Posted on 02/28/2020 3:48:28 PM PST by ebb tide
Ping
Liturgical law, not canon law—but that doesn’t undermine your basic point.
The basic point being that the guy has a good deal in common with Nixon on a bad day.
Since when was the morality of the death penalty confined to liturgical law?
The regulations regarding the washing of feet were not in canon law but elsewhere.
I’m not disputing the liturgical law point.
Personally, I’d rather just see this optional rite done away with altogether. Why oh why does the focus always have to be on ‘us’ (the people)? Holy Thursday is about the institution of the priesthood. It is about the institution of the Eucharist. And yet, here we are again. With our self congratulatory songs, choirs up front so that we may focus away from everything that we should be focusing on, Jesus, present to us as food at the foot of the cross! I’m so very frustrated and it takes away my right to worship in the way Mass was intended* (complete with thorough instructions). I’ve seen even babies’ feet washed, mostly women’s feet washed, and commemorative towels given out as ‘door prizes’ for those women and men who participated. I’m beyond frustrated by this lack of saying the black and doing the red.
I’m talking about capital punishment and canon law.
What do you have to say on that?
The big thing that I remember about capital punishment had to do with the Catechism, which is also a big deal, but not Canon Law.
It is possible that he did mess with Canon Law in conjunction with capital punishment, but I doubt it.
Francis does manage to mess a lot of things up a lot of the time, but he doesn’t manage to mess everything up all the time.
Sometimes he can make a mess without involving Canon Law.
It is possible.
If papal approval is not granted in forma specifica, then it is deemed in canon law to have been given in forma communi. Consequently, one cannot, strictly speaking assert in canon law that the Pope is the author of the change that has been made to the Catechism, even though it has been confirmed by Cdl. Ladaria in the newly released Letter of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to the Bishops of August 1, 2018 that Pope Francis did request that paragraph no. 2267 be modified according to his indications. Cf. Letter, in OR, August 3, 2018, page 8.
Canonical Effect of the Change. Since prudential judgments are referenced expressly in substance in canon 747, § 2 of the Code of Canon Law ("to render judgment concerning any human affairs insofar as the fundamental rights of the human person"), and since one cannot be bound by the stricter interpretation positing that the Roman Pontiff has ordered that the death penalty be held henceforth as an intrinsically evil act, by reason of the ambiguity of the novel term "inadmissible," the norms of canons 750, §§ 1 or 2, or 752 CIC, cannot be applied to bind the Catholic faithful under penalty, neither pursuant to canons 1364 or 1371, 1°, because we're not dealing here with a doctrine governed by canons 750, § 2 or 752, nor in conformity with canon 1371, 2° CIC, because no singular precept or prohibition imposed upon a Catholic with canonical admonition having been duly issued to him and violated is at issue, for the new formulation approved by Pope Francis enunciates a change in the prudential judgement of a general nature contingent upon perceived changes in the temporal circumstances of the State's ability to safeguard the peace.
The Devil Is in the Details: Pope Francis Changes Catechism on the Death Penalty
Yeah—that’s how I recall things.
Paragraph 2267 of the CCC was messed around with. He didn’t do squat to CIC.
There are bits of CIC that give principals that can be applied to the discussion but we aren’t in the end dealing with an issue in the CIC, just the CCC.
He also messed with the E.C.
Francis doesn’t manage to break everything every day.
He isn’t that smart or energetic. Don’t let him drive you mad.
Don't ever underestimate him. He's sneakier than you think. After all, he's a post VC II Jesuit with a goal.
As bad as many Jesuit Priests are and have been, especially the post Vatican II type, none of them are actually demons because you need a body to be ordained, and demons don’t have bodies.
Jesuits, as smart as they are, are much dumber than demons.
While I grant you he is pretty sneaky, he is also not very smart, so far as I can tell, at lest as Jesuits go.
I never mentioned demons. Why did you bring that up?
P.S. Demons can, and do, posesss human bodies.
Demons are really smart, Francis, not so much.
I disagree, I think he’s smarter than you think.
He’s getting everything he planned on getting an he’s doing at a rapid pace.
Don’t let him fool you.
I think he is significantly smarter than Obama, and smarter than Biden, but for a Jesuit he is as dumb as a stump.
Just my opinion.
It may make him less culpable.
If he weren’t Pope I’d never dream of bothering with reading him.
A pope who doesn't even believe in Hell?
I can see a Demon bothering Leo XIII and B16 for sure.
Would one bother with Francis? I suppose one might.
Do you think he's dumber than his little pet, James Martin, S.J.? Or the current Superior General of the Jesuits, Arturo Sosa S.J.?
The superior general of the Jesuits, Fr Arturo Sosa, holds positions that appear incompatible with the Catholic faith. He has denied the historicity of the Gospels – that they faithfully reflect what Jesus actually said – saying that “no one had a tape recorder to record his words”. He has also questioned the personal existence of the Devil, suggesting: “We have formed symbolic figures such as the Devil to express evil.”
Fr Sosa, the Devil, and the strange new orthodoxy in Rome
Finally, let's not compare Francis to Obama, Biden or current Jesuits.
How about comparing him to one of his pre-concilar predecssors? Pick one, any one and compare him to Francis.
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.