One of these things is not like the other.
Everybody relax. As widely expected, Rome is about to issue new rules for handling priests who sexually abuse minors, including those who view child pornography and abuse adults with mentally disabilities, classifying such acts as grave canonical crimes. Oh, and the new document will include those who try to ordain women and women who try to get ordained.
Over to you, John Thavis:
The revisions were expected to extend the church law’s statute of limitations on accusations of sexual abuse, from 10 years after the alleged victim’s 18th birthday to 20 years. For several years, Vatican officials have been routinely granting exceptions to the 10-year statute of limitations.
The revisions also make it clear that use of child pornography would fall under the category of clerical sexual abuse of minors. In 2009, the Vatican determined that any instance of a priest downloading child pornography from the Internet would be a form of serious abuse that a bishop must report to the doctrinal congregation, which oversees cases of sexual abuse.
In addition, the revisions will make clear that abuse of mentally disabled adults will be considered equivalent to abuse of minors. In the law on the sexual abuse of minors, the term “minors” will include “persons of who suffer from permanent mental disability,” sources said.
And about those already self-excommunicated attempted ordainers of women and women who try to be ordained:
Pope John Paul’s 2001 document [adding sexual abuse to the list of delicta gravoria and giving the CDF jurisdiction over such crimes] distinguished between two types of “most grave crimes,” those committed in the celebration of the sacraments and those committed against morals. Among the sacramental crimes were such things as desecration of the Eucharist and violation of the seal of confession.
Under the new revisions, the “attempted ordination of women” will be listed among those crimes, as a serious violation of the sacrament of holy orders, informed sources said.
It will be interesting to see how the new norms and their accompanying documentation handle the issue of women’s ordination. Footnote? Bullet point? Boldfaced and highlighted? Whatever the case, why now? To fuel the suspicion that in the 1980s and ’90s the CDF was more interested in disciplining “liberal” doctrinal abusers than it was abuser priests?
(More from David Gibson here.)
on July 9th, 2010 at 10:33 am
Still another attempt to deal with difficult issues by rules and regs and canons.
Another duality (sorry, that’s another thread) strikes me as relevant: the effectiveness of Chjrch law vs. civil law.
I still can’t understand why sex abuse by clergy only covbers abuse of s children and now disabled?
Secular law treats all ages as capable of being abused and understands fully the misuse of power.
Commingling in women’s ordination just exacerbates a bunch of pastoral issues, including the whole role of women in the Church.
So it goes….
on July 9th, 2010 at 10:37 am
Why not do this in separate documents? Would it have been that hard?
on July 9th, 2010 at 10:42 am
Why do the second one at all? Really. An outburst from the dark side.
on July 9th, 2010 at 10:51 am
One rumor I’ve heard (and I’m not being coy–I don’t have any actual information, or even substantive rumors,) is that among the folks involved in ordaining women is an active auxiliary bishop whose conscience compels him to do so.
Now that he’s newly accused of a “serious violation of the sacrament of holy orders,” will he at least stand up and say something? Will any bishop, or, heck, even some priests (in addition to Roy Bourgeois,) stand up and say something?
This (at best) stunningly insensitive implicit parallelling of sex abuse with women’s ordination will, alas, continue to fuel the exodus of many gifted, devoted and pastorally-called women (and men who support such women) from the Church. We’re providing our “separated brethren” with some of our best talent. Perhaps Rowan Williams (and other leaders of churches who receive these marvelous folks,) might send a polite “Thank You” note to Benedict for his kindness in expelling them.
on July 9th, 2010 at 11:48 am
I know that from the Church’s perspective, ordaining a woman is an impossibility. But what I can’t figure out, in that case, is how it can also be a church crime.
Impossibility does affect the application of civil law.
If I attempt to kill someone by sending mental death rays at them, I can’t be tried for attempted murder.
So it seems that ratcheting up the penalty is giving some credence to the sense that it could be successful if undertaken.
(The interesting parallel is voodoo–it works if you think it works.)
on July 9th, 2010 at 12:39 pm
Cathy, I believe you have put your finger on (laid hands on?) a problem. I believe there was a woman or two who were ordained by bishops in Czechoslovakia or someplace behind the Iron Curtain, during the darkest days. The Vatican had to sort that out because the ordinations were potentially valid but not licit. Or the other way around? I’ll Google it later. In any case, I think problems of validity may exist even for today’s rogue ordinations.
Is this also something that is aimed mainly at priests or bishops who do this? I wonder what other similar graviora delicta there are. The Lefebrvists weren’t subject to same, no?
on July 9th, 2010 at 12:41 pm
The peculiar conjunction of woman ordinands and priestly sex-abusers in the anticipated Vatican document is probably a simple error. The initial list of items to cover in the document likely said “Include women”. It would be too much to expect the authors to think of the numerous women in several continents who are known to have been seduced, impregnated, and abandoned by celibate priestly sex-abusers. Instead, the first women to spring to mind would be the minuscule population who pose a threat to the rank and privileges of the men composing the document. How else can the oddity be explained?
on July 9th, 2010 at 12:43 pm
From a PR standpoint, this is at least interesting. But from a canonical standpoint, these are all crimes having to do with the sacramental priesthood.
on July 9th, 2010 at 1:28 pm
It seems to me that two of these things are not like the others. Downloading child pornography is not –in general — equivalent to abusing children. While the Church may have the right to deal harshly with priests who view child pornography, it seems to me the abuse crisis is not about the chastity of priests, but rather about the harm done to abused children. With estimates that approximately half of priests are sexually active at any given time, I am not sure how important it is to deal with priests whose only offense is looking at pictures, even child pornography.
