Debate: Priests holding a political office

[Anian]

It does not matter what any of us think about this subject. Any Priest that runs for a public office is subject to being lacisized. That is the rule of the church, and I personally think it is a good one.

Priests are not supposed to be involved in running the world. They are ordained to tend to the souls of the faithful;. If they wish to become political figures, leave the Priesthood, and run as a lay person.

Certainly not, in office is where they can do the most good for the world. A religious can spend a week trying to make sure one mother doesn’t abort her child, but in office they could institute pro-life counseling programs, or straight out ban abortion, that would save thousands of lives every week. Now that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t get the hierarchy’s permission before running , as Fr. Drinan, a Catholic Priest who served in congress here in the USA before the 1980 ultimatum from JPII to refrain from politics if you are ordained, supported abortion and opposed the 1996 ban on Partial Birth Abortions.

 

[Young_Thinker]

Out of curiosity, I recently asked the deacon at my parish about this. He said that he cannot even hold office in a homeowners’ association!

 

[Guillaumus]

As I recall there was never a “rule” against it (Canon Law or “papal decrees” (bulls, motu prop.,…). Pope John Paul II simply “kindly asked” not too.

This could be a “rule” by the ordinary (bishop) of the diocese where the priest works. And I support Anian. If a priest could do “good work” in politics, why not?

 

[Ocarm]

As I recall there was never a “rule” against it (Canon Law or “papal decrees” (bulls, motu prop.,…). Pope John Paul II simply “kindly asked” not too.

In fact there is a clear ban on the practice established within the 1983 Code of Canon Law:
*
Can. 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.*

See: vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__PY.HTM

There has been some debate as to whether the cleric’s ordinary (the bishop or a religious superior in the case of institutes of pontifical right) can dispense from this, especially given that they can indeed dispense a priest from exempting themselves from other civil functions (see canon 289 §2). Prior to the 1983 Code it had been authoritatively stated that only the pope could grant permission for a cleric to seek public office, and the fact that this was not restated in the 1983 Code suggests that this former provision may have been abrogated. But Pope John Paul II’s firm opposition to the practice has meant that no bishop has been keen to test this, and Pope Benedict has maintained that stance.

 

[Tom_Gritton]

Do people have a different opinion about permanent deacons holding a public office like a judge?

 

[mariosolo]

who is a Priest? and what is politics?
Much as i think that this is tough idea for the priests, i do believe that some of them with sound morals can do just well in shepherding the nation.

 

[delsydebothom]

I usually wouldn’t revive a thread this old, but something came to my mind while reading it. Wouldn’t the fact that priests can vote in a democratic setting mean that a priest could also act as a prince-elector in an imperial setting?

 

[JReducation]

I usually wouldn’t revive a thread this old, but something came to my mind while reading it. Wouldn’t the fact that priests can vote in a democratic setting mean that a priest could also act as a prince-elector in an imperial setting?

The right to vote is a human right. There is no right to hold political office. While the Church prohibits priests and religious from holding political office, she also protects our human rights as she does those of all citizens. We are allowed to vote in any election where we are granted that right by law.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[delsydebothom]

The right to vote is a human right. There is no right to hold political office. While the Church prohibits priests and religious from holding political office, she also protects our human rights as she does those of all citizens. We are allowed to vote in any election where we are granted that right by law.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

This leaves the question open. Prince-electors have have historically included Archbishops. While the prestige that went along with that office was a good deal greater than that today afforded to a member of the general electorate in a republic, their function was analogous. My question is this: Since priests can function as voters in a republic, could some also function as prince-electors in an Empire without violating the current provisions of canon law?

 

[JReducation]

This leaves the question open. Prince-electors have have historically included Archbishops. While the prestige that went along with that office was a good deal greater than that today afforded to a member of the general electorate in a republic, their function was analogous. My question is this: Since priests can function as voters in a republic, could some also function as prince-electors in an Empire without violating the current provisions of canon law?

There is no provision in canon law against it. The Rota’s answer is going to depend on the moral status of said empire and the integrity of said election. While the Church is not opposed to empires and monarchies, they must operate within moral law. If such an election is honest, I would imagine that the permission can be granted. If there is a history of corruption, the permission will definitely be denied. No one may knowingly participate in corruption.

But Canon Law does not specifically address the right to vote in civil elections. This is addressed in moral theology and the Church’s social teachings. Such a question would have to be taken to the immediate superior of the priest or religious involved.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[aragonjohn1]

What about the priest that was the governor of the entire state of Michigan (I don’t remember his name I owe my knowledge of his existence to a paper I had to write)[im homeschooled]

 

[JReducation]

What about the priest that was the governor of the entire state of Michigan (I don’t remember his name I owe my knowledge of his existence to a paper I had to write)[im homeschooled]

Who was that? I have never heard this before. Was he Catholic? What year?

Now you got me curious. It’s possible, if it was before 1983. That’s when the law was created. There were priests in Congress and in other elected posts around the world and they had to resign.

Fraternally,

Br.JR, OSF

 

[aragonjohn1]

Yes he was catholic it was a long time ago that I wrote the paper and I can’t seem to recall his name if i remember correctly he was the governor either in the mid 1800s or late 1800s - like 1911ish
He traveled throughout michigan mostly by foot and sometimes by boat if that’s any help