B
BoomBoomMancini
Guest
Haha, okay, yes, I was wrong, y’all. Uncle already.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
O
otjm
Guest
I am not following the McCarrick matter closely, but last I heard, he had not been laicized. If that is correct, he can still say Mass - although likely not in public. From what I understand, he has been put in the Church’s somewhat equivalent of house arrest.
He was stripped of his position as Cardinal, but Cardinal only denotes that he is (within an age range) an elector of a Pope, that being the main privilege/duty. Ordinarily, the title “Cardinal” goes with the see, although it is not automatic. Someone may be given a see, but usually the title of Cardinal comes later. And no, I don’t know if any bishop has been given a see which normally is one where the bishop is also a Cardinal, and not been made Cardinal. I believe it was Avery Dulles who was made Cardinal, without a see - he was a theologian.
He was stripped of his position as Cardinal, but Cardinal only denotes that he is (within an age range) an elector of a Pope, that being the main privilege/duty. Ordinarily, the title “Cardinal” goes with the see, although it is not automatic. Someone may be given a see, but usually the title of Cardinal comes later. And no, I don’t know if any bishop has been given a see which normally is one where the bishop is also a Cardinal, and not been made Cardinal. I believe it was Avery Dulles who was made Cardinal, without a see - he was a theologian.
G
Gabika50
Guest
If the statute of limitations have not passed. there could be…
O
otjm
Guest
Canon law does not run parallel to either civil or crininal law. On another thread (wihich I think is still active) there is a link to a Canon lawyer/priest who goes through some of the things that can impact a decision, and one of those its that it sometimes may be more prudent to keep the errant individual in the priesthood, in that there are things the Church can require of them which it could not, were they laicized.
People may be scandalized by such, but the Church has a number of issues to weigh, and one of those is a removal from public life to a life of prayer and contemplation by the individual on what they have done. That can be more or less restrictive, to include what if any contacts they have with others - family, friends, the outside world.
The short of it is that there are people who follow the Red Queen: “Off with her (his) head!”
The Church doesn’t. And we may view laicization as the ultimate penalty; that does not mean that the Church does likewise.
People may be scandalized by such, but the Church has a number of issues to weigh, and one of those is a removal from public life to a life of prayer and contemplation by the individual on what they have done. That can be more or less restrictive, to include what if any contacts they have with others - family, friends, the outside world.
The short of it is that there are people who follow the Red Queen: “Off with her (his) head!”
The Church doesn’t. And we may view laicization as the ultimate penalty; that does not mean that the Church does likewise.
J
JulianN
Guest
He has been laicized.I am not following the McCarrick matter closely, but last I heard, he had not been laicized. If that is correct, he can still say Mass - although likely not in public. From what I understand, he has been put in the Church’s somewhat equivalent of house arrest.
O
otjm
Guest
At McCarrick’s age, it might well have run out. It appears most of his contacts were with adults (as in, over 18), and a prosecutor would need to have someone willing to take the stand. Even though he may have damaged adults, that does not mean they would be willing witnesses in a criminal proceeding.
O
otjm
Guest
Hunh. The hammer fell. Looks like it hit the news yesterday. Thanks for the update.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.