Western Catholic At Eastern Catholic Liturgies

A reader writes:

I grew up Roman Catholic in a small town in the Midwest where only the Novus Ordo was available for weekly Mass. I know live in an area where the Tridentine Rite was recently allowed. After going to a Tridentine Mass for the first time I became interested in other expressions of the Catholic Mass and started looking for Eastern Rite parishes in the area. Luckily it has a number of Eastern Rite Churches. I have visited a Melkite Greek Catholic parish and a Byzantine Catholic parish.

I asked a few knowledgeable Catholic friends if receiving Communion was permissible at these Masses. All agreed that if the church is in communion with Rome then that is permissible. Is that the case?

Absolutely! The Code of Canon Law provides:

Can.  844 §1. Catholic ministers administer the
sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian faithful alone, who
likewise receive them licitly from Catholic ministers alone, without prejudice
to the prescripts of §§2, 3, and 4 of this canon, and can. 861,
§2.

The word order in this canon is a little awkward for the point in question, but "Catholic members of the Christian faithful . . . receive [the sacraments] licitly from Catholic ministers." Given that, you can receive the Eucharist from any Catholic minister unless there is a specific prohibition otherwise, and in the case of the Eucharist there is not. You are perfectly free to approach an eastern Catholic priest or deacon (or other eastern Catholic minister of Holy Communion).

There was some disagreement if attending these other Masses fulfilled my Sunday Mass obligation. Most thought they did, but some disagreed.

The ones who disagreed were incorrect. The Code of Canon Law expressly provides for you to be able to fulfill your Sunday obligation at a divine liturgy in an eastern Catholic church:

Can.  1248 §1. A person who assists at a Mass celebrated
anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the feast day itself or in the evening of
the preceding day satisfies the obligation of participating in the Mass.

The reader then asks:

Finally, I would like to know what would be necessary to join an Eastern Rite parish if I wished to do so. Since I am already in full communion with Rome, so it wouldn’t be considered a “conversion,” would it?

It would not be a conversion, no. It would be one of two things, described below.

First, if you just want to join a parish then all you would have to do (I suppose) is fill out their registration card. This would not mean that you belonged to the Eastern Church of which this parish is a part. If you registered at a Byzantine parish you would not thereby become a Byzantine Catholic. You would still be a Latin (Roman) Catholic who happened to be registered at an Byzanting parish, and you would still be subject to the Latin Church’s Code of Canon Law (which I have been quoting above since it is the one that is relevant to you; the Eastern Catholic Churches have their own code of canon law, known as the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches).

Second, it would be possible for you to change rites and become an actual member of an Eastern Catholic Church by law. Thus if you changed rites to join the Melkite Church, you would at that point no longer be a Roman Catholic but a Melkite Catholic and would be subject to the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, as well as the particular law of the Melkite Church.

The way to do this has evolved somewhat since the Code of Canon Law was released in 1983. According to what is on the books, you would need to obtain the permission of the Holy See (Can. 112 §1, no. 1), but my understanding is that the Holy See has modified this in practice in subsequent years. If you decide to take this step, consult with your (Latin) diocese for further assistance.

Be aware that this is a big step and should not be taken lightly. It also may not be as easy to change back to the Latin Church if you decide you want to do that later on. The Church (as a whole) permits the faithful of every individual Church within it to receive the sacraments and participate in the ecclesial life of every other individual Church (which is part of what it means to be in ecclesiastical communion with each other), but it posses additional barriers to the faithful changing from membership in one of these Churches to another.

The purpose of this (in part) is to help preserve the identities of the individual Churches by not allowing transfers to happen willy-nilly.

If you do decide that you wish to legally transfer to another rite, I would suggest that you spend a considerable period of time (at least one whole year, so that you can see the whole liturgical year and the laws that apply to it) attending a parish of the Church in questoin so that you can make sure you will be comfortable there long-term.

By the way, if anyone has an opportunity to go to Sunday Mass in an Eastern Rite Parish, you should give it a try. The liturgy is so beautiful and reverent. There isn’t any doubt as to the Real Presence at these Masses.

Indeed. I have been to Eatern Catholic liturgies many times, and I always find it a very moving experience.

Chapel Veils Redux

I’ve blogged a few times before about the subject of head coverings and whether women are still required to wear them under current canon or liturgical law.

