"Flawed arguments against applying Canon 915 in the Cuomo case persist,..."

... perhaps because sound arguments against applying the canon apparently don’t. Jesuit Fr. William J. O’Malley’s essay in America (20-27 June 2011) is just the latest example.

Before addressing O’Malley’s claims, though, I pause to wonder why he bothered to respond to this lawyer’s arguments about law in the first place? After all, O’Malley believes that laws are chiefly necessary “for people unable—or unwilling—to think.” The vacuity of that claim I address below; the condescension that O’Malley shows toward those who consider legal questions important, I will ignore.

O’Malley opines that “the first sign of a dying society is a new edition of the rules.” Good grief, how fatuous can a claim about jurisprudence be and yet be found worthy of printing in America magazine?

The specific rule that O’Malley dismisses is Canon 915, part of the Johanno-Pauline Code of Canon Law. Now, if O’Malley’s Maxim is right and “the first sign of a dying society is a new edition of the rules”, then, must we not conclude that the promulgation of the new edition of the Code in 1983 signaled the onset of the Catholic Church’s death throes some 28 years ago? Apparently, that dotty old Church is taking her sweet time a-dying.

But wait, if O’Malley’s Maxim is right, should not the promulgation of the Pio-Benedictine Code have been the first sign that the Catholic Church was dying in 1917, nearly one hundred years ago? Which first sign is first?

Why stop there?

Read it all on the "In the Light of the Law" blog. Yep, Dr. Ed Peters is on a roll. His posts on the Cuomo case and related matter have been, I must say, both instructive and entertaining. Just like his canon law classes.

Also see:

• "The Cuomo-Communion Controversy" by Edward N. Peters (Catholic World Report, May 2011)

Comments

[Joe]

Over at American PApist we read "Andrew Cuomo’s soul is at stake. ..."

Does ANYONE in leadership believe that and have the integrity to say it... Waiting ...

Also, his living with his girlfriend as gov sends the signal to all that sex outside of marriage is OK. And we expectour kids to believe Church teaching instead? When the clerics are pretty much silent? Again, does anyone still think premarital sex is a sin and not just an impropriety? A shame.

[Teo Matteo]

“the first sign of a dying society is a new edition of the rules”, -Fr. O'Malley

I would have to disagree. The first sign would be that a new edition is not possible because there is no Editor. No Editor, no truth, no rules.

[Gabriel Austin]

Yet another Jesuit Father making up the rules as he goes along. One wonders what he thinks about God giving us the Commandments.

"What would Jesus do?" is the refrain of those looking for an out. Pity the youngsters misled by this teacher.

[Gail F]

I like the part where he reminds us that it is also a sin not to do something when you should. I know that as one of the "simple people in the pews" SMART people like this priest are always so concerned about, I am sick of seeing important politicians do one wrong thing after another and never get called on it by a priest or bishop. What am I supposed to conclude -- that "the rules" don't really matter, or that they don't apply to important people? Either way, it's a crock. If you make "pastoral exceptions" for all these rich, important, scandalous people, I don't see why you won't make them for ME. And that is exactly the lesson the majority of people seem to learn.

[Matthew]

Ed, I don't know if you have written about the "why" of the episcopal hesitancy. I am not looking to judge character here but I am sincerely interested as to WHY the bishops are reluctant to enforce the law. I really don't get it. Thanks.
Matthew