Rejected for Diaconate Formation?

[Praxis]

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.

From what he said, the annulment was not the issue, but that he got re-married before attempting/receiving one.

Fully 80% of the deacons in my diocese are on at least their second marriages which is scary in itself…

 

[Aquinas74]

From what he said, the annulment was not the issue, but that he got re-married before attempting/receiving one.

Fully 80% of the deacons in my diocese are on at least their second marriages which is scary in itself…

Praxis, my prayers to your friend, but the Canon is quite clear. If it went all the way to the Holy See you can be assured that it received the proper scrutiny it deserved. If he got re-married civily outside the Church before receiving the annulment, then from my reading of the Canon, that would be an impediment since he did not seek to annul his marriage in the church. If he had gotten the annulment and then entered into a Catholic Marriage. I would think then he would have had no problem. The impediment in this case was his failure to get an annulment and marrying civilly or outside the Church before receiving that annulment. Take this response with Charity, I will remember you and your friend in my prayers before the Blessed Sacrament.

 

[Praxis]

Praxis, my prayers to your friend, but the Canon is quite clear. If it went all the way to the Holy See you can be assured that it received the proper scrutiny it deserved. If he got re-married civily outside the Church before receiving the annulment, then from my reading of the Canon, that would be an impediment since he did not seek to annul his marriage in the church. If he had gotten the annulment and then entered into a Catholic Marriage. I would think then he would have had no problem. The impediment in this case was his failure to get an annulment and marrying civilly or outside the Church before receiving that annulment. Take this response with Charity, I will remember you and your friend in my prayers before the Blessed Sacrament.

I am going to try to be as charitable as I can, but what was the reason for your posting? It just re-stated the obvious. Why?

“Pug” appears to have hit a home run. It’s highly likely that it is the exact information that should have been given to my friend and the other man. No one offered that canon except “Pug.” If the canonist did plead my friend’s case, maybe he’s trying to spare him some embarrassment by not telling him, but at the same time it’s causing a great deal of hurtful confusion.

Someone else said that some dioceses do not allow men who have annulments. I replied that it did not appear to be the case in my diocese, that the great majority of our deacons have been one or more annulments THEREFORE it had to be the fact that he was in the eyes of the Church, married AND involved in an adulterous relationship.

I’m still not sure what prompted your posting – and it’s tone as if I was upset with the ruling he received or confused about the canon. I found it suspect until “Pug” provided the information. Done.

 

[Aquinas74]

I am going to try to be as charitable as I can, but what was the reason for your posting? It just re-stated the obvious. Why?

“Pug” appears to have hit a home run. It’s highly likely that it is the exact information that should have been given to my friend and the other man. No one offered that canon except “Pug.” If the canonist did plead my friend’s case, maybe he’s trying to spare him some embarrassment by not telling him, but at the same time it’s causing a great deal of hurtful confusion.

Someone else said that some dioceses do not allow men who have annulments. I replied that it did not appear to be the case in my diocese, that the great majority of our deacons have been one or more annulments THEREFORE it had to be the fact that he was in the eyes of the Church, married AND involved in an adulterous relationship.

I’m still not sure what prompted your posting – and it’s tone as if I was upset with the ruling he received or confused about the canon. I found it suspect until “Pug” provided the information. Done.

My apologies Praxis, it was not intented to cause any anger, if it did I am truly sorry. But I will continue to keep you and your friend in my prayers. God’s peace be with you this night.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

I think everyone is overlooking a few very simple facts. Holy Orders is not a right, it is a vocation. Any vocation involves a discernment process and even with the discernment process, a call to Orders from the local ordinary, the Bishop/Archbishop is necessary. . Often this call is delegated to the director of the diaconate program, who makes the recommendations to the local ordinary who may chose to act upon or reject a recommendation. He has the final word for his diocese. . If rejected, that is as far as the process will go. The only alternative the involved individual could have, at least in my mind, would be to move to another diocese and try all over again.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[vocatio]

From what he said, the annulment was not the issue, but that he got re-married before attempting/receiving one.

Fully 80% of the deacons in my diocese are on at least their second marriages which is scary in itself…

I hate saying this, but this is absolutely scandalous! It was one of the things that cut my heart so deep many years ago. My parent’s marraige was annulled, and my mom basically claimed we were illigitimate then. She was anti-Catholic. Now that I have a much better understanding of Church teaching, I understand that my parents were truly never really married in the eyes of God. They were not open to marriage. There were too many promises they just could seem not to keep. Both sides possibly.

I married a church of Christ woman for a reason. They reject divorce on the grounds of losing your eternal soul if you attempt to remarry. Now that is far reaching to take God’s place and place others in judgment. But it seems to keep them in their marriages. My wife is the baby of 8 and all over her siblings are married to their first spouse…just like us…19 years. And getting happier everyday. It seems that Catholics have not learned to compromise in small matter when it comes to the simpler things in life in marriage. How the H.E. Double you know what are those men gonig to be able to give good advice to anyone? That’s why it’s scandalous. I understand making mistakes, but this is a biggy.

I hope this isn’t the norm when I’m to bat for the diaconate. So far I hear whining coming from some of them. They seem to want to do more than they are allowed. Personally, I would like to do mission work rather than work with the annulment process. But I can see the validity of it now. I just think it’s being abused in the country in particular. It makes me think that some of the bishops are questionably faithful to the majesteium. Oh well, I’m still learning. I guess it’s best to keep my mouth shut until I know it all. Which will be never.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I think everyone is overlooking a few very simple facts. Holy Orders is not a right, it is a vocation. Any vocation involves a discernment process and even with the discernment process, a call to Orders from the local ordinary, the Bishop/Archbishop is necessary. . Often this call is delegated to the director of the diaconate program, who makes the recommendations to the local ordinary who may chose to act upon or reject a recommendation. He has the final word for his diocese. . If rejected, that is as far as the process will go. The only alternative the involved individual could have, at least in my mind, would be to move to another diocese and try all over again.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

Deacon Ed B,
One addition to your otherwise fine reply. It should read “a call to Orders from the local ordinary, the Bishop/Archbishop, or major religious superior, is necessary.”

Please do not leave us religious out!

I would modify the sentence have underlined in the quote.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

jI totally agree.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Spiller]

I think everyone is overlooking a few very simple facts. Holy Orders is not a right, it is a vocation. Any vocation involves a discernment process and even with the discernment process, a call to Orders from the local ordinary, the Bishop/Archbishop is necessary. . Often this call is delegated to the director of the diaconate program, who makes the recommendations to the local ordinary who may chose to act upon or reject a recommendation. He has the final word for his diocese. . ** If rejected, that is as far as the process will go. The only alternative the involved individual could have, at least in my mind, would be to move to another diocese and try all over again. **
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

Not around here – at least in the past.

The man was rejected by our former bishop, not by the priest in charge of the diaconate formation program. I am certain of that. Maneuvering by our former pastor and some influential members of our parish changed the bishop’s mind. I have no idea what sort of maneuvering took place. All I know is that it did, it was effective and the fruit is rotten…