April 02, 2009
A non-expert take on Canons 915 & 916
(SDG)
SDG here with some non-expert thoughts on Canons 915 & 916 (for expert thoughts, see Ed Peters).
In the combox to my last post, a reader writes:
The problem with 915 and 916 is that the Church has (seemingly) allowed for a paradox, but canon law is supposed to clarify and not confuse. Hopefully future revisers of canon law will combine or rewrite those two canons.
I'm no student of canon law, but I don't see any paradox. Or even tension.
Canon 916 says that those who are "conscious of grave sin" — whether obstinate, or not, manifest or not — are generally obliged (their responsibility) not to present themselves for Holy Communion.
Canon 915 says, in part, that those "obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin" — a set not identical to those identified in 916, but a subset thereof — are not to be admitted (the minister's responsibility) to Holy Communion.
Canon 916 instructs certain people not to present themselves for Holy Communion. Canon 915 says that certain people are not to be admitted to Holy Communion. Where is the paradox or the tension?
Suppose a mother tells a babysitter: "The kids are always allowed to play outside after supper. But if anyone gives you a really hard time and won't listen, don't let them join the others. Keep them inside." Then suppose she tells the children: "Be good tonight or else don't ask to play outside after supper. Anyone who is naughty or fights should just stay inside after supper."
Is there any sort of difficulty here?
The mother's initial instructions to the sitter — "The kids are always allowed to play outside after supper" — create a strong presumption that the children should be allowed to go out, even if, as per her instructions to the children, they don't deserve to go out and ought to stay inside.
However, the mother's other instructions to the sitter impose a specific obligation regarding certain very naughty children — those who give her a really hard time and won't listen — not to permit them to play outside, even if they ask.
Let's say that Joshua, Emily and Chris all fight during dinner. Joshua's behavior, though, is really beyond the pale. He refuses to eat, won't stop teasing Emily and throws food at Chris, even after the sitter has repeatedly warned him, given him time-outs, etc. At least Emily and Chris make an effort to listen to the sitter, even though Emily is sometimes whiny and petulant and Chris overreacts to everything Joshua does.
All three were naughty. Should they stay inside, or should they get to go outside?
In the case of Emily and Chris, it's probably up to them to decide. The sitter may know that the children were naughty and ought to stay in, but she hasn't been authorized to enforce staying inside on all naughty children.
However, it is clear that Joshua's behavior is so egregious that the sitter is obliged, as per the mother's instructions, to keep him inside even if he asks to go out.
What's the problem?
In a word, I don't see the issue as how to reconcile 915 and 916, let alone whether it can be done. To me the issue is simple: Both 915 and 916, or only 916 and not 915?
Posted by SDG in Canon Law | Permalink | Comments (23)
October 08, 2008
Ed Peters on heresy and women's ordination
(SDG)
People have this idea that "heresy" (boo! hiss! hate-speech alert!) must consist of some sort of denial of a Catholic truth, as in "Jesus is not divine" or "Mary was not assumed into Heaven" and so on. That's understandable. Most heretical assertions do consist of denials of Catholic truth.
But the Code of Canon Law describes heresy more broadly: "Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt … about some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith." 1983 CIC 751. Notice? Obstinate doubt about matters requiring assent is also heresy.
Ed is talking, of course, about form Notre Dame president Fr. Theodore Hesburgh's comments in a Wall Street Journal article in which he said "I have no problem with females … as priests, but I realize that the majority of the leadership in the Church would."
Ed doesn't conclude that Fr. Hesburgh has committed heresy — perhaps because (he can correct me if I'm wrong) because John Paul II's authoritative teaching in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis ("I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful"), though explicitly proposed "that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance," falls a hair shy of an infallible definition? (Added: I'm not saying that the teaching hasn't been infallibly proposed. It has — by the ordinary magisterium. I'm just saying it hasn't been solemnly defined by the extraordinary magisterium.)
Of course, whatever level of magisterial authority has or hasn't been brought to bear, the teaching itself is either part of the divine deposit of faith or it isn't. If it is, then Fr. Hesburgh has declared that he "doesn't have a problem" with opposing the will of Christ and falsifying the sacraments. It may not meet the canonical definition of heresy, but I for one want to stick a little closer to following Christ and being conformed to his will than just not technically committing heresy.
