|
The
following observations represent my opinions. While I believe that the opinions expressed here are consistent with c.
212 § 3, I submit all to the ultimate judgment of the Catholic Church.
The letter “c.” stands for “canon” of the 1983 Code of Canon Law. All
translations are mine, even if they coincide at times with those of others. Dr. Edward N. Peters
Note: If you have
subscribed to Canon Law Blog but do not receive timely notices of
updates, we might have a bad email address for you. With each notice,
a few emails are returned to us, and we have, of course, no way of
letting those subscribers know there is problem.
|
|
In the Light of the Law:
a canon lawyer's blog on current issues
Blog Archives 2003
|
|
Encouraging
archiepiscopal
trends
Today's appointment of the accomplished bishop and canon lawyer, the Most
Rev. Raymond Burke (currently of La Crosse WI), to the Archdiocese of St.
Louis confirms, I suggest, a real commitment by the Holy See to find
highly credentialed, creatively orthodox, young (by ecclesiastical
standards) men and put them into key American archbishoprics. Just look at
the education, current sees, and projected retirement dates of America's six youngest archbishops:
-
Abp.
Timothy Dolan, STL, PhD, in Milwaukee WI, till Feb 2025.
-
Abp-desig.
Raymond Burke, JCD, in St. Louis MO, till June 2023.
-
Abp.
Charles Chaput, with three MA's, in Denver CO, till Sep 2019.
-
Abp.
Sean O'Malley, MRE, PhD, in Boston MA, till June 2019.
-
Abp.
John Myers, JCD, in Newark NJ, till July 2016.
-
Abp.
Roger Schwietz, MA, STL, in Anchorage AK, till July 2015.
That's quite a list: two fine canonists, two men with serious Vatican experience (Dolan
and Burke), three
religious (Chaput, O'Malley, and Schwietz), five possessing extensive experience
as diocesan bishops before promotion, and all six prayerful men of God. Look
eventually for at least three red hats
in this group, even if no one moves again. Thank you, John Paul II, and a thank
you, too, to the faithful of the "little dioceses" (including Rapid
City SD, La Crosse WI, Duluth MN, Fall River MA, and Peoria IL) who gave up
bishops they loved so we could have the archbishops we need. +++ |
2 December 2003
Most
Rev. Raymond Burke, JCD
|
|
|
Click
here for a CanonLaw.Info chart of American
arch/bishops by age.
Same
day update: Savvy Canon Law Blog readers remind me that naturalized US citizen (we share kudos
with Canada for this one), Rev. Michael Miller, STD, formerly president of a
resurgent University of St. Thomas in Houston, will be ordained titular
archbishop by Pope John Paul II next month, prior to his taking over the
Vatican's Congregation for Catholic Education where he can serve until at least
July 2021. Make that one more religious, one more serious Vatican connection,
one more prayerful man of God and, oh yes, one more eventual red hat for young American
archbishops.
|
|
The
right answer to the right question
|
5 November 2003 |
|
|
Circumstances
usually make it too difficult to answer individual questions in a blog format,
but Mark Brumley has raised a good one:
Ed, I just read a Q & A concerning the point at which during the Mass one
arrives too late lawfully to receive Communion. The answer raised a number
of issues with me, issues which I anticipate others may have concerns about as
well. First, what does the Church require in the matter? Second,
shouldn't the issues of conditions for receiving Communion under be
distinguished from the conditions for fulfilling one's Sunday obligation?
I appreciate what the respondent was attempting, but it seems to me that his
answer was problematic. Perhaps it would be helpful if you were to address
the matter on your blog. I would have interest in linking to it on mine. Thanks. Mark.
In
pertinent part, the Q & A Mark refers to reads as follows:
Question:
At what point in time during Mass is it considered too late for anyone
coming into the Mass to receive Communion? These days I see a lot of people
who enter the Mass even as Communion is being given and they head straight
to receive. Is this right?
Answer: Like most priests, I am loath to give a straight answer to
this question because, in a way, it is a catch-22 question for which there
is no right answer. … Although I prefer not to hazard giving a precise
cutoff moment, certainly someone who arrives after the consecration has not
attended Mass, should not receive Communion, and if it is a Sunday, go to
another Mass.
I
think this answer is wrong in several respects and I will offer below what I think is the correct
reply. But the answer also underscores the importance of two important obligations
that fall on those of us privileged to be approached by the faithful with
questions.
First
obligation: Answer correctly the question posed. Here, the
question
posed was “At what point in time during Mass is it considered too late for
anyone coming into the Mass to receive Communion?” The correct answer is
that one’s eligibility for Communion is not determined by the time of
one’s arrival at Mass. A Catholic who is not conscious of being in
grave sin (cc. 915-916), has fasted for an hour (c. 919), seeks the
sacrament at a reasonable time (c. 843), and has not already received (c.
917), is eligible for Communion (c. 844). To state that anyone who
arrives late to Mass, even “after the consecration," may not receive Communion is simply
wrong. No provision of Church law supports such a position. Indeed, it runs
afoul of several canons upholding
the faithful’s fundamental right to the Eucharist (cc. 213, 912) and leads
people to assess inaccurately (perhaps embarrassingly so) the eligibility of others to participate in
the Eucharist.
But,
then to go on and answer additionally that such a person needs to go to another Sunday Mass thoroughly confuses the question posed with one not actually
asked, and that in turn leads us to another obligation.
Second
obligation: Help the questioner ask the question he might, or
also, want answered.
Here, the questioner might (I say might, as there is no evidence of
this in the question itself) have wanted to know “How much of Mass can be
missed before one cannot be said to have satisfied the Sunday obligation?”
A very different question indeed. In response, one should help the questioner
see first that the Sunday
obligation is not a Communion reception obligation at all, and that
receiving Communion no more fulfills the Sunday obligation than not
receiving Communion means one has not fulfilled the Sunday
obligation. Once that distinction is clear, helping the questioner
avoid more legalistic descriptions of the Sunday obligation is
easier, the unity of the entire Eucharistic celebration can be
stressed,
and the importance of being present at and participating in the whole
liturgy is more obvious. To the insistent questioner still demanding
to know just how late one can be and still have it count, one must simply
reply “The Legislator (Pope) has not told us how much of Mass one may miss
under what conditions and still have it count toward one’s
Sunday obligation, but this much is clear: if you arrive during, let alone
after, the Entrance Rites, you are late, and you may be sure that
you’ll being taking up your reason for being late with God at Final
Judgment." Finally, the blanket
assertion that "certainly ... someone who arrives after the
consecration ... should go to another [Sunday] Mass" also needed, but unfortunately
did
not receive, some important nuances and qualifications. But enough of this.
It
is not easy to avoid morphing questions we are asked into those we thought
we were asked, or even into those we think we should have been asked, but that’s our
duty as experts in canon law, liturgy, theology, and so on, to say nothing
of our responsibility to get the answers right. If I react thus when I see a
fellow seemingly commit these errors, it’s only because I bear the regret of having committed similar ones myself and hope others
can avoid my mistakes. +++
|
Terri
Schiavo, a 38 year old brain damaged woman, is being starved to death in
Florida under a court order issued at her husband’s request. Over the weekend,
Terri’s parents, who want their daughter to live, accompanied a priest to her
facility hoping to administer Holy Communion to her. Incredibly, they were barred by police citing a doctor’s order not to give her
anything by mouth (see report below). It seems that some believe (or at least
want to claim) that Communion could cause her to choke.
The
Holy Eucharist, usually administered under the species of Bread (small in size,
to be lightly chewed and swallowed), can also be administered under the species
of Wine alone (1983 CIC 925), in the tiniest visible drop, delivered by pipette
just past the lips. It is absurd to claim that this form of the Eucharist
constitutes the slightest danger of choking, or even that it is a
“feeding” in violation of the (abominable) court order in Terri’s case.
Terri
Schiavo is a Catholic with a fundamental right to the Eucharist (1983 CIC 213,
834, and 912). One in danger of death, moreover, has the special right to
the Eucharist as Viaticum (1983 CIC 921-922 deliverable exactly as above,
without unnecessary delay). She should be allowed to receive Holy Communion (not
mention anointing of the sick, 1983 CIC 1004-1007) immediately. +++
PINELLAS
PARK, Florida, OCT. 19, 2003 (Zenit.org).-
Police guarding the entrance to a hospice barred a priest from giving Communion
to a brain-damaged woman whose feeding tube was removed last week, the
Associated Press reported.
Monsignor Thaddeus Malinowski wanted to give Terri Schiavo viaticum on Saturday
but was refused entry to the hospice. He was accompanied by her parents, Bob and
Mary Schindler. Police officers told the family the Communion would violate a
doctor's order that nothing be placed in her mouth, to prevent choking and
aspiration.
