Enter your email address to receive updates by email:

subscribe in a reader like my facebook page follow me on twitter Image Map
Podcast Message Line: 512-222-3389
Logos Catholic Bible Software

« The Our Father In Aramaic | Main | The Chillling Stars? »

February 09, 2007

Comments

francis 03

"if without their assistance the delict would not have been committed . . ."

If that's the standard, then what about the doctor who performed the abortion? Can't he say that "if I didn't do it somebody else would have?" And if he can't, becuase he's a 'but-for' cause in actual fact, then how doesn't that apply to the person who rented him the space as well? At least facially, it looks to me like the two cases would have to stand or fall together. Maybe there's a distinction that I'm missing.

Slowboy

@francis. But following that standard you get mired in a morass of..without my assistance. This would apply to the automobile manufacturer for example.

I think the law is directed at those who are directly involvled. The patient and the doctor. A boyfriend who drives the woman to the clinic yes. A cabdriver no.

SDG

Hip-hip (hooray withheld) for the bishop for at least taking the situation and his moral responsibility as shepherd seriously. Too bad he botched the canonical implications.

AnnonyMouse

It is a mess I will agree to that.
BUT I think there is a difference if the person who rented the building KNEW what would be performed there. You can deny someone the rental space, BUT I could not, if they meet all the codes, deny them water, electricity, etc.

I think the point should be made that something HORRIBLE is taking place and work out the "other" (whether automatic excommunication) later.

AnnonyMouse

Jimmy,
If the article is correct and the Bishop asked him before hand not too...

"Schönborn said that he had asked Lugner not to sign a contract with the center which offers abortion, but to no avail."

Then is it automatic because of disobedience in that sense? Or does the Bishop have to issue it (excommunication)?

SDG

I would also be curious to know whether local and EU legislation (and jurisprudence!) would even permit a landowner to refuse to rent to an abortion provider on moral grounds.

Matt

The destruction of life must not be made banal and viewed like a shopping trip. It must not be that a society is viewed as a way out. Everything you need to know about abortion is to be found in the Fifth Commandment...

Schoenborn said that he had asked Lugner to not sign a contract with the abortion clinic. Lugner (who calls himself a "confessing Catholic" - not in the sense of the sacrament) rejected this. The cardinal voiced satisfaction that this scandal had stirred up a broad discussion of the subject.

I don't know about you but this sounds like he's backing the bishop, morally, if not in regards to the canon law of the situation.

As to the canonical question, I think taking a too legalistic view of the canon law defeats the purpose of excommunication. If the bishop warned the man that he would be excommunicated if he cooperated to this extent, and he refused to do so, then I will take the bishop's word for it that he is in fact excommunicated. If the Church issues a document later that contradicts that, then I will accept it.

A further note, it doesn't matter what state law allows or not, if you give aid to the murder of innocent babies, you will be held to account. Many Germans knew what was going on in the concentration camps, but did nothing, this is no different. Remember the young acolyte who was murdered by pagans for refusing to give up the Blessed Sacrament... that should inspire us to courage in the face of evil, even unto death.

God Bless,

Matt

bill912

As Jimmy pointed out, Can. 18 requires that a legalistic view be taken.

Randy

Well if my bishop said I was excommunicated I would not try and argue cannon law to suggest he somehow didn't follow the right procedure. He is the shepherd of the church. The spirit of his words need to be respected. Do you want to stand before Jesus and argue that your bishop interpeted cannon 1329 too liberally? I would prefer to say I went to confession and changed my ways.

Esau

Do you want to stand before Jesus and argue that your bishop interpeted cannon 1329 too liberally? I would prefer to say I went to confession and changed my ways.


Randy:

As much as I admire the fervent loyalty to Christ's Church illustrated in this comment of yours, if I were a certain kind of Protestant, this very comment of yours would, in fact, go so far as to confim my suspicions that the Catholic Church is nothing but a man-made institution with all its made-up laws and regulations.

I bring this up since, from that perspective, and especially with the particular remark you made, it would seem the case.

Again, not a slam on you or any such Protestant, but that there can be the possibility of such an interpretation.

francis o3 said:if without their assistance the delict would not have been committed . . ."

If that's the standard, then what about the doctor who performed the abortion? Can't he say that "if I didn't do it somebody else would have?"


The answer to this is that the abortion doctor himself is the one procuring the abortion. He is formally involved in the offense. It cannot be objected that someone else would have done it in his case.

Canon 1329 applies to material cooperation. That is someone who did not himself do the offense, but who aided it. In particular, the canon says only those whose aid was such that it was "enabling" occur the penalty latae sententiae. Other aid, in fact, can sometimes be morally justifiable. It is the distinction between immediate and material cooperation, and mediate and material cooperation. The former is when without the aid the evil would not have happened. The abortion doctor is in another catergory...one who formally cooperates, such can never be excused.

I said that mediate (non enabling) material aid can be justified at times. Such are the cases Mr. Akin mentions, such as a clerk at the City Hall. Even paying your taxes can amount to material cooperation with evil...not all the government does is dandy (many States fund Planned Parenthood). The law cannot, therefore, be so broad as to hit all cooperators.

Also, as Mr. Akin said the penalty could be applied ferendae sententiae (that is by a judicial decision) by the Ordinary....which is Cardinal Schonborn, not his auxiliary.

Joshua

oops...I left my name out. My post was above...

Just one last thing. If it could (unlikely) be established that the mall's owner's cooperation was necessary for the evil to occur, say if it were certain that the abortion clinic could not operate anywhere else, then he would fit under 1329.

Puzzled

Did I.G. Farban sin by making human pesticide in the 30s and 40s and RU 486, now?

Come now, let us reason on this.

The man knowingly leased space to a mass-murder facility in order to make money. Unless he was forced to do so by the government, or his wife was being held hostage by the abortionist, he did in fact give willful assistance to a grave moral evil for the sake of personal profit.

John E

Interesting. A group of us were actually having this discussion on abortion and latae sententiae excommunication just yesterday. I was wondering what the difference is between latae sententiae excommunication and mortal sin in general. Both exclude you from communion. Both are basically self-inflicted.

Does latae sententiae excommunication imply a mortal sin has definitely been committed, or does it "only" mean that grave matter of a particular sort (abortion) was involved? Is it even possible for someone to procure abortion but for it not to be a mortal sin? (such as someone who honestly did not know or believe they were killing an innocent human life)

The Catholic Encyclopedia says that someone who is excommunicated "may not participate in public worship nor receive the Body of Christ or any of the sacraments." So this means that one who is excommunicated, even latae sententia excommunicated, cannot even receive the sacrament of reconciliation? Or can priests forgive this sin by prior permission from the bishop? What must such latae sententia excommunicated individuals do to have this penalty lifted?

ann(-e)

Nitpick here. Schoenborn is archbishop of Vienna (in which Lugner's shopping center is located). Bishop Laun is an auxilliary in the Archbishopric of Salzburg.

Matt

Does latae sententiae excommunication imply a mortal sin has definitely been committed, or does it "only" mean that grave matter of a particular sort (abortion) was involved? Is it even possible for someone to procure abortion but for it not to be a mortal sin? (such as someone who honestly did not know or believe they were killing an innocent human life)

The Catholic Encyclopedia says that someone who is excommunicated "may not participate in public worship nor receive the Body of Christ or any of the sacraments." So this means that one who is excommunicated, even latae sententia excommunicated, cannot even receive the sacrament of reconciliation? Or can priests forgive this sin by prior permission from the bishop? What must such latae sententia excommunicated individuals do to have this penalty lifted?

As Jimmy pointed out, Can. 18 requires that a legalistic view be taken.

Fine then, in that case, the bishops of SSPX are not excommunicated because it was an emergency situation, and canon law allows bishops to be consecrated in an emergency situation. Hogwash. If the Pope says they're excommunicated, they ARE excommunicated. If the bishop says this man who is doing evil, is excommunicated, he IS excommunicated unless a HIGHER authority says otherwise. My understanding of the facts, and reading of the Canon law says that the bishop's conclusion is completely reasonable.

Throwing out the red-herring that paying taxes may be cooperation is disingenuous. There is a HUGE difference between voluntary cooperation, and involuntary cooperation.

If someone is excommunicated, they need to have it lifted before being absolved (except in an emergency). For abortions, the authority to lift is ussually extended to all the priests in a diocese who have faculties to absolve, so it's simply an extra step in the confessional. In other cases, one would have to make request to the bishop or even the Holy See.

God Bless,

Matt

God Bless,

Matt

Pseudomodo

The Catholic Encyclopedia says that someone who is excommunicated "may not participate in public worship nor receive the Body of Christ or any of the sacraments."

Sort of..

It can happen that a particular bishop or even the pope can reserve ordinary absolution to themselves to prevent an excommunicated person from ducking the bishops authority and recieve reconciliation from a priest (ie: a non-emergency confession)

Paul Madrid

Also, as Mr. Akin said the penalty could be applied ferendae sententiae (that is by a judicial decision) by the Ordinary....which is Cardinal Schonborn, not his auxiliary.

Well, an auxiliary usually is an Ordinary. The Diocesan Bishop must appoint his auxiliaries episcopal vicars or vicars general (can. 406 § 2) which are Ordinaries (can. 134 § 1), and it is Ordinaries that impose ferendae sententiae penalties and declare latae sententiae penalties (can. 1341). Assuming that Archbishop Kothgasser of Salzburg has appointed Bishop Laun an Ordinary as required by law, Bishop Laun would have the power to engage the formal process to impose/declare penalties.

However, it seems that there has been no formal process involved here. The story comes from an on-line interview with Bishop Laun where he expressed the opinion that the landlord was excommunicated. This isn't a decree; his opinion in an interview probably has no juridical effect.

Mary

Humm.