I'll be honest. When you read stuff like this, I can't help wondering how someone who has any faith at all, who actually believes that this stuff is not just made-up but is actually divine in origin — the Church itself, the sacraments, the priesthood — could possibly be so cavalier about it.
Even if you think, or suspect, or are open to the possibility that, contrary to the firm teaching of JP2 and the basically unanimous witness of 2000 years of tradition, the reservation of ordination to men is actually rooted in human culture rather than the will of Christ, can you possibly be so sure of that that you blithely say "I have no problem with..."? Not "I have no problem with people asking the question..." or "I have no problem with the possibility that..." but simply "I have no problem with women priests," full stop?
How about married bishops, or lay celebrants of the Mass, or baptizing in the name of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva? Would Fr. Hesburgh have a "problem" with those? If so, why? Because they're foreign to our cultural heritage, or because divine reality impinges in some way on all of this stuff? If I sound scandalized, well, I kind of am. I can deal to an extent with differences of opinion about where the foundation is, but at some point if you keep digging I can't help wondering whether you think there's actually a foundation at all.
Mark Shea likes to sidestep the issue of defining torture by suggesting that if we aim at treating prisoners humanely, rather than fixating on where the line is and how far we can go without actually technically torturing them, we won't accidentally torture them. In a similar vein, if we aim at fidelity to the Church rather than fixating on where the line is and how far we can go without actually technically committing heresy, we won't accidentally commit heresy.
It's hard to disagree with Ed's conclusion:
I think that to dismiss, with evident contempt, any part of Catholic truth is wrong, but for a famous priest to do so in regard to the very point that has metastasized into more formal excommunications than any other modern misdeed is disgraceful.
And sad.
Posted by SDG in Canon Law | Permalink | Comments (49)
September 17, 2008
Polish Theologian Faces Disciplinary Action
(Jimmy Akin)
Oblate Fr. Waclaw Hryniewicz--one of the most noted theologians in Poland--faces disciplinary charges at the CDF.
Fr. Hryniewicz published an article in the online theology journal Open Theology titled "The Savior . . . uses many tunes."
The article was sharply critical of the CDF's 2007 document summarizing certain aspects of the nature of the Church, which stated among other things that the Catholic Church is unique among churches and ecclesial communities as a means by which God provides grace to the world.
The secretary of the CDF, Angelo Amato, then sent him a letter insisting that he write a clarification/retraction of the original piece.
Fr. Hyrniewicz appealed to his conscience and to the fact that he is near death and refused.
He thus faces potential disciplinary action.
HERE'S A STORY FROM CATHOLIC NEWS SERVICE ON THE SITUATION.
A few thoughts . . .
First, I feel bad for the guy having this happen to him right at the end of his life.
Second, it appears that his views are in fact in conflict with Catholic teaching. HERE IS THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE THAT IS IN QUESTION. Unfortunately, it's in Polish, but there is an abstract in English, and according to the abstract Fr. Hryniewicz claims that "the theological quarrel about 'the best way' to God is pointless as the author states that Christian theology should be aware that God's abundance in grace cannot be comprehended by theological models or channelled by just one form of Christianity." This would seem to be an affirmation of indifferentism, which is an error in to which those deeply involved in ecumenism can fall.
Third, Fr. Hryniewicz states, according to the CNS piece, that his prior work contain many similar sentiments but it is only now, after his piece in Open Theology, that this is coming up. This may be another indication of how the Internet is changing things. Before, it would have taken someone more effort to get the problematic material in front of the CDF. Now one only has to send them a link.
On the other hand, he may not have gone after the CDF in the same, direct way before. That may be part of what's happening here. According to the CNS piece, the CDF specifically criticized the disrespectful and emotional tone that Fr. Hryniewicz took in his piece. So it may not be so much a question of how the info got to the CDF but the directness with which Fr. Hryniewicz assailed the CDF that produced the response at this time.
The CNS piece seems to stress the manner in which Fr. Hryniewicz expressed himself over the fact that he apparently endorses indifferentism. In fact, the CNS peice reads like it's his side of the story. It even includes language from the letter the CDF sent him that, at least out of context of the original letter, plays to dogmatic Vatican stereotypes.
