I figured Canonist Ed Peters would reply to Robert Miller’s essay in First Things (30 May 2007) on Canon 1398 and indeed he has.
Update: Robert T.Miller makes note of Ed Peters’ post and revises his own opinion.
The case for applying Canon 1398 to politicians is very weak
previous post
3 comments
This goes to show you…the US Supreme Court doesn’t mind creating the “law of the land” where it doesn’t exist (i.e. Roe v. Wade) but the good guys are above being so unreasonable (although in this case, it almost makes more sense to “interpret” 1398 to include politicians than to create a “right to privacy” in the Constitution that allows for the murder of children).
The real problem is the Bishops who are not taking steps to counteract the pro-abortion heresy. It’s probably true that 1398 was not “intended” to be used against pro-abortion politicians, and legislative intent as well as strict interpretation need to be considered. I don’t have a problem with that. I would like a Code section added that specifically addresses automatic excommunication of Catholic public figures who thumb their nose at Church teaching (if only to make it easier for those Bishops who are afraid to invoke Canon 1368).
I wonder what the process is for adding a section to Canon law?
Is it possible to censure or impose sanctions OTHER than excommunication via this Canon on said politicians?
Comments are closed.