Fact Checking Washington Post Article: “What difference does it make to McCarrick?’ Critics question the value of defrocking.”

  • Thread starter Thread starter jack63
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jack63

Guest
Last time I posted a Washington Post article, many people expressed concern about learning about Catholicism or religious and moral lessons from the Washington Post….rightfully so. I agree that the Washington Post is not a good place to learn about Catholicism. I’m approaching it differently this time.

This article in the Washington Post surprised me. The McCarrick defrocking motivated it, but it was really about defrocking or laicizing a Catholic Priests in general. I would like to get people’s thoughts about what the article said……e.g. is what the article said true, untrue, or nuanced?
The link is below:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/reli...vatican-is-it-justice/?utm_term=.f209f8a74d62
So a few things…
A dismissal from the priesthood is permanent — something that can’t even be said of excommunication.
Click to expand...
Is this true?
Even priests who request laicization are told to move away and, unless necessary, to keep quiet about what happened to avoid scandalizing other Catholics. No working in parishes, seminaries, Catholic schools. Your previous identity is wiped out.
Click to expand...
I can understand they are advised against making a big show of their wedding. However, are they really told to move away and banned from employment in Catholic institutions?
Since the sex abuse crisis erupted in the early 2000s there have been more defrockings, and church leaders have wrestled with whether it’s wiser to keep abusers in-house, where they can be monitored closely….
Click to expand...
This is literally the first time I had heard this. That defrocking is not preferable to keeping the abusers in-house. I always assumed that defrocking was preferred. What is true? What is the justification for not defrocking and keeping in-house?
The church was loath to dismiss clerics. The big wave came after the second Vatican Council in the 1960s, a series of meetings many expected to liberalize the church and let priests marry. Disappointed that changes weren’t made, many priests left and asked to be relieved of their celibacy vows. After years passed, Pope John Paul II stopped granting the petitions.
Click to expand...
Pope John Paul II stopped granting petitions? Really?! Is it still difficult for a Catholic priest to get laicized? I’ve met some wonderful Catholic families where a priest and nun married……
Ciolek recalled the pain of petitioning the Vatican to approve his request to leave the priesthood. He was already married and a father, but he wanted to be formally released from his promise of celibacy to allow his civil marriage to be recognized by the church and to be in good standing to receive the sacraments. He had to wait about 10 years and submit thick documents arguing that it was a mistake for him to have become a priest. In reality, Ciolek said he believes he was called to be a priest and might still be one if not for the church’s celibacy requirement. He didn’t like having to put in writing that there was something flawed with his ministry.
Click to expand...
Is this really the only argument a priest can use to be allowed to be laicized and be married in good standing?
 
Last edited:
jack63 said:
Ciolek said he believes he was called to be a priest and might still be one if not for the church’s celibacy requirement
Click to expand...
Well, celibacy is required of priests in the RCC. And he knew it…(so there’s no argument there.)
jack63 said:
He had to wait about 10 years and submit thick documents arguing that it was a mistake for him to have become a priest.
Click to expand...
That was the average time for some legal processes. No ill-will it’s just a FIFO (first-in-first-out). @jack63 you do realize that in most countries cases in court (be the court civil or ecclesiastical) take a good 10 years??

-Here, you have 2 arguments already that are “ill-informed” and thus twisted in their presentation.
jack63 said:
After years passed, Pope John Paul II stopped granting the petitions.
Click to expand...
Again, the 60’s saw tens of thousands of religious abandoning the vocation. The complexity of that can hardly be summed up in a single sentence blaming saint pope JPII. (WoPo again bashed church and pope untruthfully and unjustly in just 9 words.)
jack63 said:
The big wave came after the second Vatican Council in the 1960s
Click to expand...
The main issue is that in most of the world if a person was poor and wanted to pursuit a college degree their only chance was going through seminary. So, in the post-WW2 years tens of thousands got their degrees going through catholic seminary knowing full well they’d quit their vows short after.
 
