She is a parishioner. No, he cannot be charged with sexual harassment. She and he have been friends for 10 years. They have been romantically involved for two years. She is a consenting adult.
Additionally, it is unfair to say that he has abandoned his “priestly vows”. THE MAN NEVER MADE VOWS. Everyone is forgetting that WE’RE TALKING ABOUT A SECULAR PRIEST not a religioius. Secular priests do not make vows. That’s why they’re called secular. They are ordained deacons, priests and consecrated bishop, but they never lose their secular state. They are as secular as the man in the pew. The difference is they are ordained. The prerequisite for ordination of a secular priest is a promise of celibacy. A promise is not a vow and does not it carry the same weight when it it violeted as does a solemn vow.
If a religious violates the solemn vow of chastity he is automatically excommunicated, whether he is a brother, priest, or cloistered nun. A person in simple promises has no vows, they are not excommunicated, nor is a person in simple vows. The other state that has solemn vows is marriage. That’s why you are excommunicated, if you attempt a second marriage while the first is still in effect.
Fr. Albert has not abandoned any vows. He has broken a promise. But the promise is still in effect and he is still bound by it until such time as the Church gives him a dispensation from it. This is the reason why the bishop cannot suspend him. The most the bishop can do is to ask him to take a leave of absence to sort through all this.
If he teaches something that is contrary to the teaching of the Church, he can be suspended. If he does not resolve the situation within the time that the bishop may have alloted him, he can also be suspended. If he adds another scandal to this, he can also be suspended. But if all he’s doing is discerning what to do next, it is unlikely that he will be suspended, because that’s what the Church wants people in his position to do: think, pray and seek help.
The other thing that can be said in his defence is that he has not spoken out against celibacy. He said that he failed, but that celibacy is good for the priesthood and for the Church. He does believe that it should be an option; but that is an opinion and not an immoral one.
He also said that the Church tries to achieve an ideal and that he believes that many priests, religious and seminarians are striving for that ideal and succeeding. He also said that he does not know if he is cut out for this ideal and that he recognizes that what he did was wrong, bad for the Church, his parish, his family and friends, his fellow priests and for his bishop.
He has agreed not to speak in public about his plans for the future in until he speaks with his bishop again, but getting married is not out of the question, nor is staying in the priesthood out of the question. He is in a conflictive state. I can understand that. He also realizes that if he chooses to marry, he will have to leave the Church, because dispensations are not being granted.
Unless the Holy Father makes an exception and grants him a dispensation, the only options that I see within the Church are the ones that I posted above. If he leaves the Church to marry, he excommunicates himself. That’s between him, God and his bishop.
This is the kind of issue that is best left to Fr. Albert, spiritual directors, bishops and canonists. There are too many issues for the average man and woman on CAF to solve without knowing what is happening in the internal forum. For all we know arrangements could be in progress for him to join the Missionaries of Charity and go off to India (just an example, not fact).
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
