Mafiosi are 'excommunicated', pope says

[ProVobis]

As the law giver of the Church, the pope CAN do anything he wants and his word IS law. I cannot for the life of me understand why this eludes you. The pope can abrogate the entire code of Canon law to day if he wishes. Your infatuation with due process is misplaced. This isn’t civil law that we are talking about but Canon law, two entirely different beasts.

I don’t think the fact that the Pope can do anything he wants is in dispute. Nor that he can change Canon Law. That goes without saying but you haven’t made a case of what exactly new must be believed here, beyond the fact that people in grave sin can’t receive communion, which we already should have known.

 

[Timothysis]

I don’t think the fact that the Pope can do anything he wants is in dispute.

Actually, I think it is.

you haven’t made a case of what exactly must be believed here, beyond the fact that people in grave sin can’t receive communion, which we already should have known.

What, exactly, is in question? Pope Francis said that those people who are part of organized crime that commits crimes and sins against the innocent “are excommunicated.” The fact that he didn’t wave a slip of paper with his signature on it doesn’t make it any less authoritative. You ask what must be believed? Is there any doubt as to the Holy Father’s intention?

 

[ProVobis]

You ask what must be believed?

I meant new doctrine which all Catholics must believe. We all should have known that one cannot receive communion in the state of grave sin, for example.

 

[ProVobis]

You ask what must be believed?

I meant new doctrine which all Catholics must believe. We all should have known that one cannot receive communion in the state of grave sin, for example.

The pope can abrogate the entire code of Canon law to day if he wishes.

Yes, he is free to add Mafiosi to the list of automatic excommunications written in Canon Law. Has he done that?

The fact that he didn’t wave a slip of paper with his signature on it doesn’t make it any less authoritative.

Maybe but what’s that old expression – “The pen is mightier than the sword.”

 

[Timothysis]

Yes, he is free to add Mafiosi to the list of automatic excommunications written in Canon Law. Has he done that?

I don’t think anyone suggests that he did such a thing. But it is abundantly clear to those who are not fixated with the legalese of parsing every letter of every word that the Holy Father declared that those who participate in these types of organizations and commit these types of crimes, that “they are excommunicated” because of it.

Pope John Paul II stated quite clearly (actually, I think he used the word phrase “I declare”) that the Church “does not have the authority to ordain women as priests.” To my knowledge, he didn’t issue a bull or a papal decree to “substantiate” this claim nor did he wave a slip of paper with his coat of arms on it. Does that make it any less authoritative?

 

[Catholic_Press]

Mafia members are excommunicated, Pope Francis said in a dramatic homily delivered during a one-day trip to Calabria, a stronghold of the notorious ?Ndrangheta crime …

More…

 

[ProVobis]

To my knowledge, he didn’t issue a bull or a papal decree to “substantiate” this claim nor did he wave a slip of paper with his coat of arms on it.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_doctrine_on_the_ordination_of_women

 

[Elizium23]

I don’t think anyone suggests that he did such a thing. But it is abundantly clear to those who are not fixated with the legalese of parsing every letter of every word that the Holy Father declared that those who participate in these types of organizations and commit these types of crimes, that “they are excommunicated” because of it.

Pope John Paul II stated quite clearly (actually, I think he used the word phrase “I declare”) that the Church “does not have the authority to ordain women as priests.” To my knowledge, he didn’t issue a bull or a papal decree to “substantiate” this claim nor did he wave a slip of paper with his coat of arms on it. Does that make it any less authoritative?

You keep bringing up examples where there were official documents drawn up and the Pope did everything through the proper channels to promulgate his decrees. Ordinatio sacerdotalis was duly promulgated on Pentecost 1994, published by Libreria Editrice Vaticana, is available on the Vatican website as linked in many languages, and most certainly is a “a papal decree, a slip of paper with his coat of arms on it.”

This was a homily, it wasn’t a decree, a pronouncement, a promulgation, or anything. The mainstream media are the ones who did the publishing. If you think the Pope rules through the mainstream media then I am not sure what to do with you.

