Edward Peters on the Vigano Controversy

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I read that earlier today. While I still think it was wrong for Vigano to say Pope Francis should resign, he makes a compelling counter argument. And I agree with Fr de Souza that the Church certainly doesn’t need another Papal resignation, Peters points out that if the allegations are true, it would be for the best of the Church.

Interesting read, especially considering the Canon Law aspects. I have stated I think overall Vigano has done a true service to the church in releasing his letter. Peters certainly seems to confirm that.
 
That was kind of a long rant. I didn’t think canon lawyers were the type to rant like that; of course he threw in some canon law stuff, albeit not very useful, but who said canon lawyers were useful anyway.

Strangely enough, Edward’s rant about Fr. de Souza’s article seems to prove Fr. de Souza’s point very well. How did Edward not see that one?
 
Wow! Thanks for this. I’ve learned something about canon law today.
 
I am disappointed in Edward Peters. In the past, he has stuck mostly to issues of canon law. Now, it seems, he is advancing himself to judge. He takes sides:
Moreover, this ‘everybody-calm-down’ advice supposedly aimed at ‘both sides’ of this matter is frankly insulting to that one side which, beyond any question, has been severely betrayed by the other
Click to expand...
Bear in mind that the side he is speaking of in this specific instance is an AB who has not been promoted as he thinks he should have. He criticized the rhetoric of one author, while using his own.
Most of De Souza’s essay urging disputants “to turn down the temperature” savors of that rhetorical style, now wearing very thin,…

Francis, for example, sees himself as choosing the high road of silence and, after taking some digs
Click to expand...
His own bias in this matter is rather blatant, I am afraid. Instead of trying to tell a Pope what to do, he could take the role of a sheep and learn the advantages of silence, or at least, patience.
 
In the first couple of paragraphs Edward Peters did a good job of explaining the implication of canon law. However, he severely begs the question by switching from being ineffective to “should” resign. Even if Pope Francis is never again effective at reaching stubborn American conservatives, or people from SNAP, that would not mean he is ineffective.
 
pnewton said:
Instead of trying to tell a Pope what to do, he could take the role of a sheep and learn the advantages of silence, or at least, patience.
Click to expand...
Maybe I misread the article, but I didn’t see him calling for the Pope’s resignation (actually he said that he does not know enough to decide). He said that calls from leadership for silence in the face of these accusations is not helpful for the Church.
 
Where are we getting that the archbishop is lashing out because he wasn’t promoted? Whether his testimony is true or not, he is well into retirement and has no career to advance.
 
Last edited:
I did not say that he was lashing out. I merely said he hadn’t be promoted, that is, elevated to Cardinal. That is not a fact that should be debatable.

I have noticed, whether it is significant or not, there is a correlation between those who do not approve of Pope Francis and those calling for his resignation. Are human motivations a factor? In a court of law, where evidence is considered, testimony can be weighted based on possible motivations. What the AB accused Pope Francis is true or not, but that is kind of the whole question, isn’t it. It is well established that our minds process data based on what we want, how we feel, and the outcome we desire. Our perception and our memories are affected by this.
 
It was not an implication. It was a fact. Implications, insinuations, etc., are in the mind of the reader. Precision is needed in communication.
 
MikeInVA said:
40.png
pnewton:
It was not an implication. It was a fact.
Click to expand...
How can you know that his intentions are vindictive?
Click to expand...
I don’t, and I did not say that.
 
Last edited:
I have specifically avoided giving any motive. While not all clergy are saints, even if Archbishop Vigano is shown to be factual wrong about their being sanctions, then the more charitable interpretation would be that he genuinely believed their were sanctions. What we want, our bias, can skew our perception and memory. It also can make a letter like he wrote factually, but honestly, wrong.

Take the case of Edward Peters. He is an expert in canon law and makes a compelling case that canon law encourages a bishop to resign if he becomes ineffective, even if through no fault of his own. However, surely he, as a canon lawyer, knows that canon law does not apply to the pope, just like retirement age for bishops do not apply to the pope. Would he have missed adding this in if he was not of the opinion Pope Francis should resign, if it is found that there were sanctions?

And yes, I think he is totally all wet on his suggestion that St. John Paul the Great should have resigned. We would be poorer for it. Of all he did in the last few years of his life, nothing was more important than the saintly example of the value of the elderly in society. They can remain productive far longer than our youth-oriented culture acknowledges.
 
Last edited:
pnewton said:
However, surely he, as a canon lawyer, knows that canon law does not apply to the pope, just like retirement age for bishops do not apply to the pope.
Click to expand...
The pope can change Canon law. The pope cannot be judged by Canon law. But Canon law certainly applies to the pope.
 
That is all I was saying was a fact. I apologize for not giving an immediate antecedent in the same post. I thought the context was clear enough, as I, of course, cannot read anyone’s mind. So the misunderstanding was due to my lack of precision.

I do not know his motive, and I only have my opinion as to the tone of the letter, though I can point to specific examples from the letter to support that opinion. It is easier for everyone to read the letter themselves and judge for your self the tone. I would sincerely hope that everyone here that has been offering opinions have done at least this minimal diligence.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top