I have seen comments from people, here and elsewhere, that Bishop D’Arcy of Fort Wayne and South Bend should hammer the Univ. of Notre Dame, suspend right and left, lay waste on all sides.
Why is it that people think that bishops are (or should be) Medieval prince bishops or some modern day Bp. Hatto.
Of course they only want them to be that way when convenient for their own favored cause…. but I digress.
The distinquished canonist Ed Peters of In the Light of the Law, has an interesting comment regarding Bp. D’Arcy and Notre Dame. My emphases and comments.
1. The local bishop cannot put Notre Dame under a local interdict, even for a brief period, if for no other reason (and there would be other reasons) than that local interdict is not a penal option under the 1983 Code. [sad but true] While local interdict (and community interdict, its cousin) were possible under the Pio-Benedictine Code (see 1917 CIC 2268-2277), today, interdict is a purely personal penalty, meaning that only specific individuals, convicted of a canonical crime, can be interdicted (1983 CIC 1332). [dura lex … er um… absens, sed… er um… non lex.]
2. The local bishop cannot forbid the celebration of Mass in campus oratories and chapels by a precept under 1983 CIC 1225. While the argument here rests more on scholarly opinion than does that above, I think the weight of that opinion would not support a bishop’s using a precept to forbid Mass on campus during graduation weekend.
Mind, nothing in Bp. D’Arcy’s statement today suggested that he was considering either option, but my advice to folks who have been considering suggesting them would be to save your time: neither action would be supportable under 1983 Code.
Salvo sapientiorum iudicio.
It seems to me that the best approach is not through the negative but rather the postive. Would it not be better were the bishop to concede something positive, such as an indulgence, for an alternative event, such as a prayer service?
Loading ...
The blog “Shrine of the Holy Whapping”, has what I think is another positive action:
Bishop D’Arcy, in my opinion, should accept the invitation to speak, and deliver a lecture on Catholic teaching to the graduates. He should not defer to Amb. Glendon, as he implied in the website posting. A gentle but unmistakable rebuke to Obama, based upon natural law, pan-Christian morality (such as it ought to be taught even in Rev’m Wraaht’s church), and Catholic canon law, will befuddle the president. His telepromptered remarks will not anticipate the bishop’s gambit.
Roland has a point. If the bishop were to come, the good guys would have a 2-to-1 advantage. Assuming the bishop is traditionally invited to be more than simply a potted plant on the dais. The bishop is reluctant to dignify the event with his presence; I understand. But the presence of the president dignifies it whether we like it or not — it makes the occasion notable; it makes the media cover the event; it creates a demand for seats (which the university will find a way to fill notwithstanding any boycotting absentees). Perhaps it is too late in the day for us to be standing on our dignity. Perhaps it is time to attack with guns blazing (figuratively speaking, of course — no one wants to see the president threatened).
Grace, people. Grace.
An interdict would never have worked anyway, if i remember correctly it is a priest who is responsible for all this in the first place, that priest would have almost certainly have ignored the interdict and said Mass regardless, interdicts were only really workable when the priesthood was a disciplined body who actually bothered to obey those in authority.
Now in the era of “collegiality” various special interest groups among the clergy think they can practice “loyal dissent” against God Himself it seems.
Can not the bishop take away ND’s status as a Catholic institution?
Does anyone actually have authority over Rev. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C. or is he an “independent” Catholic priest now?
People need to stop focusing on Notre Dame and focus on the people running it, it is the people who are the problem not Notre Dame as a institution, change the staff and you will solve the problem.
Roland – just a clarification – Bishop D’Arcy is not invited to speak – he regularly attends the commencement services but does not usually have a speaking role.
As an alum I ask people to pray for the University, Fr. Jenkins, Bishop D’Arcy, and even President Obama. Maybe I’m naive, but I believe prayer will be the most effective, much more so than second-guessing Bishop D’Arcy’s method of instructing his diocese. We are lucky to have him as a Bishop, and I still consider myself very luck to have attended Our Lady’s University. These are hard times, but I still have much love for the University.
Jim is right. Prayer is the most powerful thing. Self-conscious righteousness and the cultivation of an angry persona is waste of breath. I think Fr Z’s recommendation to Bp D’Arcy is excellent: it would be true, effective positive action, and a great sign of faith.
While I understand that honey is sometimes better than the stick, I feel like we’re being a bit bi-polar here today.
A couple of hours ago we were praising Archbishop Burke for railing on pro-abort politicians and bishops/priests for giving them Communion. Now we’re saying Bishop D’Arcy shouldn’t be held accountable to do anything else besides stay home or hold some vigil.
We’ve been using honey since the Council and look where it’s got us, both internally and with other “religions” through false ecumenism.
I’m voting for taking the big old stick out of the pre-conciliar shed and taking it for a spin.
Roland
If the President’s Comms team suspected that the Bp was going to criticise him in such a way they would ask to see the draft of his speech before the event to avoid that sort of embarrassing situation. If he refused, they would probably cancel his appearance and communicate their displeasure to ND – it is more likely that ND would cancel the Bp’s talk in such circumstances…
Clearly prayer is the most effective in terms of dealing with problems such as these. Having said that however, the Church in the U S has been using the “honey” approach for decades and look where it has gotten us. The Bps as a whole have been PC, and have watered down what would once have been their response to a whole range of immorality. Look where it has gotten us? The liberals in particular will take “honey” as a sign of weakness every time. And, they will take advantage over any approach that is “soft”. It is IMO not only time for vinegar but something even more potent than that. The enemy is moving forward with its agenda hell bent for leather. Anything other than a fair but FIRM approach will do nothing to slow down the libs effort to secularize and socialize.
The Bps as a whole, backed by Rome, need to make it clear as a bell that they are a formidable opponent of those who murder babies in the womb and engage in all of the other immoralities currently the focus of this administration. If we don’t draw the line NOW it will never be possible to draw it and the long term battle will be lost. The time for sweetness and honey is long gone.
Fr. Z:
This all sounded very good and I don’t want to single out Bp. D’Arcy because I know nothing about him. However, I then suddenly tried to imagine what the reaction would be if in some diocese, any diocese, in this country a nominally Catholic institution of higher learning, any “Catholic” college, were to invite say… Bishop Williamson to deliver the commencement address…. Don’t you think the local Ordinary would jump at the opportunity to distance himself?
Sorry, Fr. Z, I know you have to make nice with the Bishops, but I’m not buying this baloney. You ought to know full well that the reason the Bishops can’t and won’t take effective action is because they have surrendered and squandered their authority over the last forty years.
The reason nobody takes the Bishops seriously anymore is because they talk like wimps, and not like real men who believe that Heaven and Hell lie in the balance.
I’m sorry, Fr. Z, I agree with you on so many thing but defending this timid response by Bishop D’Arcy is not something I’m interested in going along with. The stakes are far too high right now, and the socialists are at our doorstep. You and I both know that faint-hearted statements like Bishop D’Arcy’s change nothing.
For those who don’t know anything about Bishop D’Arcy, he is a good and holy man.
I don’t like referencing this particular news organisation – but it will suffice:
From http://www.natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives/121302/121302m.htm
“The records indicate that one of Law’s former officials, Bishop John D’Arcy, who since 1985 has headed the South Bend, Ind., diocese, consistently opposed the transfer of abusive priests. The records show that his recommendations, however, were regularly ignored by Law and his other auxiliaries.”
Bishop D’Arcy has been a supporter of Summorum Pontificum in the diocese, often led the Annual Eucharistic processions at Notre Dame, stood against the infamous staging of the Monologues, made St. Joseph high school rescind their invitation to a pro-choice politician. I could go on – but he is a good man and a good Bishop.
Maybe Archbishop Burke could have a word with Pope Benedict about restoring those canons of the 1917 Code.
Sigh.
These bishops essentially no longer no how to rule. The “world” knows that the bishops are not to be taken seriously and as a rule can and should be ignored. The bishops almost to a man will back down once a little heat is applied in the media.
Moreover, the “positive” approach was attempted by JPII (and the men he appointed) and it simply did not work. Virtually everybody (in and out of the Church) loved JPII and he simply became irrelevant in the world as a moral force. Unfortunately, his appointments lacked his public presence and therefore they were completely ignored. Look at any of the conservative JPII appointments in this country who takes any of them seriously outside the church.
Son of Trypho,
Cancel the bishop? Then the bishop wins. But if Obama cancels, the bishop wins. A bishop can attack only on the diagonals. Let Bishop D’Arcy mount his oblique assault. A pawn such as Obama can be captured en passant.
Let us praise Bishop D’Arcy for his great courage in not attending. Also, I think that we lay Catholics are creative enough to hit Notre Dame where it hurts-in the pocketbook. We must be careful not to burden our bishops with expectations they cannot meet either legally or morally. However, if the Vatican would step in …..
Jim: just a clarification – Bishop D’Arcy is not invited to speak – he regularly attends the commencement services but does not usually have a speaking role.
I think then that our perceptive Romulus has a point. A bishop is not a teacher, but a shrubbery. If that is all he is, then back to the catacombs for all of us.
supertradmom: Let us praise Bishop D’Arcy for his great courage in not attending.
And let us therefore praise pusillanimous Peter the Denier who fled Rome, only to encounter our Lord, and abjectly utter the fateful words: Quo vadis, Domine?
Let us therefore praise those paltry prelates who cower in the shadows of the catacombs, ignoring the salvific words, “Go ye and teach all nations.”
Roland de Chanson,
Brillant. Do I know you?
It might be a good time to show the prolife Obama ad (the one that didn’t make the Super Bowl spot) before he is called up to give his speech at ND. What nice welcome for him that would be as it’s a great ad. We need to pray and trust in God and Our Lady more that ever.
Roland de Chanson,
Ditto and thank you. This is why I love Fr. Z’s blogs. The level of discourse is unmatched.
This pro-life ad Rae?
http://www.4marks.com/videos/details.html?video_id=987
It is true that sanctions, interdictions, excommunications, etc., are nowhere near as effective now as they were in ages past.
However, the key point is this: As long as bishops, cardinals, curial officials and the rest do not send a clear and unambiguous signal about where the Church stands, the world and its media mouthpieces can assume, or at least repeat over and over until convinced, that the world is simply in the right and the Church has given up on the contest. With a timid expression of displeasure, sure, but without the conviction or the courage to set up clear boundaries, so that the sheep will not be eaten up by the wolves (or worse, converted into wolves).
No one wants to see Notre Dame stripped of its Catholic title, but have we not long since passed the time for “tough love”? Don’t Jesus and St. Paul, among others, counsel us to use severe medicine at times (e.g., Mt. 18:15-17; 1 Cor 5:4-5)? We have been drowning in honey for the past 40 years; the zing of vinegar would be healthful.
I am more than willing to trust that Bishop D’Arcy has prayed about this and is trusting God to work through His actions. And I add my tiny Amen to them. I may have done differently but He is the man God put in that position and has given the gifts he needs for it!
Tradition,
Thank you for the compliment. I know Tradition. But do I know you? ;-)
Roxanne (of the beautiful name),
You are most kind. I agree this is a great blog. Fr. Zuhlsdorf is a fresh breeze dispersing the lingering, the asphyxiating Smoke of Satan.
It is strange, isn’t it, that no one even suggests Ex Corde Ecclesia anymore? The world has simply left the Church behind. After so many in the Church dissented from Humanae Vitae in 1968, Paul VI never wrote another encyclical, dying ten years later. We are living in a Tom Hanks film, and we will awaken tomorrow and learn that the Church is now located in Africa, and all our worry was for nought. If it were not for the Traditionalists, there would be no Catholicism in the Western World. What exists in the U.S. today is a massive fraud.
“Hitting them in the pocketbook” is a waste of effort. Their endowment is so large that they could probably run the university off the interest alone for years even if student enrollment collapsed and no one gave them anymore money.
Can’t the bishop tell the Holy Cross priests that they are no longer welcome in his diocese?
I said on a previous thread that I don’t believe any nuclear options would achieve the desired result (most likely all they would do is show just how readily the CSCs would defy them). That said, I don’t agree with Fr. Z that a strictly positive approach will be most effective. As others have already pointed out, we have ample proof that that project has failed. If we lived in a different age where positive and negative measures were routinely alternated and combined, that might be the case. But the Church’s miscreants have learned: if you misbehave, some higher-up will verbally register disapproval and you can continue on your merry way. The reason we are treated to scandal after scandal is that dissidents know nothing will be done to _stop_ them. _And_, when nothing is done – time after umpteenth time – the implicit message is sent that we, as a Church, either do not care enough to act or else are unable to because the “offense” is, in reality, within bounds.
In Chess, gambits sometimes fool an opponent, but can seldom be relied upon for ultimate victory.
Slow and steady wins the race.
On a related note, if Notre Dame realizes that this was a bad idea, what is their exit strategy? They would get more grief from canceling, and who knows what the President could do in retaliation.
I would suggest to form the program to make it undesirable for the President to want to come. For instance, they could still invite the local bishop – to speak. That can’t be unprecedented. Bring in someone else too, perhaps the head of priests for life. With the keynote of course still the president, but he may not want to be lectured-to and cancel due to a conflicting dentist appointment of something.
I guess we could dream.
Jim wrote: Roland – just a clarification – Bishop D’Arcy is not invited to speak – he regularly attends the commencement services but does not usually have a speaking role.
Jim, just a clarification of your clarification. When Bishop D’Arcy attends commencement he is invited up at the very end to offer a few words. He addresses the students who did not get a particular award, but did get a diploma and that fact alone is good reason to celebrate. He then addresses the parents and thanks them for their sacrifice, financial and otherwise, to give their students a great education. He adds a few more words and then he offers a closing prayer.
Also, to Ian and Aaron who keep insisting that CSC religious be kicked out or banned, etc., please realize this: Who was it that made ND into such a grand Catholic university that people will give a darn when something like this whole affair happens? The CSC religious, my confreres. Please reconsider the harsh measures you keep throwing around.
God bless.
What can D’Arcy really do or not do? It’s a strange outline of bishops not being to do this, can’t do that… blahblahblah, yet they sure seem top have this great ability to starve the Faithful of having Tridentine Masses. A pertinent little letter from Rome tells a mere bishop in Ireland to get a move on with EF Masses but can’t seem to budge the one here in Los Angeles. Has he his own friends in high places while the little bishop in Ireland can’t fight back? IMO and just asking.
Could the Holy Father do a double-move and give us His Excellency Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone in 2011?
If a cleric has invited Obama to speak then he has already suffered Latae Sententiae excommunication for perpetrating scandal on the faithful. It is one thing for a layman to invite someone like Obama. It is quite another for an ordained cleric WHO DOES KNOW BETTER.
Can. 1318 A legislator is not to threaten latae sententiae penalties, *except perhaps for some outstanding and malicious offences which may be either more grave by reason of scandal* or such that they cannot be effectively punished by ferendae sententiae penalties. He is not, however, to constitute censures, especially excommunication, except with the greatest moderation, and only for the more grave offences.
Can. 1320 In all matters in which they come under the authority of the local Ordinary, religious can be constrained by him with penalties.
The Bishop *CAN* constrain all those in his diocese. In this case it looks like he chooses not to.
Can. 1321 §1 No one can be punished for the commission of an external violation of a law or precept *unless it is gravely imputable by reason of malice or of culpability.*
§2 *A person who deliberately violated a law or precept is bound by the penalty prescribed in that law or precept.* If, however, the violation was due to the omission of due diligence, the person is not punished unless the law or precept provides otherwise.
Lets examine what we have happening at Notre Dame shall we? We have a cleric who has invited a known supporter of Abortion, embryonic stem cell research and other gave crimes against the dignity of the human person. This cleric has been informed by his local ordinary through a public statement by said ordinary that this action is against the laws of the Church. The cleric, after having been informed of his scandalous action has persisted in his action by not canceling the invitation. He is deliberately violating law and precept of the Church.
Can. 1326 §1 A judge may inflict a more serious punishment than that prescribed in the law or precept when:
1° a person, after being condemned, or after the penalty has been declared, continues so to offend that obstinate ill-will may prudently be concluded from the circumstances;
2° *a person who is established in some position of dignity, or who has abused a position of authority or an office*, in order to commit a crime;
3° an offender who, after a penalty for a culpable offence was constituted, *foresaw the event but nevertheless omitted to take the precautions to avoid it which any careful person would have taken.*
§2 In the cases mentioned in §1, *if the penalty constituted is latae sententiae, another penalty or a penance may be added.*
So in looking at the above “Penalty Enhancer” clauses of Canon law, we can see that some of what is going on at Notre Dame is directly applicable. Not only has Fr. Jenkins suffered Latae Sententiae excommunication for his actions, he could be subject to additional penalties for willfully violating the laws and precepts of the church.
Can. 1328 §1 One who in furtherance of an offence did something or failed to do something but then, involuntarily, did not complete the offence, is not bound by the penalty prescribed for the completed offence, unless the law or a precept provides otherwise.
§2 If the acts or the omissions of their nature lead to the carrying out of the offence, the person responsible may be subjected to a penance or to a penal remedy, unless he or she had spontaneously desisted from the offence which had been initiated. *However, if scandal or other serious harm or danger has resulted, the perpetrator, even though spontaneously desisting, may be punished by a just penalty*, but of a lesser kind than that determined for the completed crime.
As far as I am concered this cleric no longer has the proper authority to execute his office. If the local ordinary will not enforce the law of the church then it is up to us faithful to Cry to Rome for justice.
Christ did not walk into the temple and see all the merchents and say “Umm, please, everyone listen to me, please don’t sell things in my fathers house.” Christ came in, turned over the tables and cast out the merchants from his fathers house. Now someone may comment “But, Matt that is about thieves and not school teachers.” I put forth that those who would elevate someone like Obama, such as Notre Dame is doing, are stealing from the students their right to an honest Catholic education. For some this scandal may steal their souls and hand them over to the evil one.
