Abortion: Sin Or Crime?
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Preamble. His Excellency. Most Reverend Dom. Carlos Duarte
Preamble. His Excellency. Most Reverend Dom. Carlos Duarte Costa was consecrated as the Roman Catholic Diocesan Bishop of Botucatu in Brazil on December !" #$%&" until certain views he expressed about the treatment of the Brazil’s poor, by both the civil (overnment and the Roman Catholic Church in Brazil caused his removal from the Diocese of Botucatu. His Excellency was subsequently named as punishment as *itular bishop of Maurensi by the late Pope Pius +, of the Roman Catholic Church in #$-.. His Excellency, Most Reverend /ord Carlos Duarte Costa had been a strong advocate in the #$-0s for the reform of the Roman Catholic Church" he challenged many of the 1ey issues such as • Divorce" • challenged mandatory celibacy for the clergy, and publicly stated his contempt re(arding. 2*his is not a theological point" but a disciplinary one 3 Even at this moment in time in an interview with 4ermany's Die 6eit magazine the current Bishop of Rome" Pope Francis is considering allowing married priests as was in the old time including lets not forget married bishops and we could quote many Bishops" Cardinals and Popes over the centurys prior to 8atican ,, who was married. • abuses of papal power, including the concept of Papal ,nfallibility, which the bishop considered a mis(uided and false dogma. His Excellency President 4et9lio Dornelles 8argas as1ed the Holy :ee of Rome for the removal of His Excellency Most Reverend Dom. Carlos Duarte Costa from the Diocese of Botucatu. *he 8atican could not do this directly. 1 | P a g e *herefore the Apostolic Nuncio to Brazil entered into an agreement with the :ecretary of the Diocese of Botucatu to obtain the resi(nation of His Excellency, Most Reverend /ord. -
Resolutions to Censure the President: Procedure and History
Resolutions to Censure the President: Procedure and History Updated February 1, 2021 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R45087 Resolutions to Censure the President: Procedure and History Summary Censure is a reprimand adopted by one or both chambers of Congress against a Member of Congress, President, federal judge, or other government official. While Member censure is a disciplinary measure that is sanctioned by the Constitution (Article 1, Section 5), non-Member censure is not. Rather, it is a formal expression or “sense of” one or both houses of Congress. Censure resolutions targeting non-Members have utilized a range of statements to highlight conduct deemed by the resolutions’ sponsors to be inappropriate or unauthorized. Before the Nixon Administration, such resolutions included variations of the words or phrases unconstitutional, usurpation, reproof, and abuse of power. Beginning in 1972, the most clearly “censorious” resolutions have contained the word censure in the text. Resolutions attempting to censure the President are usually simple resolutions. These resolutions are not privileged for consideration in the House or Senate. They are, instead, considered under the regular parliamentary mechanisms used to process “sense of” legislation. Since 1800, Members of the House and Senate have introduced resolutions of censure against at least 12 sitting Presidents. Two additional Presidents received criticism via alternative means (a House committee report and an amendment to a resolution). The clearest instance of a successful presidential censure is Andrew Jackson. The Senate approved a resolution of censure in 1834. On three other occasions, critical resolutions were adopted, but their final language, as amended, obscured the original intention to censure the President. -
The Subjective Element of Crime: a Comparison Between Ecclesiastical, and Belgian Criminal Law
The Subjective Element of Crime: a Comparison between Ecclesiastical, and Belgian Criminal Law Word count: 36,697 Raphael Maesschalck Student number: 01204319 Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Jan Verplaetse Co-supervisor: Prof. Dr. Tom Vander Beken A dissertation submitted to Ghent University in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Laws Academic year: 2017 - 2018 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS — DUTCH Een woord van dank gaat uit naar: - Mijn promotor, Prof. dr. Jan Verplaetse, wiens ideeën mij lieten durven denken, voor het interessante onderwerp; - Dr. William Richardson, voor het aanreiken van een literatuurlijst, het beantwoorden van mijn (vele) chaotische vragen en het ter beschikking stellen van verhelderende inzichten tijdens onze gesprekken; - Prof. em. dr. Ruud Huysmans, voor het delen zijn expertise en visie en de tijd die hij daarvoor vrijmaakte; - Mr. Eric De Wilde, voor het mij wegwijs maken in het doolhof van de bijzondere faculteit kerkelijk recht te Leuven en het gebruikelijke kopje koffie; - Mr. Philippe Tobback, niet alleen voor het ter beschikking stellen van een geairconditioneerde werkplaats in de moordende zomerhitte, maar vooral voor alle steun en hulp die mij steeds opnieuw werd aangeboden; - Dr. Nigel Coles, mr. Martin Jones en mr. Nils Van Damme, voor het nalezen dit werk; - Mijn vader, voor de economische en morele steun; - En tenslotte mijn moeder, voor veel meer dan dat wat een louter dankwoord verdient. !2 !3 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS — DUTCH____________________________________ 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS______________________________________________ 4 GENERAL INTRODUCTION___________________________________________ 7 CHAPTER I: Introduction to the Legal and Institutional Frameworks____________ 9 1 The Church and Ecclesiastical Criminal Law.................................................................. 9 1.1 The Church as a Spiritual and Governing Institution.............................................. -
