Toeing the line

The Canonical Imperatives of Priestly Sanctity (Part II)

2011-06-20T12:28:00.000+08:00

AS we saw in the previous issue, the entire Year of the Priest a year ago might well be an exercise in futility were it to be left at the level of speculative thought. Hence, the importance of Canon Law, because Canon Law begins where theology ends—i.e., in the level of due if not enforceable human conduct. Whereas moral, sacramental and even pastoral theology can only indicate what is fitting and proper conduct, leaving it to each faithful to make responsible use of his freedom to act accordingly, Canon Law stipulates what is juridically binding and hence owed if not outright enforceable. In short, Canon Law adds the note of exigency to the desideratum of priestly holiness.

In the previous issue, we had tackled the first part of the first canonical imperative of priestly holiness, contained in c.276, §2, 1º: the duty of priests to faithfully and untiringly fulfill the duties of pastoral ministry. After seeing the general provisions of Canon Law in this regard, let us consider the specific content of this norm.

B. Duties towards the Administration of the Sacraments:

1) General duty to administer the Sacraments abundantly: The sacred ministers cannot refuse the sacraments to those who ask for them at appropriate times, are properly disposed and are not prohibited by law from receiving them (c.843, §1).

The minister—furthermore—should ask nothing for the administration of the sacraments beyond the offerings defined by the competent authority, always being careful that the needy are not deprived of the help of the sacraments because of their poverty (c.848).

2) General duty to prepare the faithful for the reception of the Sacraments: Pastors of souls and the rest of the Christian faithful, according to their ecclesial function, have the duty to see that those who seek the sacraments are prepared to receive them by the necessary evangelization and catechetical formation, taking into account the norms published by the competent authority (c.843, §2).

3) Duties of parish priests as regards the administration of Baptism and Confirmation:

a) It is the duty of the parish priest to assure that the celebration of baptism be properly prepared: (1) an adult who intends to receive baptism is to be admitted to the catechumenate and, to the extent possible, be led through the several stages to sacramental initiation, in accord with the order of initiation adapted by the conference of bishops and the special norms published by it; (2) the parents of an infant who is to be baptized and likewise those who are to undertake the office of sponsor are to be properly instructed in the meaning of the sacrament and the obligations which are attached to it (c.851).

b) The pastor of the place where the baptism is celebrated must carefully and without delay record in the baptismal book the names of those baptized, making mention of the minister, parents, sponsors, witnesses if any and the place and date of the conferred baptism, together with an indication of the date and place of birth (c.877, §1).

c) Shepherds of souls, especially pastors, are to see to it that the faithful are properly instructed to receive [Confirmation] and approach the sacrament at the appropriate time (c.890). The sacrament of Confirmation is to be conferred on the faithful at about the age of discretion, unless the conference of bishops determines another age, or there is danger of death, or in the judgment of the minister a grave cause urges otherwise (c.891).

4) Duties of parish priests as regards the administration of the Holy Eucharist:

a) It is the responsibility, in the first place, of parents and those who take their place as well as the pastor to see that children who have reached the use of reason are correctly prepared and are nourished by the divine food as early as possible, preceded by sacramental confession. It is also for the pastor to be vigilant lest any children come to the Holy Banquet who have not reached the age of reason or whom he judges are not sufficiently disposed (c.914).

b) [Holy Communion] should be administered outside Mass to those who request it for a just cause, the liturgical rites being observed (c.918).

c) Holy Viaticum for the sick is not to be delayed too long; those who have the care of souls are to be zealous and vigilant that they are nourished by Viaticum while they are fully conscious (c.922).
5) Duties of priests as regards the administration of the Sacrament of Penance:
a) Individual and integral confession and absolution constitutes the only ordinary way by which the faithful person who is aware of serious sin is reconciled with God and with the Church (c.960). Only a priest is the minister of the sacrament of penance (c.965).

b) All to whom the care of souls is committed by reason of an office are obliged to provide that the confessions of the faithful entrusted to their care be heard when they reasonably ask to be heard and that the opportunity be given to them to come to individual confession on days and hours set for their convenience (c.986, §1).
In urgent necessity any confessor is obliged to hear the confessions of the Christian faithful, and in danger of death any priest is so obliged (c.986, §2).

c) Absolution cannot be imparted in a general manner to a number of penitents at once without previous individual confession unless:

1º the danger of death is imminent and there is not time for the priest or priests to hear the confessions of the individual penitents;

2º a serious necessity exists—i.e., when in the light of the number of penitents supply of confessors is not readily available rightly to hear the confessions of individuals within a suitable time so that the penitents are forced to be deprived of sacramental grace or holy communion for a long time through no fault of theirs. (c.961, §1). It is for the diocesan bishop to judge whether such condition exists (c.961,§2).

d) The proper place to hear sacramental confessions is a church or an oratory (c.964, §1). Confessionals with a fixed grill between penitent and confessor [should be] always located in an open area so that the faithful who wish to make use of them may do so freely (§2). Confessions should not be heard outside the confessional without a just cause (§3).

e) In hearing confessions the priest should remember that he acts as a judge as well as a healer and placed by God as the minister of divine justice as well as mercy (c.978, §1). In the administration of the sacrament, the confessor, as a minister of the Church, is to adhere faithfully to the doctrine of the magisterium and the norms enacted by competent authority (c.978, §2).

6) Duties of priests as regards the Anointing of the Sick:
a) Every priest and only a priest validly administers the anointing of the sick (c.1003, §1). All priests to whom the care of souls has been committed have the duty and the right to administer the anointing of the sick to all the faithful committed to their pastoral office; for a reasonable cause any other priest can administer this sacrament with at least the presumed consent of the aforementioned priest (c.1003, §2).
b) This sacrament is to be conferred upon sick persons who requested it at least implicitly when they were in control of their faculties (c.1006).

7) Duties of parish priests as regards the celebration of Marriage — Can.1063 is quite explicit. Pastors of souls are obliged to see to it that their own ecclesial community furnishes the Christian faithful assistance so that the matrimonial state is maintained in a Christian spirit and makes progress toward perfection. This assistance is especially to be furnished through:

1º preaching, catechesis adapted to minors, youths and adults, and even the use of the media of social communications so that through these means the Christian faithful may be instructed concerning the meaning of Christian marriage and the duty of Christian spouses and parents;

2º personal preparation for entering marriage so that through such preparation the parties may be predisposed toward the holiness and duties of their new state;

3º a fruitful liturgical celebration of marriage clarifying that the spouses signify and share in that mystery of unity and of fruitful love that exists between Christ and the Church;

4º assistance furnished to those already married so that, while faithfully maintaining and protecting the conjugal covenant, they may day by day come to lead holier and fuller lives in thief families.

Before leaving this particular imperative, I want to point out the priority given to it. Indeed, if the faithful and untiring fulfillment of the duties of their pastoral ministry constitutes a primordial obligation of the priest, it also constitutes for him the principal means for struggling and expressing his priestly sanctity. Put another way, the priest who struggles to fulfill these duties is clearly on his way to holiness. (To be continued.)

The Canonical Imperatives of Priestly Sanctity (Part I)

2011-06-06T12:26:00.000+08:00

Introduction

The universal theme of the Year for Priests, launched by Pope Benedict XVI on 19 June 2009 was: Faithfulness of Christ, Faithfulness of Priests. That entire year was a wonderful occasion for the whole Church to reflect on the identity and ministry of priests, which is none other than the identity and ministry of our Savior and Lord, Jesus Christ himself. Allow me to recall at the outset what is specific in the sacramental character received in Holy Orders: not only a participation in the priesthood of Jesus Christ (which is proper to the universal or royal priesthood of all Christ’s faithful), but rather a configuration in persona Christi capitis, which therefore constitutes the priest in a sacred minister—alter Christus, ipse Christus—in the midst of the community of believers, at the service of and in order to nourish the universal priesthood of all the faithful. As Bl.John Paul II explained in Pastores dabo vobis, n.14: “ For the sake of this universal priesthood of the new covenant Jesus gathered disciples during his earthly mission (cf. Lk. 10:1-12), and with a specific and authoritative mandate he called and appointed the Twelve ‘to be with him, and to be sent out to preach and have authority to cast out demons’ (Mk. 3:14-15).”

However, that entire year’s reflection might very well be an exercise in futility, were it to be left precisely at the level of speculative thought. In effect, there is abundant literature on the life and ministry of priests—from charming biographies like those of the Curé d’Ars himself to treatises like those of Alphonsus Ligouri; from Papal Exhortations like Pastores dabo vobis to veritable Instructions like the Directory on the Life and Ministry of Priests. Despite all these, however, there continues to be glaring manifestations of lack of priestly holiness, not just in the past but even in the very year that was supposedly dedicated to foster priestly sanctity and fidelity.

Hence, the importance of Canon Law. Because Canon Law begins where theology ends—i.e., in the level of due if not enforceable human conduct. Whereas moral, sacramental and even pastoral theology can only indicate what is fitting and proper conduct, leaving it to each faithful to make responsible use of his freedom to act accordingly, Canon Law stipulates what is juridically binding and hence owed if not outright enforceable. In short, Canon Law adds the note of exigency to the desideratum of priestly holiness.

The Code of Canon Law expresses this in a general way in c.276:

Can.276, — §1. In leading their lives clerics are especially bound to pursue holiness because they are consecrated to God by a new title in the reception of orders as dispensers of God’s mysteries in the service of His people.

One observes that by itself, c.276, §1 may be doomed to go the way of many well-meaning but ineffective pastoral initiatives and guidelines. Staying within that section, one remains in the level of a desideratum, or in more juridical terms a pretension. Such pretension needs to be articulated into enforceable norms. Put another way, the pretension of priestly holiness needs to be spelled out into a set of normative conduct.

This is what c.276, §2 sets out to do, clearly stating: In order for them to pursue this perfection—followed by five numbers outlining a set of vital duties for clerics. In other words, what follows is not just a set of desiderata, but rather a set of norms which clerics must follow if they are to fulfill the juridical obligation to pursue holiness set by c.276, §1.

In this issue and succeeding two issues of the CBCP Monitor, I propose to tackles these five paragraphs of c.276, §2, which I refer to as the Canonical Imperatives of Priestly Sanctity.

1st Imperative

Can.276, §2 — 1º First of all, they are faithfully and untiringly to fulfill the duties of pastoral ministry.

Before going any further, I think it is important to clarify the concept of pastoral ministry. In effect, under the guise of pastoral ministry, almost every conceivable initiative has been taken up by ordained ministers—ranging from works of purely material beneficence (e.g., relief of calamity victims) to socio-political and economic initiatives (e.g., education for the upcoming elections, parish-based mechanisms for the protection of the electoral process, organization of cooperatives, education in NFP).

Properly speaking, the pastoral function consists in exercising the tria munera Christi, which can be summed up principally in delivering the salvific means entrusted by Christ to the Church—i.e., the Word of God and the Sacraments. In other words, it would imply a serious impoverishment of the person and mission of the priest, not to say of the Church herself, to reduce their spiritual mission to merely material tasks.

With this I do not in any way deny either the timeliness or utility of many works aimed at alleviating the socio-economic, political or even medical conditions of the people, carried out by ecclesiastical organizations with the help of the Hierarchy. What I want to do is to point out the danger of substituting the genuine pastoral function of the clerics with other charitable works, thereby confusing the priestly mission of the Pastors with that of the faithful in general.

The Code of Canon Law spells out this particular imperative abundantly, both in general provisions and as regards the administration of each of the Sacraments. Following is just a summary.

A. General Provisions:

1) General availability for pastoral assignments: Unless they are excused by a legitimate impediment, clerics are bound to undertake and faithfully fulfill a duty which has been entrusted to them by their Ordinary (c.274, §2). More than specifying any task, this norm binds the cleric to undertake and faithfully fulfill—i.e., carry out and faithfully execute to completion—any and all pastoral assignments entrusted to him by his bishop.

In effect, one cannot help but wonder if the aforementioned cases of wayward initiatives of individual priests could have prospered had they been totally consumed by assignments of a genuinely pastoral nature from their legitimate hierarchical superiors.

2) Duty of residence: Even if they do not have a residential office, clerics nevertheless are not to leave their diocese for a notable period of time, to be determined by particular law, without at least the presumed permission of their proper Ordinary (c.283, §1). This provision specifies further the availability of clerics for pastoral assignments by limiting their absence from the diocese.

Indeed, it would be much more difficult for clerics to fall into unhealthy activism—with initiatives that are not strictly pastoral—were their presence in their own ecclesiastical circumscriptions more strictly enforced.

3) Prohibition from assuming public office: Clerics are forbidden to assume public offices which entail a participation in the exercise of civil power (c.285, §3). The relevance of this norm to the canonical imperative in question is quite clear: The cleric cannot give his 100% dedication to the pastoral ministry, were he to also participate in the exercise of civil government.

For the priest, the Lord’s mandate to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s takes on an absolute value: The priest simply owes 100% of his potencies to God and his Church. Aside from strictly pastoral duties, the priest simply has no other time or energy for much else.

4) Prohibition from engaging in business: Clerics are forbidden personally or through others to conduct business or trade either for their own benefit or that of others, without the permission of legitimate ecclesiastical authority (c.286). It is interesting to note that the prohibition is quite all-encompassing: neither personally nor through others, neither for their own benefit nor for other (i.e., not even for their flock).

The logic again is quite simple: a priest is ordained for pastoral tasks—the tria munera Christi—and not for other activities, unless legitimate authority permits (obviously for special reasons). (To be continued.)

Towards a Canonical Status for Basic Ecclesial Communities (Part III)

2011-05-23T12:24:00.000+08:00

I am a priest in a diocese in Mindanao, where there is a strong impetus for the establishment of Basic Ecclesial Communities (BECs). The work these are doing for the Christian faithful is undeniable, especially in those areas hardly reached by the inadequate number of priests. However, at times I have been at odds with such groups because of a certain tendency to supplant the parish. It has even happened that such groups in the rural areas outside the poblacion even dissuade their members from going to town to attend Mass on holy days of obligation, with the reason that they already have what they call a “dry Mass”─basically a liturgy of the Word with the administration of Holy Communion outside Mass─in their chapel. In matters of governance too, at times such BECs are at odds with our Parish priest, because they impose requirements on their members (beyond those required by the Parish) in order to be included in the roster for the reception of Confirmation and Baptism, and even for Marriage.

What does Canon Law say about this?

GIVEN the existence of BECs, the question now is can they be accommodated into the hierarchical structure of the Church? Better still, if they are to be accommodated into the hierarchical structure of the Church, how should they be configured so as to make them fit better in that structure?

A. Point of Departure: The Duty of the Bishop to Provide Pastoral Care.
Can. 516 ─ §2 Where some communities cannot be established as parishes or quasiparishes, the diocesan Bishop is to provide for their spiritual care in some other way.

This canonical norm provides us with the point of departure for finding a legal support for the BECs. In effect, the BECs as we know them are precisely communities of faithful, which for various reasons─e.g., distance from the parish or town proper, insufficient number of people to warrant an investment of priest and material resources, or as mostly happens in Mindanao a scarcity of priests─cannot be constituted into a parish or quasi-parish.

Nevertheless, the diocesan Bishop is bound by Law to provide for the spiritual care of such a community of faithful in some other way, so that they are not marginalized as far as pastoral care is concerned.

B. Point of Arrival: The Collaboration of Non-ordained Faithful in the Pastoral Care of a Parish, under the Direction of a Priest with Powers and Faculties of a Parish Priest.

Can. 517 ─ §2 If, because of a shortage of priests, the diocesan Bishop has judged that a deacon, or some other person who is not a priest, or a community of persons, should be entrusted with a share in the exercise of the pastoral care of a parish, he is to appoint some priest who, with the powers and faculties of a parish priest, will direct the pastoral care.

This canonical norm provides us with the legal nexus between the traditional ways of being Church and the so-called BECs. In effect, the canon admits the possibility of delivering the pastoral care of souls─which properly belongs (i.e., entrusted by Christ) to the bishops, but is participated in by his presbyterium─to a community which cannot be constituted into a parish or quasi-parish due to a shortage of priests, through a sharing in the exercise of the pastoral care of a parish by a non-ordained person or persons. This then is the possible legal basis of the BECs: they can be the application in the Philippine context of c.517, §2.

But for this to happen correctly, an indispensable requirement must be met, as stipulated in the last part of the aforementioned canonical norm: the diocesan Bishop…is to appoint some priest who, with the powers and faculties of a parish priest, will direct the pastoral care.

Why this requirement? To understand this, we need to delve deeper into the nature of the pastoral care of souls, as carried out by the proper pastors─i.e., primordially and principally the bishops (as successors of the Apostles who directly received that mandate from Christ), and participating with them as their collaborators, their presbyterium.

C. Pastoral Care of Souls is an exercise of the Sacra Potestas.

Before Christ ascended to Heaven, he gave the Apostles a solemn mandate: All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and behold, I am with you all days, even unto the consummation of the world (Mt.28, 19-20). We can summarize the great truths enshrined in these lines as follows:

1) The pastoral care of souls consists essentially in teaching (make disciples of all nations), sanctifying (baptizing them, and together with that administering all the other sacraments), and governing (teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you, meaning to follow the path to holiness).

2) Such pastoral care was entrusted principally to the Apostles and their successors in history─i.e., the bishops (behold, I am with you all days, even unto the consummation of the world).

3) Such pastoral care requires a sacred power that only Christ can give. This is the reason why the mandate by Christ is preceded by a solemn declaration: All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Only by investing them with such power of jurisdiction─to bind and loosen─can they effectively carry out such pastoral care. Hence, Christ continues: Go, therefore, and make disciples….

D. Only the Ordained Ministers are Capable of the Power of Governance in the Church.

This theological truth is expressed in canonical language in the famous c.129 of the Code of Canon Law:
Can. 129 ─ §1 Those who are in sacred orders are, in accordance with the provisions of law, capable of the power of governance, which belongs to the Church by divine institution. This power is also called the power of jurisdiction.
─ §2 Lay members of Christ's faithful can cooperate in the exercise of this same power in accordance with the law.

A little excursion to the genesis of this canon can give us the final piece in the puzzle of how to fit the BECs in the hierarchical structure of the Church. This is one of the few canons that suffered a small but Copernican change in the final revision of the present Code just months before its promulgation in 1983 by John Paul II.

In effect, the final Schema of the Code of Canon Law, c.129, §2 read: Lay members of Christ’s faithful can participate in this same power in accordance with the law. This would have implied that lay faithful could take part in the power of jurisdiction─i.e., be subjects of such power.

With the slight revision, Canon Law confirmed what ecclesiology had long accepted, that such power of governance in the Church can only be possessed by the sacred ministers (priests and bishops, not even deacons); and that the non-ordained faithful (and deacons) can only cooperate in the exercise of such power. The nuance is subtle, but it is there: Only bishops and priests (in union with them) can possess and properly-speaking exercise the power of jurisdiction and thus provide authentic pastoral care; the non-ordained can only collaborate with the bishops and priests in the delivery of such pastoral care.

Applying this to the phenomenon of BECs, the laymen involved in such communities can only collaborate in the pastoral ministry of the priests; they cannot be the source of such ministry altogether. Put another way, the laypersons in such communities must at all times act in accord with the norms laid down by the sacred ministers.

To summarize: For the BECs to really be a way of being Church, it must form part of the pastoral care of souls emanating from the diocesan bishop, but passing through an ordained minister (a priest), who is endowed with the power and faculties of a parish priest (hence, a proper pastor of souls).

How this can be done in practice can be the object of particular legislation by the bishops, by─for example─drawing up a Guidelines for the Constitution and Conduct of Basic Ecclesial Communities. Subject to the recognitio by the Holy See, these Guidelines can constitute a common set of norms for all the dioceses.

Towards a Canonical Status for Basic Ecclesial Communities (Part II)

2011-05-10T12:22:00.000+08:00

I am a priest in a diocese in Mindanao, where there is a strong impetus for the establishment of Basic Ecclesial Communities (BECs). The work these are doing for the Christian faithful is undeniable, especially in those areas hardly reached by the inadequate number of priests. However, at times I have been at odds with such groups because of a certain tendency to supplant the parish. It has even happened that such groups in the rural areas outside the poblacion even dissuade their members from going to town to attend Mass on holy days of obligation, with the reason that they already have what they call a “dry Mass”─basically a liturgy of the Word with the administration of Holy Communion outside Mass─in their chapel. In matters of governance too, at times such BECs are at odds with our Parish priest, because they impose requirements on their members (beyond those required by the Parish) in order to be included in the roster for the reception of Confirmation and Baptism, and even for Marriage.
What does Canon Law say about this?

WE resume our discussion of Basic Ecclesial Communities with a brief outline of what we shall tackle in this part.

1) There is an existing phenomenon, which in the Philippines we have given the name of Basic Ecclesial Communities (BECs). Like many things in the Philippines, it manifests the vibrancy of our culture in general, and of the Catholic Church in this country in particular. However, like any new thing, it also has its pains. Already, we see shadows together with the lights: frictions with the hierarchical structures (parishes), abuses in liturgical practice (proliferation of so called “dry Masses”) and even an under-valuing of the Sacramental life─all of these mostly due to a sore lack of doctrinal foundations.

2) But, for the meantime at least, the BECs are there and are even spreading─due in no mean part to the encouragement of the hierarchy itself. On the other hand, we see why the hierarchy is encouraging the BECs, especially in Mindanao: given the acute shortage of clergy, the BECs seem to be the way to address the pastoral needs of the faithful, especially in those areas of difficult access to the hierarchically constituted pastoral structures─i.e., the parish.

3) Hence, we ask ourselves: is there a way for these BECs to develop more systematically─i.e., more ecclesiologically? Are there provisions in Canon Law that can serve as guidelines of what the BECs can do, and what they should not do?

A New Way of Being Church?

It has been said that the BECs constitute the new way of being Church. This may seem like an innocuous expression, but it has very serious theological and canonical implications. In the theological─ecclesiological─sense, it might even be misunderstood to mean that the Church is evolving by the initiative of the people. In this particular case, even starting from the grassroots.

But the Church did not arise─and neither can it unfold and develop─from a people power initiative. The people of God, which is the Church─comes about from a Trinitarian initiative. By the will of God the Father, Jesus Christ instituted the Church by (1) calling together the Apostles and empowering them to teach, sanctify and govern in his name, and (2) sending the Holy Spirit on Pentecost to inhabit a community of disciples, together with the Apostles. In other words, the Church came about by a Divine design and constitution. It also develops historically by a Divine design and providence.

Thus, if we are to understand the Basic Ecclesial Communities as the new way of being Church, we need to look at them from the perspective of the Church, as Christ established it and how it has developed through the centuries under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. More specifically, if the BECs are really to be ecclesial, they must be constituted and they must operate according to the parameters set by the Supreme Authority of the Church in her reflection on what the Church is and how it is constituted.

We can arrive at this by a deductive process, starting from the concept of the Church as laid down by Vatican Council II and later expressed in juridic terms by the Code of Canon Law of 1983. Based on the essential structural elements of the Church, as established by Jesus Christ, we can encounter the canonical locus of the BECs in the hierarchical structure of the Church. In other words, through the right application of Canon Law, the BECs can indeed be a way of being Church.

The Traditional Way of Being Church

Vatican Council II─in the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium─already set forth the essential structural elements of the Church of Christ as follows:

1) A community of believers, who─regenerated in the new life of children of God by the sacrament of Baptism and subsequently nourished in their different ecclesial situations by the Word of God and by the other Sacraments─march in pilgrimage towards their definitive home in union with God. Together they constitute a portio populi Dei (a portion of the People of God, which is the Church).

2) A shepherd, who─as a successor of the Apostles─has received from the Pope, the Vicar of Christ (successor of Peter, upon whom Christ promised to build his Church), the mandate to be the proper pastor of the aforementioned portio populi Dei.

3) A group of ordained ministers, who─ontologically configured with Christ as head of the mystical body, and canonically invested with a specific participation in the pastoral mission of the bishop─act in persona Christi capitis to deliver to the faithful the means of salvation─i.e., the Word and the Sacraments.

Properly speaking, it is the aforementioned interaction of the ministerial priesthood (of the Bishop helped by his clergy) at the service of the universal or common priesthood (of the rest of the faithful) which brings about the congregation of believers which is called Church. In other words, the Church─as a visible structure and organization─has come about as a result of the unfolding of the mandate of the Resurrected Christ to Peter, to “feed my lambs” and to “feed my sheep”. In order to effectively deliver the means of salvation─the Word of God (revealed by Scripture and Tradition, and authoritatively taught by the Magisterium) and the Sacraments─to all the baptized, the Church organizes itself. Traditionally, this has been through the constitution of particular Churches (under the care of bishop as its proper Pastor), which are subdivided into parishes or quasi-parishes (each under the care of a priest, under the authority of the bishop, also as its proper pastor).

The traditional canonical expressions of this reality are the particular church and the parish.

A. Particular Churches: The Diocese

Can. 368 ─ Particular Churches, in which and from which the one and only catholic Church exists, are principally dioceses. Unless the contrary is clear, the following are equivalent to a diocese: a territorial prelature, a territorial abbacy, a vicariate apostolic, a prefecture apostolic and a permanently established apostolic administration.

Can. 369 ─ A diocese is a portion of the people of God, which is entrusted to a Bishop to be nurtured by him, with the cooperation of the presbyterium, in such a way that, remaining close to its pastor and gathered by him through the Gospel and the Eucharist in the Holy Spirit, it constitutes a particular Church. In this Church, the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Christ truly exists and functions.

Can. 372 ─ §1 As a rule, that portion of the people of God which constitutes a diocese or other particular Church is to have a defined territory, so that it comprises all the faithful who live in that territory.
─ §2 If however, in the judgement of the supreme authority in the Church, after consultation with the Episcopal Conferences concerned, it is thought to be helpful, there may be established in a given territory particular Churches distinguished by the rite of the faithful or by some other similar quality.
Can. 373 ─ It is within the competence of the supreme authority alone to establish particular Churches; once they are lawfully established, the law itself gives them juridical personality.

B. Parishes and Quasi-parishes.

Can. 515 ─ §1 A parish is a certain community of Christ's faithful stably established within a particular Church, whose pastoral care, under the authority of the diocesan Bishop, is entrusted to a parish priest as its proper pastor.

─ §2 The diocesan Bishop alone can establish, suppress or alter parishes. He is not to establish, suppress or notably alter them unless he has consulted the council of priests.

─ §3 A lawfully established parish has juridical personality by virtue of the law itself.
Can. 516 ─ §1 A quasiparish is a certain community of Christ's faithful within a particular Church, entrusted to a priest as its proper pastor, but because of special circumstances not yet established as a parish. Unless the law provides otherwise, a quasiparish is equivalent to a parish.

─ §2 Where some communities cannot be established as parishes or quasiparishes, the diocesan Bishop is to provide for their spiritual care in some other way.
Can. 517 ─ §1 Where circumstances so require, the pastoral care of a parish, or of a number of parishes together, can be entrusted to several priests jointly, but with the stipulation that one of the priests is to be the moderator of the pastoral care to be exercised. This moderator is to direct the joint action and to be responsible for it to the Bishop.

─ §2 If, because of a shortage of priests, the diocesan Bishop has judged that a deacon, or some other person who is not a priest, or a community of persons, should be entrusted with a share in the exercise of the pastoral care of a parish, he is to appoint some priest who, with the powers and faculties of a parish priest, will direct the pastoral care.
Can. 518 ─ As a general rule, a parish is to be territorial, that is, it is to embrace all Christ's faithful of a given territory. Where it is useful however, personal parishes are to be established, determined by reason of the rite, language or nationality of the faithful of a certain territory, or on some other basis.

Can. 519 ─ The parish priest is the proper pastor of the parish entrusted to him. He exercises the pastoral care of the community entrusted to him under the authority of the diocesan Bishop, whose ministry of Christ he is called to share, so that for this community he may carry out the offices of teaching, sanctifying and ruling with the cooperation of other priests or deacons and with the assistance of lay members of Christ's faithful, in accordance with the law. (To be concluded.)

The Easter Eucharistic Precept and the Law of Annual Confession

2011-05-09T12:20:00.000+08:00

EASTER is here again and I hear conflicting criteria regarding the so-called Easter Precept and the sacrament of Confession. Some say that the Church prescribes that the faithful go to the Sacrament of Reconciliation at least once a year¾during Easter Time¾and receive the Eucharist. On the other hand, there are those who say that in this age and time of too many people and too few priests, it is not practical to bother them unless one has mortal sins, so that the once-a-year precept refers more to going to Communion rather than going to Confession.
Can you enlighten me on this?

The Easter Eucharistic Precept

Due to a widespread neglect of the sacrament of the Eucharist in the Middle Ages, various Church Councils, from the 6th Century onward, enacted laws obliging the faithful to receive the Holy Eucharist, especially on the principal feasts. The IV Lateran Council (1215) established a general law for the Latin Church requiring the reception of Communion at least once a year at Easter by those who had attained the age of discretion. This law, which was confirmed by the Council of Trent, was incorporated in the 1917 Code of Canon Law. The actual Code of 1983 retains the annual precept, with some modifications:

Can. 920 ¾ §1. All the faithful, after they have been initiated into the Most Holy Eucharist, are bound by the obligation of receiving Communion at least once a year.

¾ §2. This precept must be fulfilled during the Easter season, unless it is fulfilled for a just cause at some other time during the year.

The primary subject of this precept, therefore, are all the faithful who have received First Communion, barring excusing causes such as moral or physical impossibility. This obligation to receive Holy Communion at least once a year should be fulfilled normally during Easter time, understood as the period from Palm (Passion) Sunday to Pentecost Sunday. The satisfaction of the Eucharistic precept outside this period required a just cause¾such as illness, or residence in a remote area where there is no minister to celebrate Mass or administer Holy Communion¾but it must be satisfied within the space of one year, counted from the previous Communion (cf. c.203).

In the Philippines, this precept applies as legislated in the universal law of the Church, and no special faculty is needed to comply with the Easter duty outside Easter time: each faithful, in conscience, shall decide whether he has sufficient reason to do it in the prescribed time.

Finally, it must be said that since the same Code of Canon Law, in c.914, imposes the responsibility of ensuring that children who have reached the use of reason are nourished by the divine food as early as possible on the parents and those who take their place as well as on the pastor, one can conclude that¾in the case of children¾the observance of the Eucharistic precept indirectly bears upon the parents or guardians and upon the parish priest too, who thus become the secondary subjects of this ecclesiastical law. This was actually stated in the 1917 Code (c.860), which though removed in the present Code as something not strictly proper in a book of law, nevertheless is quite morally binding.

The Law of Annual Confession

In the Philippines, fortunately, one hardly needs to be reminded of the Eucharistic precept: the Sunday Masses are noteworthy for their long queues of people coming to receive the Holy Eucharist. In this connection, it would be good to be reminded of yet another disposition of the 1983 Code of Canon Law:

Can. 989 ¾ After having attained the age of discretion, each of the faithful is bound by an obligation to faithfully confess serious sins at least once a year.

Definitely, the canon does not lay down this law for any specific time of the year, nor does it lay it down for everyone. It binds only those who are aware of having committed a mortal sin and have not yet had it absolved in sacramental Confession, and he may go to Confession any time during the year. But the long queues in the confessionals of many churches during Lent and Easter season are an eloquent manifestation of the common sense of the faithful that even the just man falls seven times each day; furthermore , as John Paul II reminded the faithful: the individual and integral confession of sins with individual absolution constitutes the only ordinary way in which the faithful who are conscious of serious sin are reconciled with God and with the Church (Reconciliatio et paenitentia, 33).

Indeed, the faithful are all too aware of that warning of St. Paul to the Corinthians: Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord unworthily, will be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord…for he who eats and drinks unworthily, without distinguishing the body, eats and drinks judgment to himself (I Cor 2, 27-28).

Herein lies the nexus between the Easter Eucharistic precept and the law on yearly confession of serious sins: To receive Holy Communion worthily at Easter time, it seems logical that the best way to prepare for it is with individual sacramental Confession.

Duty of Pastors to Facilitate Confession

If the obligation exists for the faithful to go to confession at least once a year in case of serious sins, and the just man falls seven times each day, there seems to be a corresponding duty on the part of the sacred ministers to enable the faithful to fulfill the duty.

Indeed, a series of simple calculations can serve to quantify this duty of the pastor¾at least in a general way. In the Philippines, there is an average of 15,000 Catholics for every priest. Now according to the population profile of the Philippines, roughly 68% of the population falls in the 10-60 years old bracket¾which , presumably, is the age group to which (roughly) the law of annual confession applies. Assuming that the same percentage holds for the Catholics too, then there should be 10,200 Catholics of 10-60 years of age for every priest in the Philippines. Even if each of these faithful only went to the minimum once-a-year confession, this would mean that the pastors, if they are to fulfill their duty, should on the average hear about 30 confessions daily throughout the year.

There has been a lot of talk of the need for moral recovery in Philippine society and politics. Such moral recovery cannot happen in a collective way, in a mass action. The moral recovery of a society depends ultimately on the individual personal conversion of its members—a conversion that is not possible without the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Here indeed is a point of self-examination for the pastor of souls, and a possible point of redress for the parishioners.

Towards a Canonical Status for Basic Ecclesial Communities (Part I)

2011-04-13T12:18:00.000+08:00

A Review of the Instruction Ecclesia de Mysterio

I am a priest in a diocese in Mindanao, where there is a strong impetus for the establishment of Basic Ecclesial Communities (BECs). The work these are doing for the Christian faithful is undeniable, especially in those areas hardly reached by the inadequate number of priests. However, at times I have been at odds with such groups because of a certain tendency to supplant the parish. At times, such groups in the rural areas outside the poblacion even dissuade their members from going to town to attend Mass on holy days of obligation, with the reason that they already have what they call a “dry Mass”─basically a liturgy of the Word with the administration of Holy Communion outside Mass─in their chapel. In matters of governance too, at times such BECs are at odds with our Parish priest, because they impose requirements on their members (beyond those required by the Parish) in order to be included in the roster for the reception of Confirmation and Baptism, and even for Marriage. What does Canon Law say about this?

The Problem with BECs

There are two basic problems with the Basic Ecclesial Communities. Firstly, although the term has been used quite extensively in the Philippines, the Magisterium has not really defined it authoritatively. Even in the Philippines, the bishops have not given a real definition. Hence, the margin for abuse of the notion is quite wide.

Secondly, if there is no theological definition, much less could there be a canonical one. The expression does not even appear in the Code of Canon Law. Perhaps it was for this reason─the lack of any clear idea of what they are in the first place─that they have not been treated seriously in the canonical forum.

Nevertheless, the phenomenon does exist and─in Mindanao and to a certain extent also in the Visayas─quite extensively, to the point that somebody had said “they are the new way of being Church.” Hence, it’s not something that can be left to develop helter-skelter, among other things because the Church is not something that develops out of human initiative, but rather follows a Divine design. Hence, if a phenomenon like the BECs is to develop─to borrow the aforementioned quotation─being Church, it cannot be allowed to develop without the proper parameters.

Here is where Canon Law can help, because even if there may not be a canonical definition of the Basic Ecclesial Communities yet, not for this does it follow that there is a normative gap as regards the phenomenon. There is a legal gap (lacuna legis) insofar as the very expression basic ecclesial community does not even appear in the Codex, but there is no normative gap (lacuna normativa), because the juridic structure of the Church is sufficiently fine so as to provide the pertinent norms to the actuation of the BECs. In other words, from the existing legal norms, it is quite possible to draw what is applicable to the constitution and conduct of basic ecclesial communities.

This, in fact, is the inspiration behind the 19th National Convention of the Canon Law Society of the Philippines, to be held this coming April 26-29 in Surigao City. In effect, what the CLSP proposes to do is to sift through existing legal norms in the Church to find what are applicable to BECs and then integrate them into a sort of a draft Guidelines for Basic Ecclesial Communities, for possible presentation to the CBCP for the latter’s adoption and if necessary Papal recognition.

Point of Departure: the Instruction Ecclesia de Mysterio of 1997
In 1997, the Holy See issued the Instruction Ecclesia de Mysterio, On Certain Questions Regarding the Collaboration of the Non ordained Faithful in the Sacred Ministry of Priests. It was co-authored by six Vatican Congregations (for the Clergy; for the Doctrine of the Faith; for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments; for Bishops; for the Evangelization of Peoples; for the Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life) and two Pontifical Councils (for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts; for the Laity). The document reaffirmed the teaching of the Second Vatican Council (especially of Lumen Gentium, n.33 and Apostolicam Actuositatem, n.24). Its main purpose was to acknowledge and promote what is specific to the vocations of the lay faithful and of ordained ministers, with the goal of encouraging real communion in the Church.
Surprisingly, it was met either with criticism or with indifference. After almost 15 years, the problem of the BECs compels us to revisit this document, which enjoys the specific approval of the Holy Father.

As an introduction, it may be good to summarize the basic objectives of the Instruction, which simply reaffirms the teaching of the Second Vatican Council and of the more recent post conciliar Magisterium on the positive role of the laity in the Church's mission.

1. Encourage the ordained ministers and foster the ordained ministry. It seeks to encourage ordained ministers by forcefully reintroducing the subject of vocations to the priesthood, stressing that the Church's life depends on the sacrament of Holy Orders as a free, absolutely irreplaceable gift, because the ordained ministry (Bishops, priests, deacons) is part of the Church's very structure. Thus, the Instruction concludes by stating that "the solutions addressing the shortage of ordained ministers cannot be other than transitory and must be linked to a series of pastoral programs which give priority to the promotion of vocations to the Sacrament of Holy Orders."

2. Remind the laity of their specific role. The Instruction also reminds us how the fundamental equality of Christians—based on Baptism—is compatible with an essential difference—based on Sacred Orders—and that lay Christians, precisely because of Baptism, are called to the consecratio mundi, which differs from the task of anyone who belongs, through the sacrament, to the ministerial ranks. Thus, by avoiding every form of clericalism, lay Christians are encouraged to be more aware of their identity and to give their witness in the world and in the Church without considering the exercise of ministerial duties which they may perform from time to time as a form of advancement but only as one of substitution.

3. Expose the "functionalist" and "individualist" errors. The Instruction also calls for critical discernment regarding certain modernistic trends that deeply affect people's idea of the ministry.

The first, the "functionalist" approach, holds that human actions and things in general cannot refer to anything beyond themselves. In this mentality what really counts is to achieve the goal one has set for oneself. We can understand then how, even when moved by true pastoral generosity, some eventually think that whatever does not require the sacramental power of the Bishop, priest or deacon ad validitatem can be assumed ordinarily and permanently by the laity. But in doing so, the ordained ministry begins gradually to be eroded. This is illustrated by the complaint of our priest from Mindanao that some BECs are discouraging their people from attending Mass in the town proper, since anyway they have their own service─presided by a layman─in their barrio chapel.

The "individualist" approach, on the other hand, has become more and more widespread since the 16th century and leads to thinking in terms of "personal success", "competitiveness" and "power". There is no space to tackle this issue now; neither is it too relevant to the problem we have at hand.

4. Authentic promotion of the lay apostolate. The Instruction is not a limitation of the genuine promotion of lay participation in the evangelical and ecclesial apostolate. On the contrary, this is encouraged in the right direction consistent with Catholic ecclesiology. However─as Card. Ratzinger emphasized then─"it intends to rebut and prevent the tendency towards a clericalization of the lay faithful, and the risk of creating, in reality, an ecclesial structure of parallel service to that founded on the sacrament of Orders."

The doctrinal principle at the root of these concerns is the twofold affirmation of the unity of the Church 's mission, in which all the baptized participate, and the essential difference of the ministry of pastors, rooted in the sacrament of Orders, with respect to the other ministries, offices and ecclesial functions that are rooted in the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation.

5. Encourage terminological precision. In Article 1 of the practical provisions─¬entitled "Need for an Appropriate Terminology"─the Instruction rightly insists on the need for a suitable terminology, clarifying the confused use of the word ministry, which describes both the officia and the munera exercised by Pastors in virtue of the sacrament of Orders, and those exercised by the non ordained faithful.

6. Eliminate abuses. As Card. Ratzinger affirmed at the time: "The timeliness and urgent need of this Instruction is explained in the light of the situation occurring in specific and widespread ecclesial circles, which demands, special insistence on the faithful application of the principles and norms contained in the teachings of the Magisterium and the Church's universal legislation in the concrete life of the particular Churches."