Last edited:
jack63 said:
What is true? What is the justification for not defrocking and keeping in-house?
Click to expand...
There’s some complexity to this and it varies by country. The thing is: Most priests I know that are retiring go to live in an elderly home for priests. Because there’s enough of them for the church to maintain an institution just for them. And, the average cost for staying at a nursing home with daily medical care is generally more expensive than a retirement pension. So, the families help or contribute a share. Since priests may be required to leave their families and generally forgo making much money (yes, they could have been rich with the academic degrees they held) the church holds a responsibility over them, because they dedicated their lives to the service of the church. So, again, this is settled by agreement between State and Church which is articulated with Health Care and social security, so yes: there’s a legal obligation between Church and State towards care of the citizen that is an elderly priest.

@jack63 yes, answering those questions is complicated. ☹️ (The WoPo likes to twist and distort truth - that’s unethical journalism yet again.)
 
jack63 said:
So a few things…
A dismissal from the priesthood is permanent — something that can’t even be said of excommunication.
Click to expand...
To my knowledge, yes. At least I’ve never heard of a priest who was laicized and then un-laicized later.
Even priests who request laicization are told to move away and, unless necessary, to keep quiet about what happened to avoid scandalizing other Catholics. No working in parishes, seminaries, Catholic schools. Your previous identity is wiped out.
Click to expand...
I can understand they are advised against making a big show of their wedding. However, are they really told to move away and banned from employment in Catholic institutions?
Click to expand...
It depends on what is said in the particular priest’s laicization documents. Obviously if the priest is getting laicized as a penalty for sexual abuse or some other grave offense, nobody wants him employed by a diocese or associated with a diocese. In some cases the main driver for the laicization is to limit the liability of the Church for his actions; laicization is basically “you’re fired” from the priesthood. If the Church then turns around and hires the man as an employee, or even lets him volunteer, then they’re right back on the hook legally, which contradicts the purpose of laicizing him. The Church is also concerned with not causing scandal and not confusing the faithful, so they generally don’t want a laicized priest doing anything that resembles what he did when still a priest, such as distributing Holy Communion.
Since the sex abuse crisis erupted in the early 2000s there have been more defrockings, and church leaders have wrestled with whether it’s wiser to keep abusers in-house, where they can be monitored closely….
Click to expand...
This is literally the first time I had heard this. That defrocking is not preferable to keeping the abusers in-house. I always assumed that defrocking was preferred. What is true? What is the justification for not defrocking and keeping in-house?
Click to expand...
If you defrock a priest, and basically cut him loose from the Church, then the Church has no more control over him. Many clergy sexual abusers can’t be prosecuted legally for various reasons (statute of limitations expired, evidence is insufficient etc). If they are still under Church control then the Church could conceivably order them to go stay in a remote monastery somewhere, or send them to a psychiatric treatment center, keep them someplace where they are unlikely to harm anyone and might even get help for their condition. But if the Church laicizes them, they walk out the door, may not get any sort of treatment (their health insurance and pay ceases), they could go out into some community and commit more sexual abuse, which some in the Church might wish to prevent by keeping the guy under control.
Click to expand...
 
jack63 said:
This is literally the first time I had heard this. That defrocking is not preferable to keeping the abusers in-house.
Click to expand...
That’s not even what the quote you posted said. It says some have questioned whether defrocking is preferable to keeping the abusers in-house where they can be monitored closely.
I’m not sure why you don’t see that as a reasonable question.
 
There was a case a number of years ago, where a priest was laicized by request to marry. When his wife died, he requested to return to the priesthood and his request was granted.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bo...-return-altar/ebRyLWyZSgGgF3C0a5BsMP/amp.html

But obviously, he wasn’t laicized as a punishment.

McCarrick is still a priest. He won’t be able to function as a priest, except in the case of an emergency, he could offer anointing or confession, if no other priests were around.
 
Thank you everybody for the responses.

Thanks for the link to the Boston priest who left the priest hood and came back. This was a very good and relevant article. This means that…
jack63 said:
A dismissal from the priesthood is permanent — something that can’t even be said of excommunication.
Click to expand...
No this is not true. It is in fact flat out wrong and a pretty substantial miss by the Washington Post. The entire article flows from this point…which is wrong.

This means tat the experience of the priest the WaPo mentions (Fr. Ciolek) should not be taken out of context. There is likely way more to that story.

Also…
adgloriam said:
jack63:
After years passed, Pope John Paul II stopped granting the petitions.
Click to expand...
I agree with this. This criticism of JPII is taken out of context, and does not account for a variety of factors. This includes priest changing their minds and wanting to come back to the priesthood and the Catholic church shelling out millions in educational expenses only to see priest walk away.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Thanks @JimG for the good link about what it actually means for a priest to be laicized. Somehow I was fuzzy on what exactly the difference was between a priest getting laicized and a priest getting prayer and penance. I vaguely kind of thought they were the same thing. This clears it up.
Tis_Bearself said:
If you defrock a priest, and basically cut him loose from the Church, then the Church has no more control over him. Many clergy sexual abusers can’t be prosecuted legally for various reasons (statute of limitations expired, evidence is insufficient etc). If they are still under Church control then the Church could conceivably order them to go stay in a remote monastery somewhere, or send them to a psychiatric treatment center, keep them someplace where they are unlikely to harm anyone and might even get help for their condition. But if the Church laicizes them, they walk out the door, may not get any sort of treatment (their health insurance and pay ceases), they could go out into some community and commit more sexual abuse, which some in the Church might wish to prevent by keeping the guy under control.
Click to expand...
Thanks Bear! This is a good way of looking at it. Honestly, in some cases corporations and universities might learn a thing or two from what the Catholic church actually gets right about how it manages itself.
 
Last edited:
It would be very interesting to know if there are other cases of a married laicized priest returning to his clerical duties if his wife dies.

I had read about some cases here on CAF were deacons were made priests if their wife dies.
 
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself said:
If you defrock a priest, and basically cut him loose from the Church, then the Church has no more control over him.
Click to expand...
When you get right down to it, the Church’s “control” over anyone depends entirely on the person’s willingness to be “controlled.”

Dan
 
Meanwhile, McCarrick resides in a friary located on the grounds of a Catholic grade school, thanks to our clerical hierarchy that still doesn’t know what good judgment looks like.
 
Last edited:
jack63 said:
A dismissal from the priesthood is permanent — something that can’t even be said of excommunication.
Click to expand...
There is no such thing as a “dismissal from the priesthood” since, as is commonly and correctly stated, “once a priest, always a priest.” The dismissal regards the legal category of “cleric”, which can be entered and exited.
jack63 said:
Even priests who request laicization are told to move away and, unless necessary, to keep quiet about what happened to avoid scandalizing other Catholics. No working in parishes, seminaries, Catholic schools. Your previous identity is wiped out.
Click to expand...
The former cleric may indeed be restricted from certain ecclesiastical occupations. There are always restrictions of some sort. The particulars depend on the situation. As for where the person lives, I am not sure about how that works in practice but I do presume that the former cleric is told to live in a different diocese.
jack63 said:
Pope John Paul II stopped granting petitions? Really?! Is it still difficult for a Catholic priest to get laicized?
Click to expand...
Yes, he did make it more difficult to be voluntarily “laicized.” I don’t really know how difficult it is these days. I do know that it is a process that can take time but is any cleric’s request denied? I don’t know.

Dan
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I agree that a person has to consent to be controlled, but if a person has no other source of income and/or needs health care and/or has some other impediment to making a new life outside the priesthood, he may be pretty malleable. There’s a good article on this I’ll post later because I can’t find it right now on my phone.
 
Render unto Caesar.
Let the Church punish those who are guilty of abusing minors.
And let civil authorities prosecute these people for their crimes against minors.
In the end, these people will have to face their maker for the big punishment.
 
The laicization process has been streamlined to 7-9 months under Benedict XVI for those leaving to get married. From what I have researched, barring a 6-10 page write up answering questions, the rest is up to the tribunal who gets in contacts with friends and realtives. So depending on how procative this advocate is, it can go rather quickly. Then he is relegated to the status of a church member who can do no other ministry.
 
Thanks for the helpful response.

It looks like there must have been other things going on in the example given in the article about the married priest who needed to wait 10 years for his documents to go through.

It does seem the article was basically correct about laicized priests being unable to do other ministries.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top