The 1917 Code of Canon Law can. 2214 §1 states: >The Church has the native and proper right, independent of any human authority, to coerce those offenders subject to her with both spiritual and temporal penalties. This says "The Church", but §2 goes on to specify "Bishops and other Ordinaries". A bishop, when consecrated, is given the power to teach, govern, and sanctify those in his diocese; but what authority does a simple parish priest have over his parishioners? In other words, what can a parish priest command or forbid his parishioners to do? Can he coerce his parishioners with punishments, or is this power only reserved to bishops?

Would it be an invalid confession if the penitent brings a written list of sins for the priest to read, instead of speaking himself? (This is assuming there are no extenuating circumstances like the person being unable to speak)

I was intrigued by this May 2025 article from the *Time* magazine: [10 Surprising Facts about Papal Conclaves](https://time.com/7282265/papal-conclaves-surprising-facts-history/) where #2 is: > **Cardinals will be on a strict diet to prevent secret messaging** > >In an attempt to influence cardinals and establish communication between the conclave and the outside world, messages have previously been hidden in food coming into the Sistine Chapel during the voting process. > >Foods that could conceal messages such as pies and chickens, as well as cutlery and glasses, have been prohibited. Following tradition for the upcoming conclave, nuns will prepare local food such as lamb skewers, spaghetti, and boiled vegetables for cardinals. But the restrictive communication seems to *also* be in effect among the cardinal-electors themselves *during conclave*. Quote from the same article that implies the rule of non-communication between votes: > If a decision still has not been made after three days, a break of up to one day is permitted, allowing for prayer and discussion amongst cardinals. But this process can continue indefinitely, until a majority is reached. While I understand how they should be insulated from outside world (i.e. no smartphones), I don't understand the need to prohibit discussion among the current 135 cardinal-electors. Wouldn't discussion between votes (which I heard is at least 2 times per day) help them to reach the consensus? Or at least one discussion per day after a few rounds of votes? I also understand that there is a deliberate pre-conclave discussions which include the rest of the 252 members of the College of Cardinals, so that the wise input from those not eligible can be in the mind of the cardinal electors for factors of consideration. This is also for the cardinal electors to get to know the view of what they consider to be *papabile*. **My question**: What are the precise rules for communication among cardinal electors **during** (not before) the conclave, and what is the *rationale* for those rules? I'm specifically interested whether there are any restrictions of *oral* (not written / recorded) discussion between votes.

Earlier this year, as part of the effort to normalize relations between the Vatican and China, the [*New York Times*](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/29/world/asia/china-catholics-vatican.html) reported that the Vatican asked one of its bishops to step down to make way for a state-approved individual. This individual had been previously excommunicated from the Church, perhaps simply for acting as a bishop without papal approval (per [Canon 1382](http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P52.HTM)) . It seemed strange to me that someone could go straight from being excommunicated to being a bishop, so I looked up the qualifications for bishops, and found [Canon 378](http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P1C.HTM) , which says that suitable candidates "must": > 1° be outstanding in strong faith, good morals, piety, zeal for souls, wisdom, prudence and human virtues, and possess those other gifts which equip him to fulfil the office in question; > > 2° be held in good esteem; > > 3° be at least 35 years old; > > 4° be a priest ordained for at least five years; > > 5° hold a doctorate or at least a licentiate in sacred Scripture, theology or canon law... On the surface, numbers 1, 2, and 4 seem to be a bit tricky to apply to an excommunicated Catholic, except perhaps in the case of #4, if we're allowed to count years of service as a priest prior to excommunication. However, Canon 378 goes on to say, in §2: > The definitive judgement on the suitability of the person to be promoted rests with the Apostolic See. My question, then, is – **does the pope have the ability to disregard any or all of the requirements of Canon 378 with respect to the qualifications of bishops, in order to appoint someone of his choice?** That is, should §2 be read as saying that the pope may waive the age requirement, or the years of service requirement, at his own discretion? Or does his "definitive judgement" apply only to the more subjective requirements, like qualifications #1 and #2? I realize too that there are some circumstances in which the Pope can simply "violate" Canon Law, since he has the authority to amend it anyway, but I don't know if this is such an area.