In view of the situation in certain ecclesial areas, specifically North Central Europe, North America and Australia, and noting the risk that abuses in the lay faithful's participation in the sacred ministry of the ordained could spread to other ecclesiastical regions, Card. Ratzinger already affirmed then that "it seemed most timely and urgent to define clearly the various forms of assistance open to the lay faithful in the exercise of the priestly ministry."

An Important Observations: collaboration vs. participation

In the substantive level, the most important word─a veritable hermeneutic key─is a term that appears in the title itself of the document. In effect, the title speaks of the collaboration of the non-ordained faithful in the priestly ministry.

The term initially used in the preliminary discussions was participation. Thus, the title of the symposium in April 1994, which launched the serious preparation of this document, was "The Participation of the Lay Faithful in the Priestly Ministry". However, Pope John Paul II himself, in his address to that symposium, never used the term participation in this context. In fact, he belabored the distinction between participation in Christ's priesthood by virtue of baptism and confirmation, and the eventual exercise of some tasks entrusted to them by the priests:

"The laity's every ecclesial action or function─including those for which the Pastors ask them to stand in, where possible─is rooted ontologically in their common participation in Christ's priesthood and not in an ontological participation (either temporary or partial) in the ordained ministry proper to Pastors. Therefore, it is clear that if the Pastors entrust them, in an extraordinary way, with some tasks ordinarily and properly connected with the pastoral ministry but not requiring the proper character of Orders, lay people should know that these tasks are existentially rooted in their baptismal ministry and nowhere else! It must always be remembered that the exercise of such tasks does not make pastors of the lay faithful: in fact, a person is not a minister simply by performing a task, but through sacramental ordination."

The terminological shift is important. In effect, participation ("to take part in") in the ministerial tasks could not strictly speaking take place without the subject ontologically taking part─for that matter─in the ministerial priesthood itself. This could only happen with priestly ordination. From this we see the aptness of the term collaboration ("to work with") when applied to the non-ordained faithful's cooperation with the ministerial work of priests.

Preliminary Conclusions

With the aforementioned discussion, we can point out the following doctrinal conclusions:

1. Lay collaboration in priestly ministry is not a right. The document contains several assertions that call for hermeneutic clarification. Thus, the part concerned with Theological Principles (n.4) says with respect to the tasks and functions which "are considered along the lines of collaboration with the sacred ministry" that "the non ordained faithful do not enjoy a right to such tasks and functions". Obviously, there is no wish here to deny that these faithful can legitimately exercise the tasks and functions mentioned. The document wants to state, however, that the non ordained faithful do not have the right to demand that they be assigned to the above mentioned tasks or functions.
Elsewhere the Instruction says: "the officia temporarily entrusted to them ... are exclusively the result of a deputation by the Church" (Art.1, §2). "Deputation by the Church" is a shorthand expression for "deputation by the Church's lawful Pastors". This complete formulation, used in other passages of the Instruction, avoids an identification of the Pastors with the Church herself. And §3 of the same article correctly indicates that "the temporary deputation for liturgical purposes mentioned in c.230, §2─does not confer any special or permanent title on the non ordained faithful". The following sentence states that it is unlawful for the non ordained faithful to assume titles such as pastor, chaplain, coordinator or moderator. What applies to temporary deputation applies with all the more reason to permanent deputation for liturgical or pastoral tasks (cf. CIC, c.230, §1, 517, §2,).

2. Lay collaboration is supplementary─i.e., only in cases of necessity. By their ecclesiological nature all of these particular functions belong to the realm of the ordained ministry, in which a lay person, however, can collaborate in cases of necessity, if he has been lawfully deputed to do so. But it must be noted here: "in case of necessity"!

For example, it could never be the Church's objective to replace the Eucharistic celebration by promoting Sunday celebrations without a priest. Nevertheless, wherever there are no other possibilities, the Church is grateful to that lay person who, being well disposed and following the instructions of the Bishop who appointed him, conducts a Liturgy of the Word for and with the faithful who have no other opportunity to celebrate the Lord's Day. It is clear that the lay person here is truly a supplementary aid. Thus, for the good of the faithful he will be glad when a priest is available to celebrate the Eucharist. The Instruction enables us to indicate many other analogous situations.

3. Responsibility for abuses. The practical provisions of the Instruction are not limited to listing possible or actual abuses, but they always seek to indicate the theological and canonical coordinates underlying the respective fields of activity and thereby to draw the necessary consequences. As a well-known Canonist, Prof. Winfried Aymans, pointed out at the time, "the problems mentioned are caused, first of all, by the fact that they are found in a border area." Abuses occur, according to Aymans, when exceptional solutions become alternatives, changing an extraordinary competence into an ordinary one, or, on the other, when the limits provided for collaboration are unlawfully extended and a competence is assumed that has not been given.

"In this regard─Aymans continues─it should be pointed out that the laity usually cannot be considered responsible for true and proper abuses. They in fact fulfill—normally with good intentions─that role which has been introduced in their particular Church and has been entrusted to them. On the other hand, it should be noted that the norms established by the Bishops' Conferences or by individual Bishops generally do not contradict the ordinances of universal law, but their clarity at times is not enough to prevent the spread of an abusive practice."

It is for this reason that the Canon Law Society of the Philippines has chosen this topic for their study and discussion in this year’s CLSP National Convention.

The Re-marriage of Fallen-away Catholics: A Review of the Motu Proprio Omnium in mentem

2011-03-28T12:16:00.000+08:00

A Catholic man, a well-known personality, became a Born-again Christian and married a Baptist woman without securing the required dispensation from the Catholic authorities. After a few years, they break up and get a civil annulment from a Philippine court. Now he wishes to remarry in the Catholic Church with a Catholic woman. Can he do it?

The Canon Law on Mixed Marriages and the so-called Disparity of Cult

There are two phenomena regulated by Canon Law which oftentimes are confused: mixed marriages and disparity of cult.

A mixed marriage is one contracted between two baptized persons, one of whom was baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it, and another who is a member of a Church or ecclesial community which is not in full communion with the Catholic Church. According to c.1124 of the Code of Canon Law, such a marriage cannot be celebrated without the express permission of the competent authority. Canon Law further stipulates that such permission can be granted by the Local Ordinary if there is a just and reasonable cause, but only if the following requirements (called cautions) are met: (1) the Catholic party declares that he/she is prepared to remove dangers of falling away from the faith and makes a sincere promise to do all in his/her power to have all the children baptized and brought up in the Catholic Church; (2) the other party is informed at an appropriate time of these promises which the Catholic party has to make, so that it is clear that the other party is truly aware of the promise and obligation of the Catholic party; (3) both parties are instructed on the essential ends and properties of marriage, which are not to be excluded by either party (c.1125).

Can.1126 further establishes that the conference of bishops is to establish the way in which these declarations and promises, which are always required, are to be made, what proof of them there should be the external forum and how they are to be brought to the attention of the non-Catholic party. In practice, many dioceses in the Philippines now require the non-Catholic party to sign a simple document to this effect.

Failure to follow these norms by itself does not invalidate the canonical marriage thus contracted, but it renders it illicit─i.e., if done with full knowledge and consent, it would be gravely sinful for all involved (starting with the witnessing priest of course who should know better).

Quite a different matter is the so-called impediment of disparity of cult established by c.1086, which stipulates:

§1. Marriages between two persons, one of whom is baptized in the Catholic Church or has been received into it and the other of whom is non-baptized, is invalid.

§2. This impediment is not to be dispensed unless the conditions mentioned in cc.1125 and 1126 [i.e., the cautions for mixed marriages] are fulfilled.

In other words, whereas in the case of an unauthorized mixed marriage is only illicit but valid, the presence of the impediment of disparity of cult─unless lawfully dispensed─renders the marriage invalid from the start.

The Motu Proprio Omnium in mentem

The Apostolic Letter “Motu Proprio” Omnium in mentem, issued 26.X.2009, dealt with two unrelated matters: a clarification of the ministerial function of deacons, and the obligation of the canonical form of marriage for those faithful who have left the Church in a formal way. Saving the first matter for a future article, let us focus now on the second clarification.

The Motu Proprio dealt with the obligation of the faithful who have left the Church in a formal way─e.g., the typical fallen-away Catholic who joins the Born again movement─to follow the ecclesiastical laws regarding the canonical form of marriage, the required dispensation from the impediment of disparity of cult and the need for permission in the case of mixed marriages.

It did this by taking away from the previous redaction of cc.1086, §1 (establishing the impediment of disparity of cult), c.1117 (requiring the canonical form if at least one of the parties of marriage is a baptized Catholic) and c.1124 (requiring permission from the Local Ordinary for a mixed marriage), a phrase which limited the scope of the Catholic party to one who “was baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it and has not by a formal act defected from it.” Thus, in the new redaction of the aforementioned canons, the phrase “and has not by a formal act defected from it” has been deleted.

The crux of the matter is that many problems arise as regards the separation of the faithful from the Church. The papal document explains it:

“First, in individual cases the definition and practical configuration of such a formal act of separation from the Church has proved difficult to establish, from both a theological and a canonical standpoint. In addition, many difficulties have surfaced both in pastoral activity and the practice of tribunals. Indeed, the new law appeared, at least indirectly, to facilitate and even in some way to encourage apostasy in places where the Catholic faithful are not numerous or where unjust marriage laws discriminate between citizens on the basis of religion. The new law also made difficult the return of baptized persons who greatly desired to contract a new canonical marriage following the failure of a preceding marriage. Finally, among other things, many of these marriages in effect became, as far as the Church is concerned, clandestine marriages.”

In sum, what the motu proprio has established is that even if a Catholic separates from the Church, he/she is still under Church Law, even if he disregards it. If he/she marries a person who is not validly baptized without due dispensation (from the impediment of disparity of cult) from the Local Ordinary, that marriage would be invalid.

Conclusion

Since our Catholic personality married the Baptist woman (invalid baptism) without dispensation from the impediment of disparity of cult, that first marriage was invalid. Thus, after securing a civil annulment, he is free to marry (not re-marry) in the Catholic Church with a Catholic woman.

Denial of Holy Communion to Civilly Remarried Catholics

2011-03-12T12:14:00.000+08:00

I am an assistant parish priest, forced to confront difficult situations on my own at times, due to the frequent absence of the parish priest for family reasons. Recently I was again placed on the spot because of the presence of a well-known personality at Sunday Mass, who was with his partner who most people know as his wife, but who I—together with quite a number of people in the parish—know he is only civilly married to, since he has an existing canonical marriage with another woman who is still very much alive and also quite present in the public eye. The problem is this person and his partner came to receive Holy Communion. Since I was placed on the spot and to avoid creating a scene, I just gave them the Holy Eucharist. Did I act correctly?

Declaration of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts
On Communion for Divorced and Remarried Persons

This question had been exhaustively answered by a Declaration of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts dated 24.VI.2000. For brevity, we can reproduce the pertinent numbers of that document in the following paragraphs.

The Code of Canon Law establishes that "Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to Holy Communion" (c.915). In recent years some authors have sustained, using a variety of arguments, that this canon would not be applicable to faithful who are divorced and remarried. It is acknowledged that paragraph 84 of the Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio, issued in 1981, had reiterated that prohibition in unequivocal terms and that it has been expressly reaffirmed many times, especially in n.1650 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, published in 1992, and in the Letter written in 1994 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Annus internationalis Familiae. That notwithstanding, the aforementioned authors offer various interpretations of the above-cited canon that exclude from its application the situation of those who are divorced and remarried.

Given this alleged contrast between the discipline of the 1983 Code and the constant teachings of the Church in this area, this Pontifical Council, in agreement with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments declares the following:

1. The prohibition found in the cited canon, by its nature, is derived from divine law and transcends the domain of positive ecclesiastical laws: the latter cannot introduce legislative changes which would oppose the doctrine of the Church. The scriptural text on which the ecclesial tradition has always relied is that of St. Paul: "This means that whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily sins against the body and blood of the Lord. A man should examine himself first only then should he eat of the bread and drink of the cup. He who eats and drinks without recognizing the body eats and drinks a judgment on himself."

This text concerns in the first place the individual faithful and their moral conscience, a reality that is expressed as well by the Code in c.916. But the unworthiness that comes from being in a state of sin also poses a serious juridical problem in the Church: indeed the canon of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches that is parallel to c.915 CIC of the Latin Church makes reference to the term "unworthy": "Those who are publicly unworthy are forbidden from receiving the Divine Eucharist" (c.712). In effect, the reception of the Body of Christ when one is publicly unworthy constitutes an objective harm to the ecclesial communion: it is a behavior that affects the rights of the Church and of all the faithful to live in accord with the exigencies of that communion. In the concrete case of the admission to Holy Communion of faithful who are divorced and remarried, the scandal, understood as an action that prompts others towards wrongdoing, affects at the same time both the sacrament of the Eucharist and the indissolubility of marriage. That scandal exists even if such behavior, unfortunately, no longer arouses surprise: in fact it is precisely with respect to the deformation of the conscience that it becomes more necessary for Pastors to act, with as much patience as firmness, as a protection to the sanctity of the Sacraments and a defense of Christian morality, and for the correct formation of the faithful.

2. Any interpretation of c.915 that would set itself against the canon's substantial content, as declared uninterruptedly by the Magisterium and by the discipline of the Church throughout the centuries, is clearly misleading. The phrase "and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin" is clear and must be understood in a manner that does not distort its sense so as to render the norm inapplicable.

The three required conditions are:

a) grave sin, understood objectively, being that the minister of Communion would not be able to judge from subjective immutability;

b) obstinate persistence, which means the existence of an objective situation of sin that endures in time and which the will of the individual member of the faithful does not bring to an end, no other requirements (attitude of defiance, prior warning, etc.) being necessary to establish the fundamental gravity of the situation in the Church.

c) the manifest character of the situation of grave habitual sin. Not to be considered to be within the situation of serious habitual sin are those faithful who are divorced and remarried, who would not be able, for serious motives -such as, for example, the upbringing of the children- "to satisfy the obligation of separation, assuming the task of living in full continence, that is, abstaining from the acts proper to spouses" (Familiaris consortio, n.84), and who on the basis of that intention have received the sacrament of Penance. Given that the fact that these faithful are not living more uxorio (i.e., unchastely) is per se occult, while their condition as persons who are divorced and remarried is per se manifest, they will be able to receive Eucharistic Communion only remoto scandalo (i.e., avoiding scandal).

3. Naturally, pastoral prudence would strongly suggest the avoidance of instances of public denial of Holy Communion. Pastors must strive to explain to the concerned faithful the true ecclesial sense of the norm, in such a way that they would be able to understand it or at least respect it. In those situations, however, in which these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible, the minister of Communion must refuse to distribute it to those who are publicly unworthy. They are to do this with extreme charity, and are to look for the opportune moment to explain the reasons that required the refusal. They must, however, do this with firmness, conscious of the value that such signs of strength have for the good of the Church and of souls.

The discernment of cases in which the faithful who find themselves in the described condition are to be excluded from Eucharistic Communion is the responsibility of the Priest who is responsible for the community. They are to give precise instructions to the deacon or to any extraordinary minister regarding the mode of acting in concrete situations.

4. Bearing in mind the nature of the above-cited norm (cfr. n.1), no ecclesiastical authority may dispense the minister of Holy Communion from this obligation in any case, nor may he emanate directives that contradict it.

Applying the Norms to the Specific Case

A distinction will have to be made on whether or not the persons concerned, who are civilly married but not canonically married, are in fact living in habitual sin. As the Declaration itself pointed out (ref. n.2-c), it could happen that the couple concerned may find it difficult to separate (e.g., because they are raising up children), but are in fact not living as husband and wife and are therefore not sinning against chastity.

However, since the fact of their observing chastity is a private matter known only to them, and the fact that they are not married canonically is a matter known to many in the community, the canonical norm is that they must be refused Holy Communion in that community.

Nevertheless, the Declaration also carefully notes that this must be done with utmost charity, avoiding a public refusal as much as possible. In this particular case, what could be done is for the priest to explain the matter to the couple and request them to attend Mass somewhere else where they are less known, such that their reception of Holy Communion could virtually pass unnoticed, thus making the possibility of scandal as remote as possible.

Finally, since our poor assistant parish priest was placed on the spot, and since he could not have been in a position to judge the subjective conditions of the couple concerned right there and then, he did well in giving them Holy Communion. However, he is duty-bound to follow up and talk with the couple as mentioned in the previous paragraph.

The Denial of Holy Communion to Public Supporters of the RH Bill.

2011-02-24T12:12:00.000+08:00

An Application of Canon 915: Obligation to Deny Holy Communion to
Those in Obstinate and Manifest Grave Sin.

Recently, the national broadsheets carried an emotional story─that ran for several days─of a tug-of-war regarding the threat of excommunication to the proponents of the Reproductive Health Bill. In the end, the issue died down with the CBCP clarifying that there was no such threat. I remember that in the course of the U.S. electoral campaign of 2004, a similar crisis arose with the case of Catholic politicians who publicly, after admonition, continued to support legislation favouring procured abortion and other measures contrary to natural moral law─e.g., harvesting stem cells by the destruction of cloned human embryo, redefining marriage to include a relationship between persons of the same sex. The application of c.915 of the Code of Canon Law─to deny Holy Communion to those persons obstinate in manifest grave sin─generated quite a bit of discussion. Can that norm be applied to the case of the proponents of the RH Bill?

CARDINAL Raymond L. Burke, presently the Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Signatura Apostolica─like the Supreme Court of the Catholic Church─wrote a lengthy article about this issue, from which we can quote heavily. In effect, the discussion among the Bishops uncovered a fair amount of serious confusion regarding the norm of c.915. Specifically─Burke pointed out─the denial of Holy Communion was repeatedly characterized as the imposition of a canonical penalty, which of course shouldn’t be done in such summary fashion by the sacred minister, without a due process─whether judicial or administrative.

In fact─he continued to pointed out─c.915 “only articulates the responsibility of the minister of Holy Communion─ whether ordinary or extraordinary─to deny Holy Communion to those who obstinately persevere in manifest grave sin.”

In effect, the denial of Holy Communion can be the result of the imposition or declaration of the canonical penalties of Excommunication and Interdict (cf. cc.1331, §1, 2º; and 1332). However, there are other cases in which Holy Communion must be denied: (1) to respect the holiness of the Sacrament, (2) to safeguard the salvation of the soul of the party presenting himself to receive Holy Communion, and (3) to avoid scandal.

THE DOCTRINE OF 1 COR 11,27-29 AND ECCLESIA DE EUCHARISTIA

The canonical discipline in question has its source in Sacred Scripture. St.Paul admonished the Christians of Corinth to examine their consciences before approaching to receive Holy Communion: Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself (1Cor 11,27-29).

“The emphasis is on self-examination, in order to discover preparedness to receive the Sacrament or not. If one is not prepared, for example, because of serious sin which is unremitted, then he simply is not to approach to receive Holy Communion. However, if the lack of right disposition is serious and public, and the person, nevertheless, approaches to receive the Sacrament, then he is to be admonished and denied Holy Communion. In other words, the Church cannot remain silent and indifferent to a public offense against the Body and Blood of Christ.”

This doctrine is summarized by Pope John Paul II in his Encyclical Letter Ecclesia de Eucharistia, "On the Eucharist in Its Relationship to the Church," issued on Holy Thursday, 17.IV. 2003. In Chapter Four of the Encyclical Letter, "The Eucharist and Ecclesial Communion," Pope John Paul declared, among other things:

(1) The celebration of the Eucharist cannot be the starting point for communion; it presupposes that communion already exists, a communion which it seeks to consolidate and bring to perfection.

(2) John Paul II reminded us of the requirement that we be in the state of grace in order to receive Holy Communion. Making reference to 1Cor 11,28, he declared that whoever desires to participate in Holy Communion must be about the daily work of growing in holiness of life, that is, in the practice of the virtues of faith, hope and love. Noting the teaching in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (n.1385) and following the rule of the Council of Trent, Pope John Paul II reaffirmed that, in order to receive Holy Communion worthily, one must have confessed and been absolved of any mortal sin of which he is guilty.

(3) The judgment of one's state of grace obviously belongs only to the person involved, since it is a question of examining one's conscience. However, in cases of outward conduct which is seriously, clearly and steadfastly contrary to the moral norm, the Church, in her pastoral concern for the good order of the community and out of respect for the sacrament, cannot fail to feel directly involved. With the words, “cannot fail to feel directly involved”, the Roman Pontiff clarified the obligation, on the part of the Church, to take action, when a person who remains in grievous and public sin approaches to receive Holy Communion.

THE NORM OF C. 915 OF THE 1983 CODE OF CANON LAW

The canon reads: Those who are excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.
As Card. Burke points out, “the text makes it clear that the Church has the responsibility to deny Holy Communion to those who are known to be under the imposed or declared penalties of excommunication and interdict, and to those who are known to persist obstinately in manifest grave sin. Although the text does not state so explicitly, it is clear that the Church's responsibility is carried out by the minister of Holy Communion.”

It stands to reason that it would be necessary to know that indeed the persons concerned obstinately persist in manifest grave sin─i.e., that his pastor has informed him about the grave and public sinfulness of what he is doing and has cautioned him to refrain from approaching Holy Communion.
THE DECLARATION OF THE PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR LEGISLATIVE TEXTS

On June 24, 2000, the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, “in agreement with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments”, issued a declaration making it clear that c.915 applies to the faithful who are divorced and remarried. Referring to the text of 1Cor 11,27, 29, the Declaration expresses the theological and canonical reasons of c.915:

“In effect, the reception of the Body of Christ when one is publicly unworthy constitutes an objective harm to the ecclesial communion: it is a behavior that affects the rights of the Church and of all the faithful to live in accord with the exigencies of that communion. In the concrete case of the admission to Holy Communion of faithful who are divorced and remarried, the scandal, understood as an action that prompts others towards wrongdoing, affects at the same time both the sacrament of the Eucharist and the indissolubility of marriage.

The long-standing discipline of the Church requires that the minister of Holy Communion exercise discretion regarding the distribution of Holy Communion to those who persist in manifest and grievous sin. The exercise of such discretion is not a judgment on the subjective state of the soul of the person approaching to receive Holy Communion, but a judgment regarding the objective condition of serious sin in a person who, after due admonition from his pastor, persists in cooperating formally with intrinsically evil acts like procured abortion.”
CONCLUSIONS

Card. Raymond Burke draws the following conclusions from the aforementioned review of the history of the canonical discipline of denying Holy Communion to those who obstinately persist in public grave sin?

(1) The consistent canonical discipline permits the administering of the Sacrament of Holy Communion only to those who are properly disposed externally, and forbids it to those who are not so disposed, prescinding from the question of their internal disposition, which cannot be known with certainty.

(2) The discipline is required by the invisible bond of communion which unites us to God and to one another. The person who obstinately remains in public and grievous sin is appropriately presumed by the Church to lack the interior bond of communion, the state of grace, required to approach worthily the reception of the Holy Eucharist.

(3) The discipline is not penal but has to do with the safeguarding of the objective and supreme sanctity of the Holy Eucharist and with caring for the faithful who would sin gravely against the Body and Blood of Christ, and for the faithful who would be led into error by such sinful reception of Holy Communion.

(4) The discipline applies to any public conduct which is gravely sinful, that is, which violates the law of God in a serious matter. Certainly, the public support of policies and laws which, in the teaching of the Magisterium, are in grave violation of the natural moral law falls under the discipline.

(5) The discipline requires the minister of Holy Communion to forbid the Sacrament to those who are publicly unworthy. Such action must not be precipitous. The person who sins gravely and publicly must, first, be cautioned not to approach to receive Holy Communion. This, in fact, is done effectively in a pastoral conversation with the person, so that the person knows that he is not to approach to receive Holy Communion and, therefore, the distribution of Holy Communion does not become an occasion of conflict. It must also be recalled that “no ecclesiastical authority may dispense the minister of Holy Communion from this obligation in any case, nor may he emanate directives that contradict it”.

(6) Finally, the discipline must be applied in order to avoid serious scandal, for example, the erroneous acceptance of procured abortion against the constant teaching of the moral law. No matter how often a Bishop or priest repeats the teaching of the Church regarding procured abortion, if he stands by and does nothing to discipline a Catholic who publicly supports legislation permitting the gravest of injustices and, at the same time, presents himself to receive Holy Communion, then his teaching rings hollow. To remain silent is to permit serious confusion regarding a fundamental truth of the moral law. Confusion, of course, is one of the most insidious fruits of scandalous behavior.

It would be interesting to study the possibility of applying this norm to the case of those who persist in publicly promoting the RH Bill in its present form, which the Bishops have collectively classified as contrary to the natural moral law.

The Obligation to wear Ecclesiastical Garb

2011-02-15T12:10:00.000+08:00

Introduction

I have always been edified by priests who dress properly─either with a clergyman barong or at least a barong with a distinctive cross insignia, and even more so with an old-fashioned cassock or sotana. Considering that the tropical climate must surely make such attire a bit uncomfortable, I am awed by the spirit of sacrifice of such men of the cloth who thereby present a credible witness of the presence of Christ and his Church in the midst of our too often secularized communities. On the other hand, I also notice that many more of our Filipino clergy go around dressed casually like everyone else, to the point that quite often it is impossible to identify them as clerics. I consider this a setback for us ordinary faithful for several reasons: (1) we cannot have easy access to them when we are in dire need of them, since we cannot identify them easily; (2) when we do identify them, it is not easy to give them the reverence due them because─as a diocesan priest blurted once─he thought the priest was the driver; (3) it is quite disconcerting to see denims with a really casual T-shirt peeking from under the flowing liturgical garb of a priest during Mass; worse if he is wearing rubber shoes or sandals. What does Church Law say about this matter?

THIS is not the first time that a layman has expressed this sentiment to me; laywomen, on their part, are even more expressive and disconcerted. Of course, the more comic opposite is what happened to me once when I visited the former bishop of Sorsogon, whom I had never met at that time. Upon arrival at the bishop’s residence late in the afternoon, I and my companion─a well-known professional who was going to deliver another lecture with me─were met by a man in his 50s, in T-shirt, casual pants and slippers. My companion, a layman with great respect for the clergy, immediately took the hand of the middle-aged man and kissed it, saying “Good evening bishop” or something to that effect; my clerical sense made me hesitate. At that moment, the good bishop appeared, dressed in clergyman, welcoming us with great affability. It turned out the other fellow was his driver!

The Purpose of the Ecclesiastical Garb

On 1.I.1994, John Paul II approved and authorized the publication of a very important document emanating from the Congregation for the Clergy, signed by its Prefect then, Filipino Cardinal Jose T. Sanchez. Entitled Directory on the Ministry and Life of Priests, it came as the juridic expression of the rich teachings of John Paul II’s Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Pastores dabo vobis of 25.III.1992, which in turn gathered the results of the Synod of Bisops of 1990 dedicated to the topic of the identity, life and ministry of priests. In order to outline the content of that Directory, the suggestions of the entire world episcopate─consulted for that purpose─as well as the considerations of many theologians, canonists and experts on the matter from diverse geographical areas and involved in current pastoral work were taken into account. Thus, that Directory can veritably be considered as a manual on the life and ministry of priests, and is the final word when it comes any question of practical nature as the issue at hand.

The Directory deals with the matter of ecclesiastical garb under the rubric of Obedience, first stating the reason for such garb:

“In a secularized and materialistic society, where the external signs of sacred and supernatural realities tend to disappear, it is particularly important that the community be able to recognize the priest, man of God and dispenser of his mysteries, by his attire as well, which is an unequivocal sign of his dedication and his identity as a public minister. The priest should be identifiable primarily through his conduct, but also by his manner of dressing, which makes visible to all the faithful, indeed to al men, his identity and his belonging to God and the Church” (n.66).

Hence, it is not a question of blending in, as some would propose in a misguided pastoral desire to make the priest more present in secular environments. For as St Josemaría Escriva used to say, such attempts would result not in a priestly presence, but rather in a priestly absence─in the sense that it would make the priest’s presence unrecognizable because of the absence of any outward sign of the priest’s identity.

The Proper Priestly Attire

The Directory continues: “For this reason, the clergy should wear suitable ecclesiastical dress, in accordance with the norms established by the Episcopal Conference and the legitimate local custom. This means that the attire, when it is not the cassock, must be different from the manner in which the laity dress, and conform to the dignity and sacredness of his ministry. The style and color should be established by the Episcopal Conference, always in agreement with the dispositions of the universal law” (n.66).

The Code of Canon Law─the universal law referred to by the Directory─precisely stipulates that “Clerics are to wear suitable ecclesiastical garb in accord with the norms issued by the conference of bishops and in accord with legitimate local custom” (c.284).

For its part, the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines─the Episcopal Conference referred to by the Directory─has laid down the following:
“The proper clerical attire…are as follows:

1) Cassock or religious habit;
2) Clergyman suit;
3) Trousers of dark one-tone color or white, and shirt of one-tone color, with the clerical collar. The shirt may also be either polo-barong or barong tagalog, with a distinctive cross.”

An attentive reading of the above dispositions shows that the following are the options for proper priestly attire, in decreasing order of preference:

1st: Cassock or religious habit. In this regard, it is worthwhile remembering that the Philippine clergy enjoys a long-standing privilege from the Holy See to use white cassock, in view of the tropical climate.

2nd: Clergyman suit. Given the tropical climate and local custom, it would seem that this option is suitable for more formal occasions of a non-liturgical nature (e.g., conferences, formal banquets and the like) where airconditioning would make the attire comfortable.

3rd: Dark one-tone colored trousers (or white) and one-tone colored shirt with clerical collar. Otherwise known as the Roman collar, this is a distinctive collar equipped with a white plastic (or stiffened cloth) strip running through the front.

4th: Dark one-tone colored trousers (or white) and polo-barong (or barong tagalog) with a Roman collar.

5th: Dark one-tone colored trousers (or white) and polo-barong (or barong tagalog) with a distinctive cross (in lieu of the Roman collar).

With the foregoing, it is very clear that casual T-shirts and polo shirts (of whatever color), whether with or without collar, do not constitute proper priestly attire. Neither do shorts, of whatever color or style. The impropriety of such attire is even more pronounced during liturgical ceremonies, especially since the common use of the chasuble-alb makes what is worn under it to be more obvious and incongruous. It stands to reason that all these norms do not apply when the priest is in a private recreational activity─e.g., doing sports, going on outdoor excursions, and the like. Nevertheless, common sense and sensitivity might dictate that the priest limits his movements in these latter conditions, being sufficiently discrete as not to be too public when he is not in ecclesiastical garb.

There is nothing mentioned about footwear, leaving it to the common sense and sensitivity of each priest to choose whatever is fitting to the occasion and circumstances.

The Binding Force of the Directory as regards Ecclesiastical Garb

On 22.X.1994, the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts─the competent dicastery of the Holy See charged with the official interpretation of all norms of Canon Law─issued a Clarification regarding the Binding Force of Art.66 of the Directory on the Ministry and Life of Priests, i.e., the provisions regarding ecclesiastical garb that we are considering. In that Explanatory Note, the Holy See pointed out that although the aforementioned Directory is imbued with a deep pastoral sense, this “does not detract from the prescriptive force of many of its norms, which do not only have an exhortative value but are juridically binding” (n.1).

“With regard specifically to Art.66 of the Directory on the Ministry and Life of Priests─the Note continues─it contains a general norm complimentary to c.284 of the CIC, with the characteristic proper to general executory decrees (cf. c.31). It is therefore a norm which clearly enjoys juridic enforceability, as can be deduced even from the tenor itself of the text and the place where it is included: under the rubric “Obedience” (n.4).

Furthermore, the Note urges, with a categorical declaration, the right observance of the discipline regarding ecclesiastical garb, stating that “for their inconsistency with the spirit of this discipline, contrary practices cannot be considered as legitimate customs and should be removed by the competent authority” (n.5, c).

On the other hand, the Note specifies the subjects of the aforementioned norms of Art.66 of the Directory on the Ministry and Life of Priests as “all those who are obliged by the universal norm of c.288, namely the Bishops and priests, but not the permanent deacons (cf. c.288)” (n.7). This is worth underlining, because─as can be easily observed─the aforementioned norms on ecclesiastical garb are being violated not only by priests (rampantly in the Philippines), but unfortunately on occasion even by Bishops.

This is doubly unfortunate because, as the Note adds, “The Diocesan Bishops are the competent authority for demanding obedience to the aforementioned norms and for removing eventual contrary practices as regards ecclesiastical garb (cf. c.392, §2).” For its part, the Note concludes “The Episcopal Conference should help the individual diocesan Bishops in the fulfillment of this duty” (n.7).

Since we are demanding more compliance with the law on the part of our politicians and civil servants, this simple matter of the norms regarding ecclesiastical garb give food for thought for priests and Bishops alike.

The Juridic Enforcement of Catholic Doctrine

2011-01-31T21:57:00.000+08:00

The Apostolic Letter motu proprio Ad Tuendam Fidem

Introduction
On 9 January 1989, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published new formulas for the Professio Fidei et Iusiurandum fidelitatis in suscipiendo officio nomine Ecclesiae exercendo (AAS 81[1989], 104 106), to replace the previous formula of 1967. These formulas were approved by the Roman Pontiff in a special Rescript dated, 19 septembris 1989 (in AAS 81 [1989], 1169). However, the new Code of Canon Law (CIC), promulgated on 25 January 1983, did not contain the new formula of the Professio Fidei, which, in addition to the Nicene Constantinopolitan Creed, enunciates three categories of truths. Thus, the Code of Canon Law, and later the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (CCEO), lacked the juridical, disciplinary and penal provisions for the second category of truths.
Given the compelling need to forestall and refute the theological opinions being raised against this second category of truths, the Holy Father decided to promulgate the Apostolic Letter Ad tuendam fidem last May 28, by which precise norms are established in canon law regarding the second category of truths indicated in the second paragraph of the concluding formula of the Professio Fidei, through modifications to canons 750 and 1371 n.1 of the CIC and to canons 598 and 1436 of the CCEO.

Three Categories of Truths
What was the reason for the confusion—and accompanying abuse—which the present motu proprio came to forestall? An attentive reading of the pertinent paragraphs of the Profession Fidei shows that the three categories of truths enunciated are as follows:
1st Category: “[E]verything contained in the Word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church either by a solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed." These are truths found immediately in Revelation, which the Church vouches for as contained in Revelation. This are supposed to be held “with firm faith”, because their certainty has a twofold basis: the authority of God Revealing (fides divina) and the infallible teaching authority of the Church (fides catholica).
These are commonly referred to in Dogmatic Theology as De fide Divina et Catholica or simply dogmas.
2nd Category: “[E]verything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals.” These constitute what Dogmatic Theology has always referred to as Catholic truths or Church doctrines, which are to be accepted with a faith based on the sole authority of the Church (fides ecclesiastica). Even if the Profession fidei did not expressly state it, these are as infallibly certain as dogmas proper.
3rd Category: “[T]he teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act." These are the teachings for which the CIC stipulates “A religious respect of intellect and will, even if not the assent of faith” (c.752).

Source of Confusion
As previously stated, while the 1st and 3rd Categories had their corresponding provisions in the Code of Canon Law, there was no expressed provision for the 2nd Category. Thus, cc.750 & 752 described the 1st and 3rd Categories respectively, and c.1371 provided for the penal sanction for their violation. This has given rise to not a few cases of open dissent, perhaps emboldened by a seeming lacuna in Canon Law, especially as regards the penal provisions.
A more attentive reading of the Profession fidei, however, coupled with a solid grounding in Dogmatic Theology, shows that there was really no lacuna. As Ott would affirm, the 2nd Category are “as infallibly certain as dogmas proper”—i.e., the norm for the 1st Category should hole also for the 2nd. Hence, when the CIC expressly provided for the 1st and 3rd Categories, it tacitly provided also for the 2nd Category of truths.
Nevertheless, since abuses have arisen, and such may be legally defended against sanction with the principle of “nulla poena sine lege”, the Supreme Church Authority has come up with this new legislation to fill up that seeming lacuna.

Infallibility of Ordinary and Universal Magisterium
It is fitting to note also that almost all infallible teachings in the field of morality are contained not in solemn definitions (so called definitive acts or definitively proposed in the language of the Profession fidei and in the CIC), but precisely in the teachings of the ordinary and universal Magisterium. This has led some to think that there are no infallible teachings in the field of morality, inasmuch as, in fact, there are no texts in which such infallibility is explicitly claimed. This assertion fails to recognize, however, that the ordinary and universal Magisterium, which by nature does not adopt such solemn expressions, is precisely the normal way in which the infallibility of the Church is exercised.
As Pope John Paul II affirms, “The Magisterium (...) includes the charism of infallibility, which is present not only in the solemn definitions of the Roman Pontiff and the Ecumenical Councils, but also in the ordinary and universal Magisterium, which can be considered the usual expression of the infallibility of the Church.”
Practically all concrete and absolute moral norms that are under debate today (e.g., abortion, contraception, homosexual acts, premarital relations, euthanasia, divorce, masturbation), have been taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium and are hence infallible.

Reach of “religious respect (obsequium) of intellect and will”
This religious submission means more than the usual obedience required for the legitimate command of the hierarchical authority of the Church. Specifically, it means:
a. The ordinary response will be a sincere adherence not only of the will but also of the intelligence. In an exceptional case, a teaching might not be intellectually convincing. Then the first duty is to doubt oneself, giving credibility to the Magisterium. This does not mean that one must stop working on research and presenting the authorities—in a private way—one’s own reasons and the possible formulations that one might suggest as being better suited for expressing the truth.
b. In any case, religious submission implies the obligation to avoid every dissent; the only thing admissible is to suspend or withhold assent. If dissent is made publicly and obstinately, opportune sanctions would be in order (c.1371).

Conclusion
From the foregoing, and the preceding three issues of this column, I think it is quite clear that the Bishops are quite empowered to call the attention of all the erring theology professors, in Catholic institutions or otherwise, and in the case of obstinacy, apply canonical sanctions.
[Following is an abridged version of the Apostolic Letter, excluding what is pertinent to the CCEO, and retaining the original numbering for easy reference.]
To protect the faith of the Catholic Church against errors arising from certain members of the Christian faithful, especially from among those dedicated to the various disciplines of sacred theology, we, whose principal duty is to confirm the brethren in the faith, consider it absolutely necessary to add to the existing texts of the Code of Canon Law (CIC) and the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (CCEC) new norms which expressly impose the obligation of upholding truths proposed in a definitive way by the Magisterium of the Church, and which also establish related canonical sanctions.
1. From the first centuries to the present day the Church has professed the truths of her faith in Christ and the mystery of his redemption. These truths were subsequently gathered into the Symbols of the faith, today known and proclaimed in common by the faithful in the Solemn and festive celebration of Mass as the Apostles' Creed or the Nicene Constantinopolitan Creed. This same Nicene Constantinopolitan Creed is contained in the Profession of Faith developed by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which must be made by specific members of the faithful when they receive an office that is directly or indirectly related to deeper investigation into the truths of faith and morals, or is united to a particular power in the governance of the Church.
The Profession of Faith, which appropriately begins with the Nicene Constantinopolitan Creed, contains three propositions or paragraphs, intended to describe the truths of the Catholic faith, which the Church, in the course of time and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit "who will teach the whole truth" (Jn 16,13), has ever more deeply explored and will continue to explore.
The first paragraph states: "With firm faith, I also believe everything contained in the Word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church either by a solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed." This paragraph appropriately confirms and is provided for in the Church's legislation in c.750 of the Code of Canon Law and c.598 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches. [Referred to in Dogmatic Theology as De fide Divina et Catholica.]
The third paragraph states: "Moreover I adhere with submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act." This paragraph has its corresponding legislative expression in c.752 of the Code of Canon Law and c.599 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches. [Referred to in Dogmatic Theology as De fide Catholica.]
3. The second paragraph, however, which states: "I also firmly accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals" has no corresponding canon in the Codes of the Catholic Church. This second paragraph of the Profession of Faith is of utmost importance since it refers to truths that are necessarily connected to divine revelation. These truths, in the investigation of Catholic doctrine, illustrate the Divine Spirit's particular inspiration for the Church's deeper understanding of a truth concerning faith and morals, with which they are connected either for historical reasons or by a logical relationship.
4. Moved therefore by this need, and after careful deliberation, we have decided to overcome this lacuna in the universal law in the following way: c.750 of the Code of Canon Law will now consist of two paragraphs; the first will present the text of the existing canon; the second will contain a new text. Thus c.750, in its complete form, will read:
Canon 750 ─ §1. Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal Magisterium, which in fact is manifested by the common adherence of Christ's faithful under the guidance of the sacred Magisterium. All are therefore bound to avoid any contrary doctrines.
§2. Furthermore, each and everything set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held, namely those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church.
Canon 1371, n.1 of the Code of Canon Law, consequently, will receive an appropriate reference to c.750, §2, so that it will now read:
Canon 1371 ─ The following are to be punished with a just penalty:
1° a person who, apart from the case mentioned in c.1364, §1, teaches a doctrine condemned by the Roman Pontiff, or by an Ecumenical Council, or obstinately rejects the teachings mentioned in c.750, §2 or in c.752 and, when warned by the Apostolic See or by the Ordinary, does not retract;
2° a person who in any other way does not obey the lawful command or prohibition of the Apostolic See or the Ordinary or Superior and, after being warned, persists in disobedience.

