<h1 class="post-title entry-title" itemprop="name"> [Catholic Caucus] A brand new canon just appeared in the code of canon law on December 8 </h1>

A Priest LIfe ^ | December 20, 2021 | Fr. Cusick

[ebb tide]

[Catholic Caucus] A brand new canon just appeared in the code of canon law on December 8

Can. 1373 A person who publicly incites among subjects animosities or hatred against the Apostolic See or an ordinary because of some act of power or ecclesiastical ministry or provokes subjects to disobey them is to be punished by an interdict or other just penalties.

This new canon was newly inserted into the code on December 8, 2021, just a few days before the responsa ad dubium in regard to the draconian, unprecedented and highly controversial Traditionis Custodes which makes clear that our Catholic tradition is no longer in favor in high places.

I wonder if there might be a connection between the two?

[ebb tide]

A pre-emptive strike by the apostate Bergoglio against resistance from true Catholics.

[ebb tide]

Ping

[ctdonath2]

Pretty much defines totalitarianism.

Let’s see how this decree would have played out vs some of the more, er, interesting popes past.

[Dr. Sivana]

Canon 1373 is not new. But has been revised.

I will include both authoritative Latin and CLSA English:

ORIGINAL (1983):
Canon 1373. Qui publice aut subditorum simultates vel odia adversus Sedem Apostolicam vel Ordinarium excitat propter aliquem potestatis vel ministerii ecclesiastici actum, aut subditos ad inoboedientiam in eos provocat, interdicto vel aliis iustis poenis puniatur.

REVISED:
Canon 1373. Qui publice simultates vel odia adversus Sedem Apostolicam vel Ordinarium excitat propter aliquem officii vel muneris ecclesiastici actum, aut ad inoboedientiam in eos provocat, interdicto vel aliis iustis poenis puniatur.

ORIGINAL (1983):
Canon 1373. A person who publicly incites among subjects animosities or hatred against the Apostolic See or an ordinary because of some act of power or ecclesiastical ministry or provokes subjects to disobey them is to be punished by an interdict or other just penalties.

REVISED:
Canon 1373. A person who publicly incites hatred or animosity against the Apostolic See or the Ordinary because of some act of ecclesiastical office or duty, or who provokes disobedience against them, is to be punished by interdict or other just penalties.

It looks to me that while the original was intended to apply primarily to those in authority, either ecclesial political, the revision makes it applicable to anybody.

Pray for the Salvation of Francis!

[who_would_fardels_bear]

The “recognize but resist” crowd is allowed to recognize but not allowed to resist.

[Amendment10]

2 Timothy 2:24-26 shows that Apostle Paul gave a comparable example of the appropriate response of church leaders to those who oppose them. But nothing in that passage about punishment or penalties.

But also applicable to revised canon imo, Galatians 2:11-16, if I understand that passage correctly, shows that Paul got into Peter’s face for living like a Gentile.

Insights welcome.

[one guy in new jersey]

“It looks to me that while the original was intended to apply primarily to those in authority, either ecclesial political, the revision makes it applicable to anybody.”

__________

The revision subtracts the actual person within whom the noted hatred or animosities would previously have been needed to be incited, and in whom such incitement would have to have been observed, or at least observable, by a third party, in order to make out a prima facie case against any alleged violator of Canon 1373.

As it stands now the standard of violation appears to have had the objectivity almost completely drained out of the Canon law in question. This will allow for, or even blatantly encourage, purely (or nearly so) subjective analyses to be undertaken, with little effort made in terms of a thorough investigation of the facts on the ground among actual people so as to build a respectable factual predicate, before indicting a given person who, under the pre-revision version of Canon 1373, would never have come within a country mile of being so indicted.

Actually I’m glad this was brought to my attention at this time. It appears that mere grousing about one’s pastor or local Ordinary to a fellow parishioner, or to anyone in particular via a publically-accessible internet forum (such as FR) might be enough to get a lay Catholic in hot water somehow with Diocesan or Archdiocesan authorities.

It’s important not to gossip about anyone. Telling a reputation-tarnishing piece of perfect truth when the person receiving your message had no need of the information and moreover is at risk of being scandalized by that same information constitutes the grave sin of Detraction.

This is the one thing, that Rara Avis of verbal actions for which one can expect to be called on the proverbial carpet, against which even the truth is no defense.

Now, if you are telling the truth to someone who has need of that truthful information, that rather conclusively negatives the charge of Detraction.

But if you remove from the analysis the actual person on whose mind your message was intended to act, the logical defense of necessity becomes much harder for the accused individual to make out. In fact, it is easy to imagine that in some or even many instances, this will end up being impossible for the accused to do. Hence the revision of Canon 1373 is facially illegitimate. This revision of Canon law is highly likely to have been undertaken by revolutionaries in the Vatican with quite nefarious purposes in mind, including, and perhaps most significantly, the swift ramping up of a brutal campaign of suppression of anything like the kind of strident internal dissent that certain lay Catholics in the U.S., well aware of who the baddies are and what they’ve been up to, have been engaging in freely for years with no feelings of any kind of forboding about the possibility of their being abruptly hauled by their pastor or by their local Ordinary before a Diocesan or Archdiicesan Canon Law court.