Doyle for the defense

I finally got around to my weekly emptying of my snail-mailbox, only to find I, too, have received TWO letters (of six and five pages respectively), the first dated August 16, 2011 and the second August 21, outlining the defense of Fr. Roy Bourgeois, prepared and proposed by Thomas P. Doyle, J.C.D., M.A., M.Ch.A., C.A.D.C.

Gotta tell you, if those initials don't give you pause, the content of the documents will.

That being said, I am faced with a dilemma. My copy came with a brief note from Roy that I am to share it with the community. I presume it's our Maryknoll community. Also, Roy disseminated it with the knowledge and consent of his procurator-advocate.

The document itself is addressed to the superior general and the members of the General Council, who are at a distinct disadvantage here because they are loathe to move the upcoming canonical proceedings into the open venue of trial by social networking and public opinion.

That being said, as I mentioned earlier, several Maryknollers have already received a copy of the defense, so this is hardly a breach of client privilege let alone confidentiality. (Transparency can be a real bite in the butt.)

Ergo, I am willing to email a copy of Roy's defense to any Society member who requests it.

Till then, allow me to give you a very brief summary of the summary.

1) The ban on women's ordination is not infallible;
2) The ban on women's ordination is not part of the Deposit of Faith to which all Catholics must give assent;
3) The ban is not essential to the core of Catholicism, nor does questioning it amount to a rejection of the teachings of Christ;
4) Tradition notwithstanding, Christ did not ordain anyone to anything at the Last Supper.
5) No one has been gravely harmed by Roy's action to the point of physical or emotional, let alone spiritual damage.
6) None of the clerics or hierarchs involved in THE scandal of the century has been so punished.

In addition, Doyle emphasizes an illegitimate demand that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith made on Roy to betray his conscience, as well as several irregularities by the CDF in communicating its penalties.

Man, would I love to witness this trial, as I am sure there will be an equally spirited prosecution.

Ah, but Canon Law has no place for Judge Judy.

Besides, as with the case against Fr.Bob Nugent and Sr.Jeanine Gramick 15 years ago, there is something decidedly Down the Rabbit Hole in the way the Vatican operates.

From "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland", Chapter Twelve:

"'Let the jury consider their verdict,' the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.

'No, no!' said the Queen. 'Sentence first - verdict afterwards.'

'Stuff and nonsense!' said Alice loudly. 'The idea of having the sentence first!'

'Hold your tongue!' said the Queen, turning purple.

'I won't!' said Alice.

'Off with her head!' the Queen shouted at the top of her voice. Nobody moved."

Maryknoll's rabbinical propensities

So if canon law is Torah for Catholics, than the New Commentary on Canon Law by John P. Beal et al must be the Talmud. What the law allows and what the law means is open to interpretation and discussion, if not debate.

Thus, Rabbi Jonah ben Sivalon of Scranton quotes above mentioned Commentary (which was ordered for our library today) in insisting that, absent a requisite four-member council to adjudicate a dismissal, the Commentary interprets the law to mean the missing member would normally be the regional superior of the man in question.

Canon 172 (of Catholic Torah) states such a vote "must be secret, certain, absolute and determinate." But, Rabbi Jonah posits, "What does certain, absolute, determinate mean?"

Notably "absolute." Does that require a minimum of four out of five (including the super G's vote) if not a unanimous vote as Sivalon maintains, or is it merely three out of five, as Rabbi Shlomo Don't-Use-My-Name-in-Your-Blog insists?

Again according to Sivalon, Fr. Roy Bourgeois has secured the services of noted (albeit controversial) canon lawyer Fr. Thomas Doyle. Thus, I can only hope the spotlight should soon shift away from our Maryknoll general council to the Vatican dicastery where the final verdict will be issued.

Until further developments appear in the NCR, I shall refrain from any more attempted arbitration between these dueling rabbis.