This raises a question: Just how did this matter come to the CNS's attention, anyway? The CDF doesn't publish letters like this. They're priate matters between the person in question and the CDF until some kind of formal public announcement is made--as was the case recently with Fr. Tomislav Vlasic. But I'm not seeing any indication here that this has happened. Indeed, even the Polish bishops hadn't been told about the matter.
So I'm wondering if Fr. Hryniewicz took the initiative personally or through surrogates to make this public and get his side of the story out there pre-emptively.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Canon Law | Permalink | Comments (19)
September 05, 2008
Canonical Status of Fr. Tomislav Vlašić, OFM
(Jimmy Akin)
The following is the text of a communique from the Bishop of Mostar-Duvno, in whose diocese the town of Medjugorje lies. It concerns the canonical status of Fr. Tomislav Vlasic, who was billed as the "spiritual leader" of the six reported seers of Medjugorje (prior, I gather, to a falling out).
This communique appears to be in translation English (the original language text is here, though the portion from the letter of the CDF may have originally been in another language yet).
I will add a few notes on my own in blue.
What we have below is a composite document that takes the form of a communique of the bishop quoting a letter of the CDF that (it appears) then pops back into the bishop's voice and then quotes a decree of the CDF and that then switches back into the voice of the bishop to close the communique.
In case it's hard to follow, here's the gist: In January the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith produced a decree imposing severe cautionary and disciplinary measures (described below). In February, this degree was given to Fr. Valsic, who utterly failed to comply with its requirements. Consequently, Fr. Vlasic has incurred the censure of interdict reserved to the Holy See that is provided for in the decree. Following this, the CDF asked the Bishop of Mostar to announce the whole matter as a warning to those who might be deceived by Fr. Vlasic or his supporters regarding his canonical status.
The CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH with its letter prot. 144/1985-27164 of 30 May 2008, has authorized me as the local Bishop of the Diocese of Mostar-Duvno to inform the diocesan community of the canonical status of Fr. Tomislav Vlašić, the founder of the association “Kraljice mira potpuno Tvoji – po Mariji k Isusu” – (Queen of Peace, totally Yours – Through Mary to Jesus).
The letter signed by the Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Archbishop Angelo Amato, states the following:
“Within the context of the phenomenon Medjugorje, this Dicastery is studying the case of Father Tomislav VLASIC OFM, originally from that region and the founder of the association ‘Kraljice mira potpuno Tvoji – po Mariji k Isusu’.
On 25 January 2008, through a properly issued Decree, this Dicastery imposed severe cautionary and disciplinary measures on Fr. Vlasic.
The non-groundless news that reached this Congregation reveals that the religious priest in question did not respond, even partially, to the demands of ecclesiastical obedience required by the very delicate situation he finds himself in, justifying himself by citing his zealous activity in the Diocese of Mostar-Duvno and surrounding territories, in initiating religious activities, buildings, etc.
Since Fr. Vlasic has fallen into a censure of interdict latae sententiae reserved to this Dicastery, I kindly ask Your Excellency, for the good of the faithful, to inform the community of the canonical status of Fr. Vlasic and at the same time to report on the situation in question…”.
*****
This regards the fact that the same Congregation of the Holy See applied ecclesiastical sanctions against Rev. Father Tomislav Vlašić, through a Decree of the Congregation (prot. 144/1985) of 25 January 2008, signed by Cardinal William Levada, Prefect, and by Archbishop Angelo Amato, Secretary of the Congregation along with the “Concordat cum originali” of 30 January 2008, verified by Msgr. John Kennedy, Official of the Congregation [that's a certification that a reproduction or translation of a document accords with the original].
The Decree was handed over to Rev. Fr. Tomislav Vlašić in the General Curia of the OFM in Rome on 16 February 2008 and the notification was co-signed by the Minister General of the Franciscan Minor Order, Father José R. Carballo, the Ordinary of Fr. Vlašić.
The Decree of the Congregation mentions that Rev. Fr. Tomislav Vlašić, a cleric of the Franciscan Minor Order – the founder of the association ‘Kraljice mira potpuno Tvoji – po Mariji k Isusu’ and who is involved in the “phenomenon Medjugorje” – has been reported to the Congregation “for the diffusion of dubious doctrine, manipulation of consciences, suspected mysticism [this is an odd phrasing; I wonder if it should be "suspect mysticism," since mysticism itself is not inherently problematic--JA], disobedience towards legitimately issued orders and charges contra sextum” ["against the sixth"--i.e., against the Sixth Commandment, meaning charges of a sexual nature; this may one of the reasons the CDF was handling this case, since it has charge of certain cases involving priests violating the Sixth Commandment].
Having studied the case, the Congregation during its special Congress decreed the following sanctions against Rev. Fr. Tomislav Vlasic:
“1. Mandatory residence in one of the houses of the Order in the region of Lombardy (Italy) to be determined by the Minister General of the Order and to be realized within thirty days from the time of the legitimate notification of this decree;
2. All contacts with the “Kraljice Mira…” community and with its members are prohibited;
3. Any actions involving juridical contracts and administrative organizations, whether canonical or civil, effected without the written permission ad actum ["to the act"--i.e., Vlasic must get permission for each individual act] of the Minister General of the Order and under his responsibility are prohibited;
4. A mandatory course of theological-spiritual formation, with a final evaluation along with a prior recognitio ["approval"--i.e., approval of the course of formation] of this Congregation, and a solemn professio fidei ["profession of faith"--i.e., Fr. Vlasic must make a profession of faith after his approved course of formation and final evaluation];
5. The following are also prohibited: activities involving the ‘care of souls’, preaching, public appearances, while the faculty to hear confessions is also revoked up until the conclusion of the terms described in the previous number, barring an evaluation of the case.
An additional sanction of a latae sententiae ["automatic"] interdict (can. 1332) reserved to the Apostolic See is adjoined in the case of the violation of the mandatory residence (n. 1) and the other prohibited acts mentioned in n. 3 and n. 5. [I.e., if Fr. Vlasic violates provisions 1, 3, or 5 then he is subject to an automatic interdict and the interdict can only be lifted by the Holy See; see canon 1332 on the effects of interdict.]
Fr. Vlasic is forewarned that in the case of stubbornness a juridical penal process will begin with the aim of still harsher sanctions, not excluding dismissal [i.e., from the clerical state, which would be forced laicization in this case], having in mind the suspicion of heresy and schism, as well as scandalous acts contra sextum, aggravated by mystical motivations.
Fr. Vlasic remains under the direct jurisdiction of the Minister General of the Order of Minor Franciscans, who shall see to his vigilance through the local Superior or another Delegate”.
*****
All the priests, religious and faithful in the Dioceses of Mostar-Duvno and Trebnje-Mrkan, as well as all those concerned “in the pertinent territories”, are hereby informed on the current canonical status of Rev. Father Tomislav Vlašić.
With the sentiments of my highest consideration,
+ Ratko Perić, Bishop
Fr. Ante Luburić, Chancellor
ORIGINAL TEXT ON THE BISHOP'S WEB SITE.
ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND FROM THE BISHOP'S SITE ON FR. VLASIC.
ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND FROM THE BISHOP'S SITE ON MEDJUGORJE.
STATEMENTS OF THE BISHOP REGARDING MEDJUGORJE.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Canon Law | Permalink | Comments (64)
May 30, 2008
New CDF Document! New CDF Document!
(Jimmy Akin)
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is not normally tasked with adding provisions to canon law, but under the direction of the pope, it can do whatever he wants it to.
And it has.
A new CDF document provides a latae sententiae (automatic) excommunication for those who attempt to ordain women and for those women who receive such attempted ordinations.
TEXT:
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
General Decree
On the delict of attempted sacred ordination of a womanThe Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in virtue of the special faculty granted to it by the Supreme Authority of the Church (cf. Can. 30, Code of Canon Law), in order to safeguard the nature and validity of the sacrament of Holy Orders, decreed, in the Ordinary Session of December 19, 2007:
In accordance with what is disposed by Can. 1378 of the Code of Canon Law, he who shall have attempted to confer holy orders on a woman, as well as the woman who may have attempted to receive Holy Orders, incurs in a latae sententiae excommunication, reserved to the Apostolic See.
If he who shall have attempted to confer Holy Orders on a woman or if the woman who shall have attempted to received Holy Orders is a faithful bound to the Code of Canons of the Oriental Churches, he is to be punished with the major excommunication, whose remission remains reserved to the Apostolic See, in accordance with can. 1443 of the same Code (cf. can. 1423, Code of Canons of the Oriental Churches).
The present decree enters in force immediately after its publication in L'Osservatore Romano.
William Cardinal Levada
Prefect
Angelo Amato, s.d.b.
Titular Archbishop of Sila
Secretary
First, HERE'S CANON 1378 IN THE CIC.
And HERE'S CANON 1443 OF THE CCEO.
Now, SOME COMMENTARY BY ED PETERS.
Finally, a few thoughts of my own:
It's interesting, as Ed points out, that the Holy See has gone in the direction of creating a new latae sententiae penalty rather than continuing the trend of abolishing them.
On the part of bishops there may be something of a preference for latae sententiae penalties in that they do not require the bishop to himself take the action of imposing a canonical penalty on one of his subjects--an action that is bound to be portrayed in terms of the harsh disciplinarian stereotype in the popular press. It is much easier for a bishop to say "So-and-so has excommunicated himself/herself by these actions" than "I hereby excommunicate so-and-so for these actions."
I think that in this case, though, there may be an additional and perhaps more fundamental reason for the penalty (at least in the Latin rite) being a latae sententiae one: These ordinations frequently occur in secret.
That's how they got started, after all: If the claims of the original group of female ordinands are to be believed, they found a Catholic bishop somewhere who was willing to perform the initial ordinations. That man's identity has not been revealed.
And subsequent to that event, some of these women have simulated ordination in secret or at least without their identities initially being known to their bishops.
The use of a latae sententiae penalty in this case sends a signal that simply keeping the identities of the parties a secret will not keep them from suffering excommunication. You can't tell yourself, if you are a bishop or a prospective ordinand, "I'm free of canonical penalties as long as nobody knows I did this so that no penalties can be imposed on me."
Instead, the latae sententiae penalty in this case says, "The Church takes this crime so seriously that it provides for excommunication even when the parties, or even the fact, of the crime are unknown."
The same can be said of all the other latae sententiae penalties, such as the excommunication provided for abortion.
One might still question whether we should have latae sententiae penalties in the Latin rite, but I think that the reason for this one is more than just a desire to get bishops "off the hook" for having to impose a penalty. It's a sign of the Church's particularly strong desire to alert those who attempt these ordinations to the gravity of their actions.
Since the current decree is not retroactive, it will not touch those who have previously attempted these ordinations (including the original bishop, assuming that there was one), but it does send the signal going forward to all who would participate in them.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Canon Law | Permalink | Comments (126)
January 03, 2008
Deafness and the Church
(Jimmy Akin)
When I saw the headline on Zenit "Accommodating the Deaf," two thoughts flashed through my mind: (1) This has got to be one of Fr. Edward McNamara's liturgy columns and (2) I wonder what Ed Peters' response will be?
The first thought came from past experience in decoding Zenit headlines. The second came from the fact that Ed Peters is a canonist with particular knowledge of the deaf community and the Church's relationship with it.
I was pleased, then, when I got an e-mail informing me of this piece on Ed's blog in which he interacts with Fr. McNamara's column.
Dr. Peters finds significant fault with Fr. McNamara's column, and rightly so.
I won't repeat all of Ed's critiques of the column here, but Fr. McNamara was clearly writing out of his depth on this topic. He gave a well-meaning, off-the-top-of-his-head answer to the questions posed to him without displaying familiarity with the relevant Church documents (e.g., papal documents giving permission to sign the Mass).
Ed doesn't point this out in his response, but spending even a few minutes looking in the indices of common reference works would have turned up the very documents that Fr. McNamara needed.
Ed's piece does a good job surfacing problems with Fr. McNamara's column. It also raises a couple of issues on which I'd like to add a few thoughts.
1) One of the subjects Fr. McNamara treats is whether parishes should provide closed captioning of the Mass. Ed makes the point that this would not be preferred because, while deaf people might read the captioning, they could not give the proper liturgical responses in captioning, whereas they can give the responses (e.g., "And with your spirit") in sign.
This is a good point. I would add another reason why captioning would not be preferred. As Ed mentions, there is no agreed upon way to write American Sign Language or other sign languages (yet). The captioning that a parish could provide thus would default to whatever the local vernacular language is (e.g., English, French, Spanish).
The problem is: Giving deaf people captions written in English is not giving them captioning in their own language.
American Sign Language, despite its use in America, is not English. It has different grammar and different vocabulary. It may have certain loan elements from English, just as English has loan elements from French and German and Latin and Greek, but it is not English any more than English is one of its cognate languages.
While there are efforts, like Signing Exact English, to exactly represent English in signed form, this is not the standard language in the deaf community in America. American Sign Language is.
Deaf people may have different levels of skill in reading English, just as English speakers may have different levels of skill in reading Latin, but giving them captioned English is not the same as giving them translation into the vernacular sign language.
2) Fr. McNamara was also asked by his correspondent about the possibility of deaf people entering convents, monasteries, and religious life. In answering, Fr. McNamara focused substantially on the question of whether deaf people could be ordained to the priesthood (which is not the same thing, since one can be in a convent, a monastery, or religious life without being a priest).
Fr. McNamara makes the point that some individuals have physical limitations that prevent them from holding certain occupations, which is true, though he is unfortunately detained by the idea that the priesthood involves a great deal of time listening to people, before ultimately concluding that this is not an insurmountable barrier to the priesthood.
Ed points out the problems with Fr. McNamara's answer here (e.g., there are a lot of deaf people out there who don't have anyone to "listen" to them due to lack of priests skilled in sign languages), but I would raise a question in this area.
It doesn't actually concern whether deaf people can be ordained to the priesthood. As Ed points out, the former canonical prohibition on this has been removed from the law and there are, indeed, people who are deaf and who have then been ordained (as well as hearing people who were ordained and then lost their hearing).
My question concerns not ordination and deafness but ordination and something that often goes along with deafness: muteness.
For someone to be ordained to the priesthood, he should be able to validly perform the functions of the priesthood, including the celebration of the sacraments. Indeed, if someone where physically unable to perform these functions it would raise a question (in my mind, at least) about the validity of his ordination, just as the antecedent, total, permanent, and incurable inability to perform the marital act would imply the invalidity of a marriage.
Now, the sacraments involve the use of certain formulas ("This is my Body . . . ," "This is the cup of my Blood . . . ," "I baptize you . . . ," "I absolve you . . . " etc.)
Christian Tradition has established that these formulas do not have to be delivered in a particular language. They can be in Aramaic, Greek, Latin, French, English, Russian, Igbo, or thousands of others. But all of those languages have something in common: They're spoken.
Sign languages are not spoken, and we may here have a relevant difference.
If we look to the requisite matter of the sacraments, we find that there are restrictions on the types of matter, within broader categories, that can be used. Baptism has to be done not with any liquid but with water. The Eucharist must have not any food and drink but wheat bread and grape wine.
We might find that similar limits exist regarding the kind of language that is used in the forms of the sacraments. It might not make a difference what specific tongue you say them in--any more than it matters what kind of wheat or what kind of grape you use--but it might be necessary that you say them in a tongue--a spoken language.
If so then there would be a problem ordaining someone to the priesthood if that person is incapable of vocalizing at least the sacramental formulas needed for validity.
This is an area that I don't think the Magisterium has yet entertained. Individual bishops may have ordained deaf people--who may have varying degrees of muteness--to the priesthood, but I don't think that the Magisterium as an entity has yet considered the question of whether spoken language is required for sacramental validity--at least I am unaware of any place where it has weighed in on the issue--and I could see it going either way on the question.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Canon Law | Permalink | Comments (106)
September 11, 2007
Yes, Virginia, You Can Be Denied Communion
(Jimmy Akin)
Especially if you're a pro-abort politician or similarly manifestly grave malefactor.
GET THE STORY FROM ARCHBISHOP BURKE.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Canon Law | Permalink | Comments (218)
September 10, 2007
NEWS FLASH: Catholic Church expects faithful to follow her rules!
(Jimmy Akin)
Actually, with the lead-in that Ed uses for his post, I thought at first he was talking about this story.
In the latter story, the priest who got arrested said he did what he did because he sweats too much otherwise.
Uhh . . . that's why God created running shorts.
I think there are other issues going on.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Canon Law | Permalink | Comments (22)
June 22, 2007
The Annulment That Wasn't + Quadruple HUH????
(Jimmy Akin)
Canonist Ed Peters points out two extraordinarily important facts regarding the Kennedy-Rausch annulment case that I hadn't been aware of. If press accounts are accurate then . . .
1) The Rota was serving as a court of second instance.
This is an extraordinarily important fact. Here's why: When an annulment case is handled by a tribunal and a finding of nullity is reached, it is automatically transmitted to an appellate tribunal (a court of second instance) for its evaluation. Only if the appellate tribunal agrees is the person free to marry in the Church.
This means that what is popularly known as "an annulment" (that's a colloquial designation) actually consists of two separate findings of nullity by two separate tribunals.
Normally the appellate tribunal that hears the case in second instance in an American annulment case is also in America, but it's possible to appeal directly to the Rota, which is apparently what Sheila Rausch-Kennedy did in this case.
This means that Joseph Kennedy never had "an annulment."He never got the second finding of nullity from the appellate tribunal.
It is not the case--as I had supposed--that Kennedy received "an annulment" (findings of nullity from both the courts of first and second instance) and then the Rota got involved (as a court of third instance) and overturned the annulment. There never was an annulment because the second finding of nullity had not come in.
2) The Rota sat on this case for TEN YEARS.
That's a QUADRUPLE HUH????
The Boston archdiocese tribunal apparently issued its finding of nullity in 1997 and the case has been stuck in the Rota ever since!
This is simply appalling.
John Paul II twice in his annual addresses to the Rota scolded them about not processing cases in a timely manner.
In his 1984 address, after the release of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, he stressed:
In the reform of canonical procedural law, an effort was made to meet a very frequent criticism, which was not completely without foundation, concerning the slowness and excessive length of trials. Therefore, accepting a deeply felt need, without wishing to impair or in the slightest way to diminish the necessary guarantees offered by the course and formalities of tribunal procedure, [the new law] has sought to render the administration of justice more flexible and functional by simplifying procedures, speeding up formalities, shortening the time-limits, increasing the discretionary powers of the judge, etc.
This effort must not be rendered vain by delaying tactics or by a lack of care in studying cases, by an attitude of inertia that is wary of entering the new track for moving ahead, by a lack of expertise in applying the procedures.
We then turn to the 1983 Code and find that it provides that:
Can. 1453 Without prejudice to justice, judges and tribunals are to take care that all cases are completed as soon as possible and that in a tribunal of first instance they are not prolonged beyond a year and in a tribunal of second instance beyond six months.
Got that?
Tribunals of second instance are supposed to process cases in six months barring special circumstances that would interfere with the execution of justice. Yet the Rota sits on this thing for ten years! Further, if what Time said is accurate then even after it reached the finding, it still took two years to draft the statement announcing its finding.
Circumstances in which justice would require this kind of delay are almost unimaginable. On its face the situation appears to be one of gross negligence on the part of the Rota.
Justice delayed is justice denied, and on the face of it, the Rota denied justice to Kennedy and Rausch for years by taking twenty times longer than the law specifies to process their case.
Now, maybe there are facts that we aren't aware of that would show that justice required this astonishingly slow pace, but (by definition) it would be astonishing if there were.
In his 1996 Rotal address, John Paul II spoke of the need to resolve the question of what a person's marital status is (are they validly married or not?) in a timely manner, stating in part:
At the same time, however, the current legislation of the Church shows a deep sensitivity to the requirement that the status of persons—if called into question—does not remain in doubt for very long.
The current legislation of the Church may show that deep sensitivity, but in this case--on the face of it--the Rota did not.
And sadly, this is all too often the case--in tribunals around the world. A friend of mine has a relative who has been vainly trying for years to get a Mexican tribunal to take action regarding an annulment case concerning a marriage that was contracted in Mexico, yet the person has been unable to get the tribunal to do anything at all.