The reason that this keeps coming up is that there are people out there who are spreading the erroneous idea that it is still mandatory for women to do this. Some are even sellers of chapel veils who are self-interestedly misrepresenting the law.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I like the custom of women wearing headcoverings in the liturgy. But I’m adamantly opposed to misrepresenting the law and people fostering scruples or "more Catholic than thou" attitudes or laying a greater burden on people than the Church does.

When I’ve blogged about this subject, I’ve been confronted with counter-arguments that, to put it delicately, have no canonical validity, and I’ve refrained from responding in some cases.

BUT IT’S NICE TO SEE COMPETENT CANON LAW FOLKS MAKING THE SAME POINT.

Whose Church Is It Anyway?

Recently TimJ wrote about the evil Take Back Our Church folks.

Now canonist Ed Peters weighs in with the canonical consequences that could ensue from their actions. Here’s a taste–which just to be coy I’ll keep just to him quoting a single canon:

1983 CIC 1374 states: "A person who joins an association which plots against the Church is to be punished with a just penalty; however, a person who promotes or directs an association of this kind is to be punished with an interdict."

Intrigued? Then,

GET THE STORY.

Don’t Worry; Be Holy

A reader writes:

It is my understanding that certain actions lead to immediate excommunication from the Church whether the individual is directly notified from the Vatican or his or her bishop on the matter.

True. There are a handful of offenses that have latae sententiae (automatic) excommunications attached to them. A person does not have to receive a canonical warning for these excommunications to take place, though they do have to know about the penalty that is attached to the offense (among other conditions).

Certain actions like ordaining bishops without papal approval are obviously understood to take you out of Communion with Rome;

Um, there’s a subtlety here. Ordaining bishops without papal approval does not take one out of communion with the Church, it only results in excommunication. Under current law, being excommunicated does not place you outside of communion, though it does reflect an impaired state of communion.

By contrast, ordaining bishops contrary to papal mandate (i.e., doing it when the pope has told you not to) does constitute schism, and schism does take you out of communion. (It also results in excommunication, but htat’s a separate matter.

however disagreements over theology may take some discernment by the CDF to determine excommunication.

In the case of heresy, yes, theological disputes may have to be adjudicated by the CDF to determine whether someone has committed heresy and thus triggered excommunication for that. However, the CDF is not the only organ in Rome (or locally) empowered to declare than an excommunication has taken place.

So is it true that certain actions bring about excommunication without notification from an ecclesial authority?

Yes, as noted above.

If that is the case, let’s take a look at the issue of the women “priests” who were ordained at Pittsburgh in a van down by the river a boat [strikethrough and replacement in the original e-mail–ja]. The women “bishops” who performed the ordination claim they were consecrated as bishops in a secret ceremony by Roman Catholic bishops. (I think they are lying, but for the sake of this discussion, let’s assume they are telling the truth.)

Okay, let’s, though I am not at all confident that they are lying. They might be, but they very well might not be.

Wouldn’t that immediately excommunicate those unnamed bishops?

No. Here’s why: Women cannot be validly ordained, therefore no ordination took place. Therefore, there was no consecration of a bishop without a papal mandate, and that excommunication was not triggered.

Canonically, what happened was the simulation of a sacrament, and that’s a different offense, with a different canonical effect. According to Canon 1379, "a person who simulates the administration of a sacrament is to be punished with a just penalty." In order for them to be punished with a just penalty, a competent authority has to impose that penalty. It could be excommunication or it could be something else, depending on what the authority decides. In any event, it ain’t automatic.

If that is the case [i.e., if one of these bishops were automatically excommunicated], wouldn’t that excommunication invalidate and sacraments or ordinations that the bishop presided over after his excommunication?

No. A bishop could still perform the sacraments–including ordinations–validly even in a state of excommunication.  The power to dispense the sacraments resides fully in office of bishop, and the Code does not create any impediments to an excommunicated bishop being able to do so validly.

What effect would that have on the sacraments administered by a priest who was ordained by an excommunicated bishop?

He would do so illicitly (and gravely sinfully), but they would be valid.

Therefore, one need not worry that there are some unknown, automatically excommunicated bishops out there invalidly dispensing sacraments and ordaining priests on account of their ordination of the women "bishops." The law does not provide automatic excommunication for their offense, and even if it did, it would not render their sacraments invalid.

So one doesn’t need to worry; one can still go to their sacraments to be made holy (i.e., receive sanctifying grace).

Now, what about a bishop (or priest) who DID, unbeknownst to anybody, incur automatic excommunication? What would THAT do?

Here’s what the Code says:

Can. 1331 §1. An excommunicated person is forbidden:

1/ to have any ministerial participation in celebrating the sacrifice of the Eucharist or any other ceremonies of worship whatsoever;

2/ to celebrate the sacraments or sacramentals and to receive the sacraments;

3/ to exercise any ecclesiastical offices, ministries, or functions whatsoever or to place acts of governance.

All of that happens if a bishop or priest incurs an automatic excommunication: He’s not allowed to ("is forbidden") to have ministerial participation in liturgical function, he’s not allowed to celebrate or receive the sacraments, and he’s not allowed to exercise ecclesiastical offices or functions.

All of that follows directly upon the excommunication. It doesn’t matter whether anybody knows that he’s excommunicated himself or not.

But note that it just says he’s forbidden to do these things (i.e., that they are illicit for him to perform). It doesn’t mean that he can’t (i.e., that his attempts to do them will be invalid).

How do we know that?

Well, it turns out that if it comes to light that he’s excommunicated himself and a competent authority declares this fact then additional canonical effects kick in:

§2. If the excommunication has been imposed or declared, the offender:

1/ who wishes to act against the prescript of §1, n. 1 must be prevented from doing so, or the liturgical action must be stopped unless a grave cause precludes this;

2/ invalidly places acts of governance which are illicit according to the norm of §1, n. 3;

3/ is forbidden to benefit from privileges previously granted;

4/ cannot acquire validly a dignity, office, or other function in the Church;

5/ does not appropriate the benefits of a dignity, office, any function, or pension, which the offender has in the Church.

Section 2, number two makes it clear that the prohibitions mentioned in section 1 pertain to liceity rather than validity. It also provides that if an excommunication is declared on a bishop that he not only shouldn’t place acts of government but that he can’t. Any acts of government he attempts to place after the excommunication is declared are invalid and not legally binding on those to whom they are directed.

As long as his excommunication is not declared (as is necessarily the case for a bishop who excommunicated himself without anybody knowing it) he can still validly place acts of governance as a bishop, and you’ll note that section 2 does not prevent him from celebrating the sacraments validtly, even if the excommunication is declared.

So we as laity don’t have to worry that our reception of the sacraments is being invalidated due to bishops crypto-excommunicating themselves. We can just follow the maxim, "Don’t worry; be holy."

Now, should the identities of the bishops who allengedly did this come to light, and should it turn out that they actually did it, then Rome would have the very unpleasant task of imposing a just penalty on them. To my mind, the just penalty for simulating the consecration of a female bishop should be excommunication at a minimum, and likely more than that.

Fortunately, B16’s up to the task.

Canonical Implications Of Simulated Ordination To The Priesthood and Diaconate

Many are aware of the recent attempt by a group of women in the United States to be ordained to the priesthood and the diaconate in a ceremony in Pennsylvania.

This is very unfortunate, and we may hope and pray that those involved will repent. In the meantime, there is the question of what is to be done and how the individuals in question are to be treated and regarded under canon law.

Unfortunately, there has been a lot of what seems to be misinformation floating around in the popular and Catholic press regarding this. Numerous individuals have been asserting that the women have automatically excommunicated themselves and/or removed themselves from the Church.

Neither of these claims appears to be true, canonically speaking.

While the actions of those involved in the ceremony are certainly very grave and a canonical response is called for, there does not appear to be a basis in canon law for the two claims.

Canon law does provide an automatic excommunication for the (valid) consecration of a bishop apart from a papal mandate:

Can. 1382 A
bishop who consecrates some one a bishop without a pontifical mandate and the
person who receives the consecration from him incur a latae sententiae
(automatic) excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.

This applies to episcopal consecration, but canon law does not provide an automatic excommunication for valid but illicit ordinations to the priesthood or the diaconate or for invalid (simulated) ones.

What happened in the Pennsylvania ceremony was a simulation of the sacrament of ordination, for which the relevant canon appears to be this one:

Can. 1379 In addition to the cases mentioned in can. 1378, a person who simulates the administration of a sacrament is to be punished with a just penalty.

To my mind, a just penalty in this case would be excommunication. What the participants in the ceremony did is clearly grave enough to warrant excommunication. Canonically, however, the law does not provide for this penalty to take effect on them latae sententiae (automatically). That automatic triggering of the punishment does not take place for simulation of holy orders. It would have to be imposed by ecclesiastical authority, and canon 1379 provides the legal basis for its imposition.

There are, however, canonical effects that likely have taken place automatically regarding at least some of the women involved in the ceremony. Those who attempted ordination to the priesthood have presumably or are known to have subsequently attempted to celebrate Mass, and there is an automatic penalty for those who simulate the celebration of the Eucharist:

Can. 1378

§2. The following incur a latae sententiae penalty of interdict or, if a cleric, a latae sententiae penalty of suspension:

1/ a person who attempts the liturgical action of the Eucharistic sacrifice though not promoted to the sacerdotal order;

2/ apart from the case mentioned in §1, a person who, though unable to give sacramental absolution validly, attempts to impart it or who hears sacramental confession.

§3. In the cases mentioned in §2, other penalties, not excluding excommunication, can be added according to the gravity of the delict.

By attempting to celebrate Mass subsequent to their attempted ordinations, the women in question would have interdicted themselves (unless this was prevented by one of the provisions of canons 1323 or 1324). Interdiction has many of the same effects as excommunication but not all of them (see canon 1332 in comparison to 1331). Their action also (per section 3) would provide a basis for the imposition of additional penalties, including excommunication, though this would have to be imposed by ecclesiastical authority instead of taking effect automatically.

The canonical basis also is not clear for the claim that the women have removed themselves from the Church.

The individuals in question had committed an offence against the unity of the Church that disrupts their full communion with the Church, but it is not clear that this breach of unity is sufficient to sever their union with the Church and constitute a formal act of schism.

Canonically, schism is defined as follows:

Can. 751 . . . schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

Since there is a canonical penalty of excommunication for schism (can. 1364), whether or not an act of schism has occurred must be judged strictly since "Laws which
establish a penalty, restrict the free exercise of rights, or contain an
exception from the law are subject to strict interpretation" (can. 18).

This means that a narrow construction is to be given to what constitutes "refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff" and "refusal . . . of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."

It does not appear that the individuals involved in the Pennsylvania ceremony are attempting to sever communion with other members of the Catholic Church (they still profess to be Catholics), and not every act of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff constitutes a refusal of submission to him (otherwise every knowing violation of canon law would be an act of schism). If the individuals involved in the ceremony said "We don’t believe that the pope has any authority over us" then they would have refused submission to him or–if the pope determined that a specific act constituted a refusal of submission (as John Paul II did in the case of the Lefebvrite episcopal consecrations)–then they could be judged to have committed schism.

Given the frequency with which such "women’s ordination" ceremonies are now occurring, the Church may in the future judge that they constitute schismatic acts or otherwise provide a latae sententiae excommunication for those participating in them, but it has not done so to date.

What is clear is that the individuals involved in this ceremony have committed a grave ecclesiastical offense with the exacerbating circumstances of scandal and sacrilege and they most assuredly deserve censure, including excommunication, even if it must be imposed rather than taking effect automatically.

ED PETERS HAS MORE ON THE SIMULATION OF MASS.

Non-Catholic Brother Planning New Marriage

A reader writes:

My brother, who is a
baptized Catholic but has not practiced since he was little (my
parents left the Church for a Protestant one at that time and have
since returned, though my brother is still Protestant) has
married outside of the church in a Protestant ceremony is now in the process of divorcing his wife, who is pregnant.
He also already has a new girlfriend whom he has expressed the intent
to marry. 

I have told him that I could not attend this wedding and
that I should not have attended his first wedding as it was outside
of the Church and he is a baptized Catholic, even though he has
rejected Catholicism. 

I know that he has not formally (that is
written to Rome) left the Church.  Have I done the right thing? 

This
is creating a huge amount of tension and stress in my family,
especially because I am trying to inform my now Catholic parents of
what the correct position is to take in regards to the potential
second wife, whom my brother has asked to be allowed to live at their
house (though not in his room…After separating from his first wife,
he moved back home). 

Though it is not in the planned future, I have
also told my family that I cannot attend my other brother’s wedding,
when and if he decides to marry, unless it is within the Catholic
Church.  Is this correct?  Please help.  Many hearts are hurting over
these matters.

This is a really tough situation, and my heart goes out to you.

The Holy See recently released a document on what is required in order to formally defect from the Church, and it took a startlingly restrictive view. One does not have to write to Rome to formally defect, but one does have to go through one’s local bishop.

The question in my mind is whether Rome intends this to apply to previous marital situations or just those from here on out. According to the Code of Canon Law,

Can. 16 §2. An authentic interpretation put forth in the form of law has the same force as the law itself and must be promulgated. If it only declares the words of the law which are certain in themselves, it is retroactive; if it restricts or extends the law, or if it explains a doubtful law, it is not retroactive.

It does not seem to me that the recent document merely declared the plain meaningof the words of the law which were already certain. What constituted formal defection was notoriously uncertain, and the canonical commentators I am aware of universally interpreted it more broadly than how the recent document did. The recent document therefore seems to me to either function as restricting the interpretation of the law or explaining a doubtful one. In either case, it would not be retroactive and thus your brother would not have needed to go through the local bishop in order to formally defect.

Unfortunately, Rome has not yet given us an authoritative statement on whether the new document is ot be understood retroactively, though I suspect that is coming since an awful lot of marriage cases have been adjudicated based on the prior understanding of formal defection, and that is bound to lead to confusion.

Even then, it is not clear to me whether your brother formally defected from the Church. One of the reasons that this concept was in need of clarification was that how it applied to situations like your brother’s was unclear. In other words: What about the case of children who are taken to other churches by their parents and made members of them? Does that mean that the child formally defected despite his lack of age and responsibility for doing so? Does he need to reaffirm the defection once he is an adult? Does he need to reaffirm it formally?

We now know the answers to these questions going forward, but at the time your brother was made a member of another church, the answers were unclear.

I thus can’t tell–both because of the unclarity of the law at the time and because it is at least arguable whether the law is retroactive–if your brother has formally defected.

The best way I know to handle the question is thus to split it and ask what would apply if he did formally defect and if he did not.

First, let’s suppose that he did formally defect.

Canon law provides that if a person has formally defected from the Church then he is not bound to observe the Catholic form of marriage. If your brother had formally defected then he would have been free to marry his first spouse. Marriage enjoys the favor of the law so, until the nullity of his first marriage is established, he must be presumed to be married to his first wife and thus not free to marry his current girlfriend. Any union with his current girlfriend must be presumed to be adulterous, per Jesus’ statements in Mark 10.

On this understanding, it would have been permissible for you to attend his first wedding but I could not recommend that you attend his second because your presence would lend credence to an objectively adulterous relationship.

Similarly, I could not recommend allowing two people who must be presumed to have an adulterous relationship to live under my roof, for the same reason: Doing so lends credence to an objectively adulterous relationship, as well as providing scandal (in the technical sense of setting a bad example that may lead others into sin). The same applies even if they are living chastely prior to attempting marriage. Your brother is not presumptively free to have a relationship with this woman, and letting her live there lends credence to the idea that he is.

Now let’s suppose that your brother did not formally defect.

In this case he was still bound to observe the Catholic form of marriage and his first marriage was invalid. He is thus free to marry someone else–however, this marriage too will be invalid unless he either observes the Catholic form of marriage or obtains a dispensation from it. In order to do either, he will for practical purposes need to have his first marriage investigated by an ecclesiastical tribunal and declared null (which is not certain for reasons indicated above, even though at the moment I’m assuming that he did defect and so it was null; that still has to be shown).

Your brother, as a non-Catholic, is presumably not willing to go through the above steps, in which case his new attempt at marriage would be invalid. I thus could not recommend attending it (or the previous one) nor letting him live in my house with his girlfriend (married or unmarried) since their planned future union would be invalid.

Thus, while one of the key facts of the case (whether or not he formally defected) is unclear, the practical conclusions are similar: I couldn’t recommend attending the new attempt at marriage nor allowing his girlfriend to live in the house, either before or after the attempt.

