Robert Fastiggi and Dawn Eden Goldstein have
done me the honour of a reply, at some length, to my post, in my comments
box. I want to take this as seriously as possible, so I paste it in below, in full, in
bold, with my replies to each point.
Dear Dr. Shaw,
Dr. Dawn Eden Goldstein and I wish to thank you
for your tone of civility. We hope to reply with equal civility regarding your
post: “A Challenge for Fastiggi and Goldstein.”
Thank you.
Our points of response are the following:
1. You are correct that “impressions” are subjective. Our point, however, is that
your subjective impressions regarding papal words and actions are not shared by
all. In justice there is always a need to determine what people mean before
making judgments of potential heresy. When the Congregation for the Doctrine of
the Faith examines cases of possible heresy, it follows strict norms of
procedure in order to insure justice for the one accused (See CDF, Regulations
for Doctrinal Examination, Ratio Agendi May 30, 1997; AAS 89 [1997] 830–835).
If so much care is given to the examination of individual theologians before
making judgments of heresy, should not the same be extended to the Roman
Pontiff? Canon law tells us: “The First See is judged by no one” (CIC [1983] canon 1404).