Criticize Fellay and be DENIED communion??
#31
I have heard of stuff like this before, but in Eastern Orthodox circles. 
Reply
#32
(10-20-2012, 03:59 AM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(10-20-2012, 03:55 AM)Geremia Wrote:
1983 Canon 220 Wrote:No one is permitted to harm illegitimately the good reputation which a person possesses nor to injure the right of any person to protect his or her own privacy.
The commentary on this says:
Quote:The canon protects one's reputation from illegitimate harm. … To protect the common good (see c. 223) and the Church itself, individuals may act, even though they might thereby damage someone's reputation. The motivating force of such an action should be a desire to protect another value, for example, the good reputation of the Church or of other individuals ad not to ruin one person's reputation; … the code presents various options to safeguard reputations and to ensure that penalties are inflicted only as a last resort.
Did Bp. Fellay invoke less severe penalties first?

Makes no never mind. Unless a person falls under one of the punishments outlined in Canon 1364-1398, he cannot be denied Communion.
So, one cannot incur such a severe penalty for ruining another's reputation that he would be excommunicated and thus not be able to receive Communion?
Reply
#33
ggreg Wrote:The sycophantic types who are not kept busy with children and families form a cabal around the priest and get positions of influence by default.

This is something I don't get. I've observed chapel politics, not at a particular chapel (since there wasn't one, but rotating churches based on availability) and essentially cliques of people competed and started stupid, petty quarrels to either save face or gain glory. Some of the dumbest things I've ever seen, all amongst competing Filipinos who didn't like each other.
Reply
#34
(10-20-2012, 10:22 AM)ggreg Wrote: I have never been of the opinion that Fellay was going to sell out to Rome.
I think we all doubt that would happen, even those who harshly criticize Bp. Fellay.
(10-20-2012, 10:22 AM)ggreg Wrote: The secret doctrinal preamble was a massive error however which created an environment where distrust and rumor could thrive.
Was the secrecy on the side of Bp. Fellay? I thought Rome wanted the secrecy? Or don't we know?
Reply
#35
Seemeth to me one has to be "in full communion" with Bishop Fellay to hang with him.

I think he has the authority to kick disobedient people out of his Society, but not to deny communion to those who are in the Society (barring canonical penalties) or those who are not members of the Society and do not fall under the Canons mentioned above.

A general cleaning up had to occur in the SSPX, so that sedes were removed from it. But this seems to be a different thing altogether. Not sure how to take this. I wil pray for them all.
Reply
#36
(10-20-2012, 11:58 AM)JayneK Wrote: Even in cases dealing with heretical or putatively heretical bishops (which is not in question with the SSPX), I am bothered by disrespectful language.
Me, too
Reply
#37
(10-20-2012, 12:22 PM)FHM310 Wrote:
(10-20-2012, 12:10 PM)TrentCath Wrote: I just can't see a bishop taking a forum like that so seriously, cathinfo well fair enough for some stuff on there things do need to be done.

Canonically no one seems to have brought up the fact that moral theology demands one deny communion to a public and unrepentent sinner, I guess some of the people on those forums might well fall into that category.

:O  So, to be a moderator of a forum is to be a public and unrepentant sinner
So, if someone on FE commits detraction, and Vox doesn't ban them or delete all comments, she is to be denied Communion? 

Quote:I just can't see a bishop taking a forum like that so seriously

Think again.

I didn't say that, I said that there are certain posters on cathinfo for whom, if this was applied, no reasonable person could complain, so certainly as regards detraction and the scandal caused by some on forums its not outwith the realms of possibility that this would be a justified action. As regards the particular mods in question I have seen some of them badger those that disagree with them, threaten to ban them and encourage this sort of behaviour. So in that case someone who believed what was going on there was sinful could make a case that they were cooperating in other peoples sins.

I don't say whether its right or wrong, I just say that a reasonable case can be constructed to defend these alleged actions. Ultimately all we have here is hearsay.
Reply
#38
(10-20-2012, 12:15 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(10-20-2012, 12:10 PM)TrentCath Wrote: Canonically no one seems to have brought up the fact that moral theology demands one deny communion to a public and unrepentent sinner, I guess some of the people on those forums might well fall into that category.

If we are talking about the sin of detraction, I could see making a case for it.

Amongst others yes, I agree.

Again I say its possible, not whether its right, for cathinfo I have no doubt that such actions might well be justified, as that place is a sinkhole of depravity when it comes to people tearing other people apart with their teeth.
Reply
#39
I think ggreg's reply on page 1 is right on the money.  If true, this would be extremely thin skinned.  Bishops should be made of sterner stuff. 
Reply
#40
(10-20-2012, 01:05 PM)Geremia Wrote:
(10-20-2012, 03:59 AM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(10-20-2012, 03:55 AM)Geremia Wrote:
1983 Canon 220 Wrote:No one is permitted to harm illegitimately the good reputation which a person possesses nor to injure the right of any person to protect his or her own privacy.
The commentary on this says:
Quote:The canon protects one's reputation from illegitimate harm. … To protect the common good (see c. 223) and the Church itself, individuals may act, even though they might thereby damage someone's reputation. The motivating force of such an action should be a desire to protect another value, for example, the good reputation of the Church or of other individuals ad not to ruin one person's reputation; … the code presents various options to safeguard reputations and to ensure that penalties are inflicted only as a last resort.
Did Bp. Fellay invoke less severe penalties first?

Makes no never mind. Unless a person falls under one of the punishments outlined in Canon 1364-1398, he cannot be denied Communion.
So, one cannot incur such a severe penalty for ruining another's reputation that he would be excommunicated and thus not be able to receive Communion?

Not as I read Book VI, Part II, Title IV of the Code of Canon Law on 'The Crime of Falsehood'. There are only two Canons, neither of which mentions excommunication as a possible penalty.

***ETA***Plus, unless the Code calls for excommunication latae sententiae, there are procedures to be followed, laid out in Book VII, on 'Processes' before punishment is applied.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)