Canon law and Bishops

  • Thread starter Thread starter ServusDei1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Look, I’ll just post this last comment from a priest in one of the Thomistic groups I follow. I don’t want to anger you. “Morality as Aristotle suggests is rooted in the very nature of things “per se”

To him, reason could extract the intelligibility of order from things and nature, especially within ourselves, and by it understand that we as individuals have and end/purpose.”
 
You could report it to the state and the state can surely hold the pope accountable.
As a head of state, he would have diplomatic immunity when outside the Vatican.
I’m a Thomist. I assure you, the quoted section is Catholic view. Perhaps you are mistaking teleology (our view of natural law) with deontology.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Very well, but do recall that the appeal to authority is the weakest form of proof as demonstrated in Boethius’ Consolation of Philosophy.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Fortunately, we have Graduates of Google to correct our Pesky Presbyters . . .

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

:roll_eyes:
 
What’s wrong with the priest’s and my freind’s explanation?
 
Fortunately, we have Graduates of Google to correct our Pesky Presbyters . . .
Indeed. In other circumstances, it would be called practicing medicine or practicing law without a licence. Just as dangerous, I might add.
 
they are given to us either de jure
So you’re saying rights derive from law? This is positivism, and is contrary to Catholic social teaching and to modern political philosophy.
through our teleology towards God himself.
This sounds like consequentialism.
“The Catholic view of natural law is that we have rights because we have responsibilities, or one could put it in Kantian terms as “ought implies can”. If you’ve got a responsibility/duty/obligation to actualize some end, the means, as far as possible, should be available to you so that you can actualize the end.”
Not the Catholic view, but the Kantian one, with a bit of consequentialism thrown in.

Your deleted post also implies consequentialism, when you say that our rights derive from our ordering toward God. That might not be untrue, but it’s certainly incomplete. We are made in the image and likeness of God. This is the basis of human dignity, which rights are meant to protect and ensure the flourishing of, which flourishing leads to our achieving our end of union with God.
Perhaps you are mistaking teleology (our view of natural law) with deontology.
Perhaps you’re just throwing around a bunch of philosophical terms to be contrarian? Again, where did you study Philosophy?
“Morality as Aristotle suggests is rooted in the very nature of things “per se”

To him, reason could extract the intelligibility of order from things and nature, especially within ourselves, and by it understand that we as individuals have and end/purpose.”
Which doesn’t contradict anything I’ve said. Quite the opposite, it just affirms it. I’m arguing, quite in line with Catholic social teaching, that rights are inherent to human dignity, and not given by law. They are a result of our nature, and that nature is ordered toward an end.
What’s wrong with the priest’s and my freind’s explanation?
That you’re all over the place and not really being all that coherent. You seem to think I’m wrong no matter what, and you’re right no matter what, so you’ll just be contrarian. Which I suspect is a manifestation of the OCD issues you mention in other threads. It gives you validation and the feeling of control to talk down to someone else, particularly when that someone is in a position of authority with some education.

You should seek help for your OCD, especially if it leads to a display like this.

You are in my prayers.

-Fr ACEGC
 
Well can you explain the proper Thomistic view. I’m willing to admit I was wrong.
 
Indeed. In other circumstances, it would be called practicing medicine or practicing law without a licence. Just as dangerous, I might add.
As a practicing lawyer, I do indeed have a parallel problem with people telling me what this law is. Before the internet, I labeled it the “My Girlfriend’s Divorce School of Law” . . .

hawk
 
While I agree that the OP’s example of a Pope assaulting someone is highly unlikely, asking the consequences of physically harming a Cardinal or bishop in self defense is an interesting question that has realistically happened and could probably happen again. Lest we forget that former Cardinal McCarrick was in many positions in recent years where he could have been justifiably assaulted in self defense by numerous seminarians and other minors. I don’t think the OP’s question is as outrageous as some are making it out to be.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top