A
- Status
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
When Cardinal Williamson BECOMES Cardinal Williamson, I’ll worry about that!meanie
Better hope Cardianl Williamson doesn’t read that
I
Iotaunum
Guest
(It seems my post is too long so I will split it into two parts)
PART 1 -
"This defense was tried and rejected by the Holy See."
I asked you the following in response:
"If you can provide the document from the Holy See in which his defence (including the above mentioned) was tried and rejected as you claim, then I would very much like to see it."
I assume that your quotation of these portions of Ecclesia Dei are posted in reply?
If so, then my original question remains, for neither these portions of Ecclesia Dei nor the whole document in any way try and reject this defense. No documment or statement from the Vatican even attempts a trial or rebuttal to these legitimate arguments and appeals to Canon Law.
You say: "I do understand that the source of the excommunications was the act of consecrating bishops without a papal mandate"
I do not want to repeat myself, but I have explained this argument before. We are talking about canon 1382. This Canon states that: “Both the Bishop who, without a pontifical mandate, consecrates a person a Bishop, and the one who receives the consecration from him, incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.” On this canon we both agree. Normally, this canon applies in the situation described, however as I have explained before Canon Law itself places clauses on this law: Canon 1323 §4.
Canon 1323 - " The following are not subject to a penalty when they have violated a law or precept:
… S4; a person who acted coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or due to necessity or grave inconvenience unless the act is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls;
Thus, in rebuttal to canon 1382 the Archbishop and canon lawyers in question put foward Canon 1323 §4, which as you can see means that the canon is applied invalidly and the person is ***not subject to a penalty ***. Therefore the penalty was not incurred by the Archbishop. The Vatican has never attempted to rebut this argument. If anyone can provide a document showing the contrary I would genuinely like very much to see it.
You also state in relation to this: "the act of consecrating bishops without a papal mandate, something explained to the archbishop, yet he proceeded anyway"
Firstly the above mentioned canon (Canon 1323 §4) makes the application of canon 1382 null in this case. Therefore the "without Papal mandate" part is nullified as it is contained within canon 1382. Secondly, with regards to the “something explained to the archbishop, yet he proceeded anyway” - it is irrelevant to this case as canon 1382 means that “Both the Bishop who, without a pontifical mandate, consecrates a person a Bishop, and the one who receives the consecration from him, incur a latae sententiae excommunication” not distinguishing from a person/persons who are without a pontifical mandate either negatively (not obtaining permission) or positively (permission refused). Thus, in either case canon 1382 would apply under normal circumstances (of course being nullified by Canon 1323 where it would apply).
This should be clear. From here we move on to whether there was actually a case of necessity - Canon 1323. The state of necessity is generally described as a state in which "the necessary goods for natural or supernatural life are so threatened that one is morally compelled to break the law in order to save them."As I explained the last time, if someone inculpably i.e. through no fault of his own, thought there was a case of necessity he would not incur the penalty according to canon 1323 -70. The Archbishop maintained that he thought his act was necessary (which I also believe was the case). However, I know of course that others will and do argue the contary.
In reply to this we must look at the other relevant canons. Canon law states that even if the person culpably thought there was necessity he would still not incur the penalty - canon 1324 §3 §1 80. Therefore, whether one agrees or not that the Archbishop culpably or inculpable thought there was a state of necessity the fact remains that the above mentioned canon means that he was not subject to the penalty as per canon 1323 S4.
PART 1 -
In a previous post you stated:
"This defense was tried and rejected by the Holy See."
I asked you the following in response:
"If you can provide the document from the Holy See in which his defence (including the above mentioned) was tried and rejected as you claim, then I would very much like to see it."
I assume that your quotation of these portions of Ecclesia Dei are posted in reply?
If so, then my original question remains, for neither these portions of Ecclesia Dei nor the whole document in any way try and reject this defense. No documment or statement from the Vatican even attempts a trial or rebuttal to these legitimate arguments and appeals to Canon Law.
You say: "I do understand that the source of the excommunications was the act of consecrating bishops without a papal mandate"
I do not want to repeat myself, but I have explained this argument before. We are talking about canon 1382. This Canon states that: “Both the Bishop who, without a pontifical mandate, consecrates a person a Bishop, and the one who receives the consecration from him, incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.” On this canon we both agree. Normally, this canon applies in the situation described, however as I have explained before Canon Law itself places clauses on this law: Canon 1323 §4.
