Where to now?

There is a lot of angst among many in the Church about what to do now that President Obama has won a second term. Clearly the bishops' efforts (with the help of their priests and other collaborators) to draw attention to the intrinsic evils that formed part of the Democratic Party's policy platform did not convince a sufficient number of Catholics that they should vote for someone other than the President or Democratic candidates.

One article which demonstrates such angst is by George Weigel in the online version of FirstThings entitled: The Crisis of a Second Obama Administration.

Among other things Weigel calls for the withdrawal of the Church from the civil side of marriage.

The eminent and always concise and perceptive Dr Edward Peters has responded on his blog in a post entitled: Some first thoughts on Weigel’s call to reconsider civil consequences for Catholic weddings.

I entered a comment under the First Things article referred to above but, because of its length, I doubt it shall be published. So here it is.

I have to own up to echoing the opinion of an eminent canonist, and that is that clergy do not so much act as agents of the State. Rather, the State accords recognition to marriages celebrated in the presence of a duly authorized Church minister. If the State wishes to accord such recognition, why reject it? It is good for the couple and for society that the marriage receives such recognition.

As for celebrating marriages that would not receive recognition from the State (e.g. of those without legal papers), Canon Law prohibits this without the permission of the Local Ordinary. There are all sorts of reasons why the Local Ordinary might withhold permission, in which case there are ways and means for the couple themselves to celebrate the marriage without the intervention of a duly delegated minister (who, however, should be present but not intervening). Canonists will be familiar with Can. 1116. Non-canonists: beware. This canon requires careful interpretation. Such a marriage would be sacramental (if both baptized) but would not enjoy civil recognition. The couple would enjoy the Church's blessing upon their union and would, therefore, be able to receive Holy Communion, be godparents, etc. They would not, however, benefit from any state recognition.

All this goes to show that the Civil and Ecclesiastical are separate spheres. One offers civil benefits. The other offers spiritual goods. If both can work together, why tear them asunder?

I feel that the most urgent matter at hand is to deal with those Catholics in public life who promote intrinsic evils. Their diocesan bishops should issue them with the warnings that Canon Law foresees (precepts) and, should they fail to come into line, notify them that they fall under Canon 915. Further penalties can also be considered.

Then we must address the issues affecting the Church's proclamation of the Social Gospel including, but not limited to: the sanctity of life, the dignity of marriage, the care offered to the stranger (i.e. immigrants - has the Church lost Latinos as a result of this election campaign) and the poor.

A renewed catechesis to be offered to all Catholics who attend Mass, and a public campaign of information on the Church's teaching on various issues.

Homosexuality: However hard it might be, we also need to present our compassionate approach to those who experience same sex attraction, without compromising on the Divine Law concerning marriage and the purpose of human sexuality. We will, like Cardinal Keith O'Brien of Scotland, receive "bigot of the year" awards from organizations such as Stonewall, no doubt, but we might at least reach those with open hearts and minds.

I feel this political campaign has divided us so much. The Holy Spirit might show us some ways of healing these divisions.

We need also to recognize that there is a choice to be made: Christ or the World. We are in the world but not of it. Let the world go its way, if it insists. Let us be faithful to the Lord. If the State deprives us of our freedom, it does so unjustly. It will not be the first time Christians experience injustice. But nothing can deprive us of our inner freedom of conscience and will: even if we must withdraw from those areas that, traditionally, were the initiative of Christian missionaries: schools, hospitals, etc. Naturally, we should not do so without seeking to vindicate our rights before the civil courts. It is ridiculous for the State - on the pretext of the separation of the Church and State - to want to kick the Church out of these areas and institutions which were founded, in large part, by Catholic and other Christian missionaries. But if it does, so be it.

Oh, and if we lose tax exempt status, fine.

Dr Edward Peters on when to exclude people from Holy Communion

In an article in First Things entitled Fencing the Altar, Dr Peters writes:

Participation in Holy Communion is achieved by two related but distinct acts: the action of a member of the faithful in seeking Communion (reception) and the action of the minister in giving Communion (administration). These two actions are not only performed by different persons, they are governed by different canon laws. Virtually all confusion over Communion can be traced to the failure to keep these two actions distinct.

It is worth reading as it helps minsters guard against over-zealous denial of the Holy Communion on the one hand as well as giving clear guidance on how to apply the law of the Church in this matter. There are public figures whom Peters has no doubt should be excluded by their bishops from Holy Communion.

I am much consoled by his line:

Difficult cases of law and fact will arise, and mistakes will inevitably be made in deciding them.

for we do inevitably find ourselves in tight spots during the celebration of Mass and do not always get it right.

Further comment on the German Bishops

I have received some very helpful feedback on the subject of my previous post.

I would refer readers to the latest post by Jimmy Akin, a correspondent with the National Catholic Register, on his blog. Among other things he writes:

As a Catholic News Service story suggests, the German bishops have tried to frame the issue without reference to money and instead frame it in terms of Catholic identity:

"There must be consequences for people who distance themselves from the church by a public act," said Archbishop Robert Zollitsch of Freiburg, conference president, in defending the Sept. 20 decree.

"Clearly, someone withdrawing from the church can no longer take advantage of the system like someone who remains a member," he said at a Sept. 24 news conference as the bishops began a four-day meeting in Fulda. "We are grateful Rome has given completely clear approval to our stance."

The archbishop said each departure was "painful for the church," adding that bishops feared many Catholics were unaware of the consequences and would be "open to other solutions."

"The Catholic church is committed to seeking out every lost person," said Archbishop Zollitsch, whose remarks were reported by Germany's Die Welt daily.

"At issue, however, is the credibility of the church's sacramental nature. One cannot be half a member or only partly a member. Either one belongs and commits, or one renounces this," Archbishop Zollitsch said.

Akin also addresses the issue of manifest grave sin:

Since denying your faith before the state is a mortal sin, it is thus potential matter for canon 915 of the Code of Canon Law, which provides

"Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion."

If they have denied their faith before the state, it's a grave sin. Because they filed paperwork with the state, it's a manifest sin. And if their pastor has talked to them about it and they haven't turned back then they are obstinately persevering in it.

So I see a possible basis for denying them holy Communion on such grounds. I don't want to go further into canonical waters, however, until I've seen the actual documents involved and seen competent commentary from others.

My point is that the German bishops may have reasonable grounds for their decree, canonically, either because it merely applies existing provisions of the Church's universal law or because it further specifies that law as particular legislation for Germany.

I think this makes very good sense.

The Catholic News Service article reports:

"Conscious dissociation from the church by public act is a grave offense against the church community," the (bishops') decree said.

"Whoever declares their withdrawal for whatever reason before the responsible civil authority always violates their duty to preserve a link with the church, as well as their duty to make a financial contribution so the church can fulfill its tasks."

Akin also quotes several verses of Scripture, including:

Jesus said: “Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven. But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 10:32-33).

I must say I think he has analysed the case extremely well with his skill as a journalist, and it seems that the German bishops have acted appropriately. As so often, it is the narrative that is the problem but I guess the bishops could not have won this anyway. The media would always spin it as being a case of no tax, no sacraments.

See also Ars Vivendi for an explanation from one who lives in Germany.

Can the German Bishops do this?

UPDATE September 27th.

Since writing the below yesterday, a lot of comment has been generated which greatly clarifies the situation. It would seem to me that there is a clear break of communion by those who "defect" or declare their intention to leave the Church. In which case it would seem that the bishops have the right/duty to inform the people of the consequences. It's not about the money but about the act of defection. There is, however, the problem of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts specifically excluding the removal of one's name from a government maintained register in order to secure certain civil consequences (see below) as sufficient for procuring formal defection. I guess it would depend on the means required for such removal. If, for removal, one actually has to say "I wish to leave the Catholic Church", then one should be taken at one's word and face the consequences.

Please see Further Comment. Also of interest are: Jimmy Akin quoted in Further Comment, Sentire Cum Ecclesia, Ars Vivendi, the German Bishops Conference, comments of Dr Edward Peters.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As widely reported the German bishops have decreed that Catholics who "renounce" their membership of the Catholic Church so as to avoid paying the religious tax will not be able to receive the sacraments, act as godparents or have a Catholic funeral. Which sounds pretty severe. Is it legal in Catholic Church law?

Reports can be read at the BBC and Reuters. I'm not knowledgeable about why Germany operates a religious tax system. No doubt it has historical roots. The religious tax is about 8% of your overall tax bill, so if you pay 10,000 euro income tax, a further 800 euro will be added to your tax bill and go towards your church/religion of declared affiliation: Protestant, Catholic, Jewish... It is not an 8% income tax. Apparently over 180,000 Catholics "left" the Church in 2010 following the various scandals that have rocked the Church in Germany and elsewhere. Other religions have also experienced a fall in their tax-paying members. Apparently, many "left" as way of reducing their tax bill when income tax went up to cope with the effects of the reunification of East Germany with the rest of Germany in the early 1990's.

So, can the bishops deny baptised Catholics the sacraments because they do not pay the tax? Have Catholics who have decided to remove themselves from the civil religious register put themselves outside the Church? The media reports claim that the Vatican has approved the measure, but this does not mean the measure is beyond appeal. And I daresay it won't be long before someone appeals to Rome if they are denied the sacraments, or prohibited from being a godparent, or their relative is denied a funeral, simply on the basis that they are not registered in the State taxation system.

What does Canon Law have to say?

How is a Catholic defined?

Can. 96 By baptism one is incorporated into the Church of Christ and is constituted a person in it with the duties and rights which are proper to Christians in keeping with their condition, insofar as they are in ecclesiastical communion and unless a legitimately issued sanction stands in the way.

Can. 205 Those baptized are fully in the communion of the Catholic Church on this earth who are joined with Christ in its visible structure by the bonds of the profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical governance.

So if one is baptized in the Catholic Church, or received into it after valid baptism in another Church or ecclesial community, one is joined with the Church in its visible structure, unless one breaks the bonds of faith, sacraments and/or governance. One has duties and rights. Does removal from the religious tax register constitute being no longer joined with the Church in its visible structure? As for the duty of supporting the Church, could one not claim that one is fulfilling this duty in ways other than paying the tax, e.g. by placing money in a collection etc? The Church has never stipulated a set sum of money that must be contributed for membership to continue.

The Eucharist

The rights/duties of Catholics as regards the Eucharist:

Can. 912 Any baptized person not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to holy communion.

So a Catholic is presumed to have a right to receive holy communion. There are very strict conditions that must be met before a minister can refuse to give holy communion to a Catholic.

There is a special requirement for children:

Can. 913 #1. The administration of the Most Holy Eucharist to children requires that they have sufficient knowledge and careful preparation so that they understand the mystery of Christ according to their capacity and are able to receive the body of Christ with faith and devotion.

Can. 914 It is primarily the duty of parents and those who take the place of parents, as well as the duty of pastors, to take care that children who have reached the use of reason are prepared properly and, after they have made sacramental confession, are refreshed with this divine food as soon as possible. It is for the pastor (parish priest) to exercise vigilance so that children who have not attained the use of reason or whom he judges are not sufficiently disposed do not approach holy communion.

So, the question arises: are Catholic children whose parents have removed themselves from the civil religious tax register prohibited from receiving the Eucharist? It would appear that the tenor of the Canons is quite to the contrary. Everything should be done - primarily by the parents of course (and here they must examine their consciences as primary educators of their children as to the consequences of removal from the religious tax register) but also by the pastors - to ensure that children with the use of reason receive the Eucharist at the earliest possible time.

An assessment must therefore be made as to the consequences for their children of parents removing themselves from the register. Does such an action conflict with their duty of educating their children in the Catholic faith? I'm not pretending to give a general answer to this question. I am simply posing it. Perhaps the German bishops' decree addresses this issue. I have not seen it.

Those who may not receive the Eucharist:

Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.

This Canon refers to the external forum. The reports state that all talk of excommunication has been carefully avoided and, indeed, excommunication is a penalty that can only be imposed on one who has committed a crime in the Church. So those who have removed themselves from the religious tax register have not received either of these penalties. They are not being accused of having committed a canonical crime.

So, are they amongst those who obstinately persevere in manifest grave sin? It's certainly manifest in that it is a matter of public record. But is withholding the religious tax a grave sin?

Can. 916 A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to ... receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.

This Canon refers to the internal forum of conscience, but again the question hinges on whether or not self-removal from the register is a grave sin.

Canon 844 concerns the discipline regarding administration and reception of the sacraments of penance, holy eucharist and anointing of the sick by/to members of other churches and ecclesial communities. But this canon would not be applicable since the people we are talking about are Catholics.

Does removal from the tax register constitute departure from the Church? It is possible to formally defect from the Church and there used to be consequences of such defection on the validity of marriage contracted outside the Church. These consequences were done away with by Pope Benedict but it is still possible to formally defect. And this must have consequences.

In a 2006 interpretation from the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts, the conditions for a successful formal defection are described in detail and may be read on its website. Of great relevance to our study is the following paragraph:

The substance of the act of the will must be the rupture of those bonds of communion – faith, sacraments, and pastoral governance – that permit the Faithful to receive the life of grace within the Church. This means that the formal act of defection must have more than a juridical-administrative character (the removal of one’s name from a Church membership registry maintained by the government in order to produce certain civil consequences), but be configured as a true separation from the constitutive elements of the life of the Church: it supposes, therefore, an act of apostasy, heresy or schism.

It is to be noted that the removal of one's name from a tax register simply to avoid paying the religious tax is explicitly mentioned as not being sufficient for formal defection from the Catholic faith. One must have the intention of rupturing one's communion with the Church by an act of apostasy, heresy or schism. This would surely have to be verified in each individual case.

What about the concept of notoriously or publicly abandoning the faith, (which is not the same as the formal act of defection mentioned above)? Notorious or public defection from the Catholic Church has consequences such as: being unqualified to vote in any canonical elections for ecclesiastical offices (Can. 171 #1,4); automatic removal from any ecclesiastical offices held (Can. 194 #1,2); becoming unqualified for reception into public associations of the faithful (Can. 316 #1); their marriage in the Catholic Church would need the permission of the local ordinary (Can. 1071 #1,4) and when marrying a Catholic their marriage is subject to certain conditions that apply to mixed marriages i.e. they are treated in some way as non-Catholics (Can. 1071 #2) while still remaining subject to ecclesiastical law (Can. 11).

All the Christian faithful are obliged to maintain communion with the Church. (Can. 209 #1) and to notoriously or publicly abandon the faith is, I would guess, a grave sin, and so one guilty of such an act would doubtless fall within the category of those in manifest grave sin referred to in Can. 915 as well as falling under Can. 916. So they could be refused communion. But is removing one's name from the religious tax register such a notorious and public act of defection?

One notes that the German bishops' document states that those who have removed their names from the register must get the permission of their bishop before marrying a Catholic in a church ceremony. They therefore do indeed seem to be classifying these people as notorious and public defectors from the faith. (See my reference to Can. 1071 two paragraphs up.)

Godparents/Sponsors

Among other things sponsors must

• have the aptitude and intention of fulling this function (in assisting an adult in Christian initiation or together with the parents an infant for baptism, and helping the baptized person to lead a Christian life and to fulfill faithfully the obligations inherent in baptism);
• be at least sixteen years old;
• be a Catholic who has been confirmed and has already received the Eucharist;
• be leading a life of faith in keeping with their function as sponsors;
• not be bound by any canonical penalty. (Cann. 872, 874)

Under these canons, it would have to be verified whether or not removal of one's name from the tax register constitutes a failure in living the life of faith in keeping with the function of sponsor. I cannot see that any of the other requirements are affected by this act.

Funerals

The Canons dealing with denial of funeral rites are as follows:

Can. 1184 #1 Unless they gave some signs of repentance before death, the following must be deprived of ecclesiastical funerals:
- 1 notorious apostates, heretics, and schismatics;
- 2 those who chose cremation of their bodes for reasons contrary to Christian faith;
- 3 other manifest sinners who cannot be granted ecclesiastical funerals without public scandal of the faithful.
#2 If any doubt occurs, the local ordinary is to be consulted, and his judgment followed.

Can. 1185 Any funeral Mass must also be denied a person who is excluded from ecclesiastical funerals.

Can a general statement be made of those who have removed themselves from the religious tax register that they are notorious apostates, heretics or schismatics, or manifest sinners? I would find this hard to accept. It must surely be determined on an individual and case by case basis.

But the bishops seem to be clear that these people do fall under one of the categories of Can. 1184 #1 for they state that

"If the person who left the Church shows no sign of repentance before death, a religious burial can be refused."

As I must stress, I have not seen the decree nor any other documentation concerning this matter. But it would seem to me that the burden of proof is with the ecclesiastical authorities to verify that one who has removed his/her name from the religious tax register has in fact notoriously abandoned the faith or formally defected from the Church or is by some other means in manifest grave sin.

I await with interest the comments of Dr. Edward Peters who is obviously studying the matter closely. The reported position of the German bishops is that

"This decree makes clear that one cannot partly leave the Church.It is not possible to separate the spiritual community of the Church from the institutional Church."

This is obviously a fair point, but I think a lot rests on the motives for the removal of one's name from the tax register. I think it would be difficult to uphold the requirement of being on a tax register for being considered a member of the "institutional Church". But I'm sure the bishops have good Canon Lawyers involved in this and that the Vatican has guided them. We shall have to wait and see. I find it perplexing and would agree with one commentator that it sends the wrong signal.

Vatican Nominations announced today

Announced today:

Cardinal George Pell, Archbishop of Sidney, has been nominated a Member of the Congregation for Bishops. So he will have a vote on the appointment of bishops.

And Dr Edward Peters, Professor of Canon Law in the "Edmund Cardinal Szoka Chair" at the Sacred Heart Seminary in Detroit, USA has been appointed an "expert" for the forthcoming 13th General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops. He also blogs at In the Light of the Law.

Pontifical Catholic University of Peru loses its pontifical and catholic status

From The Vatican Today:

The Holy See, by a decree of the Secretary of State, has decided to remove the right of the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru to use the words “Pontifical” and “Catholic” in its title.

The University, founded in 1917 and canonically erected by a decree of the Holy See in 1942, has amended its statutes several times since 1967 in a way which has severely injured the interests of the Church.

Since 1990, the University has repeatedly been urged by the Holy See to conform its statutes to the Apostolic Constitution Ex Corde Ecclesiae. It has not lived up to that legal duty. Following a canonical visitation in December 2011, and a meeting by the Secretary of State with the Rector in February 2012, another attempt was begun at dialogue in adapting the Statutes in accordance with Church law.

Recently, the Rector sent two letters to the Secretary of State, in which he expressed his inability to implement the requirements, conditioning the change of the statutes to the renunciation of the right of the archdiocese to participate in the administration of the University.

The participation of the Archdiocese of Lima in the administration of the University has been repeatedly confirmed by the judgments of civil courts in Peru.

Given the attitude of the University, together with other facts, the Holy See was obliged to adopt this measure, while reaffirming the duty of the University to submit to canonical legislation. The Holy See will continue to monitor the situation of the University, hoping that in the near future, the competent academic authorities will reconsider their position, in order to reverse this measure. The renewal requested by the Holy See will make the University more capable of responding to the task of bringing the message of Christ to man, society and culture, according to the mission of the Church in the world.

I wonder if other "Catholic" universities are in the firing line? It might be that the Holy See only intervenes the case of Pontifical universities. But this is still a timely implementation of Canon Law when there are other Catholic universities failing to uphold the Church's Magisterium.

The Stable Ministries of Lector and Acolyte

On a certain diocesan website (not the one from which the above photo is taken) reporting the conferral of the ministry of Reader upon some candidates for the permanent diaconate (congratulations to them), it was recently stated that "The conferral of this Ministry (of Reader) is one of the steps on the path to ordination."

Well, that's true of course, but this always brings to my mind an express wish of Pope Paul VI in his post-Conciliar reforms which has not been implemented in any region with which I am familiar.

The reforms are described in Pope Paul's Apostolic Letter Ministeria Quaedam "on first tonsure, minor orders, and the subdiaconate." The Pope abolishes the subdiaconate, (please leave aside any opinions concerning the more ancient usage known as the Extraordinary Form for the time being) subsuming it into the ministries of readers and acolyte. He also abolishes tonsure, and says that thenceforth there will not be reference to ordination but to institution. So there are no more "minor orders" but rather "ministries".

He promulgated the following norms to become effective January 1, 1973 (with some comments from me in parentheses):

