Still haven't found anything for that hard-to-buy-for canon lawyer on your Christmas list? Looking for something completely original, very useful, and really, really cheap (as in, free)? Search no more! Just send that special guy or gal a link to Dr. Ed's solaranite-powered guide to the footnotes of the 1917 Code. It will help if your special canon lawyer likes Latin, old books, and Plan 9 from Outer Space (of course, that's true for all of us), but it doesn't really matter: here is this year's perfect gift for canonists.

A Blessed Advent, folks.

I find the hoopla surrounding Rome's decision to translate "pro multis" as "for many" (instead of as now, "for all") in the canon of the Mass disconcerting. Are we so starved for effective exercises of ecclesiastical authority that we must greet this decision as a triumph on par with, say, the fall of the Berlin Wall?

Personally, I think no congratulations are in order for having finally correctly translated a phrase that Latin students should know by the time they finish Chapter 4 of Collins' Primer of Ecclesiastical Latin. Rather than dwell, though, on why ICEL, the USCCB, and the Holy See each in their turn allowed such an obviously wrong translation to stand for so long, I will simply recall the words of Psalm 122 and be happy that our feet (on this point anyway) are standing within the gates of Jerusalem.

At least, that was my plan until I came across an interesting comment posted by a priest.

Obviously thoughtful and desirous of bringing sound liturgy to his people, he wrote that, with a smattering of Latin and some input from those who knew more, he had long ago substituted "for the many" in place of "for all" when he celebrated Mass. He justifies his action on the grounds that "for all" was clearly wrong and that people deserve a correct translation of the Mass. He added that, if his bishop were to direct him to stop the practice, he would do so immediately.

I think this approach is quite wrong.

1983 CIC 846.1 states "[T]he liturgical books approved by the competent authority are to be observed faithfully; accordingly, no one is to add, omit, or alter anything in them on one's own authority." Sacrosanctum Concilium 22.3 made exactly the same point, and expressly stated that priests were bound by this norm.

The Code and Council are unambiguous here. Thus, one no more needs a personal precept from a bishop in order to be bound to observe this liturgical law, than one needs a personal directive from an IRS agent to file one's taxes by April 15, or needs a direct order from a traffic cop to be required to obey a stop sign. Quite simply, as John Paul II stated when he promulgated the 1983 Code, "canonical laws by their very nature are to be observed." (my emphasis)

But perhaps the Bard (in Merchant of Venice, Act IV, Scene 1) put it best:

BASSANIO: I beseech you, Wrest once the law to your authority: To do a great right, do a little wrong.

PORTIA: It must not be . . . 'Twill be recorded for a precedent, And many an error by the same example will rush into the state: it cannot be.

Bassanio was a good man. But he underestimated the harm that could arise from trying to do good in a bad way. He is a lesson for all us tempted to impatience in these times so needful of reform.

I was just interviewed on excommunication by Carl Olson over at Ignatius InsightScoop. The last part of the interview also looks at why I went into canon law twenty years ago. You can go directly to the interview by clicking http://insightscoop.typepad.com/2004/2006/11/excommunication.html

Update, November 25: The interview has been translated into Romanian.

LifeSiteNews is reporting that the Canadian priest Raymond Gravel, notorious for his vociferous disagreement with Church teaching on just about every major social issue, has obtained permission from his bishop to run for national governmental office. This claim, however, seems impossible to reconcile with sound canon law.

Under the 1983 Code, Catholic priests are flatly prohibited from holding governmental office: Canon 285.3 plainly states "Clerics are forbidden to assume public offices which entail a participation in the exercise of civil power." The legislative history of this norm makes obvious the Legislator's intent to eliminate any exceptions to this rule. See Peters, Incrementa in Progressu at 234.

Unlike those situations where a priest might be given permission to serve as an agent for lay persons or as co-signer of a loan, or to hold office in unions or political parties (see 1983 CIC 285.4 and 287.2), there is no provision in Canon 285 for bishops to grant a priest permission to hold governmental office. None. Presbyteral council "approval" of any alleged "permission" is completely irrelevant.

The Holy See could, of course, grant permission for a priest hold governmental office, but there is not the slightest chance that Rome would do anything to enable this cleric to spread his kind of scandal at the national level.

Prescinding from other canonically confusing aspects of this case, the only theory by which Fr. Gravel might have been given episcopal permission to seek national office would be in virtue of a dispensation from disciplinary law under 1983 CIC 87 and 90. The standard canonical authors recognize such a possibility, but when commenting specifically on the prohibition against priests holding major governmental office, they stress how low is the likelihood that such permission would ever "contribute to the spiritual good" of those under a bishop's care. In Fr. Gravel's case, of course, the assertion that such permission might serve a "spiritual good" would be laughable.

In short, it seems that someone has either thoroughly confused Canon 285 with Canon 287, or has deeply disregarded Canons 87 and 90. Either way, this situation needs correction.

(A minor clarification on the LSN report: the canonical prohibition against priests holding governmental office did not start with the Drinan case in the USA; it was part of the Pio-Benedictine Code (see 1917 CIC 139), though Fr. Drinan's conduct in office through the 1970s certainly helped galvanize renewed enforcement of the norm.)

Same Day Update: Another Canadian priest, Fr. Thomas Dowd, writes that Fr. Gravel's "permission" to hold secular office was contingent upon his accepting certain restrictions on his ministry. Those restrictions seem like some of the "other canonically confusing aspects of this case" I referred to above. Interesting, but it doesn't change my analysis. There are no conditions upon which episcopal "permission" to hold governmental office can be given to a priest. Again, if this is not a dispensation case, as doubtfully valid as that dispensation would be, it's nothing.

Updates, November 1: Skimming some other comboxes on this topic, I see some folks confusing deacons and priests here. Please note, permanent deacons, per 1983 CIC 288, are not included under the c. 285 prohibition at all. Technically, they are not an exception to the rule; they simply don't fall under it to begin with. It is therefore confusing for some to be asserting that permanent deacons can hold secular office "if they have their bishop's permission". Per the Code, permanent deacons don't need permission at all, since they are not prohibited in the first place.

BTW, I provide canon numbers in my posts precisely so people can look up these things themselves. But too many folks don't do that before posting what they think are corrections.

A French-language communiqué from the Diocese of Joliette, citing no canons, asserts that Fr. Gravel has episcopal approval to run for civil office on condition that he basically lays aside priestly ministry for the time of his political activity. (Translation of communiqué and pointed questions from CWN here.) Whatever else may be said about Fr. Gravel's overall situation, I see no basis in canon law for this sort of "compromise".

Update, November 2: Jimmy Akin is predicting that Rome will intervene and order Fr. Gravel to stand down. This seems, indeed, the last hope that the Catholic Church in Canada will be spared its version of the Drinan disaster.

Update, November 14: There's now another one in Toronto. I can only say again, I see no basis in canon law for granting "permission with conditions" in these cases. For priests to hold governmental office requires dispensation, or it is canonically illegal. That is not a verbal quibble on my part. The character of "permission" differs in several respects from that of "dispensation" and, if history is any guide here, instances of misapplied canon law usually tend to get worse, not better, over time.

Fr. Daniel Gallagher, a colleague here at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, has just published a fine essay on the importance of Latin training for men preparing for priesthood. Of course, I think that anything promoting Latin, and anything by Fr. Gallagher, warrants reading, but among the many excellent points made about the importance of Latin competence was Fr. Dan's highlighting of 1983 CIC 249, which calls for proficiency in Latin among those seeking ordination, as well as competence in other pastorally useful languages. Nice use of canon law by a non-canonist. Anyway, do check out his "Apologia pro Munere Suo", New Oxford Review, Nov. 2006, pp. 38-41.

As an aside, I read Fr. Dan's article (that starts by recounting some in-flight conversations he has had about Latin occasioned by his Roman collar) the morning after I returned from an out-of-town conference, during which flight I found myself in almost exactly the same conversation about my teaching Latin. My exchange was occasioned, though, not by a Roman collar (obviously!), but by someone seeing me reading Auvray's Sacred Languages (1960).

In short, more evidence that great minds run alike.

Mario Francesco Cdl. Pompedda, one the world's most famous canon lawyers, died October 18 after a long illness. Pope Benedict XVI immediately wrote that Cdl. Pompedda "was an outstanding jurist and for many years a diligent collaborator of the Holy See, particularly on the Tribunal of the Roman Rota and of the Apostolic Signatura, providing a valuable testimony of priestly zeal and faithfulness to the Gospel." It would be difficult to single out Cdl. Pompedda's most important canonical service, but surely his deanship of the Roman Rota (1993-1999) would figure prominently. I can only imagine that someone somewhere has prepared a bibliography of his extensive judicial sentences and scholarly writings. If I track one down, I'll post information on it here. Update October 20: Catholic World News notice.

I have never met Rod Dreher and know little about his work. Folks whose opinions I trust indicate that he is an intelligent, thoughtful man.

A few days ago, Dreher publicly announced that he had left the Catholic Church and joined the Russian Orthodox Church, this, apparently, being at some level his reaction to the clergy sex abuse crisis and its associated scandals. See also his Clarifying and Gratitude posts. On the whole, I found Dreher's arguments for leaving the Church unoriginal and unconvincing, but then, I don't think there are any original arguments for leaving the Church (sub sole nihil novum) and I wouldn't find any of them convincing anyway (Domine, ad quem ibimus?), however much I might sympathize with what I was hearing.

If I may rephrase him in canonical terms, it seems that one of Dreher's deepest disappointments in the Catholic Church was the reprehensible failure of so many bishops to take effective action against priests who were gravely violating Church law. Now, every legal system knows that, when authority allows laws to be broken with impunity, it becomes harder to enforce them in the future. No doubt some bishops today feel compromised in their duty to hold the faithful accountable under canon law (1983 CIC 392) after so many terrible failures to do so in the past.

In any case, here I highlight some of the canonical issues I think might be raised by Dreher's actions. Of course, Dreher and those who agree with him might find little of interest in my remarks, but I offer them as evidence that, if nothing else, canonical laws do correspond to real life situations.

