Bishops holding political office

[Digitnomy]

While listening to the podcast
The History of Yugoslavia
I was surprised to hear of bishops being politically active.

One started his own political party, another served as mayor or governor or some similar role.

Were bishops free to assume political and governmental roles in the past?

 

[Fets]

Well, obviously that happened a lot in the Middle Ages. “Prince Archbishops” were both Bishops and rulers. I don’t know the history of Yugoslavia. But if you look into the history of Cyprus and Haiti, both had Bishops as the President/Prime Minister.

And after Wikipedia quests: Makarios III was the Greek Orthodox equivalent of a Bishop. He was the first President of an independent Cyprus from 1960-1974.

Hmm. I couldn’t find the one in the carribean. Does anyone know? I seem to remember an Archbishop so and so III. He led some nation in the carribean or Latin America. Maybe he was part of a coup.

Anyways,the answer is definitely yes. At least since St. John Paul the Great, this practice has been highly discouraged. I think to the point if a priest wants to be a politician, he must be laicized. Which is pretty serious. It’s obviously been a different case throughout history where Bishops often controlled fiefs and lands in Europe. And obviously the Pope did as well for a long long time.

The current consensus is that the Church should focus on spiritual matters. Because when it focused on politics, it wrote a lot of bad chapters, let’s say. Arguably it did not advance the Church’s mission of saving souls.

Edit: I found it! Jean Bertrand Aristide. He led Haiti briefly amidst violence. And he was taken down with a coup. He eventually left the priesthood, but only after having served as President.

Jean-Bertrand Aristide - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[poche]

When he entered the political arena Father Aristide was suspended.

 

[thistle]

It is forbidden under Canon law.

Can. 285 §3 Clerics are forbidden to assume public office whenever it means sharing in the exercise of civil power.

 

[Phemie]

But was it under the 1917 Code of Canon Law?

 

[CRM_Brother]

Technically, the Bishop of Urgell is Co-Prince and reigning monarch of the country of Andorra and has a representative (a priest) as his personal representative in the government. It is one of the smallest countries in the world in both size and population and is more of a figurehead than a political position as the other co-prince is the President of France. The political leader of Andorra is considered to be Head of Government, elected by their legislative parliament, the General Council.

 

[Genesis315]

I’m not sure. Here’s an article from the Washington Post in 1980 (the 1917 Code was still in place) when the Pope issued a world-wide directive requiring priests to leave public office (in the US, there had been a couple congressmen in the '70s who were priests who couldn’t seek re-election as result). The article is not totally clear on this point–one source says it is simply enforcement of a long-stranding practice, but another treats it as something new with JPII.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...bd7621f/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f324548cbe9d

 

[thistle]

But was it under the 1917 Code of Canon Law?

No idea. We are talking about now.

 

[JulianN]

Well, actually the OP asked if it were true “in the past.” We know it’s not allowed now, but under the 1917 Code, a priest could do so if he had the permission of his own bishop or superior as well as permission from the territorial bishop in which the office was being executed.

 

[thistle]

Well, actually the OP asked if it were true “in the past.” We know it’s not allowed now, but under the 1917 Code, a priest could do so if he had the permission of his own bishop or superior as well as permission from the territorial bishop in which the office was being executed.

Okay. I misread the OP’s question.

 

[Joe_5859]

But was it under the 1917 Code of Canon Law?

From the 1917 Code of Canon Law.

Canon 139 §2. They [i.e. clerics] shall not exercise medicine or surgery without an apostolic indult; they shall not act as public functionaries or notaries, except in the ecclesiastical Curia; they shall not assume public offices that encompass the exercise of lay jurisdiction or administration.

I’m not a canon lawyer, so I don’t know if “shall not” means the same thing as “forbidden”, or if there is some sort of distinction.

EDIT: Maybe it would be worthwhile to post the entire canon:

§ 1. They should avoid those things that, while not indecent, are still alien to the clerical state.

§ 2. They shall not exercise medicine or surgery without an apostolic indult; they shall not act as public functionaries or notaries, except in the ecclesiastical Curia; they shall not assume public offices that encompass the exercise of lay jurisdiction or administration.

