Can. 290 Sacred ordination once validly received never becomes invalid. A cleric, however, loses the clerical state:
1° by a judgement of a court or an administrative decree, declaring the ordination invalid;
2° by the penalty of dismissal lawfully imposed;
3° by a rescript of the Apostolic See; this rescript, however, is granted to deacons only for grave reasons and to priests only for the gravest of reasons.
Can. 291 Apart from the cases mentioned in can. 290, n. 1, the loss of the clerical state does not carry with it a dispensation from the obligation of celibacy,which is granted solely by the Roman Pontiff.
Can. 292 A cleric who loses the clerical state in accordance with the law, loses thereby the rights that are proper to the clerical state and is no longer bound by any obligations of the clerical state, without prejudice to can. 291. He is prohibited from exercising the power of order, without prejudice to can. 976. He is automatically deprived of all offices and roles and of any delegated power.
Can. 293 A cleric who has lost the clerical state cannot be enrolled as a cleric again save by rescript of the Apostolic See.
I don’t remember ever hearing of a bishop being laicized.The process of being laicized is long. I have not heard of laicization being denide, with one exception; there is currently a bishop in either Central or Sout America who wants to run for political office, and I believe the last I saw of it was that Rome was not (at the moment) willing to laicize him. Since he seems intent on running for office, it would appear that he will collide witht he Church on the issue. That is, however, the only case I know of where it has not been granted; which of course does not meant that there are not other cases; only that I have not heard of them.
This is a surprise to me. I know several priests who were laicized and obtained a dispensation to marry. They were required to refrain from taking any part in serving as readers, EMHCs, singing in Choir, or instructing religion or theology in a Catholic Church or school. I can’t even begin to imagine they could become deacons.I remember a wonderful Priest we knew, been a Priest like 30 years. But he fell in love with a woman. He received “counseling” before leaving the Priesthood, he is now a Deacon in the Catholic Church, and married to a wonderful woman. He teaches theology at a seminary now.Peace,
Lee44
Bishop Lugo, from Uruguay, has been suspended “a divinis” of his roll as bishop for wanting to run for office (i.e., he still a bishop but cannot exercise his roll). It seems he will win, as he is first in the polls.The process of being laicized is long. I have not heard of laicization being denide, with one exception; there is currently a bishop in either Central or Sout America who wants to run for political office, and I believe the last I saw of it was that Rome was not (at the moment) willing to laicize him. Since he seems intent on running for office, it would appear that he will collide witht he Church on the issue. That is, however, the only case I know of where it has not been granted; which of course does not meant that there are not other cases; only that I have not heard of them.
Once again, as Della said, every situation is different. The Church would look at every case separately and individually.This is a surprise to me. I know several priests who were laicized and obtained a dispensation to marry. They were required to refrain from taking any part in serving as readers, EMHCs, singing in Choir, or instructing religion or theology in a Catholic Church or school. I can’t even begin to imagine they could become deacons.
They already are deacons. Even B16 is a deacon.I can’t even begin to imagine they could become deacons.
I agree. But the church has never allowed marriage after ordination (with the possible exception of the Church of the East/Assyrian).I’ve known two priest who were laicized and left the priesthood. One is in my parish and has been married for 30 years and has raised a wonderful family. They other, died recently, as well has his wife, who was a nun who left when the both of them met, many years ago.
Too bad the Church doesn’t allow married men to be priest, these two men could’ve served the Church all these years.
Jim
What makes no sense to me is how the Church has accepted married priest from the Anglican Church, but refuses to accept Catholic priest, who have married.I agree. But the church has never allowed marriage after ordination (with the possible exception of the Church of the East/Assyrian).
I think the problem lies in the earlier common practice of accepting young men when they are really young. Once a young man expressed an interest he was encouraged and sometimes found himself in a high school minor seminary, all males and little interaction with the young ladies.
Then the social pressure is on. Seminarians are typically discouraged from dating and if they go along with all of this they could find themselves almost 30 years old and feeling like they made a mistake. It’s like getting married at a young age to ones first love interest, it ultimately doesn’t work out for a lot of people as they continue to grow up and apart.
Much better for men to have had a chance to date and live in the secular world before deciding to prepare themselves for a vocation that will require a vow of celibacy.
Michael
Hi, E.C.!…Besides, I don’t see the surprise, as there are married priests within the Latin/Roman rite of the Catholic Church (not to say in the eastern rites of the Catholic church where priests are allowed to marry)…
There is no marriage after ordination, even in the eastern rite. These Anglican ministers are ordained married, just like our married Eastern brethren. My Parish’s Deacon is celibate, he never married once in his entire life. Most people don’t get this, after ordination, there is no marriage. If a Deacon’s wife dies, he is to remain unmarried. If an Eastern Priest’s wife dies, he is to remain unmarried. With the case of a dispensation, it follows lacization. He is first removed from the ministry and then through a dispensation he is no longer bound to celibacy.What makes no sense to me is how the Church has accepted married priest from the Anglican Church, but refuses to accept Catholic priest, who have married.
It lacks compasion on the part of the Church, in my opinion.
Jim
Not surprised that they were allowed to marry. Surprised that Rome let them continue to perform in a minsterial role like deacon, choir member, etc. In several mid-western dioceses these priests are allowed to be “pew huggers” only. It is printed right in what I think is called their rescript.Once again, as Della said, every situation is different. The Church would look at every case separately and individually.
Besides, I don’t see the surprise, as there are married priests within the Latin/Roman rite of the Catholic Church (not to say in the eastern rites of the Catholic church where priests are allowed to marry). Priestly celibacy is a discipline, NOT a doctrine.
Blessings in Christ,
E.C.