Spinoff from the nteenth thread of Henry VIII’s love life, and where they are getting down to specifics of the Canon Law that the King walked away from.
Who argues that kind of thing for the Pope’s side and who for the “appellant?” Must he be a priest?
It’s weird, because the image of SCOTUS/Pope is absurd, because the Pope always wins, but the justice system of the Church must have age-old procedures.
You need to be a canon lawyer, which, nowadays, means you have a J.C.L. from a university with an accreditation in canon law. There are three in North America, Catholic University in Washington, DC, St. Paul’s University in Ottawa, and the Pontifical University of Mexico in Mexico City. There are also a bunch in Europe, some in South America, two in India, and three in Africa. If you want more information about what a canon lawyer is, this website is useful:
http://www.canonlaw.info/a_canonlawyersarearent.htm
I don’t know what the specifics were to be a canon lawyer in 16th century Europe, although I know that almost all of the European universities taught canon law.
In the case of Henry VIII’s annulment, the first hearings happened in front of Cardinal Wolsey, who was the Papal Legate in England, and Cardinal Campeggio, the Cardinal Protector of England (who was under secret instructions from the Pope to find a way to put the whole thing off until the Pope found a way to get out from under Charles V’s thumb.) Campeggio first tried to convince Henry to drop the annulment, and then to convince Katherine to agree to the annulment, and when that didn’t work, hearings began. I don’t know who represented Henry or Katherine at the hearings, though.
After nothing came of that, Henry sent the Earl of Wiltshire, the Archbishop of York, and the Bishop of London to the Pope to argue his case directly. Of the three of them, Thomas Boleyn, the Earl of Wiltshire (and Ann Boleyn’s father, so that’s awkward), had a bunch of diplomatic experience, but no legal training, Richard Lee, the Archbishop of York, had a doctorate of theology either from Oxford or the University of Louvain (he had studied at both), and John Stokesley, Bishop of London, had a degree from Oxford, and had been a lecturer and a fellow at Magdalen College there.
Does Canon Law have an equivalent to the Bar Exam? Is getting the degree essentially enough in and of itself, or does one also (or can one alternatively) pass an exam in Canon Law? Can one call up the local bishop or Catholic School and ask to register to sit the Canon Law Bar?
Not ALWAYS, if you’re talking about the often-misunderstood papal infallibility. Infallibility isn’t an “always-on” trait. It’s valid only in certain circumstances and about certain subjects.
As far as I can tell, no. As long as you have the degree, you can practice Canon Law in an ecclesiastical court. There’s no separate licensing beyond that.
There are diocese-level tribunals for lesser matters, like annulments. I wrote a letter to one on behalf of my sister’s ex-husband and it carried a lot more weight than I personally think it should have. IANAL and am barely Catholic anymore.
That’s correct.
[QUOTE=Leo Bloom;20105514. . . .Must he be a priest? [/QUOTE]
Most canonists are clerics, but it’s not a requirement.
The Bar is a peculiarity of the English legal tradition: countries with other legal traditions don’t require passing an exam after graduation from legal school. You got your degree, you’re a lawyer. There may be other requirements; for example, Spanish legal tradition requires colegiación in order to be able to perform certain duties (you have to join your local colegio de abogados or lawyer’s association), but equivalent requirements hold for many other professions.
So in this respect, the requirements for a canon lawyer are in line with the legal traditions of most of Europe.
“Canonist.” Equals “guy who can represent someone on either side?”
New word for me.
Also, since you’re here: “clerics” equals “priests and ‘up’ in Catholic hierarchy?”
Canonist: practitioner of canon law. Just as in civil law, not all practice of canon law consists of adversarial advocacy.
Cleric: Anyone belonging to the clergy, which is everyone in holy orders from deacons upwards. Monks, friars and nuns, etc, who are unordained are not clerics.
Got it. Thanks.
ETA: Im still not sure what a deacon is, but I’ll look it up.
There are three orders of consecrated sacred ministers in the Roman Catholic Church: the episcopate, the priesthood and the diaconate. Deacons (obviously) belong to the latter. They assist priests in various activities; they may distribute communion, baptize witness marriages, preside at funeral services outside Mass, and read the Gospel during Mass, as well as preach the homily.
Deacons may be permanent or transitional. A transitional deacon is a candidate for priesthood. He is first ordained as a deacon and serves in that role as part of his preparation for becoming a priest. A permanent deacon has no intention of becoming a priest. Interesting, a man can be married and become a permanent deacon, although he may not marry after becoming a deacon without a dispensation. Permanent deacons have day jobs, so to speak – they don’t draw a living salary from the church.
You helped out–not only me, but the thread as well, of course, before I got a chance to research.
So now I gotta look up “episcopate.”
Which I’m sure will give me info on how the other team–hey, back to Henry VIII we are we are!–got its name, which never occurred to me until now that I don’t know.
Most of the other denominations’ names I know the etymology.
ETA: Also “ministers” as a term of art.
Episcopate is a bishop’s office (or the group that comprises all bishops, which seems to be the sense that Bricker is using the term in).
I know about “The College of Cardinals” every time there’s a white smoke/black smoke event.
They are not members of the Episcopate any longer, or is it like US “Member of Congress” including Senators and the Other Guys?
Cardinal is not a separate order of ordination. Neither is Pope. The Pope is an ordained bishop. In fact, the Code of Canon Law contemplates the possibility that the College of Cardinals may elect a non-bishop as Pope; should that happen, the law provides that the man must be immediately consecrated as a bishop.
Cardinal is a mark of honor, an additional office, if you will, that is conferred upon some members of the clergy. They are virtually always bishops, but it’s possible for a priest to become a cardinal, although canon law now requires that such a cardinal then receive episcopal ordination.
So the College of Cardinals is composed of some bishops who have been given an extra duty and title/rank commensurate with that duty, but have no additional sacramental roles. The newest auxiliary bishop has no less sacramental power than the Pope.
(Very confusingly, there are three orders of cardinals: cardinal deacons, cardinal priests, and cardinal bishops. This naming suggests that some deacons are cardinals. Nope: all cardinals are bishops. Within the ranking of the College of Cardinals, though, some of the cardinals are ranked as cardinal-deacons, some as cardinal-priests, and some as cardinal-bishops. Different ranking system that uses the same names.)
Thank you so much for this continuing lesson.
Will pause now to unpack your last graf.
I think I’m gonna need a flow chart.
[broken-hearted aside]
I never got a golf clap for my embed upthread, which I bet you didn’t know (as I didn’t) was to a 1910 song.
If it was so common and obvious when the topic comes up, then I make amends with thiscite.
[/broken-hearted aside]