sign in sign up
<<
Home , 1983 Code of Canon Law, Ladislas Orsy, Promulgation

Past as Prologue: Current Consideration of in the United States Most Reverend John J. Myers Archbishop of Newark

*******************

Address at the Convention of The Society of America Sacramento, California October 14, 2013

Rev: 10/14/13

Page 1

I The Importance of Canon Law Standing before this gathering of dozens of Canon , I know full well that there are those who believe that, in some circumstances, an earthquake might be a positive thing. As we consider the decades which have elapsed since the and since of the , it is important to keep in mind the continuity of the revised Code with the 1917 Code, especially in that it is “codified Law.” It is also important to note that the revised Code deliberately reflects the teaching of Vatican Council II. Vatican II spoke clearly regarding the people of God and the hierarchy and the whole structure of the Church. In doing so, it emphasized both the equality of all the baptized as well as the variety of roles and states of life of all members of the Church.

II On January 25, 1959, Blessed John XXIII convoked Vatican Council II and also announced revision of the . Revision of the Code was judiciously deferred until after the Council. The new Code was promulgated on January 25, 1983. In promulgating the 1983 Code, Pope John Paul II made clear that the purpose of revision was the same as that of Vatican Council II itself, namely, to foster the renewal of all Christian life. Pope John Paul II also made clear that the revised Code was not intended to replace the realities of Faith or Grace or Charity or charisms in the Church but that it was intended to facilitate “orderly development in the life of both ecclesial society and of the individual persons who belong to it.”(Sacrae Disciplinae Leges.) Canon Law is a genuine, effective legal system based on sound theology. The 1983 Code is truly a substantive, comprehensive, understandable, and accurate guide for the entire Church. Significantly, the last phrase of the last Canon of the 1983 Code of Canon Law (Canon 1752) reminds everyone--particularly those who read, study, discuss, or implement Canon Law-- to keep before their eyes the fact that “the salvation of souls. . .must always be the supreme law in the church.” Canon Law is also important in the Church because it orders multiple aspects of on-going ecclesial matters in a manner parallel with -- but subordinate to -- the fundamental tenets of our Catholic faith.

Page 2

As with any legal system, it is evident that canon law is not self-initiated, self-justified, or self-implemented. Canon Law must be communicated to members of the Church, and its application must attempt to address the real life of real Catholics who live in real world circumstances. Moreover, Church Law should not be used to control others. It should be used to provide understandable and readily applicable means of accomplishing what is to be done. For various matters, it should also clearly indicate what is not to be done and, in some fashion, express specific consequences of actions which openly transgress norms regarding what is not permitted. This we all know well. However, a Canon Law professor in my Seminary, on the first day of class, tells the seminarians that “some regard Canon Law as the ‘dark side of the Gospel’ but, by the end of the semester, he is determined that they will realize that it is a guide, among other guides, to living a truly Christian life. Canon Law is not theology, per se. But it does contain clear statements of the Apostolic proclamation and teaching of the Church. It also intends to give good order to the Church and show the consequences of both the rights and duties of members of the Church which are consequent to this Apostolic Tradition. It is accurate to say that Canon Law helps us keep in fundamental continuity with the Church of all ages while underscoring the fact that Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are paramount. Consequences of various actions/decisions in Church history need to be addressed with a legal perspective aware of that history but which also honestly and adequately addresses current issues of ecclesial reality. In short, the Church must take into account the genuine challenges which ordinary believers face. It must diligently, honestly, and openly address their real needs and real questions and real concerns in today’s world. In doing so, Church Law should strive to summarize, to some degree, our Catholic way of life and -- even more so -- to serve and enhance and encourage it. We seek not only to preserve our Catholic identity but also to offer realistic encouragement for the future. In our own era, Catholic identity has been weakened and undermined by secular society and by extreme individualism. This problem, on which I will reflect later, is something which Canonists and all who teach in the Church should not hesitate to articulate. Canon Law affirms the rights and duties of the baptized as well as the rights and duties of all those who hold specific roles and specific positions of responsibility in the Church.

Page 3

Canon Law helps us understand what is important to Catholic believers: what do we care about? Even cursory examination will note that we care about the Gospel, Worship, prayer, service to others (especially those in need; e.g., Canon 529), individual rights and duties, and the truth in a genuine way. The Law underscores that the Church seeks to preserve fundamental values in every circumstance so that their expressions in various situations can be clearly determined. The Law itself is changeable because it must continue to address the situations of concrete people in real life circumstances. But the Gospel and Sacred Tradition are not changeable even though they are subject to development in understanding and application. [Thomas Guarino, STD, Vincent of Lerins, and the Development of Christian Doctrine, Baker Academic, 2013] Canon Law preserves order in the life of the Church. It answers questions such as: To what do I belong? What are the duties of the Pastor? How does someone become a Pastor, a Bishop, or even Pope? Who decides these and so many other matters? Canon Law does indicate clearly who speaks for the Church and who exercises various responsibilities/obligations in the Church, including the obligation of consultation. The 1983 Code makes clear the importance of broader participation by lay persons in the life of the Church in various pastoral capacities and in various advisory boards. Significant attention is given to Bishops and to other Clergy, to those in , and to members of the Church in general. It is also important to recall that Church Law is particularly concerned with Sacraments, preaching, and teaching because these eventually touch every member of the Church in a significant manner. In fact, and in practice, Canon Law is a positive and effective instrument which serves the Church as a viable legal system ad intra and ad extra. It is a sound, basic compendium of the Church’s internal discipline, and it accurately reflects the fundamental role of the Church in the World. Because of the significance and influence of ecclesiastical law, it would seem prudent -- or even imperative -- to include at least some very basic information regarding the legal system of the Church and the Code of Canon Law at every level of Catholic education in some appropriate manner. The need for more extensive and more thorough education in Canon Law would seem to be extremely necessary in the curriculum of Seminaries as well as in practical aspects of Seminary Formation. The Canon Law Society of America, as well as some other organizations and faculties, have made a significant contribution in this regard.

Page 4

From a very realistic perspective, it is worth noting that a somewhat antinomian (i.e., opposed to Law in general) ethos became evident in this Country during the final decades of the last century. The long iter of Code revision after the Council may have combined with that antinomianism to foster a somewhat antinomian ethos in the Church as well. Moreover, the tragic reality of clergy sexual misconduct and abuse, which began to surface publicly a quarter century ago, certainly did not foster understanding or appreciation regarding any “inner- workings” of the Church as such. From my experience and perspective, it certainly seems that problems have risen and still arise in the Church, not only from disrespect for the role of Law but also, at least in part, from a significant lack of knowledge and/or a lack of understanding regarding the content and the role of Canon Law. In some fashion, the consequences of this lack of knowledge and/or understanding are harmful for all levels of our ecclesial community. Significantly, it appears that problems have also arisen from a failure of those in positions of ecclesial responsibility to apply Canon Law consistently and/or correctly. Clergy, especially bishops, have a primary obligation to know Church Law and to apply it properly. This is particularly important regarding which is intended to protect the rights of all members of the Church by assuring that significant matters are addressed in the same fashion at all times and at all levels regarding all persons. Thus, procedural law is not subject to dispensation, i.e., the relaxation of a law by competent ecclesiastical authority in a particular case (Canon 85). It is also important to note here, the genuinely positive changes since Vatican Council II whereby the Church now welcomes, and at times requires, the significant contribution of who are knowledgeable in Canon Law and who now serve in many significant Diocesan positions, as well as in and as Canonical Advisors. That said, it is always important to keep in mind that the Church is not about Law. We have Canon Law that we may more completely be the Church. If you would teach Law you must look to the mystery of the Church.

III We might consider some examples of Canon Law citing its effect in the life of the Church, , for instance. A common example might be: Canons 1055-1165 which present the Church’s understanding of marriage and deal with marriage validity, preparation for it, its

Page 5

celebration and some other special circumstances. Because marriage is a truly human institution which was not created by individuals or by the state or by any government, its nature and meaning as understood by the Church include a community of life in unity, permanence, fidelity, and openness to procreation. All of these fundamentals are sealed through the exchange of consent which establishes an irrevocable covenant of life and love wherein a man and a woman mutually give and receive their own self to one another (Canon 1057), and none of the fundamental elements of marriage are subject to ad hoc alteration by individuals, by , or by governments. Married couples give and accept each other in a perpetual covenant and are not competent to re-define or to ignore its fundamental elements without serious consequences. Another example of subjective judgments and/or actions regarding what is right and wrong would be obtaining an abortion or cooperating in or publicly supporting abortion. Such behavior is openly contrary to Church teaching and is directly harmful to a person’s relationship with God. Yet another example of a subjective judgment and/or action regarding what is right or wrong would be attempting to enter a “gay marriage” or publicly supporting “gay marriage” because attempting to modify the meaning of marriage with “gay” is in open contradiction to Church teaching and is, likewise, directly harmful to one’s relationship with God and with His Church. Simply put, such examples impede ecclesial communion to the extent that full participation in celebration of the cannot be permitted. Such issues should not overshadow the good news or lead to disrespect for persons. Blessed Pope John Paul II gave us many examples of teaching which both expresses the truth and shows love for others. For example, Church Law must adequately address what is to be done when Catholics who are validly married obtain a civil divorce and subsequently attempt marriage according to without benefit of an and, then, continue to receive Holy Communion. That this pastoral sensitivity is central to the Church was clearly exhibited by Pope John Paul II in his homily given at the conclusion of the Fifth General Assembly of the of Bishops at on October 25, 1980:

He praised “those spouses, who, although faced with great difficulties, nevertheless witness in their own life to the indissolubility of marriage,” and he noted that the Synod re-affirmed this long-standing ecclesial truth.

In this exhortation, Blessed Pope John Paul II encourages us to invite those who are divorced and remarried outside of the Church to participate in the life of the Church in their

Page 6

prayer, and works of charity asking that they might find the grace of conversion and salvation. The Pope adds “it is fitting that the Church present herself as a merciful mother by pouring forth prayers for these persons and by strengthening them in faith and in hope.” Thus, while there are clear general principles regarding these situations, each individual situation may require a specific pastoral response and those involved in these circumstances must be treated with the respect and dignity they deserve as children of God.

IV The Work of Tribunals

The promulgation of the new Code in 1983, and its subsequent translation into the vernacular, enabled Tribunals and staffs to have a deeper and better understanding of the Law. Groups of Canonists, like the Canon Law Society of America, were able to strengthen their networking capabilities and to enhance their research/reference base. Provinces and worked together to establish and conduct Courts of Second Instance, as well as to serve each other on penal matters, and update each other on developing in this area. Thus, better relationships and interdependence among Tribunals were fostered. In the years since 1983, the field of technology has blossomed. This too helped foster communication among Tribunals and Canonists, and allowed a more efficient operation in Tribunals. It has kept the Canonical process up to date and professional. Procedure enhancing Canons such as 1421 §2, allowing the use of lay Canonists as Judges on collegial courts, enabled Tribunals to reach more people in a more time-efficient manner. It is important for Canonists continually to make efforts to keep abreast of developing jurisprudence. Use of traditional grounds and the still developing jurisprudence on penal issues are just two examples of this. There is also the need to develop a uniformity of jurisprudence between Tribunals. This would help to avoid some of the obstacles and certainly delays which arise in terms of the progression of the trial, particularly when Second Instance Judges approach cases from a different viewpoint than the First Instance Judges. Continuing education or updating in the field of Theology (e.g. Moral Theology, Theology) will also continue to be important for Canonists as the discipline of

Page 7

Canon Law is interwoven with Theology, and the Law is always in service to the teachings of the Church. Additionally, Canonists are challenged to develop enough technological skills to make use of the advancements in this field that will continue to be of assistance to Tribunals in the future. In many Dioceses, the number of non-English speaking people presents yet another challenge to Tribunals. Efforts need to be made to ensure that these people will be adequately served (e.g. hire bilingual staff members, employ translating services, have forms available in other languages). A justified criticism has been leveled at many Tribunals for the over use of the ground of Lack of Due Discretion. The criticism was just that – an over use. Lack of Due Discretion (LDD) remains a viable ground when properly understood, and properly employed. However, it is not a catch-all. What Canonists are discovering (or re-discovering) when asked to re-educate themselves on the more traditional grounds – is that often the same elements/behaviors/indicators that led to a finding of LDD can also be indicative of other grounds. This emphasizes again the need for on-going formation/education for Canonists. Attention needs to be paid to the Law sections in decisions; not just the ones for Lack of Due Discretion cases, but for all cases, that those Law sections accurately and adequately state the current jurisprudence and are relatively consistent in Tribunals throughout the World. A third element in dealing with possible, more-limited and better defined use of LDD, is the use of Experts. There needs to be uniformity in the use of Experts, and uniformity in understanding of their role. An interesting area for future discussion is the relevance of celebrated without Faith. The crisis of Faith which affects our Society is also reflected in marriages, so that quite often our Tribunals find themselves dealing with cases in which the issue of the lack of Faith of the spouses cannot be ignored or dismissed easily. Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, in his last discourse to the on January 26, 2013, highlighted for us the fact that the lack of Faith can certainly wound the appreciation of the goods of marriage. This topic needs a great deal more research and development, but it can be very useful since so many of our cases deal with people whose vision of the World is determined solely by the secular Society in which we live.

Page 8

V We face today, perhaps as never before, thought which has been called antinomian. Antinomian attitudes and actions are also frequently combined with widespread individualism and a misunderstanding of personalism. Personalism was very much emphasized throughout the pontificate of Blessed Pope John Paul II. Personalism is basically a view of humanity which places emphasis on a person’s dignity as a child of God. It stresses the dynamic character of the baptized as being called to fulfillment, particularly by each person’s act of committing himself/herself to worthwhile and lasting values. Personalism is a strong conviction of personal freedom regarding oneself and others. As such, it is also very conscious of personal responsibility. Underlying the notion of personalism is a keen awareness of personal dignity and rights, but it also includes awareness of duties which follow from the same dignity and rights. (Monsignor Cormac Burke, “Personalism, Individualism and ‘Communio.’ “Observatore Romano N. 17-28 April, 1993 pgs 7-8.) Christian personalism is in opposition to secular individualism which has been so dominant in modern secular society and culture. While individualism may use some terminology which seems akin to personalism, it is quite different and is even opposed to Christian personalism. In secular individualism, the individual constitutes a supreme and fundamental good while the interests of community or of Society are subordinated to individual interests. The individualist will consistently place one’s own interest first and will stress the autonomy of the individual with little or no reference to others or to transcendent realities or to God. Individualism also stresses rights but does not emphasize duties. The emphasis on freedom to act does not include the responsibility of having to answer for one’s actions. It makes the individual -- not truth -- the standard of morality and the criteria of right and wrong. (Burke art. cit.) We can see this in our own Society where people live under the mistaken notion that whatever the individual judges desirable or good for himself/herself is, ipso facto, “moral” for that person. Any notion of living in a World established by the Creator and any notion of a responsibility to live in that World of Truth is simply ignored or dismissed. This attitude, which also affects Catholics, is destructive of Society -- including the community of the Church -- and

Page 9

it seriously undermines the dignity of the human person who is created for seeking the Truth and living in accord with the Truth. Is it any wonder, then, that a Church which proclaims Truth as revealed by God and which has clear expectations and invites people to live in God’s World in accord with their own God-given dignity finds itself at odds with popular culture? John Henry Cardinal Newman reflected on this issue:

“Conscience has rights because it has duties; but in this age, with a large portion of the public, it is the very right and freedom of conscience to dispense with conscience. Conscience is a stern monitor, but in this century it has been superseded by a counterfeit, which the 18 centuries prior to it never heard of, and it could not have mistaken for it if they had. It is the right of self will.” (Robert P. George blog http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/07/0622/July 24, 2013.)

It is essential that Canon Law not give way to this erroneous understanding of conscience which essentially undermines the very notion of Communio.

VI What is Communio? Canon 205 of the Code of Canon Law summarizes the Church’s understanding of Communio thus: Those baptized are in with the here on Earth who are joined with Christ in His visible body, through the bonds of profession of Faith, the Sacraments and ecclesial governance.

The CDF also reminds us: “The concept of communion lies ‘at the heart of the Church’s self- understanding,’ insofar as it is the mystery of the personal union of each human being with the divine Trinity and with the rest of mankind, initiated with Faith, and having Dogma as a reality in the Church on Earth, is directed toward its eschatological fulfillment in the heavenly Church.” [Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter to Bishops of the Catholic Church on Some Aspects of the Church Understood as Communion, 1992, Nos. 3-6]

Communion is a gift from God. It flows from Christ and is communicated through the Sacraments. It incorporates the faithful into the Body of Christ and includes the Sacraments and the Profession of Faith to learn about its visible and social union.

