Time to Fire A Bishop

The Bishop of San Rafael, Argentina, warned last week that he will impose canonical sanctions on priests who distribute Communion on the tongue during the coronavirus pandemic, in defiance of a diocesan directive permitting the distribution of Communion only in the hand.

Bishop Eduardo Taussig  announced June 13 that the Eucharist in his diocese was to be distributed only in the hand, until the pandemic concluded.

The bishop asked Catholics at that time to avoid putting priests or ministers of Communion in a difficult position “by requesting communion on the tongue, either at Mass or outside of the celebration."

 

I call B.S. This was regarding swine flu, but the rules are the same.

 

Lex Iniusta Non Est Lex

The Canon Law Made Easy site is asked if  Bishops may cancel Mass. Her response emphasizes the difference between granting dispensation and cancelling Mass.The site does not permit copying and pasting things, so go to it and read the whole thing. It is inspiring.

Here's my take away:

"To be blunt - if our parish clergy aren't at the parish to celebrate Mass, administer the sacraments, and otherwise tend to the spiritual needs of the faithful, then what are they there for?"

And this:


"Make no mistake, obeying an unjust and illegal order is not virtuous."

I guess instead of going to Mass on Sunday, I will stand at the window waiving a peace sign to everyone.

 

Canonist Ed Peters Lowers the Boom

 I love the last few lines. Read the whole thing

No one thought that Chicago’s Blase Cdl. Cupich would follow Springfield’s Bp. Thomas Paprocki’s example in calling upon Catholic state legislators, who had supported Illinois’ express attack on the basic rights of pre-born babies, to refrain from holy Communion until they repented of their evil deed (Canon 916), further directing that his ministers withhold holy Communion from two specific legislators based on their protracted and public support of such measures (Canon 915), so no one was surprised when Cupich didn’t. But, if only ‘for the record’, some replies to Cupich’s rationales for not following Paprocki’s example are in order.

1. Cupich claims that “it would be counterproductive to impose sanctions”. This misrepresents a crucial point: withholding holy Communion under Canon 915 is not the application of canonical sanction but rather the observance of a sacramental disciplinary norm. Casting the operation of Canon 915 as a sanction (implying thereby proof of canonical crimes upon the observance of special penal procedures) is a straw-man frequently posed by prelates skirting the plain provisions of Eucharistic discipline.
2. Cupich claims that “sanctions [sic] … don’t change anybody’s minds”. This misrepresents the two-fold purpose of withholding holy Communion, namely to prevent the scandal to the faith community that arises from the administration of holy Communion to Catholics who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin (say, by their formally depriving innocent human beings of any protection under civil law) and to prevent sacrilege from being committed against the august Sacrament. ‘Changing people’s minds’ has nothing to do with either goal.
3. Cupich claims that, when confronted with prominent Catholics who formally and actively cooperate in depriving innocent human beings of their right to life, his “primary responsibility is to teach”. This misrepresents the fact that bishops have not one but three primary responsibilities, namely, to teach, to sanctify, and to govern the People of God (Canon 375, emphasis added). Preserving sacramental discipline in the Church entrusted to him is a crucial part of a bishop’s governing duty (Canon 392). A bishop cannot therefore point to his admittedly sound teaching in regard to the right to life as if that satisfies his duty of governing his Church in support of that teaching, any more than a father can excuse sitting by while members of his household act against the common good, by saying, “Well, I told them what was right and wrong.”
4. Cupich might (it is not clear from the CNA article) claim that Paprocki’s action was taken in response to legislators “who championed the law”, referring only to the awful bill passed in Illinois a couple weeks ago. But if this is Cupich’s claim it would be factually wrong, for Paprocki, in invoking Canon 915 against two named politicos, expressly underscored their repeated and prominent role in advancing pro-abortion state legislation over a period of time and in multiple ways. Paprocki did not act upon news of a single bad act (although he might have been justified in doing so on these facts).
5. Finally Cupich claims that “an elected official has to deal with the judgment seat of God” adding that God’s judgment will be “much more powerful” than any here on earth. In that regard Cupich is certainly correct. Elected officials will be answerable to God for their acts and omissions. As will bishops. And cardinals.

Minimalism, Catholic Style

 The questions - Are Catholics obliged to receive Communion at every Mass they attend? And what about Confession?

Can.  920 §1. After being initiated into the Most Holy Eucharist, each of the faithful is obliged to receive Holy Communion at least once a year.

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

 Can. 989. After having reached the age of discretion, each member of the faithful is obliged to confess faithfully his or her grave sins at least once a year.

He Might as Well Be King Canute Holding Back the Tide

Springfield, Ill., Feb 22, 2018 / 02:42 pm (CNA).- Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Springfield in Illinois has reiterated that U.S. Sen. Richard Durbin should not receive Holy Communion due to the Catholic lawmaker’s support for abortion, including a recent procedural vote against a bill that would bar abortion after 20 weeks into pregnancy.

“Sen. Durbin was once pro-life. I sincerely pray that he will repent and return to being pro-life,” Bishop Paprocki said Thursday. “Because his voting record in support of abortion over many years constitutes ‘obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin,’ the determination continues that Sen. Durbin is not to be admitted to Holy Communion until he repents of this sin. This provision is intended not to punish, but to bring about a change of heart.”

The Springfield bishop cited Canon 915 of the Code of Canon Law, which says those who “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.”

He also cited the U.S. bishops’ 2004 statement on Catholics in Political Life, which said failing to protect the lives of the innocent and defenseless is “to sin against justice.”

“Those who formulate law therefore have an obligation in conscience to work toward correcting morally defective laws, lest they be guilty of cooperating in evil and in sinning against the common good,” the U.S. bishops’ statement said.

Love Is In The Air

Aboard the papal plane, Jan 18, 2018 / 07:00 am (CNA/EWTN News).- In his five years in office, Pope Francis has gained a reputation for embracing spontaneity. Today, he did it again with another papal first: witnessing the marriage of two flight attendants on board his flight from Santiago to Iquique.
According to journalists traveling with the Pope, the couple – Paula Podesta and Carlos Ciuffardi – went to the Pope during the Jan. 18 flight to ask for his blessing.
The couple told Francis they had been civilly married, but said they had not been able to get married in the Church because their parish was destroyed in the massive 8.8 earthquake that rocked Santiago in 2010. 

In response, the Pope offered to convalidate their marriage on the spot. Ignacio Cueto, owner of the airline company, LATAM, was a witness in the ceremony.
According to Ciuffardi, who spoke briefly with journalists after the ceremony, the Pope asked the couple if they were married yet, and when they explained why they hadn't been married in the Church, he said “do you want to get married?”
The Pope, Ciuffardi said, asked them “Are you sure, absolutely sure?” They said yes, gave the Pope their rings and asked Cueto if he would be a witness. The Pope then blessed the rings, placed their hands together, offered some brief reflections and pronounced them man and wife.

So in SEVEN YEARS, the couple couldn't figure out a way to get married in the Church? I call "BOGUS".

Father Peters has something to say about this...

