|
Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira
Chapter 4
|
|
|
One More Argument in Favor of the Hierarchical Essence of the Apostolate of Catholic Action: the Definition of Catholic Action by His Holiness Pius XI The problem of participation can be raised at this point. The theoreticians of Catholic Action who claim that it possesses a juridical position essentially different from that of the other works of lay apostolate base themselves on a twofold argument. We have already examined the first argument, that of the mandate, and proved that it has no value. The second argument is based on the fact that Pius XI defined Catholic Action as participation of the laity in the hierarchical apostolate of the Church. These teachers affirm that while other organizations are mere collaborators, Catholic Action is a participant in the hierarchical apostolate itself and thus has its own juridical essence different from that of the other works. Erroneous Theses What scope should be attributed to this understanding of "participation”? Opinions differ, some affirming that Catholic Action became an integral element of the hierarchy itself, others understanding that it exercises hierarchical functions without itself being included among the ranks of the hierarchy. The Manner of Refuting These Theses Our analysis of these teachings will maintain that: a. both share a false premise that renders them erroneous; b. their differentiating traits are also based on erroneous arguments; c. even if their imagined juridical positions were theologically admissible, an analysis of the words of Pius XI does not justify the affirmation that such status has been given to Catholic Action. The Elements of the Issue In keeping with the method we have used so far, we will begin by stating the elements of the issue. In the preceding chapter we saw that there is an essential difference between the powers imposed by the Divine Savior on the hierarchy of the Church and the tasks given by the hierarchy to the faithful. The former are rights in themselves, and pertain to government, the latter are tasks of subjects. The principle defined by the infallible authority of the Vatican Council (c. 10) is based on this: The Church of Jesus Christ is not a society of equals, as if all the faithful had among themselves the same rights; rather It is an unequal society and this not only because among the faithful, some belong to the clergy and others to the laity, but also because in the Church there is, by divine institution, a power with which some are endowed so as to sanctify, teach and govern, and with which others are not endowed. And the Council adds (c. 11): "If anyone affirms that the Church was divinely instituted as a society of equals . . . let him be anathema." The Error Common to the Two Statements We Refute The first question we should pose, therefore, is this: Is it possible to admit that Catholic Action is an integral element of the Church's hierarchy, or that, while not having hierarchical rank, it is at least invested with hierarchical functions? When establishing Catholic Action, His Holiness Pius XI encouraged all the faithful to work within it and thereby granted all of them the right to join it. This is so true that some people maintain that all Catholics, even those who practice merely the "minimum" necessary to avoid falling into mortal sin, have the right and obligation to enroll in Catholic Action. There are again some who believe that even Catholics who live in the habitual state of mortal sin can and should enroll in Catholic Action. Curiously enough, those who think this way are, in general, the ones who most ardently plead for the idea that Catholic Action is an integral part of the hierarchy or that it at least exercises functions of a hierarchical character. This said, we conclude that: 1. If all Catholics, even those living in the state of mortal sin, must join Catholic Action and the latter is an integral element of the hierarchy, then all the faithful have the obligation to become part of the hierarchy, a heretical opinion clearly contrary to the decisions of the Vatican Council. 2. If all Catholics who live in the state of grace can or should join Catholic Action, and if the latter is an integral element of the hierarchy, and as, on the other hand, the state of grace is accessible to all the faithful and is a state to which God calls everyone, one would conclude that everyone is called by God to be part of the hierarchy, which absolutely cannot be reconciled with the definitions of the aforementioned Council. 