A: Canon 845.1 couldn’t be clearer: the sacraments of baptism, confirmation and holy orders cannot be repeated. This is because by their very nature, they imprint a character on the recipient, which after its conferral can never be taken away. There is an amusing-yet-sad story told about the Roman Emperor Julian the Apostate (331-363 A.D.), who had been baptized a Christian but later renounced his faith, reinstituted the worship of the pagan Roman gods and goddesses, and persecuted the Christians who resisted.  Having been told that baptism imprinted a special mark upon his soul, Julian sat in the bath and tried vainly to scrub that mark off of himself, in an attempt to undo his Christian baptism. But the fact is that it simply cannot be done.

That’s also why canon 864 notes that every unbaptized person, and only an unbaptized person, can be baptized. If a person has already been baptized, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to try to do it again, because it cannot be done again. (This is why the term “rebaptize” is canonically meaningless.)

So what would happen if, say, a priest were to go through the entire baptismal ceremony and perform what he believed to be a valid baptism, on a person who had in fact been baptized before? The answer is simple: nothing. If the priest and family truly didn’t know that the person had been baptized before — let’s say a nurse in the hospital where he was born had baptized him because it seemed that he might die, and had never told the family what she had done — they would of course be acting in entirely good faith. But the ceremony would have no spiritual effect at all. The conferral of the sacrament would be invalid, a concept that was discussed at length back in the July 26, 2007 column.

Things get murkier, however, when a person wants to become a Catholic, and there is some uncertainty about whether he was already baptized before or not. This situation is perhaps more common than many would think! Let’s say that we have a person who was told years ago by family members that he had been baptized as an infant, but a baptismal certificate is nowhere to be found. It may be that he was baptized by a family member in an emergency — canon 861.2 notes that in cases of necessity, any person with the correct intention may baptize — and thus there is no record of the baptism in any church registry. Perhaps his parents had left the faith, and his grandmother had secretly baptized him in private. Or it may be that the family members are not getting the story straight, in which case he is in fact not baptized at all! What is a pastor to do in such a situation?

Canon 869.1 has the answer. If there is a doubt as to whether a person has been baptized or not, and the doubt cannot be resolved even after investigating the matter, the person is to be baptized conditionally. This means that baptism is to be administered, with the acknowledgement that if the person has already been baptized, it will have no effect. In such cases the Church is erring on the side of caution. Better to perform a second, unnecessary and ineffectual baptismal ceremony, than to fail to baptize the person at all!

This is why, incidentally, an abandoned infant is to be baptized, unless for some reason it is clear that he has been baptized already (c. 870). If perchance he has been baptized before, the second ceremony will not change a thing; but if he has not been baptized, it of course will have full effect.

But what do we do with someone from a non-Catholic Christian faith who wants to become a Catholic?  Normally he can provide a baptismal certificate from his own church — but is it enough?

As a general rule, it is. The Catholic Church has long taught that the one baptizing needn’t profess the Catholic faith in order to baptize validly.  It is enough that he (or she) intends to do what Christ commanded — namely, to free the person from original sin and incorporate him into the Church — and uses a valid form for the administration of the sacrament. In fact, the baptizer doesn’t even need to be a Christian. Imagine, for example, a woman giving birth in a hospital to a sick baby who is in danger of death. If she were to request a Jewish nurse to baptize the baby, that nurse would validly do so, so long as she used the correct formula and intended to do what the Church requires (even if she weren’t too sure exactly what that was!).

For this reason, the Church acknowledges that baptisms performed by Lutherans, Methodists, Episcopalians, and the bulk of the other mainstream protestants are valid. It is true that there are some religious communities, like the Mormons (discussed back in the August 9, 2007 column), whose baptism the Catholic Church does not accept as valid, because it has determined that for theological reasons there is a significant defect in the intention of the minister. We have also seen, in the September 11, 2008 column, that if a non-Catholic religious community is using a theologically defective formula during the baptismal ceremony, the Catholic Church rejects it as invalid. But otherwise, unless there is some specific reason to question the validity of the baptism in a particular case, the Catholic Church regards most protestant baptisms as valid.

Consequently, when a Protestant wishes to become a Catholic, the pastor who will receive the person into the Church looks into the circumstances of that person’s baptism, and decides whether there are any grounds to doubt its validity. If not, canon 869.2 states clearly that the person is not to be baptized again.

This is no doubt why Dave’s Presbyterian coworker will be received into the Catholic Church on Holy Saturday without being baptized by the Catholic pastor. It sounds like everything is being handled completely in accord with the law.

What about Dave’s father, the former Episcopalian who eventually became a Catholic and was baptized again by a Catholic priest? We have no way of knowing what the circumstances were, or when or where this all took place. It is true that, in days long gone, it was a common practice to baptize conditionally all those Protestants who wished to enter the Catholic Church, just to be on the safe side. It may be that the pastor was playing it safe; or it may be that for some particular reason, he had cause to question the validity of the baptism. In any case, conditionally baptizing anybody and everybody who wants to become a Catholic is definitely not the correct practice nowadays.

Thus we can see that there is no inconsistency between the reception into the Catholic Church of Dave’s Episcopalian father and his Presbyterian coworker. If the Church considers it necessary to baptize a non-Catholic Christian conditionally, it will do so. But otherwise, one baptismal ceremony, whether Catholic or not, is quite enough.

Q2: The papers say that the woman who attacked the Pope at Christmas Mass is mentally disturbed, so does that mean she’s not excommunicated? –Maria

A: It certainly was horrifying last Christmas to see the film footage and hear the screams of the crowd, as a 25-year-old woman with a history of psychological problems somehow managed to scoot past the entire papal security team and grab hold of Pope Benedict, ultimately pulling him down to the floor. It’s entirely natural for us to want to see her punished, simply as a matter of justice. After all, physically harming the Vicar of Christ is no small matter!

One might not expect there to be any mention in church law about such a specific and unusual crime, but in fact there is: canon 1370.1 states that a person who uses physical force against the Roman Pontiff incurs excommunication. On the face of it, therefore, it would seem that the story ends there.

But as we saw back in the January 25, 2008 column, getting yourself excommunicated is not so simple! There are a whole host of conditions, all of which must be in place for the person who committed the crime to be punished under canon law. In general, they ensure that the perpetrator does not incur any penalty unless he was fully in command of his faculties, understood what he was doing, acted with complete freedom, and knew in advance that such a sanction was attached to commission of the crime. (The March 7, 2008 column addressed these issues in greater detail.)

In the case of the young Italian woman who jumped the Pope at Midnight Mass, she has already been in and out of a psychiatric hospital on more than one occasion. It seems pretty clear from the news reports that she has less than full command of her faculties! Thus it’s a fairly safe bet that while she did technically commit a crime to which the penalty of excommunication is attached, she is in fact not fully culpable for her actions.

Up to this point we have been talking about sanctions under the Code of Canon Law. But Andrew’s question actually brings up a separate issue. News reports have indeed indicated that the young woman will be tried in a Vatican court. Yet this is a civil issue, rather than a canonical one.

Vatican City is an independent country, the smallest in the world. Anyone who has visited Rome knows that it requires absolutely no effort—and certainly no passport!—to walk in and out of Saint Peter’s Square, but when people do this they are in fact crossing the border between two countries, Vatican City and Italy. The Vatican has its own flag, its own post office, its own military, and until it joined the Euro Zone it also had its own currency (which happened to have the same valuation as the old Italian lira). Since the country is so tiny, it has an agreement with Italy that gives the Italian police the right and responsibility to maintain order in Saint Peter’s Square itself; but inside Vatican buildings, visitors are subject to Vatican City laws. Those buildings, of course, include Saint Peter’s Basilica, where the Pope was attacked, and thus the young woman was arrested and charged under Vatican City laws—not under canon law. Canon law governs the Catholic Church as a whole, and as such binds all of us Catholics, no matter where in the world we live; in contrast, Vatican City law in this case is roughly akin to our U.S. state laws against assault and battery. See the difference?

In other words, one could conceivably be arrested in Vatican City for a traffic violation, or disorderly conduct, and be tried under their criminal justice system—without there being any corresponding violation under canon law. In actual fact, there are very few crimes, or even sins, with a corresponding sanction in the Code of Canon Law. Theft, for example, is often illegal and obviously sinful at the same time, but normally there are no canonical penalties attached to it. If a penitent confesses the sin of theft in confession, a confessor will undoubtedly assign some sort of penance to atone for such an act; and if the same person is arrested and convicted of theft, he will certainly be punished in criminal court. Neither case, however, necessarily involves a canonical penalty.

At the same time, there are some crimes in the code for which the sanctions can be extremely severe, but there is no penalty whatsoever under civil law. As was discussed in the December 4, 2008 column, a priest who violates the seal of confession is subject to some of the harshest penalties the Church has to offer (c. 1388.1)—but there is certainly no corresponding crime under civil law for which he can be arrested!

So what will happen to this mentally disturbed woman who physically harmed the Holy Father? Well, under canon law, nothing. Mentally, she is so obviously unstable that she cannot be held accountable for her actions.

Under Vatican City laws, however, we’ll have to wait and see what happens to her. But given that the Pope himself, who is of course the supreme head of this little country, has publicly forgiven her, it’s rather difficult to envision her receiving any serious punishment.

A: Ed’s question highlights an important distinction that must be made, between the sacramental power of an ordained cleric to bring about a spiritual effect (in this case, to celebrate a valid Mass), and the authority of a diocesan bishop to regulate worship and the administration of the sacraments in his diocese.  He also raises a good question about public versus private Masses. Let’s take a look at each of these issues in turn.

The last question is the simpler to address. We Catholics all understand that sometimes a priest says a public, scheduled Mass, with a congregation composed of anybody who chooses to attend; and sometimes a priest says what is commonly referred to as a “private Mass,” either by himself, or for a family or a particular group. But this distinction actually has no basis in either theology or canon law, for the Eucharistic celebration is by its very nature a public act of worship by the Church. Liturgical actions, by definition, are not private affairs-even if only a few people are in fact present. This is the reasoning behind canon 906, which states that a priest is actually not supposed to celebrate Mass without at least one other person being present, unless there is a good reason for doing so. Frequently there is a good reason — imagine, for example, a priest who has to catch a plane at 7 AM and wants to say his Mass before leaving, so early that nobody else will be awake. But this sort of situation is hardly the norm!

Technically, therefore, it makes no difference if the mystic-priest wants to enter the diocese and say a widely publicized Mass with a huge congregation, or an unannounced Mass with a few people from a prayer-group.  So if the bishop can prohibit such a priest from saying Mass in a very public setting, like a Sunday Mass in a large parish, he is equally able to prohibit him from saying Mass for a small group. So the next question is, can the bishop do that?

Ed correctly indicates in his question that once a man has been ordained a priest, he and he alone has the power to validly celebrate the Eucharist, consecrating the bread and wine which become, by the priest’s action, the Body and Blood of Christ (c. 900.1). This is a sacramental power which can never be taken away from him by anyone! As was discussed in the November 12, 2009 column, ordination brings with it an ontological change in the person, which cannot be undone — a priest forever remains a priest. In the same column, however, we also saw that priests can, under certain circumstances, be allowed to leave the clerical state and live in the world as laymen again. In such cases, the laicized priest always retains the ability to say a valid Mass — but he is not permitted by Church authorities to do so. Similarly, we saw in the October 18, 2007 column that if a priest who has been suspended, and thereby prohibited from celebrating Mass, were to do so anyway, it would be a valid Mass! But in either case, since his superiors had forbade him to say Mass at all, it would be illicit, or illegal.

Now it’s true that the priest whom Ed describes does not seem to fit either of these categories, as he has neither been laicized nor suspended. If he truly is a bona fide mystic, he may actually be an extremely holy man! Regardless, he wants to enter another diocese and celebrate Mass there. And while we do not know all the details, the diocesan bishop is concerned about the activities of the prayer-group which invited the priest to come. Perhaps they are promoting some theological ideas which are of questionable orthodoxy; or maybe they are engaging in devotional activities which in some way are imprudent and/or disrupting general harmony among the faithful-there are any number of possible problems. The actual reason for the bishop’s concern doesn’t really matter.  If in his judgment the group is engaging in dubious devotional practices or other activities that have caused concern, he has every right to intervene pastorally, for the spiritual good of the people entrusted to his care (cf. c. 383.1), to try to “tone it down,” as Ed put it.

Here’s an important point to keep in mind: when Bishop X says that Father Y may not say Mass in Bishop X’s diocese, the bishop is not suggesting in any way that Father is losing his ability, as an ordained priest, to validly offer the Eucharistic sacrifice. The bishop knows full well that this would be impossible! Rather, he is banning that particular priest from holding a liturgical celebration in his territory, and at which the Catholic faithful of the bishop’s diocese would be present. If the priest were to disobey and offer the Mass there anyway, it would of course be a valid Mass; but it would certainly be illicit. That priest would be acting in blatant disregard of the diocesan bishop’s authority and responsibility to oversee the spiritual welfare of his flock — a serious charge indeed!

Note also that when a bishop issues such a directive, it is ordinarily made not only to the priest himself, but is openly addressed to the faithful of the diocese as well. The people must also realize that if they fail to follow the bishop’s order and attend such a forbidden Mass in their diocese, they are committing a direct act of disobedience. It’s entirely possible that a Catholic may not like his bishop, and/or may personally be convinced that the bishop’s decision in such a case shows incomplete understanding of the real situation-and that may be true! But this does not give a Catholic the right to second-guess his bishop and do as he pleases. This is a very “protestant” mentality that unfortunately has become all too common in some Catholic circles here in the U.S.

Some years ago, the then-Archbishop of Milan, Carlo Maria Martini, forbade the African Archbishop Milingo from holding “healing Masses” in the Milan Archdiocese. It attracted quite a lot of attention at the time because in this case, one bishop was issuing a command to another bishop, something that under normal circumstances is simply not done! In this situation, however, Archbishop Martini was exercising his authority within the territory of his archdiocese, which he had not only the right, but the responsibility to do. He was concerned about what was really happening during the “healing ceremonies” which accompanied Archbishop Milingo’s Masses, and rightly wanted to protect the Catholics under his care from an event of questionable spiritual orthodoxy. Time has vindicated Archbishop Martini, as Archbishop Milingo was subsequently excommunicated by the Vatican for his bizarre and decidedly un-Catholic statements and actions-and he remains under excommunication to this day.

Granted, it might happen someday that the mystic-priest whom Ed mentions is publicly acknowledged by the Church to be an authentic model of Christian spirituality. But that will not alter the fact that the diocesan bishop has the right to decide that it is better for the faithful of the diocese to steer clear of him today. That priest will always have the ability to celebrate Mass; he just can’t celebrate it in this particular diocese.

A: On the surface, it may seem that this topic has already been addressed in this space. We saw back in the August 23, 2007 column that for a valid marriage, Catholics must marry in accord with canonical form. This means that they are required to have a Catholic wedding ceremony, conducted by either the pastor or another priest deputed by him (c. 1108). If a Catholic wishes to marry a non-Catholic in a non-Catholic wedding ceremony, which obviously would not be held inside a Catholic church, he must obtain permission from the diocesan bishop in advance.  In order to receive such permission, however, it must be shown that having a regular Catholic wedding, held in a Catholic church by the pastor or another deputed priest, will present grave difficulties (c. 1127.2). To cite a common example, if the family of the non-Catholic party is vehemently anti-Catholic, they might refuse to attend the wedding if it is held in a Catholic church. In such a case, the bishop may grant permission to have a non-Catholic wedding elsewhere for the sake of maintaining family harmony.

But the scenario described here by Tim is actually quite different. The two spouses are Catholics, and they want to have a Catholic wedding ceremony, performed by a Catholic priest. They just don’t want to have it held inside the actual parish church building. In other words, they want to observe the canonical form for marriage, but in a different physical place. What does the law say about this?

Canon 1118.1 states that a marriage between two Catholics, or between a Catholic and a baptized non-Catholic, is to be celebrated in the parish church, although permission can be granted for it to be held in a different Catholic church or chapel. If two Catholics wish, for example, to be married in a Catholic ceremony not in the parish church, but in the Catholic chapel on their college campus, the bishop can-and in practice, frequently does-approve their request. Occasionally a very tiny parish church may actually be too small to accommodate all the guests at a large wedding, and permission is obtained to have the wedding in a different, bigger Catholic parish church.

For a Catholic wishing to get married outdoors in a garden, the law thus far is very restrictive. But the following paragraph may at first glance give Tim’s daughter a glimmer of hope: canon 1118.2 notes that the bishop can allow a Catholic marriage to be celebrated in another suitable place. Strictly speaking, therefore, it is not impossible under canon law for two Catholics to get married in a Catholic ceremony in a rose garden; there is nothing intrinsically unsuitable about the location. (In contrast, U.S. bishops, including the Bishop of Orlando, Florida, have stated in the past that getting married at Disneyland is unacceptable, because they hold that this secular entertainment environment is not a suitable place to celebrate the Catholic sacrament of matrimony.)

It sounds like all Tim’s daughter needs to do is to get approval from the diocesan chancery to have the priest officiate at her wedding in the family garden instead of the parish church, right? Well, that may be implied by the canon, but in actual practice, getting that approval is not so easy.

For the law leaves the decision up to the diocesan bishop. And while I have not surveyed every single diocese in the United States, it is virtually impossible to find an instance where a bishop will grant permission in such a case. After all, as Tim describes it, both parties to the marriage are Catholic; there is no logistical reason why the wedding cannot be celebrated inside the parish church; and the only argument being offered by the bride-to-be merely involves aesthetics and personal preference.

The bishop, in contrast, can and undoubtedly will argue that requiring a wedding to be performed in church (no matter how ugly people may think that church is!) is fully in keeping with the fundamental spiritual nature of the occasion. A wedding ceremony entails the conferral and reception of a sacrament. It thus involves far more than mere sentiment, beautiful flowers, and romantic wedding photos taken under a rose trellis. It is important to maintain the sense of the sacred, because that is exactly what a marriage ceremony is-a sacred, sacramental occasion. A bishop who is concerned that the faithful of his diocese keep in mind the central spiritual components of a wedding (as opposed to its cosmetic outward appearances), will quite naturally object to the notion that a Catholic marriage be celebrated elsewhere than in a Catholic church. As a canonist from a major U.S. archdiocese told me bluntly, permission for a Catholic wedding outside of a Catholic church in his archdiocese is “NEVER granted… don’t bother to ask.”

If the very notion of holding a Catholic wedding outside of church is so objectionable for theological reasons, why does the law even permit the possibility? Keep in mind that the Code of Canon Law is applicable all over the globe, and there may be political or other unique circumstances elsewhere in which holding a wedding in a Catholic church is either impossible or inadvisable. After all, what if two Catholic Haitians have been planning to marry this summer in their parish church, which is now a pile of rubble?

Interestingly, there are a few known cases here in the U.S. where bishops really have granted permission for Catholics to marry in a place other than a church, in the presence of a Catholic priest. All of them, however, have involved at least one spouse who was a celebrity. Actors, rock stars, politicians and well-known business executives who get married have to contend with the need for privacy. We all know that tabloid journalists will go to great lengths to “crash” a movie star’s wedding, snap a photo of the bride’s dress and get a good look at the invited guests, to see whether there are any more famous faces present. This is naturally a scenario that the spouses want to avoid at all costs, no matter what faith they profess! If at least one of the spouses is Catholic, and they sincerely want to marry in a Catholic ceremony, they may ask the bishop for permission for the wedding to take place in a more private location. Their guards can presumably secure a private residence, or perhaps one wing of a hotel, more reasonably and safely than they could a Catholic parish, which by its nature is generally open to all who wish to enter it. In these highly unusual cases, approval has been given for a Catholic priest to conduct a Catholic wedding ceremony in a building other than a Catholic church. We may assume, however, that efforts are made by the clergy to ensure as much as possible that the sacredness of the occasion, and the spiritual importance of the spouses’ exchange of vows, are kept in the forefront.

If, in theory, Tim’s daughter was going to marry a Protestant, would the bishop be any more likely to allow them to marry in the garden? Well, it’s possible; but the far more common scenario would be to simply dispense the pair from canonical form altogether.  This would allow the couple to marry in a Protestant ceremony, before the minister of the non-Catholic spouse. That way, if the Protestant minister were permitted by the rules of his own faith to marry the couple in the garden, the wedding could indeed take place there. At the same time, however, the bishop might very well question the couple and particularly the Catholic party more closely, as to the real reason for wanting a non-Catholic ceremony. Again, since it appears that the main desire is to have a lovely location for a wedding, the bishop might reasonably conclude that this is a rather frivolous reason! As we saw in the previous column mentioned above, normally there should be a more substantive rationale behind such a request.

In short, the prospects for Tim’s daughter getting married in their rose garden, in a Catholic ceremony, are rather slim! This may be a good time for a reality check: perhaps the bride and groom really are making an effort to focus on the spiritual dimension of their upcoming marriage… but it appears that they might be more concerned with the materialistic aspects of the wedding ceremony. A Catholic parish church may very well be architecturally ugly, but we Catholics know that unlike the loveliest garden, Christ is really present there in that church in the Eucharist. Surely the idea of marrying in the presence of God Himself, Who personally attended the wedding at Cana nearly 2000 years ago, easily outweighs other factors. Marriage is for life, and thus it is crucial that we Catholics do it right.

I ran into one of the accountants who helps the parish out, and mentioned her idea to him, and he got really excited. He said that even if they don’t build a new wing, they can use the money to pay off debt and/or other things. But that’s not what my mother wants to give the money for! Is there a way to insist that her donation be used for this one purpose? Or is my mother being unreasonable? She doesn’t want the money to be spent just on heating bills and similar things; she wants something permanent to remain at the school in memory of our family. -Mary Claire

A: Mary Claire’s mother is certainly not being unreasonable. It is perfectly natural that when someone makes a large gift for a charitable purpose, he may specify the manner in which it is to be used. The Church’s laws concerning bequests and other donations are fundamentally consistent with those found in civil law.

Canon 1300 couldn’t be clearer: the intentions of those who give goods to pious causes, once they are lawfully accepted, must be carefully observed. This holds true regardless of whether the donor gives the gift while still living or includes it in his will. The bishop is ultimately responsible for ensuring that such donations are used for the intended purposes (c. 1301.1). Under some circumstances, if the gift or bequest is made to a religious institute – a school owned and operated by the Franciscans, for example – this responsibility lies not with the diocesan bishop in whose territory the school is located, but with the superior of the religious institute. (We looked at the balancing-act that must be maintained between the authority of a diocesan bishop, and that of religious who operate institutions within his diocese, in the July 9, 2009 column.)

So if Mary Claire’s mother wants to give her parish school the money to build a new wing, that money cannot be used for other purposes, like retiring the school debt. But what if the parish doesn’t want or need a new wing on its school?

Note that canon 1300 states that a donation must be used for its stated purpose if it is lawfully accepted. In other words, the pastor can, with gratitude and tact, inform the potential donor that it simply is not feasible to put an addition on the school building. Perhaps there simply is no room to do so on the existing property; perhaps the school’s enrollment is high now but decreases can already be forecast for the future, so an additional wing would be a waste of money in the long term. Whatever the reason, if a gift cannot be used for the purposes envisioned by the donor, the gift must be refused. The donor cannot force unwilling church officials to take the money and use it as the donor wants!

