Category: Law

Certain U.K. yahoos have now passed a law outlawing foxhunting.

Actually, it’s worse than that.

They’ve passed a law to ban the use of dogs in hunting.

It’s apparently "wrong."

Yeah.

Dogs can go out and hunt naturally, as their instincts tell them to, but humans can’t faciliate dog’s natural instincts because that’s "wrong."

Uh-huh.

To quote Ford Prefect: "YOU’RE A LOAD OF USELESS BLOODY LOONIES!!!"

Now, I should note that the last comment was not directed at all people in the U.K. It’s only direted to those who are yahoos. Not everybody in the U.K. is a yahoo. For example, I’d extent a special holler to those entrerprising ex-hunters who, lest their dogs suffer from lack of exercise, have started to get gussied up with the red coats and all and then hop on their horses and take the dogs out for a brisk run and everything stays well within the law as long as no foxes happen to cross their paths . . . in which case canine instincts might take over . . . through no fault at all of the ex-hunters, of course!

GET THE (STUPID) STORY.

Powerline (cowboy hat tip to them) notes:

This is one time when we can say "It can’t happen here," and really mean it. America’s hunters are too powerful; I suspect they’re also better armed than their English counterparts. I think it’s time for the NRA to open a branch in England [SOURCE].

For several days I’ve been meaning to link to a couple of pieces on Ed Peters’ canon blawg, In Light Of The Law.

Ideally, I’d like to do two separate posts linking to Ed’s two most recent blog entries. Unfortunately, like I did when I first started blogging, Ed is doing a hand-coded blog that does not have permalinks, so I can’t.

(Hint, hint, Ed! Automated blogs are much better! And will get you more traffic by making it easier for folks to link to you–among other things. I’ll even help you convert yours over to automated form if you’ll let me!)

Anyhoo, here’s what’s up on the good Dr.’s canon blawg:

1) There’s been a lot of silly talk about the pope being forced to resign. Can’t be done. Shouldn’t be done. And Ed has some great commentary on the subject.

2) Apropo of papal succession, turns out that one cardinal thought to have the ability to vote in the next conclave had lied about his age (to the tune of five years) and was actually over the cutoff age for cardinals being able to vote in papal elections. Fortunately, the guy outed himself before the time came, but the thought of an ineligible papal elector participating in a conclave ought to give everyone the willies.

GET THE STORIES.

New norms on adjudicating marriage cases coming down the pike Tuesday!

4-February-2005  — Vatican Information Service   

PRESENTATION OF INSTRUCTION ABOUT NORMS IN MARRIAGE CASES

VATICAN CITY, FEB 4, 2005 (VIS) – In the Holy See Press Office at 11.30 a.m. on Tuesday February 8, there will be the presentation of the Instruction "Dignitas connubii" ("Dignity of Marriage"), on the norms to be observed in ecclesiastical tribunals hearing marriage cases. The document has been prepared by the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, with the collaboration of other dicasteries.

Participants include: Cardinal Julian Herranz, president of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Archbishop Angelo Amato S.D.B., secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Archbishop Domenico Sorrentino, secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of Sacraments, Bishop Velasio De Paolis C.S., secretary of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura and Msgr. Antoni Stankiewicz, dean of the Tribunal of the Roman Rota.

A correspondentt writes:

I am a catholic woman. I am divorced. My first marriage was
preformed in a reception hall, by an interfaith minister, not in a
church. Therefore, can I now marry the catholic, single, man of my
dreams, in a catholic church? I dont ,myself, need an annulment if I
was never before married in the catholic church or by a priest? Correct?

If you, as a Catholic, were married outside the Church without a
dispensation allowing you to do so then your first marriage was not valid.

You do need an annulment in order to show that your first marriage was
not valid.

After receiving the annulment, you will be able to marry someone else in
the Catholic Church.

The kind of annulment you need is very easy to obtain because all you
have to do is gather the correct documents to be able to show the
circumstances of the original marriage ceremony.

Contact your local parish and say that you’d like to set up an
appointment to see about obtaining an annulment. They can help you from
there.

Hope this helps, and God bless you!

A kindly reader recently e-mailed me links to

THIS STORY

and

THIS ONE,

which deal with vandalism committed against a pro-life display down in Louisiana.

The display consists of 4,000 crosses to symbolize the 4,000+ children who are murdered each day in this country by abortion.

Pro-abort hooligans vandalized 3,000 of the crosses, including doing juvenile things like spelling out the words "Pro-choice" with them.

Police officers told them to stop but did not arrest them.

Excerpts from the first story:

“This is not a game,” [display organizer Mary] Higdon said, “this is private property.”

