Friday, 25 December 2015

What is De Facto notoriety?

Here is a law text:


TITULUS I: De natura delicti eiusque divisione

Can 2195 §1. Nomine delicti, iure ecclesiastico, intelligitur externa et moraliter imputabilis legis violatio cui addita sit sanctio canonica saltem indeterminata.
 §2. Nisi ex adiunctis aliud appareat, quae dicuntur de delictis, applicantur etiam violationibus praecepti cui poenalis sanctio adnexa sit.

Can 2196. Qualitas delicti desumenda est ex obiecto legis; quantitas vero dimetienda non solum ex diversa gravitate legis laesae, sed etiam ex maiore minoreve imputabilitate aut damno illato.

Can 2197. Delictum est:
 1º Publicum, si iam divulgatum est aut talibus contigit seu versatur in adiunctis ut prudenter iudicari possit et debeat facile divulgatum iri;
 2º Notorium notorietate iuris, post sententiam iudicis competentis quae in rem iudicatam transierit aut post confessionem delinquentis in iudicio factam ad normam can. 1750;
 3º Notorium notorietate facti, si publice notum sit et in talibus adiunctis commissum, ut nulla tergiversatione celari nulloque iuris suffragio excusari possit;
 4º Occultum, quod non est publicum; occultum materialiter, si lateat delictum ipsum; occultum formaliter, si eiusdem imputabilitas.

Can 2198. Delictum quod unice laedit Ecclesiae legem, natura sua, sola ecclesiastica auctoritas persequitur, requisito interdum, ubi eadem auctoritas necessarium vel opportunum iudicaverit, auxilio brachii saecularis; delictum quod unice laedit legem societatis civilis, iure proprio, salvo praescripto can. 120, punit civilis auctoritas, licet etiam Ecclesia sit in illud competens ratione peccati; delictum quod laedit utriusque societatis legem, ab utraque potestate puniri potest.

Here is a comment on Sedevacantism, which involves reference to this text:

The 1917 Code of Canon Law imposes other requirements that Sedevacantists ignore. For example, canon 1939, par. 1 requires a special investigation for certain transgressions against Divine Law (e.g., heresy): If the transgression is not notorious, or not entirely certain, but has arisen from rumor or public report . . . before anyone is summoned to answer for the transgression, a special investigation must be undertaken to decide whether, and or what foundation, the charge may be founded.

ERRRR … this is all very well about Roncalli being a freemason, it was and even now is not entirely certain, BUT for heresies uttered in public, we are dealing with sth else.

Here is the analysis of canon law :

The alleged heresies of Cardinal Roncalli must be considered “not notorious” and “not entirely certain” because they do not meet the definition of “public” and “notorious” under canon 2197 of the 1917 Code. The alleged heresies cannot be considered “public” under canon 2197, par. 1 because they were not “already commonly known” (evidenced by the fact that Pope Pius XII neither investigated nor rendered any judgment against Roncalli for heresy and almost the entire Catholic population accepted Roncalli as Pope). Further, under the same canon, the circumstances were not such as to lead to the conclusion that the alleged heresies would easily become commonly known (evidenced by the fact that, over the last 50 years, the College of Cardinals, the four successor Popes and almost the entire Catholic world held Roncalli as a true Pope). Further, the alleged heresies cannot be considered “notorious in fact” under canon 2197, par. 3 because they were not “publicly known” (for the reasons explained above) and were not committed under such circumstances that “no maneuver can conceal nor legal defense excuse” them. In fact, since Pope Pius XII (or anyone else with ecclesiastical authority) never even alleged that Roncalli committed heresy, it is not possible to raise, much less evaluate, a “maneuver” or “legal defense” (to such “non-allegations”) as this canon requires. Of course, if no canonical defense could excuse Roncalli’s public and notorious heresies, then one must explain how Pope Pius XII failed to recognize such grievous crimes, much less punish Roncalli for them.

What was paragraph three, again ?

Notorium notorietate facti, si publice notum sit et in talibus adiunctis commissum, ut nulla tergiversatione celari nulloque iuris suffragio excusari possit;

The question was not whether EVERYONE in the Church knew them from Australia and Philippines to Easter Island, if that is still in American time zones. Or to Hawaii, which is.

The question is whether those who CAME ACROSS the relevant public evidence knew the facts.

So, for instance, if it cannot be denied that Bergoglio attacks inerrantism (calling Fundamentalists sick), and if inerrantism is per a canon of Trent a requisit for Catholicism, then it cannot be denied that Bergoglio is attacking the Catholic Faith. Even if those who first come across the statementare somehow not aware this canon of Trent requires inerrantism, they cannot be unaware of the fact. And even if those who are first coming across that canon of Trent (everyone who is in theological business, ideally) are not aware of the statement by Bergoglio, they cannot be unaware of the principle.

If the two categories come together in one person, then there is a critical mass and already that ONE person is per the definition of 2197 in the knowledge of Bergoglio being publically a heretic.

The requirement that Pius XII should have known and should have judged for Roncalli to have been heretic is NOT what de facto notoriety is concerned with.

And the requirement that all or most Catholics should have rejected Roncalli isn’t either.

IN fact, it is easier to document notorious heresy in Roncalli after election paragraph 6 of – I think it was after all Pacem in Terris (unless it was Mater et Magistra), where he clearly implies the universe is ruled by laws unlike those of man’s moral behaviour. Which would be true if universe were moving only in mechanistic ways. But this is contrary to tradition.

It is also easier to document notorious heresy in Pacelli, both before and after the election.

Before, by advising certain novelties in Canon Law of 1917, amounting to licitness of interest taking, among others, and after by Humani Generis (at least favouring, though not explicitly condoning evolutionist beliefs under certain conditions) and year after that by saying in an allocution that Earth is proven 5 billion year old.

And that the positions are in fact heretical follows from a canon about Biblical and Biblico-Patristic-Collective inerrancy.

How many people in England would have dared say Henry VIII was a heretic? Very few. But does it follow the heresy about his being Head of the Church of England was NOT publically known? Or was it publically known only to those not considering it heresy, while with others you can play a cat and rat game

"OK, you say King Harry claimed to be Head of English Church and that is heresy, but can you document he said it?"

Document provided from public notoriety.

Supplementary documentation perhaps also given.

"OK, here it says King Harry claims to be the Head of the Church of England, but how do you know that is heresy?"

Isn't he head of your Church, after all?

Hence : tradition primes over obedience. Truth primes over obedience. Truth primes over authority.

Of course, for those who consider Feeneyism dogma, the "heresy" of Roncalli prior to election (unless it was even real heresy, if it was universalism) can hardly be denied. Nor for Pius XII who judged Feeney. But that might also involve Pope St Pius X, which is why I refrain from this criterium.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bibliothèque Port Royal
St Victoria of Rome

Added info:

NOW : Sedevacantism and Private Judgment: Are Sedevacantists Just “Protestants”?

H/T Mikael Rosén. Merry Christmas!

No comments:

Post a Comment