Delict Of Schism

After I published yesterday's post, it occurred to me that I actually knew nothing about delict of schism. What did we do before Google? (Actually, when I began working as a writer, a co-worker told me that the reference desk at the local public library was a really good resource -- you called them up and asked them something like "what is delict of schism?" and actually you got a good answer pretty quickly. But no need for that now.)

On the other hand, I found very little about it on the web. The best source was this one:

"The Church's penal order does not refer primarily to the individual's relationship with the Lord in conscience. This is largely inaccessible to church authority and hence beyond its competence. Rather, what is principally envisioned is a public act or omission adversely affecting the community. However, ecclesiastical penal law also deals with certain occult, or non-public, delicts known only to a few individuals, e.g., solicitation in confession. This is because such acts may significantly harm the community and hence are deemed matters of penal discipline.

"Not every sin is an ecclesiastical delict warranting a penalty, yet every delict is a seriously sinful act or omission reflecting significant, if not full, freedom and knowledge. Certain factors notably impairing such freedom (e.g., fear) and knowledge (e.g., ignorance) may diminish or completely preclude imputability, or responsibility, for one's apparently criminal behavior.["]

So as far as I can see, the issue normally involves someone who was raised Catholic, presumably completed catechism and completed the sacraments of initiation, had a mature understanding of the faith, but then, by free will and fully understanding what he was doing, left the Church in some public way (e.g., by getting ordained in a Protestant denomination). This would not preclude that Catholic from going to Confession and returning to the Church, but it would raise entirely reasonable questions about whether he should become a Catholic priest.

So this would extend the restriction I previously understood, that a Catholic priest who leaves his orders is not re-ordained. Here, a serious Catholic who deliberately and publicly leaves the faith is probably not a good candidate for ordination once he claims to have returned to the faith. Seems pretty non-controversial to me. In this context, my regular correspondent commented on yesterday's post:

Until April of this year Fr Meeks was the OCSP Vicar for Vocations; supposedly he asked to be relieved of this position in order to devote his time to new construction projects at Christ the King, Towson, of which I see no evidence, but in any event we cannot feel that he was entirely successful in this role. Prior to Bp Lopes' arrival, the OCSP policy on celibate men who wished to attend seminary was to tell them to apply to their local diocese. This has clearly been reversed. How he got around his defection from the Church when others did not is a mystery; he was, of course, prepared to bring in 140 parishioners and a church building.

One issue that's bothered me about the OCSP ordinations is the sense of careerism and opportunism involved in nearly every case. If delict of schism has had any role in keeping this down to a dull roar, I'm all for it. I don't think Bp Herzog in yesterday's account was dealt with unjustly, but I don't see how Fr Meeks is any less a careerist and opportunist.