Will Anglican priests entering the Church be required to embrace celibacy?

That was the question addressed by today's note from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

There has been widespread speculation, based on supposedly knowledgeable remarks by an Italian correspondent Andrea Tornielli, that the delay in publication of the Apostolic Constitution regarding Personal Ordinariates for Anglicans entering into full communion with the Catholic Church, announced on 20 October 2009 by Cardinal William Levada, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, is due to more than 'technical' reasons. According to this speculation, there is a serious substantial issue at the basis of the delay, namely, disagreement about whether celibacy will be the norm for the future clergy of the provision.

Cardinal Levada offered the following comments on this speculation: "Had I been asked I would happily have clarified any doubt about my remarks at the press conference. There is no substance to such speculation. No one at the Vatican has mentioned any such issue to me. The delay is purely technical in the sense of ensuring consistency in canonical language and references. The translation issues are secondary; the decision to delay publication in order to wait for the 'official' Latin text to be published in 'Acta Apostolicae Sedis' was made some time ago.

Cardinal Levada goes on to quote from Canon Law, and my father has helpfully blogged about this and explained what's happening in layman's terms. Basically - there's no change to the Church's current norms on celibacy.

Previous AmP posts on the topic of Anglican Reunification are archived here.

Silly: NCR's "simple fact" about marriage is neither simple, nor a fact

My father Canon Lawyer Ed Peters writes a brief comment on National Catholic Reporter's recent editorial staff article on the US Bishops' new Pastoral Letter on Marriage. The bottom line:

"... advice from the National Catholic Reporter on how to improve pastoral letters on marriage might be read for possible amusement value, but not for anything that requires theological, canonical, and/or historical accuracy."

Silly NCR editors - theology is for theologians!

Kennedy Funeral Redux: Finding sanity in the shouting

An Irish priest, Fr. Gerald Moloney, went on a rant against my father, Canon Lawyer Ed Peters (and others), about the Kennedy funeral. My father responds here. Don't mess with my dad, Father. It never goes well.

Video: Ed Peters discusses a priest running for Philippines President

I read about this story last week but it was a bit far off my regular news beat to analyze.

My father, Canon Lawyer Ed Peters, however, took up the story on Al Kresta's radio program:


Watch live video from Kresta In The Afternoon's channel on Justin.tv

More on the Canadian Prime Minister/Eucharist controversy

"Canadian Papist" and AmP reader Matt with a useful comment:

Hey, just wanted to throw you a line to let you know that the PMO (Prime Minister's Office) confirmed that the host was, in fact consumed. Also, in knowing the Archbishop of Moncton, who gave Prime Minister Harper the host, he really dropped the ball. He should be a lot more careful in giving out the Eucharist, as I'm certain Harper had no idea what was going on. 

"Unfortunately, the camera did not stop long enough on the prime minister, but, as I told you, the prime minister is a Christian, and when he was offered communion by the priest, he accepted it and consumed it as well," Soudas said. 

Soudas is his spokesman. Is it still wrong for Harper to consume it? Sure, but he didn't know better, and he can't be held responsible for his ignorance.

My father, Canon Lawyer Ed Peters, focuses in his commentary on the ministerial obligation of protecting the Eucharist - and in this case - the Archbishop's woeful neglect of said obligation.

Noted: Thoughts of a Canon Lawyer on L'OR, Milingo, and SSPX

My father has had some excellent posts of late, which I have been neglectful of mentioning:

• Tuesday: L'OR and the Loss of Reason
• Last Friday: The insordescence of Abp. Milingo demands response
• Last Tuesday: Three points on the recent SSPX ordinations

And in case folks are wondering, he never solicits links. :)

Should "family annihilators" be denied a Church funeral?

A controversial topic, but my Canon Lawyer father Ed Peters thinks there is a clear answer.

ND Pres. Jenkins tries a canon law defense ... and fumbles

First the context:

LifeSiteNews.com has obtained a copy of University of Notre Dame President Fr. John Jenkins' commentary on the U.S. Bishops Conference (USCCB) document, "Catholics in the Political Life," which was sent to Notre Dame's Board of Trustees at the beginning of this month. In the commentary Jenkins explains how he believes that the university's invitation of President Obama to be this year's commencement speaker and receive an honorary law degree is in keeping with the "letter and the spirit" of the recommendations included in the USCCB document.

[Read Fr. Jenkin's commentary here.]

A response from Canon Lawyer Ed Peters:

Notre Dame President Fr. John Jenkins continues to flail about for an adequate response (though short of resigning, there isn't an adequate response) to his monumental gaff of bestowing an honorary doctor of laws degree on a president who has spent his entire political career seeing to it that millions of human beings are excluded from the protection of law. Jenkin's latest lunge is for the life ring stamped "canon lawyers we consulted". Figures.

... Jenkins, invoking unidentified canon lawyers, holds that the USCCB's 2004 statement, "Catholics in Political Life", merely restricts Catholic institutions from honoring Catholics whose public record evidences disdain for fundamental moral principles. Is the man serious?

[Find out why this doesn't work.]

See also:

• Cardinal Newman Society
• LifeNews
• Fumare blog

Pope Benedict XVI creates new diocese in the Philippines

Yep, the pope can do this sort of thing:

Pope Benedict XVI has created a new diocese in the Philippines and named its bishop.

An article posted on CBCP Web site said the Pope elevated the Prelature of Libmanan in Camarines Sur and appointed Fr. Jose Rojas, 52, as its bishop.

... The Libmanan diocese has nearly 500,000 Catholics. It has 27 parishes and 51 priests.

Following the Pope’s order, the Philippine Catholic Church now has a total of 16 archdioceses, 52 dioceses, seven apostolic vicariates, five territorial prelatures, and one military ordinariate.

