GOOD FAITH AND CANON 2242
Here we examine even further the qualities necessary in a delict in order for a censure to be incurred, This will complete our examination of material heresy and mortal sin.Canon 2242#1 states: 'Only offenses which are external, grave, consummated, or complete, and combined with obstinacy, are punished with censures.' As we have already explained, the laity were not generally expected to know Canon Law, at least those Canons against which they offended most often. Priests and Bishops were generally expected to know the finer points of law in these matters. not the laity. Had priests KNOWN themselves and explained the law to their Catholic followers, certainly they would have led the sheep to green pastures. Traditionalists would have followed these priests almost anywhere. but they were led in the wrong direction. Since they never received these most necessary warnings from their pastors, they could not have incurred these censures. Rev. Woywod writes in his commentary on Canon 2195: "The penal sanction attached to the law or precept TAKES THE PLACE OF THE WARNING..." This applies only to clerics who are presumed to know the ins and outs of the Canons. As we observed in a previous 'Update', 'Rev. Swoboda, in his 'Ignorance in the Imputability of Delicts' tells us: It can scarcely be maintained that laymen are obliged to know the penalties of the law the Church does not wish to penalize the first time offenders of her criminal or penal law a particular (canonical) warning will frequently become necessary. When an abuse becomes prevalent, it becomes the duty of pastors and especially of bishops to instruct the faithful and warn them concerning the ecclesiastical penalties.' (To support this statement, Rev. Swoboda cites an instruction from the Holy Office issued February 1, 1871, and retained in Gasparri's 'Sources of Canon Law'.) (Pages 239-240) First the bishops were obliged to warn the faithful; when they failed the priests, and finally the flock, had to be warned by us and others to fend for itself. Nothing in Canon 2242#1 really has application to the laity. True; we are to be held guilty of violation under Canon 2200 initially. But we have explained the Church's allowance for ignorance by the thorough assessment above in Rev. Swoboda's work, and we can see that the contrary is proven by making known the Church's teaching on the laity's ignorance in such affairs. Since the contrary has been proved, no censure was incurred, as long as they are not 'combined with obstinacy.' Earlier we saw that Rev. MacKenzie equates obstinacy with pertinacity. Since obstinate means stubborn, we assume that ANY reluctance exhibited by an offender to cease and obstinacy from the evil deed can be construed as obstinacy. This coincides with #2 of this canon below.Canon 2242#2 reads: "A person is considered contumacious, who, notwithstanding the admonitions spoken of in Canon 2233, does not desist from the offense, or refuses to do penance for the offense and make due reparation for the damages and scandal caused thereby. To incur a censure latae sententiae the transgression of a law or precept to which a penalty latae sententiae is attached, suffices, unless the offender is excused from the penalty by a legitimate cause. No priest or bishop warned the laity, so contumacy (which is synonymous with pertinacity and obstinacy) was generally lacking on the part of the lay people. We have already proven that a 'legitimate cause' (ignorance) existed to excuse most of these.But there is one class of people we CANNOT excuse and these are priests and lay people who we ourselves have warned (often more than once): or who have been warned by others known to us; or those, who after examining the book, either reject it outright or pretend they can heed certain parts of it and ignore others. When we speak of warning people here, we refer mainly to warning them against heresy, sacrilege, communicatio in sacris, i.e. something gravely sinful. Most of those we have warned have been in the public eye in some way or another. Many of them we have warred repeatedly on several different heads. We know who they are, THEY knew who they are, and because they have continued to spread heresy ,and create scandal despite our warnings, they certainly have incurred censure. These are people who have the means and ability necessary to consult the various resource materials and neglect to do so, or pretend that they have discovered some :obscure point of, law to justify themselves in the course of consulting these reference works. Even if they presented REASONED arguments in their defense, as the law requires them to do, one could at least have hope of their being won over eventually. But most rely on their personal credibility and secular press tactics; or verbal antics; or dramatic one line 'sweeps' to save themselves. (i.e. 'Necessity knows no law', which is true. when read .IN CONTEXT, but untrue as reported by many Traditionalists. See pages 48 and 49 of the book.) Clearly they are not in GOOD FAITH, but in defiance of Church teaching concerning contumacy in whatever crime they have committed.
The final paragraph of this Canon states: "A person is considered to have desisted from his obstinacy when he has truly repented of his offense, and has at the same time made proper satisfaction for the damage's and scandal caused, or has at least. earnestly, promised to do so. The judgement on the sincerity of the repentance, or the sufficiency of the satisfaction, or the sincerity of the promise rests-with the one from whom absolution from the censure is requested."The individuals we refer to above have persisted in their errors 1)Despite clear and compelling evidence to the contrary; 2) For long & periods of time: 3) Usually in more than one matter; 4) Prior to the publication of the book. Most of these people edit newsletters of some description, or are otherwise in the public eye. Since their publications are issued sporadically at best, it is not likely many of them would have the chance to sufficiently repent and repair the scandal, they have spread in time to posit an election. Had they responded initially to fraternal correction, they would have no worries in the matter reparation could have been accomplished by now. We cannot judge repentance true which has been unduly delayed, and which is hastily given only to enable one to vote. We are not saying that it is NOT true necessarily; only that we have no right to JUDGE, since we cannot presume to absolve anyone from censure.'Good faith' is not that vague assumption that All Catholics intend to conform to some unidentified Catholic 'norm' if they act pious externally, adopt a 'priest', attend the Sacraments, and say daily Rosary. The 'faith' has to do mainly with dogma, not formalism; DOGMA and its absolute acceptance and practice constitute orthodoxy, not exterlor practices smacking of sacrilege. OBEDIENCE, that same instantaneous obedience we demand of our children or should demand), determines this good faith.Failure to obey, and obey immediately, in those matters concerning faith and morals is fatal to the life of the soul, for it terminates our membership in the Church. TRUE Catholics willl pledge unswerving loyalty even to those precepts, of the Church not pronounced de fide. Faithful in little things, they will swiftly run to retract error and shall not hesitate to belittle themselves, when necessary to repair scandal. We shall know them, then, by their humility, for St. Bernard calls obedience the first degree of this virtue. 'Good faith' will brook no departure from truth; bad faith will ever show itself haughty, above the law, impervious to correction. It has been so from the beginning of time and shall be so undoubtedly until the end.Those Who Are III
Canon 168
This Canon provides for the gathering of votes at the place of election from those who cannot be present because they are ill. We allowed for this possibility, in the book, so we need not cover it further. (see page 452)This brings us to the end of those Canons which cover the disqualification of voters. But before we bring this article to a close, we would like to lay down an adequate BACKGROUND for our firm contention that :the laity are to' be held largely blameless in matters pertaining to the commission of heresy and schism, especially in this country. To do this we wish to return briefly to the subject of the Great Western Schism and then we will examine the early days of the Church in America.
Michael Fighting
"Michael…who standeth for…thy people," — Dan. 12:1-12
