Canon law and Bishops

  • Thread starter Thread starter ServusDei1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

ServusDei1

Guest
Punching a cleric or pope in self defense doesn’t incur excommunication, right?
 
Are you worried that a Pope or bishop is going to assault you?
 
Can. 1370 §1. A person who uses physical force against the Roman Pontiff incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; if he is a cleric, another penalty, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state, can be added according to the gravity of the delict.

§2. A person who does this against a bishop incurs a latae sententiae interdict and, if he is a cleric, also a latae sententiae suspension.
 
No, every human being has the natural right to defend themselves against an unjust aggressor or assault. All human beings including clerics and the pope are subject to the Divine Law, the natural law, and just state or human laws. In this sense, all human beings are equal.
 
Rights as an enlightenment concept has no place in the church. I want sources, thank you.
 
Self defense is a natural right according to the natural law. It has nothing to do with the enlightenment.
 
Rights are mentioned all over the place in Canon Law, as well as in Catholic social teaching, and even in medieval theology. The whole idea of human rights in the modern context was derived from Catholic teaching.

There’s even plenty of evidence to suggest that the concept of natural rights as employed in the Declaration of Independence owes as much to Catholic thought as it does to John Locke.

-Fr ACEGC
 
Last edited:
Rights aren’t magically infused by the creator, they are given to us either de jure, or through our teleology towards God himself.
 
twf said:
If the Pope physically assaulted you, no power on earth, civil or ecclesiastical, could hold him accountable. If you used physical force to defend yourself, the Pope alone could determine whether you thus deserve punishment.
Click to expand...
You could report it to the state and the state can surely hold the pope accountable. The state doesn’t operate under canon law and it isn’t going to concern itself with what canon law says about the pope which has to do with the governance of the Church, not the state. An assault is a crime in most countries as it should be no matter who the perpetrator is.
 
I never said they were “magically infused,” and neither does the modern thought you’re sweepingly condemning. We possess rights in virtue of having dignity due to our having been created in the image and likeness of God, and thus having reason and free will. Our rights are thus to protect our ability to use reason and free will rightly. Aquinas himself talks about this, as does Leo XIII.

We shouldn’t just reject an idea because it gets misused. And the concept of rights is one that’s much older than the Enlightenment.

-Fr ACEGC
 
A sovereign head of state is not under another country’s laws in most cases.
 
Uploading: B24D18B9-7D57-4B49-AF7B-EA8BB25F482B.jpeg…
Here’s what my friend said. Brilliant Catholic philosopher.
 
“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.”
 
Last edited:
That’s not the Catholic view of rights. That’s the Kantian view of rights, which is the Enlightenment thinking you condemn.

Where did you study Philosophy, out of curiosity?
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Sin is the perversion of a faculty’s proper end. Which is why masturbation is wrong. Those parts are reserved for marriage.
 
I’m pretty well capable of navigating my schools of philosophical thought and terminology. I took six years of philosophy in college and seminary and have two degrees in it.

So thank you for attempting to educate me, but I’m quite fine. Heading out of this conversation now.
 
Very well, but do recall that the appeal to authority is the weakest form of proof as demonstrated in Boethius’ Consolation of Philosophy.
 
Kind of like how you appealed to authority by quoting your friend, the great Catholic philosopher, and then answered the question of “where did you study?” by saying “I’m a Thomist.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top