It's not clear from the comments on the article, but perhaps the mall owner did not merely happen to rent to the abortion clinic, but set out to get one, precisely to make it like a shopping trip. Or deliberately chose to rent to it rather than an alternative.

Can't tell of course, and don't know whether that would qualify as near material cooperation.

*ponder, ponder*

If you give a woman money to pay for her abortion, or if you give her a room for the night specificially so that she can stay in the city for the two-day late-term abortion procedures, you are cooperating. But if a person sets up a fund in order to fund abortions, or an organization so that women who want those late-term abortions can be matched with people who will give them shelter for the night in order to have that abortion, and does not disperse the money, or offer the room, or even match the women with the room, are they materially cooperating?

hewson

So who's right? John Allen, Jr., the Vatican insider who is privy to all sorts of info that none of us every will be or Jimmy Akin, the Catholic apologist who throws up a couple lines of canon law thinking they can be interpreted in a theological vacuum? I don't know which "serious canonical circles" Jimmy moves in, but his presumption that his self-derived understanding of canonical norms are superior to those of reputable, connected and more qualified journalists leads me to believe that these "circles" may only be Catholic Answers guys nights out.

bill912

Wow! Now there's a highly intellectual response!

bill912

For those who may be new to JA.O, allow me to introduce hewson: He is obsessed with Jimmy and pops up now and then to post something derogatory about him.

David B.

I've been reading JA.O for a year, and I have had the pleasure of never seeing hewson's posts before today.

bill912

Well, David, you've seen one of his posts, you've seen 'em all.

Jordan Potter

Hewson is guilty of the "argument from authority" fallacy. Supposedly John Allen, a journalist with no training in canon law, is more trustworthy an interpreter of canon law than trained canon lawyers like Ed Peters, or even a prelate like Cardinal Schonborn, just because John Allen used to be privy to all kinds of tittle tattle when he lived in Rome. Yeah, that's logical . . . .

John

I am confused. A poster stated

"The Catholic Encyclopedia says that someone who is excommunicated "may not participate in public worship nor receive the Body of Christ or any of the sacraments." So this means that one who is excommunicated, even latae sententia excommunicated, cannot even receive the sacrament of reconciliation"

But at the same time Canon 844 states that

1. Catholic ministers may licitly administer the sacraments to Catholic members of the Christian faithful only and, likewise, the latter may licitly receive the sacraments only from Catholic ministers with due regard for parts 2, 3, and 4 of this canon, and can. 861, part 2.
2. Whenever necessity requires or genuine spiritual advantage suggests, and provided that the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, it is lawful for the faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister, to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose churches these sacraments are valid.
3. Catholic ministers may licitly administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist and anointing of the sick to members of the oriental churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church, if they ask on their own for the sacraments and are properly disposed. This holds also for members of other churches, which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition as the oriental churches as far as these sacraments are concerned.
4. If the danger of death is present or other grave necessity, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or the conference of bishops, Catholic ministers may licitly administer these sacraments to other Christians who do not have full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and on their own ask for it, provided they manifest Catholic faith in these sacraments and are properly disposed.
5. For the cases in parts 2, 3, and 4, neither the diocesan bishop nor the conference of bishops is to enact general norms except after consultation with at least the local competent authority of the interested non- Catholic Church or community.
In keeping with the sacramental meaning of the Eucharist this canon reserves the sacraments to Catholics, that is, those who are in communion with the Church.

As far as Protestants, Paragraph 4 states that non-Catholics who belong to Churches which have a valid Eucharist, true Eucharistic faith and valid Penance can receive our Lord under:
a. danger of death, or, other grave necessity,
b. the norms of the diocesan bishop, or, the conference of bishops are complied with
c. cannot approach a minister of his or her own community
d. asks on his or her own for it,
e. manifests Catholic faith in the sacraments
f. properly disposed.


So, we will give our Lord out in the name of Ecumania but excommunication and the answer is no. Totally absurd and another reason why no one really cares about following church teaching after Vatican II because in trying to be ecumenical it has defected from all past teachings and traditions and no one even takes excommunication serious

Joshua

Matt wrote:

Throwing out the red-herring that paying taxes may be cooperation is disingenuous. There is a HUGE difference between voluntary cooperation, and involuntary cooperation.


It is also disingenious to ignore the distinction between mediate and immediate cooperation. No one is saying that it is alright or morally justifiable to rent space to an abortion clinic. That is not in question. What is in question is whether the act was immediate and material cooperation. The example of taxes was merely to illustrate why the Church ceases to impose latae sententiae penalties after a certain point: because after that point it becomes something that has a lot of factors involved

Let us take abortion, since that is the issue at hand, as an example:

1. There is formal cooperation- always sinful. This is participating in the act itself

2. There is material cooperation- aiding the sin, but not participating in the act

This latter is divided

It can be immediate- That is such aid that without which the evil would not have occurred. This is always sinful. Canon 1329 extends latae sententiae penalties to this. Paying for the abortion, for instance.

It can be mediate- such that even without the aid the evil would have happen. This is often sinful, often not. Paying taxes that fund Planned parenthood would probably not be sinful. Now how do we judge here?

A. There must be a proportionately good reason. That is the more evil the thing is that you are cooperating with, the more grave the good must be. This is determined further by

B. on how remote or proximate one's actions are to the evil and of course

C. The element of scandal or grave inconvenience. This must be avoided

It is obvious that in this case there is sinful cooperation because scandal is given, there is not a proportionally good reason, etc. But because such factors are impossible to legislate for universally that Church ceases to impose latae sententiae penalties when the issue becomes so muddled. The proper ordinary can of course judge individual cases like this and impose proper penalties ferendae sententiae.

Remember, 1st degree murder does not carry with it excommunication, but it is a grave sin. The non application of ecclesiatical penalties is not exoneration.

As for this last part,

"Fine then, in that case, the bishops of SSPX are not excommunicated because it was an emergency situation, and canon law allows bishops to be consecrated in an emergency situation. Hogwash. If the Pope says they're excommunicated, they ARE excommunicated. If the bishop says this man who is doing evil, is excommunicated, he IS excommunicated unless a HIGHER authority says otherwise. My understanding of the facts, and reading of the Canon law says that the bishop's conclusion is completely reasonable."

This whole thing you wrote is hogwash. The pope acted, in this case, as a pastor of souls interpreting how Canon law applies to the case of SSPX bishops. While I think it must be admitted he is not infallible (canon law does state that even if one is through his own fault ignorant that an act, which is not inherently evil, is not necessary and believes it to be the penalty is mitigated. It then says that crass or supine ignorance, however, does not excuse. Assuming the Lefebrve at least believed what he was saying, the pope judge this to be a case of crass ignorance. His authority goes so far as the external forum. It is not an infallible judgment of the heart).

But anyways, this bishop did not act as the Ordinary judicially declaring a sentence. He gave an opinion. It can be disagreed with.

The question rests on whether supplying an office amounts to immediate cooperation. Arguments go both ways, and one must not pronounce something like excommunication, even for grievous offenses, without firm foundation. I can see that one might thing that this is immediate cooperation by comparing it to paying for it. Namely, with facilities there would be no abortions performed and without being paid for no abortion, but all because someone else could have paid for the abortion would not make the person actually paying for it not an "enabler", likewise all because other facilities could have been provided does not mean that the one actually providing them is not immediately cooperating. But there are arguments the other ways, particularly looking at the remoteness of the act. We should not declared someone cut for the body of Christ and delivered to Satan based on "our readings of Canon law", without being extremely cautious.

Tim J.

There is, apparently, no post that John can't turn into a Rad-Trad screed.

Yawn.

John

Tim

You are so good at calling names-yet can never refute a clear contradiction in canon law that is being promulgated

I guess if I had to defend what is being sold off today as Catholic I would act as you would as well!!

AnnonyMouse

Hey John,
Do you remember the ending of the prodigal son? Do you remember how ANGRY and upset the faithful son was? I mean, really, how DARE the father even let him back into his house!!!
When I read your post, I was reminded of the ANGRY faithful son. I think it is fitting that we don't know what happened to him. What do you think? How dare they minister to people...people not CATHOLIC....I mean...after all...they are supposed to help them get to heaven?? Right??
:0)

David B.

John,

Borrrrrrrrrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnnnnnggggggggggggggg.

BTW, I predict John will accuse me of supporting the evil, liberal, communist-sympathizer pope by virtue of my above one-word commentary. *yawn*

Inocencio

John,

Do you ever tell our Blessed Lord how wrong (at least in your opinion) it was of Him to establish His Church with His authority founded on fallen creatures?

It seems as though you think you could do better. How would you have done it?

Please pour forth all the wisdom, humility and charity you obviously receive from attending the Tridentine Rite.

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Fabio P.Barbieri

That is nonsense. The abortion clinic is part of the services offered by this man's mall, which he built and which carries his name. Without his decision, there would be no abortion mill and no easy abortions in a shopping mall. He has deliberately decided that abortions would be on offer easily in a place that carries his name. He is excommunicated. Edward Peters and you are both wrong, I'm afraid.

bill912

Jimmy and Ed explained how the man did not incur latae sententiae excommunication (i.e., he wasn't *automatically* excommunicated). Please explain how they are wrong, and how the man did incur latae sententiae excommunication, given Can. 18.

DL

I plead guilty to having just given a cursery (Time for Mass soon) look at the issue, but can't resist sharing a thought. Isn't it possible that guilt of the Mall owner (Don't forget the signpainter and the guy/gal who took their ads etc.)is there, but falls into a catagory somewhat less than automatic excommunication. It seems to me that much of this argument is really about incurring sin - most of which may not trigger excommunication.

