Defrocking / Laicization

  • Thread starter Thread starter stoplooklisten
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hodos said:
you’re still dealing with a church that is hemorrhaging because the magisterium saw fit to place itself outside the authority of God’s Word. If the church had applied biblical church discipline she would not be dealing with the justifiable charges of negligence and covering up criminal behavior that she is facing now
Click to expand...
Preserving and safeguarding the Apostolic defining of doctrine does not stop or become unhinged due to immorality. If so, then Judas should have prevailed against the Church.
 
You, sir, are no St James or St Paul …

Recall it was ‘biblical discipline’ in Jesus’ day to stone adulterers … He explicitly refused to do so when the woman caught in adultery was brought before Him …
 
Last edited:
He doesn’t renounce them (or at least he can’t do so without sinning). He can, however, be released from them by the Church which has the power of binding and loosing.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
I would hope that the point of this thread is not to draw some bad comparison between Pope Francis and previous Popes on the basis of how many priests have become laicized under Pope Francis.
Click to expand...
Why would you hope that? We all know you are going to defend the Pope no matter what evidence you are shown for a reasonable person to be concerned about things he may have done or wants to do. But that is not the point. A question was asked and several here are attempting to pre judge motives and stiffle opinions. Answer the question if you want or move along.
 
It still seems very odd to me that a priest can just stop being a priest at the drop of a hat. Even more so that he can request to be released in order to marry.

CAF is showing me how little I know of scripture and the Catechism.
 
It’s not a drop of a hat. It’s a very serious decision that goes all the way to Rome.
 
Sorry, bad choice of words. I’m just trying to wrap my head around the whole laicisation business. I only heard of it yesterday. I will read up on it later.
 
anyone can add, change or take away from any wikipedia entry. A footnote doesn’t mean an entry is valid even if it is traceable to a source.

we cannot use wikipedia in academic circles for that reason.
 
A reference / footnote in a Wikipedia article can lead to a valid source that an academic or journalist could use (even if the Wikipedia article itself is not a valid source).
 
An academic does not use Wikipedia. Sorry

Journalists are probably writing wiki 😎
 
Last edited:
MockSock,

You are correct that a sacrament, including Holy Orders, cannot be undone. A priest is a priest forever. However, he can be removed or released from his priestly duties on earth and instructed not to present himself as a priest. Depending on the circumstances, he may be allowed to get married after doing so. (Remember, priestly celibacy is a rule that exists under the Church’s authority, but the Church also has the authority to change the rule or make exceptions. This would be one of those exceptions.)

From what I understand, in the case where someone were in danger of death and no active priest were available, a defrocked priest would still have the power to hear that person’s confession and grant absolution. The priest would also have the power to celebrate a valid Mass but would be forbidden from exercising that power. I know of at least one partial exception here – if the laicized priest were present at a Mass being celebrated by another priest, and that priest had begun the consecration of the Eucharist but had not been able to finish it for some reason (e.g. he became suddenly too ill to complete consecration) and no other priest were available, the laicized priest could complete the Mass for the sake of removing any ambiguity about whether or not the bread and wine had become the Body and Blood of Christ.

And, if a laicized priest were to return to the priesthood, he would not receive Holy Orders again but would simply be reinstated.

See more here: Can a Priest Ever Return to the Lay State? | Canon Law Made Easy
 
stoplooklisten said:
Wikipedia has footnotes. Theoretically at least, every piece of information should be traceable to a source. In practicality, many pieces of information are traceable to sources.
Click to expand...
An academic study was done several years ago comparing a large number of articles in Wikipedia and the Encyclopaedia (sp?) Britannica.

Wikipedia turned out to be wrong less often, against everyone’s expectations . . .

hawk
 
All clerics can be laicized: deacons, priests and bishops.

Most of the time that is done at the request of the cleric, the most common reason is a priest requesting laicization to leave the ministry and marry.

A Church tribunal can also forcibly laicize a cleric as a penalty for a grave delict (certain serious crimes).

The process returns the cleric to the lay state; releasing him from the rights and responsibilities of his office.
  • By the way, ontologically it doesn’t do anything. Once a man is ordained a deacon, his soul is forever changed in a permanent fashion. It can be changed again further when he is ordained a priest, and further still, if he is ordained a bishop.
The reason there is disparity in the number of clerics laicized by different popes through a tribunal is that the number of priests involved in canonical trials had a huge uptick after the Charter. So. naturally, Benedict would have seen more of these under his watch.

During Benedict’s reign canon law was also changed to add additional crimes to the Code that could be punished with laicization - so some of those newer cases will be resolved during Francis’s watch.

The process of requesting laicization can take quite some time, by the way.
 
In response to the PA sexual abuse cases, I saw one situation where the priest was laicized. Discipline does happen. Pope Francis has promoted the theme of mercy. This may impact the response to more recent cases.
 
Last edited:
Hodos said:
Read up on Jude and see what his recommendation would be. Or read 1 Corinthians where Paul is addressing a man engaging in incest, a sin so disordered that not even the pagans would approve. If Paul takes a hard line against such a one, saying do not even eat with this person, what we he say about priests who have engaged in the type of
sexual misconduct being reported today? The Church is fine with denying the sacrament to those accused of grave sin such as those who are divorced and remarried but not this? Sorry, there is just no consistency.
Click to expand...
The problem with a reply like this is that it fails to realize that Paul’s words were spoken (or written) by a man who believed that Jesus was coming back, IN PAUL’S LIFETIME. Taking scripture from A.D. 55 and applying it to 2018 is dangerous. Yes, sin is still as serious, but our understanding of church, structure, and contemporary society are different than at the time the letter was written. I’m not sure Paul would be a harsh or condemning (shunning) in 2018 as he was in 55.
 
joeybaggz said:
The problem with a reply like this is that it fails to realize that Paul’s words were spoken (or written) by a man who believed that Jesus was coming back, IN PAUL’S LIFETIME. Taking scripture from A.D. 55 and applying it to 2018 is dangerous. Yes, sin is still as serious, but our understanding of church, structure, and contemporary society are different than at the time the letter was written. I’m not sure Paul would be a harsh or condemning (shunning) in 2018 as he was in 55.
Click to expand...
Truth is timeless. It doesn’t evolve. It is anchored. What happened in the past stays in the past. The future may wish to change the past but it cannot change the past. Historical events do not change. We may wish to change the facts of history but they do not change. Interpretations of historical facts are subject to human control. History is objective. Interpretations are subjective.
 
stoplooklisten said:
Interpretations are subjective.
Click to expand...
Which is exactly my point. What was viewed in one context can be viewed differently in another. Case in point.
If I said to you that I’m going to go home, sit on my veranda, sip a mint julep, and listen to my slaves serenade me with a rousing version of “Swing low, Sweet chariot” while picking my cotton, you would think I’m mad or living in some 2018 fantasy world.
But if I was to say that in Charleston, S.C. in 1840, it would be perfectly logical. History doesn’t change, it’s understanding of how it is relevant to today, does.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top