Is it a sin to defy Canon Law? Is obedience a virtue?

[lizaanne]

Is it a sin to defy Canon Law?

Is obedience to Canon Law a virtue?

What is your supporting argument for each position - do not just say yes or no.

~Liza

 

[Cristiano]

Considering that it is a sin to defy a law unless it is unjust, and considering that the laws of the Church are not unjust I would say that it is a sin.

Justice is one of the 4 cardinal virtues and you demonstrate it when you obey a just law.

 

[Brendan]

Here is Pastor Aeturnus ( Vatican I) on the subject
’

1. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.

Canon Law is an excercise of the “discipline and governance” of the Church, and the infallible First Vatican Council indicates that we are to submit to this power in true obedience.

Seems pretty ‘cut and dry’ to me.

 

[lizaanne]

Ok - so then, if I am to follow your reasoning, those who are saying that women MUST cover their heads because the law was not abrogated, are stating that such women are in a state of sin and are doing something which is immoral. Is that correct? If some believe that the law was never abrogated and and still stands (and they also believe as the previous posts have already stated that it is a sin to defy the law), then they must also believe that those who do not cover their heads are in a state of sin. It can’t be both ways, if we are to follow the reasoning of the previous two posts.

Also - if the law still stands, as some believe, then would a woman who covers her head be more virtuous than one who doesn’t?

Just trying to clarify this a bit.

~Liza

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Ok - so then, if I am to follow your reasoning, those who are saying that women MUST cover their heads because the law was not abrogated, are stating that such women are in a state of sin and are doing something which is immoral. Is that correct?

It does not matter what some people say, it matters what the Church actually says.

Here is what the current Code of Canon Law states;

Can. 6 §1 When this Code comes into force, the following are abrogated;

1° the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;

2° other laws, whether universal or particular, which are contrary to the provisions of this Code, unless it is otherwise expressly provided in respect of particular laws;

3° all penal laws enacted by the Apostolic See, whether universal or particular, unless they are resumed in this Code itself;

4° any other universal disciplinary laws concerning matters which are integrally reordered by this Code.

So if the law about women wearing a head covering was part of the 1917 code then it has been abrogated.

 

[SemperFidelis]

It does not matter what some people say, it matters what the Church actually says.

Here is what the current Code of Canon Law states;

Can. 6 §1 When this Code comes into force, the following are abrogated;

1° the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;

2° other laws, whether universal or particular, which are contrary to the provisions of this Code, unless it is otherwise expressly provided in respect of particular laws;

3° all penal laws enacted by the Apostolic See, whether universal or particular, unless they are resumed in this Code itself;

4° any other universal disciplinary laws concerning matters which are integrally reordered by this Code.

So if the law about women wearing a head covering was part of the 1917 code then it has been abrogated.

Debatable at best.

Canon 20 A later law abrogates or derogates from an earlier law, if it expressly so states, or if it is directly contrary to that law, or if it integrally reorders the whole subject matter of the earlier law. A universal law, however, does not derogate from a particular or from a special law, unless the law expressly provides otherwise.

Canon 21 In doubt, the revocation of a previous law is not presumed; rather, later laws are to be related to earlier ones and, as far as possible, harmonized with them.

Canon 27 Custom is the best interpreter of laws.

Canon 28 Without prejudice to the provisions of can. 5, a custom, whether contrary to or apart from the law, is revoked by a contrary custom or law. But unless the law makes express mention of them, it does not revoke centennial or immemorial customs, nor does a universal law revoke particular customs.

 

[lizaanne]

When I was talking with a canon lawyer this past weekend about this, he talked about “Canonical Custom” - which can “overide” an abrogated law. He cited a situation regarding a change in requirements for some form of vestments (sorry, don’t recall the details) and in some part of the world the requirement was NEVER followed and carried on for so many years that it was considered Canonical Custom and was allowed.

Perhaps a canon lawyer can elaborate on this here.

~Liza

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Is it a sin to defy Canon Law?

Yes.

Heb 13:17 “Obey your prelates and be subject to them.”

Titus 3:1 “be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient”

Rom 13:1-2 “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.”

“Universal laws bind everywhere all those for whom they were issued.” (1983 CIC, c. 12)

Is obedience to Canon Law a virtue?

