<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?><feed xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom' xmlns:openSearch='http://a9.com/-/spec/opensearchrss/1.0/'><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20105597</id><updated>2008-07-15T10:11:37.112-04:00</updated><title type='text'>In the Light of the Law</title><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/blog.html'/><link rel='next' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default?start-index=26&amp;max-results=25'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default'/><link rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#feed' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/atom.xml'/><author><name>Dr. Edward Peters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/18400623522845906237</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email></author><generator version='7.00' uri='http://www.blogger.com'>Blogger</generator><openSearch:totalResults>131</openSearch:totalResults><openSearch:startIndex>1</openSearch:startIndex><openSearch:itemsPerPage>25</openSearch:itemsPerPage><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20105597.post-2847535130987332453</id><published>2008-06-27T11:08:00.011-04:00</published><updated>2008-06-27T13:54:16.762-04:00</updated><title type='text'>First thoughts on Abp. Burke's promotion to the Signatura</title><summary type='text'>The Roman Rota is the Church's highest judicial court, but because so much law in the Church is administrative, the Apostolic Signatura, which sits atop that administrative system, is effectively the Church's highest adjudicatory body. Throw in that the Signatura resolves disputes that arise over Rota cases, and the preeminence of the Signatura is clear. Pastor Bonus 121-125; 1983 CIC 1445.

Abp.</summary><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/2008/06/first-thoughts-on-abp-burkes-promotion.html' title='First thoughts on Abp. Burke&apos;s promotion to the Signatura'/><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/atom.xml' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/2847535130987332453'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/2847535130987332453'/><author><name>Dr. Edward Peters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/18400623522845906237</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20105597.post-6104721592195140794</id><published>2008-06-26T01:26:00.009-04:00</published><updated>2008-06-30T10:20:11.359-04:00</updated><title type='text'>Proposal: Extend the Communion fast</title><summary type='text'>I have just published a short article proposing that the Communion fast (1983 CIC 919) be calculated from the start of Mass (instead of from the reception of Communion) and that the fast be extended to three hours (instead of the current one hour). See Edward Peters, "The Communion Fast: a Reconsideration", Antiphon 11 (2007) 234-244. Briefly, my reasons are:

1. A one hour "fast" is physically </summary><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/2008/06/proposal-extend-communion-fast.html' title='Proposal: Extend the Communion fast'/><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/atom.xml' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/6104721592195140794'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/6104721592195140794'/><author><name>Dr. Edward Peters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/18400623522845906237</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20105597.post-5782881755981381203</id><published>2008-06-02T13:07:00.010-04:00</published><updated>2008-06-04T10:52:40.536-04:00</updated><title type='text'>Autism and the Sunday Mass obligation</title><summary type='text'>Knowing nothing about the dispute between a Minnesota parish and the mother of an autistic boy beyond what I've seen on the net, I offer no opinion on the merits of the case. Some quotes attributed to the boy's mother, however, show some misunderstandings of Church law that, if clarified, might make resolution of this case easier.

1. Mother rejected an offer to let her son watch a video feed in </summary><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/2008/06/autism-and-sunday-mass-obligation.html' title='Autism and the Sunday Mass obligation'/><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/atom.xml' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/5782881755981381203'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/5782881755981381203'/><author><name>Dr. Edward Peters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/18400623522845906237</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20105597.post-4796072407068664647</id><published>2008-05-30T01:21:00.009-04:00</published><updated>2008-05-30T10:55:12.546-04:00</updated><title type='text'>Excommunication for female 'ordination'</title><summary type='text'>As I pointed out some time ago (scroll to 6 July 2005), the 1983 Code does not levy excommunication on those who simulate the conferral and reception of holy orders on women. Canon 1378 excommunicates non-priests who simulate Eucharist and confession, and Canon 1379 imposes "a just penalty" on those who simulate the other sacraments (such as holy Orders), but neither canon directly excommunicates</summary><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/2008/05/excommunciation-for-female-ordinations.html' title='Excommunication for female &apos;ordination&apos;'/><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/atom.xml' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/4796072407068664647'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/4796072407068664647'/><author><name>Dr. Edward Peters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/18400623522845906237</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20105597.post-7830872709671746337</id><published>2008-05-16T04:05:00.009-04:00</published><updated>2008-06-19T13:10:24.890-04:00</updated><title type='text'>Was Prof Douglas Kmiec really denied Communion?</title><summary type='text'>He certainly says he was, by a chaplain irate over Kmiec's endorsement of Obama for president. Now I am as nonplused as the next guy about Kmiec's backing of the unborn's worst enemy (ok, technically he's tied with Hilary for a 100% NARAL approval rating), and I was quietly hoping that Kmiec would remain an anomalous singularity. That hope was dashed, however, when Nicholas Cafardi, a prominent </summary><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/2008/05/was-prof-douglas-kmiec-really-denied.html' title='Was Prof Douglas Kmiec really denied Communion?'/><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/atom.xml' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/7830872709671746337'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/7830872709671746337'/><author><name>Dr. Edward Peters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/18400623522845906237</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20105597.post-5924041876290567437</id><published>2008-05-10T12:52:00.013-04:00</published><updated>2008-05-12T13:55:56.677-04:00</updated><title type='text'>Staunching the wound of Bleeding Kansas</title><summary type='text'>A century and a half ago, "Bleeding Kansas" referred to the violence through which Kansans suffered as a presage to the full-scale war that engulfed the United States just a few years later. Today, "Bleeding Kansas" more aptly describes that beautiful state's reputation as a haven for late-term abortions.

The governor of Kansas, Kathleen Sebelius, firmly aligned with the abortion lobby, just </summary><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/2008/05/staunching-wound-of-bleeding-kansas.html' title='Staunching the wound of Bleeding Kansas'/><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/atom.xml' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/5924041876290567437'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/5924041876290567437'/><author><name>Dr. Edward Peters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/18400623522845906237</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20105597.post-3079607545002279049</id><published>2008-05-06T10:51:00.006-04:00</published><updated>2008-05-12T18:16:14.451-04:00</updated><title type='text'>I like this: Abps. Myers and Burke to pontifical councils</title><summary type='text'>The Vatican Information Service (VISnews 080506) announced today that Benedict XVI just appointed several new members to the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, the Roman dicastery that, under 1983 CIC 16 and Pastor Bonus 154-158, provides binding interpretations of ecclesiastical law. The PCLT is a very important office for canonistics; in some repects, it is more important than the Roman </summary><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/2008/05/i-like-this-abps-myers-and-burke-to.html' title='I like this: Abps. Myers and Burke to pontifical councils'/><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/atom.xml' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/3079607545002279049'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/3079607545002279049'/><author><name>Dr. Edward Peters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/18400623522845906237</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20105597.post-8532903244738516766</id><published>2008-05-01T00:53:00.011-04:00</published><updated>2008-05-01T10:00:49.487-04:00</updated><title type='text'>Autumn Kelly: making the wrong choice for the wrong reason</title><summary type='text'>Barring Catholics from the throne of England, for no other reason than that they are Catholics, sounds more ominous than it is. I mean, who would want to be the king or queen of England anymore? Still religious bigotry is religious bigotry, and the ban prohibiting Catholics, or those married to Catholics, from ascending British throne, should be dropped.

In the meantime, making even less sense </summary><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/2008/05/autumn-kelly-making-wrong-choice-for.html' title='Autumn Kelly: making the wrong choice for the wrong reason'/><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/atom.xml' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/8532903244738516766'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/8532903244738516766'/><author><name>Dr. Edward Peters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/18400623522845906237</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20105597.post-663218664753168332</id><published>2008-04-28T23:06:00.007-04:00</published><updated>2008-04-30T22:45:35.306-04:00</updated><title type='text'>Four cheers for New York's Cardinal Egan</title><summary type='text'>Four cheers, not three.

Three for telling Rudy Giuliani, a notorious supporter of legalized abortion, that Canon 915 means what it says, that those who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are subject to the withholding of Holy Communion. Chronic promotion of abortion, in which Rudy engages, is a grave sin. See Cdl. Ratzinger's letter of June 2004.

And an extra cheer for holding in reserve</summary><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/2008/04/four-cheers-for-cdl-egan.html' title='Four cheers for New York&apos;s Cardinal Egan'/><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/atom.xml' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/663218664753168332'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/663218664753168332'/><author><name>Dr. Edward Peters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/18400623522845906237</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20105597.post-715433205031686328</id><published>2008-04-24T14:38:00.008-04:00</published><updated>2008-05-05T12:00:11.046-04:00</updated><title type='text'>Rome's four options in regard to Bp. Fernando Lugo</title><summary type='text'>Who is not happy to see Paraguay's junta finally voted out of office? That the election was peaceful and, so far, seems to be accepted by the old guard is even better. But that is not the issue in regard to Paraguay's new president, Bp. Fernando Lugo.

