commentary on pope francis’ apostolic letter

COMMENTARY ON POPE FRANCIS’ APOSTOLIC LETTER

MOTU PROPRIO, DE CONCORDIA INTER CODICIS,

CONCERNING THE HARMONIZATION BETWEEN THE CODES,

MAY 31, 2016

Mr. Anthony St.Louis -Sanchez, J.C.L.

Introduction

On May 31, 2016, Pope Francis issued an Apostolic Letter motu proprio which altered the Code of

Canon Law in certain ways. These changes were necessary because, today more than ever with the mass

exodus of Christians from the Middle East, many Eastern Christians have migrated to Western countries.

In what follows, you will find a commentary on the Pope’s new motu proprio, proceeded by a complete

translation of the same. Like the commentary, the translation of the motu proprio is my own, and any

errors or shortcomings which may be found therein are to be attributed solely to me. Following the

translation of the motu proprio, there has been included a useful chart with lays out the differences

between the prior law, the new motu proprio and the Eastern law of the Code of Canons of the Eastern

Churches. These three are presented in the chart in parallel columns.

The codification of canon law, which was first accomplished in 1917, represented a welcomed

innovation to the cumbersome system of law which prevailed in earlier times. After the 1917 Code of

Canon Law, it was widely recognized that the newly codified law was deficient, insofar as it did not

account adequately for the Eastern Churches of the Catholic Church. In order to provide for this

legislative gap, Pope Pius XII issued a series of four motu proprios which constituted the universal

legislation for the Eastern Churches.

After the revision of the Code of Canon Law in 1983, plans were quickly made to do a similar

codification of canon law for the Eastern Churches. In 1990, Pope John Paul II promulgated the Code of

Canons of the Eastern Churches, which in many ways paralleled the Latin legislation of the Code of

Canon Law. Unfortunately, these two Codes of law were assembled by two completely different

Pontifical Commissions. This led to a number of discrepancies between the two Codes. Ever since the

promulgation of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches in 1990, canonists throughout the world

have recognized a number of these discrepancies. Those who have studied both Codes have long called

for a harmonization of the two.

Finally, Pope Francis’ recent motu proprio has provided a certain harmonization of these Codes.

However, the motu proprio does not address every discrepancy between these two Codes, but only those

which have been deemed most pressing from a pastoral perspective. There are three main areas in which

Pope Francis’ motu proprio makes changes to the Code of Canon Law, namely, terminology, enrollment

and marriage. Therefore, the following commentary is divided up under these same headings.

Terminology

The Gospel of Luke and the corresponding Book of Acts make clear that Christianity spread out from

Jerusalem and radiated outwards all the way to Rome. As the gospel message spread throughout the

Ancient Near East and into Europe, it was appropriated in different ways by the various cultures present

in these areas. Christianity became embedded in the various cultures of the Ancient Near East and the

Mediterranean lands, while the concrete expression of that Christian faith took on particular cultural

forms. From this primordial enculturation of the gospel, six great traditions of the Catholic faith were

established, and from these traditions a variety of ‘rites’ or ritual expressions arose. However, a rite is

not a Church. A rite is the patrimony and cultural expression of the autonomous Churches (i.e.,

Churches sui iuris) which make up the Catholic Church.

The Alexandrian tradition flowered around the ancient Egyptian city of Alexandria, to the southwest of

Jerusalem. To the north of Jerusalem, we find the Antiochene tradition. To the east, in Modern-day Iraq,

or what used to be known as Assyria, the Chaldean tradition was established. To the north, between the

Black Sea and the Caspian Sea, the Armenian tradition arose. To the west, the Constantinopolitan

tradition was founded among the Greek lands. And finally, all the way to the west, in Italy, the Latin

tradition was established. These six great traditions, and the ritual expressions to which they gave rise,

account for the diversity and ritual plurality of the Catholic Church today.

In addition to the Latin Church – with which we are all familiar – there are currently twenty-three

Eastern Churches sui iuris. These are the: 1) Coptic, 2) Ethiopian, 3) Eritrean, 4) Syrian, 5) Maronite, 6)

Syro-Malankar, 7) Armenian, 8) Chaldean, 9) Syro-Malabar, 10) Albanian, 11) Belorussian, 12)

Bulgarian, 13) Greek, 14) Hungarian, 15) Italo-Albanian, 16) Macedonian, 17) Melkite, 18) Romanian,

19) Russian, 20) Ruthenian, 21) Slovak, 22) Ukranian, 23) Yugoslavian.

These autonomous Churches, also known as Churches sui iuris, are designated as such because they are

a community of the faithful, united to their own hierarchy, and recognized as autonomous by the Holy

See.

The term “ritual Church” was used in the Code of Canon Law (CIC). However, upon promulgation of

the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (CCEO), and especially canons 27 and 28 of the CCEO, it

has been recognized that the term “ritual Church” is not appropriate, because several Churches sui iuris

share a common ritual expression. For example, the Coptic, Ethiopian and Eritrean Churches sui iuris,

although each autonomous and independent of the others, are all founded upon the Alexandrian

tradition, and thus they share a common ritual expression.

Pope Francis’ new motu proprio has harmonized the CIC with the CCEO by eliminating the term “ritual

Church” from the former.

Enrollment

At one point in our history, the thinking which prevailed in the Latin Church was that that Latin Church

was superior to all other Churches sui iuris of the East. It was thought that all the Eastern Churches

should become like the Latin Church in their ritual expressions. However, Pope Leo XIII recognized the

value of having a variety of disciplines and ritual expressions in the Catholic Church, and he called for

this rich variety to be protected and preserved within the Church.

The principle way of preserving the patrimony and ritual expressions of the Eastern Churches sui iuris is

through ascription or enrollment. Ascription to a Church sui iuris, also known as enrollment in a Church

sui iuris, means that a person belongs to one of these autonomous Churches. Enrollment happens at the

moment of baptism. However, the ‘rite’ used during the baptism does not determine which Church sui

iuris someone is enrolled in. Rather, enrollment follows the parents. For example, if a father is enrolled

in the Maronite Church sui iuris, then at the baptism of his child, the infant is automatically enrolled in

the Maronite Church. This is true even if the child is baptized in a Latin Church, by a Latin priest. The

norms for enrollment are found in canons 111-112 of the CIC, and canons 29-38 of the CCEO. The

discrepancies between these canons of the two Codes has led to some practical difficulties, which Pope

Francis’ new motu proprio has addressed.

The new paragraph of canon 111 §2 fills a lacuna, i.e., a gap in the law, of the CIC, namely, it provides

for the enrollment of a child in a mixed marriage. This lacuna was always able to be filled by appealing

to CCEO c. 29. Now, however, the Latin Code is explicit in this regard.

There are two ways in which a person can transfer to another Church sui iuris: by petition and by

declaration. Canon 112 §1, 1° of the CIC concerns a transfer by petition, and CCEO canon 32 provides

additional norms for transfer by petition. According to the practice of the Church, transfer by petition

takes place in writing (cf. CLSA Newsletter, June 1993, p. 4). Transfer by petition takes effect when the

petitioner signs a document accepting the transfer. On the other hand, canon 112 §1, 2°-3° of the CIC

regards a transfer by declaration, and CCEO canons 33 and 34 provide the corresponding Eastern norms.

The new c. 112 §3 provides for when a transfer by declaration takes effect. However, the opening words

of this paragraph give the impression that the norms of c. 112 §3 also apply to transfers by petition.

Because enrollment in a Church sui iuris is important for preserving the patrimony and ritual

expressions of the Churches, it is of the utmost importance this enrollment be recorded along with the

recording of the baptism itself. Now, with Pope Francis’ new motu proprio, the CIC has an explicit

provision that baptismal registers must include a notation regarding enrollment in a Church sui iuris and

any transfer to another Church sui iuris. This brings the law of the Latin Church into conformity with

the Eastern law. The provision regarding the notation of a transfer was already included in the older

Latin law, however, it used the obsolete term “change of rite.” There seems to be some significance to

the fact that enrollment in a Church sui iuris and transfer to another Church sui iuris are listed in the first

place among the required notations for a baptismal register. Presumably, even the baptismal registers in

Latin parishes should include a notation: “enrollment in the Latin Church.”

The changes in articles 4 and 5 of the motu proprio bring the Latin law into conformity with the Eastern

law. The Eastern law foresees the situation in which non-Catholic Christian parents would approach a

Catholic minister for the baptism of their child because of a lack of their own ministers. Now, the Latin

law foresees the same possibility. In such a situation, even though the baptism is done by a Catholic

minister, the one baptized is not enrolled in any Catholic Church sui iuris, but rather the newly baptized

belongs to the Orthodox Church to which his or her parents belong.

Marriage

Throughout the course of history, the Western and Eastern disciplines concerning marriage have

diverged to a certain degree. In the beginning of the Church, there was no prescribed form for marriage.

Catholics could marry in accord with whatever local customs prevailed. Even though it was seen as

desirable to have one’s marriage presided over by a member of the clergy, it was not required until

centuries later. In fact, there is a well-established tradition in the Church that consent makes marriage,

not the blessing of a priest.

However, blessing of a priest assumed a foundational place in the Eastern traditions. For Eastern

Catholics, the blessing of a priest became essential to having a valid marriage. In fact, it is the blessing

of a priest, not a deacon, in the Eastern Churches which is seen to be essential. This is one of the main

areas of discrepancies between the Latin and Eastern legislations: in the CIC a deacon can assist at

marriage, whereas in the CCEO only a priest can assist at marriage.

The new paragraph in CIC c. 1108 §3 resolves a debate which has been ongoing for many years. The

question concerns whether or not a deacon can validly assist at the wedding of a Latin Catholic and an

Eastern Catholic. According to the Eastern law, only a priest can validly assist at a wedding, whereas,

until now, there was no explicit restriction in the CIC for a deacon to assist at such a wedding. There

were canonists on either side of this debate, and thus there was a doubt of law. The motu proprio

resolves this doubt of law. A deacon cannot validly assist at a wedding if one of the parties is enrolled in

an Eastern Church sui iuris. This new norm also applies to a mixed marriage in which one party belongs

to a non-Catholic Eastern Church.

The new formulation of CIC c. 1111 §1 merely clarifies that a pastor or local ordinary cannot delegate

the faculty to assist at marriage to a deacon, if the marriage involves an Eastern Christian. The

delegation to assist at marriages can be either habitual or on a case by case basis. If the delegation of a

deacon is on a case by case basis, then it is incumbent upon the pastor or local ordinary to determine

beforehand whether or not the marriage involves an Eastern Christian. If the delegation of a deacon is

habitual, then it is up to the deacon to determine if the marriage involves an Eastern Christian. If so, the

deacon must arrange for the pastor or another properly delegated priest to assist at the wedding.

Canon 1112 of the CIC provides for the possibility of lay persons to act as official assistants at

marriages, if there is a lack of priests or deacons. However, the newly formulated CIC c. 1112 §1 makes

it explicit that such duly delegated lay persons cannot validly assist at a marriage involving an Eastern

Christian. In those places where lay persons are so delegated, it is important that they understand the

necessity of finding a priest who can assist at a wedding involving Eastern Christians.

Canon 1116 of the CIC regards the extraordinary form of marriage, namely, a marriage in which there is

no priest, deacon or lay person available with the proper faculty. Under the conditions set forth in canon

1116, a marriage can be validly and licitly celebrated before witnesses only. Even though the Eastern

discipline views the blessing by the priest as constitutive to a valid marriage, the CCEO also has

provisions for an extraordinary form of marriage before witnesses only (cf. CCEO c. 832). However,

because the Eastern discipline so highly values the blessing of a priest, the Eastern norms encourage the

blessing of a priest at an extraordinary form marriage, even if the priest is not Catholic.

The newly formulated CIC c. 1116 §3 provides something like an extraordinary form of marriage for

non-Catholic Eastern, i.e., Orthodox Christians. If non-Catholic Eastern Christians wish to marry, but

there are no non-Catholic Eastern priests available, then CIC c. 1116 §3 authorizes the local Catholic

ordinary to allow any Catholic priest, even one who does not have the faculty of assisting at marriages,

to bless the marriage of these non-Catholic Eastern Christians. In this way, the law is providing a service

to our separated brethren who lack their own clergy.

The final sentence of this paragraph instructs the priest who blessed the marriage of the non-Catholic

Eastern Christians to “prudently” inform the non-Catholic ecclesiastical authority about the fact that he

blessed a marriage of the authority’s subjects. It is necessary to inform the Orthodox Church about this

marriage because marriage is a public fact and should not be kept secret.

Canon 1127 §1 of the CIC prescribes that canonical form is required only for liceity only, if a Catholic

party is contracting marriage with a non-Catholic Eastern Christian. However, in line with the Eastern

discipline, the newly formulated paragraph specifies that the presence of a non-Catholic priest is a

requirement for validity. There is no doubt here that a marriage contracted by a Catholic party and a

non-Catholic Eastern Christian before a deacon or lay person is invalid.

Pope Francis, Apostolic Letter motu proprio, De concordia inter Codicis, May 31, 2016.

“Concerning the Harmonization between the Codes”

By means of which some norms of the Code of Canon Law are changed

Being very concerned about the harmonization between the Codes, we have noticed certain

discrepancies to be found among the norms of the Code of Canon Law and of the Code of Canons of the

Eastern Churches.

For the two Codes partly contain common norms, and partly particular and proper norms, which makes

each one autonomous. Nevertheless, it is necessary that even the particular norms should be suitably

reconciled among themselves. For the discrepancies, if and to the extent that they are present, bring

troubles with them in pastoral practice, especially when relations must be regulated between members

belonging not only to the Latin Church but also to another Eastern Church.

It is especially occurring in our times, since from the migration of peoples it certainly happens that many

Eastern Christian faithful are living in Latin regions. Many pastoral and juridical questions have arisen

from this, which require that they be resolved with adjusted norms. In particular, it must be kept in mind

that the Eastern Christian faithful are bound to maintain their own rite, wherever they may be living (cf.

CCEO c. 40, § 3; Vatican II Decree Orientalium Ecclesiarum, 6), and accordingly, it is for the

competent ecclesiastical authority to take maximum care that appropriate means are provided to those

persons so that they may be able to fulfill this obligation (cf. CCEO c. 193, § 1; CIC c. 383, §§ 1-2;

Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation, Pastores gregis, 72). The harmonization of the norms is without a

doubt the means which will exceedingly help to foster the growth of the venerable Eastern rites (cf.

CCEO c. 39), so that the Churches sui iuris may be able to exercise pastoral care more effectively.

However, it must be kept in mind that there is a need for recognizing the particular disciplinary character

of those regions in which inter-ecclesial relations occur. For in the West, which is predominately Latin,

it is necessary to maintain an appropriate equilibrium between the protection of the proper law of the

Eastern minority and the respect given to the historical canonical tradition of the Latin majority, so that

unnecessary uproar and conflict may be avoided and fruitful cooperation may be fostered among all of

the Catholic communities living in that region.

There is also another reason that the norms of the CIC are to be furnished with the same distinct

arrangement, which are indeed similar to those contained in the CCEO, namely, the request that the

relations with the Christian faithful belonging to the non-Catholic Eastern Churches may be more

accurately defined, because at present their number has increased in Latin territories.

It must also be kept in mind that the commentaries of the canonists have pointed out certain

discrepancies to be found among either Code and quite unanimously have shown that there are particular

questions and how to make them agree.

