Auschwitz and Malmö [http://vodpod.com/watch/1428923-sweden-in-grip-of-islam]

Auschwitz and Malmö

[*from correspondents]

Malmö, Sweden

[http://vodpod.com/watch/1428923-sweden-in-grip-of-islam]

Europa murió en Auschwitz

[http://www.gentiuno.com/articulo.asp?articulo=1865]

 

 

The following is a summary of an article orginally written in

Spanish by a writer said to be named Sebastián Vivar Rodríguez

which may be a pseudonym.

Let us hope the author and any who agree with him do not

kill the innocent to reach their goals. The loss of the Jews is

an incalculable loss, as he says.

But rounding up the Muslims for a renewed “Auschwitz” is not

the answer.

=====================================================

ALL EUROPEAN LIFE DIED IN AUSCHWITZ

By Sebastián Vivar Rodríguez

I walked down the street in Barcelona, and suddenly discovered a terrible

truth – Europe died in Auschwitz. We killed six million Jews and replaced

them with 20 million Muslims. In Auschwitz we burned a culture, thought,

creativity, talent. The contribution of this people is felt in all areas of

life: science, art, international trade, and the conscience of the world.

These are the people we burned.

And under the pretense of tolerance, and because we wanted to prove to

ourselves that we were cured of the disease of racism, we opened our gates

to 20 million Muslims, who brought us stupidity and ignorance, religious

extremism and lack of tolerance, crime and poverty, due to an unwillingness

to work and support their families with pride.

They have blown up our trains and turned our beautiful Spanish cities into

the third world, drowning in filth and crime.

Shut up in the apartments they receive free from the government, they plan

the murder and destruction of their naive hosts.

And thus, in our misery, we have exchanged culture for fanatical hatred,

creative skill for destructive skill, intelligence for backwardness and

superstition.

We have exchanged the pursuit of peace of the Jews of Europe and their

talent for hoping for a better future for their children, their determined

clinging to life because life is holy, for those who pursue death, for

people consumed by the desire for death for themselves and others, for our

children and theirs.

What a terrible mistake was made by miserable Europe .

***

The Biblical Foundation of Priestly Celibacy by Ignace de la Potterie [http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_01011993_bfoun_en.html]

The biblical foundation of

priestly celibacy

Ignace de la Potterie

For several centuries there has been much debate as to whether the obligation of celibacy for clerics in major orders (or at least that of living in continence for those who are married) is of biblical origin or whether it is based merely on ecclesiastical tradition dating back to the fourth century, since from then on, without question, legislation exists on the subject. The first of these two possible answers has recently been presented. once again, this time with an extraordinary wealth of material, by C. Cochini in Origines apostoliques du célibat sacerdotal.¹ Clearly set forth in the title, the author’s position is apparently that celibacy can be and should be upheld, given that account is taken (more perhaps than in the past) of the growth of ancient tradition, a point on which A.M. Stickler also insists in his preface,² and H. Crouzel in a review.³ In other words, it could be said that the obligation of continence (or of celibacy) became canon law only in the fourth century but that, before that, from apostolic times, the ideal of living in continence (or in celibacy) was already held up to the ministers of the Church, and that this ideal was indeed deeply felt and lived as a requirement by quite a number (Tertullian and Origen, for instance) but was not yet imposed on all clerics in major orders. It was a vital principle, a seed, clearly present from apostolic times but which gradually then developed until the ecclesiastical legislation of the fourth century.⁴

The new Catechism of the Catholic Church (n. 1579) seems to take the same line. Out of prudence, however, it omits to mention the canon law on celibacy, which nonetheless forms part of Church law today (CIC 277 par. 1), and merely sets out the biblical reasons for celibacy. Yet even here it no longer refers (as often in the past) to the Old Testament, and only quotes two passages from the New: the one in Matthew 19:22, about celibacy: «for the sake of the kingdom of heaven»; and then the Pauline text of 1 Corinthians 7:32-35, where the Apostle speaks of those who are called to consecrate themselves with undivided heart to the Lord and «his affairs»; and adds by way of conclusion that «embraced with a joyful heart, it (the celibate life) radiantly proclaims the kingdom of God». Here of course one might quote other New Testament passages to which, for instance, Paul VI referred in his encyclical Sacerdotalis coelibatus (nn. 17-35), to indicate the reasons for sacred celibacy (its Christological, ecclesiological and eschatological significance). But the problem is that these various texts describe, as a typically Christian ideal, the theological and spiritual value of celibacy in genere. This ideal, however, is equally valid for the religious and for people living consecrated lives in the world; they do not show any particular connection with the ministries of the Church.

The precise question that arises, therefore, is this: do texts .exist in Holy Writ which point to a specific connection between celibacy and priesthood? It would seem so. But if this is the case, more importance will have to be attached to certain New Testament passages which (oddly) have not received much attention in the recent debates. These are the texts in which the Pauline norm (much contested, to be sure) of ‘unius uxoris vir’⁵ is set out, for analysis of which C. Cochini has also now adduced new material. Enunciated several times in the Pastoral Letters, this principle is uniquely important in our case for two reasons. The first is, as has been convincingly shown by Stickler⁶ as well as by Cochini,⁷ that the stipulation was one of the main formulae on which the ancient tradition was based for claiming an actual apostolic origin for the law of priestly celibacy. This was, of course, an immense paradox: how can one base the celibacy of priests on the evidence of texts which talk about married ministers? Such reasoning can only make sense if there is a middle term between the two extremes (marriage of ministers and celibacy): it is that of continence, to which, in fact, married ministers were bound. It was probably because this mediating value of continence was overlooked, that in recent times the formula unius uxoris vir dropped out of discussions on celibacy. It is therefore timely today to re-examine carefully the traditional argument.

The other reason why these texts are especially important from the strictly biblical point of view lies in the fact that they are the only passages in the New Testament where an identical norm is laid down for the three groups of ordained ministers, and only for them. For, according to the Pastoral Letters, the bishop ought to be unius uxoris vir (1 Tim 3:2), so ought the priest (Tit 1:6) and so ought the deacon (I Tim 3:12), whereas that formula (a technical one, it would seem) is never used for other Christians. So here we have a special requirement for the exercise of the ministerial priesthood as such. Further, it should also be observed that the complementary formula unius viri uxor (1 Tim 5:9) is only used of widows at least 60 years old. That is to say, it does not apply to any Christian woman only but to elderly women who exercise a ministry in the community (comparable, one imagines, with that of deaconesses in ancient times). The stereotyped character of this formula in the Pastoral Letters makes one suspect it must have already been rooted in a long biblical tradition.⁸

So what does it mean that the minister of the Church should be «the husband of one wife»? In the following pages we shall first try to show that the formula unius uxoris vir, up to the fourth century, was understood, as Stickler so well puts it, «in the sense of a biblical argument in favour of celibacy of apostolic inspiration: for the Pauline norm was interpreted in the sense of a guarantee assuring effective observance of continence by ministers who were already married before they were ordained.»⁹ In the second part, we shall take a step forward: we shall propose a deeper theological interpretation of the Pauline stipulation itself, to show that, already in New Testament times it actually does propose the model for the ministerial priesthood of a marital relationship between Christ the bridegroom and the Church his bride, on the basis of the mystical view of marriage which St Paul frequently mentions in his letters (cf 2 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:22-32).¹⁰ From this, it will become abundantly clear that, for married ministers, their ordination implied an invitation to live in continence thereafter.

The stipulation unius uxoris vir: an argument in

ancient tradition for the apostolic origin of

celibacy/continence

a. Ecclesiastical legislation from the fourth century onwards

Scholars generally agree that the obligation of celibacy, or at least of continence, became canon law from the fourth century onwards. Here certain incontrovertible texts are quoted repeatedly: three pontifical decretals around AD 385 (Decreta and Cum in unum of Pope Siricius and Dominus inter of Siricius or Damasus) and a canon of the Council of Carthage of AD 390.¹¹

However, it is important to observe that the legislators of the fourth and fifth centuries affirmed that this canonical enactment was based on an apostolic tradition. The Council of Carthage, for instance, said that it was fitting that those who were at the service of the divine sacraments be perfectly continent (continentes esse in omnibus): «so that what the apostles taught and antiquity itself maintained, we too may observe».¹² The decree on the obligation of continence was then passed unanimously: «It is pleasing to all that bishop, priest and deacon, the guardians of purity, abstain from marital relations with their wives (ab uxori bus se abstineant) so that the perfect purity may be safeguarded of those who serve the altar.»

The Pauline unius uxoris vir is not explicitly quoted here but reference to this stipulation is implicit since, as in the Pastoral Letters, the bishop, priest and deacon each are mentioned. Besides, 1 Timothy 3:2 is quoted explicitly in an earlier text, the decretal Cum in unum of Siricius himself, who presented the norms of the Council of Rome of AD 386. Here the Pope first formulated an objection that the expression unius uxoris vir of 1 Timothy 3:2, some said, specifically guaranteed the bishop the right to use marriage after sacred ordination. Siricius answered by giving the stipulation’s correct interpretation: «He (Paul) was not speaking of a man who might persist in the desire to beget children (non permanentem in desiderio generandi dixit); he was speaking about continence which they had to observe in future (propter continentiam futuram).» This fundamental text was repeated a number of times subsequently.¹³ This is Cochini’s comment on it: «Monogamy (that is to say, the law of unius uxoris vir) is a condition for receiving Order, since faithfulness (observed up till then) to one woman is warranty for supposing that the candidate will be capable (in the future) of practising the perfect continence to be asked of him after ordination.»¹⁴ And the author goes on: «This exegesis of St Paul’s prescriptions to Timothy and Titus is an essential link by which the bishops of the Synod of Rome (AD 386) and Pope Siricius are cited in continuity with the apostolic age.»

But is this exegesis, for which an apostolic tradition is claimed, properly founded? Not without reason, some scholars think it doubtful.¹⁵ For certain questions have to be asked: is it not rather odd to discover in the past behaviour of the married minister (that is to say, his faithfulness to one woman, even in sexual relations) a sufficient guarantee of his future but different behaviour (that is, continence in conjugal relations with that same woman, his lawful wife)? The legislators saw in the past a guarantee for the future, but at the same time they changed the tune to be played: from the (lawful) use of marriage to renunciation of it. To justify this twofold transition from past to future and from sexual relations to conjugal continence, we need an explanatory tertium quid: such justification is only possible if an interpretation of this same formula can be found to bring out, perhaps, some hidden and hitherto unnoted aspect. And this is what we shall try to do in the second part.

But first let us briefly investigate whether, in the history of exegesis and canonical legislation, there may not be elements that can lead us to a deeper understanding of the Pauline stipulation.

b. Theological reasons for the continence and celibacy of priests

From the patristic period until today, we find ourselves faced with two different interpretations of the Pauline formula: for some people, the norm unius uxoris vir prohibits serial polygamy; for others, only simultaneous polygamy.¹⁶

The first solution is undoubtedly the more traditional: the expression then means that the sacred ministers could be married men, but only married once; and if the wife had died, they must not have contracted a second marriage, nor could they marry again later. Today, too, this interpretation is the more commonly held among Catholic exegetes. According to the other solutions, however, unius uxoris vir means only being forbidden to live with more than one woman at the same time; it would thus simply be a recommendation to observe conjugal morality.

But neither of these two solutions is entirely satisfying. To the first, it can be objected: if the union in which the married minister was hitherto living was virtuous, why should a second marriage not be so, after the first wife’s death? It is also the case that the Apostle himself on the one hand required the elderly widow who served the community to have been unius viri uxor (1 Tim 5:9), whereas he advised young widows to get married again (1 Tim 5:14). But the other solution raises problems too: conjugal faithfulness in married life is certainly required of all Christians. Why then is the expression unius uxoris vir (and analogously unius yin uxor) used only for those who exercise a ministry in the community?

We may add that the second interpretation goes no further than the simple level of general morality; applied to ministers of the Church, it has something commonplace and reductive about it. The first — the prohibition of a second marriage — is rather of a disciplinary and canonical nature, but its theological basis is not indicated. The same omission has indeed already been noted in the canonical legislation of the fourth century: Pope Siricius and many others after him interpreted the Pauline stipulation as the obligation to continence for the married clergy. They did, it is true, give their reason: the purity required of those approaching the altar. But it has to be recognized that this is not in fact what is being talked about in the text of the Pastoral Letters.

At the end of Stickler’s historical investigation, he too recognized that, in this whole problem of priestly celibacy, there had been too much concentration on the juridical aspect.¹⁷ Throughout that lengthy history there had been a lack of theological reflection on the deeper significance of the ministerial priesthood, on the reason for its celibacy and on its spiritual value. This is particularly true of the canonical use of the norm unius uxoris vir from the fourth century onwards. So we shall have to search the patristic and canonical tradition itself to see if any theological reasons are given for basing the disciplinary obligation of clerical continence on the Pauline stipulation.

Three pieces of evidence are significant here. The first is provided by Tertullian at the beginning of the third century. He reminds the clergy that monogamy is not only an ecclesiastical discipline but also a precept of the Apostle.¹⁸ It thus dates back to apostolic times. Furthermore, he insists on the fact that, in the Church, not a few believers are not married, that they live in continence and that some of them belong to ‘ecclesiastical orders’.¹⁹ Now, the men and women who live like this, Tertullian goes on, «have preferred to marry God» (Deo nubere maluerunt);²⁰ and speaking about virgins, he says that they are «brides of Christ».²¹

But what is the connection between monogamous marriage on the one hand and continence on the other? Tertullian does not say, but here invokes the example set by Christ who, according to the flesh, was not married and lived in celibacy (he was not, therefore, «a husband of one wife»); yet, in the spirit, «he had one bride the Church» (unam habens ecclesiam sponsam).²² This doctrine of Christ’s spiritual marriage to the Church, here inspired by the Pauline text of Ephesians 5:25-32, was common in early Christianity; Tertullian saw this spiritual marriage as one of the main theological bases for the law of monogamous marriage: «because Christ is one and his Church is one» (unus enim Christus et una eius ecclesia).²³ But it does not follow from this that Tertullian had already- made the connection between this doctrine and the formulae unius uxoris vir or unius yin uxor of the Pastoral Letters, where monogamous marriage is explicitly referred to; this connection between the two themes is what we shall be trying to establish further on.

Besides, in the last text quoted, Tertullian’s reasoning was not soundly based: the problem dealt with in Ephesians 5:25-32 was not monogamous marriage but, in principle, the relationship of every Christian marriage with the covenant. Here Paul is speaking of all married members of the Church. When, referring to Genesis 2:24, the Apostle says that husband and wife «will be one flesh» (v. 31), he is justifying the use of marriage for them.²⁴ The formula unius uxoris vir of the Pastoral Letters, however, is not used for all married men but only for ministers of the Church (this fact has been too little noted); yet subsequently it came to be regarded as the biblical basis of the law of continence for clerics. This is the point that still needs to be cleared up.

With St Augustine we take a step forward. He, having taken part in the deliberationsof the African synods, was certainly aware of the ecclesiastic law governing the ‘continence of clerics’.²⁵ But how does Augustine then explain the stipulation unius uxoris vir which is used by Paul for married clerics? In De bono conjugali (written in about AD 420), he advances a theological explanation for it, and asks himself why polygamy was accepted in the Old Testament, whereas «in our own age, the sacrament has been restricted to the union between one man and one woman; and consequently it is only lawful to ordain as a minister of the Church (ecclesiae dispensatorem) a man who has had one wife (unius uxoris virum)». And here is Augustine’s answer: «As the many wives (plures uxores) of the ancient Fathers symbolized our future churches of all nations, subject to the one man, Christ (uni viro subditas Christo), so the guide of the faithful (noster antistes, our bishop), who is the husband of one wife (unius uxoris vir) signifies the union of all nations, subject to the one man, Christ (uni viro subditam Christo)».²⁶

In this text, where we find the formula unius uxoris vir being applied to the bishop, the whole accent falls on the fact that he, ‘the man’, in his relations with his ‘wife’, symbolizes the relationship between Christ and the Church. An analogous use of the phrase ‘man and wife’ occurs in a passage of De continentia: «The Apostle invites us to observe so to speak three pairs (copulas): Christ and the Church, husband and wife, the spirit and the flesh».²⁷ The suggestion these texts offer us for interpreting the stipulation unius uxoris vir applied to the (married) minister of the sacrament is that he, as minister, not only represents the second pair (husband and wife) but also the first: henceforth he personifies Christ in his married relationship with the Church. Here we have the basis for the doctrine which was later to become a classic one: Sacerdos alter Christus. Like Christ, the priest is the Church’s bridegroom.

One further word on the canonical legislation of the Middle Ages. On various occasions, in penitential books, it is said that for a married priest to go on having sexual relations with his wife after ordination would be an act of unfaithfulness to the promise made to God. It would be an adulterium since, the minister now being married to the Church, his relationship with his own wife «is like a violation of the marriage bond».²⁸ This weighty accusation against a lawfully wedded, decent man only makes sense if something is left unexpressed because it is well-known, i.e., that the sacred minister, from the moment of his ordination, now lives in another relationship, also of a matrimonial type — that which unites Christ and the Church in which he, the minister, the man (vir), represents Christ the bridegroom; with his own wife (uxor) therefore «the carnal union should from now on be a spiritual one», as St Leo the Great said.²⁹

With these various historical and theological preliminaries, we have gathered enough material for us to be able to tackle the exegetical problem, that is to say, to make an accurate analysis of the actual formula unius uxoris vir in the Pastoral Letters.

‘Unius uxoris vir’: a covenantal formula

We have already seen that, of the two traditional interpretations of the stipulation, one (the more widespread) was of a disciplinary type, and the other exclusively moral. But it was virtually never explained why a minister of the Church should be ‘the husband of one wife’. We shall now attempt to show that the reason for this norm, its deeper meaning and its implications are already present in the text itself if we succeed in analyzing it properly. First we need to clear up the problem of where this mysterious form comes from, with its undeniably fixed, technical, stereotyped nature. But let it be said forthwith: the stipulation is actually a covenantal formula.

This becomes plain when we consider the parallelism between the formula in the Pastoral Letters and the passage in 2 Corinthians 11:2, where Paul describes the Church of Corinth as a woman, as a bride, whom he has presented to Christ as a chaste virgin:

I am jealous about you with the jealousy of God, because I have betrothed you to one man (uni viro), to present you to Christ as a pure virgin.

The context of this passage is particularly clear if we read it with 1 Timothy 5:9. The same formula unus vir is used of the relations whether of the ~2hurch with Christ, or of the widow who has only had one husband and discharges a ministry in the community. In 2 Corinthians 11:2, Christ’s bride is the Church itself. Let us carefully read the text over again. The jealousy of which Paul speaks is a sharing in God’s jealousy over his people.³⁰ It is the zeal devouring the Apostle that his Christians may remain faithful to the covenant made with Christ, who is their true and only bridegroom. Another detail confirms this interpretation:

the Church-bride is paradoxically presented to Christ the bridegroom as ‘a pure virgin’. This is a reference to the Daughter of Sion, sometime called ‘virgin Sion’, ‘virgin Israel’ by the prophets,³¹ especially when she is invited, after past infidelities, once more to be true to the covenant, to her marriage relationship with her only Bride groom.

The other decisive New Testament passage is the classic text in Ephesians 5:22-23: husband and wife united in matrimony are the image of Christ and the Church. Now Christ, the bridegroom, gave himself up for the Church, so as to make her his glorious, holy and spotless bride (cf vv. 26-27). But the fact that the expression unius uxoris vir is not used here in the Letter to the Ephesians for all married Christians, and is reserved in the Pastoral Letters for the married minister, shows that the formula refers directly to the priestly ministry and the Christ-Church relationship: the minister must be like Christ the bridegroom.

We can also point out another important consequence of the connection between the unius uxoris vir (or unius viri uxor) of the Pastoral Letters and the passage in 2 Corinthians 11:2. It is that the Church-bride is called a ‘pure virgin’. Marital love between Christ the bridegroom and his bride the Church is ever a virginal love.

For the Church of Corinth (where obviously the great majority of Christians were married), it was an immediate question of what St Augustine calls virginitas fidei, virginitas cordis, unblemished faith,³² well described also by St Leo the Great: «Discat Sponsa Verbi non alium virum nosse quam Christum».³³ But for the married ministers of whom the Pastoral Letters speak, it is the norm that — in that mystical view of their ministry — the radical call to virginitas cordis should also be lived by them as a call to virginitas carnis as regards their wives, that is to say, as a call to continence, as becomes clear in Tradition, at least from the fourth century onwards. So we are now no longer dealing with an external, ecclesiastical prescription but rather with an inner perception of the fact that ordination makes the priestly minister a representation of Christ the bridegroom in relation to the Church, bride and virgin, and hence he cannot live with another wife.

The decisive relationship between the unius uxoris vir of the Pastoral Letters and the ‘pure virgin’ of 2 Corinthians 11:2 has also been well brought out by E. Tauzin: men who are consecrated to God, he says, «should represent Christ; now, he is only the bridegroom of one bride, the Church: ‘Virginem castam exhibere Christo’»³⁴ And he then applies this principle to the parable in Matthew 25:1-13, where the ten ‘virgins’, who are (in the plural) the brides of Christ, in fact present this one bride: «Outwardly there is multiplicity; inwardly, unity. Isn’t virginity perhaps the best outward image of an inner unity?»

This sacramental and spiritual argument of the unius uxoris vir, based on the theology of the covenant, emerges first in the Western tradition with Tertullian, then with St Augustine and St Leo the Great. We find it well summed up by St Thomas in his commentary on 1 Timothy 3:2 (Oportet ergo episcopum… esse unius uxoris virum): «This is so, not merely to avoid incontinence, but to represent the sacrament, since the Church’s bridegroom is Christ and the Church is one: Una est columba mea (Song of Songs 6:9).³⁵ But St Thomas does not as yet make the connection with the text in 2 Corinthians 11:2, which speaks of the bride-virgin; and therefore he does not add that the representational role of the monogamous priesthood also entails the call to continence for the married minister, and consequently, for the unmarried ones, the call to celibacy.

Conclusion

In order to grasp the way in which we have tried to show the biblical basis of priestly celibacy, it is important to distinguish between celibacy and continence. In the ancient Church, many priests were married. This explains why, in speaking of the ministers of the Church, the formula unius uxoris vir came to be used. It also explains the great interest the Fathers had in monogamous marriage (cf for instance Tertullian: De monogamia). But it becomes clearer still in the Tradition that for a minister of the Church, united once in matrimony with a woman, acceptance of the ministry brought with it the consequence that he had to live in continence thereafter.

In later times, the separation was introduced between priesthood and marriage. And so the formula unius uxoris vir, in its literal and material sense, is no longer of immediate application to the priests of today, since they are not married. Yet paradoxically, precisely in this lies the interest of the formula. We set out from the fact that in the apostolic Church it was only used for clerics; and so it took on, besides the immediate sense of conjugal relations, a further, mystical sense, a direct connection with the spiritual marriage between Christ and the Church. St Paul was already hinting at this. For him, unius uxoris vir was a covenantal formula: it introduced the married minister into the marriage relationship between Christ and the Church; for Paul, the Church was a ‘pure virgin’, it was the ‘bride’ of Christ. But this connection between the minister and Christ, due to the sacrament of ordination, today no longer requires as human support for the symbolism a real marriage on the part of the minister; so the formula is still valid for priests of the Church, although they are not married. Hence, that which in the past was continence for married ministers, in our own day becomes the celibacy of those who are not. Yet the symbolic and spiritual meaning of the expression unius uxoris vir remains ever the same. Indeed, since it contains a direct reference to the covenant, that is to say, to the marriage relationship between Christ and the Church, it invites us to attach much greater importance today than in the past to the fact that the minister of the Church represents Christ the bridegroom to the Church his bride. In this sense, the priest must be «the husband of one wife»; but that one wife, his bride, is the Church who, like Mary, is the bride of Christ.

It is precisely thus that on various occasions John Paul II expresses himself in his post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation Pastores dabo vobis. By way of conclusion, we quote some of the more telling passages from it.

In n. 12, having said that, as regards the identity of the priest, his relationship with the Church must take second place to his relationship with Christ, the Pope goes on: «As a mystery, the Church is essentially related to Jesus Christ. She is his fullness, his body, his spouse… The priest finds the full truth of his identity in being a derivation, a specific participation in and continuation of Christ himself, the one High Priest of the new and eternal covenant; the priest is a living and transparent image of Christ the Priest. The priesthood of Christ, the expression of his absolute ‘newness’ in salvation history, constitutes the one source and essential model of the priesthood shared by all Christians and the priest in particular. Reference to Christ is thus the absolutely necessary key for understanding the reality of priesthood.» On the basis of this very close union between the priest and Christ, the deep theological reason for celibacy is easier to grasp.

In some editions of the document, n. 22 bears the crosshead: «Witness to Christ’s spousal love». Further on, it reads: «The priest is called to be the living image of Jesus Christ, the spouse of the Church.» The Pope then quotes a proposition of the Synod: «Inasmuch as he represents Christ, the Head, Shepherd and Spouse of the Church, the priest is placed not only in the Church but also in the forefront of the Church.»

In n. 29, in the very paragraph where the Holy Father speaks of virginity and celibacy, he cites in full the Synod’s Proposition 11 on this subject. Then, to explain «the theological motivation for the ecclesiastical law on celibacy», he writes: «The will of the Church finds its ultimate motivation in the link between celibacy and Sacred Ordination, which configures the priest to Jesus Christ the Head and Spouse of the Church. The Church as the Spouse of Jesus Christ wishes to be loved by the priest in the total and exclusive manner in which Jesus Christ her Head and Spouse loved her.»

NOTES

1. Christian Cochini, Origines apostoliques du célbat sacerdotal (Le Sycomore), culture et vérité, Lethielleux/Namur, Paris 1981. On the much debated problem of celibacy in the Church today, see a special number of the review Conciluum: Le Célibat du Sacerdoce catholique, in Concilium 78 (1972).

2. A.M. Stickler, in Cochini, (ut supra), Préface, p. 6.

3. H. Crouzel, Une nouvelle étude sur les origines du célibat ecclésiastique, in Bull. de Litt. eccl. 83 (1982), 293-297.

4. See also two studies by canonists: P. Pampaloni, Continenza e celibato del clero. Leggi e motivi delle fonti canoniche dei secoli IV e V. in Studia Patavina 17 (1970), 5-59; J. Coriden, Célibat, Droit canonique et Synode 1971, in Concilium 78 (1972), 101-114.

5. See our article Man d’une seule femme. Le sens théologique d’une formule paulinienne, in Paul de Tarse, apôtre de notre temps (ed. L. De Lorenzi), Rome 1979, 619-638. In the present study we confine ourselves to the Latin tradition; as is well known, a different discipline obtains in the Oriental Churches.

6. A.M. Stickler, L’évolution de la discipline du célibat dans l’Église en occident de la fin de l’âge patristique au Concile de Trente, in Sacerdoce et célibat. Études historiques et théologiques (ed. I. Coppens), Gembloux-Louvain 1971, pp. 373-442.

7. Cochini, op. cit., pp. 5-6.

8. See our study Mari d’une seule femme, (ut supra), p. 635, n. 64, where we show that the formula unius uxoris vir (1 Tim 3:2) expresses the marriage relationship of the covenant between God and his people, between Christ the bridegroom and his bride the Church. Furthermore, the similarity of the formula in 1 Tim.3:2 with the one nearby in 1 Tim 2:5: unus Deus, unus… homo Christus Jesus permits the connection to be made with the prophetic theme of the covenant, and to uncover a link with the Old Testament; cf especially Mal 2:14 (LXX): ‘the wife of your covenant’ 2:10: ‘the covenant of our forefathers’.

9. A.M. Stickler, in Cochini, (ut supra), Préface, pp. 5-6 (our italics).

10. Cf our article La struttura di alieanza del sacerdozio ministeriale, in Communio 112 (July-August 1990), 102-114, where we summarise the results of the previous study: Man d’une seule femme, (vide supra), in order to apply them specifically both to the case of priestly celibacy and to that of the priesthood of men (not of women).

11. For this historical part, see the texts in Cochini, op. cit., pp. 19-26.

12. The text (taken from CCL 149, 13) is given in the original Latin with a French translation in Cochini, op. cit., pp. 25-26.

13. For the decretal Cum in unum of Pope Siricius, cf Ep. V. c. 9 (PL 13, 1161 A); it is also found in the African Council of Theleptis (AD 418): Conc. Thelense (CCL 149, 62): French trans.: Cochini, op. cit., p. 32; see also the two letters of Pope Innocent I (AD 404-405) to the bishops Victricius of Rouen and Exuperius of Toulouse: Ep. II, (PL 20, 476 A. 497 B; Cochini, op. cit., pp. 284-286). Africa, Spain and the Gauls thus take direction as indicated by the Popes.

14. Cochini, op. cit., p. 33 (our italics).

15. For P. Pampaloni for instance (art. cit., 41-42), this would involve «a forced interpretation of the Apostle»; he does however concede that, according to the sources of the period, that interpretation was probably regarded as the correct one. H. Crouzel (art. cit., 294) also rightly observes: if it were true, as these Fathers thought, that the Apostle regarded ‘monogamy’ as guaranteeing suitability for continence, we should then have to suppose that, for Paul, it was a known fact «either that the wife was dead or that the candidate was to live with her as with a sister: which unfortunately the Pauline text does not make clear.» This is true. But the Pauline text does contain a literary contact with 2 Cor 11:2 (vide infra), which allows the indirect recovery of the theme of continence as a covenantal theme.

16. Cf our article Mri d’une seule femme, (art. cit): ‘I. Histoire de d’exégèse’ (pp. 620-623); ‘II. Insuffisance des deux interpretations en présence’ (pp. 624-628).

17. Stickler, L’évolution de la discipline dui célibat, (ut supra), pp. 441-442.

18. Cf Ad uxorem, 1, 7, 4 (CCL 1, 381); the reference here is to 1 Tim 3:2, 12; Tit 1:6; see too De exhort, cast., 7,2 (CCL 2, 1024).

19. De exhort. cast., 13, 4 (CCL 2, 1035): on this passage, see Cochini’s comment, 01). cit., pp. 168-171.

20. Ibid., cf Ad uxorem, 1, 4, 4, speaking of women who, instead of choosing a husband, have preferred a virginal life: «Malunt enim Deo nubere. Deo speciosae, Deo sunt puellae» (CCL 1, 377).

21. De virg. vel., 16, 4: «Nupsisti enim Christo, illi tradidisti carnem tuam, illi sponsasti maturitatem tuam,» (CCL 2, 1225); De res., 61, 6: «virgines Christi maritae» (CCL 2, 1010).

22. De monog., 5,7 (CCL 2, 1235)

23. De exhort, cast., 5, 3 (CCL 2, 1023); hence, Tertullian goes on, the law of single marriage is also founded on ‘Christi sacramentum’.

24. The Apostle thus in no way excludes the ‘carnal’ use of marriage between Christian husbands and wives, despite what Tertullian the Montanist was to pretend to the contrary, cf De exhort. cast., 9, 3 (CCL 2, 1028): for the latter, marriage as such (not a second marriage) was to be regarded as a sort of stuprum. As can be seen from this brief analysis, ‘una caro’ (Eph 5:31) and ‘una uxor’ (1 Tim 3:2) have very different functions, although the same adjective una occurs in both texts: Tertullian’s mistake was to have virtually identified them: ‘una caro undoubtedly legitimizes conjugal relations; whereas ‘una uxor’, as we shall see, excludes them, and instead becomes the theological basis for continence.

25. St Augustine speaks of this in the De coniugiis adulterinis, II, 20, 22: «solemnus eis proponere continentiam clenicorum» (PL 40, 486).

26. De bono coniugali, 18, 21 (PL 40, 3 87-388).

27. De continentia, 9, 23 (PL 40, 364).

28. Stickler, L’évolution… (ut supra), p. 381; sundry texts from penitential books are quoted in the notes.

29. St Leo the Great, Ep. ad Rusticum Narbonensem episc. Inquis. III: Resp. (PL 54, 1204 A): «ut de carnali fiat spirituale coniugium».

30. Cf J. Daniélou, La jalousie de Dieu, in Dieu vivant, n. 4, 16(1950), 61-73.

31. Cf our work Mary in the Mystery of the Covenant, New York 1992, pp. xxiii-xxv, xxxv-xxxvii.

32. Cf R. Hesbert, Saint Augustin et la virginité de la foi, in Augustinus Magister. Congrès international augustinien (Paris, Sept. 1954), II, Paris 1954, pp. 645-655.

33. St Leo the Great, Epistolae, 12, 3 (PL 54, 648 B).

34. E. Tauzin, Note sur un texte de Saint Paul (Essai d’exégèse synthétique) in Revue apologétique 36 (1924-1925), 274-289 (see p. 289, in the note). It should be noted that this author too has spontaneously made the connection between the formular unius uxoris vir of the Pastoral Letters and the virgo casta of 2 Cor 11:2.

35. In 1 ad Tim., c. III, lect. 1 (ed. Marietti 1953, n. 96); see too Denis the Carthusian, on 1 Tim 3:12 (Opera omnia, 13, 420).

[http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_01011993_bfoun_en.html]

The Most Reverend Raymond L. Burke on Canon 915 [http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/holycom/denial.htm]

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/holycom/denial.htm

PERIODICA DE RE CANONICA
vol. 96 (2007) pag. 3-58

The Discipline Regarding the Denial of Holy
Communion to Those Obstinately Persevering
in Manifest Grave Sin

R. L. BURKE

ROMA
PONTIFICIA UNIVERSITÀ GREGORIANA
PIAZZA DELLA PILOTTA, 4

PERIODICA 96 (2007) 3-58

CANON 915:
THE DISCIPLINE REGARDING
THE DENIAL OF HOLY COMMUNION
TO THOSE OBSTINATELY PERSEVERING
IN MANIFEST GRAVE SIN

Introduction

During the election campaign of 2004 in the United States of America, some Bishops found themselves under question by other Bishops regarding the application of can. 915 of the Code of Canon Law in the case of Catholic politicians who publicly, after admonition, continue to support legislation favoring procured abortion and other legislation contrary to the natural moral law, for example, legislation permitting the cloning of human life for the purpose of harvesting stem cells by the destruction of the artificially-generated human embryo, and legislation redefining marriage to include a relationship between persons of the same sex. The gravity of the sin of procured abortion and of the sins involved in the commission of other intrinsically-evil acts seemed to place the Catholic politicians among those who obstinately persevere in manifest grave sin, about whom can. 915 treats.

The discussion among the Bishops uncovered a fair amount of serious confusion regarding the discipline of can. 915. First of all, the denial of Holy Communion was repeatedly characterized as the imposition of a canonical penalty, when, in reality, it plainly articulates the responsibility of the minister of Holy Communion, ordinary or extraordinary, to deny Holy Communion to those who obstinately persevere in manifest grave sin ^[1]. The denial of Holy Communion can be the effect of the imposition or declaration of the canonical penalties of Excommunication and Interdict (cf. cann. 1331 §1, 2º; and 1332), but there are other cases in which Holy Communion must be denied, apart from any imposition or declaration of a canonical penalty, in order to respect the holiness of the Sacrament, to safeguard the salvation of the soul of the party presenting himself to receive Holy Communion, and to avoid scandal.

The matter in question was extensively discussed by the Bishops of the United States during their meeting in June of 2004. The statement of the United States Bishops, “Catholics in Political Life”, adopted on June 18, 2004, which was the fruit of the discussion, failed to take account of the clear requirement to exclude from Holy Communion those who, after appropriate admonition, obstinately persist in supporting publicly legislation which is contrary to the natural moral law. The statement reads:

The question has been raised as to whether the denial of holy communion to some Catholics in political life is necessary because of their public support for abortion on demand. Given the wide range of circumstances involved in arriving at a prudential judgment on a matter of this seriousness, we recognize that such decisions rest with the individual bishop in accord with the established canonical and pastoral principles. Bishops can legitimately make different judgments on the most prudent course of pastoral action. ^[2]

While the judgment regarding the disposition of the individual who presents himself to receive Holy Communion belongs to the minister of the Sacrament, the question regarding the objective state of Catholic politicians who knowingly and willingly hold opinions contrary to the natural moral law would hardly seem to change from place to place.

The question of the scandal involved does not seem to be addressed by the Statement. While concern was expressed about <<circumstances in which Catholic teaching and sacramental practice can be misused for political ends>>, there is no mention of the gravely wrong conclusion which is per se drawn from the Church’s admission of politicians, who are persistent in supporting positions and legislation which gravely violate the natural moral law, to receive Holy Communion ^[3].

The Statement also seems to take away the serious responsibility of the minister of Holy Communion, resting the matter entirely with the Bishop. One bishop issued a statement on the same day as the statement of the body of Bishops, which intimated that can. 915 is not to be applied in his diocese. He stated:

The archdiocese will continue to follow church teaching, which places the duty of each Catholic to examine their consciences as to their worthiness to receive holy communion. That is not the role of the person distributing the body and blood of Christ ^[4].

The statement of the bishop in question confuses the norm of can. 916, which applies to the self-examination of the individual communicant, with the norm of can. 915, which obliges the minister of Holy Communion to refuse the Sacrament in the cases indicated.

Other bishops issued statements questioning the denial of the Holy Eucharist on the grounds that it somehow contradicts the whole nature of the Eucharist itself, asserting that the practice transforms the celebration of the sacrament of unity into a theater of conflicts ^[5].

In the midst of what must objectively be called confusion, it seems best to study the history of the legislation articulated in can. 915, in order to understand the Church’s constant practice and the mind of Pope John Paul II, the legislator of the 1983 Code of Canon Law.

1.  1 Cor 11,27-29 and Ecclesia de Eucharistia

The canonical discipline in question has its source in the Word of God. In the First Letter to the Corinthians, Saint Paul addressed the question of unworthiness to receive the Body and Blood of Christ. First, he gives an account of the institution of the Holy Eucharist, in which the teaching on the Eucharist as Sacrifice and Real Presence is clear (1Cor 11,23-26). He then admonishes the disciples to examine their consciences before approaching to receive Holy Communion. He states:

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) ^[6].

The relationship between the teaching on the Holy Eucharist as Sacrifice and Real Presence, and the admonition regarding the correct disposition for reception of the Holy Eucharist is clear in the text.

To receive Holy Communion unworthily is to sin against Christ Himself. One commentator observed:

The focus remains on Christ, and Christ crucified, as proclaimed through a self-involving sharing in the bread and wine. If stance and lifestyle make this empty of content and seriousness, participants will be held accountable for so treating the body and blood of the Lord. ^[7]

In approaching to receive the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, the faithful must both respect the holiness of the Sacrament, the Real Presence of Christ, and examine their own worthiness, lest they condemn themselves by receiving the Lord unworthily.

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. Here, one is dealing with what may be simply called a “reality check”. Does the actual state of my soul dispose me to receive the true Body and Blood of Christ?

The self-examination necessarily has reference to one’s relationship both to God and to others. Communion with Christ in His Body and Blood means putting into practice what He has taught us, namely love of God and of neighbor. Serious sin against God or against neighbor makes one unworthy to receive Holy Communion, until the sin has been confessed and forgiveness received through the Sacrament of Penance.

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.

Perhaps the most recent authoritative commentary on Saint Paul’s teaching regarding unworthiness to receive Holy Communion is found in Pope John Paul II’s Encyclical Letter Ecclesia de Eucharistia, “On the Eucharist in Its Relationship to the Church,” issued on Holy Thursday, April 17, 2003. In Chapter Four of the Encyclical Letter, “The Eucharist and Ecclesial Communion,” Pope John Paul declared:

The celebration of the Eucharist, however, cannot be the starting point for communion; it presupposes that communion already exists, a communion which it seeks to consolidate and bring to perfection. The sacrament is an expression of this bond of communion both in its invisible dimension, which, in Christ and through the working of the Holy Spirit, unites us to the Father and among ourselves, and in its visible dimension, which entails communion in the teaching of the apostles, in the sacraments and in the Church’s hierarchical order ^[8].

It is especially the invisible dimension which the discipline of can. 915 safeguards.

Regarding the invisible dimension of communion, the Holy Father 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, Pope John Paul II declared that he who 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 ^[9]. He quoted from a homily on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah by Saint John Chrysostom:

I too raise my voice, I beseech, beg and implore that no one draw near to this sacred table with a sullied and corrupt conscience. Such an act, in fact, can never be called “communion,” not even were we to touch the Lord’s body a thousand times over, but “condemnation,” “torment” and “increase of punishment” ^[10].

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.

Pope John Paul II then proceeded to discuss the case of grave public sin, relating the self-judgment of unworthiness to receive to the refusal of Holy Communion to the person remaining in manifest grievous sin. He declared:

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. The Code of Canon Law refers to the situation of a manifest lack of proper moral disposition when it states that those who <<obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Eucharistic communion ^[11].

Pope John Paul II made it clear that the norm of can. 915 is required by the Church’s teaching on the respect due to the Most Blessed Sacrament and her concern to avoid scandal in the community.

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 obligation in question is distinct from the obligation of the person to examine his conscience regarding grave sin before approaching, which is treated in can. 916.

2. Fathers of the Church and Theologians

The Fathers of the Church and approved theologians have addressed the Church’s serious concern that due respect be paid to the Most Blessed Sacrament, that souls not fall into the sin of sacrilege by receiving the Body and Blood of Christ unworthily, and that scandal not be given to the faithful by a careless administration of the Holy Eucharist to individuals who clearly are not rightly disposed, that is, who obstinately persevere in manifest serious sin. The just-cited text from Saint John Chrysostom, found in Ecclesia de Eucharistia, is an excellent example.

Saint Basil the Great, in his First Letter on the Canons, indicates that the man who marries his brother’s wife is not to be permitted to receive Holy Communion, until he separates from her. ^[12] He, likewise, declares that the widow who takes a husband after her sixtieth year is not to be admitted to Holy Communion, until <<she will have renounced her impure passion>> ^[13]. Although little commentary is offered regarding the reason for the discipline, it seems clear that, in both cases, the reason for the prohibition is a public violation of the Church’s discipline regarding marriage and the resulting scandal in the community. The just-mentioned canons of Saint Basil the Great are among the fonts of can. 712 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, which corresponds to the discipline articulated in can. 915 of the Code of Canon Law¹⁴.

The fonts of can. 712 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches also include a text of Saint Timothy of Alexandria, which underlines the responsibility of the minister of Holy Communion to refuse the Blessed Sacrament to a public sinner. The question is posed: Whether it is permitted to give Holy Communion to a heretic who presents himself to receive amidst a large crowd? Saint Timothy of Alexandria responds that it is not permitted to give Holy Communion to the heretic, even if he is not recognized in the huge crowd. He comments that the one who gives Holy Communion to the heretic in such a situation, that is, not recognizing the heretic in the crowd, <<is not responsible because of the crowd and of his ignorance of the fact>> ^[15]. The discipline is clear. Holy Communion is to be denied to the public sinner, whether the congregation is large or small. The minister, however, is not responsible for giving the Sacrament to the known heretic whom he fails to recognize because of the size of the crowd.

Saint Augustine, in Sermon 227, preached to the newly-baptized on Easter Sunday, comments on the text of Saint Paul regarding worthy reception of Holy Communion. Giving the newly baptized a fuller catechesis on the Holy Eucharist, he instructs them:

What is receiving unworthily? Receiving with contempt, receiving with derision. Don’t let yourselves think that what you can see is of no account. What you can see passes away, but the invisible reality signified does not pass away, but remains. Look, it’s received, it’s eaten, it’s consumed. Is the body of Christ consumed, is the Church of Christ consumed, are the members of Christ consumed? Perish the thought! Here they are being purified, there they will be crowned with the victor’s laurels. So what is signified will remain eternally, although the thing that signifies it seems to pass away. So receive the sacrament in such a way that you think about yourselves, that you retain unity in your hearts, that you always fix your hearts up above. Don’t let your hope be placed on earth, but in heaven. Let your faith be firm in God, let it be acceptable to God. Because what you don’t see now, but believe, you are going to see there, where you will have joy without end. ^[16]

Saint Augustine draws the attention of the newly-baptized to the reality of the Eucharistic species, the glorious Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ, cautioning them, lest in looking upon the species, which passes away, they fail or forget to recognize that the reality, the substance, is eternal, that is, never passes away. Saint Augustine’s text recalls to mind the words of Pope John Paul II about the invisible dimension of Holy Communion, which demands that those who stubbornly remain in “manifest grave sin” be denied the Sacrament. ^[17]

Saint Francis of Assisi addressed the question of the indiscriminate distribution of Holy Communion in his Letter or Exhortation to the Clergy. Saint Francis, first of all, lamented the lack of care for the sacred vessels and sacred linens, which hold and touch the Body and Blood of Christ, on the part of the clergy, the ministers of Holy Communion. He, then, addressed their responsibility to attend to their own worthiness and to the right disposition of those who present themselves to receive. He declared:

And besides, many clerics reserve the Blessed Sacrament in unsuitable places, or carry It about irreverently, or receive It unworthily, or give It to all-comers without distinction. ^[18]

With regard to the reception of Holy Communion, Saint Francis underlined two solemn moral obligations of the minister of Holy Communion: first, the obligation to be personally disposed to receive the Body and Blood of Christ worthily, and, second, the obligation to give Holy Communion with discretion, that is, with attention to those who, in a public way, have made themselves unworthy to receive the Sacrament.

3. Decretal Law

The first legislation in the matter, collected in the Decree of Gratian, is a letter from Pope Gregory the Great to an elderly Bishop Januarius who was reported to have gone out to take the harvest of a certain man before the celebration of the Mass and, then, to have proceeded to celebrate the Mass. The letter comments: <<All who hear about the fact know that a punishment ought to follow it>>. ^[19] The case is somewhat complicated. The discipline, in fact, is not imposed upon the Bishop because of his simple-mindedness and age. Pope Gregory, however, imposed two months of excommunication upon those who counseled the Bishop to act in such a way. The letter further specifies that, if they will have suffered illness within the two months, they are not to be deprived of the blessing of Viaticum. The letter concludes by reminding the Bishop that, henceforth, he has been cautioned against the counsel of such persons. ^[20]

Although the norm, as is proper for legislation, does not comment on the reason for the severe discipline, it is clear that the action of Bishop Januarius was in public violation of the divine precept to avoid servile labor on the Lord’s Day. Clearly, the scandal caused was greater because the sin was committed by a bishop.

The Decree of Gratian also quotes the discipline from the Council of Carthage that an excommunicated bishop or priest who receives Holy Communion before a hearing is judged to have passed upon himself a judgment of condemnation. ^[21]. Once again, the case of denying Holy Communion involves a public and grave sin, which until it has been addressed through an ecclesiastical hearing, demands that the bishop or priest be refused Holy Communion.

In addition, the Decree of Gratian quotes the discipline of the Council of Agde or Montpellier: <<And we have judged that murderers and false witnesses are to be kept from ecclesiastical communion, unless their crimes will have been absolved by the satisfaction of penitence>>. ^[22] The cases which demand refusal of Holy Communion are seen to include murder and false witness, both public acts involving grave matter. Until the guilty party has been absolved of the grave sin, his reception of Holy Communion would constitute sacrilege and would give scandal to others, leading them to confusion regarding the sacredness of the Most Blessed Sacrament.

In the Decree of Gratian, we also find a quotation from a letter of Cyprian Euricacius to a confrère, in which he responds to a request for counsel regarding the question of whether a certain charlatan and sorcerer ought to be given Holy Communion. The question makes reference to the fact that the person in question perseveres in the shamefulness of his art, becoming a teacher and expert for children who, because of his bad example, are not educated but are led astray ^[23]. It further references the truth that evil taught to some also reaches others, which seems to be a clear reference to scandal. The response is: <<I think that it is neither congruent with the divine majesty or evangelical discipline, in order that the modesty and honor of the Church not be sullied by such an indecent and infamous contagion>>. ^[24]

In the Decretals of Pope Gregory IX, we find the decree of the Third Lateran Council, which established that <<manifest usurers are not to be admitted to the communion of the altar>>. The decree also denied ecclesiastical burial to an unrepentant usurer, mandated that their offerings were not to be accepted, and suspended from the execution of his office the cleric who would accept their offerings, until, in the judgment of his Bishop, he had returned the offerings ^[25].

From the Decretal Law, it is clear that Church discipline places an obligation on the minister of Holy Communion to refuse Holy Communion to persons known, by the public, to be in mortal sin. The discipline, faithful to the teaching of Saint Paul, safeguards the recognition of the most sacred nature of the Holy Eucharist, preventing public sinners from inflicting further grave damage upon their souls through the unworthy reception of the Holy Eucharist and safeguarding the faithful from the inevitable confusion regarding the sacredness of the Sacrament, which is caused by the admission of manifest and grave sinners to the reception of Holy Communion.

4. Rituale Romanum of 1614

The Rituale Romanum published by Pope Paul V on June 17, 1614, presents the discipline of the Church regarding the Sacraments and sacramentals, in accord with the reforms of the Council of Trent. It was published principally for the use of priests, even as the Pontificale Romanum and Caeremoniale Episcoporum were published, in 1595-1596 and 1600, respectively, for the bishops. It is a universal vademecum for priests in what is their principal and highest activity, the celebration of the Sacraments and sacramentals.

In the section, “On the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist” (De Sanctissimo Eucharistiae Sacramento), the priests are reminded that the Holy Eucharist contains <<the principal and greatest gift of God, Christ the Lord, the very author and font of all grace and holiness>>. ^[26] They are, therefore, urged to put forth the greatest effort in the reverence before and care of the Most Blessed Sacrament, on their own part, and in the worship and holy reception of the Sacrament, on the part of the faithful in their pastoral care. The priests are reminded of the specific instructions which they should give to the faithful in preparing to receive and in receiving Holy Communion.

The discipline regarding the reservation of the Holy Eucharist in the tabernacle and the tabernacle itself is given in detail. The parish priest is reminded that he is to take care that everything ordered to the worship of the Most Blessed Sacrament be intact and clean, and be maintained so. ^[27] The care of the sacred linens and vessels is a very concrete expression of the integral respect owed to the Most Blessed Sacrament, as Saint Francis of Assisi had declared in his succinct admonition to the clergy regarding the care to be given to the Holy Eucharist.

Regarding the ministering of the Sacrament to the faithful, the Rituale Romanum established:

All the faithful are to be admitted to Holy Communion, except those who are prohibited for a just reason. The publicly unworthy, which are the excommunicated, those under interdict, and the manifestly infamous, such as prostitutes, those cohabiting, usurers, sorcerers, fortune-tellers, blasphemers and other sinners of the public kind, are, however, to be prevented, unless their penitence and amendment has been established and they will have repaired the public scandal. ^[28]

The discipline by which those persevering in manifest and grievous sin are kept from receiving Holy Communion is seen as integral to the worship and care of the Holy Eucharist. The responsibility of the Church in the matter clearly rests with the priest as the minister of the Sacrament, lest the greatest good of the Church be violated, the communicant commit sacrilege, and the faithful, in general, be scandalized.

The language of the discipline reflects the language of the Decretal Law. The same language will be found in the subsequent articulation of the Church’s discipline.

The Rituale Romanum concludes the instruction to the priests by taking up three other cases of persons to whom it may be necessary to refuse Holy Communion. The first case involves occult grievous sinners who ask for Holy Communion. If they ask occultly and the priest does not recognize them as having amended their life, he is to refuse Holy Communion to them. If, however, they publicly seek the Sacrament and the priest cannot deny the Sacrament to them without causing scandal, then he is to give Holy Communion to them.

Here, it is necessary to note two meanings of the term, scandal, in Church discipline. The first and properly theological meaning of scandal is to do or omit something which leads others into error or sin. The second meaning is to do or omit something which causes wonderment (admiratio) in others. Denying Holy Communion publicly to the occult sinner involves scandal in the second sense. Giving Holy Communion to the obstinately serious and public sinner involves scandal in the first sense.

The second case involves persons suffering from mental illness. The third case involves those who, because of senility, no longer recognize the Sacrament ^[29].

In the section, “On the Communion of the Sick” (De Communione infirmorum), the priests are urged to employ the greatest effort and diligence in providing Viaticum to the sick, lest, through the pastor’s lack of attention, the sick die without the Blessed Sacrament. The priests, however, are cautioned lest, to the scandal of others, they give Holy Communion to the unworthy. The following groups of people are listed as examples of the unworthy: <<public usurers; the cohabiting; the notoriously criminal, namely, the excommunicated or the denounced, unless beforehand they will have purified themselves by holy Confession, and will have repaired, as according to the law, the public offense>>. ^[30] The discipline set forth, with its particular application to the case of the sick and the dying, is the same as that articulated in the section on the Holy Eucharist.

5. Pope Benedict XIV

In order to understand the discipline of can. 915 of the Code of Canon Law, it is important to review briefly the teaching of Pope Benedict XIV, the noted canonist Prospero Lambertini, in the matter. Pope Benedict XIV served as Successor of Saint Peter from August 17, 1740, until his death on May 3, 1758. The case in which his teaching is set forth concerns the followers of Pasquier Quesnel (1634-1719).

Pope Clement XI (1700-1721), by his Constitution Unigenitus Dei Filius of September 8, 1713, condemned certain propositions taken from the writings of Quesnel, a French Oratorian who fell into the errors of Jansenism and Gallicanism. ^[31] Sadly, Quesnel refused correction and became obstinate in his errors. As is not uncommon in the history of the Church, he gained a following.

Pope Benedict XIV had to address the question regarding whether adherents to the errors of Quesnel might be admitted to receive Holy Communion as Viaticum ^[32]. In his Encyclical Letter Ex omnibus, to the Cardinals, Archbishops and Bishops of the Kingdom of France (“Regni Galliarum”), dated October 16, 1756, he responded that <<inasmuch as they are publicly and notoriously obstinate before the just mentioned Constitution, it is to be denied to them; assuredly from the general rule which forbids that a public and notorious sinner be admitted to participation of Eucharistic Communion, whether he publicly or privately requests it>>. ^[33]

Pope Benedict XIV goes on to provide pastoral instructions for those ministering to a person who is believed to be obstinate in holding to Quesnel’s errors. He urges a personal and calm and understanding approach to ascertain the truth regarding the individual’s conscience. If the individual holds to the errors which endanger his or her eternal salvation, the Holy Father urges the minister of Holy Communion to point out that receiving the Body of Christ will not make him secure before the tribunal of Christ but rather guilty of a new and more detestable sin, because he has eaten and drunk judgment on himself. ^[34] The allusion is clearly to Saint Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians (1Cor 11,27-29).

6. Synodal Legislation of the Eastern Churches

The discipline regarding the denial of Holy Communion to public sinners is also clearly enunciated in the synodal legislation of the Eastern Churches. For example, in 1599, the Malabar Church of southern India held a synod in the city of Diamper, which was convoked by the Latin Archbishop of Goa, Alexius de Menezes ^[35]. Decree III of the Synod of Diamper, referring to the teaching of Saint Paul in the First Letter to the Corinthians, declared:

Wherefore, it is not permitted to give this Sacrament to public sinners, until they will have given up their sins, such as are public sorcerers, prostitutes, the publicly cohabiting, and those who publicly profess hatreds without reconciliation. ^[36]

The decree in question also gives careful instruction regarding the vigilance of the local vicars, lest they sin gravely by offering the Sacrament to public sinners.

In 1720, the Ruthenian Church held a provincial council at Zamostia, in which the Apostolic Nuncio, the metropolitan archbishop, 7 bishops, 8 major superiors of religious, and 129 members of the secular and regular clergy participated. ^[37] Regarding the denial of Holy Communion, the Synod made its own the perennial discipline of the Church:

Lest occasion be given to some scandal or loss of good name, the Holy Eucharist is not to be denied to the unworthy sinner because of some secret sin, above all, if the priest giving Communion will have received news of it from the confession of the sinner himself, seeking publicly the Eucharist. Heretics, schismatics, the excommunicated, the interdicted, public criminals, the openly infamous, as also prostitutes, the publicly cohabiting, major usurers, fortune-tellers, and other evil-doing men of the same kind, however, are not to be admitted to the reception of this Sacrament, according to the precept of Christ: <<Do not give the Holy to dogs>>. ^[38]

The legislation seeks to safeguard the good name of the sinner whose sin is not public. The term, scandal, is used in the second sense, that is, wonderment causing loss of good name. At the same time, the legislation requires that the public sinner be denied Holy Communion. The Scriptural quotation is from the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 7,6). The legislation, however, >makes reference to the healing of the Canaanite woman, recounted in the Gospel according to Matthew (15,26), underlining the necessity of integrity of faith for the reception of grace. The Canaanite woman, in fact, because of her faith was the recipient of the healing grace of our Lord. The person who persists in grave and public sin lacks the integrity of faith, which is required to receive the Sacrament.

Regarding the discipline of the Eastern Churches in the matter, the legislation of the Synod of the Maronites of 1736, confirmed “in forma specifica” by Pope Benedict XIV on September 1, 1741, is most instructive. The legislation of the Synod of 1736 is the principal font of the canonical legislation of Catholics of the Maronite Rite and is also a font of can. 712 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches. ^[39]

Regarding Holy Communion, the Synod of 1736 legislated that the “publicly unworthy” are not to be admitted to Holy Communion. The legislation gives as examples of those to be denied Holy Communion the following: <<heretics, schismatics, apostates, the excommunicated, the interdicted, and the openly notorious, such as prostitutes, the cohabiting, usurers, sorcerers, fortune-tellers, blasphemers and other sinners of this public kind>>. The legislation gives two conditions under which they may subsequently be admitted to receive Holy Communion: 1) the establishment of their penance and change of life; and 2) the prior repair of public scandal. ^[40] In other words, the canonical discipline is directed both to the eternal salvation of the soul of the sinner and to the correction of the scandal given by a person who publicly violates the moral law in a grave mat>ter and then presumes to receive Holy Communion.

7. Responses of the Dicasteries of the Roman Curia

The understanding of the canonical discipline regarding the refusal of Holy Communion is also illustrated through the responses of the Dicasteries of the Roman Curia in the matter. For example, on April 29, 1784, the Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith issued an instruction to the Apostolic Vicariate of Soochow, addressing several pastoral questions of missionaries in China.

One of the questions concerned the withholding of Holy Communion from those who had confessed and repented of their sins but, in the judgment of the missionaries, were not sufficiently disposed to receive the Most Blessed Sacrament. The Instruction takes due note of the fitting preparation which is required for the reception of Holy Communion, making allusion to Saint Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians.

After providing direction for the missionaries, drawn especially from the teaching of the Council of Trent, the Instruction makes reference to the section of the Roman Ritual on the Holy Eucharist, which prohibited the giving of Holy Communion to those guilty of scandalous behavior, namely <<drunks, usurers, the impure, the sacrilegious, the disturbers of the peace, the inconstant in faith, hypocrites, those who hand over their daughters for marriage to the unbaptized, the scandalous, and others who are contaminated by the more serious shameful acts>>. ^[41] The Instruction goes on to ask the question:

But, if pitiable and completely defiled men of this type have truly and soundly repented of their sins; if they will have carried out those remedies, given to them by confessors, for the conversion of life, the restitution of stolen goods and the repair of scandal, according to the above-given rules, and moreover will have shown the worthy fruits of penitence, by which they also hope for forgiveness from God, and nothing prohibits the request of the absolution of their crimes by the priest penitentiary, why would they not be admitted to Eucharistic Communion? ^[42]

To be noted here are the requirements of true conversion, restitution in the case of sins against the Seventh Commandment, and the repair of scandal.

On December 10, 1860, the Sacred Apostolic Penitentiary published a number of responses to serious pastoral questions. Question no. 20 read: <<Whether the Most Blessed Eucharist may be given to those who are notoriously bound by censure, unless, as is fitting, they first will have been reconciled with the Church?>> ^[43] The response is negative.

Although no explanation of the response is given, one has to suppose that three reasons underlie the response. They are: the most sacred nature of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, the serious sin committed by a public sinner who would receive Holy Communion without repenting of his sin, and the grave scandal caused by giving Holy Communion to a member of the faithful notoriously bound by censure, who has not been reconciled.

On July 27, 1892, the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office responded to the question: <<Whether it is permitted to administer the sacraments of the dying to the faithful who certainly do not adhere to the Masonic sect and are not led by its principles, but, moved by other reasons, have ordered their bodies to be cremated after death, if they refuse to retract the order?>>. ^[44] The response given was: <<If, having been warned, they refuse, No. As to whether or not a warning should be given, the rules handed on by the proven authors are to be followed, taking into account, above all, the need to avoid scandal>>. ^[45]

The response centers upon the correction of a wrongly formed conscience before the denial of Holy Communion. It rightly requires that scandal be avoided.

On July 1, 1949, the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office issued a decree in response to four questions regarding the involvement of Catholics with the Communist Party. The third question was: <<Whether Christ’s faithful, who have knowingly and freely performed the acts treated in nos. 1 and 2, may be admitted to the Sacraments>>. ^[46] The acts treated in the first two questions were: <<whether it would be lawful to join the Communist Party or to offer support to it>>; and <<whether it would be lawful to edit, distribute or read books, periodicals, journals or manuscripts, which support the teaching or action of Communists, or to write in them>>. ^[47]

The response to the third question was: <<To 3. No, according to the ordinary principles of denying the Sacraments to those who are not disposed>>. ^[48] In the response to the first question, the reason why those who cooperate, in some formal way, with the Communist Party are not disposed to receive the Sacraments is provided. The response explains:

For Communism is materialistic and anti-Christian; the leaders of the Communist Party, moreover, even if at times they declare that they do not oppose Religion, in truth, they show themselves, both by teaching and by action, to be inimical to God, to true Religion, and to the Church of Christ. ^[49]

The discipline, in particular, indicates that among the categories of persons who are to be denied Holy Communion are they who publicly espouse political doctrines which are hostile to the Faith and to the Church. In a similar way, those who publicly support political platforms or legislative agenda which are gravely contrary to the natural moral law show that they are not rightly disposed to receive Holy Communion.

On November 26, 1983, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a declaration regarding Masonic associations, with the approval of Pope John Paul II who ordered its publication. The declaration responded to the question whether the judgment of the Church had changed regarding Masonic associations, since they are not expressly mentioned in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, as they were in the 1917 Code of Canon Law. The response given in the declaration contains four points: 1) the Church’s negative judgment regarding Masonic associations remains unchanged because the principles of the associations are irreconcilable with the Church’s teaching; 2) membership, therefore, in them remains forbidden; 3) members of the faithful who join Masonic associations fall into serious sin; and 4) <<they may not approach for Holy Communion>>. ^[50] Making reference to the Congregation’s declaration of February 17, 1981, the declaration further indicates that local ecclesiastical authorities do not enjoy the faculty <<of offering a judgment regarding the nature of Masonic associations, which would involve the derogation of the above-stated judgment>>. ^[51]

Before the meeting of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in June of 2004, various Bishops had spoken and written about the application of can. 915 in the case of Catholic politicians who, after being duly admonished, publicly persist in supporting legislation grievously contrary to the natural moral law. A certain and, in some cases, serious diversity of judgment in the matter became evident among the Bishops. In early June, in order to assist the Bishops, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger sent a memorandum, entitled “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion,” to Cardinal Theodore McCarrick who was exercising leadership in the Conference of Bishops regarding matters of domestic policy. The memorandum sets forth six “general principles” regarding worthiness to receive Holy Communion.

The first principle reads: <<Presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion should be a conscious decision, based on a reasoned judgment regarding one’s worthiness to do so, according to the Church’s objective criteria>>. ^[52] It further declares: <<The practice of indiscriminately presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion merely as a consequence of being present at Mass is an abuse that must be corrected>>. ^[53]

The second principle quotes nos. 73 and 74 of the Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, in which Pope John Paul II sets forth the Church’s perennial moral teaching forbidding, always and everywhere, formal cooperation in intrinsically evil acts. With respect to the activity of legislatures and courts, the principle makes it clear that Catholics must oppose <judicial decisions or civil laws that authorize or promote abortion or euthanasia>> ^[54].

The third principle underlines the diversity of moral weight between abortion and euthanasia, on the one hand, and war and the death penalty, on the other. The memorandum declares: <<There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia>> ^[55].

The fourth principle distinguishes between the judgment which the individual must make about his worthiness and the discretion which the minister of Holy Communion must employ regarding those who present themselves to receive the Sacrament. The principle calls to mind that <<the minister of Holy Communion may find himself in the situation where he must refuse to distribute Holy Communion to someone, such as in cases of a declared excommunication, a declared interdict or an obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin>>. ^[56]

The fifth principle provides instruction for the pastor regarding the handling of a case of obstinate persistence in public serious sin. It refers explicitly to the case of Catholic politicians:

Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist. ^[57]

The principle makes clear the application of can. 915 to the case of a Catholic politician who persists in publicly supporting legislation in grave violation of the natural moral law. It also provides the pastoral instruction regarding the procedure to be followed in observing the norm of the law in the matter.

The sixth principle, making reference to a declaration of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts of June 4, 2000, declares that, when a person who has been duly admonished persists in presenting himself for Holy Communion, the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to give the Sacrament. The principle further clarifies that the decision of the minister of Holy Communion <<is not a sanction or a penalty>> but rather the recognition of objective and public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion. ^[58]

The memorandum has an appended note regarding the situation of the Catholic who would deliberately vote for a candidate <<precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia>>. ^[59] It also states the applicable moral principles governing the action of a Catholic who <<does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons>>. ^[60]

On July 9, 2004, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger wrote a letter to Cardinal Theodore McCarrick who had forwarded to him a copy of the statement of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, “Catholics in Political Life,” adopted on June 18, 2004. The letter declared:

The statement is very much in harmony with the general principles “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion,” sent as a fraternal service – to clarify the doctrine of the Church on this specific issue – in order to assist the American Bishops in their related discussion and determinations. ^[61]

The letter does not offer further comment on “Catholics in Political Life.”

8. The Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law (1917)

The question of those to be excluded from the reception of Most Holy Communion is treated in can. 855 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law. The canon reads:

Can.855 §I . The publicly unworthy, who are the excommunicated, the interdicted and the manifestly infamous, unless their penance and conversion have been established and they will have first made up for the public scandal, are to be excluded from the Eucharist.

§2. The minister is also to refuse occult sinners, if they request secretly and he will not have recognized them as converted; not, however, if they publicly request and he is not able to pass over them without scandal. ^[62]

Father Felice Cappello, S.J., noted commentator on the Pio-Benedictine Code, describes the principle which underlies the discipline of can. 855. He reminds us that the minister of Holy Communion is held, under pain of mortal sin, to deny the sacraments to the unworthy, that is, <<to those who are indeed a capable subject of the sacrament, but are not able to receive its effect, because they are in the state of mortal sin without the will of reforming themselves>>. ^[63]

Basing himself on Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint Alphonsus Liguori, Father Cappello goes on to explain the reason for the discipline:

The dignity itself of the sacraments and the virtue of religion demand it, lest sacred things be exposed to profanation; the fidelity of the minister demands it, who is forbidden to give holy things to the dogs and to throw pearls before the swine; the law of charity> demands it, lest the minister cooperate with those who unworthily attempt and dare to receive the sacraments, and offer scandal. ^[64]

Father Cappello clearly summarizes what are the certain elements of the canonical discipline regarding the denial of Holy Communion before the codification of 1917. The sublime reality of the Sacrament demands that it not be subjected to profanation by unworthy reception. The responsibility of the minister of Holy Communion demands that he not give the Sacrament indiscriminately to those who are not rightly disposed. Pastoral charity requires that Holy Communion be denied for the sake of the salvation of the person wrongly presenting himself to receive and for the sake of those who would be led astray regarding the truth of the Sacrament and the requirements for worthy reception.

9. 1983 Code of Canon Law

In order to understand the mind of the Legislator of the Code of Canon Law of 1983, it is necessary to review the work of the Pontifical Commission for the Revision of the Code of Canon Law, appointed by the Roman Pontiff to assist him in his responsibility as legislator. Regarding the discipline contained in can. 855 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, the first proposal for the text of the legislation read:

They who have sinned grievously and manifestly remain in contumacy are not to be admitted to the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharist or to Communion. ^[65]

The proposed canon was discussed by the Special Committee on the Sacraments (Coetus specialis de Sacramentis) at its meeting from May 29 to June 2 of 1978. ^[66] Cardinal Pericle Felici, President of the Commission, the then Archbishop Rosalio I. Castillo Lara, Secretary of the Commission, and Monsignor Willy Onclin, Adjunct Secretary of the Commission, were present. Father Mariano De Nicolò took the minutes of the meeting.

The first observation regarding the discipline sought to provide for the reception of Holy Communion by the divorced and remarried. All of the Consultors of the Commission responded that it was not the work of the Commission to treat such matters and that it would be for the Holy See to respond to the observation. ^[67]

Secondly, the words referring to the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharist were removed, because the canon treats of participation in the Holy Eucharist. It was observed that exclusion from the celebration carries with it the nature of a punishment and, therefore, is treated in the penal law. The removal of the reference to the celebration was also seen to respect the title of the section, namely, “Regarding Participation in the Most Holy Eucharist”. ^[68] Finally, the words <<and publicly>> were added after <<grievously>>. ^[69]

The discipline in question appeared as canon 867 in the 1980 Schema of the Code of Canon Law and read:

They who have grievously and publicly sinned, and manifestly remain in contumacy are not to be admitted to Holy Communion. ^[70]

The observations presented by the Fathers of the Commission and the responses from the Secretariat and Consultors of the Commission are indicated in the Report Including the Synthesis of the Observations by the Most Eminent and Most Excellent Fathers of the Commission to the Latest Schema of the Code of Canon Law, with the Responses Given by the Secretary and by the Consultors. ^[71]. The section of the Observations regarding the Sanctifying Office of the Church is also found in Communicationes 15 (1983) 170-253; the observations regarding can. 867 are found on page 194.

Regarding can. 867, one of the Fathers, namely Cardinal Ermenegildo Florit of Florence, indicated that he found the text too generic in relation to can. 1135 of the Schema. Canon 1135, in Chapter 2, “On Those to be Granted and to Be Denied Ecclesiastical Burial,” of the Second Title, “On Ecclesiastical Burial,” of the 1980 Schema read:

§1. They are to be deprived of ecclesiastical burial, unless before death they will have given some signs of repentance:

1. 1. notorious apostates, heretics and schismatics;
   2. who have chosen the cremation of their body for reasons adverse to the Christian faith;
   3. other manifest sinners to whom ecclesiastical burial cannot be granted without the public scandal of the faithful.

§2. When there is any doubt, the Ordinary of the place is to be consulted, whose judgment is to be followed. ^[72]

Cardinal Florit also urged that attention be given to can. 855 of the Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law.

Can. 1135 §1, of the 1980 Schema provides examples of those who are to be denied ecclesiastical burial, as can. 855 §1, of the 1917 Code provides examples of those who are to be denied reception of Holy Communion. Although Cardinal Florit’s observation is not further elaborated, it seems that he was asking that the canon on the refusal of Holy Communion to those who persist in public and grievous sin should give examples, as can. 1135 §1, of the 1980 Schema and can. 855 §1, do.

Cardinal Pietro Palazzini observed that can. 855 of the Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law had been too much tempered in the matter. He further objected that the scandal, which can. 855 §2, of the 1917 Code treats, was not considered, in any manner, by the proposed text. It should be noted that the term, scandal, in can. 855 §2, is used in the second, not properly theological, sense, that is, wonderment (admiratio) causing loss of good name.

The response given to both observations was:

The text suffices for it contains all of the requirements: namely, gravity of the act, the public nature of the act, and contumacy. Most certainly the text refers also to the divorced and remarried. ^[73]

The response seemingly does not address, in any way, the request of a list of some of those to be denied the Sacrament. The question of scandal, in either of the senses noted above, is not addressed.

The text of the discipline in the 1982 draft of the Code of Canon Law appears in can. 913. The 1982 draft was prepared after consultation with the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, the Conferences of Bishops, the Dicasteries of the Roman Curia, the Faculties of Ecclesiastical Universities and the Superiors of Institutes of the Consecrated Life. It had been revised at the pleasure of the Fathers of the Commission and had been presented to Pope John Paul II. Can. 913 read:

The excommunicated and interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others who remain obstinately in manifestly grievous sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion. ^[74]

The text appears unchanged, as can. 915, in the final text promulgated by Pope John Paul II.

The text of the canon is clear. Those under the imposed or declared ecclesiastical penalties of interdict and excommunication, and those who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be given Holy Communion. 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.

Regarding those who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, it is necessary to know that indeed the person does obstinately persist, that is, that his pastor has informed him about the grave and public sinfulness of what he is doing and has cautioned him about not approaching to receive Holy Communion. The commentary on the 1983 Code of Canon Law, prepared by the Canon Law Society of Great Britain and Ireland, summarizes the point:

Likewise excluded are those <<who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin>>. In this third case, unlike the first two, there has been no public imposition or declaration of the person’s state and so, before a minister can lawfully refuse the Eucharist, he must be certain that the person obstinately persists in a sinful situation or in sinful behavior that is manifest (i.e. public) and objectively grave. ^[75]

Clearly, the burden is on the minister of Holy Communion who, by the nature of his responsibility, must prevent anything which profanes the Blessed Sacrament and endangers the salvation of the soul of the recipient and of those scandalized by his unworthy reception of Holy Communion.

What about the question of scandal? The safeguarding of the sacred necessarily means avoiding scandal. In its properly theological sense, scandal is an objective word, action or omission which leads others into wrong thoughts, actions or omissions.

John M. Huels, the commentator on can. 915 in the New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, commissioned by the Canon Law Society of America, reduces scandal to a subjective reality, ignoring its essential connection to what is objective, what is right and wrong. He states:

The fact of actual scandal is, moreover, culturally relative. What causes scandal in one part of the world may not cause scandal elsewhere. In North America the faithful often are more scandalized by the Church’s denial of sacraments and sacramentals than by the sin that occasions it, because it seems to them contrary to the mercy and forgiveness commanded by Christ. ^[76]

If a word, an action or an omission leads another into error or sin, there is scandal, whether the person who is led astray knows that he has been scandalized or not. If, as the commentator suggests, the faithful in North America believe that persons who publicly and grievously sin should be admitted to Holy Communion and that it would be wrong to deny to them the Sacrament, then effectively the faithful have been scandalized, that is, they have been led to forget or to disregard what the perennial discipline of the Church, beginning with Saint Paul’s admonition to the Corinthians, has always remembered and safeguarded. This is not the scandal to which can. 855 §2, of the Pio-Benedictine Code refers.

Two kinds of error are involved. One has to do with the supreme holiness of the Eucharist, that is, the necessity to be well-disposed before approaching to receive the Sacrament. The other regards the objective moral evil of the acts which the person is known to have committed. Giving Holy Communion to one who is known to be a serious sinner leads people astray in two ways. Either they are led to think that it is not wrong for an unrepentant sinner to receive Holy Communion (and to be given the Holy Eucharist), or they are led to think that what the person is known to have done was not gravely sinful.

10. Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches

The first draft of the canons regarding divine worship and, above all, the Sacraments (Schema Canonum de Cultu Divino et Praesertim de Sacramentis) of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, not surprisingly, contained a discipline similar to the discipline of the Latin Church, regarding the exclusion of public and grievous sinners from reception of the Holy Eucharist. Can. 47 read:

The publicly unworthy, unless their repentance and correction has been established, are to be kept from participation in the Divine Eucharist. ^[77]

The draft of the canons was sent to the organs of consultation, that is, the Patriarchates and other Eastern Churches, the Dicasteries of the Roman Curia, the Conferences of Bishops which have oriental hierarchs as members, the ecclesiastical universities and faculties of Rome and others. ^[78]

As a result of the consultation, the draft canon 47 underwent two revisions. First, the phrase, <<unless their repentance and correction has been established>>, was omitted, because it was held to be unnecessary. Second, the phrase, <<from participation in the Divine Eucharist>>, was changed to <<from reception of the Divine Eucharist>>. ^[79] No official explanation of the second change is given. No doubt, the change reflects the greater precision which also marked the drafting of the Latin Code, taking care not to confuse participation in the Holy Eucharist with reception of the Holy Eucharist.

The draft of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (Schema Codicis Iuris Canonici Orientalis), sent, with the blessing of the Roman Pontiff, to the Members of the Pontifical Commission for the Revision of Oriental Canon Law, on October 17, 1986, contained the canon as revised. Can. 708 read:

The publicly unworthy are to be kept from the reception of the Divine Eucharist. ^[80]

The text of the discipline remained unchanged as can. 712 in the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches promulgated by Pope John Paul II on October 18, 1990.

Father Victor J. Pospishil, in his commentary on the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, gives only one example of those to be denied Holy Communion, namely, the member of the faithful who contracts marriage with an Eastern non-Catholic without the permission of his or her Catholic Bishop. ^[81] For the rest, he comments negatively on the denial of Holy Communion to the divorced and remarried, advocating <<some better future solution>>. ^[82] His commentary makes no reference to the lists of those to be prevented from reception of Holy Communion, which are found in the fonts of can. 712, for example, the legislation of the Synod of 1736 of the Maronite Church.

Father George Nedungatt notes the following in his commentary on the language of the Code of the Canons of the Eastern Churches:

The Latin word “arcere” means <<to prevent from approaching, keep away, repulse>> (OLD, s. v. 2). It is more than “to forbid”. ^[83]

Can. 712 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches is more lapidary in its formulation, but it expresses one and the same discipline found in can. 915 of the Code of Canon Law.

11. 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 can. 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 can. 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. 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. ^[84]

The Declaration contains the basic reasons for the discipline of can. 915 and indicates the serious implications of the application of can. 915 for the communion of the Church, which Pope John Paul II presented in Ecclesia de Eucharistia. It also treats the serious element of scandal, noting that the error of so many of the faithful in the matter confirms, in fact, the scandal, and the need of a patient but firm action on the part of the Pastors of the Church.

The Statement refers clearly to an objective situation of sin, “a behavior,” and the “objective harm” caused, when a person who exhibits such behavior is given Holy Communion. The Declaration explicitly addresses those who would say that to deny Holy Communion, in accord with the norm of can. 915, <<it would be necessary to establish the presence of all the conditions required for the existence of mortal sin, including those which are subjective, necessitating a judgment of a type that a minister of Communion could not make ab externo>> and <<to verify an attitude of defiance on the part of an individual who had received a legitimate warning from the Pastor>> ^[85]. Such requirements would <<render the norm inapplicable>>. ^[86]

A similar argument has been used to deny the application of can. 915 in the case of a Catholic politician who votes for legislation which gravely violates the natural moral law. For example, during the discussion of the matter prior to the meeting of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in June of 2004, after citing the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the conditions necessary for a sin to be mortal, one Bishop wrote:

Given the long-standing practice of not making a public judgment about the state of the soul of those who present themselves for Holy Communion, it does not seem that it is sufficiently clear that in the matter of voting for legislation that supports abortion such a judgment necessarily follows. The pastoral tradition of the Church places the responsibility of such a judgment first on those presenting themselves for Holy Communion. ^[87]

The opinion expressed effectively, in the language of the Declaration, would make it impossible to apply can. 915. It confuses the norm of can. 916 with the norm of can. 915 in a way which makes can. 915 superfluous.

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. In the Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, Pope John Paul II made clear the Church’s teaching regarding the obligation of a Catholic legislator, when he declared:

Abortion and euthanasia, therefore, are crimes which no human law can make ratified. Laws of this kind not only do not bind the conscience; truly they gravely and expressly compel that the same be opposed because of repugnance to conscience. ⁸⁸

The fifth principle of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger’s memorandum, “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion”, makes it clear that a Catholic politician’s formal cooperation in abortion or euthanasia, that is, <<his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws>>, constitutes an <<objective situation of sin>>, and that, therefore, <<he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin>> ^[89].

Conclusions

What conclusions can be drawn from the study of the history of the canonical discipline of denying Holy Communion to those who obstinately persist in public grave sin?

First of all, 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.

Secondly, 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.

Thirdly, 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.

Fourthly, 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.

Fifthly, 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. The memorandum, “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion”, of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, in its fifth principle, gives the perennial pastoral instruction in the matter. 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>> ^[90].

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.

I am deeply aware of the difficulty which is involved in applying the discipline of can. 915. I am not surprised by it and do not believe that anyone should be surprised. Surely, the discipline has never been easy to apply. But what is at stake for the Church demands the wisdom and courage of shepherds who will apply it.

The United States of America is a thoroughly secularized society which canonizes radical individualism and relativism, even before the natural moral law. The application, therefore, is more necessary than ever, lest the faithful, led astray by the strong cultural trends of relativism, be deceived concerning the supreme good of the Holy Eucharist and the gravity of supporting publicly the commission of intrinsically evil acts. Catholics in public office bear an especially heavy burden of responsibility to uphold the moral law in the exercise of their office which is exercised for the common good, especially the good of the innocent and defenseless. When they fail, they lead others, Catholics and non-Catholics alike, to be deceived regarding the evils of procured abortion and other attacks on innocent and defenseless human life, on the integrity of human procreation, and on the family.

As Pope John Paul II reminded us, referring to the teaching of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, the Holy Eucharist contains the entire good of our salvation ^[91]. There is no responsibility of the Church’s shepherds which is greater than that of teaching the truth about the Holy Eucharist, celebrating worthily the Holy Eucharist, and directing the flock in the worship and care of the Most Blessed Sacrament. Can. 915 of the Code of Canon Law and can. 712 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches articulate an essential element of the shepherds’ responsibility, namely, the perennial discipline of the Church by which the minister of Holy Communion is to deny the Sacrament to those who obstinately persevere in manifest grave sin.

Most Rev. Raymond L. Burke

---

1. Card. W.H. KEELER, <<Interim Reflections of the Task Force on Catholic Bishops and Catholic Politicians: Summary of Consultations>>, Origins 34 (2004) 106.
2. UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS, <<Catholics in Political Life>>, Origins 34 (2004) 99.
3. US CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS, <<Catholics in Political Life>> (cf. nt. 2), 99.
4. Card. R. MAHONY, <<Catholic Politicians and Holy Communion>>, Origins 34 (2004) 110.
5. Card. T. McCARRICK, <<Interim Reflections of the Task Force on Catholic Bishops and Catholic Politicians>>, Origins 34 (2004) 108; Bishop F.J. GOSSMAN, <<The State of the Soul of Those Presenting Themselves for Communion>>, Origins 34 (2004) 190.
6. The translation is from the Revised Standard Version, Second Catholic Edition.
7. A.C. THISELTON, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, Grand Rapids (Michigan) 2000, 890. Cf. G.J. LOCKWOOD, 1 Corinthians, Saint Louis 2000, 406; and A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, New York 1953, 1093-1094.
8. <<Eucharistiae celebratio tamen non potest esse principium communionis, quandoquidem illam iam veluti exsistentem praeponit, ut earn confirmet et ad perfectionem perducat. Vinculum huiusmodi communionis exprimit Sacramentum turn ratione invisibili, quae per Spiritus Sancti motum in Christo nos cum Patre alligat atque inter nos, turn visibili ratione quae cornmunicationem in Apostolorum doctrina, in Sacramentis, in hierarchico ordine secum infert>>. IOANNES PAULUS II, Litterae Encyclicae Ecclesia de Eucharistia [=EdeE], AAS 95 (2003) 457, n. 35a. English translation from: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Vatican City State.
9. EdeE 36a.
10. <<Ideo nunc etiam ex hoc tempore clara voce denuntio, obtestor, precor et obsecro ne cum macula, ne cum prava conscientia ad sacram hanc mensam accedamus: neque enim hoc accessus, neque communio dici potest, quamvis milies sanctum illud corpus attingamus, sed condemnatio, supplicium et poenarum accessio>>. EdeE 36b.
11. <<De gratiae statu, ut patet, iudicium solum ad singulos homines spectat, cum de conscientiae aestimatione agatur. Quotiens vero de moribus exterioribus agitur graviter et manifesto et perpetuo contra normam moralem, Ecclesia, pro sua pastorali cura boni ordinis communitatis et ex observantia ipsius Sacramenti, non potest quin se etiam appellari sentiat. De hac condicione manifestae moralis perturbationis loquitur norma Codicis Iuris Canonici ad eucharisticam communionem non admittens quotquot “in manifesto gravi peccato obstinate perseverantes” inveniuntur>>. EdeE 37b.
12. BASILE DE CÉSARÉE, <<Premiere Lettre sur Les Canons addressée a Amphiloque, Évêque d’Iconium>>, in PONTIFICIA COMMISSIONE PER LA REDAZIONE DEL CODICE DI DIRITTO CANONICO ORIENTALE, Fonti, fascicolo IX, t. 2 (Les canons des Pères Grecs), Grottaferrata 1963,125, can. 23.
13. <<[…] tant qu’elle n’aura pas renoncé à sa passion impure>>. BASILE DE CÉSARÉE, <<Premiere Lettre sur Les Canons>> (cf. nt. 12), 126, can. 24. Hereafter, unless otherwise indicated, the English translation of texts in other languages is of the author.
14. PONTIFICIUM CONSILIUM DE LEGUM TEXTIBUS INTERPRETANDIS, Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium auctoritate loannis Pauli Pp. II promulgatus, Fontium annotatione auctus, Vatican City State 1995,259, can. 712.
15. <<[…] n’est pas responsable à cause de la foule et de son ignorance du fait>>. TIMOTHÉE D’ALEXANDRIE, <<Reponses canoniques aux questions qui lui furent posees par des évêques et des clercs>>, in PONTIFICIA COMMISSIONE PER LA REDAZIONE DEL CODICE DI DIRITTO CANONICO ORIENTALE, Fonti, fascicolo IX, t. 2 (Les canons des Pères Grecs), Grottaferrata 1963,256, can. 25.
16. <<Quid est indigne accipere? Irridenter accipere, contemptibiliter accipere. Non tibi videatur vile, quia vides. Quod vides, transit: sed quod significatur invisibile, non transit, sed permanet. Ecce accipitur, comeditur, consumitur: numquid corpus Christi consumitur? numquid Ecclesia Christi consumitur? numquid membra Christi consumuntur? Absit! Hic mundantur: ibi coronantur. Manebit ergo quod significatur aeternaliter, quanquam transire videatur. Sic ergo accipite, ut vos cogitetis, ut unitatem in corde habeatis, sursum cor semper figatis. Spes vestra non sit in terra, sed in coelo: fides vestra firma sit in Deum, acceptabilis sit Deo. Quia quod modo hic non videtis, et creditis; visuri estis illic, ubi sine fine gaudebitis>>. S. AUGUSTINI EPISCOPI, <<Sermo CCXXVII (a), In die Paschae, IV, Ad Infantes, de Sacramentis>>, in Opera Omnia, ed. Monachi Ordinis Sancti Benedicti e Congregatione S. Mauri, Paris 1865, t. V, col. 1101. English translation from AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO, <<Sermon 227: Preached on the Holy Day of Easter to the Infantes, on the Sacraments>>, in Sermons, vol. III/6 (184-229Z), tr. Edmund Hill, 0.P., New Rochelle 1993, 255-256.
17. EdeE 36-37.
18. <<Et a multis in locis vilibus collocatur et relinquitur, miserabiliter portatur et indigne sumitur et indiscrete aliis ministratur>>. SAINT FRANCIS OF ASSISI, <<Epistola ad clericos (Recensio prior)>>, in Die Opuscula des Hl. Franziskus von Assisi, Neue textkritische Edition, ed. Kajetan Esser, O.F.M., Grottaferrata 1976, 163-164. English translation from: The Writings of St. Francis of Assisi, tr. Benen Fahy, O.F.M., Chicago 1964, 101.
19. <<Quod factum que pena debeat sequi, omnes, qui audiunt, sciunt>>. C. 24, D. LXXXVI.
20. <<Et quidem penae sententia in te fuerat iaculanda; sed quia simplicitatem tuam cum senectute cognovimus, interim tacemus. Eos vero, quorum consilio hoc egisti, in duobus mensibus excommunicatos esse decrevimus: ita ut, si quid eis intra duorum mensium spatium humanitas evenerit, benedictione viatici non priventur. Deinceps autem ab eorum consiliis cautus existe>>. C. 24, D. LXXXVI.
21. <<Placuit universo concilio, ut qui excommunicatus fuerit pro suo neglectu, sive episcopus quilibet sive clericus, et tempore suae excommunicationis ante audientiam communicare presumpserit, ipse in se damnationis iudicetur protulisse sententiam>>. c. 9, C. XI, q. 3.
22. <<Itaque censuimus homicidas et falsos testes a conmunione ecclesiastica submovendos, nisi penitenciae satisfactione crimina admissa diluerint>>. c. 20, C. XXIV, q. 3.
23. <<Pro dilectione tua consulendum me existimasti, frater karissime, quid michi videatur de ystrione et mago illo, qui apud vos constitutus adhuc in suae artis dedecore perseverat, et magister et doctor non erudiendorum, sed perdendorum puerorum, id, quod male didicit, ceteris quoque insinuat: an talibus debeat sacra communio cum ceteres Christianis dari aut debeat conmunicare vobiscum?>>. c. 95, D. II, de cons.
24. <<Puto nec maiestati divinae, nec evangelicae disciplinae congruere, ut pudor et honor ecclesiae tam turpi et infami contagione fedetur>>. c. 95, D. II, de cons.
25. <<Ideo constituimus, quod usurarii manifesti nec ad cornmunionem admittantur altaris, nec Christianam, si in hoc peccato decesserint, accipiant sepulturam, sed nec oblationes eorum quisquam accipiat. Qui autem acceperit, vel Christianae tradiderit sepulturae, et ea, quae acceperit, reddere compellatur, et, donec ad arbitrium episcopi sui satisfaciat, ab officii sui maneat exsecutione suspensus>>. c. 3, X, de usuris, V, 19.
26. <<Praecipuum, & maximum Dei donum, & ipsemet omnis gratiae, & sanctitatis fons, authorq. Christus Dominus>>. Rituale Romanum, Editio Princeps (1614), ed. Manlio Sodi, S.D.B., and Juan Javier Flores Arcas, O.S.B., Citta del Vaticano 2004,56.
27. Rituale Romanum (cf. nt. 26), 56-57.
28. <<Fideles omnes ad sacram communionem admittendi sunt, exceptis iis, qui iusta ratione prohibentur. Arcendi autem sunt publice indigni, quales sunt excommunicati, interdicti, manifesteque infames, ut meretrices, concubinarii, foeneratores, magi, sortilegi, blasphemi, & alii eius generis publici peccatores: nisi de eorum poenitentia, & emendatione constet, & publico scandalo prius satisfecerint>>. Rituale Romanum (cf. nt. 26), 49.
29. Rituale Romanum (cf. nt. 26), 49.
30. <<Publici usuarii, concubinarii, notarii criminosi, nominatim excommunicati, aut denunciati; nisi sese prius sacra Confessione purgaverint, & publicae offensae, prout de iure, satisfecerint>>. Rituale Romanum (cf. nt. 26), 60-61.
31. DS 2400-2502; cf. Codicis Iuris Canonici Fontes, vol. I, 539-542, n. 270.
32. <<Hinc porro consequitur, ut in ea, quae exorta est, controversia, utrum huiusmodi refractariis sanctissimum Corporis Christi Viaticum expetentibus denegari debeat, […]>>. BENEDICTUS XIV, Encylical Letter Ex omnibus, in Codicis Iuris Canonici Fontes, vol. II, 536, n. 441 §3.
33. <<Quoties praedictae Constitutioni publice et notorie refractarii sint, denegandum eis esse; ex generali nimirum regula, quae vetat publicum atque notorium peccatorem ad Eucharisticae Communionis participationem admitti, sive eam publice, sive privatim requirat>>. BENEDICTUS XIV, Encylical Letter Ex omnibus (cf. nt. 32), 536.
34. <<Rogantes eum et obsecrantes, ut resipiscat, in eo saltem temporis articulo, a quo aeterna ipsius salutis sors pendet; eidemque praeterea demonstrantes, quod, quamvis ipsi parati sint sanctissimum Corporis Christi Viaticum ei ministrare, ac etiam reipsa illud ei ministrent, non ideo tamen tutus ipse erit ante tribunal Christi, sed potius novi et horrendi criminis reum se constituet, ex quo iudicium sibi manducavit et bibit; […]>>. Codicis Iuris Canonici Fontes, vol. II, 537, n. 441 §9.
35. C. DE CLERCQ, Fontes luridici Ecclesiarum Orientalium: Studium Historicum, Romae 1967, 112-113.
36. <<Idcirco nec publicis peccatoribus hoc Sacramentum dare licet, quousque peccata reliquerint, ut sunt publici venefici, & meretrices, concubinarii publici, & qui publice odia sine reconciliatione profitentur>>. <<Diampertina Synodus in Malabria>>, in J.D.Mansi (ed.), Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, Graz 1961, vol. 35, col. 1238.
37. C. DE CLERCQ, Fontes luridici Ecclesiarum Orientalium: Studium Historicum, Romae 1967, 112-113.
38. <<Ne alicujus scandali, aut infamiae detur occasio, sacra Eucharistia deneganda non est peccatori indigno ob peccatum aliquod secretum, praesertim si eius notitiam sacerdos communicans ex confessione ipsius peccatoris Eucharistiam publice petentis habuerit. Haeretici autem, schismatici, excommunicati, interdicti, publice criminosi, manifeste infames, uti etiam meretrices, publici concubinarii, usuarii magni, sortilegi, & alii id generis publice facinorosi homines ad hujus Sacramenti perceptionem admittendi non sunt, juxta Christi praeceptum: Nolite dare Sanctum canibus>>. <<Synodus Provincialis Ruthenorum habita in Civitate Zamosciae>>, in J.D. Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, Graz 1961, vol. 35, coll. 1492-1493.>
39. SACRA CONGREGAZIONE ORIENTALE, CODIFICAZIONE CANONICA ORIENTALE, Fonti, fascicolo XII (Discipline Antiochena: Maroniti), I (Ius Particulare Maronitarum), Vatican City State 1933, vii
40. <<Arcendi sunt autem publice indigni, quales sunt haeretici, schismatici, apostatae, excommunicati, interdicti, manifesteque infames, ut meretrices, concubinarii, foenatores, magi, sortilegi, blasphemi et alii eius generis publici peccatores; nisi de eorum poenitentia et emendatione constet, ct publico scandalo prius satisfecerint>>. Syn. Lib. II, XII, 12. Ibid., 245-246.
41. <<Ebriosi, foenatores, impuri, sacrilegi, pacis perturbatores, inconstantes in fide, hypocritae, qui filias nuptui tradunt gentilibus, scandalosi, aliique demum qui gravioribus flagitiis coinquinantur, a mensa Domini segregandi sunt, imo et repellendi iuxta regulam traditam in Rituali Romano, tit. De Eucharistia>>.Codicis Iuris Canonici Fontes, vol.VII, 143, n. 4598.
42. <<At vero si miseros ac coinquinatos istiusmodi homines suorum criminum vere et salubriter poeniteat, si ea remedia, quae a confessariis tradita sunt pro emendatione vitae, pro alienarum rerum restitutione ac scandali reparatione, iuxta superius traditas regulas adimpleverint, atque propterea dignos exhibuerint poenitentiae fructus, quibus eos et veniam a Deo sperare, et relaxationem suorum criminum a poenitentiario sacerdote impetrare nihil prohibet, cur, ad Eucharisticam Communionem non admittantur?>> Codicis Iuris Canonici Fontes, vol.VII, 144, n. 4598.
43. <<20. An possit Ss.ma Eucharistia notorie censura innodatis ministrari, quin prius fuerint, uti par est, cum Ecclesia reconciliati? R. Negative.>> Codicis Iuris Canonici Fontes, vol. VIII, 456, n. 6426.
44. <<Utrum liceat sacramenta morientium ministrare fidelibus qui massonicae quidem sectae non adhaerent, nec eius ducti principiis, sed aliis rationibus moti, corpora sua post mortem cremanda mandarunt, si hoc mandatum retractare nolunt>>. Codicis Iuris Canonici Fontes, vol. IV, 479, n. 1158.
45. <<R. Ad 1. Si moniti renuant, Negative. Ut vero fiat aut omittatur monitio, serventur regulae a probatis auctoribus traditae, habita praesertim ratione scandali vitandi.>> Codicis Iuris Canonici Fontes, vol. IV, 479., n. 1158.
46. <<3. utrum christifideles, qui actus de quibus in nn. 1 et >2 scienter et libere posuerint, ad Sacramenta admitti possint.>> SUPREMA SACRA CONGREGATIO S. OFFICII, <<II, Decretum 1 Iulii 1949>>,AAS 41 (1949) 334.
47. <<1. utrum licite sit partibus communistarum nomen dare vel eisdem favorem praestare; 2. utrum licitum sit edere, propagare vel legere libros, periodica, diaria vel folia, quae doctrinae vel actioni communistarum patrocinantur, vel in eis scribere.>> <<II, Decretum 1 Iulii 1949>> (cf. nt. 46), 334.
48. <<Ad 3. Negative, secundum ordinaria principia de Sacramentis denegandis iis qui non sunt dispositi.>> <<II, Decretum 1 Iulii 1949>> (cf. nt. 46), 334.
49. <<Communismus enim est materialisticus et antichristianus; communistarum autem duces, etsi verbis quandoque profitentur se Religionem non oppugnare, re tamen, sive doctrina sive actione, Deo veraeque Religioni et Ecclesiae Christi sese infensos esse ostendunt.>> <<II, Decretum 1 Iulii 1949>> (cf. nt. 46), 334.
50. <<Ad Sacram Communionern accedere non possunt.>> SACRA CONGREGATIO PRO DOCTRINE FIDEI, <<Declaratio de associationibus massonicis>>, AAS 76 (1984) 300.
51. <<Auctoritatibus ecclesiasticis localibus facultas non est proferendi iudicium circa naturam associationum massonicarum quod secumfert supradictae sententiae derogationem, ad mentem Declarationis Sacrae huius Congregationis, die 17 februarii 1981 factae.>> <<Declaratio de associationibus massoni>cis>> (cf. nt. 50), 300.
52. <<Vatican, U.S. Bishops: On Catholics in Political Life>>, Origins 34 (2004) 133.
53. <<Vatican, U.S. Bishops: On Catholics in Political Life>> (cf. nt. 52), 133.
54. <<Vatican, U.S. Bishops: On Catholics in Political Life>> (cf. nt. 52), 133.
55. <<Vatican, U.S. Bishops: On Catholics in Political Life>> (cf. nt. 52), 133-134.
56. <<Vatican, U.S. Bishops: On Catholics in Political Life>> (cf. nt. 52), 134.
57. <<Vatican, U.S. Bishops: On Catholics in Political Life>> (cf. nt. 52), 134.
58. <<Vatican U.S. Bishops: On Catholics in Political Life>> (cf. nt. 52), 134.
59. <<Vatican, U.S. Bishops: On Catholics in Political Life>> (cf. nt. 52), 134.
60. <<Vatican, U.S. Bishops: On Catholics in Political Life>> (cf. nt. 52), 134.
61. <<Vatican, U.S. Bishops: On Catholics in Political Life>> (cf. nt. 52), 133.
62. <<Can. 855 §1. Arcendi sunt ab Eucharistia publice indigni, quales sunt excommunicati, interdicti manifestoque infames, nisi de eorum poenitentia et emendatione constet et publico scandalo prius satisfecerint.§2. Occultos vcro peccatores, si occulte petant et eos non emendatos agnoverit, minister repellat; non autem, si publice petant et sine scandalo ipsos praeterire nequeat.>>
63. <<[…] iis nempe qui sunt equidem subiectum capax sacramenti, sed nequeunt eiusdem effectum percipere, cum in statu peccati mortalis versentur sine voluntate sese emendandi.>> F.M. CAPPELLO, Tractatus canonico-moralis de Sacramentis, Vol. I, 7^th ed., Turin 1962, 48, n. 58.
64. <<Id postulat ipsa sacramentorum dignitas et virtus religionis, ne sacra profanationi exponantur; postulat fidelitas ministri, qui prohibetur sanctum dare canibus et margaritas ante porcos proiicere; postulat caritatis lex, ne iis, qui indigne sacramenta recipere conantur et audent, minister cooperetur scandalumve praebeat (cf. can. 855).>> F.M. CAPPELLO, Tractatus canonico-moralis de Sacramentis (cf nt.53), 48.
65. <<Ad Sanctissimae Eucharistiae celebrationem aut communionem ne admittantur qui graviter delinquerunt et in contumacia manifesto perseverant.>> PONTIFICIA COMMISSIO CODICI IURIS CANONICI RECOGNOSCENDO, Schema Documenti Pontificii quo Disciplina Canonica de Sacramentis Recognoscitur, Vatican City State 1975, can. 75.
66. Cf. Communicationes 13 (1981) 408-425.
67. Cf. Communicationes 13 (1981) 412.
68. Cf. Communicationes 13 (1981) 412-413.
69. Cf. Conununicationes 13 (1981) 413.
70. <<Ad sacram communionem ne admittantur qui graviter et publice deliquerunt et in contumacia manifesto perseverant.>> Codex Iuris Canonici: Schema Patribus Commissionis Reservatum, E Civitate Vaticana 1980, can. 867.
71. PONTIFICIA COMMISSIO CODICI IURIS CANONICI RECOGNOSCENDO, Relatio complectens svnthesim animadversionum ab Em.mis atque Exc.mis Patribus Commissionis ad novissimum schema Codicis Iuris Canonici exhibitarum, cum responsionibus a Secretaria et Consultoribus datis, E Civitate Vaticana 1981,214.
72. <<Can. 1135 §1. Exequiis ecclesiasticis privandi sunt, nisi ante mortem aliqua dederint paenitentiae signa:
    1. notorii apostatae, haeretici et schismatici;
    2. qui proprii corporis cremationem elegerint ob rationes fidei christianae adversas;
    3. alii peccatores manifesti quibus exequiae ecclesiasticae non sine publico fidelium scandalo concedi possunt.>>

    §2. Occurrente aliquo dubio consulatur loci Ordinarius, cuius iudicio standum est.>> Codex Iuris Canonici: Schema Patribus Commissionis Reservatum, E Civitate Vaticana: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1980, can. 1135.

73. <<Tcxtus sufficit cum omnia requisita habeantur: actus gravitas, nempe, et publicitas actus necnon contumacia. Certocertius textus respicit etiam divortiatos et renuptiatos.>> PONTIFICIA COMMISSIO CODICI IURIS CANONICI RECOGNOSCENDO, Relatio complectens (cf. nt. 71), 214.
74. <<Can. 913. Ad sacram communionem ne admittatur excommunicati et interdicti post irrogationem vel declarationem poenae aliique in manifesto gravi peccato obstinate perseverantes.>> Codex Iuris Canonici: Schema Novissimum post consultationem S.R.E. Cardinalium, Episcoporum Conferentiaruin, Dicasteriorum Curiae Romanae, Universitatum Facultatumque ecclesiasticarum necnon Superiorum Institutorum vitae consecratae recognition, iuxta placita Patrum Commissionis deinde emendatum atque SUMMO PONTIFICI praesentatum, E Civitate Vaticana 1982,167.
75. The Canon Law Letter & Spirit: A Practical Guide to the Code of Canon Law, Dublin 1995,503.
76. J.P. BEAL. – J.A. CORIDEN – T.J. GREEN (edd.), New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, New York 2000, 1111.
77. <<Can. 47. Arcendi sunt a participatione in divina Eucharistic publice indigni, nisi constet de eorum paenitentia et >emendatione.>> Nuntia 11 (1980) 91.
78. Nuntia 15 (1982) 3.
79. <<II gruppo di studio omette l’ultima clausola perché non necessaria, e cambia la prima parte del canone redazionalmente come segue: arcendi sunt a receptione Divinae Eucharistiae publice indigni.>> Nuntia 15 (1982) 32.
80. <<Can. 708. Arcendi sunt a susceptione Divinae Eucharistiae publice indigni.>> Ntmtia 24-25 (1987) 131.
81. V.J.POSPISHIL, Eastern Catholic Church Law, 2nd ed., Staten Island (New York) 1996, 400.
82. V.J. POSPISHIL, Eastern Catholic Church Law (cf. nt. 81),400-401.
83. G. NEDUNGATT, A Companion to the Eastern Code, Rome 1994,182.
84. <<In effetti, ricevere il corpo di Cristo essendo pubblicamente indegno costituisce un danno oggettivo per la comunione ecclesiale; è un comportamento che attenta ai diritti della Chiesa e di tutti i fedeli a vivere in coerenza con le esigenze di quella comunione. Nel caso concreto dell’ammissione alla sacra Comunione dei fedeli divorziati risposati, lo scandolo, inteso quale azione che muove gli altri verso il male, riguarda nel contempo il sacramento dell’Eucaristia e l’indissolubilità del matrimonio. Tale scandalo sussiste anche se, purtroppo, siffatto comportamento non destasse più meraviglia: anzi è appunto dinanzi alla deformazione delle coscienze, che si rende più necessaria nei Pastori un’azione, paziente quanto ferma, a tutela della santità dei sacramenti, a difesa della moralità cristiana e per la retta formazione dei fedeli.>> PONTIFICIUM CONSILIUM DE LEGUM TEXTIBUS, <<Acta Consilii: Dichiarazione>>, Communicationes 32 (2000) 160. English translation from L’Osservatore Romano, Weekly Edition in English, 12 July 2000, 3-4.
85. <<[…] ci sarebbe bisogno di tutte le condizioni, anche soggettive, richieste per l’esistenza di un peccato mortale, per cui it ministro della Comunione non potrebbe emettere ab externo un giudizio del genere, […] occorrerebbe riscontrare un atteggiamento di sfida del fedele, dopo una legittima ammonizione del Pastore.>> PONTIFICIUM CONSILIUM DE LEGUM TEXTIBUS, <<Acta Consilii: I, Dichiarazione>> (cf. nt. 85), 159.
86. <<[…] rendendo la norma inapplicabile.>> PONTIFICIUM CONSILIUM DE LEGUM TEXTIBUS, <<Acta Consilii: I, Dichiarazione>> (cf. nt. 85), 160.
87. Bishop D. WUERL, <<Faith, Personal Conviction and Political Life>>, Origins 34 (2004) 40.
88. <<Abortus ergo et euthanasia crimina sunt quae nulla humana lex potest rata facere. Huiusmodi leges non modo conscientiam non devinciunt, verum graviter nominatimque compellunt ut iisdent per conscientiae repugnantiam officiatur.>> POPE JOHN PAUL II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, “On the Inviolable Good of Human Life,” 25 March 1995, AAS 87 (1995) 486, n. 73a.
89. <<Vatican, U.S. Bishops: On Catholics in Political Life>>, Origins 34 (2004) 134.
90. <<[…] nessuna autorità ecclesiastica può dispensare in alcun caso da quest’obbligo del ministro della sacra Comunione, né emanare direttive the lo contraddicono.>> PONTIFICIUM CONSILIUM DE LEGUM TEXTIBUS, <<Acta Consilii: I, Dichiarazione>>, Communicationes 32 (2000) 161; English translation from L’Osservatore Romano, Weekly Edition in English, 12 July 2000, 4.
91. EdeE lb.

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/holycom/denial.htm

Bishop Morlino Misses the Mark and an Opportunity —- from Summum Bonum [http://memorpetri.com/]

Bishop Morlino Misses the Mark and an Opportunity

September 8th, 2009   [http://memorpetri.com/]

Bishop Morlino of Madison, Wisconsin wrote a letter in his diocesan paper, The Catholic Herald, last week bemoaning what he calls the “sinful” reaction of some Catholics to Ted Kennedy’s very public, very dramatic, celebrity funeral. I have to say with due respect that the bishop has missed the mark on several key points. I will explain.

Catholics should not speak ill of the dead; no one should. And no one should presume to know what was in Kennedy’s heart when he died; this is only God’s purview. However, the grave side remarks made by Cardinal McCarrick, the eulogy by Fr. Patrick Tarrant, and Cardinal O’Malley’s conspicuous presence scandalized, yes scandalized a great many Catholics who did not have hatred in their hearts. Bishop Morlino should countenance this. Moreover, instead of emphasizing those who were “led into scandal” by the Kennedy funeral spectacle, he should recognize the scandal of the spectacle itself.

There was a way to handle the funeral of Kennedy, who was the main architect of the Democratic party’s abortion policy for the last 39 years: a private funeral without all of the fanfare, without the major prelates, without the paeans of praise, without the mixed messages from the Church.

Bishop Morlino talks of the “disconnect” between Kennedy’s care for the poor and his pro-abortion position. I would strongly suggest it was more than a “disconnect.” The bishop then resurrects the concept “of the seamless garment” made so famous by Cardinal Bernardin:

“The challenge for us as Catholics in the United States — and it is a challenge both personally and as a community — is to bridge that disconnect and pull that whole seamless garment of the defense of life together, rather than rending that garment in twain and choosing one, while almost, or actually, excluding the other. The social teaching of the Church and her pro-life stance surely are interwoven as a seamless garment.”

The seamless garment thesis concerning Catholic teaching on life issues has been discredited because at bottom the idea is about moral equivalency. It does not recognize moral differences between capital punishment, going to war, the right to healthcare, the right to life, racisim, euthanasia, and right to housing. The right to life from birth to natural death is the cornerstone, the foundation, of any authentic social justice ethos within the Church. Abortion and euthanasia are two issues which are not morally equivalent to capital punishment or the right to basic health care. They share a special status morally because of their gravity and because they are the basis for any coherent social justice endeavor. This is made clear in John Paul II’s Evangelium Vitae:

“[T]he Direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral” (Evangelium Vitae, n. 57). “[A] civil law authorizing abortion or euthanasia ceases by that very fact to be a true, morally binding civil law….In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to ‘take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it’” (EV, n. 72-73, from Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration on Procured Abortion [1974], n. 22).

”[W]hen it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality” (EV, n. 73).

With all due respect to Bishop Morlino the true seamless garment is Christ’s teaching, transmitted through the Gospel and tradition, about the inherent worth of human creation. What lasting good does a politician offer to society if he cares for the material needs of the poor while also purveying abortion to them at the same time?

Bishop Morlino also references the “false catechesis” provided to Kennedy by priests and theologians such as Charles Curran, Rev. Robert Drinan and Rev. Richard McCormick. Again, I would take issue with the word “catechesis” here. In his book, The Birth of Bioethics (Oxford, 2003), ex-Jesuit, Albert Jonsen, does not describe the meetings between Joseph Fuchs, Curran, McCormick and others as catechetical in nature, but as strategic. Kennedy was looking for a way to rationalize and redefine his view on abortion, so the powerful pro-abortion lobby, which included NARAL and NOW, could be counted on for monetary support of the Democratic party. His “theological advisors” were trying to muddy the waters for Catholics and they did. We are now reaping what they have sewn in the Church today. To suggest that Kennedy was somehow looking for catechetical guidance is naive given the public positions on life issues and artificial contraception such advisors openly advocate. Second, I do not believe Ted Kennedy was “confused” or challenged by moral “ambiguity” because of the “theological advice” he was given. Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI have been unequivocal on the right to life and the protections which a just society is required to afford the unborn, the sick and the elderly. No average church going Catholic I know has any doubt about what the Church really teaches beyond the ambivalence of some of their pastors. Moreover, his sister Eunice Shriver, who fully embraced  Catholic pro-life teaching, was a clear and abiding example in his life. Surely, Bishop Morlino does not really believe that Ted Kennedy was “confused” about what the Church taught.

