I will post a lengthy commentary on the new code tomorrow that describes the difference between canon 188.4 and 194.2.
But for now, you are wrong about 194.2. If the Church has not issued a declaratory sentence, all the acts of the cleric remain valid and he is even entitled to renumeration. If his acts remain valid, they are legally binding; and if they are legally binding, they proceed from authority.
Your "lengthy commentary" may not be necessary. You seem to be confused about the terminology in the 1983 Code. Let's look more closely at the situation as it is described in the 1983 Code:
1. First the context. We are discussing the
loss [
amissione] of an ecclesiastical office. If one
loses an office, they cannot at the same time
possess that office. This is a binary condition from a logical standpoint. When legal claimant to an office loses the office by law, the office becomes legally "vacant."
Can. 184 §1. An ecclesiastical office is lost by the lapse of a predetermined time, by reaching the age determined by law, by resignation, by transfer, by removal, and by privation.
2. The specific cause that we are considering is that of a "removal" of a person from an "office." A "removal" of the person causes a "loss" of the office. Remember that a "loss" is a binary condition. Legally, one cannot both lose and hold an office a the same time. So, one who is "removed" from office, by definition, no longer legally holds that office.
3. How then can a person be "removed" from an office? The 1983 Code tells us that the person may be removed EITHER by 1) a decree OR 2) by the law itself. These two causes are mutually exclusive. If the "removal" is caused only by "a decree," then it cannot at the same time also be caused "by the law itself." Again, we have a binary condition here.
Can. 192 A person is removed from office either by a decree issued legitimately by competent authority, without prejudice to rights possibly acquired by contract, or by the law itself according to the norm of can. 194.
4. In our case, we are discussing the second option: a removal of a person from an office
by the law itself. Don't forget now, this "removal" causes a "loss" of office that is a binary condition. The person cannot be "removed" and "not removed" at the same time. As such, the office cannot be "vacant" and "not vacant," according to the law, at the same time. That would violate the logical principle of non-contradiction. And the removal discussed in this case DOES NOT REQUIRE A DECREE. The law governing a removal
by the law itself is found in Canon 194, which states:
Can. 194 §1. The following are removed from an ecclesiastical office by the law itself:
1/ a person who has lost the clerical state;
2/ a person who has publicly defected from the Catholic faith or from the communion of the Church;
3/ a cleric who has attempted marriage even if only civilly.
5. So, a person who "publicly defects from the Catholic faith" is "removed" from office NOT BY A DECREE but by the law itself, according to Canon 194. However, the person occupying the office might refuse to vacate the office. How does the Church handle that situation? Does it allow a vigilante posse to "enforce" the "removal" that is already legally effective? No, the Church says that it can be "enforced" only after a "declaration of a competent authority." The "loss" has already taken place. The office is "vacant" from a legal perspective. But the office is still occupied by a person who refuses to follow the law. In that case, a "declaration" is required before calling in the people with guns.
Canon 194 §2. The removal mentioned in nn. 2 and 3 can be enforced only if it is established by the declaration of a competent authority.
6. Now, lets look at your claim quoted above, which I will quote again here:
But for now, you are wrong about 194.2. If the Church has not issued a declaratory sentence, all the acts of the cleric remain valid and he is even entitled to renumeration. If his acts remain valid, they are legally binding; and if they are legally binding, they proceed from authority.
Here is your argument (paraphrased) in a syllogism:
Major Premise: The Church must issue a declaratory sentence to invalidate the acts of a cleric holding any office.
Minor Premise: The Church has not issued a declaratory sentence.
Conclusion: All acts of the previously appointed officeholder continue to be valid and legally binding until a declaration is made.
First, a "declaratory sentence" is not necessary in the case of a condition requiring removal by "the law itself," which is proven by Canon 192 quoted above.
So the major premise of your argument contradicts canon 192. There is no way to interpret Canon 192 to require "a declaratory sentence" in all cases.
Second, you seem to imply that the acts of a cleric who "loses his office" remain valid. This would turn common sense on it head. Just because the cleric refuses to voluntarily leave the office that that law says he has been removed from, does not give that cleric authority of any sort. His authority comes from the law, not from his physical, illegitimate occupation of the office. To say otherwise, puts a criminal's actions above the law. It is like saying that a squatter could take over my rent house and remodel it however he wants.
Topic: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism? (Read 56424 times)