Bishop Paprocki Welcomes Reforms of Pope Francis

In his statement following the release of the two letters motu proprio of the Holy Father Pope Francis given to reform the canonical procedure for declaring the nullity of marriage, the Most Reverend Thomas John Paprocki, Bishop of Springfield in Illinois, has welcome the reforms, saying he is "happy to see to it that these modifications will be put into effect" in the tribunal.

Indeed, part of these reforms have already been in place in the Diocese of Springfield in Illinois. Bishop Paprocki noted that "we have for over thirty years made use of a provision which is now being made normative for the whole world: that cases are usually to be judged by a single judge who is an ordained person, instead of by a panel of three judges."

we have for over thirty years made use of a provision which is now being made normative for the whole world: that cases are usually to be judged by a single judge who is an ordained person, instead of by a panel of three judges - See more at: http://www.dio.org/communications/press-releases/393-statement-by-bishop-thomas-john-paprocki-pope-francis-reform-of-canonical-procedure-for-the-annulment-of-marriage.html#sthash.2SFSDU1p.hj8lRzrk.dpuf

Back in February, the Bishop expressed his desire to eliminate the standard fee for the processing of petitions for the declaration of the nullity of marriage and asked the faithful to be generous to help bring about this desire. I expressed this same desire in November of 2014.

In keeping with the Holy Father's desire that the fees be eliminated, Bishop Paprocki said, "We are happy to do this," noting that "we have never delayed the administration of justice because of non-payment on a petitioner’s part." What is more, he expressed his desire for the assistance of the faithful in this regard, saying, "We rely upon the continued generosity of Catholic Christians so that we may meet the expenses associated with this judicial work."

Within the statement, Bishop Paprocki also provides a helpful explanation of the reality of declarations of marriage nullity and, first, about the reality of marriage:

The Catholic Church continues to teach that a marriage, once validly entered, is permanent and cannot be dissolved by the mere will of one of the parties.  We understand that marriage comes to be through the spouses’ act of consent to bind themselves to one another in a marriage bond which is in accord with God’s plan for a permanent, exclusive union, open to the possibility of the generation of children.  We presume in favor of the validity of all marriages, but we recognize, in our theology and law, that a party’s marriage consent may have been insufficient in some fundamental way.  Therefore, we enumerate reasons for possible nullity of marriage, and we apply legal procedures by which a party, following a civil divorce, might seek to prove the nullity of a marriage and, having proved this fact, proceed to enter a new marriage which can be recognized by the Catholic Church.

Be sure to read the entire statement here.

happy to see to it that these modifications will be put into effect in our diocesan tribunals - See more at: http://www.dio.org/communications/press-releases/393-statement-by-bishop-thomas-john-paprocki-pope-francis-reform-of-canonical-procedure-for-the-annulment-of-marriage.html#sthash.2SFSDU1p.hj8lRzrk.dpuf

happy to see to it that these modifications will be put into effect in our diocesan tribunals - See more at: http://www.dio.org/communications/press-releases/393-statement-by-bishop-thomas-john-paprocki-pope-francis-reform-of-canonical-procedure-for-the-annulment-of-marriage.html#sthash.2SFSDU1p.hj8lRzrk.dpuf

happy to see to it that these modifications will be put into effect in our diocesan tribunals - See more at: http://www.dio.org/communications/press-releases/393-statement-by-bishop-thomas-john-paprocki-pope-francis-reform-of-canonical-procedure-for-the-annulment-of-marriage.html#sthash.2SFSDU1p.hj8lRzrk.dpuf

UPDATED: Three things to read about Pope Francis' reforms for delcaring the nullity of marriage

With the release today of the two letters motu proprio (Mitis Iudex Dominus Iesus and Mitis et misericors Iesus), the Holy Father Pope Francis has introduced what he calls "provisions that favour not the nullity of marriage but rather the speed of processes, along with the appropriate simplicity, so that the heart of the faithful who await clarification of their status is not long oppressed by the darkness of doubt due to the lengthy wait for a conclusion."

Because the Holy Father has reformed the canonical process of declaring the nullity of marriage with these two letters, Jimmy Akin has put together a very useful - and, per his usual methodology, thorough - list of 9 things to know and share about the process for the declaring the nullity of marriage and its reform. Before you read any media headlines about what Pope Francis has done (most of which you shouldn't believe anyway), be sure to read Jimmy's post for the necessary background information.

After you've read Jimmy's post, be sure to read what the highly respected canonist Dr. Ed Peters says in his first look at Mitis Iudex, in which he points what is new in the reforms initiated by the Holy Father and what really is not new.

UPDATE: After taking a second, more careful look at Mitis Iudex Dominus Iesus, Dr. Peters discusses several concerns about some possible implications or perceptions of Pope Francis' reforms of the canonical process for declaring marriage nullity.

Pope Francis to issue reforms for the process of declaring the nullity of marriages tomorrow

The Holy See announced today that a press conference will be held tomorrow to discuss the release of two letters written motu proprio of the Holy Father Pope Francis titled Mitis Iudex Dominus Iesus, which will concern the law of the Latin rite, and Mitis et misericors Iesus, which will concern the law of the Eastern rites. The letters concern the reform of the canonical process of the declaration of the nullity of marriage (more commonly known as annulments).

The two letters will be issued following the work of a special commission the Holy Father established in August of 2014. The last word I heard about this commission (which, admittedly, was several months ago) was that it had not yet even met. Now, however, its work seems to be complete.

I think most canon lawyers are a bit surprised that the changes to the law of the Church will be issued prior to the conclusion of the Ordinary Synod of Bishops next month and that the two letters will be given with just one day's notice.

At present, the content of the letters is unknown. One thing, however, is likely certain: I now know what to expect on my final comprehensive exams this June.

Homily - 6 September 2015 - To be unmistakably Catholic

The Twenty-third Sunday in Ordinary Time (B)

Dear brothers and sisters,

No one opens a door, or a box, or a window without some reason, an express purpose for doing so. We open a door to leave or to enter a room or a building, to receive a guest or to send away a salesman. We open a box to put something inside it or to take something out of it, though sometimes we open a box simply to see what is in it. We open a window to let in a breeze.

Similarly, Jesus never does anything without a specific purpose. Why, then, does he open the ears of the deaf man and open his mouth to let loose his tongue? Was it simply to give him use of all five of our sensory faculties? Possibly, but I suspect there is something deeper behind his curious actions. Why else did he stick his fingers in the man’s ears and put his spit on his tongue?

Before Jesus healed the man, we can see in his deafness and in his speech impediment a signification that

he had been closed, isolated, it had been very difficult for him to communicate. For him healing meant an “opening” to others and to the world, an opening which, starting with the organs of hearing and speech, involved his whole self and his life: he could at last communicate and thus relate in a new way.

However, we all know that a person’s closure and isolation do not only depend on the sense organs. There is an inner closure that affects the person’s inmost self, which the Bible calls the “heart”. It is this that Jesus came to “open”, to liberate, so as to enable us to live to the full our relationship with God and with others. This is why … this small word, “ephphatha — be opened”, sums up in itself Christ’s entire mission. He was made man so that man, rendered inwardly deaf and mute by sin, might be able to hear God’s voice, the voice of Love that speaks to his heart, and thus in his turn learn to speak the language of love, to communicate with God and with others.[1]

For this opening to take place, two things were necessary: first, the action of God and, second, the action of the man. Notice that Jesus first actively takes the man “off by himself away from the crowd” and that the man passively allows Jesus to lead him away from so many distractions of life (Mark 7:33). So it is with us, if we wish to learn to speak the language of love, to communicate with God and with others.

Truly, Jesus “has done all things well” (Mark7:37); he loved us with so great a love that he willingly allowed his heart to be opened for us when the centurion Longinus thrust his lance into the side of the Savior (see John 19:31). Jesus allowed his Precious Blood to flow out of his wounded heart to wash over our timid and frightened hearts that we might be set free from sin, that we might be strong, and that we might receive an everlasting inheritance (see Psalm 146:7, Isaiah 35:4, and the Collect).

All of this he did for us at the moment of our baptism into his Death and Resurrection, when the life-giving waters cleansed us and when the priest touched our ears and our mouth, as if to say, “Ephphatha!” As he touched our ears and mouth, the priest said, “The Lord Jesus made the deaf hear and the dumb speak. May he soon touch your ears to receive his word and your mouth to proclaim his praise to the glory of God the Father.” Through his sacred minister, the Lord Jesus reached out and touched us to heal us of our inward deafness and muteness caused by sin, but we must still allow him to take us away by himself; we must open our hearts to him.

When Jesus opened our sensory faculties to his love, he said to us, “Be strong, fear not” (Isaiah 35:4)! It was as if he said to us, “As I have opened my heart to you, so you must open your heart to others.” Is this not why Saint James admonishes us with the order to “show no partiality as you adhere to the faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ” (James 2:1)? If we show partiality or favoritism to our neighbors within the Body of Christ, it must surely mean that we have not fully opened our hearts to God. If we show favoritism or partiality to our neighbors outside the Body of Christ, it must surely mean that we have not fully opened our hearts to others. We cannot forget that “anyone who needs me, and whom I can help, is my neighbor.”[2] It was Blessed Teresa of Calcutta who said, “I see God in every human being,” so fully had she opened her heart to God and to others. What keeps us from doing the same?

Here in Hawaii, we are blessed with the shining examples of two saints who opened their hearts fully to God and to others. Is this not why Mother Marianne said, “I am hungry for the work and I wish with all my heart to be one of the chosen ones” to serve at at Kalawao and Kalaupapa? Is this not why Father Damien said, “I wish to give myself unconditionally to the poor lepers?” Like Saint Damien and Saint Marianne, we, too, must first open ourselves to the word of God and then proclaim his praise in each encounter we have with others; we must open our hearts to see God in everyone, in our family, friends, and coworkers, yes, but also in the stranger, the homeless, the immigrant, and the refugee.

When Samuel Clemens – more commonly known as Mark Twain – visited these islands in 1866, he observed that the Roman Catholic Mission

…goes along quietly and unostentatiously; and its affairs are conducted with a wisdom which betrays the presence of a leader of distinguished ability. The Catholic clergy are honest, straightforward, frank, and open; they are industrious and devoted to their religion and their work; they never meddle; whatever they do can be relied on as being prompted by a good and worthy motive. These things disarm resentment – prejudice cannot exist in their presence.[3]

These are words of great praise, but it is what he said next that I find most striking: “Their religion is not nondescript – it is plain, out-and-out, undisguised, and unmistakable Catholicism. You know right where to find them when you want them.” Here is talking about the priests, but it seems to me he is also talking about the laity. To be unmistakably Catholic, what does this mean?

As Catholics, we are called to imitate Christ the Lord in all things, to be, if you will, manifestations of his love. To be unmistakably Catholic, then, is to be so closely conformed to Christ Jesus that we, too, do all things well, that we do all things with our hearts fully opened in love to God and to others.

If Mark Twain saw us at random moments in our lives today, would he think us to be unmistakably Catholic, or would he think us to be just slightly Catholic? It is not until we open our hearts fully to God and to others that we can be seen to be unmistakably Catholic. We must open our hearts to be so filled with the love of Jesus and that sin is driven out.

Let us, then, strive to make this prayer of Blessed John Henry Newman our own:

Dear Jesus…, penetrate and possess my whole being so utterly that my life may only be a radiance of yours. Shine through me and be so in me that every soul I come in contact with may feel your presence in my soul. Let them look up and see no longer me, but only Jesus! Stay with me and then I will begin to shine as you shine, so to shine as to be a light to others. The light, O Jesus, will be all from you; none of it will be mine. It will be you, shining on others through me.

If we can make these words our own with sincerity of heart, then it will rightly be said us, as well, that we have done all things well. Amen.

---

[1] Pope Benedict XVI, Angelus Address, 9 September 2012.

[2] Pope Benedict XVI, Deus caritas est, 15.

[3] In Mark Twain’s Letters from Hawaii. A. Grove Day, ed. (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1966), 175-176.

UPDATED: Three Kentucky County Clerks Are Not Issuing Marriage Licenses. Why Is Kim Davis the Only in Jail and the Only One You Know About?

I noted yesterday that Kim Davis is not the only county clerk in Kentucky who is not issuing marriage licenses in the wake of the Supreme Court decision Obergefell v. Hodges. The Washington Post reports that "two other clerks in Kentucky have taken a similar stand," though it does not provide the names of the other two clerks or what is meant by "similar." Even so, Davis seems to be the only one facing the wrath of the courts. Davis seems to be the only one facing the condemnation of the media. Davis is the only sitting in jail. Why?

The answer, I suspected, had something to do with Davis' past, but I did not want to believe the media could be so fickle and full of spite (though I know they have been, often are, and will likely continue to be in the future). Davis has been married and divorced several times. This, I suspected, was the reason the focus is on her, but I didn't want to believe it to be true. After all, her opponents are the ones always crying for tolerance and love and acceptance. Her opponents are the ones always condemning any sign of hypocrisy. How, then, and why, could they be so intolerant, so hateful, so un-accepting - so hypocritical - in their reactions to Davis' following of her conscience, which they frequently tell us we have to do?

Writing in The Federalist a few days ago and only seen by me this morning, Mollie Hemingway explored this very question. After noting that Davis' divorces and marriages took place before her conversation as an Apostolic Christian (which is no small misnomer, but that's a question for another day), which means she her refusal to issue marriage licenses now is not a matter of hypocrisy:

Now, any personal failings on her part are actually irrelevant to her legal argument, however much fun the media has in slut-shaming her. But I am hard-pressed to understand how she can be a hypocrite for failing to perfectly adhere to teachings of a religion she wasn’t even part of! Hypocrisy isn’t failing to practice what you preach. Hypocrisy is pretending to have beliefs that you don’t actually have.

After providing a large number of examples of the media attacking Davis because of her past (which bears no real impact on the fundamental question at hand, that is, of the free exercise of religion),  Hemingway goes on to note - quite rightly - that 

Ms. Davis has a record of Biblical transgressions. So do we all. She will continue to sin in the years to come. What she has found in her conversion to Christianity, however, is forgiveness of sins. Regardless of the media’s strong views in favor of redefining marriage to include same-sex couples, it would be nice if they took the time to at least understand this central teaching of the Christian faith before attempting to report on it.

Is it possible that the other two County Clerks in Kentucky who, like Davis, are not issuing marriage licenses do not have such a questionable past and so are not ripe targets for the media? The evidence so far seems to indicate an affirmative response. If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it. It might be, for example, that the other two clerks are allowing their staffs to issue marriage licenses (I simply don't know and have not yet found the information).

We have now seen why the most frequent attack against Davis, that she is a hypocrite, is unfounded. What, then, about the hypocrisy of the media? For this, I turn to the blog of a pastor in the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America in a post where she explains why she can't hate Kim Davis.

Nancy acknowledges her support of the LGBT movement and agrees that Davis should now be in jail. Still, she is trouble because, as she says, many of those who disagree with Davis and support same-sex marriage - and many others on what is normally seen as "the Left" - "seem to thrive on having someone to hate." She continues:

Because we perceive ourselves as open-minded, loving people, our hate must be justified, so we demonize the object of our hatred as someone who is pure evil, through and through. But folks, there is no truth in the demonization of others. The truth is, there is evil in each of us, just as there is good in each of us.

The demonization of Kim Davis helps otherwise kind people rationalize the venom they spew about her. There are tweets going around that have supposedly been sent from the person who works next to her. They are shared as if they are proof that the woman is crazy. I’m having trouble understanding how that might justify hating her, even if it were true. A lot of folks have made a huge deal out of the fact that she was married four times. It’s viewed as a sign of her hypocrisy about what constitutes a Biblical marriage, and that may well be. But if we’re going to start hating everyone who is hypocritical, we’d better avoid mirrors. As a person who has been divorced twice, when I heard she had been married four times, I felt compassion for her. No doubt, as someone who considers herself a Christian, her divorces are a source of great shame in her life. Attacking her shame is certainly an effective way to hurt her, if that is the goal. Those of us who have been publically [sic] shamed by others know that all too well.

Powerful words, these.

Kim Davis is not the only county clerk in Kentucky not issuing marriage licenses. We do not know about them, but - thanks to the investigative reporting of the media - we know about Davis' past because the media wants to use her failures to argue against her stand.

UPDATE 1:

A friend from college, who blogs at Brian's Coffeehouse, asked a good question on Facebook:

Did the media originate the story, or did they report on it because it was high-profile due to the court cases? The first I heard of this was when the Supreme Court weighed in. It is the judge who is saying she must be kept in jail.

I don't know the answer to this question because I haven't followed this story from the beginning; I've only been catching up on it over the last couple of days. Do you know the answer to his question?

The Situation of Kim Davis May Not Be What You Think

The current situation of Kim Davis, the County Clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky, who has been jailed for not signing marriage licenses (two other county clerks in Kentucky are also not issuing marriage licenses, though they apparently have not received the attention of the courts or the media) in the wake of the Supreme Court decision Obergefell v. Hodges, highlights the difficulties of a person of religious conviction taking a role in the public life of these United States of America, so entrenched have we become in secular attitudes.

The more I consider Father Dwight Longenecker's suggestion that she should, following the example of Saint Thomas More, resign her post because she cannot in conscience fulfill the duties required of her, seems to me correct. He is right, after all, when he notes:

A resignation is not a compromise and it is not condoning something the religious person cannot condone.

Neither is a resignation an escape. It is a clear public statement which requires considerable sacrifice.

It is “rendering to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s”.

Still, I cannot help but doubt this suggestion, even as I agree with it. It should be remembered that the king still claimed the head of resigned Chancellor.

A number of arguments have been raised as to why Davis should either be removed from office or jailed, none of which seem sufficient, as R.R. Reno succinctly and calmly pointed out yesterday at First Things:

Some might say that her refusal to sign marriage licenses disqualifies her from holding her position as county clerk. She should resign or be removed. People are certainly entitled to that opinion. But Davis does not think she must resign. The county clerks in Kentucky are elected, so she can’t be fired. She could be impeached, but that’s for the legislators of the State of Kentucky to decide. And the citizens of Rowan County can vote against her in the next election. Conscience, properly exercised in civil disobedience that otherwise respects the law, isn’t always easy to dislodge.

I can imagine some harrumphing about the notion that Davis respects the law. After all, isn’t she refusing to act in accord with it?! I find this worry rather rich when expressed by progressives. For decades, elite colleges and universities run by progressives have made arrangements with local police that allow students to use drugs and drink while underage, free from the worry of arrest. These sorts of special arrangements, which are widespread in elite institutions, are not criticized for the obvious ways in which they undermine the rule of law.

Under the circumstances, Kim Davis poses little threat to the rule of law. Her actions have done nothing to prevent gay couples from getting marriage licenses throughout Kentucky. The couples that present themselves for her signature can easily go to the next county, as I’m sure heterosexual couples in Rowan County have done over the last two months.

Davis has herself has put forward several suggestions as to how marriage licenses might be issued in Kentucky - including removing the name of the county clerk from the license - while also accommodating religious beliefs. As Terry Mattingly of Get Religion observed - and helpfully documented and explained - yesterday, state law in Kentucky does not presently allow such accommodations, but such a change to the state's laws would be, as House Speaker Greg Stumbo (D-Prestonsburg) said, "an easy fix."

Why, then, has this easy fix not be done to respect both Davis' legal right to the free exercise of religion and the legal right of homosexual couples to what the law deems as marriage not yet been done? It should not be difficult to accommodate both rights. The reason why this has not been done is simple: Governor Steve Beshear (D) refuses to call a special session of the state legislature to resolve the situation.

The current argument, then, in Rowan County, Kentucky - despite the continued and widely accepted framing of the media - is not so much about a county clerk who refuses to do her job but about an executive who refuses to allow a religious accommodation for an government functionary. And this is why the jailing of Kim Davis should be a concern for all people of good will.

This hat has served me well

Back in the day before Facebook and Twitter and Instagram, when companies relied on e-mail to communicate more closely with their customers (and fans), Dr Pepper was in the habit of randomly selecting certain subscribers and sending them unexpected gifts. Thanks, Dr Pepper!

Somewhere between 12 and 15 years ago (I cannot now recall precisely), I was the happy recipient of one of these unexpected - and very welcome - packages. Dr Pepper sent me a metal lunchbox (which I used from time to time). When I first opened the lunchbox, I found a t-shirt (which I wore), a commemorative limited edition belt buckle (which I still have but have never worn), and a baseball cap (which I wear with regularity):

All these long years, the hat has served me well and, though I have very few pictures of me wearing it, it has traveled the world with me, from Australia to Hawaii to Rome to the Holy Land and places in between:

After much exposure to the sun, the once deep maroon color has faded and the fabric of the bill, once stylishly ripped, is ripping on its own accord. To make it worse, other parts of the hat are wearing out and becoming threadbare, something I only noticed two days ago. This current holiday in Hawaii will likely be the last excursion on which I use the hat and soon I will need to find a replacement.

42 years ago today, Tolkien heard the call and said, "Farewell, friends!"

As we remember today the death of the great J.R.R. Tolkien forty-two years ago today, I thought I might post one of my favorite poems written by the Professor. The poem is said to contain Bilbo's words as he readied to depart Middle-earth and is titled, "The Grey Havens:"

Day is ended, dim my eyes,
but journey long before me lies.
Farewell, friends! I hear the call.
The ship's beside the stony wall.
Foam is white and waves are grey;
beyond the sunset leads my way.
Foam is salt, the wind is free;
I hear the rising of the Sea.

Farewell, friends! The sails are set,
the wind is east, the moorings fret.
Shadows long before me lie,
beneath the ever-bending sky,
but islands lie behind the Sun
that I shall raise ere all is done;
lands there are to west of West,
where night is quiet and sleep is rest.

Guided by the Lonely Star,
beyond the utmost harbour-bar,
I'll find the heavens fair and free,
and beaches of the Starlit Sea.
Ship, my ship! I seek the West,
and fields and mountains ever blest.
Farewell to Middle-earth at last.
I see the Star above my mast!

Anyone who has sat upon the beach soaking in the beauty of the setting sun, knows the power of these words and the sentiments they contain. It is an experience I have frequently had here in Hawaii where I once wrote,

The ocean seems to beckon to me, to cross beyond to the hidden horizon, to go into the west, to enter the presence of God. In the sound of the waves the Lord calls to me. The vast expanse of the waters call to mind the greatness of God. The pounding of the waves on the shores call to mind the power of God. The calming repetition of the waves call to mind the gentleness of God. And when the waves crash upon the shore, leaving behind a shell or a rock or a branch, they are a reminder that when the grace of God washes over us something is always left behind on the shore of our souls.

Forty-two years ago Tolkien himself heard the call and said, "Farewell, friends!" Having lived a life of faith, his sails were set. Let us pray that he will have reached the heavens fair and free.

Eternal rest grant unto him, O Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon him!

From bondage to liberty to apathy and back again

Though the attribution of the following words is somewhat debated - sometimes to Alexander Fraser Tytler and sometimes to Alexis de Tocqueville - they seem to me, from an historical perspective and an understanding of the fallen human condition, to ring true:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over lousy fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.

The average of the world's great civilizations before they decline has been 200 years. These nations have progressed in this sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith; from faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependency; from dependency back again to bondage.

Consider the course of the United States of America over these last two hundred odd years and her citizens today. Does this sound familiar? It should.

Papal Prayer Intentions - September 2015

In the charity of your prayers, please remember the Holy Father Pope Francis' intentions through the month of September:

General Intention: That opportunities for education and employment may increase for all young people.

Missionary Intention: That catechists may give witness by living in a way consistent with the faith they proclaim.