A common enough scenario where a donation has to be refused with thanks involves the potential gift of real estate. If someone wishes to give the Church a building which is in dire need of major repairs, it may cost more to repair and maintain it than it is really worth. On the surface, it may seem offensive for a pastor or bishop to “look a gift-horse in the mouth,” but at issue here is the genuine financial wellbeing of the parish, diocese, or other Catholic institution which will have to deal with the property. A potential donor may not initially realize that his “gift” will actually amount to a financial albatross around the Church’s neck.

These conditions are not unique to the Catholic Church. In general, if someone writes a will in which he leaves some money to a young relative to be used specifically for his education, that heir cannot take the money and spend it on a new car. The intentions of the donor must, as a rule, be respected.

Readers may remember that after the September 11 tragedy, the American Red Cross was deluged with donations which were specifically intended to help the families of those who were killed or injured in the attacks. Some in the Red Cross evidently judged that the total amount collected was more than could ever reasonably be expended on the victims and their families, and tried to divert some of the money to other, unrelated relief efforts. When this became public knowledge, the outcry was so strident that the head of the American Red Cross ultimately resigned. Aiding the needy who were not 9-11 victims of is of course a laudable intention, but the fact was that the donors did not give their money for that purpose! It was entirely natural that they should object to its being used in a way other than they had wished.

We have been discussing here only those donations which the giver specifically states are to be used for a particular reason. What strings, if any, are attached to donations which are given without any specific instructions?

In the absence of any explicit directives from donors, a Catholic institution (or indeed any charity) can use the money or goods as its administrators see fit. When the average Catholic tosses money into the regular Sunday collection, that sum goes toward the general expenses of the parish. Perhaps it will be used to pay the organist’s salary, or repair the rectory driveway, or be sent to the diocese as part of the regular parish assessment. (Canon 1263 gives the bishop the specific right to levy assessments on parishes and other institutions in his diocese.) We parishioners can only trust the pastor and the parish finance council to manage the money we give as skillfully as they can. It is natural that at times we may disagree about the way that some of our money is being spent, but we have no authority to micromanage financial affairs for the parish.

If it were to become apparent that money was truly being mismanaged-let’s say the pastor spent lavishly on redecorating the rectory while the electric bill was left unpaid for months-it would ultimately be the responsibility of the diocesan bishop, the pastor’s superior, to address this. While we would naturally be unhappy about our hard-earned money being used for frivolous things, withholding our financial support for the Church would not be an option, no matter how tempting a protest it might be. The faithful are required to support the Church in response to appeals by church authorities, who in turn have the right to ask for this financial support (cc. 1260 and 1262). One might legitimately reduce one’s regular donation, but not suspend giving altogether.

What does all this mean for Mary Claire’s mother and her potential donation? The appropriate thing for her to do would be to approach the pastor with her proposal, making it clear that she would like to give the money for the sole purpose of adding a new wing onto the school building. If the pastor agrees to accept the money under these conditions, he will be bound to use it only for this purpose; otherwise he will have to gratefully decline the gift-or perhaps he might suggest a different way in which it could be used, if the donor wants to agree to this. In any case, the Church is always obliged to respect the particular wishes of the donor.

Q1: How come the pro-abortion group “Catholics for Choice” gets away with calling itself a Catholic organization? Why doesn’t the Church stop it from using this name? -Dale

Q2: There’s a school in our diocese that is run by Catholic laywomen. They teach Catholic catechism and the kids regularly go to Mass. But you wouldn’t know from its name that it’s a Catholic school, because it doesn’t say “St. X Catholic School,” but just “St. X School.” It isn’t mentioned in the diocese’s list of Catholic schools, either. Is it safe to assume that this is some schismatic fringe group running a school that claims to be “Catholic” but isn’t in communion with the Pope? I’m worried because one of my Catholic friends is considering sending her children there next year…  -Theresa

On the surface, these two questions appear to have little in common, but in fact they both involve the issue of institutions calling themselves “Catholic,” or refraining from doing so. The Code of Canon Law addresses this issue clearly, but the everyday situation in the United States is nevertheless somewhat complicated.

Canon 216, which is included in the section of the code pertaining to the rights and obligations of all the Christian faithful, leaves little room for uncertainty: it states that no initiative can lay claim to the title “Catholic” without the consent of competent ecclesiastical authority. This means, therefore, that even if a group of practicing Catholics wishes to evangelize or promote apostolic action in some way that is totally in keeping with Catholic teaching, they nevertheless cannot start an organization on their own that includes the term “Catholic” in its name. If, say, some Catholic lay people wanted to start a soup-kitchen called “Catholics Against Hunger in the City of X,” and publicly announce that they intended to use every possible means to stamp out hunger in their city completely, they would first need to obtain permission from the competent authority — in this case, the diocesan bishop — to use this name.

There are practical reasons for this. As we have seen before in the July 10, 2008 column, the diocesan bishop is ultimately responsible for the spiritual wellbeing of the Catholics living in his territory. He is therefore obliged to ensure that the Church’s official teaching is not publicly misrepresented, which naturally could confuse not only the faithful, but non-Catholics as well.

At the same time, there are many sincere, well-meaning Catholic lay persons who may honestly wish to support the interests of the Catholic Church, or promote social justice in the secular arena in the name of Catholicism. While their good intentions may be laudable in themselves and are certainly not prohibited, such people do not have authority to speak for the Church. If an organization indicates that it is “Catholic,” persons who hear about it naturally will assume that it represents the Church’s interests-but if it is run by a group of lay people acting entirely on their own, this is not necessarily so. Such groups can potentially do a lot of harm, by “spinning” the Church’s general teachings about human rights and dignity to support a specific social or political position, which the Church may be neutral about, or which may actually be at odds with Catholicism.

What if, for example, the imaginary “Catholics Against Hunger” group mentioned above were to declare that all local supermarkets have the moral obligation to donate food to the needy? While the Church is hardly opposed to the idea of feeding the poor, there certainly is no theological maxim that requires businesses to give their merchandise away! Yet if people were to hear that this organization was making such pronouncements, they could reasonably conclude, based on its name, that this was the position of the Catholic Church — and of course it is not.

Unfortunately, such groups and the confusion they create do not exist solely in the realm of imagination. In the past couple of years, an organization called “Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good” has been promoting health-care reform of the sort currently being debated in Congress. Some Catholics may feel that health care is a human right, but the fact remains that the Catholic Church has never officially declared this to be a part of Catholic teaching. The fact that the US Catholic Bishops have publicly been diametrically opposed to some of the very legislation promoted by this organization should be a tipoff that something is wrong here. Yet the news media have, whether through ignorance or malice, directly or indirectly, spread the notion that this group somehow officially represents the Catholic Church, which is completely incorrect.

Other organizations take positions which can never in any way be seen as consistent with Catholic teaching. An obvious example is the organization that Dale mentions. It was originally founded by a former Catholic cleric, who was expelled from both the Jesuit order and the priesthood. His goal was to lobby Washington in support of abortion “rights,” in the name of American Catholics. It goes without saying that while this group publicly calls itself “Catholics for Choice,” it definitely did not obtain permission from church authorities to use the term “Catholic” in its name. To this day, this group claims — falsely, of course — to legitimately represent those Catholics who support abortion, as if the pro-abortion position can ever be a justifiable option for any Catholic! One might argue that since everyone knows the Catholic Church is vehemently pro-life, nobody can possibly think that this group is an officially recognized Catholic organization anyway. But the unfortunate fact is that this group continues to create a good deal of confusion in political circles and in the mass media-because its use of the term “Catholic” wrongly suggests that it represents in some way the Catholic Church.