Point one: Lugner is making money out of the abortion mill. He is directly getting money out of the murder of babies. Point two: he decided to set it up. It was his decision, wherever the suggestion came from, and in placing his money and resources at the disposal of the abortion mill, he became a direct accomplice. Point three: without an abortion mill in the centre of such a popular place, you can bet your life that a few women at least would not even think of having an abortion. It makes the crime easier. Point four: he promotes abortion by associating it with the glamour of his mall. Want any more? Lugner obviously falls into the category of excommunicates latae sententiae.

FAbio P.Barbieri

The last anonymous comment was mine.

bill912

"Want any more? Lugner obviously falls into the category or excommunicates latae sententiae."

Ed Peters: "...canon law imposes excommunication only for a very narrow range of actions; renting space to an abortion clinic isn't among them."

Please explain what the canon lawyer got wrong, why, and how this is "obviously".

Fabio P.Barbieri

In God's name, he is directly, immediately responsible in his own person for all the crimes that take place on his property, by his decision and inspiration, with the cover of his name, and for his profit. HE IS MAKING MONEY OUT OF THE BABY-KILLING!!!!! And he is doing so in public and with a swagger. What kind of reasoning denies that this is direct, immediate, personal, public, impenitent, rebellious responsibility?

bill912

I agree with everything you wrote. How does any of it counter the quote from Ed Peters?

John

Inocencio, Cavid B and Anonymouse:

Angry?
Yes-Should not you be as well for what is taking place in the church? Did not St Thomas make clear to us as scripture states:

"Where there is a proximate danger to the Faith, prelates must be rebuked,even publicly, by their subjects. Thus St. Paul, who was subject to St. Peter, rebuked him publicly. --St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians 2:14


You only sit back so well and throw names around at those who speak up against the Catholic Reformation of 1962-1965, and when a Bishop today actually does what he is supposed to do, like protect the faith and the body and blood of Christ it actually makes news because it is against what is taking place so wide spread. One-Holy-Catholic-Apostolic? Show me where as it is a hodgepodge today after Vatican II of little feifdoms run by mostly corrupt homosexual in many instances Bishops who cant even get up enough guts to deny the Body and Blood of Christ to so called "Catholic" supporters of baby killing like Pelosi, Cuomo (who actually just released a statement saying "God bless Pope John XXIII and one wonders why), Kerry and those who made those who make anti Catholic statements publically

So shame on you for not being angry and just sitting by while homosexuality runs rampant in society and what is being sold today as the "norm" today on tV and the papers today would not even be thought of to be discussed before Vatican II

Get with it

AnnonyMouse

John,

But your disobedience because of theirs does not justify anything.
You are speaking of a few, who, should be corrected.
Yes we should point out grave errors and abuses especially when it comes to the Holy Eucharist.

But because someone has misinterpreted Vatican II does NOT justify US in bad mouthing and saying the "whole" Vatican II and Bishops and Church is wrong, etc.

We keep correcting with charity and offer our suffering and PRAY that we may have the strength to survive, because our faith and fidelity will be tested.

You mentioned something, that excommunication is sort of like a joke now because no one listens or cares. What about us? How do we show others the importance of this? By our own obedience. By subjecting ourselves to, in some cases, a scandalous Bishop and by correcting in charity and remaining faithful.

Already with it.

Inocencio

John,

As I always have to do with you, I repeat my question:

Do you ever tell our Blessed Lord how wrong (at least in your opinion) it was of Him to establish His Church with His authority founded on fallen creatures?

I look forward to your next faithless rant.

Mark 4:40. And he said to them: Why are you fearful? have you not faith yet?

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

John

A few?

No-it is now the norm. When you have Bishops all over Europe who refuse to allow an indult, American Bishops who refuse to deny Communion to baby killers, Bishops who refuse those who want to kneel to receive our Lord and during the consecration, pedophilia covered up by those who are supposes to be protecting our youth and the sacred faith. Even today on Spirit daily, which by the way is a mainstream Catholic news organization which compiles articles from all over the world, another produce of these rotten fruits you so defend.

A return to the true teachings as per the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917, Baltimore Catechism and do away with this so called renewal which was condemned by Pope after Pope until modernism and materialism took over the Papacy and has brought nothing but shame to our church

Our lady is holding back the hand of her beloved son from seeking retribution on those who wear the clerical cloth and those that are worshiping as humanists and not God himself. History has shown in the OT what has happened to those who deny God, and the church is already in shambles because of her denial

Inocencio

John,

Good morning!

Still won't answer my question? And I hope that you can forgive me if I accept the understanding that Sacred Scripture give us about the Church and ignore your faithless ranting and Banter.

"as Christ also loved the church and delivered himself up for it: That he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life: That he might present it to himself, a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish."

I would caution you about insulting the Bride of Christ.

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Tim J.

"the church is already in shambles because of her denial"

Sounds like despair.

Jamie Beu

Accomplices who are not named in a law or precept incur a latae sententiae penalty attached to a delict if without their assistance the delict would not have been committed

So, does this or does this not apply to lawmakers who willfully choose not to limit or deny abortions? I mean, after all (their thinking, not mine), if there's laws against abortions, that'll just push them to back alleys and wire hangers. Passing a law against abortion doesn't necessarily mean an abortion won't be committed...

Seriously, are the "Catholic" Senators and Representatives automatically excommunicated? I've heard a lot said to the effect that, because they are not directly procuring the abortions, they are not culpable.

Esau

JOHN (jtnova):

Again, you engage in such incredibly illogical, and highly calumnious rants that your hostile anger against the Catholic Church today blinds you from reason!

Look at what you just said:

You only sit back so well and throw names around at those who speak up against the Catholic Reformation of 1962-1965, and when a Bishop today actually does what he is supposed to do, like protect the faith and the body and blood of Christ it actually makes news because it is against what is taking place so wide spread.

Protect the Faith?

Since when is "protecting the faith" consists of usurping the authority of the Pope which was given him by Our Lord Himself through St. Peter unto his successors?

If "protecting the faith" means the arrogance to contradict the commands of Christ as to the Church He had, in fact, established which He instructed we obey (Mt 18:17-18); then, certainly, Martin Luther was indeed a hero to all Catholics (and not only the Protestants) and possessed an authority greater than that of not only the Pope but also Christ for it is He who had made the Church and the authority in her Pope (through St. Peter) so!


One-Holy-Catholic-Apostolic? Show me where as it is a hodgepodge today after Vatican II of little feifdoms run by mostly corrupt homosexual

How charitable and truly Catholic of you to generalize the whole of the Catholic clergy as nothing but a bunch of homosexual miscreants!


in many instances Bishops who cant even get up enough guts to deny the Body and Blood of Christ to so called "Catholic" supporters of baby killing

Again, you intend to accuse the whole Catholic Church of such infamy when, in fact, it is the individual actions of a few who have committed these shameful acts.

That is like condemning all of the Apostles of Our Lord of the shameful act of betrayal that Judas had committed when, in fact, this notorious act of Judas was his and his actions alone.

Besides, what authority do you actually have to command such things of those who are above you?

1 Thes 5:12-13
12 And we beseech you, brethren, to know them who labour among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you;
13 That you esteem them more abundantly in charity, for their work's sake. Have peace with them.

If there be clergy, those over us, who disobey/contradict Christ, they shall be certainly accountable to God for such outrageous actions.


...like Pelosi, Cuomo (who actually just released a statement saying "God bless Pope John XXIII and one wonders why)

Again, you and your "holier-than-thou" attitude which not only seeks to place himself above the authority that God has given to His Church, but you also dare make yourself the judge of man and, therefore, usurp the place of God; but, even worse than this, in spite of all your personal faults and numerous iniquities, you go so far as to promulgate lies and nasty innuendo about God's servants without just cause whatever.


So shame on you for not being angry and just sitting by while homosexuality runs rampant in society

So, now, here, you blame the Catholic Church because of the council at Vatican II for the homosexuality that actually exists in society????

As far as human history goes, it would seem that homosexuality preceded even Vatican II!


and what is being sold today as the "norm" today on tV and the papers today would not even be thought of to be discussed before Vatican II

Here, you've made the most laughable of assertions! You actually appear to blame the Catholic Church for the state of programming currently found on television today????

Since when did the Catholic Church become the sole owner of Network TV????

Get with it

Yeah, I agree, YOU should get with it!

David B.

Inocencio, Cavid B and Anonymouse:


Cavid B.? who is he?

John

Yes Esau,

Pedophila was rampant before Vatican II, no, Esau, in its desire to get a liberal open minded priesthood, homosexuals were admitted in droves where before they would never have made it past the first interview with the formation director

With woman and nuns now in many instances now after V2 the formation directors or worse yet homosexual priests, they were admitted in droves

You are so quick to denounce everything and offer nothing in return as to how to make things better

Lets see:

Cardinal Law swept off to safety in Rome

His sucessor O,Malley now being charged with taking $86M away from retired priests which breaks the law to pay for these abuse cases

Cardinal Mahoney allowing desecration after desecration to take place along with openly homosexual groups to use church property

Bishop of SanFrancisco promulgating adoption by openly homosexual couples

Bishop Tod Brown of CA not allowing parishoners to kneel or worship reverent

(4) Dioceses bankrupt as we speak due to pedophila with NYC selling 20 church's to pay for and due to declining attendance

I am getting tired as this is only current news

Pray for a full restoration of our church to tradition and reverence

Dan Hunter

John,
You make some very laudable points."By thier fruits ye shall know them".
God bless you and your beautiful family.

David B.

"imperial march playing in the background"

Fabio makes an incredible point that the apologists do not seem to give recognition to. The man IS PROFITTING FROM ABORTION, intentionally. This is clearly not remote, it is proximate.

I'll go with the bishop on this one, you are free to your opinions on the matter, but they are no less valid then mine or Fabio's. Only one individual in this discussion has any ecclesial authority in the matter, and I'll side with him.

God Bless,

Matt

Esau

"imperial march playing in the background"

David B.:

More like the "Dearth Vader" theme.

