Canonist Gerald V. McDevitt explains the concept of 'tacit resignation of office' showing there is a lower bar for 'public defection from the faith' and accompanying renunciation than some claim.
This destroys all my arguments regarding the need for juridical processes per Canon 2314.
I saw a thorough contradiction between this understanding of automatic loss of office due to public defection and the provisions of Canon 2314 no. 2.
Now I concede:
1. To understand "public" as "notorious" is to accuse the Code of Canon Law of imprecision. Although, the notion of "defection" necessarily requires pertinacity. Does notoriety confirm pertinacity? Hmmm ... something to think about.
2. However, in analysing the apparent conflict between this interpretation of Canon 188 no. 4 (automatic loss without any canonical intervention) and Canon 2314 no. 2 (requiring canonical intervention), I realised my stupidity was the problem, not a real contradiction.
Question: Why is privation of office listed as one of the penalties that follow when a public heretic does not heed canonical warnings, if automatic loss of office should have already occurred per Canon 188 no. 4?
Answer:
The inclusion of the loss of office in Canon 2314 no. 2 allows the Church to enforce or confirm the removal of a cleric from office, even if Canon 188 no. 4 theoretically provides for automatic loss of office. In some cases, practical or procedural issues might delay the application of Canon 188 (such as lack of knowledge by a certain group of people, insufficient evidence of public defection, doubt or delays in recognising the vacancy of the office). Canon 2314 no. 2 thus serves as a more formalised means of ensuring that clerics who defect from the faith face disciplinary action, including the formal loss of office, even if the automatic effect in Canon 188 was not fully recognised or acted upon at the time of defection.
In short, Canon 2314 no. 2 functions as a safeguard to ensure that a cleric is penalised properly, including the loss of office, if Canon 188 no. 4 did not or could not operate automatically due to practical reasons.
This article shows that it is possible for those not usually bound by Canon Law to tacitly resign their office by acts which include public defection from the faith (heresy and/or apostasy). I don't think any true Catholic would be unhappy to accept Francis I's tacit renunciation of office on September 13, 2024 if not much earlier.
Thanks for posting this.
This destroys all my arguments regarding the need for juridical processes per Canon 2314.
I saw a thorough contradiction between this understanding of automatic loss of office due to public defection and the provisions of Canon 2314 no. 2.
Now I concede:
1. To understand "public" as "notorious" is to accuse the Code of Canon Law of imprecision. Although, the notion of "defection" necessarily requires pertinacity. Does notoriety confirm pertinacity? Hmmm ... something to think about.
2. However, in analysing the apparent conflict between this interpretation of Canon 188 no. 4 (automatic loss without any canonical intervention) and Canon 2314 no. 2 (requiring canonical intervention), I realised my stupidity was the problem, not a real contradiction.
Question: Why is privation of office listed as one of the penalties that follow when a public heretic does not heed canonical warnings, if automatic loss of office should have already occurred per Canon 188 no. 4?
Answer:
The inclusion of the loss of office in Canon 2314 no. 2 allows the Church to enforce or confirm the removal of a cleric from office, even if Canon 188 no. 4 theoretically provides for automatic loss of office. In some cases, practical or procedural issues might delay the application of Canon 188 (such as lack of knowledge by a certain group of people, insufficient evidence of public defection, doubt or delays in recognising the vacancy of the office). Canon 2314 no. 2 thus serves as a more formalised means of ensuring that clerics who defect from the faith face disciplinary action, including the formal loss of office, even if the automatic effect in Canon 188 was not fully recognised or acted upon at the time of defection.
In short, Canon 2314 no. 2 functions as a safeguard to ensure that a cleric is penalised properly, including the loss of office, if Canon 188 no. 4 did not or could not operate automatically due to practical reasons.
This article shows that it is possible for those not usually bound by Canon Law to tacitly resign their office by acts which include public defection from the faith (heresy and/or apostasy). I don't think any true Catholic would be unhappy to accept Francis I's tacit renunciation of office on September 13, 2024 if not much earlier.