The Irish referendum: personal implications for Catholics’ public actions

From:  https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2015/05/24

by

Edward Peters, JD, JCD, Ref. Sig. Ap.

May 24, 2015

That 40% of Irish voters bucked some of their own priests and bishops and nearly all of their politicians and major media to side with a true-marriage campaign that mustered hardly one euro for every ten spent by its opponents says something about the resiliency of natural law and Church teaching on marriage. But, silver linings aside, the outcome of the constitutional referendum on marriage in Ireland is a disaster.

“Same-sex marriage” has usually been imposed by activist judges; in Ireland it won by popular vote. “Same-sex marriage” is often insinuated into the legal landscape by blurring distinctions between it and “same-sex unions”; in Ireland marriage itself was expressly on the line. “Same-sex marriage” in most places set in only after decades of relentless secular media promotion; in Ireland it seems to have come about almost overnight.

But as the Church now tries to figure out how, for the umpteenth time in her history, she must go about teaching people how to be human, she must also explain to Catholics what it means to be Catholic. Specifically, she must be clear that some public actions carry personal consequences for Catholics especially when we are talking about Catholics who play a part in bringing about a repudiation of perennial natural law and a rejection of irrefutable Catholic doctrine. Obviously—and without reading souls, but considering things objectively—degrees of personal culpability for such acts will vary depending on two main factors: the specific actions taken by individuals and their places in the social or ecclesiastical order.

At the lower end of the responsibility scale are, I suppose, rank-and-file Catholics who cast a personal ballot securing, not just passage of the amendment, but its passage by a higher margin than would have occurred without their vote. At the higher end of the responsibility scale are, of course, Catholics who, from positions of political, social, or ecclesiastical prestige, lent their influence to the cause of “same-sex marriage”. But any Catholic who directly helped to bring about Ireland’s decision to treat as marriage unions of two persons of the same sex has, at a minimum, arrayed himself against the infallible doctrine of the Church and, quite possibly, has committed an act of heresy. (See my Primer of 27.III.2013). In either event, the technical term for such an action is “sin”; the consequences of sin are always spiritual and sometimes canonical; and the solution for sin is repentance and Confession.

May all Catholics, whether contributing to this disaster or grieving it (even from afar), set ourselves to righting it as soon as possible.

Note: As we sort out this latest mess, I urge Catholics to avoid running down the rabbit hole of wondering whether this supporter or that of “same-sex marriage” has been excommunicated for such support. Latae sententiae sanctions must be, in my opinion, eliminated from canon law but, in the meantime, debating latae sententiae penalties shifts attention away from the real problem at hand (the legalization of “same-sex marriage”) which all must address, and toward the intricacies of penal canon law which precious few are qualified to talk about.

About Gertrude

Sáncte Míchael Archángele, defénde nos in proélio, cóntra nequítiam et insídias diáboli ésto præsídium.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

174 Responses to The Irish referendum: personal implications for Catholics’ public actions

  1. What concerns me is that any Catholic who has “arrayed himself against the infallible doctrine of the Church and, quite possibly, has committed an act of heresy,” will feel that he is justified in doing that because he is fightging what many German bishops, and even Pope Francis, refer to vaguely as “legalism” and the behavior of “hypocrites.”

    I wonder if there was ever a time when the teachings of the Church were clearer, or when they were more widely ignored, even – or perhaps especially – by members of the hierarchy.

  2. toadspittle says:

    “That 40% of Irish voters bucked some of their own priests and bishops and nearly all of their politicians and major media to side with a true-marriage campaign that mustered hardly one euro for every ten spent by its opponents says something about the resiliency of natural law and Church teaching on marriage.”
    In other words, Edward Peters, JD, JCD, Ref. Sig. Ap., it was something of a miracle that the vote was not 99% in favour of Gay Irish Marriage.
    Agreed, absolutely.
    The massive “No” vote surprised me, too.
    Refreshing to read such a magnanimous, and objective, point of view.
    Is it not?

  3. Gertrude says:

    Robert: I agree with you absolutely, but it has to be said that often the Holy Father has not helped by many of his ambiguous statements – almost as though he is testing the waters to evoke a favourable/unfavourable response before pronouncing further. The teachings of Holy Church are absolutely clear. We must pray many rosaries and in our personal lives try to adhere to the unchanging laws of Holy Mother Church.

  4. ginnyfree says:

    Wow o wow dept! An expert saying voting for same sex “marriage” can actually constitute a formal act of heresy! I had no idea that it was that serious. Thank you much for the head’s up. I knew that folks were wrong fundamentally if they thought there could be a marriage between persons of the same sex, but I had no clue to believe such things can be heresy. Yikes! Double yikes!

  5. johnhenrycn says:

    Dr Peters says: “Latae sententiae sanctions must be, in my opinion, eliminated from canon law…”

    I wonder why he says that? Surely some acts are, ipso facto, so egregious, as to require nothing less than an automatic penalty. I’m not one of the few who are qualified to discuss penal canon law, but my question still stands.

    Another question I have is whether I would be justified in refusing to attend Mass in my own parish if my parish priest (theoretically, I must emphasize) were to preach in support of same-sex marriage or the reception of Holy Communion by practicing homosexuals and other adulterers? I think I would be justified in ignoring the normal admonition against parish shopping in such circumstances until he publicly recanted such views.

  6. Tom Fisher says:

    But there’s a difference between Marriage, and the secular institution that uses the word ‘marriage’. It would surely be heresy to say that actual Catholic sacramental Marriages could exist between people of the same sex.

    But the secular institution has nothing but a (fading) historical connection with Christianity. If secular ‘marriage’ was legislated to include unions between between people and, say, coral reefs, it would have no impact whatsoever on Catholic Marriage.

    The split between secular ‘unions’ and Catholic / Christian Marriage occurred a while ago. There is a sense in which the notion of same sex secular marriage should be a matter of indifference to Catholics — Catholic Marriage is unchanged, and secular ‘marriage’ is no more Catholic than it is Hindu.

  7. johnhenrycn says:

    “There is a sense in which the notion of same sex secular marriage should be a matter of indifference to Catholics…”

    Except, TF, that the legal and secular concept of marriage as existing only between men and women is as important and vital to the health of society as a whole, not just to Catholics. A marriage between a male atheist and a female atheist is far more beneficial to society than is mere cohabitation between them, and as Catholics we have a responsibility to support and protect their formal union. Likewise, we have a responsibility to speak out against same-sex ‘marriage’ even though it may not personally affect us, on which latter point – don’t be so sure that it won’t affect us in the future. If governments can force Catholic adoption agencies out of business, if governments can force Christian pastry chefs to bake wedding cakes for homosexuals, if governments can force Catholic employers to provide abortifacient insurance coverage to their employees, all of which governments can and have done, how distant is the day Catholic priests might be forced to perform same-sex ceremonies or risk the loss of the Church’s tax exempt status, to pick just one possible weapon available to government?

  8. Tom Fisher says:

    the legal and secular concept of marriage as existing only between men and women is as important and vital to the health of society as a whole, not just to Catholics. A marriage between a male atheist and a female atheist is far more beneficial to society than is mere cohabitation between them, and as Catholics we have a responsibility to support and protect their formal union. Likewise, we have a responsibility to speak out against same-sex ‘marriage’ even though it may not personally affect us

    That’s a fair point JH. — I veered too far in the direction of “let the world go its merry way so long as the Church stays true to itself” — but as you say, the Church is not cut off from, or indifferent to society.

    So I guess you’re right on this one. — Don’t do it again!🙂

  9. ginnyfree says:

    Hello Tom. Marriage between a man and a woman is older than any and all societies. It is an institution that is as old as man himself. Male and female we have been made and in that fundamental difference is a complementarity that is of God as both gift and reflection of the Giver of the gift. A marriage between a man and a woman that is both religious and recognized by whatever state they reside within. It isn’t one or the other and there have been times past when those who marry in one country by whatever religious rites they prefer and immigrate to another country and their marriage must be examined to see if that state will acknowledge it or it is against that particular state’s civil laws. And each state knows it must examine and approve the actions of its citizens in order to both govern and serve them correctly and justly. Injustice comes when a state imposes it own ideas upon the individual. Communism is a good example as in China’s one-child policy. A state forcing contraception, sterilization and abortion on it’s married couples so as to promote a perceived common good, that is more collective wealth and sustainability of a population’s goods. Yet that governing body thinks what it does is just. And so it is for us who will have to tolerate the unspeakable now – legalized homosexual unions and those who have them imposing themselves upon us. We will be forced to accommodate them in many ways. It will be tougher for some than others.

    Your position presupposes a separation of Church and State that is actually a fallacy. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  10. JabbaPapa says:

    I knew that folks were wrong fundamentally if they thought there could be a marriage between persons of the same sex, but I had no clue to believe such things can be heresy.

    yes indeed, though to be fair I’ve never seen this point set out with such crystal clarity as by Dr. Peters.

  11. JabbaPapa says:

    Another question I have is whether I would be justified in refusing to attend Mass in my own parish if my parish priest (theoretically, I must emphasize) were to preach in support of same-sex marriage or the reception of Holy Communion by practicing homosexuals and other adulterers? I think I would be justified in ignoring the normal admonition against parish shopping in such circumstances until he publicly recanted such views.

    … or until he moved on elsewhere.

    AFAIK, preaching heretical doctrines during a Mass instantly invalidates the sacramentality of the proceedings, so that one should instantly cease one’s participation in such rites (for example by walking out, or more discreetly by setting one aside from the sacred space of the congregation).

    It would seem to be a justifiable prudential measure to avoid the rites provided by such a priest, unless the situation were satisfactorily resolved, as having been a source of erroneous doctrines — but of course, if such a thing occurred, you should also take things.up with the priest himself, possibly the other parishioners, but also the Bishop or his vicar general.

  12. JabbaPapa says:

    But there’s a difference between Marriage, and the secular institution that uses the word ‘marriage’. It would surely be heresy to say that actual Catholic sacramental Marriages could exist between people of the same sex.

    But the secular institution has nothing but a (fading) historical connection with Christianity. If secular ‘marriage’ was legislated to include unions between between people and, say, coral reefs, it would have no impact whatsoever on Catholic Marriage.

    NOT the issue at hand, and as an aside, do take note of the important phrase : “Obviously—and without reading souls, but considering things objectively—degrees of personal culpability for such acts will vary”

    His point is that if a Catholic teaches in favour of gay “marriage”, regardless of such historico-secular legal nit-pickery he or she is objectively preaching what is contrary to the Deposit of Faith.

  13. johnhenrycn says:

    Good advice, JP. Hope I never have to follow it.

  14. ginnyfree says:

    Thanks be to God for smart men who use their heads for more than hat racks! God bless. Ginnyfree.

  15. ginnyfree says:

    Hello Jabba. “AFAIK, preaching heretical doctrines during a Mass instantly invalidates the sacramentality of the proceedings, so that one should instantly cease one’s participation in such rites” NO! The sinfulness of any priest has no effect on the validity of a Sacrament. Only a deviation in form or matter or both can invalidate a Sacrament. A Priest can say anything he chooses to for a homily, but if he has valid matter and uses the correct form, then transubstantiation occurs should he continue with the Mass beyond his homily. Even if he had bad faculties or was restricted in some way, he would only make the Sacrament illicit but not invalid. If the sinfulness of a priest invalidated Sacraments, there would be very few valid Sacraments. I think what you are trying to say is being supportive on an emotional level and tolerating what seems intolerable to the participants in the Mass. There is also a need to consider your own participation in the Mass itself. We as laypersons participate in the common priesthood of the faithful when we fully participate in the Mass, giving our responses, and kneeling when appropriate, etc. and although this has no bearing on the validity of the transubstantiation during the Mass, it is wrong to tell folks they should withdraw their participation for that particular Mass based upon the views of the person giving the homily. Piety isn’t a bargaining chip with clergy. If used as such, it becomes meaningless and shallow and no one relishes the type of loyalty and obedience that is behind such vain displays. Really. Perhaps you could re-think your recommendation of a response to a bad homily. It would be better to simply go elsewhere if you are convinced that a particular priest preaches heresy in his homilies each week. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  16. johnhenrycn says:

    Uhmm, I think you’re right, GF, about the validity of the sacraments arising ex opere operato. I also think JP is right in his advice to walk out when a priest preaches heresy; but as I said above, I hope never to be faced with that predicament.
    God bless. Johnhenry.

