On the laicization of bishops
May 3, 2008 by Amy
There’s been a lot of discussion of this question here and there, not only related to the newly-elected president of Paraguay, but also in relation to those bishops who might have profoundly betrayed their office and call.
Today, John Allen has a really excellent (or not - see Zadok’s comment below) overview of the question, using Lugo as a starting point, but gathering various opinions on the issue:
If the Vatican felt free to laicize bishops, it would probably already have happened several times, particularly in cases where renegade bishops have illicitly ordained priests and other bishops, thereby creating the basis for a full-blown schism. First in line might well be Archbishop Emmanuel Milingo, the Zambian faith-healer and exorcist who has broken with Rome and ordained bishops as part of his “Married Priests Now!” movement. From Rome’s point of view, however, Milingo remains a bishop and hence his ordinations are technically valid, even if the Vatican has announced that it will never grant legal faculties to the men who have been ordained.
To be sure, there are experts who take the contrary view, that a bishop could be laicized if the pope really wanted to do so.
Some point to canon 1405, for example, which gives the pope authority to judge bishops in penal cases. Given that laicization is provided for as a penalty in canon law, these canonists say, there’s no reason in principle it couldn’t be applied to a bishop, even if prudence and respect for the episcopal office counsel restraint. Others cite an 1862 rite published by Pope Benedict XIV for the “degradation of a bishop,” which seems to involve the ritual casting out of a bishop from the episcopal state. All the symbols of office, such as the mitre and pallium, are removed, and the bishop’s fingers and head are even ritually scraped with a knife to signify the removal of the anointing imparted in his ordination ceremony.
For now, the relevant point is that there’s an active theological and canonical debate inside Catholicism about the very possibility of laicizing a bishop. Saying “no” to Lugo, therefore, is not just about grinding axes or scoring political points, but also respecting the theological and canonical complexities.
To be crystal clear, none of this is intended to suggest that the Vatican’s recalcitrance is entirely innocent of political motives, or that there aren’t good theological arguments for laicizing bishops. Those questions will be the object of much legitimate discussion for some time to come.
What the current fracas does illustrate, however, is that in trying to understand why the Church does what it does, it’s incumbent upon observers to take seriously its own inner logic. Otherwise, important pieces of the picture will forever remain out of focus. Applied to Lugo’s situation, the bottom line might well be: “It’s the theology, stupid.”
The pope has universal and immediate jurisdiction; that’s infallibly defined.
Since laicization is a canonical, not a sacramental, action, I can’t imagine what the theological problem could be. Unless of course it does relate to the prudence of doing so for bishops…
It seems to me that Allen errs in suggesting that laicizing Malingo would render invalid any of his ordinations. Likewise, it should be noted that Benedict XIV wasn’t Pope in 1862. I fear that in this case the usually reliable Mr Allen has strayed into theological and canonical waters where he is out of his depth - there are several other questionable points in his article.
I think Zadok and Jeff got it right. Fr. Hardon’s excellent dictionary defines laicization and it specifically menions bishops:
“The act of reducing an ecclesiastical person or thing to a lay status. The turning over of a church building to a secular purpose; the removal by a civil power of ecclesiastical control in an institution where that control and influence should be operative. In the laicization of clerics, the Holy See, for extraordinary reasons and the greater good of the Church, may laicize a bishop, priest, or deacon. In spite of the term, however, the person does not lose his sacramental powers and remains an ordained person. But he is legitimately dispensed from the ordinary duties attached to his office and, generally also, of his vow of celibacy, giving him the right to marry. In an emergency, a laicized priest can validly administer the sacraments of anointing and penance.”
I may have misunderstood the objections to the article, but Allen does say that the Pope can laicize a Bishop:
“…canon 1405, for example, which gives the pope authority to judge bishops in penal cases. Given that laicization is provided for as a penalty in canon law, these canonists say, there’s no reason in principle it couldn’t be applied to a bishop, even if prudence and respect for the episcopal office counsel restraint”
Bishop James Shannon resigned in 1968 over Humanae Vitae. I do not know his precise canonical staus, but he seems to have been an active member of the church as a layman.
I would think that any bishop that publicly turned against church teaching would be deserving of a public (within the church) hearing on the issues. If the bishop were to be found in violation, and refuse to change, then I would think that the Magesterium would be obligated to replace that bishop, the wellfare of the flock being of primary concern.
I suspect that any bishop conscienciously antagonistic towards the church would attempt to be so as secretly as possible. The church would probably be more limited in dealing with such bishops, but not ineffective in the Spirit.
A Byzantine Catholic bishop in the United States was laicized before the Second Vatican Council. He was sick and fell in love with his nurse. He was laicized, married the nurse, anglicized his last name, died and was buried wearing episcopal vestments.
I wonder how this squares with how most of the Orthodox churches discipline their bishops. AFAIK, were Milingo Orthodox, he would be an issue of few consequences, as his ordinations would be automatically invalid due to his actions lacking approval by the Patriarch or something along these lines…
Personally, I think the Rite of Degradation needs to be used occassionally. This might get some folks attention.