<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?><?xml-stylesheet href="http://www.blogger.com/styles/atom.css" type="text/css"?><feed xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom' xmlns:openSearch='http://a9.com/-/spec/opensearchrss/1.0/' xmlns:georss='http://www.georss.org/georss' xmlns:thr='http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0'><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20105597</id><updated>2010-04-01T14:57:02.767-04:00</updated><title type='text'>In the Light of the Law</title><subtitle type='html'></subtitle><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/blog.html'/><link rel='hub' href='http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/'/><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='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>242</openSearch:totalResults><openSearch:startIndex>1</openSearch:startIndex><openSearch:itemsPerPage>25</openSearch:itemsPerPage><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20105597.post-8285841899388508962</id><published>2010-04-01T14:27:00.004-04:00</published><updated>2010-04-01T14:57:02.778-04:00</updated><title type='text'>Roman Catholic Arch / Bishops of the USA</title><summary type='text'>Besides regularly updating my Roman Catholic Arch / Bishops of the USA page, I have recently been improving the layout of and links offered on the page. Now, for example, USA auxiliary bishops are found on the main bishop's page (instead of being posted separately), and a graphics summary of US vacant sees and overdue retirements is provided at the bottom. I hope folks find it useful.By the way, </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/8285841899388508962'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/8285841899388508962'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/2010/04/roman-catholic-arch-bishops-of-usa.html' title='Roman Catholic Arch / Bishops of the USA'/><author><name>Dr. Edward Peters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/18400623522845906237</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:extendedProperty xmlns:gd='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005' name='OpenSocialUserId' value='12307277594036063256'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20105597.post-7937896815355887957</id><published>2010-03-25T17:11:00.012-04:00</published><updated>2010-03-27T19:10:35.865-04:00</updated><title type='text'>One canon 915 case at a time: Nancy Pelosi</title><summary type='text'>Some who believe that Canon 915 is meant to be enforced might yet harbor reservations about actually barring from Communion this pro-abortion Catholic politician or that one, for fear of igniting endless debates about why one does not also bar that pro-abortion Catholic politician or this one. The prospect of being criticized for "imperfectly" applying the law might cause some prelates otherwise </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/7937896815355887957'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/7937896815355887957'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/2010/03/one-canon-915-case-at-time-nancy-pelosi.html' title='One canon 915 case at a time: Nancy Pelosi'/><author><name>Dr. Edward Peters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/18400623522845906237</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:extendedProperty xmlns:gd='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005' name='OpenSocialUserId' value='12307277594036063256'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20105597.post-1975894894557691349</id><published>2010-03-18T11:24:00.011-04:00</published><updated>2010-03-18T16:30:17.405-04:00</updated><title type='text'>If it deserves Abp. Naumann's attention, it certainly deserves ours</title><summary type='text'>Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City KS (no stranger to doing the right thing under difficult circumstances) has called out Sister Carol Keehan, Chief Executive of the "Catholic Health Association" for providing "cover for any member of the House who chooses to buckle under the pressure of the President and the Democratic leadership to accept government funding of abortion". Keehan's </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/1975894894557691349'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/1975894894557691349'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/2010/03/if-it-deserves-abp-naumanns-attention.html' title='If it deserves Abp. Naumann&apos;s attention, it certainly deserves ours'/><author><name>Dr. Edward Peters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/18400623522845906237</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:extendedProperty xmlns:gd='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005' name='OpenSocialUserId' value='12307277594036063256'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20105597.post-1719183009627749775</id><published>2010-03-17T09:46:00.003-04:00</published><updated>2010-03-17T10:09:23.998-04:00</updated><title type='text'>No dispensation for this Friday (St. Joseph) is needed</title><summary type='text'>That the general law of abstinence from meat on Fridays (c. 1251) does not bind on "solemnities" (like the Solemnity of St. Joseph, per c. 1246.1 and the Gen. Norms for the Lit. Year and Calendar) is so obvious that few commentaries bother to say "If the Solemnity of St. Joseph falls on a Friday, even in Lent, one need not abstain from meat." Nevertheless, the exemption from abstinence on </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/1719183009627749775'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/1719183009627749775'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/2010/03/no-dispensation-for-this-friday-st.html' title='No dispensation for this Friday (St. Joseph) is needed'/><author><name>Dr. Edward Peters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/18400623522845906237</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:extendedProperty xmlns:gd='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005' name='OpenSocialUserId' value='12307277594036063256'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20105597.post-6043576234862342291</id><published>2010-03-15T21:18:00.004-04:00</published><updated>2010-03-15T21:25:35.102-04:00</updated><title type='text'>Resources on Canon 915</title><summary type='text'>Serious discussion of Canon 915 requires access to key documents on the law and awareness of the positions taken thereon by qualified commentators. I have developed a webpage for those who wish to understand, and perhaps contribute to, the discussions on the application of Canon 915 in the life of the Church. Materials include: Part One: Relevant Canons; Part Two: Official Statements on the Law; </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/6043576234862342291'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/6043576234862342291'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/2010/03/resources-on-canon-915.html' title='Resources on Canon 915'/><author><name>Dr. Edward Peters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/18400623522845906237</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:extendedProperty xmlns:gd='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005' name='OpenSocialUserId' value='12307277594036063256'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20105597.post-1042940445954778932</id><published>2010-03-12T10:19:00.005-05:00</published><updated>2010-03-12T10:31:10.905-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Abps. Dolan and Listecki on holy Communion for pro-aborts</title><summary type='text'>Archbishops Dolan of New York and Listecki of Milwaukee recently came under fire for comments they made seeming to express reluctance to withhold holy Communion from Catholic politicians under various conditions. Particularly in open-forum comment boxes (always to be taken with shovel-fulls of salt, those!), there's a lot of sky-is-falling carping against the prelates for shirking their duties, </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/1042940445954778932'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/1042940445954778932'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/2010/03/abps-dolan-and-listecki-on-holy.html' title='Abps. Dolan and Listecki on holy Communion for pro-aborts'/><author><name>Dr. Edward Peters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/18400623522845906237</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:extendedProperty xmlns:gd='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005' name='OpenSocialUserId' value='12307277594036063256'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20105597.post-119453691063644445</id><published>2010-03-10T15:22:00.006-05:00</published><updated>2010-03-10T15:59:16.017-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Punish married couples for the sins of the DC council?</title><summary type='text'>Outsiders -- like me -- should be very cautious in commenting on the recent move by Abp. Donald Wuerl to eliminate spousal benefits to future employees (lest, by providing such benefits in accord with DC's recent legalization of "same-sex marriage", the Archdiocese of Washington come across as endorsing such unions). Wuerl is a careful thinker (I say this notwithstanding my disagreements with </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/119453691063644445'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/119453691063644445'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/2010/03/punish-married-couples-for-sins-of-dc.html' title='Punish married couples for the sins of the DC council?'/><author><name>Dr. Edward Peters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/18400623522845906237</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:extendedProperty xmlns:gd='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005' name='OpenSocialUserId' value='12307277594036063256'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20105597.post-6592120698547815964</id><published>2010-03-06T10:35:00.004-05:00</published><updated>2010-03-06T11:20:16.812-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Answering Msgr. Pope's good question</title><summary type='text'>The always-thoughtful Msgr. Charles Pope asks whether we need a new word for "marriage". He deftly outlines how the word "marriage" has been gutted over the last generation or two, and proposes that we (presumably, Catholics) start pushing the phrase "holy matrimony" instead.It's an attractive idea, at first glance, but it stumbles pretty quickly, I fear.First, it's not Catholics who need to find</summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/6592120698547815964'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/6592120698547815964'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/2010/03/answering-msgr-popes-good-question.html' title='Answering Msgr. Pope&apos;s good question'/><author><name>Dr. Edward Peters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/18400623522845906237</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:extendedProperty xmlns:gd='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005' name='OpenSocialUserId' value='12307277594036063256'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20105597.post-3399129962722539574</id><published>2010-03-05T15:53:00.007-05:00</published><updated>2010-03-06T08:58:07.815-05:00</updated><title type='text'>If King Juan Carlos signs, what then?