Month: February 2005

The Mob Justice That Wasn’t

FrankJ has an interesting take on the alleged "mob justice" wrought by bloggers in the Eason Jordan affair:

In 1869 in Arizona, Daniel Dempsey was thought by many to be a cattle rustler. Law enforcement at the time made no moves to do anything about this. Finally brought to the breaking point by another theft of cattle, a mob of a few dozen people – rifles and shotguns in hand – went to the ranch of the theft and demanded security videos to find out what had actually happened. Dempsey and his employer stalled the efforts, and then Dempsey hanged himself.

Without hyperbole, I can say this was the worst incident of mob "justice" in the history of mankind and perhaps the universe.

And, that’s exactly what played out with Eason Jordan.

BLOGGERS: We heard that Eason Jordan had accused our troops of targeting journalists. We would like to see the Davos tapes to get to the truth in the matter.

EASON JORDAN: I resign.

MSM: LYNCH MOB!

[SOURCE.]

And Soups Made From Meat

Yee-haw!!! Another round in the annual Lent Fight!

In this corner, the Masked Reader writes:

Mr. Akin,

On your blog you stated that the laws of abstinence regarding soups et cetera changed when Paenitemini was promulgated in 1966. I think I have to take issue with your interpretation. It doesn’t seem that Paenitemini changes the laws then in force; all it says on the subject of abstinence is that "[t]he law of abstinence forbids the use of meat, but not of eggs, the products of milk or condiments made of animal fat." Is it not customary to interpret the law in accordance with earlier laws on the same subject? There is certainly no explicit permission in Paenitemini to partake of soups (and gravies and whatnot) made of meat on days of abstinence. Is there an authentic interpretation of Paenitemini or the 1983 Code that permits such?

You are correct that laws are generally to be interpreted in accord with earlier laws on the same subject. But this does not mean reading into the new law whatever the provisions of the old law were. In fact, it can involve the opposite: Looking at the new law to see what parts of the old law have been dropped.

Canon 20 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law provides that:

A later law abrogates, or derogates from, an earlier law if it states so expressly, is directly contrary to it, or completely reorders the entire matter of the earlier law [SOURCE].

Paenitemini expressly derogates from prior law when it says:

The prescriptions of ecclesiastical law regarding penitence are totally reorganized [i.e., completely reordered; this is a translation difference but it’s the same phrase] according to the following norms [Norm I:2].

The norm on abstinence says:

The law of abstinence forbids the use of meat, but not of eggs, the products of milk or condiments made of animal fat [Norm III:1].

This is very similar to but nevertheless different from Canon 1250 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law which said:

The law of abstinence prohibits meat and soups made from meat but not of eggs, milks, and also whatever condiments are derived from animal fat [CIC(1917) 1250].

The "and soups made from meat" phrase is missing and thus Norm III:1 of Paenitemini derogates from Canon 1250 of the 1917 Code. As the Green CLSA commentary notes on canon 20 of the 1983 Code:

Divine laws do not change, but ecclesiastical laws, being of human origin, can be revoked partially (derogation) or entirely (abrogation) [p. 80].

[If a] new law changes part of an old law or norm but leaves the rest intact: this is a derogation, not abrogation [p. 82].

Since Paenitemini drops part of what the 1917 Code said about the law of abstinence but leaves the rest intact, it derogates from (partially revokes) what the 1917 Code said on that point.

Thus "soups made from meat" are now kosher on days of abstinence.

If anyone is of a mind to be cantankerous about this point, I would then note that the above line of reasoning at least creates a doubt as to the legal status of soups made from meat (in fact, it seems to do much more than create a doubt, but let’s suppose that’s all it does), in which case we have a doubt of law situation.

As Canon 14 of the 1983 Code provides:

Laws, even invalidating and disqualifying ones, do not oblige when there is a doubt about the law.

So one can still eat chicken noodle soup until Rome says otherwise.

I don’t favor that myself, but my job here is to explain what the law says, not what I’d prefer it to say.

And Soups Made From Meat

Yee-haw!!! Another round in the annual Lent Fight!

In this corner, the Masked Reader writes:

Mr. Akin,

On your blog you stated that the laws of abstinence regarding soups et cetera changed when Paenitemini was promulgated in 1966. I think I have to take issue with your interpretation. It doesn’t seem that Paenitemini changes the laws then in force; all it says on the subject of abstinence is that "[t]he law of abstinence forbids the use of meat, but not of eggs, the products of milk or condiments made of animal fat." Is it not customary to interpret the law in accordance with earlier laws on the same subject? There is certainly no explicit permission in Paenitemini to partake of soups (and gravies and whatnot) made of meat on days of abstinence. Is there an authentic interpretation of Paenitemini or the 1983 Code that permits such?

You are correct that laws are generally to be interpreted in accord with earlier laws on the same subject. But this does not mean reading into the new law whatever the provisions of the old law were. In fact, it can involve the opposite: Looking at the new law to see what parts of the old law have been dropped.

Canon 20 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law provides that:

A later law abrogates, or derogates from, an earlier law if it states so expressly, is directly contrary to it, or completely reorders the entire matter of the earlier law [SOURCE].

Paenitemini expressly derogates from prior law when it says:

The prescriptions of ecclesiastical law regarding penitence are totally reorganized [i.e., completely reordered; this is a translation difference but it’s the same phrase] according to the following norms [Norm I:2].

The norm on abstinence says:

The law of abstinence forbids the use of meat, but not of eggs, the products of milk or condiments made of animal fat [Norm III:1].

This is very similar to but nevertheless different from Canon 1250 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law which said:

The law of abstinence prohibits meat and soups made from meat but not of eggs, milks, and also whatever condiments are derived from animal fat [CIC(1917) 1250].

The "and soups made from meat" phrase is missing and thus Norm III:1 of Paenitemini derogates from Canon 1250 of the 1917 Code. As the Green CLSA commentary notes on canon 20 of the 1983 Code:

Divine laws do not change, but ecclesiastical laws, being of human origin, can be revoked partially (derogation) or entirely (abrogation) [p. 80].

[If a] new law changes part of an old law or norm but leaves the rest intact: this is a derogation, not abrogation [p. 82].

Since Paenitemini drops part of what the 1917 Code said about the law of abstinence but leaves the rest intact, it derogates from (partially revokes) what the 1917 Code said on that point.

Thus "soups made from meat" are now kosher on days of abstinence.

If anyone is of a mind to be cantankerous about this point, I would then note that the above line of reasoning at least creates a doubt as to the legal status of soups made from meat (in fact, it seems to do much more than create a doubt, but let’s suppose that’s all it does), in which case we have a doubt of law situation.

As Canon 14 of the 1983 Code provides:

Laws, even invalidating and disqualifying ones, do not oblige when there is a doubt about the law.

So one can still eat chicken noodle soup until Rome says otherwise.

I don’t favor that myself, but my job here is to explain what the law says, not what I’d prefer it to say.

Ratzinger on the Catechism

I want to thank the reader who asked about the weight of the doctrinal statements found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church as he reminded me to post on something I’ve been meaning to post on for a while.

In his book Introduction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Cardinal Ratzinger considers the question of the authority of the Catechism and writes:

This brings us to the question already mentioned before, regarding the authority of the Catechism. In order to find the answer, let us first consider a bit more closely its juridical character. We could express it in this way: analogously to the new Code of Canon Law, the Catechism is de facto a collegial work; canonically, it falls under the special jurisdiction of the Pope, inasmuch as it was authorized for the whole Christian world by the Holy Father in virtue of the supreme teaching authority invested in him. . . .

This does not mean that the catechism is a sort of super-dogma, as its opponents would like to insinuate in order to cast suspicion on its as a danger to the liberty of theology. What significance the Catechism really holds for the common exercise of teaching in the Church may be learned by reading the Apostolic Constitution Fidei depositum, with which the Pope promulgated it on October 11, 1992–exactly thirty years after the opening of the Second Vatican Council: "I acknowledge it [the Catechism] as a valid and legitimate tool in the service of ecclesiastical communion, as a sure norm for instruction in the faith."

The individual doctrine which the Catechism presents receive no other weight than that which they already possess. The weight of the Catechism itself lies in the whole. Since it transmits what the Church teaches, whoever rejects it as a whole separates himself beyond question from the faith and teaching of the Church [pp. 25-27. NOTE: The paragraph breaks above are mine. While the catechism may not be a super-dogma, Ratzinger said all this (and more) in a single super-paragraph].

Thus the Catechism presents the teaching of the Church without elevating the doctrinal status of those teachings beyond what they otherwise have. Consequently, one must look to other documents and to the tradition of the Church to establish the doctrinal weight of any particular point in the Catechism. Since the Catechism treats many things that not only have not been taught infallibly but which also have been proposed in the most tentative of fashions (esp. in the area of social teaching), there remains due liberty for theologians (and others) when they encounter something that has been proposed only tentatively.

This was what allowed Cardinal Ratzinger to say, in his 2004 memorandum, that "There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia."

GET THE BOOK

"Consistently Pro-Life," Infallibility, and Capital Punishment

A reader writes:

Since becoming Catholic I’ve heard a lot about capital punishment, and whether or not it should be opposed. Lately, however, I’ve become uncertain about how this ought to actually be applied. Some say that tobe consistently pro-life one should work against the death penalty as well as against abortion. This has caused some confusion on my part.

Okay, first off, be extremely careful about this "consistenly pro-life" stuff. This is rhetoric that is commonly used to hijack (or neutralize) the issue of abortion by relating it to other issues of a different character:

  • Anti-death penalty folks use this rhetoric to try to establish a moral equivalence between abortion and the death penalty and thus argue that if you’re anti-abortion, you need to be anti-death penalty on the grounds that there is a moral equivalence between them such that supporting either would be "inconsistently" pro-life.
  • Pacifists use the rhetoric to try ot establish a moral equivalence between abortion and warfare and use the same argument described above.
  • Supporters of certain welfare or social programs try to establish a moral equivalence between abortion and not supporting their favored welfare or social programs such that if you’re against abortion you must also support their welfare or social programs to be "consistent."
  • Some who oppose abortion seek to neutralize it by establishing a moral equivalence betwen it and other issues such as those described above and saying, in effect, if it’s okay for you to be inconsistently pro-life by not being anti-death penalty, pacifist, or a supporter of more money for this social program, then it’s okay for me not to be anti-abortion.

I know that the "consistently pro-life" rhetoric is out there in Catholic circles, including some highly placed churchmen, but in my judgment it is more of a hindrance than a help in dealing with the problem of abortion. One of the ways it does so is by putting a whole slate of agenda items in front of pro-lifers and making the problem too big to solve. It would be better to solve abortion and then work on other issues.

Another way it is a hindrance is that it has a tendency to mis-educate the conscience of the individual by establishing a moral equivalence between abortion and the other issues such that the individual who absorbs this language thinks or has a tendency to think that the issues are morally the same. Some who use the language may make the needed distinctions between the relative moral status of the issues, but these technicalities are lost on the ordinary individual.

Thus last year many in the Catholic community were convulsed by the question of could they vote for a particular candidate who opposes abortion but also supports the death penalty. The answer is: Of course you can. There are several reasons for this, but a key one is the fact that abortion and capital punishment are not morally equivalent. Abortion is intrinsically evil (meaning always evil) whereas capital punishment is at most only extrinsically evil (meaning evil in some circumstances but morally licit in others).

The same thing goes for war, social programs, etc. They just aren’t of the same moral status, and in my opinion we will be better able to deal with these problems if we use a language that better conforms to the objective differences in the moral status of these subjects. A "one-size-fits-all" rhetoric like the "consistenly pro-life" stuff has a tendency to mis-educate the conscience of individuals and thus make the problems harder to deal with.

However, after looking at the Catechism and reading bits of earlier Church documents touching on the subject, it seems that the ideas of when and how the death penalty can and should be applied have modified dramatically over the centuries. As such, is the current teaching in the Catechism to be considered an infallible teaching of faith and morals, or is it of a lesser nature–say, a personal opinion of the Pope that need not be absolutely accepted by all laymen? (This would especially concern Catholic politicians since it seems that the Church allows for the state to make up its own mind on this matter.)

When the Pope says that capital punishment should be used "rarely if at all," is this an official magisterial statement, or a statement as a personal theologian? Can one be consistently pro-life while approving of capital punishment?

Despite a popular impression to the contrary, the Catechism is not an infallible document (hence it’s already been revised once to fix some minor issues that needed correction). It is a realiable guide to the teaching of the faith, and it does repeat a number of infallible teachings, but it does not, as a whole, enjoy the property of having been written under the charism of infallibility.

This is something that Cardinal Ratzinger is at some pains to point out in THIS BOOK. In fact, he points out that the inclusion of a particular item in the Catechism does not change its doctrinal status. It has only the level of authoritativeness that it had prior to its inclusion in the Catechism. Thus you have to look at its doctrinal status in other Church documents to determine what weight it has in the Catechism.

Ths means that you have to look at Evangelium Vitae 56 to determine the doctrinal weight of the statement on the death penalty, and when one does that it is clear that it is phrased in a very tentative way that may be best understood as the prudential judgment of the pope and not as a matter to which all Catholics are required to assent.

Thus in his memorandum of last summer, Cardinal Ratzinger noted:

Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia [SOURCE].

“Consistently Pro-Life,” Infallibility, and Capital Punishment

A reader writes:

Since becoming Catholic I’ve heard a lot about capital punishment, and whether or not it should be opposed. Lately, however, I’ve become uncertain about how this ought to actually be applied. Some say that tobe consistently pro-life one should work against the death penalty as well as against abortion. This has caused some confusion on my part.

Okay, first off, be extremely careful about this "consistenly pro-life" stuff. This is rhetoric that is commonly used to hijack (or neutralize) the issue of abortion by relating it to other issues of a different character:

  • Anti-death penalty folks use this rhetoric to try to establish a moral equivalence between abortion and the death penalty and thus argue that if you’re anti-abortion, you need to be anti-death penalty on the grounds that there is a moral equivalence between them such that supporting either would be "inconsistently" pro-life.
  • Pacifists use the rhetoric to try ot establish a moral equivalence between abortion and warfare and use the same argument described above.
  • Supporters of certain welfare or social programs try to establish a moral equivalence between abortion and not supporting their favored welfare or social programs such that if you’re against abortion you must also support their welfare or social programs to be "consistent."
  • Some who oppose abortion seek to neutralize it by establishing a moral equivalence betwen it and other issues such as those described above and saying, in effect, if it’s okay for you to be inconsistently pro-life by not being anti-death penalty, pacifist, or a supporter of more money for this social program, then it’s okay for me not to be anti-abortion.

