Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Priest Barred From Saying Mass [Canada; for remarks on abortion, homosexuality]
Telegraph-Journal ^ | 9/22/11 | Shawn Berry

Posted on 09/22/2011 7:11:33 AM PDT by marshmallow

An elderly priest on the Acadian Peninsula has been barred from performing church services in the Bathurst diocese after he made remarks about homosexuals and women who have had an abortion.

Rev. Donat Gionet, 85, gave the sermon at the Roman Catholic church in Saint-Léolin while replacing the regular parish priest late last month.

He stands by the comments he made in Saint-Léolin, a village of about 730 people located about 50 kilometres east of Bathurst.

Reached in Caraquet on Wednesday, Gionet declined an interview but did provide a written statement.

In a letter written in French that he provided to the Telegraph-Journal, Gionet stated the sermon in question was about the destruction of the Church and the need to seek forgiveness for past sins:

"I said: 'Today, it is we Catholics who are destroying our Catholic Church. We need only look at the number of abortions among Catholics, look at the homosexuals, and ourselves.' (That's when I pointed at my chest - through that action I wanted to say, we the priests) and I continued saying: We are destroying our Church ourselves. And that's when I said that those were the words expressed by Pope John Paul II. At that point, in the St-Léolin church only, I added: 'We can add to that the practice of watching gay parades, we are encouraging this evil' ... What would you think of someone who seeing what was happening on (Sept.) 11, 2001, the crumbling of the towers, had begun clapping? We must not encourage evil, whatever form it takes."

Bishop Valéry Vienneau has revoked Gionet's rights to serve mass across the Diocese of Bathurst, a decision welcomed by Joseph Lanteigne, the openly gay mayor of Saint-Léolin.

"The action taken by the diocese is good and I know it isn't easy for............

(Excerpt) Read more at telegraphjournal.canadaeast.com ...


TOPICS: Catholic; Ministry/Outreach; Moral Issues
KEYWORDS: abortion; abortions; canada; catholic; donatgionet; feminaziagenda; gionet; homonaziagenda; homonazism; homopsychoagenda; homosexualagenda; homotyranny; prolife; rcc; religiousfreedom; religiousliberty; religiouspersecution; righttolife; romancatholic; romancatholicism
The lavender mafia is still powerful.............
1 posted on 09/22/2011 7:11:37 AM PDT by marshmallow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

A true priest and a credit to the ROMAN Catholic Church and to his Maker!


2 posted on 09/22/2011 7:13:50 AM PDT by IbJensen ("Socialism works in two places: Heaven where they don't need it and hell where they already have it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

ib4z (at Diocese of Bathurst, I mean).


3 posted on 09/22/2011 7:15:47 AM PDT by the invisib1e hand (...then they came for the guitars, and we kicked their sorry faggot asses into the dust)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
Still, this statement by Rev. Wesley Wade, vicar general of the Diocese of Bathurst,, is exceedingly disturbing.

"We have to respect people on their own journey...

That's ZEN BUDDHISM, not Christianity at all!

4 posted on 09/22/2011 7:17:30 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
Bishop Valéry Vienneau has revoked Gionet's rights to serve mas

If the Vatican doesn't dismiss Bishop Valéry Vienneau, this it will confirm that there is corruption all the way up. Waiting . . . .

5 posted on 09/22/2011 7:18:02 AM PDT by aimhigh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
"Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practise to deceive! "

Sir Walter Scott

6 posted on 09/22/2011 7:20:25 AM PDT by OldNavyVet (One trillion days, at 365 days per year, is 2,739,726,027 years ... almost 3 billion years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

Another bishop punches his ticket to burn in Hell, forever.


7 posted on 09/22/2011 7:20:37 AM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

He must have been at my Church last summer, we had a Priest that said the same things. I thought his sermon was pretty good.

My guess is the collection plate that week wasn’t so good and they banned him.

The Catholic Church I belong to is against practicing homosexuality and abortion, maybe Canada is different.

