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

How Are Priests Selected to be Bishops?

Posted on July 15, 2010 by canonlawmadeeasy

Q1: Is there a way for me to suggest that my pastor someday be made a bishop? –Kevin

Q2: Sometimes I hear that this or that new bishop was selected because he’s a good administrator. Doesn’t anybody take into account his personal holiness? –James

A: There’s no doubt that in a perfect world, every diocesan bishop would be both a saint and a savvy financial manager. He certainly ought to be a theological expert as well, to be better able to safeguard the orthodoxy of the Catholic faith as it is proclaimed both from the pulpit and in the classroom. And it wouldn’t hurt if he were a canon lawyer too! It should be obvious to all that humanly speaking, this is usually a bit too much to ask of one man, however prayerful, well intentioned, and educated he may be. Still, the Church naturally wants the best available men for this tremendous responsibility and great honor. How are priests chosen to be bishops?

First of all, the code provides a list of qualifications. Canon 378.1 tells us that a suitable candidate for the episcopate must be a priest outstanding in strong faith, good morals, piety, zeal for souls, wisdom, prudence and human virtues. This incidentally answers James’s question as to whether a priest’s holiness and spirituality are taken into account—by law they must be.

True, it’s rather difficult to measure a person’s faith and piety in concrete terms; clearly there is by definition some room here for differing opinions. On the more practical side, the same canon states that a priest who is to become a bishop must be at least 35 years old; must have been ordained at least five years previously; and must have a licentiate or doctorate degree in either Scripture, theology, or canon law. It should be noted that if necessary, one or more of these tangible requirements could be dispensed. The whole notion of dispensation from a law was addressed in more detail back in “Marriage Between a Catholic and a Non-Catholic.” In countries experiencing religious persecution, or poorer countries with little opportunity for education, there may be a dire shortage of priests who meet all these conditions, so in such places a dispensation from some of the criteria might be needed.

We’ve seen the qualifications that a prospective bishop must have; let’s now look at who has the authority to select him. Canon 377.1 states, not surprisingly, that choosing a new bishop is the prerogative of the Pope. The canon notes that the Pope freely appoints bishops, or confirms those lawfully elected. We U.S. Catholics are of course familiar with the appointment of bishops; but when would a bishop ever be elected?

This reference to episcopal elections is tied to a number of dioceses in the German-speaking countries of Europe. They maintain—with the approval of the Pope, of course—a centuries-old practice in which those priests assigned to the diocesan cathedral have the right to select the next bishop of the diocese. The chosen bishop must then be confirmed in his office by the Pope. This procedure is, however, an exception to the worldwide rule, and is tolerated for the sake of tradition. Needless to say, it is a tradition that is entirely absent in our own country, where bishops are appointed directly by the Supreme Pontiff.

So if the Pope, who is definitely not an American and lives thousands of miles away in Rome, has to select a new bishop for a diocese here in the US, how does he know whether this or that American priest might be a good choice? Canon 377.2 provides a system that is designed to help the Pope make an informed decision. The bishops of each province are to compile a secret list of priests who they believe would make good bishops, and they are to send the list to Rome. So as to keep the list current, they are to update it at least once every three years.

What is the province mentioned in this canon? The structure of dioceses into provinces was discussed in more detail in “Bishops, Archbishops, and Cardinals,” which noted that several dioceses are grouped together under an archdiocese, which is headed by an archbishop (c. 431). Thus canon 377.2 ensures that a relatively small number of bishops (plus one archbishop) are compiling each list. This enables each bishop to have definite input into the process, and to have firsthand knowledge of the priests whom they recommend. If Kevin’s bishop has good reason to think highly of the pastor of his parish, his name may very well already be on the list! It is also possible to include priests who are members of religious institutes—Franciscans or Dominicans, say—who engage in work in a given diocese and whose exemplary performance has got the bishop’s attention. (Further discussion of the differences between diocesan priests and priests who are members of religious institutes may be found in “The Priesthood and the Vow of Poverty.”)

