My View For Awhile: Debate Edition

I’m on my way to NYC, for errands, fun, meetings and to attend a debate.

My View For Awhile: Debate Edition

UPDATE:

Next leg… running a little behind, but I see that my bag is with me! These text notifications are helpful.

My View For Awhile: Debate Edition

There is a new UBER Protocol in place at LGA now. Because of the nightmarish construction, all “rides”, black cars, etc., can’t pick us up at the arrival/baggage claim. We must take a shuttle bus to a lot somewhere else. Taxis, however, are still at baggage level. We shall see.

UPDATE

And see we have.

My View For Awhile: Debate Edition

My View For Awhile: Debate EditionMy View For Awhile: Debate EditionMy View For Awhile: Debate Edition

UPDATE

And the room gets blessed, first thing.

My View For Awhile: Debate Edition

Posted in On the road, What Fr. Z is up to |
8 Comments

VIDEO: A remarkable vocation story.

A remarkable vocation story. Fr. James Mawdsley, FSSP.

Play video

For years I’ve written about how learning and celebrating the traditional form of Mass forms a priest. This priest touches on this transformative experience.

(He mentions that blogs played a role. I found an old email from him. This blog was one of them.)

Posted in Just Too Cool, Mail from priests, Priests and Priesthood | Tagged , ,
5 Comments

ASK FATHER: Priest tells people to stand around the altar during Eucharistic Prayer

ASK FATHER: Priest tells people to stand around the altar during Eucharistic PrayerFrom a reader…

As an avid reader of your blog please first be assured of my prayers.

I recently attended an Engaged Encounter weekend in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles and the priest who said Mass had the couples surround him at the altar during the entirety of the Eucharistic Prayer. [sigh]

In weakness my fiance and I did so during the first Mass but we remained kneeling in our pews during the second, I had hoped it was a one off thing.

I approached the priest about it, after we had received our certificate of completion, and he gave me some unfortunate explanations including: historical accuracy, and it not being ruled out in the GIRM.

I contacted the Archdiocese and received an unsatisfactory response. Namely a paragraph from the GIRM and Redemptionis Sacramentum which says nothing about the issue at hand. I would be happy to provide you with the full email if you wish.

I am looking for something to reply back with but all I can find is a dubium from the 1980’s that has a dubious web address, seemingly unofficial. Do you have anything I could respond with? I am frustrated and saddened.

GUEST PRIEST RESPONSE – Fr. Tim Ferguson:

In the 1990’s, I attended a lot of small, local theater productions. There can be a lot of fun in that – and good grist for conversations with friends afterwards, in assessing or deconstructing the experience. Most productions were fairly innocuous, and some were quite good.

What was a trend then, and I suspect is still done in some places, is a huge effort made to include the audience in the play. Actors broke the fourth wall, came out and interacted with members of the audience. On some rare occasions, this was effective, and in limited doses, it could be fun. Mostly, it was cloyingly inappropriate, overdone, and often disruptive of the theater experience. I did not need Hamlet tossing me the skull of Yorick to be drawn into the play, nor we need to have Orgon discover his box of incriminating letters under my chair and hand them to my friend with the side-whisper to keep them hidden from Tartuffe at all cost.

Now, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not mere theater, and the congregation is not a mere audience to this sublime moment. Still, mutatis mutandis, many of the efforts of modern liturgists to make the Mass meaningful and draw the faithful into the experience are just as cloyingly inappropriate and ineffective.

The General Institution of the Roman Missal does not explicitly ban the faithful from gathering in the sanctuary during the Canon.

Nor does it forbid the faithful from being fitted with wires and hovering above the altar, or laying on the floor underneath the table-altar, or standing amongst the statuary in the reredos. The rubric do not cover every absurdity.

A presumption (perhaps a naïve one) is that the Church’s liturgy will be carried out by reasonable men.

The General Institution does say that the Eucharistic celebration “affects the individual members of the Church in a different way, according to their different orders, functions, and actual participation.”

And further, “All, therefore, whether ordained ministers or lay Christian faithful, in fulfilling their function or their duty, should carry out solely but totally that which pertains to them.” (Article 91, citing Sacrosanctum Concilium #28).

Let us, instead of trying to clericalize the laity and layify the clergy, be who we are – who God has called us to be.

