Sunday, December 04, 2005
THE SPIN ON THE LETTER ACCOMPANYING THE DOCUMENT
sent in by a reader.
Why am I not surprised by this:
The Rev. Ladislas Orsy, a canon lawyer at Georgetown University, said the letter did not have the same legal authority as the instruction. "It's not a piece of legislation," he said. "It would be like a letter from a committee chairman in Congress."
Orsy said the letter should be viewed as nonbinding advice to bishops that concerned only future appointments of seminary instructors because "we have a sweeping principle in canon law that no rule is retroactive unless it specifically says so."
I presume that Benedict is not ignorant of Canon Law and would know this is the way the letter would be interpreted. So who was the letter written for? Was it a sop to the laity to make us think something is being done? Is that why this recommendation was not included in the instruction, but rather only added in a letter that would not be taken seriously, but would be reported in the press?
Sort of reminds me of the letter Cdl. Ratzinger issued banning membership in Masonic Lodges after Canon Law had been rewritten to place lodge membership in limbo. A letter with an inconvenient recommendation can so easily be banished when it is safe to get the recommendation out of the way.
The Rev. Donald Cozzens, a Catholic author and former seminary rector, called the letter a "bombshell" because it affects current priests, not just future ones.
...snip...
Cozzens, whose survey research indicates that a quarter to half of all U.S. priests are gay, said the letter "doesn't say that rectors or professors in our seminaries who have already been appointed should be removed, but one wonders if that's not what might begin to happen -- a kind of culling of gay rectors and professors."
Furthermore, he said: "I think it could also raise questions about people working in chanceries and about bishops who happen to be gay. And why stop there? I see it as a logical extension of the instruction, but it underscores the problematic nature of the instruction."
Ok, next speaker...pass the spinning ball to the next representative who is going to excise a little more of the instruction. When they get done, it will be back to business without interruption.
And I'm supposed to toss cash into the collection basket this morning, some of which will be funneled to the seminary, so that I can also be a financial contributor to sin and the undermining of the Church in America? Doing so makes me a hypocrite. Not doing so makes me a violator of one of the commandments of the Church.
We have John Paul II to thank for this sorry state of affairs. After 25+ years of inaction, the violations of the moral code are entrenched. And there is a movement to canonize John Paul II that is going full steam ahead.
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!