1. By all accounts Dreher has committed a formal act of schism; according to 1983 CIC 1364, he is liable to latae sententiae excommunication. But, as I and others have often said, the provisions of 1983 CIC 1323-1324 render very complicated, often nugatory, one's confidence regarding automatic censures in a particular case; it is tiresome to have to stop every time and debate the intricacies of the canonical penal process at the expense of focusing on the offensive behavior that needs correcting. I repeat: it is time to abandon the latae sententiae operation of sanctions, and to restrict the application of penalties to ferendae sententiae procedures.

2. Dreher brought his wife and, more to the point, his young children with him into the Orthodox Church. Even assuming that parents can remove their children from the Church (at least in a way that such children would later need to be readmitted formally to enjoy the benefits of full communion), the "sincerity" of a parental decision to deprive a Catholic child of his or her religious heritage does not rehabilitate that decision. 1983 CIC 1366 authorizes "a censure or other just penalty" against parents who "hand over their children to be . . . educated in a non-Catholic religion."

3. Apparently most Orthodox Churches receive Roman Catholics into their communion by the celebration of the sacrament of confirmation or chrismation. The Catholic Church, in contrast, presumes the validity of Orthodox chrismation and does not re-confirm those coming into full communion with us (instead, Orthodox converts to Catholicism make a profession of faith). Assuming the 40-year-old Dreher was already confirmed in the Catholic Church, if he underwent this Orthodox rite (I cannot verify either point in his case), his "second" confirmation would be invalid and objectively sacrilegious as an attempt to re-confer a seal sacrament (1983 CIC 845, 1379).

In brief, there seem to be several aspects of this matter that warrant closer attention.

Let me say, I don't think that all the ills of the Church are reducible to violations of canon law, nor is perfect adherence to law a guarantee of sanctity; but I do think that disregard for Church law has caused or worsened many of the problems we face today. Dreher would be right to decry the anomian attitudes that pervaded various hierarchies in recent decades.

But no one should think that serious violations of canon law are unique to the clergy, nor should one underestimate the harm caused when someone, especially of a high profile, violates Church law in protest against those who violate Church law.

The Canon Law Society of America was founded in 1939 and has held an annual convention, usually in October, every year since. For the first thirty years, presentations made at the convention were published, if anywhere, in the pages of The Jurist. But beginning with the thirty-first annual meeting (1969), convention proceedings have been published in monograph form. This greatly facilitates the ability of researchers to access the considerable canonical and theological insights developed for and shared at CLSA conventions. My Guide to the Convention Proceedings of the Canon Law Society of America is offered in service to those wishing to make more efficient use of CLSA Proceedings. The Guide, which features author, titles, and my abstract of the articles, currently covers 1969-1986, inclusive, and is augmented periodically.

Interest in matters related to excommunication is growing, and I believe that this trend will likely continue. I have therefore begun assembling what I hope will be a reliable directory of excommunication cases that have arisen under the 1983 Code of Canon Law. To visit my "Excommunication Blotter" click here.

Also, as noted below, orders for my Excommunication and the Catholic Church (Ascension Press, 2006), with a Foreword by Bp. Thomas Paprocki, JD, JCD, are now being accepted.

Update, October 6: Jimmy Akin comments on the Blotter.

Update, November 7: I was just interviewed on excommunication by Carl Olson over at Ignatius InsightScoop. The last part of the interview also looks at why I went into canon law twenty years ago. You can go directly to the interview by clicking http://insightscoop.typepad.com/2004/2006/11/excommunication.html

I attended Life Chain yesterday, my fourth here. Our numbers were down a bit, though perhaps that was because Pro-Lifers, who are used to having rain and snow dump on their rallies, were confused by the beautiful weather.

But if our numbers were down a bit, the number of friendly honks and waves we got was clearly up over previous years, while rude remarks were noticeably reduced. It left me feeling pretty good about the trend toward life here in Southeast Michigan. But for one incident.

A young woman in her 20s, driving by in a nice car, leaned far out her driver-side window and, in a scream of pure hate, shrieked "Kill the babies! Kill the babies! Kill'em all!" My first thought was, "Something's been let out of hell on a 12-hour pass."

Of course, she wasn't a demon; she was a human being, herself blessed with the gift of life, but using her obvious health and wealth to spread vitriol against innocent children. In an instant, she reminded me of how far we still have to go. Maybe hers was the heart most touched by the two hundred or so witnesses to life yesterday; surely, she was worth our trying.

Apparently the BBC thinks that if the Vatican publishes a document in 2001, (which the Catholic press reported on in early 2002), but the BBC only notices it five years later, the document must have been a deep dark Vatican secret till then. Quick, what's British English for "Get real"?

Britain's Evening Standard reports that the BBC just aired a "Panorama" story about how Pope Benedict XVI, as head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, sent a "secret Vatican edict" to bishops around the world (right, like that's a group that could keep a secret if it tried), an edict so secret "that bishops had to keep it locked in a safe at all times", which ordered a massive cover-up of clergy sexual misconduct. Besides narrating the usual litany of "worst-possible-interpretations" of various statements in the document, the Standard couldn't resist piling on with "The [BBC] investigation could not come at a worse time for Pope Benedict, who is desperately trying to mend the Church's relations with the Muslim world..." What the Standard thinks ecclesiastical relations with Muslims have to do with clergy sex abuse is anybody's guess. Maybe it's British humor, you know, like the Standard asserting that Ratzinger's first name is "Thomas". (I don't get it; I mean, the man is only the pope, for crying out loud. Can't the Standard get his name right?)