on July 9th, 2010 at 1:56 pm
Come on, David. If someone downloads child pornography, it tells a lot about where his heart is. The Church is absolutely doing the right thing by taking preventative action. Stopping the crime before it starts is surely better than allowing it to occur; and if a few individuals who merely like to fantasize over child porn without actually going any further are swept up, well that is a lot better than taking chances and gambling with the safety of children.
on July 9th, 2010 at 2:02 pm
David, I was struck by that too for the same reason, but looked at the wikipedia entry about child pornography and decided that I may be behind the times on that subject. Children were abused when the pictures were taken; these pictures are available on the internet in large numbers, the amount has increased enormously in the last 10 years, and using children to make child pornography is a significant part of child abuse according to wikipedia. This would not exist if there was not a public to watch those pictures and videos. That may be why the law in many countries has started cracking down on the clients. In this instance the Vatican will be only 10 years behind.
on July 9th, 2010 at 2:33 pm
Stopping the crime before it starts is surely better than allowing it to occur; and if a few individuals who merely like to fantasize over child porn without actually going any further are swept up, well that is a lot better than taking chances and gambling with the safety of children.
Charles,
We must of course wait for the document itself to be released, but it sounds as if possession of child pornography is going to be treated as in some way equivalent to child abuse. It is not.
You assumption is that possession of child pornography is a definitive predictor of actual child abuse, and that a minority of those who possess child pornography do not, or will not in the future, actually molest children. There is absolutely no evidence to support that. In fact, there is some evidence to support the conclusion that as availability and use of pornography increases, sex crimes such as rape decrease.
Many people find pornography offensive, and particularly child pornography. I’m not saying that they shouldn’t, but imposing ever increasing penalties seems to me not to be a rational attempt to deal with a social problem, but a way for some people to have their feelings of disgust translated into laws.
There is an enormous difference between looking at a pornographic picture of a child and physically molesting a child. To suggest that the two are in any way comparable is to deemphasize the harm of child abuse and to put the emphasis on people doing things you think of as “dirty.”
on July 9th, 2010 at 2:58 pm
Cathy
May be there are those who are not sure that it is impossible to ordain a woman. The arguments for impossibility are less than convincing.
on July 9th, 2010 at 2:59 pm
Claire,
There is certainly a legitimate concern that the consumption of child pornography may encourage the production of child pornography, which in turn may encourage people to create child pornography and abuse children in the process. So certainly doing something like subscribing to a web site that produces child pornography is a serious offense. However, I have a feeling (and admittedly I have no data at the moment) that the vast majority of people on the Internet who have collections of pornographic pictures acquire them by trading with other people. It’s much like file sharing of music. If I belong to a file sharing network, it’s really only necessary for one other person on the network to have bought, say Fernando by Lady Gaga. Everyone else on the network can download it for free.
File sharing is the cause of great damage to the music industry, so it seems difficult to me that the very same mechanism could be a boon to the porn industry.
Sentences for possession of child pornography have increased dramatically in recent years, but some judges are beginning to balk at handing out long prison sentences to men whose only crime is acquiring and viewing pictures on their computer. It seems to me the closer one is to actually encouraging the production of child pornography (for example, by paying for it directly from a service that actually produces it) the more severe the penalty should be. But people who are merely collecting pictures without paying for them are doing the opposite of encouraging the production of porn. They are harming the porn industry just the way people who illegally download free music are harming the music business.
on July 9th, 2010 at 3:09 pm
“the [attempted women] ordinations were potentially valid but not licit…”
Neither. Just as attempted consecration of a Hostess cupcake into the Body of Christ by a layperson (or a priest, for that matter) would be neither valid nor licit. The matter itself would be invalid in the case of both the cupcake and the woman.
on July 9th, 2010 at 3:11 pm
How does P Flanagan know such things?
on July 9th, 2010 at 3:12 pm
I think you’re right David. The harm done to the children is what makes child sexual abuse gravely immoral, When the text comes out, we’ll see the Vatican’s rationale on users of child pornography. It’s not obvious.
on July 9th, 2010 at 3:17 pm
Aside from the issues of chastity and (I believe) charity involved, I would argue with you, David, that there are two kinds of pornography: consented-to and unconsented-to. I think that on the level of strict justice it’s pretty evil to gaze on someone’s nakedness, so to speak, without their consent. And if children are unable to consent, it’s wrong to look at them in this way.
Even under consented-to pornography I would have to ask whether even adults are under some form of coercion or economic stress.
All in all it’s a pretty exploitative business, don’t you think?
on July 9th, 2010 at 3:26 pm
David
I could not disagree more with such a reckless approach as you advocate. While I do not assume that possession of child pornography is a definitive predictor of child molestation, I think that it is reasonable to assume that it can considered as predictor of the probability of this kind of behavior.
This matter is entirely too serious to leave to chance. Had our leaders been cautious in the past, many such problems as we are now experiencing might have been nipped in the bud. And as regards the penalty for being caught with child pornography, you should bear in mind that Church discipline is not capital punishment or even prison. Considered from a secular perspective it amounts to little more than separating a person from his job.
on July 9th, 2010 at 3:50 pm
All in all it’s a pretty exploitative business, don’t you think?
Kathy,
Well, clearly the creators of child pornography are extraordinarily exploitative. However, as I argued above, I am betting the average porn collector — like the average music downloader — is harming the industry, not helping it.