It is conceivable, though more or less preposterous, that the Pope could decide to rule verbally, and assign a secretary to write down everything he says that sounds like a decree and “make it so”. Of course, the Pope has not done this, or we would’ve heard about it. But in practice what happens is that the Curia draws up the documents and the Pope signs off on them, or sends them back with changes. It’s a bureaucracy and they run on lots of paper being pushed back and forth. The Pope has better things to do than spend all day writing or sitting at a computer, so his secretaries do the heavy lifting. But in the end, documents are always made and they always bear official insignia and authenticated signatures. They wouldn’t work otherwise.

It is conceivable that a particularly insane Pope could choose to rule verbally without appointing such a secretary, doing away with “the stroke of a pen”; he could abolish the printing of AAS, he could suppress L’Osservatore, he could shut down the Papal website and burn the Vatican Secret Archives. Then he could issue all his decrees on a plane to eager reporters who would duly publish them in Reuters, AP, and the L.A. Times. Thanks be to God, we do not have that kind of Pope. We merely have one who makes strong off-the-cuff comments in public.

 

[larsont7]

You keep bringing up examples where there were official documents drawn up and the Pope did everything through the proper channels to promulgate his decrees. Ordinatio sacerdotalis was duly promulgated on Pentecost 1994, published by Libreria Editrice Vaticana, is available on the Vatican website as linked in many languages, and most certainly is a “a papal decree, a slip of paper with his coat of arms on it.”

This was a homily, it wasn’t a decree, a pronouncement, a promulgation, or anything. The mainstream media are the ones who did the publishing. If you think the Pope rules through the mainstream media then I am not sure what to do with you.

It is conceivable, though more or less preposterous, that the Pope could decide to rule verbally, and assign a secretary to write down everything he says that sounds like a decree and “make it so”. Of course, the Pope has not done this, or we would’ve heard about it. But in practice what happens is that the Curia draws up the documents and the Pope signs off on them, or sends them back with changes. It’s a bureaucracy and they run on lots of paper being pushed back and forth. The Pope has better things to do than spend all day writing or sitting at a computer, so his secretaries do the heavy lifting. But in the end, documents are always made and they always bear official insignia and authenticated signatures. They wouldn’t work otherwise.

It is conceivable that a particularly insane Pope could choose to rule verbally without appointing such a secretary, doing away with “the stroke of a pen”; he could abolish the printing of AAS, he could suppress L’Osservatore, he could shut down the Papal website and burn the Vatican Secret Archives. Then he could issue all his decrees on a plane to eager reporters who would duly publish them in Reuters, AP, and the L.A. Times. Thanks be to God, we do not have that kind of Pope. We merely have one who makes strong off-the-cuff comments in public.

Well said, but I think you and ProVobis are wasting your time and energy. His mind was made up long ago, and it doesn’t appear to be changing anytime soon. Apparently Brother JR’s one-liner about excommunications and toothbrushes is the basis for his entire theological outlook, so it’s probably best to leave it at that. Just my opinion.

 

[Timothysis]

The Pope has better things to do than spend all day writing or sitting at a computer, so his secretaries do the heavy lifting. But in the end, documents are always made and they always bear official insignia and authenticated signatures. They wouldn’t work otherwise.

Let me ask you a question; if a priest, while standing in the sacristy before Mass, extends his hand over a pile of hosts and says “this is my Body,” did consecration take place? If standing in line at the grocery store, a priest turns around and says to you “I absolve you of your sins,” did you receive absolution?

In both examples, the opinion of learned theologians say that yes, both the consecration and absolution occurred. It may have been highly illicit and it may have been in strict violation of what the Church dictates as the appropriate means of practicing the sacraments but it is still valid. Why? Because it depends, not upon the following of Canon law and the disciplines of the Church but by the authority of the priest. How many times have we heard that once a priest, always a priest and that the same man who may have abandoned his ministry, taken up with a loose woman and fathered half a dozen kids still has the spiritual authority to absolve a sinner or confect the Eucharist even though it is highly illicit and canonical illegal for him to do?