Of course I just know what I read here, but when did Christ say “We have to respect people on their own journey , meaning Homosexuals and abortionists.

IMO just from what I have read here Rev. Donat Gionet, 85. is the only Catholic in the Diocese.

Guess I better get ready to be crucified LOL.


8 posted on 09/22/2011 7:23:10 AM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

Hooray for Fr.Gionet! The truth must be spoken for evil to be conquered.


9 posted on 09/22/2011 7:23:57 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aimhigh

Sadly, the Vatican does not dismiss bishops for making dumb, even sinful, administrative decisions. Each bishop has autonomy within his own diocese, providing he does not commit apostasy or schism.


10 posted on 09/22/2011 7:26:07 AM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: aimhigh

What’s even more sad is this such a beautiful region, with such a wonderful religious heritage. From the papal museum, to the colonial reconstruction, to the sheer natural beauty, it made such a wonderful spiritual vacation. I’m not surprised that there is rot at the top. I understand the founder of the papal museum and a divine-mercy natural sanctuary was given much grief for his efforts by the local hierarchs.


11 posted on 09/22/2011 7:28:43 AM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

I am inclined to agree with the Priests’ written transcript.
There seems be a great falling away beginning to take place.
I worry about a Church that would bar such a one -unless there is much we have not been told about the man. Would they accept as Priest/Confessor one who taught that the Scripture is wrong to suggest the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners exceedingly before the Lord.? ( my apology to the author of Genesis 13:13)


12 posted on 09/22/2011 7:32:06 AM PDT by StonyBurk (ring)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aimhigh
If the Vatican doesn't dismiss Bishop Valéry Vienneau, this it will confirm that there is corruption all the way up.

Try again.

You cannot just "dismiss" a bishop. You have to depose him from his see which is a long legal process - unless he does something which is excommunicable.

The bishop has authority in his diocese to decide which priests do or do not have permission to celebrate public Masses and hear confessions in his diocese.

The priest has canonical rights and the bishop has canonical rights and there is a canonical process for determining whether the bishop has unduly deprived a priest of his faculties.

Many people seem to think that the Papacy is a personal dictatorship rather than an elected canonical office.

13 posted on 09/22/2011 7:34:17 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
You cannot just "dismiss" a bishop.

You can hide behind semantics, but if this Bishop is free to do this, then the Catholic church is no difference from the Protestant church. The Bishop has denied the faith and rejected God (1 Thess 4:8). The Vatican put him in a position of authority. If it doesn't t remove him, then it's complicit with his apostasy.

14 posted on 09/22/2011 7:41:10 AM PDT by aimhigh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

The 10th anniversary of September 11th fell on a Sunday and the priest at my church preached a brief and forceful sermon using basically the same analogy: ten years ago our nation received a wake-up call. What have we done in the intervening years? Doubled-down on our sinfulness.


15 posted on 09/22/2011 7:54:04 AM PDT by Oratam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aimhigh
You can hide behind semantics

It's not a matter of "semantics."

Words mean things.

if this Bishop is free to do this, then the Catholic church is no difference from the Protestant church

A meaningless statement.

There are rules which the Pope has to follow, which the bishop has to follow and which priests and laymen have to follow as well. The Church is a hierarchy and it has established rules - following them is hardly "Protestantism": in point of fact, ignoring the rules is more consistent with Luther's behavior.

The Bishop has denied the faith and rejected God (1 Thess 4:8).

That's your opinion. You cannot remove a bishop from office on the basis of a newspaper article.

The bishop has a point of view as well, and unless he agrees that he is denying the faith and rejecting the Almighty, he has a right to explain his point of view.

The Vatican put him in a position of authority.

Indeed it did, and it did not do so arbitrarily, but according to the canonical process required for such a promotion. Likewise, he cannot be removed from his see arbitrarily, but according to canon law.

If it doesn't t remove him, then it's complicit with his apostasy.