1. First tonsure is no longer conferred; entrance into the clerical state is joined to the diaconate.
2. What up to now were called minor orders are henceforth to be called ministries.
3. Ministries may be assigned to lay Christians; hence they are no longer to be considered as reserved to candidates for the sacrament of orders. [In other words, they are to be stable.]
4. Two ministries, adapted to present-day needs, are to be preserved in the whole Latin Church, namely, those of reader and acolyte. The functions heretofore assigned to the subdeacon are entrusted to the reader and the acolyte; consequently, the major order of subdiaconate no longer exists in the Latin Church [of course, we know it does, in those institutes dedicated to the preservation of the older liturgy whose members are still ordained to the subdiaconate, and even when the extroardinary form of the Mass is celebrated in a more solemn form, priests or deacons or even lay people take on the role of subdeacon]. There is, however, no reason why the acolyte cannot be called a subdeacon in some places, at the discretion of the conference of bishops. [Interesting!]
5. The reader is appointed for a function proper to him, that of reading the word of God in the liturgical assembly. Accordingly, he is to proclaim the readings from sacred Scripture, except for the gospel in the Mass and other sacred celebrations; he is to recite the psalm between the readings when there is no psalmist; he is to present the intentions for the general intercessions in the absence of a deacon or cantor; he is to direct the singing and the participation by the faithful; he is to instruct the faithful for the worthy reception of the sacraments. He may also, insofar as may be necessary, take care of preparing other faithful who are appointed on a temporary basis [ah, so there can be temporary appointment to this ministry, but clearly there is to be a distinction between the stably instituted lector and the temporarily appointed person] to read the Scriptures in liturgical celebrations. That he may more fittingly and perfectly fulfill these functions, he is to meditate assiduously on sacred Scripture. Aware of the office he has undertaken, the reader is to make every effort and employ suitable means to acquire that increasingly warm and living love [7] and knowledge of Scripture that will make him a more perfect disciple of the Lord.
6. The acolyte is appointed in order to aid the deacon and to minister to the priest. It is his duty therefore to attend to the service of the altar and to assist the deacon and the priest in liturgical celebrations, especially in the celebration of Mass; he is also to distribute communion as a special minister when the ministers spoken of in the Codex Iuris Canonici can. 845 are not available or are prevented by ill health, age, or another pastoral ministry from performing this function, or when the number of communicants is so great that the celebration of Mass would be unduly prolonged. In the same extraordinary circumstances an acolyte may be entrusted with publicly exposing the blessed sacrament for adoration by the faithful and afterward replacing it, but not with blessing the people. He may also, to the extent needed, take care of instructing other faithful who on a temporary basis are appointed to assist the priest or deacon in liturgical celebrations by carrying the missal, cross, candles, etc., or by performing other such duties. He will perform these functions more worthily if he participates in the holy eucharist with increasingly fervent devotion, receives nourishment from it, and deepens his knowledge about it. As one set aside in a special way [pretty strong - one set aside in a special way!] for the service of the altar, the acolyte should learn all matters concerning public divine worship and strive to grasp their inner spiritual meaning: in that way he will be able each day to offer himself entirely to God, be an example to all by his gravity and reverence in church, and have a sincere love for the Mystical Body of Christ, the people of God, especially for the weak and the sick.
7. In accordance with the ancient tradition of the Church, institution to the ministries of reader and acolyte is reserved to men. [Aha! Let me repeat: "In accordance with the ancient tradition of the Church, institution to the ministries of reader and acolyte is reserved to men." Could this be the reason why hardly any episcopal conferences have, in fact, established these stable ministries among lay people and still only confer these ministries upon candidates for ordination, ignoring Pope Paul's intentions as stated in (3) above?]
8. The following are requirements for admission to the ministries:
   1. the presentation of a petition that has been freely made out and signed by the aspirant to the Ordinary (the bishop and, in clerical institutes, the major superior) who has the right to accept the petition;
   2. a suitable age and special qualities to be determined by the conference of bishops;
   3. a firm will to give faithful service to God and the Christian people.
9. The ministries are conferred by the Ordinary (the bishop and, in clerical institutes, the major superior) through the liturgical rite De institutione lectoris and De institutione acolythi as revised by the Apostolic See.
10. An interval, determined by the Holy See or the conferences of bishops, shall be observed between the conferring of the ministries of reader and acolyte whenever more than one ministry is conferred on the same person. [Should one precede the other? Logically, and following the tradition, the ministry of acolyte would be considered a "higher" ministry and so one would receive the ministry of reader before that of acolyte, and this is, of course, the order followed for those who are candidates for ordination.]
11. Unless they have already done so, candidates for ordination as deacons and priests are to receive the ministries of reader and acolyte and are to exercise them for a suitable time, in order to be better disposed for the future service of the word and of the altar. Dispensation from receiving these ministries on the part of such candidates is reserved to the Holy See.
12. The conferring of ministries does not bring with it the right to support or remuneration from the Church.
13. The rite of institution of readers and acolytes will soon be published by the competent department of the Roman Curia.

In the Novus Ordo Church which the vast majority of us inhabit, I think our sense of order in the liturgy would be vastly improved if suitable men were chosen to be stably instituted as lectors and, later, acolytes. What about the women? They could still be temporarily appointed to fulfill the function of a reader on  occasion, or even of an acolyte. But I would consider this to be an extraordinary circumstance.

Now, anyone from my parish who reads this needn't get themselves up in arms - I am not about to exclude all the women who have been entrusted with these roles from doing them in the future. I do, however, think it is only right that we know clearly what the intentions of the post-Conciliar reform were. After all, Pope Benedict has asked that in the Year of Faith we study again the documents of the Second Vatican Council. I think everyone knows of my concern at the fact that the majority of our Readers and Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion are women. If the need for more readers and EMHC's to replace any who step down arises, I'll be looking for men to step up first to at least redress the balance of male performance of these roles.

But what if conferences of bishops enacted Canon 230 of the Code of Canon Law? Of course there is no obligation upon them to do so, but Pope Paul was pretty clear about his intentions as also about his view about the ancient tradition of the Church.

Can. 230 §1. Lay men who possess the age and qualifications established by decree of the conference of bishops can be admitted on a stable basis through the prescribed liturgical rite to the ministries of lector and acolyte. Nevertheless, the conferral of these ministries does not grant them the right to obtain support or remuneration from the Church.

§2. Lay persons can fulfill the function of lector in liturgical actions by temporary designation. All lay persons can also perform the functions of commentator or cantor, or other functions, according to the norm of law.

§3. When the need of the Church warrants it and ministers are lacking, lay persons, even if they are not lectors or acolytes, can also supply certain of their duties, namely, to exercise the ministry of the word, to preside offer liturgical prayers, to confer baptism, and to distribute Holy Communion, according to the prescripts of the law.

Archdiocese of Washington rebukes Georgetown - but when will bishops publicly bar dissenting Catholic politicians from Holy Communion?

John DiGioia - Georgetwon University President

 As the National Catholic Register reports, the president of Georgetown University has sought to defend the invitation to Kathleen Sebelius to speak at a graduation event. But the Archdiocese of Washington has issued the following reaction:

"The Archdiocese of Washington reserved public comment to permit Georgetown University and its sponsor, the Society of Jesus, the opportunity to address the controversy.  While the explanation of how this unfortunate decision was made is appreciated, it does not address the real issue for concern – the selection of a featured speaker whose actions as a public official present the most direct challenge to religious liberty in recent history and the apparent lack of unity with and disregard for the bishops and so many others across the nation who are committed to the defense of freedom of religion."

What we really need is for the Cardinal Archbishop of Washington and other bishops to publicly declare that Catholic politicians who publicly dissent from Church teaching and promote policies that are contrary to the Church's teachings on faith and morals are not to be admitted to Holy Communion in their dioceses. They may do this invoking Canon 915 of the Code of Canon Law:

Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion.

 They should further name those politicians who obviously fall into that category. Since they are all at least some of the time present in the archdiocese of Washington, Cardinal Wuerl would appear to have the potential for great leadership in this matter. People such as Sebelius, Pelosi, Biden... all Catholics close to the President and fully supportive of his attacks on religious liberty, the sanctify of life, the instituation of marriage...

Austrian Priest resigns after Cardinal Schonborn overrules him on homosexual parish council member

LifeSiteNews reports the resignation of Father Gerhard Swierzek, the pastor of a parish in the Archdiocese of Vienna, who refused to allow an active homosexual, Florian Stangl, who is living in a legal registered partnership with another man, to sit on the parish council in the town of Stützenhofen. Stangl had received 96 out of 142 votes in the parish council elections.

Eminent canonist and blogger Dr Ed Peters wrote about the affair a little while ago in Sorting out the latest from Vienna.

Here's a little summary of the Canon Law on Parish Pastoral Councils.

Can. 536 §1. If the diocesan bishop judges it opportune after he has heard the presbyteral council, a pastoral council is to be established in each parish, over which the pastor presides and in which the Christian faithful, together with those who share in pastoral care by virtue of their office in the parish, assist in fostering pastoral activity.
               §2. A pastoral council possesses a consultative vote only and is governed by the norms established by the diocesan bishop.

That's all the Code of Canon Law says.

Some points to note.

1. Parish Pastoral Councils are not mandated by the Code but need only be established if the diocesan bishop judges it opportune.
2. The Pastor presides over the Council. He is in charge. This is not something that anyone - even the bishop - can change. No meetings can be held, no decisions taken, without the presence and approval of the Pastor.
3. The role of the members of the Council is to foster pastoral activity. In other words, they are to facilitate the work of shepherding the souls in the parish which is the exclusive and proper role of the Pastor. If they are not assisting him, they are not effective members of the Pastoral Council.
4. The Pastoral Council makes no decisions. It advises - that's what is meant by possesing a consultative vote. The Pastor consults the members, they make their advice known to the Pastor, even by voting on a subject, and then the Pastor prays about it and accepts or rejects the advice. If the members are faithful Catholics with a clear love for God and the Church, their advice should be taken very seriously.
5. But here is the difficult part: the Pastoral Council is governed by the norms establish by the diocesan bishop. "Norms" implies law. How binding are these norms? Obviously, they cannot contradict the universal law of the Church, but can the diocesan bishop mandate the establishment of parish pastoral councils? Can he establish norms concerning appointment, election, etc? Can the bishop confer membership of a parish pastoral council on any of the faithful? Can the bishop overrule a pastor who decides that a particular person is unsuitable for membership of a parish council? I very much doubt it.
6. Accodring to Dr Peters, membership of a Pastoral Council constitutes the holding of an Ecclesiastical Office (see Title IX of Book I of the Code of Canon Law). To hold ecclesiastical office one must be in communion with the Church as well as "suitable". Being in a sinful state does not, of itself, rupture communion with the Church, but it might well make one unsuitable if this state is publicly known.

One way to make a pastoral council ineffective is for the pastor not to attend. The council has no authority and without the pastor presiding it is rendered ineffective.

I am writing from a position of ignorance concerning the facts of this particular case but with my own experience of parish pastoral councils which has been altogether positive. I have never held elections and always appointed members. I have also asked members whom I did not consider helpful in fostering my pastoral work to stand down.

I hope Fr Swierzek had/has a good canon lawyer to advise him. On the basis of the very little known to me about this case, given that the Cardinal Archbishop had overruled his decision, I would probably advise him to simply insist that Stangl's election to the pastoral council had not been ratified by him. Since he as Pastor presides over the Council, Stangl could not therefore be considered as having been appointed as a member. The ball would then be in the Cardinal's court to either insist on Stangl's appointment or to accept the Pastor's decision. If the Cardinal were to take action against the pastor, there would be options available, from throwing in the towel (one doesn't want to spend one's priestly life fighting battles and one would hesitate before entering into a conflict with one's Cardinal Archbishop) and resigning, to having recourse against any decisions made by the Cardinal.

As Dr Peters rightly says, Pastoral Councils are new in the Church and so it will take some time to develop the law in this area.

In the meantime, I am praying for Fr Swierzek and for the Church in Austria which is in dire need of prayers. (See Pope Benedict's Chrism Mass homily in which he explicitly refers to rebellious priests in Austria.) None of us likes battles and it could be that Fr Swierzek just doesn't want to fight this one. He may have found the parish to be ungovernable.

Nancy Pelosi deserves to be deprived of Holy Communion

Eminent canonist Dr Ed. Peters writes:

As a canon lawyer, my view is that Nancy Pelosi deserves to be deprived of holy Communion as the just consequence of her public actions; as her fellow Catholic, my view is that Nancy Pelosi deserves to be deprived of holy Communion to bring home to her and to the wider faith community the gravity of her conduct and the need to avoid such conduct altogether or, that failing, at least to repent of it. Quickly.

See his coherent explanation at his In the Light of the Law blog.

The resignation of Bishop Gavino Zabala

Bishop Zavala (CNS/Bob Roller)

The resignation of this auxiliary bishop of Los Angeles was covered in its customary two line announcement by the Vatican News Service yesterday:

Il Santo Padre ha accettato la rinuncia all’ufficio di Ausiliare dell’arcidiocesi di Los Angeles (U.S.A.), presentata da S.E. Mons. Gabino Zavala, Vescovo tit. di Tamascani, in conformità ai canoni 411 e 401 §2 del Codice di Diritto Canonico.

 Which, translated, says:

The Holy Father has accepted the resignation from the office of Auxiliary for the archdiocese of Los Angeles (USA), presented by His Excellency Msgr Gabino Zavala, titular Bishop of Tamascani, in conformity with Canons 411 and 401 §2 of the Code of Canon Law.

The mention of Canon 401 §2 means that the resignation is submitted for reasons other than reaching the age limit of 75:

A ... bishop who has become less able to fulfill his office because of ill health or some other grave cause is earnestly requested to present his resignation from office.

The very sad reasons constituting the very grave cause for Bishop Zavala's resignation have been disclosed by LA's Archbishop Jose H Gomez.

Before reading the CNS news service, you might find it helpful to refer to Canon Lawyer Dr Ed Peters' notes on the matter: Why Bp. Zavala’s situation is irrelevant to the debate on clerical celibacy.

It is always a shame to hear of any cleric, let alone a bishop, failing to live up to his commitment to chastity. Whilst one prays for the sinner, one wonders why someone in such a high position cannot see that some "pecados" are far from "pecadillos" and that they should either resign immediately (the Canon quoted above says a bishop in this situation "is earnestly requested to present his resignation") or, if they have been guilty of such infidelities in their earlier priestly life, not accept promotion to the episcopate. For, in the end, the Church's image (in terms of being the Bride of Christ) and all her members suffer.

The Abbey Roads blog doesn't fail to point out Bishop Zavala's discontent with the orthodox blogosphere.

Anyway, with that thought, here's the CNS item:

Bishop Zavala resigns after disclosing he is father of two children


By John Thavis
Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Los Angeles Auxiliary Bishop Gabino Zavala has resigned after disclosing to superiors that he is the father of two children.

The Vatican announced the bishop's resignation Jan. 4 in a one-line statement that cited church law on resignation for illness or other serious reasons.

Los Angeles Archbishop Jose H. Gomez announced the "sad and difficult" news in a letter to Catholics in the archdiocese. He said Bishop Zavala, who was auxiliary bishop for the San Gabriel pastoral region, had informed him in early December that he is the father of two minor teenage children who live with their mother in another state.

Archbishop Gomez announced early Jan. 4 that Msgr. James Loughnane, a native of Ireland, was appointed episcopal vicar for the pastoral region.

Bishop Zavala told Archbishop Gomez that he had submitted his resignation to Pope Benedict XVI. Since that time, Bishop Zavala has not been in ministry and "will be living privately," Archbishop Gomez said.

"The archdiocese has reached out to the mother and children to provide spiritual care as well as funding to assist the children with college costs. The family's identity is not known to the public, and I wish to respect their right to privacy," Archbishop Gomez said. He asked prayers for all those affected by the situation.

Bishop Zavala's resignation leaves a vacancy in the chairman's position of the U.S. bishops' Committee on Communications. Mercy Sister Mary Ann Walsh, director of media relations for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, had no immediate announcement about who would assume the chairmanship.

"There won't be anything here for a day or two," she said.

Tod Tamberg, Los Angeles archdiocesan spokesman, said the archdiocese had received questions about the possible usage of archdiocesan funds by the bishop to support his children and their mother. He said a financial audit of the San Gabriel pastoral region budget found everything in order.

"There's been no indication of mismanagement or misuses of archdiocesan funds," Tamberg told Catholic News Service.

"This is unexpected, sad and disorienting news for many who know and like him," he said.

Bishop Zavala has been a long-time social justice advocate. He became the bishop-president of Pax Christi USA, the American arm of Pax Christi International, in 2003.

In a letter to members posted on its website Jan. 5, Pax Christi USA said a search had been under way for a new bishop-president prior to the announcement from Los Angeles because Bishop Zavala had served three three-year terms.

"We are grateful for his past leadership and for his longtime witness to peace and justice as a member of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Bishop Zavala consistently brought the power of the Gospel to bear on issues like immigration, worker rights, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and nuclear disarmament," wrote Sister Josie Chrosniak, who chairs the national council and is a member of the Sisters of the Humility of Mary, and Sister Patty Chappell, executive director and a member of the Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur.