The document you might be looking for was a response issued by the Congregation and published in the Congregation for Divine Worship’s official publication Notitiae, (that is, Notitiae 17 (1981) p. 61):

At the offertory of a community Mass, some (religious men and women, lay persons) bring down the bread and wine to be consecrated to the altar, and these gifts are accepted by the celebrating priest. All the participants together accompany the procession in which the gifts are brought forward, and they stand around the altar until communion.
Is this manner of acting in conformity with the letter and the spirit of the Roman Missal?

RESPONSE. Certainly the Eucharistic celebration is an act of the community, which is carried out by all the members of the liturgical assembly. Yet each person ought to have and keep his own place and the role proper to himself: « each minister or member of the faithful, performing his own role, should exercise solely and completely what pertains to him according the nature of the matter and the liturgical norms » (« Sacrosanctum Concilium », n. 28).

In carrying out the Eucharistic liturgy, only the celebrant who is presiding remains at the altar; the assembly of those participating hold their place in the church outside of the sanctuary, which is reserved for the celebrant or concelebrants and the ministers.

Reference HERE

It predates the current Missal and uses some imprecise wording (e.g. “the celebrant who is presiding…” but the point made is solid.

BONUS ANSWER: Fr. Z adds:

The priest who is doing this should be dissuaded, perhaps over a couple mugs of rich and aromatic Mystic Monk Coffee.  If he will not be dissuaded, then he should be compelled.  Either his superior if he is a religious and/or the local diocesan bishop, whose task it is make sure that the Church’s liturgical directives are followed, should be informed.

In 1997 several offices of the Roman Curia cooperated in an authoritative document called Ecclesia de mysterio, called in English “Instruction On Certain Questions Regarding The Collaboration Of The Non-Ordained Faithful In The Sacred Ministry Of Priest. This instruction clarified the distinct roles of laypeople and of priests. In that document, we find what Fr. Ferguson mentioned.  Let’s spin it out:

In liturgical celebrations each one, minister or layperson, who has an office to perform, should do all of, but only, those parts which pertain to that office by the nature of the rite and the principles of liturgy.” (SC art. 29). During the liturgy of the eucharist, only the presiding celebrant remains at the altar. The assembly of the faithful take their place in the Church outside the “presbyterium,” which is reserved for the celebrant or concelebrants and altar ministers. [Notitiae 17 (1981) 61]

Bottom line: the lay faithful (except those in liturgical serving roles) are not permitted to be inside the sanctuary, that is, “standing around the altar” during Holy Mass.

Moreover, the Ceremonial of Bishops 50 states, (NB: Just about every parish everywhere with lay readers at Mass!):

“A minister who is not wearing a vestment, a cassock or surplice, or other lawfully approved garb may not enter the sanctuary during a celebration.”

Think about that every time someone gets up from the pews and troops up into the sanctuary to read.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, HONORED GUESTS, Liberals, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Self-absorbed Promethean Neopelagians | Tagged ,
10 Comments

ASK FATHER: Can a bishop forbid kneeling for Communion?

ASK FATHER: Can a bishop forbid kneeling for Communion?

Good enough for them.
Good enough for us.

From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

I have a few sincere questions and I believe answers to them may help other readers, too.

For years I have heard it said that the “universal norm” for receiving Holy Communion is kneeling and on the tongue. Therefore, even though the US Bishops obtained a rescript for communion standing and in the hand, no Catholic may be refused communion in the traditional manner.

I have three questions:

1. Where can we find the documentary evidence that the universal norm is kneeling, in case someone challenges this?

2. How do we respond to the claim that the US Bishops’ norm, because it is a “local adaptation,” trumps the universal norm?

3. If an individual, due to the universal norm, is permitted to receive kneeling, in spite of the US Bishops’ norm, could an entire community decide to kneel in preference to standing — either because the pastor decided it, or because it was a shared sentiment?

4. Could there ever be legitimate grounds for a bishop to forbid kneeling in any community?

Ad 1:

When one wants to know the “universal norm” for something, particularly a liturgical action, one should check the “universal language” – Latin.

In the Latin Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, we read:

“160. … Fideles communicant genuflexi vel stantes, prout Conferentia Episcoporum statuerit. Cum autem stantes communicant, commendatur ut debitam reverentiam, ab iisdem normis statuendam, ante susceptionem Sacramenti faciant.”

Now let’s look at the English equivalent:

160…. The norm for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm.

When receiving Holy Communion, the communicant bows his or her head before the Sacrament as a gesture of reverence and receives the Body of the Lord from the minister. The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand, at the discretion of each communicant. When Holy Communion is received under both kinds, the sign of reverence is also made before receiving the Precious Blood.

UPDATE:

The amended text of 160 now reads: “The norm established for the Dioceses of the United States of America is that Holy Communion is to be received standing, unless an individual member of the faithful wishes to receive Communion while kneeling (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Instruction, Redemptionis Sacramentum, March 25, 2004, no. 91).”

Thanks to the commentator, below.

Not exactly a translation, is it? This English version is the adaption of norm 160 for the Church in these United States. The US bishops didn’t receive a rescript to permit standing: they used the right given to them by the Institution itself to establish a norm.

Hence, the universal norm specifies that Holy Communion should be received “genuflexi vel stantes, prout Conferentia Episcoporum statuerit” – “kneeling OR standing, as the Bishops’ Conference will have determined.

In these USA, the bishops have determined that the norm is standing, but they further demand that no one be denied if he or she chooses to kneel.

Oddly… seriously oddly… the Institutio Generalis in Latin doesn’t seem to be available on the Vatican.va website.  Hmmm…

Ad 2:

There is a general canonical principle that particular law does trump universal law. See, for example, can. 20, which states in part, “A universal law however, does not derogate from a particular or from a special law, unless the law expressly provides otherwise.”

However, since the particular law makes provision for those who choose to kneel, this seems to be something of a moot point.

Ad 3:

A parish community in these United States could choose to kneel, as a community.  That choice of the majority of the community, with the pastor, etc., however, would not thereby prevent some people from opting to stand, as is their right according to the particular law. Moreover, were they as a community to maintain the practice of kneeling for thirty years, a case could be made that they have established a custom which is contrary to the law in accord with can. 26, provided that, during those 30 years, they do not receive any official contrary instruction from a proper authority, such as the local diocesan bishop or the Holy See.

Ad 4:

A bishop could, I suppose, instruct – beg- cajole – harangue – bully – admonish – plead with a community not to kneel, but he could not rescind Article 160 of the General Instruction, even with the American adaptations, which permits individuals – or many individuals together – to kneel with impunity.

So, over in the Diocese of Libville, the parishioners of Holy Martyrs of Islamic Terrorism Church, qua parishioners, could be instructed by their bishop, Most Rev. Fatty McButterpants, with all manner of high-falutin’, legal sounding phrases, always and only to stand for the reception of Holy Communion, but as individuals they could collectively make the decision to kneel.

I suspect that The Flexible-Knee Challenged parishioners would eventually hie their way over to the Engendering Togetherness Community of Welcome where Fr. “Just call me Bruce” Hugalot tries to drag the kneelers back to their feet before putting the white thing in their hand as a sign that everyone is, indeed, Welcome™.

Finally, the 2004 (hence, subsequent to the 2002 GIRM) Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum states:

[91.] In distributing Holy Communion it is to be remembered that “sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who seek them in a reasonable manner, are rightly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them”. Hence any baptized Catholic who is not prevented by law must be admitted to Holy Communion. Therefore, it is not licit to deny Holy Communion to any of Christ’s faithful solely on the grounds, for example, that the person wishes to receive the Eucharist kneeling or standing.

That applies to celebration of Holy Mass according to the Novus Ordo, the 2002 Missale Romanum.

For Masses with the 1962 Missale Romanum, one should kneel if one is able.  If one can’t, no problem.  Tradition is flexible.

I trust that that helps.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Canon Law, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000 | Tagged , , ,
18 Comments

WRONG: Maltese, Germans, Argentinians and now Braga. “Patently and gravely wrong.” Ed Peters explains the situation.

WRONG: Maltese, Germans, Argentinians and now Braga. "Patently and gravely wrong." Ed Peters explains the situation.My old pastor and mentor, Msgr. Schuler, used to say: When you’re right, you can’t be wrong.

The flip side is: When you’re wrong, you can’t be right.

There are a lot of people out there who are just plain wrong about certain aspects of Amoris laetitia and the consequences of the objective lack of clarity.

There are a growing number of people out there who are coming to the conclusion that, yes, there are objectively unclear aspects of Amoris.  They are just plain right.

Canonist Ed Peters examines the plans of the Archdiocese of Braga.

Sometimes one side is simply right and the other side is simply wrong

That’s the situation here.

It doesn’t matter what reasons might be offered by the storied Archdiocese of Braga for its plan to authorize the administering of holy Communion to basic divorced-and-remarried Catholics. If that is, as reported in the Catholic Herald, their plan, they are wrong. Patently and gravely wrong. Just like the Maltese. Just like the Germans. And just like a few others if only in terms of the wiggle room they allow themselves in these cases, as do, say, the Argentinians.