Note that the bishops are not being asked to suggest priests who might be good bishops for a particular diocese; rather, this list is simply a generic one. It ensures that the Vatican has a pool of names to refer to, if/when the need arises at some point in the future. When the time comes to choose a new bishop for a particular diocese, the bishops of the province have the opportunity once again for input, but now it is much more specific. As canon 377.3 notes, these bishops make their suggestions to the papal legate, who sends them on to Rome.

But what’s a papal legate? Whether American Catholics realize it or not, we have a papal legate right here in the US (c. 363).  The papal legate is the Vatican’s equivalent of an ambassador, and ours works in the Vatican Embassy in Washington. (There’s also a legate who functions as the representative of the Vatican to the United Nations, in New York City.) When a bishop dies or retires in this country, one of the many responsibilities of the papal legate to the US is to submit concrete information to Rome, including names of prospective replacements that would be suitable in this specific case. The legate not only must hear the thoughts of the bishops of the province where the vacancy is located—he may also, if he so wishes, seek the opinions of the priests of the diocese, as well as of those lay persons who are involved in the diocese and who thus may have some constructive ideas based on their own practical experience there. Based on all of this input, the legate then selects three names of possible candidates and submits them to the Vatican. Ordinarily, the Pope reviews the report and chooses one man from the three on the list.

Or at least we presume that this is what ordinarily happens. The fact is, the process is kept secret—but not because the Church has anything shameful to hide, of course. Rather, the prospective candidates are not officially to be told that their names are being considered, a fact which not only takes much pressure off the prospective bishops, but also protects the selection process from the possibility of outside influences. An ambitious cleric, for example, cannot actively “campaign” for the job of bishop! Neither can supporters of a particular priest lobby for his selection. This means that the entire selection process, from the bishops of the province, to the legate, and then to the Pope himself, is completely free. The Pope has the right to look at the legate’s list of three names and decide, for whatever reason, not to choose any of them. The process exists solely to help the Pope make an informed decision; he is not bound by it.

Thus we can see that a system is in place that is designed to assist the Holy Father in his task of choosing bishops for dioceses throughout the world. Certainly it is less than foolproof—those involved in suggesting possible names may be genuinely mistaken that Father X would be the best man for the job. Fortunately, we know that the Holy Spirit has a role in the selection process too! Let’s pray for His continued influence in this important aspect of the Church’s administration, for bishops who are both holy and competent are vital to the well-being of the Church.

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 How Are Priests Selected to be Bishops?

What Does it Mean to “Defrock” a Priest?

Posted on May 6, 2010 by canonlawmadeeasy

Q: What does it mean when a priest is “defrocked”?  Sorry but it sounds like tearing his clothes off!  –Jane

A: References to priests being “defrocked” have recently turned up in numerous articles in the newspapers.  Perhaps the most infamous story was the New York Times piece suggesting that Pope Benedict XVI, while still Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) under the late Pope John Paul II, failed to take appropriate action against a notorious child molester here in the US.

Since the authors of such stories generally sound quite knowledgeable about the Church’s procedures for dealing with priests who commit this heinous crime, it may come as a surprise to many readers that the term “defrock” is found nowhere in canon law. Phrases like “defrocked priest” thus are legally inaccurate and amount to nothing more than street-talk!

What writers using such imprecise terminology are apparently trying to reference is the involuntary laicization of a cleric. “Defrocking” refers to the fact that a priest who is laicized can no longer wear the clerical collar that identifies him as a member of the clergy. In this sense, Jane’s hunch that it pertains to his obligation to change his manner of dress is on-track (although no tearing is involved).

We saw in “Can a Priest Ever Return to the Lay State?” that priestly ordination remains valid forever, so a priest will always be a priest (c. 290).  Unfortunately, however, sometimes ordained priests decide, for a variety of reasons, that they no longer can or want to live as priests. In such cases we saw that they can petition the Vatican to be released from the clerical state (c. 290 n. 3). This is often referred to as laicization.

