IHS
Rama P. Coomaraswamy, M.D., F.A.C.S
640 Nod Hill Road
Wilton, Ct., 06897
July
31, 2001.St. Ignatius
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Kasbar:
Thank you for sending me your piece on jurisdiction. I am impressed by
its great length and seeming scholarship. A proper response would require days
of study which I am unable to devote to the issue at this time. However, since
your piece being available on the internet has caused disquietude to some souls
who have written to ask me about it, I shall try to respond as best I can. My
response will be in two parts. First I shall offer for your consideration the
statement of the priests in Campos Brazil with regard to these problems. Then I
will offer a few comments on your own thesis.
In
consequence of this necessary resistance, we continue our priestly ministry in
conformity with Catholic Tradition, for the good of Holy Mother Church and for
the salvation of souls.
THE BASIS OF OUR EXTRAORDINARY
MINISTRY
"THE SALVATION OF SOULS
IS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE CHURCH."
In conformity with the rules
of ecclesiastical discipline, laymen have the right to receive from a clergyman
spiritual goods and in particular the helps necessary to salvation (1983 Code of Canon Law, Canon 213).
To this right of the
faithful corresponds, for priests, the duty of charity imposed by divine,
natural, and positive law which obliges them under pain of mortal sin to help
souls in this grave state of spiritual necessity. And no power can oppose this
duty.
St. Thomas affirms:
"Necessity confers a dispensation, because necessity does not depend on
the law" (ST I_II, Q.96, Art.6); "the dispositions of human law can
never contradict natural law, nor the law of God" (S1; I_II, Q.66, Art.7).
But, how to exercise this
ministry with the surety of the ecclesiastical authorities? Without the
jurisdiction that normally comes from the competent authorities? The priest is
essentially and radically ordained for the Church in general, and, by the line
of hierarchy and discipline, for the service of a diocese.
Accordingly the history of
the Church records cases in which priests exercised their powers without any
line of dependance from the diocesan bishop. In England in the 16th century,
when the bishops embraced heresy, some priests remained faithful to the Church
and continued to administer the sacraments. They were nonetheless separated
from their bishops, who incurred excommunication as heretics. The refractory
priests furnish a comparable example from the time of the French Revolution.
Detached from the bishops who had sworn allegiance to the Civil Constitution
on the Clergy, they continued to exercise the~r priestly powers.
The same thing is currently
taking place for priests in communist countries, particularly for the heroic
priests of the clandestine Church in China.
POWER OF ORDERS AND POWER OF
JURISDiCTION[1]
Power of orders. That power which proceeds
formally from priestly ordination or episcopal consecration, and which gives
the capacity of exercising sacred functions.
Power of jurisdiction "Ecclesiastical
jurisdiction is the public power, which exists in the Church by divine
institution, of governing baptized men in view of their supernatural end"
(Vermeersch_Creusen I,312).
Distinction between the
power of orders and the power of jurisdiction: "The power of governing
potestas regendi) the faithful through laws, judgments, and penalties is
distinct from the power of sanctifying them through the celebration of divine
worship and through the celebration or the public application of the sacraments
and sacramentals" (Vermeersch_Creusen, ibid).
The power received at ordination
(power of orders) is sufficient to validly celebrate the Holy Mass, baptize,
administer extreme unction, exercise the apostolate, catechize, etc.
The same power of orders is
necessary, but not sufficient, to validly hear confessions and to assist at
marriages as the qualified witness. Besides the power of orders is needed, at
the same time, the power of jurisdiction which, usually, comes from the local
bishop. Whence arises the question: when a
priest does not have ordinary jurisdiction as conceded by the diocesan
bishop, can he, nevertheless, make use of the powers received in priestly
ordination?
In urgent cases, touching
the supernatural welfare of souls, the Church supplies for the absence
of canonical jurisdiction, or, better, the Church directly concedes the
jurisdiction necessary for the efficacity of the sacramental act for the
benefit of souls. St. Alphonsus de Ligouri explains, "The reason for this
is that otherwise many souls would be lost and, for this reason, the supplying
of jurisdiction by the Church can be reasonably presumed” (De Paenitentiae
Sacramento, tr. XVI, c.V, n. 90).
The Council of Trent assures
us that the loss of souls on account of juridical restrictions or limitations is
contrary to the mind of the Church: "With great piety, so that no one be
lost on this account, it has always been observed in the Church of God that no
restriction [of jurisdiction] holds in danger of death [the extreme necessity
of an individual, equivalent to the grave necessity of a great number] "
(F. Suarez, De
Paenitentia disput.
XXVI, sect.IV, n.6). Suarez wonders whether this perpetual custom, commonly
observed by the Church, might not be of divine institution. In any case, he
concludes, the Church could not abolish it, for that would be to make use of
power "not to edify, but to destroy" (ibid).
And Pope Innocent XI
definitively establishes that, in case of necessity, the Church supplies the
lacking jurisdiction, even for priests who may be heretics, destitute, and
excommunicated (St. Alphonsus, De Pacnitentia, Vol.XVI, c.V, n.92).
FACULTY OF HEARING
CONFESSIONS
The power of absolving penitents is a vicarial power of divine right,
delegated by God to His Church, in the person of His priests. Through
ordination each priest receives radically the power of absolution. But
to exercise it licitly and validly, he must receive the right to do so.
Normally, the priest
receives the faculty of hearing confessions from the diocesan bishop. But there
are some cases where the priest receives directly from the Church—as the Code of Canon Law foresees the faculty which
he lacks. In such cases it is said that the Church supplies this faculty, or
delegates it to the priest who does not possess it.
It is interesting to note
that this "jurisdiction" of hearing confessions is called imperfect
jurisdiction, and is distinct from the jurisdiction in the strict sense that
the teaching Church possesses, linked to the power of governing. Thus it is
clear that its exercise does not imply any act of government, or of usurpation
of hierarchical power. And the current Code of Canon Law no longer calls this power "jurisdiction,"
reserving this name for the power of governing (Canon 129) as it regards the
external order of the Church, whereas the faculty of absolution is directed
towards the inner forum of the conscience (cf the commentary on Canon 966 by Fr. Jesus Hortal,
S.J.).
The priest, thus, who has
not received this faculty from the diocesan bishop, or who has been deprived
of it without grave cause, can not only validly but also licitly have recourse
to Canon Law from the moment that one of these cases arises according to which
there is an automatic delegation of this necessary faculty. There are other cases
that can, according to the common teaching of the canonists, be reduced to
such cases, especially when parallel passages in the Code are compared with the
general principles of Canon Law as expressed in canons 17 and 19.
The Code of Canon Law, in Canon 976, establishes
that every priest has the faculty of absolving, validly and licitly, all sins
and penalties of all penitents who find themselves in danger of death, without any exception, even
when another priest with ordinary jurisdiction is present. According to the
Canon, it matters not whether the danger comes from an intrinsic cause
(sickness, extreme old age, difficult childbirth, etc.) or from an extrinsic cause
(war, earthquake, fire, medical operation, etc.). The canonists also include amongst those in
danger of death: persons in a city besieged by an enemy, those who see
themselves menaced by a lasting dementia, and also those who find themselves,
at the instant in question, in a situation such that in the future they may no
longer have access to confessors who might absolve them.
The grave necessity of a
great number (that is to say, general and publlc) is equivalent to the extreme
necessity of an individual: "Gravis necessitas communis extremae equiparatur" (P. Palazzini, Dicionarium Morale
Canonicum, Vol.I,
p.571). This is the shared teaching of the theologians and canonists. Thus, in
the current situation of widespread desacralization and scandal in the Church,
relations with priests and bishops engaged in an ecclesiastical overhaul which
spurns Tradition represent, for many faithful, a concrete danger of losing the
purity and integrity of the Faith, without which no one can be saved. One can
likewise compare the situation today of the Catholic, faithful to the Tradition
of all times, to that of those who find themselves in danger of physical death,
with the aggravating circumstance that it concerns the danger of spiritual
death. This is a case of public and grave necessity, equivalent to the danger
of death. Canon 976 applies to thesecircumstances.
Should any doubt remain
concerning this power conceded directly by the Law, the Church would still
supply the lacking faculty, as Canon 144 makes clear:
In common error about fact
or about law, and also in positive and probable doubt about law or about fact,
the Church supplies executive power of governance both for the external and for
the internal forum.
"The supplying of the
executive power of government {jurisdiction]," the canonist Hortal says
in commenting on this Canon,
is founded on the common
good, in order to avoid uncertainty concerning the validity of certain acts of
authority. This is why it is independent from the claim on which it is based and even of the
good faith of the person who makes use of it. For example, a priest who lacks
the faculty of hearing confessions could put himself in circumstances that
induce or could induce persons present to falsely believe that this faculty has been
granted him. This is sufficient for the jurisdiction to be supplied,
notwithstanding that the priest in question—lacking just cause for his
action—might act in a gravely illicit manner.
St. Thomas explains:
Every priest...in virtue of
the power of orders, has power equally over all and for all sins; the
circumstance of not being able to absolve all people of all sins derives from the jurisdiction imposed
by ecclesiastical law. But, since "necessity is not subject to law,"
[cf Consilium
de obser. Ieian., De Reg. Iur. (V Decretal) c.4] in case of necessity the priest is
not prevented by the rules of the Church from absolving truly and
sacramentally, given that he possesses the power of orders (ST: Supplementum, Q.8, Art.G).
In case of necessity the
priest is obliged to supply help, within the limits of his own capacities
which, for the priest, amounts to staying within the limits of his power of
orders. This is why, according to the moralists and canonists, in the case of
the extreme need of any individual, as in that of a great number, the priest
is obliged under pain of mortal sin, to give sacramental absolution, even if he
is ordinarily deprived of this faculty.
St. Alphonsus de Ligouri
writes that even:
...if he can validly
administer the sacraments, even one who is excommunicated vitando [to be avoided] is obliged
to administer them in articulo mortis [the extreme need of one person = the grave need of many] by divine and
natural precepts which the human precepts of the Church cannot oppose (St.
Alphonsus, Theologia
Moralis,I.VI, treatise 4, No. 560
When the extreme necessity
of an individual or the grave necessity
of many demands it, the exercise of the power of orders, in all its extension,
is put into effect, not by the will of the hierarchical superior, but directly
by the state of necessity itself.
VALIDITY OF MARRIAGES
Let us listen to Pope Pius
XII, in his address to young married couples on Mar. 5, 1941:
In the sacrament of
marriage, what is the instrument of God which has produced grace in your souls?
Is it perhaps the priest who has blessed and united you in marriage? No. It is
true that, apart from certain well_defined exceptions, the Church prescribes
for the spouses, in order that their bond and their mutual commitments may be
valid and procure grace for them, that they exchange them in the presence of a
priest; but the priest is only a qualified witness, the representative of the
Church, and only presides over the religious ceremonies which accompany the
marriage contract.It is you yourselves who, in the presence of the priest, have
been appointed by God as ministers of the sacrament of marriage; He has made
use of you in order to establish your indissoluble union and to pour out in
your souls the graces which will make you constantly faithful to your new
duties.
Until the 16th century every
valid exchange of consent between two baptized persons automatically produced a
sacramental marriage, even outside of church and without ceremony. However,
these "clandestine marriages," however valid, were harmful to the
good order of the Church. Making use of her supreme power in matters of sacraments
(when their substance is respected[2]),
the Church defined at the Council of Trent (in the decree Tametsi), that, in the Latin Church,
marriages would no longer be valid, apart from exceptions foreseen by the law,
unless the parish priest or his delegate were present (the parish priest is
called the "canonical witness" and marriage in his presence the
"canonical form"). This decree had no force of law in many countries,
notably in the Protestant countries of Europe and in most other continents (cf
Raoul Naz, Traite de droit canonique, II, p.368).
