In the Light of the Law

Canon Law Blog is migrating to WordPress

2011-12-26T23:04:00.003-05:00

My blog, "In the Light of the Law", is migrating to WordPress at the end of 2011. Things like Twitter and Feedburner can be handled more efficiently from there, and I expect the technical maintenance that I will have to perform on the blog will be considerably reduced.

Many blessings in the New Year! Dr. Edward Peters

The reconciliation of Sr. Margaret McBride

2011-12-12T13:18:00.005-05:00

Despite the great attention that excommunication generates in the secular media, actual instances of excommunication are rare. Rarer still are remissions of excommunications for, as we all know, some offenders never repent. Most Church or Church-related officials have little experience in dealing with excommunication matters, and most reporters have zero experience reporting on them. Thus, when what looks like an excommunication (rare) remission (rarer still) makes the news, one should treat such news, welcome in itself of course, with some caution.

ILOTL readers will recall (see e.g. my posts of 21 May 2010, 1 Jun 2010, 19 Jun 2010, 21 Dec 2010, and 23 Dec 2010) the case of Sr. Margaret McBride, rsm, the religious whose consent, as administrator of St. Joseph’s Hospital in Phoenix, was apparently necessary for the commission of an abortion in that hospital back in 2009. Against many who argued that Sr. Margaret’s actions could not, as matter of law, result in her excommunication under Canon 1398, I argued that her reported actions could result in her excommunication at least as an accomplice to abortion per Canon 1329. Prescinding from my long-standing misgivings about the operation of automatic censures in canon law, I argued that nothing in the reports available to the public suggested that Sr. Margaret had not met the requirements for excommunication in her case. As to whether Bp. Olmsted’s early public statements about Sr. Margaret’s canonical status sufficed for a formal declaration or imposition of excommunication, my sense was that we had too little information to decide either way; in any event, the bishops later confirmed the status of Sr. Margaret as excommunicated, a development that raised canonical issues about Sr. Margaret's future in her religious community.

There the matter rested for a year or more.

Last week, however, per the Catholic News Service, St. Joseph’s Hospital stated that Sr. Margaret has “met the requirements for reinstatement with the church and she is no longer excommunicated. She continues to be a member in good standing with the Sisters of Mercy and is a valued member of the St. Joseph's executive team.” This seems like good news, of course. The whole point of excommunication is to bring offenders to repent of their action. But the generation of the announcement itself seems odd to me.

The announcement comes from neither the Diocese of Phoenix (pace 1983 CIC 1355-1357) nor from Sr. Margaret’s religious superiors (pace 1983 CIC 573, 654, 696), but rather from St. Joseph’s Hospital, that is, it seems, from her employer. Now, whatever one makes of the process for remission of sanctions possibly automatically incurred and apparently later formally declared or imposed—and we do not have enough information to speculate on those permutations—the one group that is not empowered to bring about the reconciliation of anyone under an ecclesiastical sanction is that person’s employer. So, it seems, someone else must have acted here, and that someone else must have communicated their actions to Sr. Margaret and/or to St. Joseph’s Hospital.

Given the extraordinary publicity that was associated with this matter and the direct statements made on it by the competent ecclesiastical authorities, I think it would be good to know, officially and free of ambiguous phrases like "reinstatement with the church", that Sr. Margaret's status has been rectified. Considering that sanctions themselves operate in the external forum, appropriate news of the remission of a high-profile censure can, I think, be offered or confirmed without endangering the internal forum; doing so here would broadly contribute to the common good.

That said, I hope the report about Sr. Margaret's status is accurate, and that we can put this sad episode behind us.

PS: I've seen nothing in these recent reports suggesting that Bp. Olmsted's revocation of the Catholic identity of St. Joseph's Hospital would be impacted by changes in the canonical status of Sr. Margaret.

A canonical comment on Newt’s oddball remark

2011-12-04T16:58:00.007-05:00

I have family and friends who (Deo gratias) do the hard work of following closely the ebb and flow of political theories and the rise and fall of politicians who back them. Many abler than I have already weighed in against Newt Gingrich’s conversation-stopping comments to the effect the human life begins at implantation [of an embryonic human being in the mother’s uterine wall]. I simply offer a canonical reinforcement of their remarks.

In 1988, the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts authoritatively (authentice) answered the question about whether deliberate destruction of pre-natal human beings “by any method at any time after the moment of conception” (quocumque modo et quocumque tempore a momento conceptionis) was an excommunicable offense under Canon 1398. The Council’s answer, approved by Pope John Paul II on 23 May 1988, was Yes. See AAS 80 (1988) 1818-1819.

Since that ruling there has not been, of course, a rush to excommunicate women for, say, miscarriages, etc., etc., and not just because such things were never threatened in the first place, but for simple legal reasons that basically leave hard cases (and there are hard cases, although miscarriage is not one) in the confessional, where they belong, while preserving the principle that innocent human life, at any stage of dependency and irrespective of how it came to be, can never be intentionally targeted for death. CCC 2271, 2275.

Update, 5 December: Well, this is interesting.

Recommended: Fairbairn’s guide for beginning Greek and Latin students

2011-11-28T10:30:00.003-05:00

It’s nearly Christmas, and with it comes the challenge of shopping for that budding linguist or seasoned translator in the family. Search no more: Just get a copy of Donald Fairbairn, Understanding Language: a guide for beginning students of Greek & Latin (Catholic University of America, 2011) 190 pp. ISBN: 978-0-8132-1866-3.

Fairbairn, like me, is neither a classicist nor a linguist (in the strict sense); rather, as an historian and theologian, he uses Greek and Latin to get at the roots of deeper questions, just as I use (mostly) Latin to delve into canonical questions. Over the decades, both of us, it seems, developed similar approaches to learning these ancient languages that worked for us as students of Greek and Latin (and not as 'proto-teachers' of G&L, although we both have taken on such duties in our respective institutions). And precisely as once-beginners in ancient languages, with vivid memories of struggles we experienced, we want to encourage students to stick with it for reasons that, well, can hardly be explained.

Even a rank beginner in ancient language will profit by Part One of Fairbairn's text, but with even a semester, let alone two, of either Greek or Latin, his explanations of the concepts behind Greek and Latin will greatly assist the student in orienting the English speaker to their wonderful world.

On my list of books that I am really, really grateful someone else took the time to write, Fairbairn’s Understanding Language figures prominently. I wish I had read it 20 years ago, but I am glad I read it now.

My own Ecclesiastical Latin Page is here.

Sandro Magister on clerical celibacy and continence

2011-11-17T08:18:00.006-05:00

Sandro Magister’s recent column on the debate over clerical celibacy and continence is worth a careful read. While continence is distinguishable from celibacy, of course, it is closely related to it in terms of history, theology, and canon law. I and others argue that continence is the primary good protected by Canon 277 (and by the unbroken line of legal provisions leading up to it) and that celibacy, although truly “a special gift from God” in its own right, is ordered to continence. But all of this is discussed elsewhere.

Here I limit myself to three remarks on Magistro’s essay.

Magister rightly names the Jesuit priest Christian Cochini and Alfons Cdl. Stickler as among major scholars refuting the received history that clerical celibacy/continence was optional for many centuries in Church life, that the West only gradually imposed these weighty obligations on its clergy, and that the East maintained the original institution of married clerics exercising their conjugal rights. There are other scholars pursuing these lines, of course, including the priests Stefan Heid, Donald Keefe, and Thomas McGovern, and some recent doctoral students.

I thought it a bit odd that Magister cited Eastern canon law on married clerics, but not Roman canon law, despite the fact that Western law (c. 277) expressly preserves the value of clerical continence (although, of course, that value has not been inculcated in formation programs for married clergy).

As for whether there are quite as few scholars pursuing the continence issue as Magister suggests, I grant that relatively few scholars are weighing in either way on this matter (most preferring, perhaps, to let only the most serious researchers wade into such deep and turbulent waters), but would add that at least some of those trying to have their views in behalf of clerical continence aired have run into problems over the years getting their works into print. In any case, that is changing in recent times and awareness that these serious questions are afoot is widespread now.

Finally, a reminder that, while reform in the Church is constant, it happens slowly. +++

ps: Readers know of my appreciation for those doing translations, so, a special note of thanks to Matthew Sherry for his consistently fine work in bringing Magister into English!

If we have to say it, we will: No conjuring up the dead on campus property

2011-11-15T14:52:00.003-05:00

Granted, a lot of things get hosted in student unions that administration knows nothing about, and the same can be said of many postings on a college website, but by now the St. Bonaventure University higher-ups must know that their website was used to promote a “spiritualist” contacting the dead, on SBU property, on behalf of SBU students and staff. Seems to me it’s time for an addition to the SBU Policy Handbook, something along the lines of “No campus assets shall be used to promote divination or superstitious practices. Violations of this policy are grounds for disciplinary action.”

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2116 states “All forms of divination are to be rejected: recourse to Satan or demons, conjuring up the dead or other practices falsely supposed to ‘unveil’ the future. Consulting horoscopes, astrology, palm reading, interpretation of omens and lots, the phenomena of clairvoyance*, and recourse to mediums all conceal a desire for power over time, history, and, in the last analysis, other human beings, as well as a wish to conciliate hidden powers. They contradict the honor, respect, and loving fear that we owe to God alone." See also CCC 2117.

Back in the day, Canon 2325 of the Pio-Benedictine Code (1917) stated “Whoever excites superstition or perpetrates a sacrilege is to be punished by the Ordinary according to the gravity of the fault, with due regard for the penalties established by law against such superstitious or sacrilegious acts.” The great Swiss-American canonist, Charles Bachofen, commenting on this norm, recalled for readers that Decretal canonical commentary gave “a long list … [of such deeds, including] geomantia, aeromantia, hydromantia, pyromantia, haruspicium, auspicium, augurium, pedomantia, chiromantia, omina, onyrocritica, physiognomia, spatulamantia, metoposcopia, pythonia, necromantia, and astrologia” adding “we quote these names to show that the number of fools has not yet decreased.” Dom Augustine, Commentary VIII: 313 (1931).

By the early 1970s, when modern penal canon law was being drafted, the occult was not a serious problem among Catholics, and Canon 2325 did not seem to warrant inclusion in the revised law. But SBU’s experience, and similar instances elsewhere, suggest that the spiritual crisis gripping the West has left the door open for a resurgence in these stupid, and evil, stunts.

Maybe it’s time to dust off some old canons.

* I do wonder, though, whether “the phenomena of clairvoyance” should be listed here. If clairvoyance, whatever exactly that is, is a phenomenon (as opposed to a willed action like palm-reading or astrology or seances) then further study of it might be legitimate, no? + + +

Same Day Update: Sounds like SBU is taking the right steps to address the mess.

A canonical look at +Dolan's Decree

2011-11-08T18:40:00.005-05:00

I understand that other bishops have issued decrees similar to the one issued by New York Abp. Timothy Dolan a few days ago, but anything that New York does inevitably serves as a reference for other local Churches, and so “Dolan’s Decree”, as it has been dubbed, against formal ecclesiastical cooperation with so-called “same-sex weddings”, deserves a closer look. Catholics striving to think with the Church will, I think, like what they see.

Preambulatory matters

Most of the first paragraph of the decree is taken directly from Canon 1055 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law. The last sentence of the paragraph resonates strongly with Canon 747 § 2.

The second paragraph recites facts not in serious dispute.

The third paragraph begins with themes enunciated by Canon 386 § 1 and, drawing on episcopal authority recited in Canons 381 § 1 and 392, proceeds to enact particular legislation for the Church of New York. My lone quibble with the decree is here, with +Dolan’s use of the word “moral” to describe the authority he has over those subject to this decree. I would have suggested that he say "canonical" authority, as its meaning is clearer in this context, but "moral" works too.

Disciplinary matters

Norm 1. Catholic clergy belonging to or working within the AONY are expressly forbidden from taking any part, at any time, in “same-sex wedding” ceremonies. While ministry to homosexual persons, even those claiming to be married to a same-sex partner, is not prohibited, of course, I would take the decree to prohibit clergy’s mere attendance (as a type of ‘advantage’) at a “same-sex wedding”. Canon 209 § 1 is also relevant here, as is, of course, Canon 273.

Church lay and religious employees acting in the course of their duties are also prohibited as above, but it’s not easy to think of how they might actually be involved in such ceremonies, except as specified in norm 2, below.

The reference in the last sentence of norm 1 to canon law expressly prohibiting ecclesiastical solemnization or celebration of “same-sex marriages” comes about, I suggest, as follows:

Canon 1055 defines marriage as a consortium between a man and a woman, and Canon 1066 requires Catholic ministers to assure themselves, before any wedding is celebrated, that nothing stands in the way of its valid and licit celebration. Such could never be verified of a “same-sex wedding”, of course, so a Catholic minister could never lawfully participate in such a ceremony. Indeed, to attempt to do so under these circumstances would be to violate Canon 1389. Moreover, among Catholics (and for that matter, among baptized persons), marriage is a sacrament (c. 1055 § 2) and, where a wedding would be null on its face (as would the case of two persons of the same sex attempting marriage), to attempt that wedding would be to simulate a sacrament, an action forbidden by Canon 1379. For the ecclesiastical would-be officiant, such would again be a violation of Canon 1389.

Norm 2. Specification of directives contained in norm 1.

Norm 3. In part, a specification of directives contained in norm 1, but also an application of Canon 1376.

Norm 4. It is not necessary, for the enforcement of most canonical penalties, to recite this kind of warning, but it serves to underscore the gravity of formal cooperation with actions forbidden by divine and canon law.

Finally, the decree became effective as soon as it was issued (as opposed to after 30 days, per c. 8 § 2), another sign of the immediacy of the problem that the Church is confronting here. + + +

Gov. Pat Quinn and the Illinois Catholic bishops

2011-11-02T17:47:00.006-04:00

I think the statement issued today by the Illinois Catholic bishops in response to Gov. Patrick Quinn’s formal cooperation with an organization committed to advancing the death of pre-born babies is good. The bishops spoke correctly, concisely, and quickly in their statement about an important matter. Three for three, in my opinion.

Yes, there is some consternation in the blogosphere that the bishops did not declare Quinn ineligible for holy Communion. And yes, I share the impatience of many Catholics for more direct action in accord with Canon 915 against the reception of Communion by the publicly unworthy. But, no, I don’t see the Illinois bishops’ statement per se as a failure in that regard. Rather, the issue simply did not come up. Whether it should have come up in this document, I cannot say (but probably not, given the negligible authority that state Catholic conferences enjoy under canon law); whether it will come up now in light of this statement, I cannot predict (but I would encourage prompt attention to the question). I only know that it did not come up, and so the status quo in this matter, for better or worse, remains unchanged.

Thus, individual bishops remain free to restrict Quinn’s access to holy Communion for so long as he remains publicly at odds with fundamental Church teachings on several grave issues; so, too, do individual pastors and other ministers of holy Communion, though I recognize that the bishops of Illinois are in a better position to establish a consistent approach to the governor than are individual ministers.They can also better explain, to the governor and to the public, how such conduct can be repented of, and how one can be welcomed back to the Table of the Lord. But nothing in the bishops' statement makes it less likely that the governor will, sooner or later, face canonical consequences for his conduct, and much of the bishops' statement suggests to me that it will be sooner, not later.

In short, even if the bishops could have and should have said more about how to deal with the scandal that Quinn’s conduct causes the Church, what they did say about it today was good and helpful.

Responses to recent assertions concerning Canon 277 and clerical continence

2011-10-28T15:04:00.004-04:00

The 2011 issue of Roman Replies and CLSA Advisory Opinions, published by the Canon Law Society of America, contains two items of interest to those following the discussion of clerical continence under Canon 277. The first, offered as a “Roman Reply”, is a brief letter from Abp. Francesco Coccopalmerio, president of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts. The second is an advisory opinion by Rev. William Woestman, omi, now with the Archdiocese of Chicago. Both gentlemen disagree with my interpretation of Canon 277.

Now, I say “my interpretation” advisedly. I am not alone in reading Canon 277 as imposing an obligation of continence on all Western clerics, married or celibate, though I am presently the author most engaged in the public debate about the sharp discrepancy that has set in between the text of and tradition behind Canon 277 on the one hand, and the lived experience of tens-of-thousands of Western married clerics and their wives on the other. Also, my interpretation does not, contrary to how it is usually presented by opponents, direct a single specific resolution, but instead admits of various resolutions.

In any case, Abp. Coccopalmerio’s letter and Rev. Woestman’s opinion need reply, the first, because it will inevitably be mistaken for something akin to Roma locuta causa finita (which it quite clearly is not), and the second because it is a rare example of a qualified scholar trying to deal with this complex question in a competent manner. I disagree with the conclusions contained in both documents, but Rev. Woestman’s, especially, raises some points that will allow me, I think, to show how the question of clerical continence in the Roman Church remains very much an open one.

My reply to Abp. Coccopalmerio's letter is here; that to Rev. Woestman's opinion is here.

Is ‘mediation’ the way to resolve the Zurek-Pavone conflict?

2011-10-16T13:38:00.003-04:00

I’ve avoided commenting on an idea being floated in the last few weeks that someone should “mediate” the conflict between Bp. Zurek and Fr. Pavone, but now that the proposal has been publicly made by a responsible party in this matter, a few comments on it might be useful. Basically, the word “mediation” gets used in two senses; it makes a difference which sense of “mediation” one has in mind.

If “mediation” is taken in the loose sense of ‘two sides in a dispute sitting down and talking’, typically with a neutral but knowledgeable third-party present, then, yes, mediation could be a good first step toward trying to resolve the Zurek-Pavone conflict and it should be given a chance to work, even now, despite the gaffs committed by both sides up to this point.

But if “mediation” is taken in a stricter sense of ‘attempting to reconcile the competing views of two sides to a dispute wherein both sides have a more-or-less equal say over the outcome’ then, no, mediation is not likely to offer much potential for progress here. The canonical and ecclesiological fact is that Zurek and Pavone are not equal sides in this dispute.

Mind, right-versus-wrong is not a one-way street in this case.

For example, Pavone should not, in my opinion, ask for “mediation” of Zurek’s twice iterated statement that Pavone is “suspended”. A bishop’s repeated use of such terminology in regard to a priest who has been neither charged with nor convicted of any crime is wrong, and one does not call for "mediation" of a wrong done one, but rather, for its prompt and unambiguous correction.

Moreover, I don’t see how it's appropriate to call for “mediation” of Zurek’s request to examine the books of PFL and its sundry affiliates. Zurek either has the canonical authority to demand such records or he doesn’t. Granted, canon law itself might be unclear in this unusual case (exactly who is the competent ecclesiastical authority over a private association of the faithful, approved in San Francisco but headquartered in New York, whose Director happens to be a priest incardinated in Amarillo?), but such questions are matters for legal clarification, not "mediation".

But those two issues aside—one a matter wherein Pavone is clearly in the right, and the other a matter on which both sides might be in some doubt—everything else in this case seems to be (based on what is known publicly) something over which Zurek has clear-cut authority to direct as he sees fit.

For example, let’s suppose that Zurek were to say to Pavone something like, “I want you to resign the leadership of Priests for Life effective by the end of this year. On January first of 2012, I am appointing you associate pastor of All Holiness Parish, to serve in accord with canon law under the direction of Pastor Bill Bigheart, at which point you will enjoy all of the faculties for ministry enjoyed by other pastors and associate pastors in this diocese.”

What, pray tell, would there be to “mediate” about such a directive?

Sure, Pavone might not want to give up his leadership of PFL, and PFL might even suffer in his absence; Pavone is certainly free to make those points to Zurek, but neither factor alone nor both together bind Zurek’s hands nor give rise to grounds for “mediation”.

Could Pavone take “recourse” against such directives? I suppose, for the bar for filing recourse is fairly low. But the bar for overturning a bishop’s lawful orders to one of his priests is quite high. Pavone could also exercise his right to seek excardination to another diocese or religious institute, but seeking excardination, and getting it, are two different things. In the meantime, neither recourse nor diocese-shopping would justify Pavone’s refusing to follow such lawful directives as he might receive from his bishop.

While some other issues occur to me, it suffices for now to suggest that, before any mediation, at least in the more formal sense, is undertaken in this matter, it behooves us to make sure that there is something to "mediate" in the first place. + + +

Summary of my posts on the Zurek-Pavone conflict.

On Fr. Pavone's failure to meet with Bp. Zurek

2011-10-14T12:56:00.008-04:00

Many, many people were fervently praying for a good outcome to yesterday’s meeting between Fr. Pavone, who had expressed his desire to meet with his superior in Amarillo, and Bp. Zurek, who last week offered a personal meeting to Pavone with ample notice. Those petitions were dashed, however, when (to what I think must have been the universal surprise of observers) Pavone simply failed to appear.

Now, a “private meeting” between a bishop and one of his priests “to discuss his spiritual progress” poses (for reasons I can elaborate, if useful) zero canonical risk to a priest in disciplinary contention with his bishop. Conversely, the benefits of such a meeting, for men committed to improving their relationship, can be enormous. Basic risk-reward analysis would say, “Take the meeting.” So what happened?

Maybe Pavone saw in Zurek’s letter only an “invitation” to meet and did not know, or want to know, that, in diocesanese, an “invitation” from a lawful superior to a recalcitrant subject to meet privately is tantamount to saying “here is our chance to talk behind closed doors before this gets any nastier”. Perhaps Pavone narrowly read the “invitation” from Zurek as something he was free to accept or decline. But if so, good manners should have led Pavone to let the bishop know that he was declining the invitation. And a lot of folks could have then saved their prayers for a meeting that Pavone apparently had no intention of attending.

But even if word-splitting accounts for Pavone's refusal to meet with Zurek, a strict ‘parsing-of-words’ defense is not one I would suggest for Pavone: whatever the character of Zurek’s overture to Pavone, the topic of their meeting was to be Pavone’s “spiritual progress during this time of prayer and reflection”. What, therefore, Pavone rejected was a meeting with his own bishop to discuss matters squarely and unquestionably within the authority and responsibility of his bishop. It's just not where a priest who, as I have said several times, has suffered some injustice in the course of this dispute, wants to draw a line against his bishop. He's bound to lose that one.

Okay, I have no crystal ball to divine the future here, but I would be surprised if Zurek offered Pavone another “invitation”. My guess is the next communication will be a precept. + + +

Update, same day. Fr. David Diebel, Pavone's canonist, now says that he advised Pavone against meeting with Zurek. I'll not second-guess a lawyer's advice to his client; folks can (and doubtless will) assess that advice for themselves. I will simply observe that, the opinions of lawyers notwithstanding, these cases always come down to the conduct of the principals.

Summary of my posts on the Zurek-Pavone conflict

Regarding Dcn. Duderstadt’s remarks on Canon 277 and clerical continence

2011-10-07T00:08:00.002-04:00

Deacon Peery Duderstadt’s essay in the current issue of Chicago Studies, “A Modest Proposal”, attempts to reply to an article I wrote last year for Chicago Studies, “Diaconal Categories and Clerical Celibacy”. Duderstadt’s work is poorly conceived and very poorly executed. While it would be tedious to discuss all of the flaws in his essay, I feel that some response is in order. My criticism of Duderstadt’s essay must, I fear, be blunt. I have no desire to embarrass anyone, of course, but it might be instructive for others to see, from time to time, just what kind of ineptitude is wont to present itself, even in respected venues, as informed refutation of my (and others’) interpretation of the law.

My three-page Memorandum regarding Dcn. Duderstadt’s remarks on Canon 277 and clerical continence is here: http://www.canonlaw.info/PDF-Duderstadt.pdf.

Brief remarks on Bp. Zurek's "Clarification" regarding Fr. Pavone

2011-09-30T17:12:00.007-04:00

Today Bp. Zurek issued a brief “Clarification of Fr. Frank Pavone’s Priestly Status”: Father Frank Pavone remains suspended. At my discretion and solicitude, he has faculties for ministry in the Diocese of Amarillo. He does not have my permission for ministry outside of the Diocese. He is to remain in the Diocese for an indefinite period of time for prayer and reflection.

My observations on this statement are few.

1. Zurek’s continued use of the word “suspended” is apparently idiosyncratic, as “suspension” is a type of canonical penalty and, to my knowledge, no crime has been alleged against Pavone and no penal process conducted in his regard. While, strictly speaking, a canonical suspension could be imposed which would allow for some exercise of ministry, (c. 1333 § 1), my guess is that Zurek is using the word “suspended” according to its common understanding to mean something like “sharply curtailed for administrative reasons”. I regularly advise against ecclesiastical officials using terms with canonical implications as they are used in common speech, for obvious reasons, but such use still happens.

2. Substantively, Zurek undoubtedly has, and is clearly exercising, authority to define the limits of one of his priest’s faculties for ministry. Pavone’s faculties are (and, I believe, have been since the outset of this situation) quite restricted.

3. There is no suggestion in the text or tone of this statement that Pavone’s time in Amarillo is going to be brief.

4. I do not see in this statement an express restriction against Pavone’s working for Priests for Life from Amarillo but, to the degree any activity by Pavone interferes with the “prayer and reflection” to which he has been directed under obedience, I think he should avoid it.

Based on events over the last week or so, the temptation for Pavone and his supporters is going to be to redouble their public pressure tactics against Zurek. I say again, such actions were, in my opinion, inappropriate in themselves and have been negligible (if not detrimental) in terms of results. + + +

Summary of my posts on the Zurek-Pavone conflict

My response to Al Kresta

2011-09-28T20:09:00.014-04:00

I just read Al Kresta’s response to my blog post wherein I criticized him for giving Fr. Pavone extended air time last week to present his side of his painful dispute with Bp. Zurek. Like everything else Al does, his essay is reasonable and charitable. May I reply in kind.

Skipping the statements I agree with (such as, Pavone et al. are making his situation worse, not better), I’ll discuss only those points wherein I think Al has missed my meaning or with which I simply disagree.

First, I am not “upset” that Al did the interview; I think it imprudent for him to have conducted it, but it doesn’t “upset” me that he did it. And I don’t think, paternally or in any other way, that anyone is responsible for protecting Pavone from himself. Whether that countenances, however, providing a disputant with a wider stage from which to worsen his situation (a continuing concern of mine), others may decide.

All of my commentary on this matter has addressed statements or actions already in the public arena. Even so, I have only written about those aspects of this matter wherein important points of Church law or clerical practice have been abused or misrepresented by Zurek, et al. or by Pavone, et al. My blog, therefore, of its very nature, and in contrast to Al's media interview, accords neither party the opportunity to improve or worsen his position or reputation.

(The whole reason for my blog is to identify and explain the canonical aspects of events that people see in daily life, thinking, as I do, rightly or wrongly, that, without my explanations, much more confusion about Church discipline would circulate uncorrected than already does. Perhaps I exaggerate my contributions to clarity. Anyway, my interest in this case lays not in vindicating one side or the other, but in explaining, in an accessible, useful, written format, the laws and theological considerations that apply to both sides.)

Okay, Al plainly sees the Zurek-Pavone dispute as essentially a news story. I understand his view, and I respect it, but I see this matter quite differently.

I see the Zurek-Pavone dispute as essentially a disciplinary issue between a sitting bishop and one of his priests (albeit a famous one). Now, precisely as a disciplinary matter, it should be settled in accord with ecclesiastical discipline; but—and here’s the key—the canonical process for treating disciplinary matters is not conducted over the airwaves.

It's not like Al interviewed a Democrat and Republican on the national debt with the goal of helping his listeners to navigate the two sides in light of Church teaching. No, here, Al interviewed a diocesan priest who is in open contention against his bishop concerning matters of ecclesiastical discipline. There simply are not two "sides" here. There is an ecclesiastical superior trying to deal with an ecclesiastical subject. Al's interview was not about Pavone vis-a-vis the forces of darkness, it was about Pavone vis-a-vis his own bishop. I think the differences between the two kinds of issues are so striking as to have made it obvious from the get-go that such an interview was a bad idea.

But the problems, in my opinion, go deeper.

With a sense of journalistic fairness, Al duly invited Zurek to present his 'side' of the story. But, see? that, too, is one of my objections: since when do bishops need to present (let alone to present on national live radio) their 'side' of a disciplinary dispute with one of their priests? I hope that, on further reflection, Al will see that even to have made that offer to Zurek showed an implicit assumption on his part that some kind of 'organizational or authority parity' exists between a bishop and his priests. But, it doesn't.

So Al, as the upright journalist he is, thought he was being fair to both sides, while Ed the canon lawyer saw not two sides competing for the vindication of their opinions (both of which sides should welcome air time to push their positions) but, rather, an ecclesiastical superior, who is attempting to direct the actions of a subordinate, being asked to explain himself before the public. Of course it's inappropriate.

