The only thing that frees a priest or deacon from his promise of obedience (or in the case of a regular priest or deacon, his vow of obedience) is when to follow that obedience would cause him to commit a sin.
No one has a right to ordination, and no one is called/has a vocation until the bishop says yes. There are no ‘wrong’ reasons. The bishop may be capricious, but he is not sinning to refuse any given man.
You are quite mistaken. Bishops are human too. A bishop could fail to ordain a man for a number of personal prejudices including spite. You wouldn’t be aware of that of course in individual situations but that doesn’t mean the potential is not there.
All bishops are still more than capable of refusing to ordain men for the wrong reasons. In most such cases only they would be aware of the wrong reason of course. Being bishops however does not magically turn that wrong reason into a righteous reason. The rejection is still in force but it does not mean that it was done for the right reason(s.)
Obviously the potential is there. Nevertheless, the Church says that unless a Bishop ordains him, the man does not have a vocation. It has happened many, many times in the past that a man is refused by a Bishop for what seems like a personal prejudice, but that man goes on to serve God and fulfill the vocation put before him. In the cases of some Saints, the man does go on to become a religious in a different order, or to be ordained by a different Bishop, in other cases he remains a layman and still serves God.
I’m not judging anyone. I am pointing out that bishops are human. They could well reject a man for ordination for a non-righteous reason. There is no divine guarantee that keeps them from doing so. And if a bishop rejected a man for a non-righteous reason (there are a huge number including things such as: one’s ethnic heritage, one’s physical height or weight, one’s national origin, one’s eye color, etc. etc. etc.) it would not magically become a righteous reason simply because he was a bishop. His decision would remain in effect (in most cases but even that can become political and marginalized in some situations) but there is absolutely no guarantee that it was made for righteous reasons.
If a bishop does not call a man forward for ordination then, regardless of the reason, that man does not have a vocation to serve that bishop. There is no right or wrong in this.
I’m sorry but it most certainly possible for a bishop to deny ordaining a man for a non-righteous reason(s.) While only the bishop himself would know in most situations that a non-righteous reason caused him not to ordain someone, the fact remains that it is possible.
Reasons are irrelevant. If the bishop does not call a man to orders that man does not have a calling to serve that bishop.
There is no call until it is verified by the Church. It is the Church that does the calling.
That’s such a liberal new age attitude!
I’m not suggesting anything different. But if a bishop chose not to accept a man into seminary or ordain him, neither action guarantees said person never had a priestly vocation from God.That’s such a liberal new age attitude!
**Technically the Bishop requires zero reasoning to reject a candidate or seminarian. ** Obviously in today’s day and age there’s not an overwhelming supply of priests so Bishops are more reasoned in their approach to such things. However Poland has so many seminarians that basically if you don’t get straight A’s, you’re gone. In the “good old days” of the American seminary system (50’s and 60’s) guys were routinely expelled for simple rule violations. One priest I know was put on “probation” in the seminary the late 60’s because he stopped at a drug store on his way back from hospital rounds to buy a Mother’s Day card without permission.
When I entered seminary we were told at the opening conference: “You are here to discern if you want to be a priest, you are also here so that the Church can decide if She wants you to be a priest.”
You are right. It does prove that he does not have a priestly vocation in this bishop’s diocese (or in the cause of a religious superior, no vocation to that religious institute (or maybe just that province of the religious institute)).
Vocations come from God and not from bishops. If a bishop refused to ordain a man then obviously that man’s priestly vocation will not be realized in that physical location (barring some pressure on the bishop that causes him to ordain the man or a replacement bishop that ends up ordaining the man) but it does not magically mean that God’s gift of a vocation did not exist, even for that location.
yes he needs to go through the process, which in his case is called the case for lack of form, but it still is a formal process although not a full blown annulment. In addition he will need a dispensation from the law that says any man who has married or attempted marriage is barred from the priesthood. If he wants to be a priest he should be talking to the vocations director of his diocese already and getting information about his own specific case from that reliable source that comes from his own bishop, not with third parties and not on a general forumlike this.
So if the calling comes from God but the Church does not verify it, does it exist? How can you know?