If you accuse someone of apostasy and expect him to be punished on the grounds of apostasy, you have to prove it - a newspaper clipping is not sufficient evidence for deposition and excommunication. That isn't justice - it's pique.

And neither you nor any mortal man has a right to stand in judgment over the Holy See. You have absolutely zero authority in this matter.

16 posted on 09/22/2011 8:01:07 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: wideawake; aimhigh
Many people seem to think that the Papacy is a personal dictatorship rather than an elected canonical office.

Er... that really doesn't portray the Papacy (or the situation) very accurately. First: the Pope is the ultimate legislator of the Church, and he can change Canon Law with the stroke of a pen, or with a simple decree. Second: even without touching the canonical issues regarding deposition, the Holy Father could transfer this bishop to Rome in an instant, and assign him a titular see which is vacant (i.e. neutralize the bishop's canonical authority) or demand his immediate resignation, among other things.

I'll grant that this usually isn't the way things are handled, especially in this age where bishops, priests and laity can be so egocentric that they'd happily choose schism (and excommunication, and possible damnation) over obedience to any law/decree which offends them; it's much more likely that the priest will be exonerated, that his faculties will be restored, that the bishop will receive a rather stern reprimand/correction, that a coadjutor bishop could be assigned, and that wheels will start moving in the direction of pressuring the bishop to retire early. I'd be stunned if *nothing* happens... especially given the press that this is getting (and given the greater tendency of the faithful to alert the Vatican to such abuses, nowadays--and God bless them!).
17 posted on 09/22/2011 8:13:11 AM PDT by paladinan (Rule #1: There is a God. Rule #2: It isn't you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: paladinan
Er... that really doesn't portray the Papacy (or the situation) very accurately. First: the Pope is the ultimate legislator of the Church

No, he isn't. He works for the ultimate legislator. There are many laws he is powerless to change.

he can change Canon Law with the stroke of a pen, or with a simple decree

In many cases, this is true. Certainly not in all. And this is not how matters are traditionally handled, as you know.

even without touching the canonical issues regarding deposition, the Holy Father could transfer this bishop to Rome in an instant, and assign him a titular see which is vacant (i.e. neutralize the bishop's canonical authority) or demand his immediate resignation, among other things

Not entirely accurate. He would still have to depose him from his existing see. Bishops who accept titular sees usually resign their previous see to accept the new see. If he does not want to resign and take a titular see, he would canonically need to be deposed.

He could, of course, demand a resignation - however this would be self-defeating: the Pope has a responsibility to guarantee all the faithful of whatever station their canonical rights, demanding a resignation without a canonical trial is an extreme move reserved for glaring violations - and the matter we are discussing is not actually a violation of any kind whatever.

it's much more likely that the priest will be exonerated, that his faculties will be restored, that the bishop will receive a rather stern reprimand/correction, that a coadjutor bishop could be assigned, and that wheels will start moving in the direction of pressuring the bishop to retire early

That is usual method and it is the usual method for a reason.

18 posted on 09/22/2011 8:31:06 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

This is exactly what happens when you don’t have a 1st amendment and a 2nd to back it up.


19 posted on 09/22/2011 8:39:29 AM PDT by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GraceG
While you are absolutely right about the Canadian situation in general (Mark Steyn is living proof), in this case it was not the government but the bishop who needlessly censored someone.
20 posted on 09/22/2011 8:45:17 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

The truly faithful and courageous priests are persecuted from within and without the Church.

So were many priest saints.


21 posted on 09/22/2011 9:07:36 AM PDT by magdalen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

God bless that brave old priest.


22 posted on 09/22/2011 9:56:46 AM PDT by married21 (As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chode

ping


23 posted on 09/22/2011 10:43:27 AM PDT by Morgana (I don't speak much...............but when I do....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
And neither you nor any mortal man has a right to stand in judgment over the Holy See.

The scripture says to test all spirits to see if they are of God. After a while, the evidence begins to speak for itself.