</title><summary type='text'>The Spanish parliament recently approved an expansion of that nation's legalization of abortion, and it is now hoping that King Juan Carlos will sign the measure. The complexities of Spanish civil law are beyond me (so I don't know exactly what the king's role in the government is), but I do know that any signature on a piece of paper that endorses the legitimization of abortion is an objectively</summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/3399129962722539574'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/3399129962722539574'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/2010/03/if-king-juan-carlos-signs-what-then.html' title='If King Juan Carlos signs, what then?'/><author><name>Dr. Edward Peters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/18400623522845906237</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:extendedProperty xmlns:gd='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005' name='OpenSocialUserId' value='12307277594036063256'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20105597.post-3111523266943123450</id><published>2010-02-10T12:30:00.010-05:00</published><updated>2010-02-10T14:49:18.949-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Some options for responding to the Albany diocese's needle exchange program</title><summary type='text'>I have made the case that, in authorizing a needle-exchange program, Albany's Bishop Hubbard, et al., is formally* cooperating with the evil of drug abuse. As no man can judge his own cause, however, I must leave to others to decide whether I have made the case against the bishop's decision adequately.In the meantime, some who think that my arguments are correct (or that I have at least shifted </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/3111523266943123450'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/3111523266943123450'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/2010/02/options-for-responding-to-albany.html' title='Some options for responding to the Albany diocese&apos;s needle exchange program'/><author><name>Dr. Edward Peters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/18400623522845906237</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:extendedProperty xmlns:gd='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005' name='OpenSocialUserId' value='12307277594036063256'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20105597.post-4083635332468416614</id><published>2010-02-02T02:42:00.047-05:00</published><updated>2010-02-15T09:37:54.123-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Arguments against Bp. Hubbard's authorization of "needle programs"</title><summary type='text'>Formal cooperation in another's evil act (that is, undertaking to help expressly another to perform an act known to be evil) is itself evil. Davis, Moral and Pastoral Theology (1938), I: 341-342. There are no exceptions to this rule; no supervening circumstances can ever render formal cooperation in evil good.The use of [illegal] drugs "inflicts very grave damage on human health and life [and] . </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/4083635332468416614'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/4083635332468416614'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/2010/02/arguments-against-bp-hubbards.html' title='Arguments against Bp. Hubbard&apos;s authorization of &quot;needle programs&quot;'/><author><name>Dr. Edward Peters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/18400623522845906237</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:extendedProperty xmlns:gd='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005' name='OpenSocialUserId' value='12307277594036063256'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20105597.post-8888366285485839937</id><published>2010-01-26T16:27:00.006-05:00</published><updated>2010-01-26T20:19:05.392-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Ban the Tebow commerical?</title><summary type='text'>Sooooooooo, the Women's Media Center, National Organization for Women, the Feminist Majority, and other groups want to ban a commercial featuring Tim Tebow and his mother talking about the value of human life?I say . . . Go Girls, Go!Banning Tebow &amp; Mom's spot will leave more time for sexually exploitative ads implying that women are basically bonus awards for guys drinking the right brand of </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/8888366285485839937'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/8888366285485839937'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/2010/01/ban-tebow-commerical.html' title='Ban the Tebow commerical?'/><author><name>Dr. Edward Peters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/18400623522845906237</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:extendedProperty xmlns:gd='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005' name='OpenSocialUserId' value='12307277594036063256'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20105597.post-4734590267016525727</id><published>2010-01-26T14:10:00.004-05:00</published><updated>2010-01-26T14:36:10.252-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Canonical Save-the-Dates: August 3 &amp; 4, 2010</title><summary type='text'>The intersections between canon and civil law in America are becoming ever busier and trickier to navigate. It's with real excitement, then, that I am giving Canon Law Blog readers a heads-up for a summer conference brimming with canonical and civil expertise.The Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe in La Crosse, WI, is hosting a Canon Law Conference for Canonists and Civil Attorneys on Tuesday and </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/4734590267016525727'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/4734590267016525727'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/2010/01/canonical-save-dates-august-3-4-2010.html' title='Canonical Save-the-Dates: August 3 &amp; 4, 2010'/><author><name>Dr. Edward Peters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/18400623522845906237</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:extendedProperty xmlns:gd='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005' name='OpenSocialUserId' value='12307277594036063256'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20105597.post-4326840953234833943</id><published>2010-01-21T14:17:00.019-05:00</published><updated>2010-01-22T09:43:10.094-05:00</updated><title type='text'>An invitation to join me in reading the Decretals of Gregory IX (1234)</title><summary type='text'>Sometime in the year 1230, (St.) Raymond Penyafort began compiling the texts that would eventually comprise Pope Gregory IX's famous Quinque Libri Decretalium. Upon its promulgation in September of 1234 as the Church's first authentic collection of canon law (not yet a Code, but a binding collection nonetheless), the Liber Extra (as the QLD was also known) was the mechanism by which the canon law</summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/4326840953234833943'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/4326840953234833943'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/2010/01/cyber-invitation-to-join-me-in-reading.html' title='An invitation to join me in reading the Decretals of Gregory IX (1234)'/><author><name>Dr. Edward Peters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/18400623522845906237</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:extendedProperty xmlns:gd='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005' name='OpenSocialUserId' value='12307277594036063256'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20105597.post-3715456976582107497</id><published>2009-12-21T10:47:00.007-05:00</published><updated>2009-12-21T12:08:07.536-05:00</updated><title type='text'>On the HSPO statement of Dec 19</title><summary type='text'>The original press reports I saw on the HSPO statement of Dec 19 regarding the use of "figures" of the pope did not include a dicasterial attribution (besides the Press Office, of course) for the declaration, but a posting on the Vatican website confirms that it was the Secretariat of State. That answers one of my two main questions about the binding character of the assertion, and rather than </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/3715456976582107497'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/3715456976582107497'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/2009/12/on-hspo-statement-of-dec-19.html' title='On the HSPO statement of Dec 19'/><author><name>Dr. Edward Peters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/18400623522845906237</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:extendedProperty xmlns:gd='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005' name='OpenSocialUserId' value='12307277594036063256'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20105597.post-3606662386959233781</id><published>2009-12-19T13:52:00.006-05:00</published><updated>2009-12-19T15:18:19.307-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Why is this Milingo case getting complicated?</title><summary type='text'>It would be nice to have Rev. Ciro Benedettini's actual words. He is the Vatican spokesman who is reported as asserting that Milingo's expulsion from the clerical state itself renders invalid any future ordinations the disgraced former archbishop might attempt. But, hmmm. What precedent is there for such a stance (well, later than St. Cyprian, anyway)?I asked day before yesterday whether anyone </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/3606662386959233781'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/3606662386959233781'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/2009/12/why-is-this-milingo-case-getting.html' title='Why is this Milingo case getting complicated?'/><author><name>Dr. Edward Peters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/18400623522845906237</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:extendedProperty xmlns:gd='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005' name='OpenSocialUserId' value='12307277594036063256'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20105597.post-2844612990120501988</id><published>2009-12-17T09:54:00.015-05:00</published><updated>2009-12-19T15:00:58.138-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Milingo's case is closed canonically, but it rasies some interesting questions</title><summary type='text'>Update: See also developments as of 19 December 2009, posted above.The bizarre antics of Abp. Emmanuel Milingo, suspended in 2001 for attempting marriage, and excommunicated in 2006 for ordaining to men to the episcopate without pontifical mandate, have finally resulted in his dismissal from the clerical state. This is unquestionably the right thing to do.The HSPO press release leaves only a few </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/2844612990120501988'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/2844612990120501988'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/2009/12/milingos-case-is-closed-canonically-but.html' title='Milingo&apos;s case is closed canonically, but it rasies some interesting questions'/><author><name>Dr. Edward Peters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/18400623522845906237</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:extendedProperty xmlns:gd='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005' name='OpenSocialUserId' value='12307277594036063256'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20105597.post-3313783110558240873</id><published>2009-12-15T12:48:00.007-05:00</published><updated>2009-12-15T13:56:39.668-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Omnium in mentum: two important changes in the Code</title><summary type='text'>Of the two changes to the 1983 Code announced today in ap. lit. Omnium in mentem, the second (that dealing with the obligation of canonical form for marriage) may be explained quickly.Ever since the 1983 Code, chiefly in Canon 1117, exempted Catholics from the requirement of observing canonical form if they had "formally defected" from the Church, there have been high-level grumblings against the</summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/3313783110558240873'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/3313783110558240873'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/2009/12/omnium-in-mentum-two-important-changes.html' title='Omnium in mentum: two important changes in the Code'/><author><name>Dr. Edward Peters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/18400623522845906237</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:extendedProperty xmlns:gd='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005' name='OpenSocialUserId' value='12307277594036063256'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20105597.post-3294700292797599521</id><published>2009-11-22T12:22:00.015-05:00</published><updated>2009-12-14T11:36:37.994-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Bp. Tobin, Rep. Kennedy, and Holy Communion: First question</title><summary type='text'>Updated Post: I read Bp. Tobin's statement released just a few minutes ago as saying that no new steps have been taken by Tobin in regard to reception of holy Communion by pro-abortion Democrat Patrick Kennedy, resident in Tobin's diocese. It appears, to the contrary, that Kennedy has -- God knoweth why -- parlayed Tobin's letter to him of February 2007, urging Kennedy to refrain from taking </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/3294700292797599521'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/3294700292797599521'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/2009/11/bp-tobin-rep-kennedy-and-holy-communion.html' title='Bp. Tobin, Rep. Kennedy, and Holy Communion: First question'/><author><name>Dr. Edward Peters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/18400623522845906237</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:extendedProperty xmlns:gd='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005' name='OpenSocialUserId' value='12307277594036063256'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20105597.post-8122184866240605591</id><published>2009-11-19T23:01:00.004-05:00</published><updated>2009-11-19T23:29:32.298-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Licentiate in Theology at Sacred Heart Major Seminary</title><summary type='text'>As many of you know, I teach in the seminary and graduate programs at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, MI. Our Licentiate degree in Theology (STL), is affiliated with the Angelicum in Rome and specializes in the New Evangelization. It's an exciting program with (if I may so say) an amazing faculty and fascinating students from around the world.There is a new, short video (just under 9 </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/8122184866240605591'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/8122184866240605591'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/2009/11/licentiate-in-theology-at-sacred-heart.html' title='Licentiate in Theology at Sacred Heart Major Seminary'/><author><name>Dr. Edward Peters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/18400623522845906237</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:extendedProperty xmlns:gd='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005' name='OpenSocialUserId' value='12307277594036063256'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20105597.post-6096636757681190868</id><published>2009-11-18T10:09:00.006-05:00</published><updated>2009-11-18T10:34:49.816-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Yes, Robbie, the bishop in that case was right</title><summary type='text'>In the December 2009 issue of the always terrific First Things, Dr. Robert George, responding (graciously and, I think, decisively) to several critics of his article "What marriage is, and what it isn't" (August-September 2009), writes: "When I lived in England in the 1980s, the Catholic Church came in for rather rough criticism by the British newspapers when a diocese declined to solemnize the </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/6096636757681190868'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/6096636757681190868'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/2009/11/yes-robbie-bishop-in-that-case-was.html' title='Yes, Robbie, the