Pelikan hat geschrieben:Walter hat geschrieben:Pelikan hat geschrieben:Athanasius2 hat geschrieben:Der 1983 Canon hat explizit gesagt, dass Bestimmungen die nicht enthalten sind im Sinne des 1917 gelöst werden müssen.
Wo?
Wo das genau steht, kann ich Dir auch nicht sagen, aber es geht wohl z.B. indirekt aus der Antwort auf die Frage nach der Freimaurerei (die im neuen CIC auch nicht mehr explizit erwähnt wird) hervor:
URTEIL DER KIRCHE UNVERÄNDERT
Wie ich schon oben versuchte deutlich zu machen, erlangt diese Bestimmung Rechtskraft allein durch Canon 1374 des neuen Codex, und keinesfalls durch Canon 2335 des alten Codex, denn der ist aufgehoben. Auf den alten Canon kann höchstens erklärend verwiesen werden, um zu deuten, welche Vereinigungen der neue Canon meint.
Analog könnte man auf den alten Canon 1262 verweisen, falls der neue Codex allgemeinere und weniger spezifische Bekleidungsgesetze enthielte, um diese zu erhellen. Er enthält aber keine. Folglich sind die Rückgriffe, wie Athanasius2 und sein Bloggerkollege sie versuchen, völlig irrig und rechtsverdreherisch.
Blablabla.... Du willst nicht zugeben, dass es noch die alte Pflicht gibt. (Übrigens auch in den mit Rom vereinigten Ostkirchen, z.B. bei den Maroniten oder den Ukrainisch-Griechisch-katholischen Kirchen.)
Es ist mir egal was Deine Meinung zur Kopfbedeckung ist, Factum bleibt, dass sie Vorschrift der Katholischen Kirche ist. Auch wenn Du mich dann für "Legalist" ausmachen wirst, halte ich daran fest.
Hier das ganze Argument mit den Neuen Canones von 1983.
Why bring up this canon from the old Codex? Don't we have a new Code of Canon Law in force today? Yes, we do, but a difficulty arises from this peculiar fact: the new Code does not contain this Canon from the 1917 Code. The New Code of Canon Law simply does not mention the veiling of women. So does this mean the law of the veil has been abrogated? We turn now to examine what the New Code says regarding old laws that are not carried over into the new law code. The New Code begins in this way:
A law is established when it is promulgated. (Canon 7)
The first building block of our argument, then, is this: the law of the veil was established when it was promulgated, in 1917.
A later law abrogates, or derogates from, an earlier law if it states so expressly, is directly contrary to it, or completely reorders the entire matter of the earlier law. A
universal law, however, in no way derogates from a particular or special law unless the law expressly provides otherwise. (Canon 20, emphasis added)
This is the second piece of the puzzle: an old law is not revoked unless the new law "states so expressly," or is "directly contrary to it," or "completely reorders the entire matter of the earlier law." The New Code of Canon Law does not even mention the veil, and thus it does not expressly revoke the law; the New Code does not legislate that women must not wear a veil, and so it is not "directly contrary" to the old Code; finally, since the New Code does not even raise the issue, it can hardly be argued that it revokes the old law by "completely [reordering] the entire matter."
Still, someone may say, because the New Code does not mention the old law of the veil, can we not conclude that it is being implicitly revoked, or at least no longer being enforced? On the contrary, the next canon says:
In a case of doubt, the
revocation of a pre-existing law is not presumed, but later laws must be related to the earlier ones and, insofar as possible, must be harmonized with them. (Canon 21, emphasis added)
It would be incorrect, then, and contrary to Canon Law, to "presume" that the "pre-existing law" has been revoked. So far there is nothing in the New Code that would lead us to believe that veils have been abolished, and in fact, the law expressly states that old laws are not to be presumed to be revoked.
In the next canons, the question of particular "customs" is raised.
Unless the competent legislator has specifically approved it, a custom contrary to the canon law now in force or one beyond a canonical law (praeter legem canonicam) obtains
the force of law only if it has been legitimately observed
for thirty continuous and complete years. Only a centenary or immemorial custom, however, can prevail against a canonical law which contains a clause prohibiting future customs. (Canon 26, emphasis added)
This paragraph tells us that a custom obtains "the force of law" once it has been practiced "for thirty continuous and complete years." The custom of women veiling their heads (which was not mere custom, but positive law, in any case) was in force since at least 1917, when the old Codex was promulgated; the New Code was promulgated in 1983, which means that the custom of veiling was practiced for at least 66 years - more than double the requirement given by the New Code.
As we have shown [above], however, the custom of the veil was practiced in the early Church, and continued to be practiced down through the centuries until the 1960s; in other words, the custom of veiling women is more than even a "centenary" custom - it is an "immemorial" custom, and thus, even if the New Code had explicitly revoked it, according to Canon 26 it would "prevail against ... canonical law."
We can look to a
similar and parallel case to prove the point we are making. The 1917 Code contained an explicit prohibition against joining a Masonic lodge. The code says:
Those who join a Masonic sect or other societies of the same sort, which plot against the church or against legitimate civil authority, incur an ipso facto excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See. (Canon 2335)
Nomen dantes sectae massonicae aliisve eiusdem generis associationibus quae contra Ecclesiam vel legitimas civiles potestates machinantur, contrahunt ipso facto excommunicationem Sedi Apostolicae simpliciter reservatam.
This older law was, in fact, mentioned in the New Code, but slightly revised so that Masons were not mentioned specifically:
A person who joins an association which plots against the Church is to be punished with a just penalty; however, a person who promotes or directs an association of this kind is to be punished with an interdict. (Canon 1374)
Just as with the law of the veil, the law prohibiting joining a Masonic lodge was not carried over explicitly into the New Code; did this mean that it was now permissible to join the Masons? Did the absence of the former law mean that it was revoked? On the contrary, and eventually the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was bound to issue a statement of clarification on the matter:
It has been asked whether there has been any change in the Church's decision in regard to Masonic associations since the new Code of Canon Law does not mention them expressly, unlike the previous Code ... the Church's negative judgment in regard to Masonic association remains unchanged since their principles have always been considered irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Church and therefore membership in them remains forbidden. The faithful who enroll in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion. (J. Ratzinger, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration on Masonic Associations, November 26, 1983, emphasis added)
Notice the similarity in the argument: the previous Code explicitly mentioned the Masons, the New Code does not, therefore the law has been revoked. The CDF overturned this reasoning and stated that the previous law was still in force. The same must be said of the law of the veil, since the New Code itself says that no previous law can be presumed to be revoked, unless the New Code explicitly says otherwise.
Das, was schon auf den ersten Seiten kam, kehrt hier auch immer wieder... 
. 