Of course, one more post here won’t convince the Lusitanians of this point, so I shan’t bother to make all the arguments that I (among many others) have already offered on this matter. We are right about this point and they are wrong about this point and that’s that. [Do I hear an “Amen!”?]

I suppose, though, I could reiterate for others what “the point” is in its tedious but crucial substantial specifics:  [Libs should put down their kale and cayenne vegan purge wraps and cans of $5 flavored water and read closely, even aloud from here on. It’ll help.]

Per Canon 915 (papally issued law, resting on divine law foundations, and, till the current crisis, uncontested by pastoral and canonical tradition in this regard), ministers of holy Communion may not offer that Sacrament (similar problems arise in regard to offering absolution in Confession, but one crisis at a time) to Catholics (who are generally the only ones eligible for holy Communion in the first place, per c. 844) who, having entered a marriage that enjoys the presumption of validity (c. 1060), thencivilly divorce (or are divorced, in other words, regardless of whose ‘fault’ the divorce is), and, failing to obtain (because they never applied for or were refused) an ecclesiastical declaration of nullity (or a variant on the uncommon dissolutions of marriage as discussed chiefly here and here), purport to enter a new marriage (civilly or by some other mechanism, even one that looks religious, but which, as long as the first spouse is alive, of course, isn’t a “marriage”, but we call it that for convenience, and yes this applies also to single Catholics who purport to enter marriages with divorced persons as described above), but decline to live as brother-and-sister (as befits all people who are not married and which is necessary for them even to approach for holy Communion in accord with Canon 916)and, even if they do live continently (may God bless them), are nevertheless known (always if ‘actually’, and usually even if ‘legally’) to be divorced and remarried outside the Church and so(notwithstanding their arguable eligibility for the Sacrament in conscience) give objective scandal to the faith community (even if no one is surprised by divorce and remarriage these days, and they thereby occasion, moreover, the giving of scandal by ecclesiastical ministers who are thus tempted to disregard their certain obligations under Canon 915).

I think that’s everything.

Broken down Barney-style so that even a monthly writer for the Fishwrap can understand it.

Fr. Z kudos to Dr. Peters.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, Canon Law, Fr. Z KUDOS, One Man & One Woman, The Drill | Tagged , , , ,
10 Comments

Card. Eijk: Pope Francis should create clarity about ‘Amoris laetitia’

UPDATE:

I note that Mark de Vries has a better translation than the one someone has provided so far:  HERE

(In Dutch, the word for ‘thus’, and an informal word for ‘sister’

consisting of its first syllable, are homonyms…)

____

Here’s some news…

The statement came in the course of an interview. HERE

The core… not my translation:

The question of the so-called remarried divorces is currently splitting the Catholic hierarchy. Bishops are fiercely discussing. Open letters are written and orthodox Catholics even think that the Pope makes heresies possible because he does not take a stand. It is hard against hard. Eijk does have a suspicion of how this comes about: “There is a document written by the Pope,” Amoris Laetitia “, on the basis of both family synods. This has caused doubt to be sown. Can remarried divorced now to communion or not? What you see a little is that one bishop conference arranges the sister and the other so. But yes, what is true in place A can not suddenly be false instead of B. At a given moment you would like clarity. ”

You want that too?
“Yes, I would really appreciate that. People are confused and that is not good. ”

What exactly do you require from Pope Francis?
“I would say: just create clarity. Regarding this point. Take away that doubt. In the form of a document, for example. ”

The cardinal is clear about what should be in there. “Of course here we have the words of Christ himself: that the marriage is one and unbreakable. We hold on to that in the archdiocese. If a marriage has been declared void by an ecclesiastical court, it has been officially confirmed that you have never been married. Only then will you be free to marry and receive confession and communion. “

Posted in The Drill | Tagged ,
8 Comments

Bp. Schneider of Kazakhstan on Archbp. Lefebvre of the SSPX

Bp. Schneider of Kazakhstan on Archbp. Lefebvre of the SSPXThe best English language vaticanista today is Edward Pentin.  He has an interview with Bp. Athanasius Schneider today at the National Catholic Register (that’s the good one that begins with “National”).  HERE

The whole thing is worth reading. However, I want to emphasize one part which caught my eye for two reasons.

First, it is Patristic.  Bp. Schneider is a student of the Fathers of the Church, as am I.  We need to return to the Fathers.  It is amazing how many things they treated in their day which apply to our own.

Next, because it concerns a figure I’ve long been interested in, the late Archbp. Marcel Lefebvre.  He was a great churchman and missionary in Africa who went on to found the SSPX.  Since I once worked for the PCED I remain interested – and hopeful – for a wonderful result.

Here is Schneider on Lefebvre:

PENTIN:

What are your views on the Society of St. Pius X? Do you have sympathy for their position? 

SCHNEIDER:

Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis on various occasions spoke with understanding towards the SSPX. It was particularly at his time, as Cardinal of Buenos Aires, that Pope Francis helped the SSPX in some administrative issues. Pope Benedict XVI once said about Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre: “He was a great bishop of the Catholic Church.” Pope Francis considers the SSPX as Catholic, and has expressed this publicly several times. Therefore, he seeks a pastoral solution, and he made the generous pastoral provisions of granting to the priests of the SSPX the ordinary faculty to hear confessions and conditional faculties to celebrate canonically marriage. The more the doctrinal, moral and liturgical confusion grows in the life of the Church, the more one will understand the prophetic mission of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in an extraordinary dark time of a generalized crisis of the Church.

Maybe one day History will apply the following words of Saint Augustine to him:

“Often, too, divine providence permits even good men to be driven from the congregation of Christ by the turbulent seditions of carnal men. When for the sake of the peace of the Church they patiently endure that insult or injury, and attempt no novelties in the way of heresy or schism, they will teach men how God is to be served with a true disposition and with great and sincere charity. The intention of such men is to return when the tumult has subsided. But if that is not permitted because the storm continues or because a fiercer one might be stirred up by their return, they hold fast to their purpose to look to the good even of those responsible for the tumults and commotions that drove them out. They form no separate conventicles of their own, but defend to the death and assist by their testimony the faith which they know is preached in the Catholic Church” (De vera religione 6, 11).

Thus, St. Augustine.

It is interesting to note that Bp. Schneider’s baptismal name is “Athanasius”.

Posted in Our Catholic Identity, Patristiblogging, SSPX | Tagged , , ,
42 Comments

Pilgrimages and Local Gin

Pilgrimages and Local GinThis spirit-filled offering comes from the UK’s best Catholic weekly, the Catholic Herald:

Meet Walsingham’s Catholic gin-makers

England’s great pilgrimage site now has a gin distillery inspired by the Faith

Every year 250,000 people make the journey to Walsingham, a remote village in Norfolk which since the 11th century has been one of Europe’s great pilgrimage sites. They may not know it, but on the way they pass a new business venture partly inspired by the faith: Archangel Gin, a Norfolk-based drink made with locally grown juniper, and distilled, bottled and labelled in the area.

The name is no accident. “The road that passes by the back wall of the distillery has been part of the pilgrimage route to Walsingham for hundreds of years,” says co-founder Peter Allingham. “I imagine that there have been tens of thousands of guardian angels walking that route beside their charges. I’m very keen on guardian angels. We put them to so much trouble but they never desert us.”

Allingham has many strings to his bow. He is an IT specialist, amateur Egyptologist and farmer. He’s in his early 50s, as is co-founder Jude De Souza, a London-based statistician and former BBC audience researcher. Two years back they joined forces and built their own distillery on Peter’s family farm.

“Our family has two farms in Norfolk with lots of lovely old buildings which were rather underused,” Allingham says, “so I thought ‘Gin-making sounds fun – let’s do it!’ Sometimes you just have to go for it.”

The design of the angel on the label is “inspired by the highly stylised angels from the Watts Cemetery Chapel at Compton in Surrey,” Allingham explains. “I’ve had those images in my head since I first saw them about 30 years ago.” The seal on the bottle-cap foil reads Angeli ab oriente: “The distillery is in the heart of the diocese of East Anglia and I like to think of our products as Angels from the East,” he says.

The gin draws on local history, too. “We wanted to make something that wasn’t a standard London Dry. There was a heavy Dutch influence in our part of Norfolk in the 16th to 19th centuries. You see that in the many Dutch-style houses in local ports. So making something that paid a little homage to traditional Dutch genever was very much in mind.”

[…]

I have always wanted to go to Walsingham.  Now, more than ever.  I love the entrepreneurial spirit.

Speaking of Our Lady, Daniel Mitsui has a wonderful rendering:

Pilgrimages and Local Gin

Posted in ¡Hagan lío!, Just Too Cool, Lighter fare | Tagged ,
10 Comments

31 Jan – Blue Moon Eclipse

This is from SpaceWeather:

BLUE MOON LUNAR ECLIPSE: On Wednesday, Jan. 31st, the second full Moon of January will pass through Earth’s shadow, producing a rare “Blue Moon Lunar Eclipse.” The Moon won’t look blue, however. Researchers are predicting a bright orange eclipse–a forecast based on studies of recent volcanic activity. Volcanoes, climate change, and lunar eclipses are linked in ways that might surprise you. More information about this, along with eclipse observing tips, are highlighted on today’s edition of Spaceweather.com.

Very cool.

Make sure you get out and see it, if you can.  Again, SpaceWeather:

In the USA, the best time to look is during the hours before sunrise. Western states are favored: The Moon makes first contact with the core of Earth’s shadow at 3:48 am Pacific Time, kicking off the partial eclipse. Totality begins at 4:52 am PST as Earth’s shadow engulfs the lunar disk for more than an hour. “Maximum orange” is expected around 5:30 am PST. Easternmost parts of the USA will miss totality altogether.

31 Jan - Blue Moon Eclipse

Shop Amazon through Fr. Z’s link

Posted in Look! Up in the sky! | Tagged ,
2 Comments

The Canon libs hate the most?

During the March for Life I saw this sign:

The Canon libs hate the most?

Interesting question.  The question might push the envelope a little, but there may be not nothing to it.

Canon 915… that canon which is so feared and hated by libs, such as the New catholic Red Guards.

One year ago today, I posted something from Ed Peters about can. 915.

As follows:

___

The Canon libs hate the most?

CLICK ME

The distinguished, commonsensical canonist Ed Peters has a blistering bit today at his blog In the Light of the Law. Let’s see what he has to say, with my usual emphases and comments. I’ll cut in to the meat. You should also read his intro over there:

Three ways to not deal with Canon 915

[…]

Canon 915, however, as has been explained many times, forbids the distribution of holy Communion to those who “obstinately persevere in manifest grave sin” and, because ecclesiastical tradition is unanimous that divorced-and-remarried Catholics figure among those who “obstinately persevere in manifest grave sin” (CCC 2384), this law poses a major problem for the ‘pro-Amoris’ wing. To deal with that problem, three approaches to Canon 915 have, I think, emerged.

# 1. Ignore Canon 915. This is the approach followed in Amoris laetitia itself and by, say, the Buenos Aires plan. Passing over Canon 915 in silence offers two advantages: first, the Communion-admission debate can be steered almost exclusively toward prolix discussions of personal conscience (about which there is always one more thing to say); second, bishops and pastors who, faithful to the Catholic sacramental order, affirm that holy Communion must be withheld in these cases, can do so without directly running afoul of any clear assertion in Amoris. But see # 3 below.

# 2. Belittle Canon 915. This approach marks most essays by amateurs and appears variously as a patronizing tsk-tsking of any benighted enough to think that law has something to do with life, or nigh-on clueless comments about the canon, and occasionally old-fashioned ridicule of canon law. Belittling Canon 915 taps into the antinomianism now running through the Church and it appeals both to writers unequipped to discuss competently the complex matters at hand and to readers unequipped to recognize that emotion is being substituted for reason. [A good example of this approach is found in a loopy piece at Fishwrap (aka National Schismatic Reporter) by that unflagging promoter of the ordination of women Phyllis Zagano: “A few canon lawyers are waiving their law books, sputtering like motorboats, about all that. The naysayers are especially fond of Canon 915 — their ever-popular canon that denies Eucharist to people who “obstinately persevere in manifest grave sin.””]

0_350x350_Front_Color-White# 3. Violate Canon 915.This is the approach recently approved by the bishops of Malta in stating that holy Communion cannot be withheld in these cases but, as noted here, their action does not run directly afoul of Amoris for the simple reason that Amoris said nothing about Canon 915. Precisely in that both # 1 and # 3 can be sustained by appeals to Amoris leads me to agree with the Four Cardinals that, on this point anyway, the ambiguity in Amoris is irresolvable and thus the document urgently requires official clarification.

That all three approaches to Canon 915 are unacceptable seems self-evident to me but I cannot reinvent my arguments for so holding every time a new name wades into this fray. I trust my writings thus far can be located by those who wish to be better informed.

[…]

The Canon libs hate the most?

Click me.

Posted in Canon Law, Liberals, Linking Back | Tagged , ,
11 Comments