Canon Law determines precisely what Bishops can do with donated funds

Some years ago I was at a parish that had a “capital campaign” to raise money to build a new multi-million dollar education building.

The faithful were shown the survey of the land to be purchased and drawings of the new building.

Once the money was raised, I was told that there was a directive from powers beyond the parish level that the parish must use the money to build a new church, not an education building.

I raised the issue that the money had been collected for an education building. I said that my family and others had been defrauded. Promptly, a representative of the parish finance council contacted me and said that, if I wanted, our donated money would be refunded.

I found out that, under canon law, money collected for one purpose cannot then be used for another purpose. (As an aside, the new church building was built, and, some years later, God flooded it, completely). I was then asked by the pastor personally, to leave the parish. Since it was not his, I stayed.

Canon law – the Church’s own law – says this:

“Canon 1267, §3: Offerings given by the faithful for a specified purpose may be used only for that purpose.”

“Canon 1300: The intentions of the faithful who give or leave goods to pious causes . . . are to be most carefully observed, even in the manner of the administration and the expending of the goods  . . . “

I am unaware of any “Capital Campaign To Raise Money To Pay Off Sexual Assault Victims Of Priests & Bishops” in any parish or diocese in America; of a “Pay For Priest & Prelate Predators Campaign,” or of a fundraiser “For The Pastoral Malpractice Of Bishops Who Enabled, Fostered , And Shuttled Abusers & Criminals.”

In short, I am aware of no Catholic in the USA who donated money for the bishops to use to pay off claims against the Church and against them. It would be very surprising if, court-sealed, secret settlement documents do not include the provisions that all claims against the bishops personally are also settled, and ended, by the agreements.

Read more

Editor’s note: Carefully check your parish’s annual financial accounting summary and pay special attention to any and all insurance costs listed therein, especially for health care, disability, workmen’s compensation and similar items. It’s very likely that you will find these costs to be anywhere from thirty to fifty percent higher than they should be, since many parishes are forced to pay a silent “tax” in order to refill the coffers of the dioceses’ “secret abuse insurance fund” used to help pay off past settlements or to prepare for future settlements.   

Catholic Canon Law on “Shacking Up” (and other things)

Canon Law 915 states that persons “who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion.”

In addition, the Catechism, section 2390, states that “in a so-called free union, a man and a woman refuse to give juridical and public form to a liaison involving sexual intimacy. … The expression covers a number of different situations: concubinage, rejection of marriage as such, or inability to make long-term commitments.

All these situations offend against the dignity of marriage; they destroy the very idea of the family; they weaken the sense of fidelity. They are contrary to the moral law.

The sexual act must take place exclusively within marriage. Outside of marriage it always constitutes a grave sin and excludes one from sacramental communion.”

Canon Law – Legal Bishops’ Use of The Faithful’s Money

Some years ago I was at a parish that had a “capital campaign” to raise money to build a new multi-million dollar education building. The faithful were shown the survey of the land to be purchased onand drawings of the new building. Once the money was raised, I was told that there was a directive from powers beyond the parish level that the parish must use the money to build a new church, not an education building. I raised the issue that the money had been collected for an education building. I said that my family and others had been defrauded. Promptly a representative of the parish finance council contacted me and said that, if I wanted, our donated money would be refunded. I found out that, under canon law, money collected for one purpose cannot then be used for another purpose. (As an aside, the new church building was built, and, some years later, God flooded it, completely). I was then asked by the pastor personally to leave the parish. Since it was not his, I stayed.

Canon law – the Church’s own law – says this:

“Canon 1267, §3: Offerings given by the faithful for a specified purpose may be used only for that purpose.”

“Canon 1300: The intentions of the faithful who give or leave goods to pious causes . . . are to be most carefully observed, even in the manner of the administration and the expending of the goods . . . . “

I am unaware of any “Capital Campaign To Raise Money To Pay Off Sexual Assault Victims Of Priests & Bishops” in any parish or diocese in America; of a “Pay For Priest & Prelate Predators Campaign,” or of a fundraiser “For The Pastoral Malpractice Of Bishops Who Enabled, Fostered , And Shuttled Abusers & Criminals.” In short, I am aware of no Catholic in the USA who donated money for the bishops to use to pay off claims against the Church and against them. It would be very surprising if, court-sealed, secret settlement documents do not include the provisions that all claims against the bishops personally are also settled, and ended, by the agreements.