3. While Catholic Action is only for "the best among the good," according to the beautiful expression of Pius XI in the encyclical Non Abbiamo Bisogno, nevertheless no matter how hard one tries to refine this notion, it is not possible to maintain that the Holy Father would want the entrance into Catholic Action only of those elements called to a high sanctity which is not the vocation of the average faithful. So, even in the sense of an elite endeavor, Catholic Action would still be accessible to people of a degree of holiness to which all the faithful are called. Now then, as the Holy Ghost calls all the faithful to such holiness, if Catholic Action were an integral element of the hierarchy, the Holy Ghost would be calling all the faithful to be part of the hierarchy, which also contradicts the text of the Vatican Council. There was no shortage of highly meritorious authors who understood that Catholic Action, while not forming part of the hierarchy and without possessing hierarchical rank, nevertheless possessed hierarchical functions. In effect, the functions of the hierarchy, those of Holy Orders as much as those of jurisdiction, can be delegated or communicated, at least in part, without the person who exercises them by delegation or communication becoming an integral part of the hierarchy. Thus, the function of confirming—this is the example given by a learned and illustrious author—is proper to the bishop in the hierarchy of Holy Orders. Now, this function can be delegated to a priest, who, by such delegation, neither becomes a bishop nor obtains a special post in the hierarchy of Holy Orders. The functions of the hierarchy can be delegated, therefore, to someone who is not part of it. Accepting this thesis only for the sake of argument, we reach an interesting set of conclusions that lead us to realize its complete opposition to the doctrine of the Vatican Council: 1. The Council says that "there is in the Church a power with which some are endowed so as to sanctify, teach, and govern, and with which others are not endowed;" supernatural society is, therefore not only unequal because some have greater powers than others, but even more, because there are some elements with no power at all while others possess power. In other words, there are subjects and governors. 2) Now, if Catholic Action receives hierarchical functions albeit without a hierarchical post, it receives a hierarchical power, and especially so considering that this power is not bestowed upon it transitorily but rather definitively since nothing indicates that Catholic Action is an institution founded only as an emergency measure. 3) The founding of Catholic Action would have implied, therefore, for the laity, the obligation, or at least the right—which according to divine and ecclesiastical recommendation they should implement—to raise themselves to the exercise of hierarchical functions. This would erase the essential distinction existing between subjects and governors. Someone could object that there will always be people who resist and who will not join Catholic Action. As a result, there will always be subjects, and, therefore, the essential inequality of the Holy Church will not disappear. The argument does not hold. In effect, it would always remain true that, in accordance with the Church's desire, everyone should be part of Catholic Action, and therefore, the Church would desire that the category of subjects disappear. Now then, the Church cannot have such a desire, since the Vatican Council declared that the distinction between subjects and governors is of divine law. Thus, the Church, being infallible and incapable of contradicting herself, did not desire it. * * * Having thus proven that both doctrines on "participation" presuppose the possibility of a juridical situation in Holy Church that is impossible, and that both share a common underlying error, let us now see how they differ and how both are erroneous in these differences as well. The Particular Error of Those Who Maintain That Catholic Action Participates in the Hierarchy We know that in Holy Church women are not capable of belonging to the hierarchy, that is, neither the Hierarchy of Orders nor the Hierarchy of Jurisdiction. Both women and men were called, however, to join Catholic Action, and no item can be shown in any papal document that specifies an essential difference between the juridical positions of men and women in Catholic Action. As a result, there is not, to our knowledge, a single commentator of Catholic Action who maintains the existence of such an essential difference. Therefore, the position that a man has in Catholic Action is identical to that a woman can receive within the Holy Church. So, it is not a position that integrates him into the hierarchy, to which women cannot have access. Besides, with no intention of underestimating the invaluable services rendered by what the Liturgy calls "devotus femineus sexus," (1) services for the Church that began with Our Lady and that will only terminate with the end of times, it is proper to remember that Holy Church rules that in confraterinities erected "for the embellishment of public worship," (2) "women may be enrolled…only for the purpose of gaining the indulgences and spiritual favors granted to the members." (3) What would Saint Paul say if he heard mention