Canon Law – Page 11

Some Food in the Morning & Evening

To wrap up our treatment of the law of fasting, let's look at a question that has occurred to lots of people upon reading Paenitemini's provision that:

The law of fasting allows only one full meal a day, but does not prohibit taking some food in the morning and evening, observing—as far as quantity and quality are concerned—approved local custom.

The question that occurs to people is how much this constrains when people can eat their full meal and their two lesser amounts of food. Do they have to confine one of the smaller portions to the A.M. hours, eat a big lunch as their full meal, and then have only a small amount in the evening (whenever that starts)?

On its face, the passage seems to reflect the eating practice of having only a small breakfast, a big midday meal, and a small evening meal. This practice is common in Italy, and in some other parts of the world, such as (formerly) in the American South (I remember as a boy that my family in Texas referred to the larger midday meal as "dinner" and the evening meal as "supper") and other places where agriculture was a key means of making a living (you need those calories while you're still working, not when you're done or near done for the day).

Is the pope mandating this eating pattern for Catholics all over the world on days of fast, regardless of their culture and what their bodies are used to?

This does not seem plausible.

First, as we have noted (and will see further in my Monday post), the overall project here is one of relaxing the legal requirements regarding penance. This is obvious just from looking at the dramatic drop in the number of days on which fasting was required. Prior to Paenitemini there were waaaaay more days of fast on the calendar than afterwards. This document dropped it from dozens to two.

Combine this with the following passage from the 1917 Code of Canon Law regarding the law of fasting and an interesting situation results.

Can. 1251 §2. It is not forbidden to mix meat and fish in the same meal; or to exchange the evening meal with lunch.

The first part of this refers to a prior requirement (prior to the 1917 Code) that prohibited mixing meat and fish during the same meal on days of fast (but not abstinence) during Lent.

The second part expressly permits exchanging lunch and supper as the full meal (I'm avoiding the word "dinner" to avoid confusion).

This was part of the law up until Paenitemini, when the Church's laws regarding penance were integrally reordered.

Ordinarily when something expressly allowed in the former law is not repeated in the newer law, it could be a signal that this allowance is revoked, but that seems remarkably implausible in this case, given Paul VI's unmistakable intent to relax legal requirements and allow even greater adaptation to local situations and the exigencies of (rapidly changing) 20th century life.

It seems much more plausible that he simply took it as obvious that the two meals could be exchanged.

One reason is that, even before the 1917 Code expressly allowed the switching around of the meals, it had already become a recognized and accepted practice. See the article on Fasting in the Original Catholic Encyclopedia, which predates the 1917 Code.

Also note this: He doesn't identify when the full meal can be taken. He doesn't say anything about lunch or noon or midday.

Given only what he says, you could have the full meal at 12:01 a.m. or 11:59 p.m. (eat fast if you want to get it done before midnight!) and then also have "some food in the morning and evening."

Another thing to keep in mind is that Italians themselves don't eat the midday meal exactly at noon. Depending on the region of the country you're in, they may start it around 12:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m., and they may finish eating it as late as 4:30 p.m. So there is considerable flexibility there as well.

The subject of when evening begins is a thorny one in canon law. You hear different starting times for it, ranging from noon to 5:30 p.m. In the absence of a legal definition, and in keeping with the trend of the foregoing considerations, the broader interpretation (i.e., any time after noon) may be presumed in terms of legal requirement (per can. 14).

So, while Paul VI may have been thinking in terms of the normal Italian eating pattern of the time, it does not seem plausible to think he was legally mandating it on days of fast for Catholics the world over.

I consequently don't see any reason why one could not legitimately do any of the following eating patterns on days of fast:

(AM) full meal + some food; (PM) some food
(AM) some food + full meal; (PM) some food
(AM) some food; (midday-ish) full meal; (PM) some food
(AM) some food; (PM) full meal + some food
(AM) some food; (PM) some food + full meal.

That's assuming you exercise the full amount of eating. You don't have to do that, of course.

What is less clear is the status of patterns like this:

(AM) nothing; (PM) some food + full meal + some food
(AM) full meal + some food + some food; (PM) nothing

In other words, if you're going to have "some food" twice in the day, does one of the instances have to be AM and the other PM?

I can see opinion legitimately diverging here. My sense of the legislator's intent isn't strong enough.

I could see one legitimately holding that Paul VI is simply being illustrative and not normative regarding the times, in which case you could have "some food" twice in either the A.M. or the P.M. (but not both).

I could also see one saying, "No, he says 'morning and evening' and means it; if someone has a really compelling reason to need to eat in a different way then that reason itself will excuse from the law of fast."

So I could go either way on that question, at least at the present state of my thought.

More on “No Second Meal”

I expect this'll be the last I post on this topic (at least for a while), but regarding the idea that the two times you can take "some food" on a day of fast can't add up to a second full meal, a reader writes down yonder:

Perhaps it is simply from the fact that one is allowed only "one full meal" and thus ….since one is allowed only one…and yet are permitted 'some food' at two other times…it is simply the case that these can not add up to 'a full meal' for one is only allowed one 'full meal' (if the other two add up to another full meal…well then you will have had 2 full meals!)

This makes sense to me. (of course each persons judgment of a full meal may be different)

Let's look again at Paul VI's language:

The law of fasting allows only one full meal a day, but does not prohibit taking some food in the morning and evening, observing—as far as quantity and quality are concerned—approved local custom.

The possibility that the reader raises is consistent with the first part of what Paul VI says. He could have meant:

(a) The law of fasting allows only one full meal a day, but does not prohibit taking some food in the morning and evening, so long as they don't add up to a second full meal.

But he could also have meant:

(b) The law of fasting allows only one full meal a day, but does not prohibit taking some food in the morning and evening, so long as neither is a full meal.

If the pope had said either of these things, we would know what he meant and nobody would be charging that the added statement (the part in red) contradicts the first part of what he said. The two added interpretations in red are thus both consistent with the first part of the statement.

Therefore, from the language of the first part alone, we cannot rule out either interpretation.

But there are additional considerations that allow us to decide which interpretation is correct:

1) In law liberty is presumed. Therefore the less restrictive interpretation (b) is presumed until the more restrictive interpretation (a) is proved.

2) The overarching thrust of Paul VI's labors in this document is a relaxation of ecclesiastical discipline (more on that a couple of posts from now, when I deal with the question of "substantial observance"). Therefore, if it is known that the mind of the legislator is an overall relaxation of discipline and one has two interpretations of what he says–one more restrictive and one more relaxed–it seems unwarranted to suddenly assume the more restrictive interpretation. This is inconsistent with the overall tone of what the legislator is trying to accomplish.

3) This one is the real clincher: While both interpretations in red are consistent with the first part of what the pope says, there is also the second part, in which he goes on to say: "observing—as far as quantity and quality are concerned—approved local custom." This explicitly kicks the question of the quantity of the two "some food" down to the local area. He is thus not dealing with the question of how much (quantity) you can eat on one of these occasions. If the pope expressly refers us to approved local custom to determine the quantity of this food then we cannot insist that the quantity be restricted to any particular amount based on what he said. (Beyond the obvious that each be less than a full meal, per the first part of what he said.)

4) Since our previous post (so far as I can tell) demonstrates that there is no approved local custom in America that restricts the two occasions where we can take "some food" to less than a second meal, the restrictive interpretation above (i.e., option [a]) does not obtain in the United States.

Finally, even if the above line of reasoning is wrong, it still shows that there is a substantial doubt as to whether the law requires this. That triggers canon 14, which is as follows:

Can. 14 Laws, even invalidating and disqualifying ones, do not oblige when there is a doubt about the law. When there is a doubt about a fact, however, ordinaries can dispense from laws provided that, if it concerns a reserved dispensation, the authority to whom it is reserved usually grants it.

Next: The Morning and Evening Issue

When Does the Liturgical Day Begin & End?

Down yonder, a reader writes:

Hi, I have a question. This has sort of been bothering me, although I undertake a stricter fast this question is mostly academic for me anyway. What are the limits of "Ash Wednesday"? Sundown to sundown? Sundown to sunup on thursday? Midnight to midnight? Whenever you go to bed to whenever you wake up?

Ash Wednesday–like the liturgical day in general–runs from midnight to midnight. According to the General Norms for the Liturgical Year and the Calendar:

3. Each day is made holy through the liturgical celebrations of the people of God, especially through the eucharistic sacrifice and the divine office. The liturgical day runs from midnight to midnight, but the observance of Sunday and solemnities begins with the evening of the preceding day.

Note the difference between the "observance" of certain days beginning on the evening of the preceding day even though they day itself doesn't begin until midnight.

Ash Wednesday is not a solemnity and so does not have a preceding evening celebration of this sort.

Oh, and for what it's worth, the day also (typically) runs from midnight to midnight in canon law (as opposed to liturgical law). The Code of Canon Law provides:

Can. 202 §1. In law, a day is understood as a period consisting of 24 continuous hours and begins at midnight unless other provision is expressly made; a week is a period of 7 days; a month is a period of 30 days, and a year is a period of 365 days unless a month and a year are said to be taken as they are in the calendar.

§2. If time is continuous, a month and a year must always be taken as they are in the calendar.

“Approved Local Custom”

Recently I noted that Paenitemini allows that on days of fast one may eat one full meal and also take “some food” in the morning and evening. It also states that the quantity and quality of this food may be regulated by approved local custom.

I then noted that the U.S. bishops do not have a complementary norm further specifying the quantity of food and that, as far as I know, no bishop has legally bound his subjects on this matter.

Therefore, so far as I know, American Catholics are not canonically required to adhere to the common idea that the two times they can eat “some food” on days of fast must not add up to a second full meal. That’s not what Paenitemini says, and I know of no requirement that they do this–which is problematic anyway since meals vary in size, and size can be measured in different ways (e.g., calories vs. volume vs. weight vs. fillingness or satiety).

People certainly can try to apply this rule if they wish. One may well choose to keep a stricter fast than what the law allows, and it can be very praiseworthy to do that, but this is a separate issue than what is legally required.

In response, a reader writes:

Regarding the “approved local custom”…does not the fact that it is expressed in this way constantly in the USA…in parish bulletins or diocese newspapers etc and that it is actually then the way it is observed…
does that not amount to “approved local custom”???

He also suggests:

perhaps Pope Paul VI was not speaking the language of Canon Law when he said ‘approved local custom’??? …and of course it came out prior to the 1983 Code….

Actually, Paul VI was speaking in canonical terms when he referred to approved local custom. The 1917 Code of Canon Law has a section on custom that is quite similar to the parallel section in the 1983 Code. One of the things that both Codes require for a local custom to attain the force of law is that it must be approved by the competent authority. Paul VI’s phrase “approved local custom” is a direct reference to the 1917 Code’s requirements for custom being able to regulate this subject.

Since the 1983 Code’s treatment of custom is very similar, and thus not an integral reordering of the law on this point, Paenitemini’s statement regarding approved local custom will still apply today (mutatis mutandis).

But the “two smaller meals that don’t add up to a second meal” concept simply does not have the status of an approved local custom in the United States under the Code of Canon Law.

To see why, consider the following canons:

Can. 23 Only that custom introduced by a community of the faithful and approved by the legislator according to the norm of the following canons has the force of law.

Can. 24 §1. No custom which is contrary to divine law can obtain the force of law.

§2. A custom contrary to or beyond canon law (praeter ius canonicum) cannot obtain the force of law unless it is reasonable; a custom which is expressly reprobated in the law, however, is not reasonable.

Can. 25 No custom obtains the force of law unless it has been observed with the intention of introducing a law by a community capable at least of receiving law.

The basic difference between a law and a custom is that a law originates with a legislator, while a custom originates with a community. The community cannot make its customs legally binding, however, without the consent of the legislator, though, which is part of the point of canon 23. Rome doesn’t want communities of the faithful telling their members that they must (or must not) do something unless the legislator competent for that community approves.

The custom also has to be reasonable, per canon 24 (more on that in a moment).

The canon also alludes to the difference between customs contrary to law and customs that go beyond the law. The alleged “can’t add up to a second meal” custom would be the latter since it adds an additional condition not found in Paenitemini.

Paenitemini just says that besides one full meal you can also have “some food” in the morning and evening. It goes beyond this law to add, “provided that this doesn’t add up to a second full meal.”

Finally, per canon 25, the custom the community of the faithful must observe the custom with the intention of introducing a law.

That did not happen in this case.

At no point has the community of faithful Catholics in America gotten together and said, “Hey, let’s start observing a custom that goes beyond the law Paenitemini establishes by requiring that the two receptions of “some food” doesn’t add up to a second meal, and let’s do with with the intention that it will eventually attain the force of law by the approval of our conference of bishops and thus restrict our actions beyond what Paenitemini requires.”

The basic condition required by canon 25–that the community of faithful, apart from its legislator, starts observing a custom with the intent that their future freedom be bound upon obtaining the legislator’s approval–simply has not happened.

This means that we don’t even have to get into the question of whether the legislator has approved the custom. The community of the faithful, nationally, has not introduced a custom with the intent of restricting their future freedom beyond what universal law requires.

If you went to 999 out of 1,000 Catholics (let’s make it among those who have heard the “can’t add up to a second meal” idea) and said, “Did you know that the law allows us to have one full meal and also take ‘some food’ in the morning and evening, without further specifying quantity?” they would say, “Huh?”

This shows that they don’t understand the “can’t add up to a second meal” idea as a matter of a custom introduced by the community.

They think it’s a law introduced by the legislator.

Which simply means that the law has been explained to them badly.

Some noble soul, out of a well-intentioned desire to offer pastoral guidance to help the faithful observe the spirit of the law, decided at some point to add the “can’t add up to a second meal” idea to his explanation of the law and it caught on as an ecclesiastical meme.

But a meme that misstates the law does not have legal force.

Badly explaining the law to someone does not restrict their actual legal freedom, much less create an approved legal custom.

It’s just making people mistakenly think they have less freedom than they do.

Now, as I said, I think the requirements regarding fast and abstinence today are quite mild, and I would certainly encourage people–if they are willing and able to do so–to go beyond those requirements.

But we should be clear about what the law actually is.

On another note, it appears that the “doesn’t add up to a second meal” idea does not pass the test of reasonableness required by canon 24. Given the fact that meal sizes vary and that “size” can be measured in different ways (some of which are noted above), this rule is so vague that it will frustrate and foster scruples among the faithful as they try to apply a test this confusing and ambiguous.

Hope this helps!

Once a Catholic . . .

Pope Benedict has released a new motu proprio titled Omnium in mentum which revises the Code of Canon Law on two points.

First, before getting into the changes, let me offer a high five to canonist Edward Peters for predicting, over ten years ago, that this would be the model followed in the future for changing canon law. Following the codification of canon law in 1917, the Code underwent a thorough revision in 1983. Rather than letting issues build up and then having another thorough revision at some point, John Paul II issued a motu proprio in 1998 that amended specific canons. Ed thereupon predicted that this would be the model for the foreseeable future–tweaking the text of the Code here and there as needed rather than leaving things sit until time for a massive revision.

So what's new in the motu proprio?

Two things: First, some language in the Code has been modified to describe the way that the office of deacon is understood. This brings the language of the Code in line with the language of the Catechism, which was itself brought in line with the language of Vatican II's decree Lumen Gentium (n. 29). I need to do further study on this point before commenting on it in any depth, though, so I'll pass on to the second change.

Second, the exemptions in the Code's marriage laws for those who have formally defected from the Church are now gone (or, rather, they will be when the motu proprio goes into force three months after its publication in Acta Apostolicae Sedis; CIC, can. 8).

This is quite interesting.

One of the things introduced in the 1983 Code was a set of exceptions in the Church's marriage law for those who had defected from the Church by a formal act. Specifically, if you had so defected then you were not obligated to

1) get a dispensation if you want to marry a non-baptized person (cf. can. 1086),

2) observe the Catholic form of marriage (i.e., "get married in the Church;" cf can. 1117), or

3) get permission to marry a non-Catholic Christian (cf. can. 1124).

The purpose of doing this was to allow people who had left the Church to validly enter into marriages of the kinds indicated.

Unfortunately, a lot of problems were generated by the law. For a start, it was unclear what constituted a formal act of defection. To try to rectify the problem, in 2006 the Holy See issued a clarification which set very specific requirements for the act, requirements which resulted in basically nobody committing acts of formal defection.

The clarification was, to my mind, bad law, and it raised a bunch of new headaches which have not subsequently been clarified, so far as I have been able to determine.

The Holy See also seems to have come to the conclusion that the formal defection law was not working as desired, and so it has now gotten rid of the whole thing.

As of the time the motu proprio goes into effect, therefore, anybody who has ever been a Catholic (even if they were baptized one as an infant and then raised something else) must follow the same marriage laws as those who consider themselves Catholic or their marriages will be invalid.

It brings to mind the old saying, "Once a Catholic, always a Catholic." I'm not sure what people always had in mind by this saying–whether they were saying that Catholic culture runs deep in the soul, even if one joins another church; whether they were asserting that it is impossible to truly leave the Church; or whether they were asserting something else.

Whatever was meant, though, and whatever nuances have been introduced theologically about kinds or degrees of ecclesial communion, going forward everybody who has ever been Catholic will be juridically Catholic, attempts at formal defection or no. It was only in its marriage law that the Church made exceptions for formal defection, and now those exceptions are being retired.

This is one way of cutting the Gordian knot. It may or may not be the optimal one, but it's what the law is going to be for now.

As far as I can tell, this creates the following timeline for handling the above marital situations:

For marriages attempted prior to the promulgation of the 1983 Code, the old law was in force and there was no exception for formal defection.
From the promulgation of the 1983 Code to the 2006 clarification, the formal defection exception was in effect and was to be interpreted broadly, in keeping with the language of the law. (The 2006 clarification went beyond the language of the law and thus should not be retroactive in force; CIC, can. 16).
From the 2006 clarification to the effective date of the new motu proprio, the formal defection exception was in effect but formal defection was to be interpreted much more narrowly.
From the effective date of the motu proprio (should be some time in early 2010), the law reverts to the status quo ante the 1983 Code, so there will be no exception for cases of formal defection.

The potential validity of a marriage involving a case of formal defection will thus depend on which of these four time periods it was attempted in–so far as I can tell.

More News on the Anglican Situation

Well, we now have some more information about how the celibacy issue will be handled in regard to the Anglican ordinariates that will be the subject of Pope Benedict's new apostolic constitution–including word on when that will be out.

This Saturday (!) the Holy See had a press conference which dealt with these matters. Here is the text of the English bulletin on it, plus commentary:

CLARIFICATION BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE HOLY SEE PRESS OFFICE, FR. FEDERICO LOMBARDI, S.I. [sic; he's a Jesuit], ON SPECULATIONS [ominous word at the Vatican; signals damage control is the motive of the briefing] ABOUT THE CELIBACY ISSUE IN THE ANNOUNCED APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION REGARDING PERSONAL ORDINARIATES FOR ANGLICAN ENTERING INTO FULL COMMUNION WITH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

There has been widespread speculation, based on supposedly knowledgeable [interesting phrase; attempting to be polite but can't help but being read as sarcastic] remarks by an Italian correspondent Andrea Tornielli [he's also highly respected; interesting that they're naming him and making him eat this one; he also rankled some in Vatican circles by reporting a little too freely on some possible liturgical reforms discussed by the Congregation on Divine Worship that they didn't want aired in public; depending on who you believe, he also may have overstated those], that the delay in publication of the Apostolic Constitution regarding Personal Ordinariates for Anglicans entering into full communion with the Catholic Church, announced on October 20, 2009, by Cardinal William Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, is due to more than "technical" reasons. According to this speculation, there is a serious substantial issue at the basis of the delay, namely, disagreement about whether celibacy will be the norm for the future clergy of the Provision.[Not that that's an unreasonable speculation, as the present text will soon make clear.]

Cardinal Levada offered the following comments on this speculation: "Had I been asked I would happily have clarified any doubt about my remarks at the press conference[Fr. Z's remark about such press conferences is apropos]. There is no substance to such speculation. No one at the Vatican has mentioned any such issue to me. [Under normal circumstances, this could be read as a non-denial denial.] The delay is purely technical in the sense of ensuring consistency in canonical language and references.[That I can believe; for all his virtues–which are many–Pope Benedict is not a canonist, nor are the folks at the CDF (at least as a body) and it makes sense to have the canonical folks go over it prior to publication.] The translation issues are secondary; the decision not to delay publication in order to wait for the ‘official’ Latin text to be published in Acta Apostolicae Sedis was made some time ago.

The drafts prepared by the working group,[nice; a glimpse into the drafting process of this constitution; an acknowledgement that it wasn't simply written by Benedict himself, though it undoubtedly was written at his direction and along the lines he indicated, then reviewed carefully in consultation with Cardinal Levada] and submitted for study and approval through the usual process followed by the Congregation, have all included the following statement, currently Article VI of the Constitution [kewl! advance text!]:

§1 Those who ministered as Anglican deacons, priests, or bishops, and who fulfill the requisites established by canon law and are not impeded by irregularities or other impediments may be accepted by the Ordinary [the head of the ordinariate in this case] as candidates for Holy Orders in the Catholic Church. In the case of married ministers, the norms established in the Encyclical Letter of Pope Paul VI Sacerdotalis coelibatus, n. 42 and in the Statement "In June" [not easy to find online; I'll put the text of it at the bottom of this post] are to be observed. Unmarried ministers must submit to the norm of clerical celibacy of CIC can. 277, §1.[So, as expected, they won't be able to be ordained and then get married.]

§2. The Ordinary, in full observance of the discipline of celibate clergy in the Latin Church, as a rule (pro regula) will admit only celibate men to the order of presbyter. He may also petition the Roman Pontiff, as a derogation from can. 277, §1, for the admission of married men to the order of presbyter on a case by case basis, according to objective criteria approved by the Holy See.[If I'm taking this right, section 2 seems to be referring only to those who have served previously as Anglican ministers; that is, it's stating more explicitly what could be inferred from section 1; ordinarily, only unmarried men can be ordained in the new ordinariates but, on a case by case basis, exceptions can be made for those who previously served as Anglican ministers; however see below.]

This article is to be understood as consistent with the current practice of the Church, in which married former Anglican ministers may be admitted to priestly ministry in the Catholic Church on a case by case basis. With regard to future seminarians, it was considered purely speculative whether there might be some cases in which a dispensation from the celibacy rule might be petitioned. For this reason, objective criteria about any such possibilities (e.g. married seminarians already in preparation) are to be developed jointly by the Personal Ordinariate and the Episcopal Conference, and submitted for approval of the Holy See."[So this is the big news: They haven't decided yet how to deal with the married seminarian question; they're planning to work it out in the future. Also note that the example given is for married seminarians already in preparation; they might decide not to allow future Anglican ordinariate seminaries to accept married seminarians–at least if they didn't convert from Anglicanism while in seminary; in this case the married status of Anglican ordinariate clergy would largely be a first-generation-only thing]

Cardinal Levada said he anticipates the technical work on the Constitution and Norms will be completed by the end of the first week of November.[Kewl! So coming up soon!–though they might not release it for a while.]

———————————————————–

Text of the "In June" statement referred to above (or what I have):

“In June 1980, the Holy See, through the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, agreed to the request presented by the bishops of the United States of America on behalf of some clergy and laity formerly or actually belonging to the Episcopal (Anglican) Church for full communion with the Catholic Church. The Holy See’s response to the initiative of these Episcopalians includes the possibility of a “pastoral provision” which will provide, for those who desire it, a common identity reflecting certain elements of their own heritage.

“The entrance of these persons into the Catholic Church should be understood as the ‘reconciliation of those individuals who wish for full Catholic communion,’ of which the Decree on Ecumenism (no. 4) of the Second Vatican Council speaks.

“In accepting former Episcopalian clergy who are married into the Catholic priesthood, the Holy See has specified that this exception to the rule of celibacy is granted in favor of these individual persons, and should not be understood as implying any change in the Church’s conviction of the value of priestly celibacy, which will remain the rule for future candidates for the priesthood from this group.

“In consultation with the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has appointed the Most Reverend Bernard F. Law, bishop of Springfield-Cape Girardeau, as ecclesiastical delegate in this matter. It will be his question to be submitted for the approval of the Holy See, to oversee its implementation and to deal with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in questions pertaining to the admission of former Episcopalian clergy into the Catholic priesthood.”

A non-expert take on Canons 915 & 916

SDG here with some non-expert thoughts on Canons 915 & 916 (for expert thoughts, see Ed Peters).

In the combox to my last post, a reader writes:

The problem with 915 and 916 is that the Church has (seemingly) allowed for a paradox, but canon law is supposed to clarify and not confuse. Hopefully future revisers of canon law will combine or rewrite those two canons.

I’m no student of canon law, but I don’t see any paradox. Or even tension.

Canon 916 says that those who are “conscious of grave sin” — whether obstinate, or not, manifest or not — are generally obliged (their responsibility) not to present themselves for Holy Communion.

Canon 915 says, in part, that those “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin” — a set not identical to those identified in 916, but a subset thereof — are not to be admitted (the minister’s responsibility) to Holy Communion.

Canon 916 instructs certain people not to present themselves for Holy Communion. Canon 915 says that certain people are not to be admitted to Holy Communion. Where is the paradox or the tension?

Suppose a mother tells a babysitter: “The kids are always allowed to play outside after supper. But if anyone gives you a really hard time and won’t listen, don’t let them join the others. Keep them inside.” Then suppose she tells the children: “Be good tonight or else don’t ask to play outside after supper. Anyone who is naughty or fights should just stay inside after supper.”

Is there any sort of difficulty here?

The mother’s initial instructions to the sitter — “The kids are always allowed to play outside after supper” — create a strong presumption that the children should be allowed to go out, even if, as per her instructions to the children, they don’t deserve to go out and ought to stay inside.

However, the mother’s other instructions to the sitter impose a specific obligation regarding certain very naughty children — those who give her a really hard time and won’t listen — not to permit them to play outside, even if they ask.

Let’s say that Joshua, Emily and Chris all fight during dinner. Joshua’s behavior, though, is really beyond the pale. He refuses to eat, won’t stop teasing Emily and throws food at Chris, even after the sitter has repeatedly warned him, given him time-outs, etc. At least Emily and Chris make an effort to listen to the sitter, even though Emily is sometimes whiny and petulant and Chris overreacts to everything Joshua does.

All three were naughty. Should they stay inside, or should they get to go outside?

In the case of Emily and Chris, it’s probably up to them to decide. The sitter may know that the children were naughty and ought to stay in, but she hasn’t been authorized to enforce staying inside on all naughty children.

However, it is clear that Joshua’s behavior is so egregious that the sitter is obliged, as per the mother’s instructions, to keep him inside even if he asks to go out.

What’s the problem?

In a word, I don’t see the issue as how to reconcile 915 and 916, let alone whether it can be done. To me the issue is simple: Both 915 and 916, or only 916 and not 915?

Ed Peters on heresy and women’s ordination

QUOTH ED PETERS:

People have this idea that "heresy" (boo! hiss! hate-speech alert!) must consist of some sort of denial of a Catholic truth, as in "Jesus is not divine" or "Mary was not assumed into Heaven" and so on. That’s understandable. Most heretical assertions do consist of denials of Catholic truth.

But the Code of Canon Law describes heresy more broadly: "Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt … about some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith." 1983 CIC 751. Notice? Obstinate doubt about matters requiring assent is also heresy.

Ed is talking, of course, about form Notre Dame president Fr. Theodore Hesburgh’s comments in a Wall Street Journal article in which he said "I have no problem with females … as priests, but I realize that the majority of the leadership in the Church would."

Ed doesn’t conclude that Fr. Hesburgh has committed heresy — perhaps because (he can correct me if I’m wrong) because John Paul II’s authoritative teaching in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis ("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"), though explicitly proposed "that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance," falls a hair shy of an infallible definition? (Added: I’m not saying that the teaching hasn’t been infallibly proposed. It has — by the ordinary magisterium. I’m just saying it hasn’t been solemnly defined by the extraordinary magisterium.)

Of course, whatever level of magisterial authority has or hasn’t been brought to bear, the teaching itself is either part of the divine deposit of faith or it isn’t. If it is, then Fr. Hesburgh has declared that he "doesn’t have a problem" with opposing the will of Christ and falsifying the sacraments. It may not meet the canonical definition of heresy, but I for one want to stick a little closer to following Christ and being conformed to his will than just not technically committing heresy.

I’ll be honest. When you read stuff like this, I can’t help wondering how someone who has any faith at all, who actually believes that this stuff is not just made-up but is actually divine in origin — the Church itself, the sacraments, the priesthood — could possibly be so cavalier about it.

Even if you think, or suspect, or are open to the possibility that, contrary to the firm teaching of JP2 and the basically unanimous witness of 2000 years of tradition, the reservation of ordination to men is actually rooted in human culture rather than the will of Christ, can you possibly be so sure of that that you blithely say "I have no problem with…"? Not "I have no problem with people asking the question…" or "I have no problem with the possibility that…" but simply "I have no problem with women priests," full stop?

How about married bishops, or lay celebrants of the Mass, or baptizing in the name of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva? Would Fr. Hesburgh have a "problem" with those? If so, why? Because they’re foreign to our cultural heritage, or because divine reality impinges in some way on all of this stuff? If I sound scandalized, well, I kind of am. I can deal to an extent with differences of opinion about where the foundation is, but at some point if you keep digging I can’t help wondering whether you think there’s actually a foundation at all.

Mark Shea likes to sidestep the issue of defining torture by suggesting that if we aim at treating prisoners humanely, rather than fixating on where the line is and how far we can go without actually technically torturing them, we won’t accidentally torture them. In a similar vein, if we aim at fidelity to the Church rather than fixating on where the line is and how far we can go without actually technically committing heresy, we won’t accidentally commit heresy.

It’s hard to disagree with Ed’s conclusion:

I think that to dismiss, with evident contempt, any part of Catholic truth is wrong, but for a famous priest to do so in regard to the very point that has metastasized into more formal excommunications than any other modern misdeed is disgraceful.

And sad.

GET THE STORY.

Polish Theologian Faces Disciplinary Action

Oblate Fr. Waclaw Hryniewicz–one of the most noted theologians in Poland–faces disciplinary charges at the CDF.

Fr. Hryniewicz published an article in the online theology journal Open Theology titled "The Savior . . . uses many tunes."

The article was sharply critical of the CDF’s 2007 document summarizing certain aspects of the nature of the Church, which stated among other things that the Catholic Church is unique among churches and ecclesial communities as a means by which God provides grace to the world.

The secretary of the CDF, Angelo Amato, then sent him a letter insisting that he write a clarification/retraction of the original piece.

Fr. Hyrniewicz appealed to his conscience and to the fact that he is near death and refused.

He thus faces potential disciplinary action.

HERE’S A STORY FROM CATHOLIC NEWS SERVICE ON THE SITUATION.

A few thoughts . . .

First, I feel bad for the guy having this happen to him right at the end of his life.

Second, it appears that his views are in fact in conflict with Catholic teaching. HERE IS THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE THAT IS IN QUESTION. Unfortunately, it’s in Polish, but there is an abstract in English, and according to the abstract Fr. Hryniewicz claims that "the theological quarrel about ‘the best way’ to God is pointless as
the author states that Christian theology should be aware that God’s
abundance in grace cannot be comprehended by theological models or
channelled by just one form of Christianity." This would seem to be an affirmation of indifferentism, which is an error in to which those deeply involved in ecumenism can fall.

Third, Fr. Hryniewicz states, according to the CNS piece, that his prior work contain many similar sentiments but it is only now, after his piece in Open Theology, that this is coming up. This may be another indication of how the Internet is changing things. Before, it would have taken someone more effort to get the problematic material in front of the CDF. Now one only has to send them a link.

On the other hand, he may not have gone after the CDF in the same, direct way before. That may be part of what’s happening here. According to the CNS piece, the CDF specifically criticized the disrespectful and emotional tone that Fr. Hryniewicz took in his piece. So it may not be so much a question of how the info got to the CDF but the directness with which Fr. Hryniewicz assailed the CDF that produced the response at this time.

The CNS piece seems to stress the manner in which Fr. Hryniewicz expressed himself over the fact that he apparently endorses indifferentism. In fact, the CNS peice reads like it’s his side of the story. It even includes language from the letter the CDF sent him that, at least out of context of the original letter, plays to dogmatic Vatican stereotypes.

This raises a question: Just how did this matter come to the CNS’s attention, anyway? The CDF doesn’t publish letters like this. They’re priate matters between the person in question and the CDF until some kind of formal public announcement is made–as was the case recently with Fr. Tomislav Vlasic. But I’m not seeing any indication here that this has happened. Indeed, even the Polish bishops hadn’t been told about the matter.

So I’m wondering if Fr. Hryniewicz took the initiative personally or through surrogates to make this public and get his side of the story out there pre-emptively.

Canonical Status of Fr. Tomislav Vlašić, OFM

The following is the text of a communique from the Bishop of Mostar-Duvno, in whose diocese the town of Medjugorje lies. It concerns the canonical status of Fr. Tomislav Vlasic, who was billed as the "spiritual leader" of the six reported seers of Medjugorje (prior, I gather, to a falling out).

This communique appears to be in translation English (the original language text is here, though the portion from the letter of the CDF may have originally been in another language yet).

I will add a few notes on my own in blue.

What we have below is a composite document that takes the form of a communique of the bishop quoting a letter of the CDF that (it appears) then pops back into the bishop’s voice and then quotes a decree of the CDF and that then switches back into the voice of the bishop to close the communique.

In case it’s hard to follow, here’s the gist: In January the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith produced a decree imposing severe cautionary and disciplinary measures (described below). In February, this degree was given to Fr. Valsic, who utterly failed to comply with its requirements. Consequently, Fr. Vlasic has incurred the censure of interdict reserved to the Holy See that is provided for in the decree. Following this, the CDF asked the Bishop of Mostar to announce the whole matter as a warning to those who might be deceived by Fr. Vlasic or his supporters regarding his canonical status.

The CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH with its letter prot. 144/1985-27164 of 30 May 2008, has authorized me as the local Bishop of the Diocese of Mostar-Duvno to inform the diocesan community of the canonical status of Fr. Tomislav Vlašić, the founder of the association “Kraljice mira potpuno Tvoji – po Mariji k Isusu” – (Queen of Peace, totally Yours – Through Mary to Jesus).

The letter signed by the Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Archbishop Angelo Amato, states the following:

“Within the context of the phenomenon Medjugorje, this Dicastery is studying the case of Father Tomislav VLASIC OFM, originally from that region and the founder of the association ‘Kraljice mira potpuno Tvoji – po Mariji k Isusu’.

On 25 January 2008, through a properly issued Decree, this Dicastery imposed severe cautionary and disciplinary measures on Fr. Vlasic.

The non-groundless news that reached this Congregation reveals that the religious priest in question did not respond, even partially, to the demands of ecclesiastical obedience required by the very delicate situation he finds himself in, justifying himself by citing his zealous activity in the Diocese of Mostar-Duvno and surrounding territories, in initiating religious activities, buildings, etc.

Since Fr. Vlasic has fallen into a censure of interdict latae sententiae reserved to this Dicastery, I kindly ask Your Excellency, for the good of the faithful, to inform the community of the canonical status of Fr. Vlasic and at the same time to report on the situation in question…”.

*****

This regards the fact that the same Congregation of the Holy See applied ecclesiastical sanctions against Rev. Father Tomislav Vlašić, through a Decree of the Congregation (prot. 144/1985) of 25 January 2008, signed by Cardinal William Levada, Prefect, and by Archbishop Angelo Amato, Secretary of the Congregation along with the “Concordat cum originali” of 30 January 2008, verified by Msgr. John Kennedy, Official of the Congregation [that’s a certification that a reproduction or translation of a document accords with the original].

The Decree was handed over to Rev. Fr. Tomislav Vlašić in the General Curia of the OFM in Rome on 16 February 2008 and the notification was co-signed by the Minister General of the Franciscan Minor Order, Father José R. Carballo, the Ordinary of Fr. Vlašić.

The Decree of the Congregation mentions that Rev. Fr. Tomislav Vlašić, a cleric of the Franciscan Minor Order – the founder of the association ‘Kraljice mira potpuno Tvoji – po Mariji k Isusu’ and who is involved in the “phenomenon Medjugorje” – has been reported to the Congregation “for the diffusion of dubious doctrine, manipulation of consciences, suspected mysticism [this is an odd phrasing; I wonder if it should be "suspect mysticism," since mysticism itself is not inherently problematic–JA], disobedience towards legitimately issued orders and charges contra sextum” ["against the sixth"–i.e., against the Sixth Commandment, meaning charges of a sexual nature; this may one of the reasons the CDF was handling this case, since it has charge of certain cases involving priests violating the Sixth Commandment].

Having studied the case, the Congregation during its special Congress decreed the following sanctions against Rev. Fr. Tomislav Vlasic:

“1. Mandatory residence in one of the houses of the Order in the region of Lombardy (Italy) to be determined by the Minister General of the Order and to be realized within thirty days from the time of the legitimate notification of this decree;

2. All contacts with the “Kraljice Mira…” community and with its members are prohibited;

3. Any actions involving juridical contracts and administrative organizations, whether canonical or civil, effected without the written permission ad actum ["to the act"–i.e., Vlasic must get permission for each individual act] of the Minister General of the Order and under his responsibility are prohibited;

4. A mandatory course of theological-spiritual formation, with a final evaluation along with a prior recognitio ["approval"–i.e., approval of the course of formation] of this Congregation, and a solemn professio fidei ["profession of faith"–i.e., Fr. Vlasic must make a profession of faith after his approved course of formation and final evaluation];

5. The following are also prohibited: activities involving the ‘care of souls’, preaching, public appearances, while the faculty to hear confessions is also revoked up until the conclusion of the terms described in the previous number, barring an evaluation of the case.

An additional sanction of a latae sententiae ["automatic"] interdict (can. 1332) reserved to the Apostolic See is adjoined in the case of the violation of the mandatory residence (n. 1) and the other prohibited acts mentioned in n. 3 and n. 5. [I.e., if Fr. Vlasic violates provisions 1, 3, or 5 then he is subject to an automatic interdict and the interdict can only be lifted by the Holy See; see canon 1332 on the effects of interdict.]

Fr. Vlasic is forewarned that in the case of stubbornness a juridical penal process will begin with the aim of still harsher sanctions, not excluding dismissal [i.e., from the clerical state, which would be forced laicization in this case], having in mind the suspicion of heresy and schism, as well as scandalous acts contra sextum, aggravated by mystical motivations.

Fr. Vlasic remains under the direct jurisdiction of the Minister General of the Order of Minor Franciscans, who shall see to his vigilance through the local Superior or another Delegate”.

*****

All the priests, religious and faithful in the Dioceses of Mostar-Duvno and Trebnje-Mrkan, as well as all those concerned “in the pertinent territories”, are hereby informed on the current canonical status of Rev. Father Tomislav Vlašić.

With the sentiments of my highest consideration,

+ Ratko Perić, Bishop
Fr. Ante Luburić, Chancellor

ORIGINAL TEXT ON THE BISHOP’S WEB SITE.

ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND FROM THE BISHOP’S SITE ON FR. VLASIC.

ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND FROM THE BISHOP’S SITE ON MEDJUGORJE.

STATEMENTS OF THE BISHOP REGARDING MEDJUGORJE.