Rejected for Diaconate Formation?

[Praxis]

A friend of mine was married many years ago in the Church. The marriage lasted less than a year and they were civilly divorced. He did not seek an annulment from the Church.

A few years later he was re-married outside of the Church. Several years after that, he sought and was granted an annulment from his first marriage. He and his wife then had their marriage convalidated in the Church.

Now several years after that, he looked into joining our local diaconate formation program. After a long review he was told “no.” They said he was effectively married to two women at one time (given that his first marriage had not been annulled, he was at least in an adulterous relationship with his current wife) and that the Church would not subject itself to the possibility of such scandal.

This doesn’t seem kosher to me. Yes, he sinned but he also took care of everything – long before it became expedient to do so. What do you all think? Thanks.

 

[bilop]

A friend of mine was married many years ago in the Church. The marriage lasted less than a year and they were civilly divorced. He did not seek an annulment from the Church.

A few years later he was re-married outside of the Church. Several years after that, he sought and was granted an annulment from his first marriage. He and his wife then had their marriage convalidated in the Church.

Now several years after that, he looked into joining our local diaconate formation program. After a long review he was told “no.” They said he was effectively married to two women at one time (given that his first marriage had not been annulled, he was at least in an adulterous relationship with his current wife) and that the Church would not subject itself to the possibility of such scandal.

This doesn’t seem kosher to me. Yes, he sinned but he also took care of everything – long before it became expedient to do so. What do you all think? Thanks.

It seems reasonable to me. He showed lack of obedience to the Church by contracting an invalid marriage.

Holy orders is not a right of the faithful. The Church has to concur in your vocation.

The Bishop probably feels it would be scandalous to have someone who openly defied Church authority in a position of authority; especially since Deacons are often heavily involved in marriage prep. I can’t say I disagree.

God Bless

 

[puzzleannie]

A This doesn’t seem kosher to me. Yes, he sinned but he also took care of everything – long before it became expedient to do so. What do you all think? Thanks.

since there is no way, we as uninformed 3rd parties can know exactly what was said or what ALL the reasons were for this man’s rejection, we cannot comment. since you ask what I think, I think the people making decision had reason to believe, taking all factors into account, that this person while most likely now being a good, faithful Catholic layman, is not a good deacon candidate. Their reasons are none of my business.

 

[SisterSnowflake]

There has to be more to the story!

 

[Praxis]

It seems reasonable to me. He showed lack of obedience to the Church by contracting an invalid marriage.

Holy orders is not a right of the faithful. The Church has to concur in your vocation.

The Bishop probably feels it would be scandalous to have someone who openly defied Church authority in a position of authority; especially since Deacons are often heavily involved in marriage prep. I can’t say I disagree.

God Bless

No.

The bishop never got involved in the details. In general terms his pastor and bishop were very much in favor of him joining the formation.

Our diocesan canonist (a priest) said it would be impossible based on canon law and that was that.

Seems quite odd.

 

[Praxis]

There has to be more to the story!

I really don’t think so in this case. But let me ask this. IF there is nothing more to it, should have have been excluded?

 

[bilop]

No.

The bishop never got involved in the details. In general terms his pastor and bishop were very much in favor of him joining the formation.

Our diocesan canonist (a priest) said it would be impossible based on canon law and that was that.

Seems quite odd.

Well, some dioceses and orders do not accepted annulled men to the priesthood, and they have that right. It is likely the same for the permanent diaconate. I am fairly sure they have the right to reject a man on those grounds alone.

God Bless

 

[Praxis]

since there is no way, we as uninformed 3rd parties can know exactly what was said or what ALL the reasons were for this man’s rejection, we cannot comment. since you ask what I think, I think the people making decision had reason to believe, taking all factors into account, that this person while most likely now being a good, faithful Catholic layman, is not a good deacon candidate. Their reasons are none of my business.

It was based solely on this.

He was accepted into the formation pending this matter. Our canonist allegedly requested an opinion from some dicastery at the Vatican. When the opinion was received it was negative…

That opinion was used to release another man with a similar background who was already in the formation for 3 months…

 

[Praxis]

Well, some dioceses and orders do not accepted annulled men to the priesthood, and they have that right. It is likely the same for the permanent diaconate. I am fairly sure they have the right to reject a man on those grounds alone.

God Bless

OK… Where is that authority documented?

I’ll note right now that this man is not going to “fight it.” I think he could – and prevail, but he believes the Holy Spirit is guiding him which sounds like a very healthy attitude.

 

[Orogeny]

OK… Where is that authority documented?

I’ll note right now that this man is not going to “fight it.” I think he could – and prevail, but he believes the Holy Spirit is guiding him which sounds like a very healthy attitude.

Fight it and prevail with whom? It sound like from your other posts, that the Vatican was involved in the decision. Who else would he appeal to?

Peace

Tim

 

[puzzleannie]

so the decision was made according to canon law. don’t know why OP or anyone else is a party, unless the rejected candidate has chosen to broadcast his private affairs, but what is the problem? that is why we have a canon law and tribunal and canon lawyers to explain it.

 

[Praxis]

so the decision was made according to canon law. don’t know why OP or anyone else is a party, unless the rejected candidate has chosen to broadcast his private affairs, but what is the problem? that is why we have a canon law and tribunal and canon lawyers to explain it.

We discussed it, it doesn’t sound right to me so I thought I would ask.

I clearly chose the wrong place to ask such a question. The “canon law” forum is currently full over at EWTN. I had hoped someone would say “ooooh, based on Canon XYZ, blah, blah, blah is why he was rejected.” He (or the other person released from the formation) was certainly not told the CofC article and neither wants to engage a canonist.

My question is now this: why did you even respond if you didn’t have the ability to add any value? Your comments about tribunals and canon lawyers are axiomatic. They add absolutely nothing.

I was hoping someone here would actually know the reason(s) or at the very least say “yeah, that happened at my diocese too” and they were told xyz.

 

[Praxis]

Well, some dioceses and orders do not accepted annulled men to the priesthood, and they have that right. It is likely the same for the permanent diaconate. I am fairly sure they have the right to reject a man on those grounds alone.

God Bless

I will add that the very first group of deacons ordained in our diocese a few years ago, 8 of 10 were men that were ordained had been divorced one or more times.

 

[Praxis]

Fight it and prevail with whom? It sound like from your other posts, that the Vatican was involved in the decision. Who else would he appeal to?

Peace

Tim

The whole question rests with the decision. It’s not as if he received a formal letter explaining why he was rejected. If he had, there would be no questions.

 

[puzzleannie]

WI clearly chose the wrong place to ask such a question. The “canon law” forum is currently full over at EWTN. I had hoped someone would say “ooooh, based on Canon XYZ, blah, blah, blah is why he was rejected.” He (or the other person released from the formation) was certainly not told the CofC article and neither wants to engage a canonist.

My question is now this: why did you even respond if you didn’t have the ability to add any value? Your comments about tribunals and canon lawyers are axiomatic. They add absolutely nothing.
.

since you did not like my response, I wonder you chose to phrase your question the way you did in OP. perhaps I could have avoided wasting your time had your question been as specific and helpful as this post has been.

 

[Orogeny]

The whole question rests with the decision. It’s not as if he received a formal letter explaining why he was rejected. If he had, there would be no questions.

It doesn’t sound like he does have any questions.

Peace

Tim

 

[Praxis]

It doesn’t sound like he does have any questions.

Peace

Tim

He’d like to know why other than “canon law does not permit it” and “the Church does not want scandal.”

I’m only guessing now, but I’ll bet something in canon law forbids the ordaining of a man that might bring scandal to the Church. That would be quite likely. I don’t have the paragraph but I’m certain it exists.

The opinion from the Vatican canonist was likely that the situation described could possibly scandalize the church and hence the opinion.

That’s just a guess though.

I would be willing to bet there are other men who have been ordained deacons that fall in his exact category.

 

[Pug]

I am not a canonist, but I refer you to these canons:

Can. 1040 Those affected by any impediment, whether perpetual, which is called an irregularity, or simple, are prevented from receiving orders. The only impediments incurred, however, are those contained in the following canons.
Can. 1041 The following are irregular for receiving orders:
1/ a person who labors under some form of amentia or other psychic illness due to which, after experts have been consulted, he is judged unqualified to fulfill the ministry properly;
2/ a person who has committed the delict of apostasy, heresy, or schism;
3/ a person who has attempted marriage, even only civilly, while either impeded personally from entering marriage by a matrimonial bond, sacred orders, or a public perpetual vow of chastity, or with a woman bound by a valid marriage or restricted by the same type of vow;
4/ a person who has committed voluntary homicide or procured a completed abortion and all those who positively cooperated in either;
5/ a person who has mutilated himself or another gravely and maliciously or who has attempted suicide;
6/ a person who has placed an act of orders reserved to those in the order of episcopate or presbyterate while either lacking that order or prohibited from its exercise by some declared or imposed canonical penalty.

Now, of course, some things can be dispensed, so you understand, numbers 2 and 3 there have a canon that refers to them, this seems to refer those to the Apostolic See in some instance:

Can. 1047 §1. Dispensation from all irregularities is reserved to the Apostolic See alone if the fact on which they are based has been brought to the judicial forum.
§2. Dispensation from the following irregularities and impediments to receive orders is also reserved to the Apostolic See:
1/ irregularities from the public delicts mentioned in ⇒ can. 1041, nn. 2 and 3;
2/ the irregularity from the delict mentioned in ⇒ can. 1041, n. 4, whether public or occult;
3/ the impediment mentioned in ⇒ can. 1042, n. 1.

I am completely unable to tell you the legal significance of the events you describe. But, the man did contract a non-Catholic marriage of some type when his previous marriage had not been declared null. I can conceive that this might fall under that section 3 above, and the judicial forum was involved in the annulment process or something. And so the Apostolic See was consulted. It may have to do with if a putative bond existed, but I really don’t know.

I added the red to help you see the relevant passages.

 

[ThuribleGuy45]

I would be interested in knowing from a canonist if 1041 (3) is meant to apply to someone who has not attempted to obtain an annulment and is therefore still in the impeded state, or if the impeded status survives the annulment process without an explicit or implicit removal.

A neighboring diocese does not accept diaconal candidates who have been through an annulment. Our diocese has a number of deacons who have been through an annulment prior to their acceptance into formation. Go figure.

 

[Praxis]

I am not a canonist, but I refer you to these canons:

Now, of course, some things can be dispensed, so you understand, numbers 2 and 3 there have a canon that refers to them, this seems to refer those to the Apostolic See in some instance:

I am completely unable to tell you the legal significance of the events you describe. But, the man did contract a non-Catholic marriage of some type when his previous marriage had not been declared null. I can conceive that this might fall under that section 3 above, and the judicial forum was involved in the annulment process or something. And so the Apostolic See was consulted. It may have to do with if a putative bond existed, but I really don’t know.

I added the red to help you see the relevant passages.

Absolutely awesome response! Thank you so very much! This is precisely the sort of thing I was looking for. This is wonderful.

I will add another guess now. Our diocesan priest/canonist had business to take care of at the Vatican and agreed to see someone about this matter. My guess is that perhaps he tried to have it dispensed and his plea was rejected?

I know when they found out about the second man in formation who had been married, he was IMMEDIATELY asked not to attend any longer based on lessons learned with this first person.

Again, a wonderful reply. Thank you so very much…