Lex Anteinternet: And new penal provisions of the Canon Law. What does it mean?

Lex Anteinternet: And new penal provisions of the Canon Law. What d...: 

And new penal provisions of the Canon Law. What does it mean?

The Church announced in early June that it was going to issue a revision to the section of Canon Law that deals with punishments for certain grave offenses.  For some reason, this resulted in a massive public freak out in some quarters.

It also resulted in a lot of bad reporting.

For one thing, it was commonly written that Pope Francis came up with this.  This is simply incorrect and in fact Pope Benedict had more to do with it.  None the less, attributing it to Francis was common. 

Also common is a misunderstanding what Canon Law is.  Canon Law is the law of the Church.  It isn't doctrine, its what happens if certain things occur, and how certain things are to be done within the Church, etc.

Let's take a look at the document that goes into effect on December 1, 2021, with some commentary.

BOOK VI

PENAL SANCTIONS IN THE CHURCH

PART I

OFFENCES AND PUNISHMENTS IN GENERAL

TITLE I

THE PUNISHMENT OF OFFENCES IN GENERAL 

Can. 1311 — § 1. The Church has its own inherent right to constrain with penal sanctions Christ’s faithful who commit offences.

§ 2. The one who is at the head of a Church must safeguard and promote the good of the community itself and of each of Christ’s faithful, through pastoral charity, example of life, advice and exhortation and, if necessary, also through the imposition or declaration of penalties, in accordance with the provisions of the law, which are always to be applied with canonical equity and having in mind the restoration of justice, the reform of the offender, and the repair of scandal. 

Can. 1312 — § 1. The penal sanctions in the Church are: 

1° medicinal penalties or censures, which are listed in cann. 1331-1333;

2° expiatory penalties, mentioned in can. 1336.

§ 2. The law may determine other expiatory penalties which deprive a member of Christ’s faithful of some spiritual or temporal good, and are consistent with the Church’s supernatural purpose.

§ 3. Use is also made of penal remedies and penances, referred to in cann. 1339 and 1340: the former primarily to prevent offences, the latter rather to substitute for or to augment a penalty. 

TITLE II

PENAL LAW AND PENAL PRECEPT

Can. 1313 — § 1. If a law is changed after an offence has been committed, the law more favourable to the offender is to be applied.

§ 2. If a later law removes a law, or at least a penalty, the penalty immediately lapses.

Can. 1314 — A penalty is ordinarily ferendae sententiae, that is, not binding upon the offender until it has been imposed. It is, however, latae sententiae if the law or precept expressly lays this down, so that it is incurred automatically upon the commission of an offence.

Can. 1315 — § 1. Whoever has power to issue penal laws may also reinforce a divine law with a fitting penalty.

§ 2. A lower legislator, taking into account can. 1317, can also:

1° reinforce with a fitting penalty a law issued by a higher authority, observing the limits of his competence in respect of territory or persons;

2° add other penalties to those laid down for a certain offence in a universal law;

3° determine or make obligatory a penalty which a universal law establishes as indeterminate or discretionary.

§ 3. A law can either itself determine the penalty or leave its determination to the prudent decision of a judge.

Can. 1316 — Diocesan Bishops are to take care that as far as possible any penal laws are uniform within the same city or region.

Can. 1317 — Penalties are to be established only in so far as they are really necessary for the better maintenance of ecclesiastical discipline. Dismissal from the clerical state, however, cannot be laid down by a lower legislator.

Can. 1318 — Latae sententiae penalties are not to be established, except perhaps for some outstanding and malicious offences which may be either more grave by reason of scandal or such that they cannot be effectively punished by ferendae sententiae penalties; censures, however, especially excommunication, are not to be established, except with the greatest moderation, and only for offences of special gravity.

Can. 1319 — § 1. To the extent to which one can impose precepts by virtue of the power of governance in the external forum in accordance with the provisions of cann. 48-58, to that extent can one also by precept threaten determined penalties, with the exception of perpetual expiatory penalties.

§ 2. If, after the matter has been very carefully considered, a penal precept is to be imposed, what is established in cann. 1317 and 1318 is to be observed.

Can. 1320 — In all matters in which they come under the authority of the local Ordinary, religious can be constrained by him with penalties. 

TITLE III

THOSE WHO ARE LIABLE TO PENAL SANCTIONS 

Can. 1321 — § 1. Any person is considered innocent until the contrary is proved. No one can be punished unless the commission by him or her of an external violation of a law or precept is gravely imputable by reason of malice or of culpability.

§ 2. A person who deliberately violated a law or precept is bound by the penalty prescribed in that law or precept. If, however, the violation was due to the omission of due diligence, the person is not punished unless the law or precept provides otherwise.

§ 3. Where there has been an external violation, imputability is presumed, unless it appears otherwise.

Can. 1322 — Those who habitually lack the use of reason, even though they appeared sane when they violated a law or precept, are deemed incapable of committing an offence.

This will be my first comment, but this is notable.  Lack of capacity means a person can't commit an offense.

Can. 1323 — No one is liable to a penalty who, when violating a law or precept:
1° has not completed the sixteenth year of age;

Lack of sufficient age also can mean no punishment. 

2° was, without fault, ignorant of violating the law or precept; inadvertence and error are equivalent to ignorance;

3° acted under physical force, or under the impetus of a chance occurrence which the person could not foresee or if foreseen could not avoid;

4° acted under the compulsion of grave fear, even if only relative, or by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience, unless, however, the act is intrinsically evil or tends to be harmful to souls;

5° acted, within the limits of due moderation, in lawful self-defence or defence of another against an unjust aggressor;

6° lacked the use of reason, without prejudice to the provisions of cann. 1324 § 1 n. 2 and 1326 § 1 n. 4;

7° thought, through no personal fault, that some one of the circumstances existed which are mentioned in nn. 4 or 5.

Can. 1324 — § 1. The perpetrator of a violation is not exempted from penalty, but the penalty prescribed in the law or precept must be diminished, or a penance substituted in its place, if the offence was committed by:

1° one who had only an imperfect use of reason;

2° one who was lacking the use of reason because of culpable drunkenness or other mental disturbance of a similar kind, without prejudice to the provision of can. 1326 § 1 n. 4;

3° one who acted in the heat of passion which, while serious, nevertheless did not precede or hinder all mental deliberation and consent of the will, provided that the passion itself had not been deliberately stimulated or nourished;

4° a minor who has completed the sixteenth year of age;

5° one who was compelled by grave fear, even if only relative, or who acted by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience, if the offence is intrinsically evil or tends to be harmful to souls;

6° one who acted in lawful self-defence or defence of another against an unjust aggressor, but did not observe due moderation;

Also of note. Self defense is a defense. 

7° one who acted against another person who was gravely and unjustly provocative;

8° one who erroneously, but culpably, thought that some one of the circumstances existed which are mentioned in can. 1323 nn. 4 or 5;

9° one who through no personal fault was unaware that a penalty was attached to the law or precept;

10° one who acted without full imputability, provided it remained grave.

§ 2. A judge can do the same if there is any other circumstance present which would reduce the gravity of the offence.

§ 3. In the circumstances mentioned in § 1, the offender is not bound by a latae sententiae penalty, but may have lesser penalties or penances imposed for the purposes of repentance or repair of scandal.

Can. 1325 — Ignorance which is crass or supine or affected can never be taken into account when applying the provisions of cann. 1323 and 1324.

Can. 1326 — § 1. A judge must inflict a more serious punishment than that prescribed in the law or precept when:

1° a person, after being condemned, or after the penalty has been declared, continues so to offend that obstinate ill will may prudently be concluded from the circumstances;

2° a person who is established in some position of dignity, or who, in order to commit a crime, has abused a position of authority or an office;

3° a person who, after a penalty for a culpable offence was constituted, foresaw the event but nevertheless omitted to take the precautions to avoid it which any careful person would have taken;

4° a person who committed an offence in a state of drunkenness or other mental disturbance, if these were deliberately sought so as to commit the offence or to excuse it, or through passion which was deliberately stimulated or nourished.

§ 2. In the cases mentioned in § 1, if the penalty constituted is latae sententiae, another penalty or a penance may be added.

§ 3. In the same cases, if the penalty constituted is discretionary, it becomes obligatory.

Can. 1327 — A particular law may, either as a general rule or for individual offences, determine other excusing, attenuating or aggravating circumstances, over and above the cases mentioned in cann. 1323-1326. Likewise, circumstances may be determined in a precept which excuse from, attenuate or aggravate the penalty constituted in the precept.
Can. 1328 — § 1. One who in furtherance of an offence did something or failed to do something but then, involuntarily, did not complete the offence, is not bound by the penalty prescribed for the completed offence, unless the law or a precept provides otherwise.
§ 2. If the acts or the omissions of their nature lead to the carrying out of the offence, the person responsible may be subjected to a penance or to a penal remedy, unless he or she had spontaneously desisted from the offence which had been initiated. However, if scandal or other serious harm or danger has resulted, the perpetrator, even though spontaneously desisting, may be punished by a just penalty, but of a lesser kind than that determined for the completed crime.
Can. 1329 — § 1. Where a number of persons conspire together to commit an offence, and accomplices are not expressly mentioned in the law or precept, if ferendae sententiae penalties were constituted for the principal offender, then the others are subject to the same penalties or to other penalties of the same or a lesser gravity.
§ 2. In the case of a latae sententiae penalty attached to an offence, accomplices, even though not mentioned in the law or precept, incur the same penalty if, without their assistance, the crime would not have been committed, and if the penalty is of such a nature as to be able to affect them; otherwise, they can be punished with ferendae sententiae penalties.
Can. 1330 — An offence which consists in a declaration or in some other manifestation of will or of doctrine or of knowledge is not to be regarded as effected if no one actually perceives the declaration or manifestation. 

TITLE IV

PENALTIES AND OTHER PUNISHMENTS

CHAPTER I

CENSURES 

Can. 1331 — § 1. An excommunicated person is prohibited:
1° from celebrating the Sacrifice of the Eucharist and the other sacraments;
2° from receiving the sacraments;
3° from administering sacramentals and from celebrating the other ceremonies of liturgical worship;
4° from taking an active part in the celebrations listed above;
5° from exercising any ecclesiastical offices, duties, ministries or functions;
6° from performing acts of governance.
§ 2. If a ferendae sententiae excommunication has been imposed or a latae sententiae excommunication declared, the offender:
1° proposing to act in defiance of the provision of § 1 nn. 1-4 is to be removed, or else the liturgical action is to be suspended, unless there is a grave reason to the contrary;
2° invalidly exercises any acts of governance which, in accordance with § 1 n. 6, are unlawful;
3° is prohibited from benefiting from privileges already granted;
4° does not acquire any remuneration held in virtue of a merely ecclesiastical title;
5° is legally incapable of acquiring offices, duties, ministries, functions, rights, privileges or honorific titles.
Can. 1332 — § 1. One who is under interdict is obliged by the prohibitions mentioned in can. 1331 § 1 nn. 1-4.
§ 2. A law or precept may however define the interdict in such a way that the offender is prohibited only from certain particular actions mentioned in can. 1331 § 1 nn. 1-4, or from certain other particular rights.
§ 3. The provision of can. 1331 § 2 n. 1 is to be observed also in the case of interdict.
Can. 1333 — § 1. Suspension prohibits:
1° all or some of the acts of the power of order;
2° all or some of the acts of the power of governance;
3° the exercise of all or some of the rights or functions attaching to an office.
§ 2. In a law or a precept it may be prescribed that, after a judgement or decree which impose or declare the penalty, a suspended person cannot validly perform acts of governance.
§ 3. The prohibition never affects:
1° any offices or power of governance which are not within the control of the Superior who establishes the penalty;
2° a right of residence which the offender may have by virtue of office;
3° the right to administer goods which may belong to an office held by the person suspended, if the penalty is latae sententiae.
§ 4. A suspension prohibiting the receipt of benefits, stipends, pensions or other such things, carries with it the obligation of restitution of whatever has been unlawfully received, even though this was in good faith.
Can. 1334 — § 1. The extent of a suspension, within the limits laid down in the preceding canon, is defined either by the law or precept, or by the judgement or decree whereby the penalty is imposed.
§ 2. A law, but not a precept, can establish a latae sententiae suspension without an added determination or limitation; such a penalty has all the effects enumerated in can. 1333 §1.
Can. 1335 — § 1. If the competent authority imposes or declares a censure in a judicial process or by an extra-judicial decree, it can also impose the expiatory penalties it considers necessary to restore justice or repair scandal.
§ 2. If a censure prohibits the celebration of the sacraments or sacramentals or the performing of acts of the power of governance, the prohibition is suspended whenever this is necessary to provide for the faithful who are in danger of death. If a latae sententiae censure has not been declared, the prohibition is also suspended whenever one of the faithful requests a sacrament or sacramental or an act of the power of governance; for any just reason it is lawful to make such a request. 

CHAPTER II

EXPIATORY PENALTIES 

Can. 1336 — § 1. Expiatory penalties can affect the offender either for ever or for a determined or an indeterminate period. Apart from others which the law may perhaps establish, they are those enumerated in §§ 2-5.

§ 2. An order:1° to reside in a certain place or territory;

2° to pay a fine or a sum of money for the Church’s purposes, in accordance with the guidelines established by the Episcopal Conference.

§ 3. A prohibition:

1° against residing in a certain place or territory;

2° against exercising, everywhere or inside or outside a specified place or territory, all or some offices, duties, ministries or functions, or only certain tasks attaching to offices or duties;

3° against performing all or some acts of the power of order;

4° against performing all or some acts of the power of governance;

5° against exercising any right or privilege or using insignia or titles;

6° against enjoying an active or passive voice in canonical elections or taking part with a right to vote in ecclesial councils or colleges;

7° against wearing ecclesiastical or religious dress.

§ 4. A deprivation:

1° of all or some offices, duties, ministries or functions, or only of certain functions attaching to offices or duties;

2° of the faculty of hearing confessions or of preaching;

3° of a delegated power of governance;

4° of some right or privilege or insignia or title;

5° of all ecclesiastical remuneration or part of it, in accordance with the guidelines established by the Episcopal Conference, without prejudice to the provision of can. 1350 § 1.

§ 5. Dismissal from the clerical state.
Can. 1337 — § 1. A prohibition against residing in a certain place or territory can affect both clerics and religious. An order to reside in a certain place can affect secular clerics and, within the limits of their constitutions, religious.
§ 2. An order imposing residence in a certain place or territory must have the consent of the Ordinary of that place, unless there is question of a house set up for penance or rehabilitation of clerics, including extra-diocesans.
Can. 1338 — § 1. The expiatory penalties enumerated in can. 1336 never affect powers, offices, functions, rights, privileges, faculties, favours, titles or insignia, which are not within the control of the Superior who establishes the penalty.
§ 2. There can be no deprivation of the power of order, but only a prohibition against the exercise of it or of some of its acts; neither can there be a deprivation of academic degrees.
§ 3. The norm laid down for censures in can. 1335 § 2 is to be observed in regard to the prohibitions mentioned in can. 1336 § 3.
§ 4. Only those expiatory penalties enumerated as prohibitions in can. 1336 § 3, or others that may perhaps be established by a law or precept, may be latae sententiae penalties.
§ 5. The prohibitions mentioned in can. 1336 § 3 are never under pain of nullity. 

CHAPTER III

PENAL REMEDIES AND PENANCES 

Can. 1339 — § 1. When someone is in a proximate occasion of committing an offence or when, after an investigation, there is a serious suspicion that an offence has been committed, the Ordinary either personally or through another can give that person warning.
§ 2. In the case of behaviour which gives rise to scandal or serious disturbance of public order, the Ordinary can also correct the person, in a way appropriate to the particular conditions of the person and of what has been done.
§ 3. The fact that there has been a warning or a correction must always be proven, at least from some document to be kept in the secret archive of the curia
§ 4. If on one or more occasions warnings or corrections have been made to someone to no effect, or if it is not possible to expect them to have any effect, the Ordinary is to issue a penal precept in which he sets out exactly what is to be done or avoided.
§ 5. If the gravity of the case so requires, and especially in a case where someone is in danger of relapsing into an offence, the Ordinary is also to subject the offender, over and above the penalties imposed according to the provision of the law or declared by sentence or decree, to a measure of vigilance determined by means of a singular decree.
Can. 1340 — § 1. A penance, which can be imposed in the external forum, is the performance of some work of religion or piety or charity.
§ 2. A public penance is never to be imposed for an occult transgression.
§ 3. According to his prudent judgement, the Ordinary may add penances to the penal remedy of warning or correction. 

TITLE V

THE APPLICATION OF PENALTIES 

Can. 1341 — The Ordinary must start a judicial or an administrative procedure for the imposition or the declaration of penalties when he perceives that neither by the methods of pastoral care, especially fraternal correction, nor by a warning or correction, can justice be sufficiently restored, the offender reformed, and the scandal repaired.