24 posted on 09/22/2011 11:18:37 AM PDT by aimhigh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: aimhigh
The scripture says to test all spirits to see if they are of God.

And what is the test it tells us to apply?

"Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God."

Unless you are prepared to claim that the Pope does not confess the doctrine that "Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God" (a doctrine he not only confesses but exhorts others to confess in both volumes of his "Jesus Of Nazareth"), then you are applying some other artificial test invented by yourself that has no Scriptural basis whatever.

After a while, the evidence begins to speak for itself.

The evidence on this thread, so far, is that you are trolling and are not a serious person.

25 posted on 09/22/2011 12:25:14 PM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: aimhigh
The bishop is not necessarily an apostate for removing the priest. I'm a Texan now but I used to live in this area of Quebec for a number of years - had to learn French and everything.

This sort of homily from the priest was likely scandalous to the local congregation for different reasons than merely condemning homosexuality. It was likely scandalous because these people are from a small village and probably have little if any of what he was talking about going on there.

Its like the priest they took out of our village after a rather ... lets politely say he was indiscreet ... in a homily about premature withdrawal during intercourse.

26 posted on 09/22/2011 12:40:01 PM PDT by texanred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
The evidence on this thread, so far, is that you are trolling and are not a serious person.

A troll chatting with an apologist, as the world burns.

27 posted on 09/22/2011 12:48:17 PM PDT by aimhigh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: aimhigh
A troll chatting with an apologist, as the world burns.

You do have a flair for the dramatic, I'll gladly give you that.

And I am definitely an apologist for the Faith, no argument there.

28 posted on 09/22/2011 12:53:55 PM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
Wideawake wrote, in reply to my comment:

[Paladin]
Er... that really doesn't portray the Papacy (or the situation) very accurately. First: the Pope is the ultimate legislator of the Church

[wideawake]
No, he isn't. He works for the ultimate legislator. There are many laws he is powerless to change.

(*wry look*) I don't know whether you're being coy or serious; of course God is the "Ultimate Legislator", if we want to be pedantic... but I do think you know what I meant, yes? You did catch the part in my next sentence saying that I was speaking of CANON law, not the moral law? The policies by which bishops are handled (i.e. the very topic of this thread) is most definitely a pure case of canon law, not positive Divine Law... right?

[Paladin]
he can change Canon Law with the stroke of a pen, or with a simple decree

[wideawake]
In many cases, this is true. Certainly not in all.

Just for my own reference: when you say "certainly not in all", do you have examples in mind? Specifically: can you name a single instance of "pure" Canon law (i.e. not simply a Canon which reiterates some positive Divine Law, such as the moral wrongness of abortion) which the Pope cannot change, if he willed to do so?

And this is not how matters are traditionally handled, as you know.

I did... and I said as much. But you had said that the Pope was powerless to do so instantly... which is not correct. Say that it's unlikely to proceed instantly, and I'll agree with you; but do not go too far.

[Paladin]
even without touching the canonical issues regarding deposition, the Holy Father could transfer this bishop to Rome in an instant, and assign him a titular see which is vacant (i.e. neutralize the bishop's canonical authority) or demand his immediate resignation, among other things

[wideawake]
Not entirely accurate. He would still have to depose him from his existing see. Bishops who accept titular sees usually resign their previous see to accept the new see. If he does not want to resign and take a titular see, he would canonically need to be deposed.

That last bit is true enough (symptom of [my] typing too quickly, last time); my main point was to counter the mistaken idea that the papacy is merely (as you put it) "an elected canonical office", which is glaringly misleading to anyone who lives in a democracy/democratic republic; you're welcome to call it wildly unlikely (and you'd be right), but: the Pope could abolish the college of cardinals tomorrow, transfer every last bishop to new dioceses, depose hundreds of them with one Papal decree (written or unwritten), and a hundred-thousand other things which would, for anyone else, be forbidden by canon law. Quite simply: the Pope is certainly the guardian of canon law, and he is honour-bound to defend and uphold it; but he is not externally bound by it.

He could, of course, demand a resignation - however this would be self-defeating: the Pope has a responsibility to guarantee all the faithful of whatever station their canonical rights, demanding a resignation without a canonical trial is an extreme move reserved for glaring violations - and the matter we are discussing is not actually a violation of any kind whatever.

First: it would only and possibly be self-defeating in a "pragmatic" sense, not in a legal/validity-based sense (i.e. the Pope could actually do it). Second: I was arguing the theory, not the application (as I think I made clear). The Pope (through the appropriate dicastery) could very easily issue a negation of the Bishop's actions and issue a public correction of the deficiencies in the Bishop's comments (through his vicar general, etc.) and actions--coupled, perhaps, by something to the effect of: "We hope to enjoy your cooperation in these matters, Your Excellency" (i.e. consequences await you if you don't).

Ultimately, I think we're in agreement in the "probably matters on the ground"; I merely wanted to avoid any mistaken impressions that people might get about the Pope somehow being "legally beholden to a legislative process".
29 posted on 09/22/2011 1:50:22 PM PDT by paladinan (Rule #1: There is a God. Rule #2: It isn't you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

Great answer!


30 posted on 09/22/2011 2:41:14 PM PDT by johngrace (1 John 4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: dangus

If the Bishop said what he is quoted as saying he’s much more than apostate ~ he’s a Buddhist!


31 posted on 09/22/2011 5:12:04 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: aimhigh
My own church simply eliminated all the offices above deacon and elder some time ago and vested the ownership of the property in the congregation (which is represented in those matters by a board).

This is remarkably close to the way Jews managed synagogues in Jesus' time, and the way Orthodox churches do it today (except they have bishops tucked away safely in cities far away ~ and fewer of them I believe).

It's coming guys!

32 posted on 09/22/2011 5:15:16 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: texanred

I think the story suggested strongly that the MAYOR himself was homosexual.


33 posted on 09/22/2011 5:17:42 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

God bless Father Donat and those like him. As for his boss, he should be defrocked and mocked
.


34 posted on 09/22/2011 5:21:42 PM PDT by jwalsh07 (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
But was the Mayor a member of the parish? The homily sounds a bit aggressive if you have nothing to do with what the older chap is going on about.
35 posted on 09/22/2011 6:33:06 PM PDT by texanred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: texanred
Acadian Peninsula; gay mayor; Catholic priest; french language; history; etc.

Yeah, sure, the mayor is probably a Commie apparatchik but all those other people are nominal Catholics (at a minimum) and he was probably sitting there in a pew playing with himself during the homily.

Or else this quaint French speaking town has NO TOURIST VALUE!

36 posted on 09/22/2011 7:05:55 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: paladinan
Just for my own reference: when you say "certainly not in all", do you have examples in mind? Specifically: can you name a single instance of "pure" Canon law (i.e. not simply a Canon which reiterates some positive Divine Law, such as the moral wrongness of abortion) which the Pope cannot change, if he willed to do so?

Now you've changed the terms of the discussion.

Canon Law is codified - every word of the code is canon law and no distinction is made between "pure canon law" and some other category of canon law.

By the very fact of its being law it cannot be disconnected from what you are describing as "positive Divine law" or what other jurists would describe as natural law.

Canon 208 can never be abolished by any Pope, for example.

I merely wanted to avoid any mistaken impressions that people might get about the Pope somehow being "legally beholden to a legislative process".

And I wanted to avoid the much more common and dangerous fiction that the Pope is some kind of arbitrary dictator who gets to invent procedure as he goes along - as opposed to a pastor with a well-defined canonical role whose actions and statements conform to two thousand years of Christian Scriptural exegesis and tradition.

37 posted on 09/23/2011 5:09:18 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
I take your point but... It's a village of 750 people. I doubt they have gay-pride parades at all nevermind people applauding them as they watch. (The parade would have what? Two people?) They were likely left untouched by priestly abuse scandals. Who was this homily for? It doesn't seem to be about things happening in that village.

