Seminarians and the Clerical State

[Quasi_Tenebrous]

It is my opinion that dioceses and seminaries in the USA deal poorly with seminarians by denying them the clerical state* before diaconate, and that this regrettably leads to an unhealthy environment. This is for three reasons:

1. It ensures that they have no rights - either civil or canonical - for the five-to-seven years before ordination, as far as their association with the Diocese is concerned.
2. This denial of rights leaves them open to abusive power-dynamics, since their association with the diocese is legally considered “at-will,” and they have no right to appeal bishops’ decisions in either a civil or canonical court.
3. Seminarians do not have a moral obligation toward their bishops, because the bishops have granted them no rights. Yet this is not explained to the seminarians by the dioceses, and the seminarians seem to function under the assumption that they have a moral obligation toward their bishops.

*The clerical state is a legal apparatus in canon law. The persons who are in the clerical state are called “clerics.” Since a decree of Paul VI, the only seminarians who are clerics are deacons; before that, the clerical state was entered with First Tonsure - many years before the seminarians was a deacon.

 

[Quasi_Tenebrous]

In my experience, seminarians are not informed of this. Those who are aware know through personal research, or personal experience.

 

[Pitcairn17]

In what specific ways are seminarians deprived of “civil rights” otherwise applicable under state and federal law?

 

[Quasi_Tenebrous]

They have no civil rights as far as their association or employment goes. That is because those rights are not applicable under state and federal law (i.e. the state does not involve itself in ministerial contracts).

This means, specifically, that they cannot claim wrongful termination. That has turned out to be problematic, as the McCarick and Bransfield cases show.