Celibacy and the Priesthood

Posted on September 30, 2010 by canonlawmadeeasy

Q: If Catholic priests have to embrace celibacy, how is it possible for married converts from the Episcopal church to be ordained Catholic priests? This doesn’t make any sense to me.  –Phil

A: Phil is referencing the Apostolic Constitution signed by Pope Benedict in November 2009, providing norms designed for the large numbers of former Anglicans (who in the US are generally known as Episcopalians) wishing to enter the Catholic Church. But before we take a look at what that document says, perhaps it would be best to examine first what the Church says in general about priestly celibacy, and why.

Nearly 45 years ago, the Second Vatican Council issued a decree on the ministry and life of priests. Presbyterorum Ordinis reaffirmed the Catholic Church’s age-old position that celibacy—that is, abstaining from marriage—is especially suitable for the clergy.

Through… celibacy observed for the Kingdom of Heaven, priests are consecrated to Christ by a new and exceptional reason. They adhere to him more easily with an undivided heart, they dedicate themselves more freely in him and through him to the service of God and men, and they more expeditiously minister to his Kingdom and the work of heavenly regeneration, and thus they are apt to accept, in a broad sense, paternity in Christ. In this way they profess themselves before men as willing to be dedicated to the office committed to them… (16)

As we have seen countless times before in this space, canon law follows theology. Thus it should surprise no one that canon 277.1, which is worded in a very theological way, echoes the same sentiments: Clerics are bound to observe perfect and perpetual continence [i.e., refraining from sexual relations] for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven, and are thus bound to celibacy. It notes further that celibacy is a special gift of God by which sacred ministers can more easily remain close to Christ with an undivided heart, and can dedicate themselves more freely to the service of God and neighbor.

Clearly, therefore, priests are not permitted to marry. In fact, it is impossible for an ordained priest to marry validly in the Catholic Church: canon 1087 states unequivocally that those in sacred orders invalidly attempt marriage. The only way that a man who has already been ordained a priest can get married in the eyes of the Church is for him to have been previously returned to the lay state (which was discussed in greater detail in “Can a Priest Ever Return to the Lay State?”).

But if a priest cannot marry, does it logically follow that a married man cannot be ordained a priest? Well, canon 1042 n. 1 would suggest that this is indeed the case, because it states that a man who has a wife is impeded from ordination to the priesthood. The wording of this canon indicates that a widower, who was indeed married but no longer has a wife, can be ordained a Catholic priest; but so long as the wife is still living, ordination of the husband is not possible.  It would seem that the issue is thus closed and there is nothing further to be said.

There is, however, more to the story.

As we saw back in “Are There Any Limitations on the Power of the Pope?” there are basically two sources for the laws contained in the Code of Canon Law. Some are held to be divine laws, given to us by Christ Himself, and thus they can never be changed. Others, however, are termed “merely ecclesiastical laws,” since they were established by human authority. As such these can be changed by human authority as well—or else, rather than completely changing a law that is of purely human origin, church authorities can grant a dispensation from following it in an individual case. The whole concept of dispensation was discussed in detail back in “Marriage Between a Catholic and a Non-Catholic.”  An excellent, concrete example of this just arose recently in “Can Cousins Marry in the Church?” where we saw that the law which bars first cousins from marrying in the Church can be dispensed by the diocesan bishop. The canon preventing first cousins from getting married is not held to be a divine law, so exceptions can be made and such marriages can validly take place with the appropriate advance approval.

So to get back to the question at hand, can a married man receive a dispensation and be validly ordained a Catholic priest? The answer is yes.

We know that initially, married men were indeed permitted to become priests in the early centuries of the Church. In fact, to this day, some of the eastern-rite Catholic Churches, such as the Maronites, ordain married men on a regular basis. (See “Are They Really Catholic? Part I” for a more ample discussion of these culturally non-Western but definitely Catholic Churches.) We cannot deduce from the historical evidence that the obligation to be celibate is of divine law—many of those ordained by the Apostles themselves, in the years immediately following Christ’s resurrection and ascension into Heaven, were evidently married men! We can only conclude that the ban on ordaining married men to the priesthood is of human, rather than divine origin.

It follows logically that it is possible for married men to receive a dispensation and to be ordained as Catholic priests. But the next question we have to ask is, are there ever situations when that is a good idea?

We know that under the late Pope John Paul II, there were numerous cases of Episcopalian clergy who were received into the Catholic Church. Many of them had wives and families, since Episcopalian clerics are permitted to marry. When they became Catholics, they frequently asked to become Catholic priests as well (after some Catholic seminary training, of course).  John Paul frequently permitted these married men to be ordained as Catholic priests. They were thus dispensed from the canon that forbids this.

This brings us to the heart of Phil’s question. More recently, in light of the large numbers of American Episcopalians and British Anglicans who wish to become Catholics, the Vatican determined that some procedure needed to be developed to facilitate their reception into the Church. After all, in the wake of the recent episcopal ordinations of homosexuals among Episcopalians here in the US, we have witnessed entire Episcopal parishes that have objected and decided to become Catholic—pastor, congregation, and all!

Thus the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus was issued by Pope Benedict on November 4th of last year. Its purpose was to provide a consistent system to be followed when these groups of Episcopalians/Anglicans sought reception into the Catholic Church. While much of this document is straightforward (and outside the scope of this column), one part received quite a lot of attention.

Section VI.2 addresses the issue of those clergymen who wish to be ordained as Catholic priests after becoming Catholics. It notes that the diocesan bishops who receive these new Catholics are, as a rule, allowed only to ordain those men who are celibate, in accord with canon 277.1. However, it adds that the bishop can petition the Pope to admit already married men to priestly ordination on a case-by-case basis.

There were a number of stories in the media at that time which suggested that perhaps this was a relaxation of the Church’s rules about celibacy and the priesthood. In fact, as we’ve seen above, it was nothing of the sort! The possibility of permitting married men to be ordained Catholic priests has always existed in the Church, and there were already cases when this was allowed well before Anglicanorum Coetibus was ever issued.

The Complementary Norms, a list of practical instructions on implementing the document which was issued on the same day, reaffirm that requests to admit married men to the Catholic priesthood must be approved by the Pope. But they also add some more specific information about dealing with a couple of concrete scenarios. Catholic priests who left the Church to marry, and later became Episcopalian clerics, are not going to be permitted to function as Catholic priests again (VI.1), although of course they will be welcomed back into the Church as Catholics if they wish. And those Episcopalian clerics who are in “irregular marriage situations” will not be allowed to become Catholic priests either. Presumably this includes divorced and remarried men, men who have married divorced women, or others whose marriages cannot be recognized as valid in the eyes of the Church.

In fact, the rules contained in these two documents about permitting married men to be ordained Catholic priests are actually quite strict. There is no way that one may reasonably construe this as an “opening of the flood-gates” leading to a general acceptance of married priests in the Church. Rather, it is a concession to individual persons who functioned as non-Catholic clerics in the past, and who naturally would like to continue in a comparable function now that they have become Catholics.

One can see how Pope Benedict approaches the whole notion of priestly celibacy from a fascinating exchange during a question-and-answer session, which he held at the Vatican for priests from all over the world just a few months ago. A Slovak priest asked him for guidance in explaining the true meaning of celibacy. Here is part of the Pope’s extemporaneous response:

…[C]elibacy… is a definitive “yes,” it is allowing ourselves to be taken in hand by God, giving ourselves into the hands of the Lord, into His “I,” and therefore it is an act of fidelity and trust, an act that the fidelity of marriage also supposes; …it is precisely the definitive “yes” that supposes, that confirms the definitive “yes” of marriage…. And if this disappears, the root of our culture will be destroyed.

Readers will probably not be surprised that our Pope has a profound understanding and appreciation of a celibate priesthood. While there are a relatively few, specific cases in which married priests are permitted, they constitute an exception to a law which, though not specifically of divine origin, appears to be here to stay. Permissions to the contrary may be given in individual instances, but this does not negate the great beauty of a priest’s complete self-sacrifice to God, a concept which developed well over 1000 years ago in the Church—and, according to the Pope, with good reason.

Why is Google hiding the posts on this website in its search results?  Click here for more information.

Posted in Clergy Issues | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Celibacy and the Priesthood

Can Cousins Marry in the Church?

Posted on September 9, 2010 by canonlawmadeeasy

Q: Can cousins get married in the Church? I don’t want to marry my cousin, I’m just wondering!  –Jeremy

A: When it comes to the biological relationship between prospective spouses, the Church has laws which are based on natural law. We all know that genetic problems tend to arise in children whose parents are too closely related by blood. Canon law is therefore simply reflecting what nature (i.e., God) intended.

A casual reader of canon 1091, the canon which directly addresses Jeremy’s question, will most likely find it hopelessly confusing. Among other things, it states that marriage is invalid between persons related by consanguinity in all degrees of the direct line (c. 1091.1), and that in the collateral line, marriage is invalid up to and including the fourth degree (c. 1091.2). Understanding how to apply these abstract rules to concrete cases probably requires a little unpacking first!

