Skip to main content

Does Canon 17 Refute LifeSiteNews' Theologian: "Benedict [must have]... thought: I only want to resign the Ministerium if it is in fact distinct from the Munus"?

LifeSiteNews' anonymous theologian on Pope Benedict XVI's resignation according to the website claims that Benedict's abdication could only be invalid if he thought ministerium and munus were "distinct":

"Benedict's abdication would be invalid only if he had in his mind the thought: 'I only want to resign the ministerium if it is distinct from the munus.'"
(LifeSiteNews, "Did Benedict really resign? Ganswein, Burke and Brandmuller weight in," February 14, 2019)

Canon law expert Br. Alexis Bugnolo appears to says this is not a correct way to legally approach the resignation because canon law requires an objective reading of what the two words mean using canon 17's criteria and not a subjective reading of what the two words may possibly have meant in the mind of Benedict:

"Canon 17 requires that Canon 332 S2 be read in accord with the meaning of canon 145 S1  and canon 41... requires that ministerium and munus be understood as referring to two different things."
(From Rome, "Ganswein, Brandmuller & Burke: Please read Canon 17, February 14, 2019)

Canon lawyer Edward Peters explains "Canon 17... states 'if the meaning [of the law, and UDG is a law] remains doubtful and obscure, recourse must be made to parallel places."
(Catholic World Report, "Francis was never pope? Call me unpersuaded," September 28, 2017)

I studied some law in college and I am not in any way a canon lawyer, but this is my understanding of what the LifeSiteNews' theologian and Br. Bugnolo are saying.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.



Comments

Anonymous said…
Canon 332, sect. 2 is what comes to my mind as well, because even if Pope Benedict did intend 'ministry' as identical to 'munus', it still remains the case that he has not "properly manifested" this, as he has to in order for his abdication to be valid. Perhaps if valid resignations depended only on intentions, the theologian might have a point. But demonstrating the right intentions is necessary too.
MEwbank said…
I agree with Cam, although I would prefer to avoid the use of 'subjective' vs. 'objective' as qualifiers concerning this matter.

The fact is that papal resignation is a strictly juridical act and it requires explicit fulfillment of every requisite juridical stipulation to be valid. Interior intention must be fully and accurately manifested in exterior words to accomplish this act.

The language used in his resignation does not fulfill this requisite.

Alexis Bugnolo said…
Fred,

For the record you understood me correctly.

I think, humanly speaking, most canonists only have habitual experience of the canonical proceedures in annulment cases which regard the Sacrament of Matrimony, which falls under the norms of contractual law.

But the Petrine Succession is totally different. It is not a sacrament nor a vow kind of a thing. It's like the last will and testament of your father. If he did not say he gave it to you, you do not get it. Some other sibling gets it. Or his estate keeps it.

Benedict gave away the ministerium, the doing of the office.

But he never on any occasion before during or after Feb 11, 2013 said he gave away the munus petrinum.

That means that the Petrine Succession has not yet occurred. The train left the station with all the Cardinals and hoopla, but Benedict and his papal office are still on the platform.
Fred Martinez said…
Br. Bugnolo,

Thank you for your continued courage and clarity.

It would be extremely helpful if you could go into detail into canon 17, canon 332 S2, canon 145 S1 and canon 41 using the example of the last will and testament analogy as contrasted with how other canonists are using the Sacrament of Matrimony contract law analogy.

Also, if you could explain in detail using canon law why canonists are wrong is saying ministerium and munus are synonyms that mean the exact same thing or nearly the exact same thing.

Finally, please explain why the present canon law was instituted by Pope John Paul II and is the supreme law for the Catholic Church until another pope institutes a new one.

Popular posts from this blog

Taylor Marshall finally admitted that "Francis teaches HERESY," now, the question is will he do a Skojec & a Schneider Cop Out

    Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation: "[T]he Pope... WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic , he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him , or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See." (The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306) Taylor Marshall finally admitted that "Pope Francis teaches HERESY: Pope Pius XII condemned the heresy of Francis": Pope Francis on Feb 2 2022, taught, "that in Christ no one can ever truly separate us from those we love because the bond is an existential bond, a strong bond that is in our very nature...who have denied the faith, who are apostates." Pope Pius XII taught the exact opposite when he wrote of those: "who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or b

Wernz-Vidal: "One cannot consider as Schismatics those who Refuse to Obey the Roman Pontiff because they would hold his person Suspect or, because of Widespread Rumors, Doubtfully Elected"

    Pope Francis is tottering on the precipice of Hell. None of this means he isn't the pope, and such talk among the laity is scandalous in its own right. Not a single cardinal in that 2013 conclave has come out and said the election was rigged and Bergoglio isn't the pope, that he is in fact an anti-pope . If he is, a future pope can declare that, when Jorge Bergoglio will no longer be a pope. But if the very men gathered in conclave haven't made that public accusation,  anyone who is suggesting that better take into account that they too will have to give an account of themselves to Almighty God when they die . Such talk adds to the scandal of the "little ones," the simple, even potential converts, who, when they hear big-mouth Catholics on social media saying he's not really the pope, draw back from approaching the Church. Do any of us desire to stand in front Our Blessed Lord as the Supreme Judge and explain why, in our desire for more c

The Nuremberg Trial-like Excuse which Cardinal Burke has so Staggeringly, so Stereotypically Proffered on the Promised “Formal Correction”

Does Cardinal Burke think Francis is an antipope? On at least five occasions, Cardinal Burke has rejected the magisterial nature of official papal teaching (in one case, pre-emptively dismissing a hypothetical official teaching of the Magisterium): Cardinal Burke has rejected the official teaching of Pope Francis in the new Apostolic Constitution Episcopalis Communio concerning the possibility that a pope can raise the final synodal document to the level of ordinary magisterium, if the pope chooses. (We covered the Episcopalis Communio here .) The whole apostolic constitution on the Synod is problematic. … This idea that either the Pope on his own or the Synod together with the Pope can create some new Magisterium [i.e. a new teaching of the ordinary Magisterium], is simply false. The Synod is a consultative body, to help the Pope to see how best to present the Church’s teaching in time. It’s not able to create ordinary Magisterium. As a canon lawyer, Cardinal Burk