If Notre Dame still considers herself Catholic then the bishop has the RESPONSIBILITY to act just as Chirst did in his time. If Notre Dame is now a secular university (which she is demonstrating by this action) and only uses a purported Catholic identity to enlist enrollment, then it is time for the Church to state that Notre Dame is no longer a sanctioned Catholic university.
For some reason in my mind I am all of a sudden seeing Captain Picard detroying the ships in his ready room when he stated “They invade our space and we fall back. They invade vast territories and we fall back. They assimulate our people and we fall back. NO MORE! We must draw the line HERE! HERE and no further!”
If a cleric has invited Obama to speak then he has already suffered Latae Sententiae excommunication for perpetrating scandal on the faithful. It is one thing for a layman to invite someone like Obama. It is quite another for an ordained cleric WHO DOES KNOW BETTER.
*Can. 1318* A legislator is not to threaten latae sententiae penalties, *except perhaps for some outstanding and malicious offences which may be either more grave by reason of scandal* or such that they cannot be effectively punished by ferendae sententiae penalties. He is not, however, to constitute censures, especially excommunication, except with the greatest moderation, and only for the more grave offences.
*Can. 1320* In all matters in which they come under the authority of the local Ordinary, religious can be constrained by him with penalties.
The Bishop *CAN* constrain all those in his diocese. In this case it looks like he chooses not to.
*Can. 1321* §1 No one can be punished for the commission of an external violation of a law or precept *unless it is gravely imputable by reason of malice or of culpability.*
§2 *A person who deliberately violated a law or precept is bound by the penalty prescribed in that law or precept.* If, however, the violation was due to the omission of due diligence, the person is not punished unless the law or precept provides otherwise.
Lets examine what we have happening at Notre Dame shall we? We have a cleric who has invited a known supporter of Abortion, embryonic stem cell research and other gave crimes against the dignity of the human person. This cleric has been informed by his local ordinary through a public statement by said ordinary that this action is against the laws of the Church. The cleric, after having been informed of his scandalous action has persisted in his action by not canceling the invitation. He is deliberately violating law and precept of the Church.
*Can. 1326* §1 A judge may inflict a more serious punishment than that prescribed in the law or precept when:
1° a person, after being condemned, or after the penalty has been declared, continues so to offend that obstinate ill-will may prudently be concluded from the circumstances;
2° *a person who is established in some position of dignity, or who has abused a position of authority or an office*, in order to commit a crime;
3° an offender who, after a penalty for a culpable offence was constituted, *foresaw the event but nevertheless omitted to take the precautions to avoid it which any careful person would have taken.*
§2 In the cases mentioned in §1, *if the penalty constituted is latae sententiae, another penalty or a penance may be added.*
So in looking at the above \”Penalty Enhancer\” clauses of Canon law, we can see that some of what is going on at Notre Dame is directly applicable. Not only has Fr. Jenkins suffered Latae Sententiae excommunication for his actions, he could be subject to additional penalties for willfully violating the laws and precepts of the church.
*Can. 1328* §1 One who in furtherance of an offence did something or failed to do something but then, involuntarily, did not complete the offence, is not bound by the penalty prescribed for the completed offence, unless the law or a precept provides otherwise.
§2 If the acts or the omissions of their nature lead to the carrying out of the offence, the person responsible may be subjected to a penance or to a penal remedy, unless he or she had spontaneously desisted from the offence which had been initiated. *However, if scandal or other serious harm or danger has resulted, the perpetrator, even though spontaneously desisting, may be punished by a just penalty*, but of a lesser kind than that determined for the completed crime.
*Part II: PENALTIES FOR PARTICULAR OFFENCES*
TITLE I: OFFENCES AGAINST RELIGION AND THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH
[latae sententiae excommunication = automatice sentence of excommunication]
*Can. 1364* §1 An apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication, without prejudice to the provision of can. 194 §1, n. 2; a cleric, moreover, may be punished with the penalties mentioned in can. 1336 §1, nn. 1, 2 and 3.
§2 If a longstanding contempt or the *gravity of scandal calls for it, other penalties may be added, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state.* (Canon Law: apostasy-heresy-schism)
*Can. 1369* A person is to be punished with a just penalty, who, *at a public event or assembly, or in a published writing, or by otherwise using the means of social communication, utters blasphemy, or gravely harms public morals*, or rails at or excites hatred of or contempt for religion or the Church.
*Can. 1371* The following are to be punished with a just penalty:
2° a person who in any other way *does not obey the lawful command or prohibition of* the Apostolic See or *the Ordinary* or Superior and, *after being warned, persists in disobedience*.
*Can. 1373* *A person who publicly incites his or her subjects* to hatred or *animosity against* the Apostolic See or *the Ordinary because of some act of ecclesiastical authority or ministry, or who provokes the subjects to disobedience against them*, is to be punished by interdict or other just penalties.
And there are many more that apply here. Notre Dame teaches law does it not? Does NO ONE study canon law anymore? These are all very clear cut laws. Maybe a litte enforcement of the law would go a long way towards making Catholics and NON CATHOLICS appreciate the treasures of the church.
As far as I am concered this cleric no longer has the proper authority to execute his office.
Christ did not walk into the temple and see all the merchents and say \”Umm, please, everyone listen to me, please don\’t sell things in my fathers house.\” Christ came in, turned over the tables and cast out the merchants from his fathers house. Now someone may comment \”But, Matt that is about thieves and not school teachers.\” I put forth that those who would elevate someone like Obama, such as Notre Dame is doing, are stealing from the students their right to an honest Catholic education. For some this scandal may steal their souls and hand them over to the evil one.
If Notre Dame still considers herself Catholic then the bishop has the RESPONSIBILITY to act just as Chirst did in his time. If Notre Dame is now a secular university (which she is demonstrating by this action) and only uses a purported Catholic identity to enlist enrollment, then it is time for the Church to state that Notre Dame is no longer a sanctioned Catholic university.
For some reason in my mind I am all of a sudden seeing Captain Picard detroying the ships in his ready room when he stated \”They invade our space and we fall back. They invade vast territories and we fall back. They assimulate our people and we fall back. NO MORE! We must draw the line HERE! HERE and no further!\”
ohh drat. I hate it when a double post happens. Father, please delete the first post.
I wonder what would happen if every Catholic at the commencement suddenly had the desire to stand up and pray the rosary as soon as Obama begins to speak? Would anyone try to quiet them from the dais?
Lydia, I have to tell you, that’s the best idea I’ve heard in a long time. Everyone standing up at once and praying the Rosary to the point that Obama has to leave the stage.
Fr. Z — please, please, please use your bully pulpit to advance this idea. Let’s take the WDTPRS influence out for a spin and see what she can do!
Once upon a time, for a long long time, the Catholic Church exercised discipline over clergy and laity who transgressed the laws of the Church and those who brought scandal. The Church lost its nerve in the 60s and no longer does this except in rare, rare instances. We all know the present state of the Church in America and Western Europe so there is no belaboring that point, I just want to say there is a direct line joining that with this failure of nerve. An army that ceases to enforce discipline in its ranks disintegrates into a rabble. The same applies to the Church Militant.
It is demoralizing in the extreme to see the enemy flout their sins and their blasphemies, even into our own churches and institutions – like UND – without more than a squeak of protest from our shephards. Could the hierarchy for once stand up for us? Deeds must follow words, it’s not enough just to register displeasure. They are going to come for us anyway, honey or no, least thing we can do is take a stand.
Folks, I admire Matt’s enthusiam for the law, really I do, but there is much more to this than a cut-and-paste arrangement of canons might suggest. Sorry…
Silence from the top when someone who promotes the H’caust of our time.
But, would their be silence if the speaker was an upstanding citizen with not so much as a parking ticket who denied the H-caust of 6+ decades ago?
Me thinks no.
Fr. Michael: He adds a few more words …
A few (or more) well-chosen words would bring the house down. Would presbyter Jenkins dare to cut him short?
D’Arcy is a good man. He did yeoman’s service in Boston when Geoghan’s predations were rampant. He is the son of Irish immigrants. He would be addressing a school who call themselves the Fighting Irish.
Let this son of Erin show them what a true Fighting Irishman can do.
“Qui autem negaverit me coram hominibus, negabo et ego eum coram Patre meo qui est in caelis. Nolite arbitrari quia venerim mittere pacem in terram: non veni pacem mittere sed gladium. Veni enim separare hominem adversus patrem suum et filiam adversus matrem suam et nurum adversus socrum suam; et inimici hominis domestici eius.” (Mat 10:34-36)
I second Lydia’s call to pray the Rosary. Ironically, la prière à Notre Dame. And let Bishop D’Arcy be there to lead it.
Notes from the past:
Bishop D’Arcy was one of the first American prelates to act on Ecclesia Dei. He complied without with the request. He established a regular EF Mass in Fort Wayne using diocesan priests and said the EF Mass himself to show solidarity with those attached to the ancient liturgy. When Summorum Pontificum was released, he again complied, nabbing Fr. George Gabet, the former N. American superior of the FSSP who was born and raised in his diocese, to become the chaplain of the Mother Guerin Latin Mass community. He has been expanding the availability of the EF Mass to nicer churches and to parishes which request it.
As others have pointed out, Fort Wayne/South Bend is one of the few dioceses in the U.S. that did not have an abuse scandal. Bishop D’Arcy quickly and quietly cleaned house when he sat in the cathedra in Fort Wayne. He has constantly maintained that those aspiring to the priesthood should otherwise have had a vocation to the married state. He likes manly, fatherly priests in his parishes.
Bishop D’Arcy immediately put his diocese under the protection of Our Lady, and has consistently upheld the full range of Catholic dogma in this diocese. He is one of the brightest stars in the sky of the American hierarchy.
Bishop D’Arcy was one of the first bishops, when he saw the graying of his clergy, to reach out to his brother bishops in lands where vocations were booming, to request assistance. He has also consistently promoted the priesthood to the young men in our diocese. The result is that we are blessed with solid, holy Catholic priests in our parishes whose skin is red, black, olive, white — reflecting the reality of the Catholic Church as it exists in the world. These men are wonderful pastors, amazing men with a wealth of experience from around the globe.
If you ever have the opportunity to talk to Bishop D’Arcy face to face, you’ll recognize that he isn’t a push-over. He is a man’s man who can think on his feet. He has put his mind, heart and soul into his calling as a priest and as a bishop. He prays about the decisions he has to make, and then he makes them. His decisions aren’t always popular but he isn’t a waffler. If he says he’ll do something, he does it.
The thing…the ONE thing that has raised the most hackles, really the only serious hackles during his entire time as a bishop, is his soft dealings with the the dissent and disobedience at Notre Dame. He doesn’t use a hammer. I have no idea what conversations go on in the background because he doesn’t disclose them. But I have no doubt that they occur.
Bishop D’Arcy’s decision not to attend the Notre Dame graduation, as I stated in a previous note under one of Fr. Z’s earlier posts on the subject, is a decision that will most likely have more serious repercussions that might seem evident at first glance. He ALWAYS attends. His ABSENCE is an asterisk. The footnote is this: Where the bishop is, there is the Catholic Church. Make no mistake…his absence will create a vacuum that speaks volumes.
Ed Peters: “Folks, I admire Matt’s enthusiam for the law, really I do, but there is much more to this than a cut-and-paste arrangement of canons might suggest. Sorry…”
Sorry what? Prove he’s wrong — don’t just say it and expect us to fall in line with your thinking.
Chris, NB – Ed Peters is a major canonist and teaches canon law at a seminary.
Ok, that’s fine. I’m not saying he’s wrong — but there are many canonists that get it wrong all the time. I think we need a little more than his word to dismiss what Matt pointed out.
You wouldn’t believe Joe Biden on abortion just because he’s been in D.C. for 30 years would you?
Chris’ comment is not unfair, and I know all about gratis asseritur. If were interested in carrying my point, I’d defend it. But I’ve neither the time nor motivation for doing so in every case where I am asked to. It was just a word for those who might be interested. Folks who know me know I can save them a lot of trouble barking up the wrong tree. Those that don’t are free to ignore me, no hard feelings! Best, edp.
(1) Honey? No!
(2) Vinegar? No!
(3) Fatherly governance? Yes!
How so? Bring people into line as much as the law permits, speaking of the reasons for this, both from a perspective of the faith, speaking of Christ in the womb, Christ who loves us to death, and speaking from the perspective of the Natural Law. The two perspectives coincide, as always.
Ed: thanks for understanding I wasn’t taking a shot at you. I’m just an adult that needs a little more information. I’m sure you’re brilliant! But, as you said, quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
Father George: I’m not sure Fatherly governance cuts it any more. Bishops should not be allowing priests, their subordinants, to defy the Church and lead to the destruction of Faith in their flocks — in this case, the students at ND. Someone has to realize that empty words no longer work and we must start to take back the Church.
Also, realize that the CSC do more in South Bend than just run Notre Dame; they run numerous parishes and cover lots of other Masses in parishes all over South Bend. If you kick the whole order out of the diocese…well, be prepared for a lot of priestless parishes in SB.
Anyone have any figures on the number of students at Notre Dame who are Catholic? Or on the number that would go along with a mass Rosary during the President’s speech? One has to wonder whether it’s enough to make an effective, highly visible statement.
