From Canon Lawyer Ed Peters: My brief replies to Albany’s brief response
A political wag once observed that the fastest way to start a ruckus on Capitol Hill is to point out what the Constitution actually says. In the Church, it seems, the fastest way to start a ruckus is to point out what the Code of Canon Law actually says.
Michael Sean Winters’ NCRep column “Peters v. Cuomo”: a reply
Re Michael Sean Winters’ National Catholic Reporter column “Peters v. Cuomo”. Hmmm, where to start?
Well, how about with two preliminary observations: (1) even people of obvious intelligence can be of little expertise in an area in which they opine; (2) when unfounded and/or ill-formed opinions are expressed with rhetorical skill and disseminated through the media, they require an extraordinary amount of time and energy to untangle.
But, let’s see what we might try: http://canonlawblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/michael-sean-winters-column-peters-v.html
My brief reactions to Fr. Reese’s characterizations of my position on Canon 915
I was disappointed by the tone, if perhaps less so by the content, of Rev. Thomas Reese’s reactions to my statements regarding the Cuomo-Communion controversy. I make three brief points against Reese’s mischaracterizations of my person and position, here: http://canonlawblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/some-brief-reactions-to-fr-reeses.html
As someone commented, this is the debate that keeps on giving! There have been no serious challenges to my canonical analysis of the Cuomo-Communion situation. There have been several teaching moments for others, however, and I have tried to use them for good. My latest is this reply to NCRep’s Sean Michael Winters.
Re Winters and Canon 915: Sean Michael Winters first commented on my general discussion of Cuomo and Communion here (25 Feb); I replied to him here (25 Feb); SMW acknowledged my comments here (25 Feb), and posted a lengthy reply (28 Feb) here. I read SMW’s latest remarks carefully, and have some brief thoughts to offer: http://canonlawblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/again-re-winters-and-canon-915.html
Is the Cuomo-Communion case about conduct, law, or lawyers?
Phil Lawler, in a thoughtful column over at CatholicCulture.org regarding the Cuomo-Communion controversy, makes a simple but important point: there are two related-but-distinct canons applicable in this case because there are two related-but-distinct issues in this case, namely, private conduct and public scandal.
A rare Saturday missive for “In the Light of the Law” readers
(Holy) Wars and Rumors of (Holy) Wars in the tabloid press: such things must happen
We interrupt our regularly featured canonical commentary for these breaking observations on tabloid journalism…
I read with some bemusement yesterday as the New York Daily News tried to bate Andrew Cuomo and the bishops of New York into a “Holy War” by alleging the governor’s “snub” of the latter’s meeting out of anger that “the Vatican” had rebuked Cuomo’s living arrangements. Now, what I don’t know about New York politics would choke a horse, so I can’t definitively conclude for or against the tabloid theory. But I can say that, to some guy sitting in Detroit, the NYDN headline “Cuomo snubs [NY] bishops after Vatican slap…” doesn’t make much sense.
Read the rest here: http://canonlawblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/holy-wars-and-rumors-of-holy-wars-in.html.