Category: Sacraments

A reader writes:

I’ve never heard the term "presumption of faith" used before but in thinking about the issue of Bishops withholding Communion from wayward politicians, it strikes me that the Church applies almost universally this principle (expressed in other ways).

Like presumption of innocence in court, the Church presumes faith when one asks for any of the sacraments.  Because we cannot know another’s heart as God can, we have to take their word that they are able to receive the sacrament and believe what the sacrament does.

In the case of communion, it has been said many times that the confessional is empty and the communion lines are full.  Logic, knowledge of human concupiscence, and just the results of some of the most recent surveys of Catholics tells us that there is something wrong with the picture, but in the communion line the Church applies presumption of faith because she has to.

It is only where a person publically advertises their sin and just as publically seeks communion while demonstrating no purpose of amendment (a requisite for a good confession if that confession had indeed taken place privately), it is only in that kind a circumstance that a public response is required to avert scandal.

Others holding the same views privately and acting upon those views could receive communion in an unworthy manner and the priest or bishop may never know because they are acting on the presumption of faith.

And so on.

Does that make any sense as a concept?

It does, though I’d tweak it a bit.

There is indeed a presumption that the Church makes in admitting people to Communion, though it isn’t just a presumption that they have faith. It also presumes that they meet the other requirements for Communion, such as being in a state of grace, having the proper dispositions, having fasted for an hour before the moment of Communion, and so forth. These are summed up under the heading of "worthiness to receive Communion" (which is a bit paradoxical given that immediately before Communion we say "Lord, I am not worthy to receive you," but there we are). I’d therefore phrase the presumption as a presumption of worthiness rather than a presumption of faith.

This presumption holds except in very specific cases. A Catholic presenting himself for holy Communion is not to be denied except unless he is prohibited by law from receiving. The Code of Canon Law provides:

Can.  912 Any baptized person not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to holy communion.

Now, there are people who are prohibited by law from receiving (e.g., because they’re in mortal sin, because they haven’t fasted, etc.), but in the practice of the Church the evaluation of these criteria is left to the individual communicant in the vast majority of cases. The only time in the Code that priest and other ministers of Communion are told not to give Communion to a person who presents himself is in the following canon:

Can.  915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.

Since declared excommunications (as opposed to automatic excommunications) and declared interdicts are as rare as hen’s teeth, the most commonly triggered part of this canon is that concerning "others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin." That means people who are publicly known to be involved in grave sin and who refuse to amend their ways.

As a practical matter, only those individuals are denied Communion (if even they are). Otherwise the presumption of worthiness to receive holy Communion operates.

A reader writes:

My husband and I converted to Catholicism 4 years ago.  We are currently expecting our 5th child, the 3rd to be born since our reception into the Church.  My question concerns the choosing of Godparents for this new child.  Is it ok for us to choose the same set of Godparents for this child as for one of the other children?  We have many devout Christian friends and family, but they are mainly Protestants and so unsuitable for Godparents.  There are very few Catholic couples that are we close enough to, and know their faith well enough to ask them to be Godparents.  The two couples that we have already asked are still the best candidates from our "pool" of friends and family.   I would like to know what is okay canonically, as well as what the tradition on this question is. 

Canonically there is no problem at all in having the same godparents for one child as for another. There is no canonical requirement that one child in a family must have a different set of godparents than another, as can be seen from our recent discussion of the requirements.

As far as what is traditional–well, that may vary significantly from culture to culture. In America it seems to me that most Catholics (at least the ones that I know) tend to have different godparents for different children–at least most of the time–but this is in no way binding.

Doing the best thing for the kid would take priority in my mind, and if that mean having the same ones for different kids because those are the best ones available, then that’s what I’d do.

Incidentally, thanks for giving me the occasion to tie up another couple of godparent questions that came up in our previous discussion.

There was some question about whether a person who is non-Christian could serve as a formal "witness" to the baptism. The answer is that, by my reading of the canon, the answer is no.

What the canon (CIC 874) says is:

§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.

Now, the phrase "baptized person who belongs to a non-Catholic ecclesial community" has a technical meaning in canon law, and what it means is: Protestant.

Eastern Orthodox can be godparents, as we noted, as long as there is also a Catholic godparent (see sectoin 98b of this document) don’t fall under that designation because they have validly ordained bishops and so are members of churches rather than "ecclesial communities." Because Protestants don’t (in general) have validly ordained bishops they don’t have "churches" in the full sense and so Vatican II and canon law use the term "ecclesial community" to refer to their communions.

In the declartion Dominus Iesus, Cardinal Ratzinger noted:

[T]he ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery, are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church (no. 17).

Canon 874 §2 is thus making a specific exception for baptized Protestants to serve as designated witnesses, together with a Catholic godparent. It is not making an exception for non-Christians.

The rule is thus that there is always to be at least one Catholic godparent, who can be either male or female.

If there is an additional godparent then it must be of the opposite sex and can be either Catholic or Eastern Orthodox.

There also can be a Catholic godparent and a baptized Protestant witness.

A non-Christian or a non-baptized Protestant (some Protestant groups do not mandate baptism) could not serve as a witness but would have to have a looser, less official relationship with the child, such as an unofficial "uncle" or mentor or something.

A reader writes:

My wife and I are committed practicing Catholics, and we are soon to be blessed with a baby.

We do not want to delay in baptizing our child, and therefore have put our thought to Godparents.

However, I have a somewhat unusual dilemma.

Whilst we have most probably fixed on a godmother who is close to us, an experienced parent, and practicing Catholic, there is someone I would very much like to have as a godfather who is a man of principles, integrity, honesty, and many virtues Catholics highly regard. He is in many ways someone I hope my child will look up to. He towers above other possibilities as an individual. However, he is neither Catholic nor Christian. He believes in God, and has respect for the Catholic faith (as an architect, he does a lot of work for the Church, including the recent design of a major Chapel), but is not Christian. His origins are in fact Jewish. I however, whilst a committed Catholic, believe at the end of the day that what is important is how we live our lives. That said, I understand the importance and significance of baptism  – thus I am torn.

May I ask your advice in regards to where do I stand in terms of Canon Law, and practice, therefore, in considering him as a candidate for godfather (bearing in mind of course that the godmother would be a practicing catholic)?

While it sounds as though the gentleman in question has numerous positive qualities, the fact that he is not Catholic would prevent him from serving as godfather. The Code of Canon Law provides:

Can.  874 §1. To be permitted to take on the function of sponsor [i.e., godparent] 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.

The reason for the requirement in blue is that the function of a godparent is to serve an auxiliary role to the parents in seeing to the child’s religious education as a Catholic. That means helping the child understand and accept the teachings of the Catholic faith not just in a general way but, when called upon, in their details.

For example, at some point in his life the child may have questions about transubstantiation (or any other Catholic teaching), and it would be very difficult for a godfather who does not believe in transubstantiation–who thinks that it is false–to tell his godson that he should believe in it.

Most such godfathers would not send the kind of message that the godson needs to hear and thus would undermine their faith.

Those godfathers who did tell their godson to believe in transubstantiation (or whatever doctrine is in question) would be violating their own consciences by telling another to believe what they themselves believe to be false.

To prevent this kind of situation–where either the child’s faith will be undermined or the godfather will be forced to violate his conscience–the Church has determined that in order to be a godparent for a Catholic child one needs to be Catholic.

(At least in the vast majority of cases, though occasionally an exception is made for Eastern Orthodox because of their doctrinal closeness to the Catholic faith; SEE HERE.)

This practice says nothing at all about the personal quality of non-Catholics who would otherwise be considered for the role of godparent. They may be outstanding individuals and may in fact be better role models than other available people, but because they do not share the faith that they would be expected to foster in the child, they are not canonically permitted to play this role.

I would therefore urge you to look to other individuals to find candidates for the role of godfather, though the gentleman you have been considering could still potentially play an unofficial mentoring role for your child.

Incidentally, you should be aware that there is not a requirement that there even be a godfather. The Code provides:

Can.  873 There is to be only one male sponsor or one female sponsor or one of each.

So if you truly cannot find a suitable Catholic man to serve as godfather, the fact you already have a suitable Catholic godmother would be sufficient.

Hope this helps!

A reader writes:

Through the work of the Holy Spirit a couple of years
ago, I was able to really turn my spiritual life
around and fully embrace my Catholicism. I’ll spare
you all the gory details, but Catholic Answers Live
played a big part.

I made some important confessions back then to really
bring me back into full communion with the Church, and
I continue to go every month or so. But I occasionally
will remember some stuff I did in my past life, either
a long time ago, or even just before my "reversion".
Sometimes really bad stuff, like Darth Vader stuff.

Unless you are a mass murderer or a Satanist, I very much doubt that you’ve got real Darth Vader-like stuff. You may be being scrupulous.

I tend to be scrupulous at times, although it comes
and goes.

Ahh. See?

I know I’m not supposed to reconfess things
(which I don’t)

It is possible to reconfess sins that have already been confessed and forgiven, but according to standard moral and pastoral theology this is something that a scrupulous person should not do because it fosters further scrupulosity.

and I’m not supposed to worry about
past sins (which I do). The sacrament takes care of
that.

True.

However, I have heard on EWTN and elsewhere that
it’s a good idea to mention unconfessed (forgotten)
serious sins the next time I go, even though the
sacrament took care of them.

It’s actually a bit stronger than that. If you remember a mortal sin that your forgot to confess then you have an obligation to confess it, even though it has already been forgiven.

In the case of scrupulous individuals, though, standard moral and pastoral theology holds that they should only confess such sins if the following conditions obtain: (1) they know for a fact it was a mortal sin and (2) they know for a fact that they have not already confessed it. If they aren’t sure about either of these two conditions then a person with a scrupulous conscience should not confess the sin because it will foster further scrupulosity if they get in the habit of confessing sins that they aren’t sure were mortal or aren’t sure if they haven’t already been confessed.

Would it be a good idea
for me to make a general confession, mentioning the
things I can think of, as a way to move on?

 

I continue to receive communion almost every day. My
head tells me to keep receiving, but my heart wants to
rid myself of the old baggage. I do realize the danger
of always remembering more and more past sins, as well
as the danger of not trusting the sacrament. I’ve
really enjoyed the posts you’ve made in the past
regarding scrupulosity. I’ve also read Fr. Santa’s
book. I’m not a "hard case", but like I said, it comes
and goes.

Whether you should make a general confession is difficult to say and is ultimately a decision that you will have to make based on your own knowledge of yourself and how successful it would be in helping you get past the present issue. It’s not an unreasonable idea, though, as long as you don’t find yourself wanting to do it again and again.

If you do make a general confession, then do it in such a way that will maximize your chance of getting past the scrupulosity: Sit down with a really thorough examination of conscience and make a list of everything mortally sinful that you think you may have done. Write it by hand; don’t use a computer. Then take this list with you into the confessional and read it or, if it is too painful, give it to the priest and say "I confess this." Then get the list back and DESTROY it (e.g., burn it and then flush the ashes).

You can, of course, omit from the list things that you’re sure that you have confessed.

And if you do decide on making a general confession, be sure to set up a special appointment time with the priest. Don’t show up to do it right before Mass or when there are other people waiting in line.

Hope this helps!

20

A reader writes:

Have you heard of the ‘oil of gladness’? Someone told us that it is a non-sacramental oil used by lay people. My friend’s mother has been asked to administer it at school on the the feast of St. Peter & St. Paul to those recently confirmed and she’s a bit suspicious about it.

Firstly, what is this oil? Secondly, can a layperson administer it? (and if so, what would be the point in administering it if it is non-sacramental?)

Oh, if it makes any difference, we live in England!

I have to say that I haven’t heard of anyone using the phrase "oil of gladness" in this way. The phrase originally comes from the Old Testament. In Psalm 45:7, we read:

Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

This is in a Messianic Psalm whose literal signification originally applied to the king in Jerusalem but which also applies to Christ, so the same verse gets quoted in reference to Jesus in Hebrews 1:9.

In these passages, "the oil of gladness" might refer to anointing oil used on kings of Israel at their coronation or it may refer more generally to the anointing oils that were used as part of daily Israelite culture and hygeine. These oils were often scented and putting them on could symbolize gladness in something like the way putting on perfume or cologne does in our culture.

It wouldn’t surprise me if the phrase "oil of gladness" turned up in some of the Church’s rites for blessing various oils, but I am not aware of any oil specifically called "the oil of gladness," though the term does show up in a non-technical sense (i.e., not as a literal name) in some church documents (see here).

That being said, it also wouldn’t surprise me if some folks had taken to calling particular oils "the oil of gladness." Folk Catholicism often generates unusual names for things.

As to whether laity can perform non-sacramental anointings with oil, this was addressed in the 1997 Instruction on Colaboration, where we read:

Article 9

The Apostolate to the Sick

§ 1. In this area, the non-ordained faithful can often provide valuable collaboration. Innumerable works of charity to the sick are constantly provided by the non-ordained faithful either individually or through community apostolates. These constitute an important Christian presence to sick and suffering of the greatest importance. The non-ordained faithful particularly assist the sick by being with them in difficult moments, encouraging them to receive the Sacraments of Penance and the Anointing of the Sick, by helping them to have the disposition to make a good individual confession as well as to prepare them to receive the Anointing of the Sick. In using sacramentals, the non-ordained faithful should ensure that these are in no way regarded as sacraments whose administration is proper and exclusive to the Bishop and to the priest. Since they are not priests, in no instance may the non-ordained perform anointings either with the Oil of the Sick or ony other oil [SOURCE].

This is a rather sweeping statement, and since it has been the custom of lay people to perform at least some non-sacramental blessings with oil (at least on themselves) in Catholic history, there is some question in my mind about whether the Holy See meant the boldface statement above as a reference to non-sacramental anointings of sick people (given the fact that this is under the head of the apostolate to the sick) or whether they meant it to refer to anointings in general.

What I would do if I were your friend is this:

Here in America we have a book known as the Book of Blessings which contains many of the Church’s rites for the administration of sacramentals. Some of these are approved for laypeople to perform, and if this situation were occurring in America the first thing I would do is check the Book of Blessings to see what it says.

That’s an American document and wouldn’t apply in England, but there’s sure to be a British equivalent, so what I would do is ask to see a copy of the official ritual that she has been asked to perform. Then I would check it out to make sure that it really is an official ritual approved for use in the your country and not something that somebody just made up.

If it checks out–if it has the proper approvals from your conference of bishops and Rome–then I would feel comfortable in going ahead and performing the rite. Otherwise, I’d start asking more questions and would say that your friend’s concern about participating in the rite is warranted.

Hope this helps!

A reader writes:

My wife and I are expecting our third child in mid-August.  Our parish does infant baptisms on the
second Sunday of September.  We were hoping to have the baby baptised then.  Unfortunately, my
sister-in-law (the godmother) cannot make it that day.  My wife and I are having a hard time
determining if it would be contrary to our parental obligation to baptize our child if we wait an
additional month to do the baptism so that the godmother can be present.  Thank you!

Here is what the Code of Canon Law says:

Can.  867 §1. Parents are obliged to take care that
infants are baptized in the first few weeks; as soon as possible after the
birth or even before it, they are to go to the pastor to request the sacrament
for their child and to be prepared properly for it.

§2. An infant in danger of death is to be baptized
without delay.

It would seem to me that you’re talking about the difference between baptizing the child either approximately 4 weeks after baptism or approximately 8-9 weeks after baptism.

Canonically speaking, it seems to me that either of these could plausibly be claimed to be within "the first few weeks." There is no set number for a "few"; if the Church had wanted to set a number, it could have, but anything in the single digits is certainly a plausible contender.

It therefore seems to me that, as long as your baby is not in danger of death, you would be fulfilling your canonical obligations regarding the child.

Should the child be in danger of death, an immediate baptism–even by you at home–would be required.

Other options here would include:

• Asking the parish to do the baptism at another, sooner time when the godmother can be there and
• Doing the baptism in September but having someone stand in as a proxy for the godmother.

Hope this helps!

20

A reader writes:

Mr. Akin:

I thought this article would interest you.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/14688209.htm

The article is about a group of people in the San Jose area who are attending "Masses" celebrated by (among others) a woman who claims to have been ordained to the priesthood.

The article discusses other woman who are also about to undergo putative ordinations to the priesthood–apparently by women who have undergone putative ordinations to the episcopacy.

This "line" of ordinations extends back to the ceremony that was conducted a few years ago on Danube river. Subsequently, some of the Danube ordinands reported that they had been consecrated as bishops by unnamed bishops who are in communion with Rome.

Now, based on the activity of the women claiming the episcopacy, this movement is spreading (as it has been already) to the United States.

The Diocese of San Jose has issued warnings to the faithful that the sacraments celebrated by the individuals in question are not valid.

Regrettably, the San Jose Mercury News decided to pour this story into the standard "reformers longing for change" mold and only included the bare minimum of material needed from those with the orthodox view needed to minimally guard against charges of only covering one side of the story.