[Pope Francis announced the consistory for the creation of new cardinals](https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2023-07/pope-announces-consistory-for-creation-of-new-cardinals.html) today. The consistory will be held on 30th September, i.e. there is 3 month period during much can happen. **My question**: are the persons nominated to be created cardinals eligible to participate in the conclave? Of course, they are not formally created cardinals, but maybe there are some rules for the election of the next pontiff that specify more details of this and make such exceptions. I am looking pretty much on the prefect-elect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, [Víctor Manuel Fernández](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%ADctor_Manuel_Fern%C3%A1ndez) who may be elected pope in the next conclave if only he is properly made cardinal before that conclave. I am guessing that he can take name John XXIV.

Does canon law allow priests to hold any currencies or assets with the view of making a profit off them? For example: investing in the stock market, investing in deflationary currencies/assets like cryptocurrencies, etc.?

Can a member of Opus Dei leave and join a religious order, or is being part of the prelature considered equivalent to being in a religious order?

In the Council of Florence (1438-1445), the Church states the following: > It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Catholic Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church's sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church. (*The Council of Florence*, Session 11) I may be missing context because I didn't read the council, but from this alone, it appears that schismatics (non-Catholic Orthodox Christians) and heretics (e.g. Protestants) have no possibility of salvation despite the Church today speaking of them as separated brethren who simply lack the fullness of truth, while still being a part of the body of Christ. So my question is: When the Council of Florence mentions heretics and schismatics, are they only referring to those who are members of the Catholic Church who leave/apostatize? Or are they also referring to heretics and schismatics who never join the Catholic Church (e.g. Protestants who were raised Protestant from birth and didn't know the Catholic Church was true and therefore didn't join)?

**Context:** Many Protestants overstate the claim that the Catholic Church “chained the Bible to the pulpit,” asserting that the Bible was placed on a list of “banned books” after the Council of Trent. In reality, that never happened. However, the Church did enforce severe prohibitions against what it considered dubious translations of Scripture. Historically, from Trent until the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic faithful were encouraged to read the Bible regularly, but only in certain approved translations of the Latin Vulgate (e.g., the Douay-Rheims). Following the Second Vatican Council, many Catholics have begun to use a wider variety of translations. Some, such as Ronald L. Conte Jr., have even produced personal translations like the Catholic Public Domain Version. Popular Catholic figures on YouTube, including Matt Fradd, have expressed a preference for translations like the KJV or the Orthodox Study Bible, and others—like Jeff Cavins—have suggested that Catholics should read “whichever translation of the Bible you will actually read.” Despite this apparent openness to different translations, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) still maintains a list of “approved” Bible translations. **Final Question:** Are there still prohibitions within the Catholic Church that would make it sinful for the faithful to print, publish, pray with, or study using any English translation of the Bible not on an approved list?

*Note: this question is inspired by the movie Conclave (2024) but is **specifically** not a movie question. I am only interested in the legal/formal aspects.* During a contemporary papal conclave , the next pope is chosen among the cardinals present at the ceremony. Is it possible (formally/legally, not through arrangements) for a cardinal to publicly (in the conclave assembly) declare himself **not** a candidate?

Archibishop Cupich asked his flock to not kneel before receiving communion: [Cardinal Cupich Asks Catholics ‘to Receive Holy Communion Standing’ in Chicago Archdiocese](https://www.ncregister.com/cna/cardinal-cupich-asks-catholics-to-receive-holy-communion-standing-in-chicago-archdiocese?) . But I took a personal vow to always receive communion kneeling and on the tongue. In general, should a Catholic follow his or her own conscience in matters like this or abide by the reasoned dictates of an Archbishop? Or, to put another way, what level of fealty does a Catholic have to their Bishop in personal liturgical practices which are allowed by canon law?

Canon 843 says >Can. 843 §1. Sacred ministers cannot deny the sacraments to those who seek them at appropriate times, are properly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them. > >§2. Pastors of souls and other members of the Christian faithful, according to their respective ecclesiastical function, have the duty to take care that those who seek the sacraments are prepared to receive them by proper evangelization and catechetical instruction, attentive to the norms issued by competent authority. This seems to me to entail that priests may deny communion to those they know to be improperly disposed. If someone seeks communion at an inappropriate time, or while improperly disposed, or is prohibited by law from receiving communion, then there does not appear to be any requirement for the pastor to give that person communion. Yet, there are those who say that a priest can only deny communion to someone who is in "manifest grave sin." This is a reference to canon 915, which says >Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion. But this canon says the priest *may not* admit such people to communion, not that the priest must admit anyone who does not meet these criteria to communion. If, hypothetically, I walked up to the priest just before Mass, and told him that I had committed some grave sin and had not yet repented of it in Confession, but the sin is private, known only to me and the priest, it seems common sense to me that if I then approach to receive communion during Mass, the priest should deny me. Even if I did not tell him the particulars of the sin, but merely that it was grave or mortal, it seems common sense that he ought to deny communion to me. I would very much like to see the reasoning from a trained canon lawyer as to how the law as written requires priests, especially pastors, to give communion to someone they know is in unrepentant mortal sin as long as the sin isn't publicly manifest. Or, if that is incorrect, are there any canon lawyers who say that the priest in my hypothetical scenario is permitted to refuse someone communion?

This relates to a discussion on another Question (which I won't link because I don't want to draw attention to the OP). The following is all hypothetical. (I, personally, am not Roman Catholic, nor do I have any plans of becoming so.) Let's say I engage in some practice which I believe to be beneficial to my health. (The specific practice is irrelevant.) Let's say, also, that the RCC forbids this practice. However, I believe that my health is more important than adhering to Catholic teaching, so I continue the practice in genuine belief that doing so is critical to my health and longevity. Could I be excommunicated for this? Does it make a difference if I was already Catholic, vs. if I converted with the intention of ignoring the RCC prohibition to refrain from this practice?

Can a member of the Ruthenian Catholic Church be automatically excommunicated for apostasy? As far as I know they can't be, as the *Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches* states: >"One who denies a truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or who calls it into doubt, or who totally repudiates the Christian faith, and does not retract it after having been legitimately warned, is to be punished as a heretic or an apostate with a major excommunication" (1436) Does this imply that the Church has to be officially involved in order for the person to be excommunicated?

I discussed with a friend about the absolute minimum required to have a mass, and I found it particularly difficult to find documentation about these requirements. The obvious one (for me at least) is a priest, or someone allowed to perform a mass. We were not clear about anything else, my friend also mentioned that a priest always wears a stole when proceeding to sacraments. Is there a documented **minimal** set of elements and people required for a mass to be held? EDIT following the comments: I was hoping for a document that states something along the lines of *"in order for a mass to be licit, it must be performed by XXX and YYY, ZZZ must be used"*.

I was talking to a rather hardcore TLM'er last weekend who, when it was mentioned that we're having an all-city Mass next week held in an amphitheater outside of our courthouse (which I thought was cool) that only in emergencies - like a time of war - is it licit to have mass outdoors like that. I was like "we're at war with the culture" and he was like "mhmm", well anyway, the conversation didn't go so well. In any event, the previous weekend, I attended a TLM outdoors at camp and the week before I went to Mass several times in the Lucas Oil Stadium (Holy Ground now, next time Taylor Swift plays, I guess). In any event, there's gotta be some rubric around it. Is this just a "spirit of Vatican II" abuse that I've been frog-boiled into or is this actually something permitted by the US Bishops and is unique to the USA (but strangely ubiquitous) or is this a thing that can never be done under any circumstances?

If a husband seeks an annulment and it is denied, but the wife dies after the annulment is denied, is he then free to remarry in the Catholic Church?

On 5 July 2024, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) , in an "Extrajudicial Penal Process", simply declared Viganò as having incurred a *latæ sententiæ* excommunication , but was he even given a trial? Or does an "Extrajudicial Penal Process" mean he is sentenced as guilty without a trial?

Why is Abp. Viganò's (supposed ) excommunication for schism *latæ sententiæ* (automatic), not *ferendæ sententiæ* (declared juridical sentence )?

I heard that some things (like getting an abortion or attacking the pope) have the penalty of *latæ sententiæ* excommunication. What is that?