… a married man.
As I understand it, any Catholic male is papable. I know that in reality, there is a 100% chance that the next Pope will be someone who is currently a Cardinal. But suppose that, hypothetically, they elect a married man. I know that he is not required to accept the post - but what happens (with regard to his marriage) if he does?
Zev Steinhardt
As I understand it, a candidate for pope must be a baptized Catholic, an ordained priest, and an installed bishop. As there are no Catholic bishops who are married . . .
It’s possible that I’m wrong (especially since I’m not a Catholic). But I could have sworn that any Catholic male is papable.
Zev Steinhardt
A few sources confirm that any Catholic male can theoretically become Pope, but others disagree.
However, by tradition, the Pope is pretty much always a Cardinal. I’ve heard some talk about a few Bishops that might be chosen this time, but most likely it’ll be a Cardinal again.
According to Wikipedia
Canon law requires that if a layman or non-bishop is elected, he receives episcopal consecration from the Dean of the College of Cardinals before assuming the Pontificate.
Since the Catholic Church sometimes makes exemptions for married clergymen who convert to be ordained Catholic priests, one could assume they could grant the same exemption to a married Pope-elect.
In some Eastern rites of the Catholic Church, it is permitted for married men to become priests. (However, unmarried priests, or widowed priests, may not marry.) But bishops (and therefore cardinals) must be unmarried, and celibate.
It would in theory be possible to elect a married Eastern priest as Pope, and since divorce would not be permitted, such a Pope would necessarily remain married. However, the chances of that actually happening are pretty much nil.
Divorce is not prohibited; remarriage while the divorced partner is still alive is.
It’s more that divorce isn’t recognized. So, a married couple could get a secular divorce, but in the eyes of the Catholic church, their status hasn’t changed. That’s why remarriage isn’t allowed.
In fact, a civil divorce is required before a church tribunal will consider an annulment petition.
A marriage can be annulled. That means it never happened, so there’s no need for a divorce.
Well I guess I’m totally wrong. :smack:
You’re correct. A decree of nullity confirms that the marriage never existed from the start. However, **Walloon’s ** point is right too. The diocesan marriage tribunal generally requires that the parties go through the process of obtaining a civil divorce before it will consider the question of an annulment.
But there are Catholic priests who are married (such as married Anglican priests who then converted). Any reason why one of them could not become a bishop?
I’m not too sure but it’s probably possible, although **extremely ** unlikely. The requirement that Latin rite clerics (bishops, priests and transitional deacons) be unmarried is a man-made, rather than a divinely-ordained, discipline of the church - hence the fact that the requirement can be dispensed in the case of married Anglican ministers who convert to Catholicism and are ordained as priests.
While priestly celibacy is mandatory only in the Roman Rite of Catholicism, and Eastern Rite Catholics and Orthodox may well have married priests, in those branches where married men can be ordained priest the rule has always been that only a celibate priest may become a bishop. Only in Anglicanism and Lutheranism (and in Methodism and the other episcopal churches deriving from it) do married bishops exist.
However, that is something that a church leader could dispense from; it’s not a theologically based rule but one adopted for practical reasons as regulation. I suspect the Cardinals could elect a married man, who would be entitled to remain married if he chose, if the Spirit led them to do so.
Obviously, this is all speculative, as we can be 99%+ sure that the man who will be the new Pope is currently a Cardinal, and 100% sure that he is currently a Catholic Bishop – all of whom are unmarried and presumably celibate.
If nominated, I will not accept.
You’re all quite safe now.
Are you sure that being a Catholic is required? I once read that in theory a non-Catholic could be elected. This is because God is supposedly able to send anyone in as a new Pope and they don’t want to disqualify a candidate. (Although apparently Catholic doctrine says that God can’t or won’t send a female candidate.)
Well paragraph 87 of *Universi Dominici Gregis * says “When the election has canonically taken place, the junior Cardinal Deacon summons into the hall of election the Secretary of the College of Cardinals and the Master of Papal Liturgical Celebrations. The Cardinal Dean, or the Cardinal who is first in order and seniority, in the name of the whole College of electors, then asks the consent of the one elected in the following words: Do you accept your canonical election as Supreme Pontiff?”
That tends to imply that the candidate who has just been elected has either been in the conclave or just happens to be hanging around the Vatican Palace on the off chance that he’ll get the gig.
Still, if we’re going to enter the realm of the completely unimaginable, then let’s see how this scenario could occur. Presumably:
then I suppose it *might just * be possible. A huge lot of ifs though. And probably ruled out by another paragraph in *Universi Dominici Gregis * somewhere.
Really? I thought it had to be a cardinal. Has the College of Cardinals ever elected anyone but a cardinal before?
Granted Dan Brown isn’t exactly an authority on the matter, I do remember something in Angels and Demons about the pope needing to be a cardinal between sixty and eighty years of age.