Daniel Quinan

Seldom Affirm. Never Deny. Always Distinguish. “Who is more foolish: the fool, or the fool who retweets him?” TAC 2010, CUA-JCL 2014

[Daniel Quinan @masterjedi747]

@canonlawyered get on my level

[Daniel Quinan @masterjedi747]

@not_so_gratian case in further point: in context even THAT citation isn’t a slam-dunk “Aquinas teaches this” proof-text, but merely a premise (“it seems”) used in the course of a building different argument

also a whole lot embedded in claiming “earthly friendship” vs “spiritual friendship”

[Daniel Quinan @masterjedi747]

@father_rmv @Melody31Cecilia at the same time, I think it would also be beneficial to push back on claims like “abomination” and “desecration”, which overstate the case far too aggressively
there’s a big difference between “certainly illicit” and “nefas est”

[Daniel Quinan @masterjedi747]

@TomCrowe @jdflynn @quantumking_ @RejoiceCC yeah, we've done a terrible job explaining this!

but I think the key is: Fridays are penitential, as distinct from any specific penance being required on Fridays

so we do fall back on "each in his or her own way, to do penance" (with non-binding recommendations), but

[Daniel Quinan @masterjedi747]

@RejoiceCC @BCSWowbagger no – I understand what you’re saying, but this whole “technically required” framing is just bad legalism

our legal system explicitly recognizes custom as a source of law: and the custom (for c.277 with deacons, and for c.1251 in the USA) is quite clear

also, this isn’t nothing:

[Daniel Quinan @masterjedi747]

@TomCrowe @jdflynn @quantumking_ @RejoiceCC abstinence not being specifically required is a distraction: c. 1249 still mandates how we are to approach days of penance

“under pain of sin” not being specifically stated is distraction: absent some excuse, all deliberate disobedience to the law is a form of sin, however minor

[Daniel Quinan @masterjedi747]

@TomCrowe @jdflynn @quantumking_ @RejoiceCC late to this, but: the problem is that you’re laser focused on c. 1251 alone

c. 1249 tells us what we are to do on days of penance

c. 1250 tells us Fridays are days of penance

deliberately doing absolutely nothing penitential = disobedience to c. 1249

disobedience = sin ✅

[Daniel Quinan @masterjedi747]

I am irrationally happy with this design, like almost to the point of being mad it’s 2026 and (seemingly) no other bishops’ conference in history ever decided to hire a graphic designer who could have figured this out? A+ simple geometry and use of negative space, 10/10 no notes.

[Daniel Quinan @masterjedi747]

@LGDylanMcKay @WashArchdiocese @PetriOP I can only assume you didn’t even try to click on the link

[O’Shea Jackson Jr @OsheaJacksonJr]

I saw it. Now you have to see it. His name is Samuel. And he…is a king.

[Daniel Quinan @masterjedi747]

@OurLadyofAntifa wait, I think I want THIS to be my Patronus?

[Daniel Quinan @masterjedi747]

@chesterbelloc3 @PWFAM1724 The answer is absolutely yes, and that’s at least half the reason there’s particularly nothing earth-shattering about this. The Pope is letting the Dicastery authorize (or decline to authorize!) the bishop to make this decision, which can still be appealed.

[Daniel Quinan @masterjedi747]

@hf_222222 Well, I think it’s a bit more than that? There’s a deeper shift toward non-violence (turning the other cheek) even as a sort of Christian *obligation*, while refusing to condemn retributive violence as “unjust”. Even if an eye for an eye is just, we are obliged to do better, etc.

[Daniel Quinan @masterjedi747]

@cath_menarion @jdflynn So any *unreasonable* restriction would be manifestly unjust, not in accord with the nature of law, and thus not binding. So “X sacrament cannot be validly celebrated on Mondays” would not actually be able to get off the ground. This doesn’t save the theory, but it helps a lot.

[Daniel Quinan @masterjedi747]

@cath_menarion @jdflynn FWIW, the last time I myself wandered down this theoretical path – which I have since abandoned – I would have said: the inevitable restriction is (as it always must be in law) “an ordinance of reason” (directed in this case to the salvation of souls).

[Daniel Quinan @masterjedi747]

@JeffCassman @BackwardsFeet

[Daniel Quinan @masterjedi747]

@JeffCassman @BackwardsFeet My dude. I am about as “all in” on Aquinas as one can get, and this is laughable.
Aquinas frequently relied upon ancient biology and cosmology, and so is – indisputably –“outdated” in those respects.
The weapons of war available to us today are also wildly different, ∴ etc.

[Daniel Quinan @masterjedi747]

@CatholicPods @JLLiedl there’s no way this is correct as stated, otherwise it would lead to saying that the persons of the Trinity lack real unity

but go ahead, explain how men and women are in any meaningful sense remotely unequal *without* falling back on Aristotelian biology

[Daniel Quinan @masterjedi747]

@BigBlobApe @BackwardsFeet @saturnine_grace I mean, right, that’s the charitable interpretation

but then the entire gotcha just… evaporates, upon affirming that an intrinsically evil act can never (by definition) be blessed/sanctified

if the act can be good, under any circumstances, then it’s not intrinsically evil

[Daniel Quinan @masterjedi747]

@MLJHaynes "and we are only its guardians”

[Daniel Quinan @masterjedi747]

@jdflynn @msirilla1 fun fact: Fr. Murray does not seem to find this complicated, actually
https://t.co/Zjgcfdoo5G

[Michael Haynes 🇻🇦 @MLJHaynes]

Fr Murray argues that the argument of “grave necessity cannot be asserted” in light of the Holy See’s offer to continue dialogue with the @SSPXEN & the existence of the traditional orders for those seeking to be traditional priests.

Via @JoeDMcClane