Canon 1323 - " The following are not subject to a penalty when they have violated a law or precept:
… S4; a person who acted coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or due to necessity or grave inconvenience unless the act is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls;
Thus, in rebuttal to canon 1382 the Archbishop and canon lawyers in question put foward Canon 1323 §4, which as you can see means that the canon is applied invalidly and the person is ***not subject to a penalty ***. Therefore the penalty was not incurred by the Archbishop. The Vatican has never attempted to rebut this argument. If anyone can provide a document showing the contrary I would genuinely like very much to see it.
You also state in relation to this: "the act of consecrating bishops without a papal mandate, something explained to the archbishop, yet he proceeded anyway"
Firstly the above mentioned canon (Canon 1323 §4) makes the application of canon 1382 null in this case. Therefore the "without Papal mandate" part is nullified as it is contained within canon 1382. Secondly, with regards to the “something explained to the archbishop, yet he proceeded anyway” - it is irrelevant to this case as canon 1382 means that “Both the Bishop who, without a pontifical mandate, consecrates a person a Bishop, and the one who receives the consecration from him, incur a latae sententiae excommunication” not distinguishing from a person/persons who are without a pontifical mandate either negatively (not obtaining permission) or positively (permission refused). Thus, in either case canon 1382 would apply under normal circumstances (of course being nullified by Canon 1323 where it would apply).
This should be clear. From here we move on to whether there was actually a case of necessity - Canon 1323. The state of necessity is generally described as a state in which "the necessary goods for natural or supernatural life are so threatened that one is morally compelled to break the law in order to save them."As I explained the last time, if someone inculpably i.e. through no fault of his own, thought there was a case of necessity he would not incur the penalty according to canon 1323 -70. The Archbishop maintained that he thought his act was necessary (which I also believe was the case). However, I know of course that others will and do argue the contary.
In reply to this we must look at the other relevant canons. Canon law states that even if the person culpably thought there was necessity he would still not incur the penalty - canon 1324 §3 §1 80. Therefore, whether one agrees or not that the Archbishop culpably or inculpable thought there was a state of necessity the fact remains that the above mentioned canon means that he was not subject to the penalty as per canon 1323 S4.
I
Iotaunum
Guest
(It seems my post is too long so I will split it into two parts)
PART 2 -
You state that: "Pope Pius XII called such actions “gravely illicit…criminal and sacrilegious.”. While you are correct that Pope Pius said these words, the “such actions” part refers to consecration without pontifical mandate under ordinary circumstances. This relates not so much with the Canon Law penalties and their application/validity but more with the jurisdiction which comes to Bishops in normal circumstances through the Pope as the successor of St Peter. Jurisdiction in abnormal circumstances can be *supplied jurisdiction *- but I will not discuss that here. That being said, the statment also deals (less so) with the canon law concerned. This however brings us back to canon 1382, and I have explained how canon law itself makes certain exceptions (which apply in this case) and renders penalty null.
Lastly, you ask with aparant enthusiasm: "Now, could it be that three popes are mistaken, but you are correct???" - This is by no means the first time I have heard this remark. The short answer is Yes. Not because I am correct in and of myself against the Pope. It is not a matter of anyone VS the Pope. The fact is that Popes have excommunicated wrongly before, as history proves - e.g.Pope Victor excommunicating the Asiatic churches and Pope Liberius excommunicating Athanasius etc (due to pressure or abuse of authority or whatever). A significant amount of Canon Lawyers and those who have studied canon law all say the same thing; the excommunication was invalid. The vatican has never even attempted a rebuttal (for obvious reasons I believe). Thus, your assumption (aparant) that what the Pope thinks canon law states is true no matter who and what evidence is to the contrary is false.
I have noticed a common trend amoung some canon lawyers that I have conversed with who should really know better (and at least deal with the relevant canons), yet they go against their better judgement and say the excommunications were valid, for fear of going against (or seen to be) the Pope - which of course is the wrong attitude to take to the truth of the situation.