Popes have jurisdiction for the external forum anywhere on earth (cc. 134, 331, 1108), so Francis can officiate at a wedding anywhere, anytime.
But officiating at a wedding means something specific: it means asking for and receiving the consent of the contracting parties to marrying each each other (c. 1108) here and now. Per the Rite of Matrimony consent is sought from each party individually and must be oriented to marrying the other party at this time; the request is not posed as a joint question to the couple about being married, akin to, ‘do you two want to be married?’, but rather is framed ‘do you marry him/her?’ at this point in time. If consent (the heart of marriage per c. 1057) is not adequately asked for and received, it is not exchanged, and such a couple would not be married (and, No, ‘Ecclesia supplet’ cannot make up for a failure in what is actually sacramental—as opposed to canonical—form). The above reports mention, as far as I can see, only the pope’s broaching the topic of marriage by asking the couple whether they wanted to be married, placing their hands together, saying a few inspirational words about marriage, and pronouncing them husband and wife. But such a sequence describes, not at all, a present exchange of consent by the parties. Let us hope, then, that in the actual event considerably more was said than has been reported.
Second, canonical form demands two independent actual witnesses to the exchange of consent, meaning that five persons must be immediately present for the wedding—not folks who heard about it a few minutes later, or who saw something happening and wondered, hey, what’s going on back there?—but five persons acting together and at the same time: a bride, a groom, an officiant, and two other actual witnesses. While reports are unclear as to how many people actually witnessed this event, and while this photo shows four people in the event (plus a camera man?) and four signatures on a document, another photo shows five names on the marriage document, so one may presume (c. 1541) accordingly.
Third, several canons impacting the liceity of weddings (norms on ‘liceity’ often being regarded as wink-wink rules in Church life, especially when higher-ups model the wink-winking) were apparently ignored here, including: the requirement for serious pastoral preparation prior to a wedding (c. 1063), administration of Confirmation before Matrimony (c. 1065), urging of Penance and holy Communion before a wedding (c. 1065), verification that no obstacles to validity or liceity are in place (c. 1066), securing evidence of the contractants’ freedom to marry (c. 1068) upon pain of acting illicitly without it (c. 1114), an expectation that Catholic weddings be celebrated in a parish church (cc. 1115, 1118), and making use of the Church’s treasury of liturgical books for celebration of the sacramental rite (c. 1119).
As this story reverberates ‘round the world, now, deacons, priests, and bishops who try to uphold Church norms fostering values such as deliberate marriage preparation, an ecclesial context for a Catholic wedding, and the use of established and reliable texts for expressing consent will, undoubtedly, have the Podest-Ciuffardi wedding tossed in their face as evidence that, if Pope Francis does not insist on such legalistic silliness and only cares about whether two people love one another, why shouldn’t they do likewise? The ministry of conscientious clergy in this regard just got harder.

Canon 1184

 The left-leaning blog, Pray Tell, received a memo sent by the Vicar General of the Diocese of Madison, WI, which had been sent to the priests of the diocese. They originally attributed it to Bishop Morlino. Gay marriage advocates like the Jesuit, James Martin, hurrumphed and got pouty.

Consideration of Funeral Rites for a Person in a Homosexual Civil or Notorious Union – You may encounter the situation in which a person in a homosexual civil union (thereby in a public union gravely contrary to the natural law) or in an otherwise notorious homosexual relationship gravely contrary to the natural law dies, and the family wants Catholic funeral rites for the deceased. My short answer to pastors and parochial vicars in these cases is to think through the issue thoroughly and prudently and likely call the local ordinary early in the process to discuss the situation. The main issue centers around scandal and confusion (leading others into the occasion of sin or confusing or weakening people regarding the teachings of the Catholic Church in regards to sacred doctrine and the natural law), and thereby the pastoral task is to minimize the risk of scandal and confusion to others amidst the solicitude for the deceased and family.
If the situation warrants (see canon 1184 – specifically canon 1184.1.3), ecclesiastical funeral rites may be denied for manifest sinners in which public scandal of the faithful can’t be avoided. If there is a doubt, the local ordinary is to be consulted, and his judgment is to be followed (canon 1184.2).  Here are some general considerations in such situations that may be of preliminary assistance to you:

• Was the deceased or the “partner” a promoter of the “gay” lifestyle?  What is the attitude of the deceased’s family members, especially towards the Church?
• Did the deceased give some signs of repentance before death?
• If ecclesiastical funeral rites are allowed, should they occur without a Mass?
• To minimize scandal, should there merely be a short scripture service at the funeral home?  Or maybe merely a graveside service? Maybe a later “Mass for the Dead” with or without explicit mention of the name of the deceased or “partner” could alternatively or in addition be offered at the parish or even at another parish (to avoid scandal), with or without family members present.
• Any surviving “partner” should not have any public or prominent role at any ecclesiastical funeral rite or service.
• A great risk for scandal and confusion is for the name of the celebrating priest and/or the parish to be listed in any public (e.g., newspaper) or semi-public obituary or notice that also lists the predeceased or surviving “partner” in some manner. This can’t happen for obvious reasons.
• There should be no mention of the “partner” either by name or by other reference (nor reference to the unnatural union) in any liturgical booklet, prayer card, homily, sermon, talk by the priest, deacon, etc…
• It may be wise to keep the priest or deacon involvement to the minimum (i.e., limited to one priest or deacon and at merely essential times of a service or rite, if one occurs).

