![]() Perhaps the miscreant does not realise that his stated opinion is contrary to the Faith. But the mere denial of a dogma does not always establish that the Catholic rule of faith is being rejected. Whenever anyone rejects the Church's rule of faith, he is canonically presumed to do so culpably. who rejects the Church's authority in forming his religious beliefs. A heretic is a baptised Christian who does not accept the Catholic rule of faith, i.e. To clarify this point, let us state it in slightly different words. Otherwise we should be presuming not just imputability, but the crime itself, which would be plainly contrary to justice. We may now add that we must establish the answer to this question without any help from Canon 2200/2 and its presumption of guilt in the external forum. If an individual makes a heretical statement, we have already said that we must find out whether he is aware that his opinion conflicts with the Faith. Canon 2200/2 does not entitle anyone to presume it. One must first know that the law has indeed been broken, at least externally, before Canon 2200/2 can have any application.Īnd as the Canon Lawyers understand it, this pertinacity, this consciousness that one's opinion is in conflict with Catholic teaching, is essential to the canonical delict of heresy. Canon 2200/2 requires guilt (culpability) to be presumed whenever an infraction of the law takes place, but of course it does not authorise the presumption of the infraction itself. that the person knew his statement to be heretical and made it nonetheless. Relying on this principle, some have imagined that when a heretical statement is made, it is presumed to have been pertinacious - i.e. For this reason Canon Law provides that when a Catholic commits an external infraction of a law, he is presumed for legal purposes to have done so knowingly and culpably, unless and until he should prove the contrary (Canon 2200/2). Canonical imputability and its effects belong to the external forum and are assessed in accordance with outward words and deeds, not with hidden interior dispositions. ![]() In technical terms, moral imputability is said to belong to the internal forum, known with certainty only to the individual and his Creator, and to the confessor in the sacrament of Penance. It is not directly involved with what takes place in the individual's soul, for until the internal act is externalised, it cannot be known with certainty. It is well known, that Canon law, like civil law, is concerned with externally ascertainable facts and their external effects. It is important to avoid a misunderstanding at this point. Vivès Bouscaren and Ellis: Canon Law, p.902) II, n.29 de Siena: Commentarius Censurarum, p.24 Dom Gregory Sayers: Thesaurus Casuum Conscientiae III,iv,18 Suarez: Opera, XII, p.474, ed. Canon 1325 defines a heretic as a baptised person, still calling himself a Christian, who pertinaciously denies or doubts any of the truths which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith. And the word pertinaciously is understood by canonists to mean that the person is conscious of the conflict between his opinion and the Church's teaching. But of course it does not yet follow that the sin of heresy has been imputably committed, or that the person in question is in fact a heretic.įrom the position of Canon Law a single question must be asked: does the person realise that his opinion conflicts with Catholic teaching? If he does, he is canonically deemed to be a heretic. If a baptised person expresses an opinion in conflict with Catholic dogma, it is plain that the material element of heresy is present: error in the intellect contrary to the Catholic Faith.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |