Category: Ministry

Talk about “burying the lead”! Sean Roberts must not have realized that a modest detail in his blog entry should really be the headline.
It is a case of bad news and good news. The good news is that Abp. Chaput has permitted the establishment of a Russian Catholic community in Denver sharing the building of an ordinary Roman-rite parish. That’ll make a grand total of four Russian Catholic parishes in the US.
The bad news is that this came about because of some dissension in Denver’s Ruthenian Byzantine parish, where the admirable Fr. Chrysostom Frank served for some years. Sean has that story too.
(via Amy)

While I’m up at 3 am tinkering with my computer, EWTN is presenting a moving special about Courage, the spiritual support group for Catholics overcoming same-sex attraction. The program is built around members’ experiences of conversion and recovery, including that of writer David Morrison.
It’ll be on the air — well, on the cable — again tonight (Thursday, July 3) from 11 PM to midnight ET.
(By the way, folks, would you take a moment to say a prayer for “Bill”, who struggled with this problem for a long time and has fallen away? Thanks.)

VATICAN CITY — The Vatican reaffirmed celibacy for priests Saturday, rejecting arguments that the Roman Catholic Church could resolve the “crisis” of decreasing numbers of clergy by opening the priesthood to married men.
Instead, the Vatican said, current priests should dedicate themselves to attracting more candidates by better explaining the priesthood to lay Catholics and encouraging families and children to consider religious vocations.

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

I really ought to have more understanding and sympathy for my pastor. He’s an old military guy who would like to give his bones a rest, but instead has two city parishes to take care of.
Somebody mentioned after Mass on Sunday that a certain parishioner had sent a letter to him — make that another letter — saying there’s too much noise in church, and that he should do something about the women who don’t wear veils (!)
The pastor walked by him and said, “I got your very nice letter — and, no, I didn’t throw it out!”