Read more

Editor’s note: Carefully check your parish’s annual financial accounting summary and pay special attention to any and all insurance costs listed therein, especially for health care, disability, workmen’s compensation and similar items. It’s very likely that you will find these costs to be anywhere from thirty to fifty percent higher than they should be, since many parishes are forced to pay a silent “tax” in order to refill the coffers of the dioceses’ “secret insurance fund” used to help pay off past settlements or to prepare for future settlements.   

Pope’s revised annulment procedures might make synod back room shenanigans unnecessary

The changes move the church away from a set of 18th-century safeguards meant to make sure that the annulment process wasn’t subject to abuse, Martens said. Those changes, set up by Pope Benedict XIV, included a provision that would require a mandatory appeal of the lower court’s decision.

“What guarantee do you have for a fair trial if you take away those guarantees that were put in the past?” Martens said. “Sometimes you want to go so quickly, you miss elements and make mistakes. Procedure law takes time to unfold.”

Martens said the way Francis changed the annulment process was unusual, because he did not go through the Synod on the Family, as expected, in October. [It takes some things off the table for the Synod, which explains something of the timing of this.]

“If I were a bishop, I would be upset,” Martens said. “It’s a bit strange and even a sign of contradiction that a pope who is big on consultation and collegiality seems to forget that on something like this. It’s highly unusual for legislation like this to get through that way.”

Read more from Father Z

A primer on Church teaching regarding ‘same-sex marriage’

No matter which way the US Supreme Court rules in the “gay marriage” cases before it the international debate over the definition of marriage will continue because that debate is, at root, about matters beyond a civil court’s competence, things like the nature of human beings and the fundamental good of society. Because we Catholics are and will surely remain major participants in such a debate we should be clear among ourselves as to what our Church teaches in this area. I offer as a primer (I stress, primer) toward such better understanding my position on the following points.

1. The Catholic Church teaches, through its ordinary magisterium and with infallible certainty, that marriage exists only between one man and one woman.

Read more

Canonist Peters thinks Fr. Guarnizo was wrong in witholding the Eucharist from Barbara Johnson.

Lionel Andrades makes the case that Peters is wrong, and that just about anybody with eyes to see and ears to hear is capable of rightly discerning the gravely sinful public actions of that sadly misguided buddhist, lesbian, apostate Catholic woman.

According to Lionel:

Edward  Peters errs in assuming that the outward action does not indicate the internal thoughts or motivation. This is the moral theology of Fr. Bernard Haring and Fr. Charles Curran. Homosexuality and lesbianism will always be a mortal sin. It is grave matter and the woman has admitted it, in this case. She persists in receiving the Eucharist and still persists in the sin.

Read the entire commentary

In the Fr.Peter C.Phan Notification was the USCCB affirming the rigorist interpretation of outside the church no salvation?

In the Notificationthe USCCB mentioned that there could be non Catholics saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire. We accept this in principle. Defacto, this was known only to God.The popes and Church Councils accepted it in principle that a non Catholic could be saved in invincible ignorance etc. They also knew that  these cases were known only to God. So they were not explicit exceptions to the dogmatic teaching extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Fr. Peter C. Phan outright denies the magisterial teaching on salvation and so the USCCB rightly corrected him. Even though he denies a defined dogma the USCCB however allows him to offer Holy Mass. This is contrary to Canon Law. How is a priest in public mortal sin allowed to offer Holy Mass?

Read more from Lionel Andrades

The Archdiocese of Detroit vs. Real Catholic TV: All the latest … including the Ed Peters Canon Law controversy.

I have been doing much research in regard to Real Catholic TV (RCTV) and the Archdiocese of Detroit’s claims that RCTV is “not authorized to use the name Catholic.”  The Archdiocese can claim that all it wants, but these claims amount to little more than harassment and a public relations campaign aimed at undermining RCTV’s moral authority and influence.

Read the article

Read Steve Kellmeyer’s criticism of Ed Peters, the Canon Lawyer

Can a Catholic bishop become a heretic through sins of omission? If so … what then?

A recent post by Lionel Andrades explains that according to Canon Law, a bishop is a juridical person and is also required to be Catholic. As such, that bishop is obliged to affirm all the teachings of the Catholic Church.

If the bishop refuses to affirm the Catholic faith when questioned or challenged, it serves as a tacit denial.

In light of this … can a bishop who denies any part of the authentic Catholic faith legitimately continue to fulfill his duties as a Catholic and/or a bishop?

If so … how? If not … who is responsible for seeing that the problem is promptly and satisfactorily remedied?

Read the article at Lionel’s blog

ANTI SEMITIC TO BE A CATHOLIC:
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2012/01/anti-semitic-to-be-catholic.html

TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC ORGANISATIONS BEING MONITORED IN ROME: http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2012/01/traditional-catholic-organisations.html

Newt’s remarks on when life begins are seriously at odds with Catholic Canon Law

In 1988, the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts authoritatively (authentice) answered the question about whether deliberate destruction of pre-natal human beings “by any method at any time after the moment of conception” (quocumque modo et quocumque tempore a momento conceptionis) was an excommunicable offense under Canon 1398. The Council’s answer, approved by Pope John Paul II on 23 May 1988, was Yes. See AAS 80 (1988) 1818-1819.

Link

Catholic bishops reported to be “neutral” on Mississippi Personhood Amendment. Why?

by Doug Lawrence

Other than the liberal personal political leanings of many Catholic bishops, why would they choose to stay neutral on what may turn out to be the single greatest weapon against abortion, since the passage of Roe v. Wade?

The surprising answer: Almost 2000 years of Catholic doctrine confirms the fact that there is a world of difference between the status of a baby in the womb, and a baby who has already been born.

(For a comprehensive article on the subject of miscarriages and still births, click here.)

The term “juridical” describes an entity whose rights and/or particular status is defined, according to law, whether it be natural law … civil law … criminal law … international law … or Catholic Canon Law.

A corporation, for example, is defined as a legal entity (a juridical person) under civil law. It is also the beneficiary of certain legally specified rights and protections.

While there is absolutely no doubt that a yet to be born fetus constitutes a being that can be defined as nothing other than human, both Catholic Canon Law and the laws of nations make very significant distinctions as to the actual legal rights and status of such little souls.

The Catholic Church, for instance, does not make ANY of the sacraments available to someone who is yet to be born, or for whatever the reason, fails to be born. Since the sacraments are known to be the primary channels of God’s grace, and since Baptism is the essential remedy for Original Sin and “the door to the Church” this is a very substantial distinction, indeed.

But it is a fact!

The Mississippi Personhood Amendment has yet to be voted on, so we don’t know as yet, all the ways it might change things, but we do know that it would serve to protect those which up until now, have routinely been the subject of inhumanly violent and bloody injustice.

It seems to me there must be some way for all people of good will to come together, in order to save the babies.

What do you think, bishops?

Link

A Canon Lawyer analyzes the Bishop Zurek – Father Pavone dispute

The Zurek-Pavone dispute is public. Based only on Zurek’s letter to Pavone and on Pavone’s response to Zurek as reported at Lifesite News, I offer the following initial observations and/or personal opinions.

Bp. Zurek:

• should not have used the term “suspend” in regard to Pavone, for “suspension” is a canonical penalty for crime (c. 1333), and Pavone has not been accused of any crime.
• is within his authority to recall Pavone to Amarillo in virtue of Pavone’s promise of obedience (c. 273) and may revoke the permission required for any secular cleric to be outside his diocese of incardination for a notable period (c. 283).
• may assign Pavone to a “time of prayer and reflection” and need not give him a specific office (c. 157).
• is responsible for Pavone’s reasonable maintenance (c. 281).

Fr. Pavone:

• is a priest in good standing, specifically with faculties for ministry within the Diocese of Amarillo; absent clarification, however, I would regard as withdrawn Pavone’s faculties for preaching outside of Amarillo (c. 764), for confession outside of Amarillo (c. 967), and for the exercise of other sacred functions such as celebrating Mass outside of Amarillo (cc. 903, 561), none of which restrictions, however, is an express or implied penalty.
• has a right to protest, even vigorously (c. 220), the use of the word “suspend” in his regard, but has alleged no basis to oppose his basic recall to Amarillo or any lawful directives otherwise imposed on him now or in the future.
• has alleged no basis upon which the “public promise” of pro-life work he made in a ceremony “presided over by a Vatican cardinal” conferred on Pavone any special canonical rights able to be invoked against the normal exercise of ecclesiastical authority.
• as the (apparent) CEO of Priests for Life, a “private association of the faithful” (cc. 321-326), Pavone/PFL are susceptible to the “vigilance” of ecclesiastical authority in the administration of its assets (c. 325); who exactly that authority is, however, is not clear from the information in front of me.
• needs to be attentive to the restrictions against clerical involvement in the administration of goods belonging to lay persons (c. 285) and against clerical involvement in negotio (c. 286).

Read more

This Week’s Ask Alice: Evaluating Catholic sites that are critical of the Vatican, the Pope, and the Church.

Send A Question To Alice

She’ll answer as many questions as possible,
right here, every Thursday.

Email responses will also be provided, as time permits.

Andy Asks: I’m not sure what to make of sites like this. Particularly this article. What’s your opinion?

Alice Answers: The article entitled, “The Apotheosis of Antichrist,” attacked Pope John Paul II as the Vatican was preparing for his recent beatification. Written by Br. Bruno Bonnet-Eymard, editor of “The Catholic Counter-Reformation in the 21st Century,” Br. Bruno is a member of Little Brothers and Little Sisters of the Sacred Heart, a small religious community founded by the late Fr. Georges de Nantes, a French priest, who was suspended a divinis by Apostolic Signature in 1966.

Rather than debate his diatribe against Pope John Paul’s character and sanctity, please consider the source (de Nantes) of these comments, many of which are scurrilous.

Fr. De Nantes hurled harsh criticisms against Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II when he accused them of heresy in his “Books of Accusation.” It was his “disrespect for the popes” that earned his suspension. The Catholic Counter Reformation, CRC, which Fr. de Nantes founded is deemed “outside the Catholic Church.” His fringe faction, “The Little Brothers and Little Sisters of the Sacred Heart” which belongs to the CRC, was labeled as a cult by the French Commission on Cults in its 1995 report. In 2001, Fr. De Nantes was forbidden to celebrate, give and receive the sacraments anywhere, which is the highest penalty before excommunication.

It seems ironic that Fr. de Nantes, who wrote “Pope John Paul II had faith in man,” expects his followers to have blind faith in his own opinions against two Catholic pontiffs. Faithful Catholics are called to respect the Magisterium of the Church, a stance which seemed to have eluded Fr. de Nantes and his successor, Br. Bonnet-Eymard. The writings of both men seem reminiscent of Martin Luther’s Reformation ramblings.

As Catholics we are called to support the Body of Christ. Not divide it. Sadly, Fr. de Nantes’ legacy bequeathed his egotistical agenda to Br. Bonnet Eymard.

In Christ’s Love,

Alice

Doug Lawrence Adds: Many of these sites are well intentioned, and may even be at least partially correct in some instances, regarding some issues … while others are totally outrageous and impossible to reconcile with either common sense or the one, true faith. Still, it’s often hard to tell one from another.

An alert, thoroughly educated and well-read Catholic can usually spot problem areas in a New York minute, while others may be easily led astray, and may even have their faith unnecessarily attacked and/or improperly tested.

Issues are often addressed in a way that combines the worst of two worlds: religion and politics. For most people, that spells nothing but trouble!

Best to avoid such sites unless you really need to go there … and you really know your faith, your politics, and your history. If in doubt, evaluate the content and demeanor of the website in light of common sense, common courtesy, and relevant Catholic Canon Law:

Canon 212.3 states: “According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess,
[the faithful] have the right and even the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of the faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.”

Click here to see all of Alice’s other columns

Unlike other religious juridical systems, Sharia intends to regulate, convert, or enslave the non-Muslim.

Amy Sullivan typically takes to comparing sharia with that of Jewish Beit Din, or even Catholic canon law, and finds no differences, “it’s all about marriage contracts and commercial disputes”, so no need to look behind the green curtain. There is a world of difference between these religious systems, only sharia law involves the non-Muslim, you only need to ask those who have been victimized by it to understand the stark differences, it truly does affect those who belong outside that ideology…

Link

Editor’s note: While ideologies, creeds, and ends certainly vary, the source of the principles behind all three systems can be found in the Old Testament, Mosaic Law.

A Big Question About the Father Corapi Affair: Aren’t we mixing apples and oranges?

The Big Question: Why were strict procedures developed for investigating the alleged clerical abuse of children apparently applied to the Father Corapi case … when according to Catholic Canon Law … the gravity of the two cases … and the potential sanctions … are not even remotely similar?

Father Z: Once a Catholic, always a Catholic. No outs.

Since Omnium in mentem took effect on 9 April 2010, defection from the faith no longer has any canonical effect.  “Defection” does not release one from ecclesiastical law, including the observance of canonical form in marriage.

Once a Catholic, always a Catholic is not just cultural, or emotional… it is juridical.    Baptism to death, friends.

From 23 November 1983 until 9 April 2010 if one formally “defected” from the faith, one was released from certain merely ecclesiastical laws, including the observance of canonical form ofr marriage.

Merely walking away or attending a non-Catholic Church does not qualify as a formal defection. That makes one a “lapsed Catholic”.

Catholic Canon Law on “Shacking Up” (and other things)

Canon Law 915 states that persons “who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion.”

In addition, the Catechism, section 2390,  states that “in a so-called free union, a man and a woman refuse to give juridical and public form to a liaison involving sexual intimacy. … The expression covers a number of different situations: concubinage, rejection of marriage as such, or inability to make long-term commitments.

All these situations offend against the dignity of marriage; they destroy the very idea of the family; they weaken the sense of fidelity. They are contrary to the moral law.

The sexual act must take place exclusively within marriage. Outside of marriage it always constitutes a grave sin and excludes one from sacramental communion.”

Read more

Novena – Private or Public: What’s the difference?

Q: Regarding the practice of praying Novenas, which is typically a nine-day series of prayers for a particular intention … what’s the difference between a private novena and a public novena?

A: Public novenas are approved by the Holy See, for routine use by the whole church. Private novenas carry no such approval … which is not to say there is anything necessarily wrong with them (but there might be).

Historical background:

The distinction between private and public use derives above all from the 1917 Code of Canon Law (Canon 1259.2). It forbade the public recitation of litanies that had not been approved by the Holy See. This prohibition included not only the public recitation of unapproved litanies by priests but extended to particular groups of the faithful who prayed in common without an ordained minister present.

This canon has not been retained in the present code. And while the law today is somewhat more flexible, it does not necessarily mean that all litanies formally approved for private use can now be publicly used.

There were and are good reasons for not multiplying the number of public litanies. Canon 839.2 of the 1983 Code directs the local ordinary to assure that “the prayers and pious and sacred exercises of the Christian people are fully in keeping with the norms of the Church.”

– Answer furnished by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university. Courtesy of ZENIT International News Agency and the Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN).

A critical look at the issue of Catholic marriage annulments

In a November 1996 article in Homiletic & Pastoral Review, the San Diego diocese’s director of canonical affairs, Dr. Edward Peters, defended Church tribunals in this country, where annulments have soared from about 600 per year in 1968 to well over 60,000 in some recent years. (The article, slightly modified, was reprinted as chapter XII of Peters’s book, 100 Answers to Your Questions on Annulments, Simon & Schuster/Basilica Press, 1997).

According to Peters, who is a judge on the diocesan tribunal, the increase can be attributed not to a relaxation of the Church’s teachings on the permanence of marriage, but to other factors, among them that heterodox, pro-contraceptive marriage preparation courses are “legion” and that psychological factors render large numbers of people truly incapable of contracting valid marriages. With many spouses ignorant of the fact that marriage is ordered to the procreation of children, true matrimonial consent cannot be present, and the granting of later decrees of nullity for such marriages is a slam dunk for a church tribunal.

Peters defended the Code of Canon Law (Canon 1095), which declares incapable of entering a true marriage: “1) those who lack sufficient use of reason; 2) those who suffer from a grave lack of discretionary judgment concerning the essential matrimonial rights and obligations to be mutually given and accepted; and 3) those who, because of causes of a psychological nature, are unable to assume the essential obligations of marriage.”

This canon is “the best tool for addressing cases in which drug and alcohol abuse, physical or sexual abuse, psychological and psychiatric anomalies, and a variety of other mental and emotional conditions have seriously impacted parties prior to marriage,” wrote Peters.

He called citing the fact that Americans, who compose only five percent of the world’s Catholics, are granted 80 percent of the world’s annulments the “shallowest of all tribunal criticisms. Americans make up 6% of the world’s population, but they account for 100% of the men on the moon. So what? America functions. Much of the rest of the world does not.”

Read more

Canon lawyer’s opinion about propriety of Kennedy’s Catholic funeral Mass

Now, any man with a 100% rating from NARAL (to highlight just the tip of the iceberg of Teddy’s decades-long campaign against natural rights) has, to put it mildly, the burden of proof in seeking a Catholic funeral (okay, technically, his executors have the burden of proof, but you see the point) in that notorious pro-aborts seem to be “manifest sinners who cannot be granted ecclesiastical funerals without public scandal of the faithful.”

Unless, that is, “they gave some sign of repentance before death.” And there is at least some evidence that Ted Kennedy did just that.

Read the article