Therefore, the purpose of the norms which are introduced in this Apostolic Letter motu proprio consists

in this, that a united discipline be reached, which establishes a certain way to be followed in individual

cases in the exercise of pastoral care.

The Pontifical Council for Legal Texts through a Commission of experts in Eastern and Latin canon

law, found those things, which more than others, seem to need suitable legislative reordering, and thus

produced a text which was sent to thirty Consultors and those who have an interest in Canon Law

around the whole world and also to Authorities of Latin Ordinariates for Easterners. After considering

the received observations, the new text was approved by a Plenary Session of the Pontifical Council for

Legal Texts.

Having considered everything, we determine the following:

Art. 1. Canon 111 of the CIC is completely replaced by the following text, in which is added a new

paragraph and some expressions are changed:

§1. Through the reception of baptism, the child of parents who belong to the Latin Church is

enrolled in it, or, if one or the other does not belong to it, both parents have chosen by mutual

agreement to have the offspring baptized in the Latin Church. If there is no mutual agreement,

however, the child is enrolled in the Church sui iuris to which the father belongs.

§2. If only one of the parents is Catholic, the child is enrolled in the Church to which this

Catholic parent belongs.

§3. Anyone to be baptized who has completed the fourteenth year of age can freely choose to be

baptized in the Latin Church or in another Church sui iuris; in that case, the person belongs to

the Church which he or she has chosen.

Art. 2. Canon 112 of the CIC is completely replaced by the following text, in which is added a new

paragraph and some expressions are changed:

§1. After the reception of baptism, the following are enrolled in another Church sui iuris:

1° a person who has obtained permission from the Apostolic See;

2° a spouse who, at the time of or during marriage, has declared that he or she is transferring to

the Church sui iuris of the other spouse; when the marriage has ended, however, the person can

freely return to the Latin Church;

3° before completion of the fourteenth year of age, the children of those mentioned in nn. 1 and 2

as well as, in a mixed marriage, the children of the Catholic party who has legitimately

transferred to another Church sui iuris; on completion of their fourteenth year, however, they can

return to the Latin Church.

§2. The practice, however prolonged, of receiving the sacraments according to the rite of another

Church sui iuris does not entail enrollment in that Church.

§3. Every transfer to another Church sui iuris has force from the moment of the declaration of

the fact before the local Ordinary of the same Church or the proper pastor or a priest delegated

by either of them and two witnesses, unless a rescript of the Apostolic See provides otherwise;

and it is to be noted in the baptismal register.

Art. 3. The second paragraph of can. 535 of the CIC is completely replaced by the following text:

§2. In the baptismal register are also to be noted enrollment in a Church sui iuris or transfer to

another [Church], and also confirmation, likewise those things which pertain to the canonical

status of the Christian faithful by reason of marriage, without prejudice to the prescript of can.

1133, of adoption, of the reception of sacred orders, and of perpetual profession made in a

religious institute. These notations are always to be noted on a baptismal certificate.

Art. 4. The second number of the first paragraph of can. 868 of the CIC is completely replaced by the

following text:

§1. 2° there must be a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion,

without prejudice to §3; if such hope is altogether lacking, the baptism is to be delayed according

to the prescripts of particular law after the parents have been advised about the reason.

Art. 5. Canon 868 of the CIC will hereafter have a third paragraph as follows:

§3. Infants of non-Catholic Christians are licitly baptized, if their parents, or at least one of them

or the person who legitimately takes their place, request it and if it is physically or morally

impossible for them to approach their own minister.


§3. Only a priest validly assists at marriages between Eastern parties or between one Latin party

and one Eastern party whether Catholic or non-Catholic.

Art. 7. Canon 1109 of the CIC is completely replaced by the following text:

Unless the local ordinary and pastor have been excommunicated, interdicted, or suspended from

office or declared such through a sentence or decree, by virtue of their office and within the

confines of their territory they assist validly at the marriages not only of their own subjects, but

also of those who are not their subjects, provided that at least one of the parties is enrolled in the

Latin Church.

