The Kurgan is wrong about Canon 188.4
I will show, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that a loss of office (or offices) has nothing to do with a loss of clerical state.
The sources I will be using are as follows:
1 - The 1917 Code of Canon law. You can download it here if you want to follow along:
2 - Dom Augustine, A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law, from 1918. You can view all 4,000 pages here:
https://archive.org/details/1917CodeOfCanonLawCommentary/page/n109/mode/2up
3 - The New Canon Law - A Commentary and Summary of the New Code of Canon Law, by Rev. Stanislaus Woywod, from 1925. You can view all 500 pages here:
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/canonlaw/commentary%20.pdf
4 - The Kurgan’s book “Reclaiming the Catholic Church”, primarily pages 242 - 259 concerning canon 188.4.
5 - Canon 188.4 or Where is the Church? 1979 - An article that is presented in it’s entirety in Kurgan’s book. Here is a link to it:
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=12&catname=10
Sources 2 and 3 are two of the sources that Dr. Edward Peters, the curator and author of the 1917 Code of Canon, recommends reading if you want to dig deeper. I consider the Dom Augustine source, over 4,000 pages of commentary, released the same year as the 1917 Code itself, to be a great resource.
This is really not difficult at all. The “loss of office” discussed in canon 188 that kurgan focuses on does not equal “loss of clerical state”. This is so simplistic and basic a concept, that I find it difficult that someone as smart as kurgan could even believe they are the same thing
How do I know this? Well, I know this from the other sections and canons of the 1917 Code. The other sections that kurgan has to avoid in order to reach his false conclusion.
I will prove this by going through the chapter in kurgan’s book that deals with canon 188.4, and adding more detail and other information, commentary, and my own comments (in red) as we go. All things bold are made so by me, and are not part of the original text.
I will footnote references to kurgan books as RTCC with page number for brevity.
Let’s begin:
Kurgan writes:
“Here, however, we will now come to the crux of the matter and the point that makes the whole of Sedeprivationsim, or Sedevacantism as many refer to it, absolutely clear and undeniable (no, it doesn’t). It all hinges, of course on the Code of Canon law of 1917, which I hope you will begin to appreciate for its completeness and clarity in this section (I do, and thank you for giving me a reason to read it).
-RTCC page 242
“The original code was, of course, written in Latin, and no translations were ever deemed acceptable for use (yeah, in order to prevent what you are doing!), this remains the case, and it is a good thing, because as is often said in Italian, whether consciously or not, “the translator is often the traitor.”(This is why no English translation was allowed to be used).
RTCC page 242
“Latin is an unusually precise language and lends itself to little in the way of misunderstandings (OK, I’ll take your word for it), …that said, the English translation of the Code by Dr. Peters is a fair one and in the main reproduces the Canons quite faithfully. We will look at the English translation for ease of understanding, but I will in fact make use of the original latin for detailed explanation of the code, or rather, I will reproduce the work done by Benjamin Frederick Dryden, with the blessing of Daniel Dolan, who at the time it was written was a priest and is now a Bishop in the Catholic CMRI (Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen).”
RTCC page 243
Kurgan leaves out information here.
From the 1917 Code, Curator’s Introduction:
Page XXIV - During its sixty-five year enforcement period, the 2,414 canons of the 1917 Code were never translated from the original Latin and published in English as an entire work. Indeed, translations of the 1917 code were forbidden, at least in part to assure that disputes about the application of what was, for the Church, a revolutionary legal structure would be resolved within the language of the Legislator, and not according to the scores of languages amid which the 1917 Code operated. (So, one of the reasons that the Code was never allowed to be translated, was to prevent disputes about the application of the canons. This is precisely what kurgan is doing, applying the canons in a way that is disputed.)
Kurgan’s only commentary mentioned and quoted is from 1979. If he were seriously interested in understanding the 1917 code, he would at least read the 4,000 page commentary from Dom Augustine that was published in 1918. After all, that commentary has the complete Latin along with the complete English translation, and discusses the latin words quite a bit, a lot more than his 7 page commentary that he is “hanging his hat” on. So, why doesn’t kurgan quote an obviously superior and detailed commentary? It disputes his application of canon 188.
We see that kurgan notes correctly that the English version was never acceptable in its application, but yet he is going to use the English version for “ease of understanding ?”. However, there are latin terms (specifically latae sententiae and ferendae sententiae), that have no English equivalent, so these terms are used in the English version as well.
Kurgan says that he is going to use the latin, but then says, or rather, he is going to reproduce the work of someone else who uses some latin. Whatever. Let’s dive into canon 188:
My whole initial premise is based on the fact that there isn’t a stand-alone canon 188.4. It is canon 188, with 8 parts. The first, all encompassing sentence says that for any of these eight instances, one will lose his offices. Kurgan claims that 188,4 alone, and not the other seven, causes one to lose his clerical state. This is untrue. I will go through all eight parts of canon 188 and show that it is only talking about one’s offices. Actually, loss of clerical state is a whole other section of Canon Law.
Canon 188 Cross-Refs.: 1917 CIC 156, 1444, 2168, 2314, 2379, 2388
Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation recognized by the law itself if a cleric:
1 - Makes religious profession with due regard for the prescription of Canon 584 concerning benefices
Within the useful time established by law or, legal provision lacking, as determined by the Ordinary, fails to take possession of the office.
3 - Accepts another ecclesiastical office incompatible with the prior, and has obtained peaceful possession of [the other office]
4 - Publicly defects from the Catholic faith.
5 - Contracts marriage even, as they say, merely civilly;
6 - Against the prescription of Canon 141.1, freely gives his name to a secular army.
7 - Disposes of ecclesiastical habit on his own authority and without just cause, unless, having been warned by the Ordinary, he resumes [wearing it] within a month of having received the warning;
8 - Deserts illegitimately the residence to which he is bound and, having received a warning from the Ordinary and not being detained by a legitimate impediment, neither appears not answers within an appropriate. Time as determined by the Ordinary.
Commentary on canon 188 by Dom Augustine -1918
This canon presumes resignation, to which it applies the effect which certain facts are supposed to produce under the law. This effect is vacancy of the office held, whether adduced by privation, as punishment, or simply due to the incompatibility of certain offices with the newly chosen state in life (clerical state) or other offices. Hence
- 1.By religious profession (even simple), a man forfeits all parochial offices within one year from the date of said profession, and all other offices within three years.
- 2.The tempus utile within which the bishop must go to his diocese is four months from the date of confirmation; the parish priest has to commence his administration within the time prescribed by the Ordinary. Note the phrase “tempus utile,” which implies that a legitimate impediment or ignorance of the date fixed for taking hold of the office would excuse. (REFER to canon 1444 par. 2)
- 3.What incompatible offices are was said above; by the very acceptance of one such office that others become vacant (REFER to canon 156)
- 4.Defection from the Catholic faith, if public, deprives one of all ecclesiastical offices he may hold; not however, mere schism, if unconnected with heresy. (REFER to canon 2314)
- 5.Marriage, if contracted by a public act, either validly by such as are in minor orders only, or attempted by clerics constituted in higher orders, is tantamount to giving up office. Hence from the very moment a marriage is either contracted or attempted, the offices held by a clergyman would be vacant, and restitution of the revenues derived therefrom would begin from the moment of the marriage. (REFER to canon 2388)
- 6.Enlisting in the army has been touched above.
- 7.Doffing the ecclesiastical garb is tantamount to resignation if ostentatious and scandalous and connected with contumacy (stubborn rebelliousness) towards the Ordinary. (REFER to canon 2379)
- 8.As to residence, the necessary explanations are given under the respective canons. We only repeat that these cases, as set forth by our canon, do not really imply a resignation, but that the law supposes and presumes resignation, which therefore is an improper renunciation of legally presumed resignation. (REFER to canon 2168 par. 2)
Kurgan continues:
“The part that concerns us is part 4, so for clarity and taken for that aspect alone, it reads as follows:
Ignoring the other 7 parts does not create clarity. It creates a way for you to insert your own interpretation into canon 188.
Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation recognized by the law itself if a cleric publicly defects from the Catholic faith. This is what the text says, but office does not mean clerical state. You cannot resign from being a priest. Holy Orders must be removed through the external forum (more on this later).
It really is that simple and clear-cut.”
-RTCC page 244
My commentary
Notice that kurgan focuses in on one specific part of canon 188, part 4. However, this canon has 8 parts. There are eight instances that cause an “office” to become vacant. The question is, “do all 8 conditions all cause a loss of clerical state?”. Either they all do, or none of them do. You can’t single out one part as causing a loss of clerical state, but not the other seven. So, let’s look at the other 7, and then part 4, using the cross references (that kurgan mentions, but does not pursue)
188.1 - “Makes religious profession with due regard for the prescription of Canon 584 concerning benefices”
Canon 584
After one year from making any religious profession, parochial benefices vacate; after three years, the others [vacate].
Commentary on 584 - Dom Augustine
Parochial benefices become vacant after one year from the date of any religious profession; other benefices three years after profession.
A pastor who wishes to enter a religious order cannot resign his office during the period of his novitiate, according to can. 568. Under the Decretals, a vacancy was created ipso iure by any valid profession made after the novitiate.
So, a priest, who is a cleric, has an office, which is the pastor of a church. Upon pursuing the occupation of a religious, he loses his office, consisting of pastor of a church. CONCLUSION - part 1 does not cause a loss of clerical state, only office.
188.2 - Within the useful time established by law or, legal provision lacking, as determined by the Ordinary, fails to take possession of the office.
From the commentary on canon 188 above, a Bishop has four months to assume his office (as head of a diocese), and a priest must assume his office (as head of a parish) in the time given to him by the Bishop. If they don’t, they lose their office (head of a diocese or head of a parish). They do not lose their clerical state. CONCLUSION - Part causes loss of office, and not loss of clerical state.
188.3 - Accepts another ecclesiastical office incompatible with the prior, and has obtained peaceful possession of [the other office]
The cross reference for this is canon 156.
Canon 156
1 - Two incompatible offices cannot be conferred on anyone.
2 - Those offices are incompatible that cannot be fulfilled by the same person at the same time.
3 - With due regard for the prescription of Canon 188.3, the grant of a second office by the Apostolic See in invalid, unless, in the petitioning document, mention of the first incompatible document is made or a derogatory clause is attached.
Commentary on canon 156 - Dom Augustine
In compatible are such offices as exclude the possibility of doing justice to both. For instance, offices which require personal residence, such as bishoprics, canonries, parishes; offices which, though they do not require personal residence, are of the same nature and attached to the same church, chapel or altar; for instance, chaplaincies or simple canonries. A religious cannot be prior of one monastery and abbot of another.
Offices which require residence not service in the same church are compatible if noe is not sufficient for the decent support of a cleric.
CONCLUSION - For part 3, losing an office has nothing to do with loss of clerical state.
188.5 - Contracts marriage even as they say, merely civilly.
The commentary for canon 188.5 states, “Hence from the very moment a marriage is either contracted or attempted, the offices held by a clergyman would be vacant, and restitution of the revenues derived therefrom would begin from the moment of the marriage.” It is also cross referenced to canon 2388:
Canon 2388
1 - Clerics constituted in sacred [orders] or regulars, or nuns after a solemn vow of chastity, and likewise all those who presume to contract even a civil marriage with any of the aforesaid persons incur automatic excommunication simply reserved to the Apostolic See; clerics moreover, having been warned, if they do not come back to their senses within a time defined by the Ordinary according to the diversity of circumstances, will be degraded, with due regard for the prescription of Canon 188.5.
The commentary by Dom Augustine is VERY long for canon 2388 as it is very complicated with lots of examples and situations, but it touches upon some of the same topics we will be going over concerning 188.4, so I suggest you read the whole thing. I will pull out some interesting and relevant points below:
Commentary on 2388 - Dom Augustine.
There must be a genuine attempt at matrimony to incur the penalty stated in this canon; mere concubinage is not sufficient.
The term “praesumentes” supposes full knowledge and deliberation. Knowledge is here directed to the fact that the marriage is null and void and contrary to ecclesiastical law. It also supposes knowledge of the penalty. Therefore, supine or crass ignorance would excuse one from incurring the censure. We will go into the conditions necessary to incur a penalty later. Let it suffice to say at this point that ignorance has the ability to remove culpability per canon 2202)
Clerics, who, after a canonical warning do not retrace the step within the time set by the Ordinary. (a) forfeit all the offices they may hold, just as if they had formally resigned, for which no further declaration is required; and (b) shall be degraded, which requires a condemnatory, or at least declaratory, sentence, after the term set in the canonical warning has expired. We will be defining all of these terms a little later, but for the time being, I’ll just say that a priest, in order to lose his clerical state must be degraded. CONCLUSION - in part 5, a loss of offices does not include a loss of clerical state.
188.6 - Against the prescription of Canon 141.1, freely gives his name to a secular army. This references canon 141.1:
Canon 141.1
1 - [Clerics] should not volunteer in secular armies, except with the permission of the local Ordinary, which they might do in order to be free of an earlier draft; nor should they become involved in civil wars or disturbances of the public order in any way.
CONCLUSION - Since you do not lose clerical state by signing up for the army, only your offices, losing your offices does not cause you to lose clerical state.
188.7 - Disposes of ecclesiastical habit on his own authority and without just cause, unless having been warned by the Ordinary, he resumes [wearing it] within a month of having received the warning. Notice what is necessary here. Even though the offices are lost without any declaration, there still must a judgment by competent authority. Per this canon 188.7. There are three steps to losing ones offices. They are:
1 - The person disposes of his ecclesiastical habit.
2 - He is warned by the Bishop (his Ordinary) to resume wearing it.
3 - A month goes by after receiving the warning.
If after the month, he loses his office without any declaration necessary from the Bishop. However, the Bishop will state that the office has been lost. This is different than the bishop declaring that he has taken away the person’s office. This is a very subtle difference, but it will become more apparent later.
This is cross referenced to canon 2379:
Canon 2379
Clerics who, against the prescription of Canon 136, do not wear ecclesiastical habit and clerical tonsure are to be gravely warned; but if a month passes from the warning without result, [then] as to minor clerics the prescription of the same Canon 136.3, is observed; but major clerics, with due regard for the prescription of Canon 188.7, are suspended from the orders received, and if they notoriously go to a sort of life alien to the clerical state, [then] unless, once again be warned, they recover their senses, after three months from the final warning they are deposed.
Now, with canon 2379, we get to the actions that are necessary to remove one from the clerical state, by adding some more steps to the process. Here they are in their entirety:
1 - The person disposes of his ecclesiastical habit.
2 - He is warned by the Bishop (his Ordinary) to resume wearing it.
3 - A month goes by after receiving the warning.v (offices lost)
4 - A second warning is issued
5 - Three months pass, and then they are deposed.
Being deposed is one step away from being degraded. It is this final step that removes one from the clerical state. Notice that the church gives someone many chances, and the benefit of the doubt numerous times, before a penalty is imposed.
I will go into these terms in more detail later.
CONCLUSION - Because losing clerical state happens three months and a warning after the loss of office, loss of office is not that same as a loss of clerical state.
188.8
Deserts illegitimately the residence to which he is bound and, having received a warning from the Ordinary and not being detained by a legitimate impediment, neither appears not answers within an appropriate time as determined by the Ordinary. In this instance, a resignation is presumed. This is cross referenced with Canon 2168.2:
2168
2 - In the warning, the Ordinary shall recall the penalties that non-residential clerics incur and the prescription of Canon 188.8, and indicate to the cleric that within an appropriate time defined by the Ordinary he resume residence.
Commentary of Canon 2168 - Dom Augustine
The first question naturally turns upon the persons whom the law intends. They are (a) pastors, i.e., all who go by this name, either removable or irremovable, incumbents of true or holders of quasi-parishes, etc. So this is a rule primarily for parish priests.
The procedure against clerics who seriously transgress the law of residence, is as follows;
- the Ordinary shall first give a canonical warning or admonition and in the meantime, in the case of a negligent pastor, provide as well as he can for the welfare of his subjects. The expenses of this temporary provision must be borne by the careless pastor.
If we say, a canonical warning, not merely a paternal admonition, it is because the warning here intended has all the features of a canonical basis of procedure. Therefore it should be given in writing, or in presence of two witnesses, according to can 2143.1. The canonical nature of the warning also appears from its contents. For in it the Ordinary must (a) mention the penalty (loss of income according to the time of unlawful absence), (b) recall to the cleric’s mind the contumacious absence means tacit resignation of the office or benefice he holds, and (c) appoint a certain time within which the cleric should again take up his residence.
We see here that there is a procedure that must be followed. We will also see a procedure present in canon 188.4 that is similar. So here are the steps:
1 - The cleric is known to have moved without permission
2 - The Bishop warns him to return in writing
3 - The the letter, he is reminded that he is tacitly resigning if he doesn’t move back
4 - He must return within a certain time, or be removed from his office.
Once again, the Bishop is reminding the priest that he will be automatically resigning of his own accord. Even though it automatically happens, the Bishop still needs to declare that it already happened. This is different than the Bishop imposing the penalty of his own accord. CONCLUSION - Because moving your residence only caused you to lose your office of pastor, it is not the same as clerical state.
So, I think that I have proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that 7 of the 8 subsections of Canon 188 all refer to a loss of office, and not a loss of clerical state. We see that in 188.5 and 188.7, a loss of clerical state is caused by being deposed or degraded, and it happens after the removal of any offices, and is usually preceded by a second warning. We see that these serious warnings are in writing, and all are covered by procedures. Now onto canon 188.4:
188.4
4 - Publicly defects from the Catholic faith. The commentary of Dom Augustine states the following:
Defection from the Catholic faith, if public, deprives one of all ecclesiastical offices he may hold; not however, mere schism, if unconnected with heresy.
I wonder what publicly means? 188.4 is cross referenced to canon 2314:
Canon 2314
All apostates from the Christian faith and each and every heretic or schismatic:
1 - Incur by that fact excommunication;
2 - Unless they respect warnings, they are deprived of benefice, dignity, pension, office, or other duty that they have in the Church, they are declared infamous, and [if] clerics, with the warning being repeated, [they are] are deposed;
3 - If they give their names to non-Catholic sects or publicly adhere [to them], they are by that fact infamous, and with due regard for the prescription of Canon 188.4, clerics, the previous warnings having been useless, are degraded.
As in canons 188.5 and 188.7, we once again have a procedure that comes with warnings.
1 - If you are an apostate, heretic, or schismatic, you are excommunicated. This penalty is called a censure, and happens automatically, at the time of offense. Kurgan is correct about this. What’s important to realize is this takes place in the internal forum, as this is a spiritual separation from the Church.
2 - Once again, we see that you are given a warning (if you have not publicly defected from the Faith) before your offices are declared to be vacated. It’s not the the Bishop is removing you, but that you have removed yourself. You have resigned, you haven’t been fired.
3 - This is the one that explains what happens if you publicly defect from the Catholic faith.
So, here are the steps if you believe some heretical things:
1 - You are automatically excommunicated. This happens at the time of the offense in the internal forum. No one knows of this except you and God, initially.
2 - You are given a warning - This implies that your beliefs are known in the external forum.
3 - You are declared infamous
4 - Then, if you are aa cleric, you are given a second warning.
5 - If you still won’t listen, you are deposed (degraded - lose your clerical state)
2314 Commentary - Dom Augustine
What the terms apostates, heretics, schismatics mean, has been explained in canon 1325.2.
All three presuppose valid baptism. By apostates are here understood all who have gone astray from the Christian faith (devii a fide). For the rest it matters not whether the apostate has espoused Paganism, Judiasm, Mohammedism, or atheism or whether he is a mere unbeliever. Therefore also Freethinkers must be included in the term, because they reject all authority in matters of faith. Concern Spiritists there is room for doubt. For although it is quite evident that Spiritism as a sect is heretical, or rather tantamount to apostasy, because it retains hardly anything specifically Christian, yet it is possible, nay probable, that some of its followers may persuade themselves that they are Catholics, and can not, therefore, be classified among those mentioned in can. 2205 par. 3. The benefit of the doubt may be applied to them (can 209)
Heretics, according the canon 1325.2, are such as deny obstinately one or more articles of faith. It is not necessary to join a non-Catholic sect in order to be a heretic in the sense of par. 1 no. 1.
Schismatics refuse obedience to the Roman Pontiff and therefore are outside the communion of the faithful. This separation too, may take place with or without forming of clinging to schematic doctrines. Since the Vatican Council, schism is generally connected with heresy. For pure schism, i. e., mere disobedience to the lawful head of the Church, without at least a speculative positive doubt in her divinity, is not easily possible, except in individuals.
The crime of apostasy, heresy, or schism must be exteriorly manifested either in words, writings, or acts which betray defection from the Christian Church, denial of some article of faith, or separation from the unity of the Church according to canon 2195.1; because merely internal apostasy, heresy, or schism do not belong to the external forum and therefore are not intended here. From merely internal transgressions, even though they be grievously sinful, any confessor may absolve.
Heresy must be externally manifested to be covered by canon law. Therefore, merely remaining silent concerning possible heresy in the Vatican 2 documents is not covered. The kurgan needs to believe that silence (in reference to the documents of Vatican 2) equates with one being guilty of heresy. This is not the case in canon law, or in any law. Kurgan needs this to be true in order to wave his heresy wand and call almost all clergy heretical.
2 - The penalties here enunciated are twofold; censure and vindictive penalties; There are two types of penalties., a distinction is drawn, according to canon 2207.1 by reason of dignity, between laymen and clerics.
The censure inflicted is excommunication incurred ipso facto, which per se requires not even a declaratory sentence. Only if, in the prudent judgement of the superior, the public welfare should require such a sentence, it must be pronounced. Since the superior is assumed to know about the excommunication ipso facto, there must have been a trial, and then the decision is made if it is to be pronounced publicly. The bonum publicum certainly demands it in the case of clergymen. In the case of clergy, an excommunication must be pronounced publicly. It makes no difference as to when the clergy became guilty, whether it was pronounced by the court at the time of sentencing (ferendae sententiae) or it is declared to have happened automatically at the time of the offense (Latae sententiae). Note that the term moniti (par. 1 no. 2) does not refer to the incurring of the censure. Consequently, no canonical warning or admonition is required.
The vindictive penalties (which are in the external forum) inflicted are:
For laymen: privation of all offices and pensions they may hold in the Church, and infamy.
For clerics: privation of every benefice, dignity, pension, office, or charge which they may hold; also infamy and, after a fruitless warning, deposition.
A warning must precede these vindictive penalties, and we suppose the warning must be administered according to canon 2143, i. e. before an official of the diocese or two witnesses or by registered letter. The infamy inflicted on both laymen and clergymen, and the deposition pronounced against clerics, are ferendae sententiae. (The Latin phrase "Ferendae Sententiae" means that the sentenced is to be passed at a later time. So if a penalty is supposed to be imposed on someone because of what he/she has done, that person will not be excommunicated/deposed until such time as he/she has been informed that he is officially excommunicated/deposed.)
Deposition requires a second warning after the first one has been served, with the threat of privation and infamy.
Here we have the heart of the issue. The censure part (excommunication) requires no declaration from the church. This means that if a priest breaks the seal of confession, he is excommunicated from that moment on. If he gets away with it (meaning it stays in the internal forum) canon law has no effect. It could remain hidden, a secret between him and God so to speak, for the rest of his life, and he will pay the penalty at the time of death. Notice that if it is kept secret, merely in the internal forum of the guilty person, there is no way for him to be taken out of office or lose his clerical state in the external forum. As we saw in canon 2195.1, heresy must be externally manifested to be prosecuted using canon law. This is where the vindictive penalties come into play. This is the loss of offices, benefices, and possible loss of clerical state come into play.
Unlike ipso facto excommunication, the vindictive penalties require warnings (per canon 2143). Then infamy, then a 2nd warning, AND THEN deposition (loss of clerical state) if necessary.
3 - The vindictive penalties are rendered more severe in two cases, which may be distinct, but may also occur by one and the same act: sectae acatholicae nomen dare or publice adhaerere.
A sect means a religious society established in opposition to the Church, whether it consist of infidels, pagans, Jews, Moslems, non-Catholics, or schismatics. To become a member of such a society (nomen dare) means to inscribe one’s name on its roster. Of course, it is presumed that the new member knows it is a non-Catholic society, otherwise he would not incur the censure. If he hears of the censure after he has become a member, and promptly severs his connection, the penalty is not incurred (can 2202 par 1). Canon 2202 par 1 states, “Violation of a law in ignorance in imputed to no one, it the ignorance was not culpable; otherwise it is imputable more or less according to the culpability of the ignorance” So, if he doesn’t know about the crime, learns of his crime in some way, and then severs his connection, no penalty is incurred. This censure (excommunication) is taking place or not taking place in the internal forum.
The text also provides for cases of informal membership. Publice adhaerere means to belong publicly to a non-Catholic sect. This may be done by frequenting its services without any cause or reason, or by boasting of being a member, though not enrolled, by wearing a badge or emblem indicative of membership, etc. Those guilty of such conduct, whether laymen or clerics, render themselves infamous (infamia iuris latae sententiae) and consequently can. 2294 par. 1 must be applied to them. A cleric must, besides, be degraded if, after having been duly warned, he persists in being a member of such a society. All the offices he may hold become vacant ipso facto, without any further declaration. This is tacit resignation recognized by law (can. 188 no. 4) and therefore the vacancy is one de facto et iure. It need hardly be added that excommunication follows in each case, although the vindictive penaltes only are mentioned in nos. 2 and 3.
This is describing what the term “Public defects from the catholic faith” means in 188.4. Notice that the actions necessary all take place in the external forum (frequenting the service, wearing a badge, boasting, etc). Those people automatically become “infamous”, and can 2294.1 is applied. You are warned again and then you are degraded.This is the point at which all of your offices become vacant ipso facto, with our any further declaration. This is the tacit resignation recognized by 188.4. Canon 2294.1 states the following:
“1 - Whoever labors under infamy of law not only is irregular according to the norm of Canon 984 no 5, but moreover is incapable of obtaining benefices, pensions, offices, and ecclesiastical dignities, and of conducting legitimate ecclesiastical acts, of exercising rights and ecclesiastical responsibilities, and even must be prevented from exercising ministry in sacred functions.”
It is the declaration of infamy that removes one of all of his offices (per the need for public defection in canon 188.4), but at that point in time they have NOT lost their clerical state. After they receive yet another warning and do not change their ways, they are then deposed (degraded). We learned in the commentary on canon 211 that degradation requires an actual trial. So, to take away someones clerical state requires a declaration of infamy, two warnings, and an actual trial.
CONCLUSION - Canon 188.4, just like the other 7 parts of canon 188, have loss of office separate from loss of clerical state.
On a side note, we also know that loss of office is not equal to loss of clerical state, as the 1917 Code has separate canons for each
Canons 183 - 195 On the loss of ecclesiastic offices
Canons 211 - 214 - On reduction of Clerics to the lat state.
On a final note, a crime that occurs in the internal forum, also has it’s remedy in the internal forum. For instance, a priest who violates the seal of confession is automatically, ipso facto excommunicated. If he realizes this and goes to confession (internal forum), he is forgiven and reinstated in the internal forum, also with no one knowing about it. The reception of Holy Orders always occurs in the external forum. It is impossible to lose clerical state in the internal forum. A loss of clerical state must take place in the external forum. Kurgan believes that clerical state is given in the external forum, but can be lost in the internal forum. This has never happened ever, and goes against the 1917 code as well.
On another final note, in Canon Law, to incur ANY penalty, the conditions of canons 2201 thru 2206 must be satisfied. Kurgan ignores these requirements.
There is no much more, but I will stop here for now.
Comments
Post a Comment