In any case, my point is not to defend pornography (although I think there is a certain unwarranted hysteria over it), but to argue that it is not as serious to look at sexual pictures of children as to sexually molest children. If I were a bishop, I would not try to protect a priest who molested children. However, I would find it very difficult to comply with a regulation that required me, without using my own judgment about the priest involved in downloading child pornography, his motives, and so on — to report him to the CDF. It’s kind of like imposing the death sentence.
But, I emphasize, we’re looking at advance reports about this document, and the document itself may have provisions that we do not know about.
on July 9th, 2010 at 3:51 pm
“How does P Flanagan know such things?”
Codex Iruis Canonici canon 1024, c.f. Catechism of the Catholic Church 1577.
“Only a baptized man (In Latin, vir) validly receives sacred ordination.”
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_doctrine_on_the_ordination_of_women
On claims that womens attempted ordination is illicit but still valid, see
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/ordination_of_women_priests_not_valid_says_canon_law_expert/
Also note that Canon 1024 reads that anyone other than a baptized man would not be ordained “validly”.
on July 9th, 2010 at 4:08 pm
David, I’m not concerned about a porn viewer’s relationship with the porn imdustry, but with the child. S/he has objectified the child, numb to the child’s needs. I think the consumption of child pornography cries out to heaven for vengeance. Whether or not it is a “gateway drug” to physical abuse of a child, it’s already abusive of children because they have not and cannot agree to be seen in that way. It’s like a theft, or at the very least a willing consumption of stolen goods.
Although I would agree that it is unlikely that most viewers of child porn become physical molesters, I’d bet that most molestors have viewed child porn, which is related to Charles Lardner’s point.
on July 9th, 2010 at 4:16 pm
I could not disagree more with such a reckless approach as you advocate.
Charles,
I am not sure I have advocated any approach. I have said that if the forthcoming document treats viewing child pornography as equivalent to child abuse, and if any and all cases of a priest possessing child pornography must be reported to the CDF, then I think that goes too far. I am not advocating that if a bishop finds that one of his priests is involved with child pornography, the bishop should do nothing.
. . . . I think that it is reasonable to assume that it can considered as predictor of the probability of this kind of behavior.
Well, I would want to see some data. Even the most reasonable assumptions may be false. I don’t think there is data to indicate the possession of child pornography is a predictor of child abuse. Some theorize that pornography is an “outlet” that lessens the likelihood of sex crimes.
This matter is entirely too serious to leave to chance.
I am not suggesting anything should be left to chance. I am advocating a course of action based on serious but calm assessment of the situation.
And as regards the penalty for being caught with child pornography, you should bear in mind that Church discipline is not capital punishment or even prison.
I don’t know whether you are a priest or not, and I am not a priest, but I can only say that I imagine if I were a priest, I would consider being reported to the CDF (”The Holy Office of the Inquisition”) to be not all that far removed from capital punishment.
Priests are people, too, and they have human failings. In solving the abuse crisis, the Church should not go from being too lenient to too harsh. Immediately reporting a priest to Rome because of pictures he has on his computer seems to me, if it is going to be an automatic requirement, too harsh. We do not need to apply Cheney’s 1% doctrine to every misdeed of a priest. If there is a 1% chance a priest may become a child abuser, he should not be treated as a child abuser. Otherwise, we will have no priests at all.
on July 9th, 2010 at 4:31 pm
I hope the vaticanistas post a list of those Very Heinous Actions that incur automatic excommunication. It would be nice to know if I have been guilty of any of them. I’m sure I have, being of the coupled homosexual persuasion — but it would nice to know. Not that I will lose any sleep or fear of my salvation about any of this.
” — both the cupcake and the woman.”
For a moment I thought you were talking about one and the same thing!
It’s time for my periodic posting of this:
Rules, glorious rules!
What wouldn’t we give for
That extra bit more –
That’s all that we live for
Why should we be fated to
Do nothing but brood
On rules,
Magical rules,
Wonderful rules,
Marvelous rules,
Fabulous rules.
on July 9th, 2010 at 4:31 pm
P Flanagan
You offer no explanation of your position on cupcakes.
When asked if the ordination of a woman is invalid you cite a law that says so. But one might have thought that laws only can determine what is licit or illicit.
on July 9th, 2010 at 4:32 pm
It is a complex issue – child pornography. May I suggest that you need to expand your discussion:
- just as in any workplace, there are HR/IT policies that would not allow someone to download, retain, or view pornorgraphy. Dioceses now have these policies and they should be implemented across all dioceses – pertaining to rectories, churches, pastoral centers, etc.
- what about the issue of a priest and his personal life? Viewing such images; trading, acquiring, etc. is a violation of his vow of celibacy and in the US, a criminal offense.
- thus, why are we trying to split hairs? You may put it in the same category as criminalizing marijuana but it is a criminal offense.
- suggested approach – to legislate treatment vs. criminalization or the equivalent in canon
law. What a novel idea?? So, we laicize and release to society – how is that working for us?
P Flanagan – you quote outdated canon law. It is valid but illicit. There is also the difference between theological consideration and canon law which is really only the application of the theology.
on July 9th, 2010 at 4:35 pm
Kathy,
I am arguing that (1) I don’t think that a bishop who finds out a priest has downloaded child pornography to his computer should be required, without making any judgments of his own, to report the priest to the CDF. Also, I am arguing that (2) viewing child pornography is not as serious as molesting a child. I am not sure those should be controversial opinions.
How evil viewing child pornography is, or whether it is evil in all circumstances, is an issue that I probably hold unorthodox opinions on, although I imagine my views on creating child pornography (by exploiting children) or paying someone to create it are basically mainstream. The arguments about “objectifying” people don’t resonate with me, but that is not what I am arguing about. I am arguing about the policy that is about to be promulgated by the Vatican.
on July 9th, 2010 at 4:38 pm
Downloading child pornography is a federal crime that should be reported to authorities in accord with the law.
on July 9th, 2010 at 4:47 pm
” — the exodus of many gifted, devoted and pastorally-called women — from the Church.”
The UCC is FULL of female minister, a great number of whom are former RC. But the UCC isn’t a real church, you know – just an ecclesial community – so that’s OK.
My God, my God — why ARE You forsaking us?
on July 9th, 2010 at 4:50 pm
The “gravest canonical crimes” are either against a sacrament or particularly immoral. Does this mean that the second kind is going to include viewing child pornography, but still does not include rape or murder or abortion?
on July 9th, 2010 at 4:51 pm
Re Czech women priests:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_28_37/ai_75021437/
They caused any number of dyspeptic ulcers within the ranks of the Truly Accepted Ontologically Gifted in red hats. (What if one of them had given birth? —brrrrrrrrrr!!!)
on July 9th, 2010 at 5:07 pm
I agree, Joseph Gannon. But the fact that they’re making it a crime suggests that they know many people today don’t consider it IMPOSSIBLE–that’s what the fact that there are all those women running around in Roman collars in other Christian churches has done.
So. . . . if you can’t functionally have impossible, very, very, very, bad will have to do. It’s clearly, however, second best.
I noticed that the new law doesn’t criminalize ordaining cupcakes.
Are there any pictures of B16 with a female Anglican priest or bishop in full regalia? My guess is not–that would be a photo he’d want to avoid.
Whereas a photo of the pope with a cupcake decorated to look like a priest would just be weird–and funny.
on July 9th, 2010 at 5:50 pm
I would be interested to know how P.Flanagan arrives at conclusion that inclusion in a Catholic (Roman) catechism represents the mind of God.
When Sheila Cassidy for example blessed bread and wine in a Chilean prison camp I suggest that God’s love and grace would be wider than any catechism. And the same as circumstances might exist would apply to a cup cake.
The Vatican’s insistence that it is the sole mouthpiece for God has been a scandal for centuries as it would be for any church that calls itself Christian.
on July 9th, 2010 at 7:08 pm
Perhaps Canada is more prudish than the USA, but the recent case of a bishop indicted for possession of child pornography caused an immense amount of disturbance in the Church, particularly in the Maritimes from which he came. He may go to jail for this offense and currently lives in very restricted circumstances. A couple of the victims from Mt. Cashel in Newfoundland indicated he had a reputation as a molestor in the past. Ironically, he had been noted and lauded for the settlement he negotiated with child abuse victims in his area.
Someone I know was found guilty of downloading child pornography. He was prominent in his faith community and had been an academic dean at my college. He life is in tatters. He will likely spend time in jail. This is serious stuff.
Possession of child pornography is a federal offense in Canada because the production of child pornography involves the abuse of children. They may not be first hand abusers, but neither are they innocent bystanders.
on July 9th, 2010 at 7:50 pm
People participating in this thread might feel tempted to make public their views on women’s ordination or even to think about the matter. But that would be a big mistake, trust me.
Please remember that the 1998 CDF Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio Fidei at paragraph 11 lists the limitation of Orders to men and the invalidity of Anglican ordinations as examples of “second level” or definitive teachings of the teaching authority. If you deny teachings found on this level, you are no longer in full communion with the Catholic Church. Really? Hear it:
6. The second proposition of the Professio fidei states: “I also firmly accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals.” The object taught by this formula includes all those teachings belonging to the dogmatic or moral area, which are necessary for faithfully keeping and expounding the deposit of faith, even if they have not been proposed by the Magisterium of the Church as formally revealed. …[P] … Whoever denies these truths would be in a position of rejecting a truth of Catholic doctrine and would therefore no longer be in full communion with the Catholic Church. [emphasis in original as I find it; footnotes omitted]
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDfadtu.htm
As far as I can tell, the words “Whoever denies these truths” are not qualified as limited to those who swear the oath Professio fidei.
I like you guys and don’t want to see anything bad happen. I mean, can you even receive the Blessed Sacrament as someone out of full communion with the Catholic Church? What kind of burial do you want? To stay in communion, I would advise treating thoughts of women’s ordination and Anglican orders as you would thoughts about s-e-x. When one of those thoughts pops into your head, immediately shout a mental “no!” Just swat it away, like you would a filthy and disgusting fly landing on your face. Ok then? Good.
on July 9th, 2010 at 7:52 pm
“The Vatican’s insistence that it is the sole mouthpiece for God has been a scandal for centuries as it would be for any church that calls itself Christian.”
The validity and liciety of ordination as a priest in the Roman Catholic Church is decided by the Church, encoded as Canon Law. That is simply how the Catholic Church is organized. The Magisterium makes the rules for operation of the Church; in this instance regarding the ministers of the sacraments they have determined that in order to be a Roman Catholic priest, one must be a baptized man. Just as the US Congress has the right to pass civil laws to regulate the running of our nation, so the Magisterium promulgates canon law to regulate the running of the Catholic Church. Whether or not you agree with the justice of specific laws issued by either body is irrelevant to the fact that they both, in their spheres, have the authority to establish such laws.
The Constitution states that a person must be a native-born American to serve as President. You can disagree with that if you like, but you cannot deny the Constitutional authority to refuse foreign born citizens the right to serve as President. Same with women priests and the Catholic Church.
“But one might have thought that laws only can determine what is licit or illicit.”
Again: the Church is an institution that is structured under various laws, one of which is that to serve as a priest in the Roman Catholic Church, one must be a baptized man. That law determines what is licit or illicit. Licit: legal; lawful; legitimate; permissible. You can disagree with that Canon Law if you wish to dissent from the teaching of the Church, but you cannot deny the Magisterium has authority to promulgate such a law.
If you Google up some of the womynpriest declarations, they agree with me. They call for conscience-based disobedience to Canon 1024, thereby implicitly accepting the legal force of that Canon under the laws of the Catholic Church.
on July 9th, 2010 at 7:56 pm
“I would be interested to know how P.Flanagan arrives at conclusion that inclusion in a Catholic (Roman) catechism represents the mind of God”
Are you Roman Catholic, Brian? If not, then your question makes sense.
on July 9th, 2010 at 7:58 pm
David
Much of life is a matter of probabilities. The prudent course of action is always to reduce the probability that bad things will happen.
The Vatican’s revision of Church laws will not prevent a clergyman from viewing child pornography. His civil liberties are in no way violated.But the probability that bad things will happen may be reduced. The individual who wishes to view child pornography will be reported to the CDF and likely be sequestered from contact with children or required look for employment elsewhere. Clearly there may be many other indicators of potential child molestation. Salivating over child pornography is one such indicator, and in this case the Vatican is simply acting in the most prudent fashion to protect the most vulnerable amongst us.
In light of the happenings of the past we should be applauding this applauding this, not criticizing it.
on July 9th, 2010 at 8:08 pm
Kip, its widely held that Cardinal Ratzinger stopped JPII from actually, straightforwardly, declaring infallible the teaching that women couldn’t be ordained. Why do you think he did that? Why preserve the tiniest amount of wiggle room?
In any event, in the nineteenth century, the Holy Office declared that in its view, the teaching that any lending money at interest was intrinsically evil (usury) was infallible.
Mmm. I’ve often wondered whether maybe, given the recent financial crises, that wasn’t as time-bound a doctrine as most people think.
on July 9th, 2010 at 8:26 pm
“In the nineteenth century, the Holy Office declared that the doctrine that any lending money at interest was intrinsically evil (usury) was infallible.”
A Notre Dame professor should (should) know better than to simplistically state that as a fact. The truth is a lot more subtle:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0607uan.asp
“…stopped JPII from actually, straightforwardly, declaring infallible the teaching that women couldn’t be ordained.”
Catholic dissidents channel Bill Clinton whenever they imply “That depends on what the meaning of INFALLIBLE is”. There have been only two “officially proclaimed” infallible teachings. So, this Clintonian parsing of infallibility would imply only those two teachings are really, certainly, truly, something Catholics have to believe to be faithful to the Church. That’s obviously absurd.
To the contrary, anyone who reads Ordinatio Sacerdotalis as not being a definitive, “how much louder do we have to say that women cannot be ordained” decree…well, they must not have read it. After going through numerous examples of how people have tried to reopen the issue of women ordination for debate, Pope John Paul II forcefully concludes:
“Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.”
“in order that all doubt may be removed…”
“this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful…”
If that’s not the Pope issuing a definitive statement on a matter of faith and morals, then a bear doesn’t crap in the woods and the Pope ain’t Catholic.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html
on July 9th, 2010 at 8:36 pm
Mr. Flanagan, the category of “to be definitively held” is a new one–that’s why there is so much debate about it. It functions like infallibly now, but there is still room to distinguish and qualify later on by a later pope.
Kip, you might think about this: Nothing stops anyone from calling themselves “Catholic” –no matter what their stance is; there is no copyright or trademark protection on the word. That’s why “Catholics for a Free Choice” can call itself what it wants–despite the fact that it drives the bishops crazy. Again, it’s the market–the limits of copyright an trademark protection–that are doing the real work here.
on July 9th, 2010 at 8:50 pm
Professor Kaveny, you stated the Church had infallibly declared that usury was intrinsically evil.
“In any event, in the nineteenth century, the Holy Office declared that in its view, the teaching that any lending money at interest was intrinsically evil (usury) was infallible.”
Now, that sounds more like your “definitively held” category. In which case, your claim was not only false, but intended to undermine “Kip McNebbinsworth” ’s faith in the Magisterium as a credible source of teaching on the Catholic Church.
So, can you cite the Church document that declared the teaching against usury was infallible?
on July 9th, 2010 at 8:54 pm
I stated that the Holy Office expressed the view that the teaching was infallible. But the Holy Office expressing the view that it was infallible didn’t make it infallible. Because the Holy Office’s views of church teaching aren’t infallible -and can’t confer an infallibility that the doctrine doesn’t otherwise possess.
Here’s the old Catholic Encyclopedia article that’s the best I can do right now: about half way down.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15235c.htm
The upshot: if you relied on the Holy Office’s declaration that the teaching on lending money at interest was infallible, you ‘d be reasonable. .. but ultimately, incorrect.
I would suggest you and Kip develop a view of magisterial authority that is consistent with the magisterium’s own view of that authority. Lumen Gentium would be a good place to start. And Francis Sullivan’s Magisterium is very helpful.
Much, much better than Catholic Answers.
on July 9th, 2010 at 9:47 pm
Btw, I’ve been wondering since 1994 whether there is preceent for this manner of invoking the Petrine privilege: “in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren”
Anyone know?
on July 9th, 2010 at 9:47 pm
“But the Holy Office expressing the view that it was infallible didn’t make it infallible. Because the Holy Office’s views of church teaching aren’t infallible -and can’t confer an infallibility that the doctrine doesn’t otherwise possess.”