Can. 1342 — § 1. Whenever there are just reasons against the use of a judicial procedure, a penalty can be imposed or declared by means of an extra-judicial decree, observing canon 1720, especially in what concerns the right of defence and the moral certainty in the mind of the one issuing the decree, in accordance with the provision of can. 1608. Penal remedies and penances may in any case whatever be applied by a decree.
§ 2. Perpetual penalties cannot be imposed or declared by means of a decree; nor can penalties which the law or precept establishing them forbids to be applied by decree.
§ 3. What the law or decree says of a judge in regard to the imposition or declaration of a penalty in a trial is to be applied also to a Superior who imposes or declares a penalty by an extra-judicial decree, unless it is otherwise clear, or unless there is question of provisions which concern only procedural matters.
Can. 1343 — If a law or precept grants the judge the faculty to apply or not to apply a penalty, he is, without prejudice to the provision of can. 1326 § 3, to determine the matter according to his own conscience and prudence, and in accordance with what the restoration of justice, the reform of the offender and the repair of scandal require; in such cases the judge may also, if appropriate, modify the penalty or in its place impose a penance.
Can. 1344 — Even though the law may use obligatory words, the judge may, according to his own conscience and prudence:
1° defer the imposition of the penalty to a more opportune time, if it is foreseen that greater evils may arise from a too hasty punishment of the offender, unless there is an urgent need to repair scandal;
2° abstain from imposing the penalty or substitute a milder penalty or a penance, if the offender has repented, as well as having repaired any scandal and harm caused, or if the offender has been or foreseeably will be sufficiently punished by the civil authority;
3° may suspend the obligation of observing an expiatory penalty, if the person is a first-offender after a hitherto blameless life, and there is no urgent need to repair scandal; this is, however, to be done in such a way that if the person again commits an offence within a time laid down by the judge, then that person must pay the penalty for both offences, unless in the meanwhile the time for prescription of a penal action in respect of the former offence has expired.
Can. 1345 — Whenever the offender had only an imperfect use of reason, or committed the offence out of necessity or grave fear or in the heat of passion or, without prejudice to the provision of can. 1326 § 1 n. 4, with a mind disturbed by drunkenness or a similar cause, the judge can refrain from inflicting any punishment if he considers that the person’s reform may be better accomplished in some other way; the offender, however, must be punished if there is no other way to provide for the restoration of justice and the repair of any scandal that may have been caused.
Can. 1346 — § 1. Ordinarily there are as many penalties as there are offences.
§ 2. Nevertheless, whenever the offender has committed a number of offences and the sum of penalties which should be imposed seems excessive, it is left to the prudent decision of the judge to moderate the penalties in an equitable fashion, and to place the offender under vigilance.
Can. 1347 — § 1. A censure cannot validly be imposed unless the offender has beforehand received at least one warning to purge the contempt, and has been allowed suitable time to do so.
§ 2. The offender is said to have purged the contempt if he or she has truly repented of the offence and has made suitable reparation for the scandal and harm, or at least seriously promised to make it.
Can. 1348 — When the person has been found not guilty of an accusation, or where no penalty has been imposed, the Ordinary may provide for the person’s welfare and for the common good by opportune warnings or other solicitous means, and even, if the case calls for it, by the use of penal remedies.
Can. 1349 — If a penalty is indeterminate, and if the law does not provide otherwise, the judge in determining the penalties is to choose those which are proportionate to the scandal caused and the gravity of the harm; he is not however to impose graver penalties, unless the seriousness of the case really demands it. He may not impose penalties which are perpetual.
Can. 1350 — § 1. In imposing penalties on a cleric, except in the case of dismissal from the clerical state, care must always be taken that he does not lack what is necessary for his worthy support.
§ 2. If a person is truly in need because he has been dismissed from the clerical state, the Ordinary is to provide in the best way possible, but not by the conferral of an office, ministry or function.
Can. 1351 — A penalty binds an offender everywhere, even when the right of the one who established, imposed or declared it has ceased, unless it is otherwise expressly provided.
Can. 1352 — § 1. If a penalty prohibits the reception of the sacraments or sacramentals, the prohibition is suspended for as long as the offender is in danger of death.
§ 2. The obligation of observing a latae sententiae penalty which has not been declared, and is not notorious in the place where the offender actually is, is suspended either in whole or in part to the extent that the offender cannot observe it without the danger of grave scandal or loss of good name.
Can. 1353 — An appeal or a recourse against judgements of a court or against decrees which impose or declare any penalty has a suspensive effect. 

TITLE VI

THE REMISSION OF PENALTIES AND THE PRESCRIPTION OF ACTIONS 

Can. 1354 — § 1. Besides those who are enumerated in cann. 1355-1356, all who can dispense from a law which is supported by a penalty, or excuse from a precept which threatens a penalty, can also remit the penalty itself.
§ 2. Moreover, a law or precept which establishes a penalty can also grant to others the power of remitting the penalty.
§ 3. If the Apostolic See has reserved the remission of a penalty to itself or to others, the reservation is to be strictly interpreted.
Can. 1355 — § 1. Provided it is not reserved to the Apostolic See, a penalty established by law which is ferendae sententiaeand has been imposed, or which is latae sententiae and has been declared, can be remitted by the following:
1° the Ordinary who initiated the judicial proceedings to impose or declare the penalty, or who by a decree, either personally or through another, imposed or declared it;
2° the Ordinary of the place where the offender actually is, after consulting the Ordinary mentioned in n. 1, unless because of extraordinary circumstances this is impossible.
§ 2. Provided it is not reserved to the Apostolic See, a penalty established by law which is latae sententiae and has not yet been declared can be remitted by the following:
1° the Ordinary in respect of his subjects;
2° the Ordinary of the place also in respect of those actually in his territory or of those who committed the offence in his territory;
3° any Bishop, but only in the course of sacramental confession.
Can. 1356 — § 1. A ferendae or a latae sententiae penalty established in a precept not issued by the Apostolic See, can be remitted by the following:
1° the author of the precept;
2° the Ordinary who initiated the judicial proceedings to impose or declare the penalty, or who by a decree, either personally or through another, imposed or declared it;
3° the Ordinary of the place where the offender actually is.
§ 2. Before the remission is granted, the author of the precept, or the one who imposed or declared the penalty, is to be consulted, unless because of extraordinary circumstances this is impossible.
Can. 1357 — § 1. Without prejudice to the provisions of cann. 508 and 976, a confessor can in the internal sacramental forum remit a latae sententiae censure of excommunication or interdict which has not been declared, if it is difficult for the penitent to remain in a state of grave sin for the time necessary for the competent Superior to provide.
§ 2. In granting the remission, the confessor is to impose upon the penitent, under pain of again incurring the censure, the obligation to have recourse within one month to the competent Superior or to a priest having the requisite faculty, and to abide by his instructions. In the meantime, the confessor is to impose an appropriate penance and, to the extent demanded, to require reparation of scandal and harm. The recourse, however, may be made even through the confessor, without mention of a name.
§ 3. The same duty of recourse, when the danger has ceased, binds those who in accordance with can. 976 have had remitted an imposed or declared censure or one reserved to the Holy See.
Can. 1358 — § 1. The remission of a censure cannot be granted except to an offender whose contempt has been purged in accordance with can. 1347 § 2. However, once the contempt has been purged, the remission cannot be refused, without prejudice to the provision of can. 1361 § 4.
§ 2 The one who remits a censure can make provision in accordance with can. 1348, and can also impose a penance.
Can. 1359 — If one is bound by a number of penalties, a remission is valid only for those penalties expressed in it. A general remission, however, removes all penalties, except those which in the petition the offender concealed in bad faith.
Can. 1360 — The remission of a penalty extorted by force or grave fear or deceit is invalid by virtue of the law itself.
Can. 1361 — § 1. A remission can be granted even to a person who is not present, or conditionally.
§ 2. A remission in the external forum is to be granted in writing, unless a grave reason suggests otherwise.
§ 3. The petition for remission or the remission itself is not to be made public, except in so far as this would either be useful for the protection of the good name of the offender, or be necessary to repair scandal.
§ 4. Remission must not be granted until, in the prudent judgement of the Ordinary, the offender has repaired any harm caused. The offender may be urged to make such reparation or restitution by one of the penalties mentioned in can. 1336 §§ 2-4; the same applies also when the offender is granted remission of a censure under can. 1358 § 1.
Can. 1362 — § 1. A criminal action is extinguished by prescription after three years, except for:
1° offences reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which are subject to special norms;
2° without prejudice to n. 1, an action arising from any of the offences mentioned in cann. 1376, 1377, 1378, 1393 § 1, 1394, 1395, 1397, or 1398 § 2, which is extinguished after seven years, or one arising from the offences mentioned in can. 1398 § 1, which is extinguished after twenty years;
3° offences not punished by the universal law, where a particular law has prescribed a different period of prescription.
§ 2. Prescription, unless provided otherwise in a law, runs from the day the offence was committed or, if the offence was enduring or habitual, from the day it ceased.
§ 3. When the offender has been summoned in accordance with can. 1723, or informed in the manner provided in can. 1507 § 3 of the presentation of the petition of accusation according to can. 1721 § 1, prescription of the criminal action is suspended for three years; once this period has expired or the suspension has been interrupted through the cessation of the penal process, time runs once again and is added to the period of prescription which has already elapsed. The same suspension equally applies if, observing can. 1720 n. 1, the procedure is followed for imposing or declaring a penalty by way of an extra-judicial decree.
Can. 1363 — § 1. An action to execute a penalty is extinguished by prescription if the judge’s decree of execution mentioned in can. 1651 was not notified to the offender within the periods mentioned in can. 1362; these periods are to be reckoned from the day the condemnatory judgement became an adjudged matter.
§ 2. The same applies, with the necessary adjustments, if the penalty was imposed by an extra-judicial decree. 