Art. 8. The first paragraph of can. 1111 of the CIC is completely replaced by the following text:

§1. As long as they hold office validly, the local ordinary and the pastor can delegate to priests

and deacons the faculty, even a general one, of assisting at marriages within the limits of their

territory, without prejudice to that which is prescribed in can. 1108 §3.


§1. Where there is a lack of priests and deacons, the diocesan bishop can delegate lay persons to

assist at marriages, with the previous favorable vote of the conference of bishops and after he has

obtained the permission of the Holy See, without prejudice to the prescription of c. 1108 §3.


§3. In the same circumstances mentioned in §1, nn. 1 and 2, the local ordinary can confer the

faculty to any Catholic priest of blessing the marriage of the Christian faithful of an Eastern

Church which does not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they freely request it,

and provided that nothing stands in the way of a valid and licit celebration of marriage. The same

priest, always with the necessary prudence, is to inform the competent authority of the non-

Catholic Church, who is concerned, about the matter.


§1. The prescripts of can. 1108 are to be observed for the form to be used in a mixed marriage.

Nevertheless, if a Catholic party contracts marriage with a non-Catholic party of an Eastern rite,

the canonical form of the celebration must be observed for liceity only; for validity, however, the

presence of a priest is required and the other requirements of law are to be observed.

We order that all that we have decreed in this Apostolic Letter given motu proprio take effect and be

observed, all things to the contrary notwithstanding, even things worthy of special mention, and we

direct that they be promulgated by means of publication in the daily edition of L’Osservatore Romano

and that they be subsequently published in the official commentary Acta Apostolicae Sedis.

Given at Rome at St. Peter’s, on the thirty-first day of the month of May in the year of 2016, the fourth

year of Our Pontificate.

NEW UPDATES & FEATURES

ON THE TRIBUNAL PAGE

In order to provide needed resources and support to our Advocates, Priests and the staff

of the Parishes, we are continually updating the Tribunal page of the AOD website. Take a

few moments to review some of the features and resources on the advocate page.

1. Determine Case Type – By clicking this link you will be directed to a set of yes and no questions that will determine the type of case needed for your situation, and provide

the paperwork for you to start the process. In this manner, you may skip the initial

Preliminary Questionnaire and move directly into the forms for your case type. Please

note that a protocol number will only be assigned once we receive the paperwork and

that the case is not initiated until it is formally accepted by the Tribunal. Please be sure to

send in a current baptismal certificate for the Catholic party(ies), marriage certificate and

divorce decree for the marriage in question.

2. Workshops & Training Material – All the materials and videos for the workshop and Advocate training is on-line, in addition for newly ordained deacons and approved lay people who aspire to be certified advocates, there is a brochure that clearly states what is needed to become a certified advocate.

3. Abbreviated Process Page – This page contains all the necessary paperwork for the petition for an “Abbreviated Process”. Please note, that in order for a case to be considered for acceptance in the Abbreviated Process two conditions must be met:

a. Both the Petitioner and Respondent, must be in agreement regarding the nullity

of the marriage. A joint libellus, or the Petitioner’s libellus, with a signed consent of

the Respondent must be submitted.

b. The nullity of the marriage must be manifest (clear, obvious, evident).

In order to make this process easier for you, we have the following links on this page:

Joint Libellus and Respondent’s Consent Forms – These are templates for you to use.

Petitioner’s Statement of Agreement – This delineates the rights and obligations of

the Petitioner regarding his/her case with the Tribunal.

Payment Agreement – The fee for the Abbreviated Case Process is $100.

To facilitate the “Parish Investigation” the following are also provided: Pet/Resp

Questionnaire, Witness List and Witness Questionnaire.

We are always grateful for your feedback, comments, and ideas for improvements.

2016 CE WORKSHOP

The 2016 Continuing Education for Advocates & Priests Workshop Session has concluded. We are

grateful to all those who participated and who provided feedback. The first session is available

on-line in video and the slides are available as well.

These sessions were presented to help in determining the grounds of cases for the Formal Process.

One of the main objectives is to determine if you are dealing with Juridical Incapacity or another

defect of consent. Once you make the determination that you are dealing with a Juridical

Incapacity, you can look at Canon 1095, otherwise you need to review the defects of consent

found in Simulation (Canon 1101), Errors (Canons 1097 – 1099), Conditioned Consent (Canons

1102), Force or Fear (1103) or Ignorance (1096). As Mr. Anthony St. Louis pointed out, if you are

suggesting Juridical Incapacity, then the advocate must be able to point to a psychological anomaly

of a serious nature. The presentation provided a large range of samples of serious anomalies and

how these anomalies impair the critical faculty and deprive the victim of the internal freedom and

clarity of thought which are indispensable for making weighed decisions.

The session also focused on Canon 1099 and provided a clear understanding of how speculative

errors about the nature of marriage (unity and indissolubility) only vitiate consent if the error

moves from the speculative intellect into the practical intellect. In contrast to simulation, where

the simulating party does indeed, understand the nature of marriage, but instead chooses a

different kind of marriage (i.e., one without children, permanence etc.) The Presenters covered

the different types of simulation of the properties of marriage; unity and indissolubility and the

elements of marriage; procreation and education of offspring, good of the spouses and

sacramentality.

Lastly, they covered some samples of the libellus and pointed out the characteristics that make a

good libellus and how a well drafted libellus can speed the life of the case. If you were not able to

come to the workshop in person, I invite you to view the presentation on our webpage at

https://vimeo.com/180760529/73e782198a .

MEET OUR NEW JUDGE

Anthony St. Louis-Sanchez, MA, JCL, a native of Colorado, was born and raised in the

Denver area. He attended St. Anne’s parochial school, in Arvada, from first grade

through eighth grade, and thereafter, he attended and graduated from Pomona High

School. Immediately after graduating from High School in 1998, Anthony applied and

was accepted as a seminarian for the Archdiocese of Denver. Archbishop Charles Chaput

sent him to Immaculate Heart of Mary Seminary, in Winona, MN, for formation and to

pursue his undergraduate degree. After four years in the seminary, and having obtained a

Bachelor’s Degree with a major in Philosophy in 2002, from St. Mary’s University of

Minnesota, in Winona, Anthony discerned that God was calling him to another vocation.

After leaving the seminary, he began dating a young woman named Maria. Anthony and

Maria entered into marriage in 2004. In 2007, they were blessed with a daughter, who

was born only two months after Anthony began working for the Diocesan Tribunal of

Colorado Springs. Even though he didn’t have any formal education in Canon Law at the

time, Anthony discovered a deep love for the canonical discipline of the Church. As an

auditor, and later assessor, for the Tribunal, he informally studied Canon Law while also

obtaining a Master’s Degree in Theology from Holy Apostles College and Seminary, in

Cromwell, CT. God blessed their family with a second daughter in 2011.

In 2012, the Most Rev. Michael Sheridan, Bishop of Colorado Springs, asked Anthony to

go to school for Canon Law. Anthony, Maria and their two daughters moved to Ottawa,

Ontario, Canada, so that he could attend St. Paul University for his studies. He obtained a

Licentiate in Canon Law from St. Paul University, while simultaneously obtaining a

Master’s in Canon Law from the University of Ottawa, in 2013.

In 2015, Anthony was asked to teach as an adjunct professor of Canon Law, at St. John

Vianney Theological Seminary. He began working for the Metropolitan Tribunal of

Denver as a judge, in June of 2016, and most recently, he and his wife were blessed with

the birth of a son, in September of 2016. Anthony has a deep love for the Church and

enjoys working in the Tribunal, teaching and studying Latin.

commentary on pope francis’ apostolic letter

Documents