Cool - it's wonderful seeing the Church grow. The successor to Peter lives!

If this guy won't get excommunicated, who will?

My basic take on Robert S. McElvaine stinker piece in the Washington Post On Faith column was "Fine, let him have his way - excommunicate him." I mean, here's a guy who seems to make his career off being a bad Catholic. No one would listen to him if he wasn't Catholic ... and the Church has tools to fix this.

Consider what my father Ed Peters has to say:

In fewer than 500 words, McElvaine manages to insult meanly and repeatedly Pope Benedict XVI and to impugn (sophomorically, I grant, but nevertheless clearly and directly) a half-dozen important Church teachings on sacraments, ecclesiology, and moral doctrine. If McElvaine's column does not constitute a violation of, among other norms, Canon 1369, then folks, I am never going to recognize it when it is violated.

Now, it's one thing for the bishops to have ignored gross insults to themselves (I think they were wrong to have done that last year, but I can see why they might have acted thus). But it is entirely something else for them to ignore the kind of venom that McElvaine has just poured out on the pope. Their pope. Our pope.

He lays out a clear road-map out for how to deal with McElvaine.

The law is there for a reason.

Michael Sean Winters, step away from the Code....

Michael Sean Winters, whom I enjoy disagreeing with, decided he would play canon lawyer for a day:

"The second point upon which we must be clear is that the "No Communion" policy is a radical innovation that should be resisted. First, it requires applying the canons in ways that are novel and dubious. Canon law is a pastoral instrument and recognizes that it should be applied with gentleness not vengeance."

A real canon lawyer (and my father, in fact), points out Winters' double-standard:

Ironically, it does not seem to occur to Winters that he quite willing to substitute his opinion on how canon 915 should be applied for that of actual pastors like Abp. Raymond Burke (a prelate whose credentials in canon law dwarf mine and, I'm guessing, Winters'). Burke offers a powerful, and I suggest compelling, case for the application of Canon 915 in the face of the metastasizing scandal of the prominent pro-abortion Catholic politician. Has Winters read it?

Of course not, but that doesn't mean Winters can't have an opinion.

Dealing with FOCA-supporters in Canon Law

Canonist Ed Peters lays out the legal tools that Bishops may put into use against FOCA-supporters:

The final wording of the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) has yet to be set, but there is every indication that it will be the most radical piece of pro-abortion legislation ever proposed at the federal level. The near certainty that FOCA will be re-introduced (compounded by the increased likelihood that it will pass and be signed into law) means that, ready or not, Catholic bishops will have to face squarely the problem of well-known Catholic legislators supporting a specifically and gravely evil bill. As I see it, bishops have four options for dealing with Catholic legislators who support FOCA:

[Read them here.]

Proposed: Women lectors

CNS Blog:

Probably the most newsy — and somewhat unexpected — item in the final propositions of the Synod of Bishops on the Bible was a proposal to allow women to be officially installed in the ministry of lector.

The issue was raised in Proposition 17 on “The ministry of the word and women,” and on Saturday morning it passed with 191 votes in favor, 45 opposed and three abstentions, according to our sources.

... The question is whether women can be officially installed in such a ministry. Until now, the Vatican has said no: canon law states that only qualified lay men can be “installed on a stable basis in the ministries of lector and acolyte.” At the same time, canon law does allow for “temporary deputation” as lector to both men and women, which is why women routinely appear as lectors.

Disagreement:

It’s interesting that this proposal, while passing overwhemlingly, drew the greatest number of “no” votes than any of the other 54 propositions, most of which passed with fewer than five opposing votes.

Waiting to hear a canonist's take...

American Bishops' VP discusses the status of pro-abort politicians

Expert canonical commentary over at CanonLawBlog.com:

Bp. Kicanas on Catholic pro-abortion politicians Bp. Gerald Kicanas of Tucson, now vice-president of the USCCB, gave an interview to the National Catholic Reporter's John Allen on, among other things, the situation of pro-abortion Catholic politicians. While I hesitate to read too much into Kicanas' answers (they seemed off-the-cuff, understandably so), and while I recognize that some of Allen's questions were oddly phrased, what the future USCCB president says about this issue is important, and I think a few remarks are in order. {Read about it here.}

Bonus topic: "American Sign Language as a Catholic pastoral language"

More on former ND president Fr. Hesburgh

Diogenes was not impressed with Hesburgh's flippant remarks about Church teaching. Neither is Ed Peters:

Fr. Theodore Hesburgh's recent interview with the Wall Street Journal is getting some attention in the Catholic blogosphere, and it should: the WSJ article presents a casus classicus of how priestly ministry disappeared under the allure of social activism for the last 50 years or so. In any case, it is Hesburgh's assertion that "I have no problem with females . . . as priests, but I realize that the majority of the leadership in the Church would" that deserves a canonical comment. [Read it here.]

Priestlessness vs. Sunday Obligation

CanonLawBlog.com:

A news story out of the Diocese of Fairbanks in Alaska describes an upcoming "priestless Sunday" wherein priests will be away from their parishes to serve remote missions, leaving their parishioners without Sunday Mass that weekend. I can see arguments for and against this unusual action and I don't think that outsiders are in a position to conclusively support or reject the basic idea.

One point in the news article, however, needs to be corrected: After noting that Communion services will be celebrated in most parishes left without pastors, the article asserts that such services are "not Mass but will satisfy the Catholic obligation to attend Mass."

That's wrong. (See why.)

Vicar General v. Canon Law

CanonLawBlog.com:

Monsignor Robert Reardon, the Vicar General of the Archdiocese of Cardiff, is apparently slated to be the next bishop of Menevia in Wales. But there's a hitch; word is getting out that, in 1979, Reardon officially participated in the civil wedding of an AWOL priest (my term for a priest who abandons ministry without obtaining dispensation from the obligations of the clerical state, including celibacy).

Reardon apparently admits the deed, but adds "If someone can show me the church law I am supposed to have broken, I would be interested, but I'm not aware of it." Does the archdiocesan vicar general really not know what church laws would have been broken by such conduct? (More.)

Sacramento v. Dominicans

CanonLawBlog.com:

The Diocese of Sacramento is suing the Western Province of the Dominicans for payment of what the diocese asserts is the religious order's fair share of a civil judgment entered against the diocese in regard to a sexual misconduct case involving a Dominican priest then working in the diocese. (More)

Malignant Milingo

I for one, am of this mind:

In 2006 Abp. Emmanuel Milingo was excommunicated for illicitly ordaining married men to the episcopate. Now, Abp. Milingo is traipsing through his native Zambia trying to get Catholic priests to agitate for an end to priestly celibacy in the Roman Church. The excommunicated archbishop assures clergy not to worry about ecclesiastical repercussions because "excommunication does not exist."

Folks, I've had it with Abp. Milingo's incessant eye-pokes against priestly celibacy. If you have, too, read what can be done about him. {update - link fixed}

Sarah Pallin: Ex-Catholic?

In case people try to make something of it, Canon Lawyer Ed Peters on the question:

Sarah Palin's probable Roman Catholic baptism and her life spent outside the Church is of little import in assessing her character. Unlike the case of Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who seems to have left the Church as an adult, Palin's parents apparently took her out of the practice of the Faith while she was yet a child, so Palin cannot be said to have decided against her Catholic identity, nor can anything be concluded about her remaining outside of full communion. Her "re-baptism" at age 12 or so, if that's what it was, would not however be recognized by the Church.

[Peters also adds some comments about Palin's daughter, Bristol, and her pregnancy]

This means Palin's marriage is also valid, and sacramental (presuming her husband Todd is baptized).

Was Lugo the first laicized bishop in history, or not?

Ed Peters weighs in on the debate which is taking place - amazingly - in the pages of The Economist!

Breaking: Arch of STL & Board Members Sue St. Stanislaus for Control

Breaking, big, news:

The St. Louis Archdiocese filed suit today against the St. Stanislaus Kostka church in an attempt to regain control of the former Polish parish.

Six parishioners, including three recent board members, joined the archdiocese in the suit. They are asking a St. Louis judge to void any changes to the St. Stanislaus' bylaws since 2001 and give the archbishop the authority to appoint a pastor and board there.

Last month, the St. Stanislaus board voted 4-3 to dissolve itself and allow parishioners to elect a new board at its annual meeting in August. Eight St. Stanislaus board members had been declared excommunicated by Archbishop Raymond Burke.

According to the archdiocese, the three board members who lost that vote - Bernice Krauze, Stanley Rozanski, and Robert Zabielski - were secretly reconciled with the Roman Catholic church last month in a meeting with Burke before Pope Benedict XVI re-assigned him to a new position at the Vatican.

Last month, Edward Florek, a former board member, also reconciled with the church.

The archdiocese’s release said that if the lawsuit is successful, it "is prepared to appoint a Catholic priest, Rev. Michael Marchlewski, SJ, to St. Stanislaus as administrator." (St. Louis Post-Dispatch)

The full dust-up is at the Saint Louis Catholic blog.

A maybe minor point regarding communion, jurisdiction, and bishops

First off, I read this headline:

"Archbishop Wuerl says politicians’ support for abortion is wrong"

... and thought to myself "well sure, but that's not what we're discussing here."

Abp. Wuerl's basic argument is that politicians should be denied communion (or not) based on the decision of that individual's home bishop, not the Archbishop of Washington where he is receiving.

I'm wondering if this jurisdictional argument holds any water. It is my (elementary) understanding that a Bishop is responsible not only for the spiritual welfare of his diocese, but also is responsible for the proper administration of the sacraments (and especially the Eucharist).

Remember, according to Church teaching (as I understand it), it is both damaging to the impenitent person to receive Communion in a state of mortal sin and it is a sacrilege of the Most Blessed Sacrament when an unworthy person receives. And while Abp. Wuerl might not be responsible for preventing the former, he is responsible for preventing the latter.

Ergo, he does have a say in the dilemma of publicly pro-abortion politicians receiving communion in DC.

Where am I wrong on this? I'd like to hear your input.

Des Moines Register knows who to quote on matters canonical

In this case, my father (come to think of it, in all canonical cases he's the guy to quote):

The Catholic Church's decision to grant Steven Sueppel a funeral at St. Mary's Church after he killed his wife and four children on Easter night has left behind an emotional debate among Iowa City-area Catholics and Catholic scholars.

Edward Peters, a professor of Catholic doctrine, or canon law, at Sacred Heart Seminary in Detroit, says Sueppel should not have been given a Catholic funeral.

Sueppel would be what canon law calls a "manifest sinner" because he murdered his wife and four young children before killing himself, Peters said.

He said his interpretation of canon law leads him to conclude that Sueppel should not have been granted a Catholic funeral because doing so creates a "scandal for the faithful."

Of course, canon law is not equivalent to "Catholic Doctrine", as the article claims.

Save yourself from this and other mistakes by adding Dr. Peter's canonlawblog to your blogroll today!

Vatican to take disciplinary action against renegade Paraguayan bishop?

The headline gives us the picture: Former bishop Fernando Lugo scores historic win in Paraguay.

The story fills it in:

Former Roman Catholic bishop Fernando Lugo won a historic victory in Paraguay's presidential election Sunday, ending more than six decades of one-party rule with a mandate to help the nation's poor and indigenous.