The Juridic Protection of the Church Teaching against Contraception

2011-01-16T21:55:00.000+08:00

(Part III)

A RECENT column of Atty. Jose Sison (A Law Each Day, The Philippine Star 8.XI.2010, p.15) caught my attention. Quoting an e-mail he received from a Jose Teodoro Sagalo, he focused on what the latter qualified as “grave error that the Loyola School of Theology has posted in the Ateneo website endorsed earlier by Fr. Nebres, Ateneo President, for reflection, and now endorsed by Roberto Rivera of the John Carroll Institute.” A quick check of the primary source verified the presence of the offensive proposals, in a paper issued jointly by the Loyola School of Theology and the John J. Carroll Institute of Church and Social Issues and authored by Fr. Eric O. Genilo, S.J., Fr, John J. Carroll, S.J., and Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J.
The questions posed by our concerned reader were: Can these theologians, teaching in a Catholic university, where young minds are supposedly being formed in the Catholic faith, maintain such doctrinally questionable positions with impunity? Can’t the Law of the Church even protect the youngest of its own faithful against doctrinal error? Or put another way, if the bishops are so concerned about the environmental degradation brought about by irresponsible mining, shouldn’t they be more concerned about the doctrinal confusion brought about by irresponsible theologizing in Catholic universities? After all, environmental degradation is not as serious as the erosion of the Catholic faith, which is at bottom the reason for the increasing acceptance of the RH Bill among the Catholic faithful—including government policy-makers.
These questions are masterfully answered in a book by Jesu Pudumai Doss, SDB, entitled Freedom of Enquiry and Expression in the Catholic Church: A Canonico-Theological Study, published by Kristu Jyoti Publications, Bangalore (India) in 2007. Based on the author’s doctoral dissertation in Canon Law at the Salesian Pontifical University (Rome), the book bears a foreword by Angelo Amato, then Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The pertinent sections are contained in Chapter III of the book, entitled Magisterium and Theologians: A Multifaceted Rapport (pp.157-240).
Doss summarized the juridic regulation of the relationship between Magisterium and theologian—which can be applied to the case of the Church authorities in the Philippines (the individual bishops or the CBCP) vis-à-vis the theology professors in Catholic universities (not only the Loyola School of Theology, but also other faculties of theology in the country, e.g., Maryhill School of Theology)—in a series of canonically regulated institutions: (1) the mandate to teach for professors, (2) the Profession of Faith and the Oath of Fidelity required of said professors, (3) the prior approval of (or nihil obstat) and the permission to publish (or imprimatur) writings dealing with faith and morals; and (4) the doctrinal examination by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF).

I. The Mandate to Teach Theological Disciplines
Church Law provides a guarantee of orthodoxy in Catholic teaching by requiring a mandate for all those who teach theological disciplines in Catholic Universities and other institutes of higher studies (c.812), and in the Ecclesiastical Universities and Faculties (c.818). It is given by the competent ecclesiastical authority (cc.812, 818)—(1) the Holy See by virtue of the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff (cc. 331, 333§1, 361), (2) the Episcopal Conferences (cc.809, 821) and the diocesan Bishops (c.386 §2) and those equivalent to them—who have the right of vigilance (c.810 §2), although such authority can also be delegated.
The appointment of professors for theological disciplines is a complex process that can be summarized in 5 steps: (1) the designation of a particular individual as a candidate professor, (2) the verification of his/her scientific and pedagogical competence, (3) the conferment of the teaching post, (4) the stipulation of a contract of employment, (5) the beginning of the didactic work. The mandate is situated in the second step of this process and involves a judgment of orthodoxy on the one hand (i.e., the compatibility of the doctrine taught by the candidate professor with Catholic doctrine), and of moral uprightness on the other (i.e., his personal status with that of the Catholic community).
It is important to emphasize that the mandate is neither an authorization to teach nor a canonical mission, but is only a certification that the professor is not teaching anything objectionable in matters concerning faith or morals and is doing so in communion with the Church. Thus, the mandate cannot be used to teach apart from the Church and much less against the Church; there is no room for active dissent in Catholic theology. In fact, it can be withdrawn—and I daresay I should be withdrawn—when there is an absence of communion between the theologian and the Church (c.253 §3).
At this point, one wonders how avowed atheists were teaching theology in a well-known Catholic university in Manila, and how a group of professors could sign a position in open defiance of the CBCP stand on the RH Bill in another Catholic university in Quezon City.

2. The Profession of Faith and the Oath of Fidelity
The Profession of Faith is a public declaration of one’s sharing in the faith of a believing community in Christ and his Church. Thus, it is both an act of cult to God himself and an important manifestation of the need to live in an authentic spirit of communion towards the competent Church authority and with the entire People of God.
The new formula of the Professio fidei begins with an introductory affirmation of faith. This is followed by the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, but formulated in the first person singular: “I believe”. It concludes with the three propositions or paragraphs, which distinguishes the order of the truths and the proper response of the believer to it as follows:
1st Category: “[E]verything contained in the Word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church either by a solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed." These are truths found immediately in Revelation, which the Church vouches for as contained in Revelation. This are supposed to be held “with firm faith”, because their certainty has a twofold basis: the authority of God Revealing (fides divina) and the infallible teaching authority of the Church (fides catholica).
These are commonly referred to in Dogmatic Theology as De fide Divina et Catholica or simply dogmas.
2nd Category: “[E]verything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals.” These constitute what Dogmatic Theology has always referred to as Catholic truths or Church doctrines, which are to be accepted with a faith based on the sole authority of the Church (fides ecclesiastica). Even if the Profession fidei did not expressly state it, these are as infallibly certain as dogmas proper.
3rd Category: “[T]he teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act." These are the teachings for which the CIC stipulates “A religious respect of intellect and will, even if not the assent of faith” (c.752).
Can.833 provides an exhaustive list of persons who are legally obliged to pronounce personally the Professio fidei and those persons in whose presence it is to be pronounced. They include (in what is relevant to the present discussion): (1) rectors and professors of theology and philosophy in seminaries; (2) the Rector of the Ecclesiastical or Catholic universities, in the presence of the Chancellor or the local Ordinary (or the delegates of either), and (3) those who in any university teach subjects which deal with faith or morals, in the presence of the rector (if he is a priest) or the Local Ordinary or the delegates of either (italics added).
The Oath of Fidelity, on the other hand, can be considered as a public pledge to fulfill the duties incumbent on a subject in exercising an office or in undertaking a specific task (e.g., to teach theology) in a spirit of loyalty to the whole ecclesiastical community.
Both the Profession of Faith and the Oath of Fidelity involve three parties then: the community to which a specific service is rendered, the ecclesiastical authority who entrusts the task, and the person concerned who accepts to fulfill the office in a spirit of loyalty.
Again, at this point I wonder how I keep on getting reports of heterodox teachings being foisted on the young and innocent by professors teaching either theology or matters related to faith and morals in Catholic institutions. Could it be that such professors are not making either the professio fidei or the iusiurandum fidelitatis?

3. Ecclesiastical Permission for Publications on Faith and Morals
The procedure for obtaining permission or approval to publish books can be broadly divided into two parts:
1st The prior examination of the book by the censors and the granting of the nihil obstat (c.830). The examination, preceding the granting of permission, is done by a censor or censors, chosen by the Local Ordinary with the following traits: scientia, recta doctrina et prudentia (c.380 §1). The censor/s should give his judgment based only on the doctrine of the Church on faith and morals, as proposed by the ecclesiastical magisterium, without any personal preference or partialities. This judgment—whether positive or negative—should contain the reasons on which it is based and should be given in writing, dated and signed. It is usually called the nihil obstat, since its positive judgment should guarantee that the writing has nothing contrary to the doctrine of the Church.
2nd The permission to publish, called the imprimatur, granted by the Local Ordinary. If the judgment of the aforementioned censor/s is favorable, the Ordinary can give the permission to publish in his own name, detailing the date and place it was granted. However, the Ordinary’s decision pro suo prudenti iudicio (c.830 §3) is an independent one, which takes wider issues in consideration as regards giving or withholding the permission to publish. Nevertheless, in case the permission is denied by a Local Ordinary, it can either be requested from any other competent Ordinary or an administrative recourse sought from the CDF.
The range of writings requiring the nihil obstat and/or imprimatur has been narrowed to a few categories of writings in the present Code (cc.825-829), which we can narrow further to what is relevant to the present discussion as follows:
(1) Books on Sacred Scripture, Theology, Canon Law, Church History or other religious or moral disciplines to be used as textbooks in schools at various levels need prior or successive approval of the competent ecclesiastical authority (c.827 §2).
(2) The permission of the Local Ordinary is needed for clerics and members of religious institutes to write in newspapers, magazines or periodicals, which usually attack openly the Catholic religion or good morals (c.831 §1). Likewise, the permission of their major superior is required to publish writings on religion or morals by the members of the religious institutes (c.832).
(3) No writings, especially books that deal with religion or morals, can be displayed, sold or distributed in Churches or oratories without the prior permission or successive approval of the competent authority (c.827 §4).
(4) Books which deal with matters of Sacred Scripture, Theology, Canon Law,
Church History, or religious or moral disciplines—but not used as textbooks for teaching—are recommended to be submitted for prior judgment of the pastors (c.827 §3).
In this regard, I cannot help but think of the repeated attacks on official Catholic teaching regarding contraception, theology of liberation and even the distinction of Church and State (hence, the non-involvement of clerics on partisan politics) that appear on Philippine dailies in the columns of clerics and religious; or of the occasional book in theology (especially moral theology) that finds its way in bookstands in Catholic venues, without a nihil obstat and much less an imprimatur. Again, one wonders if the aforementioned norms regarding publications by clerics and members of religious institutes are being enforced.

4. The Doctrinal Examination by the CDF
The responsibility of proclaiming the Gospel and the truths of the faith in its purity and entirety is that of the Supreme Pontiff and the College of Bishops as regards the Universal Church, and the individual Bishops for the particular Churches (c.756). Thus, after everything else may have failed, the doctrinal examination by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith constitutes a final instrument for the vicarious exercise of the Papal responsibility to safeguard the doctrine on faith and morals in the whole Catholic world.
The procedures for such a doctrinal examination were formulated in 1971, on indication of Paul VI, at the height of the postconciliar crisis in Catholic doctrine. It was renewed in 1997 in view of the new Code of Canon Law of 1983. Without going into the details now, a cursory reading of the renewed Agendi ratio of 1997 gives us an idea of the process. The 29 articles are divided into five parts: (1) Preliminary Examination, (2) Office Study, (3) Ordinary Procedure of Examination, (4) Procedure of Examination in case of Urgency, and (5) Disciplinary Measures.

Conclusion
The CBCP has been engaged in a heroic battle to resist the attempts in no less than three Congresses to pass the Reproductive Health Bill. Each time, despite the perseverance of the pro-Life and pro-Family advocates, the resistance against the forces of the RH Bill proponents has been slowly going down: from a high during Estrada’s time, a lower but still strong anti-contraceptive stand during GMA’s presidency, to an all-time low in the present regime. I am convinced there is a strong inverse correlation between the acceptance of the Church teaching against contraception—which has been going down in the Philippines in recent years—and the acceptance of a RH Bill. Furthermore, I am convinced that such rejection of the Church teaching regarding the intrinsic evil of contraception is primarily fomented in the very heart of some of the best-known Catholic colleges and universities.
The Bishops are totally empowered to make these persons and institutions toe the line:
1st by enforcing the canonical requirement of the mandate for teaching on matters regarding faith and morals;
2nd by enforcing the canonical requirement of the professio fidei and the iusiurandum fidelitatis for those who teach matters regarding faith and morals;
3rd by enforcing the requirements set down by Canon Law regarding the publication of writings regarding faith and morals—i.e., the nihil obstat and the imprimatur for books and the required permission for cleric and religious columnists in newspapers.
Faith is the beginning of salvation. Logically, the erosion of the faith—by the uncorrected teaching of erroneous doctrine in Catholic institutions—is the beginning of perdition.

The Juridic Protection of the Church Teaching against Contraception

2011-01-03T21:53:00.000+08:00

(Part II)

A RECENT column of Atty. Jose Sison (A Law Each Day, The Philippine Star 8.XI.2010, p.15) caught my attention. Quoting an e-mail he received from a Jose Teodoro Sagalo, he focused on what the latter qualified as “grave error that the Loyola School of Theology has posted in the Ateneo website endorsed earlier by Fr. Nebres, Ateneo President, for reflection, and now endorsed by Roberto Rivera of the John Carroll Institute.” A quick check of the primary source verified the presence of the offensive proposals, in a paper issued jointly by the Loyola School of Theology and the John J. Carroll Institute of Church and Social Issues and authored by Fr. Eric O. Genilo, S.J., Fr, John J. Carroll, S.J., and Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J.

My questions are: (1) Does the Catholic Church really teach─in an authentic, infallible, obligatory way─the instrinsic moral evil of contraception, or is this a matter of religious persuasion, therefore admitting of a variety of interpretations in a pluralistic society like the Philippines? (2) If the Church indeed officially teaches the intrinsic evil of contraception, can a Catholic institution─like the Loyola School of Theology─publicly propose otherwise, and get away with it? In other words, is there no provision in Church Law against a Catholic School of Theology teaching something contrary to Catholic Doctrine?

These questions bring to a head something which I had been wanting to address in this forum for some time: the juridic protection of the Word of God. Put another way, indeed there must be something in Church Law that guarantees─with coercive and punitive force─the doctrinal soundness of Catholic institutions. Still put another way, in much the same way that the Republic of the Philippines has the opportune departments to establish standards for what are taught in the centers of elementary, intermediate and higher education, the Church must have the necessary means to guarantee that only sound Catholic doctrine is taught in the officially Catholic institutions of education. To illustrate: if a chemistry professor at the University of the Philippines (my department and alma mater respectively) were to insist on teaching his students theories of alchemy that had already been long disproven, and if the university authorities were to allow him to continue deforming his students in that way─with dire consequences in his chemistry practice thereafter─the Republic of the Philippines would have grounds to call the university to task, aside from of course flunking its graduates in the professional board examinations.

In a previous issue of this paper, I summarized a series of articles I had written in this column in previous years regarding the Canonical Protection of the Church’s Magisterium. At this point, and before finally making a canonical appraisal of the question posed by our reader above, allow me to summarize the corresponding rights and duties of the faithful in relation to the Magisterium of the Church.

1. Rights and Duties of the Faithful in relation to the Magisterium
1) Fundamental right to receive an integral catechesis. The Christian faithful, since they are called by baptism to lead a life in conformity with the teaching of the Gospel, have the right to a Christian education by which they will be properly instructed so as to develop the maturity of a human person and at the same time come to know and live the mystery of salvation (c.217). This canon, situated under the title of Obligations and Rights of All Christian Faithful, corresponds to the duty of the Church to evangelize.
2) Right-Duty to do apostolate: Aside from the Magisterium, we must not forget that the whole Church is the carrier of the true meaning of human life; therefore, the whole Church—not just the Hierarchy—has the right and duty to inform the temporal structures with the Gospel message. Nevertheless, This duty of the faithful to do apostolate has no public character—i.e., the apostolate that they are bound to carry out has no public character (personal apostolate), even if they are not barred from carrying out a more public apostolate.
3) Duty to give an assent of faith to Universal Magisterium: All that is contained in the written word of God or in tradition, i.e., in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church and also proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal Magisterium, must be believed with divine and catholic faith.... therefore, all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatever which are contrary to these truths (c.750).
The Code defines two situations contrary to this norm (c.751):
a) Heresy - is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or an obstinate doubt concerning the same.
b) Apostasy - is the total repudiation of the Christian faith. Furthermore, the Code typifies the above situations as crimes, establishing that an apostate or a heretic incurs automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication and if a cleric, he can also be punished by additional expiatory penalties (cf. c.1336, §1, nn.1-3).
4) Duty to give religious respect of intellect and will to Authentic Magisterium. Such religious respect implies, aside from an intellectual assent to the doctrine, also an assent of the will as manifested by an external actuation in accord with it. This is manifested at two levels:
a) Universal Level. A religious respect of intellect and will, even if not the assent of faith, is to be paid to the teaching which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops enunciate on faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it with a definitive act. Therefore the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid whatever is not in harmony with that teaching (c.752).
b) Particular Level. Although they do not enjoy infallible teaching authority, the bishops in communion with the head and members of the college, whether as individuals or gathered in conferences of bishops or in particular councils, are authentic teachers and instructors of the faith for the faithful entrusted to their care; the faithful must adhere to the authentic teaching of their own bishops with a sense of religious respect (c.753).
3) Duty to refrain from dissent in matters of faith and morals: All the Christian faithful are obliged to observe the constitutions and decrees which the legitimate authority of the Church issues in order to propose doctrine and proscribe erroneous opinions; this is especially true of the constitutions and decrees issued by the Roman Pontiff or the college of bishops (c.754).
It is senseless to speak of a right to dissent as an expression of a religious freedom within the Church. By definition, this is a freedom that exists only in civil society, and as an eminent canonist has pointed out, what exists in the Church is the “right of opinion and expression (cc.212; 218), a right which is not absolute, but limited and one of the limitations is the magisterium of the Church. A member of the faithful cannot dissent from what makes up the deposit of faith without breaking ecclesiastical communion, since it amounts to ceasing to be a disciple of the Master.”
Thus, even if the Universal Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium can be differentiated in that an internal act of assent is required in the former while not in the latter, in both cases the faithful is duty-bound to refrain from active (external) dissent.

2. The Loyola House of Studies’ “Talking Points” for a Discussion on the RH Bill

The offending paper is actually too long to tackle in detail, but I would like to focus on what I think is the ethical principle which underpins the entire set of talking points, which to my mind is not in sync with official Catholic teaching as enunciated in the ordinary, authentic and infallible magisterium of the Roman Pontiffs. Quite early on, the paper reads:
“Contraceptives without abortifacient effects are treated differently in church teaching. They are forbidden for Catholics but other religious traditions allow them” (italics mine). It then goes on to make a proposal:
“Proposal: The State first has to make a clear position whether it considers the prevention of implantation of an embryo as an abortion. If the State takes this position, there must be a careful and scientifically based evaluation of each of the medicines and devices provided by the Bill. Those contraceptive medicines and devices which are determined to have abortifacient effects are to be banned even now and regardless of whether the RH Bill is passed or not.”
The implication here is that there is one morality for Catholics and another for people of other religious traditions. This is clearly contrary to the notion of intrinsically evil acts—as taught by John Paul II in Veritatis splendor—and the qualification of contraception as an intrinsically evil act—as taught by Paul VI in Humanae vitae and again by John Paul II in Evangelium vitae.
The proposal to delve into the question of whether or not the prevention of implantation of an embryo is an abortion only serves to muddle the issue and take the discussion away from the more fundamental doctrine: the intrinsic evil of contraception. Put another way, engaging the proponents of the RH Bill in a debate on the abortifaciant or non-abortifaciant character of the contraceptives it proposes to promote is tantamount to conceding that contraception is not the issue but rather abortion. Even from the point of view of rhetoric or debate, that’s a concession that the Church is ill-advised to make, since in fact the proponents of the RH Bill have always affirmed their staunch disapproval of abortion.
This in fact is the problem with some theologians from the aforementioned theological school: through the years, they have repeatedly defended the position that the official Catholic teaching on the intrinsic evil of contraception—repeatedly enunciated by the popes of the recent past, by Vatican Council II and at present by Pope Benedict XVI—is just one more position, on equal footing with the opposite view of—what a Philippine Star Jesuit columnist calls—an equally responsible Catholic position that contraception is licit in certain situations.
The question now is: Can these theologians, teaching in a Catholic university, where young minds are supposedly being formed in the Catholic faith, maintain such heterodox positions with impunity? Can’t the Law of the Church even protect the youngest of its own faithful against doctrinal error? Or put another way, if the bishops are so concerned about the environmental pollution brought about by irresponsible mining, shouldn’t they be more concerned about the doctrinal pollution being brought about by irresponsible theologizing in Catholic universities? After all, environmental degradation is not as serious as the erosion of Catholic faith, which is at bottom, is the reason for the increasing acceptance of the RH Bill among the Catholic faithful.
This question is masterfully answered in a book by Rev. Jesu Pudumai Doss, SDB, entitled Freedom of Enquiry and Expression in the Catholic Church: A Canonico-Theological Study, published by Kristu Jyoti Publications, Bangalore (India) in 2007. Based on the author’s doctoral dissertation in Canon Law at the Salesian Pontifical University (Rome), the book bears a foreword of Angelo Amato, then Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. I shall attempt to summarize the pertinent sections in the next issue of CBCP Monitor. (To be concluded.)

The Juridic Protection of the Church Teaching against Contraception

2010-11-16T21:50:00.000+08:00

(Part I)

A RECENT column of Atty. Jose Sison (A Law Each Day, The Philippine Star 8.XI.2010, p.15) caught my attention. Quoting an e-mail he received from a Jose Teodoro Sagalo, he focused on what the latter qualified as “grave error that the Loyola School of Theology has posted in the Ateneo website endorsed earlier by Fr. Nebres, Ateneo President, for reflection, and now endorsed by Roberto Rivera of the John Carroll Institute.” A quick check of the primary source verified the presence of the offensive proposals. My questions are: (1) Does the Catholic Church really teach─in an authentic, infallible, obligatory way─the instrinsic moral evil of contraception, or is this a matter of religious persuasion, therefore admitting of a variety of interpretations in a pluralistic society like the Philippines? (2) If the Church indeed officially teaches the intrinsic evil of contraception, can a Catholic institution─like the Loyola School of Theology─publicly propose otherwise, and get away with it? In other words, is there no provision in Church Law against a Catholic School of Theology teaching something contrary to Catholic Doctrine?

These questions bring to a head something which I had been wanting to address in this forum for some time: the juridic protection of the Word of God. Put another way, indeed there must be something in Church Law that guarantees─with coercive and punitive force─the doctrinal soundness of Catholic institutions. Still put another way, in much the say way that the Republic of the Philippines has the opportune departments to establish standards for what are taught in the centers of elementary, intermediate and higher education, the Church must have the necessary means to guarantee that only sound Catholic doctrine is taught in the officially Catholic institutions of education. To illustrate: if a chemistry professor at the University of the Philippines (my alma mater and my department) were to insist on teaching his students theories of alchemy that had already been long disproven, and if the university students were to allow him to continue deforming his students in that way─with dire consequences in his chemistry practice thereafter─the Republic of the Philippines would have grounds to call the university to task.

Nevertheless, in order to address these questions thoroughly, allow me to first summarize a series of articles I had written in this column regarding the Canonical Protection of the Church’s Magisterium.

1. The Magisterium of the Church

The term Magisterium comes from the Latin magister, meaning “master”, “director” or “teacher”. In Church parlance, Magisterium came to refer to the teaching authority, finally narrowing specifically to the pastoral teaching office of bishops—i.e., the teaching function of the hierarchy. In other words, it refers to the exercise of the munus docendi taken in its strict sense.
Christ, who had been sent by the Father to be a witness of the truth (cf. Jn 18,37), has left to his Church his word and the power to teach with authority. The imperativity of the word of God in itself acts in the internal forum. However, man needs─and the word likewise demands it—an authoritative voice that can bind him in a palpable manner to the truth of the word. Thus, Christ established this authority in his Apostles and in their successors the Bishops (cf. Mt 16,19; 18,18).

“The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium’s task to preserve God’s people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abide in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church’s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals” (CCC, n.890).

2. Types of Magisterium

1) According to the grade of authoritativeness that the teaching office assumes in its teaching, there can be two types:
a) Authentic Magisterium: The Church Magisterium is called authentic because it proceeds from the authentic Teacher, Christ, and is exercised by those who have been given his authority (cf. LG, 25).

A religious respect of intellect and will, even if not the assent of faith, is to be paid to the teaching which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops enuntiate on faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium even if they do not intend to proclaim it with a definitive act; therefore the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid whatever is not in harmony with that teaching (c.752).
b) Infallible Authentic Magisterium: The authentic Magisterium enjoys the note of infallibility in its entirety, and also when in specific formulations the teaching office puts its authority in the highest degree and declares a doctrine with the intention of defining it as belonging to the faith. No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless it is clearly established as such (c.749, §3).

2) According to the form or manner of exercising it, there can be two types:
a) Extraordinary—when it is carried out through a solemn form or manner. Example are the so-called ex cathedra teachings of the Roman Pontiff and that of the Council.
b) Ordinary—when the habitual form or means are used. This in turn can be:
1° Universal—when it is addressed to the whole Church.
2° Particular—when it is addressed to a specific segment of the Church (e.g., diocese or episcopal conference).
3) According to the content, the magisterium can refer to:
1° Dogmas of the faith, which define the truths of the faith.
2° Customs that must be followed.
3° Exhortations regarding Christian life.
4° Moral judgments on temporal questions.

3. Subjects of the Magisterium
1) The subjects of authentic magisterium are:
1° The Roman Pontiff and the College of Bishops, for the Universal Church (c.752).
2° The individual bishops, Episcopal Conferences and Particular Councils, for the faithful entrusted to them. Although they do not enjoy infallible teaching authority, the bishops in communion with the head and members of the college, whether as individuals or gathered in conferences of bishops or in particular councils, are authentic teachers and instructors of the faith for the faithful entrusted to their care; the faithful must adhere to the authentic teaching of their own bishops with a sense of religious respect (c.753).

Although the canon lumps them together, these three are not on equal footing as far as the exercise of authentic magisterium is concerned. The diocesan bishops (and their equivalents) exercise a primary and direct authentic magisterium over their respective proper flocks, while the Episcopal Conferences and Particular Councils only exercise a secondary and indirect role—i.e., only to the extent that the individual bishops or the Pope empowers them.. Thus, “when the doctrinal declarations of Episcopal Conferences are approved unanimously, they may certainly be issued in the name of the Conferences themselves, and the faithful are obliged to adhere with a sense of religous respect to that authentic magisterium of their bishops. However, if this unanimity is lacking, a majority alone of the Bishops of a Conference cannot issue a declaration as authentic teaching of the Conference to which all the faithful of the territory would have to adhere, unless it obtains the recognitio of the Apostolic See, which will not give it if the majority requesting it is not substantial.

2) The subjects of infallible authentic magisterium are:
1° The Roman Pontiff—when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful, whose task is to confirm his fellow believers in the faith, he proclaims with a definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held as such (c.749, §1).
2° The College of Bishops—also possess infallible teaching authority when the bishops exercise their teaching office gathered together in an ecumenical council when, as teachers and judges of faith and morals, they declare that for the universal Church a doctrine of faith or morals must be definitively held (c.749, §2). They also exercise it scattered throughout the world but united in a bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, when together with that same Roman Pontiff in their capacity as authentic teachers of faith and morals, they agree on an opinion to be held as definitive.

Preliminary Conclusion

Just before his Ascension to Heaven, Christ commissioned the Apostles with the words: “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and behold, I am with you all days, even unto the consummation of the world.” (Mt. 28,18-20; cf. Mk 16,15; Lk 24,47)).

As Vatican Council II teaches, the teaching office of the Church is not an optional contribution, but a duty stemming from an imperative mandate of Christ, such that all men may believe and be saved. In fact, the Church itself exists to fulfill this end: to evangelize (cf. Apost. Exhort. Evangelii nuntiandi, nn.5 & 14). Furthermore, this right-duty is exercised by virtue of the sacra potestas which Christ, who has received it from the Father, gave to the Apostles—i.e., the munus docendi is an exercise of the power of jurisdiction.

All this is summarized in c.747, §1: The Church, to whom Christ the Lord entrusted the deposit of faith so that, assisted by the Holy Spirit, it might reverently safeguard revealed truth, more closely examine it and faithfully proclaim and expound it, has the innate duty and right to preach the gospel to all nations, independent of any human power whatever, using the means of social communication proper to it.

At this point, therefore, it seems clear that Church Law does have sufficient means to safeguard the sound teaching of Catholic doctrine. It remains to apply this general principle to the specific case brought up. (To be concluded.)

The Judicial Vicar in the College of Consultors of the Diocese

2010-10-23T21:49:00.000+08:00

I AM the Judicial Vicar in my diocese. Yesterday, I attended a meeting of the Board of Consultors of our diocese. The bishop invited me to attend the meeting, because he wanted me to shed light on some cases. After I presented my opinion, I courteously left the room for them to continue with another item in the agenda. My question is: Is the judicial vicar automatically an ex officio member of the Board of Consultors? Or is the judicial vicar only just on call, at the discretion of the Bishop? I would appreciate any enlightenment on this.

THIS question really touches on a larger issue of the Presbyteral Council (or Council of Priests) of the Diocese. Leaving this larger matter for the next issues of CBCP Monitor, we can briefly tackle the question presented to us, regarding the Board of Consultors and the Judicial Vicar’s membership in it.

The College of Consultors of the Diocese

This matter is regulated in can.502 of the Code of Canon Law in the following terms:
§1. From among the members of the council of priests, the diocesan bishop freely appoints not fewer than six and not more than twelve priests, who are for five years to constitute the college of consultors. To it belong the functions determined by law; on the expiry of the five year period, however, it continues to exercise its functions until the new college is constituted.
§2. The diocesan bishop presides over the college of consultors. If, however, the see is impeded or vacant, that person presides who in the interim takes the bishop’s place, or, if he has not yet bee appointed, then the priest in the college of consultors who is senior by ordination.
§3. The Bishops’ Conference can determine that the functions of the college of consultors be entrusted to the cathedral chapter.
§4. Unless the law provides otherwise, in a vicariate or prefecture apostolic the functions of the college of consultors belong to the council of mission mentioned in c.495, §2.

The College of Consultors can be considered as an innovation of the Code, which prescribes its constitution as a permanent college of priests, freely chosen by the bishop from among the members of the council of priests, in a number not less than six but not greater than twelve. The rationale behind it was the difficulty of convoking the council of priests in all cases, especially in the most urgent matters; a smaller group would facilitate greater agility in consultation.

It’s purpose is to assist the bishop in cases established by Law, and to appoint an administrator of the diocese during an impeded or vacant see.

Specific Functions of the College of Consultors

The specific functions of the College of Consultors provided for by the Code are the following:
1) The diocesan administrator needs its consent to be able to proceed (after the see has been vacant a year) to the incardination or excardination of clergy to or from the diocese, and to grant permission to transfer to another diocese (c.272).
2) In the special case of c.377, §3, it can be consulted for the appointment of the diocesan bishop or the coadjutor bishop.
3) It receives the apostolic letters coadjutor upon the diocesan bishop taking of his office, and likewise in the case of the bishop when the diocesan bishop is impeded (c.382, §3 and c.44, §§1 & 3).
4) When the see is impeded, and when that which is prescribed in c.413, §1 is not possible, it is the duty of the College of Consultors to elect a priest who will govern the diocese (c.413, §2).
5) When the see is vacant and if there are no auxiliary bishops, and if the Holy See has not provided otherwise, it assumes the governance of the diocese (c.419), and it must choose a diocesan Administrator within eight days from the notice of the vacancy of the see (c.421, §1).
6) It informs the Holy See of the death of the diocesan bishop when there is no auxiliary bishop (c.422).
7) It receives the possible renunciation from office of the diocesan administrator. In this case (and in the case of the death of the administrator) it must select another, pursuant to c.421 (cf. also c.430).
8) The diocesan administrator (not the bishop) must obtain its consent for the removal of the chancellor and the notaries of the curia (c.485).
9) It must be heard for the appointment of the diocesan financial officer (c.494, §1) and for his removal (c.494, §2).
10) It receives the profession of faith of the diocesan administrator (c.833, 4º).
11) The diocesan administrator must obtain its consent to issue dimissorial letters to secular clerics who must receive Holy Orders (c.1018, §1,2º).
12) It must be heard by the bishop for financial administrative acts of a certain value. The bishop has to obtain its consent for extraordinary administrative acts, besides those specially indicated by the universal law or the founding statutes (c.1277).
13) The diocesan bishop must obtain its consent to alienate goods (whose value is between the minimum and maximum amounts as established by the Bishops’ Conference) of juridical persons not subject to their own ordinary, when the statutes do not indicate a competent authority. Its consent is also required for the alienation of the goods of the diocese (c.1292,§1; cf. c.1295)

No Ex-Officio Members of the College of Consultors

The Code of Canon Law does not provide for any ex-officio member of the college of consultors. It is not difficult to understand the reason behind this: to give the diocesan bishop maximum leeway and freedom to choose from among his presbyterium those who would constitute his own senate, to give a consultative vote on those matters he chooses to refer to them.

That having been said, it nevertheless seems prudent to assure that such a close-knit consultative body count on experts for all the areas of pastoral work and governance of the diocese. Thus, considering the importance of their respective areas of competence in the diocese, the following would be useful and effective in that body: the different vicars (for their respective areas of responsibility), the chancellor (for archival matters), the economic officer, the judicial vicar. Nevertheless, since the purpose of this body is precisely to be readily available for consultation by the diocesan bishop and to avoid possible conflicts of interests and time constraints, it would also seem wise to include in this consultative body other priests also competent on the materials corresponding to the above diocesan officers─e.g., another expert in Canon Law, other than the Judicial Vicar; and another person knowledgeable in finances, other than the Finance Officer of the diocese.

In the end, what is important is that the body is competent to give the bishop the necessary counsel for the different acts of governance he may need to consult them with.

Collaboration of Non-Ordained Faithful in the Sacred Ministry of Priests

2010-10-10T21:47:00.000+08:00

(Part IV)

IN a recent Workshop of the Executive Committee of the Canon Law Society of the Philippines, a nagging question was again raised: What is the canonical status of Basic Ecclesial Communities (BEC)? The matter was raised by the canon lawyers from Mindanao (priests and a bishop), because of the growing frictions between the ecclesiastical organization and the so-called basic ecclesial communities. In the past, this question had always been sidelined by the lack of any clear theological notion of such communities; hence—the argument went—it was futile to attempt a canonical analysis of the problem.

This time, however, it was pointed out that even if it might be premature to attempt a definition of the canonical status of Basic Ecclesial Communities, some working guidelines might be in order, by way of delimiting the scope of pastoral action of such communities, in accordance with Church Law. In short, even if it might not be possible to categorically state what Canon Law states these communities are, it might be possible to draw from existing legislation what these communities are not. In more practical terms, perhaps we can glean from Canon Law what these communities may and may not do.

In fact, this is the task that the Canon Law Society of the Philippines proposed to tackle in its National Convention in May 2011. As a starting point for the canonical investigation, the CLSP Execom identified a little-known document of the Holy See, which was issued in 1997. To arouse interest in this topic, we are revisiting that document in a 4-part series that started three issues ago of the CBCP Monitor, which we conclude with this present issue.

Specific Practical Provisions

Article 6: Liturgical Celebrations
Two areas are covered in this article of the Instruction:
1) The Holy Mass in particular - “Abuses which are contrary to c.907 are to be eradicated” (§2) to wit:
a) “Deacons and non-ordained members of the faithful may not pronounce prayers─e.g., especially the Eucharistic Prayer with its concluding doxology─or any other parts of the liturgy reserved to the celebrant priest”. This abuse is not uncommon in the Philippines. To be sure many times it could be by the initiative of the faithful, but even so it should be the duty of the pastor to explain these matters to them, even by way of a general advertence even within the Mass itself, in the moments permitted to him by the rubrics (e.g. before the final blessing).
b) “Neither may deacons or non-ordained members of the faithful use gestures or actions that are proper to the same priest celebrant.” This is another area where abuses have proliferated in Philippine churches, many times at the instigation of the priests themselves. The rubrics of the Roman Missal and the provisions of the General Instructions for the Roman Missal (IGMR) are quite explicit and specific as regards the gestures and postures of the celebrant and the congregation during the Holy Mass, precisely because the liturgy is the public worship of the Church--i.e., its regulation cannot be left to private and individual initiative.

Thus, the Code clearly stipulates: “The liturgical books approved by the competent authority are to be faithfully observed in the celebration of the sacraments; therefore no one on personal authority may add, remove or change anything in them” (c.846, §1; emphasis added). Examples of such abuses are: the faithful extending and/or lifting their arms and/or holding hands with each other during the Our Father; the celebrant inserting words of his own composition--ad lib--into the text of the Missal, especially in-between major prayers or when he addresses the faithful, and even before the Consecration; the non-fulfillment of the stipulated postures and procedures when Holy Communion is received by the hand.
2) Use of Sacred Vestments in General - Two possible abuses are addressed: (§2)
a) “The sacred ministers are obliged to wear all of the prescribed liturgical vestments”. Again, the practice in many parishes─especially during concelebrations─of concelebrants just using a stole (without chasuble alb or sometimes even just over street clothes) during the Holy Sacrifice is a flagrant violation of this norm.
b) “The use of sacred vestments which are reserved to priests or deacons (stoles, chasubles or dalmatics) at liturgical ceremonies by non-ordained members of the faithful is clearly unlawful”.
Article 7: Sunday Celebrations without a Priest

The Instruction starts by stating that “much good derives for the local community from this useful and delicate service” in those cases when “in the absence of priests or deacons, non-ordained members of the faithful lead Sunday celebrations” (§1). However, it clarifies that this is only so when such is carried out “in accordance with the spirit and the specific norms issued by the competent ecclesiastical authority”─specifically:
1) “A special mandate of the Bishop is necessary for the non-ordained members of the faithful to lead such celebrations. This mandate should contain specific instructions with regard to the term of applicability, the place and conditions in which it is operative, as well as indicate the priest responsible for overseeing these celebrations” (§1).
2) “The practice of inserting into such celebrations elements proper to the Holy Mass─e.g., the use of the Eucharistic Prayers, even in narrative form─is prohibited” (§2).
3) “It should be emphasized (to) those participating, that such celebrations cannot substitute for the Eucharistic Sacrifice, and that the obligation to attend Mass on Sunday and holy days of obligation is satisfied only by attendance at Holy Mass” (§2).
Article 8: The Extraordinary Ministry of Holy Communion

It is in this article perhaps where the most obvious abuses can be observed. Thus, the Instruction starts by categorically stating that “the canonical discipline concerning extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion must be correctly applied so as to avoid generating confusion”. It proceeds to concretize this criterion:

Main Principle: “A non-ordained member of the faithful, in cases of true necessity, may be deputed by the diocesan Bishop (...) to act as an extraordinary minister to distribute Holy Communion outside of liturgical celebrations ad casum vel ad tempus or for a more stable period” (§1).

Thus, the so-called extraordinary ministers (or lay ministers of Holy Communion as they are commonly called) are so deputed, in principle, only for distributing Holy Communion outside liturgical celebrations (i.e., outside the Mass or Holy Week services).
1st Exception: “In exceptional cases or in unforeseen circumstances, the priest presiding at the liturgy─supposedly this includes the Mass─may authorize such ad casum” (§1). Again we have to note that this should be in exceptional or unforeseen circumstance. Obviously, if such were to happen Sunday after Sunday, it wouldn’t be exceptional or unforeseen anymore; thus, to make use of this prerogative regularly would be an abuse.
2nd Exception: “Extraordinary ministers─i.e., those deputed as such by the diocesan Bishop─may distribute Holy Communion at Eucharistic celebrations (e.g., Holy Mass) only” in any of the following situations: (§2)
1) when there are no ordained ministers present;
2) when those ordained ministers present at a liturgical celebration are truly unable to distribute Holy Communion;
3) when there are particularly large numbers of the faithful such that the liturgical celebration would be excessively prolonged because of an insufficient number of ordained ministers to distribute Holy Communion.

