Dispensation from the obligations of the clerical state
"This case presents several interesting issues: in 2004, a petition was presented to the Congregation for the Clergy for dispensation from the obligations of the clerical state. In early 2007, the same priest wrote to the Diocesan Bishop rescinding his petition. The Diocesan Bishop fonvarded th...
| Corporate Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Print Article |
| Language: | Undetermined language |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Soc.
2008
|
| In: |
Roman replies and CLSA advisory opinions
Year: 2008, Pages: 5-7 |
| IxTheo Classification: | SB Catholic Church law |
| Further subjects: | B
Catholic church Codex iuris canonici 1983. can. 62
B Catholic church Codex iuris canonici 1983. can. 41 B Klerikerstand B Dismissal B Dispensation B Klerikerrecht B Laicization B Catholic church Codex iuris canonici 1983. can. 71 |
| Summary: | "This case presents several interesting issues: in 2004, a petition was presented to the Congregation for the Clergy for dispensation from the obligations of the clerical state. In early 2007, the same priest wrote to the Diocesan Bishop rescinding his petition. The Diocesan Bishop fonvarded the priest's letter to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. That same month, the Bishop, while visiting Rome on other business, went to the Congregation for Clergy and was given a copy of the rescript of dispensation: in the intervening time, the Congregation for the Clergy had presented the original petition to the Holy Father who had granted it earlier that same month. In a written response, the Congregation for the Clergy replied to the Bishop that the dispensation must stand and should be communicated to the Petitioner. What follows is part of the exchange of correspondence. The rescript of dispensation contained the standard provisions and is not reprinted here. The dates are true, since they are pertinent to the case. This is an unofficial English translation prepared by Rev Thomas C. Anslow, C.M., J. C.L., Archdiocese of Los Angeles, who submitted the documentation. He noted the following: the reason for the granting of the original petition is cited: the manner in which the rescript takes effect [at the moment of execution, or notification, with or without the acceptance of the petitioner, Can 62]; that the grant of the petition is not a simply personal matter [sui dumtaxat] but was due to the "radical lack of suitability of the candidate for Holy Orders in the first place;" and that no recourse was available to the petitioner." |
|---|---|
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Roman replies and CLSA advisory opinions
|