Concluding Nullo, round one

3/30/21

Cimabue, "Christ's Flagellation"

Conclusion

Next the SRC affirms the zeal and industry of the Bishops to advance the same purpose of rooting out and guarding against any abuses which may require additional regulations better suited to particular circumstances.

SRC, with its final word before adding concluding quotation from the Ritual on the Eucharist, begs the bishops “leave nothing undone”—again restating the purpose of the instruction, even more succinctly—“to safeguard the Most Holy Eucharist from the impious attempts of wicked men.”

Its final quotation is from the beginning of the Ritual’s Fourth chapter, and recalls the how the Church has nothing more supremely holy, worthy and wonderful than the MBS, as this mystery contains Christ himself.

The Instruction appends the dates of the document’s approval and ratification and, lastly, it’s own date, the Feast of the Ascension, May 26, 1938.

That’s it for a once-over summary of Nullo, line-by-line. Now, a review of this summary would bring out more prominently the themes and purposes of the instruction. For instance, I can already tell, as a consequence of this review that the purpose ends up being very specific: safeguard the MBS from harm. This theme I will emphasize and for it’s sake distinguish it from other related themes such as: reservation, veneration, church arrangement, administration of Holy Communion.

This is to punctuate particularly the extreme wickedness of the offenses in order, by contrast, to emphasize the gravity of the priest’s responsibility. I’ll need also, to observe no exaggeration for the same reason. Inasmuch as excessive preoccupation detracts from real Eucharistic piety, it too is to be avoided. Rather, I’ll strive for the mean, the goal “to Safeguard the MBS.” Yes, safeguarding does take place within a constellation of dispositions which we are to have towards the MBS, as those just mentioned above. But I’ll emphasize what makes right-custody unique and essential among those dispositions.

Nullo 10 & its Conclusion

3/29/21

Cimabue, "Virgin & Child"

Removing the MBS

These remote churches also include those on “desert mountains and wide country spaces.” There are churches, then, where it is impossible to reserve the MBS.

SRC adds a helpful clarification regarding which would be more tolerable: deprivation of the means of Eucharistic adoration or its exposure to probable profanation. “Sometimes even if a notable part of the faithful” be without the privilege of access to this particular expression of Eucharistic piety, still deprivation of the means of adoration is to be preferred to the risk of probable profanation.

SRC authorizes by means of the instruction the Bishops to revoke the faculty of reserving the MBS from those churches when they perceive grave abuses or inadequate safeguarding of the MBS.

Conclusion

There are three paragraphs is conclusion. These include: 1) a recapitulation of the purpose of the instriction; 2) a citation of the approval of the SRC and the Pope’s subsequent ratification and confirmation; 3) the date of the instruction—the Feast of the Ascension, 1938.

SRC’s summary mentions ordinaries and parish priests particularly as guardians of the MBS. In less than twenty-five words the purpose of SRC’s regulation and cautions concerning reservation of the MBS is: “To root out abuses, if any such have crept in, or to guard against them, if they have not.”

Nullo 10: Violations & Losing the Privilege

3/28/21

A. Lorenzetti, "St. Michael"

Violations:

SRC continues describing the penalties to be used against negligent priests.

SRC dismisses the excuse of trying to “pass the buck.” It reminds who it is exactly who bears the responsibility. It next provides a pithy description of that responsibility that is their personal office: when the sacred offices are over, the tabernacle is not exposed to violation of sacred robbery.  As for passing the buck to some other priest who was had occasioned the crime by his immediate negligence—even though he may not have been the rector or the parish priest himself—both are to be penalized.

SRC authorizes and gives faculties to the local ordinaries to inflict these penalties against the superiors of religious houses within their territories. The bishop himself is authorized to file the process.

Removing the MBS

The bishop is responsible for inquiring where the MBS is reserved outside of the ordinary places and whether their reservation is lawful, that is whether they can demonstrate the written permission granting them the privilege of reserving the MBS. When the privilege cannot be proven, the MBS is to be removed—it’s reservation without permission being an abuse.

