Or, more accurately (and with less word pun-ishment): "Dr. Ed Peters gives Archbishop Donald Wuerl some pointers on canon law."
« "Catholicism, properly understood ... is one of the sexiest of the world's religions." | Main | What's the difference between Hillary Clinton and Fr. Thomas Reese? »
The comments to this entry are closed.
Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | |||||
3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 |
24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 |
But, but, but, Archbishops Donald Wuerl is a *master* catechist. Don't ever forget that.
Posted by: BillyHW | Thursday, May 07, 2009 at 04:52 PM
But of course Dr. Peters is correct here. The Archbishop's statement is so unfounded as to be stunning. The canon was clearly intended to cover a rage of possibilities and that range includes obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin by Catholics who are politicians. Let's put it another way. Is it really the case that we cannot envision any circumstance in which the actions of a Catholic as a politician would put him under canon 915? Support for legislation intended to result in racial genocide, for instance?
Posted by: Mark Brumley | Friday, May 08, 2009 at 06:51 AM
Is it really the case that we cannot envision any circumstance in which the actions of a Catholic as a politician would put him under canon 915?
Sure, but he/she would have to be a Republican.
Posted by: BillyHW | Friday, May 08, 2009 at 07:39 PM