AmericanPapist Comments
I had read this at your father’s blog, very interesting.
However, in this letter the Congregation for Bishops sent to Msgr Lugo: http://www.episcopal.org.py/
comu...danotaalugo.htm Card. Re says the following:
“La reducción jurídica al estado laical viene concedida por el Papa a los diáconos por motivos graves, a los presbíteros por motivos gravísimos (cfr. can. 290 & 3), pero nunca a los Obispos, en cuanto la plenitud del sacerdocio recibido en la ordenación episcopal obliga en grado máximo a la fidelidad a Cristo y a la Iglesia por toda la vida, como también obliga a la coherencia con las obligaciones libremente asumidas en la ordenación presbiteral, y aún más en la ordenación episcopal.”
My translation, with my emphasis: “The juridical reduction to the lay state is granted by the pope to deacons for grave causes, to priests for most grave causes (cf. can. 290 § 3), but never to bishops, since the fullness of the Priesthood received in the episcopal ordination obliges in the highest degree to fidelity to Christ and to the Church for the entire life, as it also obliges to coherence with the obligations freely assumed in the priestly ordination, and even more so in the episcopal ordination.”
Wouldn’t this suggest that the removal of a bishop from the clerical state is in fact impossible? Of course, this letter of the Congregation can hardly bind the pope, but since it concerns this specific case it is surely not irrelevant.
I think it's a very valid observation, and have revised my post accordingly. Thanks.
This Reuters report provides some brief statements from the Paraguayan Bishops' conference and seems to indicate that given the unprecedented nature of the matter, it will have to be decided by the Supreme Pontiff.
While it's rather sad (to put it mildly) that this Bishop abandoned his ministry to pursue politics, no matter how sincere his intentions ("to serve the poor?" And isn't episcopal ordination analogous, at least metaphorically, to marriage?), I am sure there are a lot of delicacies in this case, given that he will be the head of a state that has relations with the Holy See, in a largely Catholic country that has elected him and so on.
It really will be interesting to see how this pans out.
(Warning, the Reuters report also decided to quote Fr. Thomas Reese SJ :))
Didn't there used to be a rite for the Degradation of a Bishop in one of the older Rituals? That would suggest that it is indeed possible.
What a fascinating question. I love penalties. Count on my father to be teaching a class when I most need him on the phone to answer these questions. ;)
And p.s., someone needs to get Reuters some new names.
Ed Peters suggests that he may, indeed, be laicized, under C1405 (?)
Removal of a bishop from the clerical is NOT impossible, but the question deserves a longer reply. Will do on my blog later tonite. :)
Remember, Cardinal Re was discussing the rescript, a favor, of dismissal from the clerical state. The canon which gives the qualification as being granted to deacons in serious cases and priests in extremely serious cases only applies to asking the Holy See to dismiss someone from the clerical state.
I think Dr. Peters is more interested with the penalty, which according to the canon has no qualification whatsoever.
The discussions around the Peters dinner table must have been fascinating.
Did you folks have the Catechism and Canon Law books in the dining room for citations?
Not far off. :)
re: Paul. yes, I think you've surmised the solution to how both positions can be accurate.
Paul, that is the gist of the updated post I just did for folks: http://www.canonlaw.info/blog.html.
Anyone who has followed Paraguay politics and society before this story would know that Fr. Lugo is a very devout Christian and does not deserve the term "renegade" associated with him. I like you blog but that type of sensationalized language is not doing anyone favorers. He is NOT in schism with the Church and IS still a Catholic and very devoted to Jesus and His Church. The fact that he desired to leave the clerical state is something many priests have done. Now, granted, he has done it in a very high profile way, but if he and the Vatican work together, then I am sure they will reach a satisfactory conclusion because both parties are reasonable and love Jesus. Unlike what is being reported by a lot of the media, Fr. Lugo has very little in common with Morales and Chavez. Please avoid sensationalizing your reporting on this because although unique this really is not a "hot button" story.
Diogenes had an article about B14's rite for the degradation of a bishop: http://www.cwnews.com/news/views...fm?
recnum=21242
dave, the little I know about Lugo jives with what you say, he is a decent man. unfortunately, that is not the point.
analogy: a married man with kids takes care of family well for several years. they are doing ok. then, he meets a struggling single mother wose kids are in real need. what does he do?
help in any way possible, right? not so fast. not if it means abandoning his wife and children. no matter how much good he does for the second family, he has left his first and fundamental duties behind.
so, it seems to me, has this bishop. and i am sorry for him.
emilio. wow.
anybody happen to have that issue so i could check the originals? i know right away there is a dating problem in the report.
Reuters needs to be calling Ed Peters for every article, instead of Fr. Reese.
Every time he speaks, he proves John Allen right.
LCB, stop endangering my Quiet Life.
Dr Peters,
I had only read Card Re's note, and not thought more about it. I should have immediately read can. 290 in its entirety, and with the difference between §§ 2 and 3, the matter would have been clear.
As for the degradatio: the rite can be found online here: http://members.aol.com/liturgial...ale/
091.htm#092
I'm not sure why they mention Benedict XIV and the year 1862. The Pontificale Romanum, which contains the rite, is from 1485, was generally introduced in 1596, was revised by Benedict XIV in 1752. I am not aware of later revisions until the normative edition under Leo XIII in 1888.
No one has taken into consideration the benefits that this might have for the poor of the nation of Paraguay. By breaking a one-rule party system, the people, and Mr. Lugo, have brought a hopeful time upon them. We should pray that this opportunity to improve the conditions of Paraguayans is not squandered.
That opportunity, that hope, is a much more important aspect of this situation than the Vatican's position vis-a-vis Mr. Lugo's clerical status.
thx Gregor.
Sidonius, of COURSE we have considered that. The Church does not gripe about reform politicians being elected because they might help the poor. Seriously.
This is not a about what Lugo promises to do; it's about his not doing what he promised to do.
Ed, I see your point, but I am not sure it is quiet accurate to compare Lugo to a man who leaves his family. Now I know next to nothing about canon law, but I just wonder about all of the men over the years who have left the priesthood for various reasons over the years who continue to be good Catholics and lead moral lives. What about these men? Can you really compare them to a man who leaves his family? If we look at all of the men who have left the priesthood over the several decades, I don't think we can call them "renegades". I think Lugo might fit in with those men. Of course, he was a bishop so maybe that might make him a bit different since he did accept that responsibility. I think the really interesting story here is that this is could in fact be the peak of the liberation theology movement. Additionally it shows how much Catholicism is part the culture in Paraguay that they would elect someone who a short while ago was a practicing bishop.
I hate to comment on a subject on which I know so little, but I am curious about the reasons why clergy are forebidden from holding public office. I've "heard" that John Paul II forbade the practice. I would suspect, however, that the issue has a longer history than that. I guess what I'm wondering is that, by his election to public office, is Lugo violating a duty of obedience or is there independent, moral grounds why an ordained minister should not hold office.
Dave, priesthood is not the episcopacy. What we're dealing with here is an issue of degree. You can, for very serious reasons, get excused from the priesthood. You cannot get excused from the episcopacy; it is a lifelong commitment. You can only get thrown out of the episcopacy.
Hi, Dr. Peters,
I wanted to point out that the discussion heretofore had not mentioned what good may come from Mr. Lugo's election but instead focused on legalistic debates. The suggestion is that there are more overarching issues involved in Mr. Lugo's election than laws and hierarchies.
It seems to me that there is nothing more "overarching" than the man's personal, lifelong and binding vow to Our Lord Jesus Christ and to the Bride of Christ, the Church. This is not primarily a career, is is a vocation Lugo has decided to "retire" from, and that he cannot do. This is not being legalistic, but instead is focusing on the the core of who this person is, since he bears (and will always bear) a sacramental and indelible mark on his soul from the Holy Orders he has received.
And, as a sidenote, if the man doesn't have any problems breaking his vows to God, how exactly should we be expected to trust him in other matters??? No matter how great his promises or how good his intentions, he hasn't exactly kept his promises up till now....
A bishop running a country? What could possibly go wrong?
Commenting by HaloScan
