happen at consummation?

Can.  1141 A marriage that is ratum et consummatum can be dissolved by no human power and by no cause, except death.

Can.  1142 For a just cause, the Roman Pontiff can dissolve a non-consummated marriage between baptized persons or between a baptized party and a non-baptized party at the request of both parties or of one of them, even if the other party is unwilling.

It is consummation that makes valid sacramental marriages indissoluble. Prior to that point, even valid sacramental marriages can be dissolved, as can marriages in which a baptized person is validly but non-sacramentally married to an unbaptized person.

These cases are referred to colloquially as "Petrine privilege" cases, since they involve the action of the Roman Pontiff. (So-called "Pauline privilege" cases involve two unbaptized persons are do not require the intervention of the pope.)

So, to sum up, here are the types of valid marriages that can exist:

  • Non-sacramental marriages between unbaptized persons
  • Non-sacramental marriages between a baptized person and an unbaptized person
  • Sacramental marriages (i.e., between two baptized persons) that are unconsummated
  • Sacramental marriages (i.e., between two baptized persons) that are consummated

The last of these categories is intrinsically indissoluble. The first three categories are at least potentially dissoluble.

Hope this clarifies matters.

This Can’t Be Right…

Grailwitch… everyone knows that only Christians burn witches.
The story brings up another interesting element that is often ignored
in looking at better known witch hunts through history… that the
accusers often had a personal beef with the accused. It was not always
a case of hysterical superstition run wild, sometimes it was more
likely just a case of vendetta. Like in the post-war years, if you
wanted to ruin someone, you just started a rumor that they were a
communist sympathizer. No evidence necessary.

(Visit Tim Jones’ blog, Old World Swine)

Turkish Delight for the eyes

Narnian eye candy. That’s what The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian amounts to, for the most part.

That’s not a bad thing. It’s a lot less than Lewis fans might have wanted, but in some ways it’s actually better than we might have expected.

Judged on its own merits, the filmmakers have made a better movie than The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. They’ve also departed more from the source material — in some ways to the betterment of the film. Structurally, the book has issues, both as drama and as source material for a film. Some of the best bits in the film, especially the central set piece at Miraz’s castle, aren’t in the book, but are basically compatible with the book and help make for a better movie. Plotwise, character-wise, strategy-wise, it works — and it’s great eye candy too.

My biggest complaints are twofold. First, Prince Caspian introduces two of Lewis’s best characters — and the film gets them both wrong.

Peter Dinklage, a strong actor, is effective as Trumpkin, except he’s not playing Trumpkin. He’s playing some other, more soulful, less hearty dwarf. And Reepicheep — well. Let’s just say I remember him as more dashing and less sarcastic.

Secondly, I don’t mind a somewhat revisionistic approach to the story, as long as it honors the spirit of the book, as long as it honors the themes. Caspian gets the spirit of Lewis’s plot, but eviscerates his themes. I’ve said in the past that LW&W got maybe two-thirds of Lewis’s intended meaning; if so, Caspian might get a quarter — if it’s lucky.

Here’s the thesis of my review in this regard:

Thematically, Prince Caspian the book may be said to be about the triumph of mythic imagination over Enlightenment rationalism and skepticism. The movie almost entirely omits the skepticism, and greatly diminishes the triumph of mythic imagination.

Basically, to enjoy Prince Caspian, you have to put C. S. Lewis out of your head and enjoy an action-packed movie with gorgeous vistas and special effects, a dazzling central set piece, and a bizarrely annoying pop song in the last five minutes.

Even though it’s more revisionistic, Caspian is less annoying to me than LW&W, in large part because LW&W is a more important story. I mean, the triumph of mythic imagination over Enlightenment rationalism and skepticism is all well and good, but it isn’t exactly the passion and redemption, you know what I mean?

Still and all, I was hoping that Caspian might put the franchise on firmer footing for the third film, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader. Now that is a story they must get right, especially if the franchise is to continue.

In that regard, I’m glad to see that a new creative team is coming on board: Andrew Adamson and his two-time screenwriting team are moving on, and director Michael Apted will be taking the helm for Dawn Treader with screenwriter Steven Knight, who previously collaborated with Apted on Amazing Grace (also for Walden).