Much of what happened at the funeral could have been mitigated  with some well-placed recognition of the Church’s teaching on life. This would not have been difficult given the presence of episcopal graces both cardinals possess. Either could have reminded all at that funeral about the most basic requirement of a just society: the protection of its smallest members.

In his latest encyclical, “Charity in Truth” Benedict XVI, does this beautifully by underscoring the edifice on which a just society is built:

“One of the most striking aspects of development in the present day is the important question of respect for life, which cannot in any way be detached from questions concerning the development of peoples. It is an aspect which has acquired increasing prominence in recent times, obliging us to broaden our concept of poverty[66] and underdevelopment to include questions connected with the acceptance of life, especially in cases where it is impeded in a variety of ways” (Charity in Truth, n. 28).

http://memorpetri.com/

Naumann and Finn on Health Care Reform: A Joint Pastoral Statement [Posted on Catholic Key blog - http://www.catholickey.blogspot.com/]

Posted on Catholic Key blog – http://www.catholickey.blogspot.com/

Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Kansas City Bishops Issue Joint Health Care Reform Pastoral Statement

Following is a joint pastoral statement by Kansas City, Kansas Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann and Kansas City – St. Joseph Bishop Robert W. Finn:

Principles of Catholic Social Teaching and Health Care Reform

A Joint Pastoral Statement

of

Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann and Bishop Robert W. Finn

Dear Faithful of the Archdiocese of Kansas City in Kansas and of the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph,

To his credit, President Barack Obama has made it a major priority for his administration to address the current flaws in our nation’s health care policies. In fairness, members of both political parties for some time have recognized significant problems in the current methods of providing health care.

As Catholics, we are proud of the Church’s healthcare contribution to the world. Indeed, the hospital was originally an innovation of the Catholic faithful responding to our Lord’s call to care for the sick, “For I was…ill and you cared for me.” (Matthew 25, v. 35-36). This tradition continues today in America, where currently one in four hospitals is run by a Catholic agency. We have listened to current debate with great attention and write now to contribute our part to ensure that this reform be an authentic reform taking full consideration of the dignity of the human person.

Some symptoms of the inadequacy of our present health care polices are:

1) There are many people – typically cited as 47 million – without medical insurance.

2) The cost of health insurance continues to rise, with medical spending in the U.S. at $2.2 trillion in 2007, constituting 17% of the Gross Domestic Product, and predicted to double within 10 years. (Source: Office of Public Affairs, 2008: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/proj2008.pdf).

3) The Medicare Trust Fund is predicted to be insolvent by 2019.

4) Mandated health insurance benefits for full-time workers have created an incentive for companies to hire part-time rather than full-time employees.

5) Similarly, the much higher cost to employers for family health coverage, as compared to individual coverage, places job candidates with many dependents at a disadvantage in a competitive market.

6) Individuals with pre-existing conditions who most need medical care are often denied the means to acquire it.

There are also perceived strengths of our current system:

1) Most Americans like the medical care services available to them. Our country, in some ways, is the envy of people from countries with socialized systems of medical care.

2) It is important to remember that 85% of citizens in the U.S. do have insurance. Forty percent of the uninsured are between 19-34 years old. (Source: Current Population Survey 2008 Annual Social and Economic Supplement) A 2007 study by the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and Uninsured found that 11 million of those without insurance were eligible for Medicaid or SCHIP but were not enrolled. Those eligible but not enrolled include 74 percent of children who are uninsured. (Source: Characteristics of the Uninsured: Who Is Eligible for Public Coverage and Who Needs Help Affording Coverage?)

3) The competitive nature of our private sector system is an incentive to positive innovation and the development of advanced technology. Medical doctors and research scientists are esteemed. Doctors and other scientists immigrate to our country because of the better compensation given to those who provide quality medical care or produce successful research.

4) Medicare and Medicaid, while they have their limitations, provide an important safety net for many of the elderly, the poor and the disabled.

What Must We Do?

The justified reaction to the significant defects in our current health care policies is to say, “Something must be done.” Many believe: “We have to change health care in America.” Despite the many flaws with our current policies, change itself does not guarantee improvement. Many of the proposals which have been promoted would diminish the protection of human life and dignity and shift our health care costs and delivery to a centralized government bureaucracy. Centralization carries the risk of a loss of personal responsibility, reduction in personalized care for the sick and an expanded bureaucracy that in the end leads to higher costs.

A Renewal Built on Principles

We claim no expertise in economics or the complexities of modern medical science. However, effective health care policies must be built on a foundation of proper moral principles. The needed change in health care must therefore flow from certain principles that protect the fundamental life and dignity of the human person and the societal principles of justice, which are best safeguarded when such vital needs are provided for in a context of human love and reason, and when the delivery of care is determined at the lowest reasonable level. The rich tradition of Catholic social and moral teaching should guide our evaluation of the many and varied proposals for health care reform. It is our intention in this pastoral reflection to identify and explain the most important principles for evaluating health care reform proposals. No Catholic in good conscience can disregard these fundamental moral principles, although there can and likely will be vigorous debate about their proper application.

I. The Principle of Subsidiarity: Preamble to the Work of Reform

This notion that health care ought to be determined at the lowest level rather than at the higher strata of society, has been promoted by the Church as “subsidiarity.” Subsidiarity is that principle by which we respect the inherent dignity and freedom of the individual by never doing for others what they can do for themselves and thus enabling individuals to have the most possible discretion in the affairs of their lives. (See: Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, ## 185ff.; Catechism of the Catholic Church, # 1883) The writings of recent Popes have warned that the neglect of subsidiarity can lead to an excessive centralization of human services, which in turn leads to excessive costs, and loss of personal responsibility and quality of care.

Pope John Paul II wrote:

“By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending.” (Pope John Paul II, Centesimus Annus #48)

And Pope Benedict writes:

“The State which would provide everything, absorbing everything into itself, would ultimately become a mere bureaucracy incapable of guaranteeing the very thing which the suffering person—every person—needs: namely, loving personal concern. We do not need a State which regulates and controls everything, but a State which, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, generously acknowledges and supports initiatives arising from the different social forces and combines spontaneity with closeness to those in need. … In the end, the claim that just social structures would make works of charity superfluous masks a materialist conception of man: the mistaken notion that man can live ‘by bread alone’ (Mt 4:4; cf. Dt 8:3)—a conviction that demeans man and ultimately disregards all that is specifically human.” (Pope Benedict XVI, Deus Caritas Est #28)

While subsidiarity is vital to the structure of justice, we can see from what the Popes say that it rests on a more fundamental principal, the unchanging dignity of the person. The belief in the innate value of human life and the transcendent dignity of the human person must be the primordial driving force of reform efforts.

II. Principle of the Life and Dignity of the Human Person: Driving Force for Care, and Constitutive Ground of Human Justice

A. Exclusion of Abortion and Protection of Conscience Rights

Recent cautionary notes have been sounded by Cardinal Justin Rigali, Chair of the U.S. Bishops Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities, and Bishop William Murphy of the U.S. Bishops Committee on Domestic Justice and Social Development, against the inclusion of abortion in a revised health care plan. At the same time, they have warned against the endangerment or loss of conscience rights protection for individual health care workers or private health care institutions. A huge resource of professionals and institutions dedicated to care of the sick could find themselves excluded, by legislation, after health care reform, if they failed to provide services which are destructive of human life, and which are radically counter to their conscience and institutional mission. The loss of Catholic hospitals and health care providers, which currently do more to provide pro bono services to the poor and the marginalized than their for-profit counterparts, would be a tremendous blow to the already strained health care system in our country.

It is imperative that any health care reform package must keep intact our current public polices protecting taxpayers from being coerced to fund abortions. It is inadequate to propose legislation that is silent on this morally crucial matter. Given the penchant of our courts over the past 35 years to claim unarticulated rights in our Constitution, the explicit exclusion of so-called “abortion services” from coverage is essential. Similarly, health care reform legislation must clearly articulate the rights of conscience for individuals and institutions.

B. Exclude Mandated End of Life Counseling for Elderly and Disabled

Some proposals for government reform have referenced end of life counseling for the elderly or disabled.

An August 3, 2009 Statement of the National Association of Pro-Life Nurses on Health Care Legislation, in addition to calling for the exclusion of mandates for abortion, the protection of abortion funding prohibitions, and the assurance of conscience rights, insists that the mandating of end of life consultation for anyone regardless of age or condition would place undue pressure on the individual or guardian to opt for measures to end life, and would send the message that they are no longer of value to society.

The nurses’ statement concludes, “We believe those lives and all lives are valuable and to be respected and cared for to the best of our abilities. Care must be provided for any human being in need of care regardless of disability or level of function or dependence on others in accordance with the 1999 Supreme Court Decision in Olmstead v. L.C.” (www.nursesforlife.org/napnstatement.pdf)

Recently, Bishop Walker Nickless of the Catholic Diocese of Sioux City, Iowa, commented on the dangers inherent in the establishment of a health care monopoly, drawing a comparison to the experience of HMO plans in our country, where individuals entrusted with keeping the cost of health care at a minimum may refuse to authorize helpful or necessary treatment for their clients. (See Bishop Walker Nickless, Column in The Catholic Globe, August 13, 2009)

C. The “Right to Acquisition of Health Care” in the Teaching of the Church

The “Right to Health Care” as taught by the Church is a companion to the fundamental right to life, and rights to other necessities, among them food, clothing, and shelter. It may be best understood as a “Right to Acquire the Means of Procuring for One’s Self and One’s Family these goods, and concomitantly, a duty to exercise virtue (diligence, thrift, charity) in every aspect of their acquisition and discharge. This language of rights, coupled with duties toward those who ‘through no fault of their own’ are unable to work, is present throughout papal teaching, and only reinforces the idea that, in its proper perspective, the goal is to live and to work and ‘to be looked after’ only in the event of real necessity.” (Source: Catholic Medical Association, 2004 document, Health Care in America. – bold and italics our own)

The right of every individual to access health care does not necessarily suppose an obligation on the part of the government to provide it. Yet in our American culture, Catholic teaching about the “right” to healthcare is sometimes confused with the structures of “entitlement.” The teaching of the Universal Church has never been to suggest a government socialization of medical services. Rather, the Church has asserted the rights of every individual to have access to those things most necessary for sustaining and caring for human life, while at the same time insisting on the personal responsibility of each individual to care properly for his or her own health.

Indeed part of the crisis in today’s system stems from various misappropriations within health care insurance systems of exorbitant elective treatments, or the tendencies to regard health care services paid for by insurance as “free,” and to take advantage of services that happen to be available under the insurance plan. Such practices may arguably cripple the ability of small companies to provide necessary opportunities to their employees and significantly increase the cost of health care for everyone.

D. The Right to Make Health Care Decisions for Self and Family

Following both the notions of subsidiarity mentioned above and the sense of the life and dignity of every human person, it is vital to preserve, on the part of individuals and their families, the right to make well-informed decisions concerning their care. This is why some system of vouchers – at least on a theoretical level – is worthy of consideration. Allowing persons who through no fault of their own are unable to work, to have some means to acquire health care brings with it a greater sense of responsibility and ownership which, in a more centralized system, may be more vulnerable to abusive tendencies.

When the individual has a personal, monetary stake or a financial obligation to pay even a portion of the cost of medical care, prudence comes to bear – with greater consistency – on such decisions, and unnecessary costs are minimized. Valuing the right of individuals to have a direct say in their care favors a reform which, reflecting subsidiarity, places responsibility at the lowest level.

E. Obligation of Prudent Preventative Care

All individuals, including those who receive assistance for health care, might be given incentives for good preventative practices: proper diet, moderate exercise, and moderation of tobacco and alcohol use. As Bishop Nickless reminds us in his statement, “The gift of life comes only from God, and to spurn that gift by seriously mistreating our own health is morally wrong.” (Ibid.)

Some categories of positive preventative health care, however, may not easily be procured apart from medical intervention. Pre-natal and neo-natal care are particularly crucial and should be given priority in any reform. Because of the unique vulnerability of the unborn and newly born child, such services ought to be provided regardless of ability to pay.

In addition to the primordial Principle of the Life and Dignity of the Human Person delivered in a way which respects subsidiarity, we might look briefly at two other principles which promote justice in the consideration of health care.

II. Principle of the Obligation to the Common Good: Why We Must Act

The Catechism of the Catholic Church speaks of the obligation to promote the common good as “the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and easily.” (CCC #1906)

It is very clear that, respectful of this principle, we must find some way to provide a safety net for people in need without diminishing personal responsibility or creating an inordinately bureaucratic structure which will be vulnerable to financial abuse, be crippling to our national economy, and remove the sense of humanity from the work of healing and helping the sick.

The Church clearly advocates authentic reform which addresses this obligation, while respecting the fundamental dignity of persons and not undermining the stability of future generations.

Both of us in our family histories have had experiences that make us keenly aware of the necessity for society to provide a safety net to families who suffer catastrophic losses. Yet, these safety nets are not intended to create permanent dependency for individuals or families upon the State, but rather to provide them with the opportunity to regain control of their own lives and their own destiny.

Closely tied to the Principle of the Obligation of the Common Good is the Principle of Solidarity.

III. The Principle of Solidarity: The Way We Measure Our Love

The principle of human solidarity is a particular application – on the level of society – of Christ’s command to love your neighbor as yourself. It might also be seen, in other terms, as the application of the Golden Rule, “Do unto others as you would have them do to you.” Solidarity is our sense of “connectedness” to each other person, and moves us to want for them what we would want for ourselves and our most dear loved ones.

In regard to health care this might require us to examine any proposal in terms of what it provides – and how – to the most vulnerable in our society. Dr. Donald P. Condit in his helpful treatment of the principle of Solidarity in “Prescription for Health Care Reform” reminds us of the proverb attributed to Mahatma Gandhi: “A nation’s greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members.”

For example, legislation that excludes legal immigrants from receiving health care benefits violates the principle of solidarity, is unjust and is not prudent. In evaluating health care reform proposals perhaps we ought to ask ourselves whether the poor would have access to the kind and quality of health care that you and I would deem necessary for our families. Is there a way by which the poor, too, can assume more responsibility for their own health care decisions in such manner as reflects their innate human dignity and is protective of their physical and spiritual well being?

Conclusion: We Can Not Be Passive

These last two principles: Solidarity and the Promotion of the Common Good cause us to say that we cannot be passive concerning health care policy in our country. There is important work to be done, but “change” for change’s sake; change which expands the reach of government beyond its competence would do more harm than good. Change which loses sight of man’s transcendent dignity or the irreplaceable value of human life; change which could diminish the role of those in need as agents of their own care is not truly human progress at all.

A hasty or unprincipled change could cause us, in fact, to lose some of the significant benefits that Americans now enjoy, while creating a future tax burden which is both unjust and unsustainable.

We urge the President, Congress, and other elected and appointed leaders to develop prescriptions for reforming health care which are built on objective truths: that all people in every stage of human life count for something; that if we violate our core beliefs we are not aiding people in need, but instead devaluing their human integrity and that of us all.

We call upon our Catholic faithful, and all people of good will, to hold our elected officials accountable in these important deliberations and let them know clearly our support for those who, with prudence and wisdom, will protect the right to life, maintain freedom of conscience, and nurture the sense of solidarity that drives us to work hard, to pray, and to act charitably for the good of all.

We place this effort under the maternal protection of our Blessed Mother, Mary, who was entrusted, with Joseph in the home at Nazareth, with the care of the child Jesus. We ask Our Lord Jesus Christ to extend His light and His Mercy to our nation’s efforts, so that every person will come to know His healing consolation as Divine Physician.

Most Reverend Joseph F. Naumann – Archbishop of Kansas City in Kansas

Most Reverend Robert W. Finn – Bishop of Kansas City-St. Joseph

August 22, 2009

Memorial of the Queenship of Mary
Bookmark and Share

Too Little and Too Late: Legion Superiors address Regnum Christi

Thy Kingdom Come!

REGNUM CHR I S T I

MOVEMENT

_______

TERRITORIAL DIRECTOR

September 1, 2009

To Regnum Christi Members and Friends

Atlanta and New York Territories

Dear friends in Christ,

In Atlanta, we recently enjoyed a visit from our General Director, Father Alvaro

Corcuera. He celebrated Mass for Regnum Christi members and friends at the Pinecrest

Academy chapel. During his homily he touched on important points in reference to the

difficulties we have all experienced during these past months, shedding light upon them from the

Gospel. He invited us to discover God’s mysterious design also within the realities we are living,

which we never would have expected to experience. It was an intense moment of prayer and

unity, gathered around Christ.

He has also traveled to Cheshire, Connecticut, to preside over the ceremony of the

profession of vows of a group of novices and religious on August 29. With this important step,

these brothers continue their path to the priesthood in the Legion of Christ, at the service of the

Church, by dedicating themselves to a mission that “is of fundamental importance and is worth

devoting oneself to with broadmindedness and an unsullied heart…” (Letter of Cardinal Tarcisio

Bertone to Father Alvaro Corcuera, March 10, 2009).

We are grateful to God for the gift of his leadership, full of Christian prudence and

charity. We are confident that the Lord assists him with his grace in the difficult task he has at

this time.

With this letter we would like to share with you some of the thoughts and

recommendations that he has been offering to members of the Legion of Christ and consecrated

members of Regnum Christi through his talks, homilies and letters over these past months. We

are sure they can also be of help to you.

We also hope to remedy some of our shortcomings in communication –for which we are

sorry–, so that together we can continue walking what will surely be a long path of healing and

reconciliation with those who have been hurt by the misdeeds of Father Maciel.

2

As priests, our hearts go out to all those who have been harmed or scandalized by his

actions. To all we extend a special apology on behalf of the Legion and our General Director,

Father Alvaro Corcuera, who has, in fact, begun to reach out personally and in private to those he

knows may have suffered most, offering his heartfelt apology and consolation, and will continue

to do so. As he wrote in his March 29 letter: “We are deeply saddened and sorry, and we

sincerely ask for forgiveness from God and from those who have been hurt through this.” We

also regret that our inability to detect, and thus accept and remedy, Father Maciel’s failings has

caused even more suffering.

In the recent past, after Father Marcial Maciel had retired, we came to know that he had

had a relationship with a woman and fathered a child. Even more recently, there have been

allegations of other relationships and other children. Given the partial nature of the information

available and the impossibility to evaluate immediately and in a definitive manner these complex

allegations, the Legion of Christ cannot, at this time, make a statement regarding them.

All this leads us to value even more the wisdom and pastoral approach of the Holy See

concerning the allegations of past sexual abuse against Father Maciel that had surfaced. As it was

stated in the communiqué published on May 19, 2006, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the

Faith investigated these issues and invited him to a reserved life of prayer and penance,

renouncing all public ministry.

As an institution, as a family and as individuals, this unexpected turn of events has been

traumatic. Being weak humans, even if reacting with Christian virtue, many of us have gone

through experiences of shock, anger, disbelief, denial and fear, both humanly and spiritually.

These emotions, the vast tangle of information, supposition, speculation and opinion, the

different cultural sensitivities, and the Christian duty not to publicize the sins of others, have

made it difficult to publish the sort of direct statement that many expected of us.

Added to this, is the fact that we did not know the whole truth, we may not know it yet,

and new information may well continue to come to light. What we do learn, we will address,

respecting the privacy of those who request it of us.

As Legionaries, consecrated members of Regnum Christi and Regnum Christi members of all

walks of life, we too have been experiencing a deep struggle. We are all wounded by this news,

and need the comfort and support of each other. We want to thank all those who have understood

the depth of our suffering, and offered their understanding and kindness. As we have just

mentioned, we wish to be close to anyone who has suffered in any way, and at the same time ask

them to live the Christian virtue of pardon from the depth of their hearts.

1. This brings us to a key point in relation to you, our friends. It is clear that all these facts lead

us to think about the past, the present and the future. Many of you have rightly asked if the

Legion has made or will make changes in its life. Yes…we have, we are and we will. Some

examples:

3

a. One of the questions that come to mind refers to the “safe environment and child

protection” measures in our communities and apostolates. Our Constitutions, other norms

and many elements of our discipline have always helped us to be particularly careful in

the dealing with minors. More recently we are in the process of accreditation by

Praesidium, a risk management organization now helping a great number of religious

institutions in North America. Praesidium is conducting a full review of our internal rules

and policies, as well as our training of all those who deal with minors. They will shortly

be conducting on-site visitation of several of our institutions to verify that what is on

paper is being applied. There are twenty-five accreditation standards to meet, covering

the areas of prevention, response and supervision. Here in the U.S. we have also set up an

external review board so that in the event of allegations of sexual abuse, we have the

advantage of “outside eyes” to weigh the evidence, issues and provide us with

recommendations. Praesidium accreditation is being promoted by the Conference of

Major Superiors of Men, which links all the male religious orders in this country.

We also fully comply with all diocesan standards, which vary from place to place.

b. On the financial side, for a long time now we have had yearly audits done by outside

accounting firms. We could not have acquired the loans we needed to purchase our

seminaries and found the many works of apostolate undertaken during these years

without systems in place of strict accountability and responsible financial management.

In recent years, due to the growth of our operations, we have put in place a still more

professional system of business management through the services of Integer Group.

Staffed by lay professionals, Integer has further improved our operating and management

processes to ensure the integrity of all our operations.

c. A further area of adjustment which has begun and continues in process is the way we

refer to Father Maciel in the Legion and Regnum Christi. While we cannot deny that

Father Maciel was our founder and did much good, neither can we deny the reality of

what has recently come to light and his grave human failings. We have taken progressive

steps to make sure that there is no inappropriate reference to Father Maciel (we have, for

example, removed pictures of him from our center; we have extensively edited our

websites; we are in the process of reviewing new editions of other writings, brochures,

etc.). All this has led us to what is most essential: to center our life, even more, in Jesus

Christ.

This is an ongoing and difficult process given the need to discern his person from the

solid Catholic doctrine that he transmitted and the legitimate institutional aspects of the

Legion of Christ and Regnum Christ. This discernment is not something that can be done

lightly or overnight. Father Alvaro has and will seek the advice and guidance of learned

4

and prudent men of the Church to enlighten this difficult question seeking not to lose

God’s gifts to the Legion and Regnum Christi.

2. We are also receiving enormous help from the Church, especially from the Holy Father, Pope

Benedict XVI, to whom we are truly grateful.

a. You know that he has mandated an Apostolic Visitation of the Legion. Archbishop

Charles Joseph Chaput of Denver has been appointed as Visitor for the Legion in the

United States and Canada. Archbishop Chaput will visit our seminaries and religious

houses, see our life up close and interview whomever he wants. His mandate will be to

question, probe and assess with depth and objectivity. Legionaries are free to speak and

write to him with all their comments and questions. He sets his own timetable and the

points he wishes to probe, and he will present his findings and recommendations directly

to the Holy See.

For the moment, the Legion cannot make any specific statements regarding the content or

development of the Visitation, since this would interfere with the work of the Visitors.

b. Questions and comments have also been raised regarding the “private vow of charity”

that was professed in the Legion. The rationale of this vow was to ensure that the

grievances one could have with his superior were brought to those who could resolve

them and thus avoid irresponsible criticism or internal factions that degrade unity. This

vow had been in place since 1957 and was approved by the Church. Pope Benedict XVI,

who has the power to bind and loose, asked the Legion to remove it, which we did two

years ago.

c. In the past two years, also following the indications we received from the Holy Father,

we changed our general practice of superiors being the spiritual directors of their

subjects. This practice was based on one of the century-old monastic traditions that view

the superior as Spiritual Father and Mentor of his community. We are seeing positive

fruits from this change of practice.

d. There also have been changes in the Legion regarding sacramental confession. In the

past, members were free to go to the Ordinary or Extraordinary confessors (assigned by

the General Director for each community). They were also free to go to any other

Catholic priest with faculties for confession. Members often asked to go to confession

with their own superiors.

Following the instructions of the Holy See, today superiors are no longer habitual

confessors for those under their authority.

5

e. We would finally like to mention that our general director is in frequent contact with our

superiors in the Holy See and also with the Apostolic Visitors to speak about these and

other complex issues.

These are some of the significant steps the Legion of Christ has taken. And as we said, we

expect more will come in time, with judgment and prudence.

Understandably, in the midst of the present circumstances there have been a few of our

members who have felt that they can serve God better by separating themselves from the Legion

and Regnum Christi; others have opted temporarily to step aside to see and evaluate, waiting also

to see the outcome of the Visitation. The vast majority has opted to continue doing as much good

as they can from where they are, knowing that our time here on earth is limited, and trusting that

with the guidance of the Church whatever needs to be corrected in time, and whatever is good

will be confirmed. Each one has made his or her choice before God, moved by their love for him

and their desire to serve him to the best of their ability, and for no other consideration. Let us

have great Christian understanding and respect for all. Each of us must presume the best and

purest intention in the other, pray for each other, and recognize that each one of us suffers and

recovers in different ways and at different times.

As Father Álvaro told us in his homily, in Cheshire, St. John Chrysostom teaches us fives

ways to reach reconciliation: asking for pardon, forgiving others, prayer, almsgiving and

humility (cf. ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM, Homilies, PG 49, 263-264). Let us ask the Lord to grant us

the grace to walk this path, inasmuch as each one of us needs it, for his greater glory.

Loving, serving, and building together –that has been our life in the Legion and Regnum

Christi. As tragic as the failings of our founder are, they should not cause us to diminish our

efforts to bring souls to Christ, and to serve him and the Church selflessly in all our brothers and

sisters.

You have worked so hard to create apostolates, build schools, run youth clubs, form people

in the Catholic faith – and those efforts are good and real. Let nothing distract you from loving

and serving God in your neighbor. We enter now into a new chapter of our history which must

be focused on the pursuit of holiness and love for souls.

May we take inspiration from our Blessed Mother who “meditated all these things in her

heart” (cf. Lk 2:51). She will lead us along the path of God’s will and help us to respond as she

did: “May it be done to me according to your word” (Lk 1:38).

May Saint Paul’s letter to the Corinthians inspire us during these challenging times:

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God

of all comfort, who comforts us in all our affliction, so that we may be able to comfort

those who are in any affliction, with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted

6

by God. For as we share abundantly in Christ’s sufferings, so through Christ we share

abundantly in comfort too.” (2 Corinthians 1:3-5)

You remain in our prayers, and we depend on yours.

Yours in Christ our Lord,

Fr Scott Reilly, LC

Territorial director

Atlanta Territory

Fr Julio Martí, LC

Territorial director

New York Territory

2002 interview of Father Gabriele Amorth at Medjugorje with Father Dario Dodig [http://www.medjugorje.org/framorth1.htm]

http://www.medjugorje.org/framorth1.htm

In the light of the discrediting of Medjugorje, this 2002 interview serves to remind many how treacherous the “apparition business” can be.  The formal ecclesiastical approval is now more important than ever to guide the naive and unsuspecting faithful who are in search of the transcendent in a secularized world.

http://www.medjugorje.org/framorth1.htm

More and More and More on Maciel! [http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/abbott/090813]

Matt C. Abbott column

Legionaries of Christ scandal continues

Matt C. Abbott

Matt C. Abbott
August 13, 2009

Several years ago, at a benefit dinner for a school affiliated with the Legionaries of Christ, I had the pleasure of sitting next to Patrick Madrid, one of my favorite Catholic apologists and an all-around good guy, whom I will quote below . . . [Click for more]

[http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/abbott/090813]

“The Liturgy Changes Us…”: A Review of ‘Worship as a Revelation: The Past, Present and Future of Catholic Liturgy’ by Laurence Paul Hemming [from Ignatius Insight, 2009] [http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2009/bvanhove_hemmingrev_july09.asp]

“The Liturgy Changes Us…”:  A Review of Worship as a Revelation: The Past, Present and Future of Catholic Liturgy,  by Laurence Paul Hemming |  Rev. Brian Van Hove, S.J., Ph.D. |  July 29, 2009

 Worship as a Revelation: The Past, Present and Future of Catholic Liturgy
by Laurence Paul Hemming
Continuum, 2008 (paperback)
192 pages, including glossary, bibliography and index
ISBN: 9-780-8601-2460-3

Liturgy has shifted with the appearance of younger scholars and critics who write about the reform of forty years ago.  Generally, they see defects of the reform to be pronounced and the benefits of it to be dubious. Laurence Paul Hemming calls the present state of Catholic liturgy “chaos”.

Defenders of the official liturgical reform in the days of their euphoria were once able to dismiss negative assessment. Unable now to ignore this rising tide, they are at last compelled to address it. Examples of still-serious defenders are John Baldovin and Piero Marini. [1]

Of course the same official reform (with special reference to the Missal of 1970) is also criticized by those of another extreme who maintain that it did not go far enough. Ironically these, so opposed to authority, do not remember that it was authority itself which launched and supported liturgical reform.

Living with a failed reform is uncomfortable. Pastors who would set things right are afraid to disquiet the ordinary faithful who have already been so disturbed during the previous generation. One is reminded of a work proposing “national repentance” by Alexander Solzhenitsyn, From Under the Rubble. [2] Where do we go from here? Can the Church correct what has gone awry? [3]

Hemming’s academic concentration in philosophy gives him analytical power to comprehend the liturgical situation, even though he does not propose a specific solution to our plight. “However, what historical study of the liturgy has all too often overlooked is the philosophical aspect – or it has substituted the most fundamental philosophical aspect for a metaphysics or rationalism. That missing aspect is what we might call the ’surrounding world’ – the place from out of which man emerges, needing to be redeemed.” A return to a “philosophy of being” was mandated by Pope John Paul II in Fides et Ratio at a juncture when the “turn to the subject” ended in rationalism and nihilism. The quagmire of subjectivism took the liturgy down with it!

Perhaps not since the publication of Jonathan Robinson’s The Mass and Modernity [4] have we had such adroit use of philosophy to help us understand liturgy. Hemming regards this book as a preparation for even greater depth along the same themes, either by him or from future writing of named allies and others who see things, especially the historical Liturgical Movement since Guéranger, in a similar way.

Our author asserts that the enemy of Catholic liturgy is rationalism – “the fact that a propensity towards philosophical rationalism was one of the motor forces of the post-conciliar liturgical reform”. Rationalism is defined as “the understanding that everything, all truth, arises on the basis of what can be foreseen by man, what is calculable and predictable for him in advance of its occurring.” Again, “the rational is the essentially calculable….”

The effect of rationalism and its inherent problematic as applied to the “adaptation of the liturgy” has an extensive history. Only gradually did it become as strong as it is now. Hemming agrees with Martin Heidegger that “God is not an object of philosophy” and he finds an ally in Aidan Nichols on the point – “… the impulses for liturgical reform have their origins in a commitment to rationalism that stems, certainly from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and even before.” [5]

Allies in addition to Nichols include Alcuin Reid and Lauren Pristas. Cited favorably are Klaus Gamber, Martin Mosebach, Uwe Michael Lang and László Dobszay. Hemming is no supporter of Catherine Pickstock who, for a time, was quite fashionable in some circles. Other contemporary figures whose thought he engages in various ways include Odo Casel, Romano Guardini, Cipriano Vagaggini, Berhard Blankenhorn, Margaret Barker and John McDade. This is not a taxative list, either.

When Hemming assesses the calendar reform of 1911, well before the calendar changes so familiar to us, he is only illustrating one example in the long saga of erosion which he sees before the Second Vatican Council. He mentions that the Eastern Church has preserved some liturgical understanding or “ancient practice” now lost in the West. Besides the loss of the “distributed body of Christ” is the loss of all sense of intertwinement between the cycles, sanctoral and temporal. The Christian East kept both insights.

The gravest misunderstanding today is the erroneous interpretation of “active participation” in the liturgy. In Hemming’s view, this misperception which grew in strength after Vatican II, “betrays an underlying rationalism in understanding what the liturgy itself is to do.”

The author traces its root to the “modern self” of Cartesian philosophy. “In his Meditations on First Philosophy, after having established the self as first in the order of things of which I can be certain, the second indubitable thing Descartes discovers is God.” However, the second indubitable thing Descartes discovered was not God, but the idea of God. After explaining the philosophy that reduces the external world to subjectivity, Hemming concludes: “Liturgical prayer works in exactly the opposite way.” We do not approach the liturgy as complete selves – we let our incomplete selves be filled and perfected by the liturgy.

Rather than beginning with the fixed Cartesian ego, approaching the liturgy must begin with an unfinished self “constituted through a pilgrimage of discovery.” Over a lifetime we slowly discover God in and through the liturgy. At least that is what should happen; or that was traditionally the perceived goal. Hemming asserts that the purpose of this book is to emphasize that we do not make or force God to become present in the liturgy. Rather, we listen and wait for God to act and to move us. “Prayer does not bring God or the divine presence to us.” Even esteemed friends seem not to understand this. [6]

Chapter 5 bears the title “Understanding Understanding”. This summarizes Worship as Revelation: The Past, Present and Future of Catholic Liturgy. Unless we come to understand what the liturgy is and how it works to draw us into the mysteries of God, it becomes something else, discontinuous and novel. Hemming identifies the philosophical ideas that affected the formal liturgical reform of our tradition. These ideas show their imprint upon Sacrosanctum Concilium.

Deepening our understanding of what happened over the last century or more can help us address the confusion introduced by the reform. If the old Liturgical Movement of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries influenced bishops, council and pope, then a New Liturgical Movement may do something similar for us.

Paraphrasing Hemming, we need to recover the wisdom that “the liturgy changes us – so who are we to change the liturgy?”

ENDNOTES:

[1] John F. Baldovin,  Reforming the Liturgy: A Response to the Critics.  Collegeville, MN:  Liturgical Press, 2008. pp. 188. $29.95, pb. ISBN 978-0-8144-6219-9.  Piero Marini;  John R. Page and Keith F. Pecklers (eds.), A Challenging Reform: Realizing the Vision of the Liturgical Renewal, 1963-1975.  Collegeville, MN:  Liturgical Press, 2007;  The Columba Press, 2008; 205 pages, $15.95, pb. ISBN: 9780814630358.  See also Annibale Bugnini, The Reform of the Liturgy (1948-1975), hardcover.  Liturgical Press, 1990. ISBN-10: 0814615716; ISBN-13: 978-0814615713.

[2] Aleksandr Isaevich Solzhenitsyn,  From Under the Rubble.  Tr. from the Russian, A. M. Brock… [et al.] under the direction of Michael Scammell; introduction by Max Hayward. London: Collins/ Harvill Press, 1975.  ISBN: 0002622343; DDC: 947.085. Also Bantam Books, 1976; University Press of America, reprint 1989, pb. Out-of-print.

[3] Publication of Rembert G. Weakland’s memoirs tainted the reputation of the official reform’s inception since we know that after Vatican II Weakland was a “liturgy insider” consulted in Rome by Paul VI.  See Rembert G. Weakland,  A Pilgrim in a Pilgrim Church: Memoirs of a Catholic Archbishop. Grand Rapids, MI:  Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009; 433 pages, $23.10 hardback, ISBN:0802863825.

[4] Jonathan Robinson, The Mass and Modernity: Walking to Heaven Backward. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2005. ISBN-10: 1586170694; ISBN-13: 978-1586170691.

[5] Aidan Nichols, Looking at the Liturgy: A Critical View of its Contemporary Form. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1996. ISBN-10: 0898705924; ISBN-13: 978-0898705928 Esp. p. 11-48.

[6] Robert Sokolowski, Eucharistic Presence: A Study in the Theology of Disclosure. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1994. ISBN-10: 0813207894; ISBN-13: 978-0813207896.

Father Brian Van Hove,  S.J.,  resides at Jesuit Hall, St. Louis University, Saint Louis, Missouri.

To Trace All Souls Day [from Ignatius Insight, 1 November 2008]

To Trace All Souls Day | Fr. Brian Van Hove, S.J. | Ignatius Insight | November 1, 2008

Print-friendly version

As Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger once said so well, one major difference between Protestants and Catholics is that Catholics pray for the dead:

“My view is that if Purgatory did not exist, we should have to invent it.” Why?

“Because few things are as immediate, as human and as widespread—at all times and in all cultures—as prayer for one”s own departed dear ones.” Calvin, the Reformer of Geneva, had a woman whipped because she was discovered praying at the grave of herson and hence was guilty, according to Calvin, of superstition”. “In theory, the Reformation refuses to accept Purgatory, and consequently it also rejects prayer for the departed. In fact German Lutherans at least have returned to it in practice and have found considerable theological justification for it. Praying for one’s departed loved ones is a far too immediate urge to be suppressed; it is a most beautiful manifestation of solidarity, love and assistance, reaching beyond the barrier of death. The happiness or unhappiness of a person dear to me, who has now crossed to the other shore, depends in part on whether I remember or forget him; he does not stop needing my love.” [1]

Catholics are not the only ones who pray for the dead. The custom is also a Jewish one, and Catholics traditionally drew upon the following text from the Jewish Scriptures, in addition to some New Testament passages, to justify their belief:

Then Judas assembled his army and went to the city of Adulam. As the seventh day was coming on, they purified themselves according to the custom, and they kept the sabbath there. On the next day, as by that time it had become necessary, Judas and his men went to take up the bodies of the fallen and to bring them back to lie with their kinsmen in the sepulchres of their fathers. Then under the tunic of every one of the dead they found sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear. And it became clear to all that this was why these men had fallen. So they all blessed the ways of the Lord, the righteous Judge, who reveals the things that are hidden; and they turned to prayer, beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out. And the noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen. He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honourably, taking account of the resurrection. For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin. [2]

Besides the Jews, many ancient peoples also prayed for the deceased. Some societies, such as that of ancient Egypt, were actually “funereal” and built around the practice. [3] The urge to do so is deep in the human spirit which rebels against the concept of annihilation after death. Although there is some evidence for a Christian liturgical feast akin to our All Souls Day as early as the fourth century, the Church was slow to introduce such a festival because of the persistence, in Europe, of more ancient pagan rituals for the dead. In fact, the Protestant reaction to praying for the dead may be based more on these survivals and a deformed piety from pre-Christian times than on the true Catholic doctrine as expressed by either the Western or the Eastern Church. The doctrine of purgatory, rightly understood as praying for the dead, should never give offense to anyone who professes faith in Christ.