I hope the students (or at least a significant number of them) do mount some kind of effective protest, and it also seems to me that such an action will be less effective than continued pressure on Fr. Jenkins to rescind the invitation. The MSM can ignore the students’ actions, and the pro-abortion camp can still use the occasion to their purposes. But if the invitation is withdrawn, none of that can happen.
The Church hierarchy needs to be leading this, not the students (who should definitely make themselves heard).
We have such a long way to go. Notre Dame is just a skirmish, it isn’t the last battle.
Can someone please explain to me how “The local bishop cannot forbid the celebration of Mass in campus oratories and chapels by a precept under 1983 CIC 1225”?
Who then, does have this authority? If noone, then this means that the faithful have no assurance that a Mass celebrated in campus oratories and chapels is in fact a Catholic Mass.
Bill in Texas,
Wonderful idea. In keeping with my reference Ignatius of Antioch “Where the bishop is, there is the Catholic Church” wouldn’t it be wonderful if someone would coordinate a place in South Bend (or Fort Wayne) during the Notre Dame graduation to be with Bishop D’Arcy and pray the Rosary with him for obvious intentions?
Of course they only want them to be that way when convenient for their own favored cause. but I digress
Amen, Lord please punish the (other) sinners.
Father Z,
Since you are much closer to Rome, please ask Archbishop Burke to bring back the interdict. If that is impossible, then alumini & other funding for Notre Dame (even football funds) should be diverted to the schools on the Cardinal Newman Best 21 Catholic Universities list.
The silver lining is that this controversy (and the courage of our Archbishop Joseph Naumann in denying Communion to our so called Catholic Governor & HHS secretary designate Kathleen Sebelius) is encouraging true ecumenism in our local community with the local SSPX chapel here in Saint Marys, Kansas – the largest SSPX community in North America.
Ken
Fr. Michael,
I suppose I wasn’t clear enough in my posts. I can’t remember everything I’ve written on the topic of expelling CSCs, but I hope I never said I think Bp. D’Arcy _ought_ to kick out every single Holy Cross priest. IIRC, I _did_ say that if losing the CSCs in his parishes were the price to pay for kicking out _Fr. Jenkins_, to which I would not be absolutely opposed, that he could use the time during the fallout from that limited action to look for replacements.
A reason it’s a bad idea to expel every single CSC is that there are a number of good ones who can’t be implicated in this particular scandal simply because of their membership in the Holy Cross community. That said, however, we also can’t hold the rest of the Congregation entirely inculpable either, since this is not an isolated incident carried out by an isolated CSC priest. This individual scandal was performed in consultation with the broader administration, many of whom are CSCs, but more importantly it was the last in a long line of unacceptable behavior from the university administration that stretches back to the days of Fr. Hesburgh: enough has happened that there must be at least a very powerful minority, if not some kind of majority, within the Congregation for the university’s presidents and administrators to get away with as much as they have over the last 40 years.
Granted, what I gather from members of Holy Cross on campus is that most of them are saddened by the scandal. Upon Fr. Jenkins’ election we were led to believe that it signaled a coup of sorts within the Congregation that was looking to reverse the negative trend, in which case you simply didn’t get what you paid for. My condolences. Long story short, though – CSC does not equal bad, but removing only one priest from his position will most assuredly not fix the problem.
On canons:
BTW, Dr. Peters is very trustworthy. If I could offer my own stab at the problem with Matt’s argument, it’s that he mixes apples with oranges. First, unless he can prove that FW-SB particular law includes latae sententiae excommunication for causing scandal, he need to throw out the idea of an automatic penalty (note that the canon talks about legislators threatening the penalty: i.e. bishops can’t add one except for the circumstances given). Secondly, no one has incited specific rebellion against a hierarch: just suggested evil. Third, some of the canons could be linked up to move from just penalty to exacerbated circumstances, but the offense for which a just penalty is inflicted (inciting immorality through means of social communication) seems inapt: Fr. Jenkins’ issuance of the invitation was scandalous, and the means of communication only came into play to let everyone know about the scandalous action.
Just quick thoughts from a non-canonist, but I think there has to be a start in there somewhere.
I’ve having trouble translating salvo sapientiorum iudicio. Is it “in the sound judgment of wiser men”?
Our erstwhile coreligionist Glenn Beck will take up this topic on his Faux News Channel TV show today at 5pm EDT
Chris, what would do, go outside of the law?
Just reported on Hannity on Fox that among the faculty, they are 75% against. Students are 75% FOR Obama coming. AND, among the seniors…it’s 90% FOR.
Oh well, 3 mins until “The Right Perspective” and what they have to say.
God Bless WDTPRS!
Hannity likes contraception. What do you expect?