  17. ginnyfree says:

    Hello JH. If it is Sunday, one is still obligated and unless one leaves and attends another Mass, one commits a mortal sin. Half a Mass isn’t a whole Mass. Sorry but opinions don’t change facts. Unless the building is on fire or one is suddenly sick, you simply must stay. I’ve heard many an error in a homily thru the years. I have yet to walk out of a Mass simply because I disagree with what I’m hearing. I’ve seen more than one heretic in these years and I have no qualms about calling that little duckie a duck. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then chances are it is a duck but duckie or no, it is still no excuse for any sin on my part. And besides that, I don’t go to Mass to hear a good homily. I’m there to please God and give Him fitting worship. PERIOD. Anything else is peripheral to that, no matter how moving for good or ill. I feel it is wrong to use anyone else’s sins as an excuse for my own. Leaving a Mass because you’ve been assured the person giving the homily is a heretic is still your own sin. Heresy isn’t leprosy. It remains with the heretic unless you give consent. If you really are convinced that the person is teaching heresy with intent to mislead, then record some of the offending homilies, get them transcribed and properly documented and present that along with other witnesses to the chancery and help the Church to do something. Constructive solutions are available. Meantime, don’t get caught in the blame game. Okie dokie. I’ve said enough. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  18. johnhenrycn says:

    I am truly impressed by your grasp of Catholic doctrine, Ginnyfree. I cannot find anything in your last comment to qualify, let alone object to. I will say this: my beloved priest (retiring this St John Baptist Day) has said a few rather dodgy (in my view) things, but I’ve never considered walking out in response or even complaining. However, if he had ever espoused views like those being promoted today by the likes of Kasper, Marx or that Dominican (Radcliffe), I would not have taken communion from him that Sunday, and would have found another parish to attend, even though I consider leaving one’s geographical parish a bad idea generally.

  19. toadspittle says:

    “A marriage between a male atheist and a female atheist is far more beneficial to society than is mere cohabitation between them, “
    You may be right JH – that would, doubtless be a civil marriage, not a church one. But on what grounds do you assert it benefits society?
    I’m not disagreeing here, just interested.

  20. JabbaPapa says:

    The sinfulness of any priest has no effect on the validity of a Sacrament

    This is not true of cases where sinfulness is openly engaged in during an attempt to confer a sacrament.

    Only a deviation in form or matter or both can invalidate a Sacrament

    Not quite correct (false intent is in many cases sufficient to invalidate it), but anyway, a homily preaching heresies would constitute a deviation of both form and matter.

    A Priest can say anything he chooses to for a homily

    Straightforwardly incorrect. No priest has any right to preach against the Doctrine of the Faith at any time whatsoever.

    it is wrong to tell folks they should withdraw their participation for that particular Mass based upon the views of the person giving the homily

    That’s got nothing to do with any of this — we’re discussing the case of priests actively promoting heresies during public rites, not just this or that priest’s personal views.

    I’ve heard many an error in a homily thru the years. I have yet to walk out of a Mass simply because I disagree with what I’m hearing.

    Nor are we talking simple error, which is an inevitable facet of all human existence. (and nor have I BTW)

    Heresy isn’t just “error” — it’s to actively preach that which is contrary to the Doctrine of the Faith.

  21. mkenny114 says:

    Another good article from yesterday that deals with the fall-out from the Irish referendum (and connects it to Pentecost):

    http://www.tunbridgewells-ordinariate.com/blog/?p=1508

    “A marriage between a male atheist and a female atheist is far more beneficial to society than is mere cohabitation between them, “
    You may be right JH – that would, doubtless be a civil marriage, not a church one. But on what grounds do you assert it benefits society?
    I’m not disagreeing here, just interested.

    Agreed with John Henry here – it is not a coincidence that what the Church teaches about marriage (and other things) is also what happens to best for society. Following the teaching of the Church is to place oneself more fully in line with God’s will, and make oneself more available to the movements of the Spirit; but it also just makes good sense, and the ‘No’ campaign (along with other, similar campaigns such as that laid out by the Coalition for Marriage in the UK) rightly focused a great deal on the purely secular reasons for maintaining the definition of marriage – principal amongst these is that the family is the basic ‘building block’ of society, and ensuring that it is preserved in its natural state makes for more stable environments for the raising of children, who will then tend to grow up to be more well-adjusted individuals and contribute to a more stable society overall. Sowing confusion about the natural roles of men and women in this respect (as well as others) does precisely the opposite.

  22. mkenny114 says:

    P.S. By maintaining the ‘definition of marriage’, I mean that we should maintain (and promote) it as a lifelong union, not just the fact that it is between a man and woman. The stability offered by marriage, and by which it benefits society, depends on this lifelong commitment, as well as its heterosexual character. There is a lot of work to be done in bringing this to people’s attention, as well as refuting the ‘arguments’ of those who wish to promote same-sex marriage.

  23. GC says:

    At the higher end of the responsibility scale are, of course, Catholics who, from positions of political, social, or ecclesiastical prestige, lent their influence to the cause of “same-sex marriage”. But any Catholic who directly helped to bring about Ireland’s decision to treat as marriage unions of two persons of the same sex has, at a minimum, arrayed himself against the infallible doctrine of the Church and, quite possibly, has committed an act of heresy.

    If I’m not wrong, Mary McAleese recently wangled gained a doctorate of Canon Law from the Gregorian University (one supposes she wrote it all herself?), which I believe is a pontifical university. New reports on Ms McAleese’s very public activities in support of the referendum proposition would often remind us that she is a “canon lawyer”.

    I am not absolutely sure that her doctorate should not be cancelled?

  24. ginnyfree says:

    Hello Jabba. According to Trent, it seems you are incorrect. Session Seven, Canon 12 states: “CANON XII.-If any one saith, that a minister, being in mortal sin,-if so be that he observe all the essentials which belong to the effecting, or conferring of, the sacrament,-neither effects, nor confers the sacrament; let him be anathema.” http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch7.htm

    There is more I can say. Validity and licitness sometimes get confused. A sacrament can be illicit but valid. It can’t be invalid and licit.

    As far as intention goes. as long as the priest intends to do as the Church does, will his confection of the Eucharist will remain valid as long as the other two elements are present: form and matter. His internal dispositions regarding faith and theology have no bearing upon his ability to complete the transubstantiation. Pay careful attention to Trent. It is wrong to tell folks that a priest’s sin and personal positions render him incapable of instituting valid Sacraments. He may well be doing so illicitly, but they are still good Sacraments and produce all and every grace for the recipient that God intended.

    God bless. Ginnyfree.

  25. ginnyfree says:

    P.S. Jabba you’re incorrect regarding this issue and it may harm others who think that because Father said something contrary to solid Church teachings, their Sacraments may be invalid and that may cause more harm to them then father’s homily. They may in fact panic. Worse, if they think the Eucharist isn’t “real” because Fathers theology is bad, they could be gravely harmed. What would happen if a person reading your words and believing them, decided on his or her own that not receiving Communion on a Sunday in Church was a good thing to do because Father said something that may be a mistake during his homily? Who gets hurt? Please be more mindful of the actual harm such mistakes can do to those whose trust in their Priests is fragile.
    Guess what? You may not like a Priests teaching and he may well be attempting to influence persons with false teaching in his homilies each Sunday, but the Eucharist remains the Eucharist as do all his other Sacraments as long as three things are present: form, matter and intent. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  26. JabbaPapa says:

    Hello Jabba. According to Trent, it seems you are incorrect. Session Seven, Canon 12 states: “CANON XII.-If any one saith, that a minister, being in mortal sin,-if so be that he observe all the essentials which belong to the effecting, or conferring of, the sacrament,-neither effects, nor confers the sacrament; let him be anathema.”

    We’re pure & simple NOT talking about lack of the state of Grace for crying out loud !!!

    We’re talking about the actual commission of public mortal sins during the Mass !!!

    Validity and licitness sometimes get confused

    You really are barking up the wrong tree.

    as long as the priest intends to do as the Church does

    Do you seriously believe that the preaching of overt heresy would be coherent with such intent ???!!!??

  27. JabbaPapa says:

    Jabba you’re incorrect regarding this issue

    Nope, you’ve clearly decided to try and “correct” me concerning something entirely different to what I said in the first place.

  28. ginnyfree says:

    Hello Jabba. I am really sorry that you are getting so upset. I hope you feel better soon. Here is the statement of yours that I took to task: “AFAIK, preaching heretical doctrines during a Mass instantly invalidates the sacramentality of the proceedings. , so that one should instantly cease one’s participation in such rites” This is NOT true. Form, matter and intent are what makes for valid sacraments and saying otherwise is clearly wrong. The Priest can preach heresy all he wants to but as long as all three factors are in place and are used, then there is transubstantiation and the Eucharist will be confected. What you said cannot be unsaid. Recommending that one “cease one’s participation in such rites,” clearly misunderstands both the necessaries for a valid Sacrament and the common priesthood of believers and our culpability if we participate in the full in any Mass given by a heretic. I really do hope you get over whatever it is that is upsetting you. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  29. johnhenrycn says:

    GF: you say at 22:57 –

    “The sinfulness of any priest has no effect on the validity of a Sacrament. Only a deviation in form or matter or both can invalidate a Sacrament. A Priest can say anything he chooses to for a homily…”

    I accept that statement as a generally correct dogmatic principle. Then you say at 01:33 –

    “If you really are convinced that the person is teaching heresy with intent to mislead, then record some of the offending homilies, get them transcribed and properly documented…”

    These two comments are not contradictory, but then you say at 19:22 –

    “Form, matter and intent are what makes for valid sacraments and saying otherwise is clearly wrong.”

    ..which doesn’t jive with your unequivocal assertion at 22:57 that “…only a deviation in form and matter can invalidate a Sacrament.” So, to pick a really silly example: if a priest – let’s call him Tommy Sadcliffe – was a worshipper of Satan (there must be a few such priests) and he were to use the Mass to intentionally, albeit secretly and subliminally, spread his master’s message and power, perhaps even privately spitting on the Host before Mass, what effect would that have on the validity of the Mass? Like I say, an off-the-wall example, but not, I submit, beyond the realm of likelihood, if not actual certainty.

  30. ginnyfree says:

    Gee willicurs JH. Thanks for sharing. God bless you. Ginnyfree.

  31. mkenny114 says:

    On a related note to the back-and-forth here about validity and intent, could somebody here tell me what exactly the phrase ‘to do what the Church intends’ means when pertaining to Baptism? I’ve never got a straight answer to that one, and am unsure whether (e.g.) a minister who did not believe that baptising someone remitted them of sin (either Original or actual) would actually be doing what the Church intends. What are the bare minimum criteria that someone administering Baptism must believe about it in order for them to be doing what the Church intends?

    I ask this out of interest, and because potential answers given may shed some light on the question being debated above.

  32. johnhenrycn says:

    Ginnyfree chuckles: “Gee willicurs JH. Thanks for sharing.”

    There’s an old saying that “hard cases make bad law”, and I admit my hypothetical was a tad extreme, but you don’t seem to mind – and neither does JP – making categorical propositions allowing no margin for error, which is why I invite you to continue elucidating for our benefit.

  33. ginnyfree says:

    Hello MKenny. Here is something that may help you understand: “The Catholic Church recognizes the validity of Baptism by other Christian ecclesial communities when the proper matter and form are used and when both the baptizing minister and the person being baptized have the proper intention (CIC 869 § 2). Water is poured or the one or be baptized is immersed in water (the matter) (CIC 854; GI 18, 22), and the minister says, “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (the form) (CIC 850; GI 23). The minister’s intention simply “to baptize” and the recipient’s intention (or, if an infant or child, his or her parents’ and godparents’ intention in his or her name), simply “to be baptized” is sufficient to meet this test, even if none of the parties had a full theological understanding of the sacrament of Baptism.” http://acmrcia.org/blog/determining-fact-and-validity-baptism
    Intent is a specialty that scholars investigate to make a determination whether or no the Baptisms of persons outside Catholic Communion are indeed Baptised, i.e. Mormon Baptism, JW Baptism, New Apostolate Baptisms and these investigations focus on intent to determine if the person administering the Sacrament meant to do what the Church intends when they Baptise. It takes work on the part of the Church to render these determinations. That is why some Baptisms aren’t considered valid and why some receive conditional Baptism when entering the Church. I think if you think about it too long, you’ll get confused.
    As for the point JohnHenry was trying to make about intent, it is possible for a Priest to withhold his intention to confect the Eucharist while maintaining an appearance of normalcy while using the correct formula and matter, and thusly commits several big sins one being sacrilege, he still isn’t committing an actual desecration of the Blessed Sacrament as would be the actual intent of a satanist I suppose, because if he secretly withholds his intent, then no Eucharist so no desecration.
    To help with the confusion I will repeat, there are only three things necessary for a Sacrament, form, matter and intent. Each is different for each of the Sacraments, but they are all there in one way or another. Jabba thought that a person preaching heresy somehow prevented the grace of the Sacrament of Ordination from completing its task, but this isn’t correct. If it does have an impact, it will be in the licitness of the Sacrament, not the validity.
    I hope all this helps. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  34. ginnyfree says:

    P.S. You shouldn’t invite Ginny to elucidate. I’ve been told I talk too much as it is. Be warned. I love to talk, talk, talk……..waddayaknow. I’m a woman and we talk too much.

  35. ginnyfree says:

    P.P.S. I stressed Trent because there was a time in Church history that a particular heresy raging at the time stressed that a sinful priest couldn’t confect a sinless Eucharist. People were instructed to refrain from receiving the Eucharist until and if they found their Priest was again sinless, etc. It was nuts and that is why Trent proclaimed the anathema I listed: Session Seven, Canon 12 states: “CANON XII.-If any one saith, that a minister, being in mortal sin,-if so be that he observe all the essentials which belong to the effecting, or conferring of, the sacrament,-neither effects, nor confers the sacrament; let him be anathema.” http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch7.htm
    This is why the comments of Jabba shot up a red flag to me so I responded. History tends to repeat itself. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  36. johnhenrycn says:

    “…it is possible for a Priest to withhold his intention to confect the Eucharist while maintaining an appearance of normalcy while using the correct formula and matter, and thusly commits several big sins one being sacrilege, he still isn’t committing an actual desecration of the Blessed Sacrament as would be the actual intent of a satanist I suppose, because if he secretly withholds his intent, then no Eucharist so no desecration.”

    That’s easy for you to say, Ginnyfree, but if you read that statement several times as I have done, can you not see why it’s a confusing one for we mere men to grasp the womanly wisdom of? Please continue to elucidate.

  37. johnhenrycn says:

    …you seem to suggest (22:42) – but I’ve never been quick at reading a woman’s mind – that a priest who secretly worships Satan…oh, let’s read your own words again and try making sense of them:

    “…it is possible for a Priest to withhold his intention to confect the Eucharist while maintaining an appearance of normalcy while using the correct formula and matter, and thusly commits several big sins one being sacrilege, he still isn’t committing an actual desecration of the Blessed Sacrament as would be the actual intent of a satanist I suppose, because if he secretly withholds his intent, then no Eucharist so no desecration.”

    With respect, that is difficult for a man to make sense of.

    At a Black Mass, when the unknowing faithful leave it, are they in a state of grace?

  38. Frere Rabit says:

    Powerful stuff. Or indeed not. As Toad might say. Or indeed not.

  39. johnhenrycn says:

    So true, FR. Some think talking about religion is more important than shovelling donkey dung into bags to supplement their income during the school summer break. Who are we to judge?

  40. ginnyfree says:

    I don’t know. How did you feel the last time you left one?

  41. ginnyfree says:

    And what did I do to deserve your condescending snivel BTW JohnHenry? Is it because I’m a woman. Or is it because I’m right? Please elucidate. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  42. johnhenrycn says:

    “And what did I do to deserve your condescending snivel BTW JohnHenry? Is it because I’m a woman.”

    What condescending “snivel”, Ginny? It’s you who choose to take advantage of your womanly status (“I’m a woman and we talk too much.”), the implication being that I should back off from demanding too much of women when it comes to supporting an argument. If you look back on this thread, you will see that I conceded, in an exceedingly complementary way (00:27 and 01:57) that you’d corrected me on (reminded me of, rather) proper doctrine, but you later took your point a bit too far in my view, whereupon I asked you – ever so respectfully (20:34) – to elucidate, in response to which, you posted a confused reply, and perhaps knowing that it was so, you then sought protection from criticism by invoking, in a satirical way (22:44), the rights of the fair sex to be wrong, thereby seeking to escape the consequences of your somewhat muddled response. My subsequent comments were also satirical, not condescending.

    God bless. Johnhenry.

  43. johnhenrycn says:

    Ginny, what is your comment at 01:13 in reference to? Doesn’t seem to relate to anything prior.

  44. johnhenrycn says:

    Ginny, who or what was your opening sarcasm (24 May @ 20:26) aimed at? Was going to let it pass, but now I’d like to know.

    I’d also now like to know who your remark (24 May @ 22:14) was aimed at? Was it sarcasm?

    God bless. Johnhenry.

  45. Tom Fisher says:

    Was going to let it pass

    Just my two cents: I generally don’t let things pass, I’m pretty stubborn. But the more I learn about blogs, the more I realise that 99% of the time it’s better to let things pass.🙂

  46. Tom Fisher says:

    Actually this quote from Pope John XXIII is perfect advice for blog commenters (I pretty much never follow it):

  47. toadspittle says:

    Sarcasm? JH? On CP&S? Fie! Whatever next? Maybe Ginnyfree is employing Symbolic Licence. There’s a lot of it about. (High pollen count.)
    Nice to be told (by her) she’s a woman. I had assumed from her nom de plume that she was a recovering alcoholic.
    …Anyway, God bless us all, says Tiny Toad.

  48. Tom Fisher says:

    Liked you piece on Birth of a Nation Toad. Did you know that when Griffiths was told screening it in Atlanta might spark a race riot he replied I sure hope it does

  49. toadspittle says:

    ….how distant is the day Catholic priests might be forced to perform same-sex ceremonies or risk the loss of the Church’s tax exempt status, to pick just one possible weapon available to government?”
    Pshaw. Faugh. Phooey.
    What cares the Church about its “tax-exempt status,” and mundane trivia of that ilk?
    Our kingdom is not of this world.

  50. toadspittle says:

    What an extraordinary movie, Tom. The irony of it all: “Birth Of A Dysfunctional Nation.” The American papers generally refused to give its centenary house room. Cowardly, I thought. (Whoops, off topic here! Sorry folks.)

  51. Tom Fisher says:

    Extraordinary indeed. Big, brash, brilliant, fundamentally flawed with a streak of wickedness, totally modern, irredeemably archaic, impossible to ignore or to accept. Like the U.S. itself. And perhaps also, well, enough.

  52. mkenny114 says:

    Thanks Ginny, but that doesn’t really help me – I have read the page you cited from before actually, and it is precisely the vagueness of the language used when referring to intent during Baptism that I find frustrating*. What does it mean when we say the minister’s intention is simply ‘to baptise’? This clearly doesn’t mean just to perform the act known as Baptism, because, as you rightly point out, Mormon (e.g.) baptisms are considered valid because of a faulty understanding of what they are baptising in the name of – i.e.; because of their theological understanding of the act.

    It stands to reason then, that someone from a Christian community whose baptisms are accepted by the Church, and who uses the correct matter and form, may still lack proper intent due to a faulty understanding of what they are doing when baptising. I know the Church takes these on a case by case basis, but what criteria do they use in order to decide whether the intent was correct in each of these cases – what is the bare minimum that must be affirmed about Baptism in order for it to be valid?

    Again, I think if we could ascertain what the bare minimum necessary re Baptism are, then we could perhaps look at the Holy Eucharist through a similar lens, and settle some of the other issues here to the satisfaction of all.

    *This is not frustration with you or your answer, just with the fact that I have looked long and hard through sites like this and others, and still cannot find an answer that does not beg the question.

  53. Tom Fisher says:

    I ask this out of interest, and because potential answers given may shed some light on the question being debated above.

    Perhaps we should just say that a baptism is valid if the person administering it would assent to the uncontroversial contents of Mere Christianity🙂

  54. JabbaPapa says:

    Astonishing that pointing out that the teaching of heresies deprives any rites attempted of sacramentality should receive so many down-votes — what, has this place suddenly turned into “ACTA Pure & Simple” overnight ???

    http://www.the-pope.com/saccha12.html

    WHAT TO DO WHEN THERE IS DOUBT ABOUT A SACRAMENT

    The Church, being a loving mother, desires and indeed requires, that the faithful never be in doubt about the validity of the sacraments. For a priest to offer doubtful Sacraments is clearly sacrilegious and where this doubt is shared by the faithful, they also are guilty of sacrilege. As Father Brey states in his introduction to Patrick Henry Omlor’s book Questioning the Validity of the Masses using the new All-English Canon:

    “In practice, the very raising of questions or doubts about the validity of a given manner of confecting a sacrament – if this question is based on an apparent defect of matter or form – would necessitate the strict abstention from use of that doubtful manner of performing the sacramental act, until the doubts are resolved. In confecting the Sacraments, all priests are obliged to follow the ‘medium certum.’ – that is, “the safer course.”[22]

    Similarly, Father Henry Davis, S.J.:

    “In conferring the Sacraments, as also in the consecration in Mass, it is never allowed to adopt a probable course of action as to validity and to abandon the safer course. The contrary was explicitly condemned by Pope Innocent XI [1670-1676]. To do so would be a grievous sin against religion, namely an act of irreverence towards what Christ Our Lord has instituted. It would be a grievous sin against charity, as the recipient would probably be deprived of the graces and effects of the sacrament. It would be a grievous sin against justice, as the recipient has a right to valid sacraments.”

    Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Supplement, Question 38 :

    http://www.newadvent.org/summa/5038.htm

    Objection 4. Further, the sacraments derive their efficacy from Christ’s passion. Now a heretic is not united to Christ’s passion; neither by his own faith, since he is an unbeliever, nor by the faith of the Church, since he is severed from the Church. Therefore he cannot confer the sacrament of Orders.

    Objection 5. Further, a blessing is necessary in the conferring of Orders. But a heretic cannot bless; in fact his blessing is turned into a curse, as appears from the authorities quoted in the text (Sent. iv, D, 25). Therefore he cannot ordain.

    (…) Wherefore others said that even those who are cut off from the Church can confer Orders and the other sacraments, provided they observe the due form and intention, both as to the first effect, which is the conferring of the sacrament, and as to the ultimate effect which is the conferring of grace. This is the second opinion. But this again is inadmissible, since by the very fact that a person communicates in the sacraments with a heretic who is cut off from the Church, he sins, and thus approaches the sacrament insincerely and cannot obtain grace, except perhaps in Baptism in a case of necessity. Hence others say that they confer the sacraments validly, but do not confer grace with them, not that the sacraments are lacking in efficacy, but on account of the sins of those who receive the sacraments from such persons despite the prohibition of the Church. This is the third and the true opinion.

    The Priest can preach heresy all he wants to

    Madness.

    Jabba thought that a person preaching heresy somehow prevented the grace of the Sacrament of Ordination from completing its task, but this isn’t correct.

    In fact such a proposition has been condemned multiple times by the Church.

