AmericanPapist Comments
A couple of questions:
1. Assuming that Mayor Giuliani is divorced and remarried outside the Church without the benefit of anullment of his previous marriage(s), isn't he already excommunicated for that?
2. Am I wrong to think it more important to be concerned about the state of the souls of these potential excommunicants than to focus on the legalistic questions about the propriety of excommuncating them? If, for example, a politician's pastor or bishop attempts to persuade him or her to seek absolution, or to repent for the role in expanding abortion, I don't think the public would have any reason to know that.
3. Isn't there something wrong with having a very public discussion about the state of a particular person's soul? Don't get me wrong -- I think that a politician who promotes abortion and then claims to be a Catholic is being hypocritical. I will judge him or her as a candidate and act accordingly. But I just don't feel that it's right for me to judge the state of his or her soul.
A couple of answers:
1. No. (Not since 1977.)
2. No. (Were you worried that talking about law precludes concern for souls?)
3. Yes. (Did you have a particular person's soul in mind as being discussed here?)
1. Thanks.
2. My point in addressing this question is that the media and their cohort of political analysts seem to be obsessed with getting the bishops to make statements about particular Catholic politicians (i.e. John Kerry, Speaker Pelosi, Rudy G., etc.). It seems likely to me that the politician's bishop or pastor is rightly more concerned with the individual's spiritual state than he is with making some sort of public pronouncement about the individual's spiritual state. Perhaps a prominent canon lawyer could set our friends in the media straight on this point?
3. See No. 2.
We do what we can. :)
First: Much thanks. I'm sure I'm not the reason you blogged, but on behalf of those of us with less...er...learned opinions(;-))...I appreciate it.
Second: I'm afraid I'm left with a bit of an ipse dixit feel after reading your analysis. I'm quite certain that it's because I don't have access to the commentaries, but as it stands I'm left with a "because we're the experts (not you) and we say so" feeling. Could you post a link to an online version of one of the commentaries, post a section yourself, or perhaps e-mail me the relevant text? I really want to understand, and (frankly) I believe I do regarding the 1398 discussion, but a more lengthy treatment would really let me know if I'm thinking about this correctly.
Third: Do you plan to engage in a discussion of Canon 1329's application (or lack thereof) to Canon 1398 and Catholic politicians?
Again, thank you, and may God bless you richly,
Pleasure. I know of no canon law commentaries on-line, but I gave the titles for all the books so folks could try to look some up. There are several in Catholic libraries. And it's ok to feel like you heard a "we're the experts line". because you did, and we are. I did admitted in the post that's an "argument from authority", and hence weaker than some others, but we do what we can.
This is a question that I have, if a politican or someone has an abortion or support legisation on this act. Does this mean they are excommunicated automatically or they can't receive communion? Next question why would the spokemen change what the Pope said or try to put a different spin on it?
Hey Papist! 2 Things:
1) This may be very relavent to this blog entry: http://www.nationalreview.com/
co...00409160530.asp
2) When is the blog roll or your posts going to reflect your new-found love of MercatorNet.com?
As ever,
MTM
Here's an interesting approach to this problem by Providence Bishop Thomas Tobin (in the inaugural issue of the newly named diocesan newspaper "The Rhode Island Catholic."
http://www.thericatholic.com/rudy.html
Brassband,
I love the article you posted and the fact that the bishop is showing some resolve where other would shrink away because of the politics or the time. It takes great courage to be a Catholic because there is no middle ground. Sometimes my mom and I get into heated discussions over that fact and she is coming around to understanding why being Catholic is such a hard road.
Here's the common sense level: why can't a new canon be inserted to cover this new and extensive problem.
A young girl gets an abortion out of anxiety and is automatically excommunicated and probably doesn't know it. John Kerry sends his wife and daughters to march in a pro choice parade and thus influences dozens of such young girls and he is still in the Church (and being a Yale graduate albeit with a low average...knows it).
Granted that #1398 does not cover it....let's move on and amend the canon law corpus to include such a canon. It is fine for the Church to move slowly in non emergency areas like Liturgy wherein decisions can take centuries; it is not fine to apply that same glacial speed to areas of life and death.
Having just read Dr Peter's essay albeit quickly), I'm not entirely convinced. Some points:
Most of the argument, as you've already mentioned, centers around the authority of canon lawyers--since none of them think 1398 applies, who are the untrained to think otherwise? While I'm not totally against the 'authority' argument (it IS valid so far as it goes), the essay seems to give little more than this. I am unconvinced because, as a scholar in a different discipline, it is not at all surprising to find even generations of scholars missing very basic things. Oftentimes consensus is simply wrong, and the scholar who overturns it usually does so on a fundamental level: in other words, there is something obvious being overlooked.
I'm not saying 1398 can or cannot be applied--I am too ignorant to comment on something so specific--but when using the 'authority' argument, one must also give reasons beyond this. In other words, why doesn't 1398 apply? If it is so clear that it doesn't, it seems to me that a summary as to why is more convincing than reiterations of authority and citations of scholars (or perhaps in this case canon lawyers) who agree. Once again, as a scholar myself, whenever I see someone citing consensus and authority *without* a well reasoned proof along with it, I get suspicious: there is usually something being overlooked, and it's usually so basic that the consensus scholars miss it (like "losing" your wallet on your desktop). I have overturned accepted consensus scholarship, engrained for generations, myself on at least one, perhaps two occaisions.
With respect for you expertise on this, Dr Peters, would you do us the honor of showing us the strenghts and weaknesses: the argument itself concerning 1398? I ask this simply so that those of us without expertise can be well informed, and an opportunity like this is too good to pass up.
Thanks.
Another question for Doctor Peters (if he's still reading) and one which may help him in his defense:
Does scholarly opinion in the canon law community bear any sort of "official" weight in the system, as for example, written opinions and decisions in American law form precedent for future decisions?
I agree with Nat that there should be a reason why that specific Canon does not apply in this case. In the book Surprised by Canon Law written by Pete Vere and Michael Trueman (who has a license in canon law), they state on page 98 that "[w]hen the Church excommunicates or places under interdict an individual, she does so not with the intention of punishing the individual. Rather, she intends to help the individual repent of whatever crime led to the penalty. Thus the Church bars the individual from receiving Holy Communion in order to force the individual to reflect upon how his or her crime wounded Christ's Mystical Body."
They then give examples a few lines later: One example of such behavior [the crime] would be a Catholic's attempt to contract marriage outside of the Church without the Church's permission. The politician who intentionally supports laws facilitating and promoting abortion presents another example.
They don't cite which canon would apply in the case of a politician supporting abortion though, which I think is unfortunate.
Hi guys. Don't read my stuff quickly and comment. I don't write that way. Yes, scholarly opinion is hugely important in canon law. For lots of reasons. Finally, compare the single sentence in Vere & Trueman to ANY of the major commentaries I listed. And judge for yourselves. Cheers. edp. (PS: have to move on to other things here!)
Point taken, Dr. Peters. I was just hoping we'd get treated to a brief summary as to why, beyond the authority argument, 1398 does not apply. I respect your desire to move on, however, and thank you for your time.
All the best,
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