SRC cautions bishops against being too easy in receiving and commending requests for the faculty of the extraordinary reservation of the MBS. Instead it encourages bishops to abstain from granting these requests unless for “very grave reasons.” It particularly mentions the case of churches or oratories that are “too far removed from the houses of the faithful,” where safe-keeping is impossible.

Nullo 10: Penalties

3/26/2021

A. Lorenzetti, "Nicholas"

Nullo 10b: Violations

The bishop should propose to the SRC, as part of his investigation, what canonical penalties he intends to impose on the priest in the case of guilt. The bishop, lastly, having sent the file to the SRC will wait for the mandates of the SRC in response.

Nullo 10c: Penalties

The SRC urges bishops particularly to consider “deeply” the canonical penalties against the parish priest who is guilty of neglecting the guarding of the MBS “even though his fault fall short of the actual violation of the MBS.”

Let’s go slowly here. This “even though” clause makes sense because the law itself provides for the case of actual violation of the MBS with the strictest penalties. SRC is asking bishops to consider “neglect” not “actual violation.”

SRC instructs bishops firstly to consider “the end of the law”—the salvation of souls. SRC gives the necessary faculties to the bishops, insofar as it may be necessary to impose the canonical penalties.

SRC preempts as insufficient the allegation in defense of the priest himself, that some other priest was to blame for the carelessness. The burden of the care of the MBS falls squarely on the Pastors and Rectors themselves.

Nullo 10: Secure Ocular Knowledge

3/25/2021

A. Lorenzetti, "St. Nick"

Nullo 10a: “Secure Ocular Knowledge”

SRC instructs the bishops first to “secure ocular knowledge” as to how the MBS is secured in every location subject to him. His inquiry into the visible evidence of its safe-keeping is to be made with diligence and not limited only to the times of his visitations. He can see to it personally or through another prudent ecclesiastic.

Should they find something amiss concerning the necessary safeguards, SRC requires bishops to have the situation rectified in short order. It authorizes bishops to use penal sanctions in favor of the prompt securing of the MBS ranging, depending on the gravity of the negligence from pecuniary fines to the removal of the priest.

SRC instructs no relief from this obligation in favor of the plea that nothing has happened heretofore against the MBS.

This section of Nullo 10 concludes with the admonition that the malice of men may yet be done in the course of time and so it needs be guarded against.

Nullo 10b: Violations

Next SRC instruction how to proceed in the case—which God forbid, of violations. The Bishop should always proceed against the priest responsible by filing a summary of the details of the violation. The acts of the process should be sent to SRC in Rome with the bishops vote in the matter. The details of the summary are to include: the description of the theft, its place & time; a statement assigning guilt to the responsible person, via negligence or positive fault, based on the acts of the process.

Nullo 9, 10: Approaching anniversary of approval

3/24/2021

Lorenzetti, "Nursing"

Nullo 9: Private oratories

The paragraph concludes by urging that all who have charge of the key “must religiously consider” the gravity of their obligation. Particularly, that the key “not come into the hands of anyone,” even of family or family attendants.

The emphasis on the importance of the religious consideration of the gravity of the obligation is noteworthy, here. How often do we ponder our stewardship. Perhaps we too easily find ourselves in the position of the servant to whom his master assigned a single coin. We figure, through our laziness or wickedness that our master is harsh and unfair. So, instead of attending to the one responsibility for which we must give an account, we rather conceal it underneath a heap of the concerns of this world—that is, we bury it in the earth.

We are stewards of of the mysteries. And what greater mystery is there than Flesh and Blood of Christ? How do we care for the key to the tabernacle?

Nullo 10:

The tenth and final paragraph deals with the enforcement of the regulations. It concerns directly the way the bishops are to see that the prescriptions are carried out within their territories. It elaborates on four particular aspects of enforcement: 1) visitations; 2) reporting violations; 3) punishing crimes; 4) removing privileges. The paragraph offers a concluding statement. It indicates March 30, 1938 as the date the SRC’s plenary session approving the instruction. Pope Pius IX confirmed and ratified it on May 7, 1938.