When we discuss the Feast of All Souls, we look at a liturgical commemoration which pre-dated doctrinal formulation itself, since the Church often clarifies only that which is being undermined or threatened. The first clear documentation for this celebration comes from Isidore of Seville (d. 636; the last of the great Western Church Fathers) whose monastic rule includes a liturgy for all the dead on the day after Pentecost. [4] St. Odilo (962-1049 AD) was the abbot of Cluny in France who set the date for the liturgical commemoration of the departed faithful on November 2.

Before that, other dates had been seen around the Christian world, and the Armenians still use Easter Monday for this purpose. He issued a decree that all the monasteries of the congregation of Cluny were annually to keep this feast. On November 1 the bell was to be tolled and afterward the Office of the Dead was to be recited in common, and on the next day all the priests would celebrate Mass for the repose of the souls in purgatory. The observance of the Benedictines of Cluny was soon adopted by other Benedictines and by the Carthusians who were reformed Benedictines. Pope Sylvester in 1003 AD approved and recommended the practice. Eventually the parish clergy introduced this liturgical observance, and from the eleventh to the fourteenth century it spread in France, Germany, England, and Spain.

Finally, in the fourteenth century, Rome placed the day of the commemoration of all the faithful departed in the official books of the Western or Latin Church. November 2 was chosen in order that the memory of all the holy spirits, both of the saints in heaven and of the souls in purgatory, should be celebrated in two successive days. In this way the Catholic belief in the Communion of Saints would be expressed. Since for centuries the Feast of All the Saints had already been celebrated on November first, the memory of the departed souls in purgatory was placed on the following day. All Saints Day goes back to the fourth century, but was finally fixed on November 1 by Pope Gregory IV in 835 AD. The two feasts bind the saints-to-be with the almost-saints and the already-saints before the resurrection from the dead.

Incidentally, the practice of priests celebrating three Masses on this day is of somewhat recent origin, and dates back only to ca. 1500 AD with the Dominicans of Valencia. Pope Benedict XIV extended it to the whole of Spain, Portugal, and Latin America in 1748 AD. Pope Benedict XV in 1915 AD granted the “three Masses privilege” to the universal Church. [5]

On All Souls Day, can we pray for those in limbo? The notion of limbo is not ancient in the Church, and was a theological extrapolation to provide explanation for cases not included in the heaven-purgatory-hell triad. Cardinal Ratzinger was in favor of its being set aside, and it does not appear as a thesis to be taught in the new Universal Catechism of the Catholic Church. [6]

The doctrine of Purgatory, upon which the liturgy of All Souls rests, is formulated in canons promulgated by the Councils of Florence (1439 AD) and Trent (1545-1563 AD). The truth of the doctrine existed before its clarification, of course, and only historical necessities motivated both Florence and Trent to pronounce when they did. Acceptance of this doctrine still remains a required belief of Catholic faith.

What about “indulgences”? Indulgences from the treasury of grace in the Church are applied to the departed on All Souls Day, as well as on other days, according to the norms of ecclesiastical law. The faithful make use of their intercessory role in prayer to ask the Lord”s mercy upon those who have died. Essentially, the practice urges the faithful to take responsibility. This is the opinion of Michael Morrissey:

Against the common juridical and commercial view, the teaching essentially attempts to induce the faithful to show responsibility toward the dead and the communion of saints. Since the Church has taught that death is not the end of life, then neither is it the end of our relationship with loved ones who have died, who along with the saints make up the Body of Christ in the “Church Triumphant.”

The diminishing theological interest in indulgences today is due to an increased emphasis on the sacraments, the prayer life of Catholics, and an active engagement in the world as constitutive of the spiritual life. More soberly, perhaps, it is due to an individualistic attitude endemic in modern culture that makes it harder to feel responsibility for, let alone solidarity with, dead relatives and friends. [7]

As with everything Christian, then, All Souls Day has to do with the mystery of charity, that divine love overcomes everything, even death. Bonds of love uniting us creatures, living and dead, and the Lord who is resurrected, are celebrated both on All Saints Day and on All Souls Day each year.

All who have been baptized into Christ and have chosen him will continue to live in Him. The grave does not impede progress toward a closer union with Him. It is only this degree of closeness to Him which we consider when we celebrate All Saints one day, and All Souls the next. Purgatory is a great blessing because it shows those who love God how they failed in love, and heals their ensuing shame. Most of us have neither fulfilled the commandments nor failed to fulfill them. Our very mediocrity shames us. Purgatory fills in the void. We learn finally what to fulfill all of them means. Most of us neither hate nor fail completely in love. Purgatory teaches us what radical love means, when God remakes our failure to love in this world into the perfection of love in the next.

As the sacraments on earth provide us with a process of transformation into Christ, so Purgatory continues that process until the likeness to Him is completed. It is all grace. Actively praying for the dead is that “holy mitzvah” or act of charity on our part which hastens that process. The Church encourages it and does it with special consciousness and in unison on All Souls Day, even though it is always and everywhere salutary to pray for the dead.

ENDNOTES:

[1] See Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, The Ratzinger Report: An Exclusive Interview on the State of the Church, with Vittorio Messori (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1985) 146-147. Michael P. Morrissey says on the point: “The Protestant Reformers rejected the doctrine of purgatory, based on the teaching that salvation is by faith through grace alone, unaffected by intercessory prayers for the dead.” See his “Afterlife” in The Dictionary of Catholic Spirituality, ed. Michael Downey (Collegeville: Michael Glazier/Liturgical Press, 1993) 28.

[2] Maccabees 12:38-46. From The Holy Bible, Revised Standard Version, Containing the Old and New Testaments. Catholic Edition. (London: The Catholic Truth Society, 1966) 988-989. Neil J. McEleney, CSP, adds: “These verses contain clear reference to belief in the resurrection of the just…a belief which the author attributes to Judas …although Judas may have wanted simply to ward off punishment from the living, lest they be found guilty by association with the fallen sinners…. The author believes that those who died piously will rise again…and who can die more piously than in a battle for God”s law? …Thus, he says, Judas prayed that these men might be delivered from their sin, for which God was angry with them a little while…. The author, then, does not share the view expressed in 1 Enoch 22:12-13 that sinned- against sinners are kept in a division of Sheol from which they do not rise, although they are free of the suffering inflicted on other sinners. Instead, he sees Judas”s action as evidence that those who die piously can be delivered from unexpiated sins that impede their attainment of a joyful resurrection. This doctrine, thus vaguely formulated, contains the essence of what would become (with further precisions) the Christian theologian’s teaching on purgatory.” See The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, ed. Raymond E. Brown, SS, etal., art. 26, “1-2 Maccabees” (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1990) 446. Gehinnom in Jewish writings is more appropriately understood as a purgatory than a final destination of damnation.

[3] Spanish-speaking Catholics today popularly refer to All Souls Day as “El Día de los Muertos”, a relic of the past when the pre- Christian Indians had a “Day of the Dead”; liturgically, the day is referred to as “El Día de las Animas”. Germans call their Sunday of the Dead “Totensonntag”. The French Jesuit missionaries in New France in the seventeenth century easily explained All Souls Day by comparing it to the the local Indian “Day of the Dead”. The Jesuit Relations are replete with examples of how conscious were the people of their duties toward their dead. Ancestor worship was also well known in China and elsewhere in Asia, and missionaries there in times gone by perhaps had it easier explaining All Souls Day to them, and Christianizing the concept, than they would have to us in the Western world as the twentieth century draws to a close.

[4] See Michael Witczak, “The Feast of All Souls”, in The Dictionary of Sacramental Worship, ed. Peter Fink, SJ, (Collegeville: Michael Glazier/Liturgical Press, 1990) 42.

[5] “Three Masses were formerly allowed to be celebrated by each priest, but one intention was stipulated for all the Poor Souls and another for the Pope”s intention. This permission was granted by Benedict XV during the World War of 1914-1918 because of the great slaughter of that war, and because, since the time of the Reformation and the confiscation of church property, obligations for anniversary Masses which had come as gifts and legacies were almost impossible to continue in the intended manner. Some canonists believe Canon 905 of the New Code has abolished this practice. However, the Sacramentary, printed prior to the Code, provides three separate Masses for this date.” See Jovian P. Lang, OFM, Dictionary of the Liturgy (New York: Catholic Book Publishing Company, 1989) 21. Also see Francis X. Weiser, The Holyday Book (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1956) 121-136.

[6] Ratzinger stated: “Limbo was never a defined truth of faith. Personally—and here I am speaking more as a theologian and not as Prefect of the Congregation—I would abandon it since it was only a theological hypothesis. It formed part of a secondary thesis in support of a truth which is absolutely of first significance for faith, namely, the importance of baptism. To put it in the words of Jesus to Nicodemus: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God” (John 3:5). One should not hesitate to give up the idea of “limbo” if need be (and it is worth noting that the very theologians who proposed “limbo” also said that parents could spare the child limbo by desiring its baptism and through prayer); but the concern behind it must not be surrendered. Baptism has never been a side issue for faith; it is not now, nor will it ever be.” See Ratzinger, The Ratzinger Report, 147-148.

[7] Morrissey, “Afterlife” in The Dictionary of Catholic Spirituality, 28-29.

This article was originally published, in a slightly different form, as “To Trace All Souls Day,” in The Catholic Answer, vol. 8, no. 5 (November/December 1994): 8-11.

---

Related IgnatiusInsight.com Articles and Book Excerpts:

• On November: All Souls and the “Permanent Things” | Fr. James V. Schall, S.J.
• Death, Where Is Thy Sting? | Adrienne von Speyr
• Purgatory: Service Shop for Heaven | Reverend Anthony Zimmerman
• The Question of Hope | Peter Kreeft
• The Next Life Is a Lot Longer Than This One | Mary Beth Bonacci
• My Imaginary Funeral Homily | Mary Beth Bonacci
• Do All Catholics Go Straight to Heaven? | Mary Beth Bonacci
• Be Nice To Me. I’m Dying. | Mary Beth Bonacci
• Are God’s Ways Fair? | Ralph Martin
• The Question of Suffering, the Response of the Cross | Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
• The Cross and The Holocaust | Regis Martin
• From Defeat to Victory: On the Question of Evil | Alice von Hildebrand

---

Father Brian Van Hove, S.J., is the rector of the Shrine of St. Joseph in St. Louis, Missouri, and is also a spiritual director at Kenrick-Glennon Seminary.

---

Visit the Insight Scoop Blog and read the latest posts and comments by IgnatiusInsight.com staff and readers about current events, controversies, and news in the Church!

Angelo Roncalli and Priestly Celibacy [from Ignatius Insight, 2008]

Angelo Roncalli and Priestly Celibacy | Reverend Brian Van Hove, S.J. | Ignatius Insight

Print-friendly version

Since his death on June 3, 1963, many biographies and studies of Pope John XXIII (Angelo Roncalli) have appeared. In the month of his death was the article of Roger Aubert, “Jean XXIII: Un ‘pape de transition’ qui marquera dans l’histoire”. The same year, and revised in 1981, is Leone Algisi’s John the Twenty-Third / Giovanni XXIII. In 1965 there appeared that of Edward Elton Young Hales, Pope John and His Revolution. In 1973 Pope John XXIII by Paul Johnson, and in 1979 Bernard R. Bonnot’s Pope John XXIII: An Astute, Pastoral Leader.

We are told the writer who had access to the greatest quantity of primary, original sources is Peter Hebblethwaite. In 1984 the British edition of his John XXIII: Pope of the Council appeared, and in 1985 the American version was published as Pope John XXIII: Shepherd of the Modern World. [1] The Hebblethwaite contribution is considered the “definitive” biography. It was reprinted in 1994. In 2000 and 2005 it was reprinted in a revised and abridged edition by Margaret Hebblethwaite, Peter Hebblethwaite’s wife whom he married after leaving the priesthood and the Society of Jesus.

Yet Hebblethwaite never refers to the only source we have on Angelo Roncalli and the question of priestly celibacy. This is curious because the topic has recurred as a burning one during the Enlightenment of the eighteenth century, at the time of the French Revolution, and during the Restoration period of the nineteenth century, especially in the German universities. After the collapse of the Austrian Empire it was addressed specifically by the famous consistorial allocution of Pope Benedict XV on December 16, 1920, when Benedict said priestly celibacy was “irrevocable”. A formal schism in Bohemia ensued. [2]

In the period of the Second Vatican Council this was even more exacerbated with reports of neo-concubinage being practiced in parts of Western Europe, South America, Africa, and the Philippines. Some bishops at the Council wanted the question re-examined. The rationale for abolishing it is not new, either, because as early as the time immediately following the French Revolution the “shortage of priests” has been traditionally adduced as sufficient in itself to merit a change in what is looked upon as mere discipline.

We all know that the Second Vatican Council in the end strongly supported the spiritual tradition of priestly celibacy in Presbyterorum ordinis, #16, and that Pope Paul VI strengthened this still further with his encyclical of June 24, 1967, Sacerdotalis caelibatus. Surely along with Humanae vitae it was his most unpopular and “politically incorrect” encyclical.

Yet how often the image of “The Good Pope John” [3] is skillfully invoked by those who wish to abolish priestly celibacy. John XXIII Roncalli was the “good” pope, while Paul VI and his successor John Paul II Wojtila are “bad” popes. They are called intransigent, while he is called open. If only Roncalli had lived long enough, they insist, things might have been different, and this useless and archaic norm might have been done away with. He was open to change, while others have closed the door to change. But the historical record suggests the exact opposite in the question of priestly celibacy. We must reclaim the real Angelo Roncalli of church history.

The eminent historian of science and winner of the Templeton Prize for Religion in 1987, Stanley L. Jaki, reports the following in his article entitled “Man of One Wife or Celibacy” [4]:

It is enough to recall the reply which John XXIII, the proverbial embodiment of compassion, gave to Etienne Gilson who in a private audience in December 1961 touched on the agonizing trials of some priests. For in that reply, later reported by Gilson, one could feel the reverberations of the age-old resolve of the Church: ‘The Pope’s face became gloomy, darkened by a rising inner cloud. Then the Pope added in a violent tone, almost a cry: “For some of them it is a martyrdom. Yes, a sort of martyrdom. It seems to me sometimes I hear a sort of moan, as if many voices were asking the Church for liberation from the burden. What can I do? Ecclesiastical celibacy is not a dogma. It is not imposed in the Scriptures. How simple it would be: we take up the pen, sign an act, and priests who so desire can marry tomorrow. But this is impossible. Celibacy is a sacrifice which the Church has imposed herself–freely, generously, and heroically”.’ [5]

As for interpreting the mind of John XXIII Roncalli, Pope John Paul II has done so, addressing bishops, in an explicit reference to seminary formation and the aspirations of the Council: “In particular I ask you to be vigilant that the dogmatic and moral teaching of the Church is faithfully and clearly presented to the seminarians, and fully accepted and understood by them.”

On the opening day of the Second Vatican Council, Oct. 11, 1962, John XXIII told his brother bishops: “The greatest concern of the ecumenical council is this: that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be more effectively guarded and taught.” What Pope John expected of the council is also a primary concern for priestly formation. We must ensure that our future priests have a solid grasp of the entirety of the Catholic faith; and then we must prepare them to present it in turn to others in ways that are intelligible and pastorally sound. [6]

There is no evidence in the historical record to think the real Angelo Roncalli, John XXIII, was of a mind to compromise on the ancient Catholic spiritual tradition of priestly celibacy. [7] The “Good Pope John” mythology is a problem for us, not a solution. And it is a problem from which we must recover, not only to have a more truthful record, but to be rid of a mechanism that has been used to undermine the requirement of priestly celibacy in the Catholic Church. While appreciating Roncalli’s undoubted and real goodness, [8] we should also be led to admire his strength and firmness. He promoted that unique context for priestly life which is demanded by the non-functional and sacrificial nature of the Catholic priesthood itself where the priest is a living icon of Christ.

Exceptions to that norm (the Eastern practice of “one wife before ordination”, and the selective case-by-case ordination of once-married convert-clergy originally initiated by Pius XII for Germany, then renewed for new circumstances in the United States in 1980) only highlight its relevance for the whole of the Church.

If every seminarian took a minimum of two semesters of rigorous academic instruction in the history and theology of chaste priestly celibacy, we might partially realize the hopes of the real Pope John XXIII.

An earlier version of this article appeared as “Angelo Roncalli and Priestly Celibacy,” Homiletic and Pastoral Review, vol. XCII, nos. 11-12 (August-September 1992): 79-82.

ENDNOTES:

[1] See Peter Hebblethwaite, Pope John XXIII: Shepherd of the Modern World (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 1985).

Alberto Melloni says in 1986 of Hebblethwaite’s work: “Peter Hebblethwaite published in England in October, 1984, and in the United States last spring the most in-depth biography of Pope John XXIII ever printed. The author had the advantage of being able to consult more sources than any other biographer of Roncalli. Neither Leone Algisi nor Meriol Trevor, neither Bernard R. Bonnot nor Paul Dreyfus had access to the 13,000 printed pages (i.e., more than 6,000,000 words) of Roncalli’s writings which have not been made available. The same may be said for all those scholars who, during the same years, wrote unsystematic, although sometimes more readable profiles, such as Edward E.Y. Hales’ book, Cardinal Giacomo Lercaro’s famous lecture, the inquiries of Giancarlo Zizola, and the research carried out by Franz M. William and the Alberigos (whose “Bologna School” often reflects the thought of Giuseppe Dossetti [1913-1996] with special reference to the so-called “spirit” of the council or the council as “event” versus the “letter” of the official documents). Besides all the edited material, Hebblethwaite had access to some unpublished or almost unknown manuscripts and a few other primary sources. This book therefore, deserves a detailed analysis, insofar as it could represent within the limits of the biography format, a valuable synthesis of the knowledge and questions which concern such an important man.” Alberto Melloni, “Pope John XXIII: Open Questions for a Biography,” The Catholic Historical Review 72 (1986): 51-53.

[2] See Roger Aubert, The Christian Centuries, vol. 5, The Church in a Secularized Society (New York: Paulist Press, 1978), 541-542.

[3] This expression is actually found as a book title: Wit and Wisdom of Good Pope John, collected by Henri Fesquet, translated by Salvator Attanasio (New York: P.J. Kenedy and Sons, 1964). Even the venerable Paul Horgan seems to indulge in the sentimentalizing mode when he credits Pope John with permission to see the archives in the fall of 1959 for his research on Jean Baptiste Lamy. One wonders if he would have so honored Paul VI for granting the same permission. See “The Adventure of the Hundred-Year Proviso”, America, March 23, 1991, pp. 309-314.

[4] See Stanley L. Jaki, Catholic Essays (Front Royal, VA: Christendom Press, 1990), pp. 77-91. Hebblethwaite does refer to Elliott, but not to any of his references to Roncalli’s attitude to celibacy found on pp. 188-189 and 286-287. See Lawrence Elliott, I Will Be Called John (New York: Reader’s Digest Press/E.P. Dutton & Co., 1973).

[5] Ibid., pp. 85-86. Jaki goes on to say: “Gilson released details about his conversation with John XXIII, in a letter to the Parisian weekly, Match then the French equivalent of Life, following the publication there (November 30, 1963) of a splashy and tendentious discussion of priestly celibacy. Gilson’s statement was reported in the May 15, 1964, issue of Commonweal (p. 223), and from there found its way into a report on celibacy in Time magazine (Aug. 28, 1964, p. 56) which, although it carried the title, ‘The Case Against Celibacy’, should seem a paragon of objectivity and decency in comparison with its latter-day reporting on the topic.” (n. 6, p. 91). Margaret Hebblethwaite mentions Gilson only in connection with the thought of St. Thomas Aquinas on page 109 of her abridgement John XXIII: Pope of the Century (London and New York: Continuum, 2000 and 2005).

[6] See John Paul II, “The Pope’s Address”, Part III, Origins 17 [1987], pp. 266-267. Quoted in the context of the nature of the priesthood in Donald J. Keefe, S.J., Covenantal Theology, two volumes (Lanham, MD: The University Press of America, 1991), I: p. 154.

[7] R.C. Zaehner supports this by quoting from Roncalli’s book Journal of a Soul. In referring to Paul VI, Zaehner says: “This has led him to act on his own initiative in the matter of both birth control and the celibacy of the clergy. That he has been tactless and heavy-handed on both issues few will deny; but on neither is there any justification for questioning his integrity. Nor is there any reason to suppose that Pope John would have taken a different line; for on 11 August 1961 he wrote in his diary: ‘Sins. Concerning chastity in my relations with myself, in immodest intimacies: nothing serious, ever‘. Certainly his manner would have been different, but in this matter of chastity he might well have taken as tough a line as his successor but scarcely with the authoritarian overtones that have so distressed the progressives.” See Robert Charles Zaehner, Zen, Drugs and Mysticism (New York: Pantheon Books, 1972), p. 204. Carlo Falconi maintains that we can know John XXIII best from his own works, especially the autobiographical ones. See his The Popes in the Twentieth Century From Pius X to John XXIII, tr. Muriel Grindrod (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1967), p. 378. Generally Falconi subscribes to “The Good Pope John” school.

[8] The late Spalding Professor of Eastern Religions and Ethics in the University of Oxford once wrote this of him: “…maybe a saintly priest or two who, like Pope John, are good not because they try to be good but because they don’t need to try since they have lost their ego and therefore all egoism, and are thus open to that spontaneity which is the Holy Spirit.” See R.C. Zaehner, ibid., p. 133.

---

Related IgnatiusInsight.com Articles, Interviews, and Book Excerpts:

• Clerical Celibacy: Concept and Method | Alfons Maria Cardinal Stickler
• Pray the Harvest Master Sends Laborors | Rev. Anthony Zimmerman
• The Real Reason for the Vocation Crisis | Rev. Michael P. Orsi
• The Hour That Makes My Day | Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen
• Priestly Vocations in America: A Look At the Numbers | Jeff Ziegler
• Practicing Chastity in an Unchaste Age | Bishop Joseph F. Martino
• Liturgical Roles In the Eucharistic Celebration | Francis Cardinal Arinze
• The Role of the Laity | Carl E. Olson

---

Father Brian W. Van Hove, S.J., is the rector of the Shrine of St. Joseph in St. Louis, Missouri, and is also a spiritual director at Kenrick-Glennon Seminary.

---

Visit the Insight Scoop Blog and read the latest posts and comments by IgnatiusInsight.com staff and readers about current events, controversies, and news in the Church!

The Inquisitions of History [from Ignatius Insight, 2008]

The Inquisitions of History: The Mythology and the Reality | Reverend Brian Van Hove, S.J. | Ignatius Insight

Print-friendly version

An ecclesiastical inquisition in Europe was a court system adapted from Roman law. It was an institutional tribunal charged with protecting orthodox religious doctrine and church discipline. From 1414-1418 (Constance) and 1438 (Basle), the church was shaped by lawyers who were consulted for the councils. Canonists were needed for church order and to make crucial distinctions.

Jurists keep good records, clean records and abundant records. Curialists write neatly. Scribes are taught to be legible. Because of this legal infrastructure, we can today study the inquisitions, unlike some other institutions which are lost to us due to a lack of quality documentation. Fortuitously, inquisition material survived European wars. We should also use the plural and speak of “inquisitions” since there were a number of them in different times and places. We now use the capital letter “I” to refer to a specific historical inquisition, such as the Venetian or Spanish, or even the earliest one during the Albigensian era in southern France. For the Inquisition and its procedures in Italy during Galileo’s time, we have John Tedeschi’s The Prosecution of Heresy: Collected Studies on the Inquisition in Early Modern Italy (1991).

Due to the work of newer historians, such as Edward Peters in his Inquisition (1988), we use The Inquisition to speak of the mythology surrounding these institutions. Such mythology passed down to us as folklore, the result largely of successful Protestant anti-Roman propaganda, particularly coming from the Spanish Netherlands.

When medieval Europeans used the word “inquisition,” they referred first to a judicial technique, not an organization or body. There was, in fact, no such thing as “the inquisition” in the sense of an impersonal bureaucracy with a supervisory chain of command. Instead there were those individuals appointed as “inquisitors of heretical depravity” who were assigned by the pope or by the local bishop to inquire into heresy in particular areas. They were called such because they applied a procedure known as inquisitio which could be translated as “inquiry” or “inquest”. In this process, which was already widely used by secular rulers (Henry II used it extensively in England in the twelfth century), an official inquirer called upon the public for information on a given subject from anyone who felt he had something to submit. Normally, this information was treated as acutely confidential. The official inquirer, aided by competent consultants, then weighed the evidence and determined whether there was reason for further action.

This procedure contrasted with the Roman law practice typically used in other ecclesiastical courts. Here, unless the judge could proceed on clear, personal knowledge that the defendant was guilty, the judicial process had to be based upon an accusation by a third party. This informant was punishable if the accusation was not proved, and impeachable during an investigation which allowed the defendant to confront witnesses.

By the end of the thirteenth century, inquisitors were assigned to many regions of continental Europe. The majority of these were members of the Franciscan or Dominican Orders since members of these two orders were seen as pious, educated and mobile. Inquisitors, when appointed by Rome, worked in cooperation with the local bishops.
Sentence for offenders was often passed in the name of both. By far, most sentences seemed to consist of uncomfortable penances such as wearing a cross sewn onto one’s clothes or traveling on a long pilgrimage. The inquisitor’s primary goal was not to punish the guilty but to identify them, get them to confess and repent their sins, and restore the identified penitents to the fold of the ecclesial community. Ten percent or fewer of the more serious cases resulted in execution, a punishment reserved for obstinate heretics (those who refused penitence and reconciliation) and lapsed heretics (those who accepted penitence and reconciliation at one time, yet then returned to serious and voluntary error).

Recent studies with greater scientific rigor have been better able to separate the inquisitions of history from The Inquisitions of legend and myth. This is a happy circumstance for us in the new millennium. While Pope John Paul II and thus the official Catholic Church saw fit to apologize for the failures of the past (especially in March 2000), secular historians now tend to speak of how fair the system actually was. They observe how many people were released because of technicalities in the law which withstood whim and abuse. They note how many opportunities the accused persons had to avoid further prosecution. It was not an outrageous ecclesiastical court system, given the times and compared to the parallel civil court system. Spain, the object of much scorn by England, was a comparatively enlightened country, as Henry Kamen and Jocelyn Hillgarth point out in their books.

Ever since the sixteenth century, the Inquisition has been synonymous with terror, bigotry and persecution. Distorted views of its activities persist. Kamen’s first study of the Inquisition, The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision, published in 1965, quickly established itself as the chief introduction to one of the most notorious institutions in Western history. Later the same book was completely revised and rewritten. It is currently the most up-to-date and comprehensive re-evaluation of the subject. Helen Rawlings in her The Spanish Inquisition (2006) surveys the relevant literature and credits Kamen with launching a movement to set straight the historical record.

Based on thirty years of new research and a transformed view of the Inquisition, Henry Kamen’s account sweeps away old misconceptions and revolutionizes Inquisition studies. He accepts that there is little evidence for the alleged Jewishness of the conversos who were the Inquisition’s first victims, and he gives a new assessment of the significance and consequences of the expulsion of the Jews. He presents a major revision of the impact of blood purity prejudices in Spanish society, revises the figures given for the execution of heretics by the tribunal and assesses Spanish persecution in the context of executions in neighboring countries. He offers a completely new picture of the notorious system of censorship, now seen to be much less effective than often presented. And he reveals the role of efficient foreign propaganda in the creation of the diabolic image of the Inquisition.

Foreign propaganda created a mythology around the Spanish nation and character, more broadly than the topic of the Inquisition. The serious works of Jocelyn N. Hillgarth, The Spanish Kingdoms, 1250-1516 (2 vols., 1976-1978) and The Mirror of Spain, 1500-1700: The Formation of a Myth (2000), also seek to correct the distortion.

Kamen illuminates the atmosphere of fear and oppression that typified the period of the Inquisition, placing it within the context of fear generated by community tensions. He also shows perhaps for the first time that the famous auto de fe was not a product of traditional Spanish piety, but a deliberate tool of the inquisitors, invented in the sixteenth century in order to boost their political standing.

This carefully considered study of the dreaded tribunal, based on extensive reading and archival research, is entirely accessible to the general reader. Possibly The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision is destined to become the definitive reference work on the subject.

Henry Kamen is a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society and a professor of the Higher Council for Scientific Research in Barcelona. Author of many standard studies on Spanish and European history, his recent biographies include studies of Phillip II, the Duke of Alba, and Phillip V of Spain, known as “the king who reigned twice.” His recent non-biographical works are Spain, 1469-1714: A Society of Conflict (third edition, 2005) and Imagining Spain: Historical Myth and National Identity (2008).

Because of the controversial nature of this subject, care must be taken in choosing authors and readings. Until recently, Protestant-inspired literature on the Inquisition tended to be hostile to the Catholic Church per se, while Catholic literature tended to be narrowly apologetic and justificatory. Always underlying the differing views were the “black legend” or the “white legend”, both of which were legends and not history.

Even today, there are still disputant Protestants and general readers who seem blissfully innocent of the professional histories available, written by competent secular authors and free of religious bias. Cultural Protestants with less than critical approaches to history and secularists in the English-speaking world may still naively rely on Charles Henry Lea’s A History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages (1887, 4 volumes), clearly a dated polemical work. However, even Lea (1825-1909) is not completely without merit in the “history of this history” because he did use some original sources, something not seriously attempted before him. Lea is not the “father” of Inquisition studies, however, and for that degree of scholarship we have to go outside the English-speaking environment.

The father of Inquisition studies is Juan Antonio Llorente (1756-1823). That is to say, he was more interested in the original documents than in fabricating propaganda. He stole the documents when the French occupation of Spain ended, and he was required, as a French collaborator, to take refuge in Paris. His methodology or use of the documents is not something we can build upon today, but it was a start or rather a departure from the merely polemical. Many “histories of the Inquisition” were available before Llorente, but their reliability was always vitiated either by faulty method or a guiding apriori.
Illustrating its ongoing utility, Llorente’s Histoire critique de l’Inquisition en Espagne was reprinted in a Spanish edition in 1980 in four volumes.

After Llorente, we owe much to Henry Charles Lea who was a tireless researcher. His anti-Catholic bias may have hindered him, but he was far more sensitive to documents and single-minded in collecting them than anyone before him. The Spanish Inquisition had been neglected, and it was almost vernal territory for him. After these pioneers, we enter our own century. Henri Maisonneuve published in 1942 his Études sur les origines de l’Inquisition. And after him, we find a rapid succession of respected authors and works appearing in the second half of the twentieth century.

Perhaps this is why we are living in the “golden age” of Inquisition Studies─because we can finally study it with seriousness, detached from past religious controversies. Unfortunately, the public at large is unaware of the recent English-language scholarship on the subject.

An earlier version of this article appeared as “Beyond the Myth of the Inquisition: Ours is ‘The Golden Age’,” Faith and Reason, vol. XVIII, no. 4, (Winter 1992) 335-358; and as “Oltre Il Mito Dell’Inquisizione,” I and II, (I.T.) in La Civiltà Cattolica (143/IV/3419 [December 5, 1992] 458-467; 143/IV/3420 [December, 19, 1992] 578-588.)

---

Related IgnatiusInsight.com Articles and Excerpts:

• The Spanish Inquisition: Fact Versus Fiction | Marvin R. O’Connell
• The Crusades 101 | Jimmy Akin
• Were the Crusades Anti-Semitic? | Vince Ryan
• Crusade Myths | Thomas F. Madden
• Urban II: The Pope of the First Crusade | Régine Pernoud
• The Truth About Joan of Arc | Régine Pernoud
• Mistakes, Yes. Conspiracies, No. | The Fourth Crusade | Vince Ryan

---

Father Brian W. Van Hove, S.J., is the rector of the Shrine of St. Joseph in St. Louis, Missouri, and is also a spiritual director at Kenrick-Glennon Seminary.

---

Atheism and Fatherlessness [from Ignatius Insight, 2008, and the St. Louis Review, 2007]

Atheism and Fatherlessness | A Review of Paul Vitz’s Faith of the Fatherless | Father Brian Van Hove, S.J.

Print-friendly version

Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism, by Paul C. Vitz, was published in 1999 but deserves to be recalled frequently with renewed attention.

The crisis of fatherlessness is partly cultural. We experience it acutely in the United States. Teachers and pastors witness its devastating effects every day. An abnormal ideological feminism at times enters the vacuum created by fatherlessness. Fatherlessness also can generate homoeroticism or a frantic search for some “spirituality of masculinity.”

Indeed, both boys and girls need a wise father who encourages them and strengthens them, and provides what a mother cannot. In society today, the need for true fathers has become desperate, though by the grace of God generous grandfathers have stepped forward to care for the young. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote movingly about this in My Grandfather’s Son: A Memoir, published earlier this year.

Vitz takes a broad historical sweep of atheists from the Enlightenment to our own day. In most cases alienation from God was a reaction to an absent or defective father. Similarly, a survey of staunch believers of the last two centuries shows that most of them had a close relationship with their father or instead enjoyed an effective father substitute.

An example is the life of Hilaire Belloc (1870-1953), whose father died when Hilaire was two. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning of Westminster was a real father figure to the young Hilaire, and Belloc matured in the way men do whose biological fathers helped them along the way.

As an Anglican clergyman, Manning lost his wife, so he knew the sorrow of widowhood personally. Later as a Catholic, when he became cardinal-archbishop, he maintained his role as father and found time to spend with the teenage Belloc despite the many pressing duties of office.

Vitz gives us an autobiographical section in which he explains his own “superficial” atheism as a young American academic. His atheism was more a social conformity and a career need than a damaged relationship with his father. A positive father relationship probably helped him overcome temporary atheism and made possible his serious adult conversion to the Catholic faith.

Faith of the Fatherless does not mention the strong rumors that the dying Jean-Paul Sartre converted to theism, and it was written before the aging Antony Flew converted from philosophical atheism to philosophical theism. And of course Vitz wrote well before atheist Philip Pullman’s The Golden Compass became so well known. We eagerly await information on Pullman’s relationship with his father.

But Vitz’s selection of authors to analyze is interesting and adequate. On the atheist side we study 29 intellectuals or world leaders from the 18th century to the present. These include those who suffered from deceased fathers, weak fathers, absent fathers or abusive ones.

On the theist side we get thumbnail sketches of 24 examples of believing Christians and Jews. Some, such as Don Bosco, who himself became an effective substitute father to hundreds of industrial-age orphans, found effective substitute fathers. There are exceptional cases as well as cases with qualifications, but these tend to support the hypothesis.

This book is short and readable. High school teachers could use it for class. The book would actually introduce students to western civilization by way of the “glue” that has traditionally held it together—religion.

Students could draw their own conclusions as to what happens when a failed father fuels atheism, especially the atheism of great thinkers, artists and leaders. And the “decline of the west” makes more sense when we consider the consequence if the role of the father decays.

The psychology of unbelief is a fascinating field, and according to Vitz it is mostly about fatherlessness. This field is a corollary to the traditional Christian teaching on marriage and family.

This article was originally published on December 21, 2007 by St. Louis Review and is reprinted here by kind permission of St. Louis Review and Father Van Hove.

---

Related IgnatiusInsight.com Articles and Excerpts:

• AtheismForChildren.com | Website for Pied Piper of Atheism: Philip Pullman and Children’s Fantasy, by Sandra Miesel and Pete Vere
• The Obfuscation of the New Atheism | Dr. Jose Maria Yulo
• Professor Dawkins and the Origins of Religion | Thomas Crean, O.P.
• Are Truth, Faith, and Tolerance Compatible? | Joseph Ratzinger
• Atheism and the Purely “Human” Ethic | Fr. James V. Schall, S.J.
• Is Religion Evil? Secularism’s Pride and Irrational Prejudice | Carl E. Olson
• A Short Introduction to Atheism | Carl E. Olson
• C.S. Lewis’s Case for Christianity | An Interview with Richard Purtill
• Paganism and the Conversion of C.S. Lewis | Clotilde Morhan
• Designed Beauty and Evolutionary Theory | Fr. Thomas Dubay, S.M.
• The Universe is Meaning-full | An interview with Dr. Benjamin Wiker
• The Mythological Conflict Between Christianity and Science | An interview with Dr. Stephen Barr
• The Source of Certitude | Fr. Thomas Dubay, S.M.
• Deadly Architects | An Interview with Donald De Marco & Benjamin Wiker
• The Mystery of Human Origins | Mark Brumley
• Relativism 101: A Brief, Objective Guide | Carl E. Olson

---

Father Brian W. Van Hove, S.J., is the rector of the Shrine of St. Joseph in St. Louis, Missouri, and is also a spiritual director at Kenrick-Glennon Seminary. Faith of the Fatherless is available in both hardcover and paperback, and was published by Spence Publishing.