What can the Church do to correct this sort of abuse? Naturally, bishops can request, and (if this fails) publicly demand that such groups change their names, to avoid confusing and scandalizing the faithful; but since in many cases the beliefs of the founders of these organizations are not in tune with authentic Catholic teaching, it should surprise no one when they fail to comply. After all, the founder of “Catholics for Choice” was expelled from both his religious order and the priesthood, yet the group continued with its name unchanged. If such extreme punishments don’t work, what will? People who are determined to promote an agenda contrary to Catholic teaching are usually not daunted by the knowledge that they are violating canon law and disobeying an injunction from the Catholic hierarchy!

One who might logically think of filing suit in the civil courts for misuse of the name “Catholic” will be disappointed. If “Catholic” were a registered trademark, like “NutraSweet” or “Band-aid,” the Church would be able under US civil law to stop these organizations from using it as part of their title-but this is not the case.

In fact, this is why one sometimes runs across a parish church, school, or other institution calling itself “Catholic” when in fact it is operated by a traditionalist, possibly schismatic group that is not in full communion with the Catholic hierarchy. Such people often claim to be the “true” Catholics, while asserting that the visible Catholic Church under papal authority has fallen into error. We saw in the October 18, 2007 column that ordinarily people can easily err sometimes in thinking that they are attending a legitimate Catholic parish-because the misleading sign out front indicates that it is a “Catholic” church.

Speaking of which, let’s turn now to Theresa’s question. Just as no apostolate can call itself Catholic without permission of competent authority, canon 803.3 states that no school can do so either. Once again, the diocesan bishop is ultimately responsible for the education of the people of his diocese in the faith. If a school within his territory purports to be imparting a Catholic education to its students, it is the responsibility and obligation of the bishop to be sure that it is really doing what it says.

In practical terms, this does not mean that the bishop should micromanage every aspect of every school in his diocese. It does mean, however, that he has the right to object to particular religious textbooks and teaching methods if he feels that they poorly or inaccurately convey Catholic teaching. If he wishes, the bishop can also mandate that certain books always be used, so that he knows all schools in his territory are teaching the same material.

In many parts of the US, groups of Catholic parents have started their own schools, for various reasons. Sometimes the diocesan schools are simply too expensive or too far away; sometimes these parents believe that the catechism being taught in the Catholic schools is inferior to what they could teach themselves. Such people are not automatically “schismatic fringe groups”; rather, they are simply operating schools that are not under the direct control of their bishops-and there is nothing inherently illegal about this.

But since the bishop has not formally approved these schools, and does not have direct involvement with or influence on their religious instruction programs, they cannot, under canon 803, call themselves “Catholic” schools. The school that Theresa describes appears to meet this description. Ironically, the very fact that the school she mentions does not call itself “Catholic” in its title is an indication that it is probably run by entirely legitimate Catholics! If it really were being operated by some breakaway group not in communion with the local bishop, its board probably wouldn’t hesitate to use the term “Catholic” in its name.

In this case, the failure of the school Theresa describes to use the term “Catholic” in its name is most likely an indication that it is obedient to church authority. Naturally, any parent considering a new school for his children will investigate further, and it should be relatively simple to get some clarification directly from the school’s principal, and/or indirectly from the diocesan chancery (which certainly should at least be aware of the school’s existence).

We’ve seen, therefore, that there are groups out there calling themselves “Catholic” which really aren’t, while there are others which refrain from using the term “Catholic” as part of their name, but which are operating in complete accord with Catholic teachings. In general, a safe bet for every Catholic who may be confused about a particular organization would be to inquire as to whether it is operating with the approval of church authorities, and if not, to find out why not. As we’ve seen here, there is more to an institution than just the presence or absence of the word “Catholic” in its name.

Q: What’s the difference between a bishop and an archbishop? And why are some archbishops addressed as “Cardinal” but others aren’t? -Jackie

A: On the surface, it certainly can seem that members of the Catholic hierarchy fill identical roles but don’t always have identical titles. The system is actually consistent and reasonable, once one understands how it works!  Jackie’s question actually contains two separate parts, the first pertaining to the Church’s organized system of dioceses, and the second to its system of hierarchical ranking. We’ll take a look at each one separately.

Every inch of this earth, if it has been evangelized and now has a permanently established Catholic presence on it, has been organized into dioceses, also referred to in legal parlance as “particular churches” (defined in canon 369). Rome alone has the authority to create and determine the boundaries of a diocese (c. 373). The head of a diocese is called a bishop (c. 376).

The average Catholic is no doubt familiar with these concepts thus far. But few are aware that dioceses are then grouped into ecclesiastical provinces. Canon 431.1 explains that the reason for this arrangement is to promote common pastoral action among neighboring dioceses, and to foster close relations between diocesan bishops in the same region of the world. In other words, a diocese is not supposed to be an island unto itself, in communication only with Rome. While of course Rome is the supreme authority, to which every diocesan bishop is answerable, there are also relations between dioceses themselves that officially must be maintained.

As a rule, several dioceses are grouped together into an ecclesiastical province under the leadership of the bishop of one particular diocese, determined by the Pope (c. 435). That bishop is technically the metropolitan of the ecclesiastical province. In his own diocese, the metropolitan is referred to as an archbishop, and the diocese which he heads is an archdiocese. In other words, an archbishop is the bishop of an archdiocese, which is the diocese which heads up an ecclesiastical province.

It’s actually not as confusing as it sounds!  The diocese of Camden, New Jersey, for example, is in the ecclesiastical province of Newark; we say therefore that Camden is a suffragan of the Archdiocese of Newark.  To cite another example, the diocese of Orange, California, is in the ecclesiastical province of Los Angeles.  The Archbishop of Los Angeles, therefore, is its Metropolitan.

This organizational system is the reason why we speak of the Archbishop of Boston, but of the Bishop of Austin, Texas. The first is a metropolitan and the head of an archdiocese; the second is not.

Why does the Church need this arrangement?  We saw one practical instance of this system at work in the February 6, 2009 column, describing basic marriage-annulment procedure. When a marriage is judged by a diocesan tribunal to be null, the case is automatically appealed and re-heard by another tribunal. The second, appellate tribunal is ordinarily located in the archdiocese of the province to which that diocese belongs (c. 1438 n. 1). Since the nullity declarations of marriage cases originally heard by the tribunal of the archdiocese itself also are appealed automatically, an arrangement is always made for those cases to be heard on appeal elsewhere too, perhaps in a different archdiocese (c. 1438 n. 2).

The fact that some bishops and archbishops are called cardinals is an entirely separate matter. There is nothing contradictory about a cleric being a bishop and a cardinal at the same time, because the two concepts are theologically different.

When the Pope decides that a certain priest is to become a bishop, this means that the priest is being chosen to be one of the successors of the Apostles (c. 375.1). Since the priest has received the sacrament of holy orders, he is already a member of the clergy; but becoming a bishop now requires episcopal consecration, which raises him to what Vatican II termed “the fullness of holy orders” (LG 21). The mere announcement of his choice by the Pope does not make the priest a bishop; he must also receive the episcopal consecration in order to become a member of the episcopacy. Once he has been consecrated, a bishop has additional sacramental powers that an ordinary priest does not have: bishops may ordain men to the diaconate and the priesthood (c. 1012), and confer the sacrament of confirmation on the faithful (c. 882). A bishop can also consecrate other bishops (see cc. 1012-1014).

We can see here that there is a sacramental change when a priest becomes a bishop. But when the Pope announces that a certain bishop is to become a cardinal, there is no such change. There is an official announcement, and a ceremony at the Vatican (where the new cardinal receives his “red hat”), but there is nothing specifically “sacramental” about it. So since a bishop already possesses the fullness of holy orders, what’s the point of his being named a cardinal anyway?

The existence of cardinals in the Church’s hierarchy can be traced back historically to the very early days of the Church. The Pope had certain clerics around him who acted in an advisory role. The term “cardinal” comes from the Latin word cardo, or hinge; these men were key figures in the functioning of the Church on earth.  The College of Cardinals which exists in the Church today continues to serve this fundamental purpose (c. 353). The most well known responsibility of the College today is of course the election of a new Pope after the reigning Pope has died, but the Pope also can and does call Consisteries, or official meetings of the College of Cardinals, when he wishes to discuss and get their opinions on various important issues in the Church.