I hope I have not seemed to be attacking you personally here - I wouldn’t do that nor think of doing that, but I do hope I have addressed your points.
With regard to your point: "where the Pope is the final arbiter, even apply" - one must understand that the Pope is the supreme legislator of the Church in general and that we must presume that his interpretation therefore of canon law is accurate. However, as I have explained above; the Pope can abuse his authority through making an error or being pressured or weak and excommunicate wrongly. The authority of the Pope must be at the service of Tradition. In this case Pope John Paul disagreed with the Archbishop that there was a case of necessity, however, canon law regards what is in the mind of the “offender” and not the Pope. I have explained above why the Archbishop did not incur the penalty regardless of whether or not the case of necessity existed. The “offender” has a right to be judged by canon law as it is written and not how those in authority would like it to be written. If the Law was written otherwise, then the situation would be different - but the Church has always made provisions for circumstances such as these, and some cases are even beyond Canon Law, as St Thomas Aquinas and other teach, but I have wrote enough here for now.
PART 2 -
You state that: "Pope Pius XII called such actions “gravely illicit…criminal and sacrilegious.”. While you are correct that Pope Pius said these words, the “such actions” part refers to consecration without pontifical mandate under ordinary circumstances. This relates not so much with the Canon Law penalties and their application/validity but more with the jurisdiction which comes to Bishops in normal circumstances through the Pope as the successor of St Peter. Jurisdiction in abnormal circumstances can be *supplied jurisdiction *- but I will not discuss that here. That being said, the statment also deals (less so) with the canon law concerned. This however brings us back to canon 1382, and I have explained how canon law itself makes certain exceptions (which apply in this case) and renders penalty null.
Lastly, you ask with aparant enthusiasm: "Now, could it be that three popes are mistaken, but you are correct???" - This is by no means the first time I have heard this remark. The short answer is Yes. Not because I am correct in and of myself against the Pope. It is not a matter of anyone VS the Pope. The fact is that Popes have excommunicated wrongly before, as history proves - e.g.Pope Victor excommunicating the Asiatic churches and Pope Liberius excommunicating Athanasius etc (due to pressure or abuse of authority or whatever). A significant amount of Canon Lawyers and those who have studied canon law all say the same thing; the excommunication was invalid. The vatican has never even attempted a rebuttal (for obvious reasons I believe). Thus, your assumption (aparant) that what the Pope thinks canon law states is true no matter who and what evidence is to the contrary is false.
I have noticed a common trend amoung some canon lawyers that I have conversed with who should really know better (and at least deal with the relevant canons), yet they go against their better judgement and say the excommunications were valid, for fear of going against (or seen to be) the Pope - which of course is the wrong attitude to take to the truth of the situation.
I hope I have not seemed to be attacking you personally here - I wouldn’t do that nor think of doing that, but I do hope I have addressed your points.
The canons concerned here do excommunicate latae sententiae, however an argument presented by some is that since the issue of the declaration they were no longer latae sententiae but imposed excommunications per canon 1331 -i.e because they were declared by the Pope. This does not affect their nulity since the nulification applies to canon 1382 regardless of whether delcared or latae sententiae. I find usually that those who make such an argument (which has nothing really to do with the nullity of the penalty) are generally in favour of doing away with *latae sententiae *excommunications altogether. (The declaration, I believe, was due to canon lawyers and the parties in question saying no *latae sententiae * penalties were incurred).
With regard to your point: "where the Pope is the final arbiter, even apply" - one must understand that the Pope is the supreme legislator of the Church in general and that we must presume that his interpretation therefore of canon law is accurate. However, as I have explained above; the Pope can abuse his authority through making an error or being pressured or weak and excommunicate wrongly. The authority of the Pope must be at the service of Tradition. In this case Pope John Paul disagreed with the Archbishop that there was a case of necessity, however, canon law regards what is in the mind of the “offender” and not the Pope. I have explained above why the Archbishop did not incur the penalty regardless of whether or not the case of necessity existed. The “offender” has a right to be judged by canon law as it is written and not how those in authority would like it to be written. If the Law was written otherwise, then the situation would be different - but the Church has always made provisions for circumstances such as these, and some cases are even beyond Canon Law, as St Thomas Aquinas and other teach, but I have wrote enough here for now.
- Status