Anyway, more than a year ago, when another British press organ, The Observer, tried to hype the alleged cover-up angle of this very same story, I blogged on it (27 April 2005), pointing out that Cdl. Joseph Ratzinger's so-called secret document was published in the official journal of the Holy See, the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, vol. 93 (2001) on pp. 785-788; for that matter, it was available on the Vatican website for at least several months before The Observer thought it broke the story in April of 2005. Now c'mon: it's bad enough the BBC and the Standard don't read the Acta Apostolicae Sedis; don't they even read The Observer?

Anyway, as I said back then, apparently Pope Benedict has a lot to learn about how to keep documents secret: like not publishing them in journals distributed around the world. What surprises me (though only mildly; this is main-line British journalism we're dealing with) is that I get to say it all again.

Discuss the CDF document, if you wish, O Media Elites; debate it even; but don't pretend that it was some sort of dark secret all this time, or portray yourself as valiant crusaders in search of the hidden truths, braving Vatican fury to inform the ignorant masses. Cuz it wasn't, and you're not.

Resources: John Paul II's enabling legislation (AAS 93: 737-739); Cdl. Joseph Ratzinger's implementing letter (English translations are widely available). Follow-up on British hierarchy replies.

Ah, the original "Panorama" segment is now on-line here (it runs a little under 40 minutes). It contains its own share of serious mistakes and misunderstandings (which I will address), but the sloppy Evening Standard report on the BBC program, critiqued above, has certainly compounded the confusion for everyone.

Updates, October 2-9: Good comments and links at AmyWelborn; Archdiocese of Birmingham; Cormac Cdl. Murphy-O'Connor's letter to the BBC.

Update, October 19: Fr. Thomas Doyle, the main on-camera expert in the Panorama hit-piece against Benedict XVI, is distancing himself from the Vatican-conspiracy claims he made, or came across as making, for the BBC. In a letter to NCRep writer John Allen posted Oct 13, Doyle writes "Although I was a consultant to the producers of the documentary I am afraid that some of the distinctions I have made about the 1962 document have been lost. I do not believe now nor have I ever believed it to be proof of an explicit conspiracy. . . ." Fascinating.

Update, October 23: The endemic bias of the BBC.

I have subscribed (if I can put it that way, since it's free) to Christifidelis, the newsletter of the St. Joseph Foundation in Texas since I don't know when. It features a mix of ecclesiastical news, sometimes good, sometimes bad, and offers canonical perspectives on many matters. I invariably find myself reading nearly all of every issue when it arrives, which is four to six times a year. Occasionally I am quoted therein, always accurately and fairly.

But if I do say so myself, Executive Director Charles Wilson's latest article, "Applying the principles and procedures of civil law to canon law: a recipe for frustration" (14 Sep. 2006), which uses extended passages from two of my recent articles (on the Schiavo-Centonze wedding and my Reply to Patrick Gordon), was especially gratifying to see.

Chuck (I presume on the cordiality he extended to me in our only meeting about 10 years ago) knows from long experience what canonists often know only from books, namely, that common-law Americans have many mistaken assumptions about how a Roman-based canon law system works, and he has explained it succinctly for his readers. There is something gratifying about seeing one's words correctly understood and then ably mediated to audiences unforeseen; I hope many people benefit by the article.

If you don't already know of St. Joseph's Foundation, check it out; if you don't already get Christifidelis, ask for a sample today. Those who like to visit "In the Light of the Law" or my CanonLaw.info will likely find Mr. Wilson's project interesting too.

Updated October 17: Chuck Wilson's article is now posted.

Installment I. By ordaining to the episcopate, without a pontifical mandate, four men (who happen to be married, though that is not required here), the notorious Abp. Milingo has just walked right into an unambiguous excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See (1983 CIC 1382). The only canonical question I can see is whether notification of an excommunication can be sent via email.

Oddly, though, a spokeswoman for the Archdiocese of Washington says "this means nothing in the Church." I wish that were so. This stunt is not like a woman's "ordination", which in one regard "means nothing" in the Church. This ordination most definitely means several things: it means the episcopal orders Christ entrusted to His Church have just been conferred on four patently ill-disposed men; it means five men are now automatically excommunicated; and it means Rome is squarely faced with a grave violation of ecclesiastical order.

I'll talk about it tomorrow with WDEO's Al Kresta, at 4 pm Eastern. More background from Catholic World News. Another news source: Baltimore Sun.

Installment II. Well, very interesting, we seem to have a split in the news sources on a relevant point. Some print sources refer to Milingo ordaining bishops, others to his installing bishops. If it was the latter, and if that act did not include ordaining them (one website, which I know little about, would seem to support that interpretation) then Milingo would not be in violation of Canon 1382, as I argued above, though he likely would be at risk of canonical penalties for, among other things, abuse of ecclesiastical power (1983 CIC 1389), communicatio in sacris (1983 CIC 1365), and/or violations of canon law not expressly treated elsewhere (1983 CIC 1399). My thanks to a brother canonist for alerting me to the inconsistent news reports; now let's see what might turn up over the next few days.

Update, Sept. 26: Jimmy Akin offers valuable commentary, and suggests that ordaining bishops without pontifical mandate should itself be recognized as an act of schism under 1983 CIC 751.

Update, Sept. 26: The Holy See regards the activities of Abp. Milingo as grounds for excommunication, and has declared him such. Press Release (Italian). Amy Welborn has an unofficial English translation. Here is the VIS version. There is some very interesting language herein, including: 1) the Holy See has repeatedly, but unsuccessfully, tried to contact Milingo; and 2) the Holy See does not intend to recognize these ordinations, this a remark sure to provoke canonical and theological discussion. For now at least, it seems that whatever Milingo actually did on Sept. 24 was either an ordination, an attempted or pseudo-ordination, or is otherwise being viewed as an equivalent act subject to censure under 1983 CIC 1382.

An observation: in the post-conciliar reform of canon law, criminal law or sanctions was cut to the barest of bones. Since then, many canonists have noted that the canonical descriptions of many crimes seem too narrow to encompass within their strict terms (per 1983 CIC 18) the variations with which actual offenders commit their deeds. While the facts on Milingo are being sorted out, keep alert to the possibility that, as the living organism which it is, canon law is expanding, in its terms or interpretations, before our eyes to help the Church confront better the multiform duplicities of human behavior. See also some brief I made over at Amy Welborn's main post.

A final note: The Zenit article from this evening (Code: ZE06092606) leaves little doubt but that Holy See saw in Milingo's actions at the least a pseudo-ordination of men who claimed to have already been (illicitly) ordained to the episcopate (making Milingo's action sacrilegious, to boot, per 1983 CIC 845.1), and that the excommunication under 1983 CIC 1382 followed. This argues for a wider interpretation of the penal norm than one would have suspected a few days ago; I think, for the reasons I offered above, it makes sense.

Update October 4: I will be writing about this case for the Our Sunday Visitor newsweekly.

Update October 15: The article has just appeared as "Why archbishop's action brought excommunication" in Our Sunday Visitor (22 October 2006) p. 3.

Update November 14: VATICAN CITY, NOV 14, 2006 (VIS) - The Holy See Press office released the following communiqué late yesterday afternoon: "The Holy Father has called a meeting of the heads of dicasteries of the Roman Curia, for Thursday, November 16, in order to examine the situation that has arisen following the disobedience of Archbishop Emmanuel Milingo, and to reflect upon requests for dispensation from the obligation of celibacy and requests for readmission to the priestly ministry, presented by married priests over the course of recent years. No other matters are scheduled on the order of the day." VIS 061114 (110)

On the chance that some conscientious Catholic clergy might consider heeding Prof. David Carlin's startling call "for Catholic priests to abandon their practice of performing civil marriages" lest, by performing a religious wedding ceremony recognized by civil law, they necessarily become complicit in the state's laxist attitudes toward divorce, I offer some correctives.

First, in an area requiring canonical and theological precision, Carlin often stumbles. For example, he assumes that all marriages are performed by "priests", despite the fact that deacons and even lay persons can officiate at Catholic weddings (1983 CIC 1108, 1112). Are all official ministers held to the same standards, or not? Carlin writes that priests should officiate only at "sacramental" weddings, contrary to the obvious implications of Canons 1055 and 1086. Is he suggesting that "valid" and "sacramental" marriages be treated differently? Carlin makes no reference to the practice of some Catholic clergy performing so-called "civil" ceremonies. Does he believe this practice differs from the scenario he proposes and if so, how? But on to more substantive matters.

I must directly contradict Carlin's central assertion. Catholic officials at Church weddings recognized by civil law do not perform their religious duties in dereliction of Church teaching on the permanence of marriage. Catholic wedding officials perform their functions under ecclesiastical authority and proclaim thereby, among other things, the permanence of marriage; nothing in the liturgical celebration of Catholic marriage remotely suggests otherwise.

True, in America, in praiseworthy recognition of the importance of religion in public and private life, the state grants civil recognition to weddings performed under religious auspices. But it is crucial to understand that this civil recognition of marriage is granted by the state and for the state's reasons; it in no way implies any obligation on the part of religious officials to compromise their own beliefs about marriage, divorce, or anything in between to obtain it.

On the other hand, some nations (one need look no further than Mexico) do not recognize religious weddings and instead demand that Catholics go through a separate ceremony for a civilly-recognized marriage. Anyone who knows anything about the numerous negative pastoral consequences suffered under such conditions would, I am sure, be shocked to read that Carlin wants the Catholic Church in America to surrender its enviable rights precisely in this regard!

Beyond this, did Carlin consider what would happen if parish priests actually took him up on his challenge and announced, for example, "today's wedding is in no way intended as a ceremony with civil effects, I disavow any alleged civil effects, and I have advised the happy couple to stop by City Hall for a civil wedding ceremony afterwards if they want the state to recognize their wedding"? At a minimum, such a religious ceremony would, by its plain terms, pretend to be "a marriage which cannot be recognized or celebrated according to the norms of civil law (1983 CIC 1071 § 1, 2°)" and thus would require permission from the local ordinary. But what response could an ordinary give that would satisfy the conscience-imperative (wrongly) asserted by Carlin without compromising the rights of tens of thousands of Catholic Americans who want civil recognition of their weddings, to say nothing of addressing the wider Church-state implications that would be provoked by such unilateral action?