The issue here is canonical (and by implication, theological and pastoral): Lugo was ordained to the fullness of holy orders for the spiritual </summary><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/2008/04/romes-options-in-regard-to-bp-fernando.html' title='Rome&apos;s four options in regard to Bp. Fernando Lugo'/><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/atom.xml' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/715433205031686328'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/715433205031686328'/><author><name>Dr. Edward Peters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/18400623522845906237</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20105597.post-2548946373108242319</id><published>2008-04-23T00:08:00.013-04:00</published><updated>2008-04-24T17:01:17.310-04:00</updated><title type='text'>After decades of disinterest, suddenly two Canon 1405 cases?</title><summary type='text'>POST ONE: Pope Benedict XVI is believed to be mulling over the possibility of expelling a bishop, Fernando Lugo, from the clerical state. That would certainly be a first under the 1983 Code (the Jacques Gaillot case in 1995 was not a precedent; Gaillot was removed from office, but not from the clerical state), and I'm pretty sure it never happened under the 1917 Code.

Lugo, though suspended and </summary><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/2008/04/after-decades-of-disinterest-suddenly.html' title='After decades of disinterest, suddenly two Canon 1405 cases?'/><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/atom.xml' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/2548946373108242319'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/2548946373108242319'/><author><name>Dr. Edward Peters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/18400623522845906237</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20105597.post-4499209281945712911</id><published>2008-04-13T16:38:00.010-04:00</published><updated>2008-04-14T23:08:15.435-04:00</updated><title type='text'>My parents' gift to my children</title><summary type='text'>Yesterday my children received a very unusual gift: their grandparents (on my wife's side) celebrated 50 years of marriage. Two years ago, my own parents marked their 50th wedding anniversary, meaning that my kids can now boast something very few in their generation will ever know: the good fortune having both sets of grandparents married for over 50 years.

Grandparental death or divorce deprive</summary><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/2008/04/my-parents-gift-to-my-children.html' title='My parents&apos; gift to my children'/><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/atom.xml' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/4499209281945712911'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/4499209281945712911'/><author><name>Dr. Edward Peters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/18400623522845906237</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20105597.post-9222136540055514451</id><published>2008-04-10T23:58:00.002-04:00</published><updated>2008-04-11T00:46:11.140-04:00</updated><title type='text'>Screamingly bad Latin, not to mention bad reporting, from The VOA</title><summary type='text'>The Voice of America boasts of being "A trusted source of news and information since 1942". Oh, really?

VOA's Jeff Swicord drew an admittedly crummy assignment: reporting on the latest shenanigans put on by the "woman priest" crowd. But what should have been a routine serving of empty drivel went l.o.l. funny when Swicord attributed to an Opus Dei priest the following comment on the maleness and</summary><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/2008/04/screamingly-bad-latin-not-to-mention.html' title='Screamingly bad Latin, not to mention bad reporting, from The VOA'/><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/atom.xml' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/9222136540055514451'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/9222136540055514451'/><author><name>Dr. Edward Peters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/18400623522845906237</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20105597.post-1940648501668109294</id><published>2008-03-27T13:43:00.008-04:00</published><updated>2008-03-27T23:54:41.306-04:00</updated><title type='text'>Proposal: Impose excommunication for euthanasia</title><summary type='text'>For some months I have been researching and writing an article on euthanasia in canon law. I hoped against hope that it might remain an academic exercise, but (to judge from, say, this report on the practice of euthanasia in Belgium) the speed with which the Western, specifically Christian, protection of innocent life is collapsing suggests that one of my projected canonical recommendations </summary><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/2008/03/proposal-impose-excommunication-for.html' title='Proposal: Impose excommunication for euthanasia'/><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/atom.xml' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/1940648501668109294'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/1940648501668109294'/><author><name>Dr. Edward Peters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/18400623522845906237</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20105597.post-6560629574011386720</id><published>2008-03-26T13:18:00.012-04:00</published><updated>2008-05-05T11:10:18.502-04:00</updated><title type='text'>Steven Sueppel should not be granted an ecclesiastical funeral</title><summary type='text'>One of the reasons we have rules is to help us guide our decision-making when circumstances make it difficult to think clearly. The horrific murder of the Sueppel family by their husband-father Steven, who then finally succeeded in killing himself, is nothing if not a difficult circumstance. My read, in any case, of 1983 CIC 1184.1.3, in light of the gruesome facts of this case, leads me to </summary><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/2008/03/steven-sueppel-should-not-be-granted.html' title='Steven Sueppel should not be granted an ecclesiastical funeral'/><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/atom.xml' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/6560629574011386720'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/6560629574011386720'/><author><name>Dr. Edward Peters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/18400623522845906237</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20105597.post-5392194093748007928</id><published>2008-03-24T23:45:00.004-04:00</published><updated>2008-03-24T23:59:33.692-04:00</updated><title type='text'>Canon 277: "celibacy" and "continence" are different things</title><summary type='text'>The sad case of Zimbabwe Archbishop Pius Ncube, who was the only credible opponent of Thug-in-Chief Robert Mugabe, is the occasion to try to remind people that Canon 277 of the Johanno-Pauline Code establishes two related but distinct obligations for clerics in the Western Church, namely, celibacy and continence. As an archbishop, Ncube was bound both to refrain marriage (celibacy) and to refrain</summary><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/2008/03/canon-277-celibacy-and-continence-are.html' title='Canon 277: &quot;celibacy&quot; and &quot;continence&quot; are different things'/><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/atom.xml' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/5392194093748007928'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/5392194093748007928'/><author><name>Dr. Edward Peters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/18400623522845906237</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20105597.post-2348425636513505433</id><published>2008-03-16T16:18:00.005-04:00</published><updated>2008-03-16T16:26:28.598-04:00</updated><title type='text'>Consider Latin as an avocation, if not a career. Really.</title><summary type='text'>This from Tore Janson, A Natural History of Latin (Oxford, 2004) at 122: "Thanks to the work of many generations of paleographers and textual critics we now have all the ancient texts in printed editions which are both easy to read and more correct than any of the surviving manuscripts. This is not, however, the case with texts from the Middle Ages, since there are many more of them [i.e., </summary><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/2008/03/latin-as-avocation-if-not-career.html' title='Consider Latin as an avocation, if not a career. Really.'/><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/atom.xml' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/2348425636513505433'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/2348425636513505433'/><author><name>Dr. Edward Peters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/18400623522845906237</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20105597.post-4302656039583752500</id><published>2008-03-14T00:09:00.011-04:00</published><updated>2008-03-14T16:28:47.906-04:00</updated><title type='text'>Abp. Burke's excommunication of the "women priests"</title><summary type='text'>I would like to say that Abp. Raymond Burke's excommunication of three women who recently participated in a pseudo-ordination in Saint Louis is a "text-book illustration" of how (non-judicial) excommunication is supposed to be applied in the Church today, but I can't say that: Why not? Because Abp. Burke's attention to juridic details and his provisions for the pastoral care of the people </summary><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/2008/03/abp-burkes-excommunication-of-women.html' title='Abp. Burke&apos;s excommunication of the &quot;women priests&quot;'/><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/atom.xml' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/4302656039583752500'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/4302656039583752500'/><author><name>Dr. Edward Peters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/18400623522845906237</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20105597.post-3376084916844345993</id><published>2008-03-12T13:07:00.006-04:00</published><updated>2008-03-12T13:59:09.313-04:00</updated><title type='text'>Letter to the Ottawa Citizen re Abp. Prendergast</title><summary type='text'>Newspapers can't run every letter to the editor they get, but thanks to the internet, rejected missives have a second chance to see the light of day.

On Saturday, March 8, 2008, the Ottawa Citizen ran a story about Abp. Terrence Prendergast's statement concering pro-abortion politicians and reception of the Eucharist. As is typical of the secular press, however, the newspaper gave nearly as much</summary><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/2008/03/letter-to-ottawa-citizen-re-abp.html' title='Letter to the Ottawa Citizen re Abp. Prendergast'/><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/atom.xml' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/3376084916844345993'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/3376084916844345993'/><author><name>Dr. Edward Peters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/18400623522845906237</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20105597.post-3657412203613980626</id><published>2008-03-12T02:13:00.015-04:00</published><updated>2008-03-25T17:16:26.104-04:00</updated><title type='text'>Canonical conundrum 1</title><summary type='text'>I thought I might, from time to time, post some interesting (well, to me anyway) hypothetical questions against which folks could test their canonical acumen.

FACTS: A Roman Catholic man wants to present himself for ordination to the permanent diaconate. He tells you that many years ago, he civilly married a divorced woman. They remained together for some years until she died of natural causes. </summary><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/2008/03/canonical-conundrum-1.html' title='Canonical conundrum 1'/><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/atom.xml' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/3657412203613980626'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/3657412203613980626'/><author><name>Dr. Edward Peters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/18400623522845906237</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20105597.post-1343972045913404479</id><published>2008-03-06T13:21:00.006-05:00</published><updated>2008-03-20T09:31:53.576-04:00</updated><title type='text'>Repairing Fr. Bozek's sacramental blunders</title><summary type='text'>Abp. Burke, once again, is showing us all how it's supposed to be done.

In a remarkable gesture of pastoral concern for his people, St. Louis Abp. Raymond Burke, who for some three years has been trying to effect the reconciliation of a renegade Polish priest named Fr. Marek Bozek, has alerted the faithful who might be approaching Fr. Bozek for sacramental services, that any attempts by Fr. </summary><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/2008/03/repairing-fr-bozeks-sacramental.html' title='Repairing Fr. Bozek&apos;s sacramental blunders'/><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/atom.xml' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/1343972045913404479'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/1343972045913404479'/><author><name>Dr. Edward Peters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/18400623522845906237</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20105597.post-7074207803086994846</id><published>2008-03-04T14:01:00.003-05:00</published><updated>2008-03-04T14:18:25.469-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Seton Hospital must vigorously resist mutilation surgery</title><summary type='text'>Seton Hospital in Daly City CA, administered by the Daughters of Charity, is being intimidated into performing immoral surgery. This Catholic hospital, in the face of civil litigation, appears to have backed down from its originally correct refusal to allow "breast-implant" surgery to be performed on a male. It must now, upon deeper reflection, reverse its faulty decision and refuse the surgery.
</summary><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/2008/03/seton-hospital-must-vigorously-resist.html' title='Seton Hospital must vigorously resist mutilation surgery'/><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/atom.xml' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/7074207803086994846'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/7074207803086994846'/><author><name>Dr. Edward Peters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/18400623522845906237</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20105597.post-1898425863265656828</id><published>2008-03-03T18:08:00.010-05:00</published><updated>2008-03-04T11:38:40.580-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Asserting a canonical defense is one thing; proving it another</title><summary type='text'>Dennis Riccitelli, a priest* from Arizona, is facing state prosecution for alleged theft and/or fraud against his former parish, Holy Cross (Mesa). But Riccitelli is trying to raise canon law (specifically, norms on the administration of ecclesiastical property) as a defense to his state prosecution. His canonical argument got the trial judge's attention, as it should. It also has prosecutors </summary><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/2008/03/asserting-canonical-defense-is-one.html' title='Asserting a canonical defense is one thing; proving it another'/><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/atom.xml' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/1898425863265656828'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/1898425863265656828'/><author><name>Dr. Edward Peters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/18400623522845906237</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20105597.post-4555931051682557723</id><published>2008-02-29T10:57:00.011-05:00</published><updated>2008-03-07T11:01:01.417-05:00</updated><title type='text'>The rules on baptism are meant to be followed</title><summary type='text'>When, back on 2 December 2004, I blogged about "Brisbane's Bad Baptisms", I got an unusual number of nasty notes from folks who (assuming they agreed with my point that baptism in the name of the Creator, and of the Redeemer, and of the Sanctifier was invalid, and many did not agree), nevertheless took umbrage at my conclusion that those undergoing such rituals were not, in fact, any kind of </summary><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/2008/02/rules-on-baptism-are-meant-to-be.html' title='The rules on baptism are meant to be followed'/><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/atom.xml' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/4555931051682557723'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/4555931051682557723'/><author><name>Dr. Edward Peters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/18400623522845906237</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20105597.post-583248978447900965</id><published>2008-02-28T14:27:00.014-05:00</published><updated>2008-02-28T17:26:54.728-05:00</updated><title type='text'>What's with all this "defrocking" lingo?</title><summary type='text'>Suddenly, it seems, "defrock" is the in-word.

Karoun Demirjian writes that the Rev. Donald Maguire, sj, has been "defrocked" by the Vatican. Jeannette Cooper writes that Fr. Marek Bozek faces "defrocking" for disobedience to Abp. Raymond Burke. Erin Jordan writes that the bishop of Davenport wants to "defrock" Fr. Gerald Stouvenel. What with all this "defrocking" going on, one might even start </summary><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/2008/02/whats-with-all-this-defrocking-lingo.html' title='What&apos;s with all this &quot;defrocking&quot; lingo?'/><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/atom.xml' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/583248978447900965'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/583248978447900965'/><author><name>Dr. Edward Peters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/18400623522845906237</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email></author></entry></feed>