dUSt Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 So a priest should never deny communion to [b]anyone[/b] unless he first verifies that everyone in the general public knows about that person's sin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 [quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1332470845' post='2405772'] So a priest should never deny communion to [b]anyone[/b] unless he first verifies that everyone in the general public knows about that person's sin? [/quote] That's a completely different topic. We can refer back to Dr. Peters, because he's written on that too, but he's the expert. Not us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dUSt Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Scenario: A guy goes into confession and tells a priest that he murdered someone, but is not sorry, and will not repent. The priest withholds absolution. After confessions are over, mass begins, and that man presents himself to communion. You and the lawyer guy say that the priest should give the man communion, because there is no way to prove that the sin is manifest. Am I getting this right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 [quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1332471027' post='2405779'] Scenario: A guy goes into confession and tells a priest that he murdered someone, but is not sorry, and will not repent. The priest withholds absolution. After confessions are over, mass begins, and that man presents himself to communion. You and the lawyer guy say that the priest should give the man communion, because there is no way to prove that the sin is manifest. Am I getting this right? [/quote] Seal of the confessional. That would be a [i]very[/i] serious crime on the priest's part. That's another different subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dUSt Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1332471141' post='2405780'] Seal of the confessional. That would be a [i]very[/i] serious crime on the priest's part. That's another different subject. [/quote] What? It would be a very serious sin for the priest to give the guy communion? Why? He cannot prove that the sin is manifest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 [quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1332471235' post='2405782'] What? It would be a very serious sin for the priest to give the guy communion? Why? He cannot prove that the sin is manifest. [/quote] It would be serious for the priest to deny communion because he's bound by the Seal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dUSt Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 [quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1332471309' post='2405784'] Interesting. [/quote] I wouldn't be out of line in suggesting that you don't understand the finer points of canon law, correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dUSt Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 [color=#282828]Scenario: A guy comes up before mass and tells a priest that he murdered someone, and is not sorry, and will not repent. He tells the priest he was baptized a Catholic but hates the Catholic Church and Hates Jesus. Mass begins, and that man presents himself to communion.[/color] [color=#282828]You and the lawyer guy say that the priest should give the man communion, because there is no way to prove that his sin is manifest.[/color] [color=#282828]Am I getting this right? [/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
missionseeker Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1332471370' post='2405787'] I wouldn't be out of line in suggesting that you don't understand the finer points of canon law, correct? [/quote] I'm relatively sure that sure that even those of us who've studied it in Catholic Universities and under very learned canon lawyers don't always understand the finer points of canon law... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dUSt Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1332471370' post='2405787'] I wouldn't be out of line in suggesting that you don't understand the finer points of canon law, correct? [/quote] It wouldn't be out of line in suggesting that you don't know how to dunk a basketball from the three point line, correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 [quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1332471447' post='2405789'] [color=#282828]Scenario: A guy comes up before mass and tells a priest that he murdered someone, and is not sorry, and will not repent. He tells the priest he was baptized a Catholic but hates the Catholic Church and Hates Jesus. Mass begins, and that man presents himself to communion.[/color] [color=#282828]You and the lawyer guy say that the priest should give the man communion, because there is no way to prove that the sin is manifest.[/color] [color=#282828]Am I getting this right? [/color] [/quote] Canon law, as far as I understand it, and as far as I understand Dr. Peters interpretation of it, does not permit the priest to do so. Not only because of the manifest part.[quote name='missionseeker' timestamp='1332471495' post='2405791'] I'm relatively sure that sure that even those of us who've studied it in Catholic Universities and under very learned canon lawyers don't always understand the finer points of canon law... [/quote]Indeed. Exactly! Which is why Dr. Peters is essentially our only reliable source in this.[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1332471524' post='2405793'] It wouldn't be out of line in suggesting that you don't know how to dunk a basketball from the three point line, correct? [/quote]Absolutely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dUSt Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1332471608' post='2405794'] Canon law, as far as I understand it, and as far as I understand Dr. Peters interpretation of it, does not permit the priest to do so. Not only because of the manifest part. [/quote] This is a revelation to me. I wasn't aware that priests did not have the freedom to protect the Eucharist according to their own judgement. Now I see why it's so difficult to be a good priest in this day and age. Ugh, lawyers ruin everything!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
missionseeker Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1332471608' post='2405794'] Indeed. Exactly! Which is why Dr. Peters is essentially our only reliable source in this. [/quote] I refuse to believe that he's the ONLY reliable source. Especially since he is not connected to the actual case. What he's commenting on is half the story, maybe less. No one has said what the other incidents were, no one really knows the priest, or what the led the Bishop to take the action he did. So even his commentary is limited. I'm not disputing the validity of the arguments he makes or his credentials, I'm just saying, he knows almost nothing behind the scenes, therefore can only comment on what information is public, which let's face it, is not a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 [quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1332471821' post='2405803'] This is a revelation to me. I wasn't aware that priests did not have the freedom to protect the Eucharist according to their own judgement. Now I see why it's so difficult to be a good priest in this day and age. Ugh, lawyers ruin everything!!! [/quote] You're twisting my words, and not really mine, but what the code of canon law actually says, as far as Dr. Peters has taught.[quote name='missionseeker' timestamp='1332471905' post='2405808'] I refuse to believe that he's the ONLY reliable source. Especially since he is not connected to the actual case. What he's commenting on is half the story, maybe less. No one has said what the other incidents were, no one really knows the priest, or what the led the Bishop to take the action he did. So even his commentary is limited. I'm not disputing the validity of the arguments he makes or his credentials, I'm just saying, he knows almost nothing behind the scenes, therefore can only comment on what information is public, which let's face it, is not a lot. [/quote] Show me other great sources on canon law that we can access. We can analyze them when we see them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now