Only in 1908 with the decree
ne temere (incorporated in the 1917 Code of Canon Law), did the “canonical
form” in the presence of a priest become obligatory in the whole Latin Church (Dictionaire
de theologie catholique, XIII col. 745-747); cf. Les mariages dans la
Tradition sont-ils valides? By Fr. Gregoire Celier).
The 1983 Code of Canon Law
considerably enlarged the exceptions to this obligation of “canonical form,”
especially for that which regards those who have abandoned the Church by a
formal act (heretics). In summary:
The ministers of the
sacrament of marriage are the spouses themselves;
In itself, the presence of
the priest is not essential; in fact, many marriages, even today, are valid
without the presence of the priest;
For an act of great
importance, such as marriage, it was for exclusively disciplinary reasons that
the Church prescribed, as a general rule, the presence of a parish priest or
his delegate for the validity of the act;
This prescription is recent
and valid only for the Latin Church, not for the faithful of Eastern rites.
This being established, it
must be pointed out that the Church has explicitly foreseen dispensation of the
spouses from the “canonical form” - the presence of the qualified witness (the
parish priest or his delegate.)- in certain cases: for example: in the case of
great inconvenience (incommodum grave). One of the principal cases in
which this dispensation from the canonical witness is apparent is foreseen by
Canon 11116;, 1,2, which prescribes that, if the spouses have a grave
impediment to procuring or having a priest with jurisdiction, and if one
foresees that this impediment will last one month, they can call upon any
priest to bless their marriage, in the necessary presence of two other
witnesses. This mariage would be perfectly valid in the eyes of the Church.
And further, the canonists
explain that the grave impediment could be physical (distance, contagious
illness), psychological (due to fear of the parish priest, for very timid
people!), moral (the risk of revealing the identity of the priest, at times of
persecution; ....
My own comments:
By returning to “presidents” who have jurisdiction and
accepting the jurisdiction of the post-Conciliar Church, you must apostasize
from the faith. This is of course the dilemma facing any Catholic today.
Traditional Catholics who accept the validity of the post-Conciliar “popes and
clergy” must accept all they teach - all of Vatican II, and all the new false
sacraments. Picking and choosing is not Catholic. Since I assume that this is
not your intention, The only conclusion that your thesis leads to is that the
Catholic Church is dead - finished. And such goes against Christ’s promise that
“the gates of hell shall not prevail.”
I somewhat doubt that Apostolicity is totally
dependent upon jurisdiction. At the Council of Florence the Church accepted the
fact that the Greeks had a valid Apostolic succession, though of course they
did not have jurisdiction. This is why the Church has never denied the validity
of their Sacraments, and indeed why a Catholic in danger of death when no
Catholic priest is available, can turn to a Greek Orthodox priest for the
viaticum.
As an aside, Pius XII did give Archbishop Thuc
permission to consecrate bishops without prior approval from Rome. He did this
because he foresaw the possibility of a communist takeover which would make
getting such approval impossible. However this says nothing with regard to your
thesis.
Your argument that it is impossible for there to be a
conflict between the mission of the Church (the salvation of souls) and her jurisdictional laws is a personal
opinion. (page 17) Indeed, St. Thomas does envision such a situation (vide
infra). Nor do I agree that the “saving of the Church” is more important
than “the saving of souls.” This distinction goes against logic. The saving of
the Church is so that souls can be saved and the two cannot be separated. as if
one were more important than the other. Ask yourself, Why did Christ establish
a Church?
Another point you make in several places is that God
has foreseen all contingencies. I agree that He has, for this follows from the
omniscient nature of God. This does not mean however that the present crisis is
not a crisis. God in His wisdom can allow for crises to occur precisely in
order to allow (or force) us to act as He would have us act. Nor is the present crisis to be likened to
prior crises, however serious. The Arian crisis was a Christological heresy -
the present crisis is the sum of, or should I say, the mother of all crises.
This is of course open to debate, but be that as it may, one must admit that it
is some type of crisis. (If God knew that Saul would defect, why did He allow
for his consecration as King. God allows evil and uses evil to bring about
good.)