While having an administrative role in the practical operations of the Catholic Church is unquestionably important, the job does not itself require any sort of consecration. A bishop, therefore, who has been named a cardinal remains a bishop.

This is why a diocesan bishop or archbishop can also be a cardinal. Historically, the bishops of particularly important dioceses throughout the world are normally named cardinals, as a sort of additional honor. While the Pope certainly tries to find the best possible cleric to head every diocese, it is particularly important to have key men in the largest and most influential dioceses of every country.  Naming these men to be cardinals is an additional sign of the significant role they play, not only in governing their own dioceses, but also in advising the Pope. Here in the US, traditionally the bishops heading the larger archdioceses like New York, Chicago, and Washington, DC are usually named cardinals as well. This is why it is completely correct to speak, for example, of Cardinal George as the Archbishop of Chicago-because he has both roles and both titles. The relatively new Archbishop of New York, Timothy Dolan, has not (yet) been named a cardinal, so at least for now he is referred to simply as Archbishop Dolan.

In order to become a cardinal, it technically is not even necessary to be a bishop. Over the centuries there have traditionally been cardinals who were deacons or priests. Nowadays, as a rule, any non-bishop who is named a cardinal must be consecrated a bishop (c. 351.1). However, it is possible for the Pope to dispense from this law, and Pope John Paul II did exactly that when he named the late American theologian Avery Dulles a cardinal back in 2001. Father Dulles was not required to be consecrated a bishop, so he was created a cardinal while remaining a priest.

How does the Pope himself fit into this scenario? His situation is unique. By definition, the man elected in a papal conclave is the Bishop of Rome, so he must be a consecrated bishop. When he is elected as Pope and he accepts the election, he at that very moment becomes Pope (c. 332.1). In other words, there is no such thing as “papal consecration.” There is also no particular reason why he would even have to be a cardinal. While Popes ordinarily are selected from among the members of the College of Cardinals, this technically is not a requirement. It is possible for the cardinals who are voting in a papal conclave to elect someone who is not even present and eligible to vote! But since the voters normally are looking for someone who is already experienced and well known in the Church, it is highly unlikely that they will elect someone who is not among them.

We have seen, therefore, that bishops who head archdioceses are called archbishops, that some, but not all, bishops are cardinals, and that cardinals are ordinarily bishops. The system may seem confusing, but it is a consistent system nonetheless. Its origins can be found in both the modern administrative structure and the centuries-old history of the Church.

A: It may be surprising to many Catholics, but no, it is not appropriate to administer the sacrament of Anointing of the Sick-also known as Last Rites, or Extreme Unction-to every baptized Catholic, even when he is dying. (See the November 17, 2007 column for a different example of this.)  The rules regarding who should and should not be anointed, and when an anointing should be requested, are unclear to many average Catholics today.  This is partly because after Vatican II, some of the rules regarding this sacrament received an overhaul — and while this was intended to clarify its application, the changes actually sparked some confusion. Let’s take a look first at the general purpose of this sacrament, and then at the answer to Melanie’s specific question.

The Catechism sums up beautifully the theological rationale behind the Anointing of the Sick:

A particular gift of the Holy Spirit, the first grace of this sacrament is one of strengthening, peace and courage to overcome the difficulties that go with the condition of serious illness or the frailty of old age. This grace is a gift of the Holy Spirit, who renews trust and faith in God and strengthens against the temptations of the evil one, the temptation to discouragement and anguish in the face of death. This assistance from the Lord by the power of his Spirit is meant to lead the sick person to healing of the soul, but also of the body if such is God’s will. Furthermore, “if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven” (CCC 1520).

Most Catholics traditionally have viewed this sacrament as providing aid to the dying so that they die a good Christian death, and that’s not incorrect. But there is more to the anointing of the sick than simply giving dying Catholics a good spiritual “push” in the right direction as they depart from this life. There is an underlying link between this sacrament and the sacrament of Penance. Both are directed, each in its own way, toward spiritual healing. The Catechism notes further that “Penance, the Anointing of the Sick and the Eucharist as viaticum constitute at the end of Christian life ‘the sacraments that prepare for our heavenly homeland’ or the sacraments that complete the earthly pilgrimage” (CCC 1525).

In other words, it is because we are sinners that we may, as the Catechism puts it, be tempted to discouragement and anguish in the face of death. For centuries, moral theologians have routinely noted that after the devil successfully tempts us to sin, he next tempts us to despair of God’s forgiveness. This anguish can be hard enough to battle when we are in the best of health and thinking lucidly. But when a person realizes that he is dying, such doubts about his salvation and the fear of punishment are heaped on top of the physical illness and weakness that accompany the natural dying process. Needless to say, this can be a tremendously difficult combination — and thus the real need for this sacrament.

What exactly was the post-Vatican II “overhaul” mentioned above? Basically, the Church’s emphasis on the fact that anointing is for the dying sometimes used to lead people to defer reception of the sacrament until it was too late. Catholics were hesitant to request anointing if it wasn’t completely obvious that the sick person was actually dying right now. Unfortunately, this meant that sick Catholics and their family members often waited too long to contact a priest, and the person died without this valuable spiritual benefit. And since it makes no theological sense to anoint the body of a person whose soul has already left it, the sacrament cannot be administered once it is clear that a person has died (cf. c. 1005).

To counter this problem, the Church began officially to stress that anointing of the sick is not to be postponed until the very last minute. This is why the law on this subject in the current Code of Canon Law is worded more broadly than was the previous law. Canon 1004.1 notes that any Catholic who has reached the use of reason may be anointed once he begins to be in danger by reason of illness or old age. The phrase, “begins to be in danger” is key. If someone might reasonably conclude that a serious illness, a grave accident, or significant health complications arising from old age may cause him or a loved one to die soon, it is time to request the sacrament of anointing of the sick.

Obviously, discerning whether or not the time is right is a judgment call. One might very well receive the sacrament and then recover his health completely! In fact, there are countless Catholics alive today who will tell you that after receiving this sacrament on their hospital beds, they felt renewed physical as well as spiritual strength. Many are personally convinced that their recovery was connected to their anointing, and this is totally in keeping with the healing of the body mentioned in the Catechism paragraph cited above. Their subsequent survival does not mean that they were wrong to receive the sacrament, which can be received multiple times as circumstances warrant (c. 1004.2).

At the same time, however, care should be taken not to err in the opposite direction, by requesting the sacrament the instant that one feels unwell. After the phraseology of the law was changed, there was much misunderstanding as to the nature of this sacrament, which sometimes was misleadingly described as being “not only for the dying any more.” Parishes occasionally would organize “healing services,” at which the anointing of the sick was administered to anyone with any health problem. I myself remember well a pastor who, after the promulgation of the new Code of Canon Law in 1983, encouraged parishioners with hayfever and other non-life-threatening medical conditions to be anointed! It should be clear from the wording of the code that this is an abuse of the sacrament, which is still intended for the dying. Fortunately, such blatant abuses appear to be disappearing.

But what about anointing dying two-year-old children? The answer to Melanie’s question lies in a single phrase of canon 1004.1, already quoted above: the sacrament is to be administered to the faithful who have reached the age of reason. We all know that infants and very young children are mentally incapable of understanding right and wrong; only when they are old enough can they comprehend the significance of their actions and be held accountable for them. Thus a child who has not yet reached the age of reason cannot sin, because he cannot choose between good and evil. He is intellectually unable to make such a conscious moral decision.

The actual age at which a child attains the use of reason naturally varies. But both moral theologians and canonists traditionally have held it to be roughly the age of seven. This is why canon 97.2 notes that a child is not legally presumed to have reached the age of reason until his seventh birthday.

If a child has never sinned, and is too young to even understand what sin is all about, it follows that “the temptation to discouragement and anguish in the face of death” which the Catechism describes as a consequence of sin will be absent. Thus the intended purpose of the anointing of the sick is not served by administering it to a child under the age of reason.

Interestingly, while already we’ve seen that the current canons on this sacrament reflect some different, post-Vatican II wording, the fact that very young children should not be anointed has not changed. A document from the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship back in 1972 noted that “sick children may be anointed if they have sufficient use of reason to be strengthened by this sacrament.” That was nearly 40 years ago, but no subsequent directives have ever been issued by the Vatican to change it.

The fact that some children attain reason at a younger-than-average age is addressed in canon 1005, which states that if there is a doubt as to whether the person to be anointed has reached the age of reason, the priest is to administer the sacrament. Again, this is a judgment call. If (say) a precocious five-year-old has previously demonstrated that he appreciates the implications of choosing between good and bad, it is entirely possible that even at such a young age he has already committed sin. Anointing a child in such a case may therefore be appropriate.

But in the case Melanie describes, the priest who would not anoint a two-year-old girl because she was “innocent” was correct. While some children attain reason at a younger-than-average age, it is difficult to find cause to assume this of someone so young as two! Assuming that this child had already been baptized, she was spiritually prepared to enter Heaven at her death. (We see here incidentally a good example of why children should be baptized as early as possible, an issue addressed in the October 1, 2009 column.)

There’s no question that family members and friends should naturally mourn the death of a loved one, particularly of such a tiny child. It was entirely fitting that the parish priest should visit the family in the hospital, to console and strengthen them all spiritually as best he could. He probably blessed the dying little girl, but he rightly understood that there was no need to anoint her. As one who was surely sinless, her soul flew right to Heaven without it.

A: This is certainly an excellent question, because it is true that the Church teaches that “you are a priest forever” (Ps. 110.4). The fact that one nevertheless occasionally encounters an “ex-priest” would therefore appear to be a contradiction.

There is a delicate distinction that must be made between the metaphysical fact that a man is always a priest once he has been ordained, and the canonical status of a laicized priest. And as we have seen so many times before, canon law is in complete accord with theology on this subject. Let’s take a look at what both of them have to say.

The Catechism states that the sacrament of Holy Orders confers an “indelible spiritual character” on the man who receives it (CCC 1582). Like the sacrament of Baptism, it can never be erased—a baptized Christian can cease to practice his faith, and even publicly deny Christ, but he can never undo his baptism. Priestly ordination works in exactly the same way.

Similarly, canon 290 of the Code of Canon Law states bluntly that once a man validly receives sacred ordination, the sacrament never becomes invalid. As David says in his question, once a priest, always a priest. A cleric can never become a layman again.

At the same time, however, it is possible for a priest to be released from the duties and responsibilities that are connected to the clerical state (CCC 1583). Practically speaking, this would mean that a priest no longer functioned outwardly as a priest. He would no longer engage in ministry within his diocese or religious institute; no longer celebrate Mass or confer the sacraments; no longer be called “Father” or wear clerical clothing; and no longer be supported financially by the Church. To the world he would appear to be a layman, working at an ordinary job and living the normal life of the laity. Canon law refers to this change as the “loss of the clerical state” (cf. cc. 290-293). Common parlance calls it laicization.

Why would a priest lose the clerical state? It can be imposed upon him, as the most serious penalty for a priest who has committed an ecclesiastical crime, but that does not take place very often—nor should it. Ordinarily, it happens because a priest voluntarily requests it. For any number of reasons, he may conclude that he cannot continue living the life of a priest. Ideally, of course, the realization that it will be impossible to live and work as a priest for the rest of one’s life should be reached when a man is still a seminarian, during the years of theological study and spiritual formation leading up to his ordination. But sometimes life simply doesn’t work that way. Various combinations of emotional and health issues, deaths and other events within the priest’s family, and of course the immense stress of being constantly overworked while feeling unappreciated may lead a priest to reach this decision after he is already ordained and engaged in priestly ministry.

When this occurs, and a priest is released from the clerical state, he is still technically a priest, but as canon 292 notes, he may no longer exercise the power of orders. Since this is what the priest is requesting anyway, there is usually little fear that he will violate this restriction. But in theory, if a laicized priest were to say Mass, it would be a valid Mass, since he never loses the ability to celebrate the Eucharist. It would, however, be illicit. (The difference between an invalid act, and an act that is valid but illicit, was discussed in greater detail back in the October 18, 2007 column.)

Theoretically, if at some point in the future the laicized priest changed his mind, and wanted to live as a priest again, this would be canonically possible—but he would have to receive permission to be once more “re-instated” directly from Rome (c. 293). For obvious reasons, the Church does not want undecided men easily moving back and forth, in and out of the priestly state! But in any case, a previously-laicized priest returning to ministry would not be ordained again, as he would still be an ordained priest already.

The fact that it is impossible to “un-ordain” a priest explains the otherwise curious wording of canon 976. This canon states that any priest, even one who lacks the faculty to hear confessions, can validly and licitly hear the confession of anyone who is in danger of death. Thus even a laicized priest, who certainly has lost his confessional faculties, can hear the confession of someone who is dying. In fact, canon 986.2 goes even farther: in an urgent situation, every priest is obliged to hear the confession of a Catholic in danger of death. If, for example, a priest who had lost the clerical state were driving home and encountered a car accident, and found there a Catholic victim who at least appeared to be near death, that laicized priest would actually be required under canon law to hear his confession and grant him absolution. This is, of course, totally in keeping with the theological concept that an ordained priest always remains a priest.

To return to the particulars of David’s question, can a laicized priest get married? We all know that as a rule, Catholic clergy are required to be celibate (c. 277.1). (An exception would be found in some countries among the clergy of many of the Catholic Churches that are not of the Latin rite, such as were discussed in the September 20, 2007 column.) One might presume that once a priest has been reduced to the lay state, his obligation to remain celibate ceases.

But not so fast. Canon 291 addresses this issue specifically, and notes that the loss of the clerical state does not carry with it an automatic dispensation from the requirement to stay celibate. In fact, such a dispensation would have to be requested separately, and can only be granted by the Pope himself.

While the law clearly does provide for this possibility, it is well known in canonical circles that Pope John Paul II, who promulgated the current code that includes this canon, for many years routinely denied all requests for this dispensation. While Benedict XVI has only been Pope for a comparatively short time, it is difficult to imagine that he will in the future take a radically different stance on this issue. This means that practically speaking, while a priest can receive permission to leave the active priesthood, he ordinarily will not receive permission to marry.

So if David has in fact met one or more married men who have said that they were former priests, what conclusions can be drawn from this? It is entirely possible that such a laicized priest received permission to marry before John Paul II had established his practice of refusing such requests; or perhaps the priest constituted an extremely rare exception to this unofficial rule.

But unfortunately there is another possibility. Some priests have simply walked away from the Catholic Church entirely, and have married outside the Church without obtaining (or often without even seeking) permission from their superiors. While individual circumstances can vary, their status is often akin to that of a soldier who has “gone AWOL.” These priests fall under the provisions of canon 1394.1, which notes that a cleric who attempts marriage incurs suspension; and canon 194.1 n. 3, which states that a cleric who attempts marriage ipso facto loses any ecclesiastical office he may have.

Note that both of these canons speak of “attempting marriage.” There are two reasons for this phraseology. Firstly, canon 1087 asserts unequivocally that a man who has been ordained cannot validly marry in the Church—any such marriage will automatically be invalid. Secondly, if a priest (or any other Catholic, for that matter!) marries in a non-Catholic ceremony without receiving any permission from proper church authorities, the marriage will not be recognized by the Catholic Church as a valid marriage anyway (see the August 23, 2007 column for further discussion about the canonical form of marriage).Thus this terminology is very exact.

To sum up, we can see that both Catholic theology and canon law acknowledge that sacred ordination is forever, but there are real-life situations where it is possible for an ordained priest to live as a layman and still be a Catholic in good standing. There are nevertheless some other priests who have turned their backs entirely on the Church, and while they too remain Catholic priests in actual fact, their status within the Church has yet to be straightened out. In this the Year of the Priest, let’s pray for these priests to return and take steps to regularize their canonical situation. And let’s also pray that all Catholic priests be given the graces and strength they need to persevere in their often difficult ministry, which is so critical to the continued life of the Church.

Q2: Does canon law say anything about face-to-face confessionals? Our new pastor had the grills inside the confessionals removed, because he says he doesn’t like “anonymity” and thinks people should be adult enough to confess face-to-face. But now lots of people, including me, don’t want to go to confession! Is there something wrong with us not wanting to be seen in there? –Neal

It is particularly apt to discuss the sacrament of penance in this the Year of the Priest, for Pope Benedict XVI placed this year under the patronage of Saint John Vianney, the great saint of the confessional and the patron of all priests.  It would be difficult to exaggerate the importance of this sacrament, which the Catechism rightly describes as reconciling a sinner with both God Himself and His Church (CCC 1462). A repentant Catholic, who wishes to confess his sins and be restored to life in Christ, cannot do this without a priest; the code states what most Catholics already know, that only a priest is the minister of the sacrament of penance (c. 965).

One needn’t have an advanced degree in pastoral ministry to know that a person who realizes he has committed some grave sin generally feels ashamed of his action(s). While he may very well want to unburden his conscience and be reconciled with God, this does not necessarily imply that he is willing to advertise that fact to the general public. God, Who created our human nature, knows this perfectly well, and consequently guided the Church which He founded in the establishment of private, individual confession. Even if we have sinned in public, God is willing to forgive us in the privacy of a one-on-one encounter with a priest. And as we saw in the December 4, 2008 column, no matter how heinous his sins may be, a penitent should always be 100% certain that the priest hearing his confession will never, ever repeat it to anyone else.

Yet even under such generous conditions, the Church knows that many Catholics who have sinned may still be hesitant to approach the confessional. Thus it has always been the Church’s goal, for pastoral reasons, that receiving the sacrament of penance be as painless as possible. Anything that might discourage a sincere penitent from confessing his sins would be contrary to the nature of this sacrament.

Thus canon law is simply articulating sound pastoral ministry when it dictates the physical requirements of a confessional box or room. For starters, canon 964.3 states that confessions are not to be heard elsewhere than in a confessional, except for a just reason. If a bed-ridden hospital patient, or an elderly, home-bound parishioner wishes to go to confession, such circumstances would of course constitute the “just reason” envisioned by the code as an exception.

Canon 964.2 is even more specific: confessionals are to be fitted with a fixed screen between the penitent and the confessor, and be available in an open place so that the faithful can freely use them. Clearly this canon goes to the heart of Neal’s question. Regardless of his pastor’s personal preferences, removing the grills from the church’s confessionals is a direct violation of the law—and when we consider the natural reaction of Neal and others in his parish to their removal, we can see why the canon exists in the first place! While confessionals may be designed so that a penitent has a choice of confessing face-to-face or through a screen, and many people undoubtedly prefer to confess face-to-face, the fact remains that the confessor has no authority to decide that a penitent may not confess his sins from behind a confessional screen if that is what the penitent wishes.

Ironically, the reverse scenario has officially been determined to be correct. In 1998, 15 years after the promulgation of the current Code of Canon Law, a different sort of question arose about confessionals and personal preference. It was submitted to the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legal Texts, which, as we’ve seen before in the October 5, 2007 column and many others, is the sole Vatican body to which the Pope has given power to determine the official way the code is to be interpreted.

The question submitted was this: If a confessor wishes to hear a penitent’s confession from behind the confessional grill, can he insist on this means, even if a penitent prefers to confess face-to-face? The Council replied (In a statement that has been published only in Latin) in the affirmative. Thus, once might say that the desire of either party to celebrate the sacrament of penance through a confessional screen trumps the wishes of the other. A priest may, if he prefers, insist that everyone confesses his sins through a confessional grill; a penitent may likewise insist that he receive the sacrament in this way. Thus the law illustrates that, far from there being “something wrong” with Neal and his fellow parishioners who wish to confess in this way, it is an entirely normal preference on both sides, and one which the Church takes very seriously indeed!

So what does the code say with regard to Chuck’s question, about whether confession-by-appointment is a sufficient means for a parish to enable its parishioners to receive the sacrament? Chuck and his wife are correct in regarding this issue as a question of whether or not the faithful are being denied the right to go to confession. As we saw in the May 24, 2007 column, the Catholic faithful have the right to receive the sacraments when they ask for them at an opportune time, are properly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them (c. 843.1). The question is, should the faithful have to phone and make an appointment in order to receive the sacrament of penance?

A direct, clear-cut answer is not found in the code, presumably because the issue had not arisen in any significant, public way prior to its promulgation in 1983. But one can easily argue that, while the code may not provide sufficient specifics, sacramental theology does. Since private confession constitutes the sole means, under normal circumstances, by which a Catholic who has committed grave sin can be reconciled with God and the Church (c. 960), it’s only logical that the Church should make this sacrament as readily available as humanly possible. And when you couple that with the shame and fear which (as discussed above) naturally fills a penitent who realizes and regrets his sins, the need to make the sacrament easy to obtain is even more obvious.

But since some clerics entrusted with the welfare of souls might not share this view, Pope John Paul II weighed in on this point himself. In 2002 he issued the Apostolic Letter Misericordia Dei, On Certain Aspects of the Celebration of Penance, to clarify a number of popular misconceptions regarding this sacrament. While this Apostolic Letter is not technically law, it does provide an authoritative interpretation of this pastoral issue from the Vicar of Christ himself. Among other things he noted,

“Local Ordinaries, and parish priests and rectors of churches and shrines, should periodically verify that the greatest possible provision is in fact being made for the faithful to confess their sins. It is particularly recommended that in places of worship confessors be visibly present at the advertized times, that these times be adapted to the real circumstances of penitents, and that confessions be especially available before Masses, and even during Mass if there are other priests available, in order to meet the needs of the faithful” (MD 2).

What the Pope describes here is a situation in which the sacrament of penance is available at one’s parish on multiple occasions, when it is normally convenient for parishioners to come to church to receive it. It does not exclude the possibility of a parishioner also making an appointment to go to confession at yet another time; but it is nevertheless a far cry from the “appointment-only” scenario which Chuck describes!

For the record, in rural areas where a single pastor may be assigned to multiple parishes, or where there is otherwise a dire shortage of clergy, making confession available at so many different times during the average week may be physically impossible for one tremendously overworked priest. Nevertheless, the point is that the sacrament of penance should be as readily accessible as possible, so that a guilt-ridden, repentant Catholic need not be required to call particular attention to himself by phoning a rectory in order to get it! Anyone who has ever had to unburden himself of some hefty sins in the confessional could tell us that doing so can be difficult enough as it is, without adding appointment-making to the agenda.  And as we’ve just seen, this is not merely Chuck’s personal opinion, for the same was essentially affirmed by the Pope himself.

By now it should be clear that both the parishes described by our questioners fall short in the matter of hearing confessions. If respectfully pointing this out to the pastor is unsuccessful, they might wish to find a parish where they can receive the sacrament of penance without hindrance. A respectful, constructive notification of the bishop might perhaps be in order as well, as he may very well be entirely unaware of the situation. And where ensuring that wandering sheep may be enabled to return to the fold of the Church is concerned, we Catholics ought all to be in fundamental agreement.

At the same time, however, the difficulties described in these two questions should not be considered “legitimate” excuses to avoid going to confession. Although the circumstances described are less than ideal, they certainly do not justify failing to receive the sacrament altogether. It may not be pleasant to have to phone the parish to make an appointment, or speak to the priest face-to-face in the confessional.  But surely the graces we receive through this sacrament are worth any amount of emotional discomfort.