![]() Soon-ho is a former human rights lawyers forced to chase the pay checks of defense work to cover his father’s debts and is assigned a murder case. Jung Woo-sung plays Soon-ho, a talented but morally conflicted defense lawyer, while Kim Hyang-gi takes on the role of Ji-woo, the atypical teen with a fierce intellect but severe social anxiety owing to her autism. That's what is unique about this sacrament.INNOCENT WITNESS (2019) Lee Han Emotionally charged courtroom drama comes alive with two outstanding lead performances The odd couple pairing of the ambitious defense lawyer and autistic schoolgirl combine in Innocent Witness to great effect thanks to the performances which punctuate this feel-good drama. Even an atheist or a pagan could baptize someone. You don't need a priest or a deacon, except that they know the right words. Because, actually, anyone and everyone can baptize. Oh yeah, and if you want a "fake priest" to baptize your baby, that will totally work. It would've probably been someone who knew all the right words and actions that could've put on a convincing act for these workers (I assume they were probably mostly Latino Catholics here and that's why they were scammed in this manner.) I am glad that the Diocese of Sacramento has promptly released a statement disavowing knowledge that's doing the right thing. I am betting that their "fake priest" was or is a Catholic priest of some kind, but possibly schismatic or laicized. ![]() If the priest is laicized, or excommunicated, or schismatic, or simply visiting another territory and hasn't procured faculties from the ordinary, he lacks jurisdiction. A priest without jurisdiction is definitely faking confessions. Jurisdiction is conferred by the bishop of a place and priests carry a celebret indicating that they hold faculties to do such things as celebrate Mass, preach homilies, hear confessions, perform baptisms, etc. The reason is that absolution (forgiveness in the confessional) requires jurisdiction. However, a "fake priest" cannot validly absolve people of their sins in any case. So, there are possibilities when it comes to marriage. However, if the priest does observe canonical form, it is possible that the couple does validly marry, because the priest is merely a witness to the marriage: the couple are the actual ministers of the sacrament when they freely exchange consent. So if the priest won't observe canonical form, the couple ends up with an invalid wedding, which means they aren't married at all, but cohabiting. Because Catholics are required to observe "proper form" which means we must marry in the context of a Mass, or get a dispensation. This, however, may not confer the legitimate Catholic marriage that they were hoping for. If the couple is unhappy with the way their legitimate Catholic parish is handling things (9 months prep is too long, too expensive, won't let them sing "Imagine", requires bridesmaids to cover their shoulders, won't do ceremony on the beach) then the couple can easily contact an "independent" Catholic priest who has all the bona fides (or not such priests may have been laicized or excommunicated) and who will happily accommodate their every need, for a price. Now, "fake priests" can often be hired to solemnize weddings. This is an interesting quandary for officials of the Catholic Church. But don't start whining when the other stuff gets worse. ![]() There are tradeoffs here, and if punitive justice is something you absolutely must have, then go for it. Hell, maybe that's even an excuse, and it was always deliberate. Or the punch on the mechanical time clock is bent, and shaving 5 minutes from the start of everyone's shift. Rhonda in payroll keys in a wrong number somewhere, and you're getting the $8/month deduction for hemorrhoid insurance without actually getting that insurance. And while I have no inclination to give the benefit of the doubt to a place that hires a fake priest to give confession about skimming the till, it's not that difficult for such a thing to be an administrative error. This was nickeled-and-dimed, likely for years. ![]() It's not as if someone subtracted $140k off of one guy's single paycheck. But because it's an employer stealing from their employees it's being treated as more of an administrative error than a great crime. It's the social construction of crime thing.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |