Method and Spirit for Studying the Code of Canon Law

After the initial excitement wore off, I began to fear I would hate canon law. For one who adores the powerful, polyphonic harmonies of the Gregorian Rite and the endless ritual precision it requires, not to mention the pulsing, silent Roman discipline, I surprised myself. My suspicion was similar to my misgivings concerning civil lawyers and the practice of moral theologians I have experienced; civil lawyers use the law to serve injustice, moral theologians (so it often seems) say that sin is no sin, and I feared that canon lawyers would use the Code to serve sin, not the good of souls. 

I still have my misgivings, but they have lessened and may lessen further. That some canon lawyers do treat the law this way does not mean canon law itself must inherently tend towards encouraging sin (duh). Even I can recognize that. At any rate, I resolved (obviously) that I would not use it that way. Further, in writing canon law briefs, I must admit that the requirement - explain what the law says to this case - can be, and usually is, quite delightful, because it encourages one of my burgeoning talents: to discuss something dispassionately and seek the truth alone. Omit unnecessary words, as Strunk would say. Be concise, even elliptical - but crystal clear. I admit: I like that. I like it a lot. Simplicity and clarity is what I strive for in all writing, and it never seems to be as effortless as when I am writing a canon law brief.

Still, I am a man, not a machine (would a robot be the best canon lawyer of all? Or would human talents like imagination still be necessary to render a good judgment?), so I must have a motivation, which cannot be the intent to make evil seem licit. Obviously the solution is simple (and obviously it took me until last fortnight to see it): pastoral zeal is the motivation; the good of souls, which is salvation. Happily, I discovered that the very last canon in the Code (canon 1752, if you're interested) states this plainly: Prae oculis habita salute animarum, quae in Ecclesia suprema semper lex esse debet. The salvation of souls is the supreme law of the Church; it is the form of canon law, it is its soul. So in all of my judgments, practiced in class and then (God willing) in the midst of and for the Mystical Body of Christ, I will be in service to this beautiful principle. This reinforces one of my most powerful longings - service to a beautiful cause that is greater than me - so I am satisfied. Bonum est!

Everything becomes more and more simple. Obedience. Simplicity. Trust. Sacrifice. All for the Beautiful.

On the Second Vatican Council III

A lot has changed in the two years plus since I last wrote on the Council. A lot of my thinking on it has changed, and the situation of the Church in the world (particularly in the United States) is quite a bit different than it was almost three summers ago. Still, I need to absorb the teachings of the Council, and I think this project is a worthwhile way to do it. So I will continue, but my method will change, at least in the beginning. Instead of moving chronologically into Sacrosanctum Concilium, I am leaving that to the end. I have a lot to say on it, a lot to say about the Liturgical Movement and what liturgical reform truly mean, but now is not the time. So I am moving into Lumen Gentium, and from there to Gaudium et Spes. After that I am unsure whether to continue through Nostra Aetate and Dignitatis Humanae, or go back to the First Session and examine Inter Mirifica. I lean towards the latter, for Lumen Gentium and Gaudium et Spes will probably give me enough of the Council's intent to make the lesser, more obscure decrees intelligible - not to mention that these two documents are among the most powerful the Council promulgated. 

This project has made my overall intellectual path become increasingly clear recently. Questions of what the Council meant, mean and ought to mean became questions of what sort of man I want to become, and now I have an answer. I want to be a man of Tradition. Not bound to a particular time and place, not a partisan in some ideological controversy or other, but a man of Tradition, guided by the Holy Spirit. I read three novels by Michael O'Brien recently, and the first two (about the Apocalypse) especially brought home the reality of spiritual warfare and what the oppression of evil means for life within Holy Mother Church. One does not dialogue with the Father of Lies; one refutes the foul serpent through faith, hope, and love. We must walk a path we do not know. Simplicity. Obedience. Trust. Unknowing. For me this means: more or less abandon attempts to argue and defend the Faith where this is not necessary; avoid idiotic controversies, especially on social media. Instead, focus your energies on becoming steeped in the identity and Tradition of Holy Mother Church: Her liturgical, dogmatic, moral, Scriptural, and ascetical/mystical traditions. This will direct me more towards liturgy, Scripture, and ascetical theology, I think (at least that's where my interests have slowly and increasingly been feeding as of late), but I will take hold of the one, and not let go of the other. I want to stand within the stream of Tradition, Itself a dynamic, powerful, life-giving force, guided by the Holy Spirit, and from that place of silent communion with the Holy Trinity - and that place alone - will I, by the grace of God, have the proper perspective to seek after the lost sheep, if the Master still wishes me to be a simple priest. 