Yes.

St. Thomas Aquinas: “obedience is a special virtue, and its specific object is a command tacit or express, because the superior’s will, however it become known, is a tacit precept, and a man’s obedience seems to be all the more prompt, forasmuch as by obeying he forestalls the express command as soon as he understands his superior’s will.” (Summa Theologica, IIb, 104, 2)

 

[itsjustdave1988]

if the law still stands, as some believe, then would a woman who covers her head be more virtuous than one who doesn’t?

If you have a doubt of law, I recommend you ask your bishop.

1983 CIC, c 16 §1 “Laws are authentically interpreted by the legislator and by that person to whom the legislator entrusts the power of authentic interpretation.”

As for covering heads, the Church has already stated that it is no longer normative:

**INTER INSIGNIORES, 15 Oct 1976
Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

…it must be noted that these ordinances, probably inspired by the customs of the period, concern scarcely more than disciplinary practices of minor importance, such as the obligation imposed upon women to wear a veil on the head (1 Cor 11:2-6); such requirements no longer have a normative value.

You are certainly permitted to wear a veil, but according the the Holy See, it is no longer normative. That means is is not longer a norm which is binding or obligatory.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Debatable at best.

Canon 20 A later law abrogates or derogates from an earlier law, if it expressly so states, or if it is directly contrary to that law, or if it integrally reorders the whole subject matter of the earlier law. A universal law, however, does not derogate from a particular or from a special law, unless the law expressly provides otherwise.

Canon 21 In doubt, the revocation of a previous law is not presumed; rather, later laws are to be related to earlier ones and, as far as possible, harmonized with them.

Canon 27 Custom is the best interpreter of laws.

Canon 28 Without prejudice to the provisions of can. 5, a custom, whether contrary to or apart from the law, is revoked by a contrary custom or law. But unless the law makes express mention of them, it does not revoke centennial or immemorial customs, nor does a universal law revoke particular customs.

Covering was not a particular or special law - it was canon law, i.e. contained in the 1917 *CIC *that is explicitly abrogated by the 1983 CIC. Also, you misunderstand custom. See below.

When I was talking with a canon lawyer this past weekend about this, he talked about “Canonical Custom” - which can “overide” an abrogated law. He cited a situation regarding a change in requirements for some form of vestments (sorry, don’t recall the details) and in some part of the world the requirement was NEVER followed and carried on for so many years that it was considered Canonical Custom and was allowed.

Perhaps a canon lawyer can elaborate on this here.

~Liza

Custom is a norm that, basically, gets enforced from the bottom up. It comes from the community and must be either praeter legem (beyond the law) or contra legem (contrary to the law). Custom attains the force of law (without becoming a law itself) either after the passage of 30 years or with the approval, tacit or explicit, of the lawgiver.

So, if a practice is mandated by the law itself, it is de fact not custom. When the law changes you can’t argue that the longstanding practice is - legally speaking - a custom. When the 1983 code went into effect, headcoverings were not a custom. They had been a legal requirement that ceased at that point, and it set the clock for becoming custom at 0. Since then it is possible that local communities have tried to enforce a custom of headcovering, but it is not a universal given.

Another point to note is that the practice must have the support of the community. It is something the community itself wishes to enforce. So if a pastor has been using option X, Y, and Z at a parish for 40 years (with transfers this is virtually unthinkable but has nevertheless been done), that doesn’t make it the custom of the parish unless it can be reasonably presumed that this was more than his personal initiative or imposition upon the parishioners - they need to have somehow been on board with enforcing this as well.

Finally, custom requires either 30 years without disapproval or some form of legislatorial approval to attain binding force, which means that virtually any binding custom today would have had to take the latter route (the clock got reset for nearly everything in 1983, making custom by sheer dint of time impossible until 2013 - you can also argue that everything contained in the GIRM gets reset every time a new edition is promulgated, which would start the clock for those issues in 2002!). This could happen explicitly, say by the bishop writing a letter to a church commending the customary practice he had heard about or seen, or implicitly, by the lawgiver observing some action and doing nothing to stop its occurring in the future. In the specific example of headcoverings, this would be extra hard because it would not be enough that he observes/learns that many/most/all women are covering; rather, he would have to be aware that they were *enforcing *(in at least some sense of the word) this custom. So it seems like you would need something like a sign at the door or greeters asking women to cover their heads (i.e. something more than a suggestion, but it wouldn’t have to be an outright demand like “You absolutely can’t go in with a bare head.”).

