Can a defrocked priest remain in the faith?

[CKNICKERBOCKER]

I was saddened to hear the story of Fr. Alberto cutie. He has mentioned leaving the Catholic church and getting married. I don’t get it. Just because he may answer a different call to marry this woman, why can’t he remain a member of the Catholic faith? Just because we are disciplined in our faith doesn’t necessarily mean we have to leave, right? Does defrocking automatically lead to excommunication? This reminds me of the story of the prodigal son. Despite the fact that the son left, the father still welcomed him back when he was ready.

 

[bilop]

I was saddened to hear the story of Fr. Alberto cutie. He has mentioned leaving the Catholic church and getting married. I don’t get it. Just because he may answer a different call to marry this woman, why can’t he remain a member of the Catholic faith? Just because we are disciplined in our faith doesn’t necessarily mean we have to leave, right? Does defrocking automatically lead to excommunication? This reminds me of the story of the prodigal son. Despite the fact that the son left, the father still welcomed him back when he was ready.

He could ask to be laicized (removed from the priestly state) and wait for Rome’s response (this could take a while). He then could marry in the Church and remain a practicing Catholic. He would remain a priest, and could perform sacraments in a true emergency (i.e. confession for the dying).

If, however, he marries w/o laicization, I believe he excommunicates himself, and the marriage is invalid. Hence, he could not be a practising Catholic if in that state.

God Bless

 

[Dolphincrc]

This reminds me of the story of the prodigal son. Despite the fact that the son left, the father still welcomed him back when he was ready.

The Church, like the Father, is always ready to welcome back. But it takes two to reconcile. Before the part where the Father forgives the prodigal son, the son had to undergo a “conversion”- a “change of mind”. Same in this case- Fr Cutie will have to undergo a similar conversion. Right now it is not looking good since he keeps speaking out against celibacy and the Church. His supporters also seem to ignore the fact that he is in an adulterous relationship, clearly spoken of against in the Bible. But I keep praying for him and all those people who are in danger of leaving the Church beacuse of him.

 

[NCSue]

I had to post about this today, and hope you will take the time to read it. I also link to a wonderful post by a priest whose ministry is to pray on behalf of his brother priests. According to his website: “His Excellency, Bishop Edward J. Slattery of the Diocese of Tulsa, Oklahoma has given Father Mark a special mandate to live in adoration before the Eucharistic Face of Jesus, offering thanksgiving, intercession,and reparation for all his brothers in Holy Orders.” I wasn’t aware that there was such a ministry, but I hope you will join with him - and with me. Please pray for our priests!

acts17verse28.blogspot.com/2009/05/which-should-we-choose-condemnation-or.html

In His love,
NCSue

 

[CKNICKERBOCKER]

Yes with adultery, it’s unfortunate to feel remorse because you were caught. It sounds like it was such a struggle that i question his discernment process when he became a priest. You see inappropriate behavior early on in couples who should have never gotten married, as well. He does need prayer. I will pray for him.

 

[Island_Oak]

He could ask to be laicized (removed from the priestly state) and wait for Rome’s response (this could take a while). He then could marry in the Church and remain a practicing Catholic. He would remain a priest, and could perform sacraments in a true emergency (i.e. confession for the dying).

If, however, he marries w/o laicization, I believe he excommunicates himself, and the marriage is invalid. Hence, he could not be a practising Catholic if in that state.

God Bless

???I thought once a priest, always a priest??? Just like one can’t be “un-baptized,” one can’t undo the priesthood? Can anyone explain?!

 

[msugeotech]

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__PZ.HTM

 

[Island_Oak]

Thanks…but note 1 & 2 of Can. 290 are identical…is that an error, my misread?

In effect, it appears defrocking a priest is akin to annuling a marriage~declaring the ordination invalid from the start…

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

As I understand, a priest is a priest forever. Being laicized means he cannot say mass, perform the sacraments, or conduct himself as a priest in anyway. Sometimes it is penalty, sometimes it is requested like when a priest wants to marry. But in his heart and soul, still a priest.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Interesting to note what Can. 291 says:

Can. 291 Apart from the case mentioned in ⇒ can. 290, n. 1, loss of the clerical state does not entail a dispensation from the obligation of celibacy, which only the Roman Pontiff grants.

In other words, unless a priest’s ordination is declared invalid, he is still bound by the law to be celibate even if he is laicized or is booted from the priesthood.

Peace,
Dante

 

[bilop]

???I thought once a priest, always a priest??? Just like one can’t be “un-baptized,” one can’t undo the priesthood? Can anyone explain?!

He is still a priest, he just has his faculties removed (can no longer perform sacraments except in extremis) and is allowed to live as a layman.

God Bless

 

[tee_eff_em]

Thanks…but note 1 & 2 of Can. 290 are identical…is that an error, my misread?

In effect, it appears defrocking a priest is akin to annuling a marriage~declaring the ordination invalid from the start…

It would not be the first typographical/scanning error in the Vatican text. IntraText (Canon Law Society of England translation, I think) says for 2:
2° by the penalty of dismissal lawfully imposed;
Which matches the Vatican’s Latin:
2° poena dimissionis legitime irrogata;

tee
Not a Canon Lawyer, but an armchair Latinist

 

[bilop]

Interesting to note what Can. 291 says:

In other words, unless a priest’s ordination is declared invalid, he is still bound by the law to be celibate even if he is laicized or is booted from the priesthood.

Peace,
Dante

Correct, but in the case of voluntary laicization (i.e. the priest asks for it, and waits for Rome’s approval) he is usually dispensed from his promise of celebacy.

If a priest is defrocked (involuntarily laicized), I would imagine he is usually not dispensed.

God Bless

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Correct, but in the case of voluntary laicization (i.e. the priest asks for it, and waits for Rome’s approval) he is usually dispensed from his promise of celebacy.

If a priest is defrocked (involuntarily laicized), I would imagine he is usually not dispensed.

God Bless

That’s not the impression I get. It sounds to me like marriage, in a sense: if it was valid to begin with, it cannot be undone. If it was invalid from the beginning, there is nothing to be undone.

Thus, if a priest’s clerical status is removed for any reason, he is only deactiviated – not released from his vows. The obligation to celibacy appears to remain nonetheless unless the ordination was invalid.

The wording seems quite clear, though I could be mistaken, given that I’m no canon lawyer.

Peace,
Dante

 

[rinnie]

That’s not the impression I get. It sounds to me like marriage, in a sense: if it was valid to begin with, it cannot be undone. If it was invalid from the beginning, there is nothing to be undone.

Thus, if a priest’s clerical status is removed for any reason, he is only deactiviated – not released from his vows. The obligation to celibacy appears to remain nonetheless unless the ordination was invalid.

The wording seems quite clear, though I could be mistaken, given that I’m no canon lawyer.

Peace,
Dante

The way I understand it when he became a ordained Priest it was valid. Even if he leaves the Priesthood his prior works as a Priest are still valid. Because at that time he was in a state if Grace. If he chooses to leave the Priesthood and goes through the Pope he is released from those vows. Then he cannot marry or do any works of the Church unless in extreme emergency. I also could be wrong, but thats how I understand it.

The difference would be in a marriage and annulment that marriage we never considered valid, or existant. But in Holy Orders that would still have been in effect at the time.

 

[Harrison]

That’s not the impression I get. It sounds to me like marriage, in a sense: if it was valid to begin with, it cannot be undone. If it was invalid from the beginning, there is nothing to be undone.

Thus, if a priest’s clerical status is removed for any reason, he is only deactiviated – not released from his vows. The obligation to celibacy appears to remain nonetheless unless the ordination was invalid.

The wording seems quite clear, though I could be mistaken, given that I’m no canon lawyer.

Peace,
Dante

The obligation of celibacy would remain unless the Roman Pontiff grants the dispensation, as Canon 291 states.

 

[CB_Catholic]

That’s not the impression I get. It sounds to me like marriage, in a sense: if it was valid to begin with, it cannot be undone. If it was invalid from the beginning, there is nothing to be undone.

Thus, if a priest’s clerical status is removed for any reason, he is only deactiviated – not released from his vows. The obligation to celibacy appears to remain nonetheless unless the ordination was invalid.

The wording seems quite clear, though I could be mistaken, given that I’m no canon lawyer.

Peace,
Dante

I personally know of 2 men who were laicized by their own request and allowed to marry. One is now deceased, but I knew him after his wife died and he had returned to the priesthood. He actually served at my parish for a few months. The other was a member of my friend’s parish and joined mine a few years ago. Although I haven’t seen him since he joined my parish, my friend said that he and his family were active members of her parish, including taking Communion. I am no Canon Lawyer, but I was told that when a priest is laicized, he can be released from his vow of celibacy. Perhaps one who is an expert in Canon Law can comment.

Also, I do believe that a laicized priest can, in a danger of death situation, hear the Confession of a dying person. He also, of course, is able to perform an emergency Baptism.

 

[wisdomseeker]

I was saddened to hear the story of Fr. Alberto cutie. He has mentioned leaving the Catholic church and getting married. I don’t get it. Just because he may answer a different call to marry this woman, why can’t he remain a member of the Catholic faith? Just because we are disciplined in our faith doesn’t necessarily mean we have to leave, right? Does defrocking automatically lead to excommunication? This reminds me of the story of the prodigal son. Despite the fact that the son left, the father still welcomed him back when he was ready.

i dont like to judge no one. but this priest could have avoid embarassment to the Church, instead he went to a beach where the outside world could see him and cause scandal to the Church. all he had to do was go to the Bishop and ask for a leave so could marry.

i think this priest let fame and beauty get to his head.

sorry, just my opinion.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

I personally know of 2 men who were laicized by their own request and allowed to marry. One is now deceased, but I knew him after his wife died and he had returned to the priesthood. He actually served at my parish for a few months. The other was a member of my friend’s parish and joined mine a few years ago. Although I haven’t seen him since he joined my parish, my friend said that he and his family were active members of her parish, including taking Communion. I am no Canon Lawyer, but I was told that when a priest is laicized, he can be released from his vow of celibacy. Perhaps one who is an expert in Canon Law can comment.

Also, I do believe that a laicized priest can, in a danger of death situation, hear the Confession of a dying person. He also, of course, is able to perform an emergency Baptism.

If that is the case, then I stand corrected. Thanks!

Peace,
Dante

 

[tinalewis]

What disturbs me about some priests’ sexual affairs is that they seem to come to light involuntarily. It sounds to my ears something along the lines of . . .

“It’s OK so long as you don’t get caught.”

Wouldn’t have it been better if Fr. Cutie had gone privately to his superiors and discussed his relationship with this woman because he was troubled by it rather than be forced to bring it into the spotlight by having photographs published?

How long would the inappropriate relationship continued if there hadn’t been photographs? If they hadn’t been caught?

I’m just a new Catholic middle-aged married woman, but is seems to me that if a priest goes to his superiors saying

*“This is wrong, I know, but I was weak and one thing led to another and now what do I do - will you help me?” *

then he should be given all the caring assistance we can give him to discern what his future holds. If he requests to leave the priesthood or chooses to stay, then I feel he should be treated with the utmost compassion and respect.

But if he was caught in the act, then to my thinking, the situation might have gone on indefinitely and there is little evidence of remorse or repentance. This would make a difference in what the next steps would be, if I were the a position of authority.

And, yes, the same thinking applies to a spouse. If my husband were to come to me with an admission of guilt for something he did, it would feel different to me than if I caught him by happenstance. I’m guessing many parents feel the same way about their children’s behavior also.

Just my 2 cents.