L
Love_God_Too
Guest
I apologize for spelling canon wrong. That is really not my area of expertise. I’m just a Catholic that Loves God Too…
Friend, it appears that you and I both have gone on tangents.[You above all should know of the wonderful gay, yet celibate, priests we have in the church whose mission certainly is ordained by God. In fact the ones that I know have a special capacity for the compassion of God’s people that, I believe, lacks in some others due to the inner struggle they live with day to day.
With all do respect Father, I believe this is a semantic difference. The fact is that Cannon Law is, and has been, written by flawed men as were the laws of men in the church in the days of the inquisitions.
Canon law isn’t Scripture.Was our church any less of the one true church then? It is very easy for people to formulate an opinion, and then find a single line in scripture to support it. Via their interpretation of said scripture of course.
Canon law as we know it today is a legal system comparable to any civil legal system around the world. There’s areas of “interpretation” and there’s areas of “settled law.” Ultimately there’s a court that enforces it and a legislator who defines it.Cannon Laws were written in a similar way and have evolved considerably with the addition of knowledge that only the passage of time can provide.
Huh? Who’s dismissing views and actions of the early Church? I simply stated that the Canon Law system we know today would be a foreign concept 700 years ago.You cannot claim our faith as the one true church started by St. Peter and so cavalierly dismiss the early views and actions of our church.
Um, ok. What does this have to do with anything in this thread?You above all should know of the wonderful gay, yet celibate, priests we have in the church whose mission certainly is ordained by God. In fact the ones that I know have a special capacity for the compassion of God’s people that, I believe, lacks in some others due to the inner struggle they live with day to day.
This is all quite off topic of the thread so let’s just leave it we’ll agree to disagree.With all do respect Father, I believe this is a semantic difference.
I hope I didn’t offend you, it certainly was not my intent. If i did, I sincerely apologize. As for being on topic, I believe what I wrote about is at the heart of this topic. I just could not imagine a priest in my lifetime making his own judgment, at the communion rail, so to speak, to refuse the Sacrament to anyone. I never saw that in my lifetime. That is until the country turned into this left is bad and right is good thing.This is all quite off topic of the thread so let’s just leave it we’ll agree to disagree.
That’s a very interesting article; thank you for posting it. I was especially struck by this comment:In regard to the main subject, here’s an interesting article on Rorate Caeli.
A Canonical Contribution on the Washington Eucharistic Affair.
You’re welcome. And I’d have to agree with your own answer to that question.That’s a very interesting article; thank you for posting it. I was especially struck by this comment:
Have we today lost the sense of the seriousness of the sin of sacrilege and scandal? Upon the altar of the rights of the individual, have we sacrificed God’s right not to be profaned and the right of the community not to be scandalized? We need to respect the conscience of the minister bound by such serious obligations just as much as we need to respect the right of the individual to be provided with the sacraments. Have we focused on the latter to the exclusion of the former—unwittingly embracing an unbalanced hermeneutic that distorts our reading of canon law and the sacramental life of the Church?
Regarding the question highlighted above, I’m thinking the answer is yes.
Ender
It is surely beginning to look that way!!That’s a very interesting article; thank you for posting it. I was especially struck by this comment:
Have we today lost the sense of the seriousness of the sin of sacrilege and scandal? Upon the altar of the rights of the individual, have we sacrificed God’s right not to be profaned and the right of the community not to be scandalized? We need to respect the conscience of the minister bound by such serious obligations just as much as we need to respect the right of the individual to be provided with the sacraments. Have we focused on the latter to the exclusion of the former—unwittingly embracing an unbalanced hermeneutic that distorts our reading of canon law and the sacramental life of the Church?
Regarding the question highlighted above, I’m thinking the answer is yes.
Ender
But the response of the archdiocese was not the same type, fortunately.It is surely beginning to look that way!!
*This is more of the same type of refusal by Catholics who will not accept nor follow Church teaching! *
NewEnglandPriest;9098740:
. So its useless to really make such comparisons. That’s kind of like wondering about the application of the Bill of Rights (1791) in the US Articles of Confederation (1777-1787).Canon Law didn’t exist as a unified single code until 1917. Until that point Church laws were kind of ad hoc
With all do respect Father, I believe this is a semantic difference. The fact is that Cannon Law is, and has been, written by flawed men as were the laws of men in the church in the days of the inquisitions. Was our church any less of the one true church then? It is very easy for people to formulate an opinion, and then find a single line in scripture to support it. Via their interpretation of said scripture of course. Cannon Laws were written in a similar way and have evolved considerably with the addition of knowledge that only the passage of time can provide. You cannot claim our faith as the one true church started by St. Peter and so cavalierly dismiss the early views and actions of our church.
You above all should know of the wonderful gay, yet celibate, priests we have in the church whose mission certainly is ordained by God. In fact the ones that I know have a special capacity for the compassion of God’s people that, I believe, lacks in some others due to the inner struggle they live with day to day.
Watch ‘The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition’ on Youtube before the tow the old party line about how wicked the Inquisitions were.
Highlighting a few things from this post. A bit OT. My take is that the expectation for a faithful Catholic is to come forward as a servant of the church and to contribute labor and support. That is in the precepts of the Church. No where does it say we should expect to be thanked for this, made to feel special, or recognized in any way as being out of the ordinary.IWe make up 5% of the world’s Catholics but the point is that, when harnessed for good (not for dissident opinions, etc.) our reach can extend to far more than a 5% effect. But when any group senses that they are not valued, they will not come forward to be servants of the Church. I don’t know which “we” you’re referring to (above), but I’m not “demanding” anything, let alone
I’m referring to **making contributions of labor and support, **not “attention” and “resources.”
And absolutely nowhere in my postings is there the slightest implication that Catholics who want to serve and who do now already serveHighlighting a few things from this post. A bit OT. My take is that the expectation for a faithful Catholic is to come forward as a servant of the church and to contribute labor and support. That is in the precepts of the Church. No where does it say we should expect to be thanked for this, made to feel special, or recognized in any way as being out of the ordinary.
Nevertheless, the reality of involving people effectively – whether its on the secular level in volunteer organizations or in the religious realm via the laity – is that outreach encourages involvement. It’s strictly a practical matter and nothing else. Those of us who give regularly to causes both religious and non-religious, as well as give because our professions are those of service --not of acquisition-- don’t need ‘instruction’ in the value of giving.expect to be thanked for this, made to feel special, or recognized in any way as being out of the ordinary.
I was using your post as a spring board. No need to be defensive.Thanks for giving me an opportunity to correct an assumption which was never articulated or implied by me in the first place.![]()