of this idea of women being incorporated into the hierarchy, he, who wrote to Timothy: "Let the woman learn in silence, with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence." (4) He added, writing to the Corinthians: "Let women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted them to speak, but to be subject, as also the law saith….For it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church." (5) This stated, it is easy to understand how it is contrary to the spirit of the Church and the character of ecclesiastical legislation for women to exercise a power of hierarchical nature. The Particular Error of Those Who Maintain That Catholic Action Has Hierarchical Functions As for those who affirm that Catholic Action has a hierarchical function without a hierarchical position, we will not examine whether or not their opinion is compatible with the preceding argument. Suffice it to show that they stem from a false starting point, as they seem to ignore that every function given to someone in a permanent way implies the creation of a post. It is true that a simple priest can administer the sacrament of Confirmation, without, as a result, acquiring a new position in the hierarchy of Holy Orders. But when he exercises this function in a permanent capacity and as result of his office, he receives a position and a rank of his own. Such is the case of Apostolic Prelates and Apostolic Vicars, simple priests with important elements of the powers of a bishop. Hierarchical powers are divisible. Hence the institution by the Church of levels in the hierarchy, side by side with the levels of divine institution. Nevertheless, whenever this separation is done on a permanent basis, and someone is benefited permanently thereby, a post is created for the person in charge of this hierarchical function, which in every case is also hierarchical even though not one of the degrees of the hierarchy itself. In view of what the Vatican Council affirmed, how can one not perceive the difficulties that stem from the idea that not only one or another of the faithful, but the whole mass of them, could have access to such posts? True, certain functions of the hierarchy of jurisdiction could, in theory, be made available to laymen. But this is something quite different from associating, even potentially, the mass of the laity to the exercise of these functions. Conclusion There is no "participation" of Catholic Action, therefore, either in the hierarchy or in the hierarchical functions. If Pius XI used the expression "participation of the laity in the hierarchical apostolate of the Church" to define Catholic Action, this definition must be understood according to what has already been said, as it is a general rule that any definition must be understood according to the set of principles of the person who made it. Should we understand that Pius XI used an unfortunate expression, susceptible to false interpretations, when he defined Catholic Action as "participation?" Shall we be forced to torture the text, to twist its upright interpretation in order not to establish an opposition between him and the Vatican Council? In no way. Stating that the laity "participates by Catholic Action in the hierarchical apostolate of the Church," the Holy Father used an expression that, in a perfectly normal and exact sense, adheres to and is consistent with what the Vatican Council defined, as we will now demonstrate. * * * Even If the Previously Refuted Theses Were Admissible, Pius XI Did Not Give Catholic Action Participation in the Hierarchy or in Hierarchical Functions The word “apostolate” derives from the Greek word apóstolos, to send. We can take it in two principal senses. As we saw, Our Lord Jesus Christ in fact gave the hierarchy the mission of distributing the fruits of the Redemption, and He accompanied this imperative gift with the privilege of exclusivity, so that this mission can only be accomplished by the hierarchy or by those who, not members of it, are mere instruments of it, accomplish the plans it has in mind, and obey the guidelines it gives toward this end. In this radical and absolute instrumentality resides all the legitimacy of the faithful's collaboration with the hierarchy in apostolic activity. If this instrumentality were to cease to exist, the hierarchy would be unable to use these instruments, and the faithful, unable to legitimately cooperate with it. It is not the case here to know in what manner or by what kind of voluntary act the hierarchy subordinates the lay apostolate to its intentions. Whether by an imperative order, by advice, or by an express or tacit permission to act, the will of the hierarchy must be inserted in the act of the layman lest it should be radically illicit. Analysis of What "Hierarchical Apostolate" Is Let us now see in what sense the expression "hierarchical apostolate" can be used. It may refer to: 1. the mission, task, or responsibility given by Our Lord