Category: Canon Law

A reader writes:

I am a recent revert back to the Catholic Church. My wife and I (both born, baptized, confimed Catholic) were married in a Protestant church. Now that I have recently come "Home", its obviously important to me to have the Church validate our marriage. Until then, I know, I am unable to receive the Eucharist. The problem is, my wife, unfortuanetly, does not share the same passion about the Catholic faith and continues to attend a protestant church. How does the church handle my situation where 2 Catholics, who were married outside the church, wish to have the church recognize my marriage where only one desires to come back in full communion with the Church. Its obviously important for me to be in full communion again and receive the Eucharist but can not untill 1) Confession and 2) this marriage issue. I recently spoke with my parish priest and he stated he would have to look into it. Jimmy, can you provide me with an answer.

There actually is a little ambiguity in the law regarding how such situations are to be handled–at least now that the Holy See has tightened up its understanding of what constitutes formal defection from the Church, and different dioceses might wish to handle the mechanics of the situation in slightly different ways, so it is prudent of your priest to check. However, the core of the solution to your situation is clear (as is the fact that it is resolvable).

The standard way of handling a situation like this would be for you and your wife to have a convalidation ceremony where you both renew your consent to the marriage. That’s the main thing that needs to happen.

Hopefully, your wife will not object to renewing her consent in this ceremony, though if she were to then there is another potential way to handle the situation. There is no need to go into detail on that, though, as long as the normal way of handling the situation can be pursued.

Once you have heard back from the priest, I would talk to your wife and explain that this is one of your religious obligations as a Catholic and that it means a lot to you to be able to do this. You might also point out–if you think it appropriate–that many couples treat renewals of their wedding vows as an occasion to celebrate their continued love and commitment to each other. The convalidation service can be that for both of you, though for you it also has an additional dimension of fulfilling a religious obligation. If it were me, I’d try as much as possible to put this in a positive light: I need to do this, but I also want to do this, because it will allow me to publicly reaffirm my love and commitment to you before God and my Church. It is a way I can say, "You are the one I love, you are the one I am committed to" before my Church.

There will be some additional canonical details that will also have to be handled as part of the process, but a convalidation is the normal way that such things are handled, and the fact that your wife does not presently consider herself Catholic will not pose an insuperable barrier. Your parish priest can help you work through the details of the process (once he’s checked on exactly how your diocese wants to handle this).

20

Strange, but true!

Canonist Ed Peters notes the website of Msgr. Cormac Burke who is one of the world’s most influential canon lawyers and who has retired from the Roman Rota to work in Kenya.

So, indeed, one of the world’s most important canon law web sites is based in Kenya, and has a .ke extension to prove it.

GO KENYA!

Msgr. Burke has made available on his site a wealth of materials, including canonical ones, and those including sentences he wrote at the Rota (so others can read them and learn how such matters are handled at the Rota).

SWEET!

GET THE STORY.

VISIT THE SITE.

NOTE: I’ve been reading some of Msgr. Burke’s rotal sentences and I must say that I’m impressed. They are very sharp, precise, and thoughtful. I have to say that I feel for him when he’s ruling that the nullity of a marriage has not been proven, despite the petitioner’s desires, but I see why the evidence he’s ruling on genuinely does not prove the nullity of the marriage in terms of the law.

For a while I’ve been meaning to do a post on what former priests who have been laicized are and are not allowed to do, since questions come up about this periodically.

The place where the rules are spelled out, somewhat surprisingly, is not in the Code of Canon Law or any other universally-binding piece of law but in a document that is issued to each priest as he is laicized.

That document is known as a rescript of laicization, and one is issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for each priest who is laicized. What it says on that rescript is what that priest is allowed to do or not do.

This does not mean that they cut different deals with different priests. Instead, it seems that they base the rescripts on the same template (kind of like a form letter) and basically lay down the same rules for each priest who is laicized.

In the below-the-fold part of this post, I’ve reproduced what I’m given to understand is the standard rescript of laicization that was implemented in 1980 and that, with minor modifications, has been in use ever since.

(The minor modifications would concern things like the name of the current pontiff, the fact that the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is now called just the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and updating the numbers of a couple of canons that allow laicized priests to hear deathbed confessions, since the numbers are different in the 1983 Code than they were in the 1917 Code).

The main do’s and don’ts that pertain to how the priest is to conduct himself on an ongoing basis are found in sections 4 and 5 of the rescript and can be summarized as follows:

1) He can’t celebrate any of the sacraments except for hearing deathbed confessions. It is especially noted that he can’t give homilies.

