Refuting an assault on Can. 2314 and a primer on periodic continence

+Pope St. Pius X+

September, month of the Sorrows of the Blessed Virgin Mary

Prayer Society Intention: “Those five wounds on Jesus smitten Mother! in my heart be written deep as in thine own they be.” — Raccolta

Introduction

We hear that a certain website called “fromRome” has recirculated an old error regarding Can. 2314 §1 that was long ago proven to be false. A reader has asked us to refute said claim for the sake of those who are not familiar with this particular error and we are happy to do so from articles written many years ago. We also have been asked to weigh in on the advisability of Natural Family Planning, a hotly contested topic among some LibTrads, and the Church’s official teaching on this should lay that matter to rest.

Can. 2314 misrendered

The website error reads: “The position of those who hold that formal[ly] manifest, public or notorious heresy, of itself, causes the loss of office, are manifestly contradicting the 1917 Code of Canon Law, for the English of this Canon reads:

Canon 2314: “All apostates from the Christian Faith and all and each heretic or schismatic:

Ҥ1 Incurs ipso facto excommunication.

“§2 Unless they come to their senses after having been warned, let them be deprived of benefice, dignity, pension office or other munus, if they have any in the Church; let them be declared infamous, and let the clerics, after having been warned again, be deposed.” For clearly, “let them be deprived” is not “they are deprived” ipso facto, but rather commands a juridical act of a competent superior, to remove them from office. This guts entirely what I call the classical Sedevacantist position proposed by many online bloggers.”

Canon 2314 point by point

First off, the quote above is a clumsy read at best which does not appear in any of my Canon Law commentaries. Notice the title of the text quoted is not provided by “fromRome.” My Woywod -Smith commentary under no. 2 reads a bit differently, as you might expect:

      “All apostates from the Christian faith, and each and every heretic or schismatic, incur the following penalties:

• 1. Ipso facto excommunication.
• 2. If they have been admonished and do not repent, they shall be deprived of any benefice, dignity, pension, office, or other position which they may hold in the Church; they shall be declared infamous, and if they are clerics, they shall, after renewed admonition, be deposed.” The first paragraph, §1, focuses on those who, having been guilty of heresy, apostasy or schism, are warned by their superiors (or even by the faithful) yet fail to desist from their errors. It is presumed said errors are not notorious. In all law, “they shall be deprived” means it is to happen regardless. But this is not the main problem. The main problem here is that this disingenuous LibTrad fails to cite no. 3 of this same canon, which reads:
• 3 “If they have joined a non-Catholic sect or have publicly adhered to it, they incur infamy ipso facto, and if they are clerics and the admonition to repent has been fruitless, they shall be degraded. Canon 188, n. 4 provides moreover that the cleric who publicly abandons the Catholic faith loses every ecclesiastical office ipso facto and without any declaration.” Where Can. 2314 §1 prescribes repentance to AVOID excommunication and infamy, by joining a non-Catholic sect, these censures and penalties are incurred automatically, without any declaration.

 Now there are several issues that must be addressed here to better explain this last paragraph of Can. 2314.

1. It is clear that all those claiming descent from LibTrad bishops of any stripe and color, be it Lefebvre, Thuc, or any other, presume their “orders” issue from Catholics, but they do not. Lefebvre and Thuc both celebrated the Novus Ordo, signed Vatican 2 documents, resigned their episcopal sees received from Pope Pius XII to accept titular sees from a false pope and died within the pale of the Novus Ordo, a non-Catholic church. This is a matter of public record. Not only did they belong to a non-Catholic church, they went on to create yet another non-Catholic church — traditional “catholicism,” the resurrection of an old heresy known as traditionalism. Therefore, they formally joined the Novus Ordo sect and founded their own Traditionalist sects, publicly abandoning the Catholic faith.
2. “They incur infamy ipso facto…” Infamy of law invalidates acts. The first article documenting this invalidity appeared on my website in 2009. Canon 2314 §3 declares that by the commission of heresy, apostasy or schism the offender also incurs infamy of law ipso facto. The canonists Revs. Woywod-Smith explain the effects of infamy of law under Can. 2294 §1: “The person who has incurred… an infamy of law… cannot validly obtain ecclesiastical benefices, pensions, offices and dignities, nor can he validly exercise the rights connected with the same, nor perform a valid, legal ecclesiastical act “(all emphasis within quotes in this article is the author’s). When imposed in the form of a penalty attached to law, this sentence takes place And only the pope can dispense from this vindicative penalty (Can. 2294 §3). This penalty is attached to Can. 2314 §3, and therefore took place with the first act of allegiance to the Novus Ordo. The canonist Rev. Charles Augustine writes under Can. 2294 § 1: “Legal infamy involves irregularity according to Can. 984 n. 5 and therefore no layman affected by it can receive the tonsure or any other order without an Apostolic dispensation… Legal infamy entails disability or disqualification for any ecclesiastical benefits, pension, office, dignity and if conferred the act is invalid (Can. 2391) … An infamous person must be prevented from cooperating in sacred functions…” (Not surprisingly, Peter Cardinal Gasparri notes in his Fontes that Pope Paul IV’s 1559 Cum ex apostolatus officio is the parent law of Can. 2294 §1). By Apostolic dispensation is meant dispensation by the pope, which he may or may not give and which is now impossible to receive. Abp. Amleto Cicognani, in his work Canon Law (1935), teaches: “An inhabilitating law renders a person incapable of performing a valid act. Properly speaking, it is a species of invalidating law for the effect is the same, with this difference only, that an inhabilitating law is not issued directly against a certain act but rather against a certain person, e.g., canons 2294 [on infamy], 2390 §2, 2394 §1and 2395, etcetera.” Ergo, LibTrad bishops were not capable of conferring valid ordination or episcopal consecration. Both they themselves and all those they attempted to ordain and consecrate were invalid. THIS is Canon Law.

3. Pope Pius VI in Auctorem fidei: “The proposition which teaches that it is necessary according to the natural and divine law, for either excommunication or for suspension, that a personal examination should proceed and that therefore sentences called ipso facto have no other force than that of a serious threat without any actual effect” (DZ 1547). Under Can. 2197, we find: (1) “An offense is public if it has already been divulged, or if it was committed under or attended by some circumstances that its divulgation may and must be prudently considered easily possible. (2) An offense is notorious by notoriety of fact, if it is publicly known and committed under such circumstances that it cannot be concealed by any subterfuge or excused by any excuse admitted in law; (that is, both the fact of the offense and the imputability or criminal liability must be publicly known). It cannot be objected on the one hand that the fact of the offense may have been publicly known, but not its imputability, when the faithful ran from the Novus Ordo church to avoid following the very bishops and priests who celebrated the NOM and followed the false Vatican 2 council. They recognized the fact and left because of its imputability, to avoid sin. But even aside from that, the very fact of their notoriety removes any need for a declaratory sentence. We read from Abp. Cicognani, quoting the theologian Chelodi, that according to Can. 2232 §1: ”The notoriety of an offence is held equivalent to a declaratory sentence” (page 703-704). Canon 2232 states: “No one can command that [a party] observe the penalty in the external forum unless the offense is notorious.”
4. Regarding the admonition to repent, Canon Law itself permits the faithful to issue such an admonition themselves regarding notorious heretics. Rev. Charles Augustine writes: “It is left to the discretion of the superior to declare a penance has been incurred, that is to issue a declaratory sentence. However, this sentence must be issued if the interested party insists or if the public welfare demands it, in the case of a corrupter or briber or a dangerous heretic.” We are then directed to Can. 1935, under the heading “Criminal Trials,” which states: “The faithful may, at all times denounce the offense of another for the purpose of demanding satisfaction or out of zeal for justice to repair some scandal or evil… Even an obligation to denounce an offender exists whenever one is obliged to do so either by LAW or by special legitimate precept or by the natural law in view of the danger to faith or religion or other imminent public evil.” Canon 2223 states it is as a rule left to the discretion of the superior to declare a penalty latae sententiae but he must issue the declaratory sentence if an interested party demands it or if the public welfare requires it.” As cited here many times, in 1957 Pope Pius XII ordered the faithful to carry on the duties of the hierarchy in their absence , and this is an order we cannot ignore. LibTrads “bishops” were first called out for their violations of Canon Law in the 1990 book Will the Catholic Church Survive…?
5. “The cleric who publicly abandons the Catholic faith loses every ecclesiastical office ipso facto and without any declaration…” That the Novus Ordo church departed from the Catholic faith and the headless Traditionalist church fails to perpetuate that same faith as Christ constituted His Church cannot be disputed. Why else did so many Catholics abandon the Novus Ordo in the 1960s and 1970s? As Rev. Nicholas Neuberger has explained in his Canon Law dissertation Canon 6, or the Relation of the Codex Iuris Canonici to Preceding Legislation (Catholic University of America, 1927): “Legislation may be converted into canons not in the identical but in equivalent terms. Most of the previous enactments are thus contained in the canons…There are canons which reproduce the old law in its entirety…Canons may restate the old law verbatim.” Or the old law can be expressed “in different terminology. This is the most common form of integral conversion of the old law. The codifiers had for their objective a succinct and pithy systemization of the law. It was necessary, therefore, to cast aside the narrative and also the dilated and dispositive part of the former discipline. Such reconstruction necessitated a change in terminology…