Okay, by here you are probably wondering when this ever applies. But that's part of the process. This is a regular judicial process, and one that is quite involved, with many considerations, and many aspects that civil lawyers would recognize. 

PART II

PARTICULAR OFFENCES AND THE PENALTIES ESTABLISHED FOR THEM

TITLE I

OFFENCES AGAINST THE FAITH

AND THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH 

Can. 1364 — § 1. An apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication, without prejudice to the provision of can. 194 § 1 n. 2; he or she may also be punished with the penalties mentioned in can. 1336 §§ 2-4.

§ 2. If a long-standing contempt or the gravity of scandal calls for it, other penalties may be added, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state.
Can. 1365 — A person who, apart from the case mentioned in canon 1364 § 1, teaches a doctrine condemned by the Roman Pontiff, or by an Ecumenical Council, or obstinately rejects the teaching mentioned in canon 750 § 2 or canon 752 and, when warned by the Apostolic See or the Ordinary, does not retract, is to be punished with a censure and deprivation of office; to these sanctions others mentioned in can. 1336 §§ 2-4 may be added.
Can. 1366 — A person who appeals from an act of the Roman Pontiff to an Ecumenical Council or to the College of Bishops is to be punished with a censure.
Can. 1367 — Parents and those taking the place of parents who hand over their children to be baptised or brought up in a non-Catholic religion are to be punished with a censure or other just penalty.
Can. 1368 — A person is to be punished with a just penalty who, at a public event or assembly, or in a published writing, or by otherwise using the means of social communication, utters blasphemy, or gravely harms public morals, or rails at or excites hatred of or contempt for religion or the Church.
Can. 1369 — A person who profanes a sacred object, moveable or immovable, is to be punished with a just penalty. 

TITLE II

OFFENCES AGAINST CHURCH AUTHORITIES

AND THE EXERCISE OF DUTIES

Can. 1370 — § 1. A person who uses physical force against the Roman Pontiff incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; if the offender is a cleric, another penalty, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state, may be added according to the gravity of the crime.
§ 2. One who does this against a Bishop incurs a latae sententiae interdict and, if a cleric, he incurs also a latae sententiaesuspension.
§ 3. A person who uses physical force against a cleric or religious or another of Christ’s faithful out of contempt for the faith, or the Church, or ecclesiastical authority or the ministry, is to be punished with a just penalty.
Can. 1371 — § 1. A person who does not obey the lawful command or prohibition of the Apostolic See or the Ordinary or Superior and, after being warned, persists in disobedience, is to be punished, according to the gravity of the case, with a censure or deprivation of office or with other penalties mentioned in can. 1336, §§ 2-4.
§ 2. A person who violates obligations imposed by a penalty is to be punished with the penalties mentioned in can. 1336 §§ 2-4.
§ 3. A person who, in asserting or promising something before an ecclesiastical authority, commits perjury, is to be punished with a just penalty.
§ 4. A person who violates the obligation of observing the pontifical secret is to be punished with the penalties mentioned in can. 1336 §§ 2-4.
§ 5. A person who fails to observe the duty to execute an executive sentence is to be punished with a just penalty, not excluding a censure.
§ 6. A person who neglects to report an offence, when required to do so by a canonical law, is to be punished according to the provision of can. 1336 §§ 2-4, with the addition of other penalties according to the gravity of the offence.
Can. 1372 — The following are to be punished according to the provision of can. 1336 §§ 2-4:
1° those who hinder the freedom of the ministry or the exercise of ecclesiastical power, or the lawful use of sacred things or ecclesiastical goods, or who intimidate one who has exercised ecclesiastical power or ministry;
2° those who hinder the freedom of an election or intimidate an elector or one who is elected.
Can. 1373 — A person who publicly incites hatred or animosity against the Apostolic See or the Ordinary because of some act of ecclesiastical office or duty, or who provokes disobedience against them, is to be punished by interdict or other just penalties.
Can. 1374 — A person who joins an association which plots against the Church is to be punished with a just penalty; one who promotes or takes office in such an association is to be punished with an interdict.
Can. 1375 — § 1. Anyone who usurps an ecclesiastical office is to be punished with a just penalty.
§ 2. The unlawful retention of an office after being deprived of it, or ceasing from it, is equivalent to usurpation.
Can. 1376 — § 1. The following are to be punished with the penalties mentioned in can. 1336 §§ 2-4, without prejudice to the obligation of repairing the harm:
1° a person who steals ecclesiastical goods or prevents their proceeds from being received;
2° a person who without the prescribed consultation, consent, or permission, or without another requirement imposed by law for validity or for lawfulness, alienates ecclesiastical goods or carries out an act of administration over them.
§ 2. The following are to be punished, not excluding by deprivation of office, without prejudice to the obligation of repairing the harm:
1° a person who through grave personal culpability commits the offence mentioned in § 1, n. 2;
2° a person who is found to have been otherwise gravely negligent in administering ecclesiastical goods.
Can. 1377 — § 1. A person who gives or promises something so that someone who exercises an office or function in the Church would unlawfully act or fail to act is to be punished according to the provision of can. 1336 §§ 2-4; likewise, the person who accepts such gifts or promises is to be punished according to the gravity of the offence, not excluding by deprivation of office, without prejudice to the obligation of repairing the harm.
§ 2. A person who in the exercise of an office or function requests an offering beyond that which has been established, or additional sums, or something for his or her own benefit, is to be punished with an appropriate monetary fine or with other penalties, not excluding deprivation of office, without prejudice to the obligation of repairing the harm.
Can. 1378 — § 1. A person who, apart from the cases already foreseen by the law, abuses ecclesiastical power, office, or function, is to be punished according to the gravity of the act or the omission, not excluding by deprivation of the power or office, without prejudice to the obligation of repairing the harm.
§ 2. A person who, through culpable negligence, unlawfully and with harm to another or scandal, performs or omits an act of ecclesiastical power or office or function, is to be punished according to the provision of can. 1336 §§ 2-4, without prejudice to the obligation of repairing the harm. 

TITLE III

OFFENCES AGAINST THE SACRAMENTS 

Can. 1379 — § 1. The following incur a latae sententiae interdict or, if a cleric, also a latae sententiae suspension:
1° a person who, not being an ordained priest, attempts the liturgical celebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice;
2° a person who, apart from the case mentioned in can. 1384, though unable to give valid sacramental absolution, attempts to do so, or hears a sacramental confession.
§ 2. In the cases mentioned in § 1, other penalties, not excluding excommunication, can be added, according to the gravity of the offence.
§ 3. Both a person who attempts to confer a sacred order on a woman, and the woman who attempts to receive the sacred order, incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; a cleric, moreover, may be punished by dismissal from the clerical state.
§ 4. A person who deliberately administers a sacrament to those who are prohibited from receiving it is to be punished with suspension, to which other penalties mentioned in can. 1336 §§ 2-4 may be added.
§ 5. A person who, apart from the cases mentioned in §§ 1-4 and in can. 1384, pretends to administer a sacrament is to be punished with a just penalty.
Can. 1380 — A person who through simony celebrates or receives a sacrament is to be punished with an interdict or suspension or the penalties mentioned in can. 1336 §§ 2-4.
Can. 1381 — One who is guilty of prohibited participation in religious rites is to be punished with a just penalty.
Can. 1382 — § 1. One who throws away the consecrated species or, for a sacrilegious purpose, takes them away or keeps them, incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; a cleric, moreover, may be punished with some other penalty, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state.
§ 2. A person guilty of consecrating for a sacrilegious purpose one element only or both elements within the Eucharistic celebration or outside it is to be punished according to the gravity of the offence, not excluding by dismissal from the clerical state.
Can. 1383 — A person who unlawfully traffics in Mass offerings is to be punished with a censure or with the penalties mentioned in can. 1336 §§ 2-4.
Can. 1384 — A priest who acts against the prescription of can. 977 incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.
Can. 1385 — A priest who in confession, or on the occasion or under the pretext of confession, solicits a penitent to commit a sin against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue, is to be punished, according to the gravity of the offence, with suspension, prohibitions and deprivations; in the more serious cases he is to be dismissed from the clerical state.
Can. 1386 — § 1. A confessor who directly violates the sacramental seal incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; he who does so only indirectly is to be punished according to the gravity of the offence.
§ 2. Interpreters, and the others mentioned in can. 983 § 2, who violate the secret are to be punished with a just penalty, not excluding excommunication.
§ 3. Without prejudice to the provisions of §§ 1 and 2, any person who by means of any technical device makes a recording of what is said by the priest or by the penitent in a sacramental confession, either real or simulated, or who divulges it through the means of social communication, is to be punished according to the gravity of the offence, not excluding, in the case of a cleric, by dismissal from the clerical state.
Can. 1387 — Both the Bishop who, without a pontifical mandate, consecrates a person a Bishop, and the one who receives the consecration from him, incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.
Can. 1388 — § 1. A Bishop who, contrary to the provision of can. 1015, ordained someone else’s subject without the lawful dimissorial letters, is prohibited from conferring orders for one year. The person who received the order is ipso factosuspended from the order received.
§ 2. A person who comes forward for sacred orders bound by some censure or irregularity which he voluntarily conceals is ipso facto suspended from the order received, apart from what is established in canon 1044, § 2, n. 1.
Can. 1389 — A person who, apart from the cases mentioned in cann. 1379-1388, unlawfully exercises the office of a priest or another sacred ministry, is to be punished with a just penalty, not excluding a censure. 