It is important to note that the Instruction categorically states that this exceptional function “is supplementary and extraordinary, and must be exercised in accordance with the norm of law” (§2). This norm of Law is precisely concretized by the three situation outlined above by the Instruction.

In the case of a Mass, the first situation cannot arise (since the celebrant is precisely an ordained minister); the second situation hardly arises, since the celebrant normally should be able to distribute Holy Communion himself. Thus, normally, only the third situation would be the probable cause for exercising this prerogative, and even then, the Instruction itself considers as an abuse “the habitual use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion at Mass, thus arbitrarily extending the concept of a great number of faithful” (§2 in fine).

This is perhaps one of the more glaring inconsistencies between the norm and the present praxis in the many parishes, where lay ministers distribute Holy Communion on a regular basis, Sunday after Sunday, and even daily. This obviously needs to be addressed by the Bishops, according to the tenor of the present Instruction.

Other possible abuses: Aside from the previously mentioned phenomenon of the regular use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, the Instruction points out “certain practices to be avoided and eliminated where such have emerged in particular Churches”:
1) “Extraordinary ministers receiving Holy Communion apart from the other faithful as though concelebrants”─e.g., in the sanctuary.
2) “Association (by the extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion) with the renewal of promises made by priests at the Chrism Mass on Holy Thursday, as well as with other categories of faithful who renew religious vows or receive a mandate as extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion.”
In both cases, what is obviously at stake is the danger of eroding in the mind of the faithful the conviction of the essential difference between the common and the ordained priesthood, and the danger of clericalizing the laity and thereby disempowering them from fulfilling what they really─vocationally─ought to do: to proclaim Christ in the midst of temporal (secular) realities.

Article 9: The Apostolate of the Sick

The Instruction begins by affirming that “in this area, the non-ordained faithful can often provide valuable collaboration” and that “these constitute a Christian presence of the greatest importance to the sick and the suffering” (§1). In fact, this seems to be one area where the laity can really collaborate with the pastoral work of the priests, given the shortage of sacred ministers and the non-sacramental nature (at least for the most part) of this ministry. Thus the Instruction reminds the Pastors of the following (§1):
1) “The non-ordained faithful particularly assist the sick by being with them in difficult moments, encouraging them to receive─and by helping them to have the dispositions to worthily receive such─the sacraments of Penance and the Anointing of the Sick.”
2) “In using sacramentals, the non-ordained faithful should ensure that these are in no way regarded as sacraments, whose administration is proper and exclusive to the Bishop and to the priest.”
3) “In no instance may the non-ordained perform anointings either with the Oil of the Sick or any other oil”─i.e., not even by way of a para-liturgical rite.
4) “The priest (is the) only valid minister” of the sacrament of Anointing of the Sick...No other person may act as ordinary or extraordinary minister of the sacrament, since such constitutes simulation of the sacrament” (§2).
Finally, we might add that even if the Instruction does not specifically mention it, the administration of Holy Eucharist to the sick seems to be one where the extraordinary─non-ordained─ministers of the Holy Eucharist can really play an important role, given the shortage of priests.

Article 10: Assistance at Marriages
The Instruction first states “the possibility of delegating the non-ordained faithful to assist at marriages” since, on the one hand this is strictly an ecclesiastical norm (for the canonical form of marriage); and on the other hand, because such delegation “may prove necessary in special circumstances where there is a grave shortage of sacred ministers” (§1). It then proceeds to remind the Bishops of the following norms:
1) Only “the diocesan Bishop may concede this delegation” (§1). “With the exception of an extraordinary case due to the absolute absence of both priests and deacons who can assist at marriages, no ordained minister may authorize the non-ordained faithful for such assistance. Neither may an ordained minister authorize the non-ordained faithful to ask or receive matrimonial consent according to the norm of c.1108, §2” (§3).
2) The diocesan Bishop may concede this delegation “subject to the verification of three conditions” (§1; cf. c. 1112, §1):
1° “there are no priests or deacons available;”
2° “after he shall have obtained for his own Diocese a favorable votum from the Conference of Bishops” regarding this move;
3° “the necessary permission of the Holy See”.
3) “In such cases, the canonical norms concerning the validity of delegation, the suitability, capacity and attitude of the non-ordained faithful must be observed” (§2).

Article 11: Extraordinary Minister of Baptism
“Apart from cases of necessity, canonical norms permit the non-ordained faithful to be designated as extraordinary ministers of Baptism”, but the Instruction reminds the Pastors of the conditions for the licitude of this extraordinary designation:
1) “There is no ordinary minister or in cases where he is impeded, (but) care should be taken to avoid too extensive an interpretation of this provision and such a faculty should not be conceded in a habitual form.”
2) The Instruction concretizes a negative list of reasons for that deputation, which would therefore make such deputation illicit:
1° “the ordinary minister’s excessive workload”;
2° “his non-residence in the territory of the parish”;
3° “his non-availability on the day on which the parents wish the Baptism to take place.”
Article 12: Leading the Celebration at Funerals
The Instruction reminds the Pastors of the following norms as regards obsequies:
1) “It is desirable that priests and deacons, even at some sacrifice to themselves, should preside personally at funeral rites in accordance with local custom, so as to pray for the dead and be close to their family, thus availing of an opportunity for appropriate evangelization.”
2) “The non-ordained faithful may lead the ecclesial obsequies”, with the following conditions:
1° “There is a true absence of sacred ministers.” In the absence of further explication within this article of the term true absence of sacred ministers, we have to attend to the sense given to this term in the previous article as regards the sense of lack of ordinary minister for baptism, including the negative list of situations when this is not verified.
2° The deputed non-ordained extraordinary minister must “adhere to the prescribed liturgical norms”, and should therefore “be well prepared both doctrinally and liturgically”.

Conclusion

The Instruction ends by re-stating the two fundamental criteria in this matter:
First, the need to reinforce the identity of the ministerial priesthood, by respecting the principle of diversity in the People of God and more specifically of the proper status and mission of the laymen. “The Holy Father reminds us that the particular gift of each of the Church’s members must be wisely and carefully acknowledged, safeguarded, promoted, discerned and coordinated, without confusing roles, functions or theological and canonical status.”
Second, the shortage of ordained ministers must be addressed by fostering vocations to the priesthood, not by substituting priests with laymen. “Solutions addressing the shortage of ordained ministers cannot be other than transitory and must be linked to a series of pastoral programs which give priority to the promotion of vocations to the Sacrament of Holy Orders.”

Collaboration of Non-Ordained Faithful in the Sacred Ministry of Priests

2010-09-26T21:44:00.000+08:00

(Part III)

IN a recent Workshop of the Executive Committee of the Canon Law Society of the Philippines, a nagging question was again raised: What is the canonical status of Basic Ecclesial Communities (BEC)? The matter was raised by the canon lawyers from Mindanao (priests and a bishop), because of the growing frictions between the ecclesiastical organization and the so-called basic ecclesial communities. In the past, this question had always been sidelined by the lack of any clear theological notion of such communities; hence—the argument went—it was futile to attempt a canonical analysis of the problem.

This time, however, it was pointed out that even if it might be premature to attempt a definition of the canonical status of Basic Ecclesial Communities, some working guidelines might be in order, by way of delimiting the scope of pastoral action of such communities, in accordance with Church Law. In short, even if it might not be possible to categorically state what Canon Law states these communities are, it might be possible to draw from existing legislation what these communities are not. In more practical terms, perhaps we can glean from Canon Law what these communities may and may not do.

In fact, this is the task that the Canon Law Society of the Philippines proposed to tackle in its National Convention in May 2011. As a starting point for the canonical investigation, the CLSP Execom identified a little-known document of the Holy See, which was issued in 1997. To arouse interest in this topic, we are revisiting that document in a 4-part series that started in the previous two issues of the CBCP Monitor.

The Dispositive Part of the Instruction

The second part of the Instruction is entitled Practical Provisions and consists of 13 Articles: Two articles covering general provisions, and 11 articles containing specific practical provisions in as many areas where collaboration of the lay faithful is possible─and in fact exists─in the pastoral ministry of priests. Without reproducing that part of the Instruction, we can focus our attention on the strictly dispositive parts of the text, following the original numbering of the articles.

General Provisions

Article 1: Care in using the terms Ministry and Minister
John Paul II had emphasized the need to clarify and distinguish the various meanings that have accrued to the term ministry in theological and canonical language. “For some time now, it has been customary to use the word ministries not only for the officia (offices) and non-ordained munera (functions) exercised by Pastors in virtue of the sacrament of Orders, but also for those exercised by the lay faithful in virtue of baptismal priesthood” (§1). The Instruction made the following reminders:

1) “Only with constant reference to the one source, the ministry of Christ, may the term ministry be applied to a certain extent and without ambiguity to the lay faithful: that is, without it being perceived and lived as an undue aspiration to the ordained ministry or as a progressive erosion of its specific nature, (because) only in virtue of sacred ordination does the word obtain that full, univocal meaning that tradition has attributed to it” (§2).

2) “The non-ordained faithful may be generically designated extraordinary minister when deputed by competent authority to discharge, solely by way of supply, those offices mentioned in c.230, §3 and in cc.943 & 1112” (§3).

3) “Temporary deputation for liturgical purposes─mentioned in c.230, §2─does not confer any special or permanent title on the non-ordained faithful. It is unlawful for the non-ordained faithful to assume titles such as pastor, chaplain, coordinator, moderator or other such similar titles which can confuse their role and that of the Pastor, who is always a Bishop or priest” (§3).
Article 13: Necessary Selection and Adequate Formation
“Should it become necessary to provide for supplementary assistance in any of the cases mentioned─i.e., in the other articles below─the competent authority is bound” by the following criteria:

1) He should “select faithful of sound doctrine and exemplary moral life.” The importance of this criterion of selection should be obvious: conduct reflects doctrine, and the good conduct of such non-ordained faithful in the exercise of their functions would depend on their intellectual comprehension of the doctrinal foundations of such functions.

2) The following Catholics “may not be admitted to the exercise of such functions”:
1° Those “who do not live worthy lives”─i.e., worthy of the ministry they are being deputed to perform, the more stringent standards (logically) to be applied to the extraordinary ministers of the Holy Eucharist. Thus, the Pastors should make sure that such lay ministers are habitually in the state of grace─obviously only by the assiduous and frequent reception of the sacrament of Penance─because of their intimate contact with the Body of Christ.
2° Those “who do not enjoy good reputation”─and this obviously so as to avoid scandal in the rest of the faithful. Thus, it would not be enough that the Pastor himself knows that the layman in question is living a worthy life; he must also project such righteousness to the rest of the community─e.g., upright profession and professional practice.
3° those “whose family situations do not conform to the teaching of the Church”─e.g., irregular marriage situation.

3) “Those chosen should possess that level of formation necessary for the discharge of the responsibilities entrusted to them”. More specifically:
1° “In accordance with the norms of particular law, they should perfect their knowledge particularly by attending, in so far as possible, those formation courses organized for them by the competent ecclesiastical authority in the particular Churches”.
It is interesting to note that the Instruction hurries to advert that these courses should be carried out “in environments other than that of the seminary, as this is reserved solely for those preparing for the priesthood”─thus forestalling yet another tendency to erode the line between the ordained and the non-ordained faithful.
2° “Great care must be exercised so that these courses conform absolutely to the teaching of the ecclesiastical Magisterium and they must be imbued with a true spirituality.” The use of the adverb absolutely is noteworthy: it shows the concern of the Supreme Legislator that such formation courses not be done haphazardly─just to comply with the letter of the law─, without fulfilling the spirit of the norm.
3 "Precisely to avoid a functionalistic, pragmatic and utilitarian conception of ministry in the Church─Card. Ratzinger adds─it is essential to emphasize clearly the doctrine on the nature of the ministerial priesthood and on the unity and diversity of ministerial tasks in the service building up the Body of Christ."

Specific Practical Provisions

Article 2: The Ministry of the Word: Preaching in General
This ministry refers to the pastoral preaching, catechetics and all forms of Christian instruction, among which the liturgical homily holds pride of place (§1). The Instruction emphasizes the following norms:
1) “The non-ordained faithful, according to their proper character, participate in the prophetic function of Christ. Therefore, (they) can be invited to collaborate, in lawful ways, in the exercise of the ministry of the Word” (§2).
2) “The use of the expression admitti possunt─in c.766 of the Codex which establishes the conditions under which non-ordained faithful may be invited to preach in ecclesia vel oratorio─makes clear that in no instance is this a right”. Furthermore, “the terms in which these conditions are expressed in c.766...make the exceptional nature of such cases clear” (§3).
3) It is up to the Conference of Bishops to lay down the opportune criteria─which must receive the recognitio of the Apostolic See─to help the diocesan Bishop discern the advisability of making use of this prerogative (§3).
4) “Preaching in churches or oratories by the non-ordained faithful can be permitted only as a supply for sacred ministers ... It cannot, however, be regarded as an ordinary occurrence or as an authentic promotion of the laity” (§4).

Article 3: The Homily
The homily is the “preeminent form of preaching, (in which) the mysteries of faith and the norms of Christian living are expounded from the sacred text throughout the course of the liturgical year” (§1). Thus, the Instruction makes the following reminders:
1) “The homily must be reserved to the sacred minister, priest or deacon, to the exclusion of the non-ordained faithful, even if these should have responsibilities as pastoral assistants or catechists in whatever type of community or group... All previous norms which may have admitted the non-ordained faithful to preaching the homily during the Holy Eucharist are to be considered abrogated by c.767, §1”(§1).
2) “The diocesan Bishop cannot validly dispense from (this) canonical norm, since this is not merely a disciplinary law but one which touches upon the closely connected functions of teaching and sanctifying” (§1).
3) “The practice, on some occasions, of entrusting the preaching of the homily to seminarians or theology students who are not clerics is not permitted” (§1).
4) “A form of instruction designed to promote a greater understanding of the liturgy─including personal testimonies─is lawful, if in harmony with liturgical norms, should such be considered objectively opportune as a means of explicating the regular homily preached by the celebrant priest...(and) not assume a character which could be confused with the homily” (§2).
5) “As an expositional aide, and provided it does not delegate the duty of preaching to others, the celebrant minister may make prudent use of dialogue in the homily, in accord with liturgical norms” (§3).
6) “Homilies in non-Eucharistic liturgies─e.g., blessings─may be preached by the non-ordained faithful only when expressly permitted by law and when the prescriptions for doing so are observed” (§4).
7) “In no instance may the homily be entrusted to priests or deacons who have lost the clerical state or who have abandoned the sacred ministry” (§5).

Article 4: Participation in the Pastoral Work of the Parish Priest

The Instruction deals in this section with two fundamental realities:
1) Participation of non-ordained faithful in the pastoral care of a parish - The Instruction begins this article by stating that “the non-ordained faithful may collaborate effectively in the pastoral ministry of clerics in parishes, health-care centers, charitable and educational institutions, prisons, Military Ordinariates, etc.” (italics added). Nevertheless, subsequent allusion to c.517, §2 makes it clear that it is dealing not so much with a simple collaboration, but with “a participation in the exercise of the pastoral care of a parish” (c.517, §2 in medio, italics added)─i.e., a real exercise of the power of jurisdiction. Thus, the Instruction underscores the following points:
a) This is an exceptional provision, and before employing it, “other possibilities should be availed of, such as using the services of retired priests still capable of such service, or entrusting several parishes to one priest or to a group of priests”, keeping in mind “the preference that (c.517) gives to deacons” (§1).
b) “This exceptional provision (should) be used only with strict adherence to conditions contained in it” to wit:
1° it is “due to a dearth of priests and not for reasons of convenience or ambiguous advancement of the laity, etc.”
2° it is only “a participation in the exercise of the pastoral care, and not directing, coordinating, moderating or governing the parish─which are competencies of a priest alone” (§1).
c) “These forms of participation in the pastoral care of parishes cannot, in any way, replace the office of parish priest” (§1).

2) Tenure of Parish Priest - “The parish priest is the pastor proper to the parish entrusted to him and remains such until his pastoral office shall have ceased”. The following clarifications are made as regards the duration of this tenure: (§2)
a) “The presentation of resignation at the age of 75 by a parish priest does not of itself (ipso iure) terminate his pastoral office. Such takes effect only when the diocesan Bishop...shall have definitively accepted his resignation in accordance with c.538, §3.”
b) “Having reached the age of 75 does not constitute a binding reason for the diocesan Bishop to accept a parish priest’s resignation”. In fact, the Instruction points out that it may seem better to extend the tenure of an old but still able parish priest, rather than resort to the extraordinary measure of allowing non-ordained faithful to participate in the exercise of the pastoral care of the parish, as stated above.
Article 5: Structures of Collaboration at the Diocesan and Parish Levels
"These structures─the Instruction starts─have produced many positive results and have been codified in canonical legislation." While the previous article dealt with participation in the pastoral care (properly speaking) of the Parish, this article deals more specifically with the structures provided by law for the collaboration of the non-ordained faithful with the hierarchy at the parish and at the diocesan levels. Noteworthy are the following reminders:
1) Council of Priests (Presbyteral Council) - "Membership in it is reserved to priests alone. Deacons, non-ordained members of the faithful even if collaborators with the sacred ministers─i.e., as per Article 4─and those priests who have lost the clerical state or who have abandoned the sacred ministry do not have either an active or a passive voice in the Council of Priests" (§1, italics added).
2) Diocesan and Parochial Pastoral Councils and Parochial Finance Councils - These are the only two structures provided by the Code, which may have non-ordained faithful as members with the following conditions (§2):
1 They have "a consultative vote only and cannot in any way become deliberative structures."

2 "Only those faithful who possess the qualities prescribed by the canonical norms may be elected to such responsibilities."
3) The Parish priest presides at Parochial Councils - "Any deliberations entered into (or decisions taken) by a parochial council, which has not been presided over by the parish priest or which has assembled contrary to his wishes, are to be considered invalid, and hence null and void" (§3).
4) Special Study Groups - "Ordinaries may avail themselves of special study groups or of groups of experts to examine particular questions. Such groups, however, cannot be constituted as structures parallel to diocesan presbyteral or pastoral councils", nor to parochial pastoral or finance councils. "Neither may such a group deprive these structures of their lawful authority" (§5).
[To be concluded.]

Collaboration of Non-Ordained Faithful in the Sacred Ministry of Priests

2010-09-13T21:42:00.000+08:00

(Part II)

IN a recent Workshop of the Executive Committee of the Canon Law Society of the Philippines, a nagging question was again raised: What is the canonical status of Basic Ecclesial Communities (BEC)? The matter was raised by the canon lawyers from Mindanao (priests and a bishop), because of the growing frictions between the ecclesiastical organization and the so-called basic ecclesial communities. In the past, this question had always been sidelined by the lack of any clear theological notion of such communities; hence—the argument went—it was futile to attempt a canonical analysis of the problem.

This time, however, it was pointed out that even if it might be premature to attempt a definition of the canonical status of Basic Ecclesial Communities, some working guidelines might be in order, by way of delimiting the scope of pastoral action of such communities, in accordance with Church Law. In short, even if it might not be possible to categorically state what Canon Law states these communities are, it might be possible to draw from existing legislation what these communities are not. In more practical terms, perhaps we can glean from Canon Law what these communities may and may not do.

In fact, this is the task that the Canon Law Society of the Philippines proposed to tackle in its National Convention in May 2011. As a starting point for the canonical investigation, the CLSP Execom identified a little-known document of the Holy See, which was issued in 1997. To arouse interest in this topic, we are revisiting that document in a 4-part series that started in the previous issue of the CBCP Monitor.

Observations on Content: collaboration vs. participation

In the substantive level, the most important word appears in the title itself of the document. In effect, the title speaks of the collaboration of the non-ordained faithful in the priestly ministry.

The term initially used in the preliminary discussions was participation. Thus, the title of the symposium in April 1994, which launched the serious preparation of this document, was "The Participation of the Lay Faithful in the Priestly Ministry". However, the Pope John Paul II himself, in his address to that symposium, never used the term participation in this context. In fact, he belabored the distinction between participation in Christ's priesthood by virtue of baptism and confirmation, and the eventual exercise of some tasks entrusted to them by the priests:

"The laity's every ecclesial action or function─including those for which the Pastors ask them to stand in, where possible─is rooted ontologically in their common participation in Christ's priesthood and not in an ontological participation (either temporary or partial) in the ordained ministry proper to Pastors. Therefore, it is clear that if the Pastors entrust them, in an extraordinary way, with some tasks ordinarily and properly connected with the pastoral ministry but not requiring the proper character of Orders, lay people should know that these tasks are existentially rooted in their baptismal ministry and nowhere else! It must always be remembered that the exercise of such tasks does not make pastors of the lay faithful: in fact, a person is not a minister simply by performing a task, but through sacramental ordination."

The terminological shift is important. In effect, participation ("to take part") in the ministerial tasks could not strictly speaking take place without the subject ontologically taking part in the ministerial priesthood itself. This could only happen with priestly ordination. From this we see the aptness of the term collaboration ("to work with") when applied to the non-ordained faithful's cooperation with the ministerial work of priests.

With this in mind, we can point out the following doctrinal conclusions:

1. Lay collaboration in priestly ministry is not a right. The document contains several assertions that call for hermeneutic clarification. Thus, the part concerned with Theological Principles (n.4) says with respect to the tasks and functions which "are considered along the lines of collaboration with the sacred ministry" that "the non ordained faithful do not enjoy a right to such tasks and functions". Obviously, there is no wish here to deny that these faithful can legitimately exercise the tasks and functions mentioned. The document wants to state, however, that the non ordained faithful do not have the right to demand that they be assigned to the above mentioned tasks or functions.

Elsewhere the Instruction says: "the officia temporarily entrusted to them ... are exclusively the result of a deputation by the Church" (Art.1, §2). "Deputation by the Church" is a shorthand expression for "deputation by the Church's lawful Pastors". This complete formulation, used in other passages of the Instruction, avoids an identification of the Pastors with the Church herself. And §3 of the same article correctly indicates that "the temporary deputation for liturgical purposes─mentioned in c.230, §2─does not confer any special or permanent title on the non ordained faithful". The following sentence states that it is unlawful for the non ordained faithful to assume titles such as pastor, chaplain, coordinator or moderator.

2. Lay collaboration is supplementary─i.e., only in cases of necessity. By their ecclesiological nature all of these particular functions belong to the realm of the ordained ministry, in which a lay person, however, can collaborate in cases of necessity, if he has been lawfully deputed to do so. But it must be noted here: "in case of necessity"!

For example, it could never be the Church's objective to replace the Eucharistic celebration by promoting Sunday celebrations without a priest. Nevertheless, wherever there are no other possibilities, the Church is grateful to that lay person who, being well disposed and following the instructions of the Bishop who appointed him, conducts a Liturgy of the Word for and with the faithful who have no other opportunity to celebrate the Lord's Day. It is clear that the lay person here is truly a supplementary aid. Thus, for the good of the faithful─and that is what always counts─he should be glad when a priest is available to celebrate the Eucharist.

3. Responsibility for abuses. The practical provisions of the Instruction are not limited to listing possible or actual abuses, but they always seek to indicate the theological coordinates underlying the respective field of activity and thereby to draw the necessary consequences. Abuses occur when exceptional solutions become alternatives, changing an extraordinary competence into an ordinary one, or, on the other, when the limits provided for collaboration are unlawfully extended and a competence is assumed that has not been given. (To be continued.)

When a priest lives in public sin

(Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university, answers the following query:)

Q: May you please help me to answer these delicate questions? When a priest is in grave sin and publicly known to be in mortal sin (drunk often; with women, etc.) and the bishop allows him to say Mass publicly, what does canon law say about this? Or, if a priest has even impregnated a woman and then encouraged her to get an abortion (a reality for us here), shouldn't that priest have sanctions put on him rather than letting him celebrate Mass publicly? If the bishop says he is not to judge the priests, then who should?—K.G., Sudan

A: These are indeed delicate questions and sad ones to answer. I am not a canonist and so cannot answer regarding the intricacies of the canonical process. However, I can offer some moral pointers with respect to the sacraments.

A priest who falls into grave sin, just like any member of the faithful, should seek sacramental reconciliation as soon as possible. Meanwhile, he should abstain as far as possible from celebrating the sacraments.

By "as far as possible," I mean that if it is impossible for a priest to go to confession before attending to the needs of the faithful, then he should make an act of perfect contrition and celebrate the sacrament. The act of contrition implies both the intention of confessing as soon as possible and the firm resolve not to sin again. This moral principle, of course, is applicable to momentary (and usually secret) lapses.

The case mentioned by our reader would imply a graver situation in which the priest is openly living in an objectively immoral situation with no apparent signs of willingness to change. Although only God knows the heart, a public sin requires some form of public separation from the life of sin. Sacraments celebrated by an unrepentant priest are gravely sacrilegious acts. They would be valid but illicit.

A priest who induces a woman to abort is automatically excommunicated and also irregular and impeded from exercising his ministry (Canons 1398, 1041.4; 1043). He cannot celebrate any sacraments nor himself receive sacramental absolution until the excommunication is formally lifted. If he were to continue to act as a priest, not only would the celebrations be sacrilegious, but the sacrament of penance and matrimony would also be invalid.

If his excommunicated state were publicly known, then the faithful should not assist at any celebration nor request any spiritual goods from him except in the case of imminent danger of death. Even if he were the only priest available, the faithful should not go to one of his Sunday or daily Masses.

In such situations a bishop cannot "allow" a priest to continue as normal. The bishop has a grave responsibility toward assuring the holiness of the sacraments. A bishop could not give a positive permission for a sacrilegious act without himself becoming guilty of the sin of sacrilege. If he were to knowingly turn a blind eye, he would become morally responsible due to culpable negligence and would have some serious questions to answer on Judgment Day.

At the same time, the faithful should not presume that the bishop is aware of everything that goes on. If they have certain proof, and not just hearsay, of a priest's publicly immoral behavior they should present it to the bishop. If the evidence is solid, the bishop should follow the established canonical procedures, first removing the priest from ministry and then deciding how to move forward. If the bishop refuses to act, they should address the case to the apostolic nuncio or directly to the Holy See.

In the first case, and provided there was no abuse of minors involved, the bishop should see if there is any hope of an authentic conversion by the priest that would allow him to start anew in some other situation where his past weakness was unknown. I am aware of several such conversions, such as one in which God made use of a grave illness to bring a very corrupt parish priest to his senses and recover the meaning of his mission and his life. Today, many years later, he is regarded as an exemplary minister of the Gospel.

If change seems impossible, or if he abused minors, he should be removed from ministry. If he has fathered children, his parental responsibilities have priority over remaining in the priesthood.

In the case of the priest automatically excommunicated by inducing an abortion, the gravity of this sin must necessarily exclude him from the exercise of the priesthood. One hopes that he will repent and have the excommunication lifted, but he can no longer function as Christ's representative. His removal from ministry is a just and even minimal punishment for having been instrumental in taking innocent life.

Such sad and heartbreaking situations should move us all to pray for the holiness of priests and make reparation for their sins.

Collaboration of Non-Ordained Faithful in the Sacred Ministry of Priests

2010-08-28T08:53:00.001+08:00

(Part I)

IN a recent Workshop of the Executive Committee of the Canon Law Society of the Philippines, a nagging question was again raised: What is the canonical status of Basic Ecclesial Communities (BEC)? The matter was raised by the canon lawyers from Mindanao (priests and a bishop), because of the growing frictions between the ecclesiastical organization and the so-called basic ecclesial communities. In the past, this question had always been sidelined by the lack of any clear theological notion of such communities; hence—the argument went—it was futile to attempt a canonical analysis of the problem.

This time, however, it was pointed out that even if it might be premature to attempt a definition of the canonical status of Basic Ecclesial Communities, some working guidelines might be in order, by way of delimiting the scope of pastoral action of such communities, in accordance with Church Law. In short, even if it might not be possible to categorically state what Canon Law states these communities are, it might be possible to draw from existing legislation what these communities are not. In more practical terms, perhaps we can glean from Canon Law what these communities may and may not do.

In fact, this is the task that the Canon Law Society of the Philippines proposed to tackle in its National Convention in May 2011. As a starting point for the canonical investigation, the CLSP Execom identified a little-known document of the Holy See, which was issued in 1997. To arouse interest in this topic, we shall revisit that document in this and the following issue of the CBCP Monitor.

The Instruction Ecclesia de Mysterio

On 13 November 1997, the Pro Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, presented to the Press the Instruction Ecclesia de Mysterio, On Certain Questions Regarding the Collaboration of the Non ordained Faithful in the Sacred Ministry of Priests. The document reaffirmed the teaching of the Second Vatican Council (especially of Lumen Gentium, n.33 and Apostolicam Actuositatem, n.24). Its main purpose was to acknowledge and promote what is specific to the vocations of the lay faithful and of ordained ministers, with the goal of encouraging real communion in the Church.

In the decade prior to the document’s publication, Bishops, priests and lay people had been requesting authoritative directives on the identity of priests and lay people with regard to particular cases of pastoral activity improperly exercised by non ordained faithful. Thus, an Inter-dicasterial Commission was established for that purpose, coordinated by the Congregation for the Clergy and involving seven other dicasteries: the Pontifical Council for the Laity, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, the Congregation for Bishops, the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, and the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts.

In a series of meetings, this Commission worked out a text which was sent to the Presidents of the Episcopal Conferences and to the individual Bishops of the dioceses where this issue was considered most urgent. About 92 percent of those questioned were in favor, but asked that ambiguous wording be avoided in the text, that the most authoritative legal form possible be used and, given the urgent need for clarification, that the document be published without delay. The Commission scrupulously followed these instructions.

On 15.V.1997 the text was discussed by the heads of the dicasteries of the Roman Curia in the presence of the Holy Father. Special attention was paid in this last stage to critical observations until a clear convergence of views among the bishops concerned was reached. The result of this lengthy and thorough process is the Instruction we are now considering.

Preliminary hermeneutic clarifications

For a correct understanding of the document, we must first consider some of its formal aspects.

1. An Instruction is an administrative provision. As c.34, §1 states, instructions “clarify the prescriptions of laws and elaborate on and determine an approach to be followed in implementing them”. Thus, it does not create new law, but merely insists that the law currently in force be observed. The same c.34, §1 states that they “are given for the use of those persons whose concern it is to see that the laws are implemented and oblige such persons in the execution of the laws.” Thus, an instruction has also been characterized as an internal general disposition of the ecclesiastical organization, which is directed to the authority or titleholder of an office who is charged with the execution of the law.
2. An Instruction has immediate effectivity. The document was dated 15.VIII.1997 but was not published until 13.XI.1997. Somebody could object that it gave no indication of when it would go into force. That is basically unnecessary, since an Instruction merely reminds the recipients of an obligation already in force for some time. The months elapsed between the date of approval and the day of publication were probably needed for translating the text into the various languages.

3. Involvement of 8 Dicasteries. The fact that eight dicasteries were involved in drafting the Instruction is in itself very significant. On the one hand, it can be said that this procedure conformed with the legislative provisions of the Roman Curia, according to which, what falls within the competence of different offices should be treated by all, under the coordination of the office primarily concerned with the question. Nevertheless, it would have sufficed if the document had only been signed by the Congregation for the Clergy, while noting the preceding inter-dicasterial consultation. The fact that all the dicasteries involved signed with their respective heads and secretaries clearly expressed their co responsibility as well as the importance that the Curia attaches to this subject.

4. Very limited scope of the Instruction. The Instruction has a very limited purpose and its title should be carefully read with that in mind. The subject is not collaboration between priests and lay people, but the priestly ministry in so far as lay people can collaborate in it. The document is thus concerned with only a limited area of the laity's field of activity in the Church. It is important not to forget this fact, since the vast, ordinary field of activity for lay people in the Church and the world is intentionally not considered by the Instruction. It is only concerned with giving appropriate direction to the exercise of particular functions by particular lay people.

5. Binding force of the document. The importance of the document is also underscored by the fact that the Pope approved the Instruction in forma specifica. This mode of approbation chosen by the Pope must be considered in the light of the fact that as stated in the Conclusion—by this administrative act “all particular laws, customs and faculties which are contrary to the foregoing norms, and were conceded ad experiment by the Holy See or other ecclesiastical authorities, are hereby revoked.” Thus we are spared the possible objection that an administrative act cannot derogate from the norms (laws or customs) currently in force; the intention to ensure coherent legislation in this entire matter is also apparent. Consequently any form of appeal against it is impossible.

On the other hand, we must not forget that a preponderant majority of the Bishops whose opinions were consulted for the draft had asked precisely that the most authoritative legal form possible be used.

Objectives of the Instruction

To conclude Part I of this article, let us summarize the basic objectives of the Instruction.

1. Encourage the ordained ministers and foster the ordained ministry. It seeks to encourage ordained ministers by forcefully reintroducing the subject of vocations to the priesthood, stressing that the Church's life depends on the sacrament of Holy Orders as a free, absolutely irreplaceable gift, because the ordained ministry (Bishops, priests, deacons) is part of the Church's very structure. Thus, the Instruction concludes by stating that “the solutions addressing the shortage of ordained ministers cannot be other than transitory and must be linked to a series of pastoral programs which give priority to the promotion of vocations to the Sacrament of Holy Orders.”

2. Remind the laity of their specific role. The Instruction also reminds us how the fundamental equality of Christians—based on Baptism—is compatible with an essential difference—based on Sacred Orders—and that lay Christians, precisely because of Baptism, are called to the consecratio mundi, which differs from the task of anyone who belongs, through the sacrament, to the ministerial ranks. Thus, by avoiding every form of clericalism, lay Christians are encouraged to be more aware of their identity and to give their witness in the world and in the Church without considering the exercise of ministerial duties which they may perform from time to time as a form of advancement but only as one of substitution.

3. Authentic promotion of the lay apostolate. The Instruction does not limit lay participation in the evangelical and ecclesial apostolate. On the contrary, this is encouraged in the right direction consistent with Catholic ecclesiology. “However—as Card. Ratzinger emphasized at the time—it intends to rebut and prevent the tendency towards a clericalization of the lay faithful, and the risk of creating, in reality, an ecclesial structure of parallel service to that founded on the sacrament of Orders.”

This affirmation of the future Pope Benedict XVI is of paramount importance in our proposed study of BECs.

4. Encourage terminological precision. In Article 1 of the practical provisions—¬entitled: “Need for an Appropriate Terminology”—the Instruction insists on the need for a suitable terminology, clarifying the confused use of the word ministry, which describes both the officia and the munera exercised by Pastors in virtue of the sacrament of Orders, and those exercised by the non ordained faithful.

5. Eliminate abuses. As Card. Ratzinger also affirmed at the time: “The timeliness and urgent need of this Instruction is explained in the light of the situation occurring in specific and widespread ecclesial circles, which demands, special insistence on the faithful application of the principles and norms contained in the teachings of the Magisterium and the Church's universal legislation in the concrete life of the particular Churches.”
(To be continued)

Serious and More Serious Crimes in the Catholic Church

2010-08-18T23:05:00.000+08:00

JUST when our readers might just have had enough of the Penal Law of the Church for the meantime─with a spate of articles in this column on Crime and Punishment in the Catholic Church (Parts I&II) and Canonical Process for Alleged Sexual Abuse of Minors by Clerics (Parts I&II))─the Holy See has recently come up with new documentation consolidating all the norms pertinent to the issues that we have recently tackled─i.e., relative to the serious crimes against the faith, and more serious crimes against the sacraments of the Holy Eucharist and Penance, and the sexual abuse of minors. To conclude this discussion, therefore, let us summarize the recent documentation.

Legislative Background

On 30.IV.2001, Pope John Paul II promulgated a very important document, the Motu Proprio Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela, which gave the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) responsibility to deal with and judge a series of particularly serious crimes within the ambit of Church Law. The Motu Proprio was accompanied by a series of practical and procedural Norms, known as Normae de gravioribus delictis (“Norms on more serious crimes”).

At this point it is interesting to note that the serious crimes to which the regulations referred primarily concerned vital aspects of Church life as such: crimes against the faith (heresy, apostasy and schism) and crimes against the Sacraments of the Eucharist and of Penance. Hence the title of the Motu Proprio. Only by extension, because of the vast public echo that it attracted in recent years, was the crime of sexual abuse committed by a priest against a minor under the age of eighteen included in the list of more serious crimes, which were reserved to the CDF. Hence the title of the Norms attached to the Motu Proprio.

Nine years after the promulgation of the Motu proprio Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela, the CDF felt it necessary to propose certain changes to these norms, not modifying the text in its entirety, but rather only in a few areas, in an effort to improve the application of the law. After a serious and attentive study of the proposed changes, the Cardinals and Bishops Members of the CDF presented the results of their decisions to the Supreme Pontiff and, on 21 May 2010, Pope Benedict XVI gave his approval and ordered the promulgation of the revised text.

The text of the Norms on delicta graviora currently in force is the text approved by the Holy Father Benedict XVI on 21 May 2010, and published by the Vatican press office last 15 July 2010.

Serious Crimes (Art.2, §1)

The new document starts by establishing the serious crimes against the faith as heresy, apostasy and schism, as defined in c.751 and penalized with an automatic excommunication by c.1364, §1 of the Code of Canon Law. It further establishes that “it pertains to the Ordinary or Hierarch to remit, by norm of law if such be the case, the latae sententiae (automatic) excommunication and likewise to undertake a juridicial trial in the first instance or issue an extrajudicial decree, with due regard for the right of appeal to the CDF” (Art.2, §2). These cases therefore are not reserved to the CDF, at least not in the First Instance.

More Serious Crimes

The document proceeds to enumerate the more serious crimes, which are strictly reserved to the CDF. It is important to note that most of these crimes already carry an automatic (latae sententiae) censure, such that what is reserved to the CDF is not so much the imposition of the penalty, but rather its remission or possible declaration (ferendae sententiae), if that were necessary.

1. Crimes against the Holy Eucharist (Art.3)

§ 1. The more grave delicts against the sanctity of the most Holy Sacrifice and Sacrament of the Eucharist reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for judgment are:

1° the taking or retaining for a sacrilegious purpose or the throwing away of the consecrated species (with automatic excommunication according to c.1367);
2° attempting the liturgical action of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, without having been promoted to the priestly order (with automatic interdict or suspension according to c.1378, §2, 1º);
3° the simulation of the administration of Holy Eucharist (with a just penalty according to c.1379);
4° the concelebration of the Eucharistic with ministers of ecclesial communities which do not have apostolic succession and do not acknowledge the sacramental dignity of priestly ordination (with a just penalty according to cc.908 & 1365)

§ 2. Also reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is the delict which consists in the consecration for a sacrilegious purpose of one matter without the other or even of both, either within or outside of the eucharistic celebration. One who has perpetrated this delict is to be punished according to the gravity of the crime, not excluding dismissal or deposition.

2. Crimes against the Sacrament of Penance (Art.4)

§ 1. The more grave delicts against the sanctity of the Sacrament of Penance reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith are:

1° the absolution of an accomplice in a sin against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue (with automatic excommunication according to c.1378, §1);
2° attempted sacramental absolution or the prohibited hearing of confession by a person who cannot validly give sacramental absolution (with automatic interdict or suspension according to c.1378, §2, 2°);
3° simulated sacramental absolution (with a just penalty according to c.1379);
4° the solicitation to a sin against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue in the act, on the occasion, or under the pretext of confession (with suspension, prohibitions or deprivation, or dismissal from clerical state as mentioned in c.1387);
5° the direct and indirect violation of the sacramental seal by a confessor (with automatic excommunication according to c.1388, §1);
§ 2. Also reserved to the CDF is the more grave delict which consists in the recording, by whatever technical means, or in the malicious diffusion through communications media, of what is said in sacramental confession, whether true or false, by the confessor or the penitent. Anyone who commits such a delict is to be punished according to the gravity of the crime, not excluding, if he be a cleric, dismissal or deposition.