It is the same with pope. The validity of the actions of the pope do not come from Canon law but by the authority of his position as the head of the Church. I asked Brother JR once about a king of France who left for a crusade with the pope’s blessing. Three days later he returned to port because he had become ill. The pope was so furious at him that he excommunicated him. I always thought that it wasn’t valid because the king didn’t do anything in violation of Canon law; he personally angered the pontiff. Brother JR said that, for sure, the king was excommunicated because as the law giver and because of his authority, he could excommunicate anyone he wants for any reason whatsoever. That was when he said that the pope can excommunicate someone if he doesn’t like the color of their toothbrush and it is just as valid as excommunicating the most hardened sinner. It is a canonical penalty and as pope, he can do that whenever and however he wants.

You say in the quote above that "documents are always made and they always bear official insignia and authenticated signatures. They wouldn’t work otherwise", but that is simply not true. It isn’t the documents, insignia and signatures that makes things work, it is the authority behind it that does. For the same reason that a priest can consecrate bread outside of the celebration of Mass - a very, very grave violation, but still valid - the pope can simply declare someone excommunicated and it is so by the authority that he possesses. You seem to be obsessed with the bureaucracy of the Church but remember that it is in the spiritual realm that the Church exercises her authority. In the same respect, if Pope Francis states that the members of a particular crime organization “are excommunicated” because of their actions, then they are excommunicated, just like the French king centuries ago. It doesn’t depend upon the relevant sections of Canon law.

 

[dans0622]

All I can do is repeat what Brother JR has repeatedly said about the subject (and he is a theologian); the pope can excommunicate you if he doesn’t like the color of your toothbrush and it is just as legal and valid as any other excommunication.

Hello,

That, in my opinion, is ridiculous because it is totally capricious and certainly has nothing to do with the feeding/tending of the sheep, the salvation of souls, or the edification (building up) of the Church. I refer to the words of Archbishop Kenrick:

"The plenitude of pontifical power in all that appertains to the government of the universal Church, is affirmed in the Florentine Decree. It is certain that this power must be used for edification, not for destruction: for the interests of faith and piety; for the maintenance of order and unity; in a word, for the good of the Church. It is a government of justice, order, and law, to be conducted, not arbitrarily and capriciously, but according to established canons or rules. . It admits, however, of exceptions and dispensations, since the rigorous enforcement of uniformity, in a government embracing so many different natures, would render it intolerable. Whilst, then, the papal authority should be exercised in conformity with the canons or laws of general Councils and preceding Pontiffs, unless the altered condition of things require a change of legislation, a dispensing power must exist, and be exercised by the Supreme Executive. " (The Primacy of the Apostolic See Vindicated, 1855, p 223).

Dan

 

[Timothysis]

Apparently Brother JR’s one-liner about excommunications and toothbrushes is the basis for his entire theological outlook, so it’s probably best to leave it at that. Just my opinion.

It is from tiny acorns that mighty oak trees grow. Brother JR’s "one-liner about excommunications and toothbrushes" is a perfect example of the ability of the pope to exercise his authority as pontiff of the Catholic Church. If you disagree, then your beef is with him as a credentialed theologian.

 

[Timothysis]

Hello,

That, in my opinion, is ridiculous because it is totally capricious and certainly has nothing to do with the feeding/tending of the sheep, the salvation of souls, or the edification (building up) of the Church. I refer to the words of Archbishop Kenrick:

But it does have to do with the authority of the position of the pontiff as the supreme head of the Church. Brother JR is a leaned theologian; I will take his word on the matter over your “opinion.”

 

[dans0622]

Please get him to post on CAF. We could use a canon lawyer here.

Hello,

In my experience, having that credential is meaningless here…about 50% of the time.

Dan

 

[dans0622]

But it does have to do with the authority of the position of the pontiff as the supreme head of the Church. Brother JR is a leaned theologian; I will take his word on the matter over your “opinion.”

