Sensible Sign

Question: I am to have an operation on my vocal chords and am required to maintain total disuse of the voice (even whispering) for two weeks. There is no hospitalization and return home the same day. If I concelebrate with another priest and form the required words with my lips while not vocalizing any sound, is that valid concelebration on my part?

Answer: As you present it, I don’t think that is valid concelebration. The desire to concelebrate is a good one; but, the “approved authors” seem to require more for validity than just physical presence and mental agreement.

For example, H. Davis writes: “The form of a Sacrament, being a sensible sign, must be pronounced orally and not conceived mentally only, and must be said with authority and power, not merely historically” (Moral and Pastoral Theology, III [1959], p. 10). Davis notes that Marriage is an exception in that a sign of consent is sufficient for validity, but the parties should be induced to express consent in words (Ibid.).

M. Zalba argues that the necessary “form” of consecration must be expressed “vocally” (vocaliter) so that it be truly “sensible” (Theologiae Moralis Compendium, II [1958] n. 486, p. 264.)

Noldin-Schmitt-Heinzel teach that the requisite conditions concerning the proper form are three: (1) vocalis; (2) sine interruptione; (3) sine repetitione. “Vocalis” for NSH means it must be pronounced so that the minister is able to hear himself since the pronunciation of the form must be sensible (Summa theologiae Moralis, III [1962] n. 16, p. 11) . For Noldin it must be de se audible, i.e., it can be heard by someone (minister), although per accidens others might not hear it due to other noise or distractions.

All the classic authors insist that the “sensible sign” must in some way be sensible (i.e., not purely mental. I have no competence to question, or, to offer medical advice, but it seems to me that the slightest whisper, even a mere vocal exhale of words — perceptible (sensible) only to yourself — would suffice for valid concelebration. If this is forbidden medically, then don’t accept a stipend.

Valid Absolution

Question: A question concerning the validity of confessions heard by the Priests of the Society of St. Pius X, outside the danger of death. The old Code provided for “common error” which I do not find in the new Code. Would former adherents of this Society, returning to full communion, be obliged to confess all grave sins confessed to a priest who lacked the required faculty from competent authority?

Answer: My answer to the last question would be no. As I understand it, members (or as you say adherents) of the Society of St. Pius X are in schism. It seems to me when you break communion with the universal Catholic Church, detailed canonical questions of precise jurisdiction and faculties become somewhat secondary questions.

It is true, according to canon 966, #1, that for valid absolution, it is required that in addition to the power of order, the minister must also have the faculty to exercise that power in respect to the faithful to whom he gives absolution. (Incidentally, the new [1983] Code does address “common error” (cf. cn. 144, #l. and it can apply to cn. 966 via cn. 144, #2). That law, of course, applies to all Latin Catholics in and under the jurisdiction of the Latin Church (cn. 1).

Those who have separated themselves from the Church and from her legitimate jurisdiction seem, to me, to be in a different category. Consider a convert to Catholicism from eastern Orthodoxy. We know their Baptism, Confirmation and prior sincere confessions are valid. If adults, we would require a Profession of Faith and reception into full communion. It would not even occur to me to revisit prior sincere confessions. When received into full communion in the Catholic Church, then the above canons that detail jurisdiction and faculties surely apply.

If someone should return from separated or schismatic status, it seems to me our first response should be “welcome home.” We might draw more light from the parable of the Prodigal Son in Luke l5:11-32 than from the retroactive application of possible canons: “Your brother was lost and has been found.” This answer may be over simplistic but it seems to me the more fundamental question is whether one is inside or outside the jurisdiction of the Church (canon 1) before questions of internal jurisdiction really pertain.

Also, there is something anomalous here in invoking “common error” via cn. 144, # l. That canon, like all canons in the Code of Canon Law, was promulgated by the authority of Pope John Paul II. It seems to me both strange and strained that anyone would appeal to the Pope’s legal authority while simultaneously refusing communion and obedience to the same Pope. That sounds to me like “uncommon error” or even uncommon confusion.

Judgmental?

Question: It seems to me today we are afraid to call a sin a sin for fear of judging others. The New Testament forbids judging lest we be judged but isn’t that distorted when any comment on any behavior is said to be against the Lord’s teaching?

Answer: You are correct — about actions, activities and standards we must make judgments; if not, the alternative is moral paralysis or moral silence. At the same time, we are never free nor really competent to judge the interior worth of anyone except ourselves.

In the Lucan version of the Sermon on the Mount (in Luke, On the Plain) we have, perhaps, the strongest warning against judging others: “Stop judging and you will not be judged. Stop condemning and you will not be condemned, . . .” (Luke 6:37-42). The measure you measure with will be measured back to you (6:38). 

Clearly, this does not mean you can’t make judgments; you do, I do, we all have to make judgments all the time. If some wild man is romping through a parking lot, rifle in hand, firing in the air, you have every right and duty to make a judgment — can someone restrain this wild man, or, get yourself out of his path pronto. Most drivers stop at the red and go on the green, but not every citizen in this land observes that treasured rubric all the time. You might even have the right-of-way, but if some mobile cowboy is coming at 60 m.p.h. on your green and his red, reason and self-preservation demand you make a judgment.

What the Gospel does forbid is judging the interior disposition of someone’s soul — their interior spiritual worth and standing before God. Only God can make that judgment; indeed, God is good at that, and we are not good at that at all. Any one of us who has been badly misunderstood in something entirely innocent knows well and knows personally how dangerous and unfair such quick judgments are about our interior disposition. When we are stung or hurt by unfair judgments should we not extend the same reserve to others?

On the other hand, objective behavior, Christian conduct or its contradiction, is not only the object of judgment but sometimes a requirement of proper Christian witness.

The Pope himself leads the way — one verse of the Old Testament John Paul quotes more often than most is Isaiah: “Woe to him who calls evil good, and good evil” (Isa. 5:20) Again, Pope John Paul in his encyclical, Dominum et Vivificantem (5/l8/86) teaches a result of an “upright conscience” is “first of all, to call good and evil by their proper name” (DeV, n. 43).

Consider how often Part III of the Catechism teaches authentic Christian morality — Christian virtues and objective conduct, i.e.. objective moral goods to be done and sought (these involve judgment), and, intrinsic evils and disordered acts. i.e., objective moral evils to be avoided always (again, judgments involved).

The best summary and guidance for me is the Lord’s own teaching and example in John 8:11 — to the woman taken in adultery: “Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more.” That prototypical verse is both a call to compassion (I don’t condemn you), and, a call to conversion (sin no more). Clearly, there is judgment here but nothing wrongfully judgmental. No one can call that unchristian; indeed, it is the very teaching of Christ. 

Please address questions to Msgr. Wm. B. Smith, St. Joseph’s Seminary, Dunwoodie, Yonkers, NY 10704. 

Back to Homiletic & Pastoral Review Table of Contents May 2001

Back to Catholic Information Center Main Periodical Page