Mark Shea has posted a link to a piece written by Kevin Orlin Johnson for the Dallas Morning News called “Canon Lawyer: Publicity Alone Won’t Remove Bishop Grahmann”. Unfortunately, this piece is a prime example of what happens when Catholic writers play canonist in print. As many of you may remember, I had a similar run-in last fall with Bob Sungenis over the proper interpretation of canon 212. Anyway, I just fired off the following letter to Rod Dreher, who works for the Dallas Morning News and who I know had expressed similar concerns about the piece. I should probably point out that having worked with Rod in the past, I know he checks with canonical experts when wading into deep canonical territory.
To: Dallas Morning News
cc: Rod Dreher
Re: “Canon Lawyer: Publicity alone won’t remove Bishop Grahmann”
Dear editor,
As a licensed canon lawyer, a layman and one of the Canon Law Society of America’s (CLSA) more outspoken and conservative active members, I have a number of concerns with your recent piece, “Canon Lawyer: Public alone won’t remove Bishop Grahmann”. Kevin Orlin Johnson, the author, quotes no canonist who was still living when Pope John Paul II promulgated the current Code of Canon Law, the title of this piece leaves the impression that Mr. Johnson is a canon lawyer.
Perhaps he is, however, he provides no credentials within his piece that would justify this conclusion. To begin, I checked my copy of the CLSA’s 2003 Membership Directory and Mr. Johnson does not list any canonical degree after his name. Additionally, a licensed canonist would normally join the CLSA as an active member. Mr. Johnson’s short bio at the end of his piece, on the other hand, states that he an associate member. According to the CLSA Constitution, “ASSOCIATE members are any others who wish to associate themselves with the purpose of the Society.” In other words, this class of membership is generally open to anybody.
Concerning the substance of Mr. Johnson’s piece, the removal of a bishop from office over a disciplinary issue would presumably take place through a penal process. Therefore, competency over the case does not fall within the normal tribunal system. As canon 1405, §1, 3̊ clearly states: “[…]the Roman Pontiff alone has the right to judge: Legates of the Holy See and, in penal cases, Bishops.”
Secondly, this past year has raised many reasons why the Roman Pontiff might consider removing a bishop from office. Sacrilegious desecration of the Blessed Sacrament (canon 1367), procuring an abortion (canon 1398), and clerical sexual misconduct against minors (canon 1395 §2) all come to mind as serious offences that should be brought to the attention of the Holy See.
By contrast, the misuse of extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist is rather innocuous. To draw a comparison to the civil law, most schools have enacted strong anti-drug laws to maintain discipline within our schools and to protect the well-being of our youth. Nevertheless, the violent gangster caught peddling cocaine on primary school property is not the same as the active high-school student who, shaking off a common cold, hides some over-the-counter cough medicine in his knapsack for his personal use because he does not wish to cut class. Common sense would tell you to treat these two scenarios differently, and canon 1317 reiterates the Church’s common sense approach as follows: “Penalties are to be established only in so far as they are really necessary for the better maintenance of ecclesiastical discipline.”
Most extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist are lay volunteers who assist the clergy with the distribution of communion at Mass or who bring communion to the sick and the elderly afterward. The Code provides for their usage (canons 230, 910, 911), their usage is subject to a broad interpretation (canon 18) and to local custom (canons 23-28), and the diocesan bishop may dispense from the Church’s universal law governing their usage for a good pastoral reason (canon 87 §1).
Everyday the Holy Father faces serious issues like the clerical sexual misconduct crisis in North America and the violent persecution of Christians in China and the Middle East. With this in mind, I cannot see where he would find time to judge bishops who occasionally misuse extraordinary ministers of the Eucharistic, especially as the Code more or less leaves their usage to the discretion of the local bishop.
Sincerely,
Pete Vere, JCL/M(Canon Law)
Nokomis, FL
7 comments
Comments are closed.
What’s so frustrating is that so many try to pass themselves off as “experts” to the media these days, that those who truly ARE experts get lost in the crowd. Like Grandma used to say “Kittens can be born in the oven, but that won’t make them biscuits.” Being a longtime Catholic alone just isn’t enough to make one a so-called “expert” in complex theological or canonical matters.
Everyone has a right to their opinion, but they should be clear in stating it as such, and upon what they are basing it. The media should be smart enough to sift through those opinions given to them, in order to pinpoint the ones that are most valid and thus worthy of publication. Alas, the wars for ratings and sales have made the media’s quality in general pretty shoddy over the past twenty years. Witness the recent NY Times scandal.
Personally, a quality I highly respect in a person is for them to “know what they don’t know”, and do their best to listen and learn to those who DO know, instead of overstepping their bounds and trying to make their mark on an issue just for the sake of doing it.
Sounds like canon law regarding abuse of extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist needs to be tightened up. Their routine use in all too many parishes does deserve intervention. It may even do priests a favor, because if they had less flexibility, they would face less pressure from the old ladies when they try to end the practice.
How long does the distribution of Holy Communion actually take? I think I’m going to time it occasionally to gather a little anecdotal data. Here’s my plan: start timing when the celebrant reaches his “station”, and end when the last person receives.
I’ve been saying it for years – bring back the communion rail!
Pete,
Does the 1997 interdicasterial document, On Certain Questions Regarding
The Collaboration of the Non-Ordained
Faithful in the Sacred Ministry of Priest, have any juridical weight?
The Holy Father approved the document in forma specifica and revokes “particular laws, customs, and faculties” that is contrary to the norms in the document. One particular practice that this instruction eliminates is “the habitual use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion at Mass thus arbitrarily extending the concept of ‘a great number of the faithful'”.
Based on the continuing widespread “habitual use” of EMs, I wonder if this document is meant to be taken seriously. On the other hand, maybe it’s meant to be taken seriously, but it’s just taking a while to implement…like Ex Corde Ecclesiae.
Your help and comments are greatly appreciated.
Vincent, basically I’m not denying there are abuses in this area. However, these are not the type of abuses over which Rome will remove a bishop.
Hi folks, just got a clarification from Rod Dreher. It appears that the “Canon Lawyer” in the title was added by a web editor, and was not in the original print piece.