How does Church view priests leaving priesthood 2 marry?