 So what is Canon 1184? Please note the word MUST:

Can.  1184 §1. Unless they gave some signs of repentance before death, the following must be deprived of ecclesiastical funerals:

1) notorious apostates, heretics, and schismatics;

2/ those who chose the cremation of their bodies for reasons contrary to Christian faith;

3/ other manifest sinners who cannot be granted ecclesiastical funerals without public scandal of the faithful.

§2. If any doubt occurs, the local ordinary is to be consulted, and his judgment must be followed.

Can.  1185 Any funeral Mass must also be denied a person who is excluded from ecclesiastical funerals.

Baptism and Baptismal Records

I am in the process of digitizing the baptismal records for St. Joseph, and it led me to ponder a few things. For instance, what happens if the records are inaccurate? Not so much if a name is spelled incorrectly or a sponsor's name is inaccurate but rather, a record for a legitimate baptism does not exist?

Let's go the Rule Book!

Can. 845 §1 Because they imprint a character, the sacraments of baptism, confirmation and order cannot be repeated.

§2 If after diligent enquiry a prudent doubt remains as to whether the sacraments mentioned in §1 have been conferred at all, or conferred validly, they are to be conferred conditionally. 

Can the priest charge for his services?

Can. 848 For the administration of the sacraments the minister may not ask for anything beyond the offerings which are determined by the competent authority, and he must always ensure that the needy are not deprived of the help of the sacraments by reason of poverty. 

Does a baptismal name HAVE to be that of a saint in the Catholic Church?

Can. 855 Parents, sponsors and parish priests are to take care that a name is not given which is foreign to Christian sentiment. 

So it seems it's OK to name a child "Truth" or "Beauty", but not OK to name him "Lusty" or "Satan". I wonder if "Martin Luther" is alright? I think not.

Canon 915 Applies

A small group of Catholics protested peacefully on Sunday outside the Catholic Church where Hillary Clinton’s vice presidential running mate attends.

Tim Kaine, Clinton’s vice presidential pick and a U.S. Senator for Virginia, often says he is a Catholic and “personally pro-life,” but his actions show otherwise. Kaine has a 100-percent pro-abortion voting record from Planned Parenthood so far in 2016.
WTVR 6 reports about a dozen people held signs on the sidewalk outside St. Elizabeth’s Catholic Church in Richmond, Virginia, where Kaine has attended for about 30 years. Among other things, the protesters said they were there to expose Kaine’s pro-abortion position, which is contrary to Catholic Church teachings.
 
One protester’s sign read “You can’t be Catholic and pro-abortion,” while another described him as a “CINO,” or Catholic in name only.
Kaine’s church reportedly gave him a standing ovation after Clinton officially nominated him as her vice presidential running mate. Despite evidence to the contrary, Kaine’s priest, the Rev. Jim Arsenault, told NPR that Kaine is “personally pro-life.”

 However, the Virginia politician is on record as trying to have it both ways — saying he is both a “traditional Catholic” and a strong supporter of abortion. As LifeNews previously reported, Kaine said he is a “strong supporter of Roe v. Wade.”

Father Arsenault needs to rethink his position.

 

The Sound of Bishop Crickets

WASHINGTON, D.C., August 2, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Vice President Joe Biden has performed his first wedding ceremony – presiding over the “marriage” of two men.
Biden performed the ceremony at 4 p.m. yesterday inside the vice president’s residence, located at the U.S. Naval Observatory.
Biden reportedly obtained a license from the District of Columbia before officiating the service for Brian Mosteller, the director of Oval Office operations, and Joe Mahshie, a trip coordinator for Michelle Obama.
He then tweeted out a picture of the two men holding hands as he looked on approvingly.

 Canon lawyer Ed Peters observes:

Now, setting aside a very few 915 cases that could be decided on the spot, before being visited with the consequences of Canon 915, a Catholic should be formally confronted by the competent ecclesiastical authority about why holy Communion is going to be henceforth withheld and the steps required for readmission to the Sacrament explained.  I am not aware, however, of any Catholic official with canonical-pastoral authority over Biden who has ever made such contact with him. Still, whatever pastoral failing that past lack of formal contact might represent, it does not preclude their discussing his situation with him now.
And Joseph Biden, I would say, stands in obvious need of such outreach.

Dick Durbin, Martin Luther, Donald Trump, and Ted Kennedy Walk Into a Cathedral

 Which one can become a priest?

The Canon Law Made Easy site has an interesting discussion of the difference between an impediment and an irregularity when it comes to the receiving of Holy Orders. An impediment is not permanent.

An impediment is something that prevents Holy Orders but is not necessarily permanent. For instance, a married man can not be a priest. But if his wife dies, the irregularity is removed.


Canon 1041 lists the irregularities:

Can.  1041 The following are irregular for receiving orders:

1/ a person who labors under some form of amentia or other psychic illness due to which, after experts have been consulted, he is judged unqualified to fulfill the ministry properly;

2/ a person who has committed the delict of apostasy, heresy, or schism;

3/ a person who has attempted marriage, even only civilly, while either impeded personally from entering marriage by a matrimonial bond, sacred orders, or a public perpetual vow of chastity, or with a woman bound by a valid marriage or restricted by the same type of vow;

4/ a person who has committed voluntary homicide or procured a completed abortion and all those who positively cooperated in either;

5/ a person who has mutilated himself or another gravely and maliciously or who has attempted suicide;

6/ a person who has placed an act of orders reserved to those in the order of episcopate or presbyterate while either lacking that order or prohibited from its exercise by some declared or imposed canonical penalty.

I guess the moral of the story is if you make a public vow of chastity, don't even try becoming a priest.

Canon 1041-1

Canon 1041 - 2

Canon 1041 - 3

Canon 1041 - 4

Does the Pope Remind You of Donald Trump, or Vice-Versa?

The Pope, once again, misses a chance to be quiet....


A layman asked about the “crisis of marriage” and how Catholics can help educate youth in love, help them learn about sacramental marriage, and help them overcome “their resistance, delusions and fears.”

The Pope answered from his own experience.

“I heard a bishop say some months ago that he met a boy that had finished his university studies, and said ‘I want to become a priest, but only for 10 years.’ It’s the culture of the provisional. And this happens everywhere, also in priestly life, in religious life,” he said.

“It’s provisional, and because of this the great majority of our sacramental marriages are null. Because they say ‘yes, for the rest of my life!’ but they don’t know what they are saying. Because they have a different culture. They say it, they have good will, but they don’t know.”

He spoke of his encounter with a woman in Buenos Aires who “reproached” him. She said that priests study for the priesthood for years and can get permission to leave the priesthood to marry and have a family. For the laity, this woman said, “we have to do the sacrament for our entire lives, and indissolubly, to us laity they give four (marriage preparation) conferences, and this is for our entire life.”

Edward Peters, JD, JCD, Ref.Sig.Ap disagrees:
 
Last time a ranking prelate (Cdl. Kasper) opined that half of all marriages were null his attribution of such a reckless assertion to Pope Francis himself could be dismissed as hearsay, deflected as referring to marriage in general and not Christian marriage in particular, or at least minimized as describing merely ‘many’ or even ‘half’ of all marriages. But none of those qualifications can be applied to blunt the impact of the pope’s startling claim “the great majority of our sacramental marriages are null”.
If last time was bad, this time is very bad.

Tithing and the Church

 The website Canon Law Made Easy provides some interesting thoughts on the the teachings of the Church with regards to tithing.

The site does not allow copying and pasting, so you will have to go there to read the whole thing but the short answer is NO. Tithing is not required. Here's the Canon Law:

 Can. 222.1


The Christian faithful are obliged to assist with the needs of the Church so that the Church has what is necessary for divine worship, for the works of apostolate and of charity, and for the decent support of ministers.

 Says the site:

But note that Can. 222 says absolutely nothing about tithing, much less does it attach the penalty of excommunication to anyone who does not tithe. In fact, the current law provides no numerical figures or calculations at all. For that matter, a close look at the Latin wording will show that it doesn't actually require the faithful to give money! The terminology indicates that Catholics are to assist the Church, to come to its help as needed - and there are many different, genuine ways to do this that don't involve one's wallet.


I was wondering about this after having read the first reading form the Genesis  last Sunday:

In those days, Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought out bread and wine,
and being a priest of God Most High,
he blessed Abram with these words:
"Blessed be Abram by God Most High,
the creator of heaven and earth;
and blessed be God Most High,
who delivered your foes into your hand."
Then Abram gave him a tenth of everything.

Mass for One

One day, I went to daily Mass and was the only congregant there. I asked Father if he had to say Mass if I hadn't been there and he said no. I was surprised - I was under the impression priests were required to say Mass every day.

They are not.

 Can.  904 Remembering always that in the mystery of the eucharistic sacrifice the work of redemption is exercised continually, priests are to celebrate frequently; indeed, daily celebration is recommended earnestly since, even if the faithful cannot be present, it is the act of Christ and the Church in which priests fulfill their principal function.

Can.  906 Except for a just and reasonable cause, a priest is not to celebrate the Eucharistic sacrifice without the participation of at least some member of the faithful.

HOWEVER.... 

Can. 276 §1. In leading their lives, clerics are bound in a special way to pursue holiness since, having been consecrated to God by a new title in the reception of orders, they are dispensers of the mysteries of God in the service of His people.

§2. In order to be able to pursue this perfection:

1/ they are first of all to fulfill faithfully and tirelessly the duties of the pastoral ministry;

2/ they are to nourish their spiritual life from the two-fold table of sacred scripture and the Eucharist; therefore, priests are earnestly invited to offer the Eucharistic sacrifice daily and deacons to participate in its offering daily;

3/ priests and deacons aspiring to the presbyterate are obliged to carry out the liturgy of the hours daily according to the proper and approved liturgical books; permanent deacons, however, are to carry out the same to the extent defined by the conference of bishops

 So, to review....

Liturgy of the Hours - Required

Daily Mass - Recommended

Marriage, Remarriage, and Excommunication

The full link is here to Canon Law Made Easy. The original question was posed about a Catholic woman who remarried outside the Church and became an Episcopalian because she said she was excommunicated.

 First of all, let's distinguish between between an act that is morally wrong - sinful, in other words - and one that constitutes a crime under canon law... there are many acts that are sinful, but they are not punishable under canon law. Lying, thieving and adultery are all objectively evil actions, and moral theology teaches us they are all sins if performed by someone who understands that they are wrong, and yet freely does them anyway. . . But lying, thieving and adultery are not punishable under canon law as crimes.

This is why...divorced and remarried Catholics (whose first marriage was never annulled) are not able to receive the Eucharist as long as they persist in living with the second spouse as man and wife...

While, the current Code of Canon Law. promulgated in 1983, contains no sanction against divorced and remarried Catholics, the 1917 Code of Canon Law did. The former canon law 2356 addressed the crime of bigamy.

Bigamists, that is, those who attempt another marriage - even if only a so-called civil marriage - while the first conjugal bond exits, are ipso facto notorious; and if the scorn the warning of their Ordinary and persist in this illicit cohabitation, they are excommunicated...

Note from the wording that that there was nothing automatic about this: if the Ordinary never found out about a Catholic's remarriage, and/or never issued a warning, there couldn't have been an excommunication.

If this was the law under the old code, why was it changed? The super short answer to that question is that Pope John Paul II clearly didn't clear to include it in the new Code of Canon Law, which he promulgated himself.
 

Next...How Many Angels Can Dance on a Pin!

Someone sent this poser to Father Z:

This may be more of a canon law question (and therefore not necessarily your expertise), but I was rueing the number of Catholics rejoicing with the recent SSM ruling, and it strike me, if they are married, is it possible the marriages are in fact null because of their support for SSM? My understanding that part of the requirement is understanding the nature of marriage, if you support it, do you really understand it? Anyway, a hypothetical really, but thought it could be a thought provoking proposition (and one where I would benefit from more learned individuals).

  What does the Code Canon Law say about it?


Can.  1096 For matrimonial consent to exist, the contracting parties must be at least not ignorant that marriage is a permanent partnership between a man and a woman ordered to the procreation of offspring by means of some sexual cooperation.

Discuss.

Canon Law and the Freemasons

From Canon Law Made Easy :

 Canon 2335 of the 1917 code stated clearly that those Catholics who joined a Masonic organization or some other, similar group that plotted against the Church or against civil authority, incurred excommunication. The Church’s interpretation of Freemasonry’s main purpose was pretty clear: it was an association that plots against Catholicism. Membership in it was, therefore, obviously inconsistent with being a Catholic.

