Canon Law and Catholic Publications

Last week there was a huge fiasco regarding the iphone app for Roman Catholics, leading major media outlets to conclude, erroneously, that the Church had just approved the Sacrament of Confession outside of the Confessional. Why? Because "A Catholic Bishop gave the application an Imprimatur". Unfortunately, too many people don't know what that means and indeed, the terms and what they imply can be confusing if one is not familiar with them.

What does it mean for a publication to have Church approval?

As usual, definitions are important here; both of the subject matter and what "approval" entails.

I'm going to focus on, specifically, publications. This can include scripture translations, books, prayers, or as we're seeing recently, applications.  What does it take, then, for the Church to approve a publication? And if it is approved, what does that really mean? Does it change theology?

Let's look at the process involved, step by step,  in the publication of a document, the applicable Code of Canon Law, and what is revealed within that.

1.  First, the author of a publication submits it to the Local Ordinary (The Bishop).

2.  The Local Ordinary assigns a Censor to review the work. [The Bishop does not review the work himself]

Canon 830.1 states:

"The conference of bishops can compile a list of censors outstanding in knowledge, correct doctrine, and prudence to be available to diocesan curias or can also establish a commission of censors which local ordinaries can consult; the right of each local ordinary to entrust judgment regarding books to persons he approves, however, remains intact. "   (The Latin is far more precise that what can be translated in the vernacular). 

Note what the Canon states about the Censor:

1. Outstanding in knowledge
2. Outstanding in correct doctrine
3. Outstanding in prudence

Note that either the Conference of Bishops compiles this list for the sake of the diocesan curias or establishes a commission for the Local Ordinaries to consult.

Note further that the Local Bishop's authority over to whom he is willing to entrust a publication remains intact; of the pool of censors, that means the Local Ordinary still gets to choose who will review the work.

What about the obligations of the Censor?

 The Censor has an important role, and there's a great deal to it which also involves the obligations of the Bishop to both the Censor and the Author.

Canon 830.2 states:

In fulfilling this office, laying aside any favoritism, the censor is to consider only the doctrine of the Church concerning faith and morals as it is proposed by the ecclesiastical magisterium.  

Nota Bene:

* The Censor cannot show favoritism 

* The Censor must consider ONLY the doctrine of the Church concerning faith/morals 

* That, as proposed by the magisterium [as opposed to popular fly-by-night ideas, etc.]

Canon 830.3 states:

A censor must give his or her opinion in writing: if is favorable, the ordinary, according to his own prudent judgment, is to grant permission for publication to take place, with his name and the time and place of the permission granted expressed. If he does not grant permission, the ordinary is to communicate the reasons for the denial to the author of the work.  

Let's take a look at that canon, because it reveals a great deal about the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur:

* A Censor must give his or her opinion in writing 

* If it is favorable,  [Nihil Obstat - "nothing obstructing"] the Bishop (according to his own prudent judgment, ie: does he trust the Censor?) MUST grant permission for the work to be published. 

* And, if this is the case, the Bishop must let it be published with his name, time, and place of the permission granted. [Imprimatur:  "It may be published"] 

* If the Bishop does not grant permission, he must communicate the reason for the denial to the author.

Let's use a simple example of this process. 

Let's just say I use my Master's degree to write a book about Catholic doctrine and its relevance to our culture today. It would be thousands of pages long, of course. It's also very likely every other student in my graduating class compiled the same kind of book with varying areas of specialization.

 Because of the subject matter of my book and the submissions of my friends, and the fact that we want to be taken seriously as legitimate theologians in contributing something to the Church, we submit our works to our local Bishop.

The Bishop doesn't look at the work himself; he's far too busy. Even if I knew him personally as a good friend, he probably still wouldn't read the book himself both to avoid the temptation of favoritism (explicitly prohibited by the Law) and because he's actually got better things to do - like preach and provide for the Sacraments.

Thus, as Canon Law established, the good Bishop takes my work and the work of all my fellow graduates and assigns each of these tomes to a Censor who has been appointed either by the Conference of Bishops or from a designated pool of Censors. In other words, he entrusts this work to, typically, a lay person with good  knowledge of doctrine and a sense of prudence.

Now, that appointed Censor might not like what I'm saying in my book, or may actually love it completely and want to make me a Saint because of it. However, the Censor cannot offer a visceral reaction. On the contrary, that Censor is obligated to objectively evaluate my book on the basis of Catholic faith and morals. Does anything I say in the book contradict the Faith outright?  Does it state something contrary to the moral teachings of the Church?

Mind you..there's a lot of leeway there...the Censor must use prudent judgment; perhaps some of my wording is imprecise and perhaps I don't work from definitions, and perhaps my work can be a bit wishy-washy in that regard. However, in the fair judgment of the Censor, does my work actually contradict, outright, the Faith and Morals of  Catholicism?

There are many factors there such as:  how well has this Censor been formed?  All theological degrees are not equal; the fact is, some universities are more faithful than others, some provide a more complete theology, others are...uh...lacking, to put it charitably. The fact is, the Censor is using his or her own judgment given their specific knowledge, no matter where it falls on the very broad spectrum. The Censor might actually be completely mis-informed about some areas of Catholic faith/morals, yet the Bishop may still trust his or her judgement with regard to my work.

So let's just say that the Censor read my thousand-page book and acted in accordance to Canon Law.  If he thought my work did not contradict Church teaching on faith and morals, he must give that approval in writing to the Bishop (Nihil Obstat - nothing obstructing), and the Bishop, unless he has reason to believe the Censor is way off, will accept that judgment and put his stamp (Imprimatur) on the publication...because he has to.

Now, to the contrary, if the Censor thought I was off my rocker, he must also tell the Bishop that, and even if the Censor gave his approval and the Bishop got an inkling maybe said Censor was wrong and looked further, discovering that I'm a total heretic, the Bishop must inform me that my work cannot be published and what I did wrong.  That would give me a chance to correct my book and then re-submit it. Or choose apostasy.

Does that make sense?

Further, does that help to reveal the fact that the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur on various questionable publications does not serve as "Church approval" by any means?  There are some Bishops who are more prudent than others in those they allow to censor work in their name, as we all know.  There are also a large number of people, Catholics included, who take these "stamps" to mean that the Bishop himself read and approved certain things. I assure you he did not, but for perhaps a few rare cases.

As a friend of mine suggested, why doesn't the work get assigned to a Canon Lawyer?  Answer:  Canon Lawyers are overworked and underpaid as it is. They have even less time than the Bishop to read the myriad of works submitted!

That still leaves one question:

What kinds of publications must be submitted to the Local Ordinary?

According to Canon 824, Any writings intended for publication and distribution should be submitted.

More specifically:

* Can 826.3  Prayer books for public or private use - required submission.

* Can. 827  Catechisms and catechetical materials require approval of the local ordinary.

* Can 827.2 Textbooks of scripture, theology, canon law, ecclesiastical history, or religious / moral disciplines require approval of "competent authority" in order to be used. (The authority referred to here may go beyond the local ordinary or require more than just the local Bishop's approval)

* Can 827.3 Books about about scripture, theology, canon law, ecclesiastical history, religious / moral disciplines not used as textbooks are recommended to be submitted to the local ordinary  [the type of thing I'm most likely to write]

Where does that leave bloggers?

Good question, isn't it?

Well, this is where Canon Law has not caught up with social media, which itself is in a constant state of flux. All we bloggers can do is take what we have and see how the law applies. We are encouraged to use social media to share our faith, to evangelize, to teach. However, we ARE subject to canon law; virtue and prudence should be our guides in what we publish.

Certainly, we are not asked or required to submit our blogs to the Bishop for approval. However, if I decided to publish my blog as a Catholic book, intended for distribution, it would be recommended that I submit it to my Ordinary. If I wrote a more formal work on the theology of the Church, or compiled prayers, I would be required to submit it, which, naturally, makes sense. After all, in the latter case I would be doing so as an act formal to the role of theologian; I would be trying to contribute to the theology of the Church in some formal way.

Disclaimer: With all that said, and with all I have written here, although I have tried to do this faithfully and with reference to the materials I received in graduate school, and with reference to the specific Canons, I have to offer this disclaimer:  my blog is not approved by the Bishop. It has not been submitted to a Censor and it's quite possible I am wrong on some point or have stated something improperly. Blogs should NEVER be used for formal study, although they can be useful to point to further information.

It disturbs me, though, that so many people put their faith in the stamps "Nihil Obstat" and "Imprimatur" when really, those approvals mean very little. They are only as good as the understanding, faithfulness, and integrity of the person reading the work.

Keep that in mind the next time you look at a work, and judge it not by those designations but rather by the actual content of the publication.

Your soul is worth far more than a faulty Imprimatur or mistaken Nihil Obstat.

And your intellect is worth far more than the media's interpretation of Catholic terms they don't even try to understand.

Faith and reason go together, my friends. Know the terms, know what they mean, and if you don't understand them don't ever be afraid to ask!  :-)

The Distinction between "Ministry" and "Apostolate" and Why it Matters

Question: On the importance of the distinction between the terms “ministry” and “apostolate”

Objection 1: It would seem that the term “apostolate” would apply to the successors of the apostles and the term “ministry” has a more universal application and understanding.

Objection 2: One who engages in ministry should be termed “minister”.

Objection 3: It seems the distinction is unnecessary because many who minister are in an apostolate and vice versa. To wit; it is unnecessary because the terms are not mutually exclusive nor are they necessarily mutually inclusive.

On the Contrary, it is important to draw the distinction in terms, for, as many theologians have noted, a lack of distinction in terms has led to larger consequences as it applies to doctrines taught by the Church with regard to ministry. In 1994 John Paul II stated, “It must be admitted that the language becomes doubtful, confused and hence not helpful for expression the doctrine of the faith whenever the difference ‘of essence and not merely of degree’ between the baptismal priesthood and the ordained priesthood is in any way obscured." (LG, 10) He also stated in the same document, “We cannot increase the communion and unity of the church by ‘clericalizing’ the lay faithful or by ‘laicizing’ priests.” (1)


I answer that although the definitions of the two terms, “Apostolate” and “Ministry” have not been formally defined to complete satisfaction, in a review of several official Church documents it becomes clear that the words do have specific applications. We can note especially that the Vatican II documents (see especially Apostolicam Actuositatem, Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity) exclusively used the term “Apostolate” to apply to the work of the laity in carrying out the mission of the Church in the world. The word “minister” and “ministry”, in fact, has both historically and, as emphasized in Vatican II only applied to those who have received Holy Orders.

Reply to Objection 1: It would seem that the term “Apostolate” has a wider application. “Every activity of the Mystical Body with this in view goes by the name of “apostolate”; the Church exercises it through all its members, though in various ways.” (2) However, throughout history, the term “ministry” has been restricted to apply only to the activities that flow from Holy Orders in the sacred actions of word and sacrament. Vatican II, as well was very specific in its use of “ministry” as applicable to the work of the Ordained Ministers, and the term “Apostolate” to the work of the laity, especially as it applies in the world. Apostilicam Actuositatem emphasized especially the right and duty of the Catholic faithful to carry out apostolic activity in the Church’s work of sanctifying the world. “From the fact of their union with Christ the head flows the laymen’s right and duty to be apostles. Inserted as they are in the Mystical Body of Christ by baptism and strengthened by the power of the Holy Spirit in Confirmation, it is by the Lord himself that they are assigned to the apostolate.” (3) It would seem, therefore, that the term “Ministry” applies properly to the Ministerial Priesthood which is granted specifically through Holy Orders, and the term “Apostolate” applies to the Lay Faithful which is granted and nourished by Baptism and Confirmation.

Reply to Objection 2: The use of the term “minister” has been reserved for the ministerial priesthood; that is, those who have received the Sacrament of Holy Orders and have taken on the character of the priesthood of Jesus Christ. The work of the priest, that is, his ministry, flows from that sacramental character to minister to the people of God in exercising the offices of Priest, Prophet, and King. The 1983 Code of Canon Law extended the privilege of admitting some of the laity to participate in certain liturgical or catechetical offices. This work of the laity in those offices, however, flows not from Holy Orders itself, but out of their own foundation in Baptism and Confirmation, and granted only through the commission of a Priest or a Bishop. Those of the laity who participate in the work of the Priest in the work that does not absolutely require Clergy, such as in liturgical positions (Cantor, Lector, Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion) have an extraordinary character; it is a privilege, not a right and it has limited scope.

In Christifideles laici, John Paul II discussed the fact that although the 1983 Code of Canon Law allowed for lay persons to exercise certain ministries normally belonging to clergy, “…the exercise of such tasks does not make the lay faithful pastors: in fact a person is not a minister simply in performing a task, but through sacramental ordination. Only the Sacrament of Orders gives the ordained minister a particular participation in the office of Christ…” (4)

It would be totally inappropriate for one who serves as a Lector, for example to refer to himself as a “Minister”. It is proper in that case, however, for him to understand that he participates in ministry. Likewise, the teaching office of the Church which flows through Holy Orders may be carried out, through commission, by the laity. In this case, it would be proper for the lay people who do the work of catechesis, that is, handing on the Faith, to recognize that their work is a ministry which is a participation in the ministry of the Priesthood. However, a catechist is not a minister; but rather, enjoys a participation in the ministry.

Reply to Objection 3: Certainly it can be observed that the Clergy participates also in Apostolate, and in some cases, the Lay Faithful are granted the privilege of participating in the Ministry of the Priesthood. However, this does not make the terms mutually exclusive or inclusive, which is why the distinction in terms is clearly necessary. Christifideles laici revealed that in the Synod Assembly, there was a critical judgment voiced regarding a too-indiscriminate use of the word “ministry”. This over-use caused “…the confusion and equating of the common priesthood and the ministerial priesthood, the lack of observance of ecclesiastical laws and norms…the tendency towards a ‘clericalization’ of the lay faithful and risk of creating…an ecclesial structure of parallel service to that founded on the Sacrament of Holy Orders.” (5) As stated above, in the replies to the first and second objections, the use of terms in Objection 3 are founded upon a lack of definition of terms and thus a misunderstanding of the character belonging to each term and inherent mission indicated by it. To properly distinguish “ministry” and “apostolate” is truly revelatory of the mission of the Church and the complimentary roles and charisms that belong to both clergy and laity from within their specific areas of responsibility. The Church cannot exist without the Lay Apostolate; nor can the Lay Apostolate exist without the Ministry of the Priesthood.

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


ENDNOTES:

1. Address of John Paul II, April 22, 1994
2. Apostolicam Actuositatem, 2
3. ibid, 3
4. Christifideles laici, 23
5. ibid.


Note:  This was a paper written for Pastoral Theology in May, 2010.

On the Importance of the Distinction Between Apostolate and Ministry

This is a paper I turned in last month for Pastoral theology. Our professor, a very good Thomist, gave us all a certain creative freedom in our response, and as I've written a couple Summa-inspired parodies, I thought perhaps I could use the skill in a more serious academic way as well. I just got the paper back with a very high grade and kudos from the professor (what a relief!). 


So, now, at least certain that for once I have written something without heresy, I present to you food for thought, and encourage you all to help restrict the term "ministry" to the proper venue.  Without further ado:
****

Question: On the importance of the distinction between the terms “ministry” and “apostolate”


Objection 1: It would seem that the term “apostolate” would apply to the successors of the apostles and the term “ministry” has a more universal application and understanding.
Objection 2: One who engages in ministry should be termed “minister”.
Objection 3: It seems the distinction is unnecessary because many who minister are in an apostolate and vice versa. To wit; it is unnecessary because the terms are not mutually exclusive nor are they necessarily mutually inclusive.


On the Contrary, it is important to draw the distinction in terms, for, as many theologians have noted, a lack of distinction in terms has led to larger consequences as it applies to doctrines taught by the Church with regard to ministry. In 1994 John Paul II stated, “It must be admitted that the language becomes doubtful, confused and hence not helpful for expression the doctrine of the faith whenever the difference ‘of essence and not merely of degree’ between the baptismal priesthood and the ordained priesthood is in any way obscured." (LG, 10) He also stated in the same document, “We cannot increase the communion and unity of the church by ‘clericalizing’ the lay faithful or by ‘laicizing’ priests.” (1)


I answer that although the definitions of the two terms, “Apostolate” and “Ministry” have not been formally defined to complete satisfaction, in a review of several official Church documents it becomes clear that the words do have specific applications. We can note especially that the Vatican II documents (see especially Apostolicam Actuositatem, Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity) exclusively used the term “Apostolate” to apply to the work of the laity in carrying out the mission of the Church in the world. The word “minister” and “ministry”, in fact, has both historically and, as emphasized in Vatican II only applied to those who have received Holy Orders.


Reply to Objection 1: It would seem that the term “Apostolate” has a wider application. “Every activity of the Mystical Body with this in view goes by the name of “apostolate”; the Church exercises it through all its members, though in various ways.” (2)   However, throughout history, the term “ministry” has been restricted to apply only to the activities that flow from Holy Orders in the sacred actions of word and sacrament. Vatican II, as well was very specific in its use of “ministry” as applicable to the work of the Ordained Ministers, and the term “Apostolate” to the work of the laity, especially as it applies in the world. Apostilicam Actuositatem emphasized especially the right and duty of the Catholic faithful to carry out apostolic activity in the Church’s work of sanctifying the world. “From the fact of their union with Christ the head flows the laymen’s right and duty to be apostles. Inserted as they are in the Mystical Body of Christ by baptism and strengthened by the power of the Holy Spirit in Confirmation, it is by the Lord himself that they are assigned to the apostolate.” (3) It would seem, therefore, that the term “Ministry” applies properly to the Ministerial Priesthood which is granted specifically through Holy Orders, and the term “Apostolate” applies to the Lay Faithful which is granted and nourished by Baptism and Confirmation.


Reply to Objection 2: The use of the term “minister” has been reserved for the ministerial priesthood; that is, those who have received the Sacrament of Holy Orders and have taken on the character of the priesthood of Jesus Christ. The work of the priest, that is, his ministry, flows from that sacramental character to minister to the people of God in exercising the offices of Priest, Prophet, and King. The 1983 Code of Canon Law extended the privilege of admitting some of the laity to participate in certain liturgical or catechetical offices. This work of the laity in those offices, however, flows not from Holy Orders itself, but out of their own foundation in Baptism and Confirmation, and granted only through the commission of a Priest or a Bishop. Those of the laity who participate in the work of the Priest in the work that does not absolutely require Clergy, such as in liturgical positions (Cantor, Lector, Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion) have an extraordinary character; it is a privilege, not a right and it has limited scope.

In Christifideles laici, John Paul II discussed the fact that although the 1983 Code of Canon Law allowed for lay persons to exercise certain ministries normally belonging to clergy, “…the exercise of such tasks does not make the lay faithful pastors: in fact a person is not a minister simply in performing a task, but through sacramental ordination. Only the Sacrament of Orders gives the ordained minister a particular participation in the office of Christ…” (4)

It would be totally inappropriate for one who serves as a Lector, for example to refer to himself as a “Minister”. It is proper in that case, however, for him to understand that he participates in ministry. Likewise, the teaching office of the Church which flows through Holy Orders may be carried out, through commission, by the laity. In this case, it would be proper for the lay people who do the work of catechesis, that is, handing on the Faith, to recognize that their work is a ministry which is a participation in the ministry of the Priesthood. However, a catechist is not a minister; but rather, enjoys a participation in the ministry.


Reply to Objection 3: Certainly it can be observed that the Clergy participates also in Apostolate, and in some cases, the Lay Faithful are granted the privilege of participating in the Ministry of the Priesthood. However, this does not make the terms mutually exclusive or inclusive, which is why the distinction in terms is clearly necessary. Christifideles laici revealed that in the Synod Assembly, there was a critical judgment voiced regarding a too-indiscriminate use of the word “ministry”. This over-use caused “…the confusion and equating of the common priesthood and the ministerial priesthood, the lack of observance of ecclesiastical laws and norms…the tendency towards a ‘clericalization’ of the lay faithful and risk of creating…an ecclesial structure of parallel service to that founded on the Sacrament of Holy Orders.” (5)    As stated above, in the replies to the first and second objections, the use of terms in Objection 3 are founded upon a lack of definition of terms and thus a misunderstanding of the character belonging to each term and inherent mission indicated by it. To properly distinguish “ministry” and “apostolate” is truly revelatory of the mission of the Church and the complimentary roles and charisms that belong to both clergy and laity from within their specific areas of responsibility. The Church cannot exist without the Lay Apostolate; nor can the Lay Apostolate exist without the Ministry of the Priesthood.

----------------
ENDNOTES:
1. Address of John Paul II, April 22, 1994
2. Apostolicam Actuositatem, 2
3. ibid, 3
4. Christifideles laici, 23
5. ibid.

HABEMOS MISSALE ROMANUM!

Today, we watched history taking place: a singular moment in time, in a convergence of conflict, strife, unity and passion for Truth, in the ongoing struggle between humanity and divinity, of improper formation versus proper understanding of the liturgy. I'll never forget where I was in that moment.

While I watched this conference and the vote from my computer at work, I was brought back in time.....

The Council in Constantinople was overseen by Bishop St. Flavian (Bishop Flavius), back in 448 AD. His role was to defend the Faith against a serious Christological error being advanced by Eutyches, and indeed condemned it as heretical. Eutyches fought back and through the politics of the time, in 449 AD they were brought together again and St. Flavian, this time as a "party" and not presiding, made a profession of Faith and condemned the heretical errors of both Eutyches and Nestorius.

The battle continued, and in a very dramatic council, a false Council in Ephesus in August of 449. The heretics had taken control, and when St. Flavian and his supporters were sentenced to deposition, which was a condemnation of the Truth of the Church, a violation against the Faith. The Papal Legates (people who were acting in the role of the Pontiff and with his authority) protested, and a Deacon objected to the obvious violence of the heretics (for in general the heretics were prone to violence...we see nothing has changed in this age, either.) As the sentence began to be read, several bishops prostrated themselves asking him to go no further, trying to prevent the oncoming violence.

Dioscuros commanded the doors be opened and in streamed soldiers with clubs and other weapons. St. Flavian himself appealed to reason and to appeal from the Holy See in writing through the Papal Legates. Dioscuros was so incensed at this reasonable approach, the refusal of Flavius to kowtow to the violent objectives of the heretics, and his adherence to decency, logic, and diplomatic process that Dioscuros naturally had a violent reaction. He ordered his henchmen to cast St. Flavian to the ground, where he was beaten and trampled so severely that he died three days later. The Papal Legates fared better...one was beaten and unjustly imprisoned to prevent him from delivering St. Flavian's message to the Holy See. The other managed to flee after great difficulty and reveal to the Pontiff all that had occurred.

...Meanwhile, on November 17, 2009...

All of this was going through my head (what I could remember without looking it up) while watching the Bishop's debate today. Most of us who are plugged into the Catholic world via internet are familiar with the Bishops who tend towards dissent, and those who uphold Truth without compromise, and some that are theological squishy and hold the middle ground. We pray for them all, of course, but in all of it, we pray that the Holy Spirit act through them.

Today was no disappointment. It had all the drama of the past, but far less blood and guts. Today, in the course of an hour or so, all of which I was able to witness, I saw Truth, I saw betrayal, I saw political alignments and double-agents! I watched two particular Bishops, whom I expected to throw their lot in with Bishop "Catholics are stupid" Trautman step up to the plate and oppose him on his own ground!

I was so shocked I stopped working for awhile because I couldn't even FATHOM what I was seeing and hearing. There I was, a pen in one hand, a list of kid's names in another, a form in front of me...completely unnoticed.

History was happening. New alliances. Truth restored. A new translation far more faithful to the original Latin...restored. It has only to be moved to the Holy See for "Recognitio", the word for formal approval.

This moment was only slightly less important to me than the election of Pope Benedict XVI, and so I took stock of my surroundings. At that first moment, his election, I was in a pizza restaurant, the ONLY person among my co-workers who actually understood what was going on and REJOICED in it! Even the other proclaimed Catholics in my presence were utterly bored and had never heard of Cardinal Ratzinger or his importance to our Faith and to the world. Today, in this second moment, I was at work in a Catholic parish, realizing Bishop Serratelli might be speaking to ME and my future role in the promulgation of this new translation. I took stock of my surroundings, realized where I was as a parish employee, and was THRILLED at the thought I could help in this endeavor; both professionally and personally.

But!

It saddens me that MOST Catholics probably don't care about the Liturgy or the development of it, and so don't have any idea of the import of what transpired today. It is the recognition that this historical event is going to go unnoticed by so many souls professing this Faith that makes me realize that it IS akin to the trampling of St. Flavian.

Closing Speech - Bishop Arthur J. Serratelli, Chairman of the Bishop's Committee on Divine Worship

God bless dear Bishop Arthur J. Serratelli whose words upon the acceptance of the new faithful translation of the Roman Missal by the United States Council of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) were like perfectly pure, cool water to this dry, dying soul in the desert of the translation of the Mass within which I've been living from birth. It is such a GRACE to be studying Liturgy and Sacraments this semester and be able to see, clearly, how much we suffer with the bad translation dealt to us, which itself denies the very things for which St. Flavian WAS MARTYRED!

That cool water, the words of triumph, LEX ORANDI, LEX CREDENDI washed over me as I realized this had REALLY HAPPENED! Yes! the Law of Prayer is the Law of Belief! Grace builds upon nature! If the Liturgy is unfaithful...then so are we! If the Liturgy is faithful...then so are we, and even more, we are made HOLY!

SALVATION IN THE PASCHAL MYSTERY, MORE FULLY REVEALED!

We all struggle with sin, and we need every mode to holiness we can find. The Liturgy is, in large part, how the canon of scripture was discerned and if we are not faithful to the Liturgy, we are not faithful to Christ, who comes to us, in Word and Sacrament, made present, drawing us ever closer to Him. Not as a symbol...but as a reality.

I can't contain my happiness at this new translation. I await with much prayer the Recognitio from the Holy See, and hope to be of assistance where I am needed in my particular state, to assist the Faithful in understanding these changes, why they were necessary, overdue, and the importance in our salvation.

Thank you, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Thank you.

Amen.

*

Bishop St. Flavian, Patron Saint of the Liturgy** Pray for us!

** (By my own personal designation, not that of the Church)

NOTES:

* More information on Bishop St. Flavian, Martyr.

* Post on Church History summarizing heresy in the Early Church

Ecclesial Condemnation of Holy Love Ministry in Cleveland OH

Praise God for this faithful Bishop protecting not only his flock, but all souls. I know of people who pilgrimage to "Holy Love Ministries" in Ohio, and so some time ago I looked it up. My skin was crawling as I read the alleged "locutions". Doctrinal issues all over the place, in SPITE of what the "testimonials" from canonists and theologians were saying. I questioned where those people had actually READ what this woman was allegedly saying? I saw conflict, contradiction, and doctrinal issues all over the place! I also know of some people who visited the shrine and left very disturbed, although unable to articulate exactly what about the place bothered them so much.

So to any devotees, take note of the formal letter and Decree issued by Bishop Lennon of the Cleveland Diocese, and realize that it applies to ALL of the faithful, not just those in his diocese. It was just issued on November 9, 2009, a couple days ago, so bloggers, Tweeters, social networkers, please pass those links along to others.

Some time ago some anonymous person left a link on one of my posts, and I'd heard of the shrine there, but never went. I do know people who go there, even local ones. They are very faithful Catholics, but of course, the shrine and locutions were under investigation at that time, neither endorsed nor condemned.

Now they know: it's not supernatural in origin and is to be avoided. No sacramental celebration is allowed there, nor are pilgrimages, nor any support of any kind.

Holy Love Ministry has NOW been formally condemned and as the Faithful, we owe our obedience to Bishop Lennon, even if we are not from that diocese. To endorse, visit the shrine, financially support it, at this point is now a SIN, and really, it probably was even before, given the nature of doctrinal problems with the messages.

Please pass on the links to those who are unaware of this Decree so that their souls will be preserved. If the above links don't work, you may find both the letter and decree, as well as a Spanish and Korean language version here.

H/T and Mantilla Twitch to Terry at Abbey Roads.

UPDATE:

Please see a follow-up post on this: Diabolical which includes further information and links.

and

Dangerous Cult Mentality which reveals how "Holy Love Ministries" is displaying some very serious warning signs indicating they may very well be a budding Cult.

Authority and Private Revelation discusses the authority of Bishops in their care for souls and reveals how the Holy Spirit speaks and has for 2,000 years.

From Te Deum laudamus:

Condemned apparition goes spastic

Condemned "apparition" is going into grand mal

******

Please also check out the comments section of THIS post just in case you are under the misapprehension that Bishop Lennon doesn't have the right to limit Priests' faculties to hear confessions or offer Mass. In fact, he DOES have that right and HAS DONE SO. Any Confessions heard at Holy Love are invalid from this point on. "Holy Love Ministries" has been leading souls astray since 1993.

Answers to Many Questions

For some time, I've been taking note of the search engine questions that bring people to my blog. Oddly enough, they often happen upon posts that have absolutely NOTHING to do with their question. Sometimes it IS the right post, but perhaps I didn't address their particular question there.

And so, I've decided, maybe it's time to post some of the answers to the questions people are putting into the search engines, for many people are looking for similiar things. I have written about MOST of the following in the past so this post is to give the short answer. You may need to do more research to find a more complete answer to your question.

Can I go to Communion if I skipped Mass? No. If you intentionally skipped Sunday Mass, then you have committed a mortal (grave) sin and you need to go to Sacramental Confession before you receive Communion again. Additionally, if you skip Daily Mass and just show up for Communion, you should not receive. The Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist are in the Mass for a reason and you need ALL of it to prepare to receive the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ. (You can read the entire post on this and get a more complete answer here.)

Do I have to go to Confession in order to receive Communion? If you have committed grave sin, then you are required to go to Confession before you can receive Communion. However, you can still ATTEND Mass, and you SHOULD, but if you haven't been able to get to Confession, DO NOT RECEIVE HOLY COMMUNION! No one cares if you remain in your pew, so don't commit sacrilege out of a misplaced sense of self-consciousness.

If I'm not Catholic, can I receive Communion in a Catholic Church? No. This is not to make you feel "left out", but rather, to protect the integrity of our beliefs AND your differing beliefs. We believe that the bread and wine truly become the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ during the Consecration. When we go forward to receive Holy Communion, we are declaring in our very actions and intentions that we are free from grave sin, that we believe everything the Church teaches, and that we KNOW what we are receiving. When we say "Amen", we are stating verbally that WE BELIEVE THIS IS JESUS CHRIST!

If you are not Catholic, then you clearly don't believe what we believe, so why would you want to publicly lie and say that you do have that belief? And in fact, if you have done research and DO share that belief...then what is stopping you from becoming Catholic? You can enter an RCIA class and through a time of prayer and education, be received into the Church. (FYI: You can also attend RCIA classes if you're just trying to learn more about the Church and aren't sure if you want to be Catholic or not. Attending classes isn't a committment to convert!)

Can I have coffee before Mass? As long as you finish your coffee one hour before Holy Communion. Water and medicine do not break the fast, but coffee does.

Can I have gum at Mass? No. Gum does not fall under the category of "water and medicine" and so breaks the fast. Some people who should know better have said that gum "isn't food", however Canon Law 919 specifies that ONLY water and medicine are allowed. It doesn't say "anything that isn't food". If your gum can legitimately be considered to be medicine then maybe you can have it, although I wouldn't consider "nicotine gum" be some something you couldn't survive without for an hour or so. Don't be a wuss. Sacrifice is good for you!

Now...if you are not intending to receive Holy Communion, it is considered to be disrespectful to have coffee and gum at Mass. Please refrain and have those things AFTER Mass. Thank you.

"Not attending Mass because I'm being ignored" ~ You know, a lot of people seem to cite this as a reason not to attend Mass. In typing it in a search engine, I don't know if the question is being posed by someone looking for a way to overcome this objection, or if they themselves think they're being ignored and they're looking to justify not attending Mass. So! Here's the answer, and I'm going to make it VERY easy:

Mass is NOT about you! It's about GOD! If YOU are "being ignored", then Praise God! It means that everyone there knows that Mass is the time to worship God, and in so doing, to be present at the Sacrifice of Our Lord! So take the hint, take your focus off of yourself and spend an hour focusing on your Creator who loves you so much He DIED for you! What MORE could you possibly WANT???

"Distracted in prayer" ~ OK, this one is harder and I don't really have an answer. It's something with which we ALL struggle. But, don't be too hard on yourself. If you get distracted, just try to bring your attention back to God. In making that attempt, it is an act of love. If you're going through a period of dryness and you're having trouble praying, or maybe you have ADHD and can't make it through a rosary, then simply pray ONE Hail Mary. Or ONE Our Father. Or even a short prayer to Jesus to help you! Even if the only thing you can pray is "Jesus, I love you!", guess what...that's a prayer! Does it solve distraction? No. But perseverance does. Keep praying!

Patron Saint of Prostitutes ~ The posts I wrote on that remain among my most popular. So....there are 2 Patron Saints of Prostitutes: St. Nicholas (yes, "Santa Clause") Why? Because he saved two girls from being sold into prostitution by their father. This is also among the reason he's also a Patron Saint of children. The OTHER Patron Saint of Prostitutes is St. Mary of Egypt, because she had been a prostitute, reformed, and, well....achieved the heights of holiness which the Church acknowledged by declaring her a Saint!

And for those who are looking for a Saint that ENDORSES prostitution: there isn't one. Saints don't endorse sin, and no, none of us has the authority to decide what is or isn't a sin. Prostitution is a horrible evil in this fallen world and it CANNOT be justified. I hope that answers your question.

Rinsing Saurkraut: Yes, you have to rinse saurkraut. I found that out by looking it up on a cooking website.

Oppression of Women in the Bible : It's a common myth advanced by the feminist regimes that the Bible is oppressive to women. The reality is that although the Bible IS a patriarchal book, it's a very HUMAN book and naturally the patriarchal society is going to be quite apparent. Making the Bible into one with inclusive language is a really stupid attempt to change a fact of history. Secondly, Christianity was actually FREEING to women, who were, in those times, considered to be PROPERTY. Christ gave them the freedom to do something different. It was radical. No, He did not establish them as priests, for if He wanted to do that, He would have made his Mother a priest. Instead, Jesus emphasized the importance of women in salvation history. Now, if you're going to cite Paul's blustery stuff about women, go take a look at history and take this in the proper context. Much of what he was saying he was saying TO women who were finally receiving an education, and didn't know how to behave in an educational setting. He had to teach them manners! Which is completely reasonable, for even in our society teachers have to lay ground rules for the order of their classrooms, whether we are there as adults or children. Are YOU oppressed? Neither were they.

Did Vatican II do away with Latin? No. If you read the Vatican II Document on the Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium (which, as you notice, is a Latin title), you'll see that the only changes called for were a permission to use the vernacular in the readings, an addition of more scripture readings, and Latin/Gregorian Chant were to remain the norm in all the other parts of the Mass.

Note also that every document issued by the Church has a Latin title, and the ONLY language of the Code of Canon Law is....Latin. The few translations out there include the Latin because Latin is more precise and anyone versed in the Law must also look to the usage of Latin since the vernacular translations are often inaccurate and can change the original meaning of the law.

Feast Day of Our Lady of Perpetual Help: June 27 :-)

Does God give us more than we can bear? Yes, He does. And He does it so that we can learn to rely on HIM and not ourselves.

Well, there's at least some of the questions. I hope the answers are helpful to someone!

Know that the answers may not be complete, I'm happy to answer anything else that I can or clarify something, and I'm certain my readers would join in as well if someone posts a question below. As always, don't rely on blogs for the perfect answers. If you are really seeking especially theological answers, then go to the proper sources: Sacred Scripture, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Documents of Vatican I, Vatican II, Council of Trent (yes, they are ALL relevant!), etc.

:-)

Social Media, Canon Law, and Attacking Clergy

Charity is not a mere suggestion for Catholics (or anyone else for that matter), but for EVERYONE. And to be clear, in this context I'm not speaking in terms of giving stuff to the disenfranchised, but rather, the command to LOVE.  To be charitable towards others. To respect in them the dignity God gave them, and, in the case of the Ordained (Clergy), we are to hold a particular respect for the OFFICE they hold in obeisance to GOD. 

That is not to say we cannot be critical of certain actions, but we must ALWAYS remember in our criticisms to remember charity and to have respect for the office of those people we may be criticizing.  And we must take care in how we go about our criticisms;  perhaps it's best, maybe, to not shred a priest or bishop on a blog or in a newspaper article and instead go directly to the source?   After all...that IS our obligation and right under Canon Law.  

But we do NOT have the right to ridicule those who hold those offices. As an example, a few weeks ago I referred to a certain dissident Priest as "a Tool".  Meaning, "a tool of Satan".  I did it in conversation, and I hold that he's still a "tool" of the group that is using him and his office to advance a dissident agenda.  However, there is a HUGE difference between the latter and the former;  the first was a personal attack that was a judgment upon him. The second addresses an objective action.  I apologize, therefore for my slander, but I won't apologize for addressing the truth of how he and his office is being used for Satanic means. 

It's easy to spout off and we tend to do so in a knee-jerk manner.  It's harder, though, to look at the actual issue and realize that there is a person with real dignity who holds an office to which he was called by God, whether we understand why or not.  And sometimes the person holding that office is a puppet of some lay group. Sometimes maybe he's just not too bright, or maybe was badly formed. It doesn't matter what is the cause of his very public errors; what DOES matter is how we are called to handle those errors, and public slander and libel and the like is NEVER the proper way to go about it.  

A Bishop's Experience With Internet Criticism

Many have already read the interview with Archbishop Chaput who commented on the hate mail he's received ever since he's been connected online.  In his honesty, he ALSO stated that the mail from the left has contained the most profanity, the mail from the right, those people whom one would think would be most supportive of a Bishop of his intestinal fortitude and holiness, has instead been the most vitriolic.  

Here are His Excellency's exact words, (linked above): 

"Some of the worst emails I get are from Catholic conservatives who think I should excommunicate and refuse communion to Gov. Bill Ritter Jr. of Colorado and to former-Sen. [and now Secretary of the Interior] Ken Salazar of Colorado, and why aren’t you doing this? I mean, just awful kind of stuff that they write. Sometimes, I must admit, that when I write back, I’m not as friendly as I should be. But I try not to be mean."

And then, reflecting on the difference between e-mail from liberals and conservatives, he said:

"The left mail I get will use terrible words but be less vitriolic. They use the F-word and things like that, call me names like that. But the right is meaner, but they’re not as foul."

As a blogger, I've noticed the same things. There are certain blogs I won't read anymore because of the way they attack priests and bishops with impunity - or anyone else who happens to share a different view (which in many cases is a legitimate non-heretical opinion from a fellow Catholic in good standing). There are certain blogs I read, but at which I rarely or never comment;  not because of the author, but because of the commenters who claim to be solid Catholics in spite of the hatred and accusation they spew into every corner of cyberspace.

It is not that I haven't been guilty of doing the same thing. I have been, clearly, and for that, I sincerely apologize.

I'm glad Archbishop Chaput has spoken out on this issue, and I hope his words are taken to heart by the very people who most need to hear that message, but somehow, I doubt it. It seems like those who do the most damage to the Mystical Body of Christ don't take hints very well and apply the barb to everyone else but themselves.

Thus, I'm not expecting that those offensive bloggers, Catholic newspaper columnists from secular and Catholic newspapers alike will change their attitude any time soon.

Maybe it's time to recall, that, especially in the case of our clergy, we as Catholics are OBLIGATED to respect the office of the Priest or Bishop, and obviously, that of the Pope and every other ordained Ecclesial Office.  

Consider the words of Canon 1369: 

A person who in a public show or speech, in published writing, or in other uses of the instruments of social communication utters blasphemy, gravely injures good morals, expresses insults, or excites hatred or contempt against religion or the Church is to be punished with a just penalty. 

This is any person. Let's focus on bloggers since this is the proper venue.  Let's also look at other social media such as Twitter or Plurk or other similar venues;  the reality is that what we say and how we say it affects others.  If I am critical of the actions of a Bishop and sarcastically call him to account in a public internet venue, what I'm doing is exciting hatred or contempt in others, whether they are Catholic or not.  And in exciting that hatred or contempt, that would also mean that this would spread to the same effect against religion and the Church. 

I could come up with a LOT of examples of this:  An Actor portraying a role in an anti-Catholic play would fall under this canon. So would a newspaper columnist who spouts off the old-hat inaccuracies and lies about the Crusades and Galileo and the Inquisition. An average Catholic who publicly slanders the Pope in a Letter to the Editor in a local newspaper or diocesan paper.  An average Catholic who twists Church teaching on faith and morals to try to justify their own behavior and writes about it in a publication or calls a conference for that very purpose.  Need I go on?  I could....

What we do and what we say MATTERS to others, whether they are currently Catholic or not. When they look at us, how do we reflect the Church?  If we're running around spewing a bunch of vile insults against certain Priests or Bishops, others look at that and are put off, perhaps affecting their ability to trust in the holiness and the authority of the Church established by Christ. 

We WILL answer for those souls at our Particular Judgment!  If we are the ones who chased someone away from Holy Mother Church, we are placing our very souls in jeopardy.  It is we who have been given so much that have the greater duty to spread the Gospel message with charity and truth.  And it IS possible to be truthful without being vitriolic and rude. Remember what Isaiah said about the Messiah to come:  He would not break a bruised reed or quench a smoking wick.  

THAT'S our example to follow. 

Personally...I'm cringing. I KNOW I've acted contrary to this Canon.  How 'bout YOU? 

But wait!  There's MORE! 

According to Can. 1371:  

The following are to be punished with a just penalty: 

section 1:  in addition to the case mentioned in can 1364.1* a person who teaches a doctrine condemned by the Roman Pontiff or an ecumenical council or who obstinately rejects the doctrine mentioned in can. 750.2** or in can. 752*** and who does not retract after having been admonished by the Apostolic See or an ordinary; 

section 2: a person who otherwise does not obey a legitimate precept or prohibition of the Apostolic See, an ordinary, or a superior and who persists in disobedience after a warning. 

(See below for Canons marked with *, **, or ***) 

We've had a recent example of this in the news out of the Diocese of Madison; a woman was dismissed by the Bishop because of her refusal to recant her thesis.  As you can read for yourself, the above Canon gives the Bishop (i.e. the Ordinary) the right to ask her to recant, and because she remained obstinate, he was correct in his action to fire her.  Basically, if it ain't Catholic and if you persist in holding to views that aren't Catholic and you happen to work in a church that requires your obedience, you can be dismissed.  Period.  The Church is not about YOU.  It's about God. And if there is a cancer present in the Body, it must be removed. If a warning (i.e. an antibiotic or chemo treatment) is sufficient, well, then all is well. Otherwise, the Bishop gets to apply the scalpel.  Deal with it.  

Unfortunately that's not the only example, but I'll go no further and I won't link to the situation as it really isn't necessary. 

There's another Canon, however we also must consider, because it's ANOTHER thing we see a lot of at least in our local diocese.  

Canon 1373:

A person who publicly incites among subjects animosities or hatred against the Apostolic See or an ordinary because of some act of power or ecclesiastical ministry or provokes subjects to disobey them is to be punished by an interdict or other just penalties. 

Yup.  Have seen a few such examples.  I've seen such disobedience provoked by both lay people and clergy, here and abroad, and recently.  And they tend to do this in the public press, via blogging and personal websites, published literature for various dissident organizations, etc,  as well as in the secular media.  Anything that incites hatred against the Church seems to make it into print and visual media. 

We ALL need to be on notice, and especially those to whom this canon applies! Thus, they who offend against the Church have no right to whine and complain when they're busted and are given said penalties, which can be a range of things.  

People, especially fellow bloggers, we need to take care with our words and positions. It is not that we cannot comment on current events, or share our opinions. But we need to remember that even if we don't personally like a Priest or a Bishop, we DO need to respect the office and tender our words according to what is owed for that reason.  Yes, we all know that the road to Hell is paved with the skulls of Bishops (according to St. John Chrysostom), but do we really want our own skulls parked right there next to them on that roadway to eternal condemnation? 

Something to consider the next time we put our fingers to the keyboard. 

I have ONE other thing to say: 

The reality is that we are used to American Civil Law in our "democratic" society. Under Civil Law, the State considers that we have rights because the law gives them to us.  We can summarize the basic premise by saying that I have a right, which means YOU have a duty.  

In Canon Law, it is just the opposite; I have a right BECAUSE I have a duty. 

Canon law is an ordering of society in order that holiness and salvation can be achieved.  That order is imperative. The law isn't there just to be there; it's there to help us reach to God. It's there because we are fallen creatures and were structures not in place, there would be the same chaos American society is headed for  in our socialist/communist regime.  

So as you read these canons, don't complain that it's complicated. READ them.  It's common sense, really. And if you love God, if you TRULY love God, then you'll love His representatives on earth, and you will treat them with the same proper regard owed to anyone in the dignity of such an office.  It doesn't mean you have to like them or agree with them personally. It means you respect the Office, the Title, because you respect God. And it is that very duty by virtue of your baptism that gives you any other Ecclesial right within the Catholic Church.  

See you in the Confession line.  

--------------------------------  

NOTATIONS:  

* Canon 1364.1 cites apostate from the faith, heretic, schismatic incurs latae sententiae excommunication

** Canon 750 

§1. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.

§2. Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firm-ly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

*** Canon 752 

Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.

ENTIRE CODE OF CANON LAW AT VATICAN WEBSITE

Valid and Invalid, Licit vs Illicit in Canon Law

I'm working on studying for my Canon Law exam, and as a result, a friend and I had a discussion yesterday on the difference between Valid/Invalid, Licit/Illicit. She wasn't real clear on the concept, and I wasn't clear in explaining it, which lead me to believe, of course, that I also wasn't clear in my understanding!  I tried to look at it through a common and timely issue; that of the SSPX.  

But, alas, that scenario is too complicated and I'd rather not "reason" something through when I haven't had enough of Canon Law to do so with any REAL intelligence.  And, really, there's a lot of people out there on all sides who are well-read but not authoritatively versed in Canon Law even though they are pretending to be so.  Their pontificating is quite off-putting and confusing. Thus, as a disclaimer, I will NOT discuss the SSPX with regard to this topic.  

I took some time to think about the terms, though, pondering it through, taking also into consideration what our professor taught us in his notes and lecture. 

Validity versus Invalidity is a question of whether Jesus is actually present in that act, or especially (in my mind), a Sacrament.  Something that is Valid has all the juridic effects (i.e. all the effects of the law), while an Invalid act does NOT have the juridic effects.   

Licit versus Illicit doesn't leave us the question of whether Jesus is there or not; rather, the question becomes: is Jesus there and pleased, or is He MAD?   An act that is licit is done according to the norm of the law (ie the GIRM, Redemptionis Sacramentum, etc.) or whether it is NOT done according to the law.   Thus, an act can be illicit but still retain validity.  That would be a way of saying that Jesus is present but very upset! 

I was trying to think of a way to explain this in other terms, and so, the following is what I came up with this morning while I was brushing my teeth:

*

Let's say that you are a child and you pretty much have standing permission, within certain defined and obvious parameters, to ride your bike to the corner store every day after school and get a candy bar or bag of chips or a pop or something.  And you have to take your little brother and little sister with you because they are your willing responsibility and how you make your allowance.  This is routine, you're in charge of them and that's part of the understanding.  

And as you ride with them down the sidewalk to the store, you wave at Harry the Barber who is reading the newspaper next to his barber pole, and you pass Mrs. Green at the vegetable stand a few more doors down, and they all know you and know that it's OK for you to be doing this.  They know your Mom, you see, and because this town is kind of a big family, they're also looking out for you.   And because of this, they also know that this trip to the store is a valid act, done with the Mother's blessing and permission, which, in effect, means that she is present with you on these trips.  

Now, if they saw you driving Mom's car down the road with baby sister on the hood at 3 am, they would ALSO know that this is VERY invalid and they'd be calling your Mom because this is CLEARLY outside of the boundaries and there's NO WAY this would have her blessing! 

Now, as far as Licit/Illicit goes, let's say that you got home from school and just before you left to take your daily trip to the store, you got a call from your Mother, who said that you should wait because she didn't want you to take your little sister that day.  She wanted you to wait until she got home from work because of something to do with your little sister. 

But, instead of being obedient to that command, you copped an attitude, got on your bikes, and all three went to the store as usual.  Now, Harry the Barber and Mrs. Green the vegetable lady wouldn't know the difference, and would wave as they always do. 

And, in fact, that ride to the store would have all the same juridic effects as that of every other day; it would in fact, be taking place.  You would in fact be paying actual money for your actual snack, and your act would be witnessed by others.  And so, in effect, your Mother would still be with you because this is a normal function of your day, except for one thing....the fact that you are doing it as usual on that day is in DIRECT DISOBEDIENCE to a particular law or directive laid down by your Mother, which renders that trip to the store ILLICIT.  

In other words...Jesus is there but He. Is. MAD!  And, my son....YOU ARE SOOOO GROUNDED!  

So, we could say that the just penalty of the the betrayal of the Mother's trust is Excommunication, which you have enacted of your own accord. Because, in fact, your baby sister was supposed to be going to the doctor for an important diagnoses and because you took her away from her mother she missed her appointment and is going to become very, very sick...because of YOUR disobedience.  So...firstly, listen to your Mother! 

So, you're grounded (excommunicated), and certain things need to be in play in order for you to be able to act in the same capacity. You have to admit that what you have done is wrong, you have to apologize for that wrong, and that you understand the effect of your action.  (there's actually more to this so don't take this paragraph to be canonical...and it's not on this test, anyway.)    

 

DISCLAIMER:  The above (hopefully fictional) scenario is NOT meant to parody ANYTHING in real life, but only explain things in entertaining terms which maybe I'll remember when I'll take the test. If my understanding is flawed, please tell me so before I take the test! And suggest changes to the scenario that would make the example proper.  

The Faithful and Canon Law

This weekend was PACKED with great information, and I have to say, this is my favorite semester thus far!  And I think Canon Law is my favorite class so far, which shouldn't be surprising;  after all, my undergrad degree is in Criminal Justice!  

Which makes me think:  back in school, I considered studying theology as I thought it interesting. Perhaps I'd be a Canon Lawyer now if I had. As it was, I considered Law School, even recently as a combined Catholic Studies degree through the University of St. Thomas. But God's will be done, here I am years later working on an MTS with all the elements of my interest forming a very interesting pattern on God's tapestry.  

But I digress, as usual.  

There's a lot to discuss, and I think maybe the most important thing should be used to start our discussion.  Who are the Faithful?   According to 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, what does this mean?  Let's unpack it.  

 

The above Canon is stating five things:  The Faithful must be 1. Baptized, 2. Joined with Christ in Visible Structure, 3. by the bonds of the Profession of Faith (which we pray every Sunday),  4. the Sacraments, and 5. Ecclesiastical Governance. 

1.  Baptism:  

Those who fall outside of the above are not Catholic.  Take note, then:  all who are baptized, including those of other Christian religions, therefore, are baptized also into the Catholic Faith, for we share, through the Trinitarian formula, a common Baptism of Christ. 

This is why those who convert to Catholicism from a different Christian religion do not need to be baptized again (if they were baptized in their own tradition).  If the Trinitarian (In the name of the Father, of the Son, and the Holy Spirit) is used, it is a valid Catholic baptism.  That may surprise some people, but like it or not, if they are baptized through this formula they are introduced into the Catholic community.  

HOWEVER!  Do NOT take that out of context, for the Canon goes on to define what FULL COMMUNION means, and those who have only a common baptism are not in full communion with the Church and thus are not entitled to the same rights!  

This is why it's such a concern when people are "baptized" by a radical feminist formula, that being the "Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier".  The problem is that these are different "modes", different jobs that God does, however, it's also the heresy of Modalism, also called "Sabellianism".  It's not Catholic, it's not Trinitarian, and thus, it is invalid.  Those "baptized" by such a formula have not entered the Church.  

2.  Visible Structure: 

The next point, to be in "full communion" means to be joined with Christ in the visible structure of the Church.  This also needs to be understood.  The Church is made up of only TWO types of people:   Clerics and laity.  Those are the two juridic status available to us.  

Religious are NOT another category;  those who are monks, friars, sisters, or nuns are LAITY.  They are consecrated laity, but they are NOT Clerics and are NOT in "Holy Orders", which is a Sacrament that ONLY applies to Clerics. 

Now, there are some who seem to believe that the only way to be "fully Catholic" is to enter the ranks of the Clergy.  Um, no.  It is not possible to become "more Catholic" than a Baptized, Confirmed Catholic who regularly receives the Sacraments of Confession and Holy Communion. That applies to Both Clergy and Laity.  Thus, a Priest is not "more Catholic"  or necessarily more holy than the laity.  Nor does this status take away from the Clerical state, for they do have a certain dignity given to them by God by virtue of their ordination, but it's not a dignity that makes them somehow "more Catholic" than the rest of us.  