Nullo 7, 8, 9: Non-parochial reservation

3/23/2021

Lorenzetti, "Madonna with angels"

Nullo 7: Religious Houses of Women

Why urge a particularly rigid insistence on the matter of the keeping of the tabernacle key in religious houses of women? Nullo 7 states its reason clearly, “so that abuses and irreverences be avoided which redound on the Blessed Eucharist.”  But what particular abuses could redound in a convent that would not be avoided by the general precautions already mentioned for Churches? The explicit requirement of the presence of both the Mother superior and some other nun indicates the propriety associated precisely with modesty and chastity as it excludes the circumstance of private communication between male and a female. It preserves diligent solicitude for the MBS from itself becoming an occasion of sin or scandal.

Nullo 8: Other (non-parochial) Oratories

The priest who is the rector or moderator of the oratory where the MBS is kept is entrusted with the tabernacle key and urged to guard it carefully. This admonition covers for every other conceivable instance of public MBS reservation beyond the two previously mentioned (parish, religious house). Hospital chapels, nursing homes, seminaries, colleges, schools are mentioned by name.  For all of these instances, the same previously-mentioned precautions apply.

Nullo 9: Private oratories

There are certain private oratories that have obtained an Apostolic Indult to reserve the MBS. Nullo 9 acknowledges the usual circumstance of the private family itself, rather than the chaplain, being in charge of keeping the key in the sacristy. However, it leaves it to the bishop to determine the preferability whether the priest who celebrates Mass there should keep it, or even the local parish priest.

Nullo 6, 7: Nuns

3/22/2021

Lorenzetti, "Hermits"

Nullo 6: Gravity

Next the Paragraph reemphasizes the gravity of the parish priest’s obligation diligently to keep the key. Then it expressly indicates his delegating to another priest the keeping of the key during his absence. It clarifies the universal practice of seeing that the sacristan is entrusted with the key to the location of the safe-keeping of the tabernacle key during the time the priest is away. 

SRC indicates that the right of keeping the tabernacle key is exclusive and belongs, as such, to the parish priest. This is so even when there exists in a parish a confraternity for the adoration of the MBS.

Referring to non-parochial churches SRC names the chaplains or rectors of such churches as the ones who possess the exclusive right to keep the key. For such churches the key is never to be kept by laymen, “even though they be patrons.” To emphasize this last direction, Nullo 6 says an Apostolic Indult is required for the keeping of a tabernacle key by a layman.

Nullo 7: Religious Houses

SRC turns its attention to the question of those tabernacles that are part of the churches attached to religious houses and other pious institutes.  It recalls that‚ within these houses, the MBS cannot be kept except in the principle oratory or main church. It specifies that it cannot be kept within the choir or within the enclosure of the monastery, and neither can the key.  Rather, it specifies the sacristy as the place for the key in these houses. It elaborates on this question, in the case of a house of nuns, citing an 1878 decree of the SRC that the tabernacle key kept in the sacristy is itself to be kept under two other keys, one kept by the mother superior of the house the second by the priest responsible for the tabernacle, so that both are required for accessing the MBS when the need arises. It admonishes the bishops to be diligent in enforcing this.

Nullo 6: The Key

3/21/2021

Lorenzetti, "Bull"

Nullo 6: The Key

The paragraph starts by reciting the canon from the 1917 Code.  It indicates that all precautions are “in vain” if the safe-keeping of the tabernacle key is neglected. It reminds that this responsibility binds its incumbent “sub grave.” Rectors, parish priests, and all those to whom it is entrusted are warned that the key “never be left on the table of the altar, nor in the door of the tabernacle.” It expressly excludes the times of the divine offices or of the distribution of Holy Communion itself, “especially if this altar [of reservation] is not in open view.”

Contemporary practical experience suggest hardly any occurrences of requiring the tabernacle key during the recitation of the Divine Office. But the point is taken, for the distribution of Holy Communion should the tabernacle be somewhere “off to the side” and left rather unattended while the minister is occupied elsewhere in the church with administering the Sacrament.  Either way the paragraph’s exclusion of the possibility of keeping the keep on the altar or in the door of the tabernacle is clear.