  55. JabbaPapa says:

    This is why the comments of Jabba shot up a red flag to me

    As pointed out, this was some barking up the completely wrong tree.

    The preaching of overt heresy is NOT a simple interior defect of intent, NOR is it a case where the priest is simply in a state of mortal sin removing himself personally from Sacramental Grace.

  56. Tom Fisher says:

    Your comment of May 25 at 15:20 has garnered down-votes not because of its theology, but because of its tone.

  57. ginnyfree says:

    Hello MKenny. Mormon baptisms are NOT valid, nor are JW and the New Apostolic Church have deviated so far as to rend theirs invalid as well. Here is an bit on the NAC from the land of Wiki that tells you why their Baptisms aren’t valid: “Baptisms performed by other Christian churches are recognised as long as they were performed with water and performed in the name of Jesus, alone. Baptizing in the triune name of God is considered sacrilege and is one of the wrong beliefs of Catholics, which do use the triune name of God. Apostolicism cites many correct examples in Scripture for baptizing only in the name of Jesus, however baptizing in every example is shown to be an act of showing faith in Jesus, and is not part of salvation by grace through faith.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Apostolic_Church God bless. Ginnyfree.

  58. ginnyfree says:

    Hello Tom. The Sacraments are the domain of the Church and it is for her to determine their validity and who can give them and under what circumstances. It isn’t open for debate. But if you are a Protestant, I can understand your misunderstanding of this. It is easy stuff to learn though. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  59. Tom Fisher says:

    Hello Tom. The Sacraments are the domain of the Church…

    Dear Ginny,

    Why did you address that comment to me? I have said nothing at all about the validity of the sacraments. I have simply observed the debate between yourself and others. I am mystified by your latest comment.

  60. Tom Fisher says:

    But if you are a Protestant, I can understand your misunderstanding of this.

    On this thread I have said literally nothing about this issue.

  61. toadspittle says:

    “But if you are a Protestant, I can understand your misunderstanding of this.”
    Holy Cow! (No, not you, Ginnyfree.)
    The incredible arrogance! Nothing to do with Catholicism per se – we can all imagine a Muslim saying exactly that to one of us “infidels,” Or a “Morman” saying it to a Hindu. Or, well, etc., anyway.
    Comments like that are why I’m “wedded” to CP&S.
    ….The mindless idea that there is only one truth on the planet – and only “we” know what it is.

    The truth is that 90% of us are what we are – because that’s what our Mum and Dad were.
    (Right, Ginnyfree?)
    Everything else is circumstance, happenstance, symboliclicencestance….and naked prejudice.

  62. Tom Fisher says:

    The truth is that 90% of us are what we are – because that’s what our Mum and Dad were.

    Nonsense Toad, after all, for example, my parents did a terrible job of passing on our Irish burden. It took a great effort of the will to avoid becoming a free-thinker and remain the narrow-minded dogmatist you have come to know

    (I kid, I kid)

  63. mkenny114 says:

    Ginny,

    Sorry I didn’t word my response clearly enough. I am well aware that Mormon/JW/NAC baptisms are invalid, and my point was that if (for example) Mormon baptisms have been considered invalid because of a flawed, or in this case outright heretical, understanding of the theology surrounding the act of baptism, then surely there must similarly be some essential points of doctrine that anyone baptising needs to affirm for their intent to fulfil the criterion of ‘doing what the Church intends’. My quest here is thus to find out what essential doctrinal points are, and perhaps in doing so discover what the bare minimum required for intent is in the other sacraments.

  64. mkenny114 says:

    The truth is that 90% of us are what we are – because that’s what our Mum and Dad were.
    (Right, Ginnyfree?)
    Everything else is circumstance, happenstance, symboliclicencestance….and naked prejudice.

    Erm, no – these elements are important and cannot be discounted of course, but I think you are giving faaar too much weight to them. People change their mind on things (and even convert) all the time.

  65. mkenny114 says:

    Jabba,

    I don’t suppose you could do me a favour and dig me up something on the issue of intent and validity with respect to Baptism as well? That would be tremendously helpful.

  66. Tom Fisher says:

    Erm, no – these elements are important and cannot be discounted of course, but I think you are giving faaar too much weight to them. People change their mind on things (and even convert) all the time.

    Just as a sociological point Mkenny, Toad is wrong, it is nowhere near as many as 10% who switch religions.

  67. JabbaPapa says:

    but because of its tone

    So you think that tone is of more importance than defending the Faith against attempts to minimise the consequences of priests teaching open heresies against the Catholicity ?

    Was Christ’s “tone” perhaps worthy of downvoting when he chased the moneylenders out of the Temple ?

  68. Tom Fisher says:

    So you think that tone is of more importance than defending the Faith

    No, tone isn’t more important. But it does matte. Sometimes our Lord spoke in parables so as to communicate best with those who were listening. Your comment of May 25 at 15:20 was totally sound in terms of content. But it was alienating in terms of tone. And that results in less people listening to your message, and more downvotes.

  69. toadspittle says:

    “Toad is wrong, it is nowhere near as many as 10% who switch religions.”

    I first made the figure 99%, Tom, but decided to cut the converts a bit of slack. Mistake, it seems.
    People do convert all the time, MKenny, and a splendid, big, fuss is often made of them by the receiving team. Naturally enough. Like when a United player signs for City.
    I know at least one convert from Christianity to Islam, a handful from Catholicism to Anglicanism, and considerably more contrariwise. No Jewish converts, either way.
    When it comes to converts in the West, Catholicism appears to do best (or, at least, least worst.) And nobody seems to count, or care about, those who throw their hands up in despair over the whole organised, religious, boiling.

    (Toad is one of those who doesn’t count heads. He doesn’t care a damn if anyone becomes an Agnostic or not. Up to them.)

  70. Tom Fisher says:

    *Matter. – typo

  71. toadspittle says:

    *Matter. – typo

    …Forgive us our WordPresses.

  72. ginnyfree says:

    Hello Toad. Nice of you to say such nice things about my sharings. I look forward to more of your kindness in the future.
    Now, since you seem to be interested, I am a Catholic convert having passed thru RCIA more than 15 yrs. ago and am proud to say I am very faithful to the Magisterium and not afraid to speak up for truth, in season and out of season. I was not a convert from any Protestant denomination and told folks in general I was an agnostic so they wouldn’t pester me about Jesus and try and “save” me. Becoming a Catholic wasn’t even on the radar for me. God surprised me and reached into my little corner of the world and lifted me out of a ton of well educated ignorance. I’m very grateful for His salvific works in my life and try to thank Him daily by living as He expects me to. That’s the short version.
    I can tell from looking over your many shares here that you aren’t exactly a conservative. That’s fine, but don’t expect everyone to share your point of view. You say this: “The mindless idea that there is only one truth on the planet – and only “we” know what it is.” I am a Catholic and there is only one Church and it is Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and United and there is only ONE TRUTH contained in it which is a divine revelation from God contained in her sacred Magisterium and it has remained in its fullness in her for over two thousand years. We are they protectors of said truth and it is our duty to hand it on to the next generation whole and entire in the form we have received it. You are welcome to join us. We’d be happy to share the ONE TRUTH you seem afraid to admit of. That way you’d know the truth and the truth could set you free. There is no other freedom then that contained in Christ. My yoke is easy and my burden is light. You may not agree with me, Toad, but don’t expect this Catholic gal to dumb down anything to suit your delicate ears or eyes. I’m happy to defend what I say I believe each Sunday as I publicly recite the Creed along with everyone else. My “Amen” isn’t lip service. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  73. ginnyfree says:

    Hello MKenny. Just go to the link and read up on it. The CCC is pretty simple too. If you really need a deeper understanding, then by all means buy some books on it and read. Most folks are pretty sure in their minds what is about to occur in a Baptism so the intent is assumed that all parties are in agreement. It is more complicated as an adult then for an infant, but those sponsoring the infant are actually swearing before God and other witnesses that they will make sure the faith whole and entire is given to the child should the parents fail in this capacity. It is the same for adult sponsors of adults. They are there as a witness that the person whose baptism they are sponsoring has learned the rudiments of the faith and is capable of keeping the Baptismal Promises made. There is much more to it and if the Spirit is moving you to seek, you should respond and dig for your answers. God bless you search. Ginnyfree.

  74. ginnyfree says:

    Hello MKenny. Jabba still hasn’t responded to the Canon from Trent and in case you don’t know, it is binding on all Catholics and not open for discussion anymore since Trent. A Priest’s personal views and speeches do not invalidate his confecting of the Eucharist at Mass and to say otherwise is grave error. Jabba’s misuse of Aquinas’ words is only about the ability of an actual formal heretic who has been cut-off from the Church (*****let the reader be aware that this is a person who has already been through the ecclesial process whereby he has been formally charged and found guilty of heresy and has been officially been told by the Church he cannot receive even Confession, i.e. an excommunicated Bishop*****) being able to Ordain others and since that can only be done by a Bishop, it has nothing to do with his original claim that a Priest’s personal theology invalidates the “sacramentality” of the Mass and somehow nullifies the proceedings and all should get up and refuse Communion with this hypothetical Priest to prove one is somehow faithful. NOT! Cherry picking from Aquinas won’t work with others who know his stuff. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  75. ginnyfree says:

    Hello Jabba. If you really have a problem with your particular priest teaching what you believe is heresy, go elsewhere on Sunday. Record the offending material, get it all documented, hook up with two others in your parish who agree with you who have witnessed said heretical teachings and respectfully approach the priest. He may not be aware you are offended. If that doesn’t help, take it all the the Bishop and let the Church handle it. Believe it or not, there is a right way and a wrong way to handle stuff. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  76. GC says:

    ginnyfree, you might appreciate Michael Kenny’s blog, as many of us at CP&S here have over some years now. Just at this moment he appears to be taking a sabbatical from blogging.

    As for conversions, I am not sure of figures for the pueblo of Moratinos in Castilla y León (population 20, nobody under 50), but in my own experience here in the East, we have seen the conversion of whole indigenous populations together with many from settler populations in the last 20 to 30 years. Thousands are baptised every Easter vigil in every diocese. Several thousands baptised in Hongkong and Singapore just this Easter past. I really need to get out more, obviously. I suspect I may be insufficiently “Eurocentric”.

  77. ginnyfree says:

    To all concerned the following link goes to a place called Canon Law Made Easy and is written by a Canon Lawyer, Cathy Caridi, J.C.L. It is mostly about SSPX’ers and there Sacraments, but I think it would help those here who have questions about validity and intent, as well as some other stuff. There is a Part II as well that should be read. It will add shed some light on the issue of valid Sacraments and licitness. Both are worth your time.
    http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2013/08/01/are-sspx-sacraments-valid-part-i/
    God bless. Ginnyfree.

  78. johnhenrycn says:

    GF: At 19:22 you say –
    “Hello Jabba. I am really sorry that you are getting so upset. I hope you feel better soon…I really do hope you get over whatever it is that is upsetting you.”
    At 22:42 you say:
    “Hello MKenny. Here is something that may help you understand…”
    At 10:32 you say:
    “Hello Tom…if you are a Protestant, I can understand your misunderstanding of this. It is easy stuff to learn though.”
    At 16:18 you say:
    “Hello MKenny. Just go to the link and read up on it. The CCC is pretty simple too. If you really need a deeper understanding, then by all means buy some books on it and read.”
    ___
    I don’t mean to pry into your private life, dear lady, but do you by any chance live next to the Pretentiousness Turnpike – just between Highfalutin’ Boulevard and Condescending Crossroad?

  79. ginnyfree says:

    Thanks for the link. I’ll visit when I have more time.

  80. JabbaPapa says:

    Jabba still hasn’t responded to the Canon from Trent

    Yes I have — I pointed out that you were barking up the wrong tree, as the contents of that canon have NO direct relevance to what I said, no matter how many false “corrections” you may post.

    and to say otherwise [than that heretical priests provide valid sacraments] is grave error

    This is false, and you are yourself leading people into error by suggesting it.