The situation described in that column, however, involved a voluntary decision made by a priest himself. Such a free choice could not be termed “defrocking,” which implies a punitive measure taken against a priest because of objectionable conduct. The more correct canonical term for such a punishment is dismissal from the clerical state. Sometimes this penalty is also termed forced laicization. A priest who is forcibly laicized still remains a priest, since, as we have seen, it is impossible to undo his priestly ordination (c. 1338.2). But he is forbidden from exercising it for the rest of his life.

There is no harsher penalty that can possibly be meted out to a Catholic priest than this. Consequently it is reserved for only the most heinous offenses. In the code there are several different crimes, or delicts, for which dismissal from the clerical state is the severest possible penalty. Canon 1394.1, for example, asserts that a cleric who attempts to marry—the word “attempts” implies that the Church will always consider such a marriage invalid in any case—can under some circumstances be dismissed from the clerical state. Similarly, canon 1395.1 states that a cleric living in concubinage (i.e., living with a woman as if she were his wife), or engaging in some other external sin against the Sixth Commandment, can receive the same punishment if he persists in this offence.

Canon 1387 asserts that a priest who, in the course of hearing a confession, solicits a penitent to commit a sin against the Sixth Commandment can, in more serious cases, be dismissed from the clerical state. And finally, canon 1395.2 notes that a cleric can be dismissed from the clerical state if he commits an offense against the Sixth Commandment with a minor under the age of 16. This last delict, of course, is the crime which justifiably has received so much attention lately in general.

So did the former Cardinal Ratzinger, as Prefect of the CDF, fail in his duty to penalize priests who were found to have sexually molested children? The particular case that recently raised the ire of the New York Times was that of a now-deceased priest from the Archdiocese of Milwaukee. The Times’ writer clearly objects to the notion that Ratzinger failed to dismiss this priest from the clerical state—in other words, to “defrock” him. To better understand the situation, let’s take a look at some of the facts of the case and at what canon law actually requires.

First of all, the priest in question was accused of abusing children as early as 1955. There was no action taken by his Archdiocese at that time to remove him from his position at a school for deaf children, to suspend him from ministry, or still less to dismiss him from the priesthood—so he continued to work in close contact with children for nearly twenty years more, during which time the abuse continued.

Secondly, the CDF in Rome was only informed of the case in 1996—41 years after the first allegations against the priest in question had been made! By that time, the priest-molester was retired, and no longer surrounded by children on a regular basis. The then-Archbishop of Milwaukee petitioned Rome to dismiss this priest from the clerical state, decades after the abuses had taken place. Prior to this 1996 request, the Archdiocese apparently did not impose any sort of canonical penalty on this priest, who served as a parish pastor for many years after leaving the school where the sexual abuse had been ongoing.

By the time that the former Cardinal Ratzinger first would have heard of this case, the accused priest was in very ill health (he actually died in 1998, before his case had been resolved). It was clear enough that his horrific crimes would not be repeated.

When he learned that his Archbishop was seeking to have him dismissed from the priesthood, the priest-molester wrote a letter to Cardinal Ratzinger. Noting his age and health-issues, he wrote, “I simply want to live out the time that I have left in the dignity of my priesthood.” There is no evidence that Ratzinger ever responded—in fact, we don’t even know whether he ever read the letter himself. We only know that there is no documentation indicating that the Congregation sought to have the priest dismissed from the priesthood, or “defrocked.”

So did the CDF, under its then-Prefect, Cardinal Ratzinger, therefore fail in its duty to forcibly laicize this priest? Not so fast.

It should first be pointed out that the CDF did not even have jurisdiction over clerical sex-abuse cases in the Church until 2001, when Pope John Paul II issued his motu proprio document Sacramentorum Sanctitatis Tutela (available on the Vatican’s website, but in Latin). Prior to that, cases were being handled by diocesan bishops themselves—and unfortunately, as we all know too well, in many cases that meant that they weren’t being handled at all. It is widely understood that it was Cardinal Ratzinger himself who urged this change in procedure, because he was concerned that necessary steps must be taken to properly investigate every allegation of clerical abuse and take action on those which were proven to be true.

