First, a commencement address and a funeral liturgy are canonically very different things. Anyone wishing to compare them must show first of all how an academic exercise is sufficiently like a sacramental of the Church to support any arguments resting on their alleged comparableness. Now, I can point to a boatload of dissertations discussing the canon law of Catholic funerals, but I know of none on the canon law of Catholic commencement exercises; so one draws, therefore, analogies between commencement and funerals at one’s own risk.

Second, and more to the point, O’Malley’s decision in the Kennedy funeral case was made, as I argued then and argue today, quite within the bounds of—nay, in compliance with!—the canon law on Catholic funerals.

No one can tell me anything about Ted Kennedy’s pathetic public record that I don’t already know, but I know something, too, about how the canon law on Catholic funerals reads, and I suggest that considerable venom was aimed at Cdl. O’Malley for his Kennedy funeral decision by people who literally did not know what they were talking about. I say Catholics who take up the pen to discuss points of Catholic discipline—let alone to criticize Catholics prelates who, as we all know, are not above criticism—owe it to their readers to know what they are talking about in regard to such points. Else, they’re just recirculating common Catholic chatter, and who needs more of that?

Just as I defended Bishop Daily’s 2002 decision to withhold Catholic funeral rites from a public sinner, so I defended O’Malley’s 2009 decision to grant them to another, because both episcopal decisions were, in my professional opinion, made in accord with Catholic law in light of the relevant facts. Thus, O’Malley’s decision to boycott the Boston College commencement, if it’s comparable at all to his decision to permit Ted Kennedy a funeral, is an example of O’Malley’s consistency in following Church discipline, properly understood, despite his taking fire from friendlies for it.

In short, I join in Coren’s praise of O’Malley for his Boston College call, but I see it as O’Malley being O’Malley, rather than as O’Malley being a new-O’Malley.

Added: Anne Henderschott has some good thoughts here.

1. There is no question but that Mahony’s confirmations, insofar as he is a bishop, are valid. Exeg Comm III/1: 528. Canon law would recognize the validity of, say, an Eastern Orthodox bishop’s confirmations, so it would certainly recognize the validity of those administered by a retired Roman bishop.

2. There is little reason to question the liceity of Mahony’s confirmations. Canon 886 § 1 is broadly understood to make lawful the administration of Confirmation, even by retired bishops, in the territory to which a bishop is attached unless competent ecclesiastical authority expressly prohibits it. CLSA New Comm 1084. Now, frankly, I took Gomez’s letter of January 2013, despite its arguably over-broad language, to have basically accomplished that kind of sacramental prohibition, but the almost-immediate ‘clarifications’ from the archdiocese upholding Mahony’s right to celebrate sacraments made it hard to argue thereafter that Mahony was prohibited at all and certainly derailed arguments that any sacramental prohibition was express.

In short, while I am less confident than canonist Cafardi appears to be that what Mahony does he necessarily does with his superior’s approval, I don’t see yet evidence—let alone proof—that Mahony is acting against canon law or Gomez’s directives in administering Confirmation.

* The assertion that Mahony as a cardinal “outranks” Gomez as an archbishop misapplies military terminology to canonical; in every area relevant to their report, Gomez ‘outranks’ Mahony. Indeed, that’s what makes Cafardi’s speculation on this matter plausible. + + +

Reports from Ireland re canonical consequences for Catholics supporting pro-abortion legislation are, I grant, unsettling, but in terms of what Cdl. Sean Brady (Armagh) actually said on this matter—and as a lawyer I think what a man said is more important than how others heard what he said—they are not, not yet anyway, as bad as the LifeSiteNews headline “Irish bishops will not refuse Communion to pro-abortion Prime Minister Kenny” paints them.

For starters, Prime Minister Kenny (who has serious problems in terms of his Catholic identity) is not even mentioned in White’s article, so what’s the source for that part of the LSN headline? Second, exactly who says that Irish bishops “will not refuse Communion” to so-and-so under such-and-such circumstances? No one in this article says anything like that.

Cdl Brady is alleged (but not quoted) to have said that the Irish bishops ‘have not considered barring’ politicians from receiving Communion if they vote to legalize abortion; but is “have not considered barring” the same as “have considered and declined to bar” pro-abortion Catholic politicians from Communion? Clearly, no.

Cdl. Brady told politicians that “there would be a great reluctance to politicize the Eucharist.” Fine. No one, least of all the Catholic Church, wants to “politicize” the Eucharist, though of course, enforcing canonical consequences for obstinate perseverance in manifest grave sin (c. 915) is not to “politicize” the Eucharist; it is rather to comply with long-standing norms for sacramental administration. The prelate further states: “I say that [politicians] have an obligation to oppose the laws that are attacking something so fundamental as the right to life and they would have to follow their own conscience.” Again, all true, no?

