Why laypeople should not quote Canon Law

In my role as a moderator on christianity.stackexchange.com, I see a lot of interesting interpretations of the Bible.  I've been introduced to more forms of creationism and varied types of predestination than a Catholic man is apt to benefit from. But what gets my goat the most is Catholic laypeople who cite the Codes of Canon Law in attempt to answer questions of faith. 

Most people do not preface their answer with the perfunctory IANA(Canon)L, they just assume that because it is written clearly and concisely that it can be applied to a particular situation.

For instance, if I were to ask the question:

Can blind men be ordained priests?

and you were cite Can. 930 §2 answering:

A blind or otherwise infirm priest licitly celebrates the eucharistic sacrifice by using any approved text of the Mass with the assistance, if needed, of another priest, deacon, or even a properly instructed lay person.

Did you answer my question?  No, you just found something in the Code of Canon Law tangentially applicable to the question at hand.  This answer is about consecration, which, obviously is a chief duty of priests - although not one that all ordained men do.  There are examples of blind priests to choose from: there a blind men who have been ordained to the priesthood and there are men who have become blind after being ordained. The Canon Law citation is certainly more applicable to men who become blind.  Special cases, like the ordination of blind men, are just not in canon law.

Another question one might ask:

Can the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass be celebrated if wine was not available?

And you get an answer citing Can. 927.

It is absolutely forbidden, even in extreme urgent necessity, to consecrate one matter without the other or even both outside the eucharistic celebration

It’s probably true, that the Mass cannot be celebrated without wine, but this isn’t the answer to this question.  It’s just saying that consecration cannot take place outside of the Mass. That’s what the “outside the eucharistic celebration” part means.

Lastly, and fairly relevant, as this apparently happened a month ago:

Can the Pope concelebrate the Mass without vestments?

And you answer, citing Can. 929

In celebrating and administering the Eucharist, priests and deacons are to wear the sacred vestments prescribed by the rubrics.

Unfortunately, this too is insufficient: It references priests and deacons rather than popes or bishops; it says “celebrating” not concelebrating; and it says “administering” when there are certainly extra-ordinary ministers of Holy Communion who violate this canon daily. 

The point is, leave Canon Law to the Canon Lawyers; Use the Catechism to answer questions.

A question like “Can a blind man be ordained a priest?” answered from the Catechism, more-or-less overlooks the question of blindness, because it is, frankly irrelevant to the pastoral duties priests undertake.  The Catechism says (1579) that in the Latin Church, priests are chosen from celibate men of faith. The infirmities that prevent ordination are lust and doubt.

And “Can Mass be celebrated without wine?”.   If Mass were celebrated without wine, then the words of Christ in the Mass would be rather empty.  The Catechism says (1365) that the words of institution (of the Eucharist) are “This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood”.  An empty cup would not a Mass make.

And lastly, “Can the Pope concelebrate the Mass without vestments?” this question is entirely prudential, not for a layperson to worry about in terms of Canon Law, who is going to indict the Pope?  The catechism has surprisingly little to say about liturgical dress, but it does say something about the dress of the laity, that we our dress should convey respect, solemnity and joy of the moment when Christ comes to be our guest (1387).  Clearly, people who want to seize yet another opportunity to criticize Pope Francis are going to be apt to do this.  Laypeople, might be confused however, and think he’s wearing street clothes rather than not a chasuble.  Adding confusion to matters of faith is what citing Canon Law does and this, is all I ask we try to avoid.