TRYING THE AXE'S EDGE

Editor's Note: As Americans settle back in anticipation of the approaching holiday feast, Pistrina will offer lighter fare this week and the next by answering a few e-mails about Traddie turkeys, their troubled orders, and the shameful decision to allow Dannie the Deacon to "ordain" Bede Nkamuke. In the weeks afterward, we'll get on to the saltus to explore in depth why holy Mother Church herself demands that "One Hand" be re-ordained and re-consecrated. But first, an email from someone who just may not be a fan:

Okay, okay, okay, Readers. I get your point. Fr. Cekada stumbled badly. He is no scholar, but you have to admit he is a valid priest. So just leave the priest be. He's toast anyway after your hatchet job.  My question is, why can't you go along with Fr. McAuliffe's opinion that "it is very probable that the imposition of only one hand would suffice for validity"? Remember, you defended him. You agree he was [a] real theologian. Then why can't you humbly accept his opinion and stop trying to scare everybody to death?

As long as you concede that being a valid priest doesn't render an under-educated wannabe immune from error, we can agree. For our part, we'll stipulate he's certainly far better off than his doubtful boss and the poor slobs ordained by him.  

You're right:  We did defend McAuliffe and his work against the Blunderer's cheap put down, but we can't see how exposing dodgy mistranslations, howling transcriptional blunders, text-critical simplemindedness, and the mischaracterization of undocumented hearsay as a decision of the Holy Office can in any way be a "hatchet job."

Since when is it invidious to expose, with surgical precision, gross error and slovenliness?

But before we reply to your questions, let's first say something one more time: We have never affirmed that one-handed priestly orders are invalid. We've always said we don't know for sure, and neither will anyone else until the Restoration. Our position is: The sacrament of order is so important that Catholics cannot tolerate a soupçon of uncertainty. The fix -- conditional orders -- is easy, and it's in keeping with Church's best past practice: reordinetur cum manibus.

Now that's done with, we can get on with our answer!

Although we think Fr. McAuliffe's judgment merits attentive consideration, our problem lies with his qualifier very probable. You see, very probable falls short of certainty (and sacred orders cry out for certainty). It's true the term very probable tells us that an opinion has a notable degree -- or, we might say, an abundance -- of probability. A very probable opinion (opinio probabilissima) can move a prudent man to assent more readily to the likelihood (verisimilitudo) of an opinion than if it were merely probable. Nonetheless, we must ever be mindful that something very probable, like something merely probable, is not manifestly true; it only bears abundant signs that can move us to assent.

With anything probable or very probable, there's always the chance of error, which means there's the presence of risk. In everyday life, we can live with a certain amount of risk, but decent traditional Catholics must harbor the lowest tolerance for risk -- we prefer zero -- in the sacrament of order. If mule-headed clergy refuse to remove the risk incurred by one-handed conferral of orders, then the laity's situation is not too much more advantageous than staying home alone, making an act of perfect contrition, and keeping the family treasure. (If the clergy's stubbornness bars them from pursuing the safe course, then the safe way for the laity is to become home-aloners.)

Let's defend our caution with what can only be called a perfect example. In 1932, the Spanish Jesuit Juan Ferreres wrote the following in his Derecho Sacramental (Sacramental Law)*:

Con respecto al presbiterado: ... Probabilísimamente [la materia] consiste en la sola imposición segunda de la mano que hace el Obispo juntamente con los presbíteros asistentes. (Lit.) With respect to the priesthood:...Very probably [the matter] consists in the single second imposition of the hand that the Bishop makes jointly with the assistant priests.

With the benefit of hindsight, we know today that the learned Fr. Ferreres was flat-out, dead wrong.  Fifteen years after the 4th corrected and enlarged edition of the book appeared in print, Pope Pius XII authoritatively taught:

In Ordinatione Presbytertali materia est Episcopi prima manuum impositio quae silentio fit, non autem eiusdem impositionis per manus dexterae extensionem continuatio, nec ultima. (Lit.) In priestly ordination, the matter is the first imposition of the hands of the bishop, which is done in silence, but not the continuation of the same imposition by the extension of the right hand, nor the last ...** (Our emphasis.)

Fr. Ferreres didn't know the truth at the time he wrote, for the magisterium had not yet decisively settled the matter and form of orders. He had to make an educated guess, presumably after reading deeply and consulting with eminent canonists.  Nevertheless, in retrospect, we know that through no fault of his own, this theologian's very probably was way, way short of the mark.

Perhaps Fr. McAuliffe wrote under similar invincible ignorance of a future decision that may consign his "very probable" opinion to the wastebasket of sacramental theology. So, while we admire Fr. McAuliffe, his very probable cannot calm our mortal fears in the face of a valid pope's explicitly clear, authentic teaching, which is: The matter of priestly orders = the first imposition of the bishop's hands.

Consequently, one-handed conferral of priestly orders, my friend, is very scary! Contrary to what the Blunderer erroneously wrote, the Church has NOT settled the issue. For true peace of soul, security requires not a theologian's probable assurances, but rather a written, dated, and certain ruling published by an uncompromised Holy Office. 

C'mon, Deacon Dannie -- get thee to a sanctuary and get fixed! (And then order your flunky the rector to fix Bede Nkamuke before he returns to Nigeria in December.)

* p. 186, IV (a)

** Denzinger 2301, ❡5. Here's the translation from the Canon Law Digest on papalencyclicals,net:"In the Ordination to the Priesthood, the matter is the first imposition of [Ed. Note: corrected from "off"] hands of  the Bishop which is done in silence, but not the continuation of the same imposition through the extension of the right hand, nor the last imposition..."