You can listen to me explain my thesis off-the-cuff in Latin to Msgr. Ramacciotti (OGG) or (MP3).

There are plenty of mistakes and awkward silences, so enjoy!

I’ve posted online Nothing to Attract our Eyes, a little reflection I did on the beauty of our Lord’s passion and its connection with the priesthood.

I wrote this some time ago but never really did anything with it.

I recently came upon a blog post by Kate Childs Graham, I am a prochoice Catholic.

We could go into the usual arguments about the proper definition of conscience. I could bring up Veritatis splendor, which tells us what the Church means when she says that we must follow our consciences. We’ve talked about such things many times.

What stood out to me this time was the following quote:

I am adhering to the central tenet of Catholic teaching — the primacy of conscience.

I don’t know if I’ve ever heard anyone claim that the primacy of conscience is the “central tenet” of Catholic teaching. The center of the Catholic faith is not a tenet at all but the mystery of the Triune God revealed in the Person of Jesus Christ. The central tenet would be a codification of that as found in the great creeds: I believe in one God: The Father … and the Son … and the Holy Spirit.

I’ve really been enjoying Father Samuel Weber’s weekly class on Gregorian chant. His observations on the nature of the chant are so profound, simple, and human that they seem always new. I enter that class usually very tired and leave feeling invigorated, knowing better who I am and marveling at how great are the works of the Lord.

A connection today: The chant is very simple. The chant teaches us how to be human.

God is perfectly simple; he speaks only one Word. The Word of God saves us through his sacred humanity. The more we become like him, the more human and the more God-like we become.

Here’s a bad joke I came up with just now:

Q: What did Pontius Pilate say when St Thomas Aquinas asked him to prove Christ’s divinity?

A: “I find no cause in him” (John 18:38).

Genesis 3:6:

So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, and he ate.

At the point of the fall, Adam and Eve saw the pleasingness of form of the tree in opposition to what God had said to them, namely, that it would lead to death. The deception of the devil was that God had lied to them, that the fruit of the tree was really good for them whereas God had told them otherwise. Intimately bound up with the deception of the devil and the fall are the notions of truth, freedom, goodness, obedience, etc. Many important aspects of the fall must be examined. However, the fall also introduced into man’s heart a perceived split between Beauty and Truth.

The split that we experience between Beauty and Truth takes on different forms, perhaps, in every age, but it is fundamentally the same for all men with the stain of original sin. Man was made for Beauty as he was made for the Truth, and he seeks to fulfill these longings in many ways.

Classically, when the Gospel is unknown, the experience, appreciation, and appropriation of Beauty is sought through mythologies. The part of man that must be addressed through images, legends, myth, words, and song was not destroyed by the fall. Man without knowing the Gospel, then, uses primarily nature and the fundamental experiences of human life, conception, birth, mating, fighting, death, etc., to grasp at some encounter with the transcendent Beauty that eludes him. These longings are in themselves good, and the pagan expressions that arise spontaneously are not completely corrupt, but they are deficient and erroneous to varying degrees.

The knowledge of Truth is classically sought through philosophy. Part of man longs to know the First Cause of all things, to know what is eternal, solid, objective, and independent of man. Pagan philosophy grasps at the Truth and discovers it to certain degrees, but it cannot satisfy. What pagan philosophy discovers are perhaps facts; it is at best merely accurate. Man longs for more than this, for more than rote knowledge of true propositions.

In our own age, aesthetic relativism is rampant. In this attitude, the beautiful is seen to be radically and purely a matter of subjective taste. This leads modern man to seek to gratify his own taste without reference to what is true or good for him. Like a child who eats too much candy, modern man makes himself sick on entertaining trivialities and fleeting experiences. He needs an authentic experience of the transcendent but seeks it unknowingly through a flood of the superficial.

Christ offers the only remedy to the schism in our hearts between the longing for Beauty and the longing for Truth. He offers us the greatest story ever told, the true philosophy. In Christianity, man’s need for mystery and myth is super-satisfied but not with falsehoods that ultimately poison our souls. Rather, our capacity for Beauty is overwhelmed with Beauty himself, who is the Truth, not only in our imaginations but in reality.

Perhaps I spoke too soon on the question of sacramental form.

Cappello says on the sacrament of Penance (Tractatus Canonico-Moralis de Sacramentis, Editio 4a, Vol. II, p. 65):

67. I. Sacramentalis absolutio verbis proferenda est.

Sane:

1. Omnes libri rituales continent formam absolutionis oralem seu vocalem, quatenus semper exhibent ministrum proferentem ore absolutionem, et nunquam aliter.

2. Concilia Florentinum et Tridentinum docent formam huius sacramenti esse verba: Ego te absolvo etc.; immo non solum indicant huiusmodi verba formam exprimentia, sed etiam doctrinam generalem tradunt, praesertim Florentinum, quod << omnia sacramenta perficiuntur verbis tamquam forma >>.
<< A qua generali regula, scite monet Suarez, non est facienda exceptio neque improprie vel secundum analogiam de aliquo sacramento interpretanda, nisi ubi ex traditione Ecclesiae et consensu antiquorum Doctorum id constiterit >>.

3. Accedit communis doctrina theologorum qui docent absolutionem esse ore proferendam.
<< Solus Deus per auctoritatem et a peccato absolvit, et peccatum remittit; sacerdotes tamen utrumque faciunt per ministerium, in quantum scilicet verba sacerdotis in hoc sacramento instrumentaliter operantur in virtute divina… Unde sicut in Eucharistia sacerdos sola prolatione verborum super materiam perficit sacramentum, ita etiam sola verba sacerdotis absolveventis super poenitentem perficiunt absolutionis sacramentum >>.
Ita S. Thomas.

Quare absolutio scripto vel signo aut nutu dari nequit, etiam in gravissima necessitate. Proinde sacerdos mutus potest absolvere. Hinc apparet distinctio in hac re inter sacramentum poenitentiae et sacramentum matrimonii, in quo forma, nempe consensus, valide exprimi potest etiam signis seu nutu.

68. Non solum ad liceitatem, verum etiam ad valorem absolutionis sacramentalis requiritur, ut ore proferatur.
Verum quidem est, hanc doctrinam probari non posse ex natura rei, scil. ex natura iudicii, cum sententiae iudiciali minime repugnet eam scripto ferri. At sacramentum poenitentiae est positivae institutionis, secundum voluntatem Christi, et non aliter, administrandum; atqui ex Traditione constat voluntatem Christi fuisse, ut absolutio voce humana detur; ergo.

Quidam veteres theologi docebant verba non requiri ad valorem absolutionis, atque idcirco censebant valide confessarium absolvere signo aut scripto, itemque valide tum confessionem tum absolutionem inter absentes peragi posse per litteras. Haec opinio falsa est, ut patet ex dictis ac statem dicendis. Utrum in extrema necessitate confessarius praesans, destitutus omnino usu linguae, valeat poenitenti praesenti impertire absolutionem scripto vel signo, disputatur.

My Translation:

67. I. Sacramental absolution must be given with words.
For:

1. All ritual books contain an oral or vocal form of absolution, insofar as they always present the minister as giving absolution orally, and in no other way.

2. The Florentine and Tridentine Councils teach that the form of this sacrament is the words: I absolve you etc.; indeed they indicate not only the words expressing the form in this way, but they also hand on a general doctrine, especially the Florentine, which states “all sacraments are completed by words as the form.”
“From this general rule, carefully warns Suarez, we must not make an exception nor interpret it regarding some sacrament either improperly or by analogy, except where it is considered as being from the tradition of the Church and the consensus of the ancient Doctors.”

3. The common doctrine of theologians agrees who teach that absolution is to be given orally.
“Only God through his authority absolves from sin and remits sin; nevertheless priests do both through their ministry, inasmuch as the words of the priest are clearly working instrumentally in this sacrament with divine force… Wherefore as in the Eucharist the priest completes the sacrament only by the offering of the words over the matter, so also the words alone of the priest absolving [over] the penitent complete the sacrament of absolution.”
So also St. Thomas.

Wherefore absolution cannot be given by writing or sign or a nod, even in grave necessity. No more can a mute priest absolve. In this matter there appears a distinction between the sacrament of penance and the sacrament of matrimony, in which the form, namely consent, can be validly expressed even by signs or a nod.