Finally, beyond offering Zurek a chance to defend himself in this conflict, Al has now stated, twice, that an offer to Zurek to come on his show was made, but that the bishop declined. Now, in the world of journalism, for one "side" in a hot dispute to decline free air time makes that side look, if not guilty, then at least uncertain or afraid. Again, I have to ask, why should bishops be made to look like that when they are acting in matters of internal Church discipline?

So, in my opinion, No, Pavone should not have been offered extended media time on a show that is the gold standard of credibility, Zurek should not have been offered equal time as if he were Pavone's equal in this conflict, and Zurek’s not responding to the offer should not have been reported to the public.

My other points must be brief.

1. I have listened to the entire Kresta-Pavone interview, now, and, in my view, Pavone turned several key questions to suit his answers, while some obvious follow up questions were not asked by Al. Perhaps time will permit me to parse the interview in the detail it deserves, though remember, blogging is not my day job, even if radio is Al's.

2. Al's criticism of me for not having "interviewed" Zurek or Pavone is misplaced; I am not a news reporter, and I don't need 'sources' for my analysis of what's already news to stand. I comment, when I can, on canonical and theological matters that others have put in the public arena.

3. Similarly, what exactly does Al think there is for me to debate with Fr. Diebel (Pavone's canon lawyer)? I don't represent one side or another, and I am indifferent as to how (among many ways) this matter resolves. My concern is that canonical and theological errors (and some blunders, as I have pointed out for both sides) be corrected, lest the public take the wrong lessons from the conduct of the principals in this case. But Diebel has made no mistakes and my few remarks in his regard have been supportive!

4. Finally, I don't keep bringing this matter to the public. The two sides (though lately, mostly Pavone et al.) keep bringing it to the public in a way that, in my opinion, requires correction by one who knows what the rules are, and how they apply to both sides. I strive to point out these things objectively.

So, okay, Al Kresta and I disagree strongly on the in/appropriateness of his Pavone interview. Whether Al comes round to my view of this as essentially a disciplinary matter to be resolved internally, or whether I come round to his view of it as a news story to be reported from both sides, remains to be seen. But, while we disagree on this matter, this matter is all we disagree on. If a canonist may put it canonically, our communion per Canon 205 is untouched by our differences on this matter.

And I find that a source of consolation in this too, too divided world. + + +

Update, 29 Sep: Al Kresta has posted a brief and helpful reply to me here. I think it's a good place to let this particular aspect of the discussion rest.

Is John Wesley really the ministerial model Fr. Pavone wants to invoke?

2011-09-26T19:56:00.013-04:00

Disputes between public figures often turn, at least in part, on private personalities, but the on-going dispute between Bp. Zurek and Fr. Pavone reveals, I suggest, some deeper questions. Both sides have made mistakes in this mess but Zurek’s errors have to some degree been corrected. Pavone, however, continues to operate, I fear, on a faulty understanding of, among other things, Church structure and practice. While I still do not know how this matter will be resolved, and while a number of outcomes are possible, continued high-profile comments and actions by Pavone and his supporters impede progress toward that resolution and warrant, I think, continued commentary here.

During the period of prayer and reflection to which he was directed by his bishop, Pavone has continued his testy tweets, a la “Ever notice how many people presume to know more about your life than you do?" One might be tempted to ask in return—oh, never mind, such repartee gets old quickly. In any case, Pavone has not, so far, been silenced by his bishop, and one might yet hope for more self-restraint from a major public figure and priest, instead of more carping.

Meanwhile, the Center for Bioethical Reform (endorsed by Pavone, who apparently still sits on its board) began its protests against Zurek on Friday last by circling the Amarillo cathedral (and its elementary school!) with trucks bearing color pictures of aborted babies as a similarly bannered plane flew over the city. CBR President Cunningham, who describes himself as a “friend of the Church”, manned a sign sporting Zurek’s office phone number and email address, and promised to bring his Pro-Pavone campaign to every parish in the diocese until Zurek decides to “Free Father Frank.” If Pavone is a member of the CBR Board, then—and this, no matter how his own case is resolved—he should immediately and publicly resign.

But it was a couple of comments made during a lengthy, two-part radio interview last week with Al Kresta that raised in my mind new questions about the ecclesiology of Fr. Frank Pavone.

I thought it a bad idea for Kresta to give Pavone what amounted to a 40 minute infomercial while his dispute with Zurek was in full swing. Whatever problems provoked this conflict, its correct resolution must draw heavily on objective principles of canon law, and neither Pavone nor Kresta are competent to explain that canon law to the public. Indeed, Pavone’s characterizations of canon law went unchallenged in the interview and he deftly skirted some other key issues. But parsing that discussion is for another day.

In his interview Pavone recounted for Kresta that, while he was a seminarian, he had on the wall of his dorm room a map of the world underneath which was written Methodist John Wesley’s famous line “All the world is my parish” (Pt. I, 21:30 ff). Granted, a Catholic sense can be given Wesley’s point, but such a slogan falls well short of the Catholic vision of pastoral organization, and its continued use by Pavone is telling.