Nullo 6 refers to three possible locations for the keeping of the key: 1) at the rector’s home; 2) on the rector’s person; 3) in the sacristy under lock and key—“the second key being kept by the rector as above.”

 

This third option would seem to impact access to the key by extraordinary ministers. We will discuss this later. It also seems that keeping the key in an unlocked cabinet or drawer would be similarly excluded.

Nullo 5: Added Security

3/20/2021

Lorenzetti, "to Sobac"

Alarm systems

Nullo 5 recommends them. It also recommends their daily inspection to keep them working in good order.

Nulo 5 next explains the law’s express provision for a safer location to keeping the MBS outside of the tabernacle in the sanctuary. The place indicated is “ordinarily the sacristy” as long as it be truly safer. It mentions that the construction of the safe in the sacristy be very solid, well closed and inserted—if preferable—into some part of the church wall. If no such security can be found in the sacristy, provision is likewise made for safe-keeping in some other place “even of a private character.” Such private safe-keeping requires the parish priest’s still ensure due reverence and honor to the MBS.

Nullo 5 excludes the safe-keeping of the host without a pyx or ciborium citing a decree from  SRC to Altoona

The priest, during such extraordinary transport of the host from the tabernacle to the place of safer-keeping is, at least as a rule, to “be accompanied by a cleric, carrying a light.”

Compare this also with the ritual administration of Holy Communion to the sick where candles a lit and Father is accompanied and prayers are made by the people, both at the church, at the home and again at the Church.  How frequently is devotion of this sort ever seen?

Nullo 5 mentions the care of the sacred vessels themselves. Those responsible are to attend to their safe-keeping and storage in such a way that as to avoid enticing the greed of thieves. Here it indicates an “ordinary pyx” as opposed to more decorous ones of great value for the everyday safe-keeping of the MBS. In general it recommends guarding the decorations of all types in such a way as would deter all theft.

Nullo 5: Strong Drink

3/19/2021

Lorenzetti, "Madonna enthroned"

“The duty of shutting the church should be entrusted…”

In many churches, often times the parish priest himself is required to be the one who personally shuts the Church at night. The act of entrusting this responsibility, however, is part and parcel of many churches, especially those which serve larger communities and have the means and resources to hire custodians for this purpose. Or, even for the one-man parish, there will still be times when he’s on vacation or retreat and another priest is covering for him. Part of the parish priests responsibility for keeping custody of the MBS include entrusting the same duties to another. He’s responsible for whom he selects.

“Persons not addicted to strong drink…”

Nullo 5 reminds the pastor to take note of the particular trustworthiness of the individual to whom he is delegating his responsibility. A person compromised by his particular proclivity towards drunkenness would be a poor choice for a custodian. Other poor choices would include those who might be given to stealing or laziness.  This determination is the decision of the pastor and it represents, again—as above with the question of looking around at closing time—not a judgment of the state of grace of the soul of the particular individual per se, such a judgment only God can make, rather it is a reaction to the objective situation of the person’s evident shortcoming.

“The placing of electric bells…”

Alarm systems, a technological development just beginning to come into wider use at the time Nullo was released are recommended as a very commendable additional precaution.

Nullo 5: The Night Watch

3/18/2021

Lorenzetti, "Beata Umiltà's Bricks"

The Night Watch

SRC describes, the ordinary cautions “required by prudence”  as well as certain special, extraordinary cautions that are permitted and recommended to safeguard the MBS overnight, when the church is closed.

For one thing, this presumes the closing of the Church at night. Perhaps there are some who recall a simpler tim, back in the day, when the church was always open and we didn’t have to lock it, not even at night. This part of Nullo 5 suggests that recollections of such times might be rather fictional.

Nullo 5 indicates three ordinary prudential security cautions for the night watch which are designed to prevent the theft of anything precious kept inside the church: 1) the securing of doors and windows; 2) “a careful look around” at closing time; 3) entrusting the job of securing the premises to persons “above suspicion, especially to persons not addicted to strong drink.”