    Jabba’s misuse of Aquinas’ words is only about the ability of an actual formal heretic who has been cut-off from the Church (*****let the reader be aware that this is a person who has already been through the ecclesial process whereby he has been formally charged and found guilty of heresy and has been officially been told by the Church he cannot receive even Confession, i.e. an excommunicated Bishop*****) being able to Ordain others

    You demonstrate that you have completely misunderstood Aquinas, and then try to lecture others on matters of Sacramental Grace — and this is AFTER your stunningly uncatholic claim that “a Priest can preach heresy all he wants to

    Aquinas point is that Catholics may not honestly seek the Sacraments from heretics, nor CAN they receive the graces from those heretics — and this has nothing to do with whether such men have been formally excommunicated <ferenda sententiae for heresy or not, because you have posited a case whereby an individual Priest has preached actual heresy and that the lay person is fully aware of that fact, providing at the very least a serious doubt about validity, in which cases outwardly manifesting communion with that priest as explained above.

    Just carping on about a Canon of Trent that concerns some purely internal dispositions, or some lack of the state of grace that members of a congregation can be assumed to be unaware of does NOTHING to clarify the actual issue, nor is it at all relevant to anything I’ve written.

    his original claim that a Priest’s personal theology invalidates the “sacramentality” of the Mass

    A complete travesty of what I wrote.

    Also take note of the redefinition of “formal heresy” as “a personal theology”. It is directly contrary to the Catholicity and Orthodoxy of the Faith.

  81. johnhenrycn says:

    GF (16:54) – Is Cathy Caridi, J.C.L. as good a canon lawyer as Mary McAleese mentioned previously on this thread? Until that’s clear, I’ll stick with Edward Peters, JD, JCD, Ref. Sig. Ap. who you seem to have some issues with, but who has always proved reliable on those issues that you have issues with. Is Caridi a feminist?

  82. JabbaPapa says:

    … in which cases outwardly manifesting communion with that priest is to be avoided by the Faithful, as explained above.

  83. ginnyfree says:

    Hello JHenry. No, I don’t live any where near those cute little places. LOL. Thanks for the laugh. Can I ask if you reside up Keepinmyblinderson Alley or anywhere near Myownopinionistheonlyopinionthatcountsandiscorrectnotwithstandinganyandallevidencetothecontrary Lane? God bless. Ginnyfree.

  84. JabbaPapa says:

    Hello Jabba. If you really have a problem with your particular priest teaching what you believe is heresy, go elsewhere on Sunday. Record the offending material, get it all documented, hook up with two others in your parish who agree with you who have witnessed said heretical teachings and respectfully approach the priest. He may not be aware you are offended. If that doesn’t help, take it all the the Bishop and let the Church handle it.

    Thank you for having taken the time to write down exactly what I said myself higher up in the thread.

  85. ginnyfree says:

    Actually no, JHenry. I have no problem with Dr. Peters at all, and never said I did. I have several of his books and frequent his site. I was interested to learn that in his opinion, a yes vote in Ireland’s referendum election as a formal act of heresy that could have canonical consequences. I am glad he shared and that the article was linked to here. How that got twisted around by some here into something else says ooooodles about the actual intent of discussions here. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  86. johnhenrycn says:

    GF (17:14) – not bad, not bad…

  87. ginnyfree says:

    Okay, let’s review. Jabba: AFAIK, preaching heretical doctrines during a Mass instantly invalidates the sacramentality of the proceedings, so that one should instantly cease one’s participation in such rites .
    Ginny; No! That is wrong. All that is necessary for a valid Eucharist is form, matter and intent. A priest’s sinful behavior does NOT “invalidate the sacramentality” of the Mass and recommending that persons leave is not sound advice.
    Are we okay now boys and girls? God bless. Ginnyfree.

  88. johnhenrycn says:

    GF says: “I have no problem with Dr. Peters at all, and never said I did.”

    Really? What about your opening comment on this thread (24 May @ 20:46) –

    “Wow o wow dept! An expert saying voting for same sex “marriage” can actually constitute a formal act of heresy! I had no idea that it was that serious. Thank you much for the head’s up…I had no clue to believe such things can be heresy. Yikes! Double yikes!”

    Sounds like you’ve got a problem – else why post a comment dripping with sarcasm?

  89. ginnyfree says:

    Hello JHenry. Wow o wow dept? Is that it? You think that means I don’t agree or have a problem with Dr. Peters? You need to re-think and re-read what I said. There is no sarcasm in what I wrote. None at all. You’re stretching to see something you desire to see and not what is actually there. Like I said, Keepinmyblindersone Alley has some nice condos available if you’re interested. I know a good realtor. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  90. johnhenrycn says:

    I guess it comes down to the sometimes ambiguous nature of blog comments. Most people reading your opening comment would mark you down as scornful of Peters. Next time, use a smiley face or some such.

  91. mkenny114 says:

    Ginny,

    I have, as I mentioned earlier, already read the link. I have also already dug for my answers, in plenty of places, both online and by way of asking people (lay and clerical). Furthermore, I have a copy of the Catechism, and have read the relevant sections. If it as simple as you suggest, why can noone give me a straight answer as to what doing ‘what the Church intends’ in Baptism means?

    The fact that people sponsoring infants and adults being baptised should (and most often do) take their responsibilities seriously is not really relevant to my question. I am, to save time in the future, aware of how baptisms proceed, what is involved in them, and what the different roles involved therein are; all I want to know is, when the Church considers the validity of someone’s baptism, prior to their conversion from another Christian community, are there any objective, bare minimum concepts that must have been affirmed by the minister of that baptism for their intent to be considered ‘doing what the Church intends’ and therefore for that baptism to be considered valid?

  92. mkenny114 says:

    Just as a sociological point Mkenny, Toad is wrong, it is nowhere near as many as 10% who switch religions.

    Really? Genuinely interested here, but would like to see some sources, as that a.) seems contrary to what one might expect, and b.) might not take into account people who convert from no religion at all, etc.

  93. mkenny114 says:

    And nobody seems to count, or care about, those who throw their hands up in despair over the whole organised, religious, boiling.

    Yes indeed, I would include this part b.) of my reply to Tom.

    (Toad is one of those who doesn’t count heads. He doesn’t care a damn if anyone becomes an Agnostic or not. Up to them.)

    I thought that’s sort of what you were doing earlier🙂 Not counting heads necessarily, but certainly invoking numbers to make a point.

  94. mkenny114 says:

    Thanks for the H/T GC🙂

  95. toadspittle says:

    “…there is only ONE TRUTH contained in it which is a divine revelation from God contained in her sacred Magisterium and it has remained in its fullness in her for over two thousand years.”
    Was there no “truth” then, before two thousand years ago, Ginnyfree?
    If so, how do you know that? Someone told you, didn’t they?

    “I guess it comes down to the sometimes ambiguous nature of blog comments.”
    Correct, JH. We all read whatever suits us into any given statement. So while “God is love,” means something quite clear to us, it means something equally clear, but possibly very different, to a Hindu. Or a Muslim. Or a Protestant (Such as C.S. Lewis.)

  96. GC says:

    ginnyfree, you may have noticed my comment at May 25, 2015 at 13:03, where I rather timidly suggested that Mary McAleese’s recent doctorate from the Pontifical Gregorian University should possibly be revoked? This was based on Dr Peters’ view that those Catholics publicly supporting the referendum proposition in Ireland could very well be formal heretics. Canon Law, I should hope, is no respecter of persons?

    What do you yourself think about this? A penny (proper sterling, = 1.54 US cents) for your thoughts?

    I understand too that Ms McAleese also has had appointments recently at the (Catholic) Boston College, Notre Dame University and St Mary’s University, Twickenham (in London). If she is a heretic, surely she should be given the boot?

  97. mkenny114 says:

    Also, a lot of you may have seen this already (as it was linked to by The Bones…) but it is worth referring to again just in case. This article by Charles Moore, written in the wake of Elton John’s raining condemnation upon Dolce & Gabbana, brings up a lot of points relevant to the Irish referendum:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11485526/In-the-headlong-rush-for-rights-children-are-an-afterthought.html

    Also, something else most have probably already seen, but, again, worth a re-link:

    http://wdtprs.com/blog/2015/05/let-this-be-a-warning-to-all-of-us/

    One of the comments made on this post was rather interesting, in which the CofE’s madness was used as a way of reassessing the significance of the Protestant Reformation:

    At the risk of being chided by someone, I will repeat a view that I have held for some time. That is, that the protestant revolt (I never use “reformation” because it is in itself a grand lie) was the greatest tragedy in history – bar none. There is an impulse in me to modify that view because I’ve been challenged more than once and made to feel like I might be – well, nuts, as some say. But in good faith I can’t relinquish this perception. But why would Our Lord allow this great tragedy to befall the Church, even all humanity? I don’t know, but the idea has occurred to me that He was providing, at the beginning of the modern age, a mode of Christian observance, a pool of experimentation, that would allow us to observe the “wrong road,” thus allowing His Bride to avoid the same path. As contemporary events unfold, I’m not entirely convinced my reasoning is without merit, but I’m beginning to be convinced some important people are not observing. May what is presented here by Father be an alarm well heard.

  98. mkenny114 says:

    We all read whatever suits us into any given statement. So while “God is love,” means something quite clear to us, it means something equally clear, but possibly very different, to a Hindu. Or a Muslim. Or a Protestant (Such as C.S. Lewis.)

    Toad, do you apply the same ridiculously broad, contextless standards of interpretation to your everyday engagements with fellow members of the human race, or the ideas discussed with them? I would suppose not, but I am struggling to see how, if you do not, you reconcile this with the principles you regularly suggest to be the ordinary means of assessing the truth of various kinds of statement here at CP&S.

  99. toadspittle says:

    “b.) might not take into account people who convert from no religion at all, etc.”
    I suppose there are might be such people around these days. 60 years ago, virtually everyone was nominally something, practising, or not. National Servicemen were obliged to declare a religion. If you had none, they automatically put you down as “C.of E.”

  100. mkenny114 says:

    Toad,

    Re your last comment, I have to say I completely agree with the gist of it (minus the insinuation that the number of people converting to a religion of some kind from atheism/agnosticism is insignificant – I wouldn’t wish to suggest that these numbers are large, but don’t think they are negligible either). Nominal religious affiliation, and an uncritical assumption on the part of mainstream churches that a position of privilege would be maintained, is, I think one (only one mind) of the main reasons that we are in the state we are now.

    On that note, allow me to bombard the CP&S message boards with yet another series of links – both of which, in this case, relate to this very point (the question of Christianity’s relationship with Western culture), and, I think, make roughly the same point, even if they approach it from different angles:

    https://jessicahof.wordpress.com/2015/05/26/reflections-on-the-irish-referendum/

    http://faithinourfamilies.com/2015/05/26/what-is-the-future-for-the-catholic-church-in-ireland/

  101. toadspittle says:

    “Toad, do you apply the same ridiculously broad, contextless standards of interpretation to your everyday engagements with fellow members of the human race, or the ideas discussed with them?”
    Impossible, know, or to tell you, Michael. Virtually every instance is different.
    The context above, for example, seems clear to me – but then it would – wouldn’t it?
    ….But not to you, it seems. Point made. End of argument, I’d have thought.
    But I’m happy if that’s not the case..

  102. toadspittle says:

    I haven’t read the new links yet, Michael (I will) but surely nobody disputes that Western European culture is based on Christianity*? Not to do so would be nuts.

    *Judeo-Christianity if you prefer. Although there’s also an enormous Islamic influence in Iberian culture. As we know.

  103. mkenny114 says:

    Haha – yes indeed. My point is that, despite there clearly being variances in the way we interpret the same data, or understand the same concepts, depending on the way in which they are presented or the intellectual and moral positions we already hold to, this does not amount to us reading what ever suits us into any given statement.

    In the example you cite (the statement that God is Love) the context lacking is why such a statement might be interpreted differently by people coming from different religious traditions – you merely state that differences of opinion would occur, and conclude that this is somehow proof for relativism per se. But in reality the variety of opinions arises from both a difference of perspective and a shared grammar – meaningful differences would not even occur if there were not some basic affirmations of what the words ‘God’ and ‘Love’ mean, as discussion would not be possible at all without these shared affirmations.

    My subsequent point was that, in discussions with our fellow men, we can only dialogue with them because there are also shared commitments to certain ideas. The differences that emerge, once we depart from this foundation, can also be negotiated through reason and empathy. That prejudices prevent us from doing so as effectively as we might ideally like to be the case is true, but this does not mean everything is relative or that differences of opinon render all commitments to truth statements effectively meaningless.

  104. mkenny114 says:

    I haven’t read the new links yet, Michael (I will) but surely nobody disputes that Western European culture is based on Christianity*? Not to do so would be nuts.

    No, I would hope no sane reader of history would dispute that either. But, as you’ll see when you read the links, the point is more that the Church (and Christianity in general) had become a little blase with respect to its relationship with and influence on that culture over the last century or so, and that this is something we must, however reluctantly, take into account as part of the cause of our current problems.

  105. toadspittle says:

    “I can tell from looking over your many shares here that you aren’t exactly a conservative. That’s fine, but don’t expect everyone to share your point of view. “
    Oh all right, Ginny. I won’t, then.
    “You may not agree with me, Toad, but don’t expect this Catholic gal to dumb down anything to suit your delicate ears or eyes. “
    Oh all right, Ginny. I won’t, then.

    “Gal,” is nice . Like an old Doris Day movie.

  106. toadspittle says:

    “As the Irish NO vote dries its tears, and finishes sweeping up the fake confetti …”
    Opening sentence from Michael’s second link.
    The “Gay” gang were too cheap even to buy real confetti, I suppose.
    The first link is excellent.
    “In an era when communication was never easier, mutual understanding seems further away than ever. “
    …Wish I’d said that. (Maybe I did.)

  107. GC says:

    Michael, here’s a rather interesting read still hot off the loony secularist mainstream press in Oz.

    A chap with a Ph.D (wow!) in Oz believes, with respect to gay-priestly teenager-fiddling. that the Church’s century-long focus on salvation for criminals rather than solely denouncing their criminality has done great harm. Efforts to spiritually reform criminals are criminal, apparently, according to our learned friends, at least to those seeking, possibly, an enhanced academic career in the current climate. (Note to Papa Francesco: Desist from your visitations of Roman prisons and youth rehabilitation facilities, if you know what’s good for you!)

    Meanwhile, the majority leftist secularist Labor party currently in opposition in Australia are seeking to make hay while the sun shines after Ireland by bringing on a gay fake marriage bill in federal parliament tooter sweeter. The consensus seems to be that the opposition Labor chaps and chappettes, together with the Greenie chappettes, are in a real hurry as they really do not want to face an election next year with the gay thing hanging in the air still. Losing a few percent of votes from traditional marriage types would probably keep their bottoms on the harder opposition benches for several more years. The Labor leader had a Jesuit education, by the way (as did the PM), but then he married the Governor-General’s daughter.

  108. ginnyfree says:

    hello GC. You asked for it so you got it: It sickens me to think that sodomites will have to be treated as equals to those who are committed to Christian marriage. I also feel it detracts in an impossible way from all who take their marriage vows seriously and injures our society in immeasurable ways. We will pay a dear price for all of this insanity. I will in no way make any kind of accommodation in my thinking or demeanor regarding lesbian couples who try to impose their brand of perversity upon me in public places and that includes in Church. One such “couple” recently showed up at my parish on a Sunday and I noticed only one of the ladies went up for Communion, that one unfortunately was dressed in a less-than-modest outfit, one that cried “I’m a bit queer, notice me.” I was shocked and responding in a negative way until I realized that is exactly why they showed up this particular Sunday and why they chose to sit so close to the front, so everyone else would have to watch them, including the children. We had a visiting Deacon distributing Communion and it was to his line that the lesbian went, a real time test for his being told to assume everyone who presents themselves for Communion is worthy kind of deal. He is a nice man and I enjoyed working with him while he was visiting with us. He was Ordained this past weekend in Lincoln, Nebraska and he will make a beautiful Priest. His love for God was obvious and touching. We are blessed to have him.
    But as a Christian I am obligated to tell all of the truth in charity to anyone who asks me and that includes gays. On more than one occasion I have had the privilege of being able to tell someone exactly what kind of sin homosexuality is and what can be done about it to set one right with God. And I’ve spoken against all of this madness to many. So, GC, is this what you asked for? Better. Is it what you expected? God bless. Ginnyfree.

  109. ginnyfree says:

    To Toad, all I can say is “Ribbit, ribbit.”

  110. GC says:

    Hello, ginnyfree, thanks for your reply. I’m pretty sure I know where you stand!🙂

  111. johnhenrycn says:

    GF, that was an excellent comment that GC will agree with (as do I) in toto, I’m sure.

  112. mkenny114 says:

    An illuminating and very interesting link GC, thank you. It does make the usual moves of a.) inferring that the particular cases cited are representative of something pervasive in the Church, and operative at levels vastly higher than in any other institution (which is of course flatly untrue), and b.) nudging the reader (via the repeated usage of the imprecise phrase ‘Church authorities’) towards the idea that the big bad Vatican are at fault and centralisation of authority is the problem, whilst ignoring the clear fact that it was precisely the lack of communication between parishes and dioceses with papal representatives (let alone the Holy See itself) that allowed so much to go wrong for so long.

    But what is unique about this author’s take on the situation is, as you mention, the focus on the Church’s apparent neglect of the criminality of the acts in preference of a pastoral approach. It is amazing that he can take such an approach, given that it was precisely the atmosphere fostered by the advent of the Sexual Revolution, and the subsequent relativisation of long-held standards of sexual morality and conduct by psychotherapists and cultural commentators, that made for such confusion in the first place. The problem was not that the Church saw the cases of abuse as sin over and against the law, but that society had boldly claimed that there was no such thing as sin at all, and that all kinds of things which would previously have been called out as perversion were ‘explained away’ as mental illness or even personality traits that could be accounted for by upbringing. The Church, by letting the spirit of the world in through its windows, became as influenced by this thinking as anyone else – a way of thinking that was specifically designed to let people do whatever they wanted with whoever they wanted without condemnation.

    Re the second link, I love how they describe it as the ‘socially conservative’ Republic of Ireland!🙂

  113. toadspittle says:

    “To Toad, all I can say is “Ribbit, ribbit.”
    No more than any of us would expect, Ginnyfree;

  114. GC says:

    Michael, it led me to conjecture that the Ozzie Ph.D (wow!) must himself be already “saved”, just like Bruvver Eccles – even more so, if that’s possible.

  115. mkenny114 says:

    Michael, it led me conjecture that the Ozzie Ph.D (wow!) must himself be already “saved”, just like Bruvver Eccles.

    Haha, indeed! And good thing too, as a ‘cultural historian interested in the relationship between sexuality and religion in modernity’ is most likely in good need of salvation🙂

  116. JabbaPapa says:

    form and intent are both violated by heresy — form, because it violates the form of the homily, which is required to contain only sound Catholic teaching ; intent because the priest intends to deceive the Faithful with false teachings, and to lead them into a belief in the heresies in question and away from the Catholicity of the Faith.

    Aquinas points out too that to teach heresy is an act of sacrilege — and sacrilege naturally invalidates all sacraments.

    And you continue to avoid accepting Aquinas’ crystal clear point that someone seeking communion with a heretic makes himself culpable of the same sacrilege, and that all such communion is therefore to be avoided by the Faithful as not being permissible.

    You continue not to have expressed any contrition whatsoever for your grossly uncatholic opinion (verging on the heretical I’d say, but you deserve the benefit of doubt that it’s a simple Error) that a priest “can preach heresy all he wants to”

  117. mkenny114 says:

    Jabba,

    I think that what Ginny meant by her comment on the preaching of heresy in homilies was that he can preach all the heresy he wants to but this would not invalidate his confection of the Eucharist. I don’t think she was saying it was okay for priests to preach heresy in their homilies in and of itself, or that this would be a good thing.

    Btw, do you have an opinion on what doing ‘what the Church intends’ in Baptism means – i.e.; whether this means the one baptising need affirm any relevant doctrines. I mean particularly in the case of Christian, but non-Catholic ministers; I can see that in the case of an atheist performing an emergency baptism that their ignorance is taken into account, and they need only intend to ‘do what the Church intends’ in a very restricted sense.

  118. mkenny114 says:

    Or, to put it another way, is it the case that the more the one administering the baptism knows, the more their explicit rejection of any doctrines pertaining to Baptism would invalidate the sacrament? And in such a case, is rejection of some things known to be essential to this sacrament, but not others, a case for assuming its invalidity?

  119. GC says:

    Yes, Michael, everything seems to have reference to “sexuality” these days, even history. A great oversight on all our parts who failed to notice. Well, we know now.

  120. mkenny114 says:

    Yes GC, and at least now we have plenty of people to tell us everything all about gender conflict and all truth statements are really an assertion of power over others. What a wise and wonderful world we live in!🙂 Personally I have a feeling that we are starting to see these ridiculous schools of thought being played out, and that even now people are starting to wake up to the daftness of so much of what passes for reasoned debate in our culture (where debate actually occurs that is – it is usually closed down pretty quickly by the disciples of those wise folk we are discussing). Small numbers perhaps, and it may take a good while for them to gain any traction in what is still an environment very hostile to either faith or reason, but I think/hope that nonsense cannot last, and will eventually consume itself, or simply overplay its hand. Anyway, I’m off to bed now – ta ta for the time being!

  121. JabbaPapa says:

    mkenny : If it as simple as you suggest, why can noone give me a straight answer as to what doing ‘what the Church intends’ in Baptism means?

    sorry, been too busy with a certain person’s false notions that preachers of heresy provide valid Sacraments.

    Baptism is actually the least easily invalidated of all the Sacraments — because in theory anyone can confer it. It is considered invalid generally if the proper form is not adhered to (there’s a little bit of wiggle room here) ; it is always invalid if water is not used ; but defect of intent is not easily achieved.

    Defect of intent is considered to exist if the person providing the baptism openly expresses intent contrary to the Sacrament, to God, the Church, or overt disbelief in the validity of the Baptism and etc.

    Defect of intent is also considered to exist in cases where the person providing the baptism belongs to a religious group or sect that teaches false doctrines concerning Baptism that are such as to demonstrate defect of the intent to do what the Church does, with the requirement nonetheless that the Church has expressly denounced those baptisms as being invalid when given by members of that group. (for example the Mormons declare that only their own baptisms are valid, so that they say that Catholic Baptism is false ; furthermore their baptismal theology is greatly erroneous and heretical ; the LDS have therefore been declared by the Church as not validly conferring Baptism)

    There are many many fringe cases, but lay Catholics have no authority to make general pronouncements on such cases — instead, when there is doubt concerning the validity of a baptism, the Church Court having authority in any given case will determine validity or not, or if the baptism might be provisionally valid and so allowing for a conditional baptism.

    Bottom line, a Catholic may only declare another person’s baptism to be invalid in cases where the baptism in question has been declared by the Church as lacking validity. The existence of any doubt is not sufficient cause for any but the proper ecclesial authority to pronounce on that matter.

  122. ginnyfree says:

    Are you kidding Jabba? I’m as Catholic as those who accept Trent. Obviously not your kind of Catholicism though. May I suggest you actually read Aquinas’ passages that you quote. They pertain to Ordained Bishops who are excommunicated being able to Ordain others. You are flat out wrong Jabba. Too bad. Too much missing and way off the mark. Has anyone ever told you that saying something is so doesn’t make it so? No? I guess I’m the first then. Here’s a fly in your ointment: the Eucharist one could receive at an SSPX Mass is valid and contains Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, whole and entire with no grace meant for a communicant missing. The mess is an illicit affair though and folks should just stay away from them. However, if a Catholic was in a strange place and had no where else to go to satisfy his or her Sunday obligation but the SSPX church and Liturgy, then they incur no sin by going and partaking. Houze that grab ya Jabba dear? God bless. Ginnyfree.