 

[Genesis315]

Is it a sin to defy Canon Law?

Is obedience to Canon Law a virtue?

What is your supporting argument for each position - do not just say yes or no.

~Liza

Yes and yes.

I think it is accepted that it is a sin to disobey Christ. Therefore, if Christ gives authority to someone, it is a sin to disobey them when they are acting within this authority.

Since Christ gave authority to the Peter and the Apostles and their successors, we must obey that authority for love of Jesus.

 

[otjm]

Well, now that everyone has waded in about the sinfulness of disobeying Canon law, let’s look at two examples.

The first has been coverd (no pun) about women wearing a hat or mantilla, etc.

That was not being observed for some time before the change in the Code from 1917.

The second one was also a 1917 Code requirement, that men and women sit separately. That one, too, was long not observed before the new Code.

Common sense would indicate that there are issues which are moral, and there are issues which have nothing to do really with morals, but rather customs. Both of these laws fall under the latter. While one could argue ad infinitum about the sin of disobedience, the Church seems to take a different approach; if something is more in the realm of a custom than a moral issue, obedience of the rule may not be strictly enforced, and failing to follow the rule may have no moral consequence.

 

[lizaanne]

Yes and yes.

I think it is accepted that it is a sin to disobey Christ. Therefore, if Christ gives authority to someone, it is a sin to disobey them when they are acting within this authority.

Since Christ gave authority to the Peter and the Apostles and their successors, we must obey that authority for love of Jesus.

Ok - so then, let’s use another example and get away from head covering (yes, I know, everyone cheers )

Can. 849 Baptism, the gateway to the sacraments, is necessary for salvation, either by actual reception or at least by desire. By it people are freed from sins, are born again as children of God and, made like to Christ by an indelible character, are incorporated into the Church. It is validly conferred only by a washing in real water with the proper form of words.

Can. 867 ß1 Parents are obliged to see that their infants are baptized within the first few weeks. As soon as possible after the birth, indeed even before it, they are to approach the parish priest to ask for the sacrament for their child, and to be themselves duly prepared for it.

Give the above laws, and that the majority of posters here feel it is a sin to defy Canon Law, are those parents who wait (for no serious reason, but only perhaps to time a party) to baptize their child, in a state of sin for doing so?

~Liza

 

[Sure]

Ok - so then, let’s use another example and get away from head covering (yes, I know, everyone cheers )

Can. 849 Baptism, the gateway to the sacraments, is necessary for salvation, either by actual reception or at least by desire. By it people are freed from sins, are born again as children of God and, made like to Christ by an indelible character, are incorporated into the Church. It is validly conferred only by a washing in real water with the proper form of words.

Can. 867 ß1 Parents are obliged to see that their infants are baptized within the first few weeks. As soon as possible after the birth, indeed even before it, they are to approach the parish priest to ask for the sacrament for their child, and to be themselves duly prepared for it.

Give the above laws, and that the majority of posters here feel it is a sin to defy Canon Law, are those parents who wait (for no serious reason, but only perhaps to time a party) to baptize their child, in a state of sin for doing so?

~Liza

Yes.

 

[Cristiano]

Ok - so then, let’s use another example and get away from head covering (yes, I know, everyone cheers )

Can. 849 Baptism, the gateway to the sacraments, is necessary for salvation, either by actual reception or at least by desire. By it people are freed from sins, are born again as children of God and, made like to Christ by an indelible character, are incorporated into the Church. It is validly conferred only by a washing in real water with the proper form of words.

Can. 867 ß1 Parents are obliged to see that their infants are baptized within the first few weeks. As soon as possible after the birth, indeed even before it, they are to approach the parish priest to ask for the sacrament for their child, and to be themselves duly prepared for it.

Give the above laws, and that the majority of posters here feel it is a sin to defy Canon Law, are those parents who wait (for no serious reason, but only perhaps to time a party) to baptize their child, in a state of sin for doing so?

~Liza

I think that waiting when lacking a serious reason it is sinful. The severity of the reason is not defined in the canon law and so that depends a lot on the intent. A party might not be the right reason but considering that baptism is a public event I would consider that waiting for a few special members of the Church to be present could be fine. However, it should be discussed with the priest before setting a date. I think that parents should get organized as much as possible before birth. In the case of my son we waited for 4 weeks in order to have my parents (his Godparents) to fly in from Italy. So it was baptized within the first 5 weeks. Is that sinful? Probably my parents were the only other Catholics present to the ceremony.

My last comment is that maybe the parents themselves are not duly prepared and they need to catch up with the basics of their religion to be ready for the baptism.

 

[cameron_lansing]

As noted above, it would not be canon law per se that would be defied in any case, but in another sense, the will of the legislator (i.e., the pope) who established the law. Yet there is more, of course. What are we actually obeying and who and why?

The law itself expresses deeper realities from which it is based. It is purposeful and it arises from Revelation and Tradition of the Church. Take a look at the document by which the present code was promulgated:

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_25011983_sacrae-disciplinae-leges_en.html

Why was the code promulgated? What purpose does it have in the life of the Church?

Perhaps it may expand or aid your discussion to also remember that there is a variety of types of law (something similar to literary genres) in canon law and they express different kinds of values. Knowing the type of law and its underlying values helps uncover why a particular law was promulgated.

Some laws impose duties, some assert rights. Some duties are heavier than others. Some rights are stronger than others.
Some laws encourage or recommend.
Some absolutely prohibit things being done, or may introduce the possibility of a penalty if they are done.
Some laws are a matter of keeping good order.
Some define or explain channels of power or authority in the Church, how power is obtained, and how it can be used.
Some set forth what has to be done for an action to be valid or for a person to have the capacity to do something.
Some are theological or magisterial expressions.Some have a basis in the moral teaching of the magisterium.
Some explain the fundamental notion of something in the Church so that you know what it is (e.g., a parish, a diocese, a personal prelature).
Some are expressions of divine law or very directly based on it, or promulgated to protect the observance of divine law.
Some are procedural (such as how to take votes or how laws come into existence or pass out of existence).
Some of these laws are not exactly matters of obedience. Some are fairly neutral (such as the computation of time or the definition of the age of majority).

So you would want to look at a particular law, and attempt to understand its type and discover the underlying principle. You would also need the context of the law and an appreciation of similar laws.

For example, in the question of parents delaying the baptism of children, you would also consider what baptism is, what it does, what its basis is in the theology and belief of the Church, what the duty of parents are. What values in Revelation and Tradition does canon 867 seek to protect and promote?

 

[Genesis315]

The Pope is also the supreme interpreter of canon law, and it seems to me that it has been interpreted to mean that headcoverings are not mandatory. I haven’t seen any reminders issued that this implicit canon is almost universally violated.

 

[lizaanne]

So you would want to look at a particular law, and attempt to understand its type and discover the underlying principle. You would also need the context of the law and an appreciation of similar laws.

For example, in the question of parents delaying the baptism of children, you would also consider what baptism is, what it does, what its basis is in the theology and belief of the Church, what the duty of parents are. What values in Revelation and Tradition does canon 867 seek to protect and promote?

Thank you, Cameron, I was hoping you would find this thread, I do always appreciate your insight.

I can’t respond with much right now - but hope to later!

~Liza

 

[childofmary1143]

The Pope is also the supreme interpreter of canon law, and it seems to me that it has been interpreted to mean that headcoverings are not mandatory. I haven’t seen any reminders issued that this implicit canon is almost universally violated.

Why is it that when I see the Pope in a photo with a Head of State that his wife is ALWAYS wearing a head covering then? I can recall seeing Hilary Clinton wearing one in the Vatican.

 

[Indyann]

Why is it that when I see the Pope in a photo with a Head of State that his wife is ALWAYS wearing a head covering then? I can recall seeing Hilary Clinton wearing one in the Vatican.

Perhaps, they are not Catholic and are unaware that is no longer necessary?

Perhaps, they just like the look?

Who knows?