I have no idea whether Apted and Knight are the right team for Dawn Treader. I just know for sure Adamson and company aren’t. Let us just hope and pray that they rise to the occasion and sail the Dawn Treader straight and true.

Incidentally, wondering why, even with Lewis’s stepson Doug Gresham producing, these films are so far from the mark? I’ve interviewed Gresham, and I haven’t been particularly impressed with the perspicacity of his take on his stepfather’s work.

Get that story.

Prince Caspian review

The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe review

A Little Cylon Speculation

Ellen_tigh_1I’ve been thinking for a while about doing a post on who I think the final cylon is. I’ve even started the post at least once, but I haven’t finished it.

This post isn’t it, by the way. (So let’s not speculate on who the final cylon is in the combox; let’s save that for next time.)

But I thought I would do a little bit of speculating about who is a cylon in this post, and I think that the woman on the left is.

Who is she?

Well, it’s Ellen Tigh, wife of Col. Saul Tigh.

Why do I think she’s a cylon? A big reason is that there was a lot of hinting in the very first episode she appeared in that she is a cylon.

Remember? She was found mysteriously on one of the ships of the ragtag fleet, unconscious, with nobody remembering how she got there. Then she wakes up and is brought to the Galactica, where she proceeds to bring out all the worst aspects of her husband, like a cylon sleeper agent might want to do to undermine fleet command.

And to settle the question of whether she is a cylon, Dr. Baltar gives her his cylon-detector test and publicly says that she’s a human but privately admits to Head Six that the test may have indicated otherwise but that he’ll "never tell" if it did.

So there’s all that.

It later became clear that, if Ellen was a cylon, she wasn’t a sleeper agent who knew what she was doing, because she was willing to risk everything to help her husband during the cylon occupation of New Caprica. Or at least she didn’t care about betraying cylons to help her husband.

But that’s not a problem since not all cylon sleeper agents know that they’re cylons. The original Sharon "Boomer" Valerii, for example, did not know she was a cylon and others, like Sharon "Athena" Valerii have sided with humans against cylons.

So things were looking pretty inconclusive regarding Ellen, until . . .

"Wait!" you say, "I haven’t seen any season 4 episodes! Don’t spoil this for me!"

Okay.

I won’t.

Stop reading now.

"Wait!" you say, "How can you say this post isn’t going to be about who the final cylon is if you’re about to say that Ellen Tigh is a cylon? Wouldn’t her being a cylon mean that she’s the final cylon?"

No, because I think she’s just a version of one of the cylons that has already been established.

Specifically: I think she’s a Six.

She’s just an older version of Six–perhaps one of the first Sixes to be made.

After all, the Sixes don’t all look the same. Even when they’re played by Tricia Helfer, they look different. Some, like the "Gina" Six (the one who was on the Pegasus and later set off the nuke) or the current "Natalie" Six (the one leading the cylon resistance to the Ones, Fours, and Fives) wear their hair notably different than the platinum blond curls of Caprica Six or Head Six (and Head Six herself has worn her hair differently, as she did in the episode where she got Baltar to get the brainscan that convinced him she wasn’t a chip in his wetware).

So Sixes don’t all have to have an identical physical appearance, and thus there might be older versions of some models that have aged in a way that simulates human aging.

But that’s not the core reason.

The core reason is that in the recent episode "Escape Velocity," Col. Tigh interrogates Caprica Six in her cell on the Galactica and, during the course of the event, starts hallucinating that Caprica Six is Ellen.

What they did was bring back the actress who plays Ellen and got her dressed up and coiffed as Caprica Six, platinum blond curls and all.

And, wow, is it convincing.

There are moments, watching the transitions between Six and Ellen, when you say "Which actress am I looking at here? They’re so close once you put the same hair on them!"

And then there’s this . . .

The characters act the same.

They’re both highly manipulative and willing to use their feminine wiles to achieve their ends.

Also, neither seems to mind the concept of extra-marital affairs as long as some kind of fundamental love/loyalty-to-one-spouse isn’t compromised.

And–perhaps most uniquely–they’re both manipulating their Significant Others to make something more of themselves in the world.

I mean, think about it: From the moment Head Six shows up, she starts manipulating Gaius Baltar to ensure that he assumes his "destiny," right?

And from the moment Ellen Tigh shows up, she starts manipulating Saul to get him to assume command of the fleet/increase his influence and power, right?

