1961 Canon Law-What is the Penalty for Disobedience?

[BulldogCath]

**I ask-Do we have Bishops who are valid if they are willingly ordaining homosexual priests-and if not aware of their orientation for some reason, shuffle them from diocese to diocese-why are they not excommunicated? **

The Pope gave Cardinal Law a cushy job in the Vatican and will actually be allowed to vote in the next conclave!!!

Please note that due to the length I had to shorten section 30

Canon 973

Careful Selection and Training of Candidates for the States of Perfection and Sacred Orders (S.C. rel., 2 Feb, 1961) pp 452–486

Excerpt pp 468–472

D. THE REQUIRED CHASTITY

30. Those to be excluded; practical directives

1. A candidate who shows himself certainly unable to observe religious and priestly chastity, either because of frequent sins against chastity or because of a sexual bent of mind or excessive weakness of will, is not to be admitted to the minor seminary and, much less, to the novitiate or to profession. If he has already been accepted but is not yet perpetually professed, then he should be sent away immediately or advised to withdraw, according to individual cases, no matter what point in his formation he has already reached. …
2. Consequently, any candidate who has a habit of solitary sins and who has not given well-founded hope that he can break this habit within a period of time to be determined prudently, is not to be admitted to the novitiate. Nor can a candidate be admitted to first profession or to renewal of vows unless he has really amended his ways. But if a novice or a temporarily professed religious gives evidence of a firm purpose of amendment with good grounds for hope of success, his probation can be extended as provided for in canon law (canons 571----)

Well-grounded hope of amendment can be provided by those youths who are physically and psychically normal or endowed with good bodily and mental health, who are noted for solid piety and the other virtues intimately connected with chastity, and who sincerely desire the religious and priestly life.

1. A much stricter policy must be followed in admission to perpetual profession and advancement to Sacred Orders. No one should be admitted to perpetual vows or promoted to Sacred Orders unless he has acquired a firm habit of continency and has given in every case consistently proof of habitual chastity over a period of at least one year. If within this year prior to perpetual profession or ordination to Sacred Orders doubt should arise because of new falls, the candidate is to be barred from perpetual profession or Sacred Orders (cf. above, no. 16) unless, as far as profession is concerned, time is available either by common law or by special induct to extend the period for testing chastity and there be question of a candidate who, as was stated above affords good prospects of amendment.
2. If a student in a minor seminary has sinned gravely against the sixth commandment with a person of the same or the other sex, or has been the occasion of grave scandal in the matter of chastity, he is to be dismissed immediately as stipulated in canon 1371, except if prudent consideration of the act and of the situation of the student by the superiors or confessors should counsel a different policy in an individual case, sc., in the case of a boy who has been seduced and who is gifted with excellent qualities and is truly penitent, or when the sin was an objectively imperfect act.

If a novice or a professed religious who has not yet made perpetual vows should be guilty of the same offense, he is to be sent away from the community or, should the circumstances so demand, he is to be dismissed with due observance of canon 647… If a perpetually professed religious is found guilty of any such sin, he is to be perpetually excluded from tonsure and the reception of any further Order. If the case belongs to the external forum, he is to receive a canonical warning unless, as provided for in canons 653 and 668, there be grounds for sending him back to the world.

Lastly, should he be a subdeacon or deacon, then, without prejudice to the above-mentioned directives and if the case should so demand, the superiors should take up with the Holy See the question of his reduction to the lay state.

For these reasons, clerics who in their diocese or religious who in another community have sinned gravely against chastity with another person are not to be admitted with a view to the priesthood, even on a trial basis, unless there be clear evidence of excusing causes or of circumstances which can at least notably diminish responsibility in conscience (Circular Letter of S.C. of the Sacraments, n. 16; Canon Law Digest, 4, p. 314).

**Advancement to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with evil tenencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life and the priestly ministry would constitute serious dangers. **

 

[theMutant]

The problem with your question is that it is one of validity instead of one of licitness (or, legality). None of the passages you cited stated that it is not possible for a homosexual to be ordained; only that he should not be. (Please note that I am not advocating the ordination of homosexuals, I am merely pointing out a fact regarding the laws you cited.) However, it needs to be understood that legality is not a requirement for validity. All that is required for validity is form, matter, and intent. This is why the Church defends the ordinations and other Sacraements of the Orthodox religions to be valid when, according to Catholic law, they are illicit. This is also why Mass can still be valid when priests abuse the liturgy. As long as they meet the requirements of form, matter, and intent, the Sacrament is valid.

 

[theMutant]

In re-reading your post, I realized that I didn’t actually answer the question which you posed at its beginning.

The reason they have not been excommunicated is probably known only to JPII and God. Only a pope can excommunicate a bishop - and, even then, he still would remain a valid bishop even though he would not be able to exercise any functions of the episcopate.

Therefore, all of the bishops remain valid no matter how sinful they personally are or how many laws of the Church they break. They remain valid bishops even if they are excommunicated. Again, we see the significant and important difference between validity and licitness.