Each individual is brought into communion by Faith and . The Holy Eucharist is its central focus and forms the Church as one Body. [CDF, 1992, Nos. 3-6]

Page 10

Those who meet these standards are faithful of the Church in the fullest sense. This emphasizes the union of believers with Christ in His Mystical Body, the Church. Flowing from this full communion with the Church are the rights and obligations of all the faithful, as well as specific, individual capacities and functions. This teaching of the Church and its theological implications are genuinely reflected in the 1983 Code. Union in the Faith of the Church is specified further in a number of Canons which speak of Divine and Catholic Faith whether it is written or handed down by Tradition in the single Deposit of Faith entrusted to the Church (Canons 750, 752, 753). For this reason, the faithful are bound to shun any contrary doctrines. (Vatican Council II, Dei Verbum, #10.) The Church is both welcoming and merciful following the Master. Jesus Himself deals with the woman taken in adultery (John 8:1-11): “Has no one condemned you?...Neither do I condemn you. Go [and] from now on sin no more.” On the other hand expectations of the Apostles were high. Saint Paul after rebuking the Corinthians and reminding them of their unity in the Eucharist, says clearly and at some length: “Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the Body and Blood of the Lord.” (1Cor 11: 17-32). The ecclesial understanding of Sacraments and of ecclesial Communion is a basis for disciplines contained in the Code, as in which, with specific qualifications, states that those “…who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.” In addition, Canon 209, §1 states that “Christ’s faithful are bound to preserve their communion with the Church at all times, even in their external actions.” It has been my policy to invoke Canon 916 of the Code, which makes clear to those who seek to receive Holy Communion but who, in fact, are in impeded communion with the Church, should refrain from receiving Holy Communion. This Canon is not a punitive norm and involves no punitive action or a process. Neither does it invoke Canon 915 which is a Sacramental disciplinary norm. Rather, I think it important that we remind Catholics that the responsibility for worthy participation in Holy Communion begins with individual Catholics. Thus, it is important that we find ways to emphasize the seriousness of dissenting from Church teaching regarding the nature of marriage, the right to life, and other significant moral and theological matters. An appeal to a person’s honesty and integrity may have some effect.

Page 11

(See blog of Dr. Edward Peters, “In the Light of the Law” September 27, 2012. http:canonlawinfo@fivethings htm.) In this spirit, I have noted in pastoral letters the fact that all of us are in need of God’s mercy and forgiveness. All that has been expressed enhances the reasons why all Catholics should frequent the Sacrament of Reconciliation where no sinner is above God’s loving forgiveness. In his recently published interview, sagely noted: “The confessor, for example, is always in danger of being either too much of a rigorist or too lax. Neither is merciful, because neither of them takes responsibility for the person. The rigorist washes his hands so that he leaves it to the Commandment. The loose washes his hands by simply saying, ‘This is not a sin’ or something like that. In pastoral ministry we must accompany people, and we must heal their wounds. (“A Big Heart Open to God – the Exclusive Interview with Pope Francis, September 19, 2013: www.thinkingfaith.org).

VII

Let me be very clear that whatever is to be done or is to be avoided according to Church Law is subordinate to Grace. Grace, which is God’s consistently and freely offered efficacious gift drawing each of us to order our life towards genuine goodness with unfailing support from the Divine indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit unceasingly leads us, but never without our cooperation, towards our goal of union with God in everlasting happiness.

Clearly our Church and many other groups and individuals in our Society must be appalled at the sexual abuse crisis which has come to light in recent decades. The members of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops have admitted mistakes and apologized sincerely for the suffering of far too many victims, as have individual Bishops in specific cases. Our best apology is effective action to care for victims and to work to ensure that such evil actions never again occur. This calls for widespread and regular education and screening, but also proper penalties for perpetrators.

Page 12

While significant progress has been made, improvements and perhaps even some re- thinking may be called for. 1) Due confidentiality is important for both victims and those accused (especially before a clear judgment of facts can be reached.) 2) The rights of everyone involved must be safeguarded. Procedural Law is important in this regard. 3) Proper supervision of those no longer in ministry or otherwise limited is a problem for almost every and civil jurisdiction. Everyone in the process should make sure that he/she is well acquainted with basic procedures and possible pitfalls. The question is often raised as to what “proper supervision” in these circumstances means and whether it is, at times, realistically possible.

VIII Another specific issue which calls forth discussion today is the Circular Letter from the Congregation for the Clergy Providing Procedural Guidelines Related to Parish Restructuring (Protocol Number 20131348). This Circular Letter which was forwarded to Bishops by Timothy Cardinal Dolan, President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, addresses an issue which has caused some consternation both within Dioceses and between Diocesan Bishops and Roman Dicastaries. The Circular Letter from the Congregation addresses “Procedural Guidelines for the Modification of Parishes, the closure or of Churches to profane but not sordid use, and the alienation of same.” The Congregation emphasizes that in dealing with Parishes, as each Diocese must in our day, it is important to distinguish clearly between three separate and distinct Canonical processes as mentioned in the title. Each process has its own procedures and each must be followed carefully and correctly. Cardinal Piacenza, then Prefect, points out that to determine whether or not the required just cause is present in the case of a proposed modification (cf Canon 515 §2) or the required grave cause in the case of Church closure and relegation (cf Canon 1222 §2) each case must be considered separately. Each case must have a cause which is specific to that case. And each administrative decision must be enacted by a separate written , issued and lawfully communicated at the time that the decision is given. The document

Page 13

goes on to make specific observations and draws specific Canons to the attention of Diocesan Bishops and those who assist in reaching the decision. Also, the decree must provide for the disposition of temporal goods in accord with Law, and must respect the intentions of donors (cf Canons 121, 122 and 123). It also points out that jurisprudence has clearly established that when Parishes are modified, the temporal goods are to follow the people! In fact, this is very difficult to ascertain in many if not most instances, since people tend to migrate from one Parish to another for personal reasons. Perhaps this topic would benefit from further exploration and study. IX Canon Law since the Second Vatican Council has undergone a remarkable even if not perfect growth. It is very sensitive to major themes of the Council. It certainly enhances the role of lay persons even though there is room for improvement. It also emphasizes the need for decisions which are based on Truth as it is revealed and handed on to us by Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Such emphasis on Truth flies in the face of the extreme subjectivism which pervades at least western culture today. As stated earlier, many individuals create their own moral World with no reference whatsoever to the transcendent or to the Creator God. We “Canon Lawyers” must not fall prey to the temptation of apologizing for Canon Law or of mitigating the disciplines within the Law which are rooted deeply in the history and life of the Church and, especially, in Sacred Scriptures and Sacred Tradition. We must have a positive attitude, emphasizing all the good to which the Law contributes and the gift which Canon Law is to the life of the Church. We must never be apologetic. We certainly should know the Law well. We would do well to keep in mind the words of (the late/great) Canonist James Provost who said “Compassion without competence is a cruel hoax.” The Canon Law Society of America and multiple theological faculties have done significant work in implementing the 1983 Code of Canon Law and in relating it to the concrete life of the Church. At the same time, many Canonists seem to have been affected by the attitude that “Law is bad” because it limits freedom. This simply is not true. We must be willing to stand up proudly for the gift which Canon Law is to the life of the Church and to the life and Faith of individual Catholics, even though there is room for change and growth in some matters. In addition, it is important not only that we who are Canonists happily assume our proper responsibility and role in the Church, but also that we continue to instruct others in the Church at

Page 14

various levels regarding the importance and significance of Canon Law. In this comment I mean Bishops, Priests, Seminarians, Permanent Deacons and those thousands of lay persons who serve in our Chanceries, Parishes, Schools and Catechetical programs. We must never fall prey to the error (or the attitude) which places Canon Law in the category of “problem” for the Church. As we move to the conclusion of this presentation, I note that there has not been an earthquake. Had there been I admit I would have been terrified. I am reminded of the story of a little boy who was frightened at night he called out to his parents and his father came to the door and said that God is always with him. The boy thought for a moment and responded, “I want someone with bones.” In a certain sense the Law gives “bones” or structure to the Church, the Body of Christ. It is our responsibility to serve the life and Faith of the Church by being truly competent and confident in the service which we offer to its life. I believe this is a strong lesson from the last 30 years. May we continue to learn this lesson well and to act on it in order, by God’s Grace, to enrich the life of the Church which is the Body of Christ.

Page 15

SOURCE REFERENCES

1 The original Code Commission members were from Communicationes

2 The Lex Ecclesiae Fundamentalis was prepared as a draft document, but it was never promulgated. See Communicationes, Vol. I, pp. 114‐120 and Vol. II, N. 1, pp. 82‐89.

3See Communicationes In abbreviated form, the principles for revision expressed the intention to: (1) Maintain a basically juridic text; (2) Avoid conflicts between internal and external fora; (3) Use pastoral orientation and legislate only as necessary; (4) Incorporate all post‐conciliar special faculties granted; (5) Incorporate the Vatican II principle of subsidiarity; (6) Define and provide for protection of individual rights; (7) Indicate procedures to safeguard subjective rights in administrative actions; (8) Maintain the principle of territoriality; (9) Simplify penal law and reduce automatic penalties; (10) Adjust format of the Code to parallel the Church "munera" of Vatican II.

4Pope John Paul II, Sacrae disciplinae leges, Apostolic promulgating the 1983 Code of Canon Law, 25 January 1983. This was twenty‐four years from the day on which Pope John XXIII had mandated revision of the 1917 Codex Iuris Canonici. Sacrae disciplinae leges is a rather brief document which introduces the “new” Code of 1983 and includes a short “ Commentary” with a brief history of the evolution of law in the Church. Sacrae disciplinae leges can be found at the beginning of most editions of the revised Code. The long iter of the Code revision has been meticulously documented, canon‐by‐canon, in Tabulae congruentiae inter Codicem iuris canonici et versions anteriores canonum compiled by Edwardus N. Peters, published by Wilson & Lafleur in 2000, and distributed by Midwest Theological Forum.

5See Sacrae disciplinae leges .

6 Canon 1752 “…prae oculis habita salute animarum, quae in Ecclesia suprema semper lex esse debet.” Sources for this last phrase can be traced to the of some five centuries before Christ, as well as to medieval writers such as Ivo of Chartres (1040‐1115) and Thomas Aquinas (1225‐1274). See the “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church,” , §48, which begins by noting that the church itself will attain perfection only at the end of history. See, also, the comments of Aquinas (Summa Theologiae, Part I, question 73, article 1, and article III, q.8, a.3), where he presents the ultimate end of the world as consummation in glory in quite a different light than our current reality.

Page 16

7 Summa Theologiae, 1a2ae question 90, art.1‐4. Here law is basically understood as expressing a practical science in relation to moral behavior with a view to the eternal consequences of such behavior.

8 The term communio appears in the Code as follows: ecclesial communion is required to exercise rights in the Church (cc. 96, 205, 209), to be promoted to an ecclesiastical office (c. 149), to cast a valid vote (c. 171), to retain an ecclesiastical office (cc. 192 and 1741), to engage in an apostolic activity in the name of the Church and by its mandate (c. 675, §3), to receive sacraments in ordinary circumstances (c. 840; c. 844, §4). Hierarchical communion is required for a bishop to be a member of the (c. 336), to exercise the function of teaching and governing (c. 375, §2), and to receive (c. 1021).

9 See prior comments herein on communio and see, also, note 8, above.

10 Which does not exclude the possibility of establishing and/or recognizing a non‐territorial parish.

11 See blog of Dr. Edward Peters, JCD, “In the Light of the Law” September 27, 2012, at http:canonlawinfo@fivethings htm.

OTHER SOURCES

Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologica. Vol I, II, III (Benzinger Brothers, Inc., New York, 1947).

Ernest Caparros, Editor. Exegetical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, English Language Edition, (Midwest Theological Forum, Chicago, IL, 2004).

Eugenio Correcco. The Theology of Canon Law (Duquesne University Press, Pittsburgh, PA, 1992).

Andrew J. Cuschieri, O.F.M. Introductory Readings in Canon Law (Edwin Mellen Press, Lewiston , NY, 1988).

John Paul II. Sacra diciplinae leges, promulgating the Code of Canon Law. 25 January 1983.

Ángel Marzoa, Jorge Miras, Rafael Rodrígrez‐Ocaña, Eds. Exegetical Commentary on the Code

Page 17

of Canon Law, Vols. I‐V (Midwest Theological Forum, Chicago, IL; Wilson & Lafluer, Montreal, CA, 2004)

Ladislas Orsy, Theology and Canon Law (Liturgical Press, Collegeville, MN, 1992).

Constant Van De Wiel. History of Canon Law (Peeters Press, Louvain, 1990).

Page 18