“These old laws have juridical force only inasmuch as they are embodied in the Canons. They are the interpretive norms of the new law whenever the new and the old coincide…Thanks to the eminent canonist Gasparri, not a little chaotic interpretation has been averted through the alignment of the sources under each canon” (pgs. 62, 70, 71). And it is precisely Rev. Gasparri whose Latin Fontes for the Code lists Pope Paul IV’s 1559 bull, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio as the old law on which Can. 188 n. 4 is based. In the case of Cum ex…,we learn that Can. 6 n. 4 tells us to actually adopt the old law, for it reads: “In case of doubt whether some provision of the canons differs from the old law, one must adhere to the old law.” The objector questioning Canon 2314 §1 is calling this law into doubt even though the law in its totality is clear and he has no reason to do so. Pope Paul IV’s Bull — the old law — infallibly refutes him as well:

“Further, if ever at any time it becomes clear that any Bishop, even one conducting himself as an Archbishop, Patriarch, or primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, even as mentioned, a Legate; or likewise any Roman Pontiff before his promotion or elevation as a Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has strayed from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy, then his promotion or elevation shall be null, invalid and void. It cannot be declared valid or become valid through his acceptance of the office, his consecration, subsequent possession or seeming possession of government and administration, or by the enthronement of or homage paid to the same Roman Pontiff, or by universal obedience accorded him, or by the passage of any time in said circum-stances. It shall not be considered to have given or to give any power of administration in matters spiritual or temporal, to such persons promoted as Archbishops, Patriarchs or primates or elevated as Cardinals or as Roman Pontiff. Rather, each and, every one of their statements, deeds, enactments, and administrative acts, of any kind, and any result thereof whatsoever, shall be without force and shall confer no legality or right on anyone. The persons themselves so promoted and elevated shall, ipso facto and WITHOUT NEED FOR ANY FURTHER DECLARATION, be deprived of any dignity, position, honor, title, authority, office and power” (para. 6). Rome has spoken and the case is closed.

Summary

The first three paragraphs of Pope Pius XII’s 1945 dogmatic papal election constitution, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedisincorporate the Canons quoted above and “seal the deal,” as the saying goes. They are written precisely for us today, living as we do in an extended interregnum. But during an interregnum, it does not require one commit heresy and infamy to invalidate ecclesiastical acts, although all the canons of the 1917 Code must remain firmly in place and any act violating them is automatically null and void. Rather, any usurpation of the power of the Roman Pontiff, such as approving bishops for consecration and assigning them a diocese as was mandated by the Council of Trent and Pope Pius XII’s Ad apostolorum principis; any erection of seminaries and presumption of office (for the episcopacy is first an OFFICE under Can. 147) is null and void during a vacancy of the Holy See. This to protect the Church from precisely what happened on the death of Pope Pius XII. Pius XII refers all such decisions to the future pontiff, canonically elected.

Concerning the Power of the Sacred College of Cardinals while the Apostolic See is Vacant

1. During the vacancy of the Apostolic See, regarding those things that pertained to the Sovereign Roman Pontiff while he lived, the Sacred College of Cardinals shall have absolutely no power or jurisdiction of rendering neither a favor nor justice or of carrying out a favor or justice rendered by the deceased Pontiff; rather, let the College be obliged to reserve all these things to the future Pontiff.1 Therefore, We declare invalid and void any power or jurisdiction pertaining to the Roman Pontiff in his lifetime, which the assembly of Cardinals might decide to exercise (while the Church is without a Pope), except to the extent to which it be expressly permitted in this Our Constitution.
2. Likewise we command that the Sacred College of Cardinals shall not have the power to make a determination in any way it pleases concerning the rights of the Apostolic See and of the Roman Church, nor attempt in any way to subtract directly or indirectly from the rights of the same on the pretext of a relaxation of attention or by the concealment of actions perpetrated against these same rights even after the death of the Pontiff or in the period of the vacancy.On the contrary, We desire that the College ought to watch over and defend these rights during the contention of all influential forces.
3. The laws issued by Roman Pontiffs in no way can be corrected or changed by the assembly of Cardinals of the Roman Church while it is without a Pope, nor can anything be subtracted from them or added or dispensedin any way whatsoever with respect to said laws or any part of them. This prohibition is especially applicable in the case of Pontifical Constitutions issued to regulate the business of the election of the Roman Pontiff. In truth, if anything adverse to this command should by chance happen to come about or be attempted, We declare it, by Our Supreme Authority, to be null and void.”

Rev. Nicholas Neuberger, in the Canon 6 dissertation quoted above further notes, concerning special law: “All special legislation is inviolate according to the prescriptions of Canon 6, no. 5 “(p. 54).  Special law is any law to which an oath is attached, such as Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, Quo Primum, Execrabilis, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis and others. They can be abrogated only by the specific order of a canonically elected pope, and even then, as evidenced by Pope Pius XII’s rewrite and update of Pope St. Pius X’s previous papal election law, the gist of the previous law is maintained. Our salvation depends on obedience to the Roman Pontiff: “We declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff” (DZ 469). “FromRome” has “subtracted”the third paragraph of Can. 2314 from consideration by his readers to make it appear that LibTrad clergy are yet valid, but this omission is null and void. As St. John advised the faithful to flee the bathhouse to avoid heretics, so we must flee.

A primer on Natural Family Planning (NFP)

Periodic continence was permitted long before Pius XII’s official approval of the method. Certain LibTrad sects condemn it simply because it is more accurate than earlier methods. But it is documented in Holy Scripture and mentioned by St. Augustine, as follows.  In 1 Cor. 7, vs. 5-6, St. Paul says it is lawful to abstain from marital relations if the abstention is sanctified by prayer (and both parties are willing – Rev. Leo Haydock commentary). Commenting on these verses, St. Augustine, in his treatise on Faith, Hope and Charity, Ch. 21, states: “We see the Apostles have granted indulgence in certain matters. Now it is possible this might not have been considered a sin to have intercourse with one’s partner in marriage, not for the sake of begetting children, which is good, but even for the sake of bodily pleasure, so that to those of weak self-control a means might be given of avoiding the fatal evil of adultery or fornication or some other form of impurity. It is possible, I say, had not the Apostle added, ‘But this I say by way of concession, not by way of commandment.’ Who, then, will deny that this is a sin, when it is agreed that it was by Apostolic authority, that concession was granted to those who do it?”

St. Augustine here states the sin in such matters is not the use of the concession itself, but its use outside dispensation granted by proper authority. He proves this by his subsequent comments on the matter. “The Apostle permits such cases between the brethren to be decided in the Church, other brethren giving the decision, but sternly forbids such actions outside the Church. It is clear here also what indulgence is being granted to the weak by way of concession.” Such permission is impossible now, which should encourage all those using NFP to pray for the guidance of the Holy Ghost to discern whether their motives and practice of this method are truly honorable and moral.

Earlier decisions on periodic continence

1. A bishop submitted a question to the Sacred Penitentiary asking whether those having relations only during the “safe period” are to be disturbed, especially if they have legitimate reasons for doing so. On March 2, 1853, the Sacred Penitentiary answered: “Those spoken of in the request are not to be disturbed, providing they do nothing to impede conception.”
2. On June 16, 1880 the Sacred Penitentiary, acting on behalf of Pope Leo XIII, issued a decree stating that those then practicing periodic continence were to be left undisturbed and added this practice could be cautiously advised by confessors.The decree states, “The insinuation of this course of action may be appropriated as a means of preventing formal sins or as offering a way out of a critical situation.”
3. On Dec. 31, 1930, in his encyclical letter Casti Connubi, Pius XI wrote: “Nor are those considered as acting against nature who, in their married life, use their right in the proper manner, although on account of natural reasons of time or certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth.” This reads the same in several translations. And it does not specify any restrictions to the means to achieve this end. As a rule of Canon Law reads, “Where the Code does not distinguish, neither should we distinguish” (Revs. Woywod-Smith commentary, Can. 1098). And this is especially true of papal laws and decisions.

Summary

In a 1951 address to Italy’s Catholic Union of Midwives, Pope Pius XII told his audience: “Serious reasons, often put forward on a medical, eugenic, economic and social grounds, can exempt from the obligatory service [of the marital right] for a considerable period of time, even for the entire duration of the marriage. It follows from this that the use of the infertile periods can be lawful from the moral point of view, and from the circumstances that have been mentioned, it is indeed lawful.” This is more than clear, and we must heed the voice of Christ speaking to us through His Vicar. This papal address is further explained below.

In his work Right and Reason, Rev. Austin Fagothey, S. J., wrote in 1958: “Are then married people obliged to have as many children as possible? NO, provided they use no immoral means to prevent them. With mutual consent, husband and wife are always allowed to refrain…The so-called “rhythm” method differs from artificial conception in that no immoral means are used. Relations are limited to comparatively sterile periods that nature itself provides. Since there is no obligation to demand marriage rights at all, there is no obligation to demand them at one time rather than another… Accidental circumstances can arise which make the having of children undesirable, at least for a time. Such reasons are practically reducible to four heads:

1. a) Medical – the health of one of the partners
2. b) Eugenic – a serious hereditary defect
3. c) Economic – inability to support a larger family
4. d) Social – such conditions as war or overpopulation

“Since the means is not wrong in itself, and so long as the intention is not mere selfishness but the avoidance of a serious difficulty, the ‘rhythm’ method is a morally justifiable solution. It is not at all the ideal of family relations, but like many other matters governed by the double effect principle, a legitimate way of tolerating the less good when the greater good is unattainable” (pgs. 367-69).

Many today are experiencing the crushing effects of both economic inability to support a family and the additional stressors of both physical and spiritual warfare and persecution. The necessary conditions exist also because of the inability, in many cases, to shield children from the plethora of evils that afflict the wicked world in which we live. Therefore there is certainty that NFP may be used, as long as the conditions above are observed. And because impossibility to consult Church authority excuses the faithful from the obligation, it can be used as long as it is accompanied by fervent prayer and does not unnecessarily open the spouses to temptations.