3. Crimes against Holy Orders (Art.5)

The more grave delict of the attempted sacred ordination of a woman is also reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: both the one who attempts to confer sacred ordination on a woman, and she who attempts to receive sacred ordination, incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See (1º); If the guilty party is a cleric he may be punished by dismissal or deposition (3º)

4. Crimes against Catholic Morals (Art.6)

§1. The more grave delicts against morals which are reserved to the CDF are:

1° the delict against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue committed by a cleric with a minor below the age of eighteen years; in this case, a person who habitually lacks the use of reason is to be considered equivalent to a minor.
2° the acquisition, possession, or distribution by a cleric of pornographic images of minors under the age of fourteen, for purposes of sexual gratification, by whatever means or using whatever technology;

§2. A cleric who commits the delicts mentioned above in §1 is to be punished according to the gravity of his crime, not excluding dismissal or deposition.

Procedural Norms

The procedural norms to be followed in these cases are as follows:

• Whenever an Ordinary or Hierarch had at least probable knowledge (notitiam saltem verisimilem habeat) of the commission of one of the reserved grave delicts, after having carried out the preliminary investigation, he is to inform the CDF which, unless it calls the case to itself because of special circumstances, will indicate to the Ordinary or Hierarch how to proceed. The right of appeal against a sentence of the first instance is to be exercised only before the Supreme Tribunal of the Congregation.
• Criminal action in the cases reserved to the CDF─hitherto extinguished by a prescription of ten years after the 18th birthday of the victim─henceforth prescribes only after 20 years, subject to even a longer period if the CDF deems necessary.
• In tribunals established by Ordinaries of Hierarchs, for the cases of the more grave delicts reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the functions of judge, promoter of justice, notary and legal representative─hitherto validly performed only by priests─henceforth can be fulfilled by anyone with required knowledge of Church Law.
• Regulations concerning the secrecy of trials are maintained, in order to safeguard the dignity of all the people involved.

A Final Word on Judicial Discretion (vs. Secrecy)

A point that remains untouched, though it has often been the subject of discussion in recent times, concerns the Church’s collaboration with the civil authorities. We need to point out that the Norms under discussion form part of the Penal Law of the Church, which is autonomous and distinct from the Civil Law.
On this subject, however, it is important to take note of the Guide to Understanding Basic CDF Procedures concerning Sexual Abuse Allegations, as published on the Holy See website (cf. www.vatican.va) In that Guide, the phrase "Civil law concerning reporting of crimes to the appropriate authorities should always be followed" is contained in the section dedicated to "Preliminary Procedures". This means that in the praxis suggested by the CDF, it is necessary to comply with the requirements of law in the various countries, and to do so in good time, not during or subsequent to the canonical trial.

Crime and Punishment in the Catholic Church

2010-07-05T22:08:00.000+08:00

Part I)

THE Catholic community in Quezon City was shocked recently by the much-publicized excommunication, inflicted by the diocesan Bishop on an impostor-priest. The person had been serving in the diocese of Cubao─especially in Christ the King Parish at Green Meadows Subdivision─for a good part of a year, but who was recently discovered to have never been ordained as he claimed he was in Europe. The scandal was exacerbated by the fact that this “fake priest” displayed a lot of positive external qualities (always properly dressed, well-spun homilies and pious liturgical celebrations), and of course administered the sacraments (including celebrating the Mass daily and hearing Confession). Several questions have been asked by disturbed faithful: Is it that easy for somebody to simulate being a sacred minister and victimize the faithful? Can the bishop punish so severely? What is excommunication ferendae sententiae? To answer these questions, we shall break this article into two parts.

The Penal Law of the Church

What is the justification for the coercive power? Or equiv¬alently, what is the ultimate justification for the ius poenandi? Several theories have been proposed, but we can summarize the prevailing canonical doctrine into three reasons:

1) Defense of the Juridic Order. The ultimate justifica¬tion of penalty is the same as that of Law: The need to maintain the juridic order (which is the end of punishment), without which society (civil or ecclesial) would be impossible.
Traditionally, punishment had been justified by three purposes:

(i) Retribution of damaged juridic order. Punishment aims to redress the disorder introduced by the offense, by depriving the offender of a good of a proportionate degree to that which was suffered by the offended, or—in the ultimate analysis—by the society. Hence, the punishment must be commensurate to the gravity of the offense. In any case, retribution cannot be confused with revenge.

(ii) Reformation of the offender. Since society is for man (not vise-versa), when society inflicts punishment, it must redound to the good of individual man. Thus, punishment must contribute to the correction of the offender, giving him a chance to change for the better.

(iii) Deterrence for future offenses. Punishment must deter crime, and it does so to the extent that the severity of the punishment produces fear, which hinders one from committing a crime. Thus, a successful deterrent must be a psychologically effective threat.

The first two ends of punishment are succinctly summarized by the Catechism of the Catholic Church in the following terms: Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorders introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party (n.2266).

2) Perfect-Society Ecclesiology. A perfect society needs a coercive power in order to protect its juridic order against those who may want to disturb or destroy it from within. Since the Church is a perfect society, it needs such power.

3) Magisterium of John Paul II. In an address to the Roman Rota (17.II.1979), the Roman Pontiff gave the ultimate justifica¬tion for the ius poenandi in the Church: “In the image of a Church which safeguards the rights of every faithful, and which—even more—fosters and protects the common good as an indispensable condition for the integral development of the human and Christian person, penal law is positive¬ly included. The penalty inflicted by the ecclesiastical authori¬ty (which in reality only acknowledges the situation in which the subject has placed himself) should be recognized as an instrument of communion, i.e., as a means to recover those deficiencies of the individual good and of the common good arising from whatever anti-ecclesial, delictive and scandalous behavior of some members of the people of God.”

Dealing with the question of the death penalty, John Paul II affirmed that “the primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is to redress the disorder caused by the offense”. Thus, “public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom. In this way authority also fulfills the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people’s safety, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behavior and be rehabilitated.”

Notion and Typology of Canonical Crimes

The old Code of Canon Law stated that in ecclesiastical law, the term crime (or offense) is understood as the external and morally imputable violation of a law which carries with it a canonical sanction, at least undetermined (c.2195). This gives an apparent configuration of canonical offense as a violation of a penal law.

Although the actual Codex does not define a canonical offense, c.1321,§1 gives us its constitutive elements: No one is punished unless the external viola-tion of a law or a precept committed by the person is seriously imputable to that person by reason of malice or culpability.

Here we are no longer considering the canonical offense as an abstract case, but the structure of a concrete one. From the above canon, we can glean three factors that determine whether or not a given case constitutes an canonical offense: an objective element (harm to the ecclesial society), a subjective element (grave imputability an culpability) and a legal element (typification of the delictive act as such in a penal law and the establishment of the corresponding punishment).

In principle, we can speak of as many types of ecclesiastical crimes as types of goods that are juridically protectable. Nevertheless, in the work of codification, the legislator has opted for a classifica¬tion of long tradition in classical Law, based on six categories of the more general goods, giving rise to the Titles I-VI of Part II of Book VI of the CIC:

1) Offenses against religion and the unity of the Church (cc. 1364-1369)
2) Offenses against ecclesiastical authorities and the freedom of the Church (cc. 1370-1377)
3) Usurpation of ecclesiastical functions and offenses in their exercise (cc. 1378-1389).
4) The crime of falsehood (cc. 1390-1391).
5) Offenses against particular obligations (cc. 1392-1396).
6) Offenses against human life and freedom (cc. 1397-1398).

Notion and Finality of Canonical Sanctions or Penalties
A canonical sanction or penalty is the priva¬tion of some good, imposed by the legitimate authority, for the correction of the offender and the punishment of the offense (CIC 17, c.2215).

We can analyze this canonical definition in the following terms.

1) Privation. Evidently, the sanction cannot be a gift, but rather—as Grotius affirmed—a malum passionis propter malum actionis (i.e., the offense). Being a canonical sanction, such malum must be in the ambit proper of the ecclesial society—i.e., the privation of some good which is enjoyed in the Church. Since it is the Church which deprives the offender of such good, and since nobody can deprive except of such things over which he exercises dominion, the goods which the canonical penalty can deprive of must have the following qualities:
a) Good of the juridic order—the enjoyment of which requires an external relation of Church-faithful, a rela¬tion on which are founded mutual rights and duties; these exclude moral rights, grace, etc.
b) Good of spiritual, material or mixed nature—since the relation Church-faithful applies to all three cases.
2) Finality of Canonical Sanction. This can be summarized in the formula: to defend the fundamental juridic interests of the Church:
a) Not Retribution. The ecclesial society inflicts a sanction not because such sanction is just: there is no exact correspondence between offense and sanction. Rather, a sanc¬tion is imposed in order to support and preserve the just juridic ordering.
b) Correction of the Offender. The Church tries to move the offender to contrition and amendment.
c) Other Ends of Sanction. These are not properly ends, but rather qualities of sanctions. It is said that penalty intimidates, sets an example, and gives social tranquility (by acting as a deterrent to crime).

Kinds of Canonical Sanctions

Can. 1312,§1 states: The following penal sanctions exist in the Church: 1° medicinal penalties or censures enumerated in cc. 1331-1333; 2° expiatory penalties enumerated in c.1336.

a. Medicinal Penalties: Censures
The censure is a penalty by which the baptized and contumacious offender is deprived of certain spirit¬ual or related goods until he ceases in his contumacy and is absolved (CIC 17, c.2241). Analyzing this definition, we see the following elements of the ecclesiastical censure:
a) Objective Element: It is a true penalty (not just a penance). The spiritual or related goods which a censure can deprive the offender of are only those under the control and administration of the Church.
b) Subjective Element: The destinatary of the penalty is the person who has been baptized—or received—in the Catholic Church (c.11), and who has completed 16 years of age (c.1323, 1°).
c) Formal Element: Contumacy. A special requisite of the censure is contumacy—i.e., the persistent will in the of¬fender to violate the ecclesiastical law. It is the juridical counterpart of the Pauline (and biblical) notion of the hardness of heart.
It is worthwhile noting that contumacy is not conceptually identifiable with the reincidence in the offense (even if the latter can be a manifestation of the former). Thus, c.1326,§1, 1° employs the term pertinacia for the case of reincidence. This is due to the fact that the notion of contumacy is derived not from the relation of offender-offense (i.e., to his persistence in the delictive act per se), but rather from the relation offender-authority: the rebellion against Church au¬thority.
This doctrine is very much in keeping with the notion of the censure as a medicinal penalty: as a medicine, a censure should only be inflicted after all the extra-penal (e.g., warn¬ings) or semi-penal (e.g., penances) means for making the of¬fender submit to ecclesiastical discipline have been exhausted. Obviously, such measures can only be effective if the presumed offender submits himself to the ecclesiastical authority, who determines the manner in which he can express contrition, satis¬faction, etc. The minute such person rejects such means, he breaks off from the Hierarchy, who then have to impose a censure to break the contumacy.

b. Expiatory Penalties
Expiatory penalties are those whose direct finality is the expiation of the offense, such that their remis¬sion does not depend on the cessation of the contumacy of the offender (cf. CIC 17, c.2286 under the term vindictive penalties). Due to the possible pejorative sense and allusion to retri¬bution of the term vindictive, the new Code has opted for the expression expiatory penalty, taken from St. Augustine (De ci¬vitate Dei, 21.13); but the notion is the same, in its nature as well as its effects. From the above definition, the following essential elements can be deduced, which differentiate the expiatory penalties from censures:

a) Principal and Direct Pretension of expiatory penal¬ties is the expiation of the offense, i.e., the reparation of the social order objectively damaged by the offense.
b) Verification of contumacy is not relevant to the infliction of expiatory penalties; neither is the cessation of contumacy relevant for their remission.
c) Duration: Expiatory penalties can be inflicted per¬petually, for a fixed time, or ad nutum of the Superior.
c. Penal Remedies and Canonical Penances

Can. 1312, §3 further states: Penal remedies and penances are likewise employed; the former especially in order to prevent offenses, the latter to substitute for or to increase a penalty.
1) Penal Remedy: A moderate, canonical, para-penal means of a preventive nature.
It cannot be considered as a punishment in the strict sense, since it is established precisely to prevent the commis¬sion of offense (which is necessary for a punishment). Thus we call it para-penal.
2) Canonical Penance: A juridic semi-penal action by which the legitimate authority imposes the carrying out of an external act of piety to the repentant offender, in lieu of the due penalty, or to substitute for an inflicted penalty which has been remitted either by absolution or by dispensation.
(To be continued)

Crime and Punishment in the Catholic Church

2010-06-20T14:11:00.000+08:00

Part II)

THE Catholic community in Quezon City was shocked recently by the much-publicized excommunication, inflicted by the diocesan Bishop on an impostor-priest. The person had been serving in the diocese of Cubao─especially in Christ the King Parish at Green Meadows Subdivision─for a good part of a year, but was recently discovered to have never been ordained as he claimed he was in Europe. The scandal was exacerbated by the fact that this “fake priest” displayed a lot of positive external qualities (always properly dressed, well-spun homilies and pious liturgical celebrations), and of course administered the sacraments (including celebrating the Mass daily and hearing Confession). Several questions have been asked by disturbed faithful: Is it that easy for somebody to simulate being a sacred minister and victimize the faithful? Can the bishop punish so severely? What is excommunication ferendae sententiae? To answer these questions thoroughly, we started our discussion with a backgrounder on the Penal Law of the Church in the previous issue of CBCP Monitor.

We now pick up the thread of that discussion to conclude this article.

Types of Each Kind of Canonical Penalties

As we saw in Part I of this article, there are two kinds of canonical penalties: censures and expiatory penalties.
a. Types of Censures

The Code of Canon Law speaks of the excommunication, the interdict, and the suspension (cc.1331-1333).
1) Excommunication was defined in the CIC 17 defined as a censure by which a person is excluded from the communion of the faithful, with the inseparable effects enumerated in the canons. These inseparable effects were summarized in the old c.1331.
2) Interdict is a censure by which the faithful, without losing communion with the Church, are prohibited some goods (i.e., those expressly enumerated in c.1332). The new Code only recognizes the figure of the personal interdict, which is configured analogously to the old minor excommunication, so called because it did not directly affect the communio but only some of its effects (i.e., those explicitly enumerated).
3) Suspension is a censure exclusive to the clerical state, by which the exercise of the power of Orders, the power of gover¬nance, or of an office—as well as the right to receive specific goods—is prohibited partially or totally.

b. Types of Expiatory Penalties

The prolific enumeration of such penalties in the CIC 17 is now reduced to what is established by c.1336 and the specifica¬tions of cc.1337-1338 as follows:
1) Specific expiatory penalties: restriction of freedom of residence (cc.1336, §1, 1° and 1337), penal transfer to another office (c.1336, §1, 4°) and dismissal from the clerical state (c.1336, §1, 5°; cf. cc.290-291).
2) Generic expiatory penalties: Privation of or specific prohibitions against the exercise of the power of governance, office, tasks, rights, privileges, faculties, graces, titles or decorations (c.1336, §1, 2°-3°).
3) Others to be established by Law.

Excommunication

Excommunication is the archetype of ecclesiastical penalty, for its direct relation to a concept which is fundamen¬tal to the whole ecclesial penal system: the communio. Communio is the vital habitat of the faithful as such. His participation in that communio has an ontological root (baptism), which obviously cannot be lost; but it has a two-fold projection: a) A mystical dimension, which supposes sanctifying grace and charity: the faithful communicates with and in the Church as Mystical Body. b) A juridic dimension, by which the faithful is united to the Church as a visible society, and which is expressed in a series of juridic relations (rights and duties of the faith¬ful as such).

The Juridic Dimension of the communio is what can be affected by the privation which constitutes the canonical penal¬ty: a privation which presupposes a constitutive act by the legitimate authority and which affects the enjoyment of certain rights.

Though the infliction of excommunication does not judge regarding the mystical dimension of communio (i.e., on the sin¬fulness of the act), it is only inflicted in the most serious offenses, which ad extra presupposes the existence of a certain rupture of the mystical communio (mortal sin). The direct effect of excommunication is the loss of communio in its juridic dimension. As a consequence, the effects in the sanctioned faithful are the follow¬ing:

1) For non-declared latae sententiae penalties, this pecu¬liar manner of sanction has implications in the good name of the excommunicated person. Since the fact that gave rise to the excommunication may not be publicly known—in which case the danger of scandal is substantially reduced—, the Law only urges its observance to the extent that such does not imply self-incrimination or auto-denunciation by the offender. Hence, the peculiar regimen of this type of sanction as regards its effects:
a) The excommunicated cannot actively participate in the celebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, or in any other ceremony of worship.
b) Neither can he celebrate the sacraments or sacra¬mentals, nor receive the sacraments.
c) Neither can he exercise any ecclesiastical office, ministry or function; nor legitimately carry out acts of govern¬ment.

2) For ferendae sententiae or declared latae sententiae penalties, the above effects are aggravated in the following terms:
a) The offender who tries to actively participate in the celebration of the Holy Mass or in any other ceremony of worship should be rejected, or the liturgical ceremony interrupt¬ed, unless a serious reason warrants otherwise.
b) Any act of governance (cf. c.135) by the offender is invalid. In the case of a parish priest, his assistance in a canonical wedding, though not strictly an act of governance, is also invalid (cf. c.1109).
c) The enjoyment of privileges previously acquired is prohibited.
d) The offender cannot validly obtain any honors, office or other function in the Church; nor posses the fruits of such honors, office, function or pension.

Zeroing in on the Green Meadows Affair

1) Is it that easy for somebody to simulate being a sacred minister and victimize the faithful?
Can.903 stipulates: A priest is to be permitted to celebrate [the Holy Mass] even if he is unknown to the rector of the church, provided he presents a letter of recommendation issued by his ordinary or superior within the year, or provided it can be prudently judged that the priest is not prevented from celebrating. In practice, every priest has a little document (like the old LTC Driver’s Lincence) which is called a celebret, which attests that he is of good standing and can therefore be allowed to celebrte the Eucharist.

In the case of the Sacrament of Penance, it is further required that a priest has the faculties to hear confession in a given circumscription. The local ordinary alone is competent to confer upon any presbyters whatsoever the faculty to hear confessions of any of the faithful (c.969, §1), and such faculty to hear confessions is not to be granted to presbyters unless they are found to be qualified by means of an examination or their qualifications are evident from another source (c.970). Furthermore, the Code stipulates that the local ordinary is not to grant the faculty to hear confessions habitually to a presbyter, even one who has a domicile or quasi-domicile in his jurisdiction, without first consulting with his [the presbyter’s] ordinary, if possible (c.971).

In principle, therefore, it should not be easy for anyone to pose as a priest and administer the sacraments─especially to celebrate Mass and to hear confession─if all the cautions stipulated by Canon Law were followed.

2) Can the bishop punish so severely─as happened in the Green Meadows Affair?

Can.1378, §2 is very clear: The following incur an automatic (latae sententiae) penalty of interdict: 1º one who has not been promoted to the priestly order and who attempts to enact the liturgical action of the Eucharistic Sacrifice; 2º a person who attempts to impart sacramental absolution or a person who hears sacramental confession when one cannot validly give sacramental absolution [e.g., because of lack of valid ordination].

Can.1378, §2 therefore clearly establishes an automatic interdict, but not an excommunication, for the offender in the Green Meadow’s affair. However, the same c.1378, in its §3 also establishes: In the case mentioned in §2, other penalties including excommunication can be added in accord with the seriousness of the offense.

Clearly, the local ordinary in this case─in the exercise of his solemn office as pastor of the flock─had judged the offense of special seriousness to warrant the infliction of the heaviest canonical penalty of excommunication, ferendae sententiae (by decree).

Canonical Process for Alleged Sexual Abuse of Minors by Clerics

2010-06-03T21:57:00.000+08:00

(Part I)

OF late the Catholic Church, and especially Pope Benedict XVI, has come under bitter criticism by the secular press regarding its handling of allegations of sexual abuse of minors by priests in several countries (notably in the U.S., Ireland, England and Germany). The accusations can be summarized into three: (1) that the Church has no clear-cut procedure for handling such allegations; (2) that the Church has a policy of being secretive about such cases, tending to protect more the erring clerics than the aggrieved parties; (3) that the Church conceals such allegations from the civil authorities. In the interest of the truth─which the responsible faithful should know how to proclaim in the face of such crude attacks against the Holy Father himself─let us tackle these issues systematically in two installments of this column.

The Church Law against the Sexual Abuse of Minors by Clerics

Contrary to the first charge, the Church has long had laws on the books that address this crime. Even before the codification of the Church laws in 1917 and in 1983, sins against the Sixth Commandment with a minor were also considered as criminal acts. From 1917 onwards, the Church promulgated concise legal norms that stated this and that imposed penalties on clerics guilty of such heinous crimes.

In April 2001, Pope John Paul II issued a law stating that, from then on, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) in Rome, headed at the time by Cardinal Ratzinger (the future Pope Benedict XVI), would have sole Church authority over such crimes, which were referred to as graviora delicta or “serious crimes”, giving the title to the aforementioned legal document.

Prior to 2001, the crime would have been generally dealt with on the local level by the diocesan bishop. The CDF would have been involved if the offense had occurred on the occasion of the celebration of the Sacrament of Penance (confession). Otherwise, the case would have gone for a second hearing (appeal from the diocese) to the Congregation for Clergy or the Tribunal of the Roman Rota, depending on how the allegation had been resolved at the local level.

The Canonical Process to resolve Allegations of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Clerics.

1st Stage: Preliminary Investigation.

The Code of Canon Law stipulates that the first steps after receipt of an allegation of the commission of an ecclesiastical crime are usually taken by the local bishop. If the priest against whom an allegation is brought is a member of a religious order, his superior might takes the first steps instead. Any allegation that has the semblance of truth (i.e., not manifestly false or frivolous) undergoes what is referred to as a preliminary investigation.

The bishop appoints an investigator, who has the obligation and the authority to collect the facts and circumstances surrounding the allegation, so that the bishop can make a determination about its truthfulness and what further action he would recommend to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The investigator often uses the expert services of others to assist with the investigation. In the United States─where the procedural norms are more developed because of the spate of allegations in the past decade─the bishop also makes use of the services of his Diocesan Review Board, a panel of experts, to help him review the allegation and associated information. The bishop and investigator are careful not to interfere with any civil investigation into the accusation that might take place. The investigator and others who assist in the investigation may be laypersons. In the Philippines, the few cases that have prospered beyond the gossip stage have involved an investigation by the parish pastoral council, admittedly a not very discrete body given the number of people involved.

During the preliminary investigation, the accused enjoys the presumption of innocence and his good name must not be illegitimately harmed. This is a fundamental norm procedural law, also in the law of the state.

The charge of foot-dragging and secrecy leveled on the Church, especially in the United States, is gross calumny. According to the Essential Norms─the law on sexual abuse of minors for the dioceses of the United States─the investigation should be conducted promptly and objectively. The Essential Norms also require the bishop to follow all civil reporting laws when the allegation concerns the sexual abuse of minors. It further requires Church officials to cooperate with civil authorities in their own investigations. Moreover, the bishop exercises his power of governance in other ways to make sure that no harm comes to the minors during this phase of the preliminary investigation.

2nd Stage: Involvement by the Holy See

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) has the sole competence in resolving allegations of sexual abuse of minors committed by clerics. But this competence does not “kick in” until a case is referred to it by the local bishop (or religious superior in the case of religious clerics). The bishop makes the decision as to whether a case will be referred to the CDF based on the result of the Preliminary Investigation.

In most instances, unless the allegation proves manifestly false, it must be reported to the Congregation. The Essential Norms require a bishop to report all cases to the CDF once he has sufficient evidence that the sexual abuse of a minor may have occurred.

The CDF then reviews the material and makes a decision on what the next steps might be. The decision is based on the material gathered during the preliminary investigation and on the observations and recommendations of the bishop regarding the allegation and what might be a suitable way to address it.

The next steps could include several options depending on what materials the CDF received. Among them, the CDF could authorize the bishop to hold a trial locally or to address the allegation through a simplified, administrative penal process. It could also hold a trial in Rome at the offices of the CDF. In the clearest and most egregious cases, the CDF could refer the matter to the Pope for immediate dismissal of the cleric (see below for more on this). It might also happen that more information is needed before a decision can be made. This would require the bishop to gather the information and forward it to the CDF. The CDF could also confirm, if the facts and circumstances warranted it, that there is not sufficient evidence of the commission of an ecclesiastical crime.

As to the charge of slowness of the Holy See to address such cases of alleged sexual abuses of minors, it must be kept in mind that the CDF would normally have knowledge of the accusation only when it is reported to the Congregation by the bishop or religious superior.

Finally, as to the specific attacks on Benedict XVI regarding his slowness in acting in such cases, we have to point out that the Pope does not normally get involved, since the CDF handles these cases. The Pope does not supervise the daily activities of the Congregation nor become involved in particular cases as they are being processed.

Meanwhile, what of the Cleric accused?

A common complaint is that the clerics accused of such crimes are allowed to perpetuate their criminal acts while the process is taking place, and such processes could take ages. While this could happen in isolated cases, the usual thing is for a bishop to withdraw a cleric from active ministry pending the outcome of an investigation of the allegation. This is done primarily to assure that minors are not in danger should it prove true that the cleric had committed acts of abuse.

On the other hand, it must be emphasized again that the cleric enjoys the presumption of innocence. This should be made clear by the diocese to the public. If the allegation is unfounded, the bishop must strive to repair any illegitimate damage to the good reputation of the priest or deacon. [To be continued.]

Canonical process for alleged sexual abuse of minors by clerics

2010-05-25T13:01:00.000+08:00

Part II)

OF late the Catholic Church, and especially Pope Benedict XVI, has come under bitter criticism by the secular press regarding its handling of allegations of sexual abuse of minors by priests in several countries (notably in the U.S., Ireland, England and Germany). The accusations can be summarized into three: (1) that the Church has no clear-cut procedure for handling such allegations; (2) that the Church has a policy of being secretive about such cases, tending to protect the erring clerics more than the aggrieved parties; (3) that the Church conceals such allegations from the civil authorities.

In the previous issue of CBCP Monitor, we had answered all three accusations in part, when we tackled the procedure to be followed by the ecclesiastical authority─either the diocesan Bishop or a religious Superior─upon hearing of an alleged sexual abuse of minors by a cleric, i.e., the preliminary investigation and the transmission of the preliminary findings to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF). Let us now look in detail at the ensuing canonical process to resolve such allegations.

The Canonical Process to resolve Allegations of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Clerics

1st Stage: The Instruction of the Case.

The canonical process─more technically called a written contentious process─is similar to the criminal trials that take place in some European countries, which follow a different legal tradition from the Philippines. Because of this, the canon law trial will not appear similar to those we might be familiar with in Philippine civil courts (which follow what is called an oral or summary contentious process). The main difference is that in the latter, the initial stage─which is the so-called instruction of the case or the gathering of evidence─is compressed into oral trials wherein all the evidence (including witnesses) are simultaneously presented before all the parties to the case; in the former, the witnesses are cited individually by the tribunal to make their depositions in private.

An ecclesiastical tribunal─the same one that normally handles marriage nullity cases─hears the case. It is composed of a panel of three judges. The accused has a canon lawyer, called an advocate, to assist in his defense. The prosecutor is referred to as the promoter of justice.

Witnesses, including possible victims, are called to testify. The judges, rather than the canon lawyers, question the witnesses singly and in private. Other forms of evidence are gathered, such as letters that might have been written. Everything is taken down in writing by the tribunal notary, and the actae are made available to both the accused and his advocate, for possible corrections.

2nd and 3rd Stages: The Arguments and the Judgment

After this the defense canon lawyer and the promoter of justice submit written arguments of their sides of the case. The judges then review the arguments and evidence carefully, deliberate together, and issue a judgment (verdict). If the finding is for guilt, the judges also impose a penalty (see below for types of Church penalties).

4th Stage: Automatic Elevation to the CDF and Possible Appeal.

Once the diocesan tribunal issues its decision, the decision goes to the CDF. Both the verdict (whether for or against guilt) and penalty (if the verdict is for guilt) may be appealed by either the accused or the promoter of justice of either the diocese or the CDF. If no appeal is lodged within a certain time frame, the sentence is final. If an appeal is lodged, another hearing of the case will take place by an appellate panel of judges. This may occur again at the CDF, or, with authorization of the CDF, at the diocesan or local level.

The CDF has its own supreme tribunal. The Pope himself does not sit personally as a judge on the tribunal of the CDF. He has several judicial courts or tribunals that administer justice: the CDF tribunal, the Roman Rota and the Apostolic Signature. The decision of the CDF─or any of the other tribunals of the Holy See─in an appeal of a judicial sentence of this matter is final.

Alternative Procedure: An Administrative Penal Process.

In cases where the evidence of the possible commission of sexual abuse is stronger, the CDF might authorize what is called an administrative penal process. Here, unlike a judicial trial, the bishop himself makes the decision regarding the charges brought against the accused. He considers the evidence with the help of two persons called assessors. They are experts in canon law or some other discipline necessary for a thorough evaluation of the evidence. The accused also has the opportunity to offer a defence. The bishop then issues a decree with his decision and suggested penalty (if he finds for guilt). This decree is also sent to the CDF for confirmation and the accused has the right to seek reconsideration of the outcome.

Canonical Penalties for Crimes of Sexual Abuse of Minors

Catholic Church Law provides a range of penalties for different crimes. For the sexual abuse of minors it provides for a just penalty that may include dismissal from the clerical state.

Immediate and Permanent Withdrawal from all Public Ministry

Contrary to the accusations in the mass media, the Essential Norms provides that in every case where a cleric admits to or is found guilty of the sexual abuse of minors he is immediately and permanently withdrawn from all public ministry. Nor may he present himself as a priest or deacon.

Thus, even if a member of the clergy is eventually not dismissed from the clerical state for having committed the crime of the sexual abuse of minors, his public ministry is still fully restricted in the light of the gravity of the offense committed.

In a very small subset of cases, where the guilt of the cleric is beyond doubt, the CDF may ask the Pope to directly impose a penalty... This might occur, for instance, when the priest himself has confessed to this or has been found guilty of the crime in a civil court of law. In the gravest cases, the CDF may request that the Pope to dismiss the cleric ex officio, that is, without a prior trial or any other type of formal legal process. In such cases, the Pope himself issues a decree dismissing the priest or deacon from the clerical state. There is no appeal of this decision by the cleric.

Other Possible Canonical Penalties and Penances

1) Dismissal from the Clerical State. Within the range of canonical penalties provided in Church Law is the dismissal from the clerical state. This is a permanent penalty imposed in response to the commission of an ecclesiastical crime. The legal status of the priest or deacon changes, so that he now has the status of a lay person, not a cleric. Hence, a priest dismissed from the clerical state may no longer exercise priestly ministry (including saying Mass), present himself as a priest, use the title Father or Reverend, hold pastoral and teaching positions in the Church, and receive the income he did as a cleric.

2) Suspension. Suspension of a member of the clergy is also a penalty imposed for violation of a criminal law. The effects of it are similar to dismissal from the clerical state inasmuch as the priest or deacon is not permitted to function in public ministry. However, suspension does not remove the cleric from the clerical state. He remains a member of the clergy even if he is not exercising any functions associated with it. Additionally, whereas dismissal is a permanent penalty, suspension is not. It is imposed so long as the reasons for its imposition remain. To offer one example, if a priest is suspended due to illegitimate behavior with a minor, the suspension remains in force, but would be lifted if the allegations are withdrawn or proven false.

3) Canonical Penance. The Essential Norms recognize that there might be cases where a priest or deacon has either admitted to a past act of abuse or has been found guilty of one, but dismissal from the clerical state does not occur. This could happen, for instance, when a priest is seriously ill or of advanced age. So a life of prayer and penance is imposed on the priest instead. In these cases, too, he is forbidden from all public ministry and from otherwise presenting himself as a priest. He is expected to dedicate his life to praying for victims and repenting of his past offenses. In this way, the Church seeks even here to prevent any future abuse and to repair the injustice that has already taken place.

Other Scenarios

1) Acquittal of the accused cleric. The presumption is that the cleric will be returned to the ministry if he is not found guilty. However, the outcome in a specific case depends on several factors that are particular to each case. It might turn out that even though a priest or deacon is not proven to have abused minors, other issues surrounding his ministry or behaviour might have arisen during the investigation that cause concern for the bishop. This might involve, for instance, unacceptable boundary violations or improper behaviour with adults. These situations would need to be addressed before the priest or deacon is returned to public ministry.

2) Cases where a priest or deacon is falsely accused of sexual abuse. Not all accusations brought to the ecclesiastical authorities turn out to be true. In all cases, a thorough investigation is made to ascertain the truth of the allegation. The rights of everyone must be respected during this phase. If this process determines that the accusation was false, the good reputation of the cleric needs to be repaired. The Essential Norms state that every step possible must be made to restore the good name of those who have been falsely accused and whose good reputation might have been illegitimately harmed.

Conclusion: Confidentiality vs. Secrecy

A final word on the accusation of secrecy is in order. The word secret as applied to the canonical process we have just described is a literal translation of the Latin word secretum. The better translation would be “confidential.” Church law does require that formal trials and other processes that lead to the imposition of penalties be dealt with confidentially. This is meant to protect the accused, the witnesses, and the integrity of the Church process. For instance, general members of the public are not admitted to the court proceedings. Although these proceedings are confidential, that does not forbid or even discourage anyone from reporting the underlying allegations to civil authorities. In fact, the opposite is true when it comes to the sexual abuse of minors. The Essential Norms strictly mandate that bishops follow civil reporting laws, and that they advise a person of his or her right to make a report to public authorities and support the person in doing so.

Self-Service Holy Communion and Communion under Both kinds

2010-05-08T08:50:00.000+08:00

I sometimes attend Mass in a Catholic university in Quezon City and my attention has always been caught by the way that Holy Communion is not administered by the priest celebrant, but rather taken by the faithful communicants from the ciborium which is just left on the altar. Quite often, not only is the ciborium left with the sacred hosts, but the chalice with the consecrated wine is left beside it, so that the communicants may receive the Eucharist under both species, either by dipping a host in the consecrated wine (intinction) or by simply sipping from the chalice . But what took the cake was when during a closed retreat conducted by the school and attended by my son, the participants received Holy Communion under both species by intinction and by the hand: the priest celebrant dipped the sacred host in the consecrated wine and laid the host soaked in the Blood of Christ in the open hand of the communicant. I would assume that whatever drops of the Blood of Christ would have remained in the palm of the communicant. Are these practices licit?

The Norms of 1973
The present norms regarding the reception of Holy Communion were originally contained in an instruction published in 1973 by the then Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, entitled Immensae Caritatis. When dealing with Communion in the hand this document made no mention of the option of the faithful taking the host from the ciborium but simply stated:
“Ever since the Instruction Memoriale Domini three years ago, some of the conferences of bishops have been requesting the Apostolic See for the faculty to allow ministers distributing communion to place the eucharistic bread in the hand of the faithful. The same Instruction contained a reminder that ‘the laws of the Church and the writings of the Fathers give ample witness of a supreme reverence and utmost caution toward the eucharist’ and that this must continue. Particularly in regard to this way of receiving communion, experience suggests certain matters requiring careful attention.
“On the part of both the minister and the recipient, whenever the host is placed in the hand of a communicant there must be careful concern and caution, especially about particles that might fall from the hosts.”
On June 21,1973, the same dicastery, through a document entitled Eucharistiae Sacramentum, promulgated the new Rite for Eucharistic Worship and Communion Outside of Mass. The document insisted very clearly that whether the Eucharist is received on the tongue or in the hand, “Holy Communion must be distributed by the proper competent minister, who presents and gives the consecrated host to the communicant saying the formula The Body of Christ …”.

The Norms of 1985
In 1985 the Congregation for Divine Worship sent a letter to the president of the U.S. bishops' conference, drawing attention to the following points:
“1. Communion in the hand should show, as much as communion on the tongue, due respect towards the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. For this reason emphasis should be laid, as was done by the Fathers of the Church, upon the dignity of the gesture of the communicant (…): the left hand is to be placed upon the right hand, so that the sacred host can be conveyed to the mouth with the right hand.
“2. Again following the teaching of the Fathers, insistence is to be laid upon the importance of the Amen said in response to the formula of the minister, ‘the Body of Christ’; this Amen is an affirmation of faith.
“3. The communicant who has received the Eucharist in the hand is to consume it before returning to his place, moving aside yet remaining facing the altar in order to allow the person following to approach the minister.
“4. It is from the Church that the faithful receive the Holy Eucharist, which is communion in the Body of the Lord and in the Church; for this reason the communicant should not take from the paten or container, as would be done for ordinary bread, but the hands must be stretched out to receive from the minister of communion. [Underscoring mine.]
“5. Out of respect for the Eucharist, cleanliness of hands is expected. Children need to be reminded of this.
“6. It is necessary that the faithful receive sound catechesis in this matter, and that insistence be laid upon the sentiments of adoration and respect that are required towards this most holy sacrament. (cf. Dominicae cenae, n.11). Care must be taken that fragments of the consecrated host are not lost (cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 2.V.1972: Prot: no. 89/71, in Notitiae 1972, p.227).
“7. The faithful are not to be obliged to adopt the practice of communion in the hand. Each one is free to communicate in one way or the other.” [Underscoring mine.]

The Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum of 25.IV.2004
At the Solemn Mass of the Last Supper on Holy Thursday of 17.IV.2003, John Paul II signed his 14th encyclical letter, Ecclesia de Eucharistia, in which he stated that the Holy Eucharist “stands at the center of the Church’s life” (n.3), that “it unites heaven and earth” and “embraces and permeates all creation” (n.8), being “the most precious possession which the Church can have in her journey through history” (n.9).
To translate the theological and pastoral doctrine contained in that beautiful encyclical, the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments issued the Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum on 25.IV.2004. This is the latest and most complete Instruction regarding the celebration, administration and reservation of the Holy Eucharist. True to its juridic nature─an instruction─it does not really legislate anything new, but rather gathers in one heading erstwhile scattered legislation on the matter, exhorting those occupying capital executive offices (the territorial and personal Ordinaries in this case) to put them into practice.
The relevant texts are as follows: [Underscorings are mine.]
1) “Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice, if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference, with the recognition of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her. However, special care should be taken to ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in the presence of the minister, so that no one goes away carrying the Eucharistic species in his hand. If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should be given in the hand to the faithful.” [n.920]
2) “It is not licit for the faithful to take by themselves and, still less, to hand from one another the sacred host or chalice. Moreover, in this regard, the abuse is to be set aside whereby spouses administer Holy Communion to each other at a Nuptial Mass.” [n.94]
3) “The communicant must not be permitted to instinct the host himself in the chalice, nor to receive the intincted host in the hand. As for the host to be used for the intinction, it should be of valid matter, also consecrated; it is altogether forbidden to use non-consecrated bread or other matter.” [n.104]
4) “The chalice should not be administered to lay members of Christ’s faithful where there is such a large number of communicants that it is difficult to gauge the amount of wine for the Eucharist and there is danger that more than a reasonable quantity of the Blood of Christ remain to be consumed at the end of the celebration.” [n.102]
5) “Furtheremore all will remember that once the distribution of Holy Communion during the celebration of the Mass has been completed, the prescriptions of the Roman Missal are to be observed, and in particular, whatever may remain of the Blood of Christ must be entirely and immediately consumed by the Priest or by another minister, according to the norms, while the consecrated hosts that are left are to be consumed by the Priest at the altar or carried to the place for the reservation of the Eucharist.” [n.107]

The Grave Responsibility of the Bishops and Superiors

From the foregoing liturgical laws, it is quite clear that all the practices mentioned in the consultation constitute grave abuses to the most august sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. Furthermore, since all of them are specifically mentioned in an Instruction from the Holy See─which of itself is specifically directed to those in capital executive offices─there is an equally grave obligation on the part of the local Ordinary or the Ordinary of a religious Institute or Society of Apostolic Life concerned. We can end with the relevant norms of the Instruction:
1) “Whenever a local Ordinary or the Ordinary of a religious Institute or of a Society of apostolic life receives at least plausible notice of a delict or abuse concerning the Most Holy Eucharist, let him carefully investigate, either personally or by means of another worthy cleric, concerning the facts and the circumstances as well as the imputability.” [n.178]
2) “Any Catholic, whether Priest or Deacon or lay member of Christ’s faithful, has the right to lodge a complaint regarding a liturgical abuse to the diocesan Bishop or the competent Ordinary equivalent to him in law, or to the Apostolic See on account of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff. It is fitting, however, insofar as possible, that the report or complaint be submitted first to the diocesan Bishop. This is naturally to be done in truth and charity.” [n.184]

Liturgy and Church Law

2010-04-24T08:50:00.000+08:00

VATIAN II affirmed that it is through the liturgy or the public worship of the Church that “the work of our redemption is exercised” and that the liturgy is “the outstanding means by which the faithful can express in their lives and manifest to others the mystery of Christ and the real nature of the Church” (SC, n.2). Therefore, the Council concludes, “the liturgy is the summit toward which the activity of the Church is directed; at the same time it is the fountain from which all her powers flow” (SC, n.10). After the liturgically-rich celebration of Holy Week, and in the pageantry of the Marian month of May, it is timely to consider once more the reality of Church Law and the regulation of liturgical celebrations.