It is to be understood that, as a Protestant, your brother may be acting in good conscience in all this (though he would need an awful good reason to be divorcing a pregnant wife), and he cannot be expected to understand or appreciate the reasons outlined above.

Nevertheless, he needs to understand the reality of his situation. It does not do him any favors to confirm him in an adulterous or otherwise invalid union. If he is going to get his marital situation straightened out before God, he needs to be made aware of the truth and to be aware of it as soon as possible. Letting him get confirmed in a new, invalid union will only create a larger mess to be cleaned up later.

The merciful thing–as hard as it is–is to be honest with him now about his proposed union (honest both in word and in deed) and give him all the support and encouragement one can to help him avoid making a terrible mistake.

I would therefore explain to him as charitably as possible, and with as many family members as possible in agreement, why he needs to re-evaluate the situation, which also involves re-evaluating the question of his religious affiliation. If he is unwilling to do so, that is understandable. Nevertheless–as painful as it would be for him–he should respect the fact that as a Catholic you must follow your consciences even as he follows his.

None of this, I would hasten to point out, has anything to do with how much you love him. You still love him and, in fact, it is precisely because of your love for him that you are handling the matter in this manner.

I hope this helps, and I encourage my readers to pray for this situation!

20

 

Missing Mass To Go To Class

A reader writes:

My boyfriend and I live in
Rome and he is going back to the states for about a month long
vacation in August/September.  He is attempting to take a weekend-
long motorcycle training course as he is hoping to obtain a scooter
when he comes back to Rome to make life in Rome easier. 

The only
possible times for the class eliminate any possible time when he
could go to Holy Mass that weekend to fulfill his Sunday obligation.
We have looked everywhere for a Mass early or late enough for him to
attend, but it seems to be impossible.  It is absolutely necessary
that he take this class before attempting to drive a scooter in Rome
for safety reasons and licensing.  He cannot miss ANY of the class
because if he does he will not able to obtain the certification to
drive in Italy that is necessary. 

What should he do?  Does he need a
special dispensation to miss Holy Mass on Sunday?
He thinks he has to have a dispensation from the local Ordinary but I
think he doesn’t. Who’s right?

One is excused from one’s Sunday obligation for a moderately serious reason, and the need to take a driving class to obtain licensing will count as a sufficient reason. Things like being required to work or attend weekend classes for non-trivial subjects (and how to drive safely and get a vehicle license is a non-trivial subject) definitely excuse.

Your boyfriend therefore does not need to obtain special permission in order to miss Mass.

Also, when one doesn’t have a moderately serious reason and one does need to get permission to miss Mass, it isn’t the local ordinary that one needs to approach but just one’s own pastor. In this case, only a "just cause" (a much weaker standard) is needed for him to provide permission. The Code of Canon Law provides:

Can.  1245 Without prejudice to the right of diocesan bishops mentioned in can. 87, for a just cause and according to the prescripts of the diocesan bishop, a pastor can grant in individual cases a dispensation from the obligation of observing a feast day or a day of penance or can grant a commutation of the obligation into other pious works. A superior of a religious institute or society of apostolic life, if they are clerical and of pontifical right, can also do this in regard to his own subjects and others living in the house day and night.

Needing to take the kind of class that you describe is certainly a just cause, and if the pastor is half-way reasonable, he should recognize this.

Even if he didn’t, though, the reason itself is sufficient to allow your boyfriend to attend the class and miss Mass this once.

20

Clerical Garb

A reader writes:

I’ve recently been wondering about what kinds of clothes priests should wear according to the letter of the law.  specifically, I know that one of my parish priests likes to sit in the back of other parishes and observe mass when he goes on vacation.  Now I know that is not what he is supposed to do, and he knows it too, so I’m not looking to concern you with the fine points of whether he should be in choir dress, cassock+surplice or vested and exercising his priestly faculties at those masses.  I am however interested in what kinds of clothes priests can and should wear day to day. This is particularly of interest to me as I have recently been
accepted to the seminary for pre-theology studies in my home diocese.

 
Anyhow, some specifics might include:
  • when is it appropriate/allowable for priests not to wear the roman collar but to dress in purely secular clothing?
  • is it permissible for a priest to wear the Roman cassock outside of church grounds, e.g. out to dinner or shopping?
  • who is responsible for setting these norms – national conferences, individual bishops, the Code of Canon Law?