Wesley’s low* ecclesiology let him see the world as a sort of parish, but Catholics can see more. We have "particular churches" known as dioceses (c. 368) under the direction of bishops (c. 381) who have the fullness of Orders, and it is within the context of the particular Church that most Catholic men ordained to diocesan priesthood are called for most of their lives to work out their salvation, yes, in fear and trembling. Pavone and many of his allies, however, are applying Wesley’s model of the Church against Zurek.

Consider: However Methodism might expect its ministers to graduate from seminary and find communities to serve, diocesan Catholic priests such as Pavone are not ordained for at-large ministry wherever they decide to carry it on. Church law knows of extra-diocesan priestly work and makes certain provisions for it, but paradigmatic ordained Catholic ministry is generally offered, and will always be offered, by clergy working over extended periods in a specific place under a local ordinary. It is Pavone’s style of national (for that matter, international) priestly ministry that needs special authorization, and not Zurek’s exercise of authority that needs to be tailored to Pavone’s perception of his mission.

Pavone’s diminished appreciation of diocesan priestly work, coupled with his own sense of importance in the pro-life movement (whether that sense is accurate, I do not know), leads to his apparent negative view of possible pastoral assignment “in a little diocese in the middle of Texas” (Pt. II, 11:55 ff). You know, as if Catholics in Amarillo are less deserving of quality priestly care than are Catholics in Gotham City, or as if, more broadly, any really smart and truly pro-life priest would protest the prospect of his caring for the faithful in a dinky parish in the middle of nowhere, at least when there are yet abortion mills open for business.

Wesley's model of the Church as essentially a parish without boundaries is not the ecclesiology of the Catholic Church. If Pavone uncritically imbibed that view in his youth, he needs to move beyond it now.

* Update, 28 Sep: Following various discussions of the Pavone matter, I see that some folks think that my reference to John Wesley’s “low ecclesiology” is inaccurate. I am happy to take correction from others on this point, but I would remind critics that I write from a Catholic point of view for a Catholic audience facing questions in the Catholic Church. Now, Methodism does not have sacred Order (as Catholics use that term) and therefore Methodism cannot be a Church (as Catholics use that term). When a Christian ecclesial community has no hierarchy as Catholics use that term (pace Methodism’s “bishops”), then, by our lights, Methodism is a “low ecclesiology” Christian belief system. People who know more about Wesley and Methodism than do I (or for that matter, than does my father, the family Methodist), may argue whether modern Methodism is or is not Wesley’s ecclesiology, or is or is not the logical consequence of Wesley’s ecclesiology, and, as I say, I am willing to take instruction on that point.

But none of this changes my fundamental concern about the deep impact on Pavone’s thinking that Wesley’s famous remark (about the world being his parish) has obviously had on him. However one might describe Wesley’s ecclesiology, it simply is not Catholic ecclesiology, and Pavone’s invocation of Wesley provides him, and others, with precious little guidance toward correctly understanding the structure of the Catholic Church and accepting its implications for his own life and work.

Bp. Gries' letter for Fr. Pavone does not help this situation

2011-09-20T22:57:00.017-04:00

As an example of how bishop-priest disputes should not be conducted, the Zurek-Pavone episode is, I’m afraid, the well that never runs dry.

I do not know what the outcome of the Zurek-Pavone case will be. I do not know what the outcome ought to be. I know only that, so far, almost every public action or statement by the principals in this case, and their allies, has made achieving an appropriate outcome more difficult, not less.

Most recently, I had hoped, rather against hope, that Bp. Roger Gries’ letter in behalf of Fr. Pavone would pass relatively unnoticed. But now that the Cleveland auxiliary bishop’s letter has been posted on the Priests for Life website, extensively quoted by Steve Ertelt at LifeNews.com, and picked up by numerous on-line news sites, that’s obviously not going to happen.

Curiously*, in his report Ertelt does not quote the single most problematic line in Gries’ letter, the one wherein the bishop encourages prayers for “Father Pavone [who] is currently facing some difficult days as he negotiates with his bishop.”

Negotiates with his bishop?

Is that what Pavone is doing with Bp. Zurek, negotiating? Is that what Gries thinks a diocesan priest who has promised obedience to the bishop should be doing, negotiating the terms of that obedience?

Gries had, of course, every right to privately contact his brother in Amarillo and urge whatever action Gries felt appropriate; instead, Gries went public with a letter that increases partisan pressure on Zurek to “negotiate” with one of his own priests concerning that priest’s ministry!

I hope and pray that Gries' letter does not become a model for others for others in this, or indeed any other, bishop-priest disciplinary matter. + + +

*Ertelt should have noted for LifeNews readers that he was the first to sign an on-line petition at LifeNews urging Zurek “not [to] take Father Frank Pavone out of the pro-life fight . . . Saving babies from abortion is his priestly vocation [sic] . . . I pray that you will amicably resolve your differences with Fr. Frank . . .”

(Please excuse the formatting oddities that might appear in some views of the above.)

Summary of my posts on the Zurek-Pavone conflict