The Vatican & Women “Priests”

Vatican sends threat over women priests – CNN.com

The Vatican announced Thursday in a general decree that it will excommunicate anyone who would attempt to ordain a woman as a priest and the woman herself.

According to the decree, the excommunications would take place with immediate effect.

A quick search of the Vatican website didn’t turn up the document in question, so I’m largely speculating. (It often takes a little while, if ever, for many documents to be translated into English by the Vatican.) But given the fact that the excommunication would take immediate effect, it’s likely a latae sententiae excommunication, one that occurs automatically upon a certain action. These actions are generally reserved to serious violations of Church and Divine law. Some examples of actions that incur such a penalty are: procuring an abortion knowing that it’s gravely sinful, a priest violating the secrecy of the confessional and, as we see know, pretending to ordain a woman a priest. (One point: under Canon, or Church law, a latae sententiae excommunication is only effective if the person committing the act is aware of the penalty. Ignorance of the law is an excuse under Church law.)

In reality, a woman can no more be made a priest than a chocolate chip cookie could be consecrated into the Body and Blood of Christ or a dog could be baptized. It’s just the wrong physical matter and therefore the attempt at a sacrament would fail. So all these ordination attempts are no more than playacting. This doctrine has been held since the earliest times of the Church. We see it in the Bible at the Last Supper: Christ ordained his Apostles as priests with the washing of the feet, meaning only men were ordained as the first priests. Had He wished to ordain women, He certainly would have done so, so we can only assume that He had His reasons and as His followers, we should have faith in Him. I don’t completely understand the reasons for it myself, but I take it on faith that Christ knew what he was doing and wouldn’t let His Church go astray.

UPDATE (8:34 AM): English Text of the Decree:

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

General Decree

On the delict of attempted sacred ordination of a woman

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in virtue of the special faculty granted to it by the Supreme Authority of the Church (cf. Can. 30, Code of Canon Law), in order to safeguard the nature and validity of the sacrament of Holy Orders, decreed, on the Ordinary Session of December 19, 2007:

In accordance with what is disposed by Can. 1378 of the Code of Canon Law, he who shall have attempted to confer holy orders on a woman, as well as the woman who may have attempted to receive Holy Orders, incurs in a latae sententiae excommunication, reserved to the Apostolic See.

If he who shall have attempted to confer Holy Orders on a woman or if the woman who shall have attempted to received Holy Orders is a faithful bound to the Code of Canons of the Oriental Churches, he is to be punished with the major excommunication, whose remission remains reserved to the Apostolic See, in accordance with can. 1443 of the same Code (cf. can. 1423, Code of Canons of the Oriental Churches).

The present decree enters in force immediately after its publication in L’Osservatore Romano.

William Cardinal Levada
Prefect
Angelo Amato, s.d.b.
Titular Archbishop of Sila
Secretary

(Published in L’Osservatore Romano of May 29, 2008 – permanent link)

So, I was correct on the nature of the penalty.

And an understandable explanation, with appropriate links, by a leading canon lawyer.

The Vatican & Women “Priests”

Vatican sends threat over women priests – CNN.com

The Vatican announced Thursday in a general decree that it will excommunicate anyone who would attempt to ordain a woman as a priest and the woman herself.

According to the decree, the excommunications would take place with immediate effect.

A quick search of the Vatican website didn’t turn up the document in question, so I’m largely speculating. (It often takes a little while, if ever, for many documents to be translated into English by the Vatican.) But given the fact that the excommunication would take immediate effect, it’s likely a latae sententiae excommunication, one that occurs automatically upon a certain action. These actions are generally reserved to serious violations of Church and Divine law. Some examples of actions that incur such a penalty are: procuring an abortion knowing that it’s gravely sinful, a priest violating the secrecy of the confessional and, as we see know, pretending to ordain a woman a priest. (One point: under Canon, or Church law, a latae sententiae excommunication is only effective if the person committing the act is aware of the penalty. Ignorance of the law is an excuse under Church law.)

In reality, a woman can no more be made a priest than a chocolate chip cookie could be consecrated into the Body and Blood of Christ or a dog could be baptized. It’s just the wrong physical matter and therefore the attempt at a sacrament would fail. So all these ordination attempts are no more than playacting. This doctrine has been held since the earliest times of the Church. We see it in the Bible at the Last Supper: Christ ordained his Apostles as priests with the washing of the feet, meaning only men were ordained as the first priests. Had He wished to ordain women, He certainly would have done so, so we can only assume that He had His reasons and as His followers, we should have faith in Him. I don’t completely understand the reasons for it myself, but I take it on faith that Christ knew what he was doing and wouldn’t let His Church go astray.

UPDATE (8:34 AM): English Text of the Decree:

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

General Decree

On the delict of attempted sacred ordination of a woman

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in virtue of the special faculty granted to it by the Supreme Authority of the Church (cf. Can. 30, Code of Canon Law), in order to safeguard the nature and validity of the sacrament of Holy Orders, decreed, on the Ordinary Session of December 19, 2007:

In accordance with what is disposed by Can. 1378 of the Code of Canon Law, he who shall have attempted to confer holy orders on a woman, as well as the woman who may have attempted to receive Holy Orders, incurs in a latae sententiae excommunication, reserved to the Apostolic See.

If he who shall have attempted to confer Holy Orders on a woman or if the woman who shall have attempted to received Holy Orders is a faithful bound to the Code of Canons of the Oriental Churches, he is to be punished with the major excommunication, whose remission remains reserved to the Apostolic See, in accordance with can. 1443 of the same Code (cf. can. 1423, Code of Canons of the Oriental Churches).

The present decree enters in force immediately after its publication in L’Osservatore Romano.

William Cardinal Levada
Prefect
Angelo Amato, s.d.b.
Titular Archbishop of Sila
Secretary

(Published in L’Osservatore Romano of May 29, 2008 – permanent link)

So, I was correct on the nature of the penalty.

And an understandable explanation, with appropriate links, by a leading canon lawyer.

The Vatican & Women “Priests”

Vatican sends threat over women priests – CNN.com

The Vatican announced Thursday in a general decree that it will excommunicate anyone who would attempt to ordain a woman as a priest and the woman herself.

According to the decree, the excommunications would take place with immediate effect.

A quick search of the Vatican website didn’t turn up the document in question, so I’m largely speculating. (It often takes a little while, if ever, for many documents to be translated into English by the Vatican.) But given the fact that the excommunication would take immediate effect, it’s likely a latae sententiae excommunication, one that occurs automatically upon a certain action. These actions are generally reserved to serious violations of Church and Divine law. Some examples of actions that incur such a penalty are: procuring an abortion knowing that it’s gravely sinful, a priest violating the secrecy of the confessional and, as we see know, pretending to ordain a woman a priest. (One point: under Canon, or Church law, a latae sententiae excommunication is only effective if the person committing the act is aware of the penalty. Ignorance of the law is an excuse under Church law.)

In reality, a woman can no more be made a priest than a chocolate chip cookie could be consecrated into the Body and Blood of Christ or a dog could be baptized. It’s just the wrong physical matter and therefore the attempt at a sacrament would fail. So all these ordination attempts are no more than playacting. This doctrine has been held since the earliest times of the Church. We see it in the Bible at the Last Supper: Christ ordained his Apostles as priests with the washing of the feet, meaning only men were ordained as the first priests. Had He wished to ordain women, He certainly would have done so, so we can only assume that He had His reasons and as His followers, we should have faith in Him. I don’t completely understand the reasons for it myself, but I take it on faith that Christ knew what he was doing and wouldn’t let His Church go astray.

UPDATE (8:34 AM): English Text of the Decree:

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

General Decree

On the delict of attempted sacred ordination of a woman

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in virtue of the special faculty granted to it by the Supreme Authority of the Church (cf. Can. 30, Code of Canon Law), in order to safeguard the nature and validity of the sacrament of Holy Orders, decreed, on the Ordinary Session of December 19, 2007:

In accordance with what is disposed by Can. 1378 of the Code of Canon Law, he who shall have attempted to confer holy orders on a woman, as well as the woman who may have attempted to receive Holy Orders, incurs in a latae sententiae excommunication, reserved to the Apostolic See.

If he who shall have attempted to confer Holy Orders on a woman or if the woman who shall have attempted to received Holy Orders is a faithful bound to the Code of Canons of the Oriental Churches, he is to be punished with the major excommunication, whose remission remains reserved to the Apostolic See, in accordance with can. 1443 of the same Code (cf. can. 1423, Code of Canons of the Oriental Churches).

The present decree enters in force immediately after its publication in L’Osservatore Romano.

William Cardinal Levada
Prefect
Angelo Amato, s.d.b.
Titular Archbishop of Sila
Secretary

(Published in L’Osservatore Romano of May 29, 2008 – permanent link)

So, I was correct on the nature of the penalty.

And an understandable explanation, with appropriate links, by a leading canon lawyer.

The Vatican & Women “Priests”

Vatican sends threat over women priests – CNN.com

The Vatican announced Thursday in a general decree that it will excommunicate anyone who would attempt to ordain a woman as a priest and the woman herself.

According to the decree, the excommunications would take place with immediate effect.

A quick search of the Vatican website didn’t turn up the document in question, so I’m largely speculating. (It often takes a little while, if ever, for many documents to be translated into English by the Vatican.) But given the fact that the excommunication would take immediate effect, it’s likely a latae sententiae excommunication, one that occurs automatically upon a certain action. These actions are generally reserved to serious violations of Church and Divine law. Some examples of actions that incur such a penalty are: procuring an abortion knowing that it’s gravely sinful, a priest violating the secrecy of the confessional and, as we see know, pretending to ordain a woman a priest. (One point: under Canon, or Church law, a latae sententiae excommunication is only effective if the person committing the act is aware of the penalty. Ignorance of the law is an excuse under Church law.)

In reality, a woman can no more be made a priest than a chocolate chip cookie could be consecrated into the Body and Blood of Christ or a dog could be baptized. It’s just the wrong physical matter and therefore the attempt at a sacrament would fail. So all these ordination attempts are no more than playacting. This doctrine has been held since the earliest times of the Church. We see it in the Bible at the Last Supper: Christ ordained his Apostles as priests with the washing of the feet, meaning only men were ordained as the first priests. Had He wished to ordain women, He certainly would have done so, so we can only assume that He had His reasons and as His followers, we should have faith in Him. I don’t completely understand the reasons for it myself, but I take it on faith that Christ knew what he was doing and wouldn’t let His Church go astray.

UPDATE (8:34 AM): English Text of the Decree:

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

General Decree

On the delict of attempted sacred ordination of a woman

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in virtue of the special faculty granted to it by the Supreme Authority of the Church (cf. Can. 30, Code of Canon Law), in order to safeguard the nature and validity of the sacrament of Holy Orders, decreed, on the Ordinary Session of December 19, 2007:

In accordance with what is disposed by Can. 1378 of the Code of Canon Law, he who shall have attempted to confer holy orders on a woman, as well as the woman who may have attempted to receive Holy Orders, incurs in a latae sententiae excommunication, reserved to the Apostolic See.

If he who shall have attempted to confer Holy Orders on a woman or if the woman who shall have attempted to received Holy Orders is a faithful bound to the Code of Canons of the Oriental Churches, he is to be punished with the major excommunication, whose remission remains reserved to the Apostolic See, in accordance with can. 1443 of the same Code (cf. can. 1423, Code of Canons of the Oriental Churches).

The present decree enters in force immediately after its publication in L’Osservatore Romano.

William Cardinal Levada
Prefect
Angelo Amato, s.d.b.
Titular Archbishop of Sila
Secretary

(Published in L’Osservatore Romano of May 29, 2008 – permanent link)

So, I was correct on the nature of the penalty.

And an understandable explanation, with appropriate links, by a leading canon lawyer.

Probably blasphemous, but oh so funny

Family Guy Quotes – Peter Griffin Quotes (145 – 152 out of 362)

Peter: Woah! Is that really the blood of Christ?

Priest: Yes.
Peter: Man, that guy must have been wasted 24 hours a day, huh?

A number of my friends do find the above offensive, but I just think it’s hilarious. It doesn’t bother me too much for a few reasons:

1) Peter Griffin is an idiot and has misunderstandings like this all the time
2) It actually does reaffirm the truth about the Eucharist: it truly is Jesus, it’s not often you find affirmation of Catholic doctrine on TV (although the Family Guy isn’t bad on this front, considering the nature of the show)

It’s so funny, I seem to recall they actually used it in separate episodes.

The Book of Numbers and the Perpetual Virginity of Mary

Singing In The Reign: A Biblical Basis For Mary’s Perpetual Virginity? – a discussion of Numbers 30:3-15:

Now, what this means is that if a young Jewish woman–say, Mary, in this instance–took a vow of sexual abstinence, and her legal husband–in our case, Joseph–heard of the vow and said nothing, then the vow stands, and she is bound to keep it. This provides a solid historical basis for Joseph and Mary having a perpetually virginal marriage: indeed, Numbers is very explicit in the final verse that if the husband changes his mind “and makes them null and void after he has heard of them,” the the sin will be upon him: “he shall bear her iniquity” (Num 30:15). One can easily imagine a situation where some husbands would think better of deciding to accept such a vow! But as Matthew’s Gospel tells us: Joseph was a “righteous man” (Matt 1:19), and obedient to Torah. If Mary took a vow of sexual abstinence–and her words “How can this be, since I know not man?” in Luke are evidence that she did (Luke 1:34)–and if Joseph accepted this vow at the time of their wedding, then he would have been bound by Mosaic Law to honor her vow of sexual abstinence under the penalty of sin.

Hat Tip: Catholic and Enjoying It!