TITLE IV

OFFENCES AGAINST REPUTATION AND THE OFFENCE OF FALSEHOOD 

Can. 1390 — § 1. A person who falsely denounces a confessor of the offence mentioned in can. 1385 to an ecclesiastical Superior incurs a latae sententiae interdict and, if a cleric, he incurs also a suspension.
§ 2. A person who calumniously denounces some other offence to an ecclesiastical Superior, or otherwise unlawfully injures the good name of another, is to be punished according to the provision of can. 1336 §§ 2-4, to which moreover a censure may be added.
§3. The calumniator must also be compelled to make appropriate amends.
Can. 1391 — The following are to be punished with the penalties mentioned in can. 1336 §§ 2-4, according to the gravity of the offence:
1° a person who composes a false public ecclesiastical document, or who changes, destroys, or conceals a genuine one, or who uses a false or altered one;
2° a person who in an ecclesiastical matter uses some other false or altered document;
3° a person who, in a public ecclesiastical document, asserts something false. 

TITLE V

OFFENCES AGAINST SPECIAL OBLIGATIONS 

Can. 1392 — A cleric who voluntarily and unlawfully abandons the sacred ministry, for six months continuously, with the intention of withdrawing himself from the competent Church authority, is to be punished, according to the gravity of the offence, with suspension or additionally with the penalties established in can. 1336 §§ 2-4, and in the more serious cases may be dismissed from the clerical state.
Can. 1393 — § 1. A cleric or religious who engages in trading or business contrary to the provisions of the canons is to be punished with the penalties mentioned in can. 1336 §§ 2-4, according to the gravity of the offence.
§ 2. A cleric or religious who, apart from the cases already foreseen by the law, commits an offence in a financial matter, or gravely violates the stipulations contained in can. 285 § 4, is to be punished with the penalties mentioned in can. 1336 §§ 2-4, without prejudice to the obligation of repairing the harm.
Can. 1394 — § 1. A cleric who attempts marriage, even if only civilly, incurs a latae sententiae suspension, without prejudice to the provisions of can. 194 § 1 n. 3, and 694 § 1 n. 2. If, after warning, he has not reformed or continues to give scandal, he must be progressively punished by deprivations, or even by dismissal from the clerical state.
§ 2. Without prejudice to the provisions of can. 694 § 1 n. 2, a religious in perpetual vows who is not a cleric but who attempts marriage, even if only civilly, incurs a latae sententiae interdict.
Can. 1395 — § 1. A cleric living in concubinage, other than in the case mentioned in can. 1394, and a cleric who continues in some other external sin against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue which causes scandal, is to be punished with suspension. To this, other penalties can progressively be added if after a warning he persists in the offence, until eventually he can be dismissed from the clerical state.

I'm going to note this provision, which I believe carries over from the earlier Canon Law, as it gets towards something addressed below, which is that the Canon Law changes to fit the sins of a time.

It's not that there are new sins. The original set is enduring. But the times alter what is common or problematic.  

It's commonly thought by some that there are droves of Priests who wished to be married, but there's no real evidence for this at all.  On the contrary, the current group of younger Priest are not clamoring for this, and even older Priests in the Latin Rite are not generally in favor of it. For what it is worth, as this is a Canon, it can be change, and I personally have no problem with it being changed.  Married Priest are common at the parish level in the Eastern Rite, and they feel it serves them well.

What is interesting, however, for this discussion is that this shows up in the section of the Canon dealing with punishments.  Why is that?

I don't really know, but all of the items noted here were problems, when they really were problems, in the Middle Ages.  It was at that time that the rule in the Latin Rite precluding the marriage of Priests was imposed, and was largely imposed out of a fear of an inherited Priesthood.  That this fear was valid was demonstrated by the times themselves, but also by the later history of the Church of England.  At any rate, the Church banned married men from the Priesthood at that time, but the practice continued on none the less. Worse yet, a sort of informal cohabitation occurred in some places as clerics adopted to the change sinfully, rather than through abstention. The Canon Law looks as if it was addressed to take on those situations.

Be that as it may, I don't know that for certain.

§ 2. A cleric who has offended in other ways against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue, if the offence was committed in public, is to be punished with just penalties, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state if the case so warrants.
§ 3. A cleric who by force, threats or abuse of his authority commits an offence against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue or forces someone to perform or submit to sexual acts is to be punished with the same penalty as in § 2.
Can. 1396 — A person who gravely violates the obligation of residence to which he is bound by reason of an ecclesiastical office is to be punished with a just penalty, not excluding, after a warning, deprivation of the office. 

TITLE VI

OFFENCES AGAINST HUMAN LIFE, DIGNITY AND LIBERTY 

Can. 1397 — § 1. One who commits homicide, or who by force or by fraud abducts, imprisons, mutilates or gravely wounds a person, is to be punished, according to the gravity of the offence, with the penalties mentioned in can. 1336. In the case of the homicide of one of those persons mentioned in can. 1370, the offender is punished with the penalties prescribed there and also in § 3 of this canon.

This is interesting to me as I didn't know that homicide was specifically address in this fashion. It makes sense, I was just unaware of it.

Now, I'm not a Canon lawyer, so I don't know, but I think that perhaps nonetheless a pentitent that otherwise meets the proper criteria to receive reconciliation can also simply be forgiven by a confessor.  Note that all the criteria must of course apply. 

§ 2. A person who actually procures an abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.

§ 3. If offences dealt with in this canon are involved, in more serious cases the guilty cleric is to be dismissed from the clerical state.

Can. 1398 — § 1. A cleric is to be punished with deprivation of office and with other just penalties, not excluding, where the case calls for it, dismissal from the clerical state, if he:

1° commits an offence against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue with a minor or with a person who habitually has an imperfect use of reason or with one to whom the law recognises equal protection;

2° grooms or induces a minor or a person who habitually has an imperfect use of reason or one to whom the law recognises equal protection to expose himself or herself pornographically or to take part in pornographic exhibitions, whether real or simulated;

3° immorally acquires, retains, exhibits or distributes, in whatever manner and by whatever technology, pornographic images of minors or of persons who habitually have an imperfect use of reason.

§ 2. A member of an institute of consecrated life or of a society of apostolic life, or any one of the faithful who enjoys a dignity or performs an office or function in the Church, who commits an offence mentioned in § 1 or in can. 1395 § 3 is to be punished according to the provision of can. 1336 §§ 2-4, with the addition of other penalties according to the gravity of the offence.

It's mostly this change that has drawn the most attention, not surprisingly, due to the scandals in the Church.

As noted elsewhere, it seems that the demographic cohort who was responsible for these scandals has now largely been addressed and the the crisis is therefore basically over, except in terms of the fallout. But the Church has nonetheless changed the law in this area to specifically address it going forward.  For that reason, the big freak out is really odd. This should be an overall welcomed move, but of course, it isn't.  People either take the view that it isn't enough, or its too much.  It's probably the case that those in either camp's reactions were pretty predictable one way or another. 

On this, it's really fair to say that the Church as a body was taken very off guard by developments in this area that occurred in the 20th Century.  We've dealt with some of that elsewhere, but generally there was very clearly a combination of Freudian psychology and social change that impacted the Priesthood, well with everything else.

As we have dealt with it elsewhere, we really won't attempt to deal with it in depth here, but what can be argued to be the case is that a Freudian concept of sexuality crept into the Western world in the early 20th Century combined with a Freudian concept of psychology, both of which are now largely discredited.  This caused, however, to some extent people to evolve their inclinations towards definitions, rather than perhaps what is actually the natural form of the inclinations.  By the 1960s and 1970s this had radically changed in a way that is still very much a matter being worked out in Western society.  At the same time, however, a spirit of liberality entered the Church which caused the age old Church concepts on human nature to be disregarded and, more significantly, actually warred upon in some quarters of the Church.