Obviously Prof. Carlin grieves over the divorce mentality among Catholics and he is acutely aware of the state's contribution to this social disaster. But while looking for ways to bring Church teaching on marriage more directly to bear on state policies in this area, we must avoid destroying one of the few areas wherein the state and the Church cooperate correctly in marriage, and that is in the civil recognition long accorded to religious wedding ceremonies.

Update, Oct 2: Jimmy Akin takes apart "A Stunningly Bad Article"

A note from Matthew Pinto, President of Ascension Press, informs me that my Question & Answer book, Excommunication and the Catholic Church, will be out by mid-October. They are accepting orders now.

The book is conversational in tone, about 65 pages in length, and features a Foreword by respected canon and civil lawyer Auxiliary Bishop of Chicago, Thomas J. Paprocki. Among his other comments, Bp. Paprocki writes "In this book, Excommunication and the Catholic Church, Dr. Edward Peters sets the record straight and answers a variety of questions about the ecclesiastical sanction known as excommunication. This type of analysis is very needed and timely."

Today, excommunication is more in the news than ever. I hope my discussion of the topic will not only prevent some needless misunderstandings, but will help us all to appreciate better what the Catholic Church is, and is not, trying accomplish through this important and controversial procedure.

Update, November 8: I was just interviewed on excommunication by Carl Olson over at Ignatius InsightScoop. The last part of the interview also looks at why I went into canon law twenty years ago. You can go directly to the interview by clicking http://insightscoop.typepad.com/2004/2006/11/excommunication.html

No, but I see why some people might think it is.

Canon law is truly a "sacred discipline" because it operates in direct service to sacred things. When John Paul II promulgated the 1983 Code, he used a document entitled The Laws of Sacred Discipline; likewise when he set out the Eastern Code, he used a document entitled Sacred Canons. Nevertheless, neither document claims that these Codes of Canon Law, or individual canons therein, are "divinely inspired".

We use the term "divinely inspired" to describe, for example, the text of Sacred Scripture, or maybe certain pronouncements of Ecumenical Councils or popes. But if we want "divinely inspired" to convey something special in those crucial contexts, I think we should refrain from using it to describe many other things that popes and bishops do in the exercise of their ecclesiastical duties.

Frankly, it would be difficult to find the "divine inspiration" behind, say, Canon 1630 (setting 15 days as the period of time to lodge appeals) or Canon 307 (noting that a person may be concurrently enrolled in multiple associations of the faithful). Such canons are reasonable and represent directives made by the pope as ruler of the Church, but that does make them or the Code that contains them "divinely inspired".

A few canons, to be sure, uphold propositions that may be considered divinely inspired, such as Canon 1024 (restricting holy orders to baptized males) or Canon 924 (specifying bread and wine as the matter for the Eucharist). But even here, the canonical norms themselves are not described as "divinely inspired". For remember, regular folks can make these assertions too; they might even do so in the exercise of ecclesiastical offices, but that would not make them "divinely inspired".

Canons come and canons go. 1917 CIC 796 discouraged the same individual from serving as someone's sponsor at baptism and at confirmation; 1983 CIC 893 encourages this double service. Which norm is divinely inspired? Indeed, whole Codes come and go. The 1983 Code replaced the 1917 Code. Was the 1917 Code "divinely inspired" for 65 years, only to be divinely de-inspired in 1983? If these questions sound silly (and they should) it's because the basic notion that Codes of Canon Law are "divinely inspired" is a misnomer to begin with.

I can list at least half a dozen good, even compelling, reasons to enforce and obey the canons of the 1983 Code of Canon Law; but one of those reasons won't be that the Code is "divinely inspired". Claiming divine inspiration for the Code overstates the case, and when it is shown to be an overstatement, that only gives a pretext to those already looking for excuses to disregard the legitimate demands of Church law.

According to press reports, Cdl. Battista Re of the Congregation for Bishops has sent Abp. Emmanuel Milingo a letter warning him to leave his civil law wife by Oct 15, or "face canonical suspension." What's a bit odd is that, by 1983 CIC 1394, Milingo should already be suspended automatically (latae sententiae) for that offense.

True, formal imposition of an automatic suspension carries a few consequences that merely latae sententiae suspension doesn't (see 1983 CIC 1333), but practically speaking these differences are minor and are likely of no significance for someone in Milingo's place.

So what is the "threat" in Cdl. Re's letter? Well, maybe Re is paving the way for a higher penalty such as excommunication to be imposed under Canon 1393 (for those who ignore lesser penalties). Milingo certainly seems to be providing as much provocation as he can for Rome to react sternly. Or maybe (and I admit this is, historically speaking, a long shot) the cardinal's letter is laying the groundwork for a flat-out dismissal from the clerical state under Canon 1394, the penalty Milingo would likely be facing if he were only a presbyter.

But alas, why get everybody's hopes up?

Updates: A good statement by Abp. John J. Myers; more thoughts from Jimmy Akin.

I recently saw an advertisement for chapel veils. The ad features a lovely young lady wearing a handmade veil, and presents the following text: "Did you know that nothing in Vatican II changes the practice of headcoverings for women and that Canon 1262 is still in force?" Assertions about canon law always get my attention, so I wondered, is Canon 1262 still in force?

Indeed it is. It states: "The faithful are to give support to the Church by responding to appeals and according to the norms issued by the conference of bishops." Hmmm. Nothing in there about chapel veils. In fact, nothing in there about liturgy. But that's not surprising: Canon 1262 is not located within Book IV of the 1983 Code of Canon Law where most norms on liturgy and sacraments are found, but rather, it is in Book V where Church property is regulated. Okay then, what about Vatican II?

Turns out, it's true that Vatican II changed nothing regarding women's headcoverings; but then, Vatican II said nothing about women's headcoverings one way or the other. In fact, to the best of my recollection, neither did Vatican I, or Trent, or Fifth Lateran, or so on back to Nicaea. Leafing through my sources, it seems that the canonical requirement that women cover their heads in church is almost completely unattested until the appearance of the 1917 Code, specifically, in Canon 1262, where we read "women, however, shall have a covered head" when assisting at liturgy. Ohhh! that Canon 1262.

I yield to no man in my admiration of the 1917 Code, but its Canon 1262 went out of force in November, 1983 (see 1983 CIC 6); the 1983 Code simply does not require women to cover their heads in church. (By the way, if 1917 CIC 1262 were still in force, we'd have to explain why we don't observe its other norms, like separate seating for men and women in church.)

Lawyer though I am, I also look through Scripture from time to time, and I recall St. Paul talking about women praying bareheaded (he does not limit it to "in church") and suggesting that it is better for them to shave themselves bald (I Cor. 11: 5 ff). What that passage might mean today, I leave to exegetes to explain. I don't see it mentioned in the Catechism, though.

Anyway, please don't misunderstand me: I'm a big fan of the textile arts, and I think chapel veils look pretty on girls and women, as do scarves and hats and those things that keep their hair in place. I'm just saying, there is no canonical requirement that women cover their heads in church today.

A saying in canon law runs thus: "There's no law against it till somebody does it." Well, somebody's doing a new "it", so maybe it's time for a new law.

Per the New Jersey Herald News and the Te Deum Blogspot, Fr. Louis Scurti, a campus minister at William Paterson University in New Jersey, "brings his two dogs everywhere [oh?] and that includes Sunday Mass." His pair of pooches set themselves up in the sanctuary during Mass, "making people feel included" [huh?] and providing a "symbol of domesticity" [double huh?]. Although the apparently untethered canines "have been known to growl" at late-comers, Fr. Scurti assures us that his dogs "don't remove the sacredness of the liturgy at all."

The dictates of common sense are hard to put into words. If one has to explain to a pastor why his mutts don't belong in Mass, one goes into the effort with the uneasy feeling that such words might be wasted on, well, someone who needs that kind of thing explained in the first place. But most folks can tell the difference between a liturgy and a living room, and many Catholics are out of patience with priests (granted, in shrinking numbers) who still treat the Mass as their personal property.

Yes, I could cite some canons: 1983 CIC 1210 excludes from churches things that do not advance "worship, piety, or religion"; Canon 1220 states that "whatever is inappropriate to the holiness of the place is excluded"; and Canon 285 tells priests to avoid "unbecoming" behavior at all times; but none of these norms quite make the point I want.

I might try appeal to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1181, which observes that a church "ought to be in good taste and a worthy place for prayer and sacred ceremonial" and that "the harmony of the signs that make it up should show Christ to be present and active in this place", but that doesn't quite get me there either.

So, I guess we need a new law: No animals in the sanctuary, ever, and no animals (except certified assistance dogs) in a church. There, now I won't be tempted to bring variously my two dogs, four parakeets, a cockatiel, salamander, newt, corn snake, or rabbit to church, and my fellow worshippers will just have to seek elsewhere for "the sense of calm and peace" I experience around my pets. Though I still think observing common sense would save us all a lot of trouble.

Oh, one last thought: it sometimes happens that, if canon law does not adequately address a problem, civil law might. The appropriate university or diocesan officials might want to check New Jersey leash laws. Liability issues are always better explored before problems arise, rather than after.

Update Sept 13: Several people have offered other examples of priests who bring dogs to Mass with them, whether in or out of the sanctuary. To them I say, first, you are not alone in thinking such practices are quite out of place in public worship, and second, every pastor has a boss. See also Jimmy Akin, Curt Jester, BettNet, and more from Te Deum.

Fr. Gabriel Amorth (b. 1925) was for many years the chief exorcist of the Diocese of Rome (not "the Vatican's exorcist", a post that does not exist) and is now honorary president of a professional organization he founded in the early 1990s, the International Association of Exorcists. Exorcisms are regulated under 1983 CIC 1172, and the current Rite of Exorcism was promulgated in 1999.

Recently, Fr. Amorth announced his conclusion that Hitler and all Nazis, and Stalin (but not all Communists?) were possessed by the Devil. I suspect that others will ably point out what a very problematic assertion, at many levels, that is. For now, I only call attention to my negative review of Amorth's most famous book, An Exorcist Tells His Story (1999) and respectfully suggest that IAE consider making it clear that the ubiquitous Fr. Amorth does not speak for them.

For those who would like a generally reliable narration of an actual possession/exorcism case, see Thomas Allen, Possessed: The True Story of an Exorcism (1993); see also Henninger Media Development, "In the Grip of Evil" (DVD 1997), containing, among other things, interviews with Allen and Fr. Walter Halloran, SJ, the seminarian who assisted the original St. Louis exorcist in 1949. (And yes, I know the weird Bp. Emmanuel Milingo makes a brief appearance toward the end of the film. Oh well.)

For Jimmy Akin's reservations on Fr. Amorth, go here.

A good organization should not let its opposition dictate the agenda, and certainly the Catholic Church has better things to do than to react to every media-hyped manifestation of the latest theological agitprop. But some problems, like "Take Back Our Church", might warrant a closer look.

Brian Saint Paul alerts us that TBOC is an opposition group, yes, but of a different caliber; Tim Jones did the same thing rather humorously last week, and Peter Nixon was on it back in July. I recommend each of their posts, and here underscore only some canonical points.

TBOC's assertions on canon law are frequently flawed. Example: "Canon law endorses a time-honored way for a nation to re-structure its governance. It is called a regional, or national synod." Um, no, it's not. Under current law, "synods" are held at the diocesan, not the national, level (1983 CIC 460-468), unless one is talking about the "Synod of Bishops" which, however, operates at the universal, again not the national, level (1983 CIC 342-348).

But guessing that TBOC meant "national council" (close enough for canonical horseshoes under 1983 CIC 439 et seq.), TBOC compounds the confusion: "[A] national synod can include non-bishops, up to fifty percent of the delegates. If those delegates were elected by Catholics in every state and claimed active voice, the synod might take on the character of a constitutional convention." Maybe one can forgive TBOC for muffing the percentage of non-bishop participants in plenary councils (even canonists read 1983 CIC 443 slowly). But for suggesting that Catholics-at-large can elect their own representatives to a council? or for asserting that non-bishops could have a deliberative vote (TBOC's "active voice") in the proceedings? No, both claims are quite wrong. Moreover, 1983 CIC 445-446 effectively preclude implementing council legislation that might be in conflict with universal law. So much for TBOC's "constitutional convention" model of governance.

But beyond canonical incompetence, there might be more in this case.

1983 CIC 1374 states: "A person who joins an association which plots against the Church is to be punished with a just penalty; however, a person who promotes or directs an association of this kind is to be punished with an interdict."

Now consider some TBOC assertions: "[W]e do plead guilty in our wish to overturn, at least in the United States, what the last pope called 'the divinely instituted hierarchical constitution of the Church.'" or: "[We Americans] must elect our own bishops. And retain the power to un-elect them if they fail to serve us." and ask: at what point do expressions of opinion, protected by 1983 CIC 212, become machinations against the Church penalized under Canon 1374? TBOC, it seems, is daring Church leadership to answer that question. Maybe this time it should.

The answer that Church leadership might make to TBOC need not be penal, of course; indeed, in accord with good canon law and pastoral practice, the first response probably shouldn't be penal (1983 CIC 1341). Instead it might take the form of plain words, the hard truth spoken in real love, the way that Milwaukee Abp. Timothy Dolan recently wrote to chronic dissenter Daniel Maguire. In any event, we have little evidence that simply ignoring challenges to Church authority makes them go away; and even if we did have such evidence, that would not excuse our letting real people get hurt in the meantime.

Many not in Church governance look at Canon 1374 and say "Ah, c'mon, do you really think there are sinister forces plotting coups against the Catholic Church today?" and too many within Church governance look at fringy groups and say "Ah, c'mon, do you really think the faithful are being taken in by such tomfoolery?" Considering TBOC's public assertions above, and its claim that nearly 600 persons have signed up with it in the last several weeks, it seems to me that the correct answer to both questions is Yes.

Perhaps all this overlooks a more basic question: just whose Church is it, anyway? I don't think it's mine, and I sure don't think it's theirs. I wonder why "His" keeps coming to mind?

Although secular news reports are, as usual, muddled, it appears that a priest in Jacksonville FL (Diocese of St. Augustine) has been excommunicated for something related to agitating for married clergy. What caught my eye in the story, though, was the priest's line "...I love the woman that I am going [to] marry so much that I'm willing to give up everything for her." My emphasis.

Just so we're all clear, a man upon ordination to the diaconate (which comes before priesthood, of course) incurs the "impediment of holy orders" (1983 CIC 1087) meaning that this priest cannot marry his intended in the eyes of the Church; not ought not, but cannot. Moreover, if he does attempt marriage, even a civil marriage, he will be automatically suspended from ecclesiastical office (1983 CIC 1333, 1394) and sets himself up for additional penalties, up to and including dismissal from the clerical state. All of this would need to be addressed separately from his excommunication, which was apparently incurred for other activities.

Maybe it's just me, but I sense today a rather different mood among American bishops facing outlandish behavior by their clergy; problem-priest cases seem much less likely now to drift along year after year in unresolved, canonically ambiguous states. Ecclesiastical justice is never swift, of course, but at last its wheels seem to be turning again.

The pseudo-ordinations that a number of women around the world, and