AmericanPapist Comments
I must be one of those ignorant fools who thinks that when canon 1329#2 says conspiracy in a latae sententiae excommunicable act involves a punitive response - it actually means it !!! way too many canonists are saying it means no such thing !
Actually, Paul, virtually ALL canonists say that, me included. See http://www.canonlaw.info/2007/05...on-1398-
to.html.
yes, but you say it requires a separate explanation, then don't give it !
If a politician wilfully legislates antagonistically regarding a life issue - it's conspiracy in any resultant death !
even if in a presidential election [where delegation of executive power is involved] anyone who votes for an individual who has said that they will promote or actuate a policy conforming to the culture of death - that's conspiracy !
If it isn't then what is it ? and how can you have conspiracy and latae sententiae in the same sentence and then separate the two in the most fundamental instance of conspiracy ?
Much of the scholarly discussion in Archbishop Burke's article is way over my head, but I take him to have distilled his analysis into the following conclusion:
"No matter how often a Bishop or priest repeats the teaching of the Church regarding procured abortion, if he stands by and does nothing to discipline a Catholic who publicly supports legislation permitting the gravest of injustices and, at the same time, presents himself to receive Holy Communion, then his teaching rings hollow."
I wonder whether there are all that many prominent Catholic politicians about whom it could be said that he or she "publicly supports legislation permitting" abortion? Remember that most abortions in this country are lawful by virtue of a court decision.
It is not Congress, or any state legislature, that "permits" abortion; it is "permitted" because of a perverse reading of the U.S Constitution that occurred over thirty years ago.
Note, Archbishop Burke's formulation would not appear to require withholding the Eucharist from a Catholic politician who (1) fails to work to overturn Roe, or who, (2) despite his or her personal opposition to abortion, believes that Roe was rightly decided as a matter of Constitutional law, or who (3) votes against a partial birth abortion ban, on the ground that it would be unconstitutional. Nor would the situation require withholding Communion from a Catholic judge who -- whatever his or her personal views -- adheres to the doctrine of stare decisis as it relates to Roe.
In sum, when the rubber meets the road, I think that the reality is that very few "pro-choice" Catholic politicians would be impacted at all by the principles that Archbishop Burke has announced.
Perhaps I am reading it too narrowly?
pp: a blogger, like me, is under NO obligation to explain everything to everybody. my service, in this matter, had to be limited to alerting folks like you to the futility of trying that attractive but flawed theory (only my opinion, but i figure it's worth something.) i could be entirely wrong.
if you or others would care to expond it, by all means, feel free. mine are pauca sapientoribus.
Axiomatically if someone is going to say that something does not mean what it ostensibly says they are in some way obliged to justify or explain in some way to the reader; rather than merely dismissing it as 'another story'; even on grounds of courtesy.
Adopting a gnostic tone of 'it doesn't work !' is hardly conducive to reassuring the perplexed; who truly believe that this article is pertinent, and are bemused why it isn't being actuated.
Incidentally,excuse a poor ignoramus who may be completely wrong about everything, but although it's been nearly thirty years since I did a few terms of latin, isn't wisdom feminine - but oribus neuter ? would using it as a comparative adjective be sapientioribus ? Just asking.
ok, pp. since i wasn't attempting to engage in a discussion according to the rules of debate, forget i said anything.
and, i know you're just asking, but, just as it poor form to criticez spelling mistakes in english that apepar in comboxes, so to it is in latin. of course, the word was mispelled.
I haven't read the Archbishop Burke's article, but I definitely know enough about his bluntness to prefer Archbishop Wuerl's softer approach on such matters. And Bishop Zubik's. And Archbishop Niederauer's. All of which, by the way, are Benedict appointees. Despite the hopes of some relatives that he's in line to get a red hat, something tells me that Burke is in St. Louis for as long as B.XVI is around.
Rolling eyes !
Irony [especially in latin] is lost on some people....
I was being nasty; sorry; trying to stress your mystagogic : "I'm not telling!" [i.e. to/for,by/with/from the 'wiser']
It had little to do with the exigences of pedantry ; merely aggravation at your recalcitrance to explain; while maintaining there is antipathetical concord among the cognoscenti on the issue.
easy now, this isn't the World Rhetoric Championship. :)
Nathan - long may he prosper....
Archbishop Burke's Bluntness vs. Archbishop Wuerl's Subtlety . . .
I guess I come back to the analysis that I described in my above comment.
It appears to me that Archbishop Burke's "bluntness" would come into play in a very limited number of situations because it would be quite unusual for a legislator to be in the position of voting in support of a discrete piece of legislation that "permits" or "promotes" abortion. For example, votes on appropriations are almost always embedded within large pieces of legislation that include line items for many different things. May a Catholic legislator be denied communion because of a vote on an omnibus appropriation bill that includes a line item that pays for abortions? I think not.
In application, therefore, I suspect that there is very little difference between the approach that Archbishop Burke advances in his article and the more subtle approach that Archbishop Wuerl appears to have adopted.
AP: precisely. It isn't.
EG: If, headed out the door, I say to my buddy, "You should bring an umbrella." the last thing I would expect to hear in return in "My friend, axiomatically, the burden is on the affirmative, and having made a suggestion, it is now incumbant upon you to prove to the satisfaction of objective observers why I should carry an umbrella."
If I heard such, I'd likely say, "Never mind. Do whatever you want."
fwiw.
No, it's more like my saying:
'I'd better take my raincoat because it looks like it's going to rain';
and your replying :
'You'll still get wet because it's not a raincoat!'
'But it says shower-proof raincoat on the label ?'
'Yes but showerproof raincoat doesn't mean that - all the experts say so'.
'But why ?'
'Well you'll have to work that one out for yourself; I'm not telling !'
Ed,
You're an expert. That makes you utterly blind to the realities of your own field. We amateurs can read perfectly well and Canon Law says that politicians who support legal abortion are automatically excommunicated. You just can't see that because you've been blinded by education.
Anonymous, I take it you're in the habit of self-diagnosing yourself in cases of rare disease as well as representing yourself in legal matters? The patent stupidity of your statement precludes any further attempts to explain the situation.
Anonymous, I take it you're in the habit of self-diagnosing yourself in cases of rare disease as well as representing yourself in legal matters?
Of course! If I had gone to a "qualified" doctor, then the seven rare diseases I suffer from would have all gone undiagnosed and untreated and I almost certainly would be dead. Expertise is the great leftist academic professional swindle.
Ok, well, I can see where this is going. Think whatever makes you happy, folks.
I took Anon as being sarcastic.
I was wondering what the floor's opinion was of the following:
I took Abp. Burke's paper to be a defense of his authority as bishop and pastor to deny communion to those in manifest grave sin. This was specifically to counter some who had opined that a pastor lacks that authority. There seems to be some who are of the opinion that he is claiming pastors are compelled to deny communion rather than claiming that prudence would argue that a pastor should deny communion.
I may just be trying to use Abp Burke to confirm my opinion, which is why I'm asking the floor. My opinion is that pastors should deny communion but that the judgement remains with the pastor, and my job isn't to tell pastors how to execute their offices.
maybe, mz. sacrcasm never works in comboxes, because sarcasm's effectiveness is rooted in non-verbal cues, the kind that don't come out in comboxes.
ok, consider it like this :
A person considers that a woman has the right to choose to destroy their child - when any state legislates upon it it becomes judicial murder; and if anyone in civic office approves, promotes or publically supports or participates within the formulation of legislation contrary to the sanctity of life they axiomatically distance themselves from the Truth; the Person of Christ; and acts in direct contrariety to everything that the Church - The Mystical Body of Christ holds dear.
The Lord, the Giver of Life is scandalised.
A Catholic in civic office attends Mass and publicly states a renunciation of their sins via the Confiteor, the Kyrie, the Pater, The Agnus etc while simultaneously objectively refusing to acknowledge their sinfulness in their conspiracy with the most heinous of Sins against Life. Not only is this abject hypocrisy; it is scandal against the community, the sacrifice of the Mass and the Blessed Sacrament itself ! The 'penitent' is blatantly refusing to acknowledge their necessity to repent in this regard. The active homosexual removes themselves from reception, the civically 'remarried divorcee' does likewise ; as the priest must neither collude nor excuse any ongoing moral disorder; even if the nature and character of their ongoing sin is being repented of [with firm desire for amendment] within the rite.
Yet this pro-choice 'ideological sin' is not even in this position [i.e. aimed towards forgiveness of acknowledged sinfulness] of those already precluded from reception.
It is suspect to even suggest that it is tenable for a pro-choice catholic to validly participate within the sacrifice of the mass [in light of its acts of penance which they wilfully refuse to perform - and thus scandalise the community] - let alone receive the Blessed Sacrament - This brings to light issues which must be addressed by all involved.
I cannot see how this question can even be open to debate - the Recusant to Life automatically precludes themselves from the Blessed Sacrament.
..and I still don't see why canon 1329#2 - conspiracy in a latae sententiae excommunicable act [i.e. legislating to permit, extend
or maintain access to abortion; or publicly promoting /supporting these legislations] is not applicable in this regard ???
...it must lead to questions of potential excommunication! Why it is being dismissed as even a possibility is frankly beyond me...
Can. 1329§2 refers to immediate cooperation, not mediate and certainly not remote cooperation. "without their assistance the delict would not have been committed" should make that clear.
I understand the necessity for can 18 to be stringent; but 1329 does not refer to immediate co-operation; but immediately actuating co-operation ; there is a subtle difference [the law makes no difference between the bomb and the ticking time bomb - culpability for each effect are congruent]- it is a sine - 'without whom' - i.e. it must be directly causal, but please note , impersonal actuating involvement cannot be equivocated away as remote either; multiplicity of effects does not diminish, mitigate or negate the guilt; rather it gives it more gravity.
According to your relativist response Julius Caesar's assassins would escape culpability for his murder as they were collectively 'non-responsible' - None of the signatories of Charles I death warrant can be allocated any blame as they were the many rather than the one.
By being over-legalistic on one point we are deliberately being obtusely oblivious to the word 'conspire'.
According to your rationale the only time a civic official could be considered as excommunicate were if he or she held the deciding vote in an anti-life initiative; but the equally antagonistic individual becomes guiltless if the vote is carried with a sweeping majority - this is specious to say the least!
You are fallaciously implying a 'distancing' predicate where one does not exist.
Now I understand why Ed wrote you off. Pedal your unique and binding interpretation that no bishop has adopted to someone who cares.
Thankyou for making the position clear; will bother none of you again.
Commenting by HaloScan
