I will get back to proper posting soon but this caught my eye today. Nice to see something being said about parish priests!
4 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Nothing to do with this posting,but...correct me if I am wrong, I understand that Canon law would forbid a priest, no matter how "eminent" or "emeritus" from accepting a seat in a legislative assembly such as the House of Lords. I realise that such a suggestion has come from the Prime Minister, at his meeting with the Pope, so it will be very interesting to see what the outcome is. Personally, I find the idea quite extraordinary and am waiting avidly for a "thanks but no thanks" statement from Westminster Cathedral.
Canon law (cn.285.3)does prohibit clerics from exercising civil power. A dispensation could be granted by the Holy See. However this is unlikely. He could, of course, be dispensed from the clerical state and then take the post as that bishop in Latin America was.
Speaking for myself (but probably many others) I have had enough of Cormac without wanting him to re-emerge as a civil administrator. Why on earth should he be considered for the Lords when in his own area of expertise (I use the word loosely) he has not really been a great success. Or is that what the House of Lords is for?
4 comments:
Nothing to do with this posting,but...correct me if I am wrong, I understand that Canon law would forbid a priest, no matter how "eminent" or "emeritus" from accepting a seat in a legislative assembly such as the House of Lords. I realise that such a suggestion has come from the Prime Minister, at his meeting with the Pope, so it will be very interesting to see what the outcome is.
Personally, I find the idea quite extraordinary and am waiting avidly for a "thanks but no thanks" statement from Westminster Cathedral.
sorry, "anonymous" should have read 1569 Rising
Canon law (cn.285.3)does prohibit clerics from exercising civil power. A dispensation could be granted by the Holy See. However this is unlikely. He could, of course, be dispensed from the clerical state and then take the post as that bishop in Latin America was.
Speaking for myself (but probably many others) I have had enough of Cormac without wanting him to re-emerge as a civil administrator. Why on earth should he be considered for the Lords when in his own area of expertise (I use the word loosely) he has not really been a great success. Or is that what the House of Lords is for?
Post a Comment