 (T)he Code of Canon Law that was promulgated in 1983 by Pope John Paul II replaced the earlier code of 1917. The 1917 code was thus abrogated—repealed and replaced, in other words—by the current code.

  Far from resolving the confusion, the new Code of Canon Law that was promulgated in 1983 left many Catholics even more perplexed. The corresponding canon in the current law does not even mention Masonry by name. Instead, it uses much broader terminology: anyone who joins an association that plots against the Church is to be punished by a just penalty. 

 The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a Declaration on this very subject in 1983, the same year that the new Code of Canon Law was promulgated. This document provides a theological interpretation of canon 1374. It notes that the new code does not expressly mention Freemasonry because of an “editorial criterion,” which led the Code Commission to avoid mentioning by name specific associations “inasmuch as they are contained in wider categories.” The Declaration asserts clearly that “the Church’s negative judgment in regard to Masonic association remains unchanged, since their principles have always been considered irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Church and therefore membership in them remains forbidden. The faithful who enroll in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion.”

Load Canon 915, and Fire At Will!

A memorandum of the Congregation of for the Doctrine of the Church on "Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion", signed by its Prefect Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and published in July 2004, declared that, if a Catholic politician's formal cooperation in "the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia" becomes manifest by "consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws", the politician's pastor is obliged to instruct the politician about the Church's teaching and inform him that he should not present himself for Holy Communion as long as the objective situation of sin (regardless of whether subjective guilt exists or is absent) persists, warning him that, if he does present himself in those circumstances, he will be refused. As in the case of divorced and remarried Catholics, if these precautionary measures fail to obtain the desired effect or are impossible, "and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, 'the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it'".


Canon 915, one of the canons of the current Code of Canon Law, forbids the administration of Holy Communion to those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared or who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin:

Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.

Speaking of which....

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi took the lead this week in a high-profile lobbying effort to pressure San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone not to attend the controversial March for Marriage event, which she characterized as "venom masquerading as virtue." 

 "We share our love of the Catholic faith and our city of San Francisco," Pelosi wrote to Cordileone, who, as head of the 560,000-member Archdiocese of San Francisco, has become the Catholic bishops' point man against gay marriage. She urged him to abandon an event in which some of the participants show "disdain and hate towards LGBT persons."

The Senator Gets Cross-Checked

A pro-life activist recently emailed Bishop Thomas J. Paprocki of Springfield, Ill., regarding pro-abortion "Catholic" U.S. Senator Dick Durbin, D-Ill.

Bishop Paprocki responded:

Dear Mr. [name redacted], Senator Durbin was informed several years ago by his pastor at Blessed Sacrament Parish here in Springfield that he was not permitted to receive Holy Communion per canon 915 of the Code of Canon Law. My predecessor upheld that decision and it remains in effect. It is my understanding that the senator is complying with that decision here in the Diocese of Springfield in Illinois.

When You Gotta Go, You Gotta Go!

But when you go, can you be buried in a Catholic cemetery? Let's go to the Code of Canon Law:

CHAPTER II : THOSE TO WHOM CHURCH FUNERALS ARE TO BE ALLOWED OR DENIED

Can. 1183 §1 As far as funeral rites are concerned, catechumens are to be reckoned among Christ's faithful.

§2 Children whose parents had intended to have them baptized but who died before baptism, may be allowed Church funeral rites by the local Ordinary.

§3 Provided their own minister is not available, baptized persons belonging to a non-catholic Church or ecclesial community may, in accordance with the prudent judgement of the local Ordinary, be allowed Church funeral rites, unless it is established that they did not wish this. 

Can. 1184 §1 Church funeral rites are to be denied to the following, unless they gave some signs of repentance before death:

1° notorious apostates, heretics and schismatics;

2° those who for anti-christian motives chose that their bodies be cremated;

3° other manifest sinners to whom a Church funeral could not be granted without public scandal to the faithful.

§2 If any doubt occurs, the local Ordinary is to be consulted and his judgement followed.

Can. 1185 Any form of funeral Mass is also to be denied to a person who has been excluded from a Church funeral.