Year: 2010

America’s 1st Approved Apparition Was WHAT???

Mary2Yesterday’s news reports that Our Lady of Good Help had just become America’s first approved apparition caused many folks to do a doubletake.

Some wondered whether Our Lady of Guadalupe should count as such since Mexico is part of North America. If one wants to say that Guadalupe was North America’s first approved apparition, fine. However, one can’t say Guadalupe was “America’s” first approved apparition since, when used in the singular, “America” refers to the United States of America. The continent Mexico is part of is “North America,” and the overall landmass that includes “South America” is known as “the Americas” (plural, with the definite article).

But enough linguistic hairsplitting!

Others had the question, “What about Our Lady of America? Wasn’t that already approved?”

The short but understandably surprising answer is “no.” It’s not approved.

“But didn’t then-Archbishop/now-Cardinal Raymond Burke issue a letter in 2007 that said it was approved?”

Again, the short but understandably surprising answer is “no.” He didn’t.

The reason that the answer is understandably surprising is that he did in 2007 send a letter to the U.S. bishops explaining Our Lady of America, speaking highly of it, and noting that the devotion connected with it has been approved, but this is not the same as saying that apparition itself is approved.

Am I just linguistic hairsplitting again?

Not according to the Holy See—or, more specifically, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. I’m actually articulating a point that the CDF wants people to understand.

Lemme ‘splain.

Back in 1978 the CDF issued an instruction on apparitions which was privately (sub secreto) circulated to the bishops of the world. Because it was so widely circulated, it was leaked, which means that now you can read a copy of it in English here. These represent the norms currently in force to guide bishops in dealing with apparitions.

So what do the norms say?

A key passage describes a three-stage process that apparition approval is to follow (assuming the approval happens at all; the process can be aborted at any stage):

So that the ecclesiastical authority is able to acquire more certainty on such or such an apparition or revelation, it will proceed in the following way:

a) Initially, to judge the facts according to positive and negative criteria (cf. below, n.1).

b) Then, if this examination appears favorable, to allow certain public demonstrations of cult and devotion, while continuing to investigate the facts with extreme prudence (which is equivalent to the formula: “for the moment, nothing is opposed to it”).

c) Finally, after a certain time, and in the light of experience, (starting from a particular study of the spiritual fruits generated by the new devotion), to give a judgement on the authenticity of the supernatural character, if the case requires this.

Stage 1 is thus for the bishop to do an initial investigation. If that checks out then in Stage 2 he may provisionally authorize public demonstrations of cult and devotion in connection with the apparition while continuing a diligent examination. Then, after more time and investigation, should the circumstances warrant, he may in Stage 3 approve the apparition itself.

The final Stage 3 approval of the apparition is distinct from the provisionary Stage 2 authorization of public devotion. That is why the CDF norms gloss this authorization by saying it is equivalent to “for the moment, nothing is opposed to it.”

“For the moment, nothing is opposed to it” is not the same as what Bishop Ricken said yesterday concerning Our Lady of Good Help, which was:

It remains to me now, the Twelfth Bishop of the Diocese of Green Bay and the lowliest of the servants of Mary, to declare with moral certainty and in accord with the norms of the Church:

that the events, apparitions and locutions given to Adele Brise in October, 1859 do exhibit the substance of supernatural character, and I do hereby approve these apparitions as worthy of belief (although not obligatory) by the Christian faithful.

That’s a Stage 3 approval: The apparition itself, not just devotion connected with it, has been recommended to the faithful as worthy of (non-obligatory) belief.

So what is the status of Our Lady of America?

Basically, it’s at Stage 2—the same stage that Our Lady of Good Help was at until December 8th. Some years ago the local bishop (who was himself the seer’s former spiritual director) authorized devotion connected with Our Lady of America, and granted an imprimatur to a book connected with it (which is a totally separate issue, canonically), but neither previous local bishops nor the current local bishop has given Stage 3 authorization to the apparition itself.

If you read now-Cardinal Burke’s letter carefully (you can read it here), he is careful always to speak of the devotion having been approved. He never says that the apparition itself has been approved.

That’s because of its Stage 2 status. The local bishop (who was not Burke; this was when Burke was Archbishop of St. Louis, but the Our Lady of America phenomena were reported in the dioceses of Fort Wayne and Toledo) had not proceeded to Stage 3. Burke is thus giving an interesting and supportive treatment of the apparition and the devotion connected with it, but he only claims formal approval for the devotion.

This distinction is one that the CDF wants the public to understand because a little later on in the norms it has more to say about Stage 2 situations. Section II, 2 of the document states:

At the legitimate request of the faithful (when they are in communion with their pastors and are not driven by a sectarian spirit), the competent ecclesiastical Authority can intervene to authorize and promote various forms of worship and devotion if, assuming the criteria given above having been applied, nothing is opposed to it. But there must be vigilance nevertheless, to ensure that the faithful do not regard this way of acting as an approval by the Church of the supernatural character of the event in question. . . .

So the distinction between Stage 2 approval (of devotion related to the apparition) and Stage 3 approval (of the supernatural character of the apparition) is something that the CDF itself wants the public to understand.

Presumably, the CDF expects bishops granting Stage 2 approval to stress the difference between the two, so that the public understands.

It is evident from the confusion in this case, though, that more work needs to be done in alerting the public to this difference.

BTW, in his letter on Our Lady of America Cardinal Burke alludes to some question of the canonical status of a “community” (actually, it appears to be just one person) promoting Our Lady of America. He rightly notes that the status of this community is a separate canonical question from whether the devotion has been approved. But this passage in his letter is bound to raise curiosity about what the issues are connected with this community and what the current local bishops’ stand is. Therefore . . .

HERE’S A STATEMENT FROM THE DIOCESE OF TOLEDO ON THE SITUATION

What are your thoughts?

Diocesan Statement On OLA Center

STATEMENT OF THE DIOCESE OF TOLEDO REGARDING THE CENTER DEVOTED TO “OUR LADY OF AMERICA” IN FOSTORIA (SENECA CO.), OHIO

In response to a number of inquiries which have been received, the Diocese of Toledo wishes to provide the following clarifications:

  • References have been made in promotional materials to The Our Lady of America center in Fostoria (Seneca Co.), Ohio. However, it should be noted that the Diocese of Toledo has never been asked to give, nor has it given, any approbation or recognition to the center or its activities.
  • References have also been made in promotional materials to “The Contemplative Sisters” of Our Lady of the Nativity Convent in Fostoria.  It should be pointed out that there is no canonically recognized religious community connected with the center.  There is one individual, Patricia Ann Fuller, who identifies herself as Sister Joseph Therese.  She is not a member of a canonical institute of consecrated life, having been dismissed from the Society of the Precious Blood community in 1982 after she and two other sisters, now deceased, left the order to live their own contemplative way of life.
  • Patricia Ann Fuller maintains that she has continued to live as a Religious, and that it is her intention eventually to found a new community of women devoted to the promotion of “Our Lady of America.” At this point, no canonical steps have been requested or taken in this regard. Patricia Ann Fuller has met with Bishop Blair of Toledo and has assured him of her desire to act in full harmony with the Church.
  • In a letter to the Bishops of the United States dated May 31, 2007, Archbishop Raymond Burke offered his positive assessment of the history and content of devotion to Our Lady of America. The following words of Archbishop Burke have the full endorsement of Bishop Blair of Toledo: “Some have raised with me the canonical question regarding the status of Our Lady of the Nativity Convent in Seneca County, Ohio, which has been the residence of any remaining member of the suppressed contemplative branch of the Congregation of Sisters of the Most Precious Blood of Jesus. In response, I observe that the canonical question has no bearing on the devotion or its approbation.”

September 10, 2008

 

America Gets Its 1st Approved Apparition!

OlghYippie!

Approved apparitions are cool!

The apparition took place in 1859 in what is now the Diocese of Green Bay, Wisconsin. For the last two years a diocesan commission has been evaluating its authenticity, and on Wednesday (Dec. 8, the feast of the Immaculate Conception), Bishop David Ricken announced its approval.

Apparently, he was surprised to learn that this was the first such approval of an apparition in the United States. He also reportedly was surprised to learn that it hadn’t already been approved since his predecessor bishops had supported it (albeit without giving it formal approval—note well that this is something that can happen; just because a bishop says something nice about an apparition does not mean it has been formally approved).

As this is the first American approval of an apparition, it is instructive to see the kind of language that Bishop Ricken used (most other such approvals were done pre-Internet and/or in other languages and thus have not been seen by most).

THE COMPLETE TEXT OF HIS DECREE CAN BE READ HERE (.pdf)

After the bishop briefly reviews the history of the apparition and the investigation of it, he arrives at the money part:

It remains to me now, the Twelfth Bishop of the Diocese of Green Bay and the lowliest of the servants of Mary, to declare with moral certainty and in accord with the norms of the Church:

that the events, apparitions and locutions given to Adele Brise in October, 1859 do exhibit the substance of supernatural character, and I do hereby approve these apparitions as worthy of belief (although not obligatory) by the Christian faithful.

These Marian apparitions are now commemorated under the title “Our Lady of Good Help,” and there is a corresponding shrine in Champion, Wisconsin.

So what happened in 1859?

A young woman named Adele Brise—28-year old Belgian immigrant to what was then the American frontier—was taking wheat to a local mill when she saw a lady in white standing between two trees (and, yes, she did report the lady as having golden hair in the vision, which would most likely be based on Adele’s ethnic background). The lady then vanished. She saw the same thing the next day. At first Adele thought the lady might be a soul in purgatory who needed prayers, and she was frightened. She communicated this to several people, one of whom, a local priest,

told her that if it were a heavenly messenger, she would see it again, and it would not harm her, but to ask in God’s name who it was and what it desired of her.

 

Note that these are a paraphrase of the two classic, basic questions, “Who are you?” and “What do you want?” (I once recommended the same questions to a child who called in to Catholic Answers Live reporting that he heard a voice from an unknown source—if the voice came back. Unfortunately, I never heard whether it did or what the voice answered. But I’m glad to see the advice I gave in modern times echoed in this case. They seem to me the best questions to ask of an unknown, possibly supernatural agency.)

Meanwhile, back in 1859, what happened next?

After that, Adele had more courage. She started home with her two companions, and a man who was clearing land for the Holy Cross Fathers at Bay Settlement accompanied them.

“As they approached the hallowed spot, Adele could see the beautiful lady, clothed in dazzling white, with a yellow sash around her waist. Her dress fell to her feet in graceful folds. She had a crown of stars around her head, and her long, golden, wavy hair fell loosely around her shoulders. Such a heavenly light shone around her that Adele could hardly look back at her sweet face. Overcome by this heavenly light and the beauty of her amiable visitor, Adele fell on her knees.

” ‘In God’s name, who are you and what do you want of me?’ asked Adele, as she had been directed.

“ ‘I am the Queen of Heaven, who prays for the conversion of sinners, and I wish you to do the same. You received Holy Communion this morning, and that is well. But you must do more. Make a general confession, and offer Communion for the conversion of sinners. If they do not convert and do penance, my Son will be obliged to punish them’

“ ‘Adele, who is it?’’ said one of the women. ‘O why can’t we see her as you do?’ said another weeping.

“ ‘Kneel,’ said Adele, ‘the Lady says she is the Queen of Heaven.’ Our Blessed Lady turned, looked kindly at them, and said, ‘Blessed are they that believe without seeing. What are you doing here in idleness…while your companions are working in the vineyard of my Son?’

“ ‘What more can I do, dear Lady?’ said Adele, weeping.

“ ‘Gather the children in this wild country and teach them what they should know for salvation’

“ ‘But how shall I teach them who know so little myself?’ replied Adele.

“ ‘Teach them,’ replied her radiant visitor, ‘their catechism, how to sign themselves with the sign of the Cross, and how to approach the sacraments; that is what I wish you to do. Go and fear nothing. I will help you.’”

The manifestation of Our Lady then lifted her hands, as though beseeching a blessing for those at her feet, and slowly vanished, leaving Adele overwhelmed and prostrate on the ground [SOURCE].

And that was all, in terms of the apparitions. They were short and straightforward.

Following this, Adele devoted herself wholeheartedly and despite obstacles to her mission of educating children. She became a Third Order Franciscan Sister. Many people began to hold pilgrimages to the site, where a shrine was built. Healings were reported, and twelve years later the site of the shrine was spared from a tremendous wildfire that scorched large swaths of forest around it.

And so, given the convergence of (1) the (obvious) compatibility of the message with the Christian faith, (2) the revolution in the life of Sr. Adele, and (3) the apparent fruit—including apparent answered prayer—that followed the apparition in the lives of others, Bishop Ricken approved the apparition, concluding with “moral certainty” (not absolute certainty) that it was of divine origin and could be recommended to the faithful as such, though this recommendation does not carry an obligation of belief. One is free to discount the idea that the apparition is of supernatural origin, and in doing so one does not sin.

While apparitions differ from one to another, it may be noted that this case corresponds fairly closely to the core paradigm for approved Marian apparitions, which may be phrased along these lines: On a limited number of occasions, the Virgin Mary appears to a young, uneducated person—usually female—and imparts a message of that proclaims no new doctrine but instead conveys both warning and consolation focusing on the salvation of souls and suggesting a way to promote this; the life of the visionary is revolutionized, and the visionary pursues some form of religious vocation (if not already undertaken); the visionary seeks the guidance of competent authorities in the evaluation of the manifestations and is obedient to ecclesiastical authority; some form of further evidence of answered prayer or the miraculous is forthcoming.

So.

America gets its first approved apparition. Kewl beans.

And, its a straightforward and uncomplicated one that should be uncontroversial and thus serve to highlight it as a useful spiritual signpost. Kewler still.

OFFICIAL SITE OF THE SHRINE.

BIO OF THE VISIONARY, ADELE BRISE.

ACCOUNT OF THE APPARITIONS.

REGISTER COVERAGE.

