From Joseph Shaw's article in the Herald: "The key point is that the Responsa is not a new law, but an interpretation of another document by a Vatican Congregation. In the places where it goes beyond Traditionis Custodes, it is skating on some pretty thin ice. "The ice disappears altogether when its proposals are contra legem: in conflict with the law of the Church. Thus, Bishops have the authority …More
From Joseph Shaw's article in the Herald: "The key point is that the Responsa is not a new law, but an interpretation of another document by a Vatican Congregation. In the places where it goes beyond Traditionis Custodes, it is skating on some pretty thin ice. "The ice disappears altogether when its proposals are contra legem: in conflict with the law of the Church. Thus, Bishops have the authority to determine when there is pastoral justification for a priest to celebrate additional Masses, for example, from Canon 905 §2. This right is not something which can be stripped from them on the say-so of the Prefect of a Vatican Congregation, howsoever wise and benevolent he may be. And yet that is exactly what the Responsa appear to be doing when it limits the number of Traditional Masses which a priest may say. "Again, it may have irritated some in Rome that so many bishops—and not just the Tradition-friendly usual suspects—invoked Canon 87 §1, which allows a bishop to set aside the universal law of the Church when the good of souls requires it, in order to allow Traditional Masses to continue in parish churches, contrary to Traditionis Custodes. The Congregation seems to be trying to claw back the force of the original ban by asking bishops to come to it for a dispensation, should this be really necessary. However, the Congregation cannot repeal Canon 87 §1; still less can it wave aside the theological foundation of this prerogative of bishops, which is found in the texts of the Second Vatican Council
There’s an old story from Boston that goes something like this: Some priests were arguing about some fine point of Canon Law, and Cardinal Cushing (episcopal “bull in a china shop,” if you don’t believe me, look at President Kennedy’s funeral Mass on YouTube) overheard them, and he put a quick end to the argument. How did he do this? He loudly exclaimed, and gesticulated, “I’m Canon Law!” Cushing …More
There’s an old story from Boston that goes something like this: Some priests were arguing about some fine point of Canon Law, and Cardinal Cushing (episcopal “bull in a china shop,” if you don’t believe me, look at President Kennedy’s funeral Mass on YouTube) overheard them, and he put a quick end to the argument. How did he do this? He loudly exclaimed, and gesticulated, “I’m Canon Law!” Cushing is still a hero to a lot of liberals. He hasn’t even been tarnished all that much for the extraordinary number of monstrous sexual predators he ordained. The guys in charge today have the very same position. They laugh at anyone who tries to quote Canon Law against them. I’m not sure of the answer, but, I’m sure we will never win a legal argument against people who simultaneously disrespect the law, while holding legislative power. It’s a perennial problem.
