Category: Law

A reader writes:

In a conversation on-line with fellow Catholics, I was told that attending liturgy at an Orthodox church would not fulfill your Sunday obligation. Now, I was a bit surprised. I hadn’t planned to spend my Sundays down at the local Greek Orthodox church, but I’d thought that the reason one wouldn’t do that was because well, one’s a Catholic, and you shouldn’t be attending a schismatic church. But since the liturgy at an Orthodox church is the Mass, would attendance fulfill your Sunday obligation if you were in a position where you couldn’t get to a Catholic Church?

Under current law, Eastern non-Catholic liturgies do not fulfill the Sunday obligation. The Code of Canon Law provides that:

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

This means that to fulfill one’s Suday obligation one needs to attend a Catholic Mass (either that of the Roman church or one of the Eastern churches sui iuris in communion with Rome, such as the Maronites, the Chaldeans, etc.). It will not suffice if it is merely a valid celebration of the Eucharist or even if it is an almost identical liturgy being used in a non-Catholic church.

Confusion on this point was raised by the 1967 Directory on Ecumenism, which allowed Catholics to occasionally fulfill their Sunday obligation with an Eastern non-Catholic liturgy, but this was later suppressed. It may be argued that the release of the 1983 Code (quoted above) suppressed it since it makes no exceptions after using the word "Catholic." (If it meant to allow Eastern non-Catholic liturgies it should have said something like "A person who assists at a Mass celebrated anywhere in a church where the sacrament of the Eucharist is valid satisfies the obligation of participating in the Mass."

Even if it were not suppressed by the 1983 Code itself, it definitely was suppressed by the 1993 Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism, which states:

115. Since the celebration of the Eucharist on the Lord’s Day is the foundation and centre of the whole liturgical year, Catholics—but those of Eastern Churches according to their own Law—are obliged to attend Mass on that day and on days of precept. It is not advisable therefore to organize ecumenical services on Sundays, and it must be remembered that even when Catholics participate in ecumenical services or in services of other Churches and ecclesial Communities, the obligation of participating at Mass on these days remains.

The reader then writes:

Are there any other circumstances where it would be all right to fulfill your Sunday obligation in that manner?

No, it doesn’t work quite like that. If you really can’t reasonably get to a Catholic Mass then your Sunday obligation is simply in abeyance. You don’t have to go. You could go to an Eastern non-Catholic liturgy but it would not be in fulfillment of your Sunday obligation because on that Sunday you are simply not obligated.

For such circumstances the Code of Canon Law does have a recommendation (not an obligation) to make:

Can.  1248 §2. If participation in the eucharistic celebration becomes impossible because of the absence of a sacred minister or for another grave cause, it is strongly recommended that the faithful take part in a liturgy of the word if such a liturgy is celebrated in a parish church or other sacred place according to the prescripts of the diocesan bishop or that they devote themselves to prayer for a suitable time alone, as a family, or, as the occasion permits, in groups of families.

A reader writes:

Jimmy, what is the best way to explain to a fallen away Catholic who is troubled about why it is O.K. to now eat meat on Fridays when years ago you would go to hell for eating meat on Fridays.

I would point out several things:

1. Human law often interacts with divine law in a particular way whereby human law specifies particular actions that will help accomplish the goals laid out in divine law.
2. For example, divine law would require that, under normal circumstances, we behave in a way that we are not a danger to ourselves or others. This requirement applies across the situations we encounter in life, including driving an automobile.
3. To facilitate the goal of driving in a safe manner (as required by divine law), human law creates certain mandates to facilitate this goal, such as having everybody drive on the same side of the road.
4. Which side of the road it is varies from country to country. It doesn’t matter which side is picked (in America it’s the right side; in the UK, it’s the left side) as long as everybody drives on that side when they are in that country.
5. If a country wanted, it could change which side of the road people drive on, say from the left to the right. Before the change it would be a sin to drive on the right side of the road because it would be dangerous in the extreme to do so, but after the change it would be a sin not to drive on the right side of the road.
6. Something similar to this applies to the case of penance. The Church teaches that all of the faithful are obligated–and gravely obligated–to do penance for their sins by divine law.
7. It therefore has established certain specific requirements to help people fulfill divin law in this regard. These include the practice of fast and abstinence on various days of the year.
8. That one is fasting or abstaining on any particular day is not of itself important, the same way that driving on a particular side of the road is not of itself important. What is important is that the community is organized in such a way that the larger goals of divine law (behaving in a safe manner, doing penance for sins) are facilitated.
9. With changes of time and culture, the Church has recognized the need to adapt its penitential practice to varying needs. When everyone in Europe was Catholic and shared similar diets and economic conditions, having a law like mandatory Friday abstinence for everyone made more sense.
10. But today the Church includes people on every continent, who live in different cultures, with different diets and economic conditions.
11. As a result, the Church has allowed the bishops’ conferences to make their own best judgment about how the Church’s pentitential practice should be applied in their country. If the bishops’ conference feels that a variance from the universal norm is warranted for their people, they can request a variance from the Vatican.
12. The universal norm is still that Catholics are to abstain from meat on Fridays (all Fridays of the year), but the American bishops’ conference judged that a more restricted program of abstinence (only Ash Wednesday, Good Friday, the the Fridays of Lent) would work best for Catholics here in America. They requested a variance from the universal norm and the Vatican granted it. Thus here in America there are a smaller number of days on which abstinence is required.
13. The situation with regard to abstinence is thus similar to the situation with driving laws. It doesn’t matter of itself which days you do penance on or which side of the road you drive on. The important thing is that you obey the laws of the land that you are in.
14. If the law says to abstain from meat on some days and not others, that’s what you are obliged to do. If the law says to drive on one side of the road and not the other, that’s what you are obliged to do. It is a sin to violate those requirements.
15. If the law changes then your obligations change. But to knowingly and deliberately violate the law when it is in force is, by definition, a transgression.
16. A Catholic who knowingly and deliberately ate meat on a normal Friday before the law changed in the U.S. and who didn’t have an excusing cause was knowingly and deliberately spitting on the requirement to do penance in the way the Church required and thus on the authority that Jesus gave the Church (the Church having been given the power to bind and loose by Christ himself). A person who eats meat on a normal Friday after the law changed is not doing this.
17. In the first case, a person is defying not only the obligation to do penance but also the authority of Jesus Christ himself as exercised through his Church. In the second case, a person is complying with the obligation to do penance (assuming he does penance when he is required to do so) and with the authority of Jesus Christ.
18. The change of circumstances totally changes the moral character of the act. While it’s physical character (the eating of meat) may be the same, its moral character (defying one’s grave obligations) is totally different.
19. In the same way, a person in the US who drove on the left side of the road at a time this was illegal would be gravely defying his obligations (to drive safely and to obey the law of the land), but if the law changed then though the physical character of his act (driving on the left) would be the same, the moral character of it would be completely different.

Hope this helps!

A reader writes:

I was born Catholic many years ago and remain faithfully practicing. I am a WW2 veteran – USCG. What is the correct thinking about burial in a county veterans cemetery? (unhallowed ground?)

I find my self reading your blog again and again. Thank you for it.

Thank you, sir! Always glad to have a member of the Greatest Generation reading! Y’all did a huge service for the world! One of my grandfathers was also in the Coast Guard in WWII, down in the Gulf of Mexico where Nazi subs were prowling.

I hope it’s a lot of years yet before you need to make use of this info, but it is permitted for you to be buried in a veterans’ cermetery. The Code of Canon Law provides that:

Canon  1240

§1. Where possible, the Church is to have its own cemeteries or at least areas in civil cemeteries that are designated for the deceased members of the faithful and properly blessed.

§2. If this cannot be achieved, however, then individual graves are to be properly blessed.

So: The veterans’ cemetery you’re thinking about may already have a section that has been set aside and blessed for Catholics, or your own grave could be blessed (before or after the interment, according to my understanding).

Like I said, though: Here’s hoping it a long time before that’s necessary. I’ll say a prayer to that end and encourage others to do so as well.

Hope you’ll keep visiting the blog!

20

A reader writes:

I was born Catholic many years ago and remain faithfully practicing. I am a WW2 veteran – USCG. What is the correct thinking about burial in a county veterans cemetery? (unhallowed ground?)

I find my self reading your blog again and again. Thank you for it.

Thank you, sir! Always glad to have a member of the Greatest Generation reading! Y’all did a huge service for the world! One of my grandfathers was also in the Coast Guard in WWII, down in the Gulf of Mexico where Nazi subs were prowling.

I hope it’s a lot of years yet before you need to make use of this info, but it is permitted for you to be buried in a veterans’ cermetery. The Code of Canon Law provides that:

Canon  1240

§1. Where possible, the Church is to have its own cemeteries or at least areas in civil cemeteries that are designated for the deceased members of the faithful and properly blessed.

§2. If this cannot be achieved, however, then individual graves are to be properly blessed.

So: The veterans’ cemetery you’re thinking about may already have a section that has been set aside and blessed for Catholics, or your own grave could be blessed (before or after the interment, according to my understanding).

Like I said, though: Here’s hoping it a long time before that’s necessary. I’ll say a prayer to that end and encourage others to do so as well.

Hope you’ll keep visiting the blog!

20

A reader writes:

Hello!

I was baptized at an Armenian Apostolic Church in Michigan. Can I take Communion in the Catholic Church? Thanks!

Here is what the Code of Canon Law says about the matter:

Canon 844 §3.

Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.

So, as a baptized member of an Eastern Church (Armenian Apostolic), if you seek Communion on your own accord and are properly disposed (for example, you have been to confession since your last mortal sin, you have fasted for an hour before Communion time), canon law permits you to receive Communion in the Catholic Church.

I should note that the above quotation is from the Code of Canon Law, which governs churches belonging to the Latin rite of the Catholic Church. The Eastern Catholic churches (e.g., Maronites, Melkites, Chaldeans) are governed by a different work, called the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (CCEO). Its provisions on this matter are identical-down-to-the-word to the Code of Canon Law (the canon number is CCEO 671 §3). Therefore, the same rules would apply to your receiving Communion in an Eastern Catholic parish or a Latin rite Catholic parish.

A reader writes:

Hello!

I was baptized at an Armenian Apostolic Church in Michigan. Can I take Communion in the Catholic Church? Thanks!

Here is what the Code of Canon Law says about the matter:

Canon 844 §3.

Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.

So, as a baptized member of an Eastern Church (Armenian Apostolic), if you seek Communion on your own accord and are properly disposed (for example, you have been to confession since your last mortal sin, you have fasted for an hour before Communion time), canon law permits you to receive Communion in the Catholic Church.

I should note that the above quotation is from the Code of Canon Law, which governs churches belonging to the Latin rite of the Catholic Church. The Eastern Catholic churches (e.g., Maronites, Melkites, Chaldeans) are governed by a different work, called the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (CCEO). Its provisions on this matter are identical-down-to-the-word to the Code of Canon Law (the canon number is CCEO 671 §3). Therefore, the same rules would apply to your receiving Communion in an Eastern Catholic parish or a Latin rite Catholic parish.

A reader writes:

Is a funeral mass permitted for a person who committed suicide?

The rule on who can receive a funderal Mass is Canon 1185:

Any funeral Mass must also be denied a person who is excluded from ecclesiastical funerals.

This means you have to look at the previous Canon (1184) to find out who can be granted ecclesastical funerals:

§1. Unless they gave some signs of repentance before death, the following must be deprived of ecclesiastical funerals:

1/ notorious apostates, heretics, and schismatics;

2/ those who chose the cremation of their bodies for reasons contrary to Christian faith;

3/ other manifest sinners who cannot be granted ecclesiastical funerals without public scandal of the faithful.

§2. If any doubt occurs, the local ordinary is to be consulted, and his judgment must be followed.

No mention is made in this canon of suicide cases. The closest it comes is §1 no. 3, which refers to manifest sinners, but it qualifies this, restricting it to the individuals who cannot be granted funerals without scandal being given to the faithful. Scandal does not mean offending the sensibilities of the faithful. It means leading the faithful into sin. But allowing a funeral for an ordinary person who has committed suicide will be construed as an act of mercy on a person who did something wrong–not an endorsement of suicide–and thus will not result in scandal to the faithful. Thus an ordinary suicide victim would not be prohibited from having an ecclesiastical funeral or a funeral Mass.

This is not to say that all suicide victims can be given funeral Masses. Some may not be able to because doing so would cause scandal to the faithful, but this is not the case with an ordinary suicide.

A reader writes:

I’m still confused about the post HERE. What constitutes a formal act of leaving the church? I have friends who do not consider themselves to be Catholic anymore and attend another type of Christian service or are not attending any type of service (but are honestly searching for truth). In either case, is their marriage valid?

This is a matter that hasn’t been fully clarified. The 1983 Code of Canon Law allowed an exemption from the requirement of observing the Catholic form of marriage for Catholics who had left the Church by a formal act of defection. This was a new provision in the law, but unfortunately the Code didn’t go on to define what is required for such an act. Thus there is some debate about particular acts of defection, but the following seem reasonable:

• The act must involve true defection–that is, a person determining that he is no longer to be considered a member of the Catholic Church. (Joining another church under the belief that one could be a member of two churches at once would not count.)
• The act must be formal. There must be a moment in time when the individual performs some kind of formal act, such as being baptized in another church or sending a bishop a letter of resignation from the Church. (Just starting to attend another church or falling out of the habit of attending the Catholic Church does not count.)
• As a juridic act, it must be a fully human act (e.g., one not done due under duress or by a person not in command of his faculties).
• Also as a juridic act, it must be done by one capable of placing a juridic act, which leaves out minors.

Unfortunately, the law isn’t clear on this point. At some stage, I suspect that we’ll have an authentic interpretation to clear it up (if the recently-released instruction Dignitas Connubii doesn’t clear it up [my copy is still in the mail]).

William Rehnquist is so cool.

It’s so sad that he’s like to have to retire soon because of his ill-health. I hope y’all will pray for him, that (whether on the Court or off) God will give him healing and the strength he needs to get through this time.

I wanted to just do a tribute post to him right now, while he’s still on the Court.

Like I said, he’s so cool.

First, he’s an originalist (the correct legal school of hermeutics and the only one that honors the democratic process).

Second, he was one of the two votes against The EVIL Decision in 1973 (the other was ex-football player-turned-Supreme Court Justice Byron "Whizzer" White).

Third, and most important, he’s a Gilbert & Sullivan fan!

In fact, he’s incorporated his fandom of G & S into Supreme Court tradition:

Rehnquist also created a unique robe for himself as Chief Justice in 1994. It has four golden bars on each sleeve. In the past, Chief Justices had not dressed differently than any of the Associate Justices. Rehnquist’s robe was modeled after a robe he had seen in a production of Gilbert and Sullivan’s operetta Iolanthe, first staged in London in 1882. The costume which inspired Chief Justice Rehnquist, an acknowledged Gilbert and Sullivan fan, is worn by the Lord Chancellor, a character called upon to settle a dispute among a colony of fairies [SOURCE].

Yes!

Iolanthe (eye-oh-lan-theee) is one of the best G & S light operas. It has, in the judgment of some, the most beautiful score of any of the duo’s works. The libretto is witty. The premise is absurd. The climax is moving. And the ending is so over-the-top that it must have made a bunch of British Lords’ ears turn red. Oh yeah, and there are loads of jokes strewn along the path, and it has one of the two most amazing songs Gilbert ever wrote the lyrics for (this one being a strung-together collection of common sayings that he makes all fit together and rhyme).

The story focuses on the case of a young Arcadian shepherd named Strephon who has an unusual problem: Having a human father and a fairy mother (Iolanthe), he’s half mortal and half fairy. He’s a fairy down to the waist, but his legs are mortal. He’s also in love with a beautiful (mortal) maiden named Phyllis, who happens to be a Ward of Chancery (i.e., an orphan under the care of the court).

Enter England’s Lord High Chancellor (who, in U.K. government is, among other things, the head of their judiciary). In Iolanthe, the Lord High Chancellor himself has an unusual problem:

And every one who’d marry a Ward
Must come to me for my accord,
And in my court I sit all day,
Giving agreeable girls away,

With one for him–and one for he–
And one for you–and one for ye–
And one for thou–and one for thee–
But never, oh, never a one for me!

Which is exasperating for
A highly susceptible Chancellor!

Knowing the character of Iolanthe’s Lord High Chancellor from my own Gilbert & Sullivan fanboy-ism, I get such a kick out of the idea of Chief Justice Rehnquist–America’s Lord High Chancellor–would break with Supreme Court tradition to model his own robe after the character from Iolanthe.

What a cool guy!

I hope the next chief justice keeps up the tradition.

READ THE LIBRETTO.

GET A REALLY GOOD (AND CANADIAN!) PRODUCTION OF IOLANTHE.

William Rehnquist is so cool.

It’s so sad that he’s like to have to retire soon because of his ill-health. I hope y’all will pray for him, that (whether on the Court or off) God will give him healing and the strength he needs to get through this time.

I wanted to just do a tribute post to him right now, while he’s still on the Court.

Like I said, he’s so cool.

First, he’s an originalist (the correct legal school of hermeutics and the only one that honors the democratic process).

Second, he was one of the two votes against The EVIL Decision in 1973 (the other was ex-football player-turned-Supreme Court Justice Byron "Whizzer" White).

Third, and most important, he’s a Gilbert & Sullivan fan!

In fact, he’s incorporated his fandom of G & S into Supreme Court tradition:

Rehnquist also created a unique robe for himself as Chief Justice in 1994. It has four golden bars on each sleeve. In the past, Chief Justices had not dressed differently than any of the Associate Justices. Rehnquist’s robe was modeled after a robe he had seen in a production of Gilbert and Sullivan’s operetta Iolanthe, first staged in London in 1882. The costume which inspired Chief Justice Rehnquist, an acknowledged Gilbert and Sullivan fan, is worn by the Lord Chancellor, a character called upon to settle a dispute among a colony of fairies [SOURCE].

Yes!

Iolanthe (eye-oh-lan-theee) is one of the best G & S light operas. It has, in the judgment of some, the most beautiful score of any of the duo’s works. The libretto is witty. The premise is absurd. The climax is moving. And the ending is so over-the-top that it must have made a bunch of British Lords’ ears turn red. Oh yeah, and there are loads of jokes strewn along the path, and it has one of the two most amazing songs Gilbert ever wrote the lyrics for (this one being a strung-together collection of common sayings that he makes all fit together and rhyme).

The story focuses on the case of a young Arcadian shepherd named Strephon who has an unusual problem: Having a human father and a fairy mother (Iolanthe), he’s half mortal and half fairy. He’s a fairy down to the waist, but his legs are mortal. He’s also in love with a beautiful (mortal) maiden named Phyllis, who happens to be a Ward of Chancery (i.e., an orphan under the care of the court).

Enter England’s Lord High Chancellor (who, in U.K. government is, among other things, the head of their judiciary). In Iolanthe, the Lord High Chancellor himself has an unusual problem:

And every one who’d marry a Ward
Must come to me for my accord,
And in my court I sit all day,
Giving agreeable girls away,

With one for him–and one for he–
And one for you–and one for ye–
And one for thou–and one for thee–
But never, oh, never a one for me!

Which is exasperating for
A highly susceptible Chancellor!

Knowing the character of Iolanthe’s Lord High Chancellor from my own Gilbert & Sullivan fanboy-ism, I get such a kick out of the idea of Chief Justice Rehnquist–America’s Lord High Chancellor–would break with Supreme Court tradition to model his own robe after the character from Iolanthe.

What a cool guy!

I hope the next chief justice keeps up the tradition.

READ THE LIBRETTO.

GET A REALLY GOOD (AND CANADIAN!) PRODUCTION OF IOLANTHE.