  123. ginnyfree says:

    Hello MKenny. “Jabba, I think that what Ginny meant by her comment on the preaching of heresy in homilies was that he can preach all the heresy he wants to but this would not invalidate his confection of the Eucharist. I don’t think she was saying it was okay for priests to preach heresy in their homilies in and of itself, or that this would be a good thing.”

    Thanks for trying but I’m getting the picture with Jabba. He only sees in things what he desires and not exactly what is there. Taking stuff out of context is always a pretext. Jabba is quite good at it. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  124. Brother Burrito says:

    mkenny and GC,

    “But I say to you not to resist evil: but if one strike thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other:

    And if a man will contend with thee in judgment, and take away thy coat, let go thy cloak also unto him….” Matt 5:39-40

    Catholics must be like the early mammals: don’t fight against the larger, stronger dinosaurs for they will win any fight.

    Just wait instead for the big climate change to help one on one’s way. It will come.

    God is in charge even in the darkest of times.

  125. Tom Fisher says:

    Hello Ginny, as I asked previously: why did you address that comment to me? I wasn’t part of the conversation about validity. Please explain.

  126. toadspittle says:

    “….but that society had boldly claimed that there was no such thing as sin at all, …”
    Well, Michael of course, it all depends on what you mean by sin, but let’s assume we agree on a definition – moral transgression, maybe?
    “Society,” whatever we may mean by that – let’s also assume we agree there is such an animal – does believe in sin. “It” believes lying cheating, stealing, bankers and politicians are sinful, it believes rapists and murderers are sinful, it believes child molesters are sinful – and it believes that such people should be punished. And it says so.
    Society might also call these sins “crimes.” Same thing. All crime is considered sinful. (Not all sins are considered criminal.)
    Then, of course, there’s consensual sex – “sexuality.” No room to go into all that here.
    But that is, as W.C. Fields put it, “The Ethopian in the fuel supply,”*

    * And he was rightly rebuked for saying so. As Toad will be.

    Brother Burro’s comment at 23.40 yesterday – is – I suggest – absolutely correct. If we believe in Christ, we must passively allow ourselves to be killed – and go to Heaven.

  127. toadspittle says:

    “It sickens me to think that sodomites will have to be treated as equals to those who are committed to Christian marriage.”

    There was a time, not long ago, when it sickened English Protestants to think that Catholics would have to be treated as equals. And another time, when it sickened white Americans to think that Black Americans would have to be, etc.
    I suspect some white Americans are still sickened.

    It’s easy to tolerate things that we approve of, isn’t it? Anyone can do it.
    I disapprove of (among other things) tattoos. I must tolerate them. I suppose.

  128. JabbaPapa says:

    Here’s a fly in your ointment: the Eucharist one could receive at an SSPX Mass is valid and contains Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, whole and entire with no grace meant for a communicant missing

    This is the first mention of the SSPX in this thread, and I cannot remember anyone suggesting that the Mass at a chapel of the SSPX lacked validity — still, it’s nice, I suppose, to see confirmed in your writing the hidden agenda that I was beginning to suspect in your interventions.

    If you imagined that anything I wrote concerned the SSPX, well, then given that I made exactly zero references to that Fraternity in this thread, this simply confirms to my mind that you have a tendency to read more into what you read than what is to be found there.

    This is not conducive to accurate understanding of the written theology.

    The mess is an illicit affair

    To claim that the Novus Ordo Mass (codeword “mess”) is “illicit” most certainly is a heresy, a sacrilege, and a blasphemy.

  129. JabbaPapa says:

    He only sees in things what he desires and not exactly what is there

    Nonsense.

  130. JabbaPapa says:

    Also take note of ginnyfree’s double standards — it’s perfectly OK, it seems, for her to tell people to stay away from these or those Masses because they are “illicit” (when they are not)

  131. mkenny114 says:

    Defect of intent is considered to exist if the person providing the baptism openly expresses intent contrary to the Sacrament, to God, the Church, or overt disbelief in the validity of the Baptism and etc.

    Thanks Jabba. I agree with everything else you write above re Baptism, but with respect to the excerpt I’ve just quoted here, could you clarify just a little? What I’m getting at is, would there be warrant for disbelieving in the validity of the sacrament if the one providing it had expressed intent contrary to its nature on occasions outside the ritual itself or would it have to be something mentioned at the time – for example, if an Anglican/Lutheran/Presbyterian/any other denomination whose baptisms are accepted by the Church as valid in general minister had been known to state their disbelief in Original Sin, or claimed that Baptism did nothing to remit sin at all, or that it was simply a way of welcoming people into the community, but went through the baptismal ritual without any untoward statements, would there be good grounds for considering his intent to be lacking and therefore for the sacrament to be invalid?

  132. mkenny114 says:

    Well, Michael of course, it all depends on what you mean by sin, but let’s assume we agree on a definition – moral transgression, maybe?
    “Society,” whatever we may mean by that – let’s also assume we agree there is such an animal – does believe in sin. “It” believes lying cheating, stealing, bankers and politicians are sinful, it believes rapists and murderers are sinful, it believes child molesters are sinful – and it believes that such people should be punished. And it says so.
    Society might also call these sins “crimes.” Same thing. All crime is considered sinful. (Not all sins are considered criminal.)
    Then, of course, there’s consensual sex – “sexuality.” No room to go into all that here.

    Okay, fair enough – to clarify, Western society has for a long time acted as if (and often, in particular cases, expressly stated) there were no longer any objective moral standards by which we conduct our common and private lives (with a heavy emphasis on the private). There has existed, and still exists, a general atmosphere, though never carefully argued for or subjected to any real scrutiny, in which moral claims have come to be seen as essentially relative – this is something you will know yourself of course🙂

    In practice though, as you rightly point out, people do still believe that certain actions are worthy of condemnation (e.g.; murder, lying, stealing). However, even these commitments are not based on appeal to objective truth, but to a combination of emotional appeal (it just feels right/wrong) and what is permitted by law. Thus we have a situation where it is bad for politicians to lie, but fine for me to do it when it suits me; bad for bankers to steal, but okay for me to cheat on my taxes and lie to my friends and family about all sorts of ‘minor’ infractions; bad for innocent adults to be killed, but fine for innocent children in their mother’s womb to be killed.

    Of course, the real reason the spirit of relativism has been allowed to exert such an influence over our moral life is because we want our sexual conduct to be without restriction – we want to be able to sleep with who we want when we want, to ignore the consequences, and to avoid being told that it is wrong. It is interesting that you pass over this part of moral behaviour (‘no room to go into all that here’) when this is precisely what was being discussed by GC and myself, and was clearly the basis for allowing into our culture an atmosphere of moral fog.

  133. JabbaPapa says:

    would there be warrant for disbelieving in the validity of the sacrament if the one providing it had expressed intent contrary to its nature on occasions outside the ritual itself

    No. That proposition has been condemned as anathema.

    If the person providing the Baptism were simply to intend doing what the Baptised person wants, which is an imperfect intent, the baptism is still considered valid if what the Baptised person wants is what the Church intends.

    Purely internal dispositions CAN invalidate a Sacrament, but such cases are hard to discern, very casuistic, and they are to be considered as marginal theoretical speculations rather than as solid sacramental theology.

    The only cases I’m aware of where a Baptism could be considered invalid from an internal disposition in actual practice are those of a recipient of the rite having a manifestly defective internal disposition, even discovered after the fact ; forced baptisms of unwilling recipients ; persons baptised as infants, but never having been given any Christian instruction, never having partaken of Holy Communion, nor ever having made any profession of Christian Faith, and then actively seeking in later life to have their baptism annulled.

  134. JabbaPapa says:

    All crime is considered sinful

    Actually not true — though it’s an excellent rule of thumb.

    There are places in the world, for example, where many ordinary actions of the Christian Faithful have been defined as being crimes — such crimes are most certainly not sins.

  135. toadspittle says:

    Yes it’s a bit too sweeping, Jabba, I agree. Thought so as I was writing it.
    The Nazis made it a “crime” not to kill Jews. Quite recently, in South Africa and certain parts of the USA, it was a crime to treat black people as normal human beings. There is that.

    “Thus we have a situation where it is bad for politicians to lie, but fine for me to do it when it suits me…”
    I suspect you are being a teeny bit too honest here, Michael.

  136. mkenny114 says:

    If the person providing the Baptism were simply to intend doing what the Baptised person wants, which is an imperfect intent, the baptism is still considered valid if what the Baptised person wants is what the Church intends.

    Purely internal dispositions CAN invalidate a Sacrament, but such cases are hard to discern, very casuistic, and they are to be considered as marginal theoretical speculations rather than as solid sacramental theology.

    Thank you very much Jabba, this is exactly the sort of answer I was looking for – definitive, clear and focused on the particular question of internal disposition (as opposed to more general concerns). Just one last thing – could you point me in the direction of where the idea that purely internal dispositions invalidate the Sacrament of Baptism was declared anathema?

  137. toadspittle says:

    “It is interesting that you pass over this part of moral behaviour (‘no room to go into all that here’) when this is precisely what was being discussed by GC and myself, and was clearly the basis for allowing into our culture an atmosphere of moral fog.”
    Your discussion with GC was precisely why I wrote the comment, Michael. (Viz, the Field quote.)
    I agree sex is the battleground.

    “… the real reason the spirit of relativism has been allowed to exert such an influence over our moral life is because we want our sexual conduct to be without restriction – we want to be able to sleep with who we want when we want, to ignore the consequences,”

    Nobody’s forcing anyone else to behave like that. (If they are, that’s a whole, nother, issue.) If foolish folk want to do that kind of thing, that’s their look-out, surely? Like smoking, or drinking too much. Unless we are hurt in some fashion by it, it’s not our business. Are we supposed to suffer fools gladly, or not? One or the other. Can’t remember.

  138. ginnyfree says:

    No relevance? But Jabba, the SSPX are both schismatics and heretics, so if they preach, they are preaching heresy and schism in their homilies and according to you, when they do that, there is no longer any validity in the proceedings. I thought is was quite relevant. Why don’t you admit it, the Church is correct when she states that only three things are necessary for the Sacraments, form, matter and intent and that a heretical homily doesn’t invalidate any part of the Mass or the Eucharist. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  139. ginnyfree says:

    Hello Jabba. “The mess is an illicit affair To claim that the Novus Ordo Mass (codeword “mess”) is “illicit” most certainly is a heresy, a sacrilege, and a blasphemy.” Anyone reading what I wrote KNOWS that mess refers to the SSPX. Nice try though. You’ve very good a twisting words. As for my secret agenda, well, there is none. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  140. mkenny114 says:

    Your discussion with GC was precisely why I wrote the comment, Michael. (Viz, the Field quote.)
    I agree sex is the battleground.

    So why did you give it so little attention in your response?

    Nobody’s forcing anyone else to behave like that. (If they are, that’s a whole, nother, issue.) If foolish folk want to do that kind of thing, that’s their look-out, surely?

    This attitude, wherein ‘as long as I’m not hurting anyone it’s fine’, is also part of the spirit of the age that has affected our approach to moral decision making, and my point is that this a.) allows for a moral fuzziness that eventually affects our whole moral life, and b.) that it thereby doesn’t matter that noone is being forced to do anything – it is the attitude of permissiveness and relativism created in order to allow for such a situation (where sexual acts are not judged according to any moral standards) that is important, not that someone might be made to take part in what would previously have been considered immoral behaviour.

    Basically, as soon as one says that, not only are we not to judge the acts of an individual, but that we cannot judge the morality of the acts themselves, and try to justify this by the claim that ‘really’ morality is all relative, we lead ourselves down a very murky path, and it is hard to make the case for the objective immorality of anything outside of the fact that it is illegal.

  141. ginnyfree says:

    Hello Tom. I wrote that in response to this: “Perhaps we should just say that a baptism is valid if the person administering it would assent to the uncontroversial contents of Mere Christianity :-)” I took it to mean that you think determinations regarding validity of the Sacraments is up to mere laypersons and anyone can determine there form, matter, licitness and validity for oneself. This is exactly why some Baptisms aren’t valid, because persons decided to leave proper norms behind. So, now ya know. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  142. ginnyfree says:

    Hold on a minute Jabba. Baptism leaves an indelible mark upon the soul of the recipient. It can never be undone. It can never be repeated either. Your remark about persons getting their Sacrament “annulled” later in life is poppycock. Please don’t interpret for the Church. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  143. JabbaPapa says:

    If you really want to knock yourself out, follow this link : https://www.ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/INTENTIO.TXT
    🙂

    There are some prickly bits.

    For example, Pope Alexander VIII condemned the proposition : “A Baptism is valid when conferred by a minister who observes every external rite and form of baptizing, but within, in his heart, resolves to himself not to intend what the Church does” — take note here that the intent is not merely imperfect ; but defective.

    Mr William Marsher, quoted : The following points are common ground for all theologians.

    (1) Everybody accepts the doctrine of the Council of Florence (_Decree _for_the_Armenians) to the effect that one of the things required for the validity of the Sacrament is that the minister intend to do what the Church does.

    (2) Everybody agrees that, in order to be intending to do what the Church does, the minister need not have inward faith in the Church, in the efficacy of her mysteries, etc. Hence it is agreed that heretics or even pagans can perform certain Sacraments — at least baptism — provided only that they observe the form and intend to do what the Church does or “what Christians do.” This point is especially important, because it means that everybody acknowledges the difference between not believing that p and intending that not-p. For instance, not believing that Christ becomes really present at the consecration is very different from intending that He not become present. Granted, an ignorant or heretical priest, who fails to believe that Christ becomes present, *might also*, when celebrating, intend that He not become present; but such an intention would be odd and extraordinarily malicious. The normal thing is that, when a person has no belief that something happens, he has no reason to intend that it not happen.

    (3) Everybody also agrees that, in order to be intending to do what the Church does, the minister must seem to be carrying out the prescribed rite correctly and with gravity. Hence it is agreed that rituals carried out in plays, in jest, or with tell-tale omissions and deformations are not valid Sacraments.

    (4) Finally, it is agreed by all that when a minister is awake and sane, it is valid to infer from his overt, correct performance of the rite that he “intends” at least to perform the rite correctly. This inferred intention is called “external intention,” and, by point (3), it is *necessary* for validity.

    Saint Thomas Aquinas (sorry cannot locate exactly where this passage is from) : “Although he who does not believe that baptism is a sacrament, or does not believe that it has any spiritual power, does not intend when he baptizes to confer a sacrament, nevertheless he intends to do what the Church does, even if he counts that as nothing; and because the Church intends to do something, therefore, as a consequence of this, he intends implicitly to do something, though not explicitly.”

  144. JabbaPapa says:

    Baptism leaves an indelible mark upon the soul of the recipient. It can never be undone. It can never be repeated either. Your remark about persons getting their Sacrament “annulled” later in life is poppycock.

    I said nothing of the spiritual effects of Baptism, nor anything to contradict the indelibility of its spiritual Effect.

    This is a matter of validity or not. A non-valid baptismal rite is not Baptism.

    Here’s one example (and yes, the choice of website is deliberate, as I am starting to get rather fed up with your constant false “corrections”) : http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=69292

  145. JabbaPapa says:

    the SSPX are both schismatics and heretics

    The former is untrue, since the lifting of the excommunications at the very least ; the second concerns a matter that is of the personal Authority of the Roman Pontiff exclusively, as the disciplinary measures that have been incurred upon the SSPX were enacted by the Pope personally ; although some part of that Authority has been delegated to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and to the Ecclesia Dei Commission in some particulars.

    I apologise for my error concerning your attitude towards the SSPX, but you should be aware that the phrase “the mess” is code-language among anti-Vatican II Traditionalists and sedevacantists and (the actually schismatic) Williamson followers and so on to designate the Novus Ordo Mass.

  146. Brother Burrito says:

    Just to let you all know, I have enabled “comment nesting” so that replies to comments appear beneath the comment, (up to 3 deep). I have noticed some confusion recently between commenters as to who said what to whom.

    I am also presenting newer comments first, but this means the “Leave a Reply” box (for de novo comments) is at the bottom of the page, which may be problematic.

    Let me know if these changes are unpopular. I will accept the consensus view.

  147. ginnyfree says:

    Look Jabba, you keep making mistakes. You said two biggies: That a priest who preached a heretical homily invalidated his Eucharist at the Mass his homily was given at and then you claimed that a person who was Baptised as an infant but lacked formation somehow annulled their Baptism later in life. These are mistakes. They aren’t true. If you are “fed up” with me saying stuff against your mistakes, then simply don’t make them. But when you do and it is shown you, please have the humility to admit it. You can’t unsay the things you said. To top it off, you recommended that persons who think their priests are giving heretical homilies should get up and walk out of Mass. Not good. I responded. You aren’t used to being challenged I suppose. I do not mean to upset you. I simply feel a need to make sure things are straightened out respectively when people give bad information. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  148. Tom Fisher says:

    The “reply” function is great — but I think it’s better to have more recent comments at the bottom. It’s easier to read through the thread that way from start to finish

  149. mkenny114 says:

    I agree with Tom BB – it is easier to read having the most recent comments at the bottom. Also, I’m not sure if the reply function will add that much if it only goes 3 comments deep; would it be possible to enable more comments? If not, I think I prefer the old way.

  150. mkenny114 says:

    P.S. It is already possible to see who you are replying to in WordPress’ ‘Comments I have made’ section. But I am not sure whether or not everyone has access to this.

  151. mkenny114 says:

    Thank you Jabba, that is most helpful, and as I am going on a train journey lasting a good few hours this weekend, I shall print off the document from EWTN to read during the journey (I prefer reading from the page vs. the screen anyway). The quote from Saint Thomas is (as one would expect from Aquinas) exceptionally clear and precise as well, so thanks very much for all the above!

  152. toadspittle says:

    I know I’m just an old Trad, Burro, but this is all back-asswords. Give me back CP&S!
    Though the “reply” thingy is promising.

  153. toadspittle says:

    “So why did you give it (sex) so little attention in your response?”
    Possibly because I was wrong, Michael. Usually am.
    “…not only are we not to judge the acts of an individual, but that we cannot judge the morality of the acts themselves, “
    …We certainly can. I do very frequently and privately – but I don’t do anything else about it.
    If asked, I’ll give my opinion, otherwise not. But then, I’m lazy, over-tolerant, and cynical, it seems.

    So, what ought we, in our capacity as judges, to do, Michael?
    …Pontificate loudly and publicly, I suppose? But it’s a bit warm for that here, right now..

  154. mkenny114 says:

    We certainly can. I do very frequently and privately – but I don’t do anything else about it.

    I mean ‘we’ as a society. It is, of course, up to each individual whether or not they judge certain acts to immoral or not, but if we do not uphold certain things as such collectively, then there will be an inevitable drift towards social disintegration, as the vast majority of things classed as immoral are so classed because of their negative impact on society at large, not just the individual. The negative impacts may well take time to be made manifest, as its effects are often cumulative, and only recognisable after having been passed on to subsequent generations, but they are there nonetheless, and visible in our society today.

    The question of how to inculcate certain moral judgements into the collective consciousness, without making any particular acts illegal, is a very tricky one though, especially in a society that has accepted the relativisation of moral judgements in general, and has done so precisely to avoid having certain types of behaviour come under judgement. One possible answer is that we would be able to negotiate this situation in a future society rebuilt upon Christian principles, following on one that had destroyed itself through permissiveness. In this case, we would be able to learn the value of Christian teaching on sexual ethics, as well as the value of not prohibiting certain types of behaviour through law.

  155. mkenny114 says:

    Yes, each time I return to them I find the new threads that bit more confusing, I must admit!

  156. JabbaPapa says:

    I am truly impressed by your grasp of Catholic doctrine, Ginnyfree

    Not me sorry — though certainly GF has a very strong understanding of it, she seems to be at a stage that I went through myself durinf my own conversion of being surer of one’s personal charisms than the congregational and ecclesial charisms of the fundamental Catholicity, including certain permissible & topical doctrinal doubts, questions, and interpretations.

  157. JabbaPapa says:

    You aren’t used to being challenged I suppose

    LMAOROFLGiggling

    a priest who preached a heretical homily invalidated his Eucharist at the Mass his homily was given at

    Yep — it is a Catholic Maxim that Error has no Rights, and it is quite clear that any such act of wilful sacrilege is incapable of Sacramental Grace.

    AND you continue in your rejection of the extremely clear pastoral advice of Saint Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Catholic Church.

    then you claimed that a person who was Baptised as an infant but lacked formation somehow annulled their Baptism later in life

    No I did not, and I am not responsible for your reading and comprehension difficulties.

    you recommended that persons who think their priests are giving heretical homilies should get up and walk out of Mass

    This is because Catholics are forbidden from entering into communion with heretics.

  158. JabbaPapa says:

    Confusing at start, but an excellent initiative as such — Well Done BB !!!🙂

  159. JabbaPapa says:

    Just teething problems, we’ll all adjust …

  160. JabbaPapa says:

    OK but that document is still mere theologica

  161. JabbaPapa says:

    hrm misclick

    OK but that document is still mere theological opinion, not the Theology of the Holy Church

    just — caveat😉

  162. JabbaPapa says:

    responded to elsewhere

  163. mkenny114 says:

    Message understood (and presumably the document is not in any way opposed to Catholic teaching or you wouldn’t have recommended it)🙂 Btw, are there any relevant Church documents that similarly explicate what it is to ‘do what the Church intends’ (specifically with respect to Baptism)?

  164. mkenny114 says:

    P.S. By which I mean official statements of doctrine or canon law, that sort of thing.

  165. johnhenrycn says:

    “I am truly impressed by your grasp of Catholic doctrine, Ginnyfree.”

    That was me who said that. A fair cop, Guv.

    Which is not to say that I’m not equally impressed by your grasp thereof.

    But truth to tell, I wish I’d never asked the innocent question I did on 24 May @ 20:47 leading both of you to exercise the nuclear option against each other. There are no survivors.
    ___
    What a topsy turvy world BB has decided to impose on us. Temporarily.

  166. ginnyfree says:

    Hello JH. It’s all good. I’ve gotten to know you guys a little better and you’ve gotten to know me a little better and some even learned a thing or two. Nuclear? Not even close. Yawn. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  167. johnhenrycn says:

    No, no, this is not working. The old WordPress set-up was better. Toad and I don’t like Novus Ordo, and we are both going to migrate to whichever Trad Catholic website will have us (joke!)

    All it takes, in order for people to follow what’s going on, is to be fairly scrupulous about mentioning the names of and time stamps of the people to whom one is replying. JabbaPapa is one of the worst offenders in not following that elementary courtesy, but our recovering alcoholic (joke!) is giving him a run for his money and coming up fast on the inside track.

  168. JabbaPapa says:

    The Catechism, really

  169. ginnyfree says:

    So who’s this recovering alkie? Gin free? Or Ginnyfree? Nice try but the name has nothing to do with booze. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  170. johnhenrycn says:

    A more humorous response is what I was hoping for, Ginnyfree. I doubt you’ve ever had a drink in your life. As for me, my first conviction

  171. Brother Burrito says:

    As a doctor, I thoroughly approve of free gin.

    All of the NHS’s problems can be solved by it, hic.

  172. Tom Fisher says:

    Sometimes people get bored in the waiting rooms and sketch their surroundings😉

  173. Brother Burrito says:

    No, no, I meant for the staff, especially the midwives😉

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s