The crosses, which were on loan from St. Mary and St. Joseph Family Memorial Foundation, cost $3 a piece to make, Higdon said.

Richard Mahoney, president of the foundation, said they have been
lending crosses to Students for Life for 10 years and that vandalism
has occurred before, but never like this.

Mahoney is furious, and said that if LSUPD does not handle the situation justly, he has lawyers prepared to file suit.

“Defacing a religious symbol is a hate crime,” Mahoney said.

Mahoney said the vandals damaged more than $9,000 worth of private property, which should be prosecuted as a felony.

But Adams said there is no way of knowing who took what, so the
identified individuals probably will be charged with misdemeanor
charges.

Mahoney said that if a Jewish or other religious minority group set
up an exhibit that vandals defaced, such as the Star of David, the act
would not be tolerated.

He said a Christian organization should not have to tolerate it either.

He’s right. No Christian organization should tolerate this. I am outraged by it. I’m happy to provide coverage of this. If they can nail somebody for a felony, great. I think that the individuals responsible for the vandalism should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law–or, at least, the full extent of the justice of the law.

But I have a quibble about one point: Just because the law may provide a penalty does not mean that the penalty is just. The law can overreach justice, and I think that is what happens with "hate crime" legislation.

Such legislation selectively isolates motive in some cases in order to extend special protections to certian groups (the targets of the "hate"). In reality, anybody who has a crime committed against him is the victim of malice, and to create certain classes protected by "hate crime" legislation selectively favors these classes over others, who are equally victims of malice. This contributes to the polarization of our society and works against the fundamental principle of equal justice for all.

Consequently, I don’t favor hate crimes legislation. I don’t favor it when it works to the benefits of groups to which I don’t belong or of groups to which I do belong (e.g., Catholics, Christians, religious people, pro-lifers).

To my mind, if someone commits vandalism, you charge him with vandalism. You don’t charge him with vandalism plus harming a specially-protected group.

So, to the folks down in Lousiana, I say: Run these malefactors out of town on a rail, but do it on the vandalism charge, not the "hate crimes" charge. We’ll all be better off the sooner we get over this "hate crimes" nonsense.

A reader writes:

Jimmy, I catch you occassionally on (tape-delayed) Catholic Answers Live in
Kansas City as well as on your blog.  Quick question:  How much is one
required to tithe?

Nice to hear from you! I know from personal experience that everything is up-to-date in Kansas City. I even know what signs are on the buildings downtown, as I’ve spent quite a number of hours shivering on the platform at the train station there, puffing my pipe while waiting for my connecting train to arrive.

Regarding your question, it depends on the sense in which one takes the question:

1) If one is really intending to tithe, then one must give a tenth–of something, typically either one’s gross or net income. Biblically, a tithe is a tenth of one’s gross income.

People who talk about "tithing" anything other than ten percent are abusing the term. "Tithe" is simply an old-fashioned word that means "tenth."

That being said . . .

2) Under current canon law, one is not require to tithe at all. Here is what the Code of Canon Law says:

Can. 222 §1. The
Christian faithful are obliged to assist with the needs of the Church so that
the Church has what is necessary for divine worship, for the works of the
apostolate and of charity, and for the decent support of ministers.

The Catechism puts this obligation in this way:

CCC 2043 The faithful also have the duty of providing for the material needs of the
   Church, each according to his abilities.

Thus, under current Church teaching and practice, there is no obligation to tithe (give a tenth). One may choose what level one feels is appropriate given the financial realities that one is facing, whether that ammount is less or more than a tith (a tenth).

In an e-mail entitled "Protestant Communion," a correspondent writes:

Hi there:

Simple question:

Should catholics receive communion in a non-catholic church?

I am of the opinion that the answer is no.  But, I’m having trouble finding
documentation to back me up.  Would this be a violation of Canon law or
simply something that a more orthodox, observant Catholic ought to avoid.

Thanks for your time and your ministry,

There are a limited number of circumstances in which a Catholic can take Communion in a non-Catholic Church, but otherwise doing so is a violation of canon law. Unfortunately, the exceptions that exist presuppose that the sacrament is valid in the church were one is receiving Communion. This is the case in Eastern Orthodox churches and other Eastern churches (e.g., the Assyrian Church of the East), but it is not the case in Protestant churches, which is what I know you’re interested in.

The relevant canon is 844 (online here), but the whole canon is rather long, so I won’t walk you through all of it. Here’s the relevant part for your purposes:

§2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual
advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism
is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally
impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the
sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these
sacraments are valid.

Note the last bit in red. Unfortunately, Protestants did not retain valid holy orders and thus did not retain a valid Eucharist. Therefore, Catholics cannot receive this sacrament in Protestant churches.

Hope this helps!

This is a common question asked by a great many people. Often times they have heard that they might not need an annulment for various reasons (e.g., their prior wedding was outside the Catholic Church, it wasn’t a Christian wedding, it was done in a courthouse, one or both partners were not Catholics). Unfortunately, what they have heard is often incorrect.

Here is a simple list of questions to ask to determine whether an annulment is needed:

1) Does the person wish to get married or to possibly marry in the future?

2) Has the person attempted marriage before (meaning: has the person ever had anything that someone would regard as a wedding ceremony)?

3) Is the prior spouse still alive?

4) Is it the case that the Catholic Church has not yet investigated the marriage and found it to be null?

If the answer to all four of these questions is “yes” then the person needs an annulment.

These questions should be asked both for Catholics and non-Catholics, and they should be asked for each prior marriage the person has attempted.

The reasons that you sometimes hear suggested for why a person may not need an annulment do not actually mean that the person doesn’t need an annulment. More often, they are indicators that it will be easy to show that the marriage was null. For example, if a Catholic married outside the Church without a dispensation then the marriage was automatically null, and this will be easy to show when the annulment is sought. However, the annulment is still necessary.

In order to be faithful to Christ’s teachings on matrimony (Mark 10:2-12, see also Romans 7:2-3), the Church has a pastoral duty to investigate it whenever a person has attempted marriage and make sure that the person really is free to marry before giving that person permission to marry again. This investigation is commonly called the annulment process. It may be easy or hard to show nullity in a particular case, but the Church has a responsibility to Christ to investigate the matter.

The way to get the annulment process started is to call a local parish, explain that you would like to seek an annulment, and they can help you from there.

NOTE: There is one class of exception to the above. There are a few cases in which it is possible for a marriage to be dissolved. The most common such case is when two unbaptized people marry and then later one of them is baptized and the non-baptized partner will not continue living with the baptized partner (1 Cor. 7:12-15). However, even in cases such as this, where dissolution is technically possible, annulment is still generally the best way of handling the case. If you think such a case may apply in your situation, contact the marriage tribunal at your local Catholic diocese for further guidance.

Yesterday there was a story headlined The statement [of the U.S. bishops] is very much in harmony with the general principles “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion,” sent as a fraternal service-to clarify the doctrine of the Church on this specific issue-in order to assist the American Bishops in their related discussion and determinations.

This was hailed as a sign that the bishops’ and Ratzinger were in harmony on this issue, though there are manifest differences between the two documents.

What some may have overlooked was that Ratzinger stated that the U.S. document was in harmony with “the general principles” of “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion,” suggesting that–although the fundamental spirit of the two documents are in harmony (e.g., they both are pro-life, they both seek to promote a pro-life ethic in the political sphere, etc.) there are nevertheless specific points of difference between them. Ratzinger’s letter also contained this statement:

It is hoped that this dialogue [with the CDF] can continue as the [U.S. bishops’] Task Force carries on its important work.

And Cardinal McCarrick added:

I am grateful for his support of our statement and I look forward to continuing dialogue between our task force and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.”

The existence of a “dialogue” between two parties seems to indicate that they do not yet perceive themselves to be in full agreement on the matter which is the subject of dialogue. While this dialogue seems to be being conducted in a most gentlemanly, diplomatic manner, the two parties nonetheless recognize that a dialogue is taking place.

Yesterday there was a story headlined The statement [of the U.S. bishops] is very much in harmony with the general principles “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion,” sent as a fraternal service-to clarify the doctrine of the Church on this specific issue-in order to assist the American Bishops in their related discussion and determinations.

This was hailed as a sign that the bishops’ and Ratzinger were in harmony on this issue, though there are manifest differences between the two documents.

What some may have overlooked was that Ratzinger stated that the U.S. document was in harmony with “the general principles” of “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion,” suggesting that–although the fundamental spirit of the two documents are in harmony (e.g., they both are pro-life, they both seek to promote a pro-life ethic in the political sphere, etc.) there are nevertheless specific points of difference between them. Ratzinger’s letter also contained this statement:

It is hoped that this dialogue [with the CDF] can continue as the [U.S. bishops’] Task Force carries on its important work.

And Cardinal McCarrick added:

I am grateful for his support of our statement and I look forward to continuing dialogue between our task force and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.”

The existence of a “dialogue” between two parties seems to indicate that they do not yet perceive themselves to be in full agreement on the matter which is the subject of dialogue. While this dialogue seems to be being conducted in a most gentlemanly, diplomatic manner, the two parties nonetheless recognize that a dialogue is taking place.