Category: Canon Law

A reader writes:

My wife went to confession this
past Sunday.  Our church provides confession before mass and it runs up
to communion.  While in line for confession, she said she wasn’t able
to concentrate on the readings, then by the time she came out of the
confessional, she had missed the end of the gospel.  She then
considered not receiving communion because she felt she did not
complete her Sunday obligation of mass.  She finally decided to receive
communion, but on the drive home she thought that she may have
committed a sin by receiving communion.  She ended up going to another
mass later that evening, but that didn’t calm her fears.  Is
there anything I can tell her or do to help her?

Yes. Let’s split this question in two.

First: Did your wife sin by receiving Communion when she hadn’t been able to participate in part of the liturgy of the word?

NO!

Y’know why? Because YOU DON’T HAVE TO PARTICIPATE IN MASS IN ORDER
TO RECEIVE COMMUNION. That’s why there are Communion services. That’s
why the Church’s documents EXPLICITLY note that it’s licit to receive
Communion even if you just happen to be walking through a church when
Communion is being distributed.

How much or how little of the Mass you attend when you receive
Communion the first time during a day has NOTHING to do with whether
you can receive Communion. You don’t even have to be at Mass at all!
You may be receiving in a Communion service (as is the case, for
example, with the sick who are receiving Communion in the hospital).

(NOTE: This applies to the FIRST time you receive Communion on a
given day. If you want to receive twice then canon law provides that
the SECOND time you receive that you need to do so in the context of a
Mass that you are attending.)

Since this was the first time (I assume) that your wife had received Communion that day, there was NO SIN AT ALL committed.

Receiving Communion and fulfilling one’s Sunday obligation are TWO SEPARATE ISSUES.

Now let’s deal with the second question: Did your wife fulfill her Sunday obligation?

Yes.

Not only because she went to Mass later in the day but ALSO because
her participation in the first Mass was sufficient to satisfy the
requirements of canon law.

Here’s why:

The Church HASN’T specified precisely how much or what parts of the
Mass one needs to attend in order to fulfill one’s Sunday obligation.
Obviously, it needs to be a significant part of the Mass, but the
Church has not offered us an explicit formula for figuring this out.

That means that it is reasonable to look to the historic practice of
the Church for help in figuring out this question. When we do that, we
find that the situation your wife was in is VERY COMMON in Church
history. Before the liturgy was revised, it was VERY COMMON to have
confessions being heard during the liturgy of the word (which was then
called the "Mass of the catechumens," separate from the liturgy of the
Eucharist or "Mass of the faithfu") and–y’know what?–they DIDN’T stop
confessions during the gospel so people could hear it. Nor did the
Church tell people they had to go to another Mass if they didn’t hear
the gospel.

A common stream of opinion prior to the reform of the liturgy was
that you satisfied your Sunday obligation AS LONG AS YOU HEARD THE MASS
FROM THE OFFERTORY NEAR THE BEGINNING OF THE LITURGY OF THE EUCHARIST
OR "MASS OF THE FAITHFUL." In other words, YOU COULD MISS THE ENTIRE
LITURGY OF THE WORD OR "MASS OF THE CATECHUMENS" AND STILL FULFILL YOUR
SUNDAY OBLIGATION.

I can quote this point from MULTIPLE pre-Concililiar moral theologies if necessary.

That being the case, we then ask: Do the Church’s documents indicate that MORE than this is required today?

No.

They don’t.

In fact, as I’ve mentioned, canon law does not indicate anything at
all regarding how much of the Mass we need to attend in order to
satisfy our Sunday obligation, which also tells us something else: THEY
DON’T WANT US SCRUPULING ABOUT THIS POINT. If they wanted us to scruple
about it, they would have told us more precisely what is required.

As long as we’re making a basic effort to do our part and attending
Mass–and ESPECIALLY if we attend Mass from the Offertory onwards,
which was commonly considered sufficient in the past–then we have done
that.

Now maybe she might have doubts about this.

Okay, then in comes our old friend, Canon 14 of the Code of Canon Law, which provides that in cases of a doubt of law then the law does not bind.

Given the lack of guidance on this question and the presence of the
pre-Conciliar history of regarding hearing Mass from the Offertory
onward as sufficient we AT LEAST have a doubt of whether the law
requires us to attend any particular part of the liturgy of the Word in
order to fulfill our Sunday obligation.

We therefore have a doubt of law, and the law does not bind unless and until Rome clarifies it.

Until then the faithful are not obligated to hear any part of the
liturgy of the word in order to fulfill their Sunday obligation.

That may surprise some folks, but that’s what canon law indicates
given the doubt of law situation that unambiguously exists in this case.

If your wife couldn’t concentrate on certain readings (which
wouldn’t have counted prior to the reform of the liturgy, anyway) or
didn’t hear the gospel then she CLEARLY fulfilled her obligation under
the old law and, since the new law doesn’t specify and has the
provision regarding a doubt of law not binding then she CLEARLY
fulfilled her Sunday obligation by attending the part of Mass that she
did.

So: It was praiseworthy for your wife to go to the lengths she did
to attend another Mass, but it was not required by the law and she did
not sin. Her Sunday obligation was fulfilled (TWICE!) and she should
not scruple on this point.

20

Terri Schiavo’s husband, Michael, has married his long-time live-in mistress.

In a Catholic church.

This is extremely problematic for the obvious reason: namely, that the Church seems to be putting its blessing on the marriage of a man who killed his wife in order to marry his mistress.

There ought to be a law against that kind of thing.

And in fact, there is.

Canon law specifically provides an impediment to prevent exactly this thing. It’s known as the impediment of crimen (Latin, "crime"). If you bring about the death of your spouse with a view to marrying another person and then you attempt marriage, the impediment of crimen makes that new marriage automatically invalid.

The Code of Canon Law provides the following:

Can.  1090 §1. 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.

§2. Those who have brought about the death of a spouse by mutual physical or moral cooperation also invalidly attempt a marriage together.

Further, only the pope can dispense from the impediment of crimen.

Now, when Michael Schiavo and his long-time mistress (with whom he has had children while his wife was in the hospital) applied to be married in a Catholic church in Safety Harbor, Florida then either the pastor took steps to contact Pope Benedict and have the impediment of crimen dispensed–and B16 did that (fat chance!)–or the pastor authorized an invalid union under Church auspices between Michael Schiavo and his mistress, Jodi Centonze.

Either way, this must be clarified. If the pope dispensed from crimen in this case then, given the gravely scandalous nature of this union, the fact of the dispensation must become public or, to mitigate the grave scandal done by the invalid union, the competent ecclesiastical officials must make clear that the union was invalid and that the Church’s law prohibits precisely this kind of thing.

You may be thinking, "Well, there’s not a lot that could be done at this point, is there?"

And you’d be wrong. There is a canon law procedure for handling this situation.

CANONIST ED PETERS HAS THE STORY.

This situation is simply so outrageous that action must be taken by the competent Church authorities.

First, if a dispensation from crimen was not granted by the pope (as is overwhelmingly likely) then the parties are in an invalid union and they need to be made aware of this fact.

Second, members of the general public who are scandalized (in the popular sense) by the spectacle of the Catholic Church putting its blessing on a kill-your-wife-to-marry-your-mistress marriage must be given the message that the Catholic Church really takes seriously the culture of life and will not put its blessing on this kind of murderous immorality.

Just imagine what many non-Catholics must be thinking at this very moment: "I don’t see how the Catholic Church really believes in a culture of life if it’s willing to marry people who have killed their spouses in order to marry their mistresses. All its talk about protecting human life is just talk. They don’t really mean it. When push comes to shove, they’re totally happy uniting wife-killers and their mistresses in the bonds of holy wedlock."

Third, members of the Catholic Church need to have a cause of scandal (in the technical sense) removed. As medicine is now able to dramatically prolong life, many more Catholics will find themselves in the same situation as Michael Schiavo: Their spouse will be unable to advance their own interests for medical reasons, they will have power of attorney for their spouse, they will meet someone who they would like to marry, and then they will be tempted to use that power of attorney to bring about the death of their spouse "with a view to entering marriage with a certain person."

In other words, the Church must clarify this situation in order to avoid more disabled spouses in hospitals getting euthanatized so that the non-disabled spouses can get married to someone they have their eye on.

Lives really are at stake here.

If the competent ecclesiastical officials (possibly involving those in Rome) do not clarify this situation then people will die.

Those wishing to contact relevant individuals to request a public clarification of the matter may contact:

Rev. Stephen Dambrauskas, JCL
Promoter of Justice
Diocese of St. Petersburg
905 South Prospect Avenue
Clearwater, Florida  33756-4039

Phone:  UPDATE: 727-344-1611 Also: 727-446-2326 / 442-8884
Fax:  727-446-4287
E-Mail:  tribsp@tampabay.rr.com

They may also contact:

His Excellency Pietro Sambi
Apostolic Nuncio
3339 Massachusetts Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20008

Telephone: (202) 333-7121
Fax: (202) 337-4036

A reader writes:

I have a couple of important questions and hopefully you are the person to answer them.

I was baptized Catholic at birth and later confirmed.  I have only been married once.

First, can I even contemplate entering the Diaconate program if my wife is not Catholic (she is a baptized protestant)?  My wife attends Mass with me regularly, but does not receive communion, in respect to our church’s teachings.

Second, if my wife went through RCIA and became a Catholic, how long would she have to be a Catholic before I could be considered for the Diaconate program?

The fact that your wife is Protestant does not appear to create a canonical barrier to ordination to the permanent diaconate. The relevant canon simply reads:

Can. 1031 §2. A candidate for the permanent diaconate who is not married is not to be admitted to the diaconate until after completing at least the twenty-fifth year of age; one who is married, not until after completing at least the thirty-fifth year of age and with the consent of his wife.

There is nothing in there (nor does a check of parallel legal sources and commentary) requiring the spouse to be Catholic.

But there should be.

(NOTE: The last sentence signals that we are moving from canon law to theological opinion.)

St. Paul is very clear about the fact that Christ’s ministers–including deacons–need to have religious solidarity with their family. In 1 Timothy 3, he writes:

[8] Deacons likewise must be serious, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for gain;
[9] they must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience.
[10] And let them also be tested first; then if they prove themselves blameless let them serve as deacons.
[11] The women likewise must be serious, no slanderers, but temperate, faithful in all things.
[12] Let deacons be the husband of one wife, and let them manage their children and their households well;
[13] for those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

You’ll notice the reference to "The women" in verse 11. As a linguistic matter, the Greek here is ambiguous. The Greek text simply refers to gunaikas, which could be translated either "women" or "wives" since in Greek the word for "woman" and the word for "wife" are the same (gune–pronounced "gu-nay").

Advocates of women’s ordination have pounced on this verse to argue that there were sacramentally ordained female deacons in the early Church, but subsequent Christian tradition has made it clear that this was not the case. Only a baptized male can be validly ordained.

This indicates that the correct reading of gune should be "wife" rather than "woman." The passage should be understood to mean:

Wives likewise must be serious, no slanderers, but temperate, faithful in all things.

The structure of the passage also indicates this. Paul has just been discussing the requirements for deacons who are male in verses 8-10 and he is clearly discussing the requirements for male deacons in 12-13. It is much more likely that in verse 11 Paul is stating a further requirement for male deacons (i.e., that they have wives of a certain character) than that he is swerving wildly to mention in passing a whole different group of people (female deacons) about whose requirements for ordination he is silent.

Further, we already know that Paul has the "wife" meaning of gune in mind in this passage because in the very next verse (v. 12) it unambiguously means "wife."

If we take this as established then what does the passage say regarding the qualifications a prospective deacon’s wife must have? Among other things, that she be "faithful in all things."

What Paul means by this is somewhat ambiguous. He may mean a number of things. But I find it difficult to envision Paul regarding a prospective deacon’s wife as "faithful in all things" if she did not share the fullness of the Christian faith. If she rejected certain elements of the faith of Christ then I don’t think Paul would regard her as fitting this description.

Paul clearly consider the religious affiliation of family members important. In Titus 1:6 Paul is discussing the qualifications for office of a bishop (which term seems to have been used equivalently with presbyter in Paul’s day) and he says that one of the qualifications for ordinatoin is that "his children are believers and not open to the charge of being profligate or insubordinate."

So the children of a prospective bishop/presbyter must be believers in order for him to be qualified for ordination. This means that the religious affiliation of immediate family members are relevant for prospective ministers, and this provides part of the context for Paul’s statement that a deacon’s wife must be "faithful in all things."

This is something I recognized back when I was Protestant and married to a Catholic. I wanted–deeply–to enter the Protestant ministry as a pastor or seminary professor, but I recognized that the New Testament requires ministers to have religious solidarity with their families and, even though I’m sure that I could have found someone who would be willing to ordain me even though I had a Catholic wife, I refused in conscience to seek that.

I was willing to give up my prospective career–the only thing I wanted to do in life–rather than violate this requirement. This was an ENORMOUSLY painful thing for me, but I was planning to go into law or go back to philosophy instead.

I also thank God that he hid from me the fact that I might be able to do ministry as a Catholic so that I was not tempted to convert for the wrong reasons.

It seems quite clear to me, then, that this is a principle that needs to be honored. The immediate family members of a prospective clergyman (priest or deacon) need to share the fullness of the Christian faith, which means that they need to be Catholic.

Canon law may not require this, but in my opinion sound pastoral practice does. I understand allowing mixed marriages as a concession for the laity, but Christ’s ministers are to be held to a higher standard.

Whether your local bishop (the man who would be ordaining you to the diaconate) would agree with this, I could not say.

In regard to the second question, since even having a non-Catholic wife is not a canonical barrier to ordination there is correspondingly no canonical waiting period before ordination should she become Catholic.

The ideal thing, of course, would be for her to become Catholic, and it certainly is not inappropriate for you to invite her to consider this BUT–AND THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT–you cannot pressure her to become Catholic so that you can pursue the diaconate. The Catholic faith must be accepted freely, without coercion or emotional manipulation on the part of a spouse.

So I would encourage you to entrust this situation to God in prayer. Your desire to serve Christ is praiseworthy, and you are not canonically constrained from pursuing ordination to the diaconate, but there are serious pastoral issues connected with your life situation that may weigh against this. You should think about all this and pray about it and seek the counsel of additional people, including the vocations director of your diocese, who can guide you further regarding the particular requirements for ordination that your local bishop employs.

The situation may be messy and complex, but that’s the kind of situation that God specializes in.

Hope this helps.

A reader writes:

When I was younger I had no faith.  I had graduated from RCIA a year earlier, but lost all of my faith rather quickly.  After a few months of going to Mass against my will, I took the Eucharist out of church and threw it away.  I did this to the best of my memory 4 times, and one time I gave it to a non -catholic friend.  At the time I did it, I did not believe in the actual presence in the Eucharist.  I knew as I did this, that is was considered terrible.  A few months ago I found my faith and went to confession to receive absolution.  The priest absolved me of those terrible sins. 

I did some research afterwards and found out that what I did causes automatic excommunication that only the Holy See could lift and my first confession was invalid.  I was terrified to hear this. 