So onto Lumen Gentium. I have already read the Constitution, and am studying it line by line. Each chapter will be its own article here, which is a practice I will probably keep for all the major decrees. I have almost finished the first chapter this way, so the first article proper on the Council - almost three years since I first voiced interest in it! - might appear as soon as next Tuesday. 

Thus: next stop, Lumen Gentium.

Praying the Office

I close my eyes, and while my lips murmur the words of the Breviary which I know by heart, I leave behind their literal meaning, and feel that I am in that endless land where the Church, militant and pilgrim, passes, walking towards the promised fatherland. I breathe with the Church in the same light by day, the same darkness by night; I see on every side of my the forces of evil that beset and assail Her; I find myself in the midst of Her battles and victories, Her prayers of anguish and Her songs of triumph, in the midst of the oppression of prisoners, the groans of the dying, the rejoicing of the armies and captains victorious. I find myself in their midst, but not as a passive spectator; nay rather, as one whose vigilance and skill, whose strength and courage can bear a decisive weight on the outcome of the struggle between good and evil, and upon the eternal destinies of individual men and of the multitude.

On Free Exercise - From a Friend

There are two civil rights at play in the dispute over same-sex marriage and the religious objection - one of which is the First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion. For a society which values civil rights, this makes the issue far from simple. Federal law and legal precedent already recognize that there are cases in which free exercise claims can trump generally-applicable laws - e.g. the Amish are not required to send their children to school.

Members of the creative professions forced to actively contribute to producing same-sex weddings are forced to act in a way that violates their religious integrity. It is important to note that we are not talking here about simply selling goods or value-neutral services like plumbing, but about services which involve personal creative contribution. An analogous dilemma might be faced by A Jewish tattoo artist forced to tattoo an anti-Semitic message.

And businesses do have a right to refuse services in certain cases, so long as the refusal is not arbitrary (hence, "No shirt, no shoes, no service"). Refusal based on the constitutional right to free exercise and the consistent historical teaching of all the world's major religions is not arbitrary.

Morning and Night Prayer

Almighty Lord, God of the Powers and of all flesh, Who livest in the highest and carest for the humble, Who searchest our hearts and affections, and clearly foreknowest the secrets of men; eternal and everliving Light, in Whom is no change nor shadow of variation; O Immortal King, receive our prayers which at the present time we offer to Thee from unclean lips, trusting in the multitude of Thy mercies. Forgive all sins committed by us in thought, word or deed, consciously or unconsciously, and cleanse us from all defilement of flesh and spirit. Grant us to pass the night of the whole present life with wakeful heart and sober thought, ever expecting the coming of the radiant day of the appearing of Thy only-begotten Son, our Lord and God and Saviour, Jesus Christ, when the Judge of all will come with glory to render to each according to their deeds. May we not be found fallen and idle, but awake and alert for action, ready to accompany Him into the joy and divine palace of His glory, where there is the ceaseless sound of those keeping festival and the unspeakable delight of those who behold the ineffable beauty of Thy Face. For Thou art the true Light that enlightens and sanctifies all, and all creation sings to Thee throughout the ages. Amen.

On the Second Vatican Council II

Continuing my series, I have begun a close reading of the documents of Vatican II. Since the objections to the Council stem from a few of the sixteen decrees, I shall probably focus upon those most of all: e.g. Lumen Gentium, Dignitatis Humanae, and Unitatis Redintegratio. But first, I shall lay out the structure of the Council and examine as a whole the Opening Address of Pope John XXIII. Then I shall examine each Council text in the order of composition. When I reach a controversial declaration, I shall also examine pre-conciliar pronouncements to clarify the interpretation of the Council; so, for example, Pius XII's Mystici Corporis in conjunction with Lumen Gentium, Gregory XVI's Mirari Vos, Leo XIII's Immortale Dei, etc. with Dignitatis Humanae, and so forth.