For priests belonging to the Latin Church, the universal law regarding this matter is found in the Code of Canon Law, which states:

Can. 284

Clerics
are to wear suitable ecclesiastical garb according to the norms issued by the
conference of bishops and according to legitimate local customs.

As you can see, the Code simply states that they are to wear some kind of distinctive garb and authorizes the authorizes the conference of bishops (as well as local custom) to determine this more precisely, which answers the third of your bulleted questions.

Before we look at the complimentary norm for this canon here in the United States, though, let’s look at a passage from the 1994 Directory for the Life and Ministry of Priests, which goes into the matter in more depth and says:

66. Obligation of Ecclesiastical Attire.

In a secularised and materialistic society, where the external signs of sacred and supernatural realities tend to disappear, it is particularly important that the community be able to recognise the priest, man of God and dispenser of his mysteries, by his attire as well, which is an unequivocal sign of his dedication and his identity as a public minister. The priest should be identifiable primarily through his conduct, but also by his manner of dressing, which makes visible to all the faithful, indeed and to all men, his identity and his belonging to God and the Church.

For this reason, the clergy should wear "suitable ecclesiastical dress, in accordance with the norms established by the Episcopal Conference and the legitimate local custom”. This means that the attire, when it is not the cassock, must be different from the manner in which the laity dress, and conform to the dignity and sacredness of his ministry. The style and colour should be established by the Episcopal Conference, always in agreement with the dispositions of the universal law.

Because of their incoherence with the spirit of this discipline, contrary practices cannot be considered legitimate customs; and should be removed by the competent authority.

Outside of entirely exceptional cases, a cleric’s failure to use this proper ecclesiastical attire could manifest a weak sense of his identity as one consecrated to God.

Now, here’s the U.S. complimentary norm:

The National Conference of Catholic Bishops, in accord with the
prescriptions of canon 284, hereby decrees that without prejudice to
the provisions of canon 288 [which exempts deacons from the clerical dress requirement], clerics are to dress in conformity with
their sacred calling.

In liturgical rites, clerics shall wear the vesture prescribed in the
proper liturgical books. Outside liturgical functions, a black suit and
Roman collar are the usual attire for priests. The use of the cassock
is at the discretion of the cleric.

In the case of religious clerics, the determinations of their proper
institutes or societies are to be observed with regard to wearing the
religious habit [SOURCE].

As you can see from this, "the use of the cassock is at the discretion of the cleric," which means that it would be permitted outside church grounds, answering the second of your bulleted questions.

This leaves your first bulleted question, which is in what circumstances they can simply go about in civvies, without the black suit and Roman collar that this norm requires.

The answer is . . . the law doesn’t say.

We know that there are exceptions, because the Directory for the Life and Ministry of Priests alludes to "entirely exceptional cases" being sufficient to excuse a priest from wearing clerical garb, but it doesn’t say what those might be.

This therefore strikes me as an area of the law that could stand further clarification.

One note about the phrase "entirely exceptional cases": That’s a pretty strong phrase and it might be taken to mean that you need an awful strong reason not to wear clericals in a particular situation. But this might misread the intent of the Directory. It could easily be argued that the Directory is concerned with getting priests to wear clerical garb in general and thus it reqiures an "entirely exceptional case" to justify not wearing ecclesiastical garb in general. In other words: a priest needs a powerful reason–like government prohibition or the possibility of violence against him–in order to justify never wearing clerical garb.

That being said, given the pastoral reasons behind the law as articulated by the Directory and the fact that the law assumes that he will be wearing clerical garb as a general matter, a conscientious priest will not lightly excuse himself from wearing it in public.

And if I may add an additional pastoral reason why he should not do so: It will confuse the faithful if they see him sometimes in clerical dress and sometimes not and undermine his ability to minister to them effectively as doubts are sewn in their minds about whether his "failure to use this proper ecclesiastical attire could manifest a weak sense of his identity as one consecrated to God."

Incidentally, for readers overseas, I did a quick check of the complimentary norms for canon 284 a number of other countries in the English-speaking world (England, Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) and was mildly surprised to discover that the U.S. is far more specific in spelling out the requirements for clerical dress. England’s complimentary norm simply says that existing customs regarding clerical dress are to be observed (thus devolving the matter to existing custom). Ireland and Canada’s norms say that a priest is to be recognizable by his dress as a priest (thus implicitly devolving the matter to custom). And Australia and New Zealand say that the dress needs to identify him as a priest but then says the diocesan bishop will make further determination of the matter (thus devolving it on the local bishop). Some of these countries also add that the garb must be suitable to the occasion.

St. Paul-Minneapolist Man Excommunicates Self?

Earlier this month the Rainbow-Sashers attempted to receive Communion in the cathedral in the Diocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis.

Fortunately, they were denied Communion.

Unfortunately, some of them got it anyway.

GET THE STORY.

EXCERPT:

In an act that some witnesses called a "sacrilege" and others called a sign of "solidarity," a man who was not wearing a sash received a Communion wafer from a priest, broke it into pieces and handed it to some of the sash wearers, who consumed it on the spot.

Ushers threatened to call the police, and a church employee burst into tears when the unidentified man re-distributed the consecrated wafer, which Catholics consider the body of Christ. But the Mass was not interrupted, and the incident ended peacefully, said Dennis McGrath, a spokesman for the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis.

"It was confrontational, but we decided not to try to arrest the guy," he said.

I’m not sure of all of the details of the incident, and I’m not sure on what grounds the guy could have been arrested, but this situation has potential canonical implications that go beyond civil law.

The man who took the host and then used it to give Communion to the Rainbow-Sashers may have excommunicated himself and incurred an excommunication that can only be lifted by the Holy See.

The Code of Canon Law provides:

Can. 1367

A person who throws away the consecrated species or takes or retains them for a sacrilegious purpose incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; moreover, a cleric can be punished with another penalty, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state.

Now, the unnamed man in the Diocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis clearly took the consecrated species, and on the face of the matter, he took them for purposes of distributing Communion to the Rainbow-Sashers, so the question becomes whether this was a sacrilegious purpose.

Normally, sacreligious purposes would be things like using the consecrated Host in a "black Mass" or similar act of overt and unambiguous desecration, but what the man did may count.

The Rainbow Sash movement is in open opposition to the Church’s teachings on homosexuality, and wearing a raindbow sash at Mass signals this opposition. It is thus no surprise that the Cardinal Arinze, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, has intervened to prevent Communion from being distributed to them.

The Code would certainly back him up:

Can.  915

Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.

To publicly oppose the Church’s teachings on homosexuality at the very moment Communion is being distributed is, by its nature, manifest grave sin, and since the Rainbow-Sashers persist in doing it, they also appear to be doing so obstinately.

This means that the man who gave them Communion was taking the sacred species for purposes of distributing Comunion to those who are canonically prohibited from receiving Communion on the grounds that they were obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin.

That sounds like he had a sacrilegious purpose to me.

Further, his action has the appearance of itself being an act of public opposition to the Church’s teaching on homosexuality (or at least its pastoral practice in the distribution of the sacraments) and thus itself appears to be an act of manifest grave sin. The quality of obstinacy may not be present here, but the act of taking the sacred species in order to commit an act of manifest grave sin (publicly defying the Church’s teaching on homosexuality/publicly defying its law regarding the distribution of Communion) would itself seem to be a sacrilegious purpose.

So it sounds to me like this gentleman may have excommunicated himself, and done so in a way that will require the action of the Holy See to undo (since this offense is reserved to the Holy See).

If this is the case, then it happened automatically, without any intervention on the part of the Diocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis.

More On The Schiavo-Centzone Marriage

Ed Peters has a new piece up about the canonical implications of the marriage of Terri Schiavo’s husband Michael to his live-in girlfriend after he bumped off Terri.

For those who may not be familiar with the issue, canon law provides an impediment known as crimen (Latin, "crime") that provides that "Anyone who, with a view to entering marriage with a certain person, has brought about the death of that person’s spouse or of one’s own spouse invalidly attempts this marriage."

How, then, could the Diocese of St. Petersburgh allow Michael Schiavo (a Lutheran) to marry his mistress (a Catholic) in a Catholic ceremony after Schiavo brought about Terri’s death?

Good question. Let’s hope it gets answered.

In the meantime,

GET THE STORY.