Is that a paraphrase form Heller’s “Catch-22″?
“Francis Sullivan’s Magisterium”
A quick Google search reveals him to be a teacher of the odious Richard McBrien and a bushel full of favorable citations where he receives fulsome praise from womynpriests and other heretics.
I’m sorry, was that ad hominem? Well, no more than your elitist, ivory tower dwelling condemnation of Catholic Answers, I suppose.
on July 9th, 2010 at 9:59 pm
P Flanagan, please take yourself elsewhere, where your sarcasm may be more amenable to the majority of readers.
I believe Prof. Kaveny has shown great patience in responding to you.
on July 9th, 2010 at 10:00 pm
“Why preserve the tiniest amount of wiggle room?” (in supposedly limiting the doctrine of male-only ordination rather than expressly declaring it infallible)
The problem with your wiggle room theory is that it would produce a statement that women ordination was simply something the church does not allow and this is to be definitively held by the faithful.
In fact, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis offers a categorically different reason for the teaching: it has NO AUTHORITY to ordain women. (”I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women …”). Now, what could possibly change in the future that would provide such authority? The will of God? God would change? This reason is as definitive as infallibility because it implies it, too, can never be changed in the future. The Magisterium cannot possibly revise this doctrine if it has no authority (whatsoever!) to ordain women.
At the very least, phrasing the statement in this emphatic manner (”the Church has no authority whatsoever…”) is completely incompatible with a contention that the document was devised to provide “wiggle room” for possible future adjustment. If they wanted wiggle room, the last thing they would have said was that they had no authority in the matter.
PS I apologize for an uncharitable remark in my comment prior to this one. However, I really don’t think you understand how aggravating your constant professorial condescension can be in these threads.
on July 9th, 2010 at 10:02 pm
Much of life is a matter of probabilities. The prudent course of action is always to reduce the probability that bad things will happen.
Charles,
If by always to reduce you mean “reduce as much as possible,” then I disagree.
on July 9th, 2010 at 10:11 pm
P Flanagan –
You haven’t come anywhere near answering Prof. Kaveny’s statements concerning the “infallibility” of CDF statements. Which of her statements are false? And/or why doesn’t her conclusion follow from the statements??
on July 9th, 2010 at 10:11 pm
“Downloading child pornography is a federal crime that should be reported to authorities in accord with the law.”
Carolyn is right about this, but the federal child exploitation laws prohibit much more conduct than just downloading. For example, it is also a federal crime to receive and to possess child pornography. The rationale is that any depiction of child pornography is in and of itself a record of child abuse and sexual exploitation (i.e., children cannot legally consent to engaging in sexually explicit conduct), and possession is sufficient for a violation of the law.
The penalties can be onerous—a minimum of 5 years imprisonment, and a maximum of 20, for a first offense, and a minimum of 15 years, and a maximum of 40, for repeat offenses. Judges may find reasons in certain instances to depart downward at sentencing, but they can also depart upward, too. It’s a risk that I think most people would not take.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:v_UYnD61MZwJ:www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002252—-000-.html+18+usc+2252&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
on July 9th, 2010 at 10:37 pm
I have to sympathize with P. Flanagan here. The Catholic Church has always protected the validity of its sacraments very vigilantly (though in cases where invalidity is unwittingly incurred there is the principle of ecclesia supplet). To dismiss this concern as outdated is to consign the Catholic Church to a mere assembly of the faithful without real sacraments. Most other Christian Churches will also insist, for example, that only baptised people should receive communion — as a ,atter of basic church order.
As to child pornography, it is to my mind MORE evil than individuals molesting children (often out of stupidity more than malice) or an individual adult having sex with an older teenager, because it is a form of organized child prostitution.
on July 9th, 2010 at 10:40 pm
Note that a priest who attempts to contract marriage is automatically excommunicated. Since there are no issues of validity or infallibility here, should any priest who feels this law is unjust go ahead and get married anyway? Would the resultant chaos be good for the Church?
on July 9th, 2010 at 10:53 pm
Downloading child pornography is a federal crime that should be reported to authorities in accord with the law.
It’s a risk that I think most people would not take.
Carolyn and William,
You find nude or seminude pictures of your 17-year-old son and his girlfriend on your son’s cell phone. This is a violation of federal law. Would you turn the phone over to the police as evidence against your son? I certainly wouldn’t.
I do not believe there is an obligation (legal or otherwise) to report every crime to law enforcement officials. If I were a bishop, I would certainly report a priest if there was reasonable evidence of child abuse. If I were a bishop, and a priest I was responsible for was in some way found to be involved in viewing child pornography, I would do something like have him undergo very thorough psychological assessment and proceed from there.
on July 9th, 2010 at 10:58 pm
I am surprised that Prof. Keveny says that the Holy Office declared Benedict XIV’s encyclical on usury infallible. The Cath. Enc. article she cites merely says that the Holy Office in 1836 extended that encyclical from the bishops of Italy to the whole church. The Cath. Enc. articles says that this could NOT be seen as making the encyclical infallible.
Also is the idea of “to be definitely held” such a new one? The old dogma textbooks used to ascribe a level of authority to each thesis — de fide definita (defined articles of faith) was the highest level. Perhaps some of the lower levels might corresponde to “to be definitely held”.
Again, the “wiggle room” thinking ascribed to Cardinal Ratzinger is hard to square with the following: “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was not issued under the extraordinary papal magisterium as an ex cathedra statement, and so is not considered infallible in itself. Its contents are, however, considered infallible under the ordinary magisterium, as this doctrine has been held consistently by the Church. In a responsum ad dubium (reply to a doubt) explicitly approved by Pope John Paul II and dated October 1995, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stated that the teaching of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis had been “set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium” and accordingly was “to be held definitively, as belonging to the deposit of faith”.
on July 9th, 2010 at 11:01 pm
Fr. O’Leary–
In the U.S. at least, all of the scenarios you mention (assuming the “older teenager” is younger than 18) would violate the federal child exploitation laws. The Bush Administration began “Project Safe Childhood” in 2006–a joint federal, state, and local effort to combat all forms of child exploitation–and the Obama Administration wisely kept this project in place. And as to the molestation of children perhaps being more the result of stupidity than malice, U.S. laws will not make that distinction. The focus is not on the adult actor and his or her intentions; what controls is the legally ironclad presumption that a minor cannot consent to sexually explicit conduct.
We have another similar legal presumption here in the U.S. In almost every jurisdiction, there is an irrebuttable presumption that a prisoner cannot consent to sexual contact with a prison employee. It doesn’t matter if the contact is heterosexual or homosexual, or if the prisoner initiated the sexual activity. Prisoners are wards of the state, and any prison employee who engages in sexual activity with an inmate can be prosecuted.
on July 9th, 2010 at 11:15 pm
On the usury question, I found something that may be of interest on Google books. It is an 1825 book titled Usury or Interest Proved to Be Repugnant to the Divine and Ecclesiastical Laws, and Destructive to Civil Society by the Reverend J. O’Callaghan, Roman Catholic Priest.
It is often argued that what the Church condemned was charging exorbitant rates of interest. However, if you read the beginning of this book, you will find that he defines usury as any interest, no matter how small.
The section that immediately follows is titled “Usury or Interest is Against the Law of Nature.”
on July 9th, 2010 at 11:26 pm
While avoiding the issue of female ordination altogether, I would like to point out that possession of child pornography at least hints that the owner is sexually attracted to children. Possession of pornographic material that has a person who is adult looking and who may or may not be under 18 is quite a bit different than having some that features children who are in the pre-adolescent age group. There’s only one reason for possession of pornography in any case. Think how much different it is when the subject matter is 5 years old as opposed to 25 years old.
on July 9th, 2010 at 11:38 pm
William Collier, of course all the things I mentioned are illegal. My argument was not about the law, but about moral assessment; against those who say that watching child porn is less evil than the other things, I make the case that it is collusion in something that is actually more evil.
on July 9th, 2010 at 11:41 pm
David–
The law surrounding a duty to report child pornography is not uniform. In some jurisdictions (New Jersey comes first to mind), an employer aware that an employee is viewing child pornography at work has a duty to report the employee to law enforcement authorities. Failure to report does not ordinarily lead to prosecution; instead, the employer may be fined or perhaps exposed to tort liability. On the federal side, internet providers and other remote computer services, for example, have an affirmative duty to investigate and report evidence of the transmission and receipt of child pornography. Failure to report can result in fines. I’m off to bed, but I’ll see tomorrow if I can find something that summarizes the present state of the law on the duty to report violations of federal/state law regarding child pornography.
on July 9th, 2010 at 11:41 pm
Also, it is inaccurate to say that 18 is the legal age of consent in the USA — at least according to this website: http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm
Only 7 states set the age of consent at 18 for both sexes; 16 is the more usual age.
on July 9th, 2010 at 11:44 pm
against those who say that watching child porn is less evil than the other things, I make the case that it is collusion in something that is actually more evil.
Fr. O Leary,
Surely you are not saying that it is a greater evil to view child pornography than it is to molest children, are you?
on July 9th, 2010 at 11:50 pm
Fr. O’Leary–
I see your point. I’m not trying to be flippant, but I guess all I can say is that I don’t make fine moral distinctions in matters that involve child exploitation and abuse. That’s because I try to view all such events first and foremost from the perspective of the child and not from that of the perpetrator. That’s not to say I can’t be sympathetic to the perpetrator’s psychological dysfunction, but IMO addressing that dysfunction always must be secondary to the safety and well-being of the child.
on July 10th, 2010 at 12:01 am
Susan Kaveny,
I was responding to Carolyn Disco’s statement, “Downloading child pornography is a federal crime that should be reported to authorities in accord with the law.” She made no distinction between a 40-year-old pedophile who amasses thousands of photos of prepubescent photos and two teens above the age of consent (which is 17 in New York), exchanging nude pictures. Fr. O Leary points out that the age of consent varies from state to state, with a minority of states setting it at 18 and the majority at 16 or 17. Nevertheless, the federal child pornography laws define anyone less than 18 as a child. The age of consent in the state where you happen to be has nothing to do with it. Consequently, my hypothetical 17-year-old couple my legally look at each other naked (and have sex with each other), but they are violating a federal law, with potentially very severe penalties, if they look at nude pictures of one another.
My point is that it is not nearly as simple a matter as saying, “It’s a federal crime. Report it.”
on July 10th, 2010 at 3:34 am
Cathleen Kaveny,
Thanks for the story about Cdl. Ratzinger.
You write, “I would suggest you and Kip develop a view of magisterial authority that is consistent with the magisterium’s own view of that authority.”
What view of magisterial authority do I hold? Paul’s? I bet Paul’s a great guy, but it doesn’t look like he and I agree on much. Do you have an argument to establish what my view is? How does it come about that my reporting what the CDF said reveals my view and that my view is inconsistent with the magisterium’s own view of magisterial authority?
I made fun of protecting you all against the authorities, and I had to present what those authorities say in order to do it. The joke is that discussing women’s ordination is more risky, given what the CDF says, than discussing kiddie porn. Making that joke in what has turned into a kiddie porn thread was my mission.
on July 10th, 2010 at 3:34 am
O, I see, the child porn law refers to anyone under 18. But this somewhat proves my point — the State obviously considers it more grievous for young people to be involved in porn industry than for them to have sex with adults. Even when it becomes legal for them to do the latter it still remains illegal for them to do the former.
By the way, it just struck me that the Vatican document discussed in the main post here is sending a typically Ratzingerian message to Catholic liberals. If I decode it correctly, it says: “You have insisted that we follow the law to the letter; OK, we will; not just against the abuse that you take so seriously, but against other abuses that you may not take quite so seriously, such as pornography, and against other unlawful abuses still that you applaud and commit yourselves, such as ordaining women priests.” Am I write in detecting some such subtext in the document?
on July 10th, 2010 at 3:35 am
Kip, your jokes fall flat. Be more straightforward, please.
on July 10th, 2010 at 5:21 am
“If I decode it correctly, it says: “You have insisted that we follow the law to the letter; OK, we will; not just against the abuse that you take so seriously, but against other abuses that you may not take quite so seriously, such as pornography, and against other unlawful abuses still that you applaud and commit yourselves, such as ordaining women priests.” Am I right in detecting some such subtext in the document?”
Yes, I think so. It’s about the discipline of the sacraments, which as you’ve mentioned is historically well-guarded.
on July 10th, 2010 at 5:54 am
Thanks for the feedback. My jokes fall flat. Here is something straightforward. It’s about another fault, in fact.
I turn up on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation out of fear of hell but never receive communion. Because some arguments for female ordination and some arguments for the validity of Anglican Orders appear persuasive to me, and because I fail to dismiss these thoughts as one would impure thoughts, I do take myself to be in effect denying definitively taught stuff and so out of full communion. I rely on that CDF document. There it is. I’ve read Sullivan and Lumen Gentium, and even though I know about past CDF/Holy Office mistakes, I decided months ago nevertheless to allow the CDF’s judgment to weigh more heavily than my own on the matter of whether I’m in full communion. (How does that square with not accepting everything they propose?) This arrangement should go well until next Easter season and the obligation to confess and communicate. I can’t confess since I don’t have a firm purpose of amendment because I know I don’t want to play the swat-away-the-bad-thoughts-game with these two issues. So I can’t communicate, but I’m obliged to once during the Easter season. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t, Happy Easter.
on July 10th, 2010 at 6:32 am
Kip, I think you need to talk to a real-live priest, not a blog.
But I’ve never been so sure why a God who would be so willing to consign a person made in his image and likeness to eternal torment for having honest doubts about church teaching wouldn’t find another way to get you in the end–another loophole to tighten around your neck.
That’s why I don’t believe that’s the way the God who sent his only son to suffer and die out of love of humanity operates.
on July 10th, 2010 at 7:15 am
What if it’s the kindness of God that teaches through the Church? That is my belief. I’m not a stranger to spiritual struggle, but I’m not alone, either. There’s concrete help and knowledge.
on July 10th, 2010 at 8:57 am
Perhaps I’m beating the proverbial dead horse, Fr. O’Leary, but you’re conflating two distinct legal standards. I’m also confused by your statement that “the government considers it more grievous for young people to be involved in porn industry than for them to have sex with adults.” What do you mean by minors “involved in the porn industry”? They are involved to the extent that their sexual abuse by adults is being recorded in some fashion and then distributed to a market. Federal laws in the U.S. make it a criminal offense for anyone to be knowingly involved in that production, distribution, marketing, and consumption chain. An adult engaging in sexual activity with a minor (ages of consent can vary) is statutory rape. The child pornography and statutory rape laws are premised, I think correctly, on the presumption that a minor cannot consent to sexual activity with an adult, and as I mentioned before in the case of child pornography, graphic depictions of explicit sexual activity are evidence of sexual abuse, and acquiring and possessing such depictions for one’s viewing is, IMO and at a minimum, the implicit condoning of sexual abuse of minors.
on July 10th, 2010 at 9:47 am
First, I think Mr. Flkanagan is part of that “small cadre” Fr. Martin talks about in his article on Fear based Church in America, I mean people who want everyone to get in line to their view of magisterium and legalisms to control.
What’s problematic here is the yoking of the ordination of women question to sex abuse of children.
Let’s get these women under control once and for all is the message, as is the visitation of women religious here.
Part of the Roman use of legalisms to practice power and control.
More of the problem we discussed below on the CDF and whether you think credibility is eroded by this kind of governance.
But maybe we can’t or aren’t suposed to say that in the”fear based Church.”
on July 10th, 2010 at 9:49 am
Just imagine Jesus or even Paul leading according to Canon Law. This is a Roman Empire creation and should be abandoned. How about the theology of papal legates.
So. Abolish Canon Law and all papal legates for openers.
on July 10th, 2010 at 10:30 am
Kip,
I certainly appreciate your desire to conform yourself to the will of God, but you seem to be suffering from a rather serious case of scrupulosity. I agree with Prof, Kaveny that our almighty and merciful Lord is not seeking ways to slam the door of heaven shut in our face that was opened to us by the sacrifice of His only Son.
I also believe that your aversion to confession is not from above, but from the Evil One, tempting you to avoid receiving absolution for your sins. I think your very first step should be to go to Reconciliation.
on July 10th, 2010 at 10:40 am
This thread has gone off the rails. Good afternoon and good luck.