G
Guillaumus
Guest
I am referring to worldy political offices, not appointments in the Church.
For example the appointment of a priest as a judge. Or even as an official advisor or spokesman of someone holding a political office.
- Status
For example the appointment of a priest as a judge. Or even as an official advisor or spokesman of someone holding a political office.
Y
Young_Thinker
Guest
Oh, I know; I was merely attempting to offer a comparison. And do not forget about vacancies in elected office(e.g. US or State Senator) that are ordinarily filled by appointment upon a temporary basis(i.e. until the next general election). An interesting situation outside of the Catholic Church is that certain Anglican bishops are always Privy Councillors(though, nowadays, that position is mostly honorific) and can still be active members of the House of Lords. I do not really see anything that is wrong with a cleric being involved in secular affairs, along as he does not try to make a career out of it(the ban upon priests in office by election obviously should prevent the existence of ordained “professional” politicians).
G
Guillaumus
Guest
YoungThinker, you mention “ordained “professional” politicians”. Deacons are ordained members of the clergy too, what about them? They often have a family of there own, a side job, etc.
J
JReducation
Guest
This is not up for discussion. I’m not sure why even begin this thread. The Church has spoken on the matter. We have no right to question it.
If someone wants a clarification of the canon, there is an important detail. The law only applies to secular priests. If a man is a cleric and ALSO a religious, the rules and statutes of his community are the common law to which Canon Law often refers to.
To the best of my knowledge, no religious congregation and no religious order allows its members to hold public office, whether the person is a cleric or not. This would make perfect sense, because it would create a conflict of interests. A member of an order or a congregation owes obedience to his superior and to the statutes of his religious community. More than 50% of the time the statutes of religious orders and religious congregations are in conflict with civil law, because the rules written by the great founders of religious orders were divinely inspired and secular legislation is not divinely inspired. The statutes of religious congregations are not divinely inspired, but they are protected by the ordinary magisterium. Finally, members of religious orders and religious congregations have what is called conditional allegience to their homeland. The allegience is allowed only when it is not in conflict with the rule of the order or when it is not in conflict with a nation where we may have brothers or sisters. The allegience is disallowed when the civil law is in conflict with your religious superior’s position or the local bishop’s position. Your allegience must alwasy be to the higher authority. The hierarchy from top to bottom is the pope, the religious superior, the bishop and the state.
If you belong to an international order or international congregation, you cannot vote for a war against a nation where you’re brothers or sisters are going to be killed. Your first allegience is to them. It’s like attacking the nation where your parents live knowing that they may be killed. Who wants to be put into that position?
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
If someone wants a clarification of the canon, there is an important detail. The law only applies to secular priests. If a man is a cleric and ALSO a religious, the rules and statutes of his community are the common law to which Canon Law often refers to.
To the best of my knowledge, no religious congregation and no religious order allows its members to hold public office, whether the person is a cleric or not. This would make perfect sense, because it would create a conflict of interests. A member of an order or a congregation owes obedience to his superior and to the statutes of his religious community. More than 50% of the time the statutes of religious orders and religious congregations are in conflict with civil law, because the rules written by the great founders of religious orders were divinely inspired and secular legislation is not divinely inspired. The statutes of religious congregations are not divinely inspired, but they are protected by the ordinary magisterium. Finally, members of religious orders and religious congregations have what is called conditional allegience to their homeland. The allegience is allowed only when it is not in conflict with the rule of the order or when it is not in conflict with a nation where we may have brothers or sisters. The allegience is disallowed when the civil law is in conflict with your religious superior’s position or the local bishop’s position. Your allegience must alwasy be to the higher authority. The hierarchy from top to bottom is the pope, the religious superior, the bishop and the state.
If you belong to an international order or international congregation, you cannot vote for a war against a nation where you’re brothers or sisters are going to be killed. Your first allegience is to them. It’s like attacking the nation where your parents live knowing that they may be killed. Who wants to be put into that position?
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
R
Rolltide
Guest
Actually, Haitian President Jean Bertrand Aristed was expelled from his Salesian order for preaching Liberation Theology and using Catholic Radio to incite revolution in the country. He was never excommunicated. He voluntarily left the priesthood in 1994 (although by “voluntarily”, the Vatican meant "leave the priesthood, shape up, or be excommunicated).
Here’s an article discussing the matter:
slate.com/id/2095635
Not to derail the thread, but if you’re up for an interesting discussion, I’ve actually got the opportunity to MEET Aristide. I got to ask him a few questions, and I heard him give a pretty fascinating talk on Haiti.
