G
Giggly_Giraffe
Guest
Would the Bishops allow a Priest to become an elected official (Govenor, Mayor, President, ect?).
How about a Deacon?
A Nun?
How about a Deacon?
A Nun?
- Status
V
Vico
Guest
A deacon, priest, and bishop are clerics, and there is specific canon about permanent deacons. There could be a dispensation given to allow a bishop or priest to hold political office but is is not normal. There is also a normal restriction on religious and members of societies of apostolic life.
CICCan. 285
§1. Clerics are to refrain completely from all those things which are unbecoming to their state, according to the prescripts of particular law.
§2. Clerics are to avoid those things which, although not unbecoming, are nevertheless foreign to the clerical state.
§3. Clerics are forbidden to assume public offices which entail a participation in the exercise of civil power.
§4. Without the permission of their ordinary, they are not to take on the management of goods belonging to lay persons or secular offices which entail an obligation of rendering accounts. They are prohibited from giving surety even with their own goods without consultation with their proper ordinary. They also are to refrain from signing promissory notes, namely, those through which they assume an obligation to make payment on demand.
Can. 287
§1. Most especially, clerics are always to foster the peace and harmony based on justice which are to be observed among people.
§2. They are not to have an active part in political parties and in governing labor unions unless, in the judgment of competent ecclesiastical authority, the protection of the rights of the Church or the promotion of the common good requires it.
Can. 288 The prescripts of cann. ⇒ 284, ⇒ 285, §§3 and 4, ⇒ 286, and ⇒ 287, §2 do not bind permanent deacons unless particular law establishes otherwise.
(Religious)
Can. 672 Religious are bound by the prescripts of cann. ⇒ 277, ⇒ 285, ⇒ 286, ⇒ 287, and ⇒ 289, and religious clerics additionally by the prescripts of ⇒ can. 279, §2; in lay institutes of pontifical right, the proper major superior can grant the permission mentioned in ⇒ can. 255, §4.
(Societies of Apostolic Life)
Can. 739 In addition to the obligations to which members as members are subject according to the constitutions, they are bound by the common obligations of clerics unless it is otherwise evident from the nature of the thing or the context.
M
Murmurs
Guest
For sake of my historical curiosity, does anyone know when did this become the norm? The Middle Ages and Renaissance are littered with examples of clergymen, up to and including Cardinals, exercising huge temporal power as a matter of course. Obviously I can see very good reasons for the customary rule today (as you say, a dispensation could be perhaps granted if it was ever an issue), but anyone know when it changed?
K
Kaninchen
Guest
Josef Tiso was an active priest and head of the Slovakian government under the Third Reich - not the best example (in the human being sense) but a recent example nevertheless.
C
Chatter163
Guest
This was a gradual change, not an immediate one. Once the Protestant Reformation took place, it became increasingly difficult for priests to serve in state capacities. I am not familiar with any universal rules against it Pope John Paul II, who went on to include it in 1983 code, but over time it was became to be seen as increasingly unsustainable, though in most cases local bishops were left to make that determination.
That said, in the US we had two notable instances in the 1970s of priests serving in Congress. Father Robert Drinan, SJ of Massachussetts served in the US House of Representatives in the 1970s, and is remembered for his liberal Democratic stances, and wearing his clerics while on the House floor, most notably during the Watergate impeachment vote in 1974. The other case was just after Wategrgate, but also in the 1970s, when Father Robert John Cornell, O.Praem. also served in the U.S. House, representing Wisconsin. He was also a liberal Democrat, though I don’t recall his being as strident as Drinan was. Both of these clerics did not seek re-election in 1980 when Pope John Paul II insisted that clerics not serve in elected offices. This order was as a result not of the two priests in Congress, but also situations in El Salvador and other Latin American countries.
M
Mike_Dye
Guest
Although I can’t remember the details I recently watched a PBS special about the impeachment of Nixon and there was a Catholic priest that was in Congress at that time and voted for the impeachment and gave a commentary as to why he voted that way. So that would be somewhat recent history.
C
coachdennis
Guest
M
Murmurs
Guest
D
dans0622
Guest
The 1917 Code of Canon Law stated that clerics were not to hold elected office without the permission of the Holy See or Ordinary (whichever was competent in a particular case). The sources of that canon refer first to a document from 1658.
Leo XIII had this to say, in 1893:
Dan
Leo XIII had this to say, in 1893:
So, it wasn’t a blanket prohibition but, for many centuries, clerics were advised to refrain from whatever would be seen as foreign to their state.
Dan
V
Vico
Guest
In 1966, Pope Paul VI issued moto proprio De episcoporum muneribus, which reserver to the Holy See, dispensations for clergy to assume political office with lay jurisdiciton or administration. The 1983 Canon Law does not include this reservation of dispensation to the Holy See, but there needs to exist “a just and reasonable cause”.
1983 CIC Can. 90 §1. One is not to be dispensed from an ecclesiastical law without a just and reasonable cause, after taking into account the circumstances of the case and the gravity of the law from which dispensation is given; otherwise the dispensation is illicit and, unless it is given by the legislator himself or his superior, also invalid.
§2. In a case of doubt concerning the sufficiency of the cause, a dispensation is granted validly and licitly.
T
thistle
Guest
In the Philippines it is forbidden. When a priest ran for the office of Governor he was suspended from priestly duties.
The Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines Episcopal Commission on Canon Law cited a conflict between a role in political parties and in the church.
P
Phemie
Guest
In Canada, Fr. Raymond Gravel was elected to Parliament in November 2006, as a member of the Bloc Québecois. He’d apparently been given a dispensation to run for office by his diocesan bishop. He was ordered by Rome to choose between being a priest or a politician. He didn’t run again in 2008. Good thing. He was pro-choice and supported euthenasia & same-sex marriage.
G
Giggly_Giraffe
Guest
Interestingly, here is this children’s book about St Anthony of Padua in our Adoration Chapel. I guess he was born Fernando Martins, and gave up all inheritance and titles due to him when he entered achool (to be a priest) around 1200. I guess the cannon laws must have been in place for a long time.
So, this is leading me to wonder how Henry 8th felt that mixing religion and politics was justified. Historically, I may be wrong, but this faction seems to open the can of worms mixing the two … Or maybe it’s just the FeanciscN order?
So, this is leading me to wonder how Henry 8th felt that mixing religion and politics was justified. Historically, I may be wrong, but this faction seems to open the can of worms mixing the two … Or maybe it’s just the FeanciscN order?
M
Murmurs
Guest
To sidetrack into the Anglican Church, as you brought up Henry VIII; there is a long long history of secular rules getting deeply involved in the Church, and using the Church to further personal secular ends (think Constantine onwards really). So I suppose Henry felt he was in good company! Article 21 of the Anglican 39 Articles (they were of different number and scope in Henry’s day, but the idea was still included), which still at least nominally reflects the doctrine in the Church of England, states that
and Article 37
In other words, the monarchy, a secular and political entity, has superiority over the church, and the church can’t do much without the state’s permission (it’s still, at least technically, the case today, in the CofE - even though for a long time and I think still today, Anglican clergymen are banned by law from the House of Commons here).
- Status