I think this is sad…This priest isn’t the first to succumb to temption…Scripture is littered with men who dallied instead of resisted…look at David
God still used them…St Paul was a party to murder which is a worse crime than fornication…I am not making light of this mans sin, but you know if it was a priest who wasn’t in the limelight, it would be far easier for the church to handle this sort of thing…They might well have a system in place for dealing with this, but given who he is, it can’t be used
Anytime we lose a priest we should feel sad and pray for him to find God and come to his senses rather than want to see the worst of all punishments meted out
I hope they can find a place, perhaps in another country, for him…We are all sinners too, so we shouldn’t be so quick to wish the worst on him…He could have many fine qualities despite this, and still give years of service to God
It is a serious sin because he took vows, he should be punished but perhaps not defrocked
Fr. Alberto is not being defrocked. You cannot defrock a priest because he has an affair. Since he is a secular priest he can be suspended by the local bishop. Which has already happened. The next step is for Fr. Alberto and the bishop to decide. There are several options:
- Remain a member of the Archdiocese, but suspended.
- Remain a member of the Archdiocese and sent away to a monastic enclosure for an indefinite period of time.
- He can ask for a leave of absence.
- He can apply to another diocese for incardination and begin all over. But it takes five years to become a member of another diocese. He would be on probation during that time and can be sent back to his diocese.
- He can apply to a religious community; but it is up to the superior of the community to decide if he wants to admit him.
The Church only takes away the clerical status of a deacon, priest or bishop if they commit a crime, not a sin. A person can repent from his sin. If there is repentence, the Church grants absolution.
The Church can impose the penance, but defrocking is not a penance. It is a much more severe action reserved for a much more severe offense.
By the way, Fr. Alberto has not made any vows. He is a secular priest. Secular priests do not make vows. Only religious men and religious women make vows. Secular priests make two PROMISES, celibacy and obedience to their local bishop… This happens when they become deacons, unless they are already married at the time of their diaconate ordination.
A relligious who makes a solemn vow of chastity is in a very different canonical situation, whether he is a priest, brother or cloistered nun. These are the only religious who make solemn vows of chastity. They incur very servere penalties, because their vow is solemn. They have done more than violate a discipline of the Church. They have committed a grave sin against a vow to God, the Church, their founder, their superior, and their community. There are more layers of sin involved. In addition, the vow cannot be erased.
In the case of Fr. Alberto, because he is not a religious, his canonical status remains the same. He is a priest of the Archdiocese of Miami, but is suspended until some appropriate resolution is found.
It is highly unlikely that he will get a dispensation to marry, even if he asks for it. Pope Benedict has placed a freeze on dispensations for priests and for religious brothers.
As to allowing married men to become priests, the Church already has married men who are ordained deacons and priests. Most of the Eastern clergy is married. They do very well as priests, husbands and fathers. We have some Latin Rite married men who are priests and many married men who are deacons.
Changing the rule of celibacy for the priesthood would only apply to a very small number of men. The only men who are subject to this rule are the diocesan priests. Most priests belong to religious orders or religious congregations. Religious must make a vow of chastiy and celibacy or there is no religious life. The evangelical counsels is what makes religious life different from secular life.
In addition one has to consider that there have been millions of men and women who have been celibate during the 2,000 year history of the Church. To say that celibacy does not work or is not practical because we have a shortage of priests is a very selfish statement. We’re tyring to get the Church to change the rules so that we can have our needs met, rather than please Christ.
We have had celibacy for religious since the first century of the Church and for secular priests since the 11th century. We had many deacons, priests and bishops among secular Catholics. The decline in vocations among secular priests has very little to do with celibacy. Why would it have worked in the past and not today? Why are religious orders and religious congregations of men still getting vocations? They HAVE TO BE CELIBATE to be religious.
The secular priest is not declining in numbers because of celibacy. But more because of the fact that secular life is faltering in spirituality, even among non priests.
Fraternally,
JR