What is Liturgy?
a. Canonical Definition of Liturgy
The Code of Canon Law gives a working definition of sacred liturgy in c.834, which states: §1. The Church fulfills its office of sanctifying in a special way in the sacred liturgy, which is indeed the exercise of the priestly office of Jesus Christ; in it through sensible signs the sanctification of humankind is signified and effected in a manner proper to each of the signs and the whole of the public worship of God is carried on by the mystical Body of Jesus Christ, that is, by the Head and the members.
§2. This worship takes place when it is carried out in the name of the Church by persons lawfully deputed and through acts approved by the authority of the Church.
b. Essential Elements of Liturgical Actions
From the above, the following essential elements of a liturgical action can be deduced, the last three of which being veritable canonical requirements:
1) An exercise of the priestly office of Jesus Christ—which is a fundamental element of the liturgy. Thus, when a priest consecrates the Eucharist, Christ is present in the person of the minister; when the confessor absolves, it is Christ who forgives sins; even when an ordinary faithful baptizes, it is Christ who baptizes.
2) The use of sensible signs, which both signify and effect the sanctification of mankind. In this regard, it is important to comment that the liturgical sign should keep close relation with the sanctification that it signifies (to the exclusion of the vulgar and the inane).
3) The public worship of God is carried out by the whole Mystical Body—i.e., it is offered in the name of the Church. Thus, c.837, §1 states: Liturgical actions are not private actions but celebrations of the Church itself, which is “the sacrament of unity”…therefore liturgical actions pertain to the whole body of the Church and manifest and affect it…. Every liturgical act is never just a private act of an individual, but constitutes the culminating moment when the whole Church renders public and complete worship to God.
4) The actions are approved by the authority of the Church. Thus, c.846 explicitly establishes:
§1. The liturgical books approved by the competent authority are to be faithfully observed in the celebration of the sacraments; therefore no one on personal authority may add, remove or change anything in them.
§2. The ministers are to celebrate the sacraments according to their own rite.
5) The actions are carried out by persons lawfully deputed—a deputation that is different, as previously mentioned, from that enjoyed by all the faithful by virtue of baptism, which is a sharing in the common priesthood mentioned in c.836 and described by Vatican II.

Canon Law and Sacred Liturgy
a. Place of Liturgical Norms in Canon Law
The greater systematic autonomy given to liturgico-sacramental norms in the present Code shows, on the one hand, the deeper understanding of the munera Ecclesiae as a reflection and participation in the munera Christi. In effect, the munus docendi and the munus sanctificandi are the two great functions of the Church at the service of which is the munus regendi. Such a systematic emphasis on the canonical discipline of sacred liturgy shows an acknowledgment of the insufficiency of the proclamation of the Word of God alone. The Church also has the fundamental mission of carrying out the salvation that it proclaims “through the sacrifice and the sacraments around which revolves the whole liturgical life” (SC, 6).
On the other hand, the internal structure of Book IV of the CIC also reflects the liturgical renewal of Vatican II. One can recall that the arrangement of the CIC 17 was: sacraments, sacred places and times, divine worship. In other words, worship was separated from sacramental activity. The present Code, in contrast, starts from the doctrinal principle that liturgy—at the center of which are the sacraments—is simultaneously an act of worship and an act of sanctification: through it “God is perfectly glorified and men are sanctified” (SC, 7).
Finally, we have to address the anti-juridicist objection against the very notion of liturgical norms. A recent Instruction from the Congregation for Divine Worship resolves this issue by pointing out that the finality of the liturgical norm is not only to avoid errors, but above all and precisely to unify efforts in the transmission of the truth. In this regard, the liturgical norm finds its reason in the double quality of any liturgical act—i.e., they are public (of the community, of the Church), and they express the faith.
b. Principles of Liturgical Law
Liturgical actions are not private actions but are celebrations of the whole Church—i.e., the People of God united and ordered under the guidance of the bishops. This public character of liturgical actions, as well as their intimate connection with the principles of the Faith, constitute the ratio legis on which is based the exclusive competence of the ecclesiastical authority in the regulation of all matters regarding the liturgy.

1) Principle of Substantial Unity. This principle is premised on the distinction between changeable and unchangeable (immutable) elements of the liturgy: immutable elements are those which depend on the foundational will of Christ—e.g., the substance of the sacraments and whatever is more directly related to that substance; changeable elements are those which do not belong or are not directly related to the substance of the sacraments.
The principle is enunciated as follows: “By virtue of its pastoral authority, [the Church] can ordain what may be useful for the good of the faithful, according to the circumstances, times and places. But it does not have any power to change what pertains to the will of Christ, which is what constitutes the immutable part of the Liturgy.”
The basis of this principle is three-fold:
1º The liturgy belongs to the public patrimony of the entire Church, and should therefore be subject to the regulation only of the capital offices. Thus, the Council had categorically declared that “no other person, not even a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority” (SC).
2º The liturgy is the principal factor for ecclesial communion. Thus, any arbitrariness in its celebration implies a rupture of this ecclesial communion and must therefore be avoided.
3º Lex orandi, lex credendi. The liturgy is closely linked to the deposit of faith. Hence, any laxity in liturgical discipline is at the same time effect and cause of important dogmatic errors.

2) Principle of Centralization. This reinforces the previous principle, and is contained in c.838:
—§1. The supervision of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, which resides in the Apostolic See and, in accord with the law, the diocesan bishop (c.838, §1).
—§2. It is for the Apostolic See to order the sacred liturgy of the universal Church, to publish the liturgical books, to review their translations into the vernacular languages and to see that liturgical ordinances are faithfully observed everywhere.
Thus, the following are reserved to the Holy See:
1º All that refers to the validity of the sacraments (c.841).
2º All that refers to the licitud of the sacraments the regulation of which the Holy See has not decentralized to the Episcopal Conferences and to the diocesan Bishops.
3º The edition of liturgical books (c.383, 2).
4º Recognition of versions of liturgical books in the vernacular (c.383, 2).
5º Vigilance over the fulfillment of the universal liturgical norms everywhere (c.383, 2).

3) Principle of Liturgical Elasticity: Inculturation. A complementary principle underlies the fact that the rituals in force do not impose uniformity, but rather permits the use of different forms for celebrating, which are expressions of the richness of the liturgy of the Church. They are at the service of the pastoral function of the liturgy of stimulating and increasing the sense of Christ among the faithful (cf. IGMR, n.313).
A particular application of this principle is what has come to be known as inculturation—i.e., the incidence of the different cultures of peoples in whatever is fitting to better express the inexhaustible riches of Christ, provided that it is compatible with the Gospel and does not contradict ecclesial communion.
A different matter is the exaggerated adaptation of the liturgical norms to more specific and even simply personal circumstances—e.g., not to wear all the vestments for Mass on a warm day—under the guise of a misunderstood principle of contextualization. The Holy See has made such “experimentation impossible, unless it counts with the expressed authorization of the Holy See”.

4) Principle of Decentralization. The ecclesiology of Vatican II, which re-emphasized the particular Churches and the dignity of the diocesan Bishops, opened a wide margin for Particular Law in the matter of liturgy. Thus, after establishing the aforementioned principles, the rest of c.838 enumerates the different competencies, corresponding to the need for a certain plurality of liturgical forms, in accordance with the different mentalities and traditions of different peoples (cf. SC, 37-39). This is channeled through:
a) Primarily the Episcopal Conferences: It pertains to the conferences of bishops to prepare translations of the liturgical books into the vernacular languages, with the appropriate adaptations within the limits defined in the liturgical books themselves, and to publish them with the prior review by the Holy See (c.838, §3). The Instruction Varietates legitimae gave further indications on the ambit of this power of the Episcopal Conference and the procedure for its exercise (nn.55 & 66-67).
b) Secondarily the Diocesan Bishop: It pertains to the diocesan bishop in the church entrusted to him, within the limits of his competence, to issue liturgical norms by which all are bound.(c.838, §4).

5) Principle of Full and Active Participation of the Faithful. Of less juridic impact than the foregoing principles is one which is latent in the whole liturgical renewal ushered in by Vatican II, and that is the desire for the full and active participation of all the faithful in the liturgy, each one according to his state and condition.

Conclusion
John Paul II expressed all these ideas in a conference regarding the implementation of the Second Vatican Council: “The Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium explained the premises of a liturgical life that would give God the true worship owed him by the people called to exercise the priesthood of the New Covenant. The liturgy must allow every member of the faithful to enter deeply into the mystery to grasp the beauty of praising the Triune God. The liturgy, in fact, is an anticipation on earth of the praise that the hosts of the blessed give God in heaven. At every liturgical celebration, therefore, the participants should be given the possibility of a foretaste, albeit under the veil of faith, of some of the sweetness that will flow from contemplating God in paradise. For this reason, every minister, conscious of the responsibility he has to all the people entrusted to him, must faithfully maintain respect for the sacredness of the rite and grow in his understanding of what he celebrates.”

Catholic associations and partisan politics

2010-04-14T09:47:00.000+08:00

It is an election year once more, and an old question has again come to the fore: the involvement of the Church in politics. Granting that the Hierarchy itself should not be involved in partisan politics, the following questions have been asked: 1) Can Associations of Christian Faithful—either Public or Private—engage in partisan politics? 2) If Public Associations of Christian Faithful cannot engage in partisan politics, can Private Associations of Christian Faithful do?

THIS is indeed a thorny issue that has been discussed in ecclesiastical circles repeatedly. What is novel is the way it is being asked now. The concrete application is of course quite obvious: Can the Couples for Christ or the Knights of Columbus—for example—issue a mandate for its members to push for the candidacy of a specific person or party? The pertinent provisions of Canon Law on this issue can be summarized as follows.

1. Existence & Nature of Associations of Christian Faithful

In the Church there are associations distinct from institutes of consecrated life and societies of apostolic life, in which the Christian faithful, either clergy or laity, or clergy and laity together, strive by common effort to promote a more perfect life, or to foster public worship or Christian doctrine, or to exercise other apostolic works, namely to engage in efforts of evangelization, to exercise works of piety or charity and to animate the temporal order with the Christian spirit (c.298, §1).

2. There are Two Kinds of Associations of Christian Faithful:
a) Private Associations. Can.299: §1. The Christian faithful are free, by means of a private agreement made among themselves, to establish associations to attain the aims mentioned in c.298, §1, with due regard for the prescriptions of c.301, §1.
§2. Such associations are called private associations even though they are praised or recommended by ecclesiastical authority.
§3. No private association of the Christian faithful in the Church is recognized unless its statutes are reviewed by competent authority.

b) Public Associations. Can.301: §1. Competent ecclesiastical authority alone has the right to erect associations of the Christian faithful which set out to teach Christian doctrine in the name of the Church or to promote public worship or which aim at other ends whose pursuit by their nature is reserved to the same ecclesiastical authority.
§2. Competent ecclesiastical authority, if it judges it expedient, can also erect associations of the Christian faithful in order to attain directly or indirectly other spiritual ends whose accomplishment has not been sufficiently provided for by the efforts of private persons.
§3. Associations of the Christian faithful which are erected by competent ecclesiastical authority are called public associations.

The distinction between public and private associations of faithful, therefore, stems neither from the nature of their ends, nor even from the degree of supervision or control of the competent ecclesiastical authority over their actuations, but rather in the way do they come about:
— Public associations of faithful are erected by the competent ecclesiastical authority.
— Private associations of faithful are established by mutual agreement of private individuals, and then praised, recommended or recognized by the competent ecclesiastical authority after reviewing their statutes.

3. Autonomy of Associations of Christian Faithful
The Code of Canon Law is quite clear in stating the sphere of autonomy of such associations of Christian faithful:
a) Public Associations: Can. 315. Public associations on their own initiative can begin undertakings in keeping with their character, and they can direct them in accord with their statutes, but under the further direction of the ecclesiastical authority mentioned in c.312, §1.
b) Private Associations: Can. 321. The Christian faithful guide and direct private associations according to the prescriptions of their statutes.
Such autonomy, therefore, is not absolute, as provided by c.232:
§1. Although private associations of the Christian faithful enjoy autonomy in accord with the norm of c.321, they are subject to the vigilance of ecclesiastical authority in accord with the norm of c.305, and are subject to the governance of the same authority.
§2. It is also the responsibility of ecclesiastical authority, while observing the autonomy
proper to private associations, to be watchful and take care that their energies are not dissipated and that their exercise of their apostolate is ordered toward the common good.
The aims of associations of faithful have to be not only consistent with but also relevant to the fundamental pretension of the Ecclesiastical Juridic Ordering: the salvation of souls. Can.298, §1 specifies this when it establishes that the faithful in such associations strive by common effort: (i.e., individually they can freely do other things on their own)
• to promote a more perfect life;
• to foster public worship or Christian doctrine;
• to engage in efforts of evangelization;
• to exercise works of piety or charity and
• to animate the temporal order with the Christian spirit.

4. Can associations of Christian faithful engage in partisan politics?
The point may be raised that engaging in partisan politics might fall under the heading of the canonically recognized aim of Associations of Christian faithful to animate the temporal order with the Christian spirit (c.298, §1). After all, such evangelizing action is indeed what is proper of the Church as a whole, and more specifically of its lay faithful.
However, such an interpretation would unduly compromise a fundamental right of every Catholic faithful—autonomy in temporal affairs—laid down in c.227: Lay Christian faithful have the right to have recognized that freedom in the affairs of the earthly city which belongs to all citizens; when they exercise such freedom, however, they are to take care that their actions are imbued with the spirit of the gospel and take into account the doctrine set forth by the magisterium of the Church; but they are to avoid proposing their own opinion as the teaching of the Church in questions which are open to various opinions.
In effect, every Christian faithful—but most especially a Catholic layman—has the right to engage in partisan politics, without such right being limited by the Ecclesiastical juridic ordering, except in accord with c.227.
If an Association of Christian Faithful were as a body to engage in partisan politics, then the corporate position would unduly infringe on the individual right of the members of the said association to maintain their own partisan political orientation. In other words, if an Association of Christian Faithful were to have an official position as regards partisan politics, then its members would have to toe that line; hence, the individual members would not have the freedom to follow their own party leanings, if they are to remain in good graces within the Association. This would be tantamount to the Association, proposing their own opinion as the teaching of the Church in questions which are open to various opinions (c.227).

Conclusion
The right of the individual Christian layman to autonomy in temporal matters (including partisan politics) is recognized in the Canonical Order. Such a right is as fundamental as the Right to Religious Freedom of the citizen under the Law of the State.
In other words, just as it would be unjust for a State institution to actively promote a purely religious position, it also would be equally unjust for an Ecclesiastical institution (e.g., Association of Faithful, whether public or private) to corporately foster a specific political partisan position.
This is the reason why after all these years the Catholic Church has always resisted resorting to what others have touted as the Catholic vote.

(This article originally appeared on The CBCP Monitor, Vol.11, No.5, March 5-18, 2007.)

Convalidation of a Canonical Marriage

2010-04-11T08:49:00.000+08:00

ROBERT and Lydia contracted canonical marriage 26 years ago and they have several children, the youngest being 17 years old. Although he had had almost no Christian formation in the past, Robert of late has been attending days of recollection, where he becomes a good friend of Fr. Justin.
On one of these occasions, Robert tells Fr. Justin his life's story. Among other things, he says that when he got married he was not yet baptized. He had been born in another country, in a very poor neighborhood where there was only a provisional church─subsequently destroyed─with a young parish priest. During the canonical interview prior to marriage, the priest had gone over the paperwork hurriedly without asking him if he was baptized and Robert didn't say anything either. After three years, Robert and Lydia immigrated with the whole family to the country where they now are. At that time, fearing that he may have done wrong previously, he got baptized without telling his wife who did not know anything in this regard.
Robert reveals these circumstances only because Fr. Justin pulled his tongue, since he himself does not think that there was anything irregular and had been living peacefully since being baptized. His only worry was that since two years ago there have been some marital quarrels: nothing serious, but his wife is frequently in a bad mood, answers bitterly and─since the children had grown up─had talked about the two of them going back to their country of origin.
Fr. Justin realizes that the marriage of Robert and Lydia was invalid due to the impediment of disparity of cult. Nevertheless, fearing a possible break-up of the family otherwise and not knowing well how to proceed, he does not say anything in this regard. At the moment he limits himself to counseling Robert on other aspects of his Christian life, and makes an appointment with him for another conversation.
Upon studying cc. 1156-1164 of the Codex, Fr. Justin initially thinks that a radical sanation was not possible, since the impediment that needed dispensation had disappeared, and he considers how to effect a convalidation with a renewal of matrimonial consent. This scenario worries him, thinking that problems hitherto absent─since Robert and Lydia obviously consider themselves man and wife─could arise. He therefore consults a priest friend, Fr.Benedict─an expert in Matrimonial Law─narrating the case to him in abstract terms. Fr.Benedict explains to him that a radical sanation was possible, even without the knowledge of either or both parties, and this could be granted by the Bishop of the diocese of the couple.
Fr. Justin directs himself to the Bishop, who─upon knowing the persistence of matrimonial consent in Robert and Lydia─decides to grant the sanatio. Furthermore, considering that the couple were immigrants from a country of a very different culture and their other circumstances, he deems that there is a serious cause in order to grant such sanatio without previous notification of the parties, in accordance with c.1164.
In the next conversation with Robert, Fr. Justin talks to him about his marriage in order to strengthen it. He tells him that since he and Lydia were married before God and the Church, they count on all the divine help in order to surmount all difficulties, and that all these depend in great part on him: his prayer, his dedication to his family over whatever egoism, his effort to understand Lydia and make her happy, etc.
Did Fr. Justin act correctly?

1. Preliminary review of canonical doctrine on marriage
a. Three elements are necessary for the validity of a canonical marriage:
1) Juridical capacity to marry: In principle all faithful have the ius connubi, unless the Law denies it due to a personal condition (diriment impediment).
2) Matrimonial consent: A human act that can be undermined by factors affecting the intellect or the will of the contractant.
3) Canonical form: A purely canonical convention, which in principle should not be defective since the marriage is contracted before a qualified witness (bishop, priest or deacon) who precisely is tasked to make sure that this form is observed.
b) The nullity of a marriage usually stems from a defect in either of the first two elements above at the time of its celebration. The Code provides two methods for making good─synonymously called validation or convalidation─marriages that are null due to a defect in capacity or a defect in consent.
c) A marriage that is null due to defect of form cannot be a case for simple convalidation. Consequently, the code provides for a new celebration of marriage─i.e., it must be contracted anew in the canonical form (c.1160), without prejudice to a dispensation from such form in special cases (c.1127, §2).

2. Simple convalidation consists in the renewal of marriage consent by one or both parties, after the reason for nullity─either a diriment impediment or a defect of consent─has ceased, without the need to observe again the canonical form ad validitatem. There are two possible scenarios:
a. If the reason for nullity was a diriment impediment, there are two requisites for convalidation (c.1156, §1):
1) Cessation of the impediment, either by dispensation or by facts that make it disappear (e.g., reaching legal age, death of previous spouse).
2) Renewal of consent by either or both parties whoever is or are aware the nullity. A new act of the will is required, consenting to a marriage, which the renewing party knows or thinks was invalid from the beginning. Thus perseverance of the original consent is not sufficient (c.1157). There are two possible scenarios: a) If the impediment was public, consent must be renewed by both parties in the canonical form, without prejudice to what is laid down about dispensation of form by legitimate authority (c.1158, §1 and 1127, §2); b) If the impediment cannot be proved (i.e., not public fact), consent may be carried out in private and without witnesses by the party or parties who know of it (cc.1158,§2 and 1159,§2).
b. If the invalidity is brought about by a defect in consent, it is convalidated if the party who did not consent now does consent, provided the consent given by the other party persists (c.1159, §1). a) If the defect of consent can be proven, the new consent must be given in the canonical form (c.1159, §3); b) If the defect of consent cannot be proven, it is sufficient that the party who did not consent gives consent privately and in secret (c.1159, §2).

3. Retroactive Convalidation (Sanatio in radice) is its recognition by the competent authority, without renewal of consent by the parties, granted by the competent authority, involving the dispensation from any impediment and from the canonical form if this had not been observed, as well as a referral of the canonical effects of marriage back to the past. The juridic elements of the institution are the following:
a) A valid consent, since the retroactive convalidation is nothing else but an act of authority recognizing the existence of a bond arising from an act of the spouses contracting such bond. Thus, the following possibilities can be considered:
1) If consent is lacking from the beginning in either or both of the parties, retroactive convalidation cannot be granted (c.1162, §1).
2) If consent was lacking from the beginning, but was subsequently given, a retroactive validation can be granted, effective from the moment the consent was given (c.1162, §2).
3) If the consent was present at the beginning but was subsequently revoked, a retroactive validation cannot be granted (c.1162, §1). As a corollary, the Code stipulates that a retroactive validation is should not be granted unless it is probable that the parties intend to persevere in conjugal life (c.1161, §3).
b) A relaxation of the law in the specific case─i.e. a dispensation─from either an impediment present at the moment of celebration or the canonical form which had not been observed. This is implied in the very act of recognition itself─i.e., there is no distinct act of dispensation previous to the recognition. Consequently, the ecclesiastical authority competent to grant the retroactive validation is only that which has competence to dispense from the particular impediment:
1) The Apostolic See (c.1165, §1)─for all cases, including those involving an impediment of natural or divine positive law but only when this has ceased (c.1163, §2).
2) The Diocesan Bishop─for particular cases, except in cases of impediments whose dispensation is reserved to the Apostolic See, or if there is a question of an impediment of natural law or divine positive law which has ceased (c.1165, §2).
c) Retroactivity of the effects. In this regard, one must distinguish between:
1) The matrimonial bond¬─which begins to exist at the moment of the validation (c.1161, §2). It would be absurd to speak of a retroactive existence of the bond, since precisely the marriage was null from the beginning.
2) The juridical relations ensuing from the marriage─e.g., filiation, financial regime, the right of inheritance─which could be referred back to the moment the marriage was celebrated, unless it is otherwise expressly provided (c.1162, §2). Thus, for example, children conceived or born before the retroactive validation are considered legitimate (c.1137); in contrast those conceived or born before a simple validation are considered illegitimate before that simple validation but legitimated by it (c.1139). Nevertheless, as far as canonical effects are concerned, legitimated children are equivalent to legitimate children in all respects, unless it is otherwise expressly provided by law (c.1140).
d) Possibility of granting it without knowledge of either or both of the parties─since it is an act pertaining to the ecclesiastical authority and is therefore an act not subject to the intention of those to whom it is given. However, a norm of prudence and good administration prescribes that the interested parties should be aware of the validation that is to be granted, except for a grave reason (c.1164).

Conclusion
Fr. Justin acted canonically and pastorally very well. It is especially noteworthy that he did not agitate the already troubled marriage by informing the parties of the possible invalidity of their marriage, but rather corrected the defects, while strengthening the de facto marriage, a pastoral procedure which in the end worked to the advantage of the parties and their children.

The Dualism of Church and State

2010-03-28T08:48:00.000+08:00

EVEN if the so-called Reproductive Rights Bill has been once more defeated in the Philippine Legislature, thanks to the efforts of Catholic pro-life and pro-family lobbyists, we can be sure that just like in the past several Congresses, its proponents will try again in the next one. At times, even I am starting to doubt the bases for all the resistance that my Catholic friends have to what seems to be more and more acceptable─i.e., reproductive rights. The oft-quoted argument is the so-called “separation of Church and State.” Just what exactly does this expression signify?

Christian Dualism of Church and State: Distinct not Separate
The Liberalist idea of the separation of Church and State can be traced to the proponents of the French Revolution. But the Christian notion of the Dualism of Church and State far antedates the former, starting with the well-known Gospel dictum: "Render, therefore, to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s" (Mt.22,I5-22; Mk.12,13-17; Lk.20,20-26). Other less known texts can be found in I Pet.2,13-17 and Rom.13,1-7, where Sts. Peter and Paul ordered the Christians to obey the civil authorities in those matters which were of their competence.
But the most decisive text─for the question we have at hand─can be found in the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 4,19-20). Peter and John had been arrested by the Sanhedrin─which was both the religious and civil authority of the Jews at that time─for preaching Jesus Christ and winning many converts. To the
command of the Sanhedrin for them to stop their evangelizing activity, the Apostles replied:
"Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, decide for yourselves. For we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard."
In effect, the above-quoted statement of Christ (which risks being a tautology) must be understood in the light of Peter's declaration which gives it content: One must indeed render to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God’s; but what is Caesar's and what is Gods? The Natural Law is God’s, and man must obey it, despite any contrary disposition of the State. The State and the Church are distinct, with distinct competencies; but they are not separate because they involve basically the same subjects (the civic man is also a religious man), and are both under the same Natural Law of God.
Applying this to the present controversy regarding certain provisions of the so-called Reproductive Rights Bill, it is not a question of the State desisting from contraceptive means, because the Church says so: that would indeed be an infringement of the Principle of Dualism of Church and State. Rather, the State should not propose contraceptive means because the Natural Law (i.e., the L.aw of God which is in men’s hearts) says so: even the State must render to God what is God’s─unless it institutionally denies His existence and His Law over Nature, as indeed how the liberalist idea of "separation" of Church and State would have it.

The Liberalist deviation: the "separation" of Church and State
Without going into the details of the posterior deviations from the original Christian idea, suffice it to say that intolerance in religious matters did not in fact originate in the Church, but rather in the absolutist monarchs of post-Medieval Europe. This was especially true after the Protestant inspired principle of cuius region eius religio (“he who possesses the kingdom controls its religion”) was installed in the Peace of Westphalia, ending the Wars of Religion, but also putting an end to a united Christendom.
The idea of tolerance in religious matters, at the face of the excesses of regal absolutism, found its theoretical basis in the 18th Century under the influence of the Rationalist School of Natural Law. These doctrinal roots gained strength in t h e thought of the Age of Enlightenment, and found concrete form in the ideological climate of the revolutions towards the end of the 18th century. However, despite their common ideological roots in the Enlightenment, the treatment of the religious factor would not be the same in the Declarations of Rights which would emerge respectively from the American and the French Revolutions.
The framers of the American Constitution were not conditioned by past institutions (recall the opening lines of Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address: “..... conceived in liberty”), but were rather moved by a strong religious ideal (“In God we Trust”), and desired to construct a modus vivendi for Christian migrants of different confessions that would overcome the religious intolerance of the Old World. Such consideration of religion as a positive element gave rise to a formulation of religious freedom that gave greater juridical protection to religious expression: the idea of respect for Christian pluralism (against the war between Catholic and Protestant princes in Europe) flowed naturally into the wider notion of religious pluralism.
The juridical formula, which was conceived to attain this respect for religious freedom in pluralism, was the separation between the State and the Religious Confessions. Consecrated in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (1791), this was simply an empirical formulation, without any doctrinal discussion. The State simply declared its incompetence in religious matters, by stating that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
On the other hand, the French Revolutionaries were reacting against the institutions of a Catholic confessional and absolutist State. Hence, the climate of religious tension in which the revolution developed. Against the Catholic confessionalism of the Ancient Regime, the proponents of the French Revolution postulated the laicist character of the State, which could hardly lead to respect for the independence of religious confessions. Thus, the French Declaration of Human Rights did not reflect the full protection of the manifestations of the religious phenomenon. Rather, it explicitly protected only the freedom of opinions, including religious ones, for the expression of which public order constituted a limit to be fixed by law.

The agnostic state
In the European mold of the separation of Church and State, despite the lip service to freedom of opinion, the Liberal State oftentimes gave a negative evaluation of religion. This gave rise to a minimalist conception of religious freedom (leading to periods of veritable persecution of the Catholic Church, first in France and later on in Italy and then in Spain).
Thus, liberalism proposed the ideal of the Laicist State: not in the sense of religious pluralism as enshrined in the First Amendment of the US Constitution, but rather postulating the Agnostic State. This implied a rejection of Natural Law the foundation of the public order of the State, thus dissociating the
juridical order from the objective moral order. With its conception of man as a being with total autonomy, and by relegating God to the world of the unknowable (Agnosticism), liberalism proclaimed the human reason as the absolute criterion of truth and the human will as the autonomous font of morality: “What I know is what is true, and what I want is what is right.”
The norm of morality is thus shifted from the objective Natural Law, to the subjective rule of the majority: what the majority says would constitute what is right, regardless of whether or not such majority opinion is objectively right. Thus, in the US and many Western European countries, for example, the majority have legislated that abortion (killing a helpless baby) is right; and in Holland they have legislated that euthanasia (killing a sick person) is right.
In effect, the liberalist doctrine of Separation of Church and State was a declaration of the confessional principle of the Agnostic State: a shift from religious pluralism to the confessionally laicist State: a state where man─embodied in the majority, or in the ruling party─is the absolute norm of right and wrong. Unfortunately, this idea of separation of Church and State is what has prevailed in the last half-century, even in the U.S., and is what is being proposed now in the ongoing debate on reproductive rights in the Philippines.

Priests and politics

2010-03-01T08:46:00.000+08:00

WE have a problem in my archdiocese with a priest who said that priests can campaign for the upcoming elections as long as they don’t do it from the pulpit. People are confused because the statement came out in the local papers. Is there anything in Canon Law on this?
In a previous issue, we had dedicated this column to the question of Catholic Associations and Partisan Politics. The questioner then had taken for granted that the Hierarchy should not be involved in partisan politics. Now, it seems, this criterion is not very obvious to everyone.

The Role of the Priest in Political Life
By virtue of the service that he must render to individuals and society, the priest is interested in all those questions relative to public administration, which inevitably entail an ethical dimension. The correct notion of the distinction of Church and State does not mean that the hierarchy and the political community should live oblivious of each other. It means rather that each has its own proper sphere of responsibility: the hierarchy towards the eternal common good, and the government towards the temporal common good.
But since the temporal common good necessarily dovetails—since it ends up in the same final destination of the human person—with the eternal common good, the proper role of the hierarchy towards the temporal common good is one of magisterium and guidance: it is the role of the hierarchy in general and of priests in particular to form all men of good will (but especially the lay faithful) to have the right criteria to exercise their political options with freedom and responsibility.
The priest, in addition, preserves the right to have a personal political opinion and to exercise his right to vote, according to his conscience. "In those circumstances in which diverse political, social or economic choices legitimately present themselves—pointed out the Synod of Bishops in 1971—priests, like all citizens, have the right to make their own choices.”

Limits to the Priest’s Participation in the Political Exercise
The aforementioned right—like any other right—is obviously not an unlimited one. The external manifestation of a priest’s political preferences may be reasonably restricted by the demands of his ministry, which seeks to embrace everyone, to fully proclaim the Gospel and to be a valid sign of unity among all people.
Thus, c.287, §2 of the Code of Canon Law explicitly limits the participation of clerics in the political exercise in the following terms: Clerics are not to have an active role in political parties and in the direction of labor unions, unless the need to protect the rights of the Church or to promote the common good requires it in the judgment of the competent ecclesiastical authority.
The rationale behind this prohibition is as follows:
1) To avoid any semblance of dogmatism. As the Synod of Bishops of 1971 pointed out, “political choices are contingent by nature and do not express the Gospels completely, adequately or perennially.” John Paul II, following the same line of though, would add that “a political party can never be identi¬fied with the truth of the Gospel, nor could it ever be, therefore, the object of absolute allegiance, unlike what happens with the Gospel.” John Paul II concludes that the priest should not forget the relative character of political activities “even when citizens of Christian faith create, in a plausible way, parties inspired ex¬pressly in the Gospels, and he should not cease to strive to make the light of Christ also shine on other parties and social groups” (General Audience, 28.VII.1993).
2) To avoid any semblance clericalism. As John Paul II also pointed out in the aforementioned audience “within the framework of the Christian community, [priestly ministry] should have respect for the maturity of the laity and, what is more, should strive to assist them to achieve this, through the formation of con-science.” In other words, the correct sense of empowerment of the laity consists precisely in respecting their rightful autonomy in political choices, without their being unduly coerced—whether intentionally or otherwise—through a false reverential fear of displeasing their pastor who expresses a political preference different from theirs.
The problem lies in the fact that when a priest (more so a bishop) speaks of his political preferences, it is difficult for the faithful to distinguish—especially in a country with a tradition of deep respect for the clergy—when he is proclaiming Gospel truth and when he is merely speaking of his preferences or opinions. In other words, it is difficult for a priest to claim that he is only speaking as a private citizen expressing his political leanings, without the Catholic faithful perceiving it as an authoritative moral determination.

Scope of the Prohibition
1. Active participation in political parties. The juridical norm extends the prohibition not only to the exercise of functions of management or direction of such parties, but also to any membership in such parties, the knowledge of which may trigger an alienation of those faithful of a different political leaning—an alienation which the canonical prohibition precisely seeks to avoid.

2. Active participation in the direction of labor unions. The treatment of the participation of clerics in union associations is something very different. What is forbidden in this hypothetical situation is, strictly speaking, participation on an active basis in maintaining those organiza¬tions—i.e., to have positions of government and direction in such unions.
3. Militancy in favor of a given person or party. As a logical consequence, the same Synod of Bishops of 1971 declares that “the priest, witness of future things, should keep a certain distance from any political position or effort.” It is difficult to argue that this statement does not refer precisely to the priests actively campaigning for a certain political party or electoral candidate.
4. Possible exception: To defend the rights of the Church and the common good. The canon obviates any danger of laxity in the interpretation of this exception, by precisely stipulating that such an exception must be according to the judgment of the ecclesiastical authority. Thus, no individual priest may determine by himself the existence of sufficient reason to make an exception to the general prohibition, but must rather depend on the judgment of the competent authority—i.e., the Local Ordinary.

Conclusion
The Directory on the Ministry and Life of Priests, issued by the Congregation for the Clergy on 31.I.1994, summarizes all these in the following terms (ref. n.3):
— “The priest, as servant of the universal Church, cannot tie himself to any historical contingency, and therefore must be above any political party. He cannot take an active role in political parties or labor unions, unless according to the judgment of the ecclesiastical authority, the rights of the Church and the defense of common good require it.”
— “In fact, even if these [political parties and labor unions] are good things in themselves, they are nevertheless foreign to the clerical state, since they can constitute a grave danger of division in the ecclesial communion.”
— “Like Jesus (cf. Jn 6, 15 ff.), the priest ought to refrain from actively engaging himself in politics, as it often happens, in order to be a central point of spiritual fraternity. All the faithful, therefore, must be able to approach the priest without feeling inhibited for any reason.”
— “The Priest will remember that it does not fall on the shoulders of the Pastors of the Church to intervene directly in political activities and in social organizations. This task, in fact, forms part of the lay faithful’s vocation, in which they work by their own initiative together with their fellow citizens. Nevertheless, he will not be absent in the effort to form in them an upright conscience.”

(Note: This article originally appeared in CBCP Monitor, March 2007.)

Revisiting the Question of So-called Lay Ministers (Part I)

2010-02-12T08:43:00.000+08:00

Every so often, I have been asked by lay faithful about the proliferation of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion and even more of so-called lay ministers. Their presence is quite noticeable, especially during Sunday Mass when in many places there is a veritable procession of them preceding the priest celebrant at the start of the Eucharistic celebration.
What really is the role of the lay ministers?

In November 1997, the Holy See published a document, entitled Instruction On Certain Questions Regarding the Collaboration of the Non ordained Faithful in the Sacred Ministry of Priests. The document reaffirmed the teaching of the Second Vatican Council (especially Lumen gentium, n.33 and Apostolicam actuositatem, n.24). Its main purpose was to acknowledge and promote what is specific to the vocations of the lay faithful and of ordained ministers, with the goal of encouraging real communion in the Church.

Genesis of the Instruction
The Instruction stemmed from a new awareness of the ecclesial situation as a whole. In the past decade Bishops, priests and lay people had requested authoritative directives on the identity of priests and lay people with regard to particular cases of pastoral activity improperly exercised by non ordained faithful.
Thus in April 1994, with the approval of John Paul II, the Congregation for the Clergy organized a symposium in which some members of the worldwide Episcopate took part, representing their own Episcopal Conferences—chosen because this problem was particularly acute in those Churches. The Presidents or representatives of some larger groupings of Episcopal Conferences—including the Federation of Asian Bishops Conferences—were also invited to the meeting, as well as the Secretaries of the relevant Congregations of the Roman Curia and well known theologians. The extensive exchange of opinions and particularly the Holy Father's final address led to important suggestions for preparing the document.
An Inter-dicasterial Commission was established, coordinated by the Congregation for the Clergy and involving seven other dicasteries: the Pontifical Council for the Laity, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, the Congregation for Bishops, the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, and the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts. In a series of meetings, this Commission gradually worked out a text which was sent to the Presidents of the Episcopal Conferences and to the individual Bishops in those Churches where the need to address this issue was considered most urgent. About 92 percent of those questioned were in favor, but asked that ambiguous wording be avoided in the text, that the most authoritative legal form possible be used and, given the urgent need for clarification, that the document be published without delay. The Commission scrupulously followed these instructions.
In May 1997 the text was discussed by the heads of the dicasteries of the Roman Curia in the presence of the Holy Father. The result of this lengthy and thorough process was the Instruction we are now considering.

Preliminary hermeneutic clarifications: Canonico-Formal aspects
After an ample Introduction, the Instruction has two main parts entitled: Theological Principles and Practical Provisions. For a correct understanding of the document, we must first consider some of its formal aspects.
1. An Instruction is an administrative provision. An Instruction, by virtue of its juridical nature, is an administrative provision. As c.34, §1 states, instructions clarify the prescriptions of laws and elaborate on and determine an approach to be followed in implementing them. Thus, it does not create new law, but merely insists that the law currently in force be observed. As to the active subject of such acts, the same canon states that persons who possess executive power legitimately issue such instructions within the limits of their competency.
Furthermore, instructions are not addressed to everyone who is a subject of the current law. The same c.34, §1 states that they are given for the use of those persons whose concern it is to see that the laws are implemented and oblige such persons in the execution of the laws. Thus, the Instruction we are commenting on was primarily addressed, by reason of its timeliness and for the sake of prevention, to every Pastor of the Church, who, in accordance with c.392, §1, is bound to promote the common discipline of the whole Church and therefore to urge the observance of all ecclesiastical laws.
2. Involvement of 8 Dicasteries. On the one hand, it can be said that this procedure conforms to the legislative provisions of the Roman Curia. According to these provisions, what falls within the competence of different offices should be treated by all, under the coordination of the office primarily concerned with the question. In this case, one has the impression that various sorts of problems had piled up over time and had to be examined from different aspects, leading to a broad curial consultation. Nevertheless, it would have sufficed for the document to be signed by the Congregation for the Clergy, while noting the preceding inter-dicasterial consultation. The fact that all the dicasteries involved signed with their respective heads and secretaries clearly expresses their co responsibility as well as the importance that the Curia attached to the subject. On the other hand, such procedure manifested the importance that John Paul II attached to the document.
3. Binding force of the document. The importance of the document is also underscored by the fact that the Pope approved the Instruction in forma specifica. Consequently any form of appeal against it is impossible. This modality is envisaged by curial law only for certain dicasterial decrees with legislative force. The mode of approval chosen by the Pope must be considered in the light of the fact that as stated in the Conclusion: “all particular laws, customs and faculties which are contrary to the foregoing norms, and were conceded ad experimentum by the Holy See or other ecclesiastical authorities, are hereby revoked”. Thus we are spared the possible objection that an administrative act cannot derogate from the norms (laws or customs) currently in force; the intention to ensure coherent legislation in this entire matter is also apparent.