to the hierarchy; 2. the acts of apostolate which by nature are essentially hierarchical and which the hierarchy could not cease to exercise without abdicating inalienable and essential parts of its power. Relationship between Hierarchical Apostolate and Lay Apostolate Let us examine the first sense. What is the mission given by Our Lord to the hierarchy? As we saw, it is the distribution of the fruits of Redemption. In this task, there are certainly functions which can, in a merely instrumental way, be exercised by the mass of the faithful. As we saw, every instrumental—and merely instrumental—collaboration it may thus render to the hierarchy will be legitimate. Merely legitimate? Not merely legitimate, but clearly and unmistakably desired by the Redeemer. In effect, He instituted a hierarchy which is obviously insufficient to fulfill its own purpose in all of its extension without the assistance of the faithful; in this way the evident will of the Savior was expressed, that the faithful be the hierarchy's instrumental collaborators in the fulfillment of the great work committed to its sole charge. This is to say, in the words that the first Pope wrote, "But you are a chosen generation, a kingly priesthood, a holy nation, a purchased people: THAT YOU MAY DECLARE HIS VIRTUES, WHO HATH CALLED YOU OUT OF DARKNESS, INTO HIS MARVELOUS LIGHT." (6) So embedded in the thought of Pius XI is this notion that he does not hesitate to label as Catholic Action the efforts developed by the laity in this line since the dawn of the Church's life. Let us listen to him: The first spread of Christianity in Rome itself happened through and because of Catholic Action. Could it have been done otherwise? What would the Twelve have done, lost in the immensity of the world, had they not gathered people about them.…Saint Paul closes his Epistles with a list of names: a few priests, many seculars, some women: “Help those women who have labored with me in the Gospel (Phil. 4:3). It is as if he had said: They belong to Catholic Action. (7) There were, therefore, two missions in pursuance of the same objective, one for the hierarchy, the other for the faithful; one to govern, the other to serve and obey. Both missions come from the same divine Author, both should be performed through work and struggle, and have as a common purpose the same goal, that is, the expansion and exaltation of the Church. In other words, the mission of the faithful consists in exercising the part of instrumental collaborators in the mission of the hierarchy, that is, THE FAITHFUL PARTICIPATE IN THE HIERARCHICAL APOSTOLATE AS INSTRUMENTAL COLLABORATORS, since "having part" means, in the most proper sense of the word, to participate. Thus, giving to the words "apostolate" and "participation" their natural meaning, without tormenting a single word of the pontifical definition nor distorting any meanings, we reach the conclusion that Pius XI, in affirming that Catholic Action is a participation in the hierarchical apostolate, wished to say that it is purely and simply a collaboration, a work that is essentially instrumental and whose nature does not diverge essentially in any way from the apostolic task carried out by organizations alien to the structures of Catholic Action, and that the latter is a subject-organization like every and any organization of the faithful. This, by the way, was stated by Pius XI himself, when he said, in the speech to the bishops and pilgrims of Yugoslavia, on May 18, 1929, "Catholic Action is not a novelty of the present times. The Apostles laid its foundations when, in their pilgrimages to spread the Gospel, they asked help from the laity.” (8) In other words, the Pope said that the essence of Catholic Action is absolutely the same as that of the lay collaboration rendered since the early times of the Church. Summarizing, in the plans of Providence the mission of the faithful participates in the mission of the hierarchy as an instrument participates in the work of the artist. Between mission and mission, or work and work, the participation is absolutely the same. As with the artist, the quality of the agent does not pass intrinsically to the instrument but takes advantage of certain ordinary qualities of the instrument for the fulfillment of the purpose that is properly and exclusively the artist's own; so also the hierarchical nature of the mission entrusted to the Twelve and their successors does not pass on to the instrumental collaboration of the faithful but rather makes use of this collaboration for a purpose that transcends the capacity of the faithful and pertains solely to the hierarchy. Art is exclusive to the artist, and in no way can it be ascribed to the brush. As can be seen, the relationships between work and work, mission and mission, constitute an effective and real participation, conforming in everything to the demands of philosophical terminology no matter how strict: to participate is to take