Concerning doors and windows, it indicates,“within the limits of necessity and possibility,” that door-leaves, the locks and the bolts should all be strong and able to be opened only from the inside. It indicates iron grills or bars to guard the windows.

The careful look-around, is precisely intended to guard against “any evil-intentioned person.” This disciplinary measure is a case where accusations of “judgmentalism” can be clarified. Just as there are laws which guard against trespassing, there are safeguards which deter trespassers. A trespasser is someone with the evil intention to offend against—at least—the will of the property owner by being where he ought not. Whether the individual instance of trespassing constitutes am action of a trespasser is secondary to the property-owners responsibility to safeguard against all trespassers.

Nullo 5, Thieves

3/17/2021

Lorenzetti, "St. Sabinus"

Nullo 5 says the custodian must never leave the church during the time that it is open to the faithful, and has few or none visiting it. It indicates that the necessity of the omnipresence of the custodian is greater for city churches.  It describes the behavior of thieves who, especially in city churches where they are less likely to be immediately recognized by the faithful, prowl around and are ready to perpetrate in an instant their sacrilegious thefts. These thieves frequently have already previously visited the church precisely in order to observe the state of the church’s security so that they can proceed when their time comes, with greatest ease, even if need be, after hours.

In country churches and smaller villages it may be easier for such a stranger to arouse the suspicions of observant locals. Nevertheless, the parish priest remains duty-bound to guard the MBS. In these cases, SCR leaves the “mode of custody” to his prudence. It suggests, by way of an example, the parish priest’s own frequent visitation of the Church during the day as well as assigning a neighborhood watch consisting of trustworthy persons and a private Eucharistic visitation schedule for parishioners.

This description of the activity of thieves is certainly not exhaustive. But it does give the impression that SCR has some expertise in the area of security.

The character of shrewdness, vigilance, of being alert to danger, and of being ready to remedy a circumstance wherein there could be malicious intent may appear to some to contrast with a pastoral persona of tranquillity, tolerance, acceptance and withholding judgment. The alleging of this contrast is false and needs to be resisted as every bit injurious as the sacrileges which it intends to conceal.

Nullo 5 next addresses the practicality of keeping an eye on the workmen who may frequent the church for their various service calls.

Nullo 5: Watchfulness

3/16/2021

Lorenzetti, "Man of Sorrow"

Nullo 5

The Watchfulness of the Custodian

“As regards the custodian, although it is desirable that he be a cleric, and moreover a priest, it is not prohibited that he be a layman, as long as a cleric is responsible for the key by which the place of reservation is closed.”

Let’s go slow through this one for a minute, just to understand.

One question arises: what’s meant by the “place of reservation?” Is this the tabernacle or is it the larger church? It may be the larger church since we’ll deal explicitly with the question of the tabernacle’s key later.  When the place has to be closed—say, at the end of the day—it’s a cleric who’s responsible for it’s closure.  It doesn’t say he cannot delegate this responsibility, just that he’s responsible. It’s hard to imagine old Monsignor Rector going about and checking all the doors of the grand cathedral each night. I can see him hiring help for that. But he’d nevertheless still be responsible.

Now, where ought this custodian to remain all the time?

“He must remain near this place day and night, so that he may quickly make his appearance, as often as need arises; in other words, he must be constantly on the watch.”

This presupposes that there are times when the need arises for the custodian to make an appearance. Within the context of this document, such need would regard the safe-keeping of the MBS. The quick and sudden appearance of a custodian, then, would function as a deterrent to anyone who might wish to do harm.

That there are those who wish to do harm to the MBS and the means by which they would execute their crime not only cannot be excluded from the purview of this document, but is exactly the point of this document. The deliberate failure or refusal to believe that such perpetrators exist or ought to be prevented is itself tantamount to an act of harm.  This will become evident later in the document.

Nullo 4, 5

3/15/2021

Lorenzetti, "Lamentation"

SRC, in Nullo 4, concludes this paragraph on the tabernacle’s security with its own assessment of the more recently mentioned constructions of the tabernacles followed by three admonitions. In SRC’s assessment, the stronger tabernacles are “very efficacious” for safeguarding the MBS. It recommends these stronger tabernacles as part of the construction of church’s to be built stopping short of requiring them as long as the ordinary tabernacles are “admittedly adequate” for the secure custody of the MBS. Next it exhorts the bishop to ensure that tabernacles in their dioceses are necessarily solid and do preclude “every danger of sacrilegious profanation.” Lastly, SRC, in view of the possibility that there be any tabernacles that do not guarantee the absence of every such danger, it declares that they be removed and that their removal be “with the utmost severity.”

Nullo 5

Having addressed the tabernacle itself SRC now moves to the more general and perhaps more complicated question of what constitutes “careful custody.” Under this heading it offers six considerations:

1. necessity of ordinary & extraordinary watchfulness; 
2. custodian immediately responsible; 
3. others who frequent the church; 
4. night watch; 
5. recourse to safer security; 
6. decor of the sacred vessels.

Nullo 5 reminds that the watchfulness is prescribed by the law itself in addition to the strength of the tabernacle construction and its locking mechanism.  This watchfulness is to be “continually maintained” and is to include warnings that are both ordinary and extraordinary which it will consider next.

Nullo 4

3/14/2021

del Pellicciaio "Coronation"

Nullo describes in greater detail these three aspects of safe-keeping the MBS (tabernacle, custody, key) in each of the next three paragraphs respectively.

Nullo 4 concerns the tabernacle, especially its immovability and thorough closure. “Completely safe locking” is the main point of the construction of the tabernacle of whatever appropriate solid material. This includes the hinge mechanism. It cites an iron safe model as exemplary and particularly effective against the instruments ordinarily used by thieves. It urges the construction of the tabernacle that allows for an artistic finishing.  The paragraph then emphasizes the praiseworthiness of the intention to observe these laws on the tabernacle construction by citing its own previous response to a priest from Milwaukee. Its 1908 response to the question of the approval of a certain construction of a tabernacle characterized the priest’s purpose as “laudable,” deferring the judgement of the effectiveness of the particular tabernacle’s construction to the local ordinary. 

Nullo 4 next cites a similar response to another diocese, Superior, on the question of the particular construction of another certain type of hinge-less tabernacle that used an encased semi-circular door rotating on ball-bearings. SRC’s response was without objection to the type of construction and deference to the local bishop’s judgment in the rest of the matters pertaining to the question.

Temporary excursus

3/13/2021

Memmi, "Madonna"

Allow me to admit that I’ve done something wrong. Show me what it is that I’ve done wrong. When an end that is in itself is good is nevertheless vitiated by circumstances, the actor is responsible for his failure to consider the evil circumstances and to act so as to avoid them. 

There is a good of maintaining peaceable unity with the bishop. There is a good of containing excessive overreach by the same bishop. There is the question of irreconcilable preferences: shall we or shall we not? At what point is it a disservice, a violation of my promise to respect and to obey, to demur to the overreach of the bishop? There is the question of bearing wrongs patiently. I preach it all the time. What is the wrong that I have to bear patiently? Could it not be the lashing out of my bishop against me for containing his overreach. In other words, it could be a lack of charity, of respect and obedience to desist, to acquiesce in the suggestion—however mildly put—to stand down.

Could this firmness of purpose not be a sign of strength for the good of the Church and of souls? Perhaps if we were dealing with a matter the criterion of which is a precept of the divine law: to eat w/o recognizing is judgment. But here, our criterion is not divine law but the liturgical custom of the parish. Do we save our firmness of purpose for matters of divine law, acquiescing in everything besides? Do we bend over backwards for everything, but expect to hold firm on matters of precept. In all things, the truth in charity. Charity, joy, peace. If it robs you of your peace can it come from God?

To acquiesce in the suggestion off of St. Joe’s altar and onto the low altar. Seems mild enough. But what about the perspective of the people? What about the perspective of the priest? We know that from the perspective of some, it’s uncomfortable on St. Joe’s altar. We also know that from the perspective of many, it’s more comfortable. Whose call?