Due to the post
below some were wondering
about priests running for public office. Here is the relevant section in the Code
of Canon law (1983).
Can. 285 §1. Clerics are to refrain completely
from all those things which are unbecoming to their state, according
to the prescripts
of particular law.
§2. Clerics are to avoid those things which, although
not unbecoming, are nevertheless foreign to the clerical state.
§3. Clerics are forbidden to assume public offices
which entail a participation in the exercise of civil power.
§4. Without the permission of their ordinary,
they are not to take on the management of goods belonging to lay persons
or secular offices which entail
an obligation of rendering accounts. They are prohibited from giving surety
even with their own goods without consultation with their proper ordinary.
They also are to refrain from signing promissory notes, namely, those through
which they assume an obligation to make payment on demand.
9 comments
So would that mean that Robert Drinan was violating Canon Law by serving as a Congressman?
Here in Canada we are having an election and there is a Catholic priest running for office (member of parliament) for the New Democratic Party (they are socialists).
The party policy is to worship the sacrament of abortion on demand and to worship the human right of gay marriage. The priest has vowed not to vote in favour of any law which would limit access to abortion. He has openly mocked those faithful Catholics who have expressed an opinion that abortion is an important political issue and even perhaps the most important.
This priest’s bishop, Bishop Douglas Crosby, has not said anything about this. Nothing.
Check this out for more info: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/jun/04062303.html
sorry, you’ve posted all this before…perhaps I should read your blog in chronilogical order.
Perhaps I should learn how to spell…sheeeeesh.
What if he’s a retired priest?
L,
This would come under the topic of “priest forever” and being retired from active ministry dose not excuse them from Canon law.
I think Section 3 is subsumed within Section 1. 😉
On Drinan, he was ordained in 1953 and served from 1971 to 1980. So he must have been in violation of the Canon law.
He also voted in favor of the “right” to abortion. (Put cursor on text to read it): “As a Catholic, I think abortion is wrong, but it should not be subject to criminal law. It is not enforceable,” he said. Too many women believe they should have the right to terminate a pregnancy in the first trimester, he said.
Perhaps Mahoney’s first denial of communion should be Drinan, not Kerry. Of course, Drinan could hold his own Mass. Scarey thought, eh?
I’m pretty sure that the aforementioned Canon wasn’t part of Canon Law until the 1983 Code. Thus Drinan would not have been in violation of Canon Law while he was in office. My understanding is that this canon was added to the 1983 Code of Canon Law specifically because of Fr. Drinan and his actions (though there may have been other priests who also behaved in a similar fashion).
I’m hazy about all this Drinan business. It happened when I was a teenager and not keeping my ear very resolutely to the ground about Church matters, but I rather thought he was told by his bishop to step down, after he had taken office. (He beat the young Kerry in the primary for that election.) If that was so I imagine the bishop must have had some justification on paper for telling him he couldn’t serve in Congress. Am I remembering this correctly?