With regard to Epikeia, I would suggest you read The
History, Nature and use of Epikeia by Lawrence Riley. (Cath. Univ.
Disertation, No. 17) Your whole argument about Epikeia misses the fundamental
issue involved. To just give you a few passages taken from this text:
Aristotle’s position: An individual may find himself confronted with a case which, although
it is included in the law insofar as the words are concerned, nevertheless is
not comprehended in the general law, if the intention of the legislator, and
not merely the verbal formula be scrutinized. And so, he emends or corrects the
law; he prudently judges that if the lawmaker had foreseen this particular
case, he would not have wished to bind his subject; and so the subject does not
observe the law as it is written. In other words epikeia is used. Moreover, as
Aristotle is careful to point out, the error is not in the law, for the law in
general may be just and ordained to the common good. “All law is universal, but
about some things it is not possible to make a universal statement which shall
be correct”
St. Thomas:
he maintains that in an emergency case there is no judgement made about the law
itself, but rather about the individual case in which the words of the law are
not to be observed. St. Thomas insists upon the intent of the legislator, and
of course in the present situation the legislator is Christ Himself. What then
is the intent of the legislator in the present situation. You may (falsely)
argue that God foresaw the present situation and therefore there is no possible
room for exception - however, as St. Thomas says. “commands which are given
under the form of a general precept do not bind all persons in the same way,
but according to the requirements of the end purposed by the legislator; if
anyone through contempt of his authority should disobey a precept, or violate
in such wise as to frustrate the e3nd intended by him, such a one sins
mortally; if, however, one fails to observe a precept for some reasonable
cause, especially if the legislator, were he present, would not insist upon the
observance of the law in the case, such a transgression is not a mortal sin.”
Again, St. Thomas seems to be quite clear in
maintaining that epikeia may be used only when the common good is involved.
“The letter of the law must always be observed by the subject unless there be a
danger to the public good.” Nor are there lacking other statements of like
tenor... the Angelic Doctor implies that the common good must always enter into
the case before epikeia may be licitly used. Thus: “If there should arise a
case in which such observance of the law would be harmful to the common safety,
it is not to be obeyed. In discussing the example adduced to illustrate his
teaching, he says that it is permissible to act “contrary to the words of the
law in order that the general good which the legislator intends may be
subserved.”
You may well ask just what kind of jurisdiction
traditional priests do have. I would answer - and this is a personal opinion -
they have that amount of jurisdiction required to perform their functions in
the present circumstances. no more, and no less. I would have you imagine a
physician traveling in say California where he is not licenced. He comes across
a car accident and acts to save a life - oops, he is not licenced (and
jurisdiction is like a license) you would say he should let the patient die.
Now of course, he saves a life, but this does not give him the right to open a
practice in California. The parallel is pertinent because priests are faced
with people who are spiritually in danger of death, and you would have them
walk away. Such is not possible within the Charity of Christ.
You mention the fact that traditional priests often
don’t agree with one another. This is unfortunate, and they like most laypeople
tend to have a vision of the Church as consisting of a great many rules all of
which must be followed to the letter - and often disagree about the
letter. Now, if the purpose of the
Church is the saving of souls, let us for a moment think about how souls are saved.
This requires both the grace of God and the response to that grace on the part
of individuals. What strikes me about many individuals - both lay and clergy -
is that the excessive involvement with canon law etc., is to the detriment of a
life of prayer and sacrifice. I see little evidence of prayer life among
traditional Catholics in general - especially among those who get involved in
these peripheral issues - of course I
am in no way imputing such a lack to yourself. However, if you choose to cut yourself
off from both the new and the remnant Church (however feeble), than you better
get down on your knees and pray that you can survive without the Sacraments -
for they were given to us as life saving gifts by Christ Himself.
I would further suggest that Bishop Pivarunas’s
response was not entirely wrong. A study of the Campos document will show you
that there is a great deal more study required to fully comprehend the issues
involved. And beyond the study of Canon Law (with precedents, etc.), there is a
need to know theology which teaches us how to apply the law, as well as history
to see in the past how things were applied - to say nothing of the writings of
the Church Fathers and Saints. This is a life time study and the average priest
who is in the seminary for some 6 years - a little more than the nine months
you have devoted to this issue. And this six years but scratches the surface.
For you to make this material available on the
internet is for you to have assumed the function of teaching the faithful. Now
you do have the right to teach others the Truth in so far as you know it (have
received it) such as the catechism, etc., but you do not have the function of
teaching the faithful beyond such truths - this is why the Church has always
limited the teaching function as such to priests - and under normal
circumstances, to priests who are especially qualified in this regard. Your
paper is a “thesis,” and not a matter of doctrine. You will have to answer to
God for your influencing the souls of others in what may in fact be a false
idea which you presume to label “Catholic.”
Finally, to comment on your conclusion. Your advise to
others about stop going to epikeian sacraments horrifies me. You will have to
answer to God for anyone whose soul is endangered by following your suggestion,
just as I have to answer to God for any thing that I as a priest teach or do
(which scares the living daylights out of me). Of course I don’t expect you to
agree with me on the issues I have raised in my response, and you must follow
your own conscience (even if it be badly formed). However, by imposing your
conscience on others you violate your role in life. You may argue that you are
not imposing your opinion on others, but your seeming scholarship can impress
simple souls who may be quite incapable of correctly dealing with the
information you offer, and as such you inevitably influence the conscience of
others. This is a heavy responsibility. You have every right to study and know
Church law, but no right whatsoever to teach your opinion to others. (It is one
thing to teach doctrine - catechism - to others, but your opinions, no.)
The second point is well taken, but one does not have to
form any organization to pray constantly - we have far to many organizations
already. - just pray. Furthermore the idea of “praying unceasingly” is itself
something that would require an understanding of mystical theology which I
rather doubt you are familiar with.
As for contacting old priests - this is silly. Wait
ten years and they will all be dead. And what of your children? And what of the
fact that in accepting any kind of jurisdiction through the present hierarchy,
these priests have in reality (though often without realizing it) placed
themselves in obedience to the post-Conciliar hierarchy. For them and you to
use their jurisdiction then is to place your self in obedience to the new and
false Church. Of course, you would have to have an in depth discussion with
each and every one of them as to just how they understood their jurisdiction,
and if they felt on the death of Pius XII, that jurisdiction was automatically
transferred to the post-Conciliar popes. By the time you were through doing all
this, Mass would long be over.
Such then is my response to you massive epistle. I
admit that I have not read it with a great deal of care, for other more
important responsibilities are imposed upon me in this life. However, let me
wish you well in the dilemma which you have created for yourself. You can’t go
here and you can’t go there - all you can do is stay home and declare that the
gates of hell have prevailed. But keep in mind that God has not left us
orphans. Ask yourself also if God will condemn us priests for doing the best we
can to bring Christ’s charity to the remnant faithful in the present
circumstances. We may be a poor lot, and we may make mistakes and lack full
understanding of some of the issues. But like yourself, we are trying our best
to be true to Christ. I would suggest that you ask “What would Christ have us
do in the present circumstances?” The answer to this question should be our
fundamental guide in life.
Again, God bless,
P.S. Despite your introductory paragraph, the
availability of your document on the internet and the recommendations of Hutton
Gibson’s The War is Now, have placed it in the public domain .I am
placing my response on my web page, only because I have inquiries from people
as far away as India regarding your thesis.
(Coomaraswamy-Catholic-writings.com)
ã R Coomaraswamy, 2001
[1] Cf.
Les pouvoirs du pretre. Ct also Courrier
de Rome, May/June 1999
[2] Translator s note: For the sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist, the matter and form, having been established by our Lord are irreformable. For some other sacraments the Church has the power of establishing their matter and/or form. For all the sacraments the Church has the power of establishing conditions of liceity for the sacraments of confession and marriage the Church can also impose external (juridical) conditions of validity.