I stand corrected. Thank you for the diligence.
After noting what Can. 229 §1 says (thank you very much) and seeing that supplies positive endorsement of the activity, compared to previous prohibition
As Rome interprets herself, and what she said in the past only means what she says in the present, thus it seems RCs are not to base their obedience on their judgment of whether present teaching conforms with the past, but like docile sheep, their on duty is to follow the pastors.
At least by some. That's quite the kicker, isn't it?
I'd still like to see the permission slips, although there are more than a few around here who value the Constitution of the United States well enough (in it's more original intents, anyway) that they should have lifetime, "free" hall-passes, and as far as I'm concerned, do.
For others, not so much.
I've often wondered ... does the confessor of a few (certainly not all whom we interact with on these pages, but a few) of the 'Catholics' around here, know what their people are up to, in what they say and how they choose to say it?
If the priests are fully supportive of some of the more extreme edges, then I'd much rather discuss the issues with them --- and hopefully put some matters at least, to rest, so that we may possibly be hearing less of the same in the future.
Wouldn't that be nice?
Maybe people could better focus upon those things which can be agreed upon too, instead of so much be continually about what is in dispute.
I appreciate your own efforts towards this end, your honesty and the work you put into documentation, as you go along.
It's too bad that many so frequently just shine you on.
i just came across another RC advocating a Roman monarchy for the US, and which would result in RC version of Sharia law.
As one dreamed,
"....Constitutions can be changed, and non-Catholic sects may decline to such a point that the political proscription [ban] of them may become feasible and expedient. What protection would they have against a Catholic state? What protection would they then have against a Catholic State? The latter could logically tolerate only such religious activities as were confined to the members of the dissenting group. It could not permit them to carry on general propaganda nor accord their organization certain privileges that had formerly been extended to all religious corporations, for example, exemption from taxation. [But] the danger of religious intolerance toward non-Catholics in the United States is so improbable and so far in the future that it should not occupy their time or attention." — The State and the Church (1922), pp.38,39, by Monsignor (and professor) John Augustine Ryan (1869–1945), imprimatur of Cardinal Hayes (http://maritain.nd.edu/jmc/etext/sac002.htm).
[It is error to believe that] In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship.”
78. “[It is error to believe that] Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship.” -- Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852. Pope Pius IX, The Syllabus (of Errors), Issued in 1864, Section X (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm)