M
Maximilian75
Guest
Should the Doctoral Requirement for becoming a Bishop be abolished?
- Yes
- No
- Status
C
CTBcin
Guest
I said no, because a bishop generally should be a well-learned man. I think there is room for exemptions though. For example, Pope Pius X did not hold a doctorate.
P
PaulfromIowa
Guest
That canon is really only wishful thinking. Many bishops have no doctoral degree, Pope Francis among them.
N
nunsuch
Guest
There IS no “doctoral requirement” for bishops. The vast majority do not have doctorates in anything. But, bishops are awarded an honorific “D.D” (Doctor of Divinity) when they are made bishops. This is not a substantive thing at all.
C
CRM_Brother
Guest
The title Doctor in the Church in this sense has its roots in the Scholasticism of the Middle Ages. It does not have to do with a doctoral program like those at a university, but rather is a recognition of the depth of their knowledge. A Doctor in this sense is a master in a certain subject (in this case: Divinity/God) in which his knowledge has been examined and found sufficient to teach at the level of a master, not simply to novice students of the subject. During the examination of a priest to be ordained as a bishop, their depth of knowledge of theology and their orthodoxy to the Deposit of Faith is examined. To be a bishop is inherently entailed in the teaching of his flock so this ability to teach as a master is a requirement. The church is just officially recognizing this.
It is not a requirement to be a doctor to become a bishop, it is simply that if they fulfill the requirements to become a Bishop, they have already fulfilled the requirements to be a Doctor.
It is not a requirement to be a doctor to become a bishop, it is simply that if they fulfill the requirements to become a Bishop, they have already fulfilled the requirements to be a Doctor.
A
acanonlawyer
Guest
I wouldn’t call it “wishful thinking” but I applaud you for noting that there is a canon in the Code of Canon Law which addresses this topic:
"Can. 378 §1. In regard to the suitability of a candidate for the episcopacy, it is required that he is:
1/ outstanding in solid faith, good morals, piety, zeal for souls, wisdom, prudence, and human virtues, and endowed with other qualities which make him suitable to fulfill the office in question;
2/ of good reputation;
3/ at least thirty-five years old;
4/ ordained to the presbyterate for at least five years;
5/ in possession of a doctorate or at least a licentiate in sacred scripture, theology, or canon law from an institute of higher studies approved by the Apostolic See, or at least truly expert in the same disciplines.
§2. The definitive judgment concerning the suitability of the one to be promoted pertains to the Apostolic See."
Dan
"Can. 378 §1. In regard to the suitability of a candidate for the episcopacy, it is required that he is:
1/ outstanding in solid faith, good morals, piety, zeal for souls, wisdom, prudence, and human virtues, and endowed with other qualities which make him suitable to fulfill the office in question;
2/ of good reputation;
3/ at least thirty-five years old;
4/ ordained to the presbyterate for at least five years;
5/ in possession of a doctorate or at least a licentiate in sacred scripture, theology, or canon law from an institute of higher studies approved by the Apostolic See, or at least truly expert in the same disciplines.
§2. The definitive judgment concerning the suitability of the one to be promoted pertains to the Apostolic See."
Dan
J
Joe_5859
Guest
The several appearances of “or” is sort of the tip off that a doctorate is preferred but not required.
I was not familiar with this canon before. Interesting to see.
A
acanonlawyer
Guest
Yes.
It’s practically the same as in the 1917 Code, by the way (as far as giving options…although it did not mention a degree in Sacred Scripture…just theology or canon law).
Dan
It’s practically the same as in the 1917 Code, by the way (as far as giving options…although it did not mention a degree in Sacred Scripture…just theology or canon law).
Dan
Last edited:
D
dochawk
Guest
For couple of millennia, “doctor” has indicated both he acquisition of significant knowledge, and contribution to that knowledge.
The universes (created by the RCC) formalized a process for this.
In, give or take, the 19th century, medicine was, well, kind of dangerous. The modern MD was created with the specific purpose of “borrowing” the credibility/respect of the doctors of the universities, at a time when, statistically, a person was better off avoiding medical practitioners.
The modern MD differs from the university doctors in that it only requires acquisition of the knowledge, and not contribution–that is, most MDs are not “doctors” in any traditional sense of the word.
As an actual doctor, I get a kick out of the MDs who try to distinguish themselves as “real doctor” when comparing to, well, the real doctors.
As someone who needs medical care from time to time, I’m quite happy to let them use the usurped term in exchange for the significantly improved standard of medical care . . .
oh, and “doctor” is basically the latin verb “to teach”. . .
doc hawk
Last edited:
- Status