68. It is required not only for liceity, but also for the validity of sacramental absolution, that it be given orally.
This is true however, that this doctrine cannot be proven from the nature of the matter, namely from the nature of judgment, since it is not repugnant in the least to a judicial sentence that it be given in writing. But the sacrament of penance is of positive institution, according to the will of Christ, and in no other way, is it to be administered; moreover there is an agreement from the Tradition that it was the will of Christ that absolution be given with the human voice; therefore.
Certain older theologians used to teach that the words are not required for the validity of absolution; and therefore they reckoned that a confessor validly absolved by sign or writing, and moreover that confession and absolution could be validly given through a letter. This opinion is false, as is manifest from the things said and to be said shortly. Whether in extreme necessity a present confessor, absolutely deprived of any use whatsoever of the tongue, would be able to impart absolution to a present penitent by writing or sign is disputed.

Can American Sign Language be used to supply the essential sacramental form of the sacraments? For example, can a priest sign “I absolve you” or “This is my body” or “I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” and validly administer/confect the sacraments of Penance, Eucharist, and Baptism?

This question is not new.

Dr. Ed Peters writes: “Rather, the ASL liturgical language question really comes down to whether a celebrant could offer Mass solely in sign language, without using an approved oral language (here, English) at the same time, even inaudibly.”

Dr. Ed Peters also writes:

Thanks for your kind words, as always, Jimmy. About your question on sacramental form and orality, I have (what I think is) an exhaustive analysis of that topic already finished. It is being juried for the professional journals now. In short, I think what we see is an example of, how to put it, Ecclesiae praxis aliquando docet doctrinam Ecclesiae. It really wasn’t hard to work it all out; St. Thomas, Regatillo, and Cappello provided the necessary tools.

Sacramental Form

Cappello, in the context of the history of the usage of the terms “matter” and “form” as applied analogously to the sacraments, writes (Tractatus Canonico-Moralis de Sacramentis, Editio 4a, Vol. I, p. 12):

Materia est pars determinabilis; forma est pars determinans, ea nempe quae determinat materiam ad rem individuam. Ita pariter in sacramentis: res sensibilis, v. g. aqua, est indeterminata; forma, v. g. verba, materiae applicata specialem significationem ipsi tribuit.

My translation:

Matter is the determinable part; form is the determining part, it is certainly that which determines the matter toward an individual thing. Thus likewise in the sacraments: the sensible thing, e.g. water, is undetermined; the form, e.g., the words, when applied to the matter gives it a special significance.

Cappello says on sacramental form (Tractatus Canonico-Moralis de Sacramentis, Editio 4a, Vol. I, p. 13):

Forma Est pars sacramenti, quae materiam determinat ad effectum sacramentalem producendum; et consistit generatim in verbis a ministro prolatis, vel, pro Matrimonii sacramento, etiam in signis, nutibus, facto, quae verborum locum tenere possunt.

My translation:

Form Is the part of the sacrament, which determines the matter in order to produce the sacramental effect; and it consists generally in the words offered by the minister, or, for the sacrament of Matrimony, even in signs, in nods, or in deed, which can take the place of words.

Regarding the form of Matrimony, Cappello further writes (Tractatus Canonico-Moralis de Sacramentis iuxta Codicem Iuris Canonici, Vol. III, #31):

Diximus verior certissime est, et vix non certa nobis videtur, quia verba Benedicti XIV in Const. << Paucis >>, 19 mart. 1758, sunt clara atque explicita: << Legitimus contractus materia insimul et forma est sacramenti matrimonii, mutua nempe ac legitima corporum traditio verbis ac nutibus interiorem animi sensum exprimentibus materia, et mutua pariter ac legitima corporum acceptatio, forma >> .

My translation:

We have said this is most certainly more true, and it seems scarcely uncertain to us, because the words of Benedict XI in the Constitution “Paucis“, 19 March 1758, are clear and explicit: “The legitimate contract is at once the matter and form of the sacrament of matrimony, indeed the mutual and legitimate giving of bodies by words or nods expressing the interior thought of the mind is the matter, and likewise the mutual and legitimate acceptance of bodies, the form.”

Aquinas says (STh. III, q. 60, a. 6, resp.):

Thirdly, a sacrament may be considered on the part of the sacramental signification. Now Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. ii) that “words are the principal signs used by men”; because words can be formed in various ways for the purpose of signifying various mental concepts, so that we are able to express our thoughts with greater distinctness by means of words. And therefore in order to insure the perfection of sacramental signification it was necessary to determine the signification of the sensible things by means of certain words.

He adds (STh. III, q. 60, a. 6, ad 2um):

And under words are comprised also sensible actions, such as cleansing and anointing and such like: because they have a like signification with the things.

In Latin (according to Corpus Thomisticum) this is:

Sub rebus autem comprehenduntur etiam ipsi actus sensibiles, puta ablutio et unctio et alia huiusmodi, quia in his est eadem ratio significandi et in rebus.

My translation:

Under things, however, are contained even sensible acts themselves, for example washing and anointing and other things of this kind, in these is the same principle of signifying [ratio significandi] as in the things.

My Thoughts

It seems to me, then, that the essence of the concept of form (as applied analogously to the sacraments) is that it determines the proper significance of the matter, that is, it expresses what is to be brought about whereas the matter on its own would be ambiguous in this regard. The notion of expressing the significance of the matter is taken to be objective, that is, even if the recipient of the sacrament does not understand what the words mean or even if the minister (with the proper intention) does not literally understand what the words mean the form is valid. Thus, the words of the form have a certain stable meaning. This is one reason why the Church is so keen on Latin; it guarantees that the meaning of the words does not change.

The issue, then, as regards the concept of what is essentially a “word” seems to me to be whether it is capable of signifying a meaning according to the mode of language. It seems a safe bet to me that older documents from ecclesiastical sources which use the term “word” regarding the form of the sacraments, even if they insist on the spoken character of the word, are presuming that all languages are spoken. Therefore, it does not seem to me to be contrary to these definitions of form to say that signs as employed in American Sign Language are “words.”

American Sign Language is a true, natural language with its own vocabulary and grammar. Thus, it is sufficiently complex to determine properly the significance of the matter of the sacraments.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith recently issued a response to two questions about whether baptism conferred “in the name of the Creator and of the Redeemer and of the Sanctifier” is valid. The answer is an unsurprising “No.”

Cappello doesn’t address this particular question–probably because the answer is obvious–but he does list as doubtful baptism “in nomine Genitoris et Geniti et Procedentis ab Utroque.” This formula, however, uses names which actually signify the divine Persons in their relations to one another whereas the invalid formula does not.

When people find out that I am researching angelology in association with the rite of Anointing of the Sick, it is fairly common for them to ask whether the prayers mention angels. I am usually forced to respond–unfortunately–that the current rite gives angels only a cursory–and even then optional–mention. However, this is really to lose sight of the reality, which is that there are angels everywhere (because they are acting everywhere) whether we acknowledge them or not. Usually, we do not even think about them much less talk with them or pray to them.

It is true that the older Rituale Romanum in the rite of Extreme Unction had important prayers asking for the protection of the good angels. I would argue that their role has not changed although the rite has. Everyone has an angel assigned to him for protection and guidance. Imagine how important that angel’s role is when the person is close to death! Really, the spiritual battle of the angels is so much larger than we can imagine (if we could imagine angels at all). We are caught up in it to some degree, but what if we try thinking of earth in the context of the angelic world rather than trying to fit angels into our world? Creation is much bigger and much more astounding than we can understand.

If angels are in charge of meteors and planets and stars¹ not to mention persons, countries, dioceses, etc. what about very small phenomena? What if there were an angel in charge of each electron? After all, if quantum theory is correct, then it seems that electrons can move from one orbit to another instantaneously. This is how angels travel (although they are not “in space” like bodies are). What if what we consider physics (and the laws of physics) is really morality–really the effects of personal creatures moving around matter? Don’t worry, I’m not really going to go so far as to say that God does not give to material things their own principles which guide their movements of necessity, but why not imagine that the occasional meteor (or electron) gets an angelic nudge Deo volente, of course? It does not seem to me to be too much to say, though, that angels are given a certain custody over material things (as a participation or a mediation of God’s Providence). It didn’t seem too much to Aquinas, either, if I recall.

There are more angels than men (probably very many more), maybe we should pay more attention to the majority rather than focusing on ourselves who are really only a small part of Creation? Once we see the larger world, we can recognize even more Christ’s great humility when he was made “lower than the angels” (Hebrews) by taking our human nature. We, now, through God’s graciousness can be in Christ above the angels.

---

1 Perhaps this is what St. Paul meant when he said that the gentiles “worshiped the creature rather than the creator” in Romans: the gentiles ended up worshiping the angels who were put in charge over the natural elements (not to mention the demons who wanted to be worshiped).