Coincident with that economic developments in society altered recruitment for the Priesthood to a degree.  There have always been those whose attraction to the Priesthood was based on either a mix of motives or, in some cases, upon false motives.  The latter has always been problematic but the former can be as well.  This changed, however, the demographics of the Priesthood temporarily.  Now that has changed again, but the point is that the Church wasn't prepared for the impact of what occurred in the mid 20th Century.

TITLE VII

GENERAL NORM 

Can. 1399 — Besides the cases prescribed in this or in other laws, the external violation of divine or canon law can be punished, and with a just penalty, only when the special gravity of the violation requires it and necessity demands that scandals be prevented or repaired.

And so, there a person has it. Shocking?  Not really, or not really unless a person wanted to be shocked.  Overdue?  Well, perhaps, but the Church never acts quickly and this has been in the works for twenty years.

BoJo Marries and the Comments Fly.

A Medieval wedding.

Boris Johnson and his longtime girlfriend, Carrie Symonds (now Johnson) married.

So what, you may ask.  Indeed, dulled by the long 2019-2021 parade of bad news of one kind or another, that was my initial reaction, even though there's an obvious Christian point to this story from the onset, as by marrying, they're no longer shacking up, if you will, even though they certainly haven't been shacking up in quarters that could be compared to a shack.  

Frankly, as an Apostolic Christian, I'd normally have probably made a comment at some point about their living arrangements as its clearly contradictory to the tenants of the Christian faith, and even in Europe this would have been poorly regarded in almost any society up until, well right now.  Now, it pretty much produces a yawn, as do the majority of other serious religious tenants shared by all of the Abrahamic religions on a variety of matters related to sex.  I.e., this conduct is regarded as seriously sinful by all the Christian religions, Judaism and Islam.  In the modern world, it seems, Christians, including some serious ones but also a lot of nominal ones, have decided that most of what the Apostles wrote down was elective in nature and that people pretty much get a vote on what is and what isn't sinful.

More on that here later.

That's not what sparked the news, as soon became apparent.  What did, is that Johnson and Symonds married in a Catholic cathedral in a Catholic ceremony.  For people who like to be shocked, amazed, or scandalized, this was shocking, amazing, and scandalous.  And the press all over the English speaking world reacted with a giant "WHAT? How could this be?"  For example, the New York Time ran this headline:

Why Could Boris Johnson Marry in a Catholic Church?

The Guardian, a British newspaper that has made inroads into this US, ran this bizarre historically dim headline:

Boris Johnson’s outdone Henry VIII in having his third marriage blessed by the Catholic church

Apparently the writers at this British paper are historical dimwits.

The Irish Times, less dim on the topic, ran this one, which was actually interesting and informative.

Boris Johnson baptised Catholic and cannot defect from Church, says canon law

And the Times headline gets to the crux of the matter.

That didn't keep, however, an Irish priest from stating that the wedding made a "mockery" of the Church's laws.

Which it does not.

I don't know much about Johnson personally,  Or indeed, hardly at all.  And among the things I didn't know is that his mother was Catholic and he was baptized by a Catholic priest.  His mother raised him as a Catholic as a child, but when he was in Eaton, he was confirmed (rather late, if we look at North American anyhow) by an Episcopal Bishop.

And that makes him an Episcopalian, right?

Well, that depends.

Carrying the story forward, in the 1980s he married Allegra Mostyn-Owen. The couple divorced in 1993 after six years of marriage.  She's currently married to a man 22 years her junior who is a Muslim, which has lead Johnson to put Mostyn-Owen on a Muslim relations task force.  Reportedly, she's given her husband permission to have more than one wife as she is unlikely to be able to bear children and of course polygamy is a feature of Islam, although that would not be legal anywhere in Europe, in so far as I know. ^[1]. 

His second wife was Mariana Wheeler, a childhood friend of Johnson's.  They married twelve days after his first divorce and she was pregnant at the time.  Their marriage lasted seven years.

So, eeh gads, surely this is contrary to Catholic teaching, right?  I.e., his current marriage to Symonds, age 33 (Johnson is 56), just can't happen, right?

To read the press, you'd think so.  I've read everything, however, from this can't happen as Catholics don't allow divorce to this could only happen as Catholics don't recognize the marriages of other faiths.  

That doesn't grasp the interesting religious angle, however, of this at all.

In reality, all of the Apostolic faiths, as well as some of the Christian faiths that are close to the Apostolic faiths and regard themselves as Apostolic, take Christs' injunction against divorce seriously, although they don't all approach it exactly the same way.  Interestingly, and completely missed in all of this, the Church of England doesn't recognize divorce.  The mother church of the Anglican Communion, that is, regards it as invalid, just as Catholicism does, which isn't surprising as High Church Anglicans regard themselves as a type of Catholic, even if the Catholic Church completely rejects that assertion as "completely null and utterly void".

We'll get to more of that in a minute, but perhaps the most peculiar of the approaches to divorce is the Orthodox one.  The Orthodox allow more than one marriage under a vague application of a mercy principal that tolerates, in some cases, up to three marriages.  It's tempting to compare this to the Catholic concept of annulment, and indeed it is somewhat comparable, but lacking in the formality.  The basic approach, however, is that the Orthodox only recognize one valid marriage, but accept that human nature is frail and people goof up, so it applies some leeway essentially as it generally feels that the problem of sex in human nature makes it difficult not to.  I'm not Orthodox, so I could be off on this by quite some margin.

The Catholic Church doesn't recognize divorce at all.  It does apply the principal of annulments where it judges that one of the original marrying parties lacked something to make that marriage valid.  I don't' know what percentage of people who go through the annulment process obtain one, but frankly it seems rather shockingly high, which as been a long criticism of it, and a valid one in my view.  Outside of that, however, Catholics hold that once you are married, its until death.  No exceptions, save for the one noted, which would hold that the first marriage wasn't valid, and therefore wasn't really a marriage.

So how on Earth could Johnson and Symonds marry in a Catholic cathedral?

Well that leads to messy press analysis.

The Irish Times, not surprisingly, had it best. 

Contrary to what some of the press elsewhere would have it, the Catholic church fully recognizes the marriages of non Catholics, and for that matter, non Christians.  If two Muslims marry, the Catholic Church regards them as married.  Married and can't divorce is how the Catholic Church would regard it, irrespective of how Muslims may view it.

And also contrary to what some of the press is claiming, the Church also recognizes the marriages of people who are two different faith, or no faith at all.  Go down to the Courthouse and have the judge marry you, in other words, and you are married.  

So what's the deal here?

That's where you get into Canon Law.

Originally the overwhelming majority of Christians, all of whom were Catholic, married outside of a Church ceremony.  Indeed, it was extremely informal.  People just decided they were to marry, and they were.  No wedding ceremony at all.  

That first began to change with monarchs, as their marriages were also effectively treaties between nations, and they wanted it to be really clear and official in every respect possible.   But also, during the Middle Ages, things began to change with regular people as the need for marriage witnesses arose. This was principally because one member of the couple would claim they were never married, usually the man, leaving he other, usually the woman, in a very bad position.

Indeed, even with very early Christian monarchs you can see this at work.  Some early Saxon and English kings, for example, had queens who were subject to this.  Hardecanute is a famous one who married with King of England, but who had a Scandinavian queen before and during that period. What was she?  Harold Godwinson, the last Saxon king of England, had a Saxon queen who was "married in the old style" and a Welsh queen to whom he was more formally married. When  he died at Hastings, it was apparently the Saxon queen, still around, that identified his body.

This presents a series of obvious problems and the Church therefore worked to clear it up, imposing the Canon law that Christians had to be married by a priest.  This served a number of purposes, one of which was that the wedding was therefore witnesses and couldn't be simply excused away.

It would be tempting to think that the current situation came about immediately upon the Reformation, but that would be in error.  Indeed, it's important to keep in mind that at the parish level, while the fact that the Church was in turmoil was obvious, the severance wasn't necessarily immediately apparent in the pews.  All of the original Lutheran priests, for example, had been ordained Catholic priests.  No Bishops followed Luther into rebellion in what is now Germany, so there was no way to ordain valid new priests in the eyes of the Catholic Church there, but in Scandinavia things muddled on in an unclear fashion for some time and the Scandinavian Bishops did follow their monarchs into a series of murky positions.

In England, the situation in the pews was also unclear. All of the original Anglican priests had been Catholic priests and most, but not all, of the Bishops followed Henry VIII into schism.  Eddward VI took the country as far from the Catholic folds as he could, but then Queen Mary brought the country back into the Church, although without completely success.  Then Elizabeth struck a middle ground, most likely for political reasons more than anything else.  As late as the Prayer Book Rebellion, 1549, Catholicism was still so strongly rooted in the minds of average Englishmen that they revolted over the introduction of the Book of Common Prayer which the conceived of as too Protestant.

The point of this isn't to introduce a treatise on the history of religion in England, but rather to note that for average people this must have been distressing, but if they were going to get married, they still went to the same place, the Church, and the presiding cleric presided over it.  This is important to our story here as, at least in England, in spite of an outright war by the Crown against Catholicism, the Church did not prohibit Catholics from marrying in a ceremony presided over by an Anglican priest and no dispensation was required for a "disparity of cult".

Indeed, it's widely believed that as late as 1785 the man who would reign as King George IV married Maria Fitzherbert, a Catholic.  The marriage remains really murky in terms of details, as it was conducted in secret, and was arguably invalid because George IV had not obtained permission from George III, which was a legal requirement.  The marriage did not, however, require Fitzherbert to obtain permission from the Catholic Church and its believed it was conducted by an Anglian priest.  Interestingly, while George IV would later deny that the marriage was valid, and their relationship was rocky, it never completely ceased altogether and he asked to be buried with a locket containing her image.  George IV was officially married to his cousin Caroline of Brunswick in what was pretty clearly both an arranged and unhappy marriage that he did wish to terminate.  He died first.

So when, exactly, the current canon came in requiring permission for a marriage outside of a Catholic officiation, I frankly don't know.  It may not have occurred everywhere at the same time, for that matter.  Having said that, it seems to have been first mentioned as a Church law, and therefore a legal requirement binding Catholics, in 1563, so the example given above is problematic.

Note, however, that it binds Catholics.  Not other people, and the Church has never stated otherwise.  

Additionally, it binds Catholics as its a law of the Church.  In order for a Catholic to have a valid marriage, it must be presided over by a Catholic priest or there must be some dispensation.  If that doesn't occur it isn't valid, as to Catholics.

And that's what we have here.  It's not change in the law of the Church in any fashion. Boris Johnson was baptized as a Catholic and so he is a Catholic, the way that Catholics understand that.  Carrie Symonds is also a Catholic, and indeed, press comments about her routinely refer to her as a "practicing Catholic".  Her status in that regard is problematic as she and Johnson have been shacked up, which is contrary to Catholic moral law in a major way, but with their marriage, and presumably with a Confession that preceded it, that's no longer an issue of any kind.  And Symonds' views would otherwise be evident in that she had their son, born out of wedlock (see issue above again), baptized in the Catholic faith.

So, why al the fussing?

Well, for the most part at least knowledgeable Catholics aren't fussing.  Not everyone likes Johnson politically, but Catholics pretty much take a "welcome home" view towards this sort of thing.  So, the past is what its, and Boris is back. All is fine, religion wise.

Of course, some Catholics who don't know the doctrines of their own church, or who simply want to have a fit, are. But its' a pretty misplaced one.

Non Catholics can have a fit if they're predisposed to, as they don't understand the Church's law and they are often surprised to find that the Church retains its original position that as it is the original Church, which is indisputable, all others lack in some fashion. ^[2].  So this serves to remind people that the Anglican Church and the Catholic Church have a lot of similarities, but no matter what the Anglican Communion may maintain, the Catholic Church doesn't regard it as Catholic.  Of course, not all Anglicans wish to be regarded as Catholics, but some of them are offended as the fact that the Catholic Church isn't according them equivalency with the Catholicism is offensive to them.

More than that, however, a long held cultural anti Catholicism that came in with the reformation is still pretty strong in certain Protestant regions of Europe in spite of the decline of their Protestant established churches.   This is very evident in England, and is very strong in Scandinavia.  It's somewhat ironic in various ways, not the least of which is that these regions have become highly secularized and as that has occurred, the Church that has remained strong has been the minority Catholic Church, which has not only survived its long Reformation winter, but which has gained new adherents.

Does this mean that Johnson has fully returned to the Catholic fold and will be at Mass next Sunday?  Well, Catholics should hope so, and frankly so should Protestants as well. And there is some evidence that Johnson, who has lived a fairly libertine life, may in fact be taking his Christianity more seriously than he did in earlier days.  His recent address regarding the Pandemic specifically referenced Christ and his mercy, something that very few politicians would generally do, and European ones even less.

So, while people can have fits if they want to, all in all, they shouldn't.  Indeed, no matter what a person thinks of Johnson one way or another, there's reason to be happy about this development, and not just in being happy for the apparently happy couple if a person is inclined to be such.

Footnotes

1.  Having said that, I don't know if polygamy is legal in Turkey, which is obviously a Muslim majority nation, and which is in Europe, depending upon how you draw the continental lines.  Turkey has become increasingly Islamic under its current leadership but had years of aggressive secularism, so the status of Muslim polygamist marriages isn't a given, and I don't know the answer as to its status there.

2. The various Orthodox Churches also stretch back to Apostolic origins, which is why the Catholic and Orthodox Churches regard each others sacraments as valid, and also regard their separation as schismatic, depending upon which you are in, rather than an outright rebellion and departure as was the case with the Protestant Churches.

A couple of interesting news items.

It would be apparently to any long time reader of this blog, if there are any, that it hasn't been the same for over a year.  Indeed, it dramatically changed course, sort of, when COVID 19 hit.  That event pretty much changed everything, globally, and rather obviously, with one of those changes being that business travelers quit traveling.

I frankly don't think that business travel is coming back.  Video conferencing was coming in anyway and the pandemic spurred it along.  That's our new world now, even though we don't really have any idea, really, of what that new world is really going to be like.  We already know that, at this late stage of the pandemic, with COVID relief funds still operating in a lot of places, people in certain economic categories are refusing to come back to work.  This isn't just those making low wages, who are choosing to ride out the relief funds in hopes for hire wages.  It also includes a lot of professionals who have learned how to work from home and don't want to go back to their offices.  This is still paying out.

Anyhow, that means no new church photographs from afar.  And frankly, this blog was slowing down anyhow as a lot of the places I traveled to, I repeated.  There's more churches there, indeed there's more in town, but photographing targets of opportunity just don't exist like they did, although I should finish the ones in town.

Anyhow, as the number of church photographs have declined, those which are news items have seemed to increase, although that may not be fully accurate.  Some probably have seemed to increase as they're getting posted where as church photographs aren't.

Anyhow, as also noted here before, this isn't a Catholic Apologists blog. There are plenty of those and I'm not qualified to be one.  But I do comment on Christian news items from time to time and those are most often Catholic ones.

Catching my eye on Twitter yesterday was a comment by a priest to the effect that "everyone's an Apologist today".  I hadn't seen any big news items that would inspire a comment like that and I couldn't find one on Twitter.  Checking the news, I saw two, and these do turn out to be the inspiration for that comment.  One was that Boris Johnson, the British Prime Minister, married, and the other was that Pope Francis had issued a revision to the Church's Canon Law.  Reading the news reports I at first didn't see any reason that these were really even all that noteworthy.  But following up on it, they are, and they're interesting.  

So, following this, there will be a couple of comments on those.  Hope they're interesting.

Lex Anteinternet: May 9, 1921 (and May 9, 1921). Resistance, murder and secret victories.

Lex Anteinternet: May 9, 1921 (and May 9, 1921). Resistance, murde...: 

May 9, 1921 (and May 9, 1921). Resistance, murder and secret victories.

Fr. Józef Cebula

In Poland, by this point in the war, the Germans were engaged in full scale repression of the Catholic Church, having banned adherence to it, including the administration of the Sacraments.  Fr. Józef Cebula outright ignored the ban, as many other Polish priests did, and was arrested and incarcerated in a concentration camp as a result.  There he continued to minister to the sick.  On this day he was tortured and shot.  He was beatified by Pope John Paul II in 1999.

While certainly understood by historians, the level of repression meted out to the Poles during the war, by the occupying Germans, was at an almost unimaginable scale.  Unlike the occupied lands to the south and west of Germany, the Germans didn't recognize Polish sovereignty after the defeat of the Polish army and ran the territory in a fashion that was effectively genocidal.  Post war many Germans would make the claim that they were unaware of the Holocaust, a claim that is dubious at best given the scale upon which it was conducted, but when combined with German official killings within the Reich and the murderous occupation of Germany's neighbor Poland, what Nazi Germany stood for couldn't be ignored except by somebody wishing to ignore it.

Somebody not ignoring it was German Sophie Scholl, who at this point in her short life was in a nursing training program, having not yet entered the University of Munich.  On this day, Scholl turned 20 years old.

Scholl, of course, had only two years to live as she'd shortly enter the University there which would take her on to be one of the founding members of the White Rose movement.  The movement has been celebrated as one of the few (although there are others) German resistance movements that formed during the war. Scholl was a devout Lutheran but there's a connection to the item above in that the movement's origins were sparked by Hans Scholl, her brother, having changed the focus of his studies from medicine to philosophy and theology due to the influence of Catholic men of letters, Otl Aicher and Carl Muth, whom he encountered at the university.  This openly drew Hans Scholl towards Catholicism and it also caused him to be drawn towards Aicher and Muth's anti Nazi views, which were based on their religious convictions. Hans Scholl would be instrumental in forming the group. While the group was not all Catholic by any means, and included one member who was Russian Orthodox, the Catholic religious themes were prominent.  The group took its name from a sermon by Bishop Von Galen, which addressed the evils of euthanasia.