§ 3. Without the permission of their Ordinary, they shall not go into the conduct of goods belonging to lay persons or into secular offices requiring the duty of rendering accounts; they shall not act in the role of procurator or advocate except in ecclesiastical tribunals or in civil [cases] that involve their goods or the goods of their church; in lay criminal trials threatening grave personal penalties [to the defendant], they shall take no part, not even by offering testimony without necessity.

§ 4. They shall not seek the responsibilities of senators or speakers passing laws, which one calls deputies, or accept [such offices] without the permission of the Holy See in those places where a pontifical prohibition exists; likewise they should not [be involved] anywhere without the permission both of their own Ordinary and of the Ordinary of the place in which the election is being held.

 

[Phemie]

I know there was a priest who was an MP in Canada. Fr. Raymond Gravel was chosen as the candidate for the Bloc Quebecois in his riding in October 2006. Apparently his bishop had given him permission. He won the election in November of that year and served as MP until he was told by the Pope to choose between the priesthood and politics. He resigned his seat in October 2008.

While in office he became an advocate for Henry Morgentaler, the infamous abortionist.

Two other priests were elected to the Quebec National Assembly in 1976. Once elected, Fr. Jacques Couture, a Jesuit, became Minister of Immigration and Minister of Labour. He left four years later to resume his missionary work and was sent to Madagascar where he ministered until forced to return to Quebec due to ill health.

Fr. Louis O’Neill, a professor of philosophy, was elected at the same time as Fr. Couture. He served as Minister of Cultural Affairs and Ministers of Communications. He left politics to return to teaching in 1981 and eventually sought laicization and married in 1989.

 

[dochawk]

Two other priests were elected to the Quebec National Assembly in 1976.

I want to say that there were three priests and sisters in the US house of Representatives in the mid 80s when the Pope laid down the law, and they had to choose between the secular vows and the religious life.

 

[twf]

Yes, the Bishop of Urgell and the Bishop of Rome are the last two remaining Prince-Bishops. The former is, as you say, the Co-Prince of Andorra, and the latter is the Monarch of the Vatican City State. Of course in bygone times, we had many prince-bishops.

 

[otjm]

It took the Church centuries to learn that being involved in politics, directly or indirectly (as a member of the Court) was not what the Church was set up to accomplish. With the fall of the Papal States during Vatican 1, the Church was finally bereft of direct political power, and I suspect that because of institutional memory, it took a long time for that to subside (that being the shock of the loss).

That is not to say that the Church has no place in the political sphere, as it has a duty to speak loudly and clearly on morals - abortion being only one example. But speaking loudly and clearly does not require political office.

 

[Pitcairn17]

So, for example, a deacon who is otherwise free to run his business / professional life, couldn’t run for something like City Council or selectman or similar?

 

[otjm]

He did not become deacon to run for local political office. He became a deacon to serve the Church.

 

[Fets]

I mean, that has to be some pretty new Canon Law then. Just saying. Certainly a discipline or a doctrine but not a dogma. Definitely subject to change.

 

[Fets]

You say this as if the Church was wrong the whole time. “the church learned its lesson”. This is just not true, it is a subjective opinion, and not an objective fact. The Church being directly involved in government has not been declared to be objectively wrong. Theoretically, if another Dark Age were to happen, maybe the Church might revert to some actions like this.

I have the book “Canticle for Leibowitz” a litle bit in mind lol. I don’t think the Church should have direct political power right now. But, the times do change. Its possible that that might be prudent in 200 years, in 1,000 years. There’s no way of knowing. But, it would be possible. Not forbidden for all time. The Pope only officially recognized Italy in 1929 and relinquished his claim most of the Papal States. Only 90 years ago.

I’m not sure. Here’s an article from the Washington Post in 1980

I tried to follow this link, it requires a subscription to the Washington Post for me to be able to read it. FYI.

 

[Wendy1989]

I think Permanent Deacons are slightly different. Permanent Deacons have one foot in the sacred and one foot in the secular. In order to run for public office, they need the permission of their Bishop. At least, this is what happened in my Diocese. One of the permanent Deacons at my parish was a County Commissioner for over a decade and chose not to seek re-election this past year.

I’m sure it depends on this Bishop and/or the office a PD is seeking. Small city/county politics are much different than state and federal legislatures.