Christ's plan of salvation is entirely inclusive of us all, and we all have a very important role to fulfill.   It is the role of the Priest to stand in persona Christi that Our Lord might come to us through his hands, that we might be forgiven and restored to full communion when we have sinned gravely, and it is the role of the Priest to introduce us to Christ so that we will all understand what it means to be His Bride.  It is his role to stand in for Christ so that we will be properly fed.  Complimentarily,  it is the role of the Laity to take what graces and the teachings we are given from the Word of God and from exposition on that Word from the pulpit and the Sacraments, and take that into the world in order that the Gospel might be spread. 

 THAT'S POWERFUL!  We ALL must speak for Christ, we are ALL given that authority by virtue of our baptism, and we all have the DUTY to do so! 

The reality is that both the Laity and the Clergy need one another, and we need to stand in our proper roles, in response to Christ's own personal invitation to us all.  The fact that some are called to the Priesthood does not denigrate the role of Marriage, and Marriage does not denigrate the role of Religious vows, and none of those Vocations denigrates the role of the person called to be Single, for we are all, in the way designed by God, to be holy in our own state in life, whether Clergy or Laity.  

Now, there are some who think the Church is invisible. It's not. It's extremely visible, and made up of the hierarchy that Christ established.  We have a governance, we have people, we have a real structure.  We as either Clergy or laity are involved in that structure. 

3.  Profession of Faith

Every Sunday and Solemnity, we pray together at Mass the Nicene Creed, which is our Profession of Faith. 

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
and of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father. [original language:  consubstantial with the Father - St. Flavian WAS MARTYRED for those words!]
Through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation,
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered, died, and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in fulfillment of the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge
the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he
is worshipped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic
and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism
for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come.

Amen.

THAT is our Faith, summarized there. And people have DIED for that declaration of Faith! Bishop St. Flavian was one of them; he was trampled to death by the raging Arians.  If the above is not what you are praying at Mass, then you are NOT in full communion with the Church. The above words CANNOT be changed to suit a different ideology; they have been dogmatically defined and the above is an INFALLIBLE teaching.  

4.  The Sacraments

Besides Baptism, the Church recognizes Seven Sacraments:  Baptism (already discussed), Confession, Eucharist, Confirmation, Marriage, Holy Orders, and Annointing of the Sick.  The Sacraments are what make us the Mystical Body of Christ.  

Understand that Canon Law cannot be taken apart from moral theology;  Canon Law has a proper context, and the rest of that context has to be taken into consideration when considering the different laws.  Mere reception of a Sacrament is not what brings us into full communion; we have to be properly disposed. 

Thus, if we have cut ourselves off from the Church through apostasy or mortal sin or something else, then we may not receive the Sacraments without Sacramental Confession.  Only then can we return to the foot of the Cross and receive Our Lord in the Eucharist and be re-united with the rest of the Body, and with Our Lord.  

5.  Ecclesiastical Governance

As the Faithful, we fall under the authority of the Church, and our way to holiness is guided by the governance as established by Our Lord, showing us HOW we are to become holy.  Governance indicates our rights and duties as the Faithful, to which we must adhere, and with a little information, we might understand not to be restricting, but freeing.  

I believe that this last point would be better addressed in further posts on the rights and duties of the Faithful.  

*

How Many Times in One Day Can I Receive Holy Communion?

I’ve often heard this question, whether it was addressed to someone on Catholic radio, to a parish priest, or even from volunteers in a parish. I've repeated to people what I'd heard through credible sources, although I've since learned that SOME of those sources were wrong. (Stop looking so shocked. Catholic apologists, whether lay or clergy, are human, too!)

In Canon Law class last month, we addressed this very query, but with a proper foundation in reading the law.

Can. 18 states, “Laws which establish a penalty, restrict the free exercise of rights, or contain an exception from the law are subject to strict interpretation.”

A “strict interpretation” is reading the law to the very letter. Not reading into it and placing things there that are simply not present.

So let’s look at Canon 917, which addresses how many times in one day one can receive Holy Communion:

Can. 917: “A person who has already received the Most Holy Eucharist can receive it a second time on the same day only within the eucharistic celebration in which the person participates, without prejudice to the prescript of Can. 921.”

(As an FYI, Can. 921 s 2 addresses Viaticum and reads: “Even if they have been nourished by holy communion on the same day, however those in danger of death are strongly urged to receive communion again”)

Objection 1: I heard someone on the radio state that Holy Communion can only be received twice if the Mass is a different type of Mass, i.e. the first one is a Daily Mass, the second a Wedding. Or a Wedding early in the day and then the Sunday Vigil Mass later. Therefore, one could not receive communion the second time if they went to two daily Masses.

Objection 2: That means that if someone has already received Holy Communion, and goes to Mass again later, but is late and misses the first reading, they are prohibited from receiving a second time.

ON THE CONTRARY: These objections are a perfect example of reading something into the Law that isn’t there.

REPLY TO OBJECTION 1: I answer that: Canon Law states only that the second reception must take place within the Eucharistic celebration in which the person participates. That could be another daily Mass, it could be a wedding, a funeral, a second Sunday Mass. Canon Law does not give a distinction.

Thus we must strictly read and adhere to the law, and what it actually says, remembering Canon 18. As it would be a restriction of a right to tell someone that they can receive only at a second Mass celebrated for a different purpose, Canon 18 applies. In light of Canon 18, reading Canon 917 to the letter, we see that the ONLY requirement (outside of the Sacrament of the Sick) is that the second reception of Holy Communion requires participation in a Eucharistic celebration.

REPLY TO OBJECTION 2: Canon Law does not say that the person cannot receive if they are late; only that they must participate. If the person arrives late and participates to the degree possible, there is no reason, under Canon Law, why they would not be able to receive if they otherwise have the proper disposition. However, there may be another Church document outside of Canon Law that would address this issue. I will simply state that if we read Canon 917, it does not address lateness, only participation. We cannot read into the Law something that simply is not addressed within it. As "participation" is not defined, it is not a part of the decision as to whether someone can or cannot receive Holy Communion a second time if they arrive late to the eucharistic celebration.

The purpose of Canon Law is not to govern every small thing that people do, and should not and cannot be used to find out things such as how late one can be to Mass before receiving Holy Communion. If you or someone you know wants to justify arriving late to Mass at any point, you will NOT find that justification in Canon Law, either.

***** NOTE: The word "participation" does not mean "doing stuff" like serving as an Extraordinary Minister, or Lector, or Usher. That is a complete misreading of the term. ALL of us, when we attend Mass or some other "Eucharistic celebration" are participating by being engaged with the prayers, knowing what is going on, actively listening and paying attention, etc.

The Saints often used the term "Assist at Holy Mass." They weren't running all over the Church "doing stuff", but rather, were in the pews, standing, sitting, kneeling, praying. The word these days, instead of "assist" has become "participate", and means the same thing now as it did when the Saints referred to it.

Thus, the word "participation" in Canon 917 should be understood to be Mass attendance.

*****

Note: Canon Law is not interpreted in a vacuum, but also in light of moral law. A lot of people have questions about "how late is late" in order for their Mass attendance to be considered "full participation." Well, that question isn't answered in Canon Law as it belongs to a larger issue. Why are you late? On purpose? Habitually? Habitually on purpose? Because you got a flat tire en route and were delayed? Some priests I know say you should hear the first reading and on, others have said for certain to be present for the Gospel. All would say that you can't just show up for Mass at Communion time and receive. That is an abuse, just as is receiving and immediately departing. So...look to moral law for that question, look to a properly formed conscience.

****