2) He can’t serve as an extraordinary minister of holy Communion.

3) He can’t serve any "directive office in the pastoral field" (e.g., serving as a parish administrator).

4) He can’t do anything at all in a seminary.

5) He can’t serve as a director or teacher in a Catholic university.

6) He can’t teach theology or any closely related discipline (e.g., religious studies, history of theology) in a non-Catholic university.

7) He can’t serve a director (e.g., school principal) in a parochial school.

8) He can’t serve as a teacher in a parochial school unless he gets the bishop’s permission.

9) He shouldn’t live in or frequent places where his status as an ex-priest is generally known, unless he gets the bishop’s permission.

By extension (though there are some doubtful cases), anything a laicized priest is not forbidden to do in his rescript is something he is permitted to do.

In doubtful cases the text of the rescript that was given to an individual priest should be consulted, and the interpretation of the local bishop followed regarding whether a particular action or office violates the instructions the rescript contains.

Continue reading “What Ex-Priests Can & Can’t Do”

A reader from the U.K. writes:

I’ve just turned eighteen and over the last year I’ve been looking into the Catholic Church. I was baptised in the Church of England as a baby but I’m completely ‘unchurched’.

I never really had any sort of Christian instruction and a few years ago I stopped believing even in God for a while before eventually returning to a form of Christian belief. Things didn’t really start to make sense to me though until I started investigating Catholicism. Over the last year, I’ve devoured books (and websites) about Catholicism – on doctrine, Church history, writings of Fathers and Saints… Protestantism was all I knew of Christianity so I’ve still had to struggle with all the usual Catholic doctrines that Protestants struggle with, etc. But it’s not just been about struggling with Catholic distinctives – I decided fairly quickly that if any form of Christianity was true, Catholicism was it – I’ve been steadily growing in my faith in Christ in general, praying, and studying the Bible.)

I’ve been certain for a couple of months now that I have to become Catholic but I haven’t been totally sure what to do about it. I’ve just returned from an amazing trip to Rome and being there underscored that I have to do something ASAP to take steps to enter the Church. I guess I need to contact a priest, but I don’t really know what the procedure is. Does this mean waiting a year and being confirmed next Easter? When would I be able to go to Confession – would that mean waiting a year? And I worry that there’s going to be disruption in the middle of all this – I’m going away to university on the other side of England in October.

I’ll try to be as much help as I can.

I’m afraid that I don’t know the process for the reception of converts in England as well as I’d like. Here in the States, the process is (theoretically) governed by a document known as the National Statutes for the Catechumenate, but this applies only to the U.S. and the bishops of England and Wales are likely to have their own particular law regarding the reception of converts. If they do, though, it isn’t discussed in the commentaries I have available to me at the moment.

I have reason to think, though, that you would not be required to endure a whole year before being able to be received at Easter. Since you are already baptized, Easter shouldn’t be the liturgically desirable point for your reception into the Church, anyway, and that research I’ve done online suggests that a period of a number of months might be involved, but not a whole year.

You’re right that you should contact a priest, and he could get you started on the process, but hopefully it won’t involve all the nonsense that converting to Catholicism in America typically does.

Perhaps some of the British readers of the blog could use the combox to shed light on the British conversion process.

HERE’S SOME FOLKS WHO CAN ALSO HELP YOU OUT.

CHECK OUT THIS PAGE IN PARTICULAR.

Hope this helps, and welcome home!

. . . where the MSM has been getting it wrong.

Despite numerous secular press reports yesterday, the new Chinese bishops have not been declared excommuicate by the Holy See (EXCERPTS):

The threat of excommunication hangs over two Chinese bishops ordained without papal approval, but only if they acted knowingly and freely, said a canon lawyer.

And even if they incurred excommunication automatically by acting of their own free will, the penalty is limited until Pope Benedict XVI publicly declares their excommunication to the bishops and their faithful, said Jesuit Father James Conn, a professor of canon law at Rome’s Pontifical Gregorian University.

Excommunication "may have been incurred, but we do not know that because we do not know their consciences or the external factors involved," Father Conn said.

If they were automatically excommunicated, they immediately are forbidden to celebrate the sacraments, receive the sacraments or perform the functions of a bishop unless the good of souls requires them to do so, he said.

Father Conn said the penalty is formal and more extensive once it is publicly declared by the pope, the only person in the church with the authority to impose penal sanctions on a bishop.

Public notification is not simply a formality, he said, but it is "for the good of the people of God," who have a right to know when a minister is celebrating the sacraments illicitly.

"There cannot be just a vague declaration because the good of souls is at stake," Father Conn said.

GET THE STORY.

A reader writes:

hi jimmy, i have my confirmation soon and im looking for some names and i really like the name Trinity and i would like to know if its alright for a confirmation name. please let me know as soon as possible.

"Trinity" is an unusual name to pick for a confirmation name. It’s a description of the nature/existence of God, and it’s a name that isn’t traditional in Christian culture.

These are considerations that might make you not want to choose the name "Trinity" as a confirmation name.

On the other hand, here is how the name would be regarded canonically . . .

There is no mention of confirmation names in the Code of Canon Law. Under current canon law, they are a Catholic folk tradition that may or may not be used, at the confirmand’s discretion.

Should they be used, they most likely should be understood on the model of baptismal names–which are mentioned in canon law, given the general legal and sacramental parallelism between baptism and confirmation.

Here is what canon law says regarding baptismal names:

Can.  855

Parents, sponsors, and the pastor are to take care that a name foreign to Christian sensibility is not given.

It is going to be hard to argue that the name "Trinity" is "foreign to Christian sensibility." While it is true that not many people have been named this, that fact alone is not sufficient to make a name "foreign" to Christian tradition. The name may be uncommon, but this canon has not been understood so as to make uncommon names foreign and thus impermissible.

When we look beyond commonality to the content of the name itself, "Trinity" definitely cannot be seen as foreign to Christian sensibility. "Trinity" is the nature/existence of God in the Christian conception, so it can’t be foreign in and of itself.

One could argue that the name "Trinity" is too close to the nature/existence of God to be a fitting name,  but this will be hard to maintain given the common Hispanic name of "Jesus." If Spanish-speakers can name their children "Jesus," then it is going to be hard to say that "Trinity" is too close to the nature/existence of God for it to be impermissible as "foreign to Christian sensibility."

As further evidence that the name is  not foreign to Christian sensibility, some folks actually have the name "Trinity."

And some religious have incorporated the name "Trinity" into their religious name, like Philip of the Blessed Trinity.

If you wanted to take the edge off the use of the name, you might choose the name of a religious like Philip of the Blessed Trinity, whose name you could shorten in practice to "Trinity," but I find no grounds on which to say that the name itself would be canonically impermissible.

In fact, since the goal of the Christian life is to grow closer to God and thus more like God, wanting to name oneself in some way after the central mystery of the Christian faith would seem to be a spiritually positive impulse.

BTW, after your confirmation please write back and let me know if "Trinity" Is Still My Name.

I know I said I was going to take Triduum off from blogging, and I know that this comes rather late in the day, but in case it’ll help anybody, here goes. . . .

You often hear it said that the law of fast allows one full meal per day and two smaller meals provided that the two smaller meals do not add up to a second full meal.

I’ve even said that myself.

But this is false. At least in the United States.

If you check the legal sources, the bit about the two smaller meals not adding up to a second one is not to be found.

First, here’s what the Church’s universal law–found in the 1966 Apostolic Constitution Paenitemini–says:

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 [Norms, III:2].

So there’s nothing in that about the two smaller meals (which aren’t even called meals, just “some food,” with the implication that it’s less than the “one full meal” that’s allowed) adding up to anything.

So if that requirement is not found in universal law, then it must be found in the particular law of the United States if it is to be binding here. So let’s check the complimentary norms issued by the USCCB.

HERE’S THE RELEVANT ONE OF THE CURRENT NORMS.

If you read that, all it does is say that the norms established in the U.S. bishop’s 1966 document On Penance and Abstinence are still in force.

SO LET’S CHECK ON PENANCE AND ABSTINENCE.

If you do that, you’ll see that the bishops didn’t address the subject there, either.

Therefore, while it may be customary in some places to try to calculate whether the two snacks add up to a second meal, this is not a requirement that has force of law in the United States.

Personally, I’ve always found the adding up of the two snacks to be really problematic, because my meals vary in size considerably, and I don’t have a fixed meal size. And how is that supposed to be measured, anyway? In calories? In food volume?

The good news is that this need not be a point of scrupulosity for people. You can have one full meal a day and two snacks, but you don’t need to scruple about what the two snacks add up to.

Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes (a.k.a. TomKat, apparently) are having a baby.

Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes are also both baptized Catholic.

But now Tom is a Scientologist, and Katie seems to be leaning that way.

Katie’s parents are pushing for the baby to be baptized.

Will Church law and pastoral practice permit this?

CANONIST ED PETERS TAKES ON THE ISSUE.

In reading what he says, be careful to note the distinction Ed uses between delaying baptism and denying baptism.

There is a difference there.

A reader writes:

I’ve been coordinating the sacrament preparation @ my parish for 10 years.  Early on, the issue arose of a would-be Confirmation sponsor unable to attend the actual Confirmation liturgy.  In some places, pastors allow sponsors by "proxy" — they are listed in the official Church record, but someone physically stands in for them at the time of Confirmation.   (This practice is not written into canon law.)  When this idea was put forth here, an assistant pastor – a canonist – advised (and strenuously maintained/demanded) that no "proxy" was possible, but in fact a sponsor is the physical witness to the Confirmation.

Since that time, we’ve changed pastors/assistants and the new staff are not as certain/adament with regard to the proxy issue.   I maintain that the logic used with the first resolution of this issue still is reasonable & defensible.  However, I am not a canonist, but a laywoman – and, to make matters worse, the priest whose opinion carried so much weight years ago has since left the priesthood.  So, my source of information is "tainted." 

Now, my son was asked to be a Confirmation sponsor in another diocese, with the plan to have a proxy stand in for him at the liturgy while he is out-of-state.  I told him that the proxy solution was not a true solution, but that whoever is present is the actual sponsor, (according to our errant priest-friend). 

What is correct?

You are correct that the use of proxies as sponsors in confirmation is not found in the Code, however this of itself does not mean that the use of proxies is illegitimate.

There are all kinds of acts for which we can designate someone to act on our behalf, and canon law does not specifically have to name all of them. In general, people can ask someone to act on their behalf (i.e., serve as a proxy) unless this is specifically prohibited or otherwise impossible for some reason.

The ability to use proxies goes so far as to inject itself into the sacraments. Canon law allows the use of proxies in the exchange of matrimonial consent, for example, and one could argue that confession is made by proxy when a person confesses through a translator–something else canon law also explicitly envisions. You can even argue that the parents are serving as proxies of a sort at the baptism of an infant and requesting baptism on his behalf.

There are limites to what a proxy can do for you, though. They cannot be baptized or absolved or married for you–only you can receive the sacrament. But proxies can act as your agent in doing things attendant to the sacrament, such as requesting it, making confession in a form the priest can understand, or conveying your consent to be married.

Given that, it would seem in principle that a godparent could make use of a proxy. If the person who will be receiving the sacrament can make use of proxies to perform certain functions for him then it would seem that a godparent–whose role is much less central to the sacrament–could do the same.

At the very least, there is no in principle impossibility of this (the way there is an in principle impossibility of anyone receiving the sacrament for you). That would seem to kick the question into the realm of what ecclesiastical law says.

As always in law, liberty is presumed unless the law provides otherwise, and there is no law barring the use of proxies by godparents at either baptism or confirmation.

In fact, the green CLSA commentary specifically notes:

Although the canon [i.e., 872] says nothing about a sponsor’s presence ethrough a proxy, this silence is not to be understood as barring the use of a proxy to stand in for an absent sponsor [at baptism] [p. 1061].

Regarding your former assistant pastor’s statement that the godparent must be present because he is the physical witness to the confirmation, this is incorrect, as is shown by several factors:

1) There is no strict mandate to even have a sponsor at confirmation. Canon 892 only says that there should be a sponsor "insofar as possible." If he was the witness to the event then the use of a sponsor would be mandated.

2) The canons on proof of confirmation (894-896) make no mention of the sponsor attesting to the event. Canon 895 does say that the sponsor’s name is to be put in the registry along with the names of the confirmand, the minister, and the parents, but that is so we can tell how who is related to whom–not who witnessed the event. (E.g., if a confirmand’s mother is in the hospital due to a car crash and can’t attend the confirmation, that doesn’t mean that her name gets left out of the "Mother" slot in the confirmatin registry.)

3) The role of confirmation sponsors is expressly modelled on baptismal sponsors in the Code, and when we look at the proofs of baptism section the Code EXPLICITLY envisions someone other than the sponsor serving as witness to the event (canon 875). If a baptismal sponsor is not a necessary witness to baptism then a confirmation sponsor (whose witnessing function isn’t even mentioned in the Code) certainly is not a necessary witness for confirmation.

YOU CAN LOOK UP THESE CANON HERE.

I therefore do not see any legal barrier to the idea of a confirmation sponsor using a proxy to stand in for him on the day of the event.

20