I know that the "consistently pro-life" rhetoric is out there in Catholic circles, including some highly placed churchmen, but in my judgment it is more of a hindrance than a help in dealing with the problem of abortion. One of the ways it does so is by putting a whole slate of agenda items in front of pro-lifers and making the problem too big to solve. It would be better to solve abortion and then work on other issues.

Another way it is a hindrance is that it has a tendency to mis-educate the conscience of the individual by establishing a moral equivalence between abortion and the other issues such that the individual who absorbs this language thinks or has a tendency to think that the issues are morally the same. Some who use the language may make the needed distinctions between the relative moral status of the issues, but these technicalities are lost on the ordinary individual.

Thus last year many in the Catholic community were convulsed by the question of could they vote for a particular candidate who opposes abortion but also supports the death penalty. The answer is: Of course you can. There are several reasons for this, but a key one is the fact that abortion and capital punishment are not morally equivalent. Abortion is intrinsically evil (meaning always evil) whereas capital punishment is at most only extrinsically evil (meaning evil in some circumstances but morally licit in others).

The same thing goes for war, social programs, etc. They just aren’t of the same moral status, and in my opinion we will be better able to deal with these problems if we use a language that better conforms to the objective differences in the moral status of these subjects. A "one-size-fits-all" rhetoric like the "consistenly pro-life" stuff has a tendency to mis-educate the conscience of individuals and thus make the problems harder to deal with.

However, after looking at the Catechism and reading bits of earlier Church documents touching on the subject, it seems that the ideas of when and how the death penalty can and should be applied have modified dramatically over the centuries. As such, is the current teaching in the Catechism to be considered an infallible teaching of faith and morals, or is it of a lesser nature–say, a personal opinion of the Pope that need not be absolutely accepted by all laymen? (This would especially concern Catholic politicians since it seems that the Church allows for the state to make up its own mind on this matter.)

When the Pope says that capital punishment should be used "rarely if at all," is this an official magisterial statement, or a statement as a personal theologian? Can one be consistently pro-life while approving of capital punishment?

Despite a popular impression to the contrary, the Catechism is not an infallible document (hence it’s already been revised once to fix some minor issues that needed correction). It is a realiable guide to the teaching of the faith, and it does repeat a number of infallible teachings, but it does not, as a whole, enjoy the property of having been written under the charism of infallibility.

This is something that Cardinal Ratzinger is at some pains to point out in THIS BOOK. In fact, he points out that the inclusion of a particular item in the Catechism does not change its doctrinal status. It has only the level of authoritativeness that it had prior to its inclusion in the Catechism. Thus you have to look at its doctrinal status in other Church documents to determine what weight it has in the Catechism.

Ths means that you have to look at Evangelium Vitae 56 to determine the doctrinal weight of the statement on the death penalty, and when one does that it is clear that it is phrased in a very tentative way that may be best understood as the prudential judgment of the pope and not as a matter to which all Catholics are required to assent.

Thus in his memorandum of last summer, Cardinal Ratzinger noted:

Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia [SOURCE].

End Times Material

A reader writes:

Can you recommend a couple of books on the Catholic view of end times and prophecy? (I am not a fan of and want to avoid books with a lot of private revelation references.)

David Currie has a book on the rapture, which is a related subject. I have not read this book but enjoyed his "Born Fundamentalist, Born again Catholic." Are you familiar with his work on rapture? Do you know if it would be suitable?

I teach RCIA and one of my students is a fan of end times prophesy … she is now interested in the Catholic perspective. I have never looked into the subject in any detail. Thanks for any help you can give me.

I have to confess that I haven’t yet read all the books I’m about to recommend, but they all by good authors, so I’d recommend them on that basis. Here goes:

I’d also recommend some of the stuff I’ve written, which is online electronically:

Articles On New Age & Wicca

A reader writes:

If you have time to respond to this, that would be great. I am looking for some internet articles dealing with apologetics against New Age and Wiccans. Any links you could provide would be helpful. Keep up the great work at CA and with your blog.

Your wish is my command:

That enough to get you started?

Articles On New Age & Wicca

A reader writes:

If you have time to respond to this, that would be great. I am looking for some internet articles dealing with apologetics against New Age and Wiccans. Any links you could provide would be helpful. Keep up the great work at CA and with your blog.

Your wish is my command:

That enough to get you started?