The Second Vatican Council composed and promulgated sixteen documents over a period of four years, 1962 through 1965. They range from a constitution on the Sacred Liturgy to a decree on religious liberty (probably the most controversial of all the Church's pronouncements). In order of composition, they are:

Session I: 1962  

• Opening Address of Pope John XXIII 

Session II: 1963

• Sacrosanctum Concilium (Constitution on Sacred Liturgy)
• Inter Mirifica (Decree on the Media of Social Communications)

Session III: 1964

• Lumen Gentium (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church)
• Orientalium Ecclesiarum (Decree on the Catholic Churches of the Eastern Rites)
• Unitatis Redintegratio (Decree on Ecumenism) 

Session IV: 1965

• Christus Dominus (Decree on the Pastoral Office of Bishops)
• Perfectae Caritatis (Decree on the Renewal of Religious Life)
• Optatum Totius (Decree on Priestly Training)
• Gravissimum Educationis (Declaration on Christian Education)
• Nostra Aetate (Declaration on the Relation to non-Christian religions)
• Dei Verbum (Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation)
• Apostolicam Actuositatem (Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity)
• Dignitatis Humanae (Declaration on Religious Freedom)
• Ad Gentes Divinus (Decree on Mission Activity of the Church)
• Presbyterorum Ordinis (Decree on the Ministry of Priests)
• Gaudiam et Spes (Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World)

Pope John XXIII prefaces the purpose of the Council: men are either with Christ and His Church, in which case they are blessed with light, goodness, order, and peace; or they are without Him, or opposed to Him and His Church, in which case they are thrown into confusion, bitterness amongst themselves, and in constant danger of fratricidal war. For this reason, for the sake of throwing light on the darkness of mankind, the Opening Address identifies several aspects of the Council's mission: to let the Magisterium, taking into account the errors, requirements, and opportunities of our time, be presented in exceptional form to all men throughout the world; that the deposit of faith may be guarded and taught more efficaciously, for it embraces of all man, everything that is human; to transmit the doctrine, pure and integral, without attenuation or distortion, which has become the common patrimony of men. Thus the Supreme Pontiff is not interested in revising or altering traditional formulas, creeds, explanations of the faith, etc. As he says,

The salient point of this Council is not, therefore, a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians, and which is presumed to be well known and familiar to all. For this a Council was not necessary. But from the renewed, serene, and tranquil adherence to all the teaching of the Church in its entirety and preciseness, as it still shines forth in the Acts of the Council of Trent and First Vatican Council, the Christian, Catholic, and apostolic spirit of the whole world expects a step forward toward a doctrinal penetration and a formation of consciousness in faithful and perfect conformity to the authentic doctrine, which, however, should be studied and expounded through the methods of research and through the literary forms of modern thought. The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a Magisterium which is predominantly pastoral in character.

Vatican II thus presupposes the Faith. It will not alter or change it, but will re-present it that the Gospel might be preached more effectively; that all men might recognize their duty of ceaselessly tending toward the attainment of heavenly things. This means all the harsh-sounding encyclicals, all the fierce anathemas - all these will be presupposed within the texts of the Council, and these must be our guide in interpreting it.

I wrote last time about the staggering naivete (I cannot call it anything else) the the Pope put forth, and there is no reason to harp on it. The Enemy has been hard at work among men, especially in the West, for the past fifty years, and the fruits are available for all to see. But in the midst of this unbelievable wishful thinking, a peculiar prescient section produced itself: "She consider that She meets the needs of the present day by demonstrating the validity of Her teaching rather than by condemnations." Now if all the states of the world were confessional and the temporal reign of the Pope were a fait accompli, Holy Mother Church would and should use condemnations to confute error. But our era is one of faithlessness; immaterial reality has, as a certain German put it, ceased to be meaningful for us. It is thus clear that condemnations require, on the part of the faithful, adequate formation in faith. Everybody knows that the Church forbids divorce. But Her authority is no longer, as it once was, sufficient to keep the purity of the Faith intact. It must be known, its truth must be demonstrated, proposed. The Second Vatican Council, then, is the first post-Christian Council. No longer can the Mystical Body rely upon the secular arm to enforce the truth; it must be appropriated and imbibed in its life-giving purity by all men without exception. John XXIII is thus calling all the faithful to become saints.

The Catholic Church desires to show Herself to be the loving Mother of all, benign, patient, full of mercy and goodness toward the brethren who are separated from Her. The Church does not offer to the men of today riches that pass, nor does She promise them merely earthly happiness. But She distributes to them the goods of divine grace which, raising men to the dignity of sons of God, are the most efficacious safeguards and aids toward a more human life. She opens the fountain of Her life-giving doctrine which allows men, enlightened by the light of Christ, to understand well what they really are, what their lofty dignity and their purpose are, and, finally, through Her children, She spreads everywhere the fullness of Christian charity, than which nothing is more effective in eradicating the seeds of discord, nothing more efficacious in promoting concord, just peace, and the brotherly unity of all.