Both of them are catty, morally loose manipulators who are trying to drive their chosen men reluctantly into positions of prominence and power.

So, not only do they look the same, they act the same. They have the same basic personality and modus operandi.

Okay, that’s it.

Unless the creators of the show choose to establish otherwise on screen, as far as I’m concerned, Ellen Tigh is simply a more mature Six.

Which makes her story all the more interesting.

Why Is Christian Art So Lame These Days?

That’s a question that’s worth asking.

I mean, it isn’t as if Christian art has always been lame. A visit to the Sistine Chapel or a read through Dante or a listen to Mozart will tell you that.

But for some reason, right in the here and now, an enormous amount of Christian art–whether visual, literary, or musical–is just really, really lame.

And it’s not driving the culture the way it used to.

Instead, it feels like a shallow copy of secular culture.

That’s something explored in a recent article at Salon.Com. Here’s the money quote:

For faith, the results can be dangerous. A young Christian can get the idea that her religion is a tinny, desperate thing that can’t compete with the secular culture. A Christian friend who’d grown up totally sheltered once wrote to me that the first time he heard a Top 40 station he was horrified, and not because of the racy lyrics: "Suddenly, my lifelong suspicions became crystal clear," he wrote. "Christian subculture was nothing but a commercialized rip-off of the mainstream, done with wretched quality and an apocryphal [sic] insistence on the sanitization of reality."

SOURCE [WARNING: There are a few just plain gross references in the article.]

The article largely focuses on culture schlock in Evangelical circles, but we all know the same thing is true in Catholic circles, as the insipid folk-esque musical spoutings of Oregon Catholic Press or the chunky abstract patterns that pass for stained glass windows in many parishes reveal. Those are just cheesy ripoffs of secular music and secular art (and dated ripoffs at that.)

So why isn’t contemporary Christian art better than it is?

15-year-old guest blogger on B-16 youth rally

SDG here with a belated guest blog post from a 15-year-old who saw B16 at the youth rally. His excitement is palpable. The Church belongs to the young!

This weekend I was blessed to be able to visit the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, on his first Pastoral Visit to the United States. People flocked from the far corners of the Americas to see the Vicar of Christ. They came by the thousands hoping to catch a glimpse of the Pope. They stood on street corners in expectation of a momentary view as he drove by. Those who saw him will tell you that it is a meeting, even if for only a second, that they will treasure for all their lives.

But why did they come to see him? What did they see in the Vicar of Christ that inspired them to come from all around the globe to just to hear him?

The Pope made a visit to America, but those who watched on TV, or listened on the radio, or actually saw him, would say that they came to see him; that America came to see the Pope. People throughout the Western Hemisphere flocked to the Holy Father; it was not the other way around. The Pope came to bring the Truth to us; instead the Americas came to find the Truth in him. People have always been in search of happiness and many times they look in all the wrong places. They search for happiness and truth, for they are one, happiness is found only in the discovery of the Truth, and the discovery of the Truth begets happiness or more correctly joy and peace. Many, however, look for these two things in the world and fail to delve into the unknown glory of the realm of the Spiritual. People came to see the Holy Father because they saw in him both happiness and Truth.

In turn, the Holy Father was eager to share the Truth with us. He came with a message that called all Christians throughout the world to Holiness, a message that called us to Christ. He brought Hope to many who had lost Hope. At the Youth Rally he called the future Church of America to truly live their freedom. For freedom is not the right to choose between good and evil, but the ability to do good. He called the young people to silence, to meditation. He called them to find their vocation, to discover what God has planned for them to do in their life on Earth. He asked them to seriously consider the religious life.

And the young people of the Western Hemisphere responded with cheers of “We Love You Benedict”. They became so loud, that the Pope in his eagerness to get his message out, had to raise his hand and calm the crowd. Every time he stood up, or sat down, or spoke, he was greeted with cheers. The Pope showed how much he loved the children on the steps of Saint Patrick’s in his embrace of a small baby, and the youth showed their love for their Leader in their cheers and in their presence.

Benedict returned to Rome, the capitol of Christianity, on Sunday night, April 17th. However, his message and his image will be engraved upon the hearts and minds of all those who saw him forever. He now is thousands of miles away in Italy, but for those who saw him on TV, heard him on the radio, or were there with him, he will never leave.

Viva Le Papa!