In the Milwaukee case, which was sent to Rome five years earlier, the Congregation was only involved because the sexual abuse had happened as the result of soliciting children in the confessional (and thus fell under canon 1387, mentioned above). Since the crime in this case involved a sacrament, the CDF had to be informed. But the actual proceedings against the priest in question had to be initiated by the source that had informed the CDF in the first place, the Archdiocese of Milwaukee. And true, they were in fact initiated—but only decades after church officials there had learned of what had repeatedly occurred at the hands of one of their priests.

This is why the current Archbishop of Milwaukee, Jerome Listecki, stated frankly on Holy Thursday this year that

Mistakes were made in the Lawrence Murphy case. They were not made in Rome in 1996, 1997 and 1998. The mistakes were made here, in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee, in the 1970s, the 1980s and the 1990s, by the Church, by civil authorities, by church officials, and by bishops. And for that, I beg your forgiveness in the name of the Church and in the name of this Archdiocese of Milwaukee…. We hope and pray our actions have become a model for what TO do after decades of what NOT to do.

Sadly, we see here a “good” example of why jurisdiction over clerical abuse cases now belongs to the CDF, and no longer to individual diocesan bishops. For that shift in jurisdiction, the Church can thank at least in part the former Cardinal Ratzinger.

Apart from the Milwaukee case, there are many other examples of this hideous crime being trumpeted in the media all over the world (Ireland and Germany, for example, have recently been rocked by comparable stories). Why aren’t all the priests in these cases being dismissed from the clerical state, or “defrocked”? To find the answer, all we need to do is look closely at the wording of the law.

In every one of the canons cited above, that describe crimes for which the penalty of dismissal from the clerical state can be imposed, this punishment is mentioned only as a possibility. In other words, forced laicization is never a mandatory punishment. Take canon 1395.2, the canon addressing sexual abuse of minors: the law states that the perpetrator is to be punished with “just penalties,” not excluding dismissal from the clerical state if the case so warrants. It is possible to dismiss a child-molesting priest from the priesthood; but it is certainly not compulsory in every single case.

Lest readers begin to wonder whether the Code of Canon Law is too soft on criminals, we can easily make some comparisons here with US criminal law, to put it all in proper perspective. Every single state in this country has a law against premeditated murder—sometimes called first-degree murder, sometimes called something else. In several states, this crime may be punishable by death. But the law never says that every person convicted of this crime must be put to death! This is left to the judgment of either the judge or the jury (depending on the court system), and not all convicted murderers receive the same sentence. There certainly are states where particularly horrendous murderers are put to death, while others are sent to prison for life, and still others are imprisoned for lesser periods. This in no way suggests that in some cases, premeditated murder “isn’t so bad”; murder will, and should, always be one of the most hideous crimes imaginable. But there are circumstances in which reasonable people do conclude that one murder is far worse than another—and sentences are meant to reflect this.

Canon law in this respect is similar. There is no such thing as a “minor” sexual-abuse case, for they are all horrific and leave their victims scarred for the rest of their lives. But the fact remains that the circumstances surrounding some are even worse than others, and the punishments inflicted on their perpetrators should and do vary for this reason.

This is why it is so absurd for the New York Times and other secular media sources to criticize Pope Benedict because this or that priest was found guilty of abuse, but was not “defrocked.” It is undeniable that in the past, there were many substantiated cases where no punishment was meted out at all, and nobody in the Church today is suggesting that this was ever an acceptable response to a truthful accusation. But as for those cases where a proper investigation has been made and a cleric has been punished in some other way, journalists have no right to judge whether that cleric should have been dismissed from the clerical state. Only church authorities do.

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 | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on What Does it Mean to “Defrock” a Priest?