If you want know why America has so many annulments compared to other countries, a significant part of the reason (you'll note I said "part") is that it has a tribunal system that actually processes cases in something like the time limits specified in the law instead of letting them sit for years without resolution or refusing to even take action on the case.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Canon Law | Permalink | Comments (80)
June 21, 2007
TIMEwits!
(Jimmy Akin)
Okay, the folks at Time Magazine have once again demonstrated their incompetence.
CHT to the reader who e-mailed asking confirmation of the fact that the Church does not "de-sanctify" marriages.
It doesn't.
Time doesn't know what it's talking about.
What it does do is sometimes declare them null from the beginning. Hence: an-nul-ment.
Saying something was null from the beginning is not the same as stripping it of sanctity. It has to be there before you can remove its sanctity. No thing, no sanctity.
Oh, and the correct word for removing the sanctityof a thing would be desecrate or deconsecrate, not "de-sanctify."
But the stupid stuff in the story doesn't stop there! Oh, no! That would be too easy!
EXCERPTS:
The annulment was the subject of Rauch's 1997 book Shattered Faith, which lambasted her ex-husband and was severely critical of the Catholic Church's proceedings, which made the marriage (which had produced twin boys) null and void in the eyes of the church.
How many children a union produced has nothing to do with whether the marriage was validly contracted on the wedding day. Time is presenting criticism of the concept without presenting the rejoinder.
Rauch argued that Kennedy was able to unilaterally "cancel" nearly 12 years of marriage because of his clan's influence in the church.
How long a union lasts has no direct bearing on whether it was validly contracted on the wedding day. Same problem as before, and petitioners cannot "unilaterally cancel" anything. Both parties are given the opportunity to provide evidence, and it's the tribunal that makes the decision.
Few observers thought the appeal to Rome by Rauch, an Episcopalian, had a chance against the well-connected Kennedy.
Time needs better observers. First, the fact Rauch is an Episcopalian is not going to have a material impact on the decision, and Kennedy's connections--whatever they may be in Massachusetts--are not going to be decisive in Rome.
With divorce strictly prohibited in Catholicism, annulments allow Catholics to remarry before a priest and continue receiving the sacraments.
Civil divorce is not "strictly prohibited in Catholicism." Civil divorce can be legitimate for any number of reasons. What you can't do is get remarried just because you have a civil divorce.
Several years after his 1991 civil divorce to Rauch, Kennedy obtained an annulment from a Church tribunal in Massachusetts so he could have a Church ceremony with Kelly. The couple had already been married in a 1993 civil ceremony, but needed the Roma Rota appeals tribunal at the Vatican to uphold the Massachusetts annulment verdict before they could be married by a priest.
The Rota does not weigh in on each and every finding of nullity in the world. It's agreement isn't necessary unless one of the parties appeals to it. (Oh, and you don't have to be married by a priest in order to observe the Catholic form of marriage.)
At the Vatican, Pope Benedict XVI has indicated that he wants to streamline the Roma Rota to respond to the desire of divorced Catholics to stay inside the Church.
Huh? When did he do that? He's never made any statements about streamlining the Rota. On the contrary, he's stressed that tribunals around the world should follow the detailed instructions of Dignitas Connubii.
But there is also concern that some Catholics, particularly in the U.S., abuse the practice. "People think it's their right," says one Rome-based canon lawyer. He adds sternly, "It's not a right."
Double huh? It's not individual Catholics who "abuse the practice" of granting annulments. Only Church tribunals can grant annulments. If there is a generalizable problem (and this is something that is quite arguable) with the annulments being granted then the fault lays with the tribunals granting them, not simply the people asking to have the validity of their marriages examined.
The story also refers to multiple unnamed "sources," meaning that there is a shadow of doubt over the whole thing.
It also says this:
The Roma Rota's ruling, written in Latin, was reached in 2005, and had been kept secret while the official written notice was being prepared, said a source in Rome familiar with the case.
We can't know if this is true since the source is unnamed, but if it is: Triple huh? What's something like this doing sitting on someone's desk for two years? It doesn't take that long to prepare a written notice!
While Time Magazine has demonstrated what it doesn't know about this case, Ed Peters has some sage advice to remember what we all don't know about it.
GET THE STORY.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Canon Law | Permalink | Comments (107)