To begin with, it would be helpful to clarify some terms. “Consanguinity” refers only to biological, blood relationships (and not to relationships created through marriage, such as that between a mother-in-law and her son-in-law).  The “direct line” refers to direct descendants—parents, grandparents, children and grandchildren. Knowledge of the meanings of these two terms should help us now to understand canon 1091.1: marriage is always invalid between parent and child, grandparent and grandchild, great-grandparent and great-grandchild, etc. This should certainly be no surprise to anyone, because we are quite comfortable with the notion, founded in natural law, that such marriages are forbidden. (Natural law is, incidentally, the rationale behind the fact that these marriages are against the civil law as well.)

While direct-line consanguinity is pretty easy to calculate, figuring other blood relationships can quickly become rather complex. The term “collateral line” refers to all relationships that at least partly involve siblings. Brothers and sisters are the clearest example of relatives in the collateral line, but collateral-line consanguinity refers also to relations between aunt/uncle and niece/nephew—as well as to cousins.

Complications arise because as we all know, there are various types of aunt/uncle and niece/nephew relationships (great-aunt and great-nephew is one example), and there are certainly many types of cousins. What we popularly term “first cousins,” for example, are the children of two siblings, but there are second- and third-cousins to contend with as well. The list of collateral relationships goes on and on!

To make the picture even more confusing, the Code of Canon Law is based on old Roman law when it comes to family relationships, so it doesn’t use our common terminology. That’s why the term “first cousin,” for example, is found nowhere in the code. In canon 108, the code provides some general definitions to explain the system it does use, which involves lines and degrees.

We’ve already seen how the “lines” work; consanguinity involves either direct lines or collateral lines. But how does one calculate the “degrees”? Let’s take a few cases as examples, to see how it works, and then see how canon 1091 on marriage directly applies to them.

Picture two siblings, Nancy and Mark. They are two people with a common ancestor (or in this case, two common ancestors—their parents). In accord with canon 108.3, we count the persons in both lines, but not the common ancestor(s). There are only two people involved here, and therefore Nancy and Mark’s relationship is considered second-degree consanguinity in the collateral line.

Can Nancy and Mark marry validly in the Church? Obviously not, because canon 1091.2 states that marriage in the collateral line is invalid up to the fourth degree, and their relationship is much closer than that.

Now imagine Uncle Bill and his niece Susan. Let’s say that Susan’s mother Mary is the sister of Uncle Bill. In this case, their “common ancestor” would be the parent(s) of Bill and Mary. In accord with the same canon 108.3, we count all persons involved in this relationship, except for the common ancestor: Susan, Bill, and Mary add up to three. Thus we can say that uncle and niece are related in the third degree of the collateral line.

Can Bill and Susan marry in the Catholic Church? Again, canon 1091.2 gives us the answer: any marriage in the collateral line up to the fourth degree is invalid. Since Bill and Susan are related in the third degree, they cannot marry validly.

This brings us now to the relationship addressed in Jeremy’s question: what is the degree of consanguinity between two cousins? Well, let’s imagine Cousin Jenny and Cousin Mike. Jenny’s mother, Beth, is the sister of Mike’s father, David. The common ancestor(s) in this case is the parent(s) of Beth and David. If we count all the persons involved in this relationship, minus the common ancestor, we find four persons involved. So these two cousins—who in our parlance are “first cousins”—are related in the fourth degree of the collateral line.

So can Cousin Jenny validly marry Cousin Mike? Not according to canon 1091.2, which says marriages are invalid up to and including the fourth degree. First cousins, therefore, cannot marry in the Church.

As for second, third, and other cousins, however, their degree of consanguinity is farther removed—they are related in the fifth, sixth, and even further degrees of the collateral line. According to canon 1091, therefore, these cousins can get married in the Catholic Church.

If readers’ heads are spinning by this point, there’s no shame in feeling confused—because it is confusing! And unfortunately, there’s one more added twist to complicate things even further.

We saw in “Could the Pope Change the Law to Allow Women Priests?” that some of the Church’s laws are held to be divine laws, while others are “merely” ecclesiastical laws. The latter have been established by human authority, but the former were instituted by God Himself. The Church holds that if a law was made by church authorities, it can be dispensed if there is sufficient justification for doing so. (We looked at the whole concept of dispensation back in “Marriage Between a Catholic and a Non-Catholic.”) In contrast, church laws which are believed to stem directly from a divine command, or are otherwise reflections of natural law, can never be dispensed in any case.

It shouldn’t be difficult to appreciate why church authorities will never grant a dispensation that permits a father to marry his daughter, or a sister to marry her brother. These relationships are so close that such a marriage would be considered a violation of natural law—and thus contrary to what God has intended.

But as for two first cousins… the Church’s position is that they are forbidden to marry only by ecclesiastical law, not by divine law. For this reason it is canonically possible to receive a dispensation that permits two first-cousins to marry validly in the Catholic Church.  (This assumes, of course, that it is legal under civil law in the area where the marriage is to take place—and in the U.S., some states permit it, while others don’t.)

History buffs are undoubtedly well aware of countless examples of such dispensations granted to members of European royal families in centuries past. Often it was argued—convincingly—that it was politically expedient for the two cousins to marry, because their wedding would contribute to peaceful relations between their two countries. Sadly, the bloodlines of most royal houses became so intertwined that significant genetic problems eventually arose among some family members. The daughter of Spain’s Ferdinand and Isabella, for example, was apparently insane and became known as “Juana la Loca,” or “Joan the Mad.” And just a couple of generations later, Carlos, the eldest son of Spain’s King Phillip II, was born physically handicapped and mentally unstable. It is commonly understood that too much intermarriage between too many cousins wreaked genetic havoc within Europe’s royal families, leading to the various medical problems suffered by these and numerous other royals.

Fortunately, the ostensible political need for repeated dispensations permitting such marriages is a thing of the past. While a diocesan bishop may certainly grant a dispensation allowing two first-cousins to marry, rest assured that he will take a closer look at any other relations between the two families’ bloodlines first.  The Church will always watch out for the best interests of the faithful, which in some cases may involve allowing two first-cousins to marry. But in general, we can see here a good instance of canon law working hand-in-hand with natural law—which, after all, was established by God Himself.

Why is Google hiding the posts on this website in its search results?  Click here for more information.

Posted in Marriage | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Can Cousins Marry in the Church?

Does Mass Have to be Said in a Church?

Posted on August 27, 2010 by canonlawmadeeasy

Q: Does a priest have to say Mass in a church?  –Paula

A: Now this is a simple question with an answer that is perhaps more complex than one would think!

When Canon 897 states that the Eucharistic Sacrifice is the source and summit of all worship and Christian life, it is quoting verbatim from Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium (11). Since, as we have seen so many times before in this space, canon law follows theology, the direct connection between the Code of Canon Law and a theological conciliar document should not be at all surprising. Canonical requirements concerning the sacraments are driven by the theological significance of those sacraments; thus it is entirely logical that the tremendous reverence which the Church teaches us to have for the Eucharist plays out in the canons that pertain to the celebration of Mass.

Canon 932.1 states that the Eucharistic celebration is to be carried out in a sacred place, unless a particular necessity requires otherwise, in which case it is to be held in another, suitable place. The most obvious “sacred place” is of course a church building; but this term also applies to chapels (called “oratories” in the code) that have been established as such by the diocesan bishop (cf. cc. 1223 and 1229). Such chapels are routinely found on college campuses, in hospitals, and in some countries even in airports and train stations.

This is the norm; but the canon immediately admits that there are admissible exceptions. In general, the Church’s assumption is that while Mass should be celebrated in the most reverent environment possible, it is often better to celebrate it in a less ideal place than not to celebrate it at all. What sort of scenario constitutes a “particular necessity” that would permit Mass to be celebrated in a place other than a church or chapel? For starters, any Catholic who has served in the military will point out that on countless occasions, Catholic priests who serve as military chaplains must of necessity celebrate the Eucharist in tents or in the open air, on land or at sea. To cite an example familiar to us all, how many Catholic churches are readily available to US soldiers serving right now in the Middle East?

An even more common situation in which Masses are offered in places other than a traditional church involves missionary areas. A missionary priest might travel hundreds of miles to a remote village, where he celebrates the liturgy in the back of his pickup truck, if no better option is available! Along similar lines, Masses must necessarily be offered in makeshift places in those areas where the Church is being persecuted (think communist China) or is simply forbidden to exist (like Saudi Arabia). In countries with few or no Catholic inhabitants, foreign embassies, particularly of those countries with a traditionally Catholic populace, often have priests on the ground who regularly celebrate the Eucharist inside the embassy compound for Catholic members of the diplomatic staff.

It goes without saying that offering a Mass under such conditions is less than ideal. But the reality is that many Catholics throughout the world do not have the luxury, as we do here in our country, of freely and openly travelling to a Catholic church for Mass on a regular basis. It would be difficult to argue that the Masses celebrated under these less-than-perfect circumstances are less reverent because of the place where they are held!

Note that canon 932.1 does not specifically mention any of the above scenarios. It provides a more general norm, that is to be interpreted and applied to particular concrete situations. So how does it apply to ordinary American daily life, which is devoid of political persecution and other extreme conditions like those mentioned above? Can one reasonably interpret that the Eucharist may (for example) be celebrated in a private home, in a hotel room, or outdoors?

Some additional guidelines for the celebration of Mass, which provide a bit more specific direction, are contained in the General Instruction on the Roman Missal (GIRM). As we saw back in “Can You be Refused Holy Communion if You Kneel?” the GIRM provides liturgical norms which are not addressed in the Code of Canon Law. These norms, approved by the Vatican’s Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments, were published by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops in 2003. (See”Are Catholics Supposed to Abstain from Meat Every Friday?” for a more detailed discussion of the role of the Bishops’ Conference in the life of the Church.)While they do not actually form part of the code, these norms are really laws and are to be followed at all Catholic liturgical worship here in the United States.

Chapter V of the GIRM mentions the places which are suitable for the celebration of Mass. It notes that “for the celebration of the Eucharist, the people of God normally are gathered together in a church or, if there is no church or if it is too small, then in another respectable place that is nonetheless worthy of so great a mystery” (288). We can see here that once again, offering Mass in a church building is always the norm. If, however, a church has been damaged by earthquake or fire, or a group of Catholics is gathered for the Eucharist in a location where there simply is no Catholic church available, or there is a church but it is too small for the number of faithful present, it is entirely permissible to celebrate Mass elsewhere. Sometimes in such circumstances priests celebrate the Eucharist in a school auditorium or gymnasium, or in a fire hall or hotel conference room. Such locations are obviously not designed to be used for Mass, but they are not intrinsically inappropriate places either.

If a priest is travelling, and either there is no Catholic church at his destination, or he arrives there too late to get to it, there is no particular reason why he may not celebrate Mass privately in his hotel room. Again, this is a less than ideal location, but ordinarily there is nothing inherently objectionable about a normal room in a typical hotel that would render it unsuitable for Mass.

Similarly, if a priest is on some outdoor excursion, far from buildings of any kind, he may celebrate Mass outside in an appropriate place. Before his election to the papacy, John Paul II frequently led groups of Polish teenagers on camping and hiking trips, and every morning they would find a clean, level rock or tree stump upon which he celebrated the Eucharist for them.

Could Mass be celebrated in a non-Catholic church? As a general rule, it may not, because the confusion that this might cause in the minds of simple, uneducated members of the Catholic faithful (not to mention the members of the non-Catholic church!) is potentially very great. After all, if a Catholic priest offers Catholic Mass in (let’s say) a Lutheran church, and a couple of hours later the Lutheran pastor leads a Lutheran Sunday Service in the same place, many people might naturally think that there is little difference between the two.  If this were to happen on a regular basis, one could easily envision that Catholics soon would begin attending the Lutheran service, and Lutherans the Catholic Mass, with little or no regard for the significant theological differences between them.

But as surprising as it may seem, the code actually does permit a Catholic Mass to be celebrated in a non-Catholic church under very specific circumstances, and there is a solid rationale for this permission. Canon 933 states that if (a) there is a good reason, (b) the diocesan bishop permits it, and (c) care has been taken to eliminate the possibility of scandal, a Catholic priest may offer the Eucharist in a non-Catholic church building. Imagine, for example, that a huge Catholic parish church, with thousands of parishioners, has been demolished in a hurricane. A nearby Baptist church was spared, and its pastor kindly offers the Catholic pastor the use of the church early on Sunday mornings, before the Baptist service. If the diocesan bishop approves, and the situation is explained very clearly to the Catholics of the area, the Catholic pastor may indeed use the Baptist church for Mass—until, of course, the Catholic church is rebuilt. Obviously this is a less than ideal situation, and it is not intended to be permanent. But the Church realizes that it is far better for Catholics to temporarily attend Catholic Mass in a non-Catholic church, than not to have Mass at all!

Thus far there seem to be numerous situations in which offering Mass in a place other than a Catholic church is permissible. So are there any scenarios in which it would not be allowed?

The key to interpreting the rule involves necessity. In all of the permitted examples referenced above, there was a real need to offer Mass outside of a Catholic church. If such a Eucharistic celebration were not permitted, the Mass could not take place.

So it logically follows that if a Catholic church is readily available, under normal circumstances it is difficult at best to justify the celebration of Mass elsewhere. Using a private home, when the residents are fully capable of coming to the parish church, or saying Mass in the parish garden, when the crowd could easily fit inside the church building, would not be in accord with either the code or the norms of the GIRM. If Mass can be said in the church, then it should be said in the church!

We see that the Church is realistic about the many difficult situations that Catholics face throughout the world, and is not hesitant to make accommodations so that they can participate in the celebration of the Eucharist insofar as it is possible. At the same time, however, the sacred nature of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is to be upheld as much as it can. The Church thus engages in a balancing act, always with the good of the souls of the Catholic faithful in mind. Whenever possible, they should not be deprived of the great privilege of participating in the Mass.

Why is Google hiding the posts on this website in its search results?  Click here for more information.

Posted in Holy Mass, Parish Life | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Does Mass Have to be Said in a Church?

Are They Excommunicated? Sanctions, Part IV

Posted on August 12, 2010 by canonlawmadeeasy

Q1: I remember that Archbishop Burke excommunicated a couple of women who claimed that they had been ordained Catholic priests a couple of years ago. Now I read that the Vatican has issued rules about punishing women who do that. Does that undo Archbishop Burke’s punishment of them? Does the Vatican think that he handled it the wrong way? –Sally

Q2: Why did the Vatican lump women who want to be priests into the same document with pedophile priests recently? I understand that women can’t be priests, but are they really as bad as child molesters?  –Laurie

A: It is true that a new document was made public by the Vatican recently, addressing (among many other things) the issue of women’s ordination to the priesthood. But before discussing it, let’s take a look at some of the history that led up to its release.

As we saw back in “Can Women be Ordained Priests?” and “Could the Pope Change the Law to Allow Women Priests?” women cannot be ordained to the Catholic priesthood. Canon 1024 states unequivocally that only a baptized male can be validly ordained. If a woman, therefore, goes through the identical ordination ceremony, the sacrament of Holy Orders is not conferred upon her, as the sacrament has no effect.

But as many of us already know, there are a number of women, in the United States and elsewhere, who insist that they have been ordained as Catholic priests. Some of them even claim to be Catholic bishops! We Catholics who understand our faith are well aware that these claims are absurd; but there is no doubt that many other Catholics, who are uneducated (or badly educated) in the Church’s teachings, can be confused all too easily by these women. After all, when simple Catholics see a woman wearing priestly vestments, standing at an altar and saying the words of consecration over bread and wine, what are they to think?

In 2008, the then-Archbishop of St. Louis, Raymond Burke, issued a public declaration against three Catholic women who had been involved in such an “ordination” in his archdiocese—two of them claiming to have been ordained by the third. He noted that the woman acting as “bishop” had started a new organization here in the US, with a “hierarchy” that is outside the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, and he determined that this constituted an act of schism.

Schism is, according to canon 751, the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff, or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him. Establishing one’s own clerical structure, with deacons, priests, and bishops who are not subject to the Pope, certainly does fit this definition. Thus the Archbishop found that the woman who claimed to have “ordained” the other two women had, by her establishment of a new hierarchical structure that is obviously not in communion with the Holy Father, committed an act of schism. The penalty for such an act is excommunication (c. 1364.1).

Thus the female “bishop” was found to be excommunicated. As for the other two women, Archbishop Burke noted that by knowingly and willingly participating in an “ordination” by the female “bishop,” and being aware all the while that they were involving themselves in a schismatic organization, they had likewise committed an act of schism and were consequently under the same penalty.

Note that the Archbishop had first sent a formal, written warning to each of these women, advising them of the seriousness of their action and giving them the opportunity to repent (which they failed to do). This was pastoral move on the Archbishop’s part, to warn these women of the gravity of the steps they were taking. As we discussed in “Am I Excommunicated? Sanctions, Part I,” excommunication is known as a medicinal penalty. The Church wants an excommunicated member to understand the seriousness of his actions, and to come back. It is always hoped that the person to be excommunicated will realize the grave nature of his crime, and will repent and return to full communion with the Church.

Just a few weeks after the incident in St. Louis, the Bishop of Winona, Minnesota was faced with a similar situation in his diocese, and correctly declared that the woman who had attempted to be ordained had excommunicated herself. (We’ll take a closer look at the notion of self-excommunication in a future column.)

During this period, there were plenty of other occasions, in dioceses throughout the world, where women claimed to have been ordained Catholic priests, and subsequently celebrated “Mass” and administered other “sacraments.” In the meantime, organizations dedicated to promoting acceptance of the ordination of women were formed, both in the US and elsewhere. It became obvious enough to the Vatican that this was not an issue that would quickly go away! And to make matters worse, there was understandable confusion about the best way for bishops to address the problem when it arose in their own dioceses.

To clarify the situation from a legal standpoint, the CDF issued a general decree in early 2008, noting that women who attempt to be ordained, and anyone attempting to ordain a woman, both incur excommunication. (Note that in each of these cases, reference is always made to “attempted” ordination, because when a woman participates in a Catholic ordination ceremony, no ordination ever actually takes place.) Now nobody could make the argument that, say, the Bishop of Winona overreacted, or the Archbishop of St. Louis was too hasty. Now no one could suggest that when faced with such women, the best course of action was to impose a lighter penalty, or simply to ignore it.

With the 2008 decree from the CDF, the law seemed clear enough in these cases—so what was the need for the additional, recent Vatican document that our two questioners are referencing? It is actually an updating of another, already existing document. Back in 2001, Pope John Paul II issued a motu proprio document, Sacramentorum Sanctitatis Tutela (SST, which translates as, “The Safeguarding of the Sanctity of the Sacraments”), by which he gave the authority to judge certain crimes to the CDF in Rome. At the time, the press widely described the document as one devoted to the issue of clerical sexual abuse. While it’s true that this crime is included in the list of delicts in the document, it is actually only one of several. The main purpose of the document was to give the CDF jurisdiction over crimes involving the sacraments—desecration of the Eucharist, for example, or violation of the seal of confession—and the issue of priestly abuse of children was definitely not the original, central reason for issuing the document. In fact, technically speaking, this crime is not even a delict involving the administration of a sacrament, unless it involves a priest molesting a minor within the confessional (as unfortunately it sometimes does).

The purpose of SST was to ensure that when allegations of such serious crimes are made, they are handled in a uniform, consistent way throughout the entire Church. It is not possible now for (let’s say) a bishop in France to choose to completely ignore an allegation of clerical sexual abuse, while a bishop in Chile imposes the highest possible penalty in an identical situation.  The CDF must be notified of all such allegations, and will determine the way in which each bishop is to handle a given case. In other words, the process for investigating and judging such cases has now been centralized in Rome. SST did not create any new crimes or penalties; it provided norms for the manner in which the penalties already spelled out in the Code of Canon Law would be applied to activities which the code already specified were criminal.

On May 21, 2010, it was announced that Pope Benedict was revising certain sections of the SST norms.  This is the document that our two questioners mention, and while the majority of the provisions of SST remain unchanged, the revision does make some procedural changes (many of which are of little interest unless you happen to be a canon lawyer). The change that seems to be garnering the most public attention is the inclusion of the delict of attempted ordination of a woman as one of the crimes now covered by SST. Since it is a crime that involves a sacrament, it is entirely appropriate for it to be on the list of delicts that are to be handled directly by the CDF.

No longer does a bishop have to decide on his own how best to handle such cases if they come up in his diocese. He now notifies the CDF, providing them with all the necessary information, and it is the officials of the CDF who are responsible for instructing the bishop on how best to proceed. This ensures that allegations all over the world are handled in as uniform and consistent a manner as humanly possible.

Subsequently, many of the women who claim to have been ordained, and the organizations supporting them, have waxed indignant that by including women’s ordination in the new set of norms, their actions are being equated to child sexual abuse. But anyone who reads and understands the purpose of the document can see that it does nothing of the kind. The delicts now included in the new norms are listed together not because they are all equally reprehensible in a moral sense, but because they are to be handled in the same manner procedurally.  We can draw a parallel in US criminal law: in most states, stealing an expensive coat from a department store is a felony, and murder is also a felony. Trials for both crimes will therefore share some of the same procedural aspects—but this obviously does not imply that any state holds that stealing a coat is as morally reprehensible as taking another person’s life! Similarly, nobody in the Vatican has suggested that all of the delicts contained in the list found in SST are morally equal. The objection of these women, therefore, is devoid of merit.

What these women seem to be missing, however, is that all of the crimes found in SST are violations of church law, and as such they should be avoided by faithful Catholics at all costs! In that sense, there is no such thing as a ”greater” or “lesser” delict here. Playing games with the sacraments is no small matter—and the Pope has made it plain that the Church will take seriously all attempts to abuse them.

Why is Google hiding the posts on this website in its search results?  Click here for more information.

Posted in Clergy Issues, Crimes and Sanctions, Holy Orders | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Are They Excommunicated? Sanctions, Part IV

Sacraments and Personal Identity

Posted on July 29, 2010 by canonlawmadeeasy

Q1: Our son got his girlfriend pregnant. Both are Catholics. He freely admitted that the child is his, and wanted to give financial support and also to marry her if she agreed.  But for some reason the minute his girlfriend found out she was pregnant, she abruptly dumped him, and now won’t have anything to do with him.  When their son was born, she privately arranged with her pastor to have the baby baptized, and told him that the father of the child is “unknown.” The pastor wrote this in the baptismal record. We only found out afterwards by accident. Is the baby’s baptism valid? The mother failed to give the true identity of the baby. She knows perfectly well that our son is the father; she just didn’t want any of us present at the baptism. –Kathleen

Q2: A friend of mine is an identical twin, and she recently got married, and her twin sister was the maid of honor. At a party before the wedding, the two of them were kidding the groom that they might switch places and he wouldn’t know which one he was getting. Of course this was a joke, but now I’m wondering, if they really had switched places, would the poor man really have been married to the wrong girl by accident? –Joe

A: It may be difficult at first to see the connection between these two questions, as they superficially appear to have absolutely nothing in common. But underlying both of these situations is a single, basic question: does a person’s true identity really matter when he/she receives the sacraments?

Back in “Marriage and Annulment,” we discussed the concept of sacramental validity. In a nutshell, we saw that it is possible that all the external, visible trappings that are necessary for the celebration of a sacrament seem to be present, and yet something is missing—something so important to that particular sacrament that its absence meant that the sacrament was not really conferred. In such a case, we say that the sacrament was conferred invalidly, meaning that in reality, it had no effect.

So in order to answer Kathleen’s question, we first have to take a look at what is necessary for a valid baptism. In “Inclusive Language and Baptismal Validity,” we saw that the sacrament of baptism is the easiest sacrament to administer validly. Canon 849 states clearly that a valid baptism is conferred by a washing in real water with the proper form of words.

Speaking generally, that’s pretty easy to do! So what would make a baptism invalid? For starters, baptism can only be administered once, so the person to be baptized must have never received the sacrament before—a subsequent baptism is thus automatically invalid (c. 864). Additionally, using a liquid other than real water would invalidate the sacrament. Failing to actually touch the person to be baptized with the water would likewise render the baptism invalid, for it is necessary for some sort of “washing” to take place (c. 854). Finally, as we saw in “Inclusive Language and Baptismal Validity,” mentioned above, using a form of words other than that found in the liturgical books can invalidate a baptism. The key phrase is, “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” This echoes Christ’s specific instruction to the Apostles, found in Matthew 28:19, when He told them to go forth and preach to all nations. Because it is such an unequivocal, direct command by Jesus Himself, the Catholic Church naturally will not permit tampering with this phraseology.

Note that nowhere is there any reference to the minister needing to really know the identity of the person to be baptized. The fact is, it technically doesn’t matter! True, it is ordinarily a matter of course that the parish priest or deacon knows the family of the person to be baptized, at least by sight; and mentions the person by name during the course of the baptism (which is why our first name is commonly referred to as our “baptismal name,” or “Christian name”). But further details, including the parentage of the person to be baptized, are generally irrelevant.

This is why the baptism of Kathleen’s grandson is certainly valid—assuming, of course, that all the required elements mentioned above were done correctly. The baby’s mother misled the pastor as to the full identity of her son, but it did not affect the validity of the baptism.

The scenario presented by Joe, however, is an altogether different matter. Canon 1055.1 provides a theological definition of Christian marriage: it is a covenant by which a man and a woman establish a partnership of their whole life. As we saw in “Marriage and Annulment,” mentioned previously, marriage is unique in that it is the only sacrament which is administered not by the priest or deacon who officiates, but by the very persons receiving the sacrament, who administer it to each other. Thus both the bride and the groom have to “get it right” in order to have a valid marriage ceremony.

If a man and a woman intend to make a covenant to establish a partnership of their whole life, it follows naturally that they each have to know whom they’re making this covenant with! But how well do they really have to know each other?

Probably most of us have found at some point in our lives that we thought we knew another person quite well, but then discovered some characteristic about him/her that was a surprise to us. If it was a negative quality, it may have been quite a turn-off! And if we had been close friends with the other person for a long time, the new revelation may have been a complete shock to us.

This routinely happens to people after they get married. Once they begin living together—the “partnership of their whole life” mentioned in the code—they inevitably find out things about each other which they didn’t realize before. He grinds his teeth in his sleep; she can’t balance a check-book. Such new discoveries may be disappointing, annoying, exasperating—but they don’t nullify the marriage. When two spouses exchange consent, they agree to marry the whole person, warts and all. This is why canon 1097.2 states that error about a quality of the person one marries does not render a marriage invalid. (There are some extreme situations which are exceptions to this rule, but they need not concern us here.)

But the case Joe describes is far more serious. It is one thing for a husband to discover after his wedding that his wife is not a natural blonde after all; it is quite another thing to find out that she is a different woman altogether! When one spouse consents to marry the other, the natural presumption is that he or she at a minimum knows the identity of the other person. We are perhaps all familiar with Shakespearean-era spoofs in which a desperate father tricks a bridegroom into marrying his unattractive older daughter (rather than the younger, beautiful one whom he actually loves), by keeping the bride’s face veiled during the ceremony; but under current canon law this situation is absolutely impossible. This is why canon 1097.1 states unequivocally that error of person renders a marriage invalid. You cannot consent to form a partnership of your whole life with another person if you don’t even know who that person is!

Thus we can see that a person’s identity is unimportant to the validity of a baptism, while in the case of marriage, personal identity matters very much indeed. The requirements for a valid sacrament differ because the purpose of the sacrament is different in each case. We can see, however, that the Church strives in both cases to ensure that her spiritual goods are readily available to those who ask for them.

Why is Google hiding the posts on this website in its search results?  Click here for more information.

Posted in Baptism, Marriage | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Sacraments and Personal Identity