Canon Law and Altar Girls

Posted on April 22, 2010 by canonlawmadeeasy

Q: What does canon law say about altar girls?  How did we end up with altar girls after so many centuries without them? –Ginnie

A: The whole issue of permitting girls to serve at the altar has become so ideologically contentious, on both sides of the issue, that it may be difficult to imagine that the whole controversy actually began as simply a question of Latin grammar. While approved translations of the code exist in all the major modern languages, only the Latin text is regarded as the official one.

Canon 230, which ultimately gave us altar girls, is contained in the section of the code dealing with the obligations and duties of the lay faithful, and has three paragraphs. Each contains the Latin word laici, meaning “lay people.” In order to get a complete picture, let’s take a look at each paragraph in turn.

The first paragraph (c. 230.1) states that lay men whose age and talents meet the requirements prescribed by the Bishops’ Conference, can be given the stable ministry of lector and of acolyte (altar server), through the prescribed liturgical rite. Many Catholics in the US may not be familiar with this practice at all, so it merits some discussion.

We all know that lay people can be lectors, who read the readings and psalms at Mass. In many places, this task is performed simply by volunteers. Sometimes the priest who is about to celebrate a scheduled Mass may walk to the microphone a minute or two in advance, and ask if anyone is willing to read.

Similarly, we all are familiar with the notion of altar boys (who sometimes are adult men), who assist the priest during Mass, particularly at the offertory. After some training, and with some routine practice, boys as young as 8 or 10 years old serve in this capacity. Often a parish will put together a monthly schedule, listing which boys are expected to serve at each scheduled Mass.

But canon 230.1 does not pertain to either of these situations! What is it for, then?

This paragraph actually refers exclusively to the practice, which is not seen at all in many places, of officially conferring the ministry of lectors and altar servers on qualified men. Conferral of this ministry is historically tied to the “minor orders” which traditionally formed part of a seminarian’s training to become a priest. “Acolyte” and “lector” were actually orders, which preceded (among others) the orders of “sub-deacon,” “deacon,” and finally “priest.”

Nowadays, seminarians who are preparing to become priests no longer receive these minor orders. The process has been greatly simplified, and today a man technically becomes a cleric only when he is ordained a deacon (c. 266.1).

Since priests-in-training no longer receive the orders of acolyte and lector, canon 230.1 provides the option for a bishop to confer these ministries—no longer called “orders”—on qualified men, whether they are seminarians or not. Note that in this particular paragraph, the Latin is very specific: the term used is viri laici, or lay males. (We looked at the code’s use of the Latin word vir in another context back in “Can Women be Ordained Priests?”) In other words, the wording of canon 230.1 indicates that it does not apply to women. This is entirely consistent with the Church’s position that the priesthood was established by Christ for men only; since the original orders of lector and acolyte used to form part of a man’s journey toward the priesthood, it makes sense that even now, these ministries may be conferred in a stable manner on men and not on women. This practice, which is certainly not common in our country, is a vestige of the traditional orders.

Now look at the following paragraph, canon 230.2. It states that lay people can receive the temporary assignment of lector in liturgical activities. It also notes that all lay people can exercise the roles of commentator, cantor, or other functions.

This paragraph addresses the scenario that is most familiar to us: the lector at a given Mass is either an on-the-spot volunteer as mentioned above, or is somebody who is “installed” for a year or so (which incidentally does not constitute the “stable ministry” envisioned by the first paragraph!). When needed, lay people can also lead the singing or read some sort of commentary on the day’s readings—which latter role is not to be confused with actual preaching, since only a cleric may preach (see “Who May Preach?”).

The Latin of this second paragraph is different from that of the first. Here, the word viri is omitted entirely. The word laici, when used by itself, can mean either lay men or lay women, or for that matter a combination of both! Women can, therefore, be given the tasks mentioned in canon 230.2. And they generally are, as most of us can attest; women frequently serve as lectors or cantors or the like. Since this “temporary assignment” bears no resemblance to conferral of the traditional minor orders on seminarians, the Church—under Pope John Paul II, the Supreme Legislator who promulgated the 1983 Code of Canon Law—saw fit to permit women to serve in these liturgical capacities.

Finally, canon 230.3 asserts that when the needs of the Church require it, lay people who do not have the stable ministry of lectors or acolytes as described in the first paragraph, can supply some of their functions, including (among other things) distributing Holy Communion. In practice, we see this rather frequently—in fact, in some places it occurs too frequently, as we saw in “Questions About Eucharistic Ministers,” addressing the often excessive use of lay extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist. The phrase “when the needs of the Church require” limits the role of lay people in such functions to only those times when a shortage of clergy truly calls for the laity’s assistance.

In any case, the Latin of this third paragraph is like that of the second paragraph: it simply says laici, without including the male-only viri. Thus the third paragraph pertains to both lay men and lay women.

So how does all this add up to altar girls?

In 1992, a dubium, or doubt, was submitted to the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts. As we saw in “Do Lapsed Catholics Marry Validly Outside the Church?” this Council has been given the exclusive right and authority to issue authentic—i.e., official—interpretations of all legal documents promulgated by Rome, including the Code of Canon Law. Whenever there is a question raised about the correct way to interpret a given canon, this Council has the final say.

The dubium that was raised was this: does canon 230.2, which mentions lectors, cantors, commentators, and “other functions,” also pertain to the function of altar server?

The Council answered in the affirmative. (All the Council’s authentic interpretations are posted on the Vatican’s official website, but in Latin only, and can be found here.) Regardless of one’s personal preferences, there was no other possible answer to the question, since the whole notion of altar servers as we know them is covered by this paragraph. Were it not for canon 230.2, there would be no canonical justification for the existence of altar boys at all!

The problem, however, is that canon 230.2 mentions not viri laici, but just laici. It pertains not only to altar servers, but also includes other roles which are commonly exercised by women as well as men. Thus the canon cannot be interpreted to exclude the possibility of altar girls.

This is why girls are permitted to serve at the altar as well as boys.

Note, though, that while girls are permitted to serve, there is nothing in the law that requires it. In fact, another document was issued in 1994 on this very subject, this time by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (included in Latin on the same Vatican webpage as the authentic interpretation of canon 230.2). The Congregation noted that each Bishops’ Conference retains the authority to determine how best to implement the use of altar girls, acknowledging that using only boys as altar servers remains traditional. The letter also pointed out that many vocations to the priesthood are fostered among young men who function as altar boys, implying that giving this role to boys is still to be strongly encouraged.

Here in the US, as we know, the Bishops’ Conference declared that the decision to employ girls as altar servers or not is left to the diocesan bishop. Today nearly every diocese in the country permits girls to serve at the altar.

As most of us are already well aware, this has sparked outcry among those who contend that allowing girls to be altar servers is a step toward women’s ordination—something which, as discussed in “Could the Pope Change the Law to Allow Women Priests?” the Church is unable to permit. On the other hand, it was hailed as a giant leap forward by those who see the ban on women serving in church ministries as an antiquated practice, in urgent need of updating.

Could the law be changed? Absolutely! We saw in “Are There Any Limitations on the Power of the Pope?” that only those laws which have their basis in divine/natural law cannot be changed. Laws pertaining to altar servers, however, clearly do not fall into this category. It is entirely possible that Benedict XVI, who as Pope is the Supreme Legislator, could choose at some point to reword canon 230 if he sees fit. Assuming that he does not wish to do away entirely with the concept of altar servers, it appears that it would probably be necessary to reorganize canon 230 completely. Simply changing the second paragraph to read viri laici would not do the trick, for that would simultaneously eliminate not only altar girls, but also female lectors, cantors, commentators, and those women serving in any other conceivable liturgical role—and this might perhaps be farther than the Holy Father would wish to go.

No matter what the Pope were to decide, we would as Catholics be duty-bound to obey him. In the meantime, we are required to accept the validity of the current law, regardless of our own personal preferences.

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

Posted in Clergy Issues, Holy Mass, Parish Life | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Canon Law and Altar Girls

Can Children Make their First Communion Before their First Confession?

Posted on April 8, 2010 by canonlawmadeeasy

Q: A friend of mine teaches CCD, I think fifth or sixth grade. Mid-year she got a new student who had just moved into town, and she discovered that he had never, ever been to confession! He had made his First Holy Communion in a parish where somehow they were not required to make their First Penance beforehand. How is that possible? Don’t you have to make your First Penance before receiving your First Holy Communion? –Elizabeth

A: In a word, yes, you do.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states clearly that “children must go to the sacrament of Penance before receiving Holy Communion for the first time” (1457). There are very fundamental theological reasons for this. When we receive the Eucharist, as the Catechism points out,

 …we must prepare ourselves for so great and so holy a moment. St. Paul urges us to examine our conscience: “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.” Anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before coming to Communion (1385).

In other words, we Catholics—both children and adults—should always want to be as free from sin as possible before receiving Holy Communion.

It may be objected by some that children are too young to understand what sin is all about, and so it makes no sense for an innocent child to be confessing his “sins.” But the fact is, if a child is deemed ready to receive the Eucharist, it means that he has attained a use of reason sufficient to understand that it is Jesus Who is present in the consecrated Host. (The age of reason was also addressed in “Can Children Receive the Last Rites?”) Children who are simply too young to understand what they are really doing aren’t supposed to be making their First Holy Communion! And it follows that if a child has reached the age of reason, it also means that he is old enough to understand, in at least a basic way, that some actions are right and some are wrong—and that it is good to do what is right, and bad to do what is wrong. Thus every first communicant should have at least an elementary grasp of what it means to sin. And given our fallen nature, the implication is that once a child has reached the age of reason, he has begun to commit some sins.

Does a second-grade child, however, really have to worry about having committed the “grave sin” mentioned in the Catechism? Probably not! But that is not the point of requiring children to make their first confession before receiving the Eucharist. As a rule, pastors, parents, and catechists are not worried that First Communicants may be in a state of mortal sin; but they nevertheless want to teach the children that before receiving Christ Himself, they must get into the habit of examining their consciences and shunning all attachment to sin. After all, if children aren’t taught this practice from the very beginning, when will they ever learn to do it?

As we have seen so many times before in this space, canon law follows theology on this subject. Canon 914 states clearly that both parents and pastors are to see to it that children who have reached the age of reason are properly prepared to make their First Communion—after having made a sacramental confession. There is no room for creative interpretations here. If there are children being permitted to receive Holy Communion before having made their First Confession, the law is being violated. It’s as simple as that.

The same canon also notes that if the pastor judges that a child is too young to understand what is really going on, he cannot permit that child to receive Communion. Note that making this decision is the pastor’s right and obligation! In other words, children do not have an automatic “right” to make their First Holy Communion simply because they have reached the magic age of 7 or 8.

The requirement that children make their First Penance before their First Holy Communion dovetails neatly with the requirement found in canon 989, that all the faithful who have attained the age of reason are required to confess their grave sins at least once a year.  This annual requirement—which is the bare minimum!—was discussed in detail in “Is Confession Still an Easter Duty?” where we saw that technically, if a Catholic never commits any grave sins, he is not required by law to receive the sacrament of penance. Striving for this bare minimum, however, is not necessarily the best practice, which is why canon 988.2 notes that the faithful are encouraged to confess venial sins as well. As far as small children are concerned, therefore, forming in them the habit of confessing their sins, whether grave or not, should then make it all the easier for them to turn to the confessional in their later years, should they have the misfortune to commit grave sin. On a theological note, one can also reasonably hope that the practice of frequent confession, which imparts grace to the penitent, should spiritually strengthen him so as better to resist temptations to mortal sin in the future.

Thus we can see that there are absolutely no grounds, either theological or canonical, for permitting children to receive their First Holy Communion before making their First Penance. While we adults may be convinced that they have never committed any grave sins, it is nonetheless critical to instill in these children an understanding of the importance of receiving Our Lord in the Eucharist with a heart that is as free from sin as can be.

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

Posted in Catholic Education, Confession | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Can Children Make their First Communion Before their First Confession?