bishop in that case was right'/><author><name>Dr. Edward Peters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/18400623522845906237</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:extendedProperty xmlns:gd='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005' name='OpenSocialUserId' value='12307277594036063256'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20105597.post-1908522857062674134</id><published>2009-11-10T19:23:00.003-05:00</published><updated>2009-12-03T14:28:57.419-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Rep. Patrick Kennedy should thank God he has such a bishop</title><summary type='text'>Patrick Kennedy (D) of Rhode Island has been for some time now a typical platitude-pandering, pro-abortion Catholic representative in the US House of Representatives.Well, I have just read Bp. Thomas Tobin's (Providence RI) open letter to Rep. Kennedy and all I can say is, Kennedy should thank the Good God that He sent him a bishop who cares enough about him to challenge him the way Tobin did. </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/1908522857062674134'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/1908522857062674134'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/2009/11/rep-patrick-kennedy-should-thank-god-he.html' title='Rep. Patrick Kennedy should thank God he has such a bishop'/><author><name>Dr. Edward Peters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/18400623522845906237</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:extendedProperty xmlns:gd='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005' name='OpenSocialUserId' value='12307277594036063256'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20105597.post-11371989966596095</id><published>2009-11-05T17:21:00.005-05:00</published><updated>2009-11-07T08:35:48.595-05:00</updated><title type='text'>The celebration of sacraments in sign language</title><summary type='text'>I got some good news today. My article, "The ordination of men bereft of speech and the celebration of sacraments in sign language", has been published in Studia Canonica 42 (2008) pp. 331-345. Here's hoping it proves useful.</summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/11371989966596095'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/11371989966596095'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/2009/11/celebration-of-sacraments-in-sign.html' title='The celebration of sacraments in sign language'/><author><name>Dr. Edward Peters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/18400623522845906237</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:extendedProperty xmlns:gd='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005' name='OpenSocialUserId' value='12307277594036063256'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20105597.post-3456380700284323782</id><published>2009-11-04T09:49:00.005-05:00</published><updated>2009-11-04T11:55:57.486-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Memo to press secretaries for prelates: Don't assume, Ask.</title><summary type='text'>I'd like to see us someday reach the point where arch/diocesan staffers learn to avoid speculating (at least in public) on canonical matters. These well-intentioned people rarely know anything about canon law, yet they frequently say things that muddy the waters for the rest of us, or are simply wrong. The recent comments on the Donna Quinn case made by Colleen Dolan, press secretary to Chicago's</summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/3456380700284323782'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/3456380700284323782'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/2009/11/memo-to-press-secretaries-for-prelates.html' title='Memo to press secretaries for prelates: Don&apos;t assume, Ask.'/><author><name>Dr. Edward Peters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/18400623522845906237</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:extendedProperty xmlns:gd='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005' name='OpenSocialUserId' value='12307277594036063256'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20105597.post-3614561155258016774</id><published>2009-11-03T10:59:00.009-05:00</published><updated>2009-11-03T16:08:51.800-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Well, really, it's more of a "non-note" on celibacy for incoming Anglican ministers</title><summary type='text'>A few days ago the Holy See Press Office issued a note on whether married Anglican ministers coming into full communion would be required to observe celibacy if they sought Catholic holy orders. The statement clarifies that the obligation of celibacy for Western clerics remains in place (c. 277), but that individual exceptions to celibacy can be petitioned and granted. In other words, former </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/3614561155258016774'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/20105597/posts/default/3614561155258016774'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://www.canonlaw.info/2009/11/well-really-its-more-of-non-note-on.html' title='Well, really, it&apos;s more of a &quot;non-note&quot; on celibacy for incoming Anglican ministers'/><author><name>Dr. Edward Peters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/18400623522845906237</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:extendedProperty xmlns:gd='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005' name='OpenSocialUserId' value='12307277594036063256'/></author></entry></feed>