Esau

JOHN (jtnova):

Pedophila was rampant before Vatican II, no, Esau, in its desire to get a liberal open minded priesthood, homosexuals were admitted in droves where before they would never have made it past the first interview with the formation director


If that's the case, then why are the majority of pedophile priests are old men who are approaching death or about to croak?

As Chris Matthews joked with Dennis Miller way back when, it's not the young priests you should be worrying about; it's the old ones.

To which Dennis Miller remarked that it was nice to know just which priests we are to look out for!

Esau

JOHN (jtnova):

The below remark of yours is absolutely hilarious!!!!

Are you sure you're not looking in the mirror???


Look at what you said:

You are so quick to denounce everything and offer nothing in return as to how to make things better


If we were to compile all your posts, it would clearly demonstrate that you are the one who are so quick to denounce everything and, in fact, offer nothing in return as to how to make things better!


When Innocencio had politely requested suggestions from folks in one thread some time ago, all you did in return was go into your usual long tirade on the many evils of Vatican II and how the clergy in the Catholic Church today are all but a bunch of Freemasons!

David B.

"More like the "Dearth Vader" theme."


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that 'imperial march' is the official John William's title for what is commonly referred to as 'the Darth Vader theme.'

Inocencio

John,

What do you suggest? Doesn't it make you a little nervous to be the "judge" and "jury" of all things Catholic? What if you are wrong? And what are your fruits? Charity, humility, piety?

Please remember you sound like Martin Luther.

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Esau

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that 'imperial march' is the official John William's title for what is commonly referred to as 'the Darth Vader theme.'


David B.:

The title "Imperial March" is so generic that when I had saw it from your post, I first thought of the "Imperial March" theme from an old classic movie about Rome and mistook that one as the one you were referring to due to the Roman Catholic Triumphalism that's been rampant lately on this and other threads which, no doubt, Dan Hunter and JtNova actually subscribe to no less.

David B.

Esau,

Sorry 'bout th' cornfusion.

JoAnna

John,

You make a lot of accusations, but fail to prove any of them.

And even if - IF - some of your accusations were true... I was under the impression that all cardinals, bishops et al are human and thus prone to human sins and failings.

So... are all the members of SSPX sinless or is it just you?

John

JoAnna

Sinless? No

Pedophiles-No

That is the difference. To condone and cover up sin, as these Bishops and even JPII has done with Cardinal Law is sin that is mortal in nature, especially if unconfessed and I have yet to see an apology come from Rome for wisking away Cardinal Law and not let him face judge and jury for his crimes or at least supposed crimes

Accusations? I guess that you dont read much of the newspapers do you? Please show me one accusation that I have made that is not public knowledge and has been printed in a so called "Mainstream" and I dont even mean so called "Traditional" websites or newspapers

Inocencio

John is harmless and he knows it.

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Jamie Beu

Sorry to try to get us back on topic and away from the RadTrad discussions, but nobody has ventured even a guess at an answer to my question above:

- are the "Catholic" Senators and Representatives who support abortion (or who refuse to vote against it) automatically excommunicated?

I've heard a lot said to the effect that, because they are not directly procuring the abortions, they are not culpable. However, if it were not for their refusal to condemn the practice through legislation, the majority of these abortions would not be committed.

Is this a legitimate interpretation of canon 1329, §2: "Accomplices who are not named in a law or precept incur a latae sententiae penalty attached to a delict if without their assistance the delict would not have been committed..."?

Andy

How does Nancy Pelosi continue to receive communion?

Jamie

I would like to know the answer as well. Where have all the conservatives gone? Is there no longer a conservative voice in American Government?

AnnonyMouse


Andy and Jamie,
There are several lay persons who have and are trying to bring this to the Bishops and Nancy's attention. You have to remember, there are Catholics who feel that if they can justify something in their head, then all is OK.
As long as you FEEL it is ok, then it is ok. Instead of them conforming and informing their conscience, they basically become a little god.

AnnonyMouse

I think she receives in her hand.

Andy and Jamie,
There are several lay persons who have and are trying to bring this to the Bishops and Nancy's attention. You have to remember, there are Catholics who feel that if they can justify something in their head, then all is OK.
As long as you FEEL it is ok, then it is ok. Instead of them conforming and informing their conscience, they basically become a little god.

John

Jamie Beu

The so called "Rad Trad" discussion was made such by those who like you, had a very basic question like yourself. Quoting canon law 844 above where it is clear that John Paul II changed canon law to allow the Body of our Lord to be given to those who are not in communion with the Catholic church such as Protestants. This has never before been allowed in the 1983 year history before JPII and his new catechism and it ties into your question about Pelosi and her excommunication and not being allowed to receive communion

Esau, Tim and Inocencio, as they always do as they can not defend the modernistic changes made to appease these other faiths, always make this into a "rad trad" issue-but if this is rad trad-then maybe one should be proud to be a rad trad if they are protecting our Lord from desecration and being sold on E-bay

So I also ask for those to get back to the topic at hand-what then does it matter if one is excommunicated and not be able to receive communion if per Canon 844 one can receive our Lord if they desire so and are not Catholic??????

Esau

- are the "Catholic" Senators and Representatives who support abortion (or who refuse to vote against it) automatically excommunicated?

I've heard a lot said to the effect that, because they are not directly procuring the abortions, they are not culpable. However, if it were not for their refusal to condemn the practice through legislation, the majority of these abortions would not be committed.

Is this a legitimate interpretation of canon 1329, §2: "Accomplices who are not named in a law or precept incur a latae sententiae penalty attached to a delict if without their assistance the delict would not have been committed..."?


Well, let's turn things up a bit --

How about those Catholic judges whose actions on the bench promote abortion?

Certainly, if not for certain rulings (or concurrence on such rulings), certain abortions would not occur in the first place (or, at least, not legally).

I would be interested to hear from a Canon lawyer if Catholic judges automatically suffer excommunication for similar acts they commit on the bench.

Esau

PEOPLE, PLEASE IGNORE THE RAD-TRAD RANTS OF DARTH JOHN JTNOVA MARTIN LUTHER VADER I.


Now, going back on topic, if somebody could please answer my question in the previous post, that would certainly be appreciated.

JoAnna

You made the accusations, John. The burden of proof is on you, not me.

Christ preached forgiveness. Maybe you should try that too. If Cardinal Law truly repented of his since and asked absolution from God, he received it. Who are you to say that he doesn't deserve absolution?

He's been effectively punished for his crimes against the Church. He was taken away from a position of power and insituted as the head of a tourist church in Rome. The Pope obviously thought that punishment was good enough, and I trust in his authority.

John

Joanna

Forgive Cardinal Law for the abuse of thousands of innocent little children and the papal coverup-Are you for real? God is forgiving, but God is also just and those who given the sacrament of Holy Orders have a higher standard than we to live up to and are to be judged as well

Esau-Say what you want as you fail miserably in as an Apologist as you can not defend 40 years of contradiction and declining morals not to mention statistics across the board

One who abhors reverence for the blessed sacrament and weakens those laws that protect and no better than the pharisies in scripture

Again-answer my simple canon law question above in a simple sentence and not your rantings Esau! Or can you?

David B.

Jimmy,

John's insults to many people on this, your blog, should no longer be tolerated. He is clearly incapable of even attempting to engage in a respectful, rational discussion with any of the many intelligent, respectful people who comment regularly on your blog.

I respectfully ask you to ban him for the sake of my fellow comboxers.

Esau

Esau-Say what you want as you fail miserably in as an Apologist as you can not defend 40 years of contradiction and declining morals not to mention statistics across the board

Again-answer my simple canon law question above in a simple sentence and not your rantings Esau! Or can you?


We've covered this ad nauseam in the past in several threads.

I refuse to take part yet again in what is nothing more than your calumnious tirades against the Catholic Church.

What's more, you fail miserably as a "Catholic"; for somebody who claims to be so devoted to the Truths of Catholicism, you attack its very principles by, among other things, taking upon yourself the authority of the Church, its leader, the Pope, whom Christ had vested such authority through St. Peter, and, worse, hurl such awful and utterly blasphemous lies not only against its innocent clergy (and, what's more, a Pope such as Pope John XXIII) but also the Church Christ established by calling it a mere organization of Freemasons!

I assure you that the time will come when you will reap what you have sown here in the fires of the One whom you, in fact, serve!

Esau

Back to the topic:

How about those Catholic judges whose actions on the bench promote abortion?

Certainly, if not for certain rulings (or concurrence on such rulings), certain abortions would not occur in the first place (or, at least, not legally).

I would be interested to hear from a Canon lawyer if Catholic judges automatically suffer excommunication for similar acts they commit on the bench.

bill912

Forgiveness? Well, let's see...St. Peter, St. Paul, St. Augustine... Judas would have been forgiven had he repented...Saints are repentent sinners. It gives great hope to a repentent sinner like me to be in such company.

Esau

Judas would have been forgiven had he repented

The only difference between the heinous act of betrayal committed by Judas and the heinous act of denial committed by St. Peter is that St. Peter came back to the Lord, trusted in Him and His Mercy, and repented of his sin.

Inocencio

John,

Again-answer my simple canon law question above in a simple sentence and not your rantings

Discussing these issues with you is like discussing something with a teen-aged know-it-all. The answer to all your questions is this:

God established His Church with His authority. You do not get to judge His decisions or ignore those He gave His authority. He will judge them and us. God have mercy on us all.

Your problem is you think the authority of the Church comes from you, if you choose to be obedient. Again, you are like a rebellious teenager. Your example is not leading anyone to the Church Christ died to establish.

Since you ignore questions that others have asked you it is silly for you to claim no one can answer your childish questions.

You are only a danger to yourself because that is the only authority you have over anyone. Get used to it.

To everyone who has to suffer through these comments I apologize.

And now back to our regularly scheduled post...

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

The comments to this entry are closed.

January 2012

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31