---

Ever Old and Ever New: A Review of Martin Mosebach [from Ignatius Insight, 2008]

Ever Old and Ever New | A Review of Martin Mosebach’s The Heresy of Formlessness: The Roman Liturgy and Its Enemy | Rev. Brian Van Hove, S.J.

Print-friendly version

Martin Mosebach writes to convince the reader of the spiritual superiority of the classical rite, the Mass of the missal of 1962. With the talent of an artist and a dedication to Jesus Christ, he tells the story.

The church is torn by a civil war over liturgy. Some hold that the reform did not cut deep enough, that yet more radical adaptation and accommodation are needed. Others think the reform can be reformed, and in this camp we include the pope and the policy of Ignatius Press. There are those who believe that only the old rites, restored fully and integrally, provide the solution to the crisis. And of course a large number of Catholics are apathetic and accept the present situation uncritically (and unthinkingly).

Mosebach chooses the path of restoration, and he does so with quality, intelligence and sophistication. He is a thoughtful religious man of a type hardly found any longer in Europe. His meditation on Mary, chapter eight, is enough to prove that. His essay “Revelation through Veiling in the Old Roman Catholic Liturgy” (pp. 161-173) is a work of religious art.

Louis XIV was crowned in 1654. It was said nobody at court in the Rheims cathedral understood the rare liturgy for the coronation of a king. The masters of ceremonies just followed the prescriptions set down from time immemorial. They assigned seven archdeacons to stand here, and seven archpriests to stand there, and so on. The choreography was perfect, and no ingredient was left out of the complicated recipe. The music was excellent. The new king was anointed. Everybody knew he was crowned, and everybody had a sense of the sublimity of the occasion. Even so, later proponents of liturgical reform would criticize such a liturgy on the basis that only a few technician-clerics engaged in any kind of “active participation”.

Mosebach rejects such an analysis as a caricature. Without mentioning it by name, he would insist that this particular liturgy carried the soul aloft, despite any alleged lack of rational grip on the archaic rite. Prayer and rationality are two wings of a bird, two distinct modes of understanding. Only when the holy is concealed is it revealed. A “see-through glass chalice” is a contradiction in terms.

The author makes no reference to Catherine Pickstock, but in After Writing (1998) Pickstock lamented that owing to Trent, and especially to the historical work and interpretation of Josef Jungmann (1889-1975), the Tridentine liturgy became highly rationalized, and this rationalism broke with the medieval Mass. Her explanation was complex, but she is not a believing Catholic, and Jungmann definitely was. Jungmann accepted transubstantiation and sacramental realism, whereas it is unknown what Pickstock really believes. While Mosebach disagrees with the post-Reformation Jesuits who introduced dominating vernacular hymns into the liturgy in Catholic Germany (pp. 42-43), he is not inclined toward Pickstock’s philosophical evaluation of the rite so mildly revised after Trent. As an orthodox, believing Catholic, he is not her ally. Let traditionalists on this side of the ocean know that.

Mosebach opposes the idea that the missal of Trent was a break with medieval ritual and symbology. If he follows any contemporary writer on the subject, it is Klaus Gamber (1919-1989) who decades ago exposed the faulty archaeology and weak liturgical history upon which the reform was built. (p. 32) It is the missal of 1969 which is the product of pure rationalism, not the missal of 1962 which the author prefers to call “The Mass of St. Gregory the Great”.

The First Liturgical Movement (1860-1960) called for clarity and simplicity in the rites. In that precise historical setting this was something good and needed, so the argument went. Such a call was not then doctrinal in nature. On the contrary, the movement hoped that doctrine would become better understood through uncluttered liturgy when the ancient beauty of the church could be seen for what it was. Scraping off the accretions was claimed to help the ship sail faster.

A pity the dream of the older generation of scholars, especially Jungmann and a host of Benedictines in Europe and North America, was incrementally hijacked by a dedicated cadre during and after Vatican II. Can anyone say that transubstantiation was understood by the average member of the church in 1980 better than in 1950? Paul VI had to issue an encyclical defending it! (“Mysterium Fidei”, 1965).

Mosebach’s list of German-speaking culprits in this saga of liturgical reform differs from our list, but for us here in North America we count McManus, Dieckmann, Funk, Mitchell, Empereur, Hovda and Huck among the best known “modern liturgy” and “celebrational style” practitioners. The historic break between Rembert Weakland and Richard Schuler shows that at least a few, like Schuler of St. Agnes in Minneapolis, offered resistance in the worst decades since the council. Like Michael Davies in the English-speaking world, Mosebach blames the dark side of the reform on Pope Paul VI (pp. 24, 91, 115); unlike Davies, Mosebach does not focus on the role of Annibale Bugnini. The author is obviously critical of the German episcopal conference. (p. 63) These and other bishops went well beyond the reform introduced by Paul VI. (p. 172)

Thus, we can now speak of “going back” to the reform of Paul VI! The real reform of the reform may just be the original reform intended by the council and the pope.

In Europe, both Louis Bouyer and Hubert Jedin in 1968 and 1969 publicly objected to the reform process directed by Annibale Bugnini, but they were ignored. (Bugnini did not leave Rome until 1975—it should be remembered by us readers that Frederick R. McManus wrote the lines found on the dust jacket for the English translation of Bugnini’s personal account of his role in the reform.)

Privately, Jungmann denounced the altar “versus populum” (or “coram populo”) as an aberration. Later, under his own name Gamber took the same position.

In 2003 Lauren Pristas analyzed the Latin of the revised Mass (and since then of other revised rites). While not using the expression herself, she concluded that it consists of “junk Latin”. (“Theological Principles that Guided the Redaction of the Roman Missal [1970]” in The Thomist 67 [2003]: 157-195). An exception is Eucharistic Prayer IV which was composed in a much finer Latin. Here Mosebach rejoins that what matters is that such texts are “received”, not “composed”.

A surprising number of motivated reformers promoted a conscious, deliberate rupture with our liturgical past. They quietly ignored the principle of organic development, though this principle was an official one. A stubborn, misguided and iconoclastic anti-traditionalism created an unnecessary catastrophe. Contempt for the old rites was mood-driven and self-conscious.

In chapter four Mosebach gives a vivid example of exactly how the iconoclasm unfolded in 1968 in Neuenheim near Heidelberg. The cameo-like story is familiar to all of us who lived through that time. It was the same in Iowa or Ontario. Mosebach shows his knowledge of art history in order to explain the deeper philosophy behind iconoclasm. The destruction of the interior of the parish church at Neuenheim is heartbreaking.

The Benedictine monastery of Fontgombault in France is the living ideal of liturgical spirituality for the author. He does not mention that a very high percentage of the monks are Americans, and probably he does not know that the monastery happily celebrated the Novus Ordo Missae in Latin until the abbot imposed the old rite on the monastic community in the 1980s. The abbot made the point that it was the rite of his ancestors who died in the French Revolution. Many say that the abbot was influential in gaining the indults associated with the Commission “Ecclesia Dei”, though Mosebach himself does not say this. He idealizes the monastery’s every detail, which will cause some readers to be suspicious. No place can be “that” perfect, and one is reminded of the axiom “the only perfect liturgy is in heaven”. But the affairs of Fontgombault are the exception.

Nearly everywhere, the Mass today fails to unite Latin Rite Catholics, even juridically. Liturgical law is rejected, ignored or paid mere lip service by the modernizers (whom Mosebach calls “late Catholic Puritans”, p. 135) who always know more than the Church. Some years ago, reformers replaced the older formalism and legalism with the formlessness decried by Mosebach in his book’s title. Formlessness is the enemy. (For an articulate discussion of what he means by the contemporary rebellion against “form”, see pp. 104-106; 147). A denial of beauty produces formlessness. Formlessness is a heresy when it refuses certain revealed truths. They are mediated by material, concrete signs and symbols which are in themselves beautiful. In a word, Mosebach is preaching sacramentalism. Loss of form means loss of content! (p. 206)

On the other side, most of the antiquarianism Martin Mosebach so well understands is lost on contemporary Catholics, as it was said to have been lost on the French court in 1654. People know too little of their own church history and they have already for too long been deprived of their liturgical tradition. Those who still go to Mass in the industrialized West are minimally catechized. Perhaps it was always this way, everywhere. The elite with Mosebach’s level of erudition could be stuffed into a telephone booth, as a professional liturgiologist once expressed it.

But Mosebach rejects that line of thinking. He tells from his own experience how today simple South German women instinctively, without instruction, wash the purificators after an old rite Mass. Seemingly for him, things would naturally fall back into place when the old rite is restored universally. (pp. 28-29) However, he is pessimistic that this will happen soon. (p. 73)

In our culture wars, broader than the narrower Catholic liturgical crisis, a few voices have been raised to promote and defend beauty. Beginning with Dostoevsky, renewed by Solzhenitsyn, and expressed by Gregory Wolfe, the tradition is formulated in the phrase, “beauty will save the world”. (Gregory Wolfe, “Beauty Will Save the World” in The Intercollegiate Review 27:1 [Fall 1991]: 27-31). Using different vocabulary, Mosebach subscribes to this cry. His chapter six is named “Liturgy is Art”. “Christ desired to make his sacrifice ever-present, and so he poured it into the shape of liturgical art.” (p. 111) The liturgy is like a finished sculpture—all it needs is unveiling.

But practically, what to do? Pastors need a strategy. Mosebach argues that the liturgy itself is the strategy. Of itself it will bring light and salvation. The liturgy “is not a human artifact but something given, something revealed.” (p. 71)

So what went wrong with the reform? We know that after the Second Vatican Council the church lacked pastoral liturgists. Nobody knew what to do, and nobody knew how to implement the norms found in the revised books. The mood of the times was unstable and anti-institutional. Liturgy became highly politicized. What filled the vacuum left by an older certitude was confusion, fashion, whim, ephemeral enthusiasm, and then a surprising agenda to abolish the sacrificial nature of the Mass. A prominent theologian said in this reviewer’s hearing: “I am no longer able even to pronounce the word ’sacrifice’.” Thus a “protestant-fellowship-meal” resulted from too much talk about banquets. What ensued was a doctrinal battle. Just a bit earlier, this state of affairs was unthinkable.

Horror and devastation remain. Ugliness and confusion reign. With the symbolic language interrupted and its sweet speech broken off, the mystery is reduced to wordiness and meaningless motion and chatter. Aroma therapy is more exciting to some than the holiness of the Mass.

Unbelievers or secular art historians, who happen to visit our churches, remark about the vulgarity and banality. Those from other liturgical traditions which have not degraded as completely, scoff at the debris of what once was the Roman Rite. The “New Mass” is unhesitatingly thought to be something absolutely distinct from the old, even if, in some instances, the new rite is celebrated with concern for aesthetic detail and perfection. Those instances may be found more in Europe, of course, than in North America where a greater tolerance for philistinism is acceptable.

Everyone knows from the 1950s that the old rite was usually celebrated in a perfunctory, mechanical manner. (pp. 38-39) Mosebach adds that at least it had potential, whereas the new rite is so deeply flawed that it has no similar potential. One cannot “invent new forms” and expect them to succeed. This is not exactly what happened with the Missal of Paul VI, but it is very close. Those favoring the “reform of the reform” are well advised to make the new rite look as much as possible like the old rite, or face extinction. The lefebvrists think they are the true church, and that the “novus ordo” church will eventually disappear. The Western Rite Orthodox use the most archaic rites possible.

Mosebach’s insights are precious and serious, but he gives no blueprint about how to educate our people in beauty. Yes, one of the first acts of the new pope after his election was to restore Latin to St. Peter’s Basilica in 2005. But his efforts, including the ideas in his books from the 1990s, have not trickled down to parishes in California or Michigan (or Bavaria) where the “new rite” is carelessly and sloppily performed.

In fact, Ratzinger’s books on the liturgy were received with outright hostility in places where, of course, nobody ever expected him to become pope. They shuddered in their boots on the day of his election as it was no secret he would be “the liturgy pope”. In 1992, writing in the preface to the French edition of a book by Klaus Gamber, Ratzinger took the position Mosebach takes in judging the missal of 1969, “a liturgy that had grown organically had been pushed aside in favor of a fabricated liturgy”. (p. 192)

In a short time, the situation in most parishes may become desperately irreformable, so total is the rupture with the heritage of the old rite(s). The “sit down” masses among aging, graying Religious illustrate the finality of this rupture and the abject failure of the official reform. Mosebach says, “A detailed study would be required to show why, for the Catholic Church, an attack on her rites has almost fatal consequences, but space forbids.” (p. 192)

Mosebach’s criticism of the reform employs an underlying philosophy of liturgy. He rejects the very concept of liturgical reform. (p .34) “We are constantly being astounded by the reform introduced by Jesus Christ, the only reform that deserves this name.” (p. 70) We do not shape the liturgy. Rather, the liturgy shapes us. This may be easily understood by his reference to Pavel Florensky, the Russian priest executed by the Communists in 1937.

Eastern churches shun the temporal and locate their worship in eternity. The Divine Liturgy is not made by human hands, and neither hierarchs nor scholars may tinker with it, goes their thinking and that of Mosebach: “academic answers are completely useless in questions of liturgy”. (p. 30; 35) Sacred Tradition formed the Liturgy, and only the Holy Spirit can change it, not bureaucrats in Rome, much less diocesan dim-lights. Mosebach is suspicious of bogus scholarship which has been used to promote an agenda. The Eastern Church provides a model of failure when the reforming Patriarch Nikon (1605-1681) was responsible for the Old Ritualist schism in Russia.

The Orthodox Church is rooted in Christian Platonism. The Orthodox Liturgy is described as an ontology, something true in itself, seen in this imperfect world imperfectly, but faithfully representing and accessing our goal in the Heavenly Liturgy. Mosebach favors something like this view for the Roman Liturgy—”We can say that, like Jesus, it is ‘begotten, not created’.” (p. 35) Or again, “Since Holy Mass had no author, since a precise date could be allotted to practically none of its parts—as to when it originated and when it was finally and universally incorporated into the Mass … it was something eternal, not made by human hands.” (p. 35) In the chapter on the physical structure of the liturgical books themselves, there is a touching passage explaining the celebrant’s submission to the traditional order of prayer as something not made by him, as something given or received. (pp. 200-201) The Book of Seven Seals is the missal, the church’s revealed worship! (p. 209)

In our church few have written from this point of view, not even Klaus Gamber who was no friend of the official reform. Mosebach appeals to him for aid to build his case. The Roman Rite, and liturgy in the West more generally, have traditionally been regulated by pontifical legislation, not one-sided organic evolution. Attila Miklósházy wrote about the “theological foundations” for liturgical renewal and this assumed both the orthodoxy and the need for prayer reform.

We all knew the role of conciliar and pontifical legislation when a post-Tridentine pope suppressed local liturgies in Europe. Very few survived the reform of Pius V—the Mozarabic and Ambrosian Rites are still living, but barely. The old Celtic liturgies vanished. The Old Sarum Usage disappeared from the life of the church. It is known only to scholarly specialists.

If a liturgy is an “ontology”, no pope could abolish it. But rites were indeed suppressed by ecclesiastical authority. Mosebach minimizes this history, though he claims to have done his homework. (pp. 25; 32). He knows about the “two-track” history of parts of the old Mass, and this shows a higher degree of historical knowledge than most amateurs. (pp. 42; 52)

He does not mention that the missal of 1962 already shows sign of pontifical reform because, for the first time in the history of the Roman Missal, the rubrics were minutely codified and systematized. This codification by the Congregation of Rites undoubtedly was an effect of the First Liturgical Movement and Pius XII’s “Mediator Dei”.

Yet, Mosebach presents an airtight case for restoration. Once you enter through his door, it will shut behind you, and you are inside his liturgical world. He writes this meditation for the young, for priests and seminarians of the next generation seeking relief from the conflict of our vexing civil war. He writes for those who find the liturgy a difficult burden. He writes for the whole church, though he is forced to say the prospects for a liturgical Christianity are poor. (p. 72)

Our hunger and thirst for beauty will never leave us. There is hope for the future because of the way we are made. We are made for beauty. Superficiality and ugliness are a choice, not an inevitability. Some of Mosebach’s deepest insights, what might be called his spirituality, must be part of that future in the church. Perhaps there is more reason to hope than Mosebach is willing to admit. Only “perhaps”.

In the Second Book of Kings, Chapter 22, we read that the book of the law was lost in the rubble of the temple. When later it was found, it was presented to King Josiah who rent his garments out of grief.

If Mosebach is correct, something analogous to this exaltation can happen when our youth discover the enduring Mass which is “ever old and ever new”. “I take up the old Missal as if I had found it on some deserted beach. I open it and enter into its rich and ordered life, full of meaning. Here is the standard.” (p. 49)

On Saturday, 7 July 2007, Pope Benedict XVI issued an Apostolic Letter, “Summorum Pontificum”, on the celebration of the Roman Rite according to the Missal of 1962. Martin Mosebach might reply that this is only the beginning.

• Read an excerpt from The Heresy of Formlessness: “Does Christianity Need A Liturgy?

---

Related IgnatiusInsight.com Articles, Interviews, and Book Excerpts:

• Author Page for Joseph Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI
• The Spirit of the Liturgy page
• For “Many” or For “All”? | From God Is Near Us: The Eucharist, the Heart of Life | Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
• Foreword to U.M. Lang’s Turning Towards the Lord: Orientation in Liturgical Prayer | Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
• Music and Liturgy | From The Spirit of the Liturgy | Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
• The Altar and the Direction of Liturgical Prayer | From The Spirit of the Liturgy | Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
• The Mass of Vatican II | Fr. Joseph Fessio, S.J.
• Walking To Heaven Backward | Interview with Father Jonathan Robinson of the Oratory
• Reform or Return? | An Interview with Rev. Thomas M. Kocik, author of The Reform of the Reform? • Rite and Liturgy | Denis Crouan, STD
• The Liturgy Lived: The Divinization of Man | Jean Corbon, OP
• Worshipping at the Feet of the Lord: Pope Benedict XVI and the Liturgy | Anthony E. Clark, Ph.D.
• The Latin Mass: Old Rites and New Rites in Today’s World | Anthony E. Clark, Ph.D.
• Liturgy, Catechesis, and Conversion | Barbara Morgan

---

Father Brian W. Van Hove, S.J., is the rector of the Shrine of St. Joseph in St. Louis, Missouri, and is also a spiritual director at Kenrick-Glennon Seminary. In July 2008 he instituted an extraordinary form Mass at 9:00 AM on Sundays at the Shrine of St. Joseph. The celebrant is Reverend Martin D. O’Keefe, S.J.

Another review of Mosebach by Richard J. Dougherty is in The Latin Mass: The Journal of Catholic Culture and Tradition, vol. 17, no. 5, Advent/Christmas 2008, 56-57.

Interview with Archbishop Raymond Burke [Ignatius Insight, 2008]

I

Interview in Catholic World Report by Anita Crane, November 2008

http://www.ignatius.com/Magazines/CWR/crane_nov08.htm

Responses by Edward N. Peters to Deacon Rex Pilger on diaconal continence [canon 277]

re-posted in full with the kind permission of Edward N. Peters

http://www.canonlaw.info/a_deacons2.htm

Canon Law Articles & Reviews

---

Responses to Deacon Pilger’s comments concerning diaconal continence

Edward N. Peters, JD, JCD

Introductory Remarks

The Rev. Brian Van Hove, SJ, and Dcn. Rex Pilger are debating in the Homiletic and Pastoral Review whether the obligation of clerical continence (1983 CIC 277) applies to married permanent deacons (see Notes below). Van Hove argues affirmatively, Pilger negatively. My 2005 article on this question has been cited approvingly by Van Hove, but I have not intervened in the HPR discussion because, until recently, my own work had not been challenged by either side. In the October 2008 issue of HPR, however, and on his personal website, Pilger attempts to refute several points that I made or accept concerning clerical continence.

The remarks below are offered for the benefit of those studying the implications of Canon 277 for married permanent deacons generally, and for those following the exchanges between Van Hove and Pilger in particular. I must caution, however, that the issues raised in this discussion are quite complex. Those not familiar with the broader discussion should avoid forming any conclusions based only on what follows. A priest with Van Hove’s breadth of study needs no help from me defending his position, so I do not take up Pilger’s criticisms of Van Hove except to correct Pilger’s claim that Van Hove’s case “primarily rests on a 2005 paper of Edward Peters”. Actually, most of Van Hove’s arguments derive from such important scholars as Alfons Cdl. Stickler, Christian Cochini, Roman Cholij, Stefan Heid, Henri Crouzel, and Donald Keefe, not from a minor canonist like me.

Van Hove

Responses to Pilger’s comments

Pilger 1: “First, a minor detail: ‘Minor Orders’ were suppressed by Paul VI. There are at present only ‘Orders’”.

Response 1: If this is a minor detail, why does Pilger mention it, unless he wants to imply that my use of the term (or Van Hove’s) is passé? In any case, what Pilger dismisses as a “minor detail” surfaces an important issue: It is essential that one be aware of the distinctions between the obligations binding men in “major orders”, in contrast with those binding men in “minor orders”, in order to discuss competently the possibility that obligations long associated with major orders now apply to all men in “holy orders” in the West. I and others argue that, as a matter of law and history, married clerics in major orders were forbidden the use of marriages already contracted, while clerics in minor orders were not so restricted. It would be, therefore, virtually impossible to discuss the situation of men who are in, or who are considering entering, (major) orders today if we pretend that the traditional division of orders into major and minor had no relevance for the current discussion.

Pilger 2: “Consider the logical content of part of canon 277: The obligation of continence implies the obligation of celibacy. An equivalent, complementary, form of this statement is: the non-obligation of celibacy implies the non-obligation of continence.” Pilger’s emphasis.

Response 2: Pilger’s errors here are lapidary.

First, it is misleading of Pilger to attempt to rephrase the obligation aspect of c. 277 by using the verb “implies”; I am unaware of any provision in the 1983 Code wherein the verb “to imply” conveys a consequential obligation; certainly, c. 277 does not use the word. Unless Pilger can find some examples of such usage, I must score his eisegetical substitution of an equivocal word into the canon, in order to advance what he purports to be an argument about canonical obligations, when canon law itself does not use such vocabulary to impose obligations.

Second… [A reader tells me that my second reason for rejecting Pilger’s claim is not convincing. I see why the reader says that. In my Follow-up (26 October 2008) below, I clarify my second objection.]

Third, Pilger’s supposedly “equivalent, complementary” recasting of the canon, if such recasting were accurate, would mean that canon law had made a pastorally ridiculous statement. Pilger says that c. 277 can be reformulated as “the non-obligation of celibacy implies the non-obligation of continence.” But that can’t be what canon law would hold, else, my single, teenage sons, who most certainly are not obligated to celibacy, would not be obligated to continence either! Obviously, canon law commits no such blunder; rather, Pilger’s manipulated text does.

In the end, Pilger’s attempt at a logician’s argument distracts him from seeing that the obligation of continence, like the obligation of praying the Office, can arise from more than one source. Certainly celibate men are obliged to observe continence (the source of that obligation being natural and divine law, not celibacy per se), but men can also be obligated to continence for reasons besides their not being married. I, Van Hove, and weightier authors besides, argue that the obligation of continence arises with the reception of holy orders per c. 277. Pilger is free to dispute that claim, but he first has to recognize what claim is being made.

Pilger 3: “There is another explanation [for the elimination--which apparently Pilger concedes--from the 1983 Code of an exemption for married deacons from the clerical obligation of continence]; the ‘exemption’ wasn’t necessary: Explicit provision for marital rights in marriage is already existent by virtue of the sacramental marital state (almost a tautology).”

Response 3: I think it careless of Pilger to imply that all married deacons are in “sacramental” marriages, for they certainly need not be. But beyond that, what Pilger thinks is a “tautology” is actually his own petitio principii. He is merely asserting the right of married people to engage in marital relations regardless of the possibility that they might have freely and mutually accepted the obligation of continence consequent to the husband’s reception of holy orders. That, of course, is precisely the point in dispute, and Pilger’s alleged “tautology” masks his avoidance of the central question. The defeat of Pilger’s “tautology” claim leaves him simply conceding that an express continence exemption for married deacons was, as I pointed out in my article, eliminated from c. 277 § 1 by Pope John Paul II (see Notes below).

Pilger 4: “As part of the diaconal ordination rite, only unmarried candidates take a vow [sic] of celibacy; married candidates do not take a corresponding vow [sic] of continence.”

Response 4: Prescinding from Pilger’s confusing of clerical promises with religious vows, it is well known that “assertions from absence” are risky propositions. If this one does anything, however, I think it supports the idea that clerical obligations stated in the law are not usually reiterated in the ordination rite (pace c. 276 § 2, n. 3). Consider: at their ordination diocesan priests do not make, for example, a promise of residing in the diocese or of offering mass for the people entrusted to their care as pastors. Why not? Perhaps because these and many other clerical obligations are already explicitated in the Code (cc. 283 §1 and 534 § 1 respectively). So too, it appears, is the obligation of continence (c. 277).

Finally, Pilger’s (5) discussion of the description of the deacon in the Catechism of the Catholic Church is moderately interesting, but his invocation of Canons 1008 and 1009 is bootless, for neither norm sheds any light on our discussion; moreover, I wonder whether one should assume, as Pilger does, that, if there is a conflict between the Code of Canon Law and the Catechism in a given area (and I don’t see much evidence that Pilger is qualified to make such determinations), it must necessarily be the Code that stands in need of correction. It is one thing to hold, as I do, that canon law works in service to doctrine; it is quite another thing to assume that the Catechism, in any given passage, is more accurately phrased than the Code.

I think that the above responses show Pilger’s comments to be inadequate rebuttals of the arguments I have set out regarding clerical continence obligations.

Conclusion

Pilger’s interest in diaconal continence might be purely academic, or it might reflect his concerns about the ramifications of Canon 277 being applicable to all clerics for the future of the permanent diaconate or about the expectations for married men (and their wives) who were ordained without adequate knowledge of the obligation of continence. These are reasonable questions for which I and others have proposed, I think, reasonable answers. I urge Pilger and all those interested in these questions not simply to skim a few blog posts or letters to the editor on this matter, but to study carefully the works of those who are analyzing this important question with an openness to following wherever the Truth might lead.

+ + +

End Notes

The basic sequence of the HPR exchange is: Rex Pilger, “Making sense of the ministry of the deacon”, HPR November 2006 pp. 23-27; Brian Van Hove, Letter, HPR April 2007 p. 6; Richard Kosterman, Letter, and Fr. Vincent, Letter, HPR November 2007 pp. 3-4; Brian Van Hove, Letter, HPR March 2008 pp. 6-7; Mark Gross, Letter, HPR July 2008 pp. 5-6; and Rex Pilger, Letter, HPR October 2008 pp. 4-5. For all the letters, see R. Pilgers’ Deacon’s Bench Weblog of October 2, 2008.

1983 CIC 277. § 1. Clerics are obliged to observe perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the kingdom of heaven and therefore are bound to celibacy which is a special gift of God by which sacred ministers can adhere more easily to Christ with an undivided heart and are able to dedicate themselves more freely to the service of God and humanity. § 2. Clerics are to behave with due prudence towards persons whose company can endanger their obligation to observe continence or give rise to scandal among the faithful. § 3. The diocesan bishop is competent to establish more specific norms concerning this matter and to pass judgment in particular cases concerning the observance of this obligation.

The textual development of Canon 277  § 1

[Schema de] Populo Dei 135	1980 Schema Codicis 250	1982 Schema Codicis 279	1983 CIC 277
§ 1. Clerici obligatione tenentur servandi perfectam perpetuamque propter Regnum coelorum continentiam, ideoque ad coelibatum adstringuntur. § 2. Praescripto § 1 non tenentur viri maturioris aetatis {in matrimonio viventes qui} ad diaconatum stabilem promoti sunt; qui tamen et ipsi, amissa uxore, ad coelibatum servandum tenentur.	§ 1. Clerici obligatione tenentur servandi perfectam perpetuamque propter Regnum coelorum continentiam, ideoque ad coelibatum adstringuntur. § 2. Praescripto § 1 non tenentur viri {qui, in matrimonio viventes} ad diaconatum permanentem promoti sunt.	§ 1. Clerici obligatione tenentur servandi perfectam perpetuamque propter Regnum coelorum continentiam, ideoque ad coelibatum adstringuntur, quod est peculiare Dei donum, quo quidem sacri ministri indiviso corde Christo facilius adhaerere possunt atque Dei hominumque servitio liberius sese dedicare valent. § 2. Praescripto § 1 non tenentur viri qui, in matrimonio viventes, ad diaconatum permanentem promoti sunt.	§ 1. Clerici obligatione tenentur servandi perfectam perpetuamque propter Regnum coelorum continentiam, ideoque ad coelibatum adstringuntur, quod est peculiare Dei donum, quo quidem sacri ministri indiviso corde Christo facilius adhaerere possunt atque Dei hominumque servitio liberius sese dedicare valent.

from E. Peters, Incrementa in Progressu 255

+ + +

Follow-up (26 October 2008)

I had originally (25 October) posed my second objection to Pilger’s argument as follows:

Second, at the level of common parlance, Pilger’s argument fails, for his assertion about equivalent negation holds only if the assertion and the allegedly consequent implication to be negated are uniquely and exclusively related to each other. What do I mean?

Well, for example, one could say that being ordained ‘implies’ having the indelible character of orders on one’s soul, and that not being ordained ‘implies’ not having such a character. Though such an assertion would be unremarkable, at least it would be true, because ordination and the character of orders are uniquely and exclusively related. But, to take a different example, could one say that being a deacon ‘implies’ the obligation of praying the Liturgy of the Hours, and that not being a deacon ‘implies’ not having to pray the Divine Office? Of course not, for one might be obligated to pray the Office in virtue of another title, for example, because one is a religious or is under private vow, etc. Because, as I and others have argued, celibacy and continence, like diaconate and the Divine Office, are not uniquely and exclusively related, Pilger’s attempt to restate the meaning of the canon negatively (in order neatly to dispatch with his own reformulation) fails.

Restatement of my objection (26 October):

I think Pilger’s reformulation of Canon 277 is wrong, and that his reformulation in turn yields a wrong principle of interpretation, but I have not clearly explained that above. I’ll try to do so here.

Recall that Pilger wrote: [A] The obligation of continence implies the obligation of celibacy. An equivalent, complementary, form of this statement is: [B] the non-obligation of celibacy implies the non-obligation of continence.

I attempted above to set up a different example using ordination and Divine Office. In doing so, however, I failed to track Pilger’s phrasing; I should have set up my example as (A) being ordained “implies” having to pray the Office; and (B) not having to pray the Office “implies” not being ordained. That phrasing would have followed Pilger’s and showed that Pilger and I agree on the formal logic. Instead I arranged my example differently than Pilger did his, critiqued an argument he had not offered, and went immediately to my third objection without showing clearly how I got there. So, I must retrace my steps and try now to address the problem with Pilger’s rephrasing of Canon 277 directly.

So again, look at Pilger’s rephrasing of the canon: “The obligation of continence implies the obligation of celibacy.”

The problem with Pilger’s attempted rephrasing is this: the obligation of continence (which binds all unmarried men and women) simply does not imply the obligation of celibacy. All unmarried persons are obligated to be continent even if most of them recognize that they are not bound to celibacy and are in fact consciously moving toward marriage. What Pilger fails to appreciate is that, in canon law and moral theology, “celibacy” is a willed-state, not a “default” setting or a generic description for the condition of being unmarried. To be “celibate”, in pursuit of holy orders or otherwise (e.g., religious life, apostolic consecration, etc.), means to have promised to remain permanently in the state of not being married, and not simply to have recognized that one happens to be not married at the time, even as an adult.

Because the obligation of continence does not imply the obligation of celibacy, Pilger’s rephrasing of the meaning of Canon 277 to (A) “The obligation of continence implies the obligation of celibacy” is substantively false.

Now, if Pilger’s reformulated statement (A) is substantively false, then his subsequent statement (B) “the non-obligation of celibacy implies the non-obligation of continence”, even if (I say if, because I still dispute Pilger’s use of “implies” for, I presume, the canon’s ideoque) it is logically equivalent of his (A), unavoidably yields a substantively false assertion. That was the thrust of my third criticism of Pilger’s reformulation of Canon 277, wherein I pointed out that unmarried persons who indisputably are not bound to celibacy are nevertheless bound to continence. Pilger’s formally sound, but materially false, reformulations of the canon would have unmarried persons who are not bound by celibacy not being bound by continence either. I’m sure Pilger would not advocate that outcome, but his rephrasing of Canon 277 results in that assertion and thus must be rejected as reflecting what the canon is saying.

---

Top || Home || Canon Law || Liturgy & Sacraments || Catholic Issues || Personal

---

“Jansenism and Liturgical Reform” [ABR, 1993]

American Benedictine Review. Fifty Year Index.

Published as ABR 51:4 (2000). Edited by Terence Kardong OSB, monk of Assumption Abbey.

www.osb.org/abr/50authors.doc

AUTHOR INDEX

Van Hove, Brian, S.J., “Jansenism and Liturgical Reform,” 44:4 (1993) 337-351

www.osb.org/abr/50authors.doc

Jansenism and Liturgical Reform

Dated on the anniversary itself, December 4, Pope John Paul II in 1988 issued an apostolic letter commemorating the twenty-fifth year since the Second Vatican Council’s document on the sacred liturgy, Sacrosanctum concilium.^[1] Perhaps that letter went somewhat unnoticed, but students of the liturgy did take livelier interest when the real “insider’s story” finally came out two years later in the translation of Annibale Bugnini’s The Reform of the Liturgy, 1948-1975.^[2] This was a more detailed account from the administrative viewpoint of some of the warm reminiscences sketched earlier by Dom Bernard Botte and translated under the title From Silence to Participation: An Insider’s View of Liturgical Renewal.^[3]

Both Bugnini the curial prefect and Botte the scholar and consultant give us rich anecdotes and documentary evidence about how the conciliar liturgical reform was actually carried out, how the books were revised by compromise and even intrigue, and how the antecedents of the liturgical movement before the council were converted into these revised rites. Conventional church historians such as Roger Aubert identify the roots of our century’s reform in the efforts that began with Dom Prosper Guéranger in the nineteenth century. Aubert says:

All things considered, the liturgical movement

of the interwar period, despite its efforts to

reach out to the steadily increasing masses, kept

to the ideal of ‘restoration’ that had inspired

Dom Guéranger, in other words it attempted to

satisfy a nostalgia by retracing its steps back

beyond the Counter-Reformation to an imago primitivae

Ecclesiae. Pius X, it is true, had tried to do

more and embark on reform, but his two successors

did little to follow his lead, and outside Rome

his work was felt by pioneers of the liturgical

movement to be more in the nature of ‘a successful

restoration, analogous to the architectural

restorations executed by the Romantics’.^[4]

The Romantic movement had given great impetus to the Catholic revival after the devastation of the French Revolution.^[5] But when it came to things liturgical, the most it could engender was a reconstruction, perhaps artificial, based on love of the ancient church and the ages of faith. The liturgical aestheticism of some Anglo-Catholics after the Oxford Movement in this regard too frequently illustrates a Romanticism with not enough real depth.

However, though the Church may be governed in Rome, it was also long accustomed to have its thinking done in France. Guéranger was a personal favorite of Pius IX who had taken special care to invite him to the deliberations of Vatican I.^[6] And Guéranger’s well-known “romanizing” tendencies made him particularly hostile to the original and positive contribution available from the small but important Jansenist liturgical movement.^[7] In 1853 Pius IX wrote Inter multiplices which strongly approved the adoption of the Roman liturgy throughout France, recommending it in preference to local gallican liturgical rites.^[8]

An American scholar, F. Ellen Weaver, has analyzed the relevant documents, especially the ceremonial books and ritual books with their own notes, which pertain to this Jansenist interest in the reform of the liturgy.^[9] Nearly all the themes familiar in our own day after Sacrosanctum concilium were pursued by the Jansenist reformers–introduction of the vernacular, a greater role for the laity in worship, active participation by all, recovery of the notion of the eucharistic meal and the community, communion under both kinds, emphasis on biblical and also patristic formation, clearer preaching and teaching, less cluttered calendars and fewer devotions which might distract from the centrality of the Eucharist. Even the “kiss of peace” was practiced at Port-Royal, and a sort of offertory procession was found there and elsewhere among Jansenist liturgical reformers.^[10]

One of the few Jansenist reforms which would be unfamiliar to us today would be their use of public penance. But this insistence was not confined to the Jansenists, since it had been called for by the council of Trent as a return to an ancient rite. The Jansenists, on this point, just took Trent more literally and more seriously than anybody else.^[11]

Some Jansenist bishops wished to abolish priestly celibacy. Two of the more famous in Italy were Giovanni Andrea Serrao of Potenza, during the period of the French occupation, and Giuseppi Capecelatro, archbishop of Taranto early in the restoration era.^[12] We should not be led to believe, however, that they acted upon their opinion, any more than bishops today who hold the same opinion.

