Dr. Peters, Fishwrap, and non-excommunications

I have written about the great example set by Norma Jean Coon, who has rejected all involvement in the whole ordination of women thing.  I have also written about the Fishwrap writing on Mrs. Coons.

Now Canonical Defender has jumped in, Dr. Peters himself, on his blog In the Light of the Law.   Apparently he had given Fishwrap an opinion about the canonical status of Mrs. Coon, which they begged on a deadline and then ignored.

What I found fascinating was Dr. Peters opinion that Mrs. Coon had not incurred an excommunication!

Technorati Tags: , , ,

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Linking Back, The Drill and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Dr. Peters, Fishwrap, and non-excommunications

  1. templariidvm says:

    Every time a read Dr Peter’s opinions regarding contentious issues, my respect for him grows. And conversely, every time I read an article about the NCR, my respect for them wanes. It is way beyond inattentive or incomplete journalism that drives the paper.

  2. templariidvm says:

    Every time I read Dr Peter’s opinions regarding contentious issues, my respect for him grows. And conversely, every time I read an article about the NCR, my respect for them wanes. It is way beyond inattentive or incomplete journalism that drives the paper.

  3. FranzJosf says:

    Of course I can’t know for sure, but it wouldn’t surprise me if phrases like “simulation of Holy Orders,” “attempted ordination,” “utterly null,” and not knowing what she was present at “would have really been a Mass” would not pass muster. The idea that it is impossible to ordain a woman is anathema to them. But, good for Dr. Peters and his important work!

  4. dans0622 says:

    Dr. Peters has again offered rock-solid canonical commentary. It’s pretty hard to find someone who knows his way around Penal law.

  5. Breck says:

    What a wonderful example of the old MSM trick of pretending that truth doesn’t exist because it isn’t in one of their papers. Hang in there Dr.Peters.

  6. stgemma_0411 says:

    @Breck The MSM have been using this tool of soliciting only the opinions that it wants and giving the appearance of no counter-point, because the truthful person who they solicit for an opinion never stands up to the majority of opinions that they have requested. It’s the old, get 5 sources with only one of them coming from a dissenting (and usually correct) opinion. That way no one can question their journalistic integrity because you sought out 5 different opinions and so rather than actually knowing what the truth of the matter may be, relativistic opinion always wins out. Other topics in which this tactic has been used ad nauseam: Global Warming, Obamacare, and the ND fiasco.

  7. The goal going into the interview was to secure a “hard line ideological rant” from Dr. Peters in order to paint the “conservative party line” as insensitive and out of touch.

    When they received a thoughtful response based upon the law (the effective date of the applicable part of Canon 1378) and authentic Catholic doctrine (the validity of Holy Mass, Communion, etc.) it didn’t fit the storyline (which was substantially written even if only in some editor’s head well before Peters was contacted) and therefore wasn’t used. The last thing they expected (or wanted to hear) was the firebrand Peters saying that Coon was perhaps never excommunicated in the first place!

    For the record, I used the phrases “hard line ideological rant” and “conservative party line” because this is exactly how liberals like to think of authentic Catholic teaching. The breakdown here is simply this; NC Distorter was seeking an opinion not a rendering of what Holy Mother Church holds to be true. They got the latter and didn’t find it useful. Then again, they rarely do.

  8. benedetta says:

    Agree with Louie Verrecchio and would also say that this is why adherence to the magisterium, canon law, and the deposit of the faith matters. What the Church teaches is available and accessible to all and can be verified. If these are thrown out the window, minimized, or if it is taught that these do not matter and anyone with an opinion on anything and some colorable authority may do what one wishes, then, there is nothing to protect the laity from being tossed and thrown to whatever the whims/disorders/alliances of those in charge. There is no accountability without the magisterium, it has been shown over and over again. Is it any surprise that the priest abuse scandals occurred at precisely the time when priests invited laity to doubt the magisterium, teaching that we could all be great Catholics and reject it at the same time?
    It began with questioning on certain points. Now it has grown into a whole subculture which actively despises all Papal teaching, even on points having nothing to do with doctrine, just because it has turned into a vicious campaign. Yet this subculture is obsessed with putting particular favorites in the spotlight, and with giving them some sort of perceived “power” and in the meantime the very basic and real needs of Catholics have been ignored for quite a long time. For most Catholic parents, the issues that those who still insist on reading fishwrap, quoting from it in their homilies, urging laity to read it, are simply in outer space. What fishwrap is into is completely out of touch and for Church leaders to continue to push their agenda on average Catholics who just try to eke out an existence and not be completely consumed by the harsh culture is totally offensive. If they want to embrace this waste of time they should chase down that dream and step aside so that others may step up to lead in the detritis left in their wake.