part. All of this means that the classical definition of Pius XI should be understood as a participation of the faithful in the apostolate of the Church, which is hierarchical, and not in the sense of participation of the faithful in the authority and apostolic functions that only the hierarchy can exercise in the Church. Did the Definition of Pius XI Give the Laity a Participation in the Hierarchical Powers? Many authors on Catholic Action, nevertheless, choose to accept the latter of the aforementioned meanings as the exclusive expression of Pius XI's thought. Interpreting the term "participation" in only one of the various senses that philosophical terminology legitimately gives it, they inferred, as a result, that the laity is integrated into the hierarchy or, at least, exercises essentially hierarchical functions. We already demonstrated that this interpretation is erroneous since it conflicts with the Vatican Council. We shall now show that it is unfounded. Various Meanings of "Participation" In logic one learns that words may be univocal, equivocal, or analogous. Only univocal words admit just one meaning. Analogous words are those which have, legitimately, a partially identical and partially different meaning. In the best philosophical terminology, then, analogous words have, in an absolute and indisputable way, more than one meaning, as, for example, the analogous verb par excellence, "to be," which is the basis of all human knowledge and is applied legitimately in any of its innumerable meanings. Which of Them Is the Legitimate One? Any freshman in philosophy possesses this notion and is not unmindful that the word "participation" is analogous, signifying proportionally identical but partially different realities, such as, for instance, the following kinds of participation: a) integral participation; b) potential univocal participation; c) potential analogous participation. If we were to admit as philosophically correct only the first two meanings, we would necessarily fall into pantheism when metaphysics states that "the contingent being has being by participation of the necessary being." Consequently, all these cases have a strictly philosophical value. Thus, it is not true that when an analogous word is used in philosophical language, one should only understand the word in its most exclusive sense. If such had been the intention of Pius XI, he would have affirmed that the apostolate of Catholic Action is an integral participation in the apostolate of the hierarchy or, in other words, that Catholic Action is an integral element of the hierarchy. As this statement is heretical, it could not have been his intention. On the other hand, Pius XI directly excluded this use of the word "participation" when, in his Letters Con singular complacencia (9) and Quae Nobis, (10) and in Laetur Sane he affirmed that the "lay people should come to take part, in a sense, in the apostolate of the ecclesiastical hierarchy." As the renowned Msgr. Luigi Civardi points out, (11) this expression shows well what this most worthy author calls the "relative meaning" of the word "participation." Faced with several legitimate meanings, which should one choose? Having denied the choice of the narrower meanings over the less narrow ones, we have a very sure criterion. Participation and Collaboration Among the various interpretations of the word "participation," there is one that has precisely the meaning of collaboration. It is "potential analogous participation." In the sense we are using the expression "hierarchical apostolate," it in fact refers to the apostolic duties that are proper for the hierarchy as such to perform. Now, the apostolate the laity can perform participates in the apostolate proper to the hierarchy as such through a material resemblance founded in reality. The specific form of such apostolate differs, however, between one and the other case, since the action of subjects cannot be identified with the hierarchical action. In this perfectly philosophical sense, the collaboration of the laity in the hierarchical apostolate of the Church is a true potential analogous participation, in which there is nothing metaphoric. The Definition of Pius XI: Its True Meaning We know that this was the sense in which Pius XI used the word, it being affirmed by the Pontiff himself, with dazzling clarity and piercing evidence, when he defined Catholic Action, sometimes as "participation" and at other times as "collaboration" in the hierarchical apostolate, thus giving us to understand that the defined object was as much participation as collaboration. In other words, it was that form of participation that is entirely equivalent to collaboration. So, even if we were to accept the meaning of the word "apostolate" that we use here argumentandi gratia,(12) sound logic would lead us to understand that the "participation in the hierarchical apostolate" is merely "collaboration." In fact, in the thought and pen