Moreover, in the middle of the eighteenth century the Jansenists were even accused by the Jesuit polemicist, Henri Michel Sauvage, of having women priests.^[13] While there is as yet no real evidence for his charge, it does illustrate how their enemies perceived them as a people whose liturgical reputation was suspect. Sauvage may have been exaggerating, but even this shows the form of the conceivable.

On the question of the vernacular, both the protestants and the gallicans used it in their liturgy in the seventeenth century in France. As Joseph Andreas Jungmann says when writing of the Liturgical Movement, breviaries and missals in French appeared as early as 1680,^[14] before being suppressed. Even the Jesuits sought indults from Rome for the use of the vernacular in mission lands, notably for China and Quebec. However, these missionaries would have been content with their Latin liturgical books had there been no real need to address the non-European mentality of the new converts. This was not the thoroughgoing and more systematic Catholic reform envisioned by the Jansenists which Weaver calls their “lex docendi, lex orandi”. The whole of their reform program was to seek its expression liturgically.

Even the Italian Jansenists of Tuscany and Pistoia centered their reform on liturgy:

Inside the parish church the service must be made

congregational. And here doctrine entered. The liturgy

was not an act done by priest for the people, it was

‘a common act of priest and people’. Therefore all

the liturgy, even the prayer of consecration which was

said secretly, should be said in a loud voice, and the

congregation was to be encouraged to share. The reformers

asked themselves whether logic must not demand liturgy in the

vernacular instead of Latin, and plainly believed that in principle

this would be right; but knew that in practice neither

their people nor the Church at large would tolerate

such radical departure from hallowed tradition.

Nevertheless the people should be helped to understand

by being provided with vernacular translations and by readings

of the gospel in the vernacular after the Latin reading.^[15]

The most obvious reason why the Jansenists got opposition to their liturgical ideas, of course, is that such were understood to be protestant.^[16] Even today the same ideas are still rejected in some circles on these grounds. Despite Paul VI’s deliberate insertion of ##6-9 into the General Instruction on the Roman Missal of 1969, an assortment of tridentinists, traditionalists, lefebvrists, and sedevacantists continue to claim the reform was a protestant conspiracy. They think the missal of 1570 is an immutable bulwark against protestant influence, even though J.D. Crichton has rightly pointed out that this edition is nearly identical to the first printed one of 1474,^[17] several years before the birth of Luther.

Weaver tells us that Dom Guéranger had a personal antipathy toward the Jansenist reform. In speaking of the innovations of Jacques Jubé of Asnières, she cites Guéranger as saying “it was an example of the deviations to which liturgy was liable when the Roman Mass books were not adopted”.^[18]

Neither Pope John Paul II, nor Archbishop Bugnini, nor Dom Botte, nor the Second Vatican Council, nor Dom Prosper Guéranger give the Jansenist liturgical reform movement any notice at all for being ahead of its time–it is never mentioned either for its catholicity or its importance as an orthodox, or mostly orthodox, alternative to the mandated liturgical reforms of Trent. Since the canons of Trent were introduced very late in France, it had been up to individuals and small groups to conduct the Counter-Reformation by themselves in what now looks to us to have been an often unsystematic way. Were it not for unfortunate political entanglements which are notorious, Jansenism might have been integrated into the mainstream of the church, not expelled from it altogether. Though their liturgical ideas did not die, but resurfaced in Europe in different contexts, they were always tainted until well into the twentieth century.^[19] Jansenists have often been misunderstood or falsely blamed. Currently, though, church historians are re-evaluating the sources and are able to show that specific liturgical ideas congenial to us were flourishing in France and Italy during the early modern period when the Jansenists tried, but failed, to introduce them as reforms into the actual life of the Catholic church. Credit should be given where credit is due. We can recognize ourselves in the Jansenist liturgical reform.

Reverend Brian Van Hove, SJ, at the time of this writing, was in the doctoral program, Department of Church History, The Catholic University of America, Washington, DC.

Published in The American Benedictine Review 44:4 (December 1993) 337-351.

---

^[1]See Origins, May 25, 1989 (vol. 29, no. 2).

^[2]Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1990.

^[3]Washington, DC: The Pastoral Press, 1988.

^[4]Roger Aubert, The Christian Centuries, vol. 5, “The Church in a Secularized Society” (New York: Paulist Press, 1978), p. 599.

^[5]Romantic thinkers usually looked back lovingly to monarchy and the Old Regime, but Jansenist political reformers in Italy, such as the priest Eustachio Degola of Genoa, opposed the Old Regime and allied themselves with French republican ideals. See Owen Chadwick, The Popes and European Revolution (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1981), p. 455. Again, in 1799 the anti-revolutionary peasant army of Arezzo after marching on Florence arrested the famous Jansenist Bishop Scipione de’ Ricci, retired bishop of Pistoia, due to his sympathies for the French military occupation. This was but a few years before Chateaubriand published Le génie du Christianisme in April, 1802. Ibid., p. 473. In general, Chadwick’s estimation of the Revolution is the most succinct way to contrast it with the new Romanticism: “The Revolution did to the Roman Catholic Church what the Reformation failed to do. It appeared to have destroyed its structure if not its being.” Ibid., p. 481. Religious Romanticism surely hoped to bring back both.

^[6]Weaver remarks, “It is interesting and rather pathetic to note that when the Roman Catholic Church condemned all Jansenist teachings, the doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ–so thoroughly pauline, and orthodox–became suspect. In fact at the First Vatican Council in 1870 the definition of the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ was rejected as Jansenist.” See F. Ellen Weaver, The Evolution of the Reform of Port-Royal: From the Rule of Cîteaux to Jansenism (Paris: Éditions Beauchesne, 1978), p. 104, n. 95.

^[7]Aubert says of Guéranger, “…il dénonçait avec acharnement ‘l’hérésie antiliturgique’ en accusant les liturgies françaises d’être tout imprégnées de tendances jansénistes.” See Roger Aubert, “La Géographie ecclésiologique au XIX^e siècle”, in L’Ecclésiologie au XIX^e Siècle, ed. M. Nédoncelle (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1960), p. 22.

^[8]J. Derek Holmes, The Triumph of the Holy See (London: Burns and Oates, 1978), p. 125. Holmes also says, “Guéranger believed that liturgical ceremonies should express the continuity of tradition and that the principle of liturgical unity should correspond to the visible unity of the Church. In 1840 he published Liturgical Institutions advocating a return to the unity of Roman

liturgical practice. There followed an open controversy in which no less than sixty French bishops opposed Guéranger. During 1842 the Pope declared that it was deplorable to have a variety of liturgies, but only half a dozen bishops had adopted the Roman liturgy by 1848. Nevertheless Guéranger continued his campaign and between 1849 and 1851 several provincial councils came out in his support and Pius IX informed the French bishops of his wish that they should adopt the Roman liturgy. By 1864 eighty-one out of ninety-one dioceses had adopted the Roman liturgy and before Guéranger died all the French dioceses had adopted the liturgy of Rome.” (p. 138)

^[9]See “Jansenist Bishops and Liturgical-Social Reform” by F. Ellen Weaver, in Church, State, and Society Under the Bourbon Kings of France, ed. Richard M. Golden (Lawrence, KS: Coronado Press, 1982).

^[10]Ibid., esp. pp. 62-70. See also Chadwick, p. 428.

^[11]Ibid., pp. 59-60.

^[12] Potenza is in Calabria, southern Italy. Bishop Giovanni Andrea Serrao took office in 1782. When the Parthenopean Republic was under siege Bishop Serrao was murdered in his bed by counter-revolutionary members of the Potenza guard who cut off his head and carried it triumphantly upon a pike around the city. See Chadwick, p. 475. Archbishop Giuseppe Capecelatro (1744-1836) of Taranto was one of the most urbane prelates of his day, and a Jansenist by conviction. He also was said to prefer a married clergy. Ibid., p. 548.

^[13]La Réalité du Projet de Bourg-Fontaine (Paris: 1755), vol. II, p. 302.

^[14]See Sacramentum Mundi, vol. 3, “Liturgical Movement” (New York: Herder and Herder, 1969), p. 319.

^[15]Chadwick, p. 421. He further adds: “In this was nothing specially Jansenist. Muratori asked no less.” The multiplication of private Masses, and the separation of communion from the Mass itself were two other objects of reform, and were the concern of different kinds of reformers, too. Often Enlightenment-era Catholicism and Josephism overlapped with Jansenist liturgical and other goals. Ibid., p. 506. Even in Spain when the guerrillas were revolting against the Napoleonic occupation, their assembly was described thus: “The Liberal majority of the Cadiz Cortes was thus in line with the Catholic reforming movement of the eighteenth century which was still assailed as ‘Jansenist’.” Ibid., p. 533.

^[16]On this point see Chadwick, p. 394.

^[17]The Once and Future Liturgy (Dublin: Veritas, 1977), p. 7.

^[18]Ibid., pp. 64-65. In another place, Weaver stresses that the Jansenists were not protestant, for very good reasons. See The Evolution of the Reform of Port-Royal, p. 102. Furthermore, their emphasis upon infrequent communion can be interpreted in a non-protestant and positive way–the respect they had for the Catholic doctrines of the eucharist and the priesthood kept them in such awe that adequate preparation was necessary to partake of the sacrament.

^[19]See Aubert, ibid., p. 541; also Alec C. Vidler, The Church in an Age of Revolution (Baltimore: Penguin, 1961 and 1968), pp. 31-32.

Stojan Adasevic and Thomas Aquinas [Catholic News Agency, November 2008]

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/

Another ‘champion of abortion’ becomes defender of life:

the story of Stojan Adasevic

Madrid, Nov 12, 2008 / (CNA).- The Spanish daily “La Razon” has published an article on the pro-life conversion of a former “champion of abortion.” Stojan Adasevic, who performed 48,000 abortions, sometimes up to 35 per day, is now the most important pro-life leader in Serbia, after 26 years as the most renowned abortion doctor in the country.

“The medical textbooks of the Communist regime said abortion was simply the removal of a blob of tissue,” the newspaper reported.  “Ultrasounds allowing the fetus to be seen did not arrive until the 80s, but they did not change his opinion. Nevertheless, he began to have nightmares.”

In describing his conversion, Adasevic “dreamed about a beautiful field full of children and young people who were playing and laughing, from 4 to 24 years of age, but who ran away from him in fear. A man dressed in a black and white habit stared at him in silence.  The dream was repeated each night and he would wake up in a cold sweat. One night he asked the man in black and white who he was. ‘My name is Thomas Aquinas,’ the man in his dream responded. Adasevic, educated in communist schools, had never heard of the Dominican genius saint.  He didn’t recognize the name”

“Why don’t you ask me who these children are?” St. Thomas asked Adasevic in his dream.

“They are the ones you killed with your abortions,’ St. Thomas told him.

“Adasevic awoke in amazement and decided not to perform any more abortions,” the article stated.

“That same day a cousin came to the hospital with his four months-pregnant girlfriend, who wanted to get her ninth abortion—something quite frequent in the countries of the Soviet bloc.  The doctor agreed. Instead of removing the fetus piece by piece, he decided to chop it up and remove it as a mass. However, the baby’s heart came out still beating. Adasevic realized then that he had killed a human being,”

After this experience, Adasevic “told the hospital he would no longer perform abortions. Never before had a doctor in Communist Yugoslavia refused to do so.  They cut his salary in half, fired his daughter from her job, and did not allow his son to enter the university.”

After years of pressure and on the verge of giving up, he had another dream about St. Thomas.

“You are my good friend, keep going,’ the man in black and white told him.  Adasevic became involved in the pro-life movement and was able to get Yugoslav television to air the film ‘The Silent Scream,’ by Doctor Bernard Nathanson, two times.”

Adasevic has told his story in magazines and newspapers throughout Eastern Europe. He has returned to the Orthodox faith of his childhood and has studied the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas.

“Influenced by Aristotle, Thomas wrote that human life begins forty days after fertilization,” Adasevic wrote in one article. La Razon commented that Adasevic “suggests that perhaps the saint wanted to make amends for that error.”  Today the Serbian doctor continues to fight for the lives of the unborn.

Blessed Pius XII? News from Chiesa online. November 2008.

Rome, November 20, 2008

English translation by Matthew Sherry, Saint Louis, Missouri, U.S.A.

Blessed Pius XII? But First of All, Get Him Right

The rabbi of Haifa protests, and “La Civiltà Cattolica” bridles. But the beatification of Pope Eugenio Pacelli continues to draw near. And history will also have to do him justice, according to Paolo Mieli, a secular Jew, in “L’Osservatore Romano”

by Sandro Magister

ROMA, October 10, 2008 – Celebrating the Mass for the fiftieth anniversary of the death of Pius XII yesterday at St. Peter’s, Pope Joseph Ratzinger invited all to pray “that his beatification cause may proceed smoothly.”

It was Paul VI himself, in the hall of Vatican Council II, who proposed the beatification of Pius XII, together with that of John XXIIII. It was November 8, 1965, and Pope Eugenio Pacelli was already the target of mounting accusations that he had collaborated, through his silence, in the Nazi extermination of the Jews: these accusations achieved worldwide prominence through the play “The Vicar” by Rolf Hochhuth, performed for the first time two years earlier in Berlin.

Since then, the beatification cause of Pius XII has crossed paths with the controversy over his silence. On May 8, 2007, the Vatican congregation for the causes of saints voted unanimously in approval of “the heroic virtue” of Pope Pacelli, the last step before the beatification process properly speaking. But so far, Benedict XVI has not signed the decree. A study commission has been charged with making further investigations, also on the basis of documents held in the Vatican archives but not yet accessible to the public.

Opposition to the beatification of Pius XII has been expressed repeatedly in recent years by some representatives of Judaism. These include the current chief rabbi of Rome, Riccardo Di Segni.

In a surprise move, they were joined last October 6 by the chief rabbi of Haifa, Shear Yashuv Cohen.

This was surprising because Rabbi Cohen spoke out against the beatification of Pius XII immediately after speaking before the assembly of the synod of bishops, to which he had been invited as a special guest, entering the hall with full honors, at the side of Benedict XVI, for the first time in the history of the synods.

And there, as well at the end of his speech, he issued a veiled accusation against Pope Pacelli, saying:

“We cannot forget the sad and painful fact of how many, including great religious leaders, didn’t raise a voice in the effort to save our brethren, but chose to keep silent and help secretly.”

At the secretariat of state, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone and foreign minister Dominique Mamberti were rather irritated with the snap from the rabbi, and even more so with the decision to invite him, when there are many prominent Jewish leaders who have great respect for Pius XII.

The Vatican authorities, naturally, do not accept outside interference in their decisions, like the proclamation of saints and blesseds, which belongs exclusively to the Church. But the most insidious opposition to the beatification of Pius XII comes from inside the Catholic camp, not from outside of it.

Some of this opposition was to be taken for granted, like the frontal opposition from the scholars of the “school of Bologna,” whose exaltation of John XXIII goes hand-in-hand with their rejection of Pius XII.

But other forms of opposition are more subtle, and invested with authority. This is the case of “La Civiltà Cattolica,” the magazine of the Rome Jesuits that is printed after review by the secretariat of state.

Last September 18, the same day on which Benedict XVI was defending the heroic virtues of Pius XII in speaking to a group of Jews from the Pave the Way Foundation, “La Civiltà Cattolica” published an article by its historian, Fr. Giovanni Sale, highly critical of the diplomatic caution with which Pacelli, as secretary of state, reacted to the anti-Jewish racial laws promulgated in Italy in 1938.

The article – republished in several languages on www.chiesa – prompted an uproar at the Vatican. Some accuse the Jesuits of “La Civiltà Cattolica” of working for a boycott, while others accuse the secretariat of state of failing to exercise proper supervision.

Cardinal Bertone has tried to settle things down by giving great emphasis, in the October 8 edition of “L’Osservatore Romano,” to his preface to a book in staunch defense of Pius XII, “The Truth Will Set You Free,” written by an American sister, Margherita Marchione, and released that day by Libreria Editrice Vaticana.

But another backlash in the quarrel provoked by “La Civiltà Cattolica” could be found in “L’Osservatore Romano” on the following day, in a question from an interview about Pope Pacelli.

“La Civiltà Cattolica has written that Pius XII failed to speak with a prophetic voice. Isn’t that a somewhat anachronistic judgment?”

The interview is with Paolo Mieli, a student of the great historian of fascism Renzo De Felice, and the director of the leading Italian newspaper, “Corriere della Sera.” Mieli is of Jewish family, with relatives who died in the Nazi concentration camps.

And on an entire page of “the pope’s newspaper,” Mieli absolutely dismantles the “black legend” weighing against Pius XII, whom he calls “the most important pope of the twentieth century.”

The interview was conducted by Maurizio Fontana, who signed the article, and by the director of “L’Osservatore Romano”, Giovanni Maria Vian. It was published on October 9, the same day on which, at the Mass for the fiftieth anniversary of the death of Pius XII, Benedict XVI said this of him in the homily:

“He often worked in a secret and silent way precisely because, in the light of the concrete situations of that complex historical moment, he intuited that this was the only way to prevent the worst from happening, and to save the largest possible number of Jews.”

Here is the interview, in its entirety:

History will do justice to Pius XII

An interview with Paolo Mieli

Q: There is often talk about the play by Rolf Hochhuth “The Vicar,” performed for the first time on February 20, 1963, at the Freie Volksbühne in Berlin. But the criticism of Pope Pacelli’s attitudes dates back to long before this. When did the “Pius XII problem” truly emerge?

A: The watershed was without question the performance of “The Vicar,” but some of the accusations, even if they were not of the same kind as those of Hochhuth, go back even before the beginning of the second world war. The first to speak of the reticence of Pius XII was, in fact, Emmanuel Mounier, who in May of 1939 courteously objected to a silence that brought embarrassment to many: that of Pius XII concerning Italian aggression against Albania.

The same kind of accusation was then lodged against him by another French Catholic intellectual, François Mauriac, who in 1951 lamented, in the preface to a book by Léon Poliakov, that the persecuted Jews had not had the comfort of hearing the pope condemn in clear and distinct terms “the crucifixion of countless brothers in the Lord.” But it should also be recalled that this same book – one of the first important texts on anti-Semitism – presented justifications for this silence. In essence, Poliakov, himself a Jew, wrote that the pope had been silent in order to avoid compromising the safety of the Jews to a much greater extent than had already been done.

Q: So, the first statement on this topic by a Jewish scholar was very cautious?

A: I would go even further. Except for Poliakov, the first assessments of the Jewish community all over the world were not only cautious, they were very favorable toward Pius XII.

Q: Could one reason for this caution be the fact that the real accusations against the pope began to come, already during the war, from the Soviets?

A: Pius XII was certainly a pope who was also – and I emphasize “also” – anti-communist. And during these decades of controversy, he has often been criticized for being swayed by this view. We recall, for example, two famous speeches he delivered before becoming pope, during his trip to France (1937) and to Hungary (1938), in which he emphasized the persecutions of the communist regime rather than those of the Nazi regime.

But a premise must be noted in this regard: the thematization of the Holocaust as we know it today came many decades after the end of the second world war. I remember that during the 1950’s and ’60’s, one still spoke roughly of deportees in the concentration camps. It was known that the Jews had suffered the worst fate, but full awareness of the Holocaust came later. During the 1930’s, very few had any idea about what could happen to the Jews. Of course, in Germany, there had been the “night of broken glass.” But it is obviously much easier to interpret and understand the facts today, in hindsight. And the Jews who escaped from Germany were not welcomed with open arms in any part of the world, not even in the United States. In short, it was a complex problem. The Western world, the civil world, apart from a few exceptions, did not understand, did not realize what was happening. For this reason, when we talk about a pope at the end of the 1930’s, we can understand why he would be more sensitive to anti-Christian persecution in the Soviet Union then to what was emerging in the Nazi world. This does not mean that he was secretly a Nazi.

Q: The 1930’s: controversy is often directed at Pius XI as well . . .

A: One of the criticisms of Cardinal Pacelli, who was secretary of state for Pius XI, is that he softened the condemnations of National Socialism. Among the many accusations – which I do not believe are entirely justified – against Pacelli was that he moderated the tone of the encyclical “Mit Brennender Sorge.” In reality, examining Pope Pacelli’s activities from an historical standpoint, I would recall a few details. When the war began, he criticized the apathy of the French Church under Nazi domination in Vichy France; he then criticized the flagrant anti-Semitism of Slovakian Monsignor Josef Tiso; he extended – as documented in a book by Renato Moro, “La Chiesa e lo sterminio degli ebrei [The Church and the extermination of the Jews],” published by Il Mulino – his own willingness, and even assistance, with highly risky decisiveness, to some of those who plotted against Hitler between 1939 and 1940. I continue: when in June of 1941, the Soviet Union was invaded by Germany, there was a certain resistance in the Western world to making pacts with those who until that moment had fought on the side of Nazi Germany. Pius XII instead exerted himself greatly to facilitate an alliance between Great Britain, the United States, and the Soviet Union.

And finally, there is the most important chapter: during the Nazi occupation of Rome – as recounted, for example, in two books, the famous volume by Enzo Forcella (“La resistenza in convento [The resistance in the convent],” published by Einaudi) and one just recently released by Andrea Riccardi (“L’inverno più lungo [The longest winter],” Laterza) – the Church made all of its resources available: almost every basilica, every church, every seminary, every convent accommodated and helped the Jews. So much so that in Rome, in comparison with two thousand deported Jews, ten thousand were able to save themselves. Now, I don’t mean to say that all of those ten thousand were saved by the Church of Pius XII, but without a doubt the Church contributed to saving most of them. And it would have been impossible for the pope to be unaware of what his priests and sisters were doing. The result was that for years, for years and years – dozens of examples could be given – extremely important figures in the Jewish world acknowledged this contribution, attributing it explicitly to Pius XII.

Now, almost any trace of these witnesses has been lost. This was the subject, for example, of a wonderful book by Andrea Tornielli (“Pio XII il papa degli ebrei [Pius XII, the pope of the Jews],” Piemme). It is an extremely vast literature, of which I would like to provide just a sample. In 1944, the grand rabbi of Jerusalem, Isaac Herzog, said: “The people of Israel will never forget what Pius XII and his illustrious delegates, inspired by the eternal principles of religion that are at the basis of authentic civilization, are doing for our unfortunate brothers and sisters in the most tragic hour of our history. This is living proof of divine providence in this world.”

That same year, Sergeant Major Joseph Vancover wrote: “I would like to tell you about Jewish Rome, about the great miracle of finding thousands of Jews here. The churches, the convents, the monks and nuns, and above all the pontiff, ran to the aid and rescue of the Jews, snatching them from the clutches of the Nazis and of their fascist Italian collaborators. These great efforts, not without their dangers, were undertaken to conceal and feed the Jews during the months of the German occupation. Some religious paid with their lives for this rescue operation. The entire Church was mobilized for this purpose, working with great dedication. The Vatican was at the center of every activity of assistance and rescue, under the given circumstances an under Nazi domination.”

I also cite a letter from the Italian front, by the soldier Eliyahu Lubisky, a member of the socialist kibbutz Bet Alfa. It was published in the weekly “Hashavua” on August 4, 1944: “All of the refugees are talking about how helpful the Vatican was. Priests put their lives in danger to conceal and save Jews. The pontiff himself participated in the work to rescue the Jews.”

Again, October 15, 1944. We note the address given by the extraordinary commissioner of the Jewish community in Rome, Silvio Ottolenghi: “Thousands of our brothers were saved in the convents, in the churches, in the extraterritorial buildings. On July 23. I was summoned to meet with His Holiness, to whom I communicated the thanks of the community of Rome for the heroic and affectionate assistance extended to us by the clergy through the convents and colleges . . . I told His Holiness about the desire of my fellow Jews in Rome to go en masse to thank him. But this kind of demonstration was not possible, except at the end of the war, in order to avoid compromising all of those in the north who still needed to be protected.”

Q: This was while the war was still going on. Let’s come to today . . .

A: Today, unfortunately, attention to Pius XII is so strong that even a normal historiographic discussion becomes heated.

Q: The issue is so incendiary that there is still the problem of the photograph of Pius XII at Yad Vashem, and its caption. This in spite of the mass of testimonies to which you have just referred. What happened?

A: What happened is that over the years, the black legend of Pius XII has been spread. We recall the books by John Cornwell (“Hitler’s Pope”) and by Daniel Goldhagen (“Hitlers willige Vollstrecker [Hitler's willing executioners]“), in which these accusations are made more explicit. A common judgment was formed, according to which Pius XII was seen as a pontiff who was nothing less than an accomplice of the Nazi Führer. This is crazy! And just think that at Eichmann’s trial in 1961, a judgment about the pope was expressed that is worth rereading. The person speaking is Gideon Hausner, the state prosecutor in Jerusalem: “In Rome, on October 16, 1943, a vast round-up was organized in the old Jewish neighborhood. The Italian clergy participated in the rescue operation, the monasteries opened their doors to the Jews. The pontiff intervened personally in favor of the Jews arrested in Rome.”

Q: This was just two years before the performance of “The Vicar” . . .

A: And it was in 1963 that a twofold revision of Pius XII’s role began taking hold. One of these was malicious – inside the Church itself – and contrasted Pius XII with the figure of John XXIII. It was a devastating operation: John XXIII was treated as a pope who had demonstrated a sensitivity during the second world war that Pius XII had not. This is a very bizarre idea. And between the lines of the invective against Pacelli, it seems to emerge that the pontiff has been made to pay for his anti-communism. In reality, Pius XII was a pope in line with the history of the Catholic Church in the 20th century. If one reads what he wrote or listens to the recordings of his speeches, one realizes how he also expressed, for example, criticism of liberalism. I mean that he was not at all a pawn of anti-communist Atlantism.

Q: This means that he wasn’t the chaplain of the West . . .

A: Absolutely not. The image of Pius XII as the chaplain of the great anti-communist offensive during the cold war is off track. Although, naturally, he was anti-communist. And for this anti-communism, he has been made to pay a very high price, which has distorted his image through theatrical performances, publications, and films. But anyone who has not taken a prejudicial attitude and has tried to understand Pacelli through the documents cannot help but be stunned by this black legend, which makes no sense. Pius XII was a great pope, able to meet the situation. It is as if today we were to blast Roosevelt for not speaking more clearly about the Jews. But how can one scrutinize a war, especially regarding an unarmed figure like the Pope? This speciousness of this offensive against Pius XII seems truly suspect to any person of good faith, and it is a speciousness that should be opposed. Sooner or later, someone will reinterpret the facts in the light of the testimonies to which I referred earlier.

Q: Are there differences between European, and in particular Italian, historiography on Pius XII, versus American?

A: I think so. We should not forget that this aversion toward Pius XII emerged in the Anglo-Saxon, Protestant world. It did not emerge from the Jewish world, which instead adapted itself over time in order to avoid being caught off guard by an international campaign. To put it in another way: if the pope is accused of letting anti-Semitism run free, obviously the Jewish world feels itself responsible for seeing things clearly. This brings us to the episode of the seventh hall of Yad Vashem in Jerusalem, where a photograph of the pope appears with a caption that describes his behavior as “ambiguous.” Or to the request, in 1998, by of the ambassador of Israel to the Holy See at the time, Aaron Lopez, to put a moratorium on the beatification of Pius XII. Now, I have nothing to do with this matter of the moratorium, because it is not an historiographical issue. But there is something excessively obstinate about attitudes toward this pope, and it stinks from a mile away.

It was in 1963 that the spotlight was focused on Pius XII, in an effort to find evidence of his guilt, and nothing emerged. On the contrary, the studies brought to light copious documentation attesting to how his Church gave crucial help to the Jews. I recall, in this regard, one beautiful gesture: in June of 1955, the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra asked to be allowed to give a concert at the Vatican in honor of Pius XII, to express gratitude to this pope, and it played in the presence of the pope a movement from Beethoven’s seventh symphony. This was the atmosphere. And when the pope died, Golda Meir – Israel’s foreign minister, and future prime minister – said: “When the most appalling martyrdom ever struck our people during the ten years of the Nazi terror, the voice of the pontiff was raised in favor of the victims. We weep for the loss of this great servant of peace.” For some, the pontiff’s voice had not been raised, but they had heard it. Understand? Golda Meir had heard his voice. And William Zuckerman, director of the magazine “Jewish Newsletter,” wrote: “All the Jews of America pay homage and express their sorrow, because it is likely that no leader of this generation gave more substantial help to the Jews in the hour of tragedy. More than anyone else, we were able to benefit from the great and charitable goodness and magnanimity of the lamented pontiff during the years of persecution and terror.” This is how Pius XII was considered for years, for decades. Were they all crazy? No, they were the ones who had suffered the persecutions for which Pius XII is blamed as an accomplice. If we take this as a case of historiography, the black legend is crazy. But I think that, apart from some polemicists, any historian worthy of the name – even in the case of people like me who are not Catholic – will fight to reestablish the truth.

Q: What has emerged so far from Israeli historiography? Has there been an evolution in the judgment of historians? Is there still a debate about Pius XII?

A: I would say that Israeli historiography is very restrained. In reality, the case is still open because of the obstinance of another world, which is not the Jewish world. I think that three aspects must be considered. First of all, Pius XII has been made to pay for his anti-communism. Second: this pope knew Germany well, and had a pro-German attitude that, make no mistake, does not mean pro-Nazi. Finally, it must be said that the criticisms of Pius XII always come from circles that could be criticized ten times as much themselves. During the Holocaust, these circles were unable to demonstrate a presence anywhere near what they criticize Pius XII for not doing.

Q: Do you want to give us some examples?

A: I think about what happened in France, in Poland, but even in the United States. Let’s think about it: the idea of those who accuse Pius XII is that everyone knew, or that in any case it was possible to know. So I ask: whom do we remember, during the second world war, among the personalities of these circles who raised their voices in a way that the pope is criticized for not doing? I don’t know any.

Q: Are you also referring to the Italian anti-fascists?

A: Absolutely. But essentially: who can be pointed to as someone who did for the Jews something that the pope did not do? I don’t know anyone. There are individual cases, just as there were individual cases among Church authorities. At least this pope did everything he was able to do. He made it possible for ten thousand Jews in Rome – but this also happened in other parts of Italy – to save themselves, compared to the two thousand who were killed. I don’t understand what the terms of comparison should be. So I believe that it is possible to conjecture that these criticisms, these invectives, come from circles whose consciences are not at ease in regard to this problem.

Q: So the black legend is a case of a guilty conscience?

A: I would say so. it doesn’t make sense otherwise. The truth is that hatred for Pius XII emerged in a specific context, at the start of the cold war. We should remember that it was the pope who made possible the victory of Democrazia Cristiana in 1948. I am convinced that the accusations against him are the purging of a hatred that emerged in the second half of the 1940’s and during the 1950’s. The literature hostile to Pius XII came after the war. In Italy, it began after the collapse of the national unity government in 1947, and became more heated during the 1950’s. This entire depository of hatred and strong aversion emerged in later years. If it had come to light immediately, the Jews whose lives have been saved thanks to this Church would not have permitted the speaking and writing of what has been said and written. Because it came out twenty or thirty years later, all of the witnesses, all of those who were saved – we are talking about thousands of people – were gone, and the new generation of their children took in these accusations. And in fact, who was it who resisted the accusations? The historians.

Q: In addition to this, there were Catholic voices that have contrasted Pius XII and his successor, John XXIII.

A: In fact, I believe that the opening of the beatification causes of these two popes was not announced at the same time by accident. When Paul VI went to the Holy Land in 1964, and spoke in very warm terms about Pius XII, there were no great protests. No one protested. And operation “Vicar” had already begun. The accusations seemed incredible. After this, the landslide gradually gained force, as the generation of eyewitnesses disappeared. In any case, I think that historians will do justice to Pius XII.

Q: We have mentioned the Catholics. “La Civiltà Cattolica” has written that Pius XII failed to speak with a prophetic voice. Isn’t that a somewhat anachronistic judgment? Should the pontiff have gone to the ghetto on October 16, 1944, as he had gone to the bombed neighborhood of San Lorenzo a few weeks earlier?

A: Sincerely, the Jewish blood that runs through my veins makes me prefer a pope who helps my fellow Jews to survive, rather than one who performs a showy gesture. A pope who goes to a bombed neighborhood is a pope who weeps for the victims, he performs a gesture of warmth and affection for the city, while his presence in the ghetto might be controversial. Of course, in hindsight anything can be said, even – as has been written – that it would have been right for him to throw himself on the tracks to keep the trains from leaving. But I think that these are frivolous judgments. And also, in sincerity, criticizing another for not doing what none of your own people did is a bit risky. In fact, I don’t recall that any representatives of the anti-Nazi Roman resistance went to the ghetto, or threw themselves on the tracks. These discussions are truly lacking in moderation.

Q: About the controversy within Catholicism, Rabbi David Dalin has gone so far as to write that Pius XII is the biggest club that the progressives can use to attack the traditionalists . . .

A: The most inconvenient aspect, but to me it is evident (even if I am looking at it from the outside) is that this battle in the Catholic world that opposes the figures of John XXIII and Pius XII is not very courageous, because no one does it openly. There is no book or article from an authoritative representative of the Catholic world that says clearly, John XXIII yes and Pius XII no. It is a battle carried out between the lines, made up of subtleties. For me, the issue is clear: either one is truly convinced that Pius XII was a Nazi accomplice, or if instead things are the way they have been discussed in this interview, then certain people should realize that these arguments contributed only to perpetuating the black legend about this pope. It should be noted: I believe that this black legend is running out of time. Pius XII will not be a pope marked by a “damnatio memoriae.”

Q: Why do you say this?

A: Precisely from the historical point of view, the evidence in favor is so strong and extensive, and the lack of contrary evidence is so glaring, that this offensive against Pius XII is destined to exhaust itself.

Q: A final question about the attitude of Pius XII. How is it possible to reconstruct the nature of his silent work regarding the Holocaust?

A: I have often thought about Pius XII, trying to imagine what kind of personality he had. He has been compared to Benedict XV, the pope of the first world war. But the second world war was very different. Certainly Pacelli was a tormented man, one who had his doubts. He himself dwelt upon his own “silence” in 1941. He found himself at a horrible crossroads that brought some of his convictions into question. Then there was a long period after the war, until 1958, in which he continued to be a strong pope, present, important, decisive for the reconstruction of Italy in the period following the war. He may have been the most important pope the 20th century. He was certainly tormented by doubts. On the matter of his silence, as I have said, he questioned himself. But it is precisely this that gives me a sense of his greatness.

One thing has struck me above all. Once the war was over, if Pius XII had had a guilty conscience, he would have bragged about his work to save the Jews. But he never did this. He never said a word. He could have. He could have had it written about, had it said. He didn’t do it. For me, this is the proof of how substantial his character was. He was not a pope who felt the need to defend himself. Regarding judgment about Pius XII, I must say that there remains in my heart what Robert Kempner, a Jewish lawyer of German origin and the second prosecutor at the Nuremberg trial, wrote in 1964: “Any propagandistic statement of position by the Church against the government of Hitler would not only have been premeditated suicide, but would have accelerated the killing of a much greater number of Jews and priests.”

I conclude: for twenty years, the judgments about Pius XII were unanimous. In my opinion, therefore, there is something that doesn’t add up about the offensive against them. And anyone who ventures to study him with intellectual honesty must start from precisely this point. From these figures that don’t add up.

__________________

The “pope’s newspaper” in which the interview was published:

> L’Osservatore Romano

__________

The homily by Benedict XVI at the Mass on October 9, 2008, at the fiftieth anniversary of the death of Pius XII:

> “Il brano del libro del Siracide…”

__________

The article from www.chiesa, containing the critical article from “La Civiltà Cattolica”:

> The Two Sides of Pacelli. Courageous as Pope, Too Cautious as Secretary of State (23.9.2008)

__________

And an earlier article with an incisive profile of Pius XII, written by Professor Pietro De Marco:

> A Son of the Church of Pius XII Breaks the Silence on His Sanctity (27.1.2005)

__________

The latest book published in Italy on this topic is the following, with a detailed summary of the controversy:

Alessandro Angelo Persico, “Il caso Pio XII. Mezzo secolo di dibattito su Eugenio Pacelli [The case of Pius XII. Half a century of debate about Eugenio Pacelli]“, Guerini e Associati, Milan, 2008, pp. 462, 28.00 euros.

__________

English translation by Matthew Sherry, Saint Louis, Missouri, U.S.A.

__________

10.10.2008

“Same-sex Marriage in Medieval Canon Law” by Edward N. Peters

re-posted in full with the kind permission of Edward N. Peters

http://www.canonlaw.info/2008/11/same-sex-marriage-in-medieval-canon-law.html

			Christ among the Doctors of the Law

Friday, November 21, 2008

“Same-sex marriage” in medieval canon law

Increasingly, it seems, the Church has to explain the most rudimentary things to people, things like, it is always wrong to deliberately kill an innocent human being (John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 57), or lately, that marriage can exist only between a man and a woman (1983 CIC 1055, CCC 1601 ff.) Sometimes, the world’s penchant for mangling the truth leaves Church officials scrambling to find (among other things) an historical text on a controverted topic, not to demonstrate the veracity of the truth in question, but rather to show that the Church has always taught that truth, even if in times past there was little need to point out what folks already understood. As I watch bishops and others trying to respond to the sudden emergence of “same sex marriage”, I sympathize with their bewilderment that they find themselves even having to explain the matter, and I’ve wondered, might historians be able to find a “paper trail” of Church teachings against “same sex marriage” that could be used for pedagogic purposes? Maybe so.

