2008-04-24

Denunziation | Denunciation

A. Paul Weber, Der Denunziant (1934/1947)

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Denunciation

Denunciation (Latin denunciare) is making known the crime of another to one who is his superior. The employment of denunciation has its origin in the Scriptures. Christ ordains (Matthew 18:15-17), "If thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee thou shalt gain thy brother. And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican". As the object of this denunciation was the bettering of one's neighbour, by admonition, not vindictive punishment, it has received the name of charitable or evangelical denunciation. The term paternal correction is also applied to it.

After the Church had obtained an official status before the world, it built up a process of criminal law, and judicial denunciation took the place of evangelical. The difference consists in this, that the judicial declaration is made not merely for the reformation, but also for the punishment of the guilty person. By ordinary process of law, it is an accuser who evokes the dormant power of the judge. If the charge be false, such accuser is obliged to sustain the punishment that would have been inflicted on the guilty party. In modern ecclesiastical law proceedings, however, this law of reprisals has gone into desuetude, and in diocesan courts the promotor fiscalis takes the place of the accuser. The difference between the accuser and denouncer is that the latter does not assume the obligation of proving the charge which he brings, and so is not amenable to the law of risks or retaliation. To avoid, however, the multiplication of unfounded charges, a denouncer whose accusation can not be proved, is ordinarily suspended from his benefice and dignities until it is made manifest that his denunciation did not proceed from malice. If the person denounced be declared judicially innocent of the crime laid to him, then the denouncer must make oath that he acted in good faith in bringing the charges. It is allowed to the denouncer to appear also as a witness in the trial. The person denounced is, by that very fact, considered to have suffered in his good name and as a consequence he becomes incapable for a year of receiving any sacred order or benefice, unless he be found innocent. It is to be remarked that denunciation is not supposed to take place until private admonitions have been tried fruitlessly. Denunciation in the strict sense of the law has practically gone in into desuetude, and its place is taken by a simple statement to a superior who has the right of proceeding canonically against delinquents, without subjecting the informer to the obligations incumbent on denouncers.

There is a special obligation imposed by a decree of the Holy Office to denounce heretics, magicians, those who have abused the Sacrament of Penance (see SOLICITATION) and others guilty of similar crimes to the Inquisition (see INQUISITION). Where Catholics, however, live in places where they are mixed with heretics, they are not bound to denounce the latter. The term denunciation is also applied to matters connected with the Sacrament of Matrimony (see BANNS). Finally, as to the obligation of denouncing transgressors, every person is bound to do so, when he can fulfil the duty without grave detriment to himself and with corresponding utility to society or individuals. In certain cases only, is denunciation strictly prescribed, as in those relating to matrimonial impediments, to abuse of the confessional, and to the names of leaders of secret societies.

Source: www.newadvent.org/cathen/04733b.htm

Denunziation in Deutschland 1933 bis 1955

Mit Denunziation in Deutschland 1933 bis 1955 beschäftigte sich in den vergangenen vier Jahren ein Wissenschaftlerteam um Professorin Dr. Inge Marszolek vom Institut für Regional- und Sozialgeschichte der Universität Bremen. Im Verlauf des Projekts wurden drei unterschiedliche Gesellschaftsformen untersucht (Nationalsozialismus, DDR-Regime, Bundesrepublik Deutschland) und dabei die Situation im Nationalsozialismus mit der in der unmittelbaren Nachkriegszeit verglichen - in den Regionen Thüringen (Erfurt/Weimar) und Nordwestdeutschland (Stade/Osnabrück).
Klatsch und Denunziation sind eng miteinander verwobene Kommunikationsprozesse, die häufig der Ausgrenzung Einzelner dienen. Die Denunziation zeichnet dabei die Besonderheit aus, dass sie an eine übergeordnete Instanz ergeht, von der Sanktionen gegen die Betroffenen erwartet werden. Dabei kann Denunziation aber auch ganz gezielt Mittel zum Zweck staatlicher Informationsbeschaffung sein und dabei so unterschiedlichen Zwecken dienen wie der Entnazifizierung in den Ost- und Westzonen Nachkriegsdeutschlands oder der "Volkskontrolle" beim Aufbau einer neuen Gesellschaft in der DDR.
Spannend für die Bremer Forscher war herauszufinden, wie sich diesbezüglich der Übergang von einer Diktatur in die nächste gestaltet. [...]
Ein die Gesellschaftsformen übergreifendes Reservoir denunziatorischen Potenzials scheint von den tradierten Vorstellungen abweichendes Sexualverhalten gewesen zu sein. Nicht selten treten in den Quellen auch Neid und Rachegefühle als Motive für Denunziation zu Tage, die dann als gesellschaftspolitisches oder gar staatserhaltendes Anliegen verbrämt wird.
"Die Ergebnisse des Projektes stellen erste Bausteine für eine Kulturgeschichte von Denunziation im zwanzigsten Jahrhundert dar", meint Inge Marszolek. Der historische Vergleich verdeutliche die Vielfalt menschlicher Strategien, sich in den politischen Kräftefeldern zu behaupten, diese in eigenem Interesse zu nutzen und zu verändern. Er zeigt, dass unterschiedliche gesellschaftliche Umfelder verschiedene Muster denunziatorischen Verhaltens hervorbringen, verweist aber auch auf die gesellschaftspolitische Verantwortung im Umgang mit Denunziation.

Quelle: www.pm-magazin.de/de/wissensnews/wn_id348.htm

A. Paul Weber, Das Gerücht (1943/53)

2008-04-19

Jeff Zervas: Galactic Government

These days it seems, almost everyone wants to nurse at the breast of big government. Even “right wingers,” “conservatives,” and Republicans have devolved so far towards socialism that they crave their security blankets just as their “opposites” cry for the nipple. Either way, nowadays big government is on the menu, front, back, up, down, right, left and center.

If big government is the antiflatulent of disorder, and if bigger is often better, let me propose Galactic Government. This seems appropriate since the universe, like a politician’s skull and nether parts, is a vast void partially filled with gases. Actually, for my tastes, the thought is as welcome as a bad case of lactose intolerance. But let’s toy with the idea, if not the mammary, at least before drinking to it!

I mean, why not?

I often claim that the world would be better off without the U.S. government. As with most useful and slightly unconventional ideas, that one‘s tolerated like sour milk down the windpipe. That suggestion usually qualifies me as the beneficiary of some sort of pithy, insightful advice such as, “Get real.” If my evaluator is really incisive, and a deep thinker, I’m called a thumb-sucking commie or some other such creative adjective. Actually, I’ve never had “thumb-sucking” appended to “commie,” but it sounds good. I had to think that up my own self, for emphasis. And to stimulate ideational lactation.

In any case, no one should ever tell me to “get real” because that starts me thinking, and the ideas begin flowing like mother’s milk. Well, maybe at least like liebfrauenmilch. Or, as some would no doubt suggest, like a diaper’s contents.

Anyway, here’s my question. If big government is good, why isn’t bigger government better? If we need a national government, then why don’t we need a continental one? Or an inter-continental one? (I don't even want to begin thinking about an incontinental one!)

Anyway, why do we stop with the concept of a national government? Why not create a government that covers the whole continent? Why not the United Countries of North America? But why halt here? Why not the United Continents of the Western Hemisphere? What the heck, why be satisfied with that? How about a Planet Earth Governing Body? Or a Solar System one. Or a Milky Way government? Or something bigger and better?

We could call it the Universal Galactic Government. The possibilities, and everything else, are limitless. Every creature, great and small, the young as well as the old, Earthlings, Martians, and Plutonians would be suckled and shielded from cradle to grave. Even Cassiopeians, and those witless, though straight shooting, Sagittarians. No creature would ever have to work or find food, seek shelter, look both ways when crossing the stars, or even think. All our needs, wants, and desires would be effortlessly provided for. Milk chocolate bon-bons would outnumber the stars!

No one would have to grow up and take care of himself!

We would, one and all, be nurtured and protected by the great galactic government. All it'd have to do is tax the Universe and provide ice cream and butter for everyone!
Universal Galactic Government. UGG. What a crackpot idea. Maybe I’m losing it. Or just feeling a little bloated!

Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal

Source

2008-04-07

2008-04-02