I was wondering that since at the time I did not know that there was the penalty of excommunication for this, did I actually receive the penalty?  I did not do this to harm the Catholic Church; I have no idea what drove me to do this.  Part of it was I did not believe, part of it was a catholic friends constant calling Protestants cult members.  Thank you for anything you have to say…

First let me say that I’m glad that you have regained your faith and that you have turned back to God and sought reconciliation for what was done. It is wonderful that God is working in your life and has helped you find your way back to him.

I can also assure you that you are not under the penalty of excommunication and that the confession and absolution would have been valid.

Knowing that something is considered a terrible sin–and even believing yourself that it is a terrible sin–is not enough to subject one to the penalty of excommunication.

The Code of Canon Law provides that:

Can. 1324 §1. The
perpetrator of a violation is not exempt from a penalty, but the penalty
established by law or precept must be tempered or a penance employed in its
place if the delict was committed: . . .

9/ by a person who without negligence did not know
that a penalty was attached to a law or precept;

So, if you didn’t know that throwing away the sacred species carried the penalty of automatic excommunication then you’re not automatically excommunicated. Canon 1324 provides that for a person such as yourself (a non-canon law expert who would not be expected to know that this penalty existed and who thus was not negligent) must have any penalty that the law provides tempered (lessened).

The law provides automatic excommunication for throwing away the sacred species, so if this gets tempered (lessened) it ceases to be automatic excommunication. The alternative would be a penalty imposed on you by an ecclesiastical court. Since (I assume) no ecclesiastical court has met and convicted you and imposed any penalty on you, you are not under a penalty.

You also won’t be, because you’ve repented of the sin and sought reconciliation. Penalties like this are used for purposes of making someone wake up to an ongoing sin that they need to correct. Since you have already self-corrected, the Church would not hold a court proceeding to impose a penalty on you.

If this were an ongoing behavior of yours then you could indeed be subject to a penalty, but it’s not, and so you’re not.

You’ve turned back to God and to the Church, been reconciled and forgiven, and you should regard the matter as closed.

I hope this helps, and God bless you!

20

P.S. Don’t listen to your friends calling Protestants a "cult." Used in this way, the word "cult" is a silly-putty term of contempt that does not have objective meaning. I do not encourage its use. (NOTE: There are other, neutral senses in which the term "cult" can be used legitimately–e.g., "a system of worship or devotion"–but when "cult" is used to mean "bad religious group" it’s simply a brickbat hurled at people you don’t like.)

A reader writes:

I am currently going through a very rough time in my marriage—which could ultimately turn to divorce (not by my choosing).  Someone has asked me to serve as a confirmation sponsor which I have agreed to.  I have since thought because of my current situation and/or the possibility of a divorce would make me ineligible to sponsor this person.

My question, if my marriage fails over the next few months—can I sponsor someone for this coming Easter?

I ask you to also pray for my marriage.

I will do so, and I ask my other readers to do so as well.

The answer is that divorce of itself does not pose a barrier to a person serving as a sponsor for confirmation or for baptism.

Regarding confirmation sponsors, the Code of Canon Law provides:

Can.  893 §1. To perform the function of sponsor, a person must fulfill the conditions mentioned in can. 874.

Canon 874 lists the requirements for serving as a sponsor for baptism (i.e., a godparent), so the requirements for the two positions are the same. Here is what canon 874 says:

Can.  874 §1. To be permitted to take on the
function of sponsor a person must:

1/ be designated by the one to be baptized, by the
parents or the person who takes their place, or in their absence by the pastor
or minister and have the aptitude and intention of fulfilling this function;

2/ have completed the sixteenth year of age, unless
the diocesan bishop has established another age, or the pastor or minister has
granted an exception for a just cause;

3/ be a Catholic who has been confirmed and has
already received the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist and who leads a life
of faith in keeping with the function to be taken on;

4/ not be bound by any canonical penalty
legitimately imposed or declared;

5/ not be the father or mother of the one to be
baptized.

§2. A baptized person who belongs to a non-Catholic
ecclesial community is not to participate except together with a Catholic
sponsor and then only as a witness of the baptism.

As you can see, there is nothing in here about divorce–especially divorce against one’s will.

The closest the canon comes to touching on the subject of divorce is in the clause that refers to "lead[ing] a life of faith in keeping with the function to be taken on." This doesn’t mean being perfect. It means leading the Catholic life sufficiently that you do not provide a grave scandal to the confirmand (e.g., by setting a very bad example for him that may lead him into a gravely sinful lifestyle).

If you were divorcing your spouse in order to be able to pursue an adulterous affair you’ve been having then that would violate this clause, but this doesn’t sound like what you’re doing. It sounds like you are trying to preserve your marriage, so unless you are doing something else that is gravely contrary to the faith that would prevent you from fulfilling your duty to the confirmand (e.g., setting a bad example for him by being a known, ongoing adulterer, helping run an abortion clinic, openly opposing the Church’s teachings) then there is not a canonical barrier to serving as his sponsor.

Even if you were initiating a civil divorce it would not automatically be a disqualification since there are situations in which civil divorce is warranted.

There also might be things in one’s past that, at one time, would have made one an unsuitable sponsor because of the scandal that could result to the confirmand (e.g., if you used to live fast and loose), but if these have been repented of and firmly put behind one so that one is currently leading a non-scandalous life then there is not a canonical barrier to serving as sponsor.

So divorce itself is not a barrier to serving as a confirmation sponsor, and should this unfortunate and painful thing happen in your case, it would not of itself prevent you from serving as sponsor.

I hope this helps, and I encourage my readers to keep your marital situation in prayer.

God bless you!

Ed Peters has a new piece on his blog regarding a dustup that has apparently occurred in some quarters regarding remarks made by Cardinal Mario Pompedda.

As Ed points out, it isn’t altogether clear precisely what the Cardinal said.

Unfortunately, it looks like some may be spinning what the Cardinal said to support unrestricted access to Communion for divorced and remarried couples.

HERE’S A STORY GIVING SOME SENSE OF THAT.

Based on what I’ve seen Cardinal Pompedda reported as saying, he didn’t say anything like that.

What he is reported as saying is that civil divorce is not automatically sinful (it’s not) and Catholics who have been civilly divorced and civilly remarried are not excommunicated (they’re not)–so he’s right on both counts.

But these facts alone do not mean that one is qualified to receive Communion. There’s a difference between being excommunicated (a canonical censure applied by the Church for a handful of grave offenses against faith and morals) and being unqualified to receive Communion (which any ol’ mortal sin causes). The mere fact that one is not excommunicated thus does not mean that one has a right to receive Communion.

Civilly divorcing may or may not be mortally sinful (it depends on the individual case) but for Catholics to remarry in an invalid civil ceremony and then having conjugal relations is a gravely sinful act that will disqualify one from being able to receive Communion, even if it does not trigger the canonical censure of excommunication.

MORE FROM ED.

According to the Associated Press:

A judge has ruled that a monsignor in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles must submit to deposition questions in the far-reaching clergy abuse case.

In his order, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Haley Fromholz writes that Monsignor Michael Lenihan cannot assert "clergy privilege" to avoid revealing whether he heard confessions of a deacon accused of sexual abuse.

Fromholz writes that "the penitential privilege protects ‘a communication made in confidence"’ but "does not prohibit the disclosure of the fact that the communication occurred."

What Ed Peters wants to know is: Why does the court want to establish whether or not Msgr. Lenihan heard the deacon’s confession. As long as the seal of confession is respected, one cannot legitimately infer anything about what the person may or may not have confessed.

Ed even gives a list of things that CAN’T legitimately be inferred from the fact a person confessed. (A very interesting list, that I suggest you read.)

The problem is that not everyone recognizes just how little can be inferred from the fact that somebody has been to confession. This means that the fact-finders in the case might assume too much regarding the implications of the fact that the deacon did or did not go to confession.

By trying to force the priest to say whether or not he heard the deacon’s confession, the judge is doing something that may skew the verdict of the case.

Further, the judge is seemingly needlessly provoking a Church-State conflict, because canon law may plausibly be read as requiring the priest NOT to admit whether or not he heard the deacon’s confession (that’s a topic for another post). If canon law requires this of the priest then the First Amendment of the U.S. Consitution would protect the priest’s right NOT to disclose this information in court.

The judge in the case has thus put the court on a collision course with the First Amendment for seemingly no purpose, given how little can be inferred from whether or not somebody went to confession.

We’ll have to see what happens in this case, but in the meantime

GET THE STORY

and

GET ED’S ANALYSIS OF IT.

A reader writes:

I was just reading http://www.jimmyakin.org/2005/01/attention_cold_.html, and thought about the preparations the New Zealand government has made for a Bird Flu outbreak. One of the precautions is to ban all public meetings.

How would this effect the moral requirement of mass attendance?

There are two dimensions to this question.

The first is the question of whether a potential global pandemic really will be furthered–in a particular area–by attending Mass.

If the answer to that question is "yes" then, regardless of what the civil government says, one is not obliged to go to Mass. In fact, one would be positivley obliged NOT to go. If there is a significant risk (as opposed to a trivial risk) that one will contract or transmit a potentially fatal illness then one simply should not be going to Mass until the danger is past.

The second question is what impact civil laws against public gatherings have on this question.

If the civil law is reasonable the one is not obliged to go–but then that already would be the case since one is not obliged to go if there is a significant risk of disease transmission.

What if the civil law is unreasonable? What if the civil government has flown off the handle and wildly overestimated the danger (and you know this because you are a supergenius doctor specializing in the communicability of bird flu).

In that case, it depends on HOW unreasonable the civil law is.

If you’re going to be fined a penny if you get caught attending–and if a penny is a trivial sum of money to you–then you would not be excused from your Sunday obligation because the penalty of a penny is trivial to you and trivial reasons do not excuse one from Mass.

On the other hand, if getting caught has more serious consequences (e.g., substantial fines, jail time, a criminal record that could harm your ability to get a job) then you definitely WOULD be excused–not in this case because of the bird flu risk (the law is unreasonable, remember?) but because the law itself creates a hardship in going to Mass that is sufficient to excuse one from the Sunday obligation.

In the latter case, the situation is similar to that of lands where the Church is persecuted and Christians face hardship if they attend Mass. In those situations Christians are not bound to attend (though doing so can be meritorious, even heroically so). If your government is behaving irrationally by prohibiting public gatherings in disproportion to the risk then you similarly are excused if you face a non-trivial penalty for attendance.

I don’t know what the bird flu situation is in New Zealand, or whether the government there really has banned public meetings, but flu pandemics can be EXTREMELY deadly, and I’m inclined to cut the government slack and err on the side of caution in preventing anything that could cause MILLIONS of deaths worldwide.

A reader writes:

I am currently reading your book The Salvation Controversy, which I received as a Christmas gift.  I am enjoying it very much by the way.  It is very clearly written and easy to understand.

Thanks! Glad you’re enjoying it!

My question is why it does not appear to have an imprimatur.  I trust your scholarship and your work generally in this area; I’m just wondering whether there is something I don’t understand about principles regarding whether or not an imprimatur should be applied for, and how readers should regard its presence or absence.  I always check for the imprimatur in books I am considering reading as a “safety check” on whether the material is reliable from a Catholic perspective.

An imprimatur is not required for a book like The Salvation Controversy. The relevant passage in the Code of Canon Law is as follows:

Can. 827 §1. To
be published, catechisms and other writings pertaining to catechetical
instruction or their translations require the approval of the local ordinary,
without prejudice to the prescript of can. 775, §2.

§2. Books which regard questions pertaining to
sacred scripture, theology, canon law, ecclesiastical history, and religious or
moral disciplines cannot be used as texts on which instruction is based in
elementary, middle, or higher schools unless they have been published with the
approval of competent ecclesiastical authority or have been approved by it
subsequently.

§3. It is recommended that books dealing with the
matters mentioned in §2, although not used as texts in instruction, as well as
writings which especially concern religion or good morals are submitted to the
judgment of the local ordinary.

Since The Salvation Controversy is not meant as a textbook for instruction in Catholic schools, it does not require an imprimatur under §2, which puts it under §3.

Works falling under §3 are not required to have an imprimatur, though the Code does recommend that they be submitted for one.

This recommendation is not generally exercised by Catholic publishers because there are far too many books on these subjects written today and dioceses are simply not set up to handle the in a timely manner–which is the reason that the law was changed in the first place. Previously many more books were required to have an imprimatur, but the publishing explosion of the 20th century made this impracticable. The situation has only accelerated in the twenty years since the revised Code was issued in 1983, and dioceses simply couldn’t handle the load if all books by Catholic that touched on religious matters were submitted for imprimaturs.

As a result, publishers often only submit books for imprimaturs if the nature of the work requires one or if there is a special marketing reason to do so.

Conversely, dioceses are at times resistant to accepting works into the imprimatur process if the nature of the work doesn’t require one, since dioceses don’t generally have full-time censors and so each imprimatur-bound project means that a censor must work on the project in and around whatever other work the censor has to do.

Because of the crunch of work that already exists, some dioceses have waiting lists because they only do imprimaturs during certain times of the year (e.g., during a window in the summer when things are slower), which can play havoc with a publisher’s ability to get the book to market in a timely manner and hit needed sales windows (e.g., the Christmas window).

As a result, publishers and dioceses try to work together to pursue imprimaturs for the projects that require them, but they both try not to overtax the system, which produces problems for both.

The current situation is the reasult of a historical process that is still in motion. The amount of Catholic publishing is growing and is only going to grow further (e.g., on the Internet and via blogs like this one) and there is simply going to be no way to run it all through the imprimatur process. As a result, the future will generate even greater pressures to submit ONLY those works that require an imprimatur, as well as pressure to decrease the number of KINDS of works that require one and to DECENTRALIZE the granting of them even further than it already has been.

Stay tuned.

A reader writes:

To be quite honest I am a pagan, my son, however is not.  I was hoping to give him an plenary ndulgence for his Winter Holiday gift.  It does seem a little more involved than I had thought it would be.  I had been told by someone who used to be a practicing Catholic that it was just a matter of money.  Well, I am not a wealthy person, but, still I thought this a better gift than a sweater or a pair of socks.

Okay, you may be thinking that I am not taking this at all seriously, however, while that may be true, my son, is not me, and therefore should not be confused with me.  His father is, or was, raised Catholic.  I was raised to believe that being a female didn’t matter in any way whatsoever and that religion was just something I had to deal with, and try to impart on any son I may have (whether that is really what the Jewish religion is all about I do not know, all I know is how I was raised).  So, that said, is there a way to purchase a plenary indulgence or am I being silly?  If so, please just say so and I will not bother you anymore.

No, ma’am, you’re not being silly. It is a good thing that you desire to do something to help your son in his Catholic faith at this time of year, and I hope I can help you in this regard.

Indulgences–plenary or otherwise–are not for sale. At one time the Church granted them in connection with people doing the spiritual act of giving alms (though even then they were never "sold"), but that time was long ago.

That does not mean that you can’t do something to help your son in his faith, though. You might consider doing something else for him, like buying him a crucifix or a rosary or a Bible or a Catechism or a book or something. Any of those would be very nice things to do, and I’m sure he’d appreciate it very much.

HERE’S A PLACE THAT YOU COULD LOOK FOR SUCH THINGS ONLINE.

Incidentally, if you ever have questions about the Catholic faith, that site’s a great one to get them answered at. They have lots of online resources, as well as online forums where you can ask questions and get them answered.

Hope this helps, and God bless! Thanks for reading the blog and taking the time to write!