Recently I came across a passage in a medieval canonical treatise, the Summa Aurea by Hostiensis (d. 1270), wherein the great lawyer paused, as it happens, to point out (at the risk of preaching to an audience who took such a truth for granted) that marriage can only exist between a man and woman, and one of each at that. How ironic that words penned by a canonist 750 years ago are more helpful to us today than they were to their original audience! Of course, Hostiensis went on to discuss other canonical aspects of marriage, but his brief observations that marriage is possible only between one man and one woman are, I think, useful to us who, many centuries later, are defending marriage against an appalling redefinition.

Preserving the clipped prose typical of medieval canonistics and omitting citations, I here offer my rough rendering of Hostiensis’ thirteenth century text on marriage.

“What marriage is. The conjoining of a man and a woman holding to an individual manner of life; a mutual sharing with divine and human aspects. Marriage is between a man and a woman; two of the same sex cannot be married. For, in the beginning they were not created two men nor two women, but first a man and then a woman. A wedding therefore that is not a commingling of the sexes would not have within itself a sacrament of Christ and the Church. Marriage is also spoken of as being between a man and a woman in the singular, and not of men and women in the plural, for no one man can wed several women, nor can one woman wed several men.”

See: Henricus de Segusio (Cdl. Hostiensis, c. 1200-1270), Summa Aurae [1253] una cum summariis et adnotationibus Nicolai Superantii (Neudruck der Ausgabe Lyon, 1537 / Scientia Aalen, 1962) 194 bis (b).

posted by Dr. Edward Peters at This Permanent Link

Paul Vitz and Daniel C. Vitz– “Messing with the Mass: The problem of priestly narcissism today.” Homiletic and Pastoral Review (November 2007).

Messing with the Mass:

The problem of priestly narcissism today

PAUL VITZ and DANIEL C. VITZ

It has been frequently noted that the Mass since Vatican II has fallen victim to various kinds of irregularities.

Since Vatican II the Mass has fallen victim to various kinds of irregularities. This issue has been much discussed from various perspectives, but in this article we will examine a previously neglected aspect of the situation — namely, the psychological reasons why priests have introduced these changes. We will not deal with theological explanations for why the Mass has been subject to liturgical experimentation, nor will we discuss liturgical rationales for such innovations. Instead, we will focus on the psychology of the priest and those assisting at the liturgy — that is, on the psychological motives as distinct from theological and liturgical reasoning.

We propose that the primary motivation behind many of these changes derives from underlying narcissistic motives — that is, extreme self love — found in many people in contemporary culture. This is especially the case with the relatively small changes introduced in an idiosyncratic way into the Mass. We first summarize and describe the nature of this narcissism, then apply it to the situation found among priests.

American Narcissism

Beginning in the 1970’s, a number of major social critics noted and criticized this country’s increasingly narcissistic — that is, self-preoccupied — character. Tom Wolfe’s article “The Me Decade” opened this critique, and many others followed it. Perhaps the most extensive treatment was Christopher Lasch’s The Culture of Narcissism. The first book-length critique of American’s narcissism was written by one of the present authors (PCV), Psychology as Religion: The Cult of Self-Worship (1977, 1994). Vitz explicitly addressed the basic anti-Christian (though not the anti-Catholic) significance of contemporary cultural narcissism. Robert Bellah and colleagues’ Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life in 1985 continued such critiques. We briefly summarize here key points made by these authors to allow their insights to be applied to the psychology of many American priests.

Lasch emphasized the decline of the “sense of historical time.” (p. 1) Narcissism as a mental framework is easier for individuals and societies when they are no longer connected to the past. It is the past that provides a framework for judging contemporary behavior as good or bad, as appropriate or inappropriate, as traditional or novel. The historical past, with its heroes and its lessons, is a person’s link to family and cultural traditions; it provides norms of behavior and moral strictures. Lasch makes it clear that as the past has faded from American consciousness, the capacity for narcissistic self-indulgence has grown substantially.

Lasch also noted how American society has begun to lose its confidence in the future — something truer still of Europe. This rejection of the future began to become widespread in the 1960’s with the fear of overpopulation. Many began to argue for “zero population growth”, and considered that the future of the world would be better with far fewer human beings. There was also a loss of hope for the future of humanity and traditional social organizations. This same phenomenon is readily discernible with respect to Western culture generally including the American nation. Modern critiques of Western society as exploitive, imperialistic, and even culturally inferior became widespread in the intellectual communities of the United States and Europe. From our colleges, universities and seminaries this general attitude spread out to become commonplace among America’s professional or “governing” class. A related critique of religion itself arose at the same time — and in the same places. Science, technology and secular life were generally assumed to be desirable and inevitable, and religion — part of the embarrassing Western culture anyway — was doomed to disappear. Christianity in any recognizable form was judged as having no future. The evaporation of hope for the future on all these fronts, along with the decline of belief in the relevance of tradition, meant that the “now” was what mattered. Having cut loose from the past and having little confidence in the future, we have allowed the present moment to dominate our consciousness.

Examples of the preoccupation with the present — “now” — at the expense of the lessons of the past and concern for the future abound. Consumer society, with its obsession with consumption, and its encouragement to incur debt with a disregard for future consequences, is perhaps the most obvious example. The glorification of transient sexual gratification and sensory pleasures is another commonplace example of this peculiarly contemporary focus on the present. The entertainment industry feeds — and feeds on — preoccupation with the present moment. This mindset promotes narcissism, because persons firmly wedded to their tradition and mindful of their future have inherent restraints on personal self-indulgence and gratification. Such persons instead draw gratification from continuing an admired past and projecting it in a positive way toward a hopeful future. In short, the “now” and narcissism go hand in hand.

Vitz, in his treatment, identifies the self-psychology of Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow and other psychologists as a central causal factor, especially in these psychologists’ preoccupation with self-actualization and self-fulfillment. He also notes how this psychological narcissism morphed into the New Age emphasis on spiritual narcissism: “When I pray, I pray to myself.” The self, for many, has become the absolute center of values and preoccupation. Such an attitude is a form of idolatry, obviously related to the traditional vices of pride and vanity, and well summed up in the truly ancient temptation — “You shall be as gods.” Of course, most of today’s self-oriented American narcissists do not go quite so far, but there is a strong temptation for individuals today to agree with the Burger King erstwhile motto — “Have it your way.”

The narcissism discussed by Lasch was refocused in Bellah et al’s well-known Habits of the Heart. This book primarily identified American individualism and the autonomous self as the cultural culprit underlying America’s social fragmentation, loneliness and personal alienation. Although American individualism is not quite the same thing as narcissism — in some ways it is more moderate — Bellah et al conclude, “in the end, its [individualism’s] results are much the same” as narcissism or egoism. Bellah agrees with Lasch that with American individualism, “people come to ‘forget their ancestors,’ but also their descendents, as well as isolating themselves from their contemporaries.”

Narcissism of a General Psychological Type

The preceding summary has interpreted narcissism primarily within a cultural or social framework. However, a psychological definition of narcissism is also relevant. Genuine clinical narcissism, such as narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), is a relatively uncommon major disorder and is not of concern here. Instead, our focus is on the more moderate narcissistic traits found in many individuals today. Five characteristics are relevant, all part of narcissistic personality disorder as described in the DSM-lV-R description of NPD. (Words from the DSM are in Italics.)

1. Requires excessive admiration; with this comes extreme sensitivity to criticism. Such criticism often leads to social withdrawal or an appearance of humility. Often this is associated with obvious attention seeking behavior. These narcissistic traits are frequently found in those who introduce and participate in liturgical innovations.

1. A sense of entitlement, of unreasonable expectations of favorable treatmentand ofautomatic compliance of others with one’s suggestions and expectations is another narcissistic trait. An attitude of the “rules don’t apply to me” comes with this sense of entitlement — for example the rubrics of the Mass don’t really require me to follow them.
2. A belief that they are superior, special or unique and expect others to recognize this; that they should only associate with other people who are special or of high status. For priests this may show by extreme needs to associate with high ranking clergy or with liturgical experts.
3. Another narcissistic characteristic is showing arrogant,haughty behaviors and attitudes. At times priests show this in their liturgical style, emphases or innovation or when criticized for such innovations. Such attitudes often underlie the very assumption that one has the right to change the liturgy.
4. A lack of empathy, that is, an unwillingness to recognize oridentify with the feeling and needs of others. This is sometimes shown by contempt or anger toward those who are offended by changes in the liturgy — often changes that have no real canonical support.

All of the above don’t need to be present in a given individual for the general narcissistic personality of the person to be clear, but any of these traits to an extreme or any two or more as obvious, would be enough to identify a “narcissistic type.”

Catholic Expressions of Clerical Narcissism

Lasch, Vitz and Bellah never touch on the Catholic Church in the works cited above, but their points apply to the situation of the Church in the United States over the last several decades. Setting aside the important underlying theological issues, we can see deeply rooted psychological motives behind the American priests who “individualize” the Masses they celebrate, placing their “personal stamp” on the liturgy. These priests play fast and loose with the rubrics of the mass, transform the “very brief” introduction after the greeting of the people, as authorized by the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, into another homily. Some even individualize the prayer of consecration, and in numerous other ways seek to make the Divine Liturgy conform to their own tastes and views.

Much of this change was long attributed to the “Spirit of Vatican II”, but in fact, our point is that the secular and narcissistic spirit of the times lies beneath these liturgical irregularities. This secular spirit, as described by Lasch, was explicitly self-indulgent and self-aggrandizing. The rationale of those who “personalize” the liturgy is clearly one that rejects the Church’s history and tradition — just as society in general has rejected its past. This is easily seen in the frequent neglect and sometimes even explicit disparagement of the Church’s liturgical tradition by those who should be most closely wedded to the Church — priests.

These abuses also reflect a real disconnect with the Christian future. The future is a central focus of the liturgy as properly understood. The liturgy reflects the longing for God that we hope to realize at our deaths, but perhaps even more importantly the Mass presages the Last Judgment to be visited upon all mankind. At its heart, the Divine Liturgy is an expression of hopefulness for the future, and is an earthly manifestation of our ultimate goal — Heaven. The Mass should take us out of the present — should have a transcendent timelessness — and should also give us an awareness of the long traditions of the Church which precede us. Unfortunately, the congregation in many of today’s liturgies leaves the Mass with little awareness of the liturgy’s meaning for both the Church’s past and their eternal future. The Mass was just a transitory emotional experience, and easily forgotten.

The common contemporary focus on being “relevant” is a straightforward articulation of making the Mass focus on the “now” with a serious neglect of where the Mass came from and where it is leading us. To be relevant is to be involved in the present, commonly at the expense of the past as well as the future. In fact, most of the innovators would argue that a “relevant” liturgy is one that speaks to the people “now”, rather than serving as a fixed reference point in a confused and changing world. The “now” is also an expression of narcissistic preoccupations. Indeed, it is difficult to disentangle the connection between narcissism and “relevant” liturgy: focusing on the “now” breeds narcissism, and narcissism creates a preoccupation with “relevance” and the “now.” We turn now to some specific examples of our thesis.

In 1990 Thomas Day, in Why Catholic Can’t Sing, gave some clear examples of the narcissistic phenomenon in the Catholic liturgy — a phenomenon that he calls “Ego Renewal.”

“It is Holy Thursday and we are at the solemn evening mass in a mid-western parish. The moment comes for the celebrant of the Mass, the pastor, to wash the feet of twelve parishioners, just as Christ washed the feet of the apostles at the last Supper. During this deeply moving ceremony, the choir sings motets and alternates with the congregation, which sings hymns. Finally, this part of the liturgy comes to a close with the washing of the last foot. The music ends; you can almost sense that the congregation wants to weep for joy. Then, Father Hank (this is what the pastor wishes to be called) walks over to a microphone, smiles, and says, “Boy, that was great! Let’s give these twelve parishioners a hand.”

A stunned and somewhat reluctant congregation applauds weakly. Father Hank continues….

One by one, Father Hank goes down the row of twelve parishioners; each one gets a little testimonial and applause. With that job out of the way, Father Hank, visibly pleased with himself, resumes the liturgy, while the congregation, visibly annoyed, contemplates various methods of strangulation.”

This is a narcissistic example of “personalizing” the liturgy, and Day points out that “Father Hank’s” antics, far from being selfless, are fundamentally intended to draw attention to himself. Any psychologist would be aware of Father Hank’s underlying insecurity and consequent need for personal affirmation, and we can see this same psychology on a lesser scale when the celebrant leaves the sanctuary to shake hands with the laity during the sign of peace or nods and glad-hands his way through the congregation during the recessional as though he were a local politician running for office. Day displays acute awareness of the narcissism underlying many liturgical problems, and as noted aptly refers to it as “Ego Renewal.” A similar, real-life example of this personalizing of the liturgy in a way that detracts from its spiritual significance occurred at a large Mass, attended by the junior author, in which the main celebrant introduced each of over twenty other concelebrants at the start of the mass, inviting applause for each as they were introduced.

With rare exceptions the introduction of applause within the Mass is a display of the ego needs of the priest or priests who are modeling the mass on show business and on public demonstrations of emotional support at the expense of Christ and an attitude of reverence.

Changing the rubrics sometimes panders to the narcissism both of the congregation and the priest, such as when the celebrant states to the congregation, “the Lord is with you” instead of blessing them, “the Lord be with you.”

Lest the reader think that the cited examples belong to the 1980’s and 90’s, here is a fall 2006 example from a good sized diocese noted in the January 2007 First Things. A Halloween Mass in a parish that we will leave nameless “featured musicians decked out as devils and people in demon costumes distributing the Eucharist. I stopped watching the widely available video of the Mass at the point when the pastor introduced the Lord’s Prayer with the words, “As goblins and ghouls…,” and so I missed the part where, reportedly, he arrayed himself as the purple dinosaur Barney to conclude the ceremony.” The obvious narcissistic points are that this Mass was videoed for distribution, and that the pastor appeared in the costume of a well-liked media dinosaur. (What does a dinosaur costume say about his attitude toward the priesthood and the Church?) There is also, of course, a more sinister theme in this “performance” — one that suggests an association between narcissism and heresy.

Most changes and additions to the Mass are not as lengthy or obvious to the man in the pew as the above examples. Nevertheless, they can be just as disturbing, and equally unsound theologically. On one occasion the junior author noticed that the words of consecration had been altered by the priest during a daily Mass in a major cathedral. After Mass he approached the priest and politely asked about the changes, and was told that they were “just a little thing that I always do.” Another example occurred when this same priest so modified the words of the Mass that the congregation lost its place and didn’t realize its cue to say the appropriate responses. Still another example, involved a priest who memorized the gospel each week and then recited it from memory rather than reading it. This novelty drew considerable attention to the priest, of course, and many lost the gospel message by concentrating on the performance. Likewise, a priest was reported to us who mimed the homily, again drawing undue attention to him and his performance. Imitating Christ’s self-forgetfulness and humble heart are the antidotes for these tendencies.

The laity is recruited to narcissism as well today. The mass is presented as a celebration of the assembled faithful themselves rather than a celebration of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. This is part of the motivation behind applause elicited from the laity. Perhaps the most obvious example of narcissism in the laity assisting at the mass occurs in the realm of “music ministry.” Day focuses particularly on this aspect in Why Catholics Can’t Sing; one notable aspect of this phenomenon is the moving of the choir from the choir loft and onto the sanctuary, where they are better able to “perform” to the congregation and to be seen an applauded. Indeed, there is a growing sense that the music at mass is more a performance than anything else.

One of the unanticipated results of priests customizing the liturgy — changing it on their own authority to suit their particular predilections — is that the laity sometimes follows suit. Following the American consumer mentality of “having it your way,” is potentially available to the lay faithful, not just to priests. If every priest is pope, why not every layman a pope as well? When the priest says, “The Lord is with you”, what is to stop the man in the pew from saying: “I know, amen.” After all, the laity has their own narcissistic needs that could easily show themselves in disruptive ways during Mass. Some of the laity’s narcissism already shows up in the way they often insist on controlling the mass and prayers at weddings and funerals. These services are increasingly custom-made by lay insistence.

It is important for priests to keep in mind that most Catholics go to Mass to encounter Jesus Christ, and not to come into contact with the particular psychology of the celebrant. They go for something that is not present in the popular culture — a sense of the sacred and a recognition of the need for humility. We do not want to come away from the Mass being affirmed in where we are, we want to be drawn toward where we long to be — closer to Christ and to Heaven.

Given the tendency toward “ego renewal”, self-esteem and self-aggrandizement, priests and seminarians should be made aware of the danger of inserting one’s personality into the liturgy. This tendency toward narcissism needs to be addressed especially in the context of the Mass celebrated versus populum — facing the people. Regardless of one’s view with regard to the respective merits of the mass being celebrated ad orientem or versus populum, there can be little question that the temptation to grandstand is much greater when the celebrant is facing the congregation. Cardinal Arinze, the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments, recently commented on this issue, saying, “If the priest is not very disciplined, he will soon become a performer. He may not realize it, but he will be projecting himself rather than projecting Christ. Indeed, it is very demanding, the altar facing the people.”

Since the narcissistic or vain needs of many priests lie behind their peculiar and idiosyncratic changes in the liturgy, it is time for these unprepossessing and non-theological factors to be more widely recognized in Catholic seminaries and in the Catholic community at large. We will let Cardinal Arinze have the last word on this issue when he says the liturgy “is not the property of one individual, therefore an individual does not tinker with it.”

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Paul Vitz & Daniel C. Vitz. “Messing with the Mass: The problem of priestly narcissism today.” Homiletic and Pastoral Review (November 2007).

Reprinted with permission of the authors, Paul Vitz and Daniel C. Vitz.

THE AUTHOR

Prof. Paul Vitz received his Ph.D. in Psychology from Stanford University (1962) and for many years was a professor of psychology at New York University, where he is now professor emeritus. Currently he is Professor/Senior Scholar at the Institute for Psychological Sciences (IPS) in Arlington, VA. This is a free-standing, fully accredited graduate program, awarding the Doctor of Psychology degree in clinical psychology. The program trains psychologists within an orthodox Catholic perspective.

Dr. Vitz’s work is focused on the integration of Christian theology and psychology, breaking from the secular humanism and post-modern relativism prevalent today. His books include: Psychology as Religion: The Cult of Self-Worship; Sigmund Freud’s Christian Unconscious; Modern Art and Modern Science: The Parallel Analysis of Vision; and Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism. He and his wife live in Manhattan; they have six children, and they are now expecting their tenth grandchild. This is his second contribution to HPR. Paul Vitz is on the advisory board of the Catholic Education Resource Center.

Brother Daniel C. Vitz is studying for the priesthood with a new order founded in Argentina, the Institute of the Incarnate Word, at their American seminary (the Fulton Sheen House of Formation) just outside of Washington, D.C and is also a graduate student at Catholic University of America’s School of Philosophy. He is a native New Yorker, a former Navy officer, and the oldest son of Paul and Evelyn Vitz.

Copyright © 2007 Paul and Daniel C. Vitz

Cardinal James Francis Stafford to CUA: “Quia amore langueo – Because I am sick for love”

Download the original attachment

http://priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/cardinal-stafford.htm

Cardinal’s Address to Catholic University of America

November 13, 2008

Cardinal James Francis Stafford

Major Penitentiary of the Apostolic Penitentiary, Cardinal-Priest of S. Pietro in Montorio

Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II: “Being True with Body and Soul”^[1]

For 51 years of priestly ministry I have been attentive to res sacra in temporalibus in American culture, i.e., “to the elements of the sacred in the temporal life of man” or, in a more Heideggerian idiom, “to man as the sacred element in temporal things.” In 1958 John Courtney Murray, S. J. was my guide. With further guidance from the Church over the years, I have learned that the nucleus of this principle, enunciated by Pope Leo XIII, maintains that the sacred element in secular life, especially our use of language, escapes the undivided control of the supreme power of the State. The secular life of man is not completely secular, nor totally encompassed within the State as the highest social organism, and subject ultimately only to the political power. The sacred word within man in secular life transcends the control of the supreme power of the State. A person’s public life is not encompassed within the State as the highest social organism, and not subject ultimately only to the political power.

President Thomas Jefferson’s celebrated 1802 letter to the committee of the Danbury Baptist Association asserting “a wall of separation between Church and State” formally denied the reality of res sacra in temporalibus. He introduced a latent and powerful virus which would eventually be used to diminish and then to wound mortally a theology of discourse in the public arena. It has led to the increasingly secularized states of the American union and their active hostility towards the Catholic Church. Some of these governments are threatening Roman Catholic adoption agencies because of their refusal to select same-sex couples as potential adoptive parents. They are forcing Catholic hospitals to accept medical procedures which are contrary to the dignity of the human person. They are insisting on hiring practices which will destroy the Catholic identity of health and social services under Catholic Church auspices. They have not refrained from coercing the individual conscience. Here the federal and state governments are enshrining the primacy of secular laws over against religious principles. These decisions are the legal and moral progeny of Jefferson’s insistence on debarring personal faith from the public forum. And this is only a beginning. Their seeds can be found in the 1787 Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom sponsored and promoted by Jefferson. His self-proclaimed Epicureanism and crypto-utilitarianism furnish the hermeneutical keys for interpreting the opening paragraph of his 1776 Declaration of Independence.

This evening. I will cover the following areas: 1) the narrow, calculative, mathematical mind and its manipulation of the humanum and, more specifically, of human sexuality since 1968; 2) the response of the Church’s magisterium in the encyclical letter of Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae and teachings of later Popes; 3) other Catholic philosophical and theological responses to what John Rawls calls the “embedding module”, namely the increasingly disenchanted world in which we work and pray.

Furthermore, since this month, November, is the time in which the liturgy of the Church reflects on the final things – heaven, hell, purgatory and death, I will be attempting to strengthen the Catholic faithful, as St. John did in the Book of the Apocalypse, against the ever increasing pretensions of the state making itself absolute. For the next several weeks the Book of the Apocalypse will be read at daily Mass. The theme of that final book of the Bible is that the Battle of the Logos has always already been won on Calvary. In the immense conflicts associated with the teaching of Humanae Vitae, the overarching task of the Church is to make manifest for the faithful the apocalyptic victory of the Lamb in our historical time. The Church, the bearer of revelation, insists that the mysterious beginning and earthly end of every member of the human race is illumined by the light of the divine Logos. [“Every human being] comes from the source of light that irradiates him”.^[2] Finally, I will be using the word “apocalyptic” in the Christian sense of “expressing the fundamental law of post-Christian world history: the more Christ’s kingdom is manifested as the light of the world……the more it will meet determined opposition.”^[3]

1) The apparent triumph of what has been described as “the manipulable arrangement of the scientific-technological world and of the social order proper to this world” ^[4] over the past several generations.

1968 was the year in which Pope Paul VI issued, Humanae Vitae (HV); it was the long-delayed and long-awaited encyclical letter on transmitting human life. It met with immediate and unprecedented opposition. American theologians were its choral directors. The encyclical arrived in Washington, D. C. in late July 1968. It had to contend with the chaos of assassinations, overseas wars, the conflicts surrounding the Democratic/Republican national conventions, indiscriminate killings, university strikes and riots, growing use of barbiturates, and ubiquitous insurrections within the cities. It was preceded by a one year An Aquarian Exposition, the for- profit, rock-music event staged on a Woodstock dairy farm in New York State. Since then, the chaos has become chronic, more insidious because partially hidden. If 1968 was the year of the year of “America’s Suicide Attempt”, 2008 is the year of America’s exhaustion.

In the intervening 40 years the United States has been thrown upon unlit roads. There have been few, if any, “clearings” (Heidegger’s Lichtung). In 1973 alone the U. S. Supreme Courts’ pro-abortion decision was imposed upon the nation. Its scrupulous meanness has had catastrophic effects upon the identity, unity, and integrity of the American republic. It has undermined respect for human life. We have been horrified and uncomprehending witnesses for over two generations to America’s decline from “a mansion to a dirty house in a gutted world”^[5]. Yet honesty compels me to admit that this decision against human life is in historical continuity with the pragmatism on the part of the Fathers of the 1787 Constitutional Convention for the recognition of Black slavery and, following the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, in continuity with the same meanness toward Native Americans on the part of the politicians, entrepreneurs and settlers. The 1803 event was a meanness enshrined shortly in the doctrine of Manifest Destiny. The 1973 Court’s alteration has even more radically transformed the way we think about others, especially the least among us. Its inexcusable evasions about the dignity of human life, and their prolongation to the present, have condemned those of us who oppose it to disillusionment and bitter isolation. Both Republican and Democratic partisans have abused rhetoric on this issue. The President-elect is a skillful rhetorician. Civic life has been invaded with an anti-humanism so toxic that it is proving mortal to the body politic.

Nothing has been left untouched by the court’s lethal wand. Social engineering and the price-systems have infected all Americans with a pervasive, technological mind-set. Economics, administration, sexuality, language and, above all, human life are being manipulated by complex strategies of power. “Politics in turn becomes an arena for contention among rival techniques.”^[6] Obama’s campaign raised over $600 million, a record, and McCain’s over $300 million. An uncritical, unspoken “metaphysics of presence” dominates American life, both private and public. This new way of thinking has led to the creation of a worldwide colossus, America’s military. It is generally acknowledged that nothing in the nation’s economic, social, or political institutions approaches its influence. Freedom itself has been reduced to power.

Part II of Humanae Vitae, called “Doctrinal Principles”, ends with a description by Pope Paul VI of the “Serious Consequences of the Use of Artificial Methods of Birth Control”. His apocalyptic vision has been prophetic of the epoch we have entered. After 40 years of widespread contraceptive practice, the consequences appear now as the Horsemen of the Apocalypse ravaging what St. Paul described as the “ten logiken latreian hymon – “the humanly proper worship” (Rom 12: 1) of the baptized. The demonic four are the following: marital infidelity; disrespect for woman, governmental despotism in the regulation of births, and the human body manipulated and destroyed as a technological artifact. The four horseman have been responsible for the calamitous meltdown in Western demographics and in real development. Sexual aberration has become a way of life for many. These four shades are insinuating their deathworks upon whole nations and cultures. The Middle East is an obvious example.

Mary Eberstadt in a recent article entitled,“The Vindication of Humanae Vitae”, commented on the prophetic vision of Paul VI, “Contraceptive sex…….is the fundamental social fact of our time.” She continues, “In the years since Humanae Vitae’s appearance, numerous distinguished Catholic thinkers have argued, using a variety of evidence, that each of these predictions [of Pope Paul VI] has been borne out by the social facts.” Human life has been conceded to the arbitrary will of the state.

Governments are dissolving religious and philosophical values and remaking them into the distortions of a dominant, cybernetic model. Franz Kafka’s 1915novella, Metamorphosis, is not far off the prophetic mark. The good has been drained of ontological content; it has become “a mere cipher, a monadic carrier of information, a unit of cybernetic science”^[7]. The British government has recently set as a national goal the manufacture of human life by technology. Its reductive anthropology allows the unprecedented to happen: the radical manipulation of the substance of the biological heritage of the human race. It has allocated £40 million of public monies for stem cell research. Former Prime Minister Tony Blair envisions Britain to be leader of the world in cloning human embryos for research. Potential benefits, he claims, will be huge. Furthermore, a consortium of leading British bankers and scientists have launched a £100 million fund to finance stem cell research. Plans are being made for a national stem cell research institute, costing £16 million. In 2005, the British Trade and Industry Secretary Patricia Hewitt announced that the Government would spend more than £1 billion on biotechnology by 2008. ‘We want to send a signal to scientists that Britain is open for business in some of the most controversial areas,’ she said. It is not simply a coincidence that economics and technology dominate. Bankers, financial investors, and MBA executives are mentioned consistently with the scientific midwives of this cultural monstrosity, the nub of which is the forgetting of the question of God.^[8]

In the United States President – elect Barack Obama and the Vice-President-elect Joseph Biden, a Catholic, campaigned on a severe anti-life platform. Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University and a member of the President’s Council on Bioethics, analyzed America’s descent since 1968-1973 into deathworks by summarizing Obama’s vision. George’s analysis appeared in the journal, Public Discourse. “[Obama] has co-sponsored a bill…..that would authorize the large-scale industrial production of human embryos for use in biomedical research in which they would be killed. In fact, the bill Obama co-sponsored would effectively require the killing of human beings in the embryonic stage that were produced by cloning.”^[9]

The assumption under girding the positions of Barack Obama, Joseph Biden, and Tony Blair results from a technological mind-set. Such technologically-driven men eventually may assert that human nature, until recently acknowledged to be a unitary composite of two polarities, body and soul, must not only be changed by technology, but, if necessary, be suppressed. It has proven to be the next logical step after the decision to control and manipulate technologically the origins of human life.

But ‘phusis – nature’, has been essential in Western metaphysics for describing the truth of beings. Martin Heidegger writing about the radical reduction of the goals of medicine to what is technologically possible, and its relation to human phusis, asserted that, in the past even until very recent times, “techne can only cooperate with phusis, can more or less expedite the cure; but as techne it can never replace phusis and itself become the arche of health itself. This could happen only if life as such were to become a ‘technically’ producible artifact. However, at that very moment there would also no longer be such a thing as health, any more than there would be birth and death. Sometimes it seems as if modern humanity is rushing headlong toward this goal of producing itself technologically. If humanity achieves this, it will have exploded itself, i.e., its essence qua subjectivity, into thin air, into a region where the absolutely meaningless is valued as the one and only ‘meaning’ and where preserving this value appears as the human ‘domination’ of the globe. ‘Subjectivity’ is not overcome in this way but merely ‘tranquilized’ in the ‘eternal progress’ of a Chinese – like ‘constancy’. This is the most extreme nonessence in relation to phusis-ousia”^[10]

A similar technological mind-set has contributed to the recent economic turmoil. Hedge funds were heavily invested in the technology bubble. The October 21, 2008 issue of The Financial Times read, “Blame it on Harvard: Is the MBA culture responsible for the financial crisis?” Technology and operations represent a major component of the MBA imagination at work at Harvard. The news story described the 100^th anniversary celebration of the pre-eminent Harvard Business School. “You would have to have a heart of stone not to be amused by this piquant accident of timing. Here, at the spiritual home of the Masters of the universe, distinguished graduates could only look on as that same universe threatened to collapse.”

2) The response of the Church’s magisterium. The issues now facing us are all entwined within the above-developed linguistic and actual deathworks^[11] informing Rawl’s “embedding module”. The response of the Church’s magisterium has been based on the ancient Catholic imagination recaptured happily by Pope John Paul II in his now famous phrase,”the nuptial meaning of the human body created as male and female.” The response includes “being true with the body and the soul.” The title of my talk has been taken from Francois Mauriac. He struggled for many years to overcome the unbending austerity and narrow rigidity resulting from the theological pessimism of the Jansenism of his childhood. In 1931 he overcame this heritage. Thereafter life became a creative drama that engages the fullness of the person by being true with body and soul. Mauriac’s “clearing” was where he discovered the dramatic convergence of form and content. The wholeness of two polarities is manifested within the unity of body and soul in the human person. David L. Schindler in a recent paper on human sexuality summarized his first principle supporting the differentiated unity of body and soul: “The Soul as it were lends its spiritual meaning to the body as body, even as the body then, simultaneously, contributes to what now becomes in man, a distinct kind of spirit: a spirit whose nature it is to be embodied”.^[12]

The Church’s response to the technological/scientific hegemony just described has not involved any condemnation of technology or of science as such. Rather is based on her recognition of the present spiritual climate for what it is: A New Ice Age. The great American poet and convert to Catholicism, Wallace Stevens, coined the image. “‘America was always North ……. ‘ where God was in hiding.”^[13]. We must turn south and even return to our origins, the desert. How? By recovering the structure of truth in its relation to goodness and beauty. Only a linguistic imagination that is analogical – and ultimately liturgical and sacramental – is capable of such rediscovery. In her devastating critique of the deconstructionism of Jacques Derrida, Catharine Pickstock has recaptured the apostrophic voice of Catholicism’s high desert origins, the responsorials first heard in the Sinaitic and Judean wildernesses. The poiesis of the Catholic imagination finds itself in the title of Pickstock’s book, After Writing: the Liturgical Consummation of Philosophy.

In his Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis (27), Pope Benedict XVI echoes what is partially anticipated by Pickstock, “The Eucharist, as the sacrament of charity, has a particular relationship with the love of man and woman united in marriage. A deeper understanding of this relationship is needed at the present time. Pope John Paul II frequently spoke of the nuptial character of the Eucharist and its special relationship with the sacrament of Matrimony: ‘The Eucharist is the sacrament of our redemption. It is the sacrament of the Bridegroom and of the Bride.’ Moreover, ‘the entire Christian life bears the mark of the spousal love of Christ and the Church. Already Baptism, the entry into the People of God, is a nuptial mystery; it is so to speak the nuptial bath which precedes the wedding feast, the Eucharist.’ The Eucharist inexhaustibly strengthens the indissoluble unity and love of every Christian marriage. By the power of the sacrament, the marriage bond is intrinsically linked to the Eucharistic unity of Christ the Bridegroom and his Bride, the Church (cf. Eph 5:31-32)”. In Familiaris Consortio, Pope John Paul II called for the celebration of the Sacrament of Marriage within the Eucharistic sacrifice to demonstrate the living connection between the two Sacraments. He thereby made more visible “the rich analogy between the una caro of the Eucharist and the una caro of the spouses through which their gift to one another becomes a particular form of participation in the Body ’given’ and the blood ‘poured out’ of Christ that becomes for the Christian family the inexhaustible font of its identity (with) itsmissionary and apostolic dynamism.” ^[14] Here we sense the flavor of Karl Barth’s analogia fidei in explaining the origins and meaning of linguistics.

What are the philosophical/theological foundations for such assertions? What are the meta-anthropological presuppositions for this vision of linguistics, of reality? Two elements should be highlighted: the biblical image of God and the biblical image of man. In his first Encyclical Letter, Deus Caritas Est, Pope Benedict XVI proposes that the Bible presents us with new image of God – his Trinitarian self-oblation, the self-surrender characteristic of immanent Trinity – and with a new image of man, of which the most sublime sign is the Eucharist. “The Eucharist draws us into Jesus’ act of self-oblation. More than just statically receiving the incarnate Logos, we enter into the very dynamic of his self-giving. The imagery of marriage between God and Israel is now realized in a way previously inconceivable: it had meant standing in God’s presence, but now it becomes union with God through sharing in Jesus’ self-gift, sharing his body and blood” (13). The Eucharist builds up man and woman from within in the image of the Triune God and man learns the complexity of love: St. Augustine’s insight is helpful here: “Capit ut capitur. One grasps in being grasped.”^[15] Preeminently in marriage, the Eucharist draws with the cords of love each spouse in the depths of their interiority toward a mutual, total, integrally human, and fruitful self-oblation.^[16] The total giving of the Word in the Eucharist is the mirroring of the real language of the human body as created as male and female.

In his Wednesday audiences during the early 1980s Pope John Paul II called spouses to a deeper understanding of the theology of the body. When he described the prophets’ of the Old Testament use of marriage as an analogy of God’s relation to man, the Pope expressed the astonishing insight about the specific “prophetism of the body”^[17]. In interpreting this prophetic language, he indicated, one must “reread” the language of the body for “it is the body itself which ‘speaks’; it speaks by means of its masculinity and femininity, it speaks in the mysterious language of the personal, it speaks ultimately -and this happens frequently – both in the language of fidelity, that is of love, and also in the language of conjugal infidelity, that is of ‘adultery’”.^[18] A correct rereading must be done “in truth”. The human body speaks “a ‘language’ of which it is not the author. “Its author is man, who as male and female, husband and wife, correctly rereads the significance of this ‘language’. He rereads therefore the spousal significance of the body as integrally inscribed in the structure of the masculinity or femininity of the personal subject.” In other words, the human body as created by God as masculine/feminine is the Ursprache, the primordial utterancefrom the beginning. The “nuptial meaning” of the human body originally was the Adamic language.

All of these texts from John Paul II and Benedict XVI refer to the inner dynamic of the relationship between the two spouses. The subject of moral acts is each person, a dual unity of body and soul, a psychosomatic whole. Anything that smacks of a body-soul dualism is firmly rejected. One cannot attempt to free the soul from the body. When a human being seeks the truth and the good, his body is not an afterthought or an accident or a ‘tomb’ for the soul. The language of the human body, rightly reread, is a language by which “the likeness with God shows that the essence and existence of man are constitutively related to God in the most profound manner. This is a relationship that exists in itself, it is therefore not something that comes afterwards and is not added from the outside.” (Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church [CSDC] 109). In the words of the International Theological Commission, “Human bodiliness participates in the imago Dei.”^[19] They echo the ancient teaching of St. Irenaeus, “”the flesh ….was formed according to the image of God.”^[20]

As Archbishop of Denver, in 1996 I addressed a Pastoral Letter to the people of northern Colorado on the historical importance of a culture formed by the medieval Anglo-Saxon Sarum Rite and by the even more ancient Gregorian Sacramentary. Peoples in such a culture intuitively interpreted reality through the covenantal and bridal relationship of God and creation and of Christ and the Church. Consequently, they would find absolutely inapprehensible the acceptance and promotion of homosexuality activity as a valid moral option. Such activities are a direct assault not only upon the Sacrament of marriage but also upon the Sacrament of the Eucharist.