Bruskewitz - 0?, Particular Church Law - 1?
UPDATE 2: The Bruskewitz Debate: Day Two
UPDATE: Ed Peters has updated his original post.
Right now I feel a bit like an over-zealous television news commentator trying to call a presidential election in Florida ... but here goes:
I'm revising my earlier opinion expressed in this post ("Bruskewitz - 1, Ewers - 0"). I now believe that the Bruskewitz/Ewers exchange is at least "too close to call" (if not actually in favor of Ewers and the National Review Board). What prompted my change of opinion? Reading Canon Lawyer Ed Peters' comments on the situation over at In Light of the Law:
Notwithstanding the (in my opinion, rightly motivated) support for Bruskewitz's statement (especially among conservative Catholic bloggers), as the situation actually stands, Bruskewitz should in obedience abide by the norms of the National Review Board in accord with the legal provisions of the Catholic Church. The same Catholic Church, I shouldn't have to add, which he so dearly loves and so faithfully serves in Lincoln, Nebraska.
I think there is an important point we should keep in mind amid the introduction of this new piece of evidence, namely, that while most of us are sympathetic with Bruskewitz's take on this issue, we would also agree that no one is above the law, especially the law of the Church. So, any (legitimate) disagreements between Bruskewitz and the NRB should be worked-out in accord with Canon Law.
It will be interesting to see how this situation plays out. Our hopes and prayers are with Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz regardless.
UPDATE: Ed Peters has updated his original post.
Right now I feel a bit like an over-zealous television news commentator trying to call a presidential election in Florida ... but here goes:
I'm revising my earlier opinion expressed in this post ("Bruskewitz - 1, Ewers - 0"). I now believe that the Bruskewitz/Ewers exchange is at least "too close to call" (if not actually in favor of Ewers and the National Review Board). What prompted my change of opinion? Reading Canon Lawyer Ed Peters' comments on the situation over at In Light of the Law:
Basically, the National Review Board was granted "Particular Law" status by the Holy See in accord with Canon Law, in which case Bruskewitz does not have the right to claim exemption from its norms."The USCCB's Charter is not simply a list of good, or least not bad, suggestions. Whatever weaknesses there still are in the Charter--and surely there are some--the fact remains, it constitutes what canon law calls "particular law" (1983 CIC 455) for the United States. It was approved overwhelmingly in 2002 by the US bishops and then by Rome (specifically the Congregation for Bishops, albeit after extensive discussions) and was reissued in 2005. As "particular law", the Charter is binding on all the bishops in the US, not just on those who voted for it, and not just in regard to those parts with which a bishop agrees."
Notwithstanding the (in my opinion, rightly motivated) support for Bruskewitz's statement (especially among conservative Catholic bloggers), as the situation actually stands, Bruskewitz should in obedience abide by the norms of the National Review Board in accord with the legal provisions of the Catholic Church. The same Catholic Church, I shouldn't have to add, which he so dearly loves and so faithfully serves in Lincoln, Nebraska.
I think there is an important point we should keep in mind amid the introduction of this new piece of evidence, namely, that while most of us are sympathetic with Bruskewitz's take on this issue, we would also agree that no one is above the law, especially the law of the Church. So, any (legitimate) disagreements between Bruskewitz and the NRB should be worked-out in accord with Canon Law.
It will be interesting to see how this situation plays out. Our hopes and prayers are with Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz regardless.
posted by Thomas Peters at 5:18 AM
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home