- Thread starter
- #41
Askofu Millingo hawezekaniki?
- Thread starter Kisanduku
- Start date
Mbunge wa CCM
JF-Expert Member
- Nov 13, 2009
- 475
- 22
kweli umekwisha kabisa mzee, na mungu/kuhani wako wa "milele" milingo ndo hivyo tena, sijui huo ukuhani wenu utakuwaje wakati huu amapo hao "makuhani" wenu wa milele wamegeuka kunajisi vitoto!!
SubiriJibu
JF-Expert Member
- Jun 26, 2009
- 1,803
- 1,863
Huyu jamaa ana mawazo ya kale kwelikweli. Badala ya kuleta hoja anaanza kuleta usisi. Sijui anaposema sisi anamaanisha yeye na nani. Mimi niadhani basi iwe yeye na wote wanaomkubalia mawazo yake bila kujali ni wazungu weusi, wekundu, wahaya, wanyambo, wa-Rulenge, . Anadhani kwa kuweka neno sisi waafrika au weusi basi ametukamata kwenye mtego wa kuwa naye kimawazo. Kwamba tukiwa nje ya mawazo hayo basi tumekuwa watumwa wa wageni.
Hivi ni nani alisema kuwa kuzaliwa eneno fulani la dunia basi na mawazo yamekuwa sawa na eneo lile na hulka imekuwa ya eneo lile.
Mkuu Mtu B, mimi ni mweusi na ni mwafrika. Lakini simo katika hiyo sisi na wala sikbaliani na mengi kati hiyo unayoiita sisi. Ni haki ya yangu ya kibinadamu kukubali lolote ambalo wazo langu linakubali. Ninakataa wazo lolote hata kaa ni la mtu tumezaliwa naye tumbo moja. Hatukuja duniani kumilikiwa mawazo na watu ambao wanadhani tunatakiwa tufanane kimawazo eti kwa sababu melanine ilituletea wote ngozi nyeusi au nyeupe.
Wazo bora linatoka popote na litapendwa popote hata mkileta inferiority ya kujidhani ni weusi, wekundu, mnaonewa au mnanyanyaswa au ni wapagani.
NImesema mengi lakini kubwa ni kwamba hiyo sisi unayotumia mimi si lazima niwemo. Unaosema walidharau dini zenu na kuziita kipagani ndiyo walioleta mtandao kama huu JF unaoutumia sasa hivi.
- Thread starter
- #44
Sij unamsema nani. Maana wiki mbili kuna mchungaji mmoja kakamatwa akizini baada ya kuwekewa mtego wa joka la kimazingira. List ni ndefu tukianza kiweka wazi lakini kwa ufupi soma magazeti Shigongo.
Mbunge wa CCM
JF-Expert Member
- Nov 13, 2009
- 475
- 22
kweli umekwisha mzee, pole sana! nn ubarikiwe
Hii hoja hii ilishajadiliwa kwenye posts za huko nyuma. Sidhani kama kila mara inabidi turudie kujadili kitu kilekile. 'Search' posts za nyuma na utapata kilichochangiwa na wachangiaji. Kitu muhimu hapa ni kujua 'context' ya 1Timothy ni nini. Ni kwamba kila fundisho fulani lilipokuwa likitolewa lilikuwa linahusu changamoto/tatizo fulani ambalo lilikuwepo kwa wakati huo. Kama wewe ni 'knowledgeable enough' of Biblical literature, utagundua kwamba hadi muda huo baadhi ya viongozi wa kanisa walikuwa wameshaanza kuacha njia sahihi na baadhi yao waliweza hata kuoa mke zaidi ya mmoja. Hivyo, fundisho la 1Timothy 3:1-6 lilikuwa kuwaasa warudi kwenye maadili na kwamba mke mmoja ndio 'adeal' kwa askofu.Ningeweza kuendelea lakini 'I'm in a hurry...' Kama nitapata muda tena nitaweza kuchangia in this line.
'Context' yetu ilikuwa kumwongelea Milingo na kilichotokea kwake. Hebu turudi huko au topic imebadilika?
Ghati Makamba
Member
- Jun 29, 2009
- 37
- 2
Kwa sura hii, matendo na mienendo tunatengeneza namna ya kukwazana kila kukicha. Millingo hakupewa Uaskofu kwa msingi anayoitumia kuendesha sehemu ya kanisa anayoiongoza. Millingo, alikabidhiwa kondoo wasafi na waadilifu katika misingi ya kanisa, akapewa fimbo apate kuwaongoza. Leo anaitumia fimbo hiyohiyo kuligawa kanisa, kuwatawanya kondoo kana kwamba hapana wachungaji wanaotambua wajibu wao. Zaidi ya hapa tutakuwa tunapotoka kusema yuko sahihi. Angekuwa kateuliwa na Rais hakika tungefulika mahakamani, kupima uadilifu wa mahakimu wetu, lakini hili ni kanisa, huu ni utaratibu haina maana kurumbana.
Mkuu, kwa heshima zote nakubali mchango wako. Lakini JF kama ilivyo Forum yoyote ni thinkTank japo kuna dalili kuwa Forum za Kijamii kama hii baadhi au wengi hawapendi habari za research kwani si rahisi wanajamii wote mkawa researchers. Kwamba Jamii hupenda habari za juujuu tu na mkiingia ndani basi undani huo hupachikwa jina malumbano.
Binafsi nimefuatiia kwa undani michango yote. Ninayaona majibu ya mkato, utani, serious, non-serious nk. Lakini cha msingi ni kwamba kuna watu wanafukua vitabu. Mtu anafukua kiasi kwamba hoja yake haijibiwi inabidi watu wanze kupinda hoja kwa sababu aidha hajaeleweka au wanaochangia wanaumbuka kwa sababu upeo uko nyuma.
Mimi nakubali kujifunza mengi. Ukweli ambao haujapingwa ni kwamba Milingo hatakuwa mlei na hoja hiyo imeshindwa kuthibitishwa. Waliojaribu wameishia kusema anafanana na mlei. Je hapo hakuna kujifunza. Mwaka jana ilitangazwa kwamba Padri Karugendo sasa anakuwa mlei kumbe sivyo. Hujaona hapo tumeelimika kwamba Karugendo hatakuwa mlei hata awe mdhambi kuliko dunia nzima.
HIvyo muhimu ni uelewa. Hakuna anayebisha matumizi mabaya ya dhamana aliyopewa Milingo. Ubishi wa msingi ulikuwa na kama sasa amekuwa mlei au la. Na kumbe ndani ya debate hii tumeona kuwa hata kanisa halijatamka kuwa Millingo kawa mlei. NI tafsiri ya wanailisoma jambo hilo, tena wanaolisoma kwa juujuu.
Tchao
Wakati mwingine kuchangia hoja ambayo ni 'technical' bila uelewa mzuri wa 'technicality' yenyewe kunaweza kuleta matatizo. 'Clerical status or loss of clerical status' ni lugha ya kisheria.
COMMUNIQUE: MILINGO DISMISSED FROM THE CLERICAL STATE (Catholic Archbishop Married a Moonie)
Vatican Information Service
Posted on Thursday, December 17, 2009 6:52:18 AM by Loyalist
VATICAN CITY, 17 DEC 2009 (VIS)
The Holy See Press Office released the following English-language communique at midday today:
"For a number of years the Church has followed with great concern the difficulties caused by the regrettable conduct of Archbishop Emmanuel Milingo. Many attempts have been made to bring Archbishop Milingo back into communion with the Catholic Church, including the consideration of suitable ways to enable him to exercise the episcopal ministry. Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI were directly involved in those efforts and both Popes personally followed the case of Archbishop Milingo in a spirit of paternal solicitude.
"In the course of this unhappy series of events, Archbishop Milingo became irregular in 2001 as a result of his attempt to marry Mrs. Maria Sung, and incurred the medicinal penalty of suspension (cf. canons 1044 para. 1, n. 3; 1394 para. 1 of the Code of Canon Law). Thereafter, he headed certain groups calling for the abolition of clerical celibacy and gave numerous interviews to the media in open disobedience to the repeated interventions of the Holy See, creating serious upset and scandal among the faithful. Then, on 24 September 2006 in Washington, Archbishop Milingo ordained four bishops without pontifical mandate.
"By so doing, he incurred the penalty of excommunication 'latae sententiae' (canon 1382) which was declared by the Holy See on 26 September 2006 and is still in force today. Sadly, Archbishop Milingo has shown no sign of the desired repentance with a view to returning to full communion with the Supreme Pontiff and the other members of the College of Bishops. Rather, he has persisted in the unlawful exercise of acts belonging to the episcopal office, committing new crimes against the unity of Holy Church. Specifically, in recent months Archbishop Milingo has proceeded to several other episcopal ordinations.
"The commission of these grave crimes, which has recently been established, is to be considered as proof of the persistent contumacy of Archbishop Emmanuel Milingo. The Holy See has therefore been obliged to impose upon him the further penalty of dismissal from the clerical state.
"According to canon 292 of the Code of Canon Law, the penalty of dismissal from the clerical state, now added to the grave penalty of excommunication, has the following effects: loss of the rights and duties attached to the clerical state, except for the obligation of celibacy; prohibition of the exercise of any ministry, except as provided for by canon 976 of the Code of Canon Law in those cases involving danger of death; loss of all offices and functions and of all delegated power, as well as prohibition of the use of clerical attire. Consequently, the participation of the faithful in any future celebrations organised by Archbishop Emmanuel Milingo is to be considered unlawful.
"It must be pointed out that the dismissal of a bishop from the clerical state is most extraordinary. The Holy See has felt obliged to act in this way due to the serious consequences for ecclesial communion resulting from repeated episcopal consecrations carried out without pontifical mandate; nevertheless, the Church hopes that Archbishop Milingo will see the error of his ways.
"As for those recently ordained by Archbishop Milingo, the Church's discipline in imposing the penalty of excommunication 'latae sententiae' upon those who receive episcopal consecration without pontifical mandate is well- known. While expressing hope for their conversion, the Church reaffirms what was declared on 26 September 2006, namely that she does not recognise these ordinations, nor does she intend to recognise them, or any subsequent ordinations based on them, in the future. Hence the canonical status of the supposed bishops remains as it was prior to the ordination conferred by Archbishop Milingo.
"At this moment, as the Church experiences profound sorrow for the grave acts perpetrated by Archbishop Milingo, she entrusts to the power of prayer the repentance of the guilty party and of all those who - be they priests or lay faithful - have in any way co-operated with him by acting against the unity of Christ's Church". OP/LAY STATE/MILINGOVIS 091217 (690)
Loss of clerical state
By Rev Gregory Ingels, JCD *
Canon law views the status of priests from three perspectives. The first perspective is from the point of view of the sacred order that he has received, the second addresses the faculties which he enjoys and the third views his relationship to his diocese or religious institute as a cleric.
With regard to the first perspective, once validly ordained, a priest's ordination never becomes invalid, even if he loses the clerical state.1
With regard to the second perspective, a priest's faculties are his "licence" to exercise his ministry. Some faculties are granted by the universal law of the Church, others are granted by the bishop of the diocese to which the priest is attached by reason of his ordination or by the bishop of the diocese in which he is residing.
For sufficiently serious reasons, a bishop can prohibit a priest from exercising his faculties during the course of an investigation into criminal misconduct.2 If this criminal misconduct is established through a canonical penal process, a priest's faculties can be removed or suspended. He still remains a priest and a cleric. This action simply means that he is forbidden from exercising his priestly ministry.
With regard to the third perspective, a priest is attached - the canonical term is "incardinated" - to the diocese or religious institute for which he is ordained. This "incardination" which occurs at the time of his ordination as a deacon is what constitutes him a cleric.3
A priest can lose the clerical state. The effect of this is a permanent separation from all ministry: he loses all rights and faculties associated with the priesthood and is not authorized to exercise ministry in the name of the Church; he is also dispensed from all obligations arising from his ordination to the priesthood, most notably the obligations of celibacy; and he loses his "incardination," that is, the special bond or attachment to the diocese or religious institute for which he was ordained.4
The clerical state is lost in one of three ways:5
(1) A priest can personally request a dispensation from the obligations arising from his ordination. This is commonly known as a petition for "laicization," and it is granted only by the Holy Father through a process which is conducted by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.
Depending on the reasons for the request, it is usually granted within six months of the presentation of the petition to the Congregation. However, in urgent cases involving issues such as criminal behaviour, a dispensation can be granted within a number of weeks. This process must be initiated by the priest himself.
(2) A priest can be dismissed from the clerical state as a penalty for serious offences. The law requires that such a dismissal be conducted by a judicial forum, that is, before a diocesan tribunal in accord with the legal procedures that govern criminal trials under canon law.6
Certain crimes, such as the sexual abuse of minors, are reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. This means that once the local bishop has completed his investigation of the alleged crime, the results of this investigation must be sent to the Congregation which will then judge whether the penalty of dismissal from the clerical state can be imposed.7
Since this is done within a judicial process, the procedural laws of the Church must be observed with regards to the rights of victims, the rights of the accused priest, and the rights of the diocesan bishop. Given the nature of any judicial process, this can be a most time consuming procedure, at times taking years to complete.
(3) The Church has also provided for the administrative dismissal of priests in the past for urgent reasons and only in grave matters; and the use of this process has always been considered an exception to the law. The most recent example of this process has been the dismissal of priests through the offices of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments for proven acts of misconduct involving the sexual abuse of minors. Certain key elements have always been required in order to invoke this process:8
a) The priest must specifically state that he is unwilling to petition for laicization personally.
b) There must be a criminal conviction associated with the priest's sexual abuse of minors or a decision in a civil lawsuit demonstrating his responsibility for this abuse.
c) The priest who is going to be subjected to dismissal must be afforded a true "right of defence." This means that the priest must be given an opportunity of presenting a defence, especially if he has pleaded to a lesser charge in order to avoid criminal prosecution of a more serious charge. The same principle applies if a settlement has been reached in a civil lawsuit and the priest was never afforded an opportunity to respond to the allegations and defend himself.
d) A promoter of justice must prepare an opinion. The person holding this office has the responsibility of assuring that a proper process has taken place and that there has not been a miscarriage of justice.
d) The question of dismissing a cleric or removing him from ministry for allegations which are decades old is a significant problem for the Church.
The current law of the Church provides for the imposition of the penalty of dismissal through the judicial process only if a provable offence is brought to the attention of church authorities before the 28th birthday of the victim (10 years beyond majority).9
If a victim has reached his or her 28th birthday and has not reported the offence, the Church's "statute of limitations" applies; and a priest cannot be dismissed from the clerical state or otherwise penalized in the judicial process on the basis that the allegations have not been brought forward within the legally provided period of time. These restrictions, however, would not apply to the use of the third process, the administrative dismissal of a priest from the clerical state.
At the moment, the process for the administrative dismissal of priests for the sexual abuse of minors through the offices of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments appears to be suspended.
This is a result of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith assuming competence in these cases. It is not dear at the moment whether this process will be reinstated or what office of the Holy See will be responsible for handling these cases.
* Fr Gregory Ingels, a canon lawyer, is the director of formation for the permanent diaconate in the Archdiocese of San Francisco. He also works as a defender of the bond for the archdiocesan tribunal. He is the chair of the Canonical Advocacy Study Committee of the Canon Law Society of America.
NOTES
1. Canon 290 - Once validly received, sacred ordination never becomes invalid.
2. Canon 1722 - To prevent scandals, to protect the freedom of witnesses, and to guard the course of justice, the ordinary, after having heard the promoter of justice and cited the accused, at any stage of the process can exclude the accused from the sacred ministry or from some office and ecclesiastical function, can impose or forbid residence in some place or territory, or even can prohibit public participation in the Most Holy Eucharist.
3. Once the cause ceases, all these measures must be revoked; they also end by the law itself when the penal process ceases.
4. Canon 266
§1. Through the reception of the diaconate, a person becomes a cleric and is incardinated in the particular church or personal prelature for whose service he has been advanced.
§2. Through the reception of the diaconate, a perpetually professed religious or a definitively incorporated member of a clerical society of apostolic life is incardinated as a cleric in the same institute or society unless, in the case of societies, the constitutions establish otherwise.
§3. Through the reception of the diaconate, a member of a secular institute is incardinated in the particular church for whose service he has been advanced unless he is incardinated in the institute itself by virtue of a grant of the Apostolic See.
5. Canon 292 - A cleric who loses the clerical state according to the norm of law loses with it the rights proper to the clerical state and is no longer bound by any obligations of the clerical state, without prejudice to the prescript of can. 291. He is prohibited from exercising the power of orders, without prejudice to the prescript of can. 976. By the loss of the clerical state, he is deprived of all offices, functions, and any delegated power.
5. Canon 290 - Once validly received, sacred ordination never becomes invalid. A cleric, nevertheless, loses the clerical state:
1° by a judicial sentence or administrative decree, which declares the invalidity of sacred ordination;
2° by penalty of dismissal legitimately imposed;
3° by rescript of the Apostolic See which grants it to deacons only for grave causes and to presbyters only for most grave causes.
6. 6. Canon 1425 - §1. With every contrary custom reprobated, the following cases are reserved to a collegiate tribunal of three judges: ...
2° penal cases: a) concerning delicts which can entail the penalty of dismissal from the clerical state; ...
7. 7. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter De delictis gravioribus reservatis. May 18, 2001,
"... - A delict against morals, namely: the delict committed by a cleric against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue with a minor below the age of eighteen years.
"Only these delicts, which are indicated above with their definition, are reserved to the Apostolic Tribunal of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
"As often as an ordinary or hierarch has at least probable knowledge of a reserved delict, after he has carried out the preliminary investigation, he is to indicate it to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith which, unless it calls the case to itself because of special circumstances of things, after transmitting appropriate norms, orders the ordinary or hierarch to proceed ahead through his own tribunal.
The right of appealing against a sentence of the first instance, whether on the part of the party or the party's legal representative, or on the part of the promoter of justice, solely remains valid only to the Supreme Tribunal of this Congregation."
Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Prot. N. 2169/98, November 11, 1998.
8. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, op. cit., "It must be noted that the criminal action on delicts reserved to the Congregation for the
9. Doctrine of the Faith is extinguished by a prescription often years. The prescription runs according to the universal and common law; however, in the delict perpetrated with a minor by a cleric, the prescription begins to run from the day when the minor has completed the eighteenth year of age."
Mkuu Magobe T,
Nakuamini kwa jinsi unavyochokonoa mambo na una mchango mkubwa usije ukajiuondoa hata siku moja kwenye JF.
Ume-copy maelezo lakini hutatueleza ni wapi hatujaelewa. Kwa sababu maelezo tumeyasoma lakini hakuna hata nukta moja inayosema mtu kama Millingo sasa amekuwa mlei. Maelezo yanasema ame-loose clerical status. Hili halina ubishi kwani clerical status haikuelezwa kuwa ni upadri au uaskofu. Mtu mwenye clerical status ni lazima ni padri au askofu. Lakini si kila padri au askofu ana clerical status kama maelezo hayo maelezo yanavyosema kuwa Orders (sakramenti) hazifutiki.
Turudi kwenye point yetu kwamba hakuna mahala panapoonyesha kwamba Millingo au pdri anaweza kuwa mlei tena.
Sijaelewa kwa nini unahangaika na maelezo yote yale ukidai technicality wakati Katekism anapewa kila mkatoliki au mwanadunia yeyote aisome.
Suala hili ni rahisi sana. Katekism imelieleza na hatuna haja ya kulirudia. Hatuna ubishi na sheria kwa sababu nazo hakuna mahala ziliposema loss of clerical status inamfanya mtu awe mlei.
Mkuu, lete maelezo hata yajaze kurasa 1000 lakini hutapata hata nukta inayosema kuwa Padri au askofu anakuwa mlei. Hapo ndipo tunaposimamia. Ukipata uthibitisho kwamba padri au askofu hurudi kuwa mlei basi unastahili zawadi si kutoka kwa JF bali dunia nzima na mimi nitashiriki kukuzawadia.
Mdanganywa
JF-Expert Member
- Jun 15, 2009
- 620
- 342
Kieleweke inaelekea unapenda sana Katekism. Ni wapi kwenye Katekism palipoandikwa hayo unayosema kwamba upadri au uaskofu haufutiki.
SubiriJibu
JF-Expert Member
- Jun 26, 2009
- 1,803
- 1,863
Wakuu muwe mnaingia kwenye forum baada ya kusoma thread nzima.
Kuhusu suala la kifungu gani si lazima ajibu Kieleweki. Thread haikustahili kufika huku kote kwani ilipoanza ilitaja wazi kifungu 1583 cha Katekism.
Hii blah blah inayotokea hapa katikati haina maana yoyote. Hakuna fundi wa kuielewa Katekism kwani siku Katekism ilipozinduliwa (1992) hatukuambiwa kwamba Magobe T au Kieleweka ndiyo wenye utaalam wa kutufafanulia. Eti wao wanaita Technicality.
Kukaa kwetu kimya si kwamba sisi hatuisomi Katekism. Siajabu tunaisoma kuliko hao wawili.
Moderator, hii hoja inafanana na ile ya Upadri sakremanti isiyofutika. Umei-delete ile lakini hata hii inaendelea kwa lugha tofauti na inaelekea kulekule. Ondoa na hii tafadhali maana naona wachangiaji wanarudiarudia yaleyale na wakati Katekism tumeishaielewa na iko hapo juu na hata kabla ya kuja humu JF tunaijua.
Mheshimiwa, maelezo yako yamenikuna kidogo. Naomba Moderator asiiondoe thread hii isipokuwa mimi mwenye sichangii tena hadi mtu anithibitishie kwamba Milingo au padri anaweza kugeuka kuwa mlei. Sitaki kusikia maelezo marefu au kuambiwa eti anafanana na mlei wakati mimi nataka kuthibitishiwa kuwa amekuwa mlei.
Nikiona mtu kanithibitishia hili (kuwa mlei) nitachangia kumpongeza. Vinginevyo I would no longer waste my time.
Clerical state ina msingi wake katika ordination to the priesthood or episcopate. Kiini cha hii hali ya kikleri ni wajibu na haki zitokanazo na hayo madaraja ya upadre na uaskofu. Mtu (Padre au askofu) anaweza kupoteza wajibu na haki za daraja lake bila kupoteza daraja husika. Tendo hili la kupoteza haki na wajibu wa kipadre au kiaskofu ndilo linaitwa loss of clerical state au dimotion to the lay state. Hii ina maana kwamba padre/askofu anabaki na daraja lake lakini bila wajibu na haki zake. Kwa kuwa amepoteza haki na wajibu wa daraja husika huyu mtu anakuwa amebakiwa na haki na wajibu za kilei ambazo ni za kila mwamini mbatizwa. Na kwa kuwa anakuwa amebakiwa na haki na wajibu za kilei Tu basi padre/askofu huyo mbele ya macho ya Kanisa anahesabiwa kuwa ni mlei. Lakini kwa kuwa sakramenti ya daraja haifutiki ulei wake unakuwa si kamili. Ndiyo maana Katekismu inasema a validly ordained person "cannot become a layman again in the strict sense". Kumbe anakuwa ni mlei (kwa vile hana wajibu na haki za kikleri) lakini si mlei kamili (kwa vile ana alama isiyofutika milele ndani ya roho yake). Ndiyo maana katika hatari ya kufa anaweza kutoa sakramenti yenye kuhitaji mtu mwenye daraja takatifu. Hii ni kwa sababu yeye ni Padre/askofu milele hata kama katika hali yake ya sasa anaishi maisha ya kilei (haki na wajibu za kilei).
Kwa hiyo clerical state is a legal concept. The sacrament of orders is a theological concept. The clerical state has the sacrament of orders as its base. The clerical state can be lost but NEVER the sacrament of orders which imprint an indelible character in one's soul.
- Thread starter
- #57
Wakuu, tunaufuatilia sana mjadala huu. Clerical state wala si lazima iwe legal concept. Ni mgawanyo wa majukumu ndani ya kanisa. Kwamba fulani wawe walei, fulani wawe makleri, fulani wawe masista.
Clerical state iko katika dhehebu lolote. Na ndani a ukatoliki wenye kustahili kupata clerical state ni mapadri, maaskofu lakini mnawasahu na mashemasi.
Pamoja na kwamba mnasema ni legal concept lakini hakuna kifungu kinachosema kwamba loss of clerical state is equivalent na kuwa mlei.
Sheria ya zamani ya mwaka 1917 ilikosea na ilikuwa inasema wazi kwamba uki-loose clerical state basi sasa wewe ni mlei. Kama sikosei ni pararagraph ya 211.
Wanateologia walikuja juu wakati wa Vatican II na waka-suggest hiyo legal concept iondolewe. Ndiyo maana huwezi kukuta neno "amekuwa mlei" kama ilivyokuwa imekosea zamani za mwaka 1917.
Kwa legal concpet ni kwamba Milingo na wenzake wamezuiwa kufanya shughuli za ukleri au kuondoloewa ukleri. Nakubali sasa wanafanya matendo kama walei, wanaoa na vitu kama hivyo.
Lakini kinachomfanya mtu kuitwa askofu, padri au shemasi si ile clerical status. Wapo wanaotaka tuelewe hivyo na sijui kwa nini. Mtu anaitwa padri, askofu kwa sababu ya ile sakramenti ya Daraja. Kama mtu anavyoitwa mkatoliki baada ya ubatizo yaani sakramenti ya Ubatizo.
Mtu aweza kujiunga na uislam au vyovyote. Kanisa hata siku moja halitamuita mtu huyo ni muislam. Litamuita mtu huyo amekana imani yake. Najua tunakosea wengi tunsema amekuwa muislam na ndiyo faida ya mitandao kama JF kurekebishana. Lakini kanisa kama kanisa halikosei hata kama anayekosea kusema hivyo ni askofu
Siku mtu yule akijirudi anapokelewa na kanisa kwamba amekiri imani yake. Hata siku moja kanisa halisemi kwamba ametoka kwenye uislam na kurudi kwenye ukatoliki.
Hivyo huko aliko, kanisa halisemi kwamba "mwenzenu amekuwa muislam" eti kwa vile anafanya matendo kama muislam kama kuingia msikitini. Matendo yake ya uislam si sababu ya kanisa kumuita "amekuwa muislam". Tunachosema ni kwamba amekana imani yetu bila kumpachika majina mengine. Tutaishia kumfananisha na muislamu kimatendo.
Vivyo hivyo padri au askofu hawi mlei eti kwa sababu sasa anafanya matendo kama mlei. Hakuna anayebisha kwamba amefananishwa na mlei. na ni kweli si kwamba amefananishwa. Ni kweli kimatendo anafanya matendo ya ulei kmili. Lakini kufananishwa au kuyafanya si kuwa mlei.
Mnachofurahisha wote mlio na dhana hii mnaishia kusema "anafanana". Lakini hakuna mmoja wenu anayetaja kuwa wapi pameonyesha Milingo na wenzake wa aina ile wanakuwa walei.
Mimi naona mmelirudia vya kutosha hili la "kufanana na mlei". Wana JF wote ni mashahidi hata kama wengine hawachangii. Hata asiye mkatoliki bila shaka ameshalielewa hili.
Mkirudi jamivini tuleteeni uthibitisho kuwa amekuwa mlei. Suala la kufanana hakuna wa kumfundisha mwenzake. Wote tunajua kufanana ni nini.
Steve yule mchekeshaji hawi Nyerere eti kwa sababu anazungumza sauti kama ya Julius Nyerere na nywele zake amejaza mvi kama Nyerere.
Oh! Ninachotaka kueleza hapa ni hiki: Je, nani amesema Milingo ni mlei: Kanisa Katoliki au wachangiaji? Baadhi ya wachangiaji wanaweza wasiwe na uelewa wa kutosha wa 'theological' au 'canonical jagons' (technical issues) ndiyo maana nikaleta hiyo communique na article ya canon lawyer ili kuonesha Kanisa linasema nini kwa mtu kama Milingo.
Kanisa linasema 'validly ordained minister' hawezi kurudia tena ulei. Hata hivyo, kutokana na sababu fulanifulani kubwa (grave reasons) 'validly ordained minister' anaweza kuondolewa 'clerical status' - 'faculties', 'rights' na 'privileges' za daraja. Na hii inafanyika kwa namna mbili:
1) Mhusika mwenyewe kuomba aondolewe akieleza sababu kubwa (laicisation) au
2) Mamlaka husika kuona kwamba mhusika mwenyewe baada ya kuwa ameonywa kuhusu mambo kadhaa makubwa ambayo ni kinyume na kazi yake na mafundisho ya Kanisa na amekaidi, baada ya muda fulani kupita, huwa mamlaka husika zinatakiwa zimwondolee hiyo 'clerical status'.
Mfano wake ni archbishop Milingo. Hii ina maana kwamba: kuanzia siku ilipotangazwa, Milingo hana tena 'clerical status' na chochote atakachofanya, hatafanya kwa jina la Kanisa Katoliki na pia kuanzia siku hiyo Milingo hatakuwa mmoja wa maaskofu halali wa Kanisa Katoliki (those in active ministry) - hatakuwa na ofisi ya kiaskofu, kidaraja na wala hataweza kuhudumia jumuiya yoyote iliyo chini ya Kanisa katoliki kama askofu Mkatoliki.
Kwa Kiswahili rahisi, Milingo kwa sasa siyo tofauti na mlei (kwa vile hajafukuzwa kutoka kwenye Kanisa) bali kwa maana ya kuwa hana majukumu ya kidaraja/kiaskofu - i.e hana 'clerical status'. Pengine hapajapatikana msamiati mzuri wa kumwita mtu kama yeye, kwani kukosa 'clerical status' kwa lugha ya kawaida ni kuishi kama mlei anavyoishi.
Ila kwa kuzingatia 'valid ordanation' yake, katika hatari ya kufa, Milingo anaweza kutoa baadhi ya huduma za kipadre kwa wahitaji. Ukisoma Canon Law, utaona ni huduma gani anaweza kuzitoa katika hali kama hiyo.
Hivyo, katika kujadili kwetu pengine tungesema toka mwanzo tunajadili hoja hii kutoka upande gani: wa sheria za Kanisa au uelewa wa kawaida wa watu? Na nadhani hata hao wanaosema Milingo sasa ni mlei wanasemea katika 'context' ya kukosa 'clerical status' - yaani, kwamba kwa kawaida mtu asiye na 'clerical status' ni mlei. Sijui utakuwa umenielewa kwa hili au bado?
Kwa hiyo, Milingo hana tena 'clerical status' ndani ya Kanisa Katoliki!
Wewe huna point ya maana. Point yako ya maana ingetokana na mchango wako na siyo kutaja etu fulani kachangia hiki na yule kile. Wewe umechangia nini kuhusu upadre/uaskofu na ulei wa Milingo na siyo Magobe T au Kieleweke?
Paschal Matubi
JF-Expert Member
- Sep 15, 2008
- 235
- 302
Wakuu,
Mjadala huu unanikumbusha padri mmoja wa jimbo la Mwanza anaitwa Cyprian Tilumanywe. Huyu padri ana akili za ajabu kiasi kwamba makosa haya aliyaona miaka 30 iliyopita.
Na makosa yenyewe ni tafsiri mambo mbalimbali ya dini katika kiswahili. Binafsi aliamua kuitafsiri Biblia kutoka katika kigiriki kwenda katika kiswahili anachoona yeye kinafaa. Pia kutoka kigiriki kwenda katika kiingereza kinachofaa.
Sijui ilitokea nini tafsiri zake hazikutumika. Yupo na sasa taratibu anazeeka.
NImemkumbuka kwa sababu tatizo nililoliona hapa ni tafsiri ya wachangiaji.
Ukiuangalia mjadala mzima utaona umejikita katika maneno mawili yaani Upadri (priesthood) na Ukleri (clerical status).
Kama wote tungeelewa tofauti ya haya mawili basi mjadala usingefika huku kote.
Tatizo katika kiswahili tunatumia sana neno Upadri (priesthood). Neno Ukleri (clerical status) halitajwitajwi sana na inafikia mahala kama vile halipo. Kutotajwa huku kunawafanya baadhi ni wadhani ni legal concept wakati ni neno la kawaida la kutenganisha majukumu kama lilivyo neno mlei (laity).
Wengi wameeleza na hawakukosea kusema upadri au uaskofu ni sakramenti ya Daraja. Inapatikana kanisani na ndiyo maana ile misa huitwa misa ya upadrisho. Haiitwi misa ya ukleriisho.
Ukleri ni hali ya kuwa na jukumu fulani ndani ya kanisa kama mlei alivyo na jukumu lake. Lakini upadri na uaskofu ni tiketi ya ukleri. Hivyo ndani ya kanisa Katoliki makleri wote ama ni mapadri, maaskofu au mashemasi.
Sheria za Kanisa zinakataza kuwa na padri anayerandaranda bila jukumu lolote nadhani ni kipengele 265. Hivyo kila padri lazima ana sehemu ya kutimiza ukleri wake au wajibu wake.
Isingekuwa sheria hii basi isingeshindikana kupata mtu mwenye sakramenti ya Daraja (padri, askofu) lakini anazunguka kivyake akihudumia huku na kule.
Kwa dogma ya kikatoli ambayo si lazima wengine waiamini ni kwamba upadri ni ukuhani hutolewa na Yesu.
Ukleri hautolewi na Yesu. Ukleri ni jukumu tumepangiana binadamu ili kanisa liwe na utaratibu. Ukileta za kuleta tunakunyang'anya ukleri tuliokupa maana hicho ndicho kilicho chini ya uwezo wetu.
Kunyang'anywa huku ndicho tunachoita loss of clerical status ambayo Magobe T ameielezea zaidi ya mara tano.
Upadri (priesthood) hatuna uwezo wa kukunyang'anya. Japo upadri au uaskofu hutolewa na askofu lakini tunaamini kuwa anayeutoa anasimama badala ya Yesu ambaye ndiye Kuhani Mkuu.
Hivyo upadri au uaskofu si binadamu anayeutoa. Hvyo binadamu hana uwezo wa kuunyang'anya. Uwezo wake unaishi kunyang'anya Ukleri (clerical status).
Taabu ni ile nilieleza kwamba baada ya kunyang'anywa hatutamuona altareni tena na sasa tutamuona anaoa anakuwa na familia. Na mara nyingi maelezo kama haya huwa hayatolewi kinagaubaga namna hii. Kwanza nimeshangaa imekuwaje ya Millingo ikaelezwa kinagaubaga vile.
Hata hivyo sumu ya kuchanganyikiwa imeshawaingia watu hadi kudhani kuwa kuondolewa Ukleri (clerical status) basi ni kuondolewa upadri.
Rafiki yangu mmoja aliposikia kilichompata askofu Jacob Koda pale Same alinitumia message ifuatayo "Hallo nasikia Ratzinger kamvua uaskofu Jacob Koda je ni kweli?".
Nilijua anayaelewa mambo haya lakini nikaona atakuwa chanzo cha upotoshaji. Sikuvumilia na moja kwa moja nikampigia simu na kumuuliza kwa nini aseme vile wakati uaskofu au upadri hauvuliwi hadi kifo?
Akanijibu kwamba anaelewa lakini hakuwa na neno jingine la kiswahili la kutumia ukizingatia message yake aliituma kwa rafiki zake wengi nikiwemo mimi.
Ona hapo kilichotokea. Mimi nilielewa. Je wengine walielewa? Sikushangaa magazeti yalipoandika Jacob Koda kavuliwa uaskofu na yeye mwenyewe akatishia kuyashitaki akisema hiki tunachokijadili kwamba uaskofu ni sakramenti haivuliki kama nguo.
Hivyo hii mimi ninaiona ni language crisis ikichanganywa na mazoea crisis.
Asanteni na ninaomba kurekebishwa nilipokosea.
Similar Discussions
-
Askofu wa Kanisa Katoliki amfungia komunio U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi- Started by MTAZAMO
- Replies: 36
-
An open letter to President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni- Started by Mama Amon
- Replies: 18
-
