Posted on 08/13/2006 7:31:18 AM PDT by Gamecock
I would be greatly surprised it were Bishop Olmstead?
so would I, and some of my friends I know who like to investigate this kind of stuff.
Following is info re:Canon
PART II : PENALTIES FOR PARTICULAR OFFENCES and TITLE III : USURPATION OF ECCLESIASTICAL OFFICES AND OFFENCES COMMITTED IN THEIR EXERCISE
http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/canon/c1364-1399.htm
Thanks for the apology. Can you understand though why I may feel some anger against the Catholic Church and it being justified?
We have youth in our Correctional facility who out of financial consideration that aren't being serviced and that is what really ticks me off.
As a non Catholic personally I don't care if a volunteer provides the services but I would certainly believe that the Catholic Church would, but apparently it doesn't.
"What you are saying should concern all Catholics in the diocese of Phoenix."
It is current, and yes, you would think it would.
I have read some of their material in the past but the paragaph that stands out is the following regarding their associations. The WCC has had its fangs in the Church for many years. They must surely gloat with affilation to these wayward priests.
"Through the ecclesial establishment of a religious society, Society of Christ's Priesthood, and affiliation with the International Council of Community Churches (ICCC) which is a member of the World Council of Churches, married Roman Catholic Priests can again acquire the ecclesiastical standing they lost when they married. Their ordination is valid in the eyes of ICCC"
Also, the following is some information:
CHAPTER IV : LOSS OF THE CLERICAL STATE
Can. 290 Sacred ordination once validly received never becomes invalid. A cleric, however, loses the clerical state:
1ƒ by a judgment of a court or an administrative decree, declaring the ordination invalid;
2ƒ by the penalty of dismissal lawfully imposed;
3ƒ by a rescript of the Apostolic See; this rescript, however, is granted to deacons only for grave reasons and to priests only for the gravest of reasons.
Can. 291 Apart from the cases mentioned in can. 290, n. 1, the loss of the clerical state does not carry with it a dispensation from the obligation of celibacy, which is granted solely by the Roman Pontiff.
Can. 292 A cleric who loses the clerical state in accordance with the law, loses thereby the rights that are proper to the clerical state and is no longer bound by any obligations of the clerical state, without prejudice to can. 291. He is prohibited from exercising the power of order, without prejudice to can. 976. He is automatically deprived of all offices and roles and of any delegated power.
Can. 293 A cleric who has lost the clerical state cannot be enrolled as a cleric again save by rescript of the Apostolic See.
What if he refuses to resign? I had in mind something involuntary when I asked the question.
Thanks for the info.
This diocese has it's share of problems, that's for sure. I know some that will be interested in this.
"This diocese has it's share of problems, that's for sure."
I know this is off topic but I read an article in the Republic the other day that basically said that the Vatican was protecting three priests from the Phx diocese from being sent back to the US to be prosecuted for the sexual molestation of minors. Why would the vatican do that?
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0802priest0802.html
To me, I find this disturbing. 30 priests under investigation for crimes just from Phoenix alone?
A priest can be laicized and in full communion with the Church.
Pretty pathetic, isn't it?
This filthy scourge has been festering in this Diocese for many years. It's just recently that things are beginning to be "cleaned up" because the previous "bishop" always looked the other way (or out right threatened) if there were an allegation.
And yes, that was just *this* Diocese.
Instead of being called "Rent a Priest" they should be called "Rent a Dissident."
"I never really cared one way or the other about the issue of celibacy, but I don't think it has a bright future."
It has a 2000 year running history of success and devotion. I believe it has a much brighter future than you might imagine.
That article was recent, August 2 of this year about the three that are fighting extradiction to Maricopa and all the lawyer representing the Catholic Church can say is is that it is heartbreaking? I mean come on.
Why would the Vatican take accused priests at their word that they'd return to the US for prosecution?
And too, I'm not just saying that it is only Catholics do these things, they aren't. Alas, I'm off topic and maybe I'm just a little too sensitive about the whole issue. You know where I work.
But you don't read articles from other organized religions that protect those that are being accused from being brought before the court on charges. That does make the Catholic Church complicit.
From the article:
Paul Pfaffenberger, Arizona leader of the Survivors Network of those Accused by Priests, or SNAP, said the Salvatorian order was "complicit and morally responsible" for the disappearance.
According to the article, the Vatican did no such thing. They were not protecting him, he was under "house arrest" at the Rome Headquarters of his order, awaiting extradition. He got away.
The problem is with the order, for not keeping a better eye on him, not The Vatican.
That said, back to our regularly scheduled topic....
Isn't the order in the nation of the Vatican?
According to the article you sited, the Vatican had nothing to do with it. They weren't taking his word. It was turned over to the Italian court, and they ruled that he was to be extradited to face charges.
He was under house arrest at the Rome headquarters of his order. He got away. The Swiss Guards of the Vatican were not guarding him.
Please read what you sited.
By definition, celibacy inherently has no future. Celibates have to recruit new members from parties who don't hold to the same values/behaviors, in order to pass the practice on to another generation.
Not criticizing the practice per se, just saying that it's a "dead-end" in and of itself.
I'm not sure what you mean. They are not part of the Vatican gov't.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.