These are beautiful, inspiring words. The effusive naivete regarding the awfulness of humanity is still worrisome (and I'll probably encounter it again in the decrees), but the aim and purpose of the Council is finally clear. Next stop, Sacrosanctum Concilium.

On the Second Vatican Council I

I have decided to try and exorcize a particular demon. I have been plagued, haunted, and tormented by a persisting thought: is the Church, after the Council, a different Church than that which preceded it? Have doctrines changed? Do the new teachings of the Church contradict earlier ones? 

This is a serious question for any Catholic, particularly as the mass apostasy continues: if the polls be accurate, 70% of those 'identifying as Catholics' no longer believe in the Real Presence. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass admits of grave liturgical abuses, and ignorance is widespread; to say nothing of the prevalent sexual nihilism. No one can help me answer these questions, at least not yet. I must deal with them, in their beginnings at least, on my own. 

And there is much to do. I first need to absorb the Opening Address by Pope John XXIII on the aims and purpose of the Council. Then I need to read, and read carefully, the sixteen documents thereof; next, to meet the objection of those (I'm looking at you, SSPX) who claim it contradicts, in numerous important subjects, previously-taught traditions; finally, discuss the revisions to the liturgy and the rites (and where I disagree with the SSPX harshly, borderline uncharitably in their contention that Vatican II explicitly contradicts older tradition, I am in almost full agreement with what they write on the beauty of the old rites and the impoverishment of the new). 

To begin, here is a portion of the Opening Address:

We see, in fact, as one age succeeds another, that the opinions of men follow one another and exclude each other. And often errors vanish as quickly as they arise, like fog before the sun The Church has always opposed these errors. Frequently she has condemned them with the greatest severity. Nowadays however, the Spouse of Christ prefers to make use of the medicine of mercy rather than that of severity. She considers that she meets the needs of the present day by demonstrating the validity of her teaching rather than by condemnations Not, certainly, that there is a lack of fallacious teaching, opinions, and dangerous concepts to be guarded against and dissipated. But these are so obviously in contrast with the right norm of honesty, and have produced such lethal fruits that by now it would seem that men of themselves are inclined to condemn them, particularly those ways of life which despise God and His law or place excessive confidence in technical progress and a well-being based exclusively on the comforts of life. They are ever more deeply convinced of the paramount dignity of the human person and of his perfection as well as of the duties which that implies. Even more important, experience has taught men that violence inflicted on others, the might of arms, and political domination, are of no help at all in finding a happy solution to the grave problems which afflict them. 

This seems radically imprudent. After Roe v. Wade and fifty-five million murdered children later, it does not seem at all the case that to "men of themselves," "violence inflicted upon others" is of no help in solving apparent troubles. And the abundance of fallacious teaching, opinion, and dangerous doctrine, far from being recognized as such by the world, is by it wholeheartedly embraced; and that fountain of truth, Holy Mother Church, is instead hated and reviled. I am not exactly comfortable calling the Holy Father (now raised to the Altar of Saints, in fact) naive, but I do not know how else to say it. The world hates the Church, for She proclaims the truth, the light -  which men hate because their deeds are evil. This I have seen in my own life, in private conversation, and in my experience of the world, especially public opinion. The world and the Church are irreconcilable enemies, and have always been so, if we take Christ's Gospel speeches (especially in John) seriously. 

I could write pages upon this quotation, because in deliniating the ways of life men "of themselves" are inclined to condemn, His Holiness has almost perfectly described the animus of the modern world. Act with consent, and live as you please; our new religion is Science (Comte would be proud), our confidence is in its technical progress, and our well-being is based exclusively on the comforts of life (thus the reviling of the Church, which apparently wastes money on gold monstrances instead of giving it to the poor, and our hatred of the rich; in reality an ill-disguised grasping, clawing, greed and envy). Was it really so different in 1965? I find such a supposition baffling, but then if things were not so different, this sentiment seems fluffy nothings, and I have little more hopeful prospects for the documents themselves, if they, as this opening address appears to do, so radically miss the modern soul and fail to criticize it properly.

This is not a happy way to begin my study of the Council.