Pope Benedict on Mystical Experiences

Pope-benedictRight now in his weekly catecheses, Pope Benedict is giving a series of meditations on female saints from the Middle Ages. Many of them are mystics, and in the first meditation—on St. Hildegard of Bingen—he offers his thoughts on some of the marks of a genuine mystic.

He states:

During the years when she was superior of the Monastery of St Disibodenberg, Hildegard began to dictate the mystical visions that she had been receiving for some time to the monk Volmar, her spiritual director, and to Richardis di Strade, her secretary, a sister of whom she was very fond. As always happens in the life of true mystics, Hildegard too wanted to put herself under the authority of wise people to discern the origin of her visions, fearing that they were the product of illusions and did not come from God.

I think it would be a mistake, here, to assume that the Pope is saying that all genuine mystics must have the kind of fears that St. Hildegard did regarding the authenticity of her visions. One can easily imagine a child visionary, for example, being utterly convinced of the divine origin of his or her experiences. But with the reflectivity of adulthood, a visionary should be willing to acknowledge the possibility that their experiences might be the product of the imagination or otherwise not come from God. The key thing, though, was St. Hildegard’s willingness to submit the phenomena she experienced to evaluation by others—something that indeed should be the response of a true visionary, for Scripture tells us:

Do not quench the Spirit, do not despise prophesying, but test everything; hold fast what is good [1 Th. 5:19-21].

And,

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world [1 Jn. 4:1].

Pope Benedict continues:

She thus turned to a person who was most highly esteemed in the Church in those times: St Bernard of Clairvaux, of whom I have already spoken in several Catecheses. He calmed and encouraged Hildegard. However, in 1147 she received a further, very important approval. Pope Eugene iii, who was presiding at a Synod in Trier, read a text dictated by Hildegard presented to him by Archbishop Henry of Mainz. The Pope authorized the mystic to write down her visions and to speak in public. From that moment Hildegard’s spiritual prestige continued to grow so that her contemporaries called her the “Teutonic prophetess”. This, dear friends, is the seal of an authentic experience of the Holy Spirit, the source of every charism: the person endowed with supernatural gifts never boasts of them, never flaunts them and, above all, shows complete obedience to the ecclesial authority. Every gift bestowed by the Holy Spirit, is in fact intended for the edification of the Church and the Church, through her Pastors, recognizes its authenticity.

Given that, right now, there is a commission appointed by the Holy See evaluating the mystical phenomena reported at Medjugorje, it is hard not to review the Medjugorje situation in terms of what Pope Benedict says about St. Hildegard—particularly with the noted controversy between the visionary community and the local bishops.

While we will have to wait and see what the commission determines regarding that situation, Pope Benedict’s remarks on St. Hildegard provide a window into the kind of thinking that the commission is likely to apply.

What do you think?

Irvin Kershner and The Empire Strikes Back … and Harry Potter

SDG here (NOT Jimmy!) with a rare foray from guest-blogging limbo.

I’ve been more than usually busy and had no time to hang out here at JA.o, but I always hope I’ll be back here.

This morning I woke up and read that Irvin Kershner had died, and that seemed to me reason enough.

Why? Because Kershner is best known as the director of The Empire Strikes Back, and it happens that I’ve spent a lot of time recently thinking at length about what a great film The Empire Strikes Back is.

In fact, on Friday I blogged at NCRegister.com on the greatness of The Empire Strikes Back as well as the virtues of another middle film, Peter Jackson’s The Two Towers — in contrast to another penultimate film now in theaters, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1. My piece is called “Harry Potter’s Empire Strikes Back? Don’t Make Me Laugh – 12 reasons why Deathly Hallows: Part 1 is no Empire Strikes Back … or even The Two Towers.”

See, it seems that Deathly Hallows: Part 1 has been racking up critical and fan comparisons to The Empire Strikes Back. Like Kershner’s film, it’s a dark, penultinate film with an ambiguous ending, setting up the triumphant finale.

Now, in a way The Empire Strikes Back invites this sort of comparison, not only because it’s a great film — the best of all the Star Wars films — but also because it’s an archetypally great sequel; the sort of sequel that all sequels want to be, but precious few even approach. It builds on the first film but goes beyond it; it’s a darker and more mature film, but seamless with the world of its predecessor.

George Lucas’s strategy of going darker in the middle chapter has been widely copied, and when you’ve got a darker middle chapter (or penultimate chapter), especially if you’re a fan of the material, it can be an easy leap to make.

But enough is enough. The Empire Strikes Back isn’t just a moodier, grimmer Star Wars. If it had been only that, it might still have been successful, but it wouldn’t be the touchstone that it is today.

What makes The Empire Strikes Back is that it’s grander, more heroic, more romantic, funnier, richer, and in practically all ways more ambitious than its predecessor. And Irvin Kershner, along with screenwriter Lawrence Kasdan (Raiders of the Lost Ark, Silverado) is a big part of the reason why.

The success of Star Wars was enough to earn George Lucas a lot of leeway to make the sequel he wanted to make, but he wasn’t yet so powerful to simply have his own way. Other people — notably Kershner and Kasdan — were able to contribute other perspectives, to help shape Star Wars into something even richer and more satisfying.

The Empire Strikes Back is a collaborative effort, and it’s better for that. The sloppiness of the prequels, and even to an extent Return of the Jedi, is probably significantly because Lucas was increasingly able to do whatever he wanted without having to consider other points of view.

Why is The Empire Strikes Back so much better than Deathly Hallows: Part 1?

Here are 12 reasons.

Are the 15 Promises of the Rosary Reliable?

15promises (Originally appeared on my blog at ncregister.com)

A correspondent writes:

I was wondering if you could comment some time about some of these spiritual promises that allegedly attach to certain prayers or devotions. The 15 promises of the rosary seems to be the most common example, but of course there's more.

There are more–and the reader goes on to name some–but for this post let's look at the alleged 15 promises regarding the rosary.

First, here is a commonly given text of them.

Before we go further, I should comment about a phrase that occurs in the very first promise, because it is not in common use today and startles everybody who runs across it for the first time. According to the first promise, those who pray the rosary faithfully shall receive "signal graces." What are "signal graces?" people ask.

The term "signal," used as an adjective, is not common in contemporary English, but what it means is "notable," "out of the ordinary," "uncommon" (cf. its entry in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary).

So "signal graces" just means "notable graces" or "unusual graces."

The 15 promises were, according to the common claim, "Given to St. Dominic and Blessed Alan." St. Dominic is a familiar figure, but "Blessed Alan" is less well known. He is Alanus de Rupe–also known as Alain de la Roche, and variants. He lived in the 1400s, over 200 years after St. Dominic's time. He reportedly received private revelation that showed him certain things about the life of St. Dominic, including the revelation of the 15 promises. This is why they are claimed to have been "given to St. Dominic and Blessed Alan." We don't have evidence–apart from Alan–that St. Dominic received these promises. The matter comes down to how much credibility one places in Alan's reported private revelation.

So how reliable are they?

It does not appear that there are any significant magisterial documents dealing with the subject. At least, advocates of the 15 promises do not seem to have identified any papal or curial documents affirming them (and there are certainly none from ecumenical councils). There might be some that are not commonly available in English, but until such can be identified it does not appear that the promises have ecclesiastical approbation on the global level.

What about the local level?

Here advocates of the 15 promises have identified something: a commonly printed pamphlet of the promises (pictured) that carries the imprimatur of "Patrick J. Hayes DD Archbishop of New York." (This pamphlet may possibly be excerpted from an earlier work carrying Hayes' imprimatur.)

The imprimatur is not dated, but Hayes was archbishop of New York from 1919 to 1938, so it would presumably have been granted in this period.

What weight would such an imprimatur have?

Actually, not a great deal. Imprimaturs do not mean that something is correct, and they are not the same thing or the equivalent of an ecclesiastical affirmation that a private revelation is authentic. As an archbishop living almost 500 years after Bl. Alan, in a country that had not even been discovered in Alan's time, Cardinal Hayes would not have jurisdiction to judge the authenticity of Alan's private revelation. His granting of the imprimatur, then, must be understood in terms of what imprimaturs normally signified in his day.

So what was that?

The 1917 Code of Canon Law was in effect during Hayes' time as the archbishop of New York, and under this code (as under the present, 1983 Code), there was a two-stage process in which a work would first be examined by a censor of books who would then make a recommendation to the ordinary (in this case, Cardinal Hayes) as to whether the book should be published. In issuing a favorable judgment, the censor would grant what is known as a nihil obstat, which is Latin for "nothing obstructs"–meaning that there is nothing int he book that would obstruct (prevent) its publication. In response to this, the ordinary would then (apart from unusual circumstances) issue the imprimatur which is Latin for "Let it be printed."

Now, the 1917 Code is rather clear on the criteria according to which censors are to grant the nihil obstat (BTW, gotta love the gangster character in a couple of Tim Powers' novels named "Neal Obstat"–nothing obstructs this gangster in pursuit of his ends! He's ruthless.):

 

Canon 1393

§2. Examiners in undertaking their office, leaving off all consideration of persons, shall have before their eyes only the dogmas of the Church and the common Catholic doctrine that is contained in the general decrees of the Councils or constitutions of the Apostolic See or the prescriptions and the thinking of approved doctors.

§3. Censors shall be selected from both clergies [who are] commended by age, erudition, ad prudence, and who in approving and disapproving doctrines, will follow the careful median.

As you can see, the criteria by which a censor is to evaluate a work are rather narrow. His own opinion of the correctness does not come into the matter. If it does not contradict (1) the dogmas of the Church or (2) the common Catholic doctrine of the councils and documents of the Holy See or (3) the prescriptions and thinking of approved doctors then he is not to disapprove it. Instead, he is to "follow the careful median," meaning that as long as the idea in question can claim a reasonable place in the spectrum of Catholic thought, it gets approved.

This understanding is reflected in John Abbo and Jerome Hannan's classic commentary on the 1917 Code, The Sacred Canons. Their commentary on this canon (vol. 2, p. 627) notes:

 

Censors are to be guided, as to matters in which the Church has not spoken, by the unanimous or almost unanimous views of authors. In controverted questions, they shall not refuse a favorable opinion because the book adopts a position at variance with their own. Nor shall they refuse it because they think the publication of the book inopportune, though they may inform the local ordinary of their opinion in this respect.

We may infer from the granting of the imprimatur that the 15 promises got through the nihil obstat stage, but you can see that this does not indicate that the censor believed in the authenticity of Bl. Alan's private revelation or that the promises are genuine–just that they aren't contradicted by the dogmas and doctrines of the Church and approved authors. Not being contradicted by these is not remotely a guarantee of truth.

It could very well be that the validity of these promises was a disputed question and the censor was bound by his obligations to grant the nihil obstat even though he did not personally agree with them.

In fact, there are hints that this may have been the case.

First, the promises were disputed. There had been significant controversy concerning Bl. Alan's purported revelations. According to the 1907 Catholic Encyclopedia,

 

His vision of the restoration of the devotion of the Rosary is assigned to the year 1460. Alanus published nothing during his lifetime, but immediately after his death the brethren of his province were commanded to collect his writings for publication. These were edited at different times and have occasioned much controversy among scholars. His relations of the visions and sermons of St. Dominic, supposed to have been revealed to Alanus, are not to be regarded as historical.

This volume of the encyclopedia, incidentally, also carries the imprimatur. In fact, it carries the imprimatur of Cardinal Hayes's predecessor, John Cardinal Farley, who was Archbishop of New York from 1902 to 1918. The nihil obstat that preceded this imprimatur would have been similarly granted whether the censor believed in the promises or not. It was a controverted question, and within a few years of each other the same archdiocese issued nihil obstats (and imprimaturs) on publications coming down on both sides of the issue–the pamphlet (obviously) approving of them and the Catholic Encyclopedia disapproving of them.

There is also another hint that the censor of the booklet may not have personally agreed with the promises, which is this: His name doesn't appear. The 1917 Code contains a provision which states:

 

Canon 1393

§4. A censor must give the decision in writing. If it is favorable, the Ordinary shall supply the power of publishing, to which, however, shall be attached the judgment of the censor signed in his name. Only in extraordinary cases and hence rarely in the prudent judgment of the Ordinary can mention of the censor be omitted.

The meaning of the statement regarding the omission of the censor's name was unclear to commentators of the day. Some took it to mean that the censor's name and the nihil obstat need to appear in the published work, along with the imprimatur, unless "only in extraordinary cases and hence rarely" the bishop deemed it prudent for this to be omitted.

"I don't agree with these promises, and I don't want my name on them lest people think that I do" would be such a circumstance, and Archbishop Hayes may have withheld the censor's name for that reason, leading to it and the nihil obstat not appearing on the pamphlet.

In fact, for all we know, the censor who approved the pamphlet may have been the same one who reviewed the Catholic Encyclopedia piece disapproving of the promises. We do know that man's name: Remy Lafort, S.T.D. (i.e., "doctor of sacred theology").

That's just speculation, and we can't even ultimately know why the censor's name was withheld, since publishing practice regarding this was inconsistent.

Thus far we've been considering the granting of the nihil obstat by the unknown censor, but what of the imprimatur granted by Cardinal Hayes?

As section 4 of the canon (quoted above) indicates, the granting of the imprimatur by the ordinary is treated as almost automatic: "A censor must give the decision in writing. If it is favorable, the Ordinary shall supply the power of publishing."

While imprimaturs were, and still are, routinely granted based on the recommendation of the censor, there are signal cases (remember that word?) where this isn't the case. Abbo and Hannan note:

 

The appointment of censors does not prohibit the bishop of the vicar general from inspecting books themselves; and even after they have received the opinion of the censor, they may refuse permission for publication, if motivated by a serious justifying reason (ibid.).

What's more, if permission to published was refused, they had to say why it was refused:

 

Canon 1394

§2. But if it seems that permission is to be denied, the reason shall be indicated to the requesting author, unless for a grave cause something else is indicated.

So put yourself in Cardinal Hayes's position: The validity of these promises is a controverted question among Catholic authors, but censors aren't supposed to base the nihil obstat on their own opinions and the nihil obstat has been granted. The Code expects that the imprimatur will follow the nihil obstat unless there is a serious reason why not, and you have to be prepared to tell the publisher what that reason is unless there is a grave reason why not.

"I personally don't think these promises are authentic" is not particular serious reason when the promises have been in circulation, in no doubt numerous publications in different languages, for about 450 years. The publisher could easily respond, "But what about all these other publications they have appeared in? Doesn't that show that these are mainstream enough that the imprimatur should be granted?"

We thus can't infer much about Cardinal Hayes' view of the promises (and, unlike the censor, he could not keep his name off them if he granted an imprimatur). He may have been a big supporter of them–or not. All we can conclude is that he didn't think them so problematic that he would refuse the imprimatur, given the circumstances.

In view of all this, it does not appear that we have sign off on the authenticity of the private revelation or the promises. Unless other documents–with something more than an imprimatur–can be produced, all we can say is that in the view of the Archdiocese of New York sometime in the tenure of Cardinal Hayes it was judged that the promises are not contradicted by (1) the dogmas of the Church or (2) the common Catholic doctrine of the councils and documents of the Holy See or (3) the prescriptions and thinking of approved doctors and that the promises were of a controversial nature, with some (like the publishers of the pamphlet) affirming them and others (like the Catholic Encyclopedia) rejecting them.

What are your thoughts?

The Meaning of “Marital Intercourse”

Humanaevitae Over on his blog, Steve Kellmeyer has a post in which he argues against the claim that recent Magisterial documents using the phrase “conjugal act” are only addressing the use of contraception within marriage. He argues that the phrase “conjugal act” is to be given a broader meaning.

I appreciate the polite tone that Kellmeyer uses (for he is taking me to task here), and I hope to respond in the same way.

I am sympathetic to the desire to find in recent Magisterial statements a ban on contraception regardless of the circumstances. Indeed, I used to hold that this is what the documents said (in part because I was using faulty translations that rendered “coniugale commercium” as “sexual act” rather than “marital act” or, even more literally, “marital congress” or “marital intercourse”).

Over time, and in consultation with various Latin experts and experts in moral theology, I came to realize that this view is incorrect and that in its recent statements the Magisterium has limited itself to treating the use of contraception within marriage.

In the future it may deal with extramarital situations, but we will have to wait to see what it says. It may say that the same principles apply to extramarital sexual acts or it may not. We will have to see.

In his piece, Kellmeyer acknowledges that

[I]t is true that the 20th century Magisterial pronouncements on contraception all discuss the “conjugal act,”

but argues that

it is NOT the case that this phrasing is only meant to reference the sexual act within marriage.

He proposes several arguments for this, but his basic argument is this:

For precedence, we have the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, who clearly forbid the use of contraceptives regardless of the marital state of the participants.

A bit later on he summarizes his basic argument this way:

In order to reconcile the writings of the Fathers with the Magisterial documents which base themselves on the Fathers, we must assume that “conjugal act” does not strictly confine itself to meaning “the sexual act that takes place within marriage”, rather, it must mean “the sexual act that is supposed to take place within marriage (but often does not)”.

For this argument to be sound one would have to show that the phrase “coniugale commercium” (translated in whatever language the Fathers and Doctors were writing in) was used to refer to sexual intercourse without reference to whether it was occurring in marriage.

This would indeed set a precedent for taking the phrase “coniugale commercium” in something other than its obvious, literal sense. If a substantial series of quotations of this nature could be produced (not just one or two here or there, which would be insufficient to show an established usage) then it would show an established prior usage that was broader in semantic range.

Unfortunately, none of the writings that Kellmeyer cites (many of which were drawn from a Fathers Know Best column that I composed) do this.

It may very well be the case that there is an established tradition of condemning contraception both in and outside of marriage, but that does not tell us what the phrase “coniugale commercium” means. The existence of a broad theme does not tell us the meaning of a specific phrase used to express aspects of that theme in a Magisterial document.

Structurally, the argument seems to be something like:

  1. 20th century Magisterial documents use the phrase “coniugale commercium” while condemning contraception.
  2. The passages in these documents that use the phrase “coniugale commercium” must express the totality of any prior Catholic tradition concerning contraception.
  3. There is a prior Catholic tradition that condemns contraception both in an outside of marriage.
  4. Therefore, by using the phrase “coniugale commercium,” 20th century Magisterial documents are condemning contraception both in and outside of marriage.

This argument does not work because the middle premise (line 2) is false. It is not the case that the totality of a prior, broader theme must be what Paul VI is referring to when he uses this phrase.

To the contrary, one cannot take passages from hundreds of years ago that, although on the same general topic, do not use the same language, and insist that they inform the meaning of a single and different phrase in a modern document, contrary to its obvious literal meaning.

I believe firmly in a hermeneutic of continuity, and thus one cannot dismiss a prior, broader tradition as being irrelevant to the modern treatment of contraception. But saying something is relevant to the modern discussion of a broad moral topic is not the same as saying that it must be what was meant by one particular phrase that has an obvious, contrary meaning.

Make no mistake; Latin has a word for “sexual” (i.e., sexualis). If Paul VI had wanted to say “sexual intercourse” in Humanae Vitae then he would have said sexuale commercium.

In fact, he wouldn’t have even needed to say that because the word commercium itself–in context of a sexual discussion–means “intercourse.” (In broader discussions it can refer to non-sexual exchanges, such as social intercourse or business intercourse, but the context tells us that this is the sexual usage.)

What “coniugale” does is specify the kind of intercourse. Not sexual intercourse in general, but specifically marital intercourse: intercourse in marriage.

This is indicated both by the immediate context of the document itself and by the historical context in which the document arose.

Humanae Vitae is not a general meditation on the subject of contraception–the kind of document that might address both marital and extra-marital sex (as with a manual of moral theology). It is specifically a document intended to offer guidance to married couples. This is established as its subject matter from its opening sentences:

The transmission of human life is a most serious role in which married people collaborate freely and responsibly with God the Creator. It has always been a source of great joy to them, even though it sometimes entails many difficulties and hardships.

The fulfillment of this duty has always posed problems to the conscience of married people, but the recent course of human society and the concomitant changes have provoked new questions. The Church cannot ignore these questions, for they concern matters intimately connected with the life and happiness of human beings.

So the purpose of the document is to answer the “new questions” (created by modern socio-economic factors and the new methods of birth control that had been developed–especially the Pill, which did not seem to violate the physical structure of the marital act, the way condoms do) that Humanae Vitae sets out to answer so that married couples may know how to properly live out their vocation.

And the document did not come out of a vacuum. It was the Pope’s 1968 response to the disastrous 1967 report that had been authored (and then leaked to the press) by the Pontificial Commission on Population, Family, and Birth, which had endorsed contraception between married couples.

The Pontificial Commission had been set up during the reign of John XXIII to deal with an upcoming United Nations population conference, but he died before it met. When Paul VI was elected, he expanded and reworked its membership and mission, tasking it in 1964 with answering three questions:

What is the relationship between the primary and secondary ends of marriage? What are the major responsibilities of married couples? How do rhythm [i.e., the rhythm method] and the pill relate to responsible parenthood? [SOURCE].

The Pontifical Commission was not tasked with writing a general moral treatment of human sexuality. It was tasked specifically with analyzing the situation of married couples and their use of contraception in “responsible [and thus marital] parenthood.”

The Commission accordingly crafted a report which, while it was pro-contraception, was focused on the use of contraception by married couples. It is not a general treatise on human sexuality. (READ IT HERE.) 

When the Commission’s pro-contraception report was leaked to the press it caused an enormous raising of expectations that the Pope would approve the Pill, and to combat this Paul VI wrote his final encyclical, which was released the next year. Humanae Vitae is his public response to the Commission’s report and his effort to deal–as he says–with the new questions that married couples face.

When he then uses the Latin words meaning “marital intercourse,” we must recognize that this is exactly what he is talking about.

While I as much as anybody would love for Humanae Vitae to settle all questions on the topic of human sexuality, the fact is that it is a document of deliberately limited scope and that its key passage is focused on the use of contraception in relation to marital intercourse.

It is not possible to shoehorn other elements of prior Catholic thought into this passage because this would violate its clear language and force it to answer questions that it is not attempting to address.

As is often the case with the Magisterium, it moves slowly and in a step-wise manner. It doesn’t tend to take on questions without strong reason. The Church already taught that sex outside of marriage is gravely sinful. The mid 20th century had brought about new socio-economic and technological factors that impinged on the question of sexuality within marriage, and this is what both the Pontifical Commission and Humanae Vitae expressly set out to address.

Rather than being a summation of the whole of Catholic thought on sexuality, Humanae Vitae is a document with a sharply limited scope intended to provide moral and pastoral guidance to married couples facing the challenges of the modern world.

There is a lot more that could be said about this (particularly regarding some of the sources Kellmeyer cites), but I hope this provides a basic response to his central argument.

I am also happy to note that he concludes by stating:

So, is the Holy Father’s private theological opinion correct? Is it the case that the use of the condom with the intent to reduce disease transmission less damnable than using the condom without that intention? Probably. Aquinas, whose love for such fine distinctions is precisely what makes him the greatest doctor of the Church, would almost certainly agree that it was.

And that is heartening.

Indeed it is.