What about Gratian and the Corpus Juris Canonici, that wasn't a "codification" in relation to the localized grab-bags of laws that had come before?  And those localized grab-bags, that wasn't a codification in relation to what came before, when the laws were probably known by "word of mouth," for lack of a better term, but weren't collected in any one place?  

It seems to me that the organization of information has been getting steadily more refined through history, along with the improved means of communication, and that the 1917 Code was a refinement, not a break.  Apart from that, I'm no historian of canon law, so I'll shut my trap.

TKGS, besides the editorial board of the Remnant, I can think of a certain other group whose MO is to drag everything about the Church through the mud, often saying, with an accuracy that leaves much to be desired, that "many Popes were heretics" in order to justify the Vatican II impostors.  The amount of people who have taken up the art of contortionism to justify formal, manifest heretics who have nearly destroyed the entire Church is a phenomenon of our time that future generations will marvel at -- if it's possible to marvel while crouching over a bucket and puking copiously.

Quote from: Jehanne

Quote from: Cristian

Garbage.

It's a lot to unpack.  Does the author show any differences, any specific examples, between the pre-1917 and 1917 Code of Canon Law?  Canon 844 is a big difference between the 1983 Code and the 1917.

Well, the mere suposition, namely that codification is something liberal, or bad is laughable. There are many inaccuracies also but I think it is a waste of time to discuss this.

Cristian

PS: btw the civil code of Napoleon, in spite of a couple of objectable articles, is excellent.

You missed his point entirely.

No. I didn´t. :)

Speaking materially, the mere codification of law is not at issue, but rather the notion (or philosophy) that inspired the codification of law.

Ok, so according to you the codification of Canon Law had the (supossed) same "philosophy" than the Code of Napoleon? If yes, prove it, if not what is the matter then?

He simply argues that something had been lost by the Church imitating secular codification, that rather than maintaining an organic body of law, an artifical edifice was put in its place by committee.

FYI it was not an organic body anymore. Many Bishops during Vat. I had already asked Pius IX to organize the laws of the Church (see the article on Catholic Encyclopedia under the title "codification" http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09056a.htm ) and Benedict XV Himself admited the situation previous to the codification was deficient. Here are His words taken from Providentissima Mater, the Bull promulgating the Code:

Pur tuttavia, come sapientemente rilevò lo stesso Pio X, Nostro Predecessore di felice memoria nel Motu proprio « Arduum sane » del 17 marzo 1904, essendo mutate le condizioni storiche e le esigenze degli uomini, com’è naturale, il diritto canonico non apparve ormai più in grado di rispondere in tutto e per tutto ai suoi obiettivi. Nel corso dei secoli, infatti, erano state promulgate moltissime leggi; alcune di queste furono abrogate dalla suprema autorità della Chiesa oppure caddero in disuso; altre apparvero di difficile applicazione in rapporto ai tempi o meno utili al bene comune o meno adeguate. A ciò si aggiunge il fatto che il numero delle leggi canoniche si era tanto accresciuto, ed esse vagavano così scoordinate e disperse, che molte di esse risultavano sconosciute non soltanto al popolo, ma agli stessi esperti di diritto.

Which is something like:

Besides as it was wisely said by Pius X in His Motu proprio Ardumm Sane, having changed the historical conditions and legislations of men, as it is natural, canon law was no longer able to respond completely it aims. During the centuries, in fact, a number of laws were promulgated, some of which were abrogated by the supreme authority if the Church or fall into disuse; other laws became hard to apply during the course of time or less useful to the common good or less suitable. To this it was added that the number of canonical laws have increased very much and wondered disjointed and dispersed in such a way that many of them were unknown not only to the people but also to the expert ones.

The same thoughts were laid down by Benedict in an allocution on 1916:

[1] Inasmuch as matters from all places are wont to be sent to this Apostolic See for decision, they cannot all be treated, as of old, in Consistory—for they are more frequent these days and many of them will suffer no delay—still, we may retain that outstanding practice we received from our Predecessors, whereby, should something affect the Christian body politic, we may communicate it to you gathered in this solemn assembly. In this vein, it is most gratifying to us to be able to bring to you something so great and opportune for the Church that these days might seem noble to posterity. We speak of the Code of Canon Law, happily completed, which We indeed, in accord with your wishes, we will promulgate as soon as possible. For since that signal day when we in ceremony received the supreme Pontificate, We rightly remember what was conveyed to Us by our cherished and venerable Brother, Cardinal Antonio Agliardi, when he congratulated us in the name of your great Order [Cf. AAS 6 (1914) 500, wherein Agliardi's famous exclamation, "Da nobis Codicem!" probably occurred].
          [2] Certainly, even if it does some others (Brian McCall, take note!), it does not escape you, Venerable Brothers, how the laws and prescriptions laid down in the providence and care of mother Church, have over the ages, by continual accretion from the beginning until now, swelled to such a mass that it is hardly possible even for those most expert in the law to have awareness and knowledge of all of them. Moreover, many established canons, with the changing of the times, no longer corresponded to manners, and stand in need of apt and prudent correction. So much better, and so good for improving discipline, would be establishing which rights and institutes have force in the Church, so that it finally appeared needful that a code be produced from the laws of the Church, one which could be easily consulted by hand: not only did Bishops and Clergy look for this, but so did all those who gave themselves to the study of Canon Law. Although the Apostolic See had long considered this same project, many great difficulties stood in the way of undertaking it. Evidently it was divinely foreseen that, for such an important service, praise would be owed to the talent of Pius X, our Predecessor of holy memory. You know, Venerable Brothers, with what alacrity of spirit, hardly into his Pontificate, he undertook the vast project, and by what dedication and constancy, while he held the reins of governance in the Church, he pursued it. But if it was not permitted him to complete what he started, he should nevertheless be considered as the one author of this Code, and therefore his name, with Innocent III, Honorius III, and Gregory IX, among the most outstanding Pontiffs in the history of Canon Law, will forever be proclaimed: It will be enough if it falls to us to promulgate what he has done. – Now, for the skills and efforts they brought to the parts of this undertaking, each and every one from the Sacred College of Cardinals, from the order of Bishops, from both [secular and religious] Clergy, and from the ranks of the laity, should have for himself the sign of a grateful spirit from the Vicar of Jesus Christ.  By these our words we willingly perform a task and office at once a pleasant and delightful, a task that our Predecessor left for us. But special praise and gratitude must go to our beloved Son, Cardinal Pietro Gasparri, who indeed in the production of the Code was burdened with more than others, [but who] undertook it from the beginning, and extended to it his outstanding abilities, not only his scientific knowledge of the law, but also his perseverance of study and effort, all the which hardly suffered intermission when, as prefect of Public Affairs, he began to take up other serious occupations.
          [3] For these reasons, we are confident that this legal project of great weight and surpassing opportunity will work for the great strengthening of the nerves of ecclesiastical discipline: for it restores awareness of the laws of the Church, and therefore will help not a little in their observance, with fruit for souls and advancement of the catholic name. This is obviously true of any human society, and so also does it apply in that civil association of all peoples, so that, where obedience to law is solemnized, there in the folds of peace things can flower abundantly; but where the authority of law is wont to be neglected or spurned, there, trampled by discord and cupidity, both privately and publicly, everything is disturbed. If this requires any confirmation, the course of things in which we find ourselves, confirms it to the utmost. Do not the horrors of this insane war, that devastates Europe, proclaim how much ruin and destruction befalls those who show contempt for the laws by which mutual relations of men are tempered? For, just look, in such a conflict of peoples, which sacred things, or administrators of the sacred, even those of outstanding dignity, and most holy whether by divine law or by the law of nations, are unworthily violated; or how so many quiet citizens are torn far from home, amid the tears of mothers, husbands, and children; or unarmed and wholly defenseless cities are vexed by powerful aerial incursions; all over the earth and on the seas such atrocities are committed that flood the soul with horror and grief. But for Us, deploring this veritable mountain of evils, and again reprobating whatever comes about unjustly in this war, wherever and howsoever it happens, it is a deep desire, and one that God wants to bring about, that in some way through the promulgation of the new Code, contributing to a more tranquil Church, as we hope, with a more fruitful age to arise, so with civil society, with order restored by reverence for law and justice, the looked-for peace will quickly shine out, which, with peoples once again reconciled as friends, will bear the fruit of all goods....

http://www.canonlaw.info/a_17trans.htm#Docuмent%202

Roma locuta... causa finita?

If you concede with St. Thomas that a single law, otherwise good in itself, can, by change of circuмstances, become injurious, then I fail to see the foundation upon which you argue against his point.

Sorry, I don´t follow you here.

Again, considering the civil code of Napoleon materially, in its concete propositions is beside the point.  The problem lies in the fact that the entire effort was an affront to the traditional concept of an organic body of law respecting local customs.  

Quod probandum est. Besides even if you prove that, you still have to prove that a codification is in itself liberal and/or the Church had that liberal point of view when promulgated the code.

Valete!

Cristian

Ok, so according to you the codification of Canon Law had the (supossed) same "philosophy" than the Code of Napoleon? If yes, prove it, if not what is the matter then?

It's the author's contention that such an effort was born of the same mentality or that it was the Church beginning to imitate in some measure the secular world.  I can't prove what is materially evident, because it's evident, whether or not the same philosophy was adopted is an historical question which probably cannot be answered.  One thing is certain, the product of the 1917 Code certainly gave the audacious reformers precident and impetus.  Such was an unintended evil that the original legislators could never foresee.    

Quote

Ok, so according to you the codification of Canon Law had the (supossed) same "philosophy" than the Code of Napoleon? If yes, prove it, if not what is the matter then?

It's the author's contention that such an effort was born of the same mentality or that it was the Church beginning to imitate in some measure the secular world.  I can't prove what is materially evident, because it's evident, whether or not the same philosophy was adopted is an historical question which probably cannot be answered.  One thing is certain, the product of the 1917 Code certainly gave the audacious reformers precident and impetus.  Such was an unintended evil that the original legislators could never foresee.    

Ok we have both said what we think on this, I prefer to follow several Popes (who cannot be labeled as "liberal") as well as all the Bishops and eminent canonists who knew much more than the unknown author!

It is obvious the author just wanted to put the pre vat. reforms at the same level as the post vat... but he didn´t succeeded, good luck for the next one!  :cheers:

Caminus said:

Quote

One thing is certain, the product of the 1917 Code certainly gave the audacious reformers precident and impetus.  Such was an unintended evil that the original legislators could never foresee.

That has nothing to do with the 1917 Code being good or bad in itself.

You could say the same for the dogma of papal infallibility, that it played into the hands of the revolutionaries ( not reformers ) because it made more people afraid to question the Pope about anything.  Actually, I vaguely remember hearing this being said by someone... Yet it's still a dogma.

Your logic, if followed, could stretch back to infinity.  You could complain that St. Peter establishing the Church in Rome made it an easy target for the revolutionaries of Vatican II.
You could say, as I once did, and as Jehanne still does, that the concept of implicit faith opened the door for ecuмenism bordering on the philosophy of implicit universal salvation, etc., etc.

The 1917 Code is good in itself.  Your infinite analogies are irrelevant because none of them involve the Church adopting a principle of action of the secular world.  It was precisely this mentality which helped, i.e. was possibly one of the various causes, of the massive reforms within the Church in the 1960's.  A small error in principle can lead to large errors in consequence.  Your scenarios amount to positing a series of negative reasons for doubting something which is an essentially irrational approach to reality.  In moral theology, such a method is reprehensible.  But nothing prevents a thing intrinsically good to have evil effects per accidens in consequence.        

Caminus said:

Quote

One thing is certain, the product of the 1917 Code certainly gave the audacious reformers precident and impetus.  Such was an unintended evil that the original legislators could never foresee.

That has nothing to do with the 1917 Code being good or bad in itself.

You could say the same for the dogma of papal infallibility, that it played into the hands of the revolutionaries ( not reformers ) because it made more people afraid to question the Pope about anything.  Actually, I vaguely remember hearing this being said by someone... Yet it's still a dogma.

Your logic, if followed, could stretch back to infinity.  You could complain that St. Peter establishing the Church in Rome made it an easy target for the revolutionaries of Vatican II.
You could say, as I once did, and as Jehanne still does, that the concept of implicit faith opened the door for ecuмenism bordering on the philosophy of implicit universal salvation, etc., etc.

Big difference, of course.  St. Peter, establishing the Church (not Peter, of course, but our Lord Jesus Christ), is well represented in the ancient Fathers and Magisterial teaching.  Implicit faith is nowhere to be found, at least not explicitly.