.... News of the win by the gray-bearded Lugo, dubbed the "bishop of the poor," set off massive parties in cities across Paraguay with horn-honking caravans of cars blaring music. Others stamped on torn-down banners of the Colorado Party, which many Paraguayans blame for decades of corruption by political elites.

.... In Paraguay's long-volatile politics, Lugo still awaited final official returns confirming his landmark triumph, which would make him he first former Catholic bishop elected as a president.

.... A bishop since 1994, he resigned the post in December 2006 to sidestep Paraguay's constitutional ban on clergy seeking office. Lugo says he was influenced by the liberation theology frowned upon by the Vatican. But he says he is neither on the left nor the right, but leads a pluralistic coalition.

Trouble is, it's meaningless to "resign" from being a priest (or a bishop) in the Catholic church.

[edited - see update below]

Canon Lawyer Ed Peters (my father) explains the complexities of the canonical case:

Pope Benedict XVI is believed to be mulling over the possibility of expelling a bishop, Fernando Lugo, from the clerical state. That would certainly be a first under the 1983 Code (the Jacques Gaillot case in 1995 was not a precedent; Gaillot was removed from office, but not from the clerical state), and I'm pretty sure it never happened under the 1917 Code.

[More arcanum and "practicalum" in his post.]

Catholic World News follows the above-cited canonical analysis of Ed Peters, and adds this:

A former Divine Word missionary, Lugo was named Bishop of San Pedro in 1994. He resigned that post in 2005, citing health issues. He is now 58 years old and his health appears to be fine.

How shocking. A miraculous recovery. Must have been a sign, right?

The Vatican's spokesmen, Fr. Federico Lombardi, says they are going to "take things slow."

In other words, don't expect an immediate specific condemnation of the bishop's most recent action (winning the election). Lugo is already in enough trouble for abandoning his ministry, so he's not going to get into more trouble for succeeding at what he left his office to accomplish. If anything, in accepting the position he proclaims his obduracy in sin. Plus the Vatican doesn't want to look like it is meddling in the political process.

update: Gregor of TNLM, in the comments section to this post, raises the possibility that removal of a bishop from the clerical state is in fact impossible, citing a statement by Cardinal Re. Considering that the original "source" for these rumors that the pope was considering removing Lugo from the clerical state is not the Vatican but instead a UK newspaper, it's not surprising that they would get this matter of fact wrong.

Heck, these journalists can't even get the concept of laicization down in the first place (instead they often use the non-technical term "defrocking", which they actually used again in today's story).

Updates as I see them....

update 2: Ed Peters responds that dismissing a bishop from the clerical state is not impossible, but will save explaining why until later tonight when he can do so at length on his blog. So check back there.

Breaking: Abp. Burke excommunicates *two more* persons today

Wow. Archbishop Burke is on a roll:

I have communicated with both Mr. Rozanski and Ms. Krauze that the Board of Saint Stanislaus Kostka Corporation is in schism, the parish had been suppressed, and that if they joined the board, they would be knowingly joining a sect that held and professed views outside the communion of the Catholic Church. Because they joined the board knowing this information, they excommunicated themselves from the Catholic Church. Church law requires me to publicly declare the excommunication.

The situation of Mr. Rozanski and Ms. Krause is sad for the whole Church. It is cause of great concern for me as archbishop. Please join me in praying that both will be reconciled with the Church and that the great harm which has been caused to the Church, with the help of God’s grace, will be healed.

A Q&A for this set of excommunications has been available here.

That brings it up to five excommunications in two days. Someone decided to clear off his desk before Easter.

Ph/t: TheTimman of St. Louis Catholic, who has much more on the story.

Abp. Burke excommunicates three women involved in attempted ordination

update: Archbishop Burke has excommunicated two more persons today, more on that story here.

original story: Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis has today excommunicated three women of the archdiocese who participated in an attempted ordination on November 11th, 2007.

Burke, as his info page describes, is truly "one of the world’s foremost authorities on Roman Catholic Canon Law," and he has chosen to use the medicinal penalty of excommunicaton to "safeguard the unity of the Catholic Church and protect the souls of the faithful."

From the Archdiocese of St. Louis website:

As Archbishop of St. Louis, it is my responsibility to safeguard the unity of the Catholic Church and protect the souls of the faithful.

I have communicated with Ms. Fresen, Ms. Hudson, and Ms. McGrath, and informed them that if they participated in an attempted female ordination, they would be excommunicating themselves from the Catholic Church. In the apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, Pope John Paul II reaffirmed that the Catholic Church has no authority to confer priestly ordination on women. This teaching is to be held definitively by all the faithful as belonging to the deposit of faith. Because they participated in the attempted ordination, Church law requires me to publicly declare the excommunication.

The situation is sad for the whole Church. It is cause of great concern for me as archbishop. Please join me in praying that both will be reconciled with the Church and that the great harm which has been caused to the Church, with the help of God's grace, will be healed.

• Declaration of Excommunication of Patricia Fresen, Rose Hudson, and Elsie McGrath (621.44 Kb PDF file)
• Questions and Answers Regarding Excommunication of Those Involved in Attempted Ordinations

update: expert commentary from Canonist Ed Peters:

I would like to say that Abp. Raymond Burke's excommunication of three women who recently participated in a pseudo-ordination in Saint Louis is a "text-book illustration" of how (non-judicial) excommunication is supposed to be applied in the Church today, but I can't say that: Why not? Because Abp. Burke's attention to juridic detail and his provision for the pastoral care of the people in his care so exceeds what the textbooks teach, that it is the textbooks that must copy from him, not him from the textbooks.

[Read why here]

Peters (my father) has also published a book on excommunication, entitled "Excommunication and the Catholic Church: Straight Answers to Tough Questions."

The Archbishop almost immediatly placed the women in question under interdict (AP) after the mock ordination.

He is also taking canonical action against renegade local priest Marek Bozek, who on March 5th refused to show at his hearing, opening him up to be dismissed from the clerical state by Rome. It's a long story.

St. Louis Catholic beat me to the punch on this story by about an hour, and with good coverage.

update: more background....

A picture of Fresen simulating an ordination of Hudson and McGrath:

The event took place, St. Louis Jewish Light reports, at a Jewish synagogue by the name of "Central Reform Congregation." However, "The Jewish Community Relations Council .... released a statement that CRC's decision to host the ceremony does not represent the greater Jewish community." Indeed, they've done everything they can to distance themselves from it.

Not so Pamela Schaeffer of the National Catholic Reporter, who was all agog at the development. Hudson and McGrath are listed on the "Roman Catholic WomenPriests" website as "ordained." At the time, Womens Ordination issued a press release which read: "Over 600 Cheer at Ordination of Two Roman Catholic Women Hosted by a Synagogue in St. Louis."

Finally, Bridget Mary, herself a "woman priest", notifies us that each of the excommunicated women received a decree at their respective homes by a courier. Some justifications for women's ordination she lists?

Recent scholarship affirms that women were ordained in the first twelve hundred years of the church’s history. The first half of the church’s history provides us with images and accounts of the inclusion of women in Holy Orders that contradict the later prohibition. The evidence provides a tradition we reclaim.

With facts like this one, I wonder how they can claim that the Catholic Church is out of touch.

In all seriousness, we should pray for these women that they may realize the gravity of their actions, the peril of their souls, and joyfully be reconciled to the Church. What's really going to get me is when the media reporters chime in and support their delusion. That's no help.

We should support Archbishop Burke because he is bravely performing the duties of his office.

update: the first AP "breaking news" report is accurate and balanced. We'll see what follows it.

Priest facing fraud charges attempts Canon Law defense

In the Light of the Law:

Dennis Riccitelli, a priest from Arizona, is facing state prosecution for alleged theft and/or fraud against his former parish, Holy Cross (Mesa). But Riccitelli is trying to raise canon law (specifically, norms on the administration of ecclesiastical property) as a defense to his state prosecution. His canonical argument got the trial judge's attention, as it should. It also has prosecutors worried; but it shouldn't.

Riccitelli's case might not be an ideal one through which to encourage, even on a small scale, civil law to recognize, where appropriate, the relevance of canon law in American law and society, but it's preferable, I think, to its serving as an occasion to repudiate entirely civil consideration of canonical arguments. With all the usual caveats about commenting on stories reported in the secular press, let's see why.

[Read more here.]

Follow-up: Feuerherd runs foul of Canon Law, and Common Sense

Yesterday I noted, as part of a general commentary, Joe Feuerherd's slimy op-ed for the WaPo.

Today, my father Canonist Ed Peters tells us what can be done about this studied form of offensiveness:

To wish damnation on an individual or a group is to wish on them the absolutely worst fate conceivable: separation from God forever. CCC 1035. Catholics possessed of even a rudimentary catechesis know that one cannot invoke upon a human being any greater calamity than damnation, and that it is never licit, for any reason, to wish that another person be damned.

On February 24, National Catholic Reporter correspondent Joe Feuerherd, writing in the Washington Post, expressed his desire to see the bishops (of the United States) literally damned before he would fail to vote Democratic this Fall.

[Read what can be done about it here.]

There's really no excuse.

"Anti-Catholicism: the last acceptable prejudice."

update: Carl Olson also takes notice (and issue), and Ramesh Ponnuru at NRO does as well:

Feuerherd doesn’t take the tack that it is wrong in principle for the bishops to suggest that some types of political behavior can endanger people’s souls. It is hard to see how he could take that tack, given that he appears to believe, first, that there is such a thing as an eternal soul that can be damned or saved, and second, that moral choices can affect the outcome. Nor does Feuerherd argue, exactly, that the bishops are wrong to regard abortion as a grave injustice. He says that he is himself pro-life. Evidently, then, he believes that abortion is the unjust killing of innocent human beings, and the “right” to abortion therefore amounts to a license to commit an injustice of the gravest kind.

In other words, either Feuerherd is incapable of writing proper english grammar, or his claim to be "pro-life" is sarcastic in the worst sense, or he's utterly illogical. Again, what a fine argument he presents.

Canon Law: Fr. Maciel was not 'suspended' (+ Brazilian excommunication clarification)

From the In the Light of the Law blog (which was recently described in the National Catholic Register as the "only canon law blog on the internet" - a factually arguable but functionally correct assertion), comes this important clarification regarding the ex-leader of the Legionaries of Christ:

"I would caution against describing Maciel having been "suspended" or "penalized" by the Holy See."

[Read why here.]

See also (unrelated to Maciel, but related to Canon Law): "Brazilian excommunication warning."

A weekend double dose of CanonLawBloggery

First up, that story of the uppity St. Louis Coach that is trying to play hardball with Archbishop Burke:

I'm not making this up.

Jesuit-run St. Louis University's basketball coach Rick Majerus (yes, a basketball coach) is telling St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke (yes, the canonist archbishop), to mind his own business regarding Majerus' outspoken support for (get ready for it) abortion and experimentation on embryonic humans! If it weren't that expressing support for such deeply offensive conduct is so deadly serious, I'd be laughing. Read more about it at here.

Next, the Code of Canon Law for the Roman Catholic Church turns 25 today. Many happy returns!

The psalmist sings "Happy is the man . . . whose delight is the law of the Lord; on his law he meditates day and night." (I: 1,3). The Psalmist is right.

Twenty-five years ago today, Pope John Paul II promulgated the apostolic constitution Sacrae disciplinae leges and with it the revised Code of Canon Law for the Roman Catholic Church. It is a marvelous achievement, all the more so, I suggest, because it was developed during one of the most intense periods of antinomianism the Church ever suffered. Read more about it here.

Updated: Laicization in Phoenix provides opportunity for precision in language

But sadly, that opportunity was missed by the diocesan spokesman, says Ed Peters:

The Diocese of Phoenix is dealing with an unfortunate situation brought on by one Msgr. Dale Fushek. I know nothing about the case beyond what I've seen on-line, but the steps taken by the bishop seem reasonable to me. Still, a comment by diocesan spokesman Jim Dwyer concerning an associate of Flushek, one Fr. Mark Dippre, who abandoned ministry and married civilly a few years ago, caught my eye: "Dippre has never been formally laicized, Dwyer said, but the diocese considers him 'functionally laicized' because he has not been in ministry and has had no ties to the diocese for several years."

I think that kind of description is going to confuse people. Describing AWOL priests as "functionally laicized" or as "permanently inactive" or as "resigned from ministry", and so on, might seem more palatable to the public, but it masks a serious problem: none of those categories exist canonically, and easy resort to such labels, in my opinion, just puts off dealing with the problems.

[Learn more about Laicization here.]

update: And - *wow* - as if on cue, this story breaks today:

Archbishop Burke seeks laicization for renegade Polish priest

Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis, Missouri, has begun formal proceedings to defrock a priest connected with a schismatic Polish Catholic community.

The archbishop is seeking the laicization of Father Marek Bozek, a Polish native with a checkered history. In 2005, Archbishop Burke had excommunicated Bozek, a priest of the Springfield-Cape Girardeau diocese, for his involvement in St. Stanislaus Kostka Church, a congregation in St. Louis that has rejected the archbishop's authority. - CWNews

Why *wow*, you ask?

Because Ed Peters called it back in December of 2006:

"Fr. Bozek should stop and think"

Fr. Bozek needs to know something here: contumacy for an excommunication imposed for an act of schism is itself punishable, this time, by penal dismissal from the clerical state (1983 CIC 1364 § 2). Moreover, once imposed, penal dismissal from the clergy--not being a censure (1983 CIC 1336 § 1, 5°)--is not reversible by what amounts to offering a sincere apology. Indeed, reinstatement of a "defrocked" priest is reserved to Rome (1983 CIC 293) and is so rare as to be non-existent. - In the Light of the Law

And that, my friends, is one of the many reasons why it pays to read blogs....

Ed Peters asks some questions about Coriden's "Rights of Catholics in the Church"

There are some rather glaring problems in the monograph, it seems. Ed Peters writes:

Dr. James Coriden, professor of canon law at Washington Theological Union, is a prominent American canonist. His publications address many topics in Church law and I have invoked his authority often in support of points I wished to carry. Having just read, however, his 2007 monograph The Rights of Catholics in the Church (a work intended for a popular audience), I think some comments are in order. While Coriden's treatment of several topics raises questions in my mind, I'll limit these remarks to two with special interest to me, annulments and pro-life.

[Read the rest.]

A primer for accomodating deaf Catholics

Penned by my father Ed Peters over at his blog, In the Light of the Law:

I am not deaf and do not presume to speak for them. But, as one with some exposure to certain issues facing deaf Catholics, I think a response to Rev. Edward McNamara's January 1 Zenit post entitled "Accommodating the Deaf" is needed. One "M.D.", a Canadian, had asked Fr. McNamara whether Catholic churches should have American Sign Language and closed-captioning available at Mass and whether deaf people were allowed to enter religious life. I recognize Fr. McNamara's expertise in liturgical matters and applaud his desire to see deaf Catholics accorded their basic rights, but I found his discussion of these matters markedly wanting.

[Find out why here.]

O'Rourke and Hardt fail to make a canonical case against providing nutrition/hydration to PVS patients

From my father Canon Lawyer Ed Peter's blog, In the Light of the Law:

Bio-ethicist Dr. John Hardt and canonist Rev. Kevin O'Rourke are trying to use canon law against a Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Responsum that upholds the basic right of patients in a "persistent vegetative state" to nutrition and hydration. I think their arguments are flawed. Here I summarize the events leading up to the CDF Response and then assess Hardt and O'Rourke's attempt to minimize its impact. [Read the full text.]

Related: "CDF releases clarification (confirmation) re: nutrition & hydration" (Sep. 14th)

"Archbishop Burke places interdict upon women who underwent "ordination" ceremony" - CNA

CNA:

Two women who took part in a ritual they claimed was an ordination ceremony have been placed under interdict, the Associated Press reports.

Rose Marie Dunn Hudson, 67, and Elsie Hainz McGrath, 69, underwent the ceremony at a St. Louis synagogue. The ceremony was led by a South African former nun who claimed to have been ordained a bishop by a German bishop in communion with Rome. The two women plan to "co-pastor" a community, starting December 1, in a space offered by a local Unitarian church.

Archbishop Raymond Burke of the archdiocese of St. Louis sent a three-page letter to the women after they underwent the ceremony. He ordered the women to "renounce any attempts" to celebrate Mass, hear confessions, or officiate at any other sacrament. The letter summoned them to appear before a church tribunal on December 3.

In the archdiocesan newspaper on Friday the archbishop wrote that the women would confuse and lead astray the faithful by their "sinful action."

Watching Abp. Burke, you'd begin to think that the body of the Church's Canon Law is actually a living organism and not a dead letter (as so many bishops, sadly, seem to think).

"Medieval Church Law" reviewed by Ed Peters

Canonists, rejoice! Find the link at In Light of the Law.

Workers in Marriage Tribunals get a little nod...

... by Pope Benedict at the end of this Wednesday's general audience:

Benedict XVI greeted the participants in a course on matrimonial law and the canonical process.

The Pope mentioned the course at the end of today's general audience, encouraging the participants to take advantage of this "precious occasion of juridical formation so as to be able to offer your dioceses and communities a qualified and diligent service."

The course, sponsored by the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross, is under way in Rome through Friday. [Zenit]

Burke's Canonical Bunker Buster for Pro-Abort Politicians

And in this case "Bunker" means "those who think that Canon Law doesn't prohibit pro-choice Catholic politicians from receiving the Eucharist" and "Buster" means "Archbishop Burke's recent article published in the world's leading journal for Canon (Church) Law."

The title of Burke's article: "CANON 915: THE DISCIPLINE REGARDING THE DENIAL OF HOLY COMMUNION TO THOSE OBSTINATELY PERSEVERING IN MANIFEST GRAVE SIN." It is available online in its entirety here.

I would highly recommend reading my father's introduction to this article at his blog In the Light of the Law (published today) which fills-in the context surrounding the debate and attempts to prepare the reader for what is, admittedly, technical and demanding language (I'm sure that won't constitute a disincentive to my readers).

He considers it the most important article on canon law published this year.

A friend of mine alerted me earlier this year to Burke's intentions of publishing this article, but he could not specify which journal had accepted it and my efforts to find out proved fruitless. Regardless, it has now reached the light of day and by nightfall I'm fairly certain we can expect some fireworks.

"Help, Help - I'm being repressed by Canon Law!"

My father doesn't have much sympathy for such foolishness:

A spate of stories this summer (maybe the same few stories recycling themselves on slow news days) describes folks bringing wrongful termination actions against Catholic employers (usually schools). Today's features a man who claims he was terminated "for not getting an annulment." I doubt it.

I don't know who said exactly what to whom (that's what courts are there to sort out), but I do know this: there is no canon law that requires people to "get an annulment", so the failure to get an annulment can't be the basis for a termination. My guess is, though, it wasn't. [Read the rest.]

And neither do I. (And yes, it is a rather slow news day.)

"How about dinner, movie and ... confession?"

Today's news of the strange features Fr. John Dietzen answering a question posed by a Catholic Times reader (the official newspaper of the diocese of Springfield, Illinois) with a response I found surprising:

Q. Is it permissible for a husband and wife to receive the sacrament of penance together? We have experienced this in a retreat, and the ceremony was very meaningful and spiritually helpful for us. Recently, however, a priest told us this is never permitted, that each person must go to confession alone. How can it be allowed in one place and not another? (Wisconsin)

A. The practice you experienced is not uncommon in retreats or other spiritual occasions for married couples, provided, of course, that they both approve and consider it helpful for their marriage. As far as I can determine, there is no liturgical or canonical rule that prohibits a couple from receiving this sacrament in one another's presence.

But as Canon Lawyer Ed Peters points out, you can't expect every possible action to be explicitly condemned in Canon Law (or any realistic legal system, for that matter):

Deitzen's basic argument runs thus: there is no express canonical or liturgical prohibition against spouses confessing sacramentally in each other's presence, so "couple's confession" is licit. But even if, pro arguendo, no norm expressly prohibits joint confession, one may still ask, So what? There is no canon against the faithful attending Mass drunk or naked, but surely we cannot read the law's "silence" as approval, qualified or otherwise, for such practices. The Church could not possibly identify in advance and prohibit every illicit practice that the faithful might think of. Inclined though I am to give wide play in canon law to the legal maxim Libertas praesumitur (Freedom is presumed), joint confession is an instance where that worthy principle must yield to weightier considerations.

Indeed, I suggest that it is clearly discernible from several canonical norms that joint confession should be avoided. Ironically, Deitzen identifies these norms but seems to miss their obvious (to me, anyway) implications.

Read his treatment of the canonical arguments, which is followed by more objections from common sense.

"A canonical response to a murderous priest "

In The Light of the Law:

"The story out of Mexico ... that a priest has been sentenced to 55 years in prison for the murder of his own son (committed to prevent detection of the priest's sexual misconduct and his possible expulsion from the clerical state) leaves one pretty much speechless. In the 18 months since this story broke, it appears that the Mexican hierarchy, appalled by the discovery, cooperated with state prosecutors pursuing the matter in secular court. That's all to the good, of course; but I think it important that the canonical consequences for such loathsome conduct be pursued as well." [Read more.]

The "radicalness" of the CDF document questioned

... by Edward Peters at In the Light of the Law (canonists, take note!).

Another problem with the co-habitation argument: canonical

One more nail in the coffin:

Michael Lawler and Gail Risch (U.S. Catholic on-line) propose to treat certain co-habiting couples essentially as married. This bad idea should, and will, go nowhere (Abps. Charles Chaput and Elden Curtiss and folks like Carl Olson see numerous problems with it), so I need not comment much on it. I should point out, though, that L&R's presentation of the canon law on marriage is problematic in several respects.

[How?]

An important post script to the Kennedy Annulment story

Guess what. A little research has yielded the surprising piece of information that "Joseph Kennedy never received an annulment from the Catholic Church", which means that this most recent decision from Rome did not overturn his annulment because he never had one to begin with.

Curious? My father proves and explains.

The incredible disappearing Kennedy annulment

Needlessly flippant title aside (hey, you're interested now, aren't you?), this is rather important news breaking today that is sure to form (or misinform) people's opinions regarding annulments in America.

From the AP:

BOSTON (AP) - The Vatican reversed the annulment of former representative Joseph Kennedy II's first marriage, a union that had lasted 12 years and produced two sons.

Sheila Rauch on Wednesday confirmed a report on Time magazine's website that her appeal of the annulment to Rome has succeeded. "I'm very grateful that the marriage was validated," she told The Associated Press.

Rauch had sharply criticized the Catholic church for annulling her marriage, alleging in a 1997 book that the Kennedy family's influence in the church had made it possible.

Here is the original story in Time.

My father reviewed Rauch's book back in 1997, and blogs today about this most recent episode in the saga right here at CanonLawblog.com. It's required reading before anyone decides to form conclusions based on the evidence at hand so far regarding the annulment process in America and this one in particular.

Update: Jimmy Akin picks apart the errors in the Time piece here.

Apostasy watch: A deacon goes Mormon

My father has the goods over at CanonLawBlog.com.

A double-dose of canon law

Served up by my father:

• Peter Meade should resign the cardinal's commission, or be removed:
  Boston politicos Peter & Rosanne Meade woke up one summer morning, saw the sun shining brightly, and concluded that God must have changed his mind about the travesty called "homosexual marriage". The Meades think that because the world did not come to an end when Massachusetts legalized "same-sex marriage", those ignorant Bible-thumpers were wrong about the consequences for societies that continually invent new ways to flout, well, just about everything.But a pretty sunrise over Boston Harbor is not, in the slightest, a sign that God approves of what the chronically bizarre government of Massachusetts does in regard to "homosexual marriage", or anything else for that matter. Not at all. [Read the rest...]
• Divorce mentality among Catholics: a case from the Roman Rota:
  The Catholic Church's highest judicial court is the Roman Rota. While not exactly the equivalent of the United States Supreme Court (see 1983 CIC 16), cases decided by the Rota are nevertheless of great significance in the development of canonical jurisprudence. All Rota sentences are published in Latin, and relatively few are later translated into modern languages. The few that are translated are generally available only in specialized publications. For the benefit of those who might like see what a Rota sentence looks like, I recently translated one that I found interesting not only in that it provides a look at how facts and law are discussed by Rotal judges, but because it deals with a topic of major current interest, namely, how a "divorce mentality" can negatively impact the attitudes of Catholics entering marriage. [Read the rest...]

And yes, he's having a happy father's day.

Canon Lawyer Ed Peters assesses recent claims re: excommunication in First Things

In the Light of the Law:

[Ed Peters says:] Robert Miller's important essay for First Things (30 May 2007), wherein he says that, in accord with Canon 1398, "the Church should declare openly that [Catholic politicians] have incurred the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae", must be carefully read before considering my remarks.

...

But if Miller, with everything he brings to the discussion, is wrong in asserting that Canon 1398 can reach pro-abortion Catholic politicians, and I think he is wrong, does that not mean that the time has come to conclude this particular debate and focus on other ecclesiastical responses, including canonical ones, to the grave scandal these people give?

[Read the full essay here.]

Can you be Catholic and Pro-Abortion?

The answer might surprise you.

(... but in an educational way.)

Vatican's clarification re: Pope's comments on excommunication, abortion, etc.

The Associated Press has a follow-up (underlining mine):

Pope Benedict XVI denounced Mexico City politicians Wednesday for voting to legalize abortion, saying they should no longer receive Communion.

Flying to Latin America, Benedict was asked about comments by Mexico City church officials that the lawmakers would be excommunicated for having voted last month for the legislation legalizing abortion in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.

"It's nothing new, it's normal, it wasn't arbitrary. It is what is foreseen by the church's doctrine," Benedict told reporters aboard a plane to Brazil in his first full-fledged news conference since becoming pontiff in 2005.

Reporters flying with the pope took his comments to mean that he endorsed the comments by Mexican churchmen that the lawmakers should be excommunicated.

But the Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, later issued a statement approved by the pope clarifying the remarks. The statement said the pope did not intend to excommunicate anyone. Politicians who vote in favor of abortion should not receive the sacrament of Holy Communion, Lombardi said.

"Since excommunication hasn't been declared by the Mexican bishops, the pope has no intention himself of declaring it," said Lombardi, who was on board the plane. "Legislative action in favor of abortion is incompatible with participation in the Eucharist. ... Politicians exclude themselves from Communion."

Pressed further by journalists if the lawmakers were excommunicated, Lombardi reiterated: "No, they exclude themselves from Communion."

Which, I believe, is prettymuch exactly what my father just got done saying in his post.

[photo: REUTERS/Tony Gentile (BRAZIL)]

How to solve a problem like Mahony

What can and can't be done, explained over at In Light of the Law:

I know nothing about UCLA law professor Stephen Bainbridge beyond what I saw on a very impressive (for a civil lawyer) resume posted on his website, but his recent post on the chronic problems in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles in which he specifically calls for Cdl. Mahony's resignation is getting attention. Knowing, moreover, nothing about the underlying facts of the case except what has appeared in some secular media (a circumlocution for "I know virtually nothing about the underlying facts of this case"), I note that Prof. Bainbridge attempts to use canon law in his resignation argument, and canon law is something I do know a bit about. [More...]

God Squad meets Code Squad

"The God squad" gets the Light of the Law treatment:

"I don't have the time or expertise to monitor every religious Q&A column in America, and so I tend to comment on them only when they raise interesting questions … or when they convey disturbing answers, such as one just posted by a group called "The God Squad" that deals with reception of the Eucahrist by Alzheimer’s patients. Based only on what was posed in the question, and looking only at what was said in reply, I think there are serious problems with The God Squad's answer. You can see my reply, Alzheimer's, the Eucharist, and The God Squad here.