Should the two "Catholic" justices who voted for gay marriage be excommunicated?
#21
[Image: death-of-common-sense1.jpg]
Reply
#22
Here's Dr. Peters's input on this question: https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2015/...minal-law/
Reply
#23
Twelve years ago, the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith looked anticipated the possibility that some states might recognize same-sex marriage, and said:

In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.

http://www.catholic culture.org/commentary/the-city-gates.cfm?id=1097


http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congre...ns_en.html
Reply
#24
(06-27-2015, 02:38 AM)Credidi Propter Wrote: They should be excommunicated, but that is Cdl. Wuerl's job, not mine.

Only if they live within his jurisdiction.  If they don't, Cardinal Wuerl has no power to excommunicate them. 

The Washington Archdiocese comprises the City of Washington, D.C., and several counties in Maryland.  If the justices live across the river in Virginia, they are outside Cardinal Wuerl's jurisdiction, as he would not be their ordinary.

Of course, he could prohibit them from receiving Holy Communion anywhere in his archdiocese, but the likelihood of that is absolutely nil.
Reply
#25
(06-27-2015, 07:13 PM)Clare Brigid Wrote: Are you certain that they are unfaithful Catholics?  It is the responsibility of the Supreme Court to "say what the law is."  Marbury v. Madison.

It was the Supreme Court that gave us Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson, and it was that same body that later reversed itself.

I think we should all be honest with ourselves and stop talking about the "impartiality" of the Court.  In my opinion, and I'm a lawyer also, it's just utter nonsense.

The Supreme Court is just as political as the other two branches.  Anyone who thinks otherwise has not been paying attention.

Having worked for Federal judges for over two decades, I can attest to the idea that, when a judge wants to rule in a certain fashion, he/she will find a basis for doing so.

That's what "penumbras" are all about.

I think natural law can be incorporated into decisions in the method you outlined.  If we weren't able to do that, slavery would still be legal.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)