Schism And Mortal Sin

A reader writes:

Are Sedevacantists excommunicated, outside the grace of the Church?  What I’m asking, I guess, are followers of the schismatic doctrine of Sedevacantism (and to a lesser extent, I suppose, that of SSPX) in mortal sin?

Excommunication is an ecclesiastical censure that has specific effects that are defined by canon law. These effects are found in Canon 1331, which can be read HERE. The effects listed do not include being "outside the grace of the Church." The latter could be interpreted in several ways, and I’m not entirely sure what is intended, but I can say that excommunication neither places a person outside the Church nor does it deprive him of grace.

It does, however, presuppose that the individual has committed a grave sin. That is why, as an excommunicate, he is not allowed to receive the sacraments until he repents, for it would be sacrilege for him to do so in what must be presumed to be a state of mortal sin.

The grave sin that sedevacanists (and those who have formally adhered to the schism of the SSPX) have committed is the sin of schism. Schism is both a sin and a canonical crime, and its definition as a canonical crime is as follows:

Can. 751 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; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

If a person commits the canonical crime of schism, as defined above, then he is liable for the penalty of excommunication:

Can. 1364 §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in can. 1336, §1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.

The fact that it is latae sententiae means that the excommunication doesn’t have to be declared by an ecclesiastical authority. It occurs automatically when the person commits the crime of schism.

But the way canon law is written, it is not enough to note that a person has outwardly committed a schismatic act and then conclude that he is necessarily excommunicated. Canon law contains a number of provisions that could keep the excommunication from taking its effect, or at least from taking effect automatically. Many of these are listed in canons 1323 and 1324.

You’ll note that one of these provisions is that a person is not subject to the penalty if they committed their offense through innocent ignorance, inadvertence, or error (1323 no. 2). This means that if a person (sedevacantist or otherwise) committed a schismatic act in one of these conditions then he would not be automatically excommunicated.

It is thus possible for one to commit an objectively schismatic act without incurring excommunication.

But assume that a sedevacantist can’t get out based on one of these exceptions in the law (either the three I named or the others), would he then incur excommunication?

Yes.

If a person maintains that the current Roman Pontiff (Benedict XVI) is not a valid pope then he thereby refuses submission to the Roman Pontiff. It is not enough to say, "I’m loyal to the office, I just don’t think that guy occupies it." You have to be in submission to the actual pontiff. You can’t be in submission to an office. If there is presently a Roman Pontiff (and there always is except in interregnums) and you ain’t in submission to him then you’re a schismatic.

You can also fail to be in submission to the Roman Pontiff in other ways, as the leaders of the SSPX were when they participated in episcopal ordinations contrary to a specific papal order–see John Paul II’s motu proprio, Ecclesia Dei. As the pontiff warned in this same document, those who formally adhere to this schism also incurred excommunication.

All of this deals with the canonical censure of excommunication, but we still have to look at the moral (as opposed to canonical) question: Are sedevacantists and other schismatics in mortal sin?

It depends. Any time anyone commits an objectively grave sin (and schism is one such sin) then they are potentially in mortal sin. Whether they are actually in mortal sin depends on whether they committed their offense with sufficient knowledge of its moral character and whether they gave it deliberate consent.

If a schismatic lacked sufficient knowledge of the moral character of what they were doing (e.g., they didn’t realize that being a Catholic was important or they didn’t realize that what they were doing was actually schimatic) or if they didn’t give deliberate consent to the act (e.g., because they were suffering from a severe psychological illness that prevented them from deliberately consenting to any of their actions) then they would not be in mortal sin. They would still have sinned gravely, but the sin would not be mortal.

On the other hand, if they had sufficient knowledge of the character of their act (and they have sufficient knowledge as long as they had enough knowledge that they should have known what they were doing was gravely sinful, so their ignorance wasn’t innocent) and they just up and did it anyway then their actions were mortally sinful and they will not go to heaven unless they repent.

As always, we can’t judge whether any particular person is in mortal sin, but those are the underlying principles.

The Species Of Angels

Note that the title of this blog post is ambiguous since the word "species" in English can be either singular or plural.

There’s a good reason for using such an ambiguous title.

A reader writes:

I had a Priest tell me that every angel is it’s own species rather than angels as a whole being a single species.  Where would he have got that?

Probably from Thomas Aquinas, for it’s a notable theme in the history of Catholic theology.

YOU CAN READ ONE OF AQUINAS’S DEFENSES OF IT HERE.

The reasoning Aquinas uses is based on his Aristotelian understanding of metaphysics, according to which (among other things) matter is regarded as "the principle of individuation"–the thing that allows two things to belong to the same species and yet be different from each other. Since angels don’t have matter, they thus can’t be the same species, for there would be nothing (no matter) to differentiate angels within a particular species.

(WARNING: Aquinas’ understanding of matter is obviously somewhat different than the modern one. Don’t assume that he’s using the word in the same way we would. His use of the word "form" is also different.)

Aquinas also has an argument that even if angels had matter they would still have to be of different species, which he explains in the above link.

Unfortunately, his reasoning on some points connected with this view is not entirely clear, and commentators have struggled to figure out some of what he means.

THIS ARTICLE TAKES NOTE OF SOME OF THE ISSUES.

I should point out that the reasoning Aquinas uses is tied to a particular theory of metaphysics in such a way that the Church does not require one to agree with his conclusion. The Church does not endorse any particular system of metaphysics, and some individuals (whether they are differentiated by matter or not) have liberty of opinion here. (His Most Awesomeness B16, for example, is known to generally favor approaching things from an Augustinian rather than a Thomistic perspective.)

Personally, I am open to Aquinas’s view on this but am not presently convinced by the reasoning he uses on this point. I tend to think that we just don’t know enough about how the supernatural world works to be able to say with confidence that, for example, there is no second principle of individuation that would allow there to be multiple angels within a given species.

Scripturre makes it clear that angels are all part of some common kind of being (otherwise they wouldn’t be referred to by the common name of "angel") and that there are multiple individuals within this kind. My own inclination is to note these facts and then not worry about whether this kind is a species or a genus or what have you. There may be multiple angelic species or only one. I’m not persuaded that we know enough about the supernatural world to settle this question, and so I’d prefer to stick with the data of revelation on this point and not try to get too definitive about what metaphysical theory best explains the data.

But that’s just me. You’re free to take whatever view you feel is best supported by the evidence.

Which on this point is how the Church would have it.

Hello Cthulhu

Michelle recently posted the "Hello Vader" photo caption, and what it immediately brought to mind for me was another Hello Kitty parody, the webcomic Hello Cthulhu. Unfortunately I didn’t have a link to it, but a kindly reader thought of the same thing and e-mailed it.

CHECK IT OUT.

Incidentally, here’s the most recent installment of Hello Cthulhu, in celebration of Talk Like A Pirate Day!

Hello_cthulhu

Two Quick Purgatory Questions

A reader writes:

1.) Will souls in purgatory be purged at the end of the world? If so,
what will happen to the souls on earth that would need to go to
purgatory to be cleansed?

This one we have a pretty clear answer on. Speaking of the end of the world, St. Paul says:

Lo! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep [i.e., we won’t all die before the end of the world], but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. For this perishable nature must put on the imperishable, and this mortal nature must put on immortality [1 Cor. 15:51-53].

So anybody who is still alive at the end, or who is still in purgatory when the resurrection happens, will have whatever purification they need taken care of in an instant, "in the twinkling of an eye."

What we don’t know is whether purgatory takes place that fast now. It may or it may not. We don’t know a lot about how time works in the afterlife. (Though since God is outside of time, he can apply your prayers to whenever a person was in purgatory, even if he is "already" out.)

What amazes me is when anti-Catholics throw out the question of what will happen to people in need of purification at the end of the world who don’t have "time" for purgatory as if it were some kind of objection to the doctrine. I always want to respond, "What? God doesn’t have enough omnipotence to clean someone up fast?"

2.) Is it possible that those in purgatory are angels on earth helping us out, or are angels beings of their own?

It’s not impossible that God may have folks in purgatory do things to help us here on earth. If doing so would further their purification, he might well assign them posthumous chores to do. But they would not be angels. Angels are a different order of being than humans. Thus the Compendium states:

60. Who are the angels?

The angels are purely spiritual creatures, incorporeal, invisible, immortal, and personal beings endowed with intelligence and will. They ceaselessly contemplate God face-to-face and they glorify him. They serve him and are his messengers in the accomplishment of his saving mission to all.

Angels are thus different than humans, who are not purely spiritual beings, but embodied spiritual beings (i.e., whose natural condition is to be in a body, which is why we get resurrected at the end of time).

Not Leaving The Blessed Sacrament Alone During Exposition

A reader writes:

I was wondering about the origin on the custom of not leaving the
Exposed Eucharist alone during Adoration? Is it canonical law or what?

First, kudos for recognizing the distinction between adoration and exposition. One can adore the Eucharist whether exposition is taking place or not. Many folks get these two mixed up.

In inquiring about the origin of the rule, I take it that you are asking what is the basis for this in current ecclesiastical law, rather than its historical origin. If you are looking for information on that, you might try here.

The Code of Canon Law only deals briefly with the subject of Eucharistic exposition. Those canons are part of the general section on the reservation of the Eucharist, which are online here.

The actual basis for the requirement is found in the Church’s liturgical documents. Specifically, it is found in a document known as Holy Communion and the Worship of the Eucharist Outside of Mass, which is published in The Rites, volume 1.

The section on the exposition of the Blessed Sacrament explains:

85. If exposition of the blessed sacrament goes on for a day or
for several successive days, it should be interrupted during the celebration of Mass, unless it is
celebrated in a chapel separate from the area of exposition and at least some of the faithful remain
in adoration.

86. In churches and oratories where the eucharist is
reserved, it is recommended that solemn exposition of the blessed sacrament for an extended period
of time should take place once a year, even though this period is not strictly continuous. In this
way the local community may meditate on this mystery more deeply and adore.

This kind of exposition, however, may take place only if
there is assurance of the participation of a reasonable number of the faithful.

88. Where there cannot be uninterrupted exposition because
there is not a sufficient number of worshipers, it is permissible to replace the blessed
sacrament in the tabernacle at fixed hours that are announced ahead of time. But this may not be done more
than twice a day, for example, at

midday

and at
night.

From what I can tell, there is not an explicit statement to the effect that "There must always be at least one of the faithful present in adoration during the exposition of the Eucharist" in either of the main legal documents that are relevant (i.e., the Code and the one I just quoted), but it seems implicit in Holy Communion and the Worship of the Eucharist Outside of Mass that there are to be people present in adoration during exposition. Otherwise there would be no point to talking about needing a sufficient number of people to allow for a lengthy exposition.

Still, one could read this and say, "Okay, so you need people there generally, but not necessarily every single moment. If someone needs to step out of the room for a few minutes for some important reason, that would be okay."

Given the way HCWEOM is written, you could take that interpretation if you were of a mind to.

Which is why God created instructions issued by Vatican dicasteries.

According to the instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum, issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments,

[138.] Still, the Most Holy Sacrament, when exposed, must never be left unattended even for the briefest space of time. It should therefore be arranged that at least some of the faithful always be present at fixed times, even if they take alternating turns.

The instruction thus clarifies the ambiguity that one could see in the primary legal document.

So there you have it.

Three Days To Never: The Other Interviews

Threedaystonever_2Recently I had the great pleasure of reading Tim Powers’ latest novel,
Three Days To Never.

I also had the great pleasure of hosting an interview with the man himself, right here on JA.O.

But in looking around, I found a couple of additional interviews he did about the book, and I’d thought I’d pass them along for readers who are Tim Powers fans or who should be Tim Powers fans (which would be everybody).

Both of these interviews are conducted by people who know science fiction better than I.

THE FIRST IS WITH THE GOOD FOLKS AT SCIFI.COM

and

THE SECOND WAS CONDUCTED BY SCIENCE FICTION AUTHOR JOHN SHIRLEY.

I was pleased to see how much different material is brought out by the three interviews. Tim got asked questions that were different enough that each gives him a chance to say new and interesting things about the book, and about his writing in general, so I hope y’all’ll check ’em out.

Oh, and don’t forget to

GET THE BOOK.

OR GET HIS OTHER BOOKS IF YOU’VE ALREADY GOT THIS ONE.

How Do You Solve A Problem Like Milingo? (Remix)

Okay, creativity of this caliber should not go unnoticed. Down yonder, a reader writes:

He sneaks around and can’t be found,
Until he’s on TV…
He takes a Moonie for a wife,
Embracing heresy;
And underneath his mitre,
Seems his lost his sanity.
I heard him once professing Docetism.

He’s always breaking canons
But his penitence is real
He’s always late for everything
Except for every meal
I hate to have to say it
But I very firmly feel
Milingo’s even worse than Charlie Curran!

I’d like to say a word in his behalf
(then say it, Sr. Margaretta)
Milingo makes me… laugh.

How do you solve a problem like Milingo?
How do you make a bishop keep in line?
How do you find a word that means Milingo?
A flibbertijibbet! A will-o’-the wisp! A clown!

If bishops are dogs, Emmanuel is a dingo
Which even a German Shepherd couldn’t tame.
So how do you make him stay
And shut up for just one day?
How do you keep a crosier from his hand?

Oh, how do you solve a problem like Milingo?
How do you keep a Moonie’s feet on land?

When I’m with him I’m distressed
Things he blesses don’t seem blessed
And you never know what stunt he’s pulling next
He’s defiant as M. Luther
Wacky as Rosemary Reuther
He’s a bishop! He’s a nutcase! He’s a wreck!

He’s a Gnostic without Gnoss
Like a crosier sans a cross
He could make a Trappist hermit scream out loud
He is funny, he wild
Pray his wife is not with child!
He’s a headache, he’s amusing
He’s a looooooon

How do you solve a problem like Milingo?
How do you make a bishop keep in line?
How do you find a word that means Milingo?
A flibbertijibbet! A will-o’-the wisp! A clown!

Many a thing you know you’d like to tell him:
Celibacy’s not just a papal whim
So how do you make him stay
And shut up for just one day?
How do you keep a crosier from his hand?

Oh, how do you solve a problem like Milingo?
How do you keep a Moonie’s feet on land?

Chicago Pro-Life Conference Tomorrow & Saturday

CHICAGO, September 21, 2006 – "Contrary to popular belief, contraception is
not the answer to reducing the number of abortions," said Joseph M.
Scheidler, National Director of the Chicago-based Pro-Life Action League.
"And it is not the solution to teen pregnancy."

On September 22 and 23, the Pro-Life Action League will host a national
conference to highlight the fact that the contraception theory is a lie.
Speakers at the two-day conference, entitled "Contraception Is Not the
Answer," will focus on the impact that contraception has had on our culture
– its effects on women, on men, on marriage, and on the culture.

Presenters include Dr. Lionel Tiger, the Charles Darwin Professor of
Anthropology at Rutgers University, Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, author of
Smart Sex: How to Find Life-Long Love in a Hook-Up World, and demographer
Andrew Pollard, director of EMP Intelligence Service in Northampton,
England.

"Contraception Is Not the Answer" opens Friday, September 22 at 6:00 p.m. at
the Crowne Plaza Hotel in Rosemont, IL, with a presentation on the failure
of "comprehensive" sex education programs, and an analysis of the Protestant
embrace of contraception in the twentieth century.

A press conference will be held Saturday, September 23 at 8:00 a.m. in
Ballroom One of the Crowne Plaza, prior to the presentations scheduled for
the day. Dr. Allan Carlson, president of the Howard Center, Dr. Janet Smith,
professor of theology at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, Damon
Clarke Owens, director of Joy-Filled Marriage, and Fr. Thomas Euteneuer,
president of Human Life International, will join Dr. Tiger, Dr. Morse and
Prof. Pollard to answer questions from the media.

"I believe this is exactly the right time to confront the common
misconceptions about the effects of contraception," said Scheidler. "This
conference will prove to be historic."

For further information see www.prolifeaction.org/cinta or call
773-777-2900. A brief preview of several of the conference presentations can
be accessed on the Pro-Life Action League website at
www.prolifeaction.org/cinta/teleseminars.htm.

-30-

Blog Operations Note (E-Mail)

I just wanted to pen a note that I’ve been meaning to pen for quite a while.

Without using an actual pen, of course.

Here’s what’s on my mind: We’ve had a dramatic growth in the number of comments that folks are leaving since JA.O started, and I think that’s just great. I enjoy reading folks’ comments, watching discussions underway, etc., just as much as everyone else. In fact, in some ways moreso since the comments tell me that I’m connecting with people–that I’m writing stuff that they find interesting enough to comment on. I’m always really pleased to see it when a post gets a large number of comments, and kinda disappointed when it gets only one or two (or none). But on balance, the comboxes on JA.O have become a very active place, with many recent posts having 100-200 comments or more.

Wow! Thanks, guys!

The amount of com traffic (to borrow a Star Trek term; or is it B5?) is so great at this point that I am unable to keep up with it. Since my blog is a side project that is not part of work, I can only blog in the evenings (or during lunch or on break), which is why you see me commenting so infrequently during the day. When I get home in the evenings, though, I have to focus on writing the posts for the next day (otherwise folks’ll have nothing new to read). Consequently, I can’t spend a lot of time reading the comboxes. I try to skim them, but I can’t do much more than that.

Now here’s why I mention this: I sometimes see folks asking me questions in the comboxes or making requests or things like that. I feel bad that there are probably many people who are asking questions or making requests that I never see.

So I have my own request to make: If anyone has a question or suggestion that they want to make sure that I see, I’d ask that it be e-mailed to me.

I read and appreciate all of the e-mail I get, though–as  I’ve
noted–I unfortunately do not have time to reply to it all and I can’t
promise that I’ll do a blog post based on any particular e-mail. Time
constraints prohibit that, but I really do want to be able to know
about and give attention to the questions and suggestions people have.

Of course, you can put the same question or request in the combox, too, as long as it’s on topic. I often see people posting questions for me in the combox when then another reader (or readers) helpfully answer before I even stumble across the place, so the other readers are a great resource for trying to get questions answered also. Just the other day one gentleman asked for a list of good sources to turn to when trying to get official answers to questions, and I thought that the ones the other comboxers came up with were excellent. In fact, the ones I saw being recommended were the same ones I would have recommended myself, which made me really proud of what intelligent readers I have.

So thanks, and have a great day!