Canon 1404/5

[FrDavid96]

Yes, I’ve seen them. I don’t buy them. The disclaimer is that I’m a monarchist, not a canon lawyer.

Well, then in that case, you’re admitting that you’re making statements which you are not qualified to make, about a subject which you do not understand.

As far as I’m concerned, even if the Pope were to abolish Canon Law entirely, all the powers that the current law ascribes to him would still remain, because the Pope does not derive his powers from Canon Law, but rather his divinely-instituted office.

True. Still, that does not mean that the pope is “above the law.”

As Sovereign, Vatican City and the Supreme Legislator of the Catholic Church, he needs no law to exercise his powers in the civil and ecclesiastical spheres. He is therefore a law unto himself.

So you may indeed stick to your explanation, but I don’t buy it.

Whether you “buy it” or not makes no difference.

You don’t understand what you’re writing.

It is impossible for a lower authority (Canon Law) to bind a higher one (the Sovereign), who is in fact the fount of law and the fount of justice. If he appears “bound” by a law such that he has to “dispense” himself from it, it’s only because he has allowed it as the fount of law. In reality, that’s a smokescreen. The Pope isn’t actually bound by any law in reality.

Nonsense. Pure nonsense.

Under canon 3, the pope is bound by treaties entered between Vatican City State and the nation of Italy.

Canon 864 says that only an un-baptized person can be baptized. No pope can change that. Even though he “could” eliminate the actual canon, no pope can validly baptize an already-validly-baptized person.

That’s just some obvious example that illustrates that you have no idea what you’re writing about.

So we can nuance it all we like, but since Canon Law is at the mercy of the Pope and not vice versa, for all intents and purposes, as the Supreme Power, he is above the law. The Pope can do no wrong.

Nonsense.

 

[carefullytread]

Yes, that’s true. His decision is final. This isn’t all that unusual. Every system of laws has some person or body which is the final place of appeal. In the U.S. that’s the Supreme Court. In monarchies, it’s often the monarch.

There is a fundamental difference between the US and monarchies in that the legislature can impeach the justices. This means that while the supreme court’s decisions cannot be overturned judicially, if they start acting erratically, there is a mechanism within the legal system to check them by removing them from the court.

I don’t know enough about, say, UK law to know what happens if the Queen starts acting erratically. In practice, one imagines the parliament would depose her or declare a republic, but I don’t know if there’s a way within the law to do anything about it.

My question was stemming from ignorance of whether there was any legal mechanism of checking the pope and (I believe) your answer is no, i.e. he may be bound by divine law, but there is no enforcement of that law on him by any earthly authority.

 

[porthos11]

Well, then in that case, you’re admitting that you’re making statements which you are not qualified to make, about a subject which you do not understand.

Correct. I will say them anyway.

True. Still, that does not mean that the pope is “above the law.”

Whether you “buy it” or not makes no difference.

You don’t understand what you’re writing.

Oh, I do understand. You just don’t agree.

Nonsense. Pure nonsense.

No it’s not nonsense. I makes perfect sense (and of course we’re talking only about Canon Law and Vatican civil law).

No lower authority can bind a higher one.

Under canon 3, the pope is bound by treaties entered between Vatican City State and the nation of Italy.

Sure. But he doesn’t derive that obligation solely from Canon Law, and he is subject to the same standards as other heads of state to international law, which governs treaties. Even if we were to abolish Canon 3 completely, international conventions will still enforce treaties. Consequences can include Italy withdrawing from its commitments to the state.

Canon 864 says that only an un-baptized person can be baptized. No pope can change that. Even though he “could” eliminate the actual canon, no pope can validly baptize an already-validly-baptized person.

Big deal. That only an unbaptized person can be baptized is of divine institution. Even if the Pope were to abolish this law, he can’t do it anyway because it’s a power he doesn’t have under divine institution. It’s unrelated to the argument because this is a matter of divine law. Since the Pope is not above divine law, he can’t change that. But no one here is talking about divine law. I think we’re all agreed that no one is above that or can change that. We’re talking strictly about purely ecclesiastical laws.

That’s just some obvious example that illustrates that you have no idea what you’re writing about.

Nonsense.

Oh, I DO have an idea about what I’m talking about. Just because we don’t buy each other’s opinions does not make mine nonsense, you being a priest notwithstanding.

The Pope is not bound by his own laws. He is the source of them, therefore, he cannot be subject to them or tried by them. Again, nuance it all you want (“nonsense”) but it is the reality.

 

[porthos11]

There is a fundamental difference between the US and monarchies in that the legislature can impeach the justices. This means that while the supreme court’s decisions cannot be overturned judicially, if they start acting erratically, there is a mechanism within the legal system to check them by removing them from the court.

I don’t know enough about, say, UK law to know what happens if the Queen starts acting erratically. In practice, one imagines the parliament would depose her or declare a republic, but I don’t know if there’s a way within the law to do anything about it.

My question was stemming from ignorance of whether there was any legal mechanism of checking the pope and (I believe) your answer is no, i.e. he may be bound by divine law, but there is no enforcement of that law on him by any earthly authority.

There is nothing in the law that can address that. The Queen can do no wrong.

If she goes insane before she abdicates, she remains Queen. A regent may be needed to perform her functions, but she remains the monarch. Declaring a republic means a fundamental change in constitution, and is not a course of action simply because the Sovereign has become incompetent. Parliament cannot depose its Sovereign because Parliament acts in her name. They tried this a few years ago. The result was a number of men hanged, drawn and quartered. Did not work out very well.

Same goes for the Pope. If he becomes completely incapacitated he will remain Pope, but any powers reserved to him will be unable to be exercised. A Pope cannot be deposed.

 

[FrDavid96]

Correct. I will say them anyway.

Oh, I do understand. You just don’t agree.

No it’s not nonsense. I makes perfect sense (and of course we’re talking only about Canon Law and Vatican civil law).

No lower authority can bind a higher one.

Sure. But he doesn’t derive that obligation solely from Canon Law, and he is subject to the same standards as other heads of state to international law, which governs treaties. Even if we were to abolish Canon 3 completely, international conventions will still enforce treaties. Consequences can include Italy withdrawing from its commitments to the state.

Big deal. That only an unbaptized person can be baptized is of divine institution. Even if the Pope were to abolish this law, he can’t do it anyway because it’s a power he doesn’t have under divine institution. It’s unrelated to the argument because this is a matter of divine law. Since the Pope is not above divine law, he can’t change that. But no one here is talking about divine law. I think we’re all agreed that no one is above that or can change that. We’re talking strictly about purely ecclesiastical laws.

Oh, I DO have an idea about what I’m talking about. Just because we don’t buy each other’s opinions does not make mine nonsense, you being a priest notwithstanding.

The Pope is not bound by his own laws. He is the source of them, therefore, he cannot be subject to them or tried by them. Again, nuance it all you want (“nonsense”) but it is the reality.

Just because you assert something over and over again, that doesn’t make it right, nor does trying to say that something is just an “opinion.”

What you’re saying is flat out wrong.

You are writing from a perspective of ignorance, and trying to use cliches to prove an error.