Dear sartorius,
"That would be tantamount to a Schism, no, since Rome agrees with the Canon Lawyer?"
I don't think that that would be an appropriate way to characterize it. I think the tribunal would be WRONG. Tribunals can rule wrongly without being accused of schism. That's why there's an appeals process.
And I think the case would then be appealed to Rome, and then Rome would have to decide whether or not to stick to its guns. I pray they would.
After all, although authoritative, the opinion of the theologian charged by the CDF was unofficial.
Although, when I think about the fact that it took such a short period of time, it makes me wonder. At first, I thought that Cardinal Ratzinger had wanted to make clear in a quiet way what the real deal was without making a big scene. Now I'm thinking it may have just been the fastest way to get a ruling out, avoiding the whole bureaucratic apparatus of the CDF. What do you think?
sitetest