Y
Young_Thinker
Guest
I am afraid that I do not know that much about the situation with permanent deacons.
Y
Young_Thinker
Guest
I, myself, am more of an Ultramontane, so I feel that the Church was in the right during medieval times. Also, I hate how the Italians stole Rome from the Pope; he should have more temporal power than he does now.
Y
Young_Thinker
Guest
Brother, are you saying that, in general, secular priests and the consecrated are forbidden from even serving as notaries public? For instance, do you know how it is among Franciscans? I hope that I have not confused anyone too much by making a distinction between office by appointment vs. by election.This is not up for discussion. I’m not sure why even begin this thread. The Church has spoken on the matter. We have no right to question it.
If someone wants a clarification of the canon, there is an important detail. The law only applies to secular priests. If a man is a cleric and ALSO a religious, the rules and statutes of his community are the common law to which Canon Law often refers to.
To the best of my knowledge, no religious congregation and no religious order allows its members to hold public office, whether the person is a cleric or not. This would make perfect sense, because it would create a conflict of interests. A member of an order or a congregation owes obedience to his superior and to the statutes of his religious community. More than 50% of the time the statutes of religious orders and religious congregations are in conflict with civil law, because the rules written by the great founders of religious orders were divinely inspired and secular legislation is not divinely inspired. The statutes of religious congregations are not divinely inspired, but they are protected by the ordinary magisterium. Finally, members of religious orders and religious congregations have what is called conditional allegience to their homeland. The allegience is allowed only when it is not in conflict with the rule of the order or when it is not in conflict with a nation where we may have brothers or sisters. The allegience is disallowed when the civil law is in conflict with your religious superior’s position or the local bishop’s position. Your allegience must alwasy be to the higher authority. The hierarchy from top to bottom is the pope, the religious superior, the bishop and the state.
If you belong to an international order or international congregation, you cannot vote for a war against a nation where you’re brothers or sisters are going to be killed. Your first allegience is to them. It’s like attacking the nation where your parents live knowing that they may be killed. Who wants to be put into that position?
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JReducation
Guest
We have to be careful to enusre that we undestand that public service is allowed to priests and religious. What is not allowed is party politics. If a government official wants to hire a priest or feligious to perform a specific function that is not a partisan one, his bishop or superior may give him permission to accept. Sucha position would be running a state institution. But the decision must be weighed very carefully. Generally politicians want you to support their party.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
R
Rolltide
Guest
Ok… what about things like invested priests forced to read sermons supporting the Holy Roman Emperor over local lords during the reign of Otto I in the early 900s (which initiated revolts all across Germany and ended up with the political domination of the papacy for a generation)?
Y
Young_Thinker
Guest
I see.We have to be careful to enusre that we undestand that public service is allowed to priests and religious. What is not allowed is party politics. If a government official wants to hire a priest or feligious to perform a specific function that is not a partisan one, his bishop or superior may give him permission to accept. Sucha position would be running a state institution. But the decision must be weighed very carefully. Generally politicians want you to support their party.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Y
Young_Thinker
Guest
That was probably a mistake, and it resulted in corruption of the Papacy for about a hundred years. However, I meant that I agree with the actions of assertive later Pontiffs like St. Gregory VII and Innocent III.
O
O_Duirnin
Guest
Jozef Tiso (not to be confused with Josep Tito of Yugoslavia), had very little real power, and was more or less a German puppet. He was known to be an anti-Semite, although his role in the actual deportation of Slovakian Jews to the camps is disputed. Deportations were eventually suspended in 1942 under pressure from mass protests and the Holy See. In a letter to the Slovakian ambassador in Rome, Cardinal Luigi Maglione, then Vatican Secretary State, condemned Tiso’s Government as enacting ‘various regulations in open contrast with Catholic principles’. However, deportations were restarted in 1944 when the Germans took full military control after an attempted uprising. Tiso, however, still remained as President. After the war he was executed by the Czechoslovakian government of Edvard Benes, in the brief period before Russian domination.
J
JimG
Guest
Whenever I think of priests involved in political office, the Jesuit priest, Rev. Robert Drinan, S.J., comes to mind. He served ten years in Congress but stepped down when the pope invoked a ‘no political office’ rule for priests. A good thing too. He was, inexplicably, a pretty reliable pro-choice vote in the congress.
B
bluelake
Guest
I can’t see a Priest doing his job for the Church and politics at the same time.
One is going to suffer.
A Priest can express his views when he votes, just like others who have a responsible postition.
