Category: Canon Law

‘Member back in 2000 when JP2 issued a plenary indulgence for the Jubilee Year? Man, a bunch of people were acting like this was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity–as if you couldn’t obtain a plenary indulgence on any day you choose.

That being said, the issuing of plenary indulgences of particular occasions doesn’t happen that often, and so it’s notable when it does.

Folks may want to know, therefore, that B16 has issued a plenary indulgence for this Thursday, October 8, which is the feast of the Immaculate Conception and the 40th anniversary of the closing of Vatican II. Thus, according to the OFFICIAL DECREE, the faithful may obtain a pleanary ingulence

if they participate in a sacred rite in its [the Immaculate Conception’s] honour or at least offer an open witness of Marian devotion before an image of Our Lady of the Immaculate Conception, displayed for public veneration, adding the recitation of the Our Father and the Creed and exclamatory invocations to Mary Immaculate, such as "You are All Fair, Mary, and in you there is no stain of original sin!", or "O Queen, conceived without original sin, pray for us!".

Lastly, all the faithful who are prevented from participation by ill health or by another just cause, may obtain on that same day the same gift of the Plenary Indulgence at home or wherever they may be, as long as, with their minds detached from any sin and with the resolution to fulfil the above-mentioned conditions as soon as possible, they are united with spiritual resolve and desire with the intentions of the Supreme Pontiff in prayer to Mary Immaculate and recite the Our Father and the Creed.

All this, of course, is assuming "the usual conditions" for a plenary indulgence are fulfilled, which raises the question: "What are the usual conditions?"

n. 7—To acquire a plenary indulgence it is necessary to perform the work to which the indulgence is attached and to fulfill three conditions: sacramental confession, Eucharistic Communion and prayer for the intentions of the Supreme Pontiff. It is further required that all attachment to sin, even to venial sin, be absent.

If this disposition is in any way less than complete, or if the prescribed three conditions are not fulfilled, the indulgence will be only partial, except for the provisions contained in n.11 for those who are "impeded."

n. 8—The three conditions may be fulfilled several days before or after the performance of the prescribed work; nevertheless it is fitting that Communion be received and the prayers for the intentions of the Supreme Pontiff be said the same day the work is performed.

n. 9—A single sacramental confession suffices for gaining several plenary indulgences, but Communion must be received and prayers for the Supreme Pontiff’s intentions recited for the gaining of each plenary indulgence.

n. 10—The condition of praying for the Supreme Pontiff’s intentions is fully satisfied by reciting one "Our Father" and one "Hail Mary"; nevertheless the individual faithful are free to recite any other prayer according to their own piety and devotion toward the Supreme Pontiff [SOURCE].

A reader writes:

Regarding your remarks on homosexuals and ordinations, I feel you missed a very important point that the document was making.

There is a difference between heterosexual attraction and homosexual attraction. 

True.

The first is natural, God’s plan for us.  The other is intrinsically disordered. 

True.

This difference is relevant even in the celibate state of the priesthood. 

True.

The church wants people of sufficient maturity and psychological health,

True.

as another said, you wouldn’t make a man with vertigo, even casual vertigo, an astronaut.  It’s not worth the risk.

Okay.

Your argument implied that there is no relevant difference between a heterosexual priest with normal attraction to women, and a priest with an equivolent homosexual attraction to men. 

False. My argument did not imply that, though I could have included extra qualifiers to make that clear.

If you read the reply carefully, you’ll note that all of the discussion of heterosexuality occurs *before* I give the list of four different levels of attraction. It is principally for the purposes of fleshing out the range of levels of attractions that a person may experience.

I note in passing which levels, in the case of heterosexuals, are and are not bars from ordination (level 1 is not but levels 4 is). My analysis of which levels of attraction the new document has in mind when speaking of "deep-seated tendencies" occurs *after* the list is fleshed out, and I look at evidence internal to the document to make that determination, dropping the heterosexual analogy now that the list has been fleshed out in such a way that the document can be applied to it.

I am therefore *not* saying that heterosexual seminarians and homosexual seminarians are equivalent in terms of what level of disordered desire serves as a bar to ordination. The document doesn’t go into the question of what levels bar heterosexuals from ordination, nor does it establish the two cases as equivalent in terms of ordainability. Therefore I don’t do that.

You equated tendencies with homosexual acts, which is not what the document is referring to. 

No, I didn’t do this. A tendency is not an act.

If you refer back to the catechism of the catholic church, you’ll see that it refers to celibate individuals with deep-seated homosexual tendencies, at that this is often a trial to them.  The context of that is clearly attraction, not homosexual acts.

This is not the case. The paragraph you are referring to (CCC 2358) does not make any reference to the individuals being discussed being continent (i.e., refraining from sex; celibacy is the condition of being unmarried). The paragraph does not specify whether the individuals in question are continent or not and seems to apply to both (even individuals who *are* homosexually active must be accepted with compassion, etc., for example–and for most of them their homosexual desires are a trial, even if some would deny that in a kind of rationalization).

That being said, the term "tendency" of itself is ambiguous and could refer either to a tendency to act or a tendency to experience certain temptations which may or may ont result in further action. The document is unfortunately ambiguous in this respect, but my sense is that it refers to the latter–to a tendency that results in temptations.

This is why I make "attraction" the keyword for each of the four levels of attraction I mentioned. To distinguish the different levels of attraction from each other, I correlated the strength of the attraction to the consequences that tend, in particular cases, to result from it.

The correlation here is not perfect since the will gets involved–a choice is made to act on the attraction–but at least some kind of correlation to the consequent choice is present. People who are only mildly attracted to someone (homosexually or heterosexually) are less likely to sleep with that person than people who are powerfully attracted. So you can look at a person’s resulting choices as at least a rough gauge of how strong their attractions are.

If a person experiences only mild, momentary attractions that do not result in him stopping to indulge in sexual fantasies then his attractions, in the main, are less than those of a person who stops to fantasize about having sex. If his attractions are even stronger then he may go beyond fantasizing and engage in autoerotic behavior. If his attractions are stronger yet then he may undertake the difficulties of actually seeking and obtaining intercourse with the person.

The thing I’m after, here, is how strong the attractions are. The resulting choices (to indulge in fantasies, to autoeroticize, to have intercourse) are only rough guides to the strength of the attractions.

What I think the document is saying is that people who experience a certain level of same-sex attraction are unsuitable for ordination–whether they are chaste or not–and I’m trying to develop a schema for figuring out what level of same-sex attraction the document has in mind.

I *don’t* think (as I explained in the previous post) that the document envisions people with absolutely *any* degree of SSA as being barred from ordination. If a person has a single moment in which he experiences a twinge of same-sex attraction, that doesn’t bar him forever from ordination. But, having had such a moment, the possibility is there that he will have future twinges.

The document refers explicitly to those having overcome tendencies toward homosexuality for a period of at least three years being ordainable, and it is not plausible to read this as meaning that those who have formerly experienced significant homosexual temptations must then go three years without the slightest twinge of same-sex attraction.

Slight twinges are just not what the document is talking about. What the document has in mind are attractions of a more significant sort.

Unfortunately, since formators can’t hook a seminarian up to a same-sex-attract-o-meter and determine precisely how strong their attractions are (nor can they quantify their own inner life on this matter in a meaningful way), they have to look to phenomenological criteria to gauge their level of attraction by asking questions like: (1) "Do you regularly fantasize about having sex with men or boys?", (2) "Do you often engage in autoerotic behavior while thing about such sex?", (3) "Do you have such sex?"

If the answer to quesitons (2) or (3) is "yes" then the candidate would be judged unsuitable for ordination.

If the answer to question (1) is "yes" then–in my opinion (though the document doesn’t spell this out)–then the document probably would bar the candidate from ordination. Having a regular fantasy life about homosexual sex would seem (to me) to constitute an tendency toward homosexuality of sufficient strength to serve as a bar to ordination under the provisions of the document.

But if the answer ot question (1) is "no" then this is not at all clear to me. I don’t think it’s plausible that the document has in mind momentary twinges. The reasons were as I indicated.

When the document says that certain individuals can be ordained who had "homosexual tendencies that were only the expression of a transitory problem" it does not go on to say that these individuals also must have *never acted* on those tendencies. For all we know, they may have had a homosexual fantasy life, engaged in homoerotic autoerotic behavior, or even had homosexual sex.

This seems to be confirmed by the comments of Cardinal Grocholewsi (the head of the congregation issuing the document) on Vatican Radio regarding those who experienced a transient problem:

"For example, some curiosity during adolescence; or accidental circumstances in a state of drunkenness; or particular circumstances, like someone who was in prison for many years."

Or, in some situations, he said, homosexual acts may be a way to please someone in order to obtain favors.

"In such cases, these acts do not originate from a deep-seated tendency but are determined by other transitory circumstances, and they do not constitute an obstacle to admission to the seminary or to holy orders. However, in such cases, they must cease at least three years before diaconal ordination," he said. [SOURCE].

So people who have actually engaged in homosexual acts are potentially ordinable according to the cardinal who is the principal signatory of the document in question.

But the thing about homosexual act (like illicit heterosexual acts) is that they scar people. They reinforce illicit desires, and people who have had them are in some measure haunted by them. The memories of them and the desires that these memories can stir up come back to people’s minds from time to time.

As a result, it does not seem plausible to me that the congregation is expecting seminarians who have previously had a problem with homosexuality–including homosexual acts ("in a state of drunkenness," "in prison for many years")–are expected to go for three years without the slightest twinge of same-sex attraction.

This suggests (as common sense would) that momentary twinges are not what the document has in mind. To serve as a bar for ordination, something more than this is required–such as a stable homosexual fantasy life, for example (in my opinion).

And as noted in the previous post, the above indicates that we are at least in a doubt of law situation, in which case Canon 14 indicates that the candidate is free under church law (which is what we’re talking about here–not what the law should be but what the law is) to pursue ordination, opening himself trustingly to the discernment of the Church and being completely honest about the extent of his attractions.

Your narrow argument equating tendency with comission of sins seems to end up with the conclusion that as long as one is chaste and orthodox, a "homosexual" could be ordained.

No, for the reasons indicated. The acts are merely used as rough guides to gauging the strength of attractions (tendencies), and I think that a person with regular fantasies about homosexual sex would not be ordinable. (Whether a seminarian with regular fantasies about homosexual sex woud be ordainable is a different question and one for which I do not have information on the Church’s law or practice in that regard.)

Again, it is wrong to equate "tendencies" with the commission of sinful actions.  Tendencies is better read, with the Catechism, as temptations. 

Agreed.

If tendencies meant sin, the catechism could not say that people with deep-seated homosexual tendencies didn’t chose their state, that for most of them it is a trial.  For that to be true, we have to be talking about temptations, not about sinful indulgence.

The Catechism is not dispositive to the intepretation of this document. You have to read the document itself and relevant legislative background, such as the comments of the principal cardinal signatory regarding its interpretation. The Catechism is a tertiary source here at best.

Further, the Catechism paragraph in question does not presuppose chastity, and people who are caught up in sin frequently find that sin a trial–even if they are strongly tempted toward it. This is certainly true of homosexuals.

As a friend of mine was once told by his psychologist sister, "[Name witheld], don’t ever be a homosexual; they lead such miserable lives."

Many homosexuals–even those who are not Catholics–often feel consumed by guilt for what they are doing and wish that they could get rid of their homosexual desires.

Given the referenec to the catechism, it seems pretty clear that deep-seated tendencies has to do with people who have a permanant attraction to men, even if they are chaste and holy. 

"Permanent" is too strong. "Stable" would be better. "Permanent" excludes the action of God’s grace and the potential of reparative therapy. The question is: How strong does the attraction have to be? Momentary twinges don’t seem to be what is envisioned.

This would mean they do not consent to fantasies, want to live chaste lives according to church teaching, etc.   That is not enough.  And that’s precisely what the document says.  Or do you disagree?

I don’t disagree that the document precludes people with stable same-sex attractions from being ordained. In fact, I would go further than you do and say that even if the person doesn’t consent to fantasies about homosexual sex his attractions may still be strong enough to trip the document’s provisions. If he regularly finds himself regularly tormented by fantasies about homosexual sex–fantasies he doesn’t willfully engage in–then his attractions may be sufficiently strong to trip the document’s provisions.

It would strike me that he’d be prevented from being ordained until he’d healed sufficiently that he no longer had a tormening tendency toward such fantasies for at least three years. He needs a level of peace and maturity such that he no longer feels tormented by his resolution to live chastely. He needs to no longer be a "white knuckle" fantasizer but someone who has been able to get past that so that even if he occasionally has memories and disordered desires momentarily stirred up then he can set them aside.

That seems to be all that one could realistically expect of someone who once had a significant if transient problem with homosexual desires or behaviors.

Since the document allows people who have overcome such transient problems to be ordained it seems that one cannot ask such people to ever after NEVER be haunted by memories or have disordered desires momentarily stirred up or have a flash of involuntary fantasy.

And if individuals who have had and overcome such experiences can be ordained despite the fact that they may have momentary twinges of same-sex attraction then, a fortiori, those who have never moved beyond the momentary twinge stage in the first place would be ordainable.

Which was the case with the gentleman who wrote in.

I hope this clarifies matters, and I’d like to thank you for respecting Rule 20 with regard to the original post and e-mailing your disagreement rater than putting it in the combox. This allowed me to prepare a more thorough and thoughtful response than I could have under combox time pressures, which is one of the reasons for Rule 20. Like I say, I don’t mind disagreement; Rule 20 is to help handle disagreements productively in delicate pastoral situations.

A reader writes:

I am a young man discerning the possibility of religious life.  The only issue is that I have a history of homosexual attractions.  Now, I never acted out on them, I don’t indulge in homosexual fantasies, I don’t support the "gay" culture, and to be honest, when I have attractions they are generally pretty mild and really more annoying than anything else. 

I keep trying to put the idea of the priesthood or brotherhood out of my head, especially because of this new document, but it wont go away.  I truly believe that I might have an authentic call.  Fr. Jim Llyod, a priest who works with Courage (you might be familiar with them) wrote this in one of this articles…

"Should a candidate with a flagrant homosexual background, strong same sex urges, and frequent autoerotic behavior be assessed in the same manner as the devout and believing candidate who has little or no same sex experience and minimal Same Sex fantasy life? Factually, both types have applied to seminaries. Does tendency mean the former or the latter?

One point does seem patently clear.  A seminary and the priesthood should not be clinics for sexually obsessed (or repressed) individuals. However, the candidate with the occasional but managed “tendency” could be ordained (and has been) to become an effective and holy priest. Such men, ordained to Christ’s priesthood have largely remained faithful to the Lord, the Church and the priesthood itself.

Ultimately, it is fidelity that matters, not psychosexual orientation. These are not gay priests. They are men of God with a managed SSA quality. The distinction is essential.  Gay is a life criterion. It is a lens through which all things are measured and is a form of political activism."

I gravitate much more towards the latter than the former.  It is important to me to stick with what the Church teaches.  I guess my question is, what does "profoundly deeply rooted homosexual tendencies" actually mean?  Do you think, with the description I gave to you, that I would be excluded from the priesthood?  What about the brotherhood?

The document is now out, which is helpful, but it does not go into a great deal of detail on the difference between those who can and cannot be ordained. This is no doubt due in part to the fact that it is hard to draw a clear line. The Holy See also may want to state the requirements rather generally so that they can be further fleshed out with additional pastoral experience–i.e., just how much inclination towards homosexuality is enough to make someone unsuitable as a candidate for ordination. Having a single moment of same-sex attraction isn’t. Having a constant, compulsive homosexual fantasy life is.

What the document speaks of–in the translation carried by Zenit (which is superior to the rushed one that CNA had and which may or may not be the official translation )–is of those who "present deep-seated homosexual tendencies" versus those who "with homosexual tendencies that were only the expression of a transitory problem." It goes on to speak of these tendencies needing to "be clearly overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate."

It seems to me that the foundational question here is what they mean by "tendencies." My suspicion is that they mean something rather strong by this.

Let me give you a parallel example from heterosexual sexuality:

Heterosexual guys frequently have passing moments of attraction to women to whom they are not married, but these don’t (usually) lead to sexual fantasies. There’s a difference between "Wow, she’s hot" and "Wow, let me stop and fantasize about being in bed with her." There is a further step from fantasy to acting outwardly in some respect. For example, moving from having a fantasy to engaging in autoerotic behavior. And there is a step further from moving from autoerotic behavior to actually engaging in sexual relations with the person, which would be actual adultery (for a married man) or fornication (for an unmarried man).

Now: The mere fact that a heterosexual man may have moments of attraction to women he isn’t married to does not mean that it would be fair to say that he has "tendencies to adultery" or "tendencies to fornication." There may be a disordered desire there, but these are just passing moments of attraction that don’t result in deliberate sexual fantasies or worse.

Such passing moments of attraction also don’t singificantly impair a man’s ability to relate to women in a proper way or with his overall affective (emotional) maturity. For a man seeking to live chastely (either being faithful to his wife or remaning abstinent if he is single) they are an annoyance.

They also are no barrier to ordination.

They better not be, because every single heterosexual priest there is has them.

In any event, it would be exaggeration to call them "tendencies to adultery/fornication" since a man who is emotionally mature and committed to chastity will not act on them by seeking to commit adultery or fornication.

(A heterosexual man with a tendency to fornicate would be barred from ordination. We don’t need priests going to bed parishioners.)

Looking at this, we might discern four levels of attraction:

1. Momentary attraction
2. Attraction so strong that it tends to result in sexual fantasies
3. Attraction so strong that it tends to result in autoerotic behavior
4. Attraction so strong that it tends to result in sexual behavior with another person

If we ask which of these the new instruction envisions when it refers to "deep-seated homosexual tendencies," it seems to me that #3 and #4 obviously would count and #2 probably would count (i.e., someone who regularly fantasizes about homosexual sex even if it tends not to result in autoerotic behavior or homosexual sex).

It seems to me, though, that #1 may not count. The document expressly holds out the possibility that someone may have had homosexual tendencies at one time but overcome them. I suspect that even for such persons there are likely to be momentary attractions they experience later in life, even if these don’t result in homosexual fantasies or worse. My understanding is that homosexual reparative therapy is such that it (at least normally) doesn’t remove forever all such momentary attractions. Even someone who only had "homosexual tendencies that were only the expression of a transitory problem" is likely to feel such momentary attractions later in life.

Since the document expressly holds out the possibility of ordination for those who have overcome these tendencies, it seems to me that the document may not envision passing moments of same-sex attraction as significant enough to serve as a bar to ordination.

At least, it isn’t presently clear that that’s what the document has in mind. (The Holy See may always clarify later.)

It seems to me reasonable to suppose that mild, transient attractions do not count as "deep-seated tendencies to homosexuality." This means, at a minimum, that we have a doubt of law situation. When one encounters a doubt of law situation, liberty is presumed–for as our old friend, Canon 14, tells us:

Laws, even invalidating and disqualifying ones, do not oblige when there is a doubt about the law.

So: If, as you say, you’ve never acted out on your attractions, don’t regularly fantasize about homosexual sex, and experience only mild, passing same-sex attractions that are an annoyance then it seems to me that you would be free to explore the possibility of ordination.

Whether your attractions are such that they truly would be a barrier to ordination would be something that you and your formators to discern. You would need to be honest and open with them about these attractions, seeking neither to minimize nor overemphasize the extent of them. You want to give them an accurate picture so that a properly-informed determination can be made.

This seems to be what the document means when it says that the candidate "must offer himself trustingly to the discernment of the Church, of the bishop who calls him to orders, of the rector of the seminary, of his spiritual director and of the other seminary educators to whom the bishop or major superior has entrusted the task of forming future priests."

I also have a question about whether a vocation in a religious order (either as a priest or a brother) is the right thing for you. Joining a religious order would mean putting yourself in a large, same-sex community, and I wonder if that would potentially exacerbate the attractions. It might or might not. Your pre-novitiate period would probably tell you that.

Since the ink on this document is not yet dry and since ancillary materials that could shed light on its interpretation are not yet avilable to me, I could be wrong about the above, but reading the document itself and trying to figure out what it likely means, it does not strike me that at present you would be prevented from exploring ordination.

Hope this helps!

20

A reader writes:

Dear Jimmy,

As a frequent listener to "Catholic Answers Live" and
an occasional visitor to your blog, I have long been
impressed by both your charity and your ability to
stick to the facts when discussing even the most
contentious issues with callers who wish to "drag you
into the muck" and to engage in speculation about what
this or that priest or sister or bishop has said or
didn’t say.

This is why I was so dismayed to read the most recent
entry on your blog entitled "Yes, It All Makes Sense
Now."

I will be the first to agree that Sister Helen Timothy
was wrong to expel Katelyn Sills for her courageous
decision to reveal that a teacher at her school was
escorting students to Planned Parenthood to have
abortions.  But contrary to your assertion that the
picture and article to which you linked "explain[ed] a
good bit," I was left asking "What exactly was the
point Jimmy was trying to make here"?  And your
comment that "I’ve never understood those orders in
the habit of habitually having habits whose style is
best described as ‘office frumpy’" was unchartiable
and irrelevant to the facts of this case.

Thanks for writing. I appreciate your perspective, and I’ll try to clarify.

The point I was making is that the fact that Sr. Helen Timothy does not seem to wear a habit is consistent with some of the other things that have been reported about her, such has:

• Her apparent resistance to firing a woman who facilitated murders until ordered to do so by the bishop.
• Her apparent refusal to communicate with the Sills about this matter prior to the action.
• Her apparent refusal to support the bishop’s decision publicly (manifested in her referring all press inquiries to the bishop’s office).
• Her apparently unjust dismissal of Katelyn from the school.

The reason that the lack a habit is consistent with these is that there is presently an identity crisis among many religious. This identity crisis manifests itself in different ways, including a reluctance to embrace traditional Catholic teaching and values.

Among the traditional Catholic values that some religious have been reluctant to embrace is the value of traditional religious garb. Traditionally, Catholics have regarded such attire as an important sign of consecration to God and indicator of the social function and identity of the member of a religious community. Such garb has traditionally served as an identity marker, just as clerical garb is an identity marker for priests, police uniforms are identity markers for police officers, military uniforms are identity markers for members of the military, etc.

As the identity crisis has spread in religious circles, many have been reluctant to wear the traditional identity marker for their role (the habit) and have either unlawfully ceased wearing it or have sought to change their community’s charter such that the identity marker is toned down as much as possible, while remaining in minimal compliance with the ecclesiastical law. (For example, getting rid of veils and habits and instead wearing a religious pin or brooch–neither of which is visible in the picture of Sr. Helen Timothy).

The identity crisis in religious circles has not gone unnoticed by the laity, who have become suspicious of religious that do not wear the traditional identity markers for their roles.

Ordinary lay people recognize that the clothes a person wears tell you something about the person. This is true not only in cases where there are formal uniforms (as with a monk, a nun, a priest, a policeman, or a military officer) but even in cases where a particular style is informal.

The fact that I dress like a cowboy tells you something about me, where I come from, and what I identify with. It doesn’t tell you everything about me (e.g., most cowboys probably haven’t specialized in theology and canon law as much as I have, nor do they likely have the same interest level I do in ancient history, linguistics, and science fiction), but it does tell you something.

Similarly, "hippie" garb and "rapper" garb and "grunge" garb and "goth" garb tell you something about the people that choose to wear them. (As well as "milkman" garb and "McDonalds employee" garb and "businessman" garb, and every other kind of distinctive dress you can think of.)

Lay people know this instinctively, and when they meet a religious sister who does not wear the traditional identity marker for her role then they take it as a sign that the sister may be caught up in the identity crisis that affects so many religious these days.

That identity crisis affects more than just the outward identity markers of religious, though, it can also affect things like:

• Willingness to fire employees who are discovered to be facilitators of murder.
• Willingness to communicate with people who ask for such firings.
• Willingness to support bishops who order such firings.
• Willingness to expel students who prompted such firings.

Now, none of those things follow necessarily from failure to wear a habit, but they are correlated in a way that is notable to a lay audience. Hence the reader who e-mailed the picture and saying that it explains a lot without even needing to identify the element in the picture (the absence of a habit) that does the explaining.

The bottom line is that ordinary people realize that when someone has a particular social role but refuses to embrace the traditional identity markers of that role that it calls into question the degree to which they embrace the role itself.

People wouldn’t trust a neurosurgeon who showed up for work dressed as a chef or a judge who entered a courtroom dressed as on olympic swimmer and they tend not to trust religious sisters who dress as secular businesswomen.

They may not say it all the time, but for many there is always a background level of mistrust toward religious sisters who don’t wear religious habits.

In particular cases, it may not be the fault of the individual in question. Some may have joined their institute at a time when it was habited and then, over the objections of the individual, the institute changed its rules so that the habit is no longer permitted. In those cases the inability to wear a habit is a cross of suffering for the individual.

But that is an exceptional case, and in the main when one encounters a religious sister who doesn’t wear the traditional garb of the role one naturally asks questions like: "If this person is a religious sister then why doesn’t she want to be seen as a religious sister? Why does she want to be seen as a secular businesswoman instead? What’s going on here, and how deep does her lack of identification with the traditional role go?"

Same exact thing applies to monks who don’t wear habits and priests who don’t wear clericals or married people who don’t wear wedding rings.

Failure to wear the traditional identity markers raises questions about the individual’s attachment to his vocational identity.

I hope this sheds light on the point I was making.

Regarding the "office frumpy" remark, I woud disagree that it was irrelevant to the facts of the case for the reasons indicated above. As to its assessment from a perspective of charity, I don’t know that I would characterize it as uncharitable. Charity is not the same thing as politeness. Charity involves willing the good of others, and I think it good for those who wear such garb to realize how it strikes others.

If it was not sufficiently polite then I would mention that I was in searing neck pain when I wrote that post and I apologize again for all my shortcomings.

A reader writes:

Jimmy –one point of correction if I may

You write" Breaking the seal of confession is one of the gravest crimes that
exists in ecclesiastical law. Any priest (or anyone else bound by the seal,
such as a translator or an eavesdropper) who violates the seal is
automatically excommunicated and this excommunication is reserved to the
Holy See."

Regarding the translator or the eavesdropper — it is not automatic
excommunication.  They are punished by a just penalty –and MAY be
excommunicated –but not automatically.  See CIC below  (and please note it
on the blog –there may be some out there that could get concerned)

Can. 1388 §1. A confessor who directly violates the sacramental seal incurs
a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; one who
does so only indirectly is to be punished according to the gravity of the
delict.

§2. An interpreter and the others mentioned in can. 983, §2 who violate
the secret are to be punished with a just penalty, not excluding
excommunication.

You’re correct!

My mistake. Sorry. Forgot about the second part of the canon. My memory that eavesdroppers, etc., are bound by the seal overrode my memory on their not being subject to the same automatic penalty.

A reader writes:

My neighbor is areligious yet very curious:  Can a priest make
absolution conditional when a crime (e.g., murder, child abuse) is
being confessed?  I’m assuming real sorrow for the sin(s) here.  The
CCC says only that there are no exceptions to the seal.  Thank you for
your time and attention.

A priest cannot make his absolution conditional on you going and confessing a crime–i.e., he can’t assign it as a penance that you go tell the police (or anyone else) what you did.

If he could do this then the seal of the sacrament would be meaningless as any priest could force any penitent to publicly disclose what he did.

This means that some crimes that come to light in the confessional will go undiscovered and unpunished by civil law, but the Church has judged it better to encourage the faithful to confess their sins by giving them an absolute assurance of confidentiality rather than leaving them to wonder whether the priest will disclose what they have done or–just as bad–force them to do so themselves.

The Code of Canon Law provides:

Can.  983 §1. The sacramental seal is inviolable;
therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a
penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason.

Can.  984 §1. A confessor is prohibited completely
from using knowledge acquired from confession to the detriment of the penitent
even when any danger of revelation is excluded.

Though Canon 983 doesn’t address specifically the issue of forcing a penitent to confess to the police, it does cover this case implicitly by stressing the inviolability of the seal and forbidding the priest to betray the penitent "in any manner" (including forcing the penitent to betray himself) and "for any reason" (even reporting a grave crime against the civil law).

Indeed, as canon 984 states, the confessor is prohibited from using what he learns in confession to in any way harm the penitent even if he could do so without breaking the seal.

Breaking the seal of confession is one of the gravest crimes that exists in ecclesiastical law. Any priest (or anyone else bound by the seal, such as a translator or an eavesdropper) who violates the seal is automatically excommunicated and this excommunication is reserved to the Holy See.

(NOTE CAUSE FOLKS WILL WONDER: The penitent himself is not bound by the seal. They’re your sins; you can tell them to anyone you want. But if you tell them to a priest in confession then the priest–and anyone else who hears them as you are confessing–cannot disclose them.)

A reader writes:

Hi Jimmy,

What is the difference between anathema & anathema "sit"?

Okay, before I answer, let me clear away something that is BOUND to come up if I don’t deal with it.

You heard about the apologist who named his dog "Anathema," so he could tell his dog "Anathema, sit"?

That was funny about the first thirty times I heard it.

Now here’s the deal: Anathema refers to a form of excommunication that used to exist under Church law. It no longer does exist, having been eliminated with the promulgation of the 1983 Code of Canon Law.

Sit is the Latin third person singular form of the verb "to be" when it’s in the subjunctive mood and the present tense. It means "Let him be" or "May he be." (You can also switch the gender to feminine or neutral in these translations."

So "Anathema sit" means "Let him (or her or it) be anathema."

This formula is a Latin translation of what Paul says in Galatians 1:8:

But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel
contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be anathema.

The Greek for that phrase is Anathema esto, and when you bring it across into Latin, it’s Anathema sit.

This phrase got picked up by the Church (either from Galatians or oral tradition) and used when excommunicating heretics. Ever since the first ecumenical council–the First Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325)–ecumenical councils used this formula to pass laws indicating who needed to be excommunicated.

Typically the formula went like this:

If anyone says . . . <INSERT SOME AWFUL HERESY HERE> . . . let him be anathema.

Only writing in Latin, they’d say . . . anathema sit at the end.

Some things that it’s important to note:

1) These anathemas were not thought of as damning a person to hell. That’s something only God can do. (Though the fact someone needed to be excommunicated was not considered a good sign for the state of his soul.)

2) The penalty of anathema did not take effect automatically. In fact, there was a special ceremony that the bishop had to perform, and the mere fact that someone in his diocese has uttered an awful heresy does not magically compel the bishop to get up and perform the ceremony.

3) The penalty of anathema, like all excommunications, was medicinal and meant to prompt the person to repent. Thus there was also a special ceremony for lifting the anathema and receiving him back into fellowship once he did.

4) The penalty was only applied to Catholics. If someone ain’t part of the Catholic Church then there’s no point excommunicating them. (Bishops got better things to do with their time than a bunch of ceremonies excommunicating folks who don’t make any pretense of being Catholic.)

5) The penalty was so infrequently used (typically for people like priests who had committed major crimes) that it was eventually abolished when the 1983 Code came out, so nobody today is under a sentence of anathema.

6) The canons from the ecumenical councils that use the formula "anathema sit" continue to express theological truths in an infallible manner, and you can still get excommunicated for teaching heresy. The special, ceremonial form of excommunication known as "anathema" is what’s gone.

A reader recently wrote me and asked about whether he might be in a state of excommunication. I’d reproduce text from his e-mails here, but they were rather detailed, so let me summarize:

The reader had worked as an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion and had been taught to purify the chalice by pouring a small amount of water into it and then pouring the result down the sacrarium. He says that he would not have violated any Church laws that he had known about, but he learned that it is an offense incurring automatic excommunication to throw away the sacred species. Although he could not remember any times when he poured out the Precious Blood itself, he was concerned about whether he might be excommunicated.

He’s not.

I told him this by e-mail and promised a follow-up post to explain why, so here goes:

First, if sufficient water is added to what drops of the Precious Blood may remain in the chalice so that they no longer would appear to be wine in the common estimation of men then the Real Presence does not remain. Neither do the sacred species since what remains is not sacred (no Real Presence) and not the species of wine any more (does not appear to be wine in the common estimation of men).

Therefore, there are no sacred species to throw away in this circumstance and thus no possibility of triggering excommunication.

But suppose that there was a case in which no water was added to the sacred species and some of them were simply poured into the sacrarium. Would that trigger the excommunication?

Not under the circumstances the reader described by e-mail.

Although the Code of Canon Law provides automatic excommunication for a small number of offenses, it also provides an extensive list of exceptions in which penalties such as excommunication will not be triggered. According to the Code:

Can. 1323 The following are not subject to a penalty when they have violated a law or precept: . . .

2/ a person who without negligence was ignorant that he or she violated a law or precept; inadvertence and error are equivalent to ignorance;

That right there is going to block any excommunication from happening in the case of the reader. He had been trained to do his task a certain way and did what he was told. He was not a canon law expert who negligently failed to examine the law. He was an ordinary person who was simply doing what he had been trained to do.

We have NO EVIDENCE that the law against throwing away the sacred species was even violated, but since the reader was innocently unaware of the law against doing so, he would not be struck by the penalty of excommunication.

Note also that the canon provides that inadvertence or error are equivalent to error. This means that even if he did know about the law against throwing away the sacred species, excommunication still would not result if he had inadvertently failed to pour water, or enough water, into the chalice to remove the appearances of wine. Nor would a person be excommunicated who threw away the sacred species while erroneously thinking that they were unconsecrated or that they had ceased to have the Real Presence.

There is also another ground that occurs to me for why excommunication in his case would be blocked. The following canon provides:

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; . . .

§3. In the circumstances mentioned in §1, the accused is not bound by a latae sententiae [automatic] penalty.

The automatic or latae sententiae excommunication that attaches to throwing away the sacred species does not apply, according to §3 of this canon, to people mentioned in §1. Among those mentioned in §1 are those who without negligence did not know that a penalty was attached to a law.

The reader did not know that there was an automatic excommunication attached to throwing away the sacred species (which–it should be reiterated–we have no evidence that he even did). He was not a canon law expert who be expected to have checked this out on his own, so there was no negligence. Therefore, he is not bound by the automatic excommunication.

We therefore have no evidence that the reader even did throw away the sacred species, and even if he had the excommunication would not have taken effect because he did not know about the law (can. 1323) or the penalty (can. 1324). Further, even if he had known about both he still would not be struck by the penalty if he had thrown away the sacred species inadvertently or through error.

All this goes to show how really HARD it is to get automatically excommunicated for something (and these are only a FEW of the conditions that block penalties from coming into effect). An ordinary person really has to know BOTH the law AND the penalty AND do it anyway, WITHOUT inadvertence OR error.

I mention this because a lot of people end up committing excommunicable offenses (e.g., abortion) and later learn of the penalty’s existence and get worried that they may be excommunicated. In the vast majority of such cases, they’re not.

For an ordinary person, you really have to know EXACTLY what you are doing, AND the penalty attached, and do it anyway.

There thus should not be any scruples on this point.

20

A reader writes:

Hypothetical;

A non-catholic couple, married in a civil ceremony.

Wife of couple expresses  an interest in the Catholic Faith.  However, she is concerned that while her husband would not be unecessarily difficult, he would want as little to do with the matter as possible.

What would need to take place in terms of convalidation?

Nothing. At least, nothing given the fact pattern you have mentioned. If two non-Catholics get married, they are not bound to observe the Catholic form of marriage and thus are presumed to be validly married unless there is something else affecting the situation (like one of them having been previously married to someone else, in which case they need an annulment but probably even then they don’t need a convalidation). I’m just not hearing anything that would trigger a need for a convalidation.

Would this take place privately at the parish (not during a Mass, for example)

Convalidations are typically private, with just a few people (witnesses) present.

What role would the husband be expected to play

Be the husband.

(other than being the husband! )?

Oh, uh . . . nothing then.

Would the husband be expected to go to private discussions with the parish priest in preparation for the event. etc (this couple have been married for a looooong time 🙂

Okay, this ain’t sounding so hypothetical any more. Not that that makes any difference. The answers are still of general educational value, one way or ‘tuther.

The answer, though, will probably vary from place to place. When my wife and I had our marriage convalidated, there was no pre-marriage prep as we’d already been living as man and wife for several years, but that might be different in other places. I couldn’t say.

how soon after a convalidation would the wifes reception into the church take place….

Thus far I haven’t heard that a convalidation is even necessary, but if one were then there would not need to be any waiting period before reception into the Church, assuming that the wife had already taken whatever instruction in the Catholic faith her situation would require.

oh, I’ve just thought of something else….what if the husband was baptised in an emergency situation as a baby and has no certificate…but also no desire to be Catholic?

Doesn’t make any difference as far as the need for a convalidation. As long as he wasn’t formally a member of the Catholic Church at the time of the ceremony, he wasn’t bound by form. If a convalidation were needed, though, he would need to be informed of the wife’s obligation to do her best to see that any kids that result from the union get raised Catholic.

Also, the conjugal relations stuff (sorry but I have to ask)… would the wife, if she were received into the faith,need to confess having sexual relations with her husband if the marriage has been convalidated

If a convalidation is not needed then there is no need to confess prior sexual relations (unless they occurred after the wife’s baptism, if she’s already baptized, and before the marriage ceremony).

If a convalidation is needed (for some reason I can’t fathom given the fact pattern as described) then the wife would need to confess prior sexual relations with the husband IF she believed them to be gravely sinful at the time and did them with deliberate consent of the will. Otherwise, they weren’t mortal sins and don’t need to be confessed.

Hope this helps! . . . er, hypothetically speaking, that is. 🙂