of Pius XI, the words "participation" and "collaboration" are equivalent. This is said by one of the most learned researchers and commentators on the papal documents about Catholic Action. Writing on this subject, Archbishop Guerry, in his very well-known work L'Action Catholique, emphasizes that the "Holy Father uses in his definitions the words collaboration and participation, sometimes in the same phrase, but more often separately and without distinction between one and the other." (13) This declaration is precious, since Archbishop Guerry is generally considered, as we said, one of the best experts on the numerous pontifical texts regarding Catholic Action, and he made a compilation of them that has spread worldwide. Having said this, we refrain from reproducing here the multiple texts that justify the illustrious writer's affirmation. And when it comes to writing about Catholic Action, it is superfluous to emphasize the authority of Msgr. Civardi, which is worldwide. (14) In the article quoted above, the illustrious author of Manual of Catholic Action points out that in more than one papal document the word "participation" is interchanged with the word "collaboration." If Pius XI made no distinction between the two words, what right do we have to establish such distinction, dwelling on the niceties of arguments with the intention of establishing between the words a difference of meaning that evidently was not in the Pope's mind? "Where the law does not distinguish it is illicit for anyone else to do so." Hence, Monsignor Civardi rightly affirms in the aforementioned article, that the word "collaboration" helps us gauge the scope of the word "participation" in the writings of Pius XI. This rule of exegesis is of elementary common sense. When two different words are used to designate the same object, it is evident that they are used in the same sense. This principle of hermeneutics is explained by one of Brazil's most eminent jurists, Carlos Maximiliano, who defines it thus: "If the object is identical, it seems natural that the words, though different, have a similar meaning." (15) The advocates of the opinion we refute hold that there is an unbridgeable divide between the concepts of participation and collaboration. If that is the case, the Holy Father, when designating the same object with both words, used one of them in an elastic sense. Which one of them? He himself says that Catholic Action is "somehow a participation." So, the same partisans of the refuted opinion must understand that Pius XI defined Catholic Action as a legitimate collaboration and that he somewhat forced the meaning of "participation." We do not even concede, however, that Pius XI forced the meaning of the word "participation." In the present case, the word "collaboration" has only one meaning, and the word "participation" has several: one, broad as it might be, is collaboration. Consequently, this is the sense of both words. We insist also that Pius XI, who said that Catholic Action is "somehow" a participation, never said that it is "somehow" a collaboration, always using the latter word without any kind of restriction. Semi-official Clarification of the Definition of Pius XI Having ascended to the Throne of Saint Peter, Pius XII was not deaf to the rumble of rash opinions on this subject spread just about everywhere. And, probably not wishing to proceed with the severity of a judge before acting with the mildness of a father, he delivered an allocution more than two years ago that was published in L'Osservatore Romano, the quasi-official publication of the Holy See. The Holy Father referred to Catholic Action more than twelve times, exclusively using the words "collaboration" and "cooperation," and omitting the word "participation." If the Pope had wanted to avoid any abusive interpretation of the word "participation," he would not have acted in any other way; and that is enough to understand what the Vicar of Christ had in mind. But the Holy Father did not stop there: Recommending the greatest harmony between Catholic Action and the previously existing organizations of piety, he stated: Italian Catholic Action, while being the principal organization of militant Catholics, admits at its side other associations that also depend on ecclesiastical authority, some of which, having aims and methods of apostolate, can well be considered collaborators in the hierarchical apostolate. In other words, it is the Pope himself who affirms the identical position of both Catholic Action and auxiliary associations as collaborators in regards to the hierarchy, and implicitly makes it clear that when Pius XI spoke of "participation," he gave this word no other meaning than that of "collaboration." The problem, by the way, was expressly aired in an article published in Italy, and transcribed in the Boletim da Ação Católica Brasileira, by His Eminence Cardinal Piazza, appointed by Pius XII a member of the Episcopal Commission directing Catholic Action in Italy. We transcribe the precious document in its entirety as an appendix. No one can dispute its authority. It would be an insult to Holy Mother Church to suppose that Pius XII would have wanted to deny or correct Pius XI, all the more since the reigning Pontiff himself declared that in regards to Catholic Action he wanted to be nothing more than a faithful continuation of the work of Pius XI. On the other hand, it would be an insult to Cardinal Piazza to suppose that, in carrying out a responsibility in the Pope's confidence, he would have taken a decisive attitude regarding a subject of such importance without the elementary precaution of first consulting the Pontiff, whose opinion it would be easy for him to obtain. Let us not imagine in the Holy Church of God the existence of such disorganization that not even the most modest private commercial enterprises could bear; no manager denies the existence of a juridical situation established by the business's owner without first consulting the latter. Would it be possible, on the other hand, to imagine that the Pope would have appointed to a position of such magnitude someone who disagreed with His Holiness on a fundamental subject intimately connected with the ecclesiastical administration to be implemented? "Participation" in the Light of Canon Law Let us examine, finally, a serious difficulty raised by Canon Law against the opinion we challenge. If the mandate, or participation, granted by Pius XI were to have the meaning we challenge, it would imply in the revocation of numerous and important articles of Canon Law, which currently establish the impossibility of the laity's access to hierarchical power. (16) Now, whoever is familiar with the Holy Church's process of government, the supreme care with which She legislates, and the perfect prudence with which She habitually presides over Her deliberations, cannot imagine that Pius XI would permit such an important alteration of Canon Law to dwell implicitly, as it were, in his definition of Catholic Action without some legislative act that would define and evince the exact scope of the new reform. Above all, one cannot imagine that Pius XI would destroy the current order of things without providing regulations for the new order at the very onset, thus abandoning the field of Holy Church to the free course of individual whims, fantasies, and passions, which, as we shall see in the next chapter, assumed frightening aspects. Whoever might think this way does not know the Holy Church of God, Her spirit, history, or customs. The least prudent head of state, the most careless provincial governor, the most ignorant leader of a municipality, would not act this way: the most elementary common sense would make him foresee the catastrophic consequences of his conduct. So also, the Holy Church of God did not act this way, nor could She have acted this way. Conclusion What stands out in all of this is that even if the Holy Father had wanted to alter the juridical essence of the lay apostolate in Catholic Action, he did not do so. We alert the reader to the fact that, as stated above, we accept the affirmation that Catholic Action has a mandate and a participation, but we maintain that the legitimate meaning of these words is nothing but "collaboration" and does not imply the recognition in Catholic Action of any juridical character different than that of other works of lay apostolate. Notice This having been said, for the sake of convenience we will henceforth employ these words in their bad sense, which we impugn. Notes: 1) “The devout feminine sex.” 2) T. Lincoln Bouscaren, S.J. and Adam C. Ellis, S.J., Canon Law: A Text and Commentary (Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Co., 1951), Can. 707 §2, p. 367. [Trans.: All of the author’s quotes and crossreferences to Canon Law refer to the Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law of 1917.] 3) Ibid., Can. 709 §2. 4) 1 Tim. 2:11-12. [Trans.: Unreferenced biblical quotes are from the Douay Rheims version. NAB-referenced quotes are from the New American Bible.] 5) 1 Cor. 14:34-35. 6) 1 Pet. 2:9. (Our emphasis.) 7) Pius XI, Address to the Affiliated Workers of the Feminine Youth of Italian Catholic Action, Mar. 19, 1927, in Alonso, pp. 104-105. 8) Pius XI, Address to the Bishops and Pilgrims of Yugoslavia. 9) Pius XI, Letter Con Singular Complacencia to the Episcopate of the Philippines, Jan. 18, 1939. 10) Pius XI, Letter Quae Nobis to Cardinal Bertram, Nov. 13, 1928. 11) Cf. Boletins da Ação Católica, Nov. 1939. 12) “For argument’s sake.” 13) Most Rev. Emile Guerry, L’Action Catholique (Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1936), p. 159. (Our emphasis.) 14) [Trans.: In 1925, Pope Pius XI appointed Msgr. Civardi Ecclesiastical Assistant to the Central Office of the Italian Catholic Action.] 15) Carlos Maximiliano, Hermenêutica e aplicação do Direito, p. 141. 16) Cf. Can. 108.
|
|