A last-ditch effort to replace Schiavo's feeding tube failed Friday when a Leon
County Circuit Court judge refused to issue a court order allowing Governor Jeb
Bush to intervene under his constitutional authority to protect life, Tampa Bay
Online reported. Supporters who oppose orders by Schiavo's husband to cut off
her nourishment held a vigil outside the hospice. ZE03101922
|
|
|
Getting the details and
the big picture right
|
8 October
2003 |
|
Judie
Brown, a Catholic veteran of the pro-life movement, and Tod
Tamberg, spokesman for Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahoney, are
trading shots about the proper response to several high-profile
Catholic politicians who prominently support the unbridled
abortionism of California. Now, I take no position on whether
Brown should have run her
provocational newspaper ads
(basically calling for withholding the Eucharist from several
major pro-abortion Catholics) in the first place, nor on whether
Tamberg should resign his post given his derisive ad mulierem
response to Brown. Both sides, however, invoked canon law in their
defense, and both sides can't be right at the same time in the
same way. Here, I’d like to suggest that Tamberg is technically
right, but in substance wrong (or deficient, anyway), and that
Brown, while technically wrong, is in substance right.
Tamberg
says, “The reception of Holy Communion by Catholics is a right
guaranteed by the church, not a privilege determined by Judie
Brown or anyone else at the American Life League. She's not Judge
Judie, she's not Bishop Judie, and she's not Pope Judie. The
bishops of the church, with the Holy Father, are the ones who
interpret church law.”
|
Brown
says, “The fact is no Catholic has a ‘right’ to receive the
Body and Blood of Christ, truly present in the Sacrament of Holy
Communion. No human being is truly worthy of receiving the
Sacrament, but a Catholic who persists in promoting a manifestly
grave evil like abortion is clearly bringing sacrilege upon the
Sacrament when he or she receives it. One need not be the Pope, a
bishop or a judge to recognize that Canon Law No. 915 is clear.” |
Brown |
Well,
according to the 1983 Code, reception of the Eucharist by Catholics is
a fundamental right protected by, among other norms, Canons 18, 213, 843,
and 912. In this regard, Brown is wrong in asserting that reception of the
Eucharist is not a right, and Tamberg is correct (maybe more than
he himself realized?) in claiming that it is.
But
just mention “rights” these days and people tend to think that one has
asserted an inviolable principle before which all authority bows down in
silent acquiescence. Well, no healthy society understands rights, however
legitimate they might be in themselves, that way. The reception of the
Eucharist is a fundamental right, and it is one that can
be regulated by ecclesiastical authority.
|
1983
CIC 223 § 2: Church authority is
competent, in view of the common good, to oversee the exercise of
rights that belong to the Christian faithful. |
In
fact, what Tamberg fails to mention, and what Brown should include
in her argument, is Canon 223, wherein the Church, like the
healthy society She is, expressly reserves the authority to
oversee (moderari) the individual exercise of rights by the
faithful. That authority, derived ultimately from Christ, applies
to the exercise of any
rights, even fundamental ones such as reception of the Eucharist. |
|
Now
we can see just how correct Brown is in citing Canon 915 (and she
might consider adding Canons 843 and 897-898): promotion of
abortion by Catholic political leaders is objectively
gravely evil, and, I suggest, it triggers the obligation of
Catholic ministers of the Eucharist to protect the Most Holy
Sacrament against potentially sacrilegious reception.
|
1983
CIC 915: Those who by imposition or
declaration of a penalty are excommunicated or interdicted, and others
who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, should not be
admitted to holy communion. (Emphasis added.) |
In
brief, Brown can easily amend the technicalities of her argument to bring
it fully into support of her substantively correct position. Now, here’s
hoping that arch/diocesan officials, in their turn, will respect all
of the canons on the reverence we owe the Eucharist—in which August
Sacrament we are, in a very real sense, privileged to
participate.+++
Click here
for a fuller canonical analysis of the withholding of the Eucharist
from pro-abortion Catholic politicians.
|
|
|
Libertas
loquendi delenda est?
|
22 June 2003 |
|
The pastoral crisis that has racked the Diocese of
Dallas under Bp. Charles Grahmann’s leadership continues
unabated. Looking at a June 20th report in the Dallas
Morning News, it appears that the latest sad chapter centers on the response that Bp. Grahmann’s
spokesman, Bronson Havard, recently gave to a letter signed by
several prominent Catholic laity seeking the papal
nuncio’s intervention.
The lay letter (see below) asks for the immediate removal of Bp.
Grahmann. It is short, respectful, balanced, and accommodating. In
every respect, I suggest, it complies with the requirements of
Canon 212 § 3 by which the faithful may present their opinions on
matters affecting the good of the Church.
| Writing in Bp. Grahmann’s Texas Catholic, however,
spokesman Havard claimed that the bishop “always welcomes
the advice of lay people, even their criticism,” but then warned
that church law “prohibits anyone from holding a position in
Catholic associations ‘who has abandoned ecclesiastical
community’, which can include those who publicly oppose their
bishop.”
|
Canon 212 § 3: In accord with their knowledge, competence, and
preeminence, the faithful have the right, and at times
even the duty, to manifest to their sacred Pastors their
views on matters affecting the good of the Church. They
also have the right to make their opinions known to others
members of the Christian faithful, but in so doing, they
must always respect the integrity of faith and morals,
show due reverence to Pastors, and take into account both
the common good and dignity of individuals. |
Of course, not one word of the lay letter suggests their
“abandonment from ecclesiastical community” (Bronson’s odd
rephrasing of Canon 316 § 1, which actually requires
“ecclesiastical communion” of those belonging to Church
associations), and in fact it bespeaks quite the happy opposite. Nor
does the letter seem aimed at "inciting...hatred or animosity
against...[a bishop]...or provoking [his] subjects to disobedience..."
(1983 CIC 1373). One is
left wondering, then, as to just what Havard could possibly be
referring, but to the obvious goal of the letter itself, Bp.
Grahmann’s removal. Certainly reasonable minds may differ on the
best solution to the on-going Dallas debacle, but Bp. Grahmann’s
resignation or removal is surely an option, and it is seriously
wrong for one of his officers now to imply that these lay
Catholics were in violation of any canon law in respectfully calling for it as they
did.
For that matter, though, Havard’s own suggestion that Church law can be
invoked against those who oppose Bp. Grahmann must be tempered
by other provisions of Church law, for example by Canons
128 and 1389 § 1, provisions that take a dim view of Church
officials themselves abusing ecclesiastical office. Chancery personnel would do well to
recall such norms before officially weighing in against legitimate lay exercises
in freedom of speech.
Unless these words,
coming from Bp. Grahmann’s
spokesman and published in Bp. Grahmann’s paper, are
disavowed, they must be
assumed to represent Bp. Grahmann’s position. In any event, such
a retort to
faithful Catholics remains first and foremost an injustice to
them, as well as a discouragement to Catholics
contemplating the prudent exercise of their rights, and as yet
another encouragement
to those already inclined to forsake the rule of law in the
Church.
|
Text of the letter the "Committee of Concerned Catholics" sent the papal
nuncio to the United States, Archbishop Gabriel Montalvo.
About three dozen people signed the letter.
Your
Excellency:
The
current sexual abuse and leadership crisis in the Diocese
of Dallas has become a scandal and an embarrassment to the
Church. We strongly urge you to end this crisis by
promptly replacing the Most Rev. Charles V. Grahmann as
Bishop of our Diocese.
We,
the undersigned, are faithful Catholics who believe with
the church fathers that the bishop is the vicar of Christ
in his diocese. As lay Catholics, we also understand the
obligation the church fathers have placed on us to protect
and defend the Catholic faith. In keeping with that trust
and in order to restore the dignity of the sacred office
of bishop in our city, we are compelled by conscience and
by a pragmatic assessment of the damage to the church in
Dallas to petition you to act. We believe that daily harm
will continue to accrue to the church unless this crisis
is addressed.
We
have chosen to act only reluctantly, after despairing of
being heard through conventional channels. The local
diocesan leadership is isolated and in denial about the
gravity of the situation, and our concern grows daily. We
do not take lightly our plea for intervention, and make it
only after much thought and reflection, and only for the
purpose of seeking relief from an untenable situation.
We
respectfully request that you meet with several of us so
that we can present a first-hand report on the gravity of
the situation. We request this meeting outside of the
normal juridic procedures of the church because the
situation has become so serious that it requires the
immediate attention of the Holy See.
Realizing
that the signatures of a few may count for little on such
a serious matter, we plan to begin a media campaign and to
establish a web site within ten days to solicit the
signatures of our fellow laypeople and devoted clerics and
religious in Dallas in support of our petition. We have
secured funds in an effort to ensure that every Catholic
in Dallas is made aware of this petition drive.
Unless
you request us not to do so before a meeting with you, we
will proceed to gather this petition citywide in order to
present to you and to the Congregation of Bishops a full
picture of how deeply the Catholic community feels about
the urgent need for the replacement of Bishop Grahmann.
If
you are able to accommodate us, we would hope to meet with
you at your earliest convenience. Representatives of the
undersigned will be available to travel to Washington for
any meeting you suggest. ...
Thank
you for your attention to this matter. We realize that
other matters urgently seek your attention, but due to
major missteps by the bishop that have received widespread
media attention and due to the recent announcement that
Bishop Galante is leaving, the situation in Dallas
requires immediate action.
Yours
in Christ,
|
A
brief critique
1. Papal nuncios have no authority to remove diocesan bishops
(1983 CIC 364-365 and 377).
2. Rome will not recognize the letter signatories as formally
representing a group, but it will accept their statement as coming
from them as individuals (1983 CIC 310).
3. There are, fortunately, no “conventional channels” by
which the faithful may force the removal of a bishop, but
prudently expressing one’s desire for such removal is
itself the "conventional channel", if the
phrase means something specific here, and is available when circumstances
warrant (1983 CIC 212).
4.
The signatories might have asked that the Dallas situation be
considered in light of Canon 401 § 2, which earnestly requests bishops who, for grave
reason, have become less than able to perform their duties
rightly, to resign. Cf. 1983 CIC 1740, striking a similar note for
pastors.
5. To my knowledge, Coadjutor Bp. Galante has not announced
that he is leaving (such would not be in his power to do anyway),
but rather that he would welcome reassignment. +++
|
|
|
Bishop
Boteans' Lenten Message
|
18 March
2003 |
|
In an astounding statement,
Bp. John Michael Botean, Eparch of the Romanian
Catholic Eparchy of Saint George in Canton, OH,
purports to declare authoritatively that the pending US-led attack
on Iraq is absolutely immoral and has forbidden his subjects
(basically 5,000 Romanian Catholics in the US) to take part in it.
While the statement has, I believe, many substantive flaws and
errors in it (see below), it is not my purpose to critique the
statement itself, but rather to highlight some important canonical
issues it raises. Citations here are to the 1990 Code of Canons
of the Eastern Churches (CCEO) that governs Eastern Catholics.
The bishop’s statement clearly
invokes, and provokes, fundamental questions of Christian rights
and duties because of the following points:
-
Eastern
Catholics are bound to follow what their bishops declare as
teachers of the faith (CCEO 15 § 1), though this obligation
is qualified by the phrase “conscious of their [the
faithful’s] own responsibility.”
-
Individual
Eastern bishops are to be regarded as authentic teachers of
the faith for those entrusted to their care and the faithful
must adhere to that teaching with a “religious obsequium”
of soul (CCEO 600). The canon expressly states, however, that
individual bishops are not infallible.
-
One
who disobeys an Eastern bishop can be subject to sanctions for
that disobedience (CCEO 1446). Bp. Botean does not threaten canonical
sanctions, but warns of "incalculable temporal and
eternal consequences" should his letter be ignored.
On the other hand, and in addition
to the qualifications already contained in some of the above
provisions, we should note that:
-
Eastern
Catholics have the right to, among other things, make known
their opinions on matters pertaining to the good of the Church
and to make their opinions known to others (CCEO 15 § 3).
There is no doubt that public statements by Catholic hierarchs
on issues related to just war theory, the duties of citizens
toward their nations, and the obligations of Catholics to
their bishops, would be legitimate topics of discussion.
-
An
Eastern bishop who misuses his high office can be subjected to
sanctions for that misuse (CCEO 1464 § 1).
The
eparch's statement is unprecedented for its clarity and starkness; it simply must
be read to appreciate this point, though fair-minded readers can
admit that it is not a peacenik, blame-America-first harangue, but
is instead a reasoned (though, I think, wrongly) exercise of
conscience. It cannot be issued, however, and then
forgotten. If Bishop Botean is correct, his argumentation would
seem to apply to all Catholics, and only an inexcusable lack of
pastoral solicitude on the part of other Eastern and Latin bishops
could account for them not following suit immediately. If, on the
other hand, Bishop Botean is wrong, then he has placed his faithful in a profound and direct conflict of conscience between
their ecclesiastical and civil leaders, which, I suggest only
an inexcusable lack of pastoral solicitude would suffer
them to remain in.
Bishop Botean having no superior short of the Holy See, I believe
his extraordinary statement must be ratified or rejected by the
Holy See without delay (CCEO 1060-1061).
Update
March 20: Some have suggested that either the Metropolitan
of the Romanians in Romania (CCEO 133 et alia), or even the
Patriarch of the Byzantines (CCEO 56 et alia), might also
be called upon to assess Bp. Botean's extreme statement. I think
either of
these ideas, and perhaps others, is worth considering, cumbersome
though they might prove in actual practice. Nevertheless, the
Roman Pontiff (CCEO 43) remains the only superior above an eparch
unquestionably able on his own authority to address conclusively what,
in this case, Bp. Botean (CCEO 178) has imposed as a fundamental question of conscience on thousands of Romanian Catholics in the
US.
Just
One Example
I realize it is easy to say “There are many things wrong
with this document, but I don’t have time to show you.” Well,
there are many things wrong with it, and I don’t have the time
to discuss them. But I will give one example. Bishop Botean
writes: “Unjust killing is by definition murder.” This is
wrong. There are many kinds of unjust killing: some of them are
unintentional accidents and we call them manslaughter, not murder.
It is still an unjust killing, but both law and sound Catholic
moral theology recognize a diminished culpability and do not treat
such acts as murder. This important distinction, left unvoiced by
Bp. Botean, is enough to show a serious flaw in a major point of
his paper. +++
|
|
|
Compounding
the Disasters
|
2 April 2003 |
|
The
Diocese of San Bernardino, facing potentially extensive liability
for the sexual abuse its faithful assert occurred at the hands of
Boston-based priest Fr. Shanley, is
suing in civil court the Archdiocese of Boston, upon whose
advice the California diocese says it relied when assigning
Shanley to ministerial duties there. Although some are suggesting
that this move represents a sudden change in ecclesiastical
customs, actually, the canonical foundations for such lawsuits
were laid more than two decades ago with the promulgation of the
1983 Code, and this, through changes to codified law, not in
unwritten manners.
The
1917 Code, consistent with many
centuries of canonical praxis, militated against civil lawsuits
between ecclesiastical persons and institutions as an implication
of the “privilege of the forum” (1917 CIC 120). The canonical
privilege against being subjected to civil litigation was, in some
cases, enforced with sanctions up to excommunication (1917 CIC
2341). Of course, disputes between bishops and dioceses, etc.,
were sure to arise, and the former law guaranteed access to
Vatican tribunals for such cases (1917 CIC 1557).
But
of these earlier provisions, the two prohibitory norms were
dropped from the revised law when it was issued in 1983, and while
access to Vatican courts is still available for these kinds of
situations (1983 CIC 1405), their use is no longer obligatory.
News reports do not mention whether the dioceses and bishops
involved in this dramatic development were in discussion between
themselves or with Rome before taking this licit but very
saddening step. I hope they were.
St.
Paul (especially as the inspired author of I Corinthians 6), pray
for us. +++
|
|
|
|
|
The Blame Game Needs Some Rules
|
5 March 2003 |
|
|
An informative article
by Maya Kremen indicates that Paterson NJ Bishop Frank
Rodimer, through spokeswoman Marianna Thompson, is
prepared to blame on a consulting psychologist, the Rev.
Benedict Groeschel, cfr, the bishop’s decision to
authorize ministry for a priest, Fr. James T. Hanley, a
priest who had undergone counseling with Groeschel, and
who later apparently abused children. I know nothing of the particulars of this case, but some
canonical principles might help in assessing what threatens to
spin out of control into an emotive blame game that serves no one.
|
1. All assignments for diocesan priests to minister in that
diocese are made under the almost unfettered authority of the
diocesan bishop. See, for starters, 1983 CIC 157, 274 § 2, 524,
& 547.
2. If Fr. Hanley had been declared “impeded for the
exercise of orders” under 1983 CIC 1044 § 2, 2°, (and, as I
say, I don’t know whether even that happened in this case), then
a bishop is not to permit the priest to resume the exercise of
orders until after the bishop consults with an expert, presumably,
but not necessarily, an expert in psychology, psychiatry, etc. In
no way, though, is the bishop bound to accept the advice of the
expert, whether for or against ministry, and in no way does the
expert make the ministerial appointment.
|
Rev.