Even when asked whether politicians voting for the bill ought to refrain from presenting themselves for Communion, Brady replied, “That is down the line at the moment, as far as we are concerned.” Sure it is. The vote has not been called yet. And besides, not presenting oneself for Communion (likely in accord with c. 916) is not the same thing as withholding Communion from a public sinner (c. 915), so again I ask, where is the language supporting that part of the LSN headline?

I’m not naïve. I know that too many prelates lack the understanding and/or the will power to enforce Eucharistic discipline and that such failures cause scandal to the faithful and weaken the Church’s efforts to protect innocent human life. But we need not make the news worse than it is, and we certainly should not proclaim in a headline what is—how to put this?—demonstrably un-demonstrated in an article over which the headline sits. Neither Prime Minister Kenny nor withholding the Eucharist were even mentioned in the article that featured both subjects in its headline.

If and when we get to the point where verifiable assertions are made regarding points of canon law in this matter (or it becomes clear that necessary assertions are not being made) then one would be free to weigh in for or against those claims, as circumstances warrant.

But until then, when it comes to assessing Irish politics and religion, I’m from Missouri.

In 1999 Vermes stated: “Well of course by [1965] I was no longer a priest . . . I left Paris, Roman Catholicism, and the priesthood in 1957. By that time I had a job in the Department of Divinity in the University of Newcastle, teaching Hebrew and Old Testament . . . I myself at that time, did not consider myself any longer a Christian. I was a kind of free agent, moving along without being attached to one denomination or another . . . Five years or so later, I decided to define publicly my identity as belonging to the Jewish community by becoming a member of the Liberal Jewish Synagogue.”

Vermes’ action strikes me as classic apostasy, the total repudiation of the Christian faith (1983 CIC 751; CCC 2089). Nothing in, say, Cerafogli’s “Apostasia”, DMC (1962) I: 267-269 seems to provide any ‘cover’ for Vermes in this regard. In 1957, apostasy was punishable by latae sententiae excommunication per 1917 CIC 2314 § 1, though I see no evidence that the censure was ever formally declared or imposed.

Lumen gentium (1964) 14 comes to mind, too: “This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.”

This is a point I make with my students when we hit Canon 751: Don’t assume that apostasy does not happen anymore or that, if it happens, it’s easy to spot (you know, as in creepy characters running around with meat-cleavers hacking up old ladies). Apostasy happens, every day I venture, and the consequences of it happening—mind, God alone knows whether it happened in any particular case—are eternal.

Say a prayer for Geza Vermes and for all those who met God today.

Folks recall from several months ago San Francisco Abp. Salvatore Cordileone’s arrest for drunk driving; I think the parallels between that case and McManus’ are thin.

Cordileone was stopped at a check point (not at the scene of an accident, and certainly not after fleeing the scene) and he cooperated fully with officers (instead of refusing a breathalyzer). If Cordileone was surprised to learn that he was driving under the influence, McManus’ flight from an accident and refusal to submit to alcohol testing seems, in the court of common sense, clear evidence that he knew he was driving drunk and fleeing responsibility for his actions. McManus’ legal problems are much worse than Cordileone’s and whatever personal slack folks might cut a Cordileone are not likely to be extended to one in McManus’ situation. The cases seem just too disparate.

Which brings us back to the schadenfreude-qua-demonic-delight erupting around McManus: the Devil knows that Catholic bishops teach with the authority of Christ, but that they rule largely by dint of their personal reputation for integrity. When that reputation is stained, as it was for Cordileone, it takes time to wash clean; but when that reputation is actually and gravely damaged, as it seems to be for McManus, the recovery process is much slower in coming and the pastoral costs incurred along the way tend to be much higher. Those costs might not, in the end, be payable.

I can hear it now: if the principal of a diocesan Catholic high school drove drunk one Saturday night, crashed into a car, fled the scene, and refused an officer’s breath test, his resignation would be on the bishop’s desk by Monday morning; if not, a termination notice from the bishop would be on the principal’s desk by Monday afternoon. So what’s the difference between a principal and a bishop?

Well, the relevant difference would not be that the principal was a layman and the bishop was a cleric. Recall, episcopacy is both a sacrament (which can never be lost, and which is a source of sanctification even for those who might disgrace themselves but later repent of it in Jesus) and an office which, like all offices in the Church, can be resigned from or taken away. Canon law, for many sound reasons, protects bishops from being hounded out of office; but something deeper than canon law helps bishops reflect on whether their retention of an office is really the best way they can serve the Church from here on out.