Censure of Board Members Policy Code: 2118
Censure of Board Members Policy Code: 2118 It is the policy of the Board of Education that all Board members conduct themselves in a professional manner and in accordance with the Code of Ethics adopted by the Board. A "censure" under this policy is the process by which the Board of Education, acting by a two-thirds majority vote (i.e. five affirmative votes), can reprimand or condemn the actions of a member for any violation of law or policy or any other conduct committed by a Board member which tends to injure the good name of the Buncombe County Board of Education and/or undermines the effectiveness of the Buncombe County Schools or the Board of Education. A censure is an expression of formal disapproval by the Board. The Board, in addition to or in lieu of censure, may vote to 1) ask the member to resign or 2) refer possible misconduct by a Board member to the District Attorney as provided by law and/or 3) issue the Board member an official warning regarding future conduct. The Board of Education does not have the legal authority to remove a Board member from office. Therefore, any legal consequences or punitive sanctions related to a Board member’s actions shall be in accordance with applicable law and shall be separate and distinct from any censure proceeding under this Policy. In the event that a member of the Board of Education believes that a fellow Board member should be formally censured by the Board, the following protocol shall apply: 1) All Board proceedings related to a censure motion, with the exception of the disclosure of confidential information as permitted by the Open Meetings Law, shall be conducted in an open meeting. -
Canonlaw No.1No.1
CATHOLICS FOR A FREE CHOICE CATHOLICSCATHOLICS ANDAND ABORTIONABORTION NOTES ON CANONLAW NO.1NO.1 If you are interested in this subject, you might also be interested in the following CFFC publications on Catholics and reproductive choice: • You Are Not Alone—Information for Catholic Women about the Abortion Decision • Reflections of a Catholic Theologian on Visiting an Abortion Clinic, by Daniel C. Maguire • The Facts Tell the Story: Catholics and Choice For order information, please call +1 (202) 986-6093 or visit the publications section of our webpage www.catholicsforchoice.org 1 INTRODUCTION Canon law, the Catholic church’s internal law, is a subject most Catholics think they will never need to study. However, the hotly debated and politically polarized issue of abortion has resulted in substantial public assertions about canon law and abortion, both in the case of women who have had abortions and Catholic legislators and activists who have favored legal abortion. Everyone is an expert, claiming that prochoice Catholics are “heretics” or have been “excommunicated” because they have had an abortion or have supported legal abortion. Such finger pointing may be politically useful, but it is not an honest way to deal with differences of belief about abortion. What does the church’s law really say about abortion? We have produced this pamphlet to explain the basics of canon law as it relates to abortion and to clarify what church punishments apply and when they apply. Whether you are a woman who has had an abortion, a doctor who has performed an abortion, a clinic escort, a prochoice legislator, or an interested “person in the pew,” we hope this publication will help you. -
An Examination of the Call to Censure the President
S. HRG. 109–524 AN EXAMINATION OF THE CALL TO CENSURE THE PRESIDENT HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION MARCH 31, 2006 Serial No. J–109–66 Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary ( U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 28–341 PDF WASHINGTON : 2006 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:36 Aug 16, 2006 Jkt 028341 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\28341.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts JON KYL, Arizona JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware MIKE DEWINE, Ohio HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin JOHN CORNYN, Texas CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois TOM COBURN, Oklahoma MICHAEL O’NEILL, Chief Counsel and Staff Director BRUCE A. COHEN, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director (II) VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:36 Aug 16, 2006 Jkt 028341 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\28341.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC C O N T E N T S STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS Page Cornyn, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas .............................. -
Implementing Summorum Pontificum in the Diocese of Davenport
DIOCESE OF DAVENPORT Policies for Implementing Summorum Pontificum in the Diocese of Davenport These pages may be reproduced by parish and Diocesan staff for their use Policy promulgated at the Pastoral Center of the Diocese of Davenport–effective September 14, 2007 Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross Revised November 27, 2011 Revised October 15, 2012 Most Reverend Martin Amos Bishop of Davenport TABLE OF CONTENTS §IV-249 POLICIES FOR IMPLEMENTING SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM IN THE DIOCESE OF DAVENPORT: INTRODUCTION 1 §IV-249.1 THE ROLE OF THE BISHOP 2 §IV-249.2 FACULTIES 3 §IV-249.3 REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CELEBRATION OF MASS 4 §IV-249.4 REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CELEBRATION OF THE OTHER SACRAMENTS AND RITES 6 §IV-249.5 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 6 APPENDICES Appendix A: Documentation Form 7 Appendix B: Resources 8 0 §IV-249 Policies for Implementing Summorum Pontificum in the Diocese of Davenport §IV-249 POLICIES IMPLEMENTING SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM IN THE DIOCESE OF DAVENPORT Introduction In the 1980s, Pope John Paul II established a way to allow priests with special permission to celebrate Mass and the other sacraments using the rites that were in use before Vatican II (the 1962 Missal, also called the Missal of John XXIII or the Tridentine Mass). Effective September 14, 2007, Pope Benedict XVI loosened the restrictions on the use of the 1962 Missal, such that the special permission of the bishop is no longer required. This action was taken because, as universal shepherd, His Holiness has a heart for the unity of the Church, and sees the option of allowing a more generous use of the Mass of 1962 as a way to foster that unity and heal any breaches that may have occurred after Vatican II. -
Media Information Brochure
Priestly Society of Saint Pius X MEDIA CourtesyINFOR of the UnitedMATION States of America BROCHUREDistrict Regarding the Withdrawal of the Excommunications for the 1988 Episcopal Consecrations THIS MEDIA BROCHURE INCLUDES: SSPX’s Official Statement Regarding the Withdrawal of the Excommunications Short history about the life of Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX Some facts about the 1988 excommunications The 1974 Declaration of Archbishop Lefebvre F SAIN Y O T T PI IE U C S O X S U N T I C T I E R D T I S S T A T E S D PRESS RELEASE FROM THE SUPERIOR GENERAL OF THE PRIESTLY SOCIETY OF SAINT PIUS X The excommunication of the bishops consecrat- ed by His Grace Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, on June 30, 1988, which had been declared by the Congregation for Bishops in a decree dated July 1, 1988, and which we had always contested, has been withdrawn by another decree mandated by Benedict XVI and issued by the same Congrega- tion on January 21, 2009. We express our filial gratitude to the Holy Father for this gesture which, beyond the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X, will benefit the whole Church. Our Society wishes to be always more able to help the pope to remedy the unprecedented crisis which presently shakes the Catholic world, and which Pope John Paul II had designated as a state of “silent apostasy.” Besides our gratitude towards the Holy Father and towards all those who helped him to make this courageous act, we are pleased that the decree of January 21 considers as necessary “talks” with the Holy See, talks which will enable the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X to explain the fundamental doctrinal reasons which it believes to be at the origin of the present difficulties of the Church. -
The Shakespeare List Is a Group of 1625 Words That Have Appeared on Past SAT/PSAT Tests
The Shakespeare List The Shakespeare List is a group of 1625 words that have appeared on past SAT/PSAT tests. Many of the words have appeared several times on past tests. This section lists the words in alphabetical order along with definitions, pronunciation guide, synonyms, antonyms, sentences, and derivatives. The definitions given here, sometimes the secondary meaning, are those used on past SAT/PSAT tests. For that reason, it is expedient to give the students these definitions that they are likely to be tested on, rather than have the students look the words up themselves in dictionaries and copy definitions of their choice. A pronunciation guide is a simplified method of indicating the pronunciation of words so that the student who is not familiar with phonetic symbols is not handicapped. The synonyms are included in this section as a prediction of words that may appear on future SAT/PSAT tests. If ETS, the creators of the SAT/PSAT, feels a particular word is important enough to put on the test, then perhaps they will also put the synonym of that word on future tests. The sentences were added to assist the student in seeing how the words are used in context The derivatives of the words are predictors of words on future tests. Often a variation of a word will appear on a test, so we want to expose the student to as many forms of the words as possible. Copyright 2005 © by Advanced Placement Strategies 197 Shakespeare List 1. a cappella ah cuh PEL luh without accompaniment by an instrument Synonyms >> Antonym >> accompanied The girl had to sing acappella when her piano accompanist did not appear at the audition. -
The Permission to Publish
THE PERMISSION TO PUBLISH A Resource for Diocesan and Eparchial Bishops on the Approvals Needed to Publish Various Kinds of Written Works Committee on Doctrine • United States Conference of Catholic Bishops The Permission to Publish A Resource for Diocesan and Eparchial Bishops on the Approvals Needed to Publish Various Kinds of Written Works Committee on Doctrine • United States Conference of Catholic Bishops The document The Permission to Publish: A Resource for Diocesan and Eparchial Bishops on the Approvals Needed to Publish Various Kinds of Written Works was developed as a resource by the Committee on Doctrine of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). It was reviewed by the committee chairman, Archbishop William J. Levada, and has been author- ized for publication by the undersigned. Msgr. William P. Fay General Secretary, USCCB Excerpts from the Code of Canon Law: New English Translation. Translation of Codex Iuris Canonici prepared under the auspices of the Canon Law Society of America, Washington, D.C. © 1998. Used with permission. Excerpts from the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches: New English Translation. Translation of Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium pre- pared under the auspices of the Canon Law Society of America, Washington, D.C. © 2001. Used with permission. First Printing, June 2004 ISBN 1-57455-622-3 Copyright © 2004, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Washington, D.C. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmit- ted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photo- copying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, with- out permission in writing from the copyright holder. -
2019 Constitution, Canons, and Rules of Order
CONSTITUTION & CANONS together with the Rules of Order OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN THE DIOCESE OF CALIFORNIA Adopted in Conventions 1850–2019 The Episcopal Church in the Diocese of California 1055 Taylor Street San Francisco, California 94108 Tel. (415) 673-5015 Fax (415) 673-9268 www.diocal.org The Rt. Rev. Marc Handley Andrus Eighth Bishop of California Constitution & Canons Prepared by the Committee on Canons of the Convention of The Episcopal Church in the Diocese of California Mr. Philip S. Boone, Esq., Vice Chancellor and Chair Prof. Margalynne Armstrong, Esq. The Rev. Paul Burrows Mr. Michael O. Glass, Esq. The Rev. Patricia Pearson Rules of Order Prepared by the Committee on Dispatch of Business of the Convention of The Episcopal Church in the Diocese of California The Rev. Ginger Strickland, Chair Mr. Matthew Burt Mr. David Frangquist, Secretary of the Convention Mr. Jeffrey Hookom Ms. Stephanie Martin Taylor The Rev. Eric Metoyer Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Constitution of The Episcopal Church in the Diocese of California ............................................................................... 11 Article I. The Title and Territory of the Diocese. ........................................................... 11 Article II. Acceding to the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church. ..................................................................................................................... 11 Article III. The Authority of the Diocese. ....................................................................... -
At the University of Dayton, 1960-67
SOULS IN THE BALANCE: THE “HERESY AFFAIR” AT THE UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON, 1960-67 Dissertation Submitted to The College of Arts and Sciences of the UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for The Degree Doctor of Philosophy in Theology by Mary Jude Brown UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON Dayton, Ohio December 2003 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. © Copyright by Mary J. Brown All rights reserved 2003 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPROVED BY: OC vj-cvcxv.c — Sandra Yocum Mize, Ph.D Dissertation Director Rev. James L. Heft, Ph.D. Ij Dissertation Reader William Portier, Ph.D. Dissertation Reader Anthony B. Smith, Ph.BT Dissertation Reader William Trollinger, ^n.D. Dissertation Reader ■ -* w Sandra Yocum Mize, Ph.D. Chair, Department of Religious Studies 11 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ABSTRACT SOULS IN THE BALANCE: THE “HERESY AFFAIR” AT THE UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON, 1960-67 Brown, Mary Jude University of Dayton, 2003 Director: Dr. Sandra Yocum Mize This dissertation examines the “Heresy Affair” at the University of Dayton, a series of events predominantly in the philosophy department that occurred when tensions between the Thomists and proponents of new philosophies reached crisis stage in fall 1966. The “Affair” culminated in a letter written by an assistant professor at Dayton to the Cincinnati archbishop, Karl J. Alter. In the letter, the professor cited a number of instances where “erroneous teachings” were “endorsed” or “openly advocated” by four faculty members. Concerned about the pastoral impact on the University of Dayton community, the professor asked the archbishop to conduct an investigation.