In the combox down yonder, a reader writes:
I stumbled onto your blog by accident. Read several areas of commentary. Was a bit befuddled as to why there is nothing on the site explaining why you are qualified to answer questions or give advice on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church and its practices and canon law rather than directing one to their local priest or bishop.
So I did a little research and found that you work for Catholic Answers.com, but that still doesn’t answer the question.
Okay! I’ll do what I can to help clarify matters!
Is your advice reviewed by Rome or your local bishop to make sure that it is correct and accurate.
No, there is not enough time for that.
Do you not have a moral obligation as a Catholic to gain prior approval of your commentary by you local bishop in order to make sure you are not misleading other Catholics in giving advice (including interpretation of Canon law) on what is proper and what is not?
I have a moral obligation to make sure that what I say is accurate, and I take that obligation very, very seriously. I would daresay that I take it much more seriously than many do, but I do not have the moral or canonical obligation to get prior approval on everything I write on matters related to the faith.
But I don’t have the moral obligation because to seek prior approval on what I write because if people had this obligation then the work of spreading and explaining the faith would come to a screeching halt. There are only 4,400 Catholic bishops in the world, but there are 6,000,000,000 people who need education in the faith. If bishops were required to pre-approve everything that was written to help evangelize the world then they would not be able to eat or sleep. They would spend all their time reading and pre-approving documents–either that or the number of documents would diminish to a trickle and the project of promoting the Christian faith would come to the screeching halt I mentioned earlier.
In recognition of the pressing need for works that promote the faith, canon law only requires imprimaturs on a handful of highly important works, like translations of Scripture or catechisms. It does not require imprimaturs (granted before or after publication) for ordinary attempts to explain points of Church teaching or law. (You can read the requirements for imprimaturs HERE).
As I said, though I don’t have the moral or canonical obligation to get pre-approval on everything I write (though I do on those things I write that require imprimaturs), I do have the moral obligation to make sure that I am right, and I am very serious about that.
This is one of the reasons I "show my work" by quoting from official Church documents whenever possible and by spelling out the links in my reasoning so that people can see and evaluate it for themselves. I don’t just present my conclusions and say "This is what the Church teaches." I know a lot of people do that, but I strive not to be one of them.
I also strive to make it clear whether what I’m saying is a matter of personal opinion or Church teaching–which is something else I wish others would do more often than is presently the case.
My goal in doing this work is what I call "transparency to the Church." I want to present to people what the Church presents without addition, subtraction, or alteration. I strive to tell people what the authentic Magisterium of the Church has said even when I’m not comfortable with it, and when I’m asked a question that the Magisterium has not addressed, I try to make it clear that the answer I’m giving is not to be confused with official Church teaching.
I’m not perfect, and I’m sure that people can point to examples where I have failed in this regard, but this is the goal that I earnestly pursue.
Given your commentary in posts on canon law, and your view of it, can you point me to a the reference that would allow for a dispensation to allow a priest to not be celibate and participate actively in a parish community life?
I’ve been working toward doing a post on the topic of how a laicized priest can and cannot involve himself in parish life for a while. I already know what the general parameters are, but I’m in the process of procuring a copy of the standard document that is issued to priests when they are laicized that spells these matters out. As soon as I have it and can get it typed in, I’ll post it so that people can see for themselves what the general rules are. (That way they don’t have to take me at my word; they can read the document for themselves.)
I hope to have this done later in the week, though it might stretch into next week. Please stop back by and check.
Would you say your a liberal or conservative Catholic? I can’t understand how people can consider themselves liberal and Catholic.
I don’t know whether you’re using the terms "liberal" and "conservative" in a political or a theological sense, though I suspect the latter. Theologically, I strive to be a scrupulously orthodox Catholic, which you might call conservative.
As for the bunny story, why do you bother to post this kind of trash? Shouldn’t your posts directed at furthering God’s word?
God made us to have a sense of humor and to spend time on things other than theology. He meant us to live full orbed lives and to be interested in many topics. I try to reflect this on my blog by using humor (like the ongoing "The Easter Bunny is EVIL!" joke) and by posting about topics other than religion so that we can marvel together about other aspects of God’s creation and the human spirit (which is part of his creation).
Interested in answers.
I hope these help!
One subject that you raised but didn’t put into the form of a question is my qualifications to do all this.
My academic training is in philosophy, which intersects to a considerable degree with the work I do. I am also an autodidact who has managed to acquire a background in apologetics, biblical studies, theology, liturgy, canon law, and related disciplines.
Because I have learned this material on my own, I do not have an institution such as the Church or a university that has put its seal of approval on me (in areas other than philosophy) and said, "Listen to this guy; he knows what he’s talking about."
In the absence of such a seal of approval, the only defense there is for my answers is making sure that they are right. I can’t rely for my credibility on the fact that someone else has vouched for me.
Since no institution has handed me a reputation for accuracy by putting its seal of approval on me, the only way I can build a reputation for accuracy is by regularly being accurate and showing why my answers are accurate. That’s another of the reasons I "show my work" by backing them up with Church documents and spelling out the reasoning behind the conclusions I offer so that people can evaluate them for themselves.
This means I go to more pains to make sure that I’m right than if I had an institutional seal of approval. If I were a priest, for example, I could often get along by just saying "This is the way it is," and many people wouldn’t challenge me (especially to my face) because I was a priest. Not being a priest, I don’t have that luxury, so I have to go to extra lengths to ensure accuracy since truth is the only defense I have.
Hope this helps, and hope you’ll keep reading!