AmericanPapist Comments
Too bad that Sr. Helen Perjury did not visit and speak with the victims of her pet murderers.
I believe that Bishop James Patrick Shannon, auxiliary of St. Paul and Minneapolis, was "laicized." I know he resigned from his position in 1968 and married a year later. He claimed later to be a practicing Catholic, so I presume his resignation was accepted in some form.
Dangerous presmuptions, Tim. I have heard conflicting versions of his status. The normally reliable Catholic Hierachy site simply has him listed as "resigned", but not as "layman", as it does for Lugo. Anyway, I'd like some evidence besides Shannon's. Does some one have some, perhaps?
All that I have is anecdotal and second-hand, but a priest from St. Paul whom I know, a very solid fellow, told another priest friend of mine (also solid), that he used to visit Shannon in his waning years, and he said that Shannon regretted the controversy his actions took. This priest gave the impression that Shannon's canonical situation was regularized.
I suppose whatever documentation there might be on the situation is sealed.
I believe Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand, Bishop of
Autun in France during the revolution, was laicized
by Pope Pius VII . However, it is likely that the
crafty Prince read more into the Pope's letter than
was intended by Rome.
Again, I only find evidence of T's ordination to priesthood, and an "appointment" to a bishopric, held but a few weeks, and later an excommunication. The burden remains on the affirmative here.
Mr.Peters, I am puzzled by your post. It is a matter
of record that M. de Talleyrand was consecrated
Bishop of Autun 16 January 1789 and first visited his diocese 12 March 1789, celebrating Pontificial
High Mass at his cathederal later that month. On
2 April of that year he was elected deputy of the
clergy from the bailliage of Autun -- to the States
General which was to convene that May. His was no
quasi-legal "appointment" lasting only a few weeks
as you suggest. He was undoubtably consecrated
a bishop. It was at the States General that his activities led him afoul of Rome and he was excom-
municated after consecrating bishops appointed by
the revolutionary government without Rome's fiat.
He resigned his bishopric in January 1791. Years
later, as Foreign Minister under Napoleon, he
engineered the Concordat between France and
Rome. It was at this time that the Emperor ap-
proached the Pope about regularizing the position
of his minister. The Pope responded with a letter
permitting Talleyrand to wear lay clothes and to
continue to serve in the French government. Both
the Emperor and his minister construed the letter
to mean that Talleyrand was now laicized -- and
shortly thereafter he married his mistress in both
civil and religious ceremonies. I've not read the
text of the letter Pius VII sent, but as I suggested
before, I think that both Napoleon and the former
Bishop of Autun were reading what they wanted
into it. Perhaps a canon lawyer is better able to make that call. It is interesting and edifying that
many years later, a widower and on his deathbed,
Prince Talleyrand instructed the abbe' administer-
ing the Last Rites to remember that he was a Bishop
and thus to anoint not the palms, but the backs of
his hands. He died reconciled with Holy Mother
Church.
My post isn't puzzling, it's a question. Where can we find evidence of T's consecration as bishop? It's a question, not a challenge. As I said (here or elsewhere, I forget) no one likes to have to prove negative. Every "case" that has come up (as preceding Lugo's) has been shown not in fact to be an episcopal consecration. I'd be happy to learn of one that did take place, if it did. You seem well informed. Can you point me to a source? Best, edp.
Hmmm. Might T's have been a case of "lay communion", as a punishment for crime, as opposed to what is miscalled "laicization" today, a voluntary request like Lugo's? See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/...then/
09093b.htm. Anyway, the law today is different, and we still have no clear cases of return to the lay state among BISHOPS after Vatcian I, do we? Don't get me wrong, I think such should be imposed MORE often, not less, but my question was about the facts, not my preferences. Milingo seems ripe for dismissal, for example.
We can find evidence of M. de Talleyrand's conse-
cration in any number of sources--Duff Cooper's
biography "Talleyrand" and J.F. Bernard's 1973 bio-
graphy are two reliable sources in English. Bernard's work has a fine bibliography to point
you to many helpful primary sources. Any well-
stocked public library should have one or both of
the books. Talleyrand's memoirs were last pub-
lished in English over 100 years ago, but if you
read French, the new edition came out in 1957. I
avoid online sources like Wikipedia as I feel that
they are unreliable. At any rate I have never read
of a historian doubt the validity of Talleyrand's
episcopal consecration. As to the "lay communion"
question, I've only seen it referred to in connection
with Talleyrand in the online version of the Catholic
Encyclopedia. In fact, Talleyrand's situation seems
to be one not so much of "lay communion" as of
"no communion". Bernard's biography relates how
the prince supported Catholic charities and religious houses and attended Mass dutifully.
However, he had the honesty (alas, all to rare in the
politicians of our own day) to respect the gravity of
his situation vis-a-vis the Church. For decades,
he did not dare approach the Sacraments until his
deathbed submission to Rome and subsequent
Confession, Anointing, and final Communion.
Interesting. Quite. So, will these sources say that T was indeed "laicized", which is our original question? Not to make you look for it, but besides the ole "burden being on the affirmative", it's not a project I can add just now. Avoiding the sacraments seems the (correct) act of one whose status has NOT been regularized, no? Best, edp.
There is a great deal of information available on the
life of Talleyrand, Mr. Peters. If you are indeed in-
terested in knowing if he was laicized I think that
I've given you a fair start in the right direction. As
I stated earlier, a canon lawyer would know better
than I what conditions must be fulfilled. Perhaps
Rome was deliberately ambiguous. Perhaps the
principals all read what they wanted into the doc-
uments. We know that the French governments of
Napoleon I, of Louis XVIII, of Charles X and of Louis
Philippe all believed him to be laicized. He was
married in both civil and Catholic ceremonies after
his alleged laicization. I know of no clarification
concerning the matter to have been issued by Rome. If the Vatican had protested that it had been
misunderstood it was so discreetly as to have been
lost to any historian I've read. You wonder if the
fact that M. de Talleyrand did not approach the
Sacraments for decades does not imply that he
knew his laicization to be fiction. However, he'd
been excommunicated a dozen years prior to his
putative laicization, and his excommunication was
not lifted until four hours before his death.
I would like to thank Thomas Peters for being an
indulgent host. Examining the fascinating case of
M. de Talleyrand in the detail it deserves is not the
mission of this fine blog and I've no wish to abuse
the hospitality I've received. This is my final post
on this thread.
Merci beaucoup! A bientot.
Commenting by HaloScan
