The Church Can Supply Jurisdiction But Not Common Sense

 It amazes me how otherwise intelligent people often get trapped in error; and those errors are frequently linked. Feeneyites becoming Home Aloners is one such tangled web. Gerry Matatics was a Protestant minister, then became a member of the Vatican II sect teaching at the seminary of the Fraternal Society of St. Peter (FSSP), then he became a Traditionalist, fell into the error of Fr. Feeney (denial of Baptism of Desire [BOD] and Baptism of Blood [BOB]), and finally denied that there is jurisdiction for Traditionalist priests to function. (I'm told Mr. Matatics is no longer Feeneyite). He now spends his days going on "mega-tours" visiting a few people in various cities to tell them they must stay "home alone" and not join any Traditionalist chapel; a form of "spiritual house arrest." Theresa Benns is a Home Aloner who engineered the "election" of David Bawden as "Pope" Michael in 1990 by his mother, father, two nice neighbors, and herself during a "Kansas farmhouse conclave." She subsequently wound up denouncing the very "pope" her vaunted "research skills" helped to elect. Bawden "excommunicated" her, and she sits, once more, Home Alone and denigrates the learning (!) of Traditionalist clergy. (Benns is not a Fenneyite, but obviously concocts some strange ideas about papal elections).

   This past Saturday, July 2nd, I was issued a challenge via the comments section on last week's post about Bishop Kurz. One Eric Hoyle was a member of Most Holy Family Monastery in New York, run by the Feeneyite Dimond "Brothers." Mr. Hoyle, a wealthy young man, decided to leave his Protestant religion in which he was raised, and join the Dimond's monastery. He joined them in September of 2005, and donated approximately two million dollars in cash and stock. Hoyle left on or about December 2007, after some doctrinal disputes with the Dimonds. Hoyle then files suit in federal court demanding his money back. On June 22, 2012, U.S. District Judge John Curtin dismissed the suit in favor of the Dimonds.

 Now, Mr. Hoyle sends me a message in which he first quotes from part of my post last week:

" We now know that we are in a state of sedevacante, so priests and bishops can function by means of supplied jurisdiction until such time as the Church should return to Her usual mode of operation. The position of the so-called "Home Aloners," contending that you must stay "home alone" due to a lack of Ordinary jurisdiction in this time of near universal apostasy, is just pure theological ignorance many times discredited."

He then writes the following:

"Dear Sir,

Could you point me to some articles that explain the details of supplied jurisdiction in our times? For example, what is its basis in law, custom, and/or theological commentary? To whom is it supplied? For the internal forum only, or also for the external forum? Is it limited as to persons, times, places, matter, or circumstances?

I suppose these questions should be easy to answer, if all that can be said against supplied jurisdiction is just pure theological ignorance many times discredited. Of course bad arguments have been used in support of a “home-alone” position, but the same can be said for most any position. Bad arguments need not concern us.

I've done some research on supplied jurisdiction for confessions; the result is here. I'd be most grateful if you could point out where I'm in error.

Thanks and may God bless you."

He links me to a 192 page monograph that attempts to prove that Traditionalist priests have no jurisdiction to hear Confessions, except when someone is in immediate danger of death. Of course, there are rare exceptions explored, and he does not claim to pronounce definitively on the subject in his "book," but as you can see from the comment he e-mailed, he seems pretty sure of himself. I don't have the time for a 192 pg rebuttal because the practice of law and having a family is time consuming, so I have but one post per week on Mondays. Having skimmed through his monograph, I will attempt to point out the basics of what's wrong with his contention in this post.

Preliminary Considerations

There are two questions that need to be explored: (1) Can God supply jurisdiction outside the norms of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, and (2) Does God supply jurisdiction through extraordinary means, or is there a solution within the Code of Canon law itself?

•  God normally supplies the grace of Baptism by water. However, God is not constrained by His precept. BOD and BOB can substitute for water. Likewise, God is not constrained to supply jurisdiction as spelled out in Canon Law. Jurisdiction itself is necessary, how that jurisdiction can be obtained is not dogmatically defined. Conclusion: God could supply needed jurisdiction outside of the constraints of Canon Law. 

• There are logical grounds for implying extraordinary conferral of supplied jurisdiction outside of Canon Law. Conclusion: We could safely infer God does supply jurisdiction outside the Code.

• Even if not convinced by mere implication, there is proof God can and does supply Traditionalist priests with jurisdiction within the Code of Canon Law itself

God Can Supply Jurisdiction Outside Canon Law--And With Good Reason

 Canon law embodies some prescriptions of Divine Law and some of ecclesiastical origin. For example, the need for natural water in baptism is of Divine Law. You could not substitute milk for water, even in danger of death. No pope could change this, because the requirement comes from God. On the other hand, the need for a papal mandate to consecrate a bishop, or the amount of time needed for the Eucharistic fast is of ecclesiastical origin and is subject to change by the Supreme Pontiff, who is above Canon Law. As a matter of fact, the Eucharistic fast was modified by Pope Pius XII. Could a real pope modify Canon 209 dealing with supplied jurisdiction? That jurisdiction is necessary for the validity of confessions is of Divine Law, how it is given has never been dogmatically defined. I know of not one approved pre-Vatican II canonist or theologian who teaches that the norms for supplied jurisdiction within the 1917 Code of Canon Law is of Divine prescription and could not be changed. Hence, a pope could change the way jurisdiction is supplied. The means of giving jurisdiction is therefore of ecclesiastical origin and can be altered.

 The Divine Law trumps ecclesiastical law. There is good cause to believe that God must supply jurisdiction outside of canon law, because of grave harm to the faithful.  The Home Alone ("HA") position would have us deprived of Confession in virtually all cases outside immediate danger of death. The consequences of this cannot be limited to the sacrament of Penance. It affects the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the Eucharist, and Holy Orders. 

 As a corollary of not having Confession, we would then be deprived of the Holy Eucharist. Remember that the Eucharist gives us great Graces. It is Divine Food for the soul, preserving and increasing the supernatural life of the soul. "Reception of the Blessed Eucharist is not necessary by an absolute necessity of means, but by a relative or moral necessity...It follows from the definition of the purpose of the Eucharist as nourishment for the soul, that without it supernatural life cannot be permanently maintained." (See theologian Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, pg. 397). To receive the Eucharist worthily, one must be in a state of Grace. Confession before Communion, not an act of perfect contrition, is to be used except in extraordinary circumstances.

 What constitutes such circumstances whereby the Sacrament of Penance may be replaced by an act of perfect contrition? According to canonists Abbo and Hannon, "Examples of cases in which an act of perfect contrition suffices are not many. If the communicant is already at the rail before he remembers an unconfessed mortal sin, the act of perfect contrition suffices. This is also true if a member of a wedding party, when all its members are to receive Holy Communion on the morning of the wedding, remembers on the morning of the ceremony that he is not in the state of grace. In 1938, the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments  issued an instruction with regard to the reception of almost general daily communion in boarding schools and religious houses in which, among other provisions, it required that, to prevent the danger of the sacrilegious reception of Holy Communion, a confessor should be available on the occasion of the distribution of Holy Communion." (See The Sacred Canons, 2:856-857). In regards to regaining the state of grace, "the Council of Trent forbade under penalty of excommunication the teaching of the view of Cajetan, who held that the obligation of recovering the state of grace through confession was not a grave one." (Ibid, n. 22 pg. 800). 

 So the reception of Communion, and the ability of any priest to offer the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (should he commit mortal sin) disappears under HA theory. Priests and bishops would be prevented from offering Mass and hearing Confessions, so why have them? This would be a grave and harmful situation, and would seemingly prevent the Church from carrying on Her Divine Mission. However, the Church can not be impeded from Her Divine Mission and could never sanction any law conducive to the injury of souls. "The church's infallibility in disciplinary matters when understood this way, harmonizes beautifully with the mutability of even universal laws. For a law, even though it be thoroughly consonant with revealed truth, can, given a change of circumstances, become less timely or even useless, so that prudence may dictate its abrogation or modification." (See Van Noort, 2:115; Emphasis in original)  So if the law for supplied jurisdiction doesn't cover the extraordinary times, God can make it so; He is not bound by Canon law! 

Hoyle writes: "But nowhere does the Code supply jurisdiction to all priests for hearing confessions in urgent necessity short of danger of death. The absence of such a provision shows that the lawgiver did not intend to supply jurisdiction in such circumstances by a provision of Canon law." (Eric Hoyle, pg. 30; Emphasis in original). Again, why is God bound by His canon law? Certainly, if He can supply the grace of baptism without water, He can supply jurisdiction without following every jot and tittle of canon law! Even theologian Miaskiewicz (the favorite theologian of the HA crowd) wrote:"..the law behind laws is concerned with the protection of the good of the people for which they were enacted. They were becoming more and more convinced that the legislator did not intend any man-made laws to bind any longer if, when, and as the observance of that law or its enforcement would defeat the very purpose of its institution: namely, the public good." (See Supplied Jurisdiction According To Canon 209, pg. 39)

Conclusion: We can safely imply God supplies jurisdiction for Traditionalist priests and bishops.

 St. Alphonsus and Danger of Death

 Now, what about those who are not satisfied with a mere (yet well-founded) implication? They want more than an implication, no matter how logical. OK, let's play the HA game that God is somehow bound by the 1917 Code of Canon Law. Jurisdiction, they will admit, is supplied to ALL priests when the penitent is in danger of death. The death knell of the HA position is provided by St. Alphonsus Liguori, whom the Holy See has pronounced all his opinions safe to follow in practice. He writes: "Is any priest able to absolve from any sins and censures, not only at the point of death, but also in danger of death? This is denied by [various names] but more truly and more commonly affirmed by...The reason for this is that in this matter, the danger in taken for the point, as is clear from...For in such a case, anyone in mortal sin is bound to confess in the same way as if he were at the point of death. This is accepted by...provided that such a danger be so grave that it can scarcely be distinguished with certainty from the point: but, more immediately, it seems to be sufficient that there be prudent fear that death will arise in the danger. Now such a danger is considered to be present in a battle, in a long sea voyage, in a difficult delivery, in a dangerous disease, and similar cases...The same is true of one who is in probable danger of falling into insanity (amentia)...and the same of those who are captives among infidels with small hope of liberty. For it is believed that they will have no other priests in the future."(See Theologia Moralis, Bk.6, no. 561, Q.2) 

 As Traditionalist John Daly notes, we are in "the same position as those who are captives among infidels with small hope of liberty and with excellent reason to believe [we] will never have access to any priest possessing jurisdiction in the future. Thus we can be sure that any truly Catholic priest to whom we do have access, even if he be bereft of jurisdiction and laboring under excommunication, can lawfully and validly absolve us."

 Mr. Hoyle, I hope you are in good faith. Your academic credentials and writing/research skills are outstanding. What great work you could do for the remnant Church! I really don't know how you fell in line with sophists like the Dimonds and gave them such large sums of money which will spread the Feeneyite error. While the Church does supply needed jurisdiction for Her priests, She can't supply anyone with good judgement and common sense. I'll be praying for you.