Hello,

That’s ok. For my part, I will continue to concur with the perspective of (for one) Archbishop Kenrick, in a book which was lauded by Blessed Pius IX–which is itself amusing in that the Pope, in his praise, admitted that he didn’t understand English.

Dan

 

[Timothysis]

Hello,

That’s ok. For my part, I will continue to concur with the perspective of (for one) Archbishop Kenrick, in a book which was lauded by Blessed Pius IX–which is itself amusing in that the Pope, in his praise, admitted that he didn’t understand English.

Dan

Doesn’t this quote from Archbishop Kenrick strike at the heart of the discussion here:

"Whilst, then, the papal authority should be exercised in conformity with the canons or laws of general Councils and preceding Pontiffs, unless the altered condition of things require a change of legislation, a dispensing power must exist, and be exercised by the Supreme Executive. "

Are we not discussing the “dispensing power” of the pope? Isn’ the bulk of the argument in this thread one *against *the dispensing power of the pope? If anything, this quote affirms the fact that the Supreme Executive “must” posses a power that allows him to dispense with the “canons or laws of general Councils and preceding Pontiffs,” which is what I have been arguing all along! Elizium is the one arguing that a pope must act according to the canons.

 

[ProVobis]

Let me ask you a question; if a priest, while standing in the sacristy before Mass, extends his hand over a pile of hosts and says “this is my Body,” did consecration take place? If standing in line at the grocery store, a priest turns around and says to you “I absolve you of your sins,” did you receive absolution?

In both examples, the opinion of learned theologians say that yes, both the consecration and absolution occurred.

Maybe, but he must have the intention of consecration and absolution, not to mention this is highly irregular, illegal, and abusive of his powers. I’m not suggesting the Pope abused his power or did anything illegal but it’s a bad analogy.

 

[ProVobis]

Elizium is the one arguing that a pope must act according to the canons.

But no one here has said he can’t change the canons first, unless I missed it.

Pope Pius XII modified the discipline of Trent, where Trent had anathematicized ANY pastor of the church into creating new rites, before he undertook the reforms to the Missal. But he did so in a document.

 

[Timothysis]

Maybe, but he must have the intention of consecration and absolution, not to mention this is highly irregular, illegal, and abusive of his powers. I’m not suggesting the Pope abused his power or did anything illegal but it’s a bad analogy.

How is it a bad analogy? It has to do with the spiritual authority of the priest. You say that the consecration and absolution maybe occurred, but it is a well known fact that the bare minimum for a valid consecration is the priest’s intention to consecrate and saying *“this is my Body…this is my Blood.”*I have already admitted that it is “highly irregular, illegal and abusive of his powers,” the exact same, by the way, that can said about Mass celebrated by the SSPX but everyone admits that their liturgies are indeed valid, though highly illicit. There is no “maybe” to it.

 

[Timothysis]

But no one here has said he can’t change the canons first, unless I missed it.

Pope Pius XII modified the discipline of Trent, where Trent had anathematicized ANY pastor of the church into creating new rites, before he undertook the reforms to the Missal. But he did so in a document.

Elizium has said that Pope Francis did not follow the canons and “due process.” Her argument was not one about first changing the canons.

:banghead: Regardless as to whether Pope Pius XII did anything in a document, the question at hand is whether the pope is bound by law do things in such a manner. Once again, " Whilst, then, the papal authority should be exercised in conformity with the canons or laws of general Councils and preceding Pontiffs, unless the altered condition of things require a change of legislation, a dispensing power must exist, and be exercised by the Supreme Executive. " My position has been that, due to his authority as the Supreme Executive and law giver of the Church, he is NOT bound by the canons (and, thanks to Dan’s quote, Archbishop Kenrick seems to concur) anymore than a priest’s authority is limited to consecrating a host only within the framework of the Mass from start to finish. It is a question of spiritual authority, not *legal *authority. To use the example of the SSPX again, their bishops and priests are suspended and prohibited from celebrating Mass but they do it anyway and even the Holy See acknowledges that, through their spiritual authority as priests, their Masses are valid. According to Canon law, though, they are illegal and illicit. So where does that leave us?