God bless,
blue
J
JReducation
Guest
Actually there is more to the Fr. Drinan story. The Holy Father did institute a rule that priests were not to hold elected offices or partisan offices. It’s very important to know this… Because he did not forbid priests, brothers or sisters from working for the government. He left that to the judgment of the immediate superior.
The rule did not apply to Fr. Drinan. Fr. Drinan was (is he dead?) a Jesuit. When popes make rules for priests, they don’t apply to all priests. If a priest belongs to an exempt religious order. An exempt religious order is one where the priesthood is considered part of religious life, not essential to religiuos life. Therefore, you cannot make rules that apply only to some members of the order. Most exempt religious orders are consituted of priests and brothers. The rules have to be the same for both. If they are not the same, then the priests are being singularized and they stand out in the community. Priests who are religious may never stand out, except when celebrating the sacraments, because that’s their ministry.
Fr. Drinan resigned because the Superior General of the Jesuits adopted Pope John Paul’s rule and applied it to the entire Society of Jesus, not just its priests. The same thing happened among the Franciscans. We have more brothers than priests. About 1/3 of our friars are priests. To avoid the discrimination against the brother-priests, the General Chapter adopted Pope John Paul’s rule as applicable to all friars ordained or not.
We have to give credit where credit is due. The Jesuit Superior General wanted to comply with the Holy Father and at the same time be fair to all of his brother Jesuits by treating them all the same.
We also have to give credit to those superiors general who began dismissal procedings against any religious who did not step down from an elected office, whether he was a priest or a brother. That was not the doing of Pope John Paul. It was the doing of the Superiors General. There were not many who applied the rule. To the best of my knowledge it was the Jesuits, Carmelites, Dominicans, Franciscans, Christian Brothers, Marist Brothers, Holy Cross Fathers and Brothers and Carmelite Sisters of Charity. There may have been more, but I don’t know about them. These communities I know because we were in school together at the time.
We have to give Fr. Drinan credit for obeying the wishes of his Superior General.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
D
Dale_M
Guest
Yes, he passed away in 2007, at the age of 86.
Very true, and I hope no one is challenging it. Still, its kind of an interesting topic, and I have learned from it. I appreciate your patience in discussing this topic.
There have been a few priests in recent years who have gone into politics, although they haven’t made much of a splash in the US media. For example, in 2007, Fr. Eduardo “Among Ed” Panlilio, was elected governor of the province of Pampanga in the Philippines, but he was suspended by his bishop when he decided to run. Fr. Simon Lokodo, was elected to the parliament of Uganda in 2006 and appointed State Minister for Industry in 2009. But he was already under suspension for an unrelated matter when he entered politics. Fr. Raymond Gravel served in Canada’s parliament in 2007 - 08, but was asked by the Vatican to step down or leave the priesthood.
J
JReducation
Guest
If you stop and look at our own two party system, this rule makes perfect sense. How can you be a Republican, when they support capital punishment without the restraints that the moral law puts on its use? How can you be a Democrat when they support abortion? No matter which way you slice the bread, you’re going to have a conflict with Church teaching. A priest, brother or sister, must always seek to be united to Church teaching, not in conflict with it. If push comes to shove, clergy, brothers and sisters must alwasy choose the Church over their country.
That’s why in my community we never say the pledge of allegiance no matter what country we’re in. We have brothers from 114 countries around the world. We are not about to divide our brotherhood by national boundaries. The fidelity to the order trumps fidelity to the nation. There is another good reason why we cannot run for elected office. How could I be a senator and at the same time say that I have to ask my superior for permission to vote on a certain issue which is questionable. Some things are pretty cut and dry, not all the time. When in doubt, my superior is the one who has the final word, not I.
On the other hand, if I voted without his permission, how does that affect my communion with my brothers?
Finally, in some religious orders of men, thee are very specific rules about when you are allowed to have a personal opinion and to express it and when you’re not allowed to have a personal opinion, but may only express the opinion of your superior or the Church. This rule varies from one religious community to another. In some it’s more specific and in others its more general.
Diocesan priests do not have this problem, because they are not bound to obey their bishops in this way. Their obedience is on pastoral matters, not on personal matters or prudential judgments. But religious men are bound by obedience to our superior even on prudential judgments as simple as how to dress, never mind voting on a legislation in Congress.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
G
Guillaumus
Guest
Something else, deacons. They are also ordained members of the clergy, yet they can be married and have children. Are they suitable to engage into politics? Or could a politician get ordained as a deacon and still be an active elected politician?
G
Guillaumus
Guest
Can they have a political opinion and show that to the world? Can they, as their secular jobs, work in the cabinets of elected politicians or in political party structures?
- Status