He sounds a bit like a dotty old priest that can still say mass but is otherwise a bit frayed around the edges. Most Catholics have seen this. I recall a confession one time in which I confessed to gluttony and the confessor wandered off into a lecture about lesbians and undirected thoughts of violence before telling me to eat a jelly donut while NOT enjoying it for penance. Fr. Gauthier was a fantastic priest but he was a little ... Erratic at the end.

38 posted on 09/23/2011 9:10:41 AM PDT by texanred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: texanred
We had a story on here a few weeks back about a town on the seashore somewhere and the big deal was the town government wanted to attract gay vacationers because (1) They were big tippers, (2) They liked to rent boats and waterski (and that was a big time thing during this current business disaster), (3) They were quiet.

The people in the town finally figured out why there were all these homosexuals wandering the streets of town 24/7 and kind of rebelled.

You don't need a gay parade, just a big ol' gay magnet.

39 posted on 09/23/2011 10:00:45 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
wideawake wrote, in reply to my comment:

[Paladin]
Just for my own reference: when you say "certainly not in all", do you have examples in mind? Specifically: can you name a single instance of "pure" Canon law (i.e. not simply a Canon which reiterates some positive Divine Law, such as the moral wrongness of abortion) which the Pope cannot change, if he willed to do so?

[wideawake]
Now you've changed the terms of the discussion.

[Paladin]
I hardly think so, friend. I already specified "Canon Law" (i.e. legislation of the Church, as opposed to positive Divine Law; it parallels the difference between Church discipline [reformable] and Church dogma [irreformable]), and I think we can both admit that I didn't indend to mean "Can the Pope change the Law of God?", right? I think I've said enough to make my point very clearly, on that idea.

Canon Law is codified

Er... that's undeniably true... but I fail to see how that's relevant. The Holy Father can "un-codify" any canon which is reformable (and there are many such canons which are reformable); you agree, yes?

every word of the code is canon law and no distinction is made between "pure canon law" and some other category of canon law.

Let's not be silly, here! I already make the distinction between Canon Law which reiterates Divine Law, and that which does not; and no sane person would deny that there exists a distinction between the two. I was trying to avoid the use of the word "mere", as in "merely canon law", since I didn't want to diminish its importance; but I also sought to distinguish between Positive Divine Law (which canon law often references, and even restates) and those canons which are "merely" (though very importantly) Church legislation/discipline.

By the very fact of its being law it cannot be disconnected from what you are describing as "positive Divine law" or what other jurists would describe as natural law.

I sought to distinguish it, not to "disconnect" it (whatever you meant by that). Think of the Divine Persons of the Blessed Trinity, as a randome example: utterly distinct and unconfused, but inseparable.

Canon 208 can never be abolished by any Pope, for example.

Right... since that's a matter which pertains directly to Divine Law. Perhaps I could have picked a term more to your taste than "pure canon law" (i.e. canon law which can be changed), but I trust my meaning is now clear?

[Paladin]
I merely wanted to avoid any mistaken impressions that people might get about the Pope somehow being "legally beholden to a legislative process".

[wideawake]
And I wanted to avoid the much more common and dangerous fiction that the Pope is some kind of arbitrary dictator who gets to invent procedure as he goes along - as opposed to a pastor with a well-defined canonical role whose actions and statements conform to two thousand years of Christian Scriptural exegesis and tradition.


Fair enough; but you might do well to avoid terms like "elected canonical office", since it strongly implies (to the very people whom you're trying to convince) a "we elected you, and we can un-elect you, so you'd better represent our interests!" sort of view.
40 posted on 09/24/2011 9:03:55 AM PDT by paladinan (Rule #1: There is a God. Rule #2: It isn't you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
Pinged from Terri Dailies


41 posted on 09/25/2011 12:22:51 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson