|Core: noun, the most important part of a thing, the essence; from the Latin cor, meaning heart.|
|Needless Commentary from Small-Town America|
The Weblog at The View from the Core - Wednesday, June 05, 2002
Bible Answer Man Broadcast
A friend has sent me the following information:
Eric Svendsen on the Bible Answer Man
Check your local listings for this show probably on a Christian station. It has a call-in format.
A new breed of Roman Catholic apologists have mounted an aggressive campaign to convert evangelicals to Catholicism. But are they being honest with you? Be sure to listen to the Bible Answer Man broadcast on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, June 4 - 7, when author and co-director of New Testament Restoration Ministries, Eric Svendsen joins Hank on the program. They will be discussing the theological issues that have divided Catholics and Protestants, taking calls on how to dialog with Catholics and discussing Eric's books, Evangelical Answers and Who Is My Mother?
Svendsen is a very bitter ex-Catholic. Would Hank (Hanegraaf) have the nerve to have a Catholic apologist (especially an ex-Protestant) on for 4 days to discuss the same theological issues?
Why do I bother to ask?........
Canon Law Requires the Worthy Support of Penalized Priests
A priest who is retired or close to being retired who has one substantiated allegation of abuse that was committed 20 or more years ago and has only recently come to light. I don't know what percentage of the priest abuser population these cases represent, but I'm pretty sure it's not zero.
Is it reasonable to remove the man from active ministry? Absolutely. Defrock him? Perhaps. But after a lifetime of service as a priest, it's a fair bet that his pension is the only thing he'll have to live on (plus a little Social Security) in his retirement. I'm a little uncomfortable just kicking him out the door and saying "fend for yourself," particularly if the Bishops who let abusive priests continue in ministry aren't going to be punished at all.
If a priest has been removed from ministry, but not defrocked, the Ordinary is required to provide for his support. If a priest has been defrocked, the Ordinary may provide for his support if he has no other means.
Can. 1350 §1 In imposing penalties on a cleric, except in the case of dismissal from the clerical state, care must always be taken that he does not lack what is necessary for his worthy support.
§2 If a person is truly in need because he has been dismissed from the clerical state, the Ordinary is to provide in the best way possible.
Right and/or Privilege WRT to the Priesthood
I have noticed some remarks on the other Catholic blogs; whether from the bloggers themselves, or from readers whose e-mails have been posted, or from comments. The individuals seem to be dissatisfied with this proposal: to provide the possibility that a priest who had been guilty of violating his sacred trust with a minor a long time ago, yet having lived a blameworthy life since having fallen only once, might (not will, but might) be allowed to continue in ministry.
Objections offered to this possibility sometimes include the assertion that being a priest is a privilege, not a right. As it stands, that assertion seems to me to be incorrect.
True, being a priest is a great privilege. Perhaps there is no greater, except that of being a saint. :) And, true, nobody has a right to become a priest. (Though, I do believe, a transitional deacon does have the right to be ordained to the priesthood unless a just cause precludes it.)
Once ordained, however, a priest does have rights. And among them are the right to remain a priest and the right to exercise the sacred ministry unless, of course, serious offenses cause him to forfeit those rights.
So, it is not correct to say absolutely that nobody has a right to be a priest. For a priest does, indeed, have the right to be a priest. Though, as many rights can be, that right can be forfeited.
Gerard Beat Me To It :)
On Old Oligarch and the Infallibility of the Teaching in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis
Thanks to Minute Particulars for a link to a lengthy essay on The Ordination of Women by the Old Oligarch (5/30/2002 05:19:48 AM). On the whole, it is a fine treatment of the subject. I must quibble, however, with certain remarks concerning the Apostolic Constitution Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. Here are some paragraphs from the section Recent Church Teaching:
One reason why John Paul II's Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is so short is because he believes the question has already been definitively settled by the constant practice of the church, which is what he means by the "ordinary universal magisterium." ....
While short on content, John Paul II does make an important contribution to the debate by virtue of his authority for those that have ears to hear. The conclusion of the apostolic letter is the most important part:
"Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful."
For those who are familiar with ecclesiastical style, it is clear from the wording of the conclusion that the pope wishes to make a permanent and irreversible declaration. The concluding paragraph establishes that the matter at hand meets the criterion for definitive teaching: (1) It concerns a matter essential to faith and morals, (2) It is given by virtue of his ministry of confirming the brethren, a text cited with regard to the pope's status as head of the college of bishops and his ultimate authority over the whole church, and (3) He intends to make a definitive judgment which closes the matter for any Catholic of good conscience.
It is clear that the pope believes his declaration regards an infallible teaching. The only reason he did not invoke his own infallible magisterial authority in the declaration is because he believes the issue is already well enough attested by the ordinary universal magisterium of the Church.
The Old Oligarch identifies himself as a systematic theologian, so I hesitate to venture to correct him in this regard. I believe, however, that he is mistaken in asserting that the pope "did not invoke his own infallible magisterial authority in the declaration". Why? Because a pope "invokes" his infallible magisterial authority by doing all that is required for a doctrinal declaration to be ex-cathedra that is, by doing all that is required by Pastor aeternus (Vatican I) and Lumen gentium (Vatican II). Heck, the Old Oligarch himself enumerated precisely how the pope did all that the ecumenical councils require for a papal teaching to be infallible thus showing that the pope "invoked" his infallible teaching authority.
I have written about this at length: Ordinatio Sacerdotalis: Infallible Teaching?
Novena of the Litany of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Priest and Victim
In prospect of the American bishops' meeting, Dallas, May 13-15, 2002
Prayer for today, from the Sacramentary of the Roman Missal, the opening prayer of one of the Masses for Pastoral or Spiritual Meetings:
Lord, pour out on us the spirit of understanding, truth, and peace. Help us to strive with all our hearts to know what is pleasing to you, and when we know your will make us determined to do it. We ask this through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.
(This is also number 16 in Appendix III of current volume of the Liturgy of the Hours.)
|The Blog from the Core © 2002-2008 E. L. Core. All rights reserved.|
|Needless Commentary from Small-Town America|
|The View from the Core, and all original material, © 2002-2004 E. L. Core. All rights reserved.|
|Cor ad cor loquitur J. H. Newman Heart speaks to heart|