So, may Catholics offer reparations to Jesus for the cruel insults being hurled at his Church over this event, and may we all pray for Bp. McManus who, no matter what decision he makes, has hard times ahead.

Update, 20 May 2013: The criminal cases are resolved here.

For starters, Francis wrote far less than either JP2 or B16 and the less evidence one has of something the more tentatively one interprets it. Moreover, what writings we do have from Bergoglio seem less aimed at academic audiences or others seeking theoretical precision than at practitioners of pastoral arts. One should not read Bergoglio’s prose with more technical precision than he usually wrote with. As for those parsing Bergoglio’s comments to reporters as a bishop or priest, (or, for that matter, occasionally as a seminarian!) as if these utterances were pre-pontifical exercises in papal infallibility, well, such analysis need not be taken seriously.

But besides the more obvious difficulties in using Bergoglio’s popular writings to predict the policies of Francis, I would add one more: some popes seem pretty good at not feeling bound by their pre-papal views when the burdens, and the graces, of the papacy come to rest upon them.

Want an example? Consider this episode related in G. Joyce, Christian Marriage (1933) 60-65.

One of the thorniest questions vexing the 12th century Church dealt with what constituted marriage: did a marriage come into effect when the parties exchanged lawful consent (as the School of Paris held) or did it not really occur until the parties consummated their union (as the Bologna thinkers argued). Canonical heavy hitters lined up on both sides of the dispute and prestigious canonical tribunals gave conflicting rulings on cases.

The great canonist Rolandus Bandinelli lent his prestige to the Bologna interpretation. Coupled with Gratian and Hugh of St. Victor, Bandinelli was a powerful proponent of the consummation=marriage school. True, Bandinelli seemed to shift more toward the consent=marriage school later in his career as canonist, but even upon being elected Alexander III in 1159, he still vacillated between the two theories, and not for some time did he finally side with the Parisian interpretation that consent makes marriage (while consummation adds a technical type of indissolubility). Thus, even though it disagreed with a position Bandinelli had earlier strongly defended, Alexander firmly gave the Church an insight into marriage from which she has never retreated.

Moral of the story: Something about being pope forces men to approach issues not as intellectual exercises, both sides of which can be argued, but as articulations of the doctrines and disciplines of the universal Church. Rather more weighty.

I am, therefore, much more interested in what Francis says and does as pope than I am interested in what Bergoglio said and did as a bishop or priest or (good grief) as a seminarian.

Well, apparently, there’s a priest who decided to try something similar and pretend that he was an alien trying to get to America. I first heard the story on Univision yesterday but attributed my confusion over it to gaps in my knowledge of Spanish. Now I’m thinking my Spanish was maybe okay; it was the stunt itself that I could not fathom.

Not making this up.

An American priest decided to experience what it’s like to cross the US-Mexico border illegally, you know, so he can talk intelligently about border issues. He lifts $ 3,000 from the parish till (excuse me?), goes to Mexico, and pays the three grand to coyotajes to lead him to the border (forgetting, I guess that, the North Star points—guess which way?—north, and that one can look at it for free). Anyway, the priest gets to the border, sits down and stares at the iron fence for a couple hours, and then climbs it. No one sees him. After a day of no one noticing a US citizen being in America, the priest turns himself in, provokes a stunning lack of interest in US authorities who release him (I guess American citizens climbing the fence into America must not be a high priority concern for them), and he tells his story to the media. Who treat it as a news story, instead of as a joke.

Per the Chicago Tribune, “The pastor said he believes he is the first Chicago priest to cross the U.S.-Mexico border by climbing a wall.” Well, thank God for that, at least. I mean, how many well-fed, able-bodied American-citizen priests with too-easy access to cash do we need who can pretend to break into their own country, yet can’t get arrested over it for love or money, and who obviously wouldn’t face deportation even if they were arrested, in order to prove that this kind of stunt is pointless?

I would hope, not more than one.

Attorney Thomas Tootle, representing one Carla Hale, a teacher in a Catholic high school who was discharged after she announced, and later confirmed, that she was living in a same-sex relationship, asks “There are many things that the Catholic Church considers immoral, but why is this treated any differently than adultery, divorce or birth control?” Now, maybe Tootle really doesn’t know how to think through these basic issues, or, maybe he is just grandstanding for the public (or maybe both). Either way, his question would make, I think, a good final exam for a course in Catholic law and morality.

I can see it now: Answer Thomas Tootle’s question above. Identity his erroneous implicit assumption(s), provide simple key(s) for distinguishing institutional reactions to each situation, and apply these considerations to a situation wherein one has made a public declaration of living in a same-sex relationship. Write on one-side of a page only and place your name on the last page. You have one hour. Spelling counts.

We are in our own finals week just now, and I’ve a pressing project due next week, but take the Tootle Test on your own, come back in a couple weeks, and I’ll post a sample answer.

1. A-R asked how I felt about the backlash that has come about because of the comments I and Archbishop Vigneron made regarding gay marriage.

First, I would prefer to use the word “reaction”, for to call it a “backlash” implies that the reactions are wholly negative. Some reactions have been negative, certainly, but many have been positive. Mostly, the positive responses are grateful for the clarity that I bring to the more technical aspects of Church law and appreciative of the obvious care toward one’s spiritual well-being that the archbishop expresses.

Church teaching on, say, the nature of marriage, on the licit expression of sexual pleasure in marriage, on the obligations of Catholics to act in accord with their identity as Catholics, and so on, is very, very old. What’s new in all this, at least for many, is hearing such points made succinctly and consistently even in the face of strong opposition.

It helps to keep in mind that, as a canon lawyer and professor, the only “authority” I speak with is the authority of the sources I cite, for example, magisterial documents, canon law, and so on. Either my use of these materials is accurate, or it’s not; I’m content to give people references to the positions I defend and to let them assess for themselves my fidelity in relating those sources.

Bishops, however, speak out of something much deeper than documents, they speak out of the living tradition of the Church.  While my goal is largely limited to making sure that Church discipline is correctly understood by those concerned, bishops strive to encourage the incorporation of Church teaching into the lives of the faithful. That’s a much harder task. Why? Because Catholicism is not simply an impressive set of academic propositions; it’s a path through life toward happiness with God. And that’s what bishops ultimately must care about.

2. A-R indicated that I had addressed “gay marriage supporters, not just LGBT individuals” in regard to holy Communion.

I did not address LGBT persons per se, but rather, I stated that active support or promotion for redefining marriage (no matter who is doing the promoting) is to act contrary to the settled teachings of the Catholic Church on marriage. Catholics who engage in such public advocacy seriously damage their communion with the Church and should refrain from approaching for holy Communion. I also said that, depending on circumstances, such public advocacy might result in Communion needing to be withheld from activists, but I did not try to assess any specific cases, nor did the archbishop even raise that topic. He was talking about the personal responsibilities of Catholics in taking holy Communion, not about the obligations of ministers in administrating it. It’s a related issue, but quite a distinct one, and one easily overlooked in conversations.

3. A-R asked whether the church needed to forge relationships with those who practice the faith rather than try to push people away?

I would agree. Of course, what one means by phrases like “forge relationships” and even “the faith” seem open to misconstrual, no?

4.  A-R asked whether I was concerned about alienating Catholics, particularly those who may have children or family members that are gay?

Sure, but again, that simply forces questions as [to] what, for example, “alienating” means. I am mostly concerned that people have an accurate understanding of what Church tradition and law expect of Catholics.  No one seriously thinks, of course, that Church law has an answer to every question in Church life, let alone for civil society; nevertheless Church law, and the teachings it rests upon, does have lots of good answers to lots of important questions, answers that too often go unexplored because people are simply unaware of them.

5. A-R noted that New York’s Cardinal Dolan has spoken about not wanting to turn the defense of marriage into an attack against gay people and asked whether I thought that was possible.

Sure, for the simple reason that defense of marriage is not about attacking gay people. It’s about upholding a fundamental aspect of human society that cannot be redefined to suit the political agenda of one group or another. + + +

Other posts by me on this matter (not counting interviews) are:

• Brief reaction to Rt. Rev. Robinson (24 April)
• A reaction in two parts to Michael Sean Winters (11 & 15 April)
• Response to CNN’s coverage of this story (9 April)
• Response to Thomas Reese on the matters (8 April)
• A primer on Church teaching regarding “same-sex marriage” (27 March)

But, in light of Robinson’s interjection of the clergy sexual abuse crisis in his remarks, I will pause to recall what I wrote in 2011 for Catholic World Report: “It is a given, and likely to remain one for the rest of our lives, that anytime the Church asserts some restriction on human liberty or urges some reform of human conduct, even if only toward her own members, the clergy sexual abuse crisis will be thrown in her face. Apparently a religious organization with child abusers in its ranks not only has no business commenting on social problems … it has no right to enforce its standards of behavior on its own members. Lost on these critics is the irony of their calling for less enforcement of canon law in the wake of problems that arose in part from not enforcing canon law in the first place.”

Like I said.