Month: May 2005

Leslie Burke

A guestblogger from over The Pond writes:

I would like to bring to your attention the case of Leslie Burke, a Brit who is fighting for the right to live.  Mr. Burke has a degenerative brain disorder and knows that in the future he will be incapacitated to such an extent that he will be unable to request the basic neccessities to maintain his life, ie; food and water….I wonder if you would be interested in blogging about this as my humble blog doesn’t get too many visits and I would like for people to witness this marvellously positive public hail for recognition of the value of even a ‘suffering’ and incapacitated life…particularly in light of the tragedy of Terri Schiavo’s murder.

To read more about the case for Leslie Burke;


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4551265.stm

No prob! I hope folks will read more about Mr. Burke’s case, and I hope he fares better than Terri did.

I also invite folks to STOP BY YOUR BLOG.

Saddle Up!

Ho-okay, folks! Yesterday’s post on non-infallible teachings set the cat among the pidgeons in a bigger way than I anticipated in regard to Ordinatio sacerdotalis (OS). I figgered some folks would take exception to what I said (I always figger that), but I didn’t anticipate the lengthy combox smash-’em-up derby that resulted.

In fact, I haven’t been able to read the whole thing, so I may miss addressing some points that folks have raised, in which case I’m sure I’ll get (nice and polite) emails asking for clarification.

Let’s start with the basics in approaching Ordinatio sacerdotalis. The basic presumption, on any Magisterial teaching, is that it isn’t taught with the charism of infallibility engaged until the contrary is shown. The Code of Canon Law provides:

No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident [Can. 749 ยง3].

That means that, if you want to claim that OS defined a doctrine (as opposed to affirming that a doctrine had already been infallibly defined by the ordinary Magisterium) then it needs to be "manifestly evident" that OS defines it. Not "maybe, kinda, sorta, perhaps, boy-o-boy-I’d-sure-like-it-to-be" evident. Manifestly evident.

So how do we know when that’s the case? Well, some folks immediately head for Vatican II or even the Code of Canon Law to tell us when the pope engages his infallibility, but neither of these contain definitions of when the pope’s exercise of infallibility is engaged. The Code of Canon Law isn’t infallible, and neither are the documents of Vatican II since they attempted no new definitions, and certainly no new definition on this point. (His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI will back me up on that.) While what the Code and Vatican II have to say on infallibility can be useful, it is not itself infallibly defined on this point.

I therefore prefer to go to Vatican I, which does contain an infallible definition of when the pope’s infallibility is engaged. To wit:

[W]e teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals [Pastor aeternus 4].

Let’s pull this apart. What we have is three nested statements here:

[W]e teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that

when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,

that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church,

he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals [Pastor aeternus 4].

The words in bold black are the council’s set-up to tell us what points they’re defining. The basic definition is in bold blue: "When the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA . . . he possesses . . . that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals."

Okay, so how do we know when he speaks ex cathedra? The answer is in bold red: He speaks ex cathedra "when, (1) in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, (2) in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, (3) he defines (4) a doctrine concerning faith or morals (5) to be held by the whole Church."

Now let’s match that up to what JPII of happy memory said in OS:

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful [OS 4].

How are the conditions laid out by Vatican I fulfilled or not fulfilled by this statement?

The easiest to get out of the way is condition 5. It is clear that JPII intended this "to be held by the whole Church" since he says the teaching on women’s ordination "is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful." Nuff said. Condition 5 fulfilled.

So are conditions 1 and 2. JPII said that he was undertaking this action "in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren," which is a direct allusion to a Petrine text (Luke 22:32), meaning that he’s invoking his supreme apostolic authority (condition 2), which means that he’s also acting in his capacity as shepherd and teacher of all Christians (condition 1).

That condition 4 is fulfilled is (a) obvious on its face and (b) was confirmed by the Responsum ad dubium issued by the CDF a year after OS and approved by JPII. Thus the Responsum affirmed that the teaching on the ordination of women "is to be understood as belonging to the deposit of faith."

That leaves us with condition 3: "he defines."

Did John Paul II define the doctrine concerning women’s ordination in OS 4? No, he didn’t. He did say that the doctrine "is to be definitively held" but this phrase fails to specify why it is to be definitively held. It could be because he himself is defining it or because a prior pope defined it or because an ecumenical council defined it orbecause the ordinary and universal Magisterium has defined it. The basis on which the teaching is definitive is thus not locked in by the mere appearance of the word "definitive" in a papal text. It doesn’t mean that this pope is defining it this time.

The phrase that he would be expected to use to signal that he is making a definitive act would be the verb "I define." We would expect him to say "I declare and define," but he doesn’t say that. He simply says "I declare." Those aren’t the same thing.

Despite the desire some may have to equate them, they simply do not mean the same thing in ecclesiastical usage. Nor can "I declare" be construed as merely an "updating" of "I define." John Paul II said "I declare and define" more throughout his career–both before and after OS–than any other pope in history, because this is the formula used in canonizing saints. If JPII then avoided the verb "define" it wasn’t because he was shy of using it or wanted it updated to a new verb. It was because he didn’t intend to make his act a definition.

In fact, unless the pope accompanies a phrase like "is to be definitively held" by the phrase "I define" (as in "I define . . . therefore it is to be held definitively") then it would suggest that the basis for the definitive holding is something other than what he has just said.

Thus, despite conditions 1-2 and 4-5 being fulfilled, condition 3 simply is not. The pope avoided using the expected phrasing form making a definition, nor did he substitute new phrasing that made it "manifestly evident" that he did so.

Therefore, while the teaching on women’s ordination is infallible and definitively to be held, it wasn’t because John Paul II engaged his infallibilit in OS. The Church’s infallibility had already been engaged on this point, and he did now engage his own here.

Now maybe it’s just Jimmy Akin who says that.

‘Cept it’s not.

Y’know who else says that?

The pope!

Then-Cardinal Ratzinger, now His Holiness Benedict XVI, addressed this subject more than once. In the Responsum ad dubium, he wrote in his official capacity as head of the CDF (and the response being approved by JPII himself–and in 1995 no less, when he was still quite healthy, so no appealing to his later illness as meaning he was "out of it" when he approved this):

This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 25, 2). Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith.

Now, I know giving a careful reading to Vatican documents can be tedious, so I’ve highlighted the main portions of what is here said. Ratzinger holds for the basis of definitive assent as the doctrine having "been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium." In referring to John Paul II’s action, he refers to it as "a formal declaration"–not a definition.

Not clear enough for ‘ya?

Fine enough. Let’s look at the Reflections on OS that were published by Ratzinger at the same time the Responsum was released. In this document he says:

In the Letter [Ordinatio sacerdotalis], as the Reply of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith also explains, the Roman Pontiff, having taken account of present circumstances, has confirmed the same teaching by a formal declaration, giving expression once again to "quod semper, quad ubique et quod ab omnibus tenendum est, utpote ad fidei depositum pertinens." In this case, an act of the ordinary papal Magisterium, in itself not infallible, witnesses to the infallibility of the teaching of a doctrine already possessed by the Church.

Want more? Gotcha covered! In the Ratzinger-written CDF Doctrinal Commentary On The Concluding Formula Of The Professio Fidei, he says:

A similar process can be observed in the more recent teaching regarding the doctrine that priestly ordination is reserved only to men. The Supreme Pontiff, while not wishing to proceed to a dogmatic definition, intended to reaffirm that this doctrine is to be held definitively, since, founded on the written Word of God, constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.

So. It ain’ just Jimmy Akin who interprets OS as a non-definitive act. It’s the pope. (Unless he’s had a change of heart since he wrote these things–a supposition for which we have no evidence.)

There are no "contortions"involved in coming to this conclusion. The pope simply didn’t use the word that he normally used in making definitions and he didn’t use other language making it "manifestly evident" that this is what he was doing. Therefore, he didn’t do it. I would have loved it if he did, but he didn’t, and it’s my job to be straight with folks about this fact.

Auctioning Off The Popemobile

No, not the car of the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger that you heard so much about after the election of Pope Benedict XVI. Apparently, the only car Karol Cardinal Wojtyla, later Pope John Paul II, ever owned is in litigation because a father and son are fighting over who it rightfully belongs to:

“The powder blue, four-door 1975 Ford Escort is expected to go for as much as $5 million but Jerome Rich says his son Jim has no right to sell it.

“Jim Rich obtained the keys to the car from the pontiff himself a decade ago after purchasing it through an Indiana auction house for $102,000, said lawyer Wade Joyner, who represents Jerome Rich.

“Jim Rich put the car on display under glass at his suburban Chicago restaurant but the establishment closed a year ago. He has said he now wants to auction the car on June 5 at the Mandalay Bay resort in Las Vegas to pay off debts owed his father.”

GET THE STORY.

Idea! Get a welder to split the car in half and then give it to the person who is willing to let the other have it.

Non-Infallible Teachings

A reader writes:

Is there such a thing as non-infallible church teaching?

Yes. In fact, as Cardinal Dulles points out in his book The Splendor Of Faith, most of the Church’s teachings are proposed non-infallibly.

If the Holy Father makes a statement in an encyclical or an apostolic letter is that considered infallible (for instance, the ordination of women is not possible).

Okay, this one isn’t so much a question as a sentence fragment. However, lemme answer what I think you’re asking: John Paul II’s statement in Ordinatio sacerdotalis that it has already been definitively settled that the Church has no authority to ordain women to the priesthood is not itself an infallible statement. That means that he could be wrong about it since he didn’t say it under the protection of inallibility. I don’t think that he was wrong. I think he was right and that it has been definitively (and thus infallibly) settled by the ordinary Magisterium, but the pope’s mention of this fact without engaging his infallibility–by definition–does not a mount to an infallible exercise of his Magisterium.

How about everything contained in the Catechism… is that all infallible teaching of the Church?

Nope. SEE HERE.

This question comes about because I read an article in Commonweal magazine written by Charles Curran. He stated that it’s ok to disagree with non-infallible Church teaching. I’m not really sure what would fall into that category. From time to time I like to annoy myself by reading articles from these liberal "Catholic" publications. It also helps me to prepare my arguments in defense of the Magesterium.

Okay, Charlie Curran ain’t a reliable guide to what is and is not theologically "okay." That’s why he was stripped of his ability to teach Catholic theology.

The Second Vatican Council noted that

In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking [Lumen Gentium 25].

There can, however, be circumstances in which a church man (even the pope) speaks in a way that does not engage his Magisterial authority, in which case the faithful are not bound to adhere to what he says because he is not engaging his authority and thus not making what he says authoritative.

There are also cases in which a non-infallible utterance can be found so problematic that a theologian (or a member of the faithful) may find himself unable to give assent to it, in which case a different set of conditions kick in. These are most fully articulated in THIS INSTRUCTION FROM THE CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH AND SIGNED BY THEN-CARDINAL RATZINGER.

These facts indicate that it is not simply "okay" to dissent from non-infallible (but still authoritative) teachings of the Church.

As far as finding out what falls in the infallible category, I generally recomment getting a copy of Ludwig Ott’s FUNDAMENTALS OF CATHOLIC DOMA. Anything he lists with a theological note of sent. certa or above is probably infallible.

His Brain, Her Brain

A piece back I posted about a study of how newborn infants reacted to certain stimuli within the first day after birth. The study found that girl babies were more attracted to faces above their crimbs even at this very early age, while boy babies were more attractice to mobiles hanging above their cribs. This was congruent with the long-standing observation that in certain respects girls are more drawn to personal and boys to impersonal things, as when girls are more interested later in childhood in playing with dolls while boy are more interested in playing with cars.

Even though this study was one at only one day of age, an extreme "sex doesn’t matter" type might claim that it was nevertheless some form of covert socialization in the first day after birth that produced the difference.

This claim, of course, would be insane. Children one day old cannot be socialized–certainly not in so subtle a manner. The neurology the need for that kind of socialization just ain’t there yet.

But lest we leave a stone unturned, let’s try a similar experiment with vervet monkeys.

Only we don’t have to, ’cause someone already did.

EXCERPT:

Several intriguing behavioral studies add to the evidence that some sex differences in the brain arise before a baby draws its first breath. Through the years, many researchers have demonstrated that when selecting toys, young boys and girls part ways. Boys tend to gravitate toward balls or toy cars, whereas girls more typically reach for a doll. But no one could really say whether those preferences are dictated by culture or by innate brain biology.

To address this question, Melissa Hines of City University London and Gerianne M. Alexander of Texas A&M University turned to monkeys, one of our closest animal cousins. The researchers presented a group of vervet monkeys with a selection of toys, including rag dolls, trucks and some gender-neutral items such as picture books. They found that male monkeys spent more time playing with the "masculine" toys than their female counterparts did, and female monkeys spent more time interacting with the playthings typically preferred by girls. Both sexes spent equal time monkeying with the picture books and other gender-neutral toys.

Because vervet monkeys are unlikely to be swayed by the social pressures of human culture, the results imply that toy preferences in children result at least in part from innate biological differences. This divergence, and indeed all the anatomical sex differences in the brain, presumably arose as a result of selective pressures during evolution. In the case of the toy study, males–both human and primate–prefer toys that can be propelled through space and that promote rough-and-tumble play. These qualities, it seems reasonable to speculate, might relate to the behaviors useful for hunting and for securing a mate. Similarly, one might also hypothesize that females, on the other hand, select toys that allow them to hone the skills they will one day need to nurture their young.

GET THE STORY.

Incidentally, the "what baby monkeys like to play with" difference is only one of a number of interesting sex-based mental differences the article discusses–both among different kinds of animals and among humans.

The Theological Depth-Charge?

A reader writes:

No response required, Jimmy;

    I just wanted to thank you for your blog.  I’m a 30-something cradle-Catholic (five years old to orthodoxy).  Your site is a daily affirmation (shudder at the word) that I can be orthodox AND rant against the death of Trip Tucker (a death about which I am particularly bitter.)  The mix of apologetics, canon law, pop culture, and sci-fi (etc) on your site are a real pleasure.

    Anecdote: Also thought I’d mention that a friend and I recently partook of that drink touted by some as the Theological Depth-Charge (a shot of Benedict dropped into a pint of Heineken or other German beer.)  My buddy and I are highschool religion teachers up here in Canada and we recently went to a religious educator’s conference in the mountains (nice Rocky Mountain locale, too many leftists.)  One day we noted that we had yet to hear of our pontiff spoken of in any better terms that "Ratzinger" or more commonly, "Jospeh Ratzinger."   There was no respect there. 

So, we decided that we could somehow defend our pontiff by partaking of the Theological Depth-Charge (which we renamed the B-16… it works on so many levels!)  We marched down to the lounge and were dismayed to hear they had no Benedict, only B&B.  We forged on, using the B&B instead (an Ecumenical B-16.)

    The drink was foul (brandy in beer?  who’d’a thunk?) but we were triumphant, at least until my gut started to churn.  It was like our pontiff saying "Thanks, boys, but you know… there are consequences to what you do."  The next day we heard similar comments but, as we had found that the B-16 was a more rigorous experience than we’d expected, we chose to speak up instead.

I’m afraid that I haven’t heard of Benedict (the brandy, not the pope) or B&B (bed & breakfast?). Perhaps they are distinctly Canadian brands (or perhaps not; I’m ignorant of such things).

Was intrigued to hear of your unique idea for "defending" (in the sense of honoring or commemorating) our beloved holy father, though I tend to think y’all should go with the telepathic communique you got from him: In wartime or not, depth charges should be treated with great caution.

The Diet Of Worms

IMPORTANT NOTE: Do not pronounce "Diet of Worms" as it it was a new weight-loss fad involving nematodes. A "diet" is an assembly and "Worms" is a German place-name pronounced with a /v/ sound on the front of the word. "Diet of Vorms" is more how it sounds. Think: Frau Blucher!

Today–May 25, is the anniversary of the Edict of Worms, which was issued in 1521 against Martin Luther and his writings.

GET THE STORY.

Confirmation Age

A reader writes:

I think it’s canon 891 and 883 or there abouts, also CCC 1307 that talks to the Sacrament of Confirmaion.

It’s canon 891 that determines the age under universal law. (Canon 883 deals with another matters, and the CCC is not a legal text and so does not establish legal requirements.)

Here is what canon 891 provides:

The sacrament of confirmation is to be
conferred on the faithful at about the age of discretion unless the conference
of bishops has determined another age, or there is danger of death, or in the
judgment of the minister a grave cause suggests otherwise [SOURCE].

The reader asks:

Does the term "the age of discretion" as the reference point for receiving Confirmation mean that children should be confirmed at an early age (7 years old)?

Yes, as a general matter. (Compare CANON 11.)

How does that sync with many parish programs that have the child wait until a later age (teens in High School)?

See below.

Are they vaild programs?

Educational programs are not valid or invalid. I assume taht you mean: "Is it licit to administer the sacrament of confirmation to children only after they are in their teen years?" Yes, in the United States. See below.

 

Does the Church accually spell out a specific age for Confirmation?…in the Latin Rite?

No, it doesn’t.

The universal law of the Latin Church as found in the Code of Canon Law provides that the sacrament of confirmation, in general, be adminsitered at about the age of discretion, which is generally taken to be seven years old.

However, you will note that canon 891, quoted above, provides that the conference of bishops may determine a different age. In the United States, the conference of bishops has passed (and the Vatican has ratified) the following complementary norm:

The National Conference of Catholic Bishops, in accord with the
prescriptions of canon 891, hereby decrees that the Sacrament of
Confirmation in the Latin Rite shall be conferred between the age of
discretion and about sixteen years of age, within the limits determined
by the diocesan bishop and with regard for the legitimate exceptions
given in canon 891 [SOURCE].

So, presently in the United States, confirmation can be licitly administered at a wide variety of ages, dependent on the will of the diocesan bishop.

As an aside, it seems to me that this situation may not last. Given the current mobility of American society, folks move from one diocese to another all the time, making it very easy for individuals to "fall through the cracks" and not get confirmed. This creates a pastoral situation that may well be redressed by re-mandating a single age of confirmation at some point in the future.