Aicher survived the war and in 1952 married Inge Scholl, a sister of Sophie and Hans.  He is remembered for designing the lead graphic designer for the 1972 Munich Olympics.

Also on this day the British took an Enigma from the U110.

The captured U110.

Today in World War II History—May 9, 1941

Enigma machine captured

This meant that in the space of just two days the British had taken an Enigma machine and the codes for July.  They knew exactly what they had and indeed had been targeting German naval assets for this purpose.

On the same day, as can be read about above, the Franco Thai War ended in the Thai's favor, in a peace brokered by Imperial Japan, or perhaps effectively forced by it.

This too oddly has a 1921 connection as on this day in 1921 Crown Prince Hirohito, who of course would go on to become the Emperor, set foot in the United Kingdom, the first member of the Imperial Japanese family to do so.  He was touring Europe.

Lex Anteinternet: Subscribe by email "gadget" going away.

Lex Anteinternet: Subscribe by email "gadget" going away.: Google seems pretty intent on destroying the Blogger format, which means that for people like me, who have blogged on blogger, we have a cho...

Lex Anteinternet: Easter 2021. Next Year In Jerusalem.

Lex Anteinternet: Easter 2021. Next Year In Jerusalem.: 

Easter 2021. Next Year In Jerusalem.

This is Easter on the Latin Rite liturgical calendar for 2021, thereby being the date that almost everyone who observes it will observe it on.  Orthodox Easter this year is nearly a month away, on May 2.

It's a second sad Easter in a row.

For the second time we're facing an Easter in which the gloom of the Coronavirus Pandemic lingers overhead.  Perhaps, in that way, we're looking at an Easter that actually fits historical times, i.e., most of human history, more than our own times, and therefore should give us more to look forward to with the oncoming advance of Spring.

Still, it probably doesn't, and in no small part due to the really odd and unsettled times we're generally in.  

For those in the Diocese of  Cheyenne, such as myself, we still have a dispensation in place if we feel we should use it.  I've noted myself earlier in this blog that I wasn't really happy about Mass's being suspended in the first place, although I'd perhaps now reluctantly concede that it was necessary. As also earlier noted, when they opened back up I resumed going, but when infections started to climb and the vaccine was on the horizon, I dropped back out and made use of the dispensation.

Throughout this entire pandemic, my wife has really been the one who managed our approach to it, being diligent and careful and making me the same.  I take the pandemic very seriously and frankly I'm at the point where those who casually deny its anything anger me.  It truly is.  I've known, as we all do by now, a host of people who have had it and a couple of them are dead.  People who give the flippant "it's no worth than the flu" don't seem to realize that the flu isn't a cold either and that its a real killer.  The reason we tolerate the flu like we do is that we have no choice.  Here we do, but we're rapidly losing out on that choice in part because people who want to believe that it amounts to nothing or wild theories about its original or the vaccine are being slow to get vaccinated.  And in our modern society, in which we've elevated the individual and his rights and beliefs to a near religion we aren't willing to use any form of compulsion in order to make sure the appropriate number of vaccinations are accomplished.

That day may never have been possible in any event. We may have lost out on that opportunity from the very first instance, in which case SARS-CoV-2 will be an endemic disease and go on killing.  

At least one person I know who takes the disease very seriously, but who is younger and therefore able to bear more risks, has just become numb to it.  That is, it's real, they got vaccinated, but they're otherwise too fatigued to observe much in the way of any other precaution.  As noted, some people never took any as they refused to believe it was real.  Others, and I find this approach the oddest, accepted it was real and took some precautions, unless they were personally inconvenient.  

The level of precautions a person took and wear tends to reflect a person's beliefs. The Catholic Church in Wyoming obviously took it very seriously in shutting things down, but I frankly think the Church really dropped the ball in regard to outreach to parishioners.  Even on my end, as a former lector and a former council member, I received very little contact during the pandemic from my diocese.  If I've received this litter, and have been a faithful and loyal Catholic my entire life, I have to think that marginal Catholics are in no better position than I am.  One thing the Church is really going to have to answer for, and I mean in this realm and the next, is the complete and utter failure, it seems to me, to try to reach out during the pandemic.  A parish priest is actually responsible for all of the souls in his diocese.  If the Catholic souls aren't getting any contact. . . well. . . there's going to be questions that will have to be answered.

Anyhow, at Mass I noticed that almost everyone was very observant about wearing masks, which were required, although there's always the few who will pull them down below their nose at which point they're pointless.  Sometimes that's ignorance and in others its a form of protest.  Be that as it may, they were there.

I'm told, but don't know, that in some Protestant churches following the COVID guidelines were simply suspended completely.

In a civil context, in some places I've been too that's very much the case.  One local sporting goods store had signs about wearing masks but few on the staff did. A few men who work in the store do and have, but the huge army of 20 something girls that loiters near the cash registers grossly overmanning them never did.  Sporting goods stores here are almost a center of civil protest/COVID denial.

Circling back around, during the pandemic my wife has lead the charge and we've both been very good about doing what we should. We haven't been to a restaurant in a year, with one noon meal that was a work invitation, and two for out of town depositions, being the exception.  I've been invited to "go get a beer" after work, but I declined, something made easy by the fact I decline that invitation usually anyway.  

Anyhow, I've now had both of my COVID 19 vaccinations.  My wife has had her first.  My kids have both had theirs.  Only my son and my wife are in the window of non protection, as they're either waiting for their second shot or have just had theirs.

I was going to resume Mass attendance last week, but my daughter pointed out that my wife had been so good about her observation of the rules and just had her shot, so we should probably abstain.  She didn't come home for Easter due to school and work and will make Mass where she is.  Here we debated it last night and ultimately decided, for the same reason, to wait one more week.

Locally it turns out that of the three parishes two were requiring reservations, but once again due to the phenomenally bad outreach the Church's have, that wasn't apparent at the one we were going to go to until this morning when I happened to find that was on their video feed.  For goodness sakes, is there any excuse for not getting this out in some other fashion?  So we likely would have been turned away.  That would have lead us to the parish across town which is not requiring reservations, but which was anticipating putting overflow in the poorly ventilated basement so that those there could watch it on television.

Next year, for those of us still in the temporal realm, Mass in the normal fashion will have resumed as life in the normal fashion will have had to.  The country can't keep being shut down forever and the entire population, save for those who really have the resources to do nothing at all, has to get moving again and patience has worn thing.  My guess is that we will not reach the "herd immunity" threshold as there will be those who steadfastly refuse to believe that the disease is serious or who will continue to believe myths about vaccines which are allowed to circulate in the post Cold War scientific age.  Those who are vaccinated will get yearly boosters which will be more or less effective. Some will get sick and some of them will die and for some people that will come as a surprise.  But life will return to normal, with normal in this instance begin an unfortunate blend of the 1970s inflationary era, brought on by profligate government spending, and 2010/20s moral sinkage.

On that latter item, there were those who hoped that the pandemic might refocus society and cause some reflection on where we were going and what we were doing.  Perhaps some of that did occur, but there does not seem to be much evidence of it now. And to the extent it did, a lot of that was swept away by political forces that refused to acknowledge defeat and countervailing ones that accordingly came into power seeking to bring in every "progressive" item on that laundry list that's been thought of since the late 1890s.  Things are really not looking that good, and in a lot of ways.

But next year, at least there will be Mass.

Jews traditionally end the Passover Sedar with "Next Year in Jerusalem", signaling an obvious deep religious hope.

Next year in Jerusalem. ^[1].

__________________________________________________________________________________

Footnotes:

1.  I don't think this is incapable of being misunderstood, but just in case, and because I'm occasionally asked, this is meant symbolically here.  I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in visiting Jerusalem.  I.e., none.  This isn't mean to be rude, but I know it baffles people, and as I have a friend whose been once and who is planning to return again, I know I'll be asked that along these lines; "I'm going on the church trip to Jerusalem. .  . wouldn't you like to go?" followed by all the things that a person could see in Jerusalem.

That's great for people who want to see it, but I don't.  I don't have any interest in going anywhere in the Holy Land, which may be odd for a Christian, but I don't.  None.  Indeed, if I were to go to anywhere in the Middle East the locations would be limited to certain big desert areas as I like big deserts.  I'm not keen on cities in general, and particularly not large crowded ones.

FWIW, I often give the same reaction to other venues that feature lots of people.  "Wouldn't you like to go to China?".  No, I would not.  "London?".  M'eh.

Diocese of Cheyenne: "Those who have been fully vaccinated, who are well, who do not have underlying health conditions or are in a high-risk category, and who do not have significant anxiety of becoming ill by participating in Mass, should join their parish in celebrating the Eucharist. . . "