I am reading this wrong, correct?

  • Thread starter Thread starter AZ42
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

AZ42

Guest
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
This part of canon law states that their are penalties for hitting popes and bishops. But what if hitting them is justified? Say Bishop Smith is trying to punch you, and you hit him back. You are placed under interdict? I know am probably reading this wrong, but on the surface this sounds absurd.
 
Last edited:
AZ42 said:
This part of canon law states that their are penalties for hitting popes and bishops. But what if hitting them is justified? Say Bishop Smith is trying to punch you, and you hit him back. You are placed under interdict? I know am probably reading this wrong, but on the surface this sounds absurd.
Click to expand...
As it is with all of the canons, the only interpretation that matters and is valid is that of the canon written in Latin. Which, I admit I don’t know what that would translate that out to be. I imagine though this is referring to assault, not self-defense.
 
Last edited:
Is this an actual issue? Bishops going to and fro punching people?
 
AZ42 said:
Is this an actual issue? Bishops going to and fro punching people?
Click to expand...
Every Catholic has a right to defend his/herself against charges of canonical crimes. They may have a canon lawyer to help show them their rights and construct a case for the Tribunal. I imagine those cases would be dealt with on an individual basis.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Yes, but this says latae sententiae. I just can’t believe that the Church would punish those who use force to defend themselves.
 
AZ42 said:
Yes, but this says latae sententiae. I just can’t believe that the Church would punish those who use force to defend themselves.
Click to expand...
Which is why a trial would still be needed to see if indeed that excommunication had been incurred.
 
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P53.HTM

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.

§3. A person who uses physical force against a cleric or religious out of contempt for the faith, the Church, ecclesiastical power, or the ministry is to be punished with a just penalty.

Can. 1371 The following are to be punished with a just penalty:…
 
Notice that the canon at issue is from the section on “Delicts Against Ecclesiastical Authority and the Freedom of the Church.” Self defense has nothing to do with these things. That is not what is contemplated.

This is even more obvious if we look at the source of this canon and the context of its enactment.

This one is carried over from the 1918 Code, and the annotated version provides a footnote to the Fifth Lateran Council (which got it from prior papal decrees). That Council’s decision gives us some context:

It’s too long to post, but scroll down to SESSION 12, 16 March 1517. Basically, mobs were going around beating up Cardinals and others and breaking into their houses and stealing things, etc. and generally impeding their work (in particular the prior conclave). The Council renews and extends penalties for such actions.

The canon is about respecting authority and allowing those in authority to freely carry out their legitimate work. It has absolutely nothing to do with self-defense against assault (which is an injustice, not an act of authority).

Fifth Lateran Council 1512-17 A.D. - Papal Encyclicals

This council was summoned by pope Julius II by the bull Sacrosanctae Romanae Ecclesiae, issued at Rome on 18 July 1511, after several schismatic cardinals.
www.papalencyclicals.net www.papalencyclicals.net
 
Last edited:
I’m pretty sure there is some sort of caveat in there where it says that if the hitting is done in self defence, then the punishment is not incurred.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top