Other hermeneutic advertences: Objectives of the Instruction
To obviate any possible negative reaction to the document, it may be good to summarize the basic objectives of the Instruction. In brief, the document simply reaffirmed the teaching of the Second Vatican Council and of the more recent post conciliar Magisterium on the positive role of the laity in the Church's mission:
1. Encourage the ordained ministers. It encourages ordained ministers by forcefully reintroducing the subject of vocations to the priesthood, stressing that the Church's life depends on the sacrament of Holy Orders as a free, absolutely irreplaceable gift, because the ordained ministry (Bishops, priests, deacons) is part of the Church's very structure.
2. Remind the laity of their specific role. The Instruction also reminds us how the fundamental equality of Christians (by virtue of Baptism) is compatible with an essential difference (by virtue of Sacred Orders) and that lay Christians, precisely because of Baptism, are called to the consecratio mundi, which differs from the task of anyone who belongs, through the sacrament of Holy Orders, to the sacred ministry. Thus, by avoiding every form of clericalism, lay Christians are encouraged to become aware of their identity and to give their witness in the world and in the Church without considering the exercise of those ministerial duties which they may perform from time to time as a form of advancement but only as one of supply and substitution.
3. Expose the "functionalist" and "individualist" errors. The inter-dicasterial text also called for critical discernment regarding certain modern trends that still deeply affect our era. The functionalist approach, on the one hand, holds that human actions and things in general cannot refer to anything beyond themselves. In this mentality what really counts is to achieve the goal one has set for oneself. The very sacramentality of the Church is undermined. We can understand then how, even when moved by true pastoral generosity, some eventually think that whatever does not require the sacramental power of the Bishop, priest or deacon ad validitatem can be assumed ordinarily and permanently by the laity. But in doing so, the ordained ministry begins gradually to erode, no longer understood and appreciated by the People of God and therefore sooner or later to become obsolete.
The individualist approach, on the other hand, has become more and more widespread since the 16th century and leads to thinking in terms of personal success, competitiveness and power. In a theological context, this mentality tends to loose sight of the Church as communio and to over-value the individuality of every member of the People of God, to the detriment of the appreciation of the plurality of charisms and roles among the People of God.
4. Encourage terminological precision. The Instruction rightly insists on the need for a suitable terminology, clarifying the confused use of the word ministry which describes both the officia and the munera exercised by Pastors in virtue of the sacrament of Orders, and those exercised by the non ordained faithful. We have to remember that lack of terminological precision has repercussions on the theological level, creating ambiguity and confusion. The undue application of the term minister to the collaboration of laymen with the work of the clerics can and indeed has led to a confusion between the universal (royal) and the ministerial (ordained) priesthood.
5. Very limited scope of the Instruction. The Instruction has a very limited purpose and its title should be carefully read with that in mind. The subject is not collaboration between priests and lay people, but the priestly ministry in so far as lay people can collaborate in it. The document is thus concerned with only a limited area of the laity's field of activity in the Church. It is not a question of the laity, defined by their so called secular nature, who carry out their mission in civil society; nor are their autonomous activities within the Church being considered. The sole concern here—with one exception, to which we will return—is that area where the laity who say they are available receive an ecclesiastical deputation. But even this area is not examined in all its breadth, since the vast milieus of the school and the university, for example, are omitted. It is important not to forget this fact, since—except for the exception mentioned above—the vast, ordinary field of activity for lay people in the Church and the world is intentionally not considered by the Instruction. It is only concerned with giving appropriate direction to the exercise of particular functions by particular lay people.

Revisiting the Question of So-called Lay Ministers (Part II)

2010-01-19T08:44:00.000+08:00

Every so often, I have been asked by lay faithful about the proliferation of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion and even more of so-called lay ministers. Their presence are quite noticeable, especially during Sunday Mass when in many places there is a veritable procession of them preceding the priest celebrant at the start of the Eucharistic celebration.
What really is the role of the lay ministers?

IN November 1997, the Holy See published a document, entitled Instruction On Certain Questions Regarding the Collaboration of the Non ordained Faithful in the Sacred Ministry of Priests. The document reaffirmed the teaching of the Second Vatican Council (especially Lumen gentium, n.33 and Apostolicam actuositatem, n.24). Its main purpose was to acknowledge and promote what is specific to the vocations of the lay faithful and of ordained ministers, with the goal of encouraging real communion in the Church. In the previous issue of CBCP Monitor, we had looked into the formal aspects of the document; now let us go to the more salient norms.

Observations on Content: collaboration vs. participation of the non-ordained faithful in the priestly ministry.
In the substantive level, the most important word—a veritable hermeneutic key of the document—is a term that appears in the title itself of the document. In effect, the title speaks of the collaboration of the non-ordained faithful in the priestly ministry.
It can be noted that in the preliminary discussion, the term initially used was participation. Thus, the title of the symposium in April 1994, which launched the serious preparation of this document, was The Participation of the Lay Faithful in the Priestly Ministry. It must be pointed out, however, that the Holy Father himself, in his address to that symposium, never used the term participation in this context. In fact, he belabored the distinction between participation in Christ's priesthood by virtue of baptism and confirmation, and the eventual exercise of some tasks entrusted to them by the priests:
“The laity's every ecclesial action or function—including those for which the Pastors ask them to stand in, where possible—is rooted ontologically in their common participation in Christ's priesthood and not in an ontological participation (either temporary or partial) in the ordained ministry proper to Pastors. Therefore, it is clear that if the Pastors entrust them, in an extraordinary way, with some tasks ordinarily and properly connected with the pastoral ministry but not requiring the proper character of Orders, lay people should know that these tasks are existentially rooted in their baptismal ministry and nowhere else! It must always be remembered that the exercise of such tasks does not make pastors of the lay faithful: in fact, a person is not a minister simply by performing a task, but through sacramental ordination.”
The terminological shift is important. In effect, participation (partem capere = “to take part”) in the ministerial tasks could not strictly speaking take place without the subject ontologically taking part—for that matter—in the ministerial priesthood itself. This could only happen with priestly ordination. From this we see the aptness of the term collaboration (co-laborare = “to work with”) when applied to the non-ordained faithful's cooperation with the ministerial work of priests. With this in mind, we can point out the following doctrinal conclusions:
1. Lay collaboration in priestly ministry is not a right. The document contains several assertions that call for hermeneutic clarification. Thus, the part concerned with Theological Principles (n.4) says with respect to the tasks and functions which are considered along the lines of collaboration with the sacred ministry that the non ordained faithful do not enjoy a right to such tasks and functions. Obviously, there is no wish here to deny that these faithful can legitimately exercise the tasks and functions mentioned. The document wants to state, however, that the non ordained faithful do not have the right to demand that they be assigned to the above mentioned tasks or functions.
Elsewhere the Instruction says in fact: “the officia temporarily entrusted to them ... are exclusively the result of a deputation by the Church” (art. 1, §2). Deputation by the Church is a shorthand expression for deputation by the Church's lawful Pastors. This complete formulation, used in other passages of the Instruction, avoids an identification of the Pastors with the Church herself. And §3 of the same article correctly indicates that the temporary deputation for liturgical purposes mentioned in c.230, §2 does not confer any special or permanent title on the non ordained faithful. The following sentence states that it is unlawful for the non ordained faithful to assume titles such as pastor, chaplain, coordinator or moderator. As is obvious, what applies to temporary deputation applies with all the more reason to permanent deputation for liturgical or pastoral tasks (cf. CIC, c.230, §1, 517, §2,).
2. Lay collaboration is supplementary—i.e., only in cases of necessity. By their ecclesiological nature all of these particular functions belong to the realm of the ordained ministry, in which a lay person, however, can collaborate in cases of necessity, if he has been lawfully deputed to do so. But it must be noted here: in case of necessity!
For example, it could never be the Church's objective to replace the Eucharistic celebration by promoting Sunday celebrations without a priest. Nevertheless, wherever there are no other possibilities, the Church is grateful to that lay person who, being well disposed and following the instructions of the Bishop who appointed him, conducts a Liturgy of the Word for and with the faithful who have no other opportunity to celebrate the Lord's Day. It is clear that the lay person here is truly a supplementary aid. This does not degrade the lay person; on the contrary, his willingness to accept this task does him honor. However, for the good of the faithful—and that is what always counts—he too will be glad when a priest is available to celebrate the Eucharist.
The Instruction enables us to indicate many other analogous situations. However it would be a mistake to conclude that it reduces the role of the laity in the Church to a mere stopgap. The Instruction will seem restrictive only to those who consider these supplementary tasks as a desirable field of activity for the laity.
3. Responsibility for abuses. The practical provisions of the Instruction are not limited to listing possible or actual abuses, but they always seek to indicate the theological coordinates underlying the respective field of activity and thereby to draw the necessary consequences. The problems mentioned are caused, first of all, by the fact that they are found in a border area. Abuses occur when exceptional solutions become alternatives, changing an extraordinary competence into an ordinary one, or, on the other, when the limits provided for collaboration are unlawfully extended and a competence is assumed that has not been given. A case in point would be the way the so-called extraordinary minister for the administration of Holy Communion—the laypersons duly deputized for this—goes beyond exercising the faculty in extraordinary occasions to become in practice the ordinary minister for such a liturgical task, day after day, Sunday after Sunday.
In this regard, it should be pointed out that the laity usually cannot be considered responsible for true and proper abuses. They in fact fulfill—normally with good intentions—that role which has been introduced in their particular Church and has been entrusted to them. On the other hand, it should be noted that the norms established by the Bishops' Conferences or by individual Bishops generally do not contradict the ordinances of universal law, but their clarity at times is not enough to prevent the spread of an abusive practice.

Conclusion
In conclusion, we can say that the activity of the lay faithful is in no way placed sub iudice by the Instruction; on the contrary, it is precisely from the laity's commitment and dedication that the Church expects a great deal both now and for the future. However we have to insist that commitment and dedication must develop harmoniously within the framework of the Church's hierarchical constitution that is, in the spirit of true communio, which requires the acknowledgement and appreciation of reciprocity, to avoid at all costs an egalitarianism that erodes identity.

Doctrinal Declarations of Episcopal Conferences

2010-01-16T08:42:00.000+08:00

I am very grateful for the Pastoral Letters issued by the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines with certain regularity, touching on the varied issues affecting Philippine society. Almost always, they deal with matters of morals or discipline—e.g., guidelines for the faithful in exercising their right to vote, the ethical dimensions of the Reproductive Right Bill, etc. However, I almost never read of pronouncements of a doctrinal nature. At times, I am at a loss on certain matters of Catholic doctrine—e.g., whether or not the doctrine of Humanae Vitae against contraception is infallible, or whether I should take as truth the teachings of the theology professors in a Catholic university—and I would then wish the CBCP were more forthright in declaring certain things as Catholic doctrine. Is there any reason why the Bishops are so sparing in such pronouncements?

The Teaching Office of the Episcopal Conference
The above question was clarified in a Letter, dated 13.V.1999 sent by the Congregation for Bishops−although prepared in collaboration with the Secretariat of State, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Congregation for the Oriental Churches and the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts−to the Presidents of the Episcopal Conferences. That Letter, in turn, was issued after several consultation from Episcopal Conferences regarding the Motu Proprio, Apostolos suos (AS)−On the Theological and Juridical Nature of Episcopal Conferences−which was issued by John Paul II on 21.V.1998.
In the aforementioned Letter, the Holy See laid down quite stringent provisions for the exercise of the teaching office by the Episcopal Conferences. Following are extensive quotations, which are sufficiently clear and concise, as to need only very brief commentaries (the numbers correspond to the original articulation of the Letter, for ease of reference).
“These indications−as the document states− pertain especially to the object of doctrinal declarations, which have authentic magisterial character and to the procedure for their approval.”
1. Doctrinal declarations may be submitted to a vote of the Bishops, gathered at Conference, when it is retained that it is necessary to deal “with new questions and (to act) so that the message of Christ enlightens and guides people's conscience in resolving new problems arising from changes in society” (AS, n.22). If duly approved such declarations constitute “authentic Magisterium”.
In the exercise of their conjoint ministry, the Bishops should be aware that the doctrine of the Church forms part of the patrimony of the entire People of God and is the bond of its communion. Thus, they “must take special care to follow the magisterium of the universal Church and to communicate it opportunely to the people entrusted to them” (AS, n.21).
In the light of the Motu Proprio Ad tuendam fidem (18.V.1998, nn.2 3), therefore, doctrinal declarations or parts of them may not be submitted to a vote of the Conference if they reproduce teaching “contained in the Word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by ordinary universal Magisterium, sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed”. Likewise, neither “teaching concerning faith or morals definitively proposed by the Church” nor “teaching enunciated by the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim such teachings by a definitive act”, may be voted on. Such teachings or parts of them may be quoted in any document of the Episcopal Conference or Commissions without, however, voting on them.
From the foregoing it is clear that the mind of the Holy See is that doctrinal declarations of the Episcopal Conferences for the most part consist in quoting or reiterating existing Church doctrine−i.e., without need for voting new formulations. This would explain the rarity of doctrinal pronouncements of the CBCP. This tendency is further bolstered by another provision for a reduction of documents emanating from Episcopal Commissions:
10. A reduction in the number of documents emanating from the Episcopal Commissions is desirable so as to avoid an excessive proliferation of documents and those difficulties, experienced in many places, in ascertaining the degree of authority with which such documents are invested.

Care in the Preparation of Doctrinal Declarations
The Letter then proceeded to provide for the care in which doctrinal declarations should be prepared in the Episcopal Conference−not only in their redaction, but also in the requirement for unanimity in the Episcopal Conference for a given doctrine to be considered authentic magisteriu, or the necessary recognitio from the Holy See in the absence of such unanimity.
2. By their very nature, doctrinal declarations issued by Episcopal Conferences differ from the general decrees of the same Conferences. In view of this, from a redactional viewpoint, it is important that a specific article of the Statutes of Conferences be devoted to doctrinal declarations. General decrees should be addressed in a separate article of the Statutes since the procedure for their approval (cf. CIC, c.455, §2) differs from that to be employed for the approval of doctrinal declarations.
3. With regard to the approval of doctrinal declarations, in accordance with AS, n.22, the following formula is proposed for insertion into the Statutes of each Episcopal Conference:
“In order to constitute authentic magisterium and be published in the name of the Conference, doctrinal declarations must be approved in the Plenary Assembly by unanimous vote of the Bishop members, or by a majority of at least two thirds of the Bishops holding a deliberative vote. In the latter case, the recognitio of the Holy See must precede promulgation.”
4. Within their respective territories the Congregation for Bishops and the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples are competent to concede the recognitio of the Holy See for doctrinal declarations produced by an Episcopal Conference. The texts of authentic declarations are to be sent to the aforementioned dicasteries which will provide for the concession of the recognitio, having consulted the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts. In the case of Episcopal Conferences whose statutes number Oriental rite Bishops among their members with a deliberative vote, the dicastery competent for the concession of the recognitio will also hear the opinion of the Congregation for the Oriental Churches.

Conclusion
To sum up, even if the primary task of the Bishops is to teach, this is a task that pertains to the individual Bishop and toward his proper flock. The CBCP really has very little leeway to come up with doctrinal declarations of its own−other than reiterate already existing Church doctrine.

The Duty to Observe the Authentic Magisterium

2009-12-08T18:53:00.000+08:00

Introduction
Time and again, I have been approached by concerned Catholic parents regarding the religious education of their children in Catholic schools and universities. Especially notorious were the cases of a number of theology professors in a Catholic University in Manila who openly declared that they were atheists, and of those professors in another Catholic University in Quezon City who were in open support of the Reproductive Rights Bill, which had been publicly denounced by the Catholic Bishops of the Philippines as patently opposed to the teachings of the Church on sexual morality. In both cases, the university authorities declared that the university had to respect the academic freedom of the professors. The question is: Doesn’t Canon Law provide for the protection of the integrity of Catholic Doctrine, as taught in officially Catholic educational institutions?

Canon Law indeed has enough provisions to protect the integrity of Catholic doctrine and identity of officially Catholic educational institutions. Among other means, anybody who teaches theology at the tertiary level is obligated by Canon Law to make a Profession of Faith and to take an Oath of Fidelity to teach in the name of the Church.

Three Categories of Truths

On 9.I.1989, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published new formulas for the Professio Fidei et Iusiurandum fidelitatis in suscipiendo officio nomine Ecclesiae exercendo (AAS 81[1989], 104 106), to replace the previous formula of 1967. These formulas were approved by the Roman Pontiff in a special Rescript dated, 19.IX.1989 (in AAS 81 [1989], 1169). An attentive reading of the pertinent paragraphs of the Profession Fidei shows that there are three categories of truths, enunciated as follows:

1st Category: “[E]verything contained in the Word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church either by a solemn judgement or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed." These are truths found immediately in Revelation, which the Church vouches for as contained in Revelation. This are supposed to be held “with firm faith”, because their certainty has a twofold basis: the authority of God Revealing (fides divina) and the infallible teaching authority of the Church (fides catholica). These are commonly referred to in Dogmatic Theology as De fide Divina et Catholica or simply dogmas. Examples of these truths are (1) the Three Persons in One God, (2) the two natures in the one Person of Jesus Christ, (3) the Immaculate Conception, (4) the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary in body and soul to Heaven.

2nd Category: “[E]verything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals.” These constitute what Dogmatic Theology has always referred to as Catholic truths or Church doctrines, which are to be accepted with a faith based on the sole authority of the Church (fides ecclesiastica). Even if the Profession fidei did not expressly state it, these are as infallibly certain as dogmas proper.

3rd Category: “[T]he teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act." These are the teachings for which the CIC stipulates “A religious respect of intellect and will, even if not the assent of faith” (c.752).

Source of Confusion

While the 1st and 3rd Categories of truth had their corresponding provisions in the Code of Canon Law, there was no expressed provision for the 2nd Category. Thus, cc.750 & 752 described the 1st and 3rd Categories respectively, and c.1371 provided for the penal sanction for their violation. This has given rise to not a few cases of open dissent, perhaps emboldened by a seeming lacuna in Canon Law, especially as regards the penal provisions.

A more attentive reading of the Profession fidei, however, coupled with a solid grounding in Dogmatic Theology, shows that there was really no lacuna. As a Ott would affirm, the 2nd Category are “as infallibly certain as dogmas proper”—i.e., the norm for the 1st Category should hole also for the 2nd. Hence, when the CIC expressly provided for the 1st and 3rd Categories, it tacitly provided also for the 2nd Category of truths.

Nevertheless, since abuses have arisen, and such may be legally defended against sanction with the principle of “nulla poena sine lege”, the Supreme Church Authority came up with new legislation in 1998 to fill up that seeming lacuna, in the following way: c.750 of the Code of Canon Law will now consist of two paragraphs; the first will present the text of the existing canon; the second will contain a new text. Thus c.750, in its complete form, will read:

Canon 750 − §1. Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal Magisterium, which in fact is manifested by the common adherence of Christ's faithful under the guidance of the sacred Magisterium. All are therefore bound to avoid any contrary doctrines.

§2. Furthermore, each and everything set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held, namely those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church.
Canon 1371, n.1 of the Code of Canon Law, consequently, will receive an appropriate reference to c.750, §2, so that it will now read:
Canon 1371 -- The following are to be punished with a just penalty:
1° a person who, apart from the case mentioned in c.1364, §1, teaches a doctrine condemned by the Roman Pontiff, or by an Ecumenical Council, or obstinately rejects the teachings mentioned in c.750, §2 or in c.752 and, when warned by the Apostolic See or by the Ordinary, does not retract;
2° a person who in any other way does not obey the lawful command or prohibition of the Apostolic See or the Ordinary or Superior and, after being warned, persists in disobedience.

Ordinary and Universal Magisterium

It is fitting to note also that almost all infallible teachings in the field of morality are contained not in solemn definitions (so called definitive acts or definitively proposed in the language of the Profession fidei and in the CIC), but precisely in the teachings of the ordinary and universal Magisterium. This has led some to think that there are no infallible teachings in the field of morality, inasmuch as, in fact, there are no texts in which such infallibility is explicitly claimed. This assertion fails to recognize, however, that the ordinary and universal Magisterium, which by nature does not adopt such solemn expressions, is precisely the normal way in which the infallibility of the Church is exercised.

As Pope John Paul II affirms, “The Magisterium (...) includes the charism of infallibility, which is present not only in the solemn definitions of the Roman Pontiff and the Ecumenical Councils, but also in the ordinary and universal Magisterium, which can be considered the usual expression of the infallibility of the Church.”

Practically all concrete and absolute moral norms that are under debate today (e.g., abortion, contraception, homosexual acts, premarital relations, euthanasia, divorce, masturbation), have been taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium and are hence infallible.

Reach of “religious respect (obsequium) of intellect and will”
A final observation regarding the so-called religious submission of the intellect and will. This means more than the usual obedience required for the legitimate command of the hierarchical authority of the Church. Specifically, it means:
1) The ordinary response will be a sincere adherence not only of the will but also of the intelligence. In an exceptional case, a teaching might not be intellectually convincing. Then the first duty is to doubt oneself, giving credibility to the Magisterium. This does not mean that one must stop working on research and presenting the authorities—in a private way—one’s own reasons and the possible formulations that one might suggest as being better suited for expressing the truth.
2) In any case, religious submission implies the obligation to avoid every dissent; the only thing admissible is to suspend or withhold assent. If dissent is made publicly and obstinately, opportune sanctions would be in order (c.1371).

Towards Personal Ordinariates for former Anglicans: The Question of a Married Clergy (Part I)

2009-11-23T18:59:00.000+08:00

LAST 20 October 2009, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith—the former dicastery of Pope Benedict XVI—surprised the world with an announcement of a forthcoming Apostolic Constitution that would pave the way for the establishment of personal ordinariates for groups of Anglican clergy and faithful in different parts of the world, who have expressed their wish to enter into full visible communion with the Catholic Church. The announcement went on to say that “the forthcoming Apostolic Constitution provides a reasonable and even necessary response to a world-wide phenomenon, by offering a single canonical model for the universal Church which is adaptable to various local situations and equitable to former Anglicans in its universal application. It provides for the ordination as Catholic priests of married former Anglican clergy.”

Suffice it to say that at the mention of the ordination as Catholic priests of married former Anglican clergy, the old question of priestly celibacy has again come into public scrutiny. In fact, some commentators have immediately interpreted this move as the beginning of what could be a relaxation of the Catholic Church’s unflinching tradition requiring celibacy for its clergy.

Hence, reserving for the succeeding issues of CBCP Monitor the other important aspects of this new ecclesiastical circumscription (i.e., personal ordinariates), let us first take care of the red herring that has been once more foisted in front of the unwary reader: the possibility of Catholic priests getting married.

The Rule on Priestly Celibacy dates to Apostolic Times

The reason for the repeated re-examination of the ecclesiastical rule on priestly celibacy stems in great part from a wrong notion that it is a human law of relatively recent origin. I distinctly remember having to firmly correct a well-known cleric who affirmed—during a TV discussion some years ago—that the canon law on priestly celibacy did not come into existence until the 11th Century.

In fact, the Church's solemn Magisterium has been constant in enforcing ecclesiastical celibacy from the start. The Synod of Elvira (ca.300-303) prescribed in canon 27: A bishop, like any other cleric, should have with him either only one sister or consecrated virgin; it is established that in no way should he have an extraneous woman; in canon 33 the Synod declared: The following overall prohibition for bishops, presbyters and deacons and for all clerics who exercise a ministry has been decided: they must abstain from relations with their wives and must not beget children; those who do are to be removed from the clerical state.

The First Lateran Ecumenical Council of 1123, states in its canon 3: We absolutely forbid priests, deacons or subdeacons to cohabit with concubines or wives and to cohabit with women other than those whom the Council of Nicea (325) permitted to live in the household.

The Council of Trent reasserted the absolute impossibility of contracting marriage for clerics bound by sacred orders or for male religious who had solemnly professed chastity and declared the nullity of marriage so contracted.

Priestly Celibacy was confirmed by Vatican II, the Code of Canon Law and the Recent Popes

In our era, Vatican Council II—in the Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests, Presbyterorum Ordinis, n.16—reaffirmed the close connection between celibacy and the Kingdom of God, seeing in the former a sign that radiantly proclaims the latter, the beginning of a new life to whose service the minister of the Church is consecrated.

Pope Paul VI, in his encyclical Sacerdotalis Caelibatus of 24.VI.1967, debunked the objections raised against the discipline of celibacy. By placing emphasis on its Christological foundation and appealing to history and to what we learn from the first-century documents about the origins of celibacy and continence, he fully confirmed its value.

The 1971 Synod of Bishops, both in the pre-synodal program Ministerium Presbyterorum" (15.II.1971) and in the final document Ultimis Temporibus (30.XI.1971), affirmed the need to preserve celibacy in the Latin Church, shedding light on its foundations, the convergence of motives and the conditions that encouraged it.

The new Code of Canon Law of the Latin Church of 1983 reasserted the age-old tradition in its canon 277, §1: Clerics are obliged to observe perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven and therefore are obliged to observe celibacy, which is a special gift of God, by which sacred ministers can adhere more easily to Christ with an undivided heart and can more freely dedicate themselves to the service of God and humankind.

For his part, John Paul II—in the Apostolic Exhortation Pastores Dabo Vobis (25.III. 1992), n.44—presented celibacy as a radical Gospel requirement that especially favors the style of spousal life and springs from the priest's configuration to Jesus Christ through the sacrament of orders.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church of 1992 reaffirms the same doctrine: All the ordained ministers of the Latin Church, with the exception of permanent deacons, are normally chosen from among men of faith who live a celibate life and who intend to remain celibate 'for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven (n.1579).

Finally, Pope Benedict XVI, in his Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis (22.II.2007) categorically states: “I reaffirm the beauty and the importance of a priestly life lived in celibacy as a sign expressing total and exclusive devotion to Christ, to the Church and to the Kingdom of God, and therefore confirm that it remains obligatory in the Latin tradition. Priestly celibacy lived with maturity, joy and dedication is an immense blessing for the Church an for society itself (n.24).

The Possible Ordination of Married Former Anglican Clergy

The Vatican announcement states that the forthcoming Apostolic Constitution provides for the ordination as Catholic priests of married former Anglican clergy. What is the reach of such a provision, as far as the age-old Catholic discipline regarding priestly celibacy is concerned?

Even before the publication of the Constitution, we can already forestall useless speculations in the wrong direction with the following observations:
a. This is a concession to allow the ordination of married men. In fact, this is not the first time that such is allowed, even in the Catholic Church of Latin tradition. We have to remember that the Code of Canon Law allows the ordination of married men as permanent deacons—wherever the permanent diaconate has been established by the Holy See with prior petition of the Episcopal Conference—provided he has completed at least 35 years of age and has the consent of his wife (c.1031, §2). That this is a concession is clear from the very tenor of the canons, and by the fact that historical and ecumenical reasons preclude the ordination of married men as bishops—the fullness of the priesthood—in both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.
b. However, this does not imply the permission for ordained clerics to marry. The canonical impediment for marriage arises from the reception of Holy Orders. This is clearly stated in c.1087: Persons who are in holy orders invalidly attempt marriage. Thus, a person who is ordained—whether he is unmarried or married—is thereby canonically impeded from contracting any future marriage.

In the case of a married former Anglican cleric, his possible ordination as a Catholic priest would not nullify his existing marriage or bind him to renounce his wife. It would, nevertheless, impede him from getting married again in the future, should his present wife pass away.

Likewise, an unmarried former Anglican cleric, should he be ordained as a Catholic priest, would be impeded from getting married in the future. This is further stipulated by c.1037 which states—An unmarried candidate for the permanent diaconate and a candidate for the presbyterate is not to be allowed to the order of diaconate unless in a prescribed rite he has assumed publicly before God and the Church the obligation of celibacy.

In summary, we are dealing with a dispensation from the requirement of celibacy towards ordination as Catholic priests of those already-married Anglican clerics who wish to continue their ministry in the personal ordinariates which may be established to accommodate former Anglicans who wish to come into full communion with the Catholic Church. We are not dealing with a dispensation from those who are ordained as Catholic priests—whether unmarried or married—to subsequently marry after ordination.

Towards Personal Ordinariates for former Anglicans: Looking at the Bigger Picture (Part II)

2009-11-09T08:39:00.000+08:00

LAST 20 October 2009, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith—the former dicastery of Pope Benedict XVI—surprised the world with an announcement of a forthcoming Apostolic Constitution that would pave the way for the establishment of Personal Ordinariates for groups of Anglican clergy and faithful in different parts of the world, who have expressed their wish to enter into full visible communion with the Catholic Church. The announcement went on to say that the forthcoming Apostolic Constitution provides a reasonable and even necessary response to a world-wide phenomenon, by offering a single canonical model for the universal Church which is adaptable to various local situations and equitable to former Anglicans in its universal application.
After forestalling useless speculations related to the ordination as Catholic priests of married former Anglican clergy—i.e., of concluding that perhaps soon Catholic priests will be allowed to get married too—let us now focus on the really important novelty of this forthcoming Constitution: the Personal Ordinariate as such.

What is a Personal Ordinariate?
Even if for the specific case of the Personal Ordinariate for former Anglicans we have to wait for the forthcoming Apostolic Consititution, the reference made (in the Vatican announcement) to Military Ordinariates allows us to foresee some of its characteristics.
The figure of the Military Ordinariate was introduced into Church Law by the Apost. Constitution Spirituali Militum Curae, signed by John Paul II on 21.IV.1986. According to this document, Military Ordinariates, which may also be called Army Ordinariates, and are juridically comparable to dioceses, are special ecclesiastical circumscriptions, governed by proper statutes issued by the Apostolic See, in which will be determined in greater detail the prescriptions of the present Constitution.
It is therefore a form of what in Canon Law is known as a personal ecclesiastical circumscription, which has the following constitutive elements:
1) A group of faithful—a portion of the people of God, delineated not by the fact of their domicile or quasi-domicile (as in the territorial circumscriptions, like the diocese or territorial prelature), but by their having certain personal qualities.
In the case of the military Ordinariate, this delineating quality is their relationship with the armed forces, specifically (quoting from the aforementioned document):
— the faithful who are military persons, as well as those who are at the service of the armed forces provided that they are bound to this by civil law;
— all the members of their families, wives and children, even those who, though independent, live in the same house, as well as relatives and servants who also live with them in the same house;
— those who attend military training schools, or who live or work in military hospitals, hospices for the elderly, or similar institutions;
— all the faithful, both men and women, whether or not they are members of a religious institute, who carry out in a permanent way a task committed to them by the Military Ordinary, or with his consent.
2) An Ordinary—a proper pastor (a priest, but preferably a bishop because of his episcopal functions), with power of jurisdiction which is (again quoting from the aforementioned document):
— personal, in such manner that it can be exercised in regard to the persons who form part of the Ordinariate, even if at times they are beyond the national boundaries;
— ordinary, both in the internal and external forums—i.e., it is a power that comes with the office itself and not through a delegation by another (e.g., the Pope);
— proper—that is to say not vicariously, like what happens with the former military vicar (who acted in behalf of the Pope) or the actual apostolic vicars in the apostolic vicariates.
— cumulative with the jurisdiction of the diocesan bishop, because the persons belonging to the Ordinariate do not cease to be the faithful of that local Church of which they are members by reason of domicile or rite.
3) A Presbyterate—composed of priests who, endowed with the necessary gifts for carrying out fruitfully this special pastoral ministry, give service in the Personal Ordinariate. These can be of different categories:
— those who are formed in the seminary that the Ordinariate may erect with the approval of the Holy See, and promoted to Holy Orders and incardinated in the Ordinariate once they have completed the specific spiritual and pastoral formation;
— other members of the secular clergy who may be incardinated into the Ordinariate according to the norms of Canon Law;
— still other priests—both secular and religious—who, with the consent of their own Ordinary, serve in the Ordinariate (by adscription).

Relationship of the Faithful of the Personal Ordinariate with the Diocesan Bishop and the Local Parishes.
Some journalists have expressed fears of possible frictions between the projected Personal Ordinariates for Anglicans and the local Churches. If we recall, that same apprehension had been raised (and sadly still seems to be raised in certain quarters) in the case of another kind of personal ecclesiastical circumscription—i.e., the Personal Prelature.
This type of apprehension can arise if one forgets that personal ecclesiastical circumscriptions should be understood from the viewpoint of the ecclesiology of Vatican II. From this point of view, it becomes clear that among the Pastors of the Church, there is neither rivalry nor competition, but rather communion and collaboration. Thus, the provision of this type of personal circumscription is the result of the desire of providing help to the local Churches, through the creation of entities which are capable of carrying out a special pastoral activity that goes beyond the normal possibilities of the dioceses for their faithful. Thus, a document issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1992—with the significant name of Communionis notio—had precisely pointed out how these entities created by the Holy See for peculiar pastoral tasks are harmoniously inserted in communion with the local Churches.
It could be expected, therefore, that the upcoming Apostolic Constitution—aside from the particular statutes of every Personal Ordinariate that shall be subsequently erected—will guarantee the rights of the Local Ordinaries and the way of harmonizing the activities of the priests of the Ordinariate with the authority of the local parishes, including norms regarding such matters as how a faithful becomes part of the Ordinariate, what registries are to be kept, etc.

Similarities and Differences with Personal Prelatures
The press has compared the upcoming Personal Ordinariates for former Anglicans to Personal Prelatures, specifically with Opus Dei. A notable difference would be that the projected personal ordinariates for former Anglicans would depend on the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, instead of the Congregation for Bishops or the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith as is provided for the erection of personal prelatures. Another difference would be the use of a particular liturgy in the case of the Personal Ordinariates for former Anglicans, whereas the only existing Personal Prelature has no liturgy of its own and does not even print its own Ordo for daily Masses and Liturgy of the Hours.
Beyond the obvious differences, however, it is more interesting to note the elements common to all these personal jurisdictions. As an imminent canonist had recently pointed out, in reaction to the announced Personal Ordinariate for former Anglicans, Personal Ordinariates, Military Ordinariates and Personal Prelatures constitute in each case that type of personal circumscripton expressly willed by Vatican Council II, which are superimposed with the local Church (insofar as their faithful also belong to the diocese), in order to carry out a specialized pastoral activity. Beyond the pastoral phenomenon of Opus Dei, up till now the personal prelature—as typified in cc. 294-297 of the Code of Canon Law—has been mentioned as a possible solution to the pastoral needs arising from human mobility (e.g., care of migrants, refugees, seafarers and overseas workers). Now it has come to light that this type of personal circumscriptions might also be of great use in the area of ecumenism. (Cf. Eduardo Baura, Dean of the Faculty of Canon Law, Pontifical University of the Holy Cross [Rome], in an interview published recently in www.zenit.org).

Towards Personal Ordinariates for former Anglicans: The Final Picture (Part III)

2009-10-26T17:55:00.000+08:00

LAST November 4, 2009, Pope Benedict XVI promulgated the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum coetibus—ending short-lived speculations regarding the nature of the possible Personal Ordinariates for groups of Anglican, who wish to enter into full visible communion with the Catholic Church. Subsequently, Complementary Norms for the apostolic constitution were issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. To conclude this series of articles, let us briefly go over the more salient provisions of these documents.

Establishment of a Personal Ordinariate

The hierarchical nature of the personal Ordinariates is manifest in the way they are erected by and accountable to the Holy See, as seen in the following provisions:
1) Personal Ordinariates for Anglicans entering into full communion with the Catholic Church are erected by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith within the confines of the territorial boundaries of a particular Conference of Bishops in consultation with that same Conference (AC, Sect.I, §1). Within the territory of a particular Conference of Bishops, one or more Ordinariates may be erected as needed (AC, Sect.I, §2).

2) The Decree establishing an Ordinariate will determine the location of the See and, if appropriate, the principal church (AC, Sect.XIII).

3) Each Ordinariate possesses public juridic personality by the law itself (ipso iure); it is juridically comparable to a diocese (AC, Sect.I, §3).

4) Each Ordinariate is subject to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It maintains close relations with the other Roman Dicasteries in accordance with their competence (CN, Art.1).

The Ordinary of the Personal Ordinariate and his Power of Jurisdiction

1) A Personal Ordinariate is entrusted to the pastoral care of an Ordinary appointed by the Roman Pontiff (AC, Sect. IV).

2) A married former Anglican Bishop is eligible to be appointed Ordinary. In such a case he is to be ordained a priest in the Catholic Church and then exercises pastoral and sacramental ministry within the Ordinariate with full jurisdictional authority (CN, Art.11, §1).

3) The power (potestas) of the Ordinary is (AC, Sect. V):
a. ordinary: connected by the law itself to the office entrusted to him by the Roman Pontiff, for both the internal forum and external forum—i.e., not delegated;
b. vicarious: exercised in the name of the Roman Pontiff—i.e., not a proper power (as in the case of the Military Ordinariates or Personal Prelature);
c. personal: exercised over all who belong to the Ordinariate;
d) cumulative: This power is to be exercised jointly with that of the local Diocesan Bishop, in those cases provided for in the Complementary Norms—i.e., like the military ordinariates).

4) Every five years the Ordinary is required to come to Rome for an ad limina Apostolorum visit and present to the Roman Pontiff, through the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and in consultation with the Congregation for Bishops and the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, a report on the status of the Ordinariate (AC, Sect.XI).

Communion of the Ordinary with other Bishops and the Episcopal Conference

The Complementary Norms specifies the relationship of the Ordinary of the Personal Ordinariate with other Diocesan Bishops and with the Episcopal Conferences:

1) The Ordinary, in the exercise of this office, must maintain close ties of communion with the Bishop of the Diocese in which the Ordinariate is present in order to coordinate its pastoral activity with the pastoral program of the Diocese (AC, Art 3).

2) The Ordinary is a member of the respective Episcopal Conference (CN, Art 2, §2). The Ordinary follows the directives of the national Episcopal Conference insofar as this is consistent with the norms contained in the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum coetibus (CN, Art 2, §1).

The Faithful of the Personal Ordinariate

1) The Ordinariate is composed of lay faithful, clerics and members of Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, originally belonging to the Anglican Communion and now in full communion with the Catholic Church, or those who receive the Sacraments of Initiation within the jurisdiction of the Ordinariate (AC, I, §4).

2) As for the doctrinal requirement for ecclesial communion, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is the authoritative expression of the Catholic faith professed by members of the Ordinariate (AC, I, §5). Thus, only those members of the Anglican communion, who are willing to profess the faith of the Catholic Church as summarized in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, can form part of the personal Ordinariate.

The Complementary Norms further specifies the process for entering into full communion with the Catholic Church:

3) The lay faithful originally of the Anglican tradition who wish to belong to the Ordinariate, after having made their Profession of Faith and received the Sacraments of Initiation, with due regard for Canon 845, are to be entered in the appropriate register of the Ordinariate. Those baptized previously as Catholics outside the Ordinariate are not ordinarily eligible for membership, unless they are members of a family belonging to the Ordinariate (CN, Art 5, §1).

4) Both the lay faithful as well as members of Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, originally part of the Anglican Communion, who wish to enter the Personal Ordinariate, must manifest this desire in writing (AC, IX).

Pastoral Care in the Personal Ordinariate

1) Without excluding liturgical celebrations according to the Roman Rite, the Ordinariate has the faculty to celebrate the Holy Eucharist and the other Sacraments, the Liturgy of the Hours and other liturgical celebrations according to the liturgical books proper to the Anglican tradition, which have been approved by the Holy See, so as to maintain the liturgical, spiritual and pastoral traditions of the Anglican Communion within the Catholic Church, as a precious gift nourishing the faith of the members of the Ordinariate and as a treasure to be shared (AC, III).

2) The Ordinary, according to the norm of law, after having heard the opinion of the Diocesan Bishop of the place, may erect, with the consent of the Holy See, personal parishes for the faithful who belong to the Ordinariate (AC,VIII, §1). These would be like the territorial parishes in an ordinary diocese, and would overlap with them territorially—i.e., the members of the personal parishes would still be members of the territorial parish by virtue of domicile or quasi-domicile.

3) Pastors (i.e., parish priests) of the Ordinariate enjoy all the rights and are held to all the obligations established in the Code of Canon Law and, in cases established by the Complementary Norms, such rights and obligations are to be exercised in mutual pastoral assistance together with the pastors of the local Diocese where the personal parish of the Ordinariate has been established (AC,VIII, §2).

4) Priests incardinated into an Ordinariate, who constitute the presbyterate of the Ordinariate, are also to cultivate bonds of unity with the presbyterate of the Diocese in which they exercise their ministry. They should promote common pastoral and charitable initiatives and activities, which can be the object of agreements between the Ordinary and the local Diocesan Bishop (AC, VI, §4).

Governance in the Personal Ordinariate

1) The Ordinary is aided in his governance by a Governing Council with its own statutes approved by the Ordinary and confirmed by the Holy See (AC, X, §1). The Governing Council, presided over by the Ordinary, is composed of at least six priests. It exercises the functions specified in the Code of Canon Law for the Presbyteral Council and the College of Consultors, as well as those areas specified in the Complementary Norms (AC,X, §2).

2) The Ordinary is to establish a Finance Council according to the norms established by the Code of Canon Law which will exercise the duties specified therein. (AC, Sect.X, §3]

3) In order to provide for the consultation of the faithful, a Pastoral Council is to be constituted in the Ordinariate (AC, X, §4).

The Clergy of the Personal Ordinariate: Celibacy applies.

1) Initially, the clergy of the personal Ordinariates will logically come from the ranks of former Anglican clergy:

— Those who ministered as Anglican deacons, priests, or bishops, and who fulfill the requisites established by canon law and are not impeded by irregularities or other impediments may be accepted by the Ordinary as candidates for Holy Orders in the Catholic Church. In the case of married ministers, the norms established in the Encyclical Letter of Pope Paul VI "Sacerdotalis coelibatus", n. 42 and in the Statement in June are to be observed. Unmarried ministers must submit to the norm of clerical celibacy of CIC can. 277, §1 (AC, VI, §1).

— The Ordinary, in full observance of the discipline of celibate clergy in the Latin Church, as a rule (pro regula) will admit only celibate men to the order of presbyter. He may also petition the Roman Pontiff, as a derogation from can. 277, §1, for the admission of married men to the order of presbyter on a case by case basis, according to objective criteria approved by the Holy See (AC, VI, §2).

— However, those who have been previously ordained in the Catholic Church and subsequently have become Anglicans, may not exercise sacred ministry in the Ordinariate. Furthermore, Anglican clergy who are in irregular marriage situations may not be accepted for Holy Orders in the Ordinariate (CN, Art 6, §2).

2) As regards their incardination and faculties:

— Incardination of clerics will be regulated according to the norms of canon law (AC, VI, §3). Priests incardinated into an Ordinariate (…) constitute the presbyterate of the Ordinariate (AC, VI, §4).

— Presbyters incardinated in the Ordinariate receive the necessary faculties from the Ordinary (CN, Art 6, §3).

3) The presbyterate of the Ordinariate is also inserted in the territorial diocesan pastoral structure:

— The presbyters, while constituting the presbyterate of the Ordinariate, are eligible for membership in the Presbyteral Council of the Diocese in which they exercise pastoral care of the faithful of the Ordinariate (CN, Art 8, §1; cf. CIC, can. 498, §2).

— Priests and Deacons incardinated in the Ordinariate may be members of the Pastoral Council of the Diocese in which they exercise their ministry, in accordance with the manner determined by the Diocesan Bishop (CN, Art 8, §2; cf. CIC, can. 512, §1).

— The clerics incardinated in the Ordinariate should be available to assist the Diocese in which they have a domicile or quasi-domicile, where it is deemed suitable for the pastoral care of the faithful. In such cases they are subject to the Diocesan Bishop in respect to that which pertains to the pastoral charge or office they receive (CN, Art 9, §1).

4) Finally, in the case of new vocations to the sacred ministry, the Apostolic Constitution stipulates that candidates for Holy Orders in an Ordinariate should be prepared alongside other seminarians, especially in the areas of doctrinal and pastoral formation. In order to address the particular needs of seminarians of the Ordinariate and formation in Anglican patrimony, the Ordinary may also establish seminary programs or houses of formation which would relate to existing Catholic faculties of theology (AC, VI, §5).

Conclusion

Just like the case of the Military Ordinariates, we are dealing with an atypical personal ecclesiastical circumscription (i.e., not typified in the Code of Canon Law). Unlike the former, however, the Personal Ordinariates for former Anglicans shall be vicariates—i.e., with vicarious instead of proper jurisdiction. In this respect, it is also different from that other model of personal jurisdiction which is the Personal Prelature.

The Legates of the Roman Pontiff

2009-10-21T19:07:00.000+08:00

I have often wondered just what the Papal Nuncio is and what the role of the Papal Nunciature is. I am even more confused when I read in the news that the Papal Nuncio would lead the traditional toast of the diplomatic corps, implying his position of honor among the different legates. Can you please clarify this matter to me?

A Brief History of the Institution

The practice of churches sending representatives to other communities or even to civil authorities can be traced to the earliest times of the Church. By the 5th Century, the Pope—who by that time had assumed responsibility both for the ecclesiastical and civil life of the city of Rome—began sending permanent representatives to the Imperial Court in Constantinople. This was the start of the current practice of nuncios who represent the Holy See both to local churches and to civil governments.

By the Middle Ages, the popes were granting certain residential bishops special powers over neighboring bishops, which went beyond the prerogatives of Metropolitans (e.g., Thessalonika in Illyricum, Arles in Gaul, Tarragona and Seville in Spain). They were called Apostolic Vicars, a title that by the 9th Century had gradually evolved to legatus natus—i.e., legates with the innate appointment to those particular sees. Eventually the persons occupying such positions became known as primates.

In contrast, a person sent on a more transitory mission was known as legatus missus—i.e., a legate sent for a specific purpose. When a cardinal was sent on such a mission, he was known as a legatus a latere—i.e., sent from beside the Pope. Better equipped for their tasks—and more closely allied to the Popes—legates of this type gradually took on more stable functions in the places where they were sent. At the same time, the legati nati slowly lost their significance, such that by the CIC 17, they lost their special rights as such.

Gregory XIII reorganized the system of legates in the 16th Century and established permanent nunciatures, originally with the principal task of implementing the Tridentine Reform. This system received further international recognition in the Congress of Vienna (1815), which gave special prerogatives to papal nuncios in consideration of their spiritual mission. In more recent times, the Vienna Convention (1961) modified such special status, but retained recognition of the right of the Holy See to send representatives under international law.

In the light of the Vatican II provision that the office of legates be more precisely defined (CD, 9), Paul VI issued the Motu Proprio Sollicitudo omnium Ecclesiarum (24.VI.1969). Although this is the major source of the canons regulating papal legates in the present Code, the brevity with which the material is treated in the Code—coupled with the fact that the Code has not reordered the material ex integro (cf. c.6)— makes it still the main source of particular law for the institution (cf. c.20).

Justification of Papal Legates

Can.362 — The Roman Pontiff possesses the innate and independent right to appoint, send, transfer and recall his own legates to particular Churches in various nations or regions, to states and to public authorities; the norms of international law are to be observed concerning the sending and the recalling of legate appointed to states.

Before anything else, the legislator proclaims the right of legation of the Roman Pontiff as innate—i.e., not stemming from anything outside the juridic order of the Church, but rather arising from the very perfection of that order itself. The corollary claim of its being independent is just a consequence. What is noteworthy in the present canon is the apparent lack of justification of such a right of legation, which on the other hand we find in the ecclesiology of Vatican II and in the commentaries that have been written regarding this material since the publication of Sollicitudo omnium Ecclesiarum.

1) Legation ad intra. This refers to the sending of legates to particular Churches, and finds its primary justification in the right-duty of the Roman Pontiff to nourish ecclesial communion through instruments that manifest his solicitude towards the particular Churches and all the faithful. On the other hand, the reference to various nations or regions allude to the advisability—in certain cases—that the Holy See not follow the geo-political division of a given territory. For example, given a low Catholic population, only one legate may be sent to take care of the particular Churches comprising several countries, with the seat of the legation in the country that offers more security for the same.

2) Legation ad extra. This refers to the sending of legates to states and to public authorities, which finds its constitutional foundation in the religious mission of the Church (cf. GS, n.42), understood as a duty “to be present in the community of peoples ... by means of its official channels” (GS, n.89).

It is noteworthy that in the present Code, the legislator has gone beyond the previous formula that limited such legation to States, to now include other public authorities—a formula more open to further development of political communities and the international community. It is also interesting to note at this point that the title by which papal legates to States are accredited is that of the Holy See—not Vatican City—underlining the unique identity of the Church in the international community.

Kinds of Papal Legates

Can.363 — §1. To legates of the Roman Pontiff is entrusted the responsibility of representing him in a stable manner to particular Churches and also to states and public authorities to which they are sent.

§2. They also represent the Apostolic See who are appointed to a pontifical mission as delegates or observers at International Councils or at conferences and meetings.

According to this canon, there are three basic types of legates, the first two mentioned in §1 and the third type mentioned in §2 of the present canon:

1) Apostolic Delegates—are the legates who represent the Pope to the particular Churches but not to the civil government.

2) Legates to both Particular Churches and Civil Governments — can in turn be of various types and dignities:

a) Nuncio—is a legate who holds the rank of ambassador and enjoys the privilege of being automatically the dean of the diplomatic corps in the capital where he serves.
b) Pro-Nuncio—is also an ambassador but without the special privilege of being automatically the dean of the diplomatic corp.
c) Inter-Nuncio—is an extraordinary envoy and minister plenipotentiary: a rank used in diplomatic norms when relations have not yet consolidated to the ambassadorial level.
d) Regents and Chargés d’affairs with Special Instructions—can also serve as permanent legates below ambassador level under certain circumstances.

Sollicitudo omnium Ecclesiarum limits the aforementioned offices to ecclesiastical men—i.e., clerics—many of whom are bishops (actually archbishops in many cases).

3) Legates to International Organizations, Various Conferences or Meetings—which the aforementioned motu proprio allows to be laymen as well as clerics. They are of two kinds:

a) Delegates—are those with voting status.
b) Observers—are those without voting status. The Holy See maintains such legations at the United Nations, in various UN-related organizations, at the Organization of American States, etc.

Ecclesial Functions

The importance and priority of the ad intra—over the ad extra—functions of Papal Legates is acknowledged by the legislator not only by explicitly stating they constitute a principal duty, but by giving them a separate and prior treatment in the Code. Again reserving the matter of the ad extra functions for a later Lesson, we concentrate at the moment on c.364.

Can.364 — The principal duty of a pontifical legate is to work so that day by day the bonds of unity, which exist between the Apostolic See and the particular Churches, become stronger and more efficacious. Therefore, it belongs to the pontifical legate for his area:

1º to send information to the Apostolic See on the conditions of the particular Churches and all that touches the life of the Church and the good of souls;
2º to assist the bishops by action and counsel, while leaving intact the exercise of the bishops’ legitimate power;
3º to foster close relations with the Conference of Bishops, by offering it assistance in every way’
4º to transmit or propose the names of candidates to the Apostolic See in reference to the naming of bishops and to instruct the informative process concerning those to be promoted in accord with the norms given by the Apostolic See;
5º to strive for the promotion of matters which concern peace, progress and the cooperative efforts of peoples;
6º to cooperate with the bishops in fostering suitable relationships between the Catholic Church and other churches or ecclesial communities and non-Christian religions also;
7º in concerted action with the bishops to protect what pertains to the mission of the Church and the Apostolic See in relations with the leaders of the state;
8º to exercise the faculties and fulfill the other mandates committed to him by the Apostolic See.

As the opening line of the canon affirms, the principal ecclesial duty of the legates is to promote the unity of the Church, in keeping with the key role of the Petrine ministry in the Church as a service to unity. This principle, as it where, is the hermeneutic key to the proper interpretation of the provisions of this canon.

The Presumption of Validity of Marriage

2009-10-12T19:02:00.000+08:00

I am a Parish Priest and I am sometimes presented with problems of couples—claiming irreconcilable difference—who “in conscience” think that their marriage was invalid from the start. At times their recounting of the circumstances are so compelling, that even I am tempted to agree with them, more so if either spouse has already moved on to a new union, which has subsequently born fruit in the form of a new and happy family. How do I resolve this dilemma?

A. Notion and point of controversy

Your dilemma in fact illustrates one of the hottest issues in Matrimonial Law Canon in the last two decades of the 20th Century, so brilliantly resolved by John Paul II in his annual address to the Roman Rota on 29.I. 2004.

Can. 1060 of the Code of Canon Law states: Marriage enjoys the favor of the law; consequently, when a doubt exists the validity of a marriage is to be upheld until the contrary is proven. Though the canon clearly establishes the presumption of validity of a canonically celebrated marriage, the continued applica¬bility of such a juridic presumption has been contested.

The problem stems in part from the very redaction of c.1060, in which the causal particle “consequently” (quare in the original Latin) seems to suggests that the reason for the presumption of validity of a marriage (duly celebrated or peacefully accepted and consequently placed in doubt) is the favor iuris (presumption of law) enjoyed by mar¬riage. Thus, this doctrine has been attacked from the point of view of the validity of the favor matrimonii, i.e., the favor iuris enjoyed by marriage itself.

B. clarifying Can. 1060: Removing the Red Herring.

Before addressing the attacks against the favor matrimonii itself, it is good to remove the red herring, by making the conceptual distinction between the two parts of c.1060:

1st Part: Marriage enjoys the favor of the law. This is the canonical declaration of the favor matrimonii.

2nd Part: When doubt exists, the validity of a marriage is to be upheld until the contrary is proven. This actually constitutes the canonical declaration of the presumption of validity of a marriage duly celebrated canonically or hitherto peacefully accepted.

It is important to realize that the foundation of the presumption of validity of a duly celebrated canonical marriage is not the favor matrimonii. Rather, it is simply an application to the case of canonical marriage of a general presumption that constitutes a principle in all juridic systems: The presumption of validity of a juridic act whose external (juridically relevant) elements have been verified correct, as expressed in c.124, §2: A juridic act correctly placed with respect to its external elements is presumed to be valid.

This is what is know in Law as a juridic presumption—i.e., a link established by law between a certain fact (the external elements of given juridic reality), which is called the factical index or basis of the presumption, and that juridic reality, which is called the presumed fact.

On the other hand, as John Paul IIin the aforementioned address to the Roman Rota on 29.I.2004points out “this presumption cannot be interpreted as the mere protection of appearances or of the status quo as such, since the possibility of contesting the act is also provided for, within reasonable limits. Rather, what appears outwardly to be correctly placed, to the extent that it is lawful, deserves initially to be considered valid and, consequently, to be upheld by law since this external reference point is the only one which the legal system realistically provides to discern situations which must be safeguarded. To hypothesize the opposite, that is, the obligation to provide positive proof of the validity of the respective acts, would mean exposing the subjects to a demand that would be almost impossible to achieve.”

C. Arguments against the Favor Matrimonii

John Paul II, in the aforementioned address, outlined the attacks against the principles enunciated by c.1060 as follows:

1. Skepticism vs. Validity of Consent at Present Times. To some people, [the favor matrimonii] seems to be anchored in social and cultural situations of the past, in which the request to marry in accordance with canon law had normally implied that those engaged to be married understood and accepted the true nature of marriage. In the crisis that marks the institution of marriage todaythose people holdthe very validity of the consent may often be jeopard¬ized, due to various forms of incapacity or to the absence of the essential properties. Thus, these critics wonder if it might not be correct to presume the invalidity of the marriage contracted rather than its validity. In this perspective, the favor matrimonii, they say, should give way to the favor personae [favoring whatever is good for the spouses], the favor veritatis subiecti [favoring whatever is subjectively good for the spouses] or the favor libertatis [respecting the freedom of the spouses to opt out of a marriage bond].

2. Skepticism vs. Process of Ascertaining the Validity of a Marriage. Often the real problem is not so much the presumption in words as the overall vision of a marriage itself; hence, the process to ascertain the validity of its celebration is put in doubt. In this regard, a more or less open scepticism has been inferred as to the human ability to recognize the truth about the validity of a marriage. In this area too, a renewed confidence in human reason is necessary with regard both to the essential aspects of marriage and to the specific circumstances of each union.

3. Failure of Marriage Argument. Finally is the argument which holds that the failure of conjugal life implies the invalidity of the marriage. Unfortunately, this erroneous assertion is sometimes so forceful as to become a generalized prejudice that leads people to seek grounds for nullity as a merely formal justification of a pronouncement that is actually based on the empirical factor of matrimonial failure. This unjust formalism of those who are opposed to the traditional favor matrimonii can lead them to forget that, in accordance with human experience marked by sin, even a valid marriage can fail because of the spouses' own misuse of freedom.

D. logical and conceptual flaws of the arguments against the Favor Matrimonii

After clarifying the real basis of the presumptio iuris for the validity of a duly-celebrated canonical marriage, we can reduce the objections to the favor matrimonii to two:

1. Favor matrimonii vs. favor personae seu favor veritatis subiecti. The confrontation that some authors make between the favor matrimonii and the so-called favor personae or favor veritatis subiecti belies a reductive vision of the favor matrimonii, understood almost exclusively in its abstract or institutional sense, disconnected from any concrete marriage, which is always founded on the truth of an authentic marital consent legitimately manifested between two capable persons. We have to recall that the favor matrimonii is simply the juridical protection of a very personal rightthe ius connubii of the spousesand the truth of a very real and concrete marriage.

At the same time, such objection often belies an equally narrow view of the so-called favor personae or favor veritatis subiecti which often refers only to the person of the spouse or spouses who are pretending the declaration of nullity of a marriage, disregarding those who hold its validity or who may be interested in its eventual convalidation.

2. Favor matrimonii vs. favor libertatis. More absurd still is the contraposition made by other authors between the favor iuris enjoyed by marriage and an erroneous application of the general principle in dubio pro libertate, according to which one must not burden anyone with an obligation unless such obligation is certain. However, such objectors forget that the principle in dubio pro libertate operates only when there is no opposing presumption based on a certain fact, such as the common good which is the case in the favor matrimonii.

On the other hand, what they claim as the right to freedom of the spouses almost always refers to the futurei.e., a liberation from past commitmentsdisregarding the obvious fact that such commitments were made in the exercise of their own freedom in the first place. It is interesting to understand favor matrimonii precisely from the point of view of the freedom of the spousesi.e., the protection of their ius connubii which had already been exercised (and exhausted) when they validly contracted marriage.

Conclusion

In the end we have to conclude with John Paul II that “the problem concerns the concept of marriage seen in a global vision of reality. The essential dimension of the justness of marriage, which is based on an intrinsically juridical reality, is replaced by empirical viewpoints of a sociological, psychological, etc. kind, as well as by various forms of juridical positivism. Without in any way belittling the valid contributions of sociology, psychology or psychiatry, it cannot be forgotten that an authentically juridical consideration of marriage requires a metaphysical vision of the human person and of the conjugal relationship. Without this ontological foundation the institution of marriage becomes merely an extrinsic superstructure, the result of the Law and of social conditioning, which limits the freedom of the person to fulfill him or herself.

It is necessary instead to rediscover the truth, goodness and beauty of the marriage institution. Since it is the work of God himself, through human nature and the freedom of consent of the engaged couple, marriage remains an indissoluble personal reality, a bond of justice and love, linked from eternity to the plan of salvation and raised in the fullness of time to the dignity of a Christian sacrament. It is this reality that the Church and the world must encourage! This is the true favor matrimonii!”

Finally, as to the concrete problem at hand, we have to remind everyone that nobody can decide unilaterally—neither can a couple agree on their own—that a marriage contracted canonically suffers invalidity on whatever ground. It is for the competent ecclesiastical tribunal, after all the parties have been listened to, to judge the case and declare the validity or invalidity of the marriage.

The Supreme Authority in the Church (Part I)

2009-09-14T16:11:00.000+08:00

At times, the question has been asked in what consists the authority of the Pope, the Bishops and—for that matter—the Episcopal Conference. I shall attempt to clarify this matter in a series of articles, since the whole matter of ecclesiastical authority is too broad a topic to tackle in one article.

BY supreme authority in the Church we mean that ecclesiastical power that is not subordinated to any other, and on which all other powers in the Church depend. Thus, the following discussion presupposes the previous consideration of the reality of the sacra potestas and its relation with the power of Orders and the power of jurisdiction (already tackled in an earlier issue of CBCP Monitor). Here we shall deal with the question of who is/are the subject/subjects of the supreme power in the Church. It has been noted that while Lumen Gentium had made major strides in placing the role and exercise of the supreme power in the Church in a larger perspective, it has not resolved this critical issue.

The classical and current answer can be summarized in three theses, each one with different nuances that can even give rise to further subdivisions of varying worth.

1st The Roman Pontiff as the Subject of the Supreme Authority in the Church

This is a classic position, defended in the Modern Era by authors like Cajetan and other Post-Tridentine theologians and canonists, and by a minority during Vatican Council II. It focuses solely on the Pope. According to this thesis, all the power of jurisdiction in the Church descends vertically from the Roman Pontiff via a predominantly juridical path—the missio canonica—, such that the sacramental origin of such power is relegated to a secondary plane, if at all admitted.

In this conception, the episcopal power of jurisdiction—even if its divine origin is admitted—is transmitted immediately by the Roman Pontiff through the canonical mission, and only in a mediate way by divine institution. Thus, the defenders of this thesis hold that only resident Bishops enjoy the power of jurisdiction—since only they receive a missio canonica from the Pope—and only they have the right to participate in an Ecumenical Council.

After Vatican II and at present, it has become very difficult to defend this position. According to the Council, both the Pope, as well as the Episcopal College under him, are subjects of the supreme and full power over the Church. But the defenders of this thesis have tried to keep its viability by affirming that the subject of the supreme power in the Church—at least in an absolute and proper sense, or in a principal and original sense—can only be one and that is the Roman Pontiff. According to them, the College of Bishops only is subject of such supreme power when the Pope communicates it to them and makes them participate in it—i.e., only in a relative and participative sense, and thus secondary, accessory and contingent.

2nd The College of Bishops as Subject of the Supreme Power in the Church

Putting aside the Conciliarist formulations that this thesis had in the Pre-Tridentine era, this position had been defended in more recent times by some authors trying to make it compatible with the doctrine of Vatican II. Presently it is mostly defended by dogmatic theologians and by a few canonists. They would want to take the doctrine of episcopal collegiality to its ultimate consequences, while trying to respect the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff.

According to this thesis, the sole subject of the supreme power in the Church is the Episcopal College—always with the Pope and under him. This power is, however, exercised in two ways:

1) Personally—by the Pope, by virtue of his office as Head of the College. In this case, the exercise of the power is totally concentrated in the Head of the College. Thus, the Pope acts as Head of the College and even as representative of the College, but not in a delegated sense (since his power does not come from the other members of the College) but rather in a corporate sense (as really standing for the whole College). In other words, the Pope functions authentically not as an independent agent but as successor of Peter—i.e., head of the college.

2) Collegially—by the whole body of the bishops, together with and under its Head. It has also been pointed out that since the Episcopal College always exists and is an essential element of the divine constitution of the Church, different modes of collegial action—aside from those commonly known and mentioned in the CIC, e.g. Ecumenical Councils and Synods—can take place, which the Head of the College should foster.

Aside from the previously mentioned reason of defending episcopal collegiality, the defenders of this thesis also adduce reasons of ecumenism, insofar as this conception—to their mind—could make the Petrine ministry more acceptable to some separated Churches.

3rd Two Inadequately Distinct Subjects of Supreme Power: the Roman Pontiff and the Episcopal College

This thesis had been defended already during the deliberations of Vatican Council I, re-proposed during Vatican II and continues to be defended at present. In effect, Vatican II had affirmed that the Roman Pontiff, by virtue of his office, had full, supreme and universal power over the Church, and later adds that the College of Bishops, together with its Head, the Roman Pontiff, and never without this head, is also subject—“subiectum quoque”— of the supreme and full power over the universal Church (LG, n.22). Nevertheless, the position needs to be defended from the juridic-doctrinal point of view.

For its defenders, two apparently contradictory factors needed to be reconciled. On the one hand, the principle that in a society there can only be one supreme power, since were there to be several, one of them would limit the others that would then cease to be supreme. On the other hand, there are texts of the Magisterium—among them that of Lumen Gentium—that affirm the existence of two subjects of the supreme power: the Roman Pontiff and also the College of Bishops. According to these authors, in order to harmonize these two seemingly opposing factors, we have to affirm the existence of two subjects of supreme power in the Church, but at the same time establish an inadequate distinction between them—since the Roman Pontiff is present in both, either as the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the universal Church or as the Head of the Episcopal College. As the Council itself would explain, “it is not a distinction between the Roman Pontiff and the bishops taken together, but between the Roman Pontiff by himself and the Roman Pontiff along with the bishops.” Neither should we forget that, as the Council itself clearly affirms, the Roman Pontiff always enjoys freedom of action in the exercise of this supreme power—either alone or with the College.

Conclusion

Each one of the aforementioned theses attempts to explain, in the theoretical and speculative plane, the question of the subject of the supreme power in the Church. Each one attempts to emphasize particular aspects of the constitution and government of the Church. Thus, while the first thesis maximally defends and guarantees the institution and rights of the Primacy, the second thesis in contrast attempts to strengthen the nature and power of episcopal collegiality with and under the Pope; while the third thesis tries to find an equilibrium between the two positions.

In conclusion we can say that insofar as each one of the aforementioned theses respects the data of Revelation and the Magisterium, it can be accepted to explain juridic realities that—being rooted in the mystery of the Church—are not easily reducible to facile simplifications or neat systematizations.

The Supreme Authority of the Church (Part II)

2009-09-13T21:09:00.003+08:00

In the previous issue, we had an overview of the nature of the supreme authority of the Church, personified in the Petrine Office. Not in vain did our Lord pronounce those solemn words to Peter in Caesarea Philippi, after the latter had made his equally solemn profession of faith: “Thou art Peter (Rock) and upon this rock I shall build my Church…Whatever thou shall bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatever though shall loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven.” In this issue we will tackle the more practical questions of the acquisition, exercise and loss of such power.

a. Acquisition and Loss of Papal Power

1) Acquisition — The Roman Pontiff obtains full and supreme power in the Church by means of legitimate election accepted by him together with episcopal consecration (c.332, §1 in principio). Thus, two elements must concur for the full constitution of papal power:

a) Legitimate election followed by acceptance by him. Because there is no one superior to the Pope who could confer the office or confirm his election to it, he takes office canonically by accepting legitimate election during the so-called conclave by the Cardinal electors of the Catholic Church.

b) Episcopal consecration of the elected pope; therefore, one who is already a bishop obtains this same power from the moment he accepts his election to the pontificate, but if the one elected lacks episcopal character, he is to be ordained a bishop immediately (c.332, §1 in fine). In other words, the Law provides for the possibility of a non-bishop being elected to the papacy (historically this indeed had happened), although with the present system of the Cardinal electors choosing from among their ranks, this provision finds very little applicability.

2) Loss of Papal Power. The papal office, in principle, is for life; thus it can be lost only in two ways:

a) Death—This is the most common and is so obvious that the CIC does not even mention it.

b) Resignation — This is the only case considered by c.332, §2, for which the following are the requirements for validity:
1º that he makes the resignation freely — Therefore, like any juridic act, the resignation must be free and not have any of the defects that invalidate such act (cf. cc.124-128; 187-189).
2º that it be duly manifested — For the necessary juridic certainty, the Code requires that the will to resign be formally manifested. However, the resignation need not be accepted by anyone, a consequence of the principle that Romanus Pontifex a nemine iudicatur.

b. The Juridical Government of the universal Church during a sede vacante or sede prorsus impedita

What happens when the Roman Pontiff dies or legitimately resigns? The Code is taxative:
Can.335 — When the Roman See is vacant or entirely impeded nothing is to be innovated in the governance of the universal Church; however, special laws enacted for these circumstances are to be observed.
In the first place, c.335 lays down the general principle: Sede vacante nihil innovetur—which is applicable also to the dioceses and particular Churches (c.428, §1). In the second place, it remits to special laws the regulation of the juridical government of the universal Church during the two situations mentioned:

1) Sede vacante — This is the situation that results when papal power is lost either by death or valid and legitimate resignation of the Roman Pontiff as previously described. The special law for this situation is the Apost. Const. Romano Pontifici eligendo (RPE), promulgated by Paul VI in 1.X.1975. The juridical government of the universal Church during this period, regulated in the five chapters comprising the first part of this document, can be summarized as follows:

a) The government of the universal Church is entrusted to the College of Cardinals, but only for ordinary and urgent matters, while preparing what is necessary for the election of a new Pope.
b) The key administrator for the day-to-day affairs of the universal Church is the
Camerlengo or Chamberlain, assisted by three other cardinals; while the administration of the diocese of Rome falls on the Vicar for the Diocese of Rome.
c) Specific applications of the general principle: sede vacante nihil innovetur.

2) Entirely impeded —No canonical characterization is given separately for the Roman See, but the norm given for all episcopal see in general can be applied servatis de iure servandis:

c.412—An episcopal see is understood to be impeded if by reason of captivity, banishment, exile or incapacity, the diocesan bishop is wholly prevented from fulfilling his pastoral function in the diocese, and cannot communicate with the people of his diocese even by letter.
No special provision for the juridical government of the universal Church in this situation exists either; hence, what is laid down by the RPE for the case of sede vacante can be applied, servatis de iure servandis.

c. Extension and Limits of Papal Power

To speak of extension and limitation of the exercise of papal power is tantamount to speaking about primacy and hierarchical communion, and these notions are regulated in c.333, §§1 and 2 respectively.

1) The Primacy — This term refers to a complex relationship that exists between the Petrine Office, Pastor of the universal Church, and the individual Bishops who are also Pastors of the particular Churches.
Can.333, §1 — The Roman Pontiff, by virtue of his office, not only has power in the universal Church but also possesses a primacy of ordinary power over all particular Churches and groupings of churches by which the proper, ordinary and immediate power which bishops possess in the particular churches entrusted to their care is both strengthened and safeguarded.

This paragraph of c.333 establishes the two important aspects regarding the extension of papal power:

a) The Primacy of the Roman Pontiff extends not only over the universal Church in its totality, but also to each and every one of the particular Churches and groupings thereof. This is really nothing else but a manifestation of the immediate character of the power that corresponds to the Pope by virtue of his office.
b) Such Primacy does not undermine the equally ordinary, proper and immediate power of the Bishops in their respective particular Churches (c.381, §1). On the contrary, the latter is both strengthened and safeguarded (c.333, §1; cf. LG, n.27).

2) Hierarchical Communion — If the extension of the papal power is best expressed by the notion of papal primacy (in the context of the communio ecclesiarum), the limits of the exercise of such power is best expressed by the notion of communio hierarchica, as laid down in the next paragraph of c.333.

Can.333, §2 — The Roman Pontiff, in fulfilling the office of the supreme pastor of the Church, is always united in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church; however, he has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, either personal or collegial, of exercising this function.

What this paragraph establishes is that the exercise of the primacy of power is not exempted from the communion in the Church, and that the Pope—as Head of the Church—cannot separate himself from the body of the Bishops or from the body of the universal Church.

d. Assistance in Exercising the Papal Primacy

Can.334 — In exercising his office the Roman Pontiff is assisted by the bishops who aid him in various ways and among these is the synod of bishops; moreover the cardinals assist him as do other persons and other institutes according to the needs of the times; all these persons and institutes, in his name and by his authority, carry out the task committed to them for the good of all the churches, according to the norms defined by law.

1) Nature of the Assistance. Before going deeper into the specific institutions that help the Roman Pontiff, it is important to make some clarifications.

a) Personal exercise of Primacy. During the redaction of the canon, it was made clear that the canon was dealing with the personal—not collegial—exercise of the supreme power. Thus, here we are dealing with collaborators of the Pope in his own government of the universal Church.

b) Wide latitude of possibilities. Aside from the synod of Bishops, which is mentioned specifically, the canon does not concretize the way this collaboration is to be made, giving the Pope a wide latitude of possibilities as far as calling to his assistance other persons and other institutes according to the needs of the times.

3) Vicariate power of jurisdiction. The canon states that all these persons and institutes carry out the task committed to them by the Pope in his name and by his authority (...) according to the norms defined by law. Thus we are dealing with vicariate (in the strict sense) power of jurisdiction.

b. Specific Forms of Collaboration

Even if c.334 does not mention any specific forms of collaboration, aside from the synod of bishops, the following Chapters of the same Section I (Supreme Church Authority) deal with specific institutions:

1) The Synod of Bishops — dealt with in Chapter II (cc.342-348).
2) The Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church — dealt with in Chapter III (cc.349-359).
3) The Roman Curia — dealt with in Chapter IV (cc.360-361).
4) The Legates of the Roman Pontiff — dealt with in Chapter V (cc.362-367).

Without getting into the details, suffice it to say at this point that all these forms of collaboration—e.g., the Vatican dicasteries or congregations, the papal nuncios—act in the name and authority of the Pope. Of special mention are the congregations of the Holy See, which—in most cases—issue documents (e.g., instructions and decrees) which have the full force of something issued by the Pope himself.

The Canonical Process (Part I)

2009-08-16T20:17:00.000+08:00

AT times, I have been approached by Catholic faithful citing some grievances against fellow Catholics—fellow laypersons, or religious, or at times even clerics. What brings them to consult a priest is oftentimes their desire to resolve the matter amicably—intra Ecclesia—rather than suing in a civil court. What they don’t know is that even within the Church, the canonical mechanism exists for legitimate redress.

After exhausting the extra-judicial means to resolve a con¬flict, the faithful—or canonical juridic person—who esteems that a legit¬imate interest has not been satisfied, can exercise his right to action by presenting his cause before a judicial tribunal. What follows is a series of acts aimed at obtaining a reso¬lutory decision from the tribunal. This is the judicial pro¬cess.

1. The Canonical Judicial Process (Processus)

In Canon Law—similar to civil law—a process is a series or succes¬sion of formal juridic acts, carried out before a tribunal of justice, by virtue of a pretension—understood as a claim, formu¬lated according to form and with fumus boni iuris—by a subject confronted by another, aimed at obtaining in a binding way the declaration or acknowledgment, juridical constitution, or the im¬position of a conduct, in relation to persons and matters subject to the jurisdictional power of the Church. This exhaustive definition attempts to capture the following essential elements of the process.

a) Procedural: The process entails a established way of proceeding (modus procedendi), wherein the series of juridic acts follow each other in an ordered way—i.e., some are necessary an¬tecedents, while others are obligatory consequences.
b) Processal: These acts are processal inasmuch as they are celebrated before a tribunal of justice and proceed in a con¬tentious manner.
c) Fumus boni iuris (an apparent legal sense): This series of acts starts with one inchoative act of formal claim—commonly called the libellus or charge—among the requisites for which is that it have founda¬tion in law (cc.1504, 1° and 1505, §2, 4°).
d) Confrontational: The process is always confrontational—i.e., it is between parts (also called parties) who do not have to be actually against each other, but are formally positioned confrontationally with respect to each other. This contradictorium is at the core of the process and its presence in each stage of the process is the theoretical basis for its claim to the truth—i.e., such contradictorium is what enables the court, fallible as it may be, to arrive at the moral certainly of having reached the truth of the matter by the time of sentencing, since both parts would have exerted everything possible to demonstrate the two sides of the contention.
e) Aimed at getting a judgment: The series of acts which constitute a process pretend to obtain from the judicial tribunal a decision which binds the opposed parties, and—in some cases and in an indirect and conditional manner—even third parties.
f) The content of the decision can be of different sorts, con¬gruent with the content of the original claim of the actor or plaintiff in his charge or libellum. Thus the decision can be:
(i) Declarative—merely declaring juridic facts or rights pre-existent to the process (c.1400, §1, 1°).
(ii) Constitutive—constituting new rights or juridic situations, by creating, modifying or extinguishing pre-existing juridical phenomena.
(iii) Condemnatory—imposing certain conducts or duties (c.1400, §1, 2°), e.g., penalties.
g) Limited Scope: On the one hand the canonical process is limited to persons and things subject to the jurisdictional power of the Church (cc.1400-1401). On the other hand, it is also limited in scope to that aspect of juridical reality which is defined in the dubium or litiscontestatio. In other words, the process will focus only on what the Tribunal has established, early on in the proceedings, to be the bone of contention, avoiding other issues—or even the introduction of certain evidences—as irrelevant to the particular case.

2. The Basic Elements of the Process

In a schematic way, we can consider five basic ele¬ments of the process, which comprise the subject matter of Part I of Book VII (on Procedural Law) of the Code of Canon Law:
1) Material Object: The matters that can, in general, be addressed by a tribunal (c.1400).
2) Active Subject: The judge or tribunal before whom the case is presented. Can.1401 states the general princi¬ple that the Catholic Church does indeed have the right to hear certain cases; and cc.1404-1475 (Titles I-III) treat this matter more in detail.
3) Form: The procedure or solemnities that are followed in the adjudication of certain matters. Can.1402 states the general rule.
4) Passive Subject: The petitioner or respondent whose case is being heard. This matter, along with the procurators and advocates for the parties, is treated in cc.1476-1490 (Title IV).
5) Formal Object: The precise claim or counter-claim made by the parties in a particular process. This matter is treated in cc.1491-1500 (Title V).

3. Processal Principles in General

As a specific instrument for the establishment of justice in any juridic order, we can speak of the process being informed by the following principles.
a. Oral vs. Written System
1) Written Process. This arose in Europe from the common law (ius commune)—based on Roman Law—moved by the desire to foster impartiality on the part of the judge: to minimize direct contact between the judge and the parts.
2) Oral Process. This was the opposite tendency, moved by reasons of expeditiousness, which became the ordinary way.
3) Conjugation of both principles in the modern process. The modern process gives preference to one and the other princi¬ple depending on its aptness for the specific phase of the pro¬cess:
a) There is a preference for the written mode in the more complicated phases requiring accuracy of documentation:
(i) Petition—since it is usually complicated.
(ii) Testimonies—are taken down in writing, since the sentence (and possible appeal) has to be based on them.
b) On the other hand, there is a preference for the oral mode where immediacy bet¬ween the judge and the parts or witnesses is desirable—i.e., for agility and judicial accuracy:
(i) Interrogation (examination and cross-examina¬tion) of witnesses.
(ii) Presentation of proofs.

b. Principles Relative to the Processal Initiative. We can distinguish three levels:
1) Opening of the Process. The instance of the part in¬choates the process; the opening of the process ex officio does not happen in Canon Law (c.1501).
2) Impulse of the Process. The impulse or propelling of the pro¬cess through its different stages belongs, in principle, to the parts, who should be the ones to propel the process (c.1452, §1). However, in cases that affect the public good, the judge ex officio should propel the process so that it does not lapse.
3) Presentation of Proofs. In principle, the parts should present the proofs. However, the judge should make up for any negligence of the parts, both in the presentation of proofs and in the interposi¬tion of exceptions.

c. Principles of Preclusion and Concentration

1) Principle of Preclusion. This refers to the extinction of a facultative right (faculty) to carry out a processal act once the time limit or period for it has lapsed, and the process has moved on to the next phase. A part who does not make use of a faculty within its time limit looses the right to exercise it.
2) Principle of Concentration. This refers to the tendency to con¬centrate all the processal acts in one audience (so as to coun¬teract the principle of preclusion).

d. Principle of Publicity and Secrecy

1) Principle of Secrecy. The subjects and the acts in the trial are bound by secrecy with respect to third parties who have no legitimate interest in the cause (c.1455).
2) Principle of Publicity. An ecclesiastical trial is much more private regarding third parties than are most civil trials—to which private citizens and the press, and sometimes even tele¬vision cameras, have access (c.1470). For the most part, ecclesiastical trials are held in closed chambers, with just the judge (or tribunal) and a notary present, while the parts and witnesses make their deposition one by one.