Benedict
Groeschel,
cfr |
3. There is all the difference in the world between a bishop,
in response to lawsuits against him claiming that he was
negligent, saying, on the one hand, that he utilized the
best expert information available to him at the time of
making his ministerial assignments, and for that reason he
was not
negligent, and his saying, on the other hand, that his
experts should be held morally or legally to blame for the
bishop’s assignments. What could be, and should be where
appropriate, used as an affirmative defense against claims
of episcopal negligence, can be perverted into a way of
dragging third-party counselors in as co-defendants.
4. This leaves entirely open the possibility that some
bishops were negligent for using certain counselors
or institutions, but then episcopal negligence would be based, not
on the fact that predictions about priestly conduct from qualified
counselors turned out to be wrong, but rather on the questionable
character and/or standards of the counselor or institution known
to the bishop at the time he sought the advice.
|
5. Let’s never forgot that the primary perpetrators here
are the priests who betrayed their vocations and abused children.
The blame of bishops, and there doubtless is some, is derived from
the atrocious behavior of some of their priests.
6. A small, additional point: if a spokesman for a bishop is
going to make a statement for a bishop on an extremely sensitive
topic, it is disconcerting to see the statement being attributed
to “a private conversation.” Either it’s the bishop’s
statement, or it’s not. This is no time for ambiguity in
assertions. +++
|
|
The Right Move
|
5 February
2003 |
|
The
Diocese of Baker OR, reporting some $ 20,000,000 in assets, and
facing nearly $ 70,000,000 in claims from plaintiffs alleging sexual
abuse by a priest of that diocese, tried to transfer some of those
“diocesan” assets to individual parishes, a move that
immediately met with cries of "foul" from plaintiffs’
attorneys. A civil judge has issued a temporary restraining
order prohibiting the transfers because it smacks of
“asset hiding” in the face of pending litigation. Given the
low threshold required of plaintiffs to get a TRO, of course, the judge should not be
criticized. But we should be clear, the bishop’s move was the
correct one, and for reasons having nothing to do with the
pending law suits.
Oregon,
as is true of several states, allows churches to hold property
under what is known as the “Corporation Sole” model. In brief,
(and omitting some important nuances) Oregon thinks of Catholic
Church property as belonging to the diocesan bishop. Canon law,
though, definitely disagrees.
Canon
law regards ecclesiastical property not as belonging to the Church at large, and certainly not to individual
bishops, but rather, as belonging to various
subdivisions of the Church, sometimes dioceses, but also parishes,
seminaries, religious orders, and so on (1983 CIC 1255-1257).
Moreover, the Holy See has repeatedly urged (see Canon Law
Digest 2: 444-445) American bishops in "corporation sole
states" to take the steps
necessary to civilly re-register “diocesan” assets in the
names of the specific parishes, seminaries, etc., that canonically
own them, so as to avoid the terrible confusion, both internally
and externally, that arises when canon law and civil law are at
odds on such an important matter.
One may surely suggest yet again that if, here and in other areas, canon law
had been been followed more closely in decades past, the crisis we
face today would have at least been mitigated, if not wholly prevented.
|
Bp.
Robert Vasa |
Separate
civil incorporation of parishes (which the Baker Diocese had
already done), and the assignment of legitimate
assets to those parishes (which it was trying to do), is: 1) in accord with canon
law; 2)
responsive to the specific requests of the Holy See; 3) deeply respectful
of the principle of subsidiarity in the Church; and 4) helps limit the
damage that malfeasance in one aspect of the Church’s overall
operations can inflict on other divisions. In that last regard,
it’s like installing, and using, water-tight doors on a large
ship--while a serious problem is being dealt with in one section,
at least the whole vessel wont go down.
Bishop
Robert Vasa, a canon lawyer and bishop of Baker only since 2000,
has, unlike some others, moved with alacrity to bring his diocese
into line with the 1983 Code on this point. Unfortunately, the
timing of his move came across to some (perhaps unavoidably in
these suspicion-laden times) as manipulative or self-serving. It
was neither. It was, and remains, the right thing to do. +++
|
|
|
|
The Canonization of St.
Thomas
|
28 January
2003 |
|
 Ask
a Dominican when St. Thomas Aquinas was canonized, and he or she will
answer 1323. Ask a canon lawyer, though, and you might get a different
response. You see, when the 1983 Code was promulgated, it
contained several norms, on, among other things, the educational regimen
for priests. One of them, Canon 252 § 3, expressly names St.
Thomas as the master for clerical studies in dogmatic theology. Indeed,
St. Thomas is actually hailed twice in current canon law, for Canon 251,
outlining philosophy studies in the seminary, says such instruction must
be based on the “perennially valid philosophical heritage”, with “philosophia
perennis” being code (no pun intended) for Thomism. While other
saints are mentioned in the 1983 Code, none of them, or their systems,
were “canonized” as were St. Thomas Aquinas and his greatest works
with the advent of the 1983 Code. Happy
Feast of St. Thomas! +++
|
|
|
The
Code of Canon Law Turns 20
|
25
January 2003
|
|
Pope
John Paul II signs the 1983 Code.
Cdls.
Ratzinger and Castillo-Lara look on. |
Twenty
years ago today, Pope John Paul II signed the 1983 Code of Canon Law into
effect. The date was chosen deliberately, for on January 25th 1959,
Pope John XXIII had stunned the world by convoking the Second Vatican Council
and, in that same announcement, told the Church to look for the thorough revision
of canon law after the Council.
God’s
providence has blessed by us by giving us a pope who not only actively
participated in that Council, but who has had twenty years to shape the
implementation of the ecclesiastical discipline he promulgated. These years have
not been easy for him or the Church, and neither canon law nor canon lawyers
have all the answers to the problems facing the People of God on earth. But
Church law has many of those answers, more, I suspect, than some people believed
to be the case not too many years ago.
|
If you
want a sign that perhaps Pope John Paul II thinks so too, just look at
the academic credentials of the American episcopal appointments he has made over
the last several years. One sees, I suggest, a real up-tick in the number of
young bishops with earned degrees in canon law, certainly as compared to appointments being made in the late 1960s through the mid 1980s. Happily,
appointments of men with licentiates and doctorates in theology are also on the
rise. Even bishops with degrees in, say, sociology, history, or literature
(appropriate disciplines to be represented in an episcopal conference) today seem more likely
to have parallel degrees in canon law or theology. While, in my opinion,
we need a few bishops degreed in fields such as mathematics,
biology, or chemistry -- along with canon law or theology -- the Vatican’s
demonstrable appreciation for advanced training in canon law among the men it
selects for bishops is a happy note upon which to wish the 1983 Code and all
those committing to administering it, Happy Twentieth Birthday! +++
Update,
January 28: Read
Abp. Herranz's comments on the twentieth anniversary of the Code.
January 23, 2003, Coast to
Coast Catholicism
|
 In
New Jersey, Abp. John Myers is prohibiting the maudlin practice,
never countenanced by Church law or liturgical discipline, of
instantly canonizing the faithful departed via eulogies offered
by priests or laity at funeral Masses. Besides constituting, in
most cases, a form of liturgical abuse (by implication of 2000
GIRM 382 and Canons 837-839 & 846), the penchant for
praising the dead that has found a foothold in so many funerals
today has a very deleterious effect on the likelihood that the
living will thereafter remember the deceased in their prayers
and penances, thus depriving the dearly departed of a very real
and very important spiritual benefit. The souls in Purgatory are
grateful to Abp. Myers, as are all those who have seen such
embarrassingly ecstatic eulogies.
|
Meanwhile,
in California, Bp. William Weigand of Sacramento has shown that he loves Gov. Gray
Davis far more than Davis loves pre-born babies, by calling upon
the
Catholic Davis to repent of his strident advocacy of abortion and, until
that happy day, to refrain from partaking in the Eucharist. Bp. Weigand
understands himself to be joyfully burdened by Christ with the care of all
the souls in his diocese (see Canons 375 & 383), whether they be
tiny children doomed to die, manipulated mothers coaxed into committing
murderous acts, or powerful politicians building power bases on the
bodies of dead babies. It is truly to be hoped that Bp. Wiegand’s
clear stand now will obviate the need for him to move to the next
stage of disciplinary responses that the Church has to deal with
grave public offenses like Davis’.
In
brief, at exactly the time when
many pundits thought the Church (in America at least) had been cowed
into silence by the disclosures of the truly grievous sins of so many of
its leaders, Catholic bishops from coast to coast are taking measured
and balanced stands in favor of good order both in our own community and
in the political society in which we live. +++
|
|
|
Kneeling
for Communion, Again
|
7
January 2003
St.
Raymond Penyafort
Patron
of Canonists |
Update,
January 8: The
matters of posture for and gestures of reverence before reception of Holy
Communion are well addressed by Mr. Colin Donovan, STL, here,
and I offer his remarks in place of my earlier ones (Jan. 7).
|
|
