AmericanPapist Comments
Thx for the link, Thom. Tell mom, you are "dessert-qualified" tonight. Now, get back to your thesis.
I always appreciate a good 'in the light of the law' post. Just curious, what's the elder Peters got against comboxes? Seems like plenty of good discussions are generated by his posts ... but usually said discussion's happening over on Jimmyakin.org when Jimmy summarizes and links over to them.
Does Dr. Ed just prefer to let others do the comments policing?
Adam. Yes. I freely crash others' comboxes, but I don't want them for mine! :)
Thom, thanks for the link to Dr. Ed's comments. This is definitely keeping it all in the Famiglia.
The article does help us to remember that there is a difference from being banned from communion & excommunication.
Dr. Ed, while it is good to reward your son for promoting something you wrote you should be glad that he simply plugged your work rather than attempted to summerize it. He probably did so so he could get back to his thesis rather than try & improve on perfection. :)
On the other hand, I know that neither of you planned this, but talk about the perfect event to plug a book that you wrote Dr. Ed. You couldn't buy publicity like this.
The term "dessert-qualified" raises some interesting questions about family dynamics that I will leave alone.
Actually, Al, we use the term "DQ" at home! And the kids, even the big ones, know what it means! Best.
And lest anyone be worried, the news of Nat's excommunication has been greatly exaggerated. In ACTUALITY Canon law is silent on the enjoyment of a KFC Fish Snacker while drinking grain alchohol from a dixie cup. Whew! Dodged another one!
Ed,
You don't think his level of cooperation is sufficient to be considered assisting others in procuring an abortion, thus falling under CIC 1398?
We could also get him on CIC 1364 assuming 1323 does not apply.
Commenting by HaloScan