The organization also offered prayers that the privacy of Bishop Zavala and his family would be respected.

Throughout his tenure in Los Angeles, Bishop Zavala has spoken on behalf of working-class Americans, immigrant rights, ending the death penalty and reforming the criminal justice and prison systems. He also co-chaired Encuentro 2000, the U.S. bishops' jubilee year gathering to celebrate and better understand the ethnic diversity of the U.S. church.

Born in Guerrero, Mexico, Bishop Zavala grew up in Los Angeles. He was ordained in 1977 and was named a bishop in 1994.

- - -

Contributing to this story was Dennis Sadowski in Washington.

- - -

Editor's Note: The full text of Archbishop Gomez's letter can be read at http://cnsblog.wordpress.com/2012/01/04/bishop-zavala-resigns-after-disclosing-he-is-father-of-two-children/.

END

Father Frank Pavone, Priests for Life and Bishop Zurek of Amarillo

OK, I will post after all, but not in such detail as the post I deleted. Apparently my original post is out there in the ether thanks to Google Reader etc.

To know what I think, just go to Dr Edward Peters' blog In the Light of the Law. He makes all the pertinent canonical comments with which I agree wholeheartedly.

Another lay person has commented on this matter too. See Diane at Te Deum Laudamus: Fr. Frank Pavone has ministry restricted to Diocese of Amarillo and Disappointment with Fr. Pavone.

Excellent series on Tradition and the Missals of Pius V and Paul VI

John Hunwicke (Fr Hunwicke's Liturgical Notes), a former anglican clergyman now hoping for ordination as a priest in the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham and a liturgical scholar has written a great series of posts on "Ratzinger and Liturgical Law." He explainst that the Pope is the servant of Tradition, that a form of Liturgy that has had centuries of usage simply cannot be abrogated by the Pope, and so he explains how Pope Benedict XVI was able to say that the Missal of Pius V (as modified by Pope John XXIII in 1962) was not abrogated by Pope Paul VI.

Even if you are not a liturgical scholar yourself, I urge you to read carefully these excellent articles (and don't worry about the Latin):

Ratzinger on Liturgical Law (1)
Ratzinger on Liturgical Law (2)
Ratzinger on Liturgical Law (3)
Ratzinger on Liturgical Law (4)
Ratzinger on Liturgical Law (5)

And do keep John in your prayers.

Friday Penance and the English & Welsh bishops: in reparation for the sins agains life, and other questions.

With effect from September 16th the law of abstaining from meat on Fridays becomes binding upon all Catholics in England and Wales. In particular the bishops have suggested that English and Welsh Catholics offer their penance in reparation for sins against life.

The Bishops Conference of England and Wales has issued a very helpful Question and Answer format information leaflet.

Here are some of the Questions and Answers:

Q3. Why are we obliged to practice penitence on Fridays?
From the earliest centuries of the Church’s history, Friday was dedicated to the memory of the suffering and death of the Lord Jesus Christ, as a day on which we should make a special effort to practice penitence. The seasons and days of penitence in the course of the Liturgical year (Lent, and each Friday) are therefore intense moments of the Church’s penitential practice.

For this reason, the Code of Canon Law of the Catholic Church specifies the obligations of Latin Rite Catholics: “All Fridays through the year and the time of Lent are penitential days and times throughout the entire Church.” (Canon 1250)

Q5. Eating meat is not that important to me and therefore not much of a penance or sacrifice on my part. What then is the value of my abstaining from meat on a Friday?
For some people abstinence from meat will not necessarily be much of a ‘personal’ penance or sacrifice. Indeed, many people do not eat meat. Giving up going out with friends on a Friday night, for example, would be for some much more of a penance or personal sacrifice. However, to say that we do not eat meat or we dislike meat, or that we ‘prefer fish’, is to miss the point!

What the Bishops are asking us to do, first and foremost, is to make abstaining from meat a common act of penitence; a common witness and sacrifice. This act unites us and reminds us of our personal duty, each Friday, to sacrifice something which is precious to us out of love for Almighty God and out of love for others. Moreover, it is not just as an individual act of witness that we are asked to undertake Friday penance but as a weekly prophetic witness of the whole Catholic community. It witnesses that being a Catholic requires us, as a community, through our prayer, abstaining and almsgiving/works of charity, to stand alongside those who are in need.

If abstaining from meat is not really a sacrifice for us then we should consider doing something in addition to abstaining from meat. This will keep us united in this common sign of witness and enable us to make our act of penitence a real personal sacrifice and help us to stand in solidarity with those in real need.

Q7. What should I do if I am invited out for a meal on a Friday?
If our friends and colleagues value us they will not be offended or upset if we tell them, ahead of time, that we do not eat meat on Fridays. Our choice to observe abstaining from meat in this social setting does permit us though to witness ‐ in an indirect way ‐ that our Catholic faith is important, that we are not ashamed of it. It may also provide us with an opportunity, particularly if we are asked, to explain to our friends and colleagues what the significance of our faith is for us and our lives.

Q8. Why is prayer important to our Friday penance?
Next to Sunday, the Lord’s Day, Friday has always been a special day in the Catholic Church for prayer. On a Sunday our prayer is in thanksgiving to God for the new and eternal life brought to us by Christ’s resurrection from the dead. On a Friday our prayer is in thanksgiving for the gift of the mortal life that we have been given; a life which Christ willingly sacrificed on the cross for our sake. A fitting prayer then, as part of our Friday penance, would be to ask Almighty God to turn away all threats to mortal life.

The act of abstinence itself can be offered consciously as a prayer for life and in reparation for sins against life.

Friday has always remained a day of penance, the observance of which binds gravely. As Pope Paul VI wrote in his Apostolic Constitution Paenitemini in 1966:

The time of Lent preserves its penitential character. The days of penitence to be observed under obligation throughout the Church are all Fridays and Ash Wednesday, that is to say the first days of "Grande Quaresima" (Great Lent), according to the diversity of the rites. Their substantial observance binds gravely.

The Code of Canon Law allows the bishops of each episcopal conference to determine the manner of the observance of Friday penance:

Can. 1250 The penitential days and times in the universal Church are every Friday of the whole year and the season of Lent.

Can. 1251 Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.

Can. 1252 The law of abstinence binds those who have completed their fourteenth year. The law of fasting binds those who have attained their majority, until the beginning of their sixtieth year. Pastors of souls and parents are to ensure that even those who by reason of their age are not bound by the law of fasting and abstinence, are taught the true meaning of penance.

Can. 1253 The conference of bishops can determine more precisely the observance of fast and abstinence as well as substitute other forms of penance, especially works of charity and exercises of piety, in whole or in part, for abstinence and fast.

So, is it a sin not to abstain from meat on a Friday in England and Wales?

The obligation to do penance every Friday (except on Solemnities) is binding, and Pope Paul VI said that the "substantial observance" binds gravely. This is in accord with traditional moral theology. Although the obligation may be binding, there are degrees of failure to observe the obligation. To fail to observe it in its substance, i.e. to deliberately omit the penitential practice enjoined upon us without good reason is grave matter, what we traditionally call "mortal sin". To omit it for good reason, e.g. poor health, doctor's orders, there is simply no other food available, or if we have been dispensed from its practice, is not a sin. To omit it out of carelessness, or because we didn't have the courage of our convictions to give the required witness before our friends, might be a venial or a mortal sin according to the circumstances. But it is a sin.

The above applies simply to the practice of Friday penance. Now that the Bishops of England and Wales have stated that this penance is to be observed by abstaining from meat, it would seem to me that to deliberately omit the observance of this penance would be sinful.

According to an authoritative statement form the Sacred Congregation of the Council in 1967 (see footnote 20 of this article),

this grave obligation does not refer to the individual days of penance, but to “the whole complexus of penitential days to be observed . . . that is, one sins gravely against the law, who, without an excusable cause, omits a notable part, quantitative or qualitative, of the penitential observance which is prescribed as a whole (February 24, 1967; reprinted in Canon Law Digest, vol. 6, pp. 684–85).

So, if one simply ignores the laws on penance, one is committing a grave sin. If one, through negligence or without some excusable cause eats meat on a given Friday, one would not be guilty of grave sin, but it would still be a sin.

As my learned friend Father Dylan James points out, the advice issued by Father Marcus Stock, General Secretary of the Bishops Conference of England and Wales, comes to a different conclusion in stating that

"The failure to abstain from meat on a particular Friday would not constitute a sin."

I would agree with Father James that, while failure to abstain on a particular Friday might not constitute a mortal or grave sin, it would still be a sin, the gravity of which would depend on the circumstances.

However, one should not be unnecessarily caught up with whether it is a sin or not to fail to abstain from meat on a Friday but rather embrace with gratitude this directive from the Engish and Welsh bishops that all Catholics in England and Wales be united in this common act of penitence and to joyfully - but penitentially - bear witness to this in our families and amongst our social contacts. As the bishops point out, no one should be offended if we respectfully point out to friends who might invite us out for a meal on a Friday that we do not eat meat on Friday.

I notice here in the US (at least in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan) that many restuarants advertise Friday fish menus.

But what about the discipline to be observed by Catholics in the USA?

In a 1983 pastoral letter, they wrote (my emphases added):

As a tangible sign of our need and desire to do penance we, for the cause of peace, commit ourselves to fast and abstinence on each Friday of the year. We call upon our people voluntarily to do penance on Friday by eating less food and by abstaining from meat. This return to a traditional practice of penance, once well observed in the U.S. Church, should be accompanied by works of charity and service toward our neighbors. Every Friday should be a day significantly devoted to prayer, penance, and almsgiving for peace.

But they did

warn those who decide to keep the Friday abstinence for reasons of personal piety and special love that they must not pass judgment on those who elect to substitute other penitential observances.

Above quotations taken from previously referred to article.
Presumably those who do elect to observe the traditional practice can expect a similar non-judgemental and respectful attitude from those who do not.

Cremation - not in keeping with the Christian vision of the goodness of matter

The Church permits cremation. The Catechism states tersely:

The Church permits cremation, provided that it does not demonstrate a denial of faith in the resurrection of the body. (n. 2301)

The above quotation is footnoted with a reference to Canon 1176 #3 which states:

The Church earnestly recommends that the pious custom of burying the bodies of the deceased be observed; nevertheless, the Church does not prohibit cremation unless it was chosen for reasons contrary to Christian doctrine.

Given this grudging permission ("does not prohibit") how is it that cremation has become so common amongst Catholics? It has always seemed to me unworthy of the dignity of the body of a baptised person - being a Temple of God - to consign it to the flames of a cremator. As Christ himself descended into the tomb after His death in anticipation of His Resurrection, so burial is a more perfect imitation of Christ the Lord as our bodies rest in the tomb awaiting the resurrection of the dead at the Last Day.

I have just finished reading John Henry Newman's "Development of Christian Doctrine". He quotes an early witness of the Christians who testifies that "They execrate the funeral-pile." That is to say: they do not burn the bodies of their deceased but rather bury them piously. Pagans, on the other hand, "hold corpses and sepulchres in aversion." For pagans, because matter, and therefore the human body, is essentially bad, it can be burned. Yet for Christians, the body is a holy thing having been united to the Divine Person of the Son of God.

And of course Catholic venerate the relics of the saints, their very bodies.

Here is the relevant section of Newman's work about this matter which you can read in its full context here:

"Perish the thought," says Manes, "that our Lord Jesus Christ should have descended through the womb of a woman." "He descended," says Marcion, "but without touching her or taking aught from her." "Through her, not of her," said another. "It is absurd to assert," says a disciple of Bardesanes, "that this flesh in which we are imprisoned shall rise again, for it is well called a burden, a tomb, and a chain." "They execrate the funeral-pile," says Cæcilius, speaking of Christians, "as if bodies, though withdrawn from the flames, did not all resolve into dust by years, whether beasts tear, or sea swallows, or earth covers, or flame wastes." According to the old Paganism, both the educated and vulgar held corpses and sepulchres in aversion. They quickly rid themselves of the remains even of their friends, thinking their presence a pollution, and felt the same terror even of burying-places which assails the ignorant and superstitious now. It is recorded of Hannibal that, on his return to the African coast from Italy, he changed his landing-place to avoid a ruined sepulchre. "May the god who passes between heaven and hell," says Apuleius in his Apology, "present to thy eyes, O Emilian, all that haunts the night, all that alarms in burying-places, all that terrifies in tombs." George of Cappadocia could not direct a more bitter taunt against the Alexandrian Pagans than to call the temple of Serapis a sepulchre. The case had been the same even among the Jews; the Rabbins taught, that even the corpses of holy men "did but serve to diffuse infection and defilement." "When deaths were Judaical," says the writer who goes under the name of St. Basil, "corpses were an abomination; when death is for Christ, the relics of Saints are precious. It was anciently said to the Priests and the Nazarites, 'If any one shall touch a corpse, he shall be unclean till evening, and he shall wash his garment;' now, on the contrary, if any one shall touch a Martyr's bones, by reason of the grace dwelling in the body, he receives some participation of his sanctity." Nay, Christianity taught a reverence for the bodies even of heathen. The care of the dead is one of the praises which, as we have seen above, is extorted in their favour from the Emperor Julian; and it was exemplified during the mortality which spread through the Roman world in the time of St. Cyprian. "They did good," says Pontius of the Christians of Carthage, "in the profusion of exuberant works to all, and not only to the household of faith. They did somewhat more than is recorded of the incomparable benevolence of Tobias. The slain of the king and the outcasts, whom Tobias gathered together, were of his own kin only."

Canon Law Conference for Canon Lawyers and Civil Attorneys

From left to right: yours truly; Father Ronald Browne (a priest of the archdioese of Detroit currently Moderator of the Curia of the diocese of Marquette, Canon Law classmate - along with me - of Bishop Alexander Sample, bishop of Marquette, at the Angelicum, Rome); His Eminence Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke (Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, founder of the Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe, La Crosse, Wisconsin); Father Benedetto Paris (Chancellor of the Diocese of Marquette)

Another excellent Canon Law Conference, hosted by Cardinal Burke, prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, has concluded at the Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe, La Crosse, Wisconsin.

Maybe I'll get to write something about it, but for the moment just a photo of the Marquette contingent with His Eminence Cardinal Burke before a painting of Bishop Baraga, first bishop of Marquette, which is to be found in the downstairs of narthex of the shrine church. Cardinal Burke has a great devotion to Bishop Baraga whose cause of beatficiation is underway in Rome, currently awaiting approval of an alleged miracle.

This was only the second annual conference and there was a clear consensus that another should take place next year.

The conference was notable for its scholarly presentations from His Eminence Cardinal Burke, Dr Edward Peters (Professor of Canon Law at Sacred Heart Major Seminary, Detroit), Father John Coughlan OFM (Professor of Law and Concurrent Professor of Theology at the University of Notre Dame) and Dr Charles E. Rice (Professor Emeritus of Law at the University of Notre Dame Law School), and also for the profound sense of love for the Church. It was a wonderful occasion to experience a true communio amongst clergy, religious and laity, all desirous of furthering the project of ensuring that the Church is truly a speculum iustitiae (mirror of justice).

See posts about last year's conference here.

Irish proposal to legislate against the seal of confession will be rejected by the Church

Not The Irish Parliament or Dail (see combox)

No State authority can mandate the breaking of the seal, no matter what the subject of the confession. As the following CNS report concludes, if the Irish State legislates for a possible 5-year imprisonment sentence for a priest who does not communicate the confession of child abuse to the State authorities, what abuser will go to confession? And the possibility that someone with this on his/her conscience taking that first step in confessing his/her sin will be shut off.

Furthermore, priests are very likely going to be subjected to false confessions, perhaps by journalists of the News of the World type or private investigators, to see how they might react when someone confesses child abuse.

The Irish State should stay out of this. The confessional is not the problem.

I would however add the following suggestion, which may or may not be fair: had the bishops of Ireland observed canonical norms and recognised a crime for what it was, a crime, and dealt with the individuals against whom allegations were made by conducting the required investigations, and acquitting where the priest or other person is found innocent, and punishing those found guilty, the Church (in Ireland) would not have lost its respect. As it is, the justice system of the Church (Canon Law) is perceived to be no better than that of a banana republic (a correspondent of mine might recognise this as his description, which I protested against). Cardinal Burke has spoken many times on the anti-canon law attitudes of bishops and other ecclesiastics over the past few decades. The Church and her members, particular the bishops, must show the utmost respect for Canon Law and ensure its observance for the sake of the salvation of souls.

Irish priests reject suggestion that they break seal of confession

By Michael Kelly
Catholic News Service

DUBLIN (CNS) -- The group that represents Ireland's Catholic priests says the secrecy of confession must be protected, despite government indications that confessions would not be exempt from rules on mandatory reporting of child abuse.

"The point is, if there is a law in the land, it has to be followed by everybody. There are no exceptions, there are no exemptions," said Irish Children's Minister Frances Fitzgerald.

Father P.J. Madden, spokesman for the Association of Catholic Priests, insisted that the sacramental seal of confession is "above and beyond all else" and should not be broken even if a penitent confesses to a crime.

Father Madden said he would strongly urge and appeal to the penitent -- whether a priest or anyone else -- to confess a crime to the police and have the civil aspect dealt with, but that he did not approve of the idea of reporting what was said.

"If I'm breaking the law then somebody has to find a way to address that for me ... but in my own right as a priest what I understand is the seal of confession is above and beyond all else," he said.

"The seal of confession is a very sacred seal for lots of different reasons way beyond this one single issue, however serious this one single issue is," Father Madden insisted.

The Irish government said it would introduce legislation that makes it mandatory for priests to reveal details of child abuse, even if they become known in the confessional. The offense is punishable with up to five years in prison.

The announcement came after a judicial commission investigating the Diocese of Cloyne revealed July 13 that allegations of abuse were being mishandled and withheld from the police as recently as 2008.

Irish Prime Minister Enda Kenny said July 14 that canon law would not be allowed to supersede state law.

Fitzgerald said the government was not concerned about "the rules governing any body."

"This is about the law of the land. It's about child protection. Are we saying ... if a child is at risk of child sexual abuse that should not be reported? We cannot say that. The law of the land is clear and unambiguous," she said.

Bishop John McAreavey of Dromore told Catholic News Service that the bishops would await the publication of the legislation before assessing it. However, he said, he felt it was "unreal to suggest that the seal of confession has prevented the reporting of the abuse of children."

The new legislation is not expected to be published this fall, and sources close to the Irish bishops' conference expected that a heavy lobbying campaign will get under way to ensure that a suitable exemption is considered.

David Quinn, director of the think-tank the Iona Institute, called the proposal "unprecedented."

"This would make us the one and only country in the Western world to have such a law. Even revolutionary France in the days of its worst violence against the church did not pass a law requiring the breaking of the seal of confession," Quinn told Catholic News Service.

He said the government "is clearly missing something that every other government can see, which is that, at a minimum, such a law is very unlikely to lead to a single conviction and, at a maximum, will be counterproductive and will make society less safe, rather than more safe."

"No child abuser will go to a priest in confession knowing the priest is required to inform the police. But cutting off the avenue of confession to a child abuser makes it less likely that he will talk to someone who can persuade him to take the next step," he added.

END

Bad advice from a priest in confession could be a canonical crime subject to penalties

Dr Edward Peters, Edmund Cardinal Szoka Professor of Canon Law at Sacred Heart Major Seminary, Detroit, Referendary of the Apostolic Signatura and author of In the Light of the Law suggests that the crime of solicitation could be more widespread in the Church than might be supposed. His study of Canon 1387 can be read in the current issue of the Homiletic and Pastoral Review. (If you are reading this some time after the current issue is no longer current, you may need to click the Older Articles link.)

Canon 1387 states:

A priest who in the act, on the occasion, or under the pretext of confession solicits a penitent to sin against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue is to be punished, according to the gravity of the delict, by suspension, prohibitions, and privations; in graver cases he is to be dismissed from the clerical state.

This canon includes not only the solicitation of a female to commit a sexual act with the confessor himself, but involves any sin against the sixth commandment, whether it be a sin committed together by confessor and penitent (regardless of sex or age), or by the penitent with another, or by the penitent alone.

Dr Peters quotes some Canonical authors:

Solicitation exists if the confessor sinfully suggests that the person commit impure acts alone or with others, for example, counsels the use of contraceptives. (Patrick Lydon, Ready Answers in Canon Law (1937), 483)

Indeed, the delict is committed even by wrong advice as to the sinfulness of evil thoughts. (Abbo-Hannan, Sacred Canons (1960) II: 30)

Peters contends:

There seems to be no doubt that a confessor’s advice toward immoral activity in sexual matters, whether it concerns acts to be performed by the penitent alone [e.g. self-abuse or the use of pornography - my addition], with a third party, or with the confessor himself, constitutes solicitation in confession and hence is a very serious crime under modern canon law.

Peters then studies the canonical procedures to be followed in the prosecution of a case of an alleged crime of solicitation. Most canonical crimes are adjudicated at diocesan level. Only a small number of crimes are reserved to the Holy See in the light of their particular gravity. Only if the confessor has solicited a penitent to sin against the sixth commandment with himself is it reserved to the Apostolic See in accordance with norms issued in 2001. This is not to belittle other crimes but to acknowledge the dignity of local Churches as having within themselves in the person of the Bishop full judicial power over that Church. The reservation to the Holy See occurs, among other reasons, because of the wider consequences of a particular crime for the Universal Church or because of the particular expertise/resources that may be needed which a local Church may not possess.

As a confessor, I find this article very helpful in affirming in me the importance of being very clear with penitents. The penitent must never be allowed to think that the confessor has said "contraception is alright" or that "it's up to your conscience", or that illicit relationship (e.g. an irregular "marital" union) can be tolerated and expressed sexually. This would be to solicit the penitent in a sin against the sixth commandment. I don't want to be anywhere near that position.

I have, regrettably, come across Catholics who have responded to my teaching against contraception or homosexual relations or illicit unions by saying that another priest, whether during or outside Confession, has left them with the impression that it was alright. I am sure I am not alone.

The existence of penalties in the Church serves a number of purposes. One is to punish after a crime has been committed. Another is to warn anyone who might be tempted that there are consequences in committing a crime. The weak need these warnings. A further purpose is to affirm the true doctrine of the Church and to encourage fidelity. The Church is truly a mother in this manner and seeks to be a true Mirror of Justice.

If you have read this far, do read Dr Peters' article.