[DPalm]

Hello, all:

I am the author of the article. I'm glad that most of you, at least, are finding it helpful or at least thought-provoking. So far the feedback I and the editor of NOR have received has been overwhelmingly positive.

I do need to make one correct, though. "heyheyhey" wrote that "The author is a liar", based on his finding that a sentence was missing from the quotation of Canon 212. The issue of rash judgment aside, he is correct.

I checked my sources and indeed the fault lies with me, not with Fr. Harrison or This Rock magazine. I was well aware of the phrase and I had discussed with a number of priests and canon lawyers just what "due reverence for the pastors" means when writing such articles. Alas, I missed that phrase when I transcribed the quote from the magazine article. Mea culpa.

That being said, my article did show due reverence to His Holiness and the other pastors, unless one equates "due reverence" with "fawning sycophancy". But the former is a Catholic attitude, the latter is not.

God bless,

David

[johnb2004]

"That being said, my article did show due reverence to His Holiness and the other pastors, unless one equates "due reverence" with "fawning sycophancy". But the former is a Catholic attitude, the latter is not."

Amen and thank you.

[Pyro7480]

It's my pleasure to post your article here. I'm glad you took the time to post here.

[Pyro7480]

Ping, post #106.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Wonderful article. Thank you for writing it.

[William Martel]

I'd like to reflect the general sentiment on this thread and thank you for writing this article. I do not think it was irreverent towards the Pope and it does raise issues that ought to be considered.