Let’s keep all the folks involved or affected by this story in prayer.

The reader also writes:

I thought this part was interesting:

A dozen will be ordained in Pittsburgh on July 31, including Cordero and women from Carmel and Pismo Beach. Another woman — fearful that her bishop will quickly excommunicate her — will only say she’s from the Bay Area.

Aren’t the women who do this automatically excommunicated?

No, they’re not–or at least the Vatican has not handled prior cases in this way. Simulating the sacrament of holy orders does not carry with it the penalty of automatic excommunication, so for them to be automatically excommunicated they would have to be guilty of an offence that does carry that penalty.

The most likely such offenses are heresy and schism, but there would be problems with making these charges stick.

In regard to schism, the Church has not determined that simulating the sacrament of ordination is a schismatic act.

In regard to heresy, the act of simulating a sacrament is not itself heresy. "Heresy
is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of
some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith" (CIC 751), so heresy is the adoption of a particular mental state (willful doubt or denial) that must be declared or manifested externally in order to incur canonical censure (CIC 1330).

I suppose that one could argue that for a woman to attempt to undergo ordination to the priesthood could be construed as an external manifestion of belief in the possibility of women’s ordination, but the latter (i.e., belief in the possibility of women’s ordination) has not yet been judged to be a heresy.

That may surprise folks, but hold on a second and I’ll explain.

The definition of heresy requires that the truth that is doubted or denied must be one which must be believed with both divine faith (meaning it has been revealed by God as part of the deposit of faith) and Catholic faith (meaning that the Church has definitively proposed it so that it is infallible).

Some truths (e.g., the divinity of Christ) must be believed by divine faith and Catholic faith, but some only have to be believed by one OR the other. An example of a truth that must be believed by divine faith but not Catholic faith would be anything that God has taught in revelation and that the Church has not yet infallibly proposed (e.g.,–in my opinion–the fact that Judas is in hell). An example of a truth that must be believed by Catholic faith but not divine faith would be any truth that is closely enough connected with the truths in the deposit of faith that the Church has infallibly proposed it though the truth is not itself contained in the deposit of faith. For example: the fact that the Council of Trent was a valid ecumenical council.

At present, the Church has definitively proposed the fact that women cannot be ordained to the priesthood, so this truth must be believed with Catholic faith, but it has not yet made the determination of whether this is a truth that properly belongs to the deposit of faith or whether it is simply one closely connected with the deposit of faith that the Church can infer it and infallibly propose it.

Cardinal Ratzinger–in his Pre-16 days–wrote about this and made this point expressly. That is a theologically open question at this point, and since laws that impose penalties must be interpreted strictly (CIC 18), one does not occur excommunication for heresy unless it is clear that the doctrine one has denied is one that requires divine faith as well as Catholic faith.

Consequently, when the Danube Seven got ordained, their excommunications were handled simply as declared (ferendae sententiae) excommunications rather than automatic (latae sententiae) excommunications.

YOU CAN READ THE RELEVANT DECREES HERE (BE SURE TO SCROLL DOWN FOR THE SECOND DECREE).

This is in contrast to the way the Lefebvrite excommunications were handled, where it was expressly noted that the declaration of these excommunications had been incurred latae sententiae prior to their declaration.

YOU CAN READ THAT DECREE HERE.

A reader writes:

My wife came into the Catholic church somewhere around 2000 before we were married in the Church. She had been a baptized Mormon before then, in which the Deacon teaching her RCIA class said the church recognized as a valid baptism. I never thought to double check his assertion on this, and there’s the possibility he flat out just misunderstood or lost record of her telling him this. Whatever the case, she underwent the Preparation for Christians, instead of the Preparation for the Unbaptized. We regularly celebrate the sacraments together now, and I was wondering the validity/invalidity of her confirmation into Catholicism? Would you please shed some light on this for us?

This is a very delicate question, and I want to compliment you for asking it. It shows a willingness to confront potentially unpleasant or disturbing matters and to follow God’s truth even in the face of potential difficulties.

What the deacon told you was probably based on a correct understanding of Catholic practice at the time. Prior to 2001, it was generally assumed that Mormon baptisms were valid and thus that Mormons who became Catholic did not need to be baptized upon their reception into the Church, though many were given conditional baptisms just in case.

Those were the fortunate ones, because in 2001, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued the following response :

 

RESPONSE TO A ‘DUBIUM’
on the validity of baptism conferred by

«The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints»,

called «Mormons»

Question: Wheter the baptism conferred by the community «The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints», called «Mormons» in the vernacular, is valid.

Response: Negative.

The Supreme Pontiff John Paul II, in the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved the present Response, decided in the Sessione Ordinaria of this Congregation, and ordered it published.

From the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 5 June 2001.

+ Joseph Cardinal RATZINGER
Prefect

  + Tarcisio BERTONE, S.D.B.
Archbishop emeritus of Vercelli
Secretary

This means that, after further reflection, the Church does not regard Mormon baptisms as vaild.

Whether your wife received preparation for the baptized or preparation for the unbaptized is not of concern at this point, but what is of concern is the status of her baptism.

If she received a conditional baptism at the time she was received into the Church then her confirmation and her participation in subsequence sacraments will be valid (in the case of confession, for example) and legitimate (in the case of her reception of Holy Communion).

If she did not receive at least a conditional baptism at the time of her reception then she would not be able to validly (and in the case of the reception of the Eucharist, legitimately) participate in the other sacraments since baptism is the gateway to the sacraments.

It would therefore be necessary for her to receive at least a conditional baptism, following which she would be able to participate in a normal sacramental life, including receiving confirmation.

Thus if she was not given at least a conditional baptism at the time of her reception, I recommend contacting the pastor of your parish to pursue these options. Please let me know if you encounter difficulties with this.

I’d also add a couple of additional notes:

First, the response issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is brief and does not go into the reason why Mormon baptisms are invalid. The Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano, however, published a commentary by Fr. Luis Ladaria on the reasoning behind the decision. That commentary may be helpful in better understanding this issue.

IT IS AVAILABLE HERE.

Second, it sounds to me as if everyone was acting in good conscience at the time of your wife’s reception into the Church, and so nobody here is to be blamed–not the deacon, not your wife, not anybody. In fact, Fr. Ladaria’s commentary points out:

It is equally necessary to underline that the decision of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is a response to a particular question regarding the Baptism of Mormons and obviously does not indicate a judgment on those who are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Furthermore, Catholics and Mormons often find themselves working together on a range of problems regarding the common good of the entire human race. It can be hoped therefore that through further studies, dialogue and good will, there can be progress in reciprocal understanding and mutual respect.

Thus while the Church has on further reflection determined that Mormon baptisms are not valid, this is not to be understood as a negative judgment on Mormons or on those who were baptized as Mormons. Nor should those who were following the Church’s practice before the clarification issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith be faulted.

It is an unfortunate situation that needs to be addressed pastorally through the administration of baptism to those who were received into the Church under the prior practice (if they did not receive conditional baptisms at the time of their reception), but nobody here is to blame or should be made to feel bad regarding this.

I hope this helps, and I encourage my readers to pray for you and your wife.

God bless you both!

20

A reader writes:

There is a story making the rounds here that the Vatican-during the Communist days in some European countries- allowed a few woman to be ordained and secrety function in those communist countries.The story even says that one of these women is at Catholic U in Washington but has never functioned..the story is that some did function…some did not..Vatican ‘recalled’ their ordinations after having ‘done’ them???Have you every read or heard of this?

Yes, I am familiar with this, though the story as you received it has been somewhat garbled. The Vatican never gave permission for the ordination of women in Communist countries. What happened was this:

In 1967 Czechoslovakian bishop consecrated the priest Fr. Felix Maria Davidek as a bishop and, the new Bishop Davidek was reportedly assigned to work with the Czechoslovakian underground church.

I do not have information on whether this was done with the Holy See’s approval (which is required for the consecration of a bishop) or not.

This was an extremely chaotic time in the Czechoslovakian Catholic community, and many priests and bishops were ordained, including married priests and bishops, contrary to the requirements of canon law and in ways that the Holy See later judged to raise questions about the validity of these ordinations and consecrations.

Consequently,

OL’ JOE RATZINGER HAD TO CLEAN UP THE MESS.

But not all of the people who had been ordained–including the married bishops–were willing to go along with the Holy See’s efforts to resolve the situation (many of the priests, in particular, objected to the conditional ordinations that they were expected to undergo to resolve doubts about the validity of their orders, and the married bishops didn’t want to give up being married bishops), and as of 2000 there was still an "underground" church functioning in the Czech Republic–in violation of the Holy See’s laws–though the CDF expressly pointed out this church is not actually underground.

Bishop Davidek (who died in 1988) was a principal chaos agent in all of this and is singled out by name in the CDF document linked above as having performed ordinations of dubious validity.

In 1990 it emerged that

HE HAD ALSO ATTEMPTED ORDINATION ON AT LEAST ONE AND POSSIBLY SEVERAL WOMEN.

So naturally

THIS BECAME A CAUSE CELEBRE AMONG WOMENS ORDINATION ADVOCATES.

And so did the case of Ludmilla Javorova, who is the only woman to have publicly admitted to having been ordained by Bishop Davidek.

However, as is clear from Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (among other things), her ordination and those of any other women are invalid.

What we have here was thus not a case of the Vatican allowing the ordination of women but of a rogue bishop sowing chaos behind the Iron Curtain by ordaining bunches of people, incluidng at least one woman, in doubtful or clearly invalid ways.

Ed Peters has updated his original post on the Chinese episcopal consecrations and has included a new argument. Referencing a Vatican press statement (which unfortunately is only in Italian, it seems), he writes (EXCERPTS):

The comment about bishops and priests being "greatly pressured and threatened" ( I can imagine) to take part in the ordinations raises fresh concerns, I suggest, about their validity. See 1983 CIC 125, etc.

Analogy: Two Catholics free to marry, but under ecclesiastical precept not to marry one another (1983 CIC 1077), and neither of them wanting to marry each other, are forced by government officials to go through a wedding ceremony together. Any guesses as to how many ways such a sacramental "marriage" could be declared null?

This is an argument that deserves to be taken seriously. If you pressure someone to perform a sacrament then you can get them into a state of mind in which they withhold–or are unable to generate–the intention necessary to perform the sacrament. Thus the first canon that Ed links provides that

Can. 125

§1. [A juridic] act placed out of force inflicted on a person from without, which the person was not able to resist in any way, is considered as never to have taken place.

§2. An act placed out of grave fear, unjustly inflicted, or out of malice is valid unless the law provides otherwise. It can be rescinded, however, through the sentence of a judge, either at the instance of the injured party or of the party’s successors in law, or ex officio.

As you can see §1 of this canon provides that completely irresistible force would invalidate (since episcopal consecrations are juridic acts). However, it is not clear that this form of force was used in the Chinese consecrations.

This canon distinguishes in §1 and §2 between force and fear, and some commentators–such as the authors of the Red Code–hold that the former refers only to irresistible physical force. The distinction between the forms of coercion in §1 and §2 would then be that the former deals with physical coercion and the latter with mental coercion.

The green CLSA commentary notes that some commentators regard the force in question only as physical force, though it adds that other commentators think that irresistible coercion of a psychic or chemical nature could also qualify if they sufficiently destroy the subject’s ability to exercise the will such that no human act takes place.

Despite the proximity of these episcopal consecrations to Manchuria, it is not clear that any Manchurian Candidate-like force has been brought to bear on the individuals performing (or receiving) the consecrations and rendered them unable to perform the act validly.

Evidence of such force might emerge in the future, but it has not emerged to date, so far as I know.

We may more safely presume, instead, that the parties acted under fear of the Chinese authorities–and indeed the press statement that Dr. Peters cites refers to pressure and threats, which would seem to indicate fear–thus placing the act under the heading of §2 of the canon.

If that is the case then the law would hold that such an episcopal consecration, "placed out of grave fear, unjustly inflicted, or out of malice is valid unless the law provides otherwise."

Thus in the absence of a canon expressly providing for the invalidity of such consecrations, §2 would lead us to conclude that the consecrations were valid if what was present here was grave fear rather than irresistible force.

(Incidentally, note that this canon expressly speaks of validity if a juridical act is placed out of malice, like the "Stick it to the Catholic Church" motive that the Chinese authorities are presumed to have. They weren’t the ones performing the consecrations–those were performed by bishops–but the canon seems to indicate that even if the bishops themselves had a "Stick it ot the Vatican" motive that the consecrations would be valid, per my previous post.)

It could emerge that a form of invalidating coercion was used in these cases, but until evidence of this emerges–or until another invalidating ground is found–the Church’s presumption would be expressed by the previous canon:

Can. 124

§2. A juridic act placed correctly with respect to its external elements is presumed valid.