Defected of canonical form an common error
"Deacon N, incardinated in Diocese A, had his faculties removed in 1997. Later, Bishop B, former bishop of neighboring Diocese B, granted him faculties there. The letter of delegation reads: "I am pleased to grant you the faculties of Diocese B to serve as a deacon in the parishes of St. M...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Print Article |
| Language: | Undetermined language |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Soc.
2007
|
| In: |
Roman replies and CLSA advisory opinions
Year: 2007, Pages: 49-51 |
| IxTheo Classification: | SB Catholic Church law |
| Further subjects: | B
Catholic church Codex iuris canonici 1983. can. 144
B Marriage law B Catholic church Codex iuris canonici 1983. can. 1111 B Formal defect B Formpflicht |
| Summary: | "Deacon N, incardinated in Diocese A, had his faculties removed in 1997. Later, Bishop B, former bishop of neighboring Diocese B, granted him faculties there. The letter of delegation reads: "I am pleased to grant you the faculties of Diocese B to serve as a deacon in the parishes of St. Mary's in Jonesville and St. Joseph 's in Smithville. This will enable you to help out with the witnessing of marriages, celebrating baptism, preaching, etc. I am enclosing a copy of the faculties and the policies for deacons. Since you are not incardinated in this diocese, you are not being assigned as parish deacon at St. Mary's and St. Joseph's." Did Bishop B grant Deacon N faculties only for the parishes of St. Mary's in Jonesville and St. Joseph's in Smithville, or did he grant him diocesan-wide faculties? In Diocese B, it is the practice that the faculties of priests and deacons are valid everywhere in the diocese. This deacon has been known to have assisted at a number of marriages outside these two parishes, and there are concerns about their being invalid if the faculties were restricted to the two parishes. If he were indeed lacking the faculty, would common error exist in this case? Furthermore, as of November 2006, Bishop B's successor removed Deacon N's faculties and told him he was not permitted to function as a deacon in the diocese, but there have been reports that he has afterward assisted at some marriages anyway. There is some concern this may occur again. Would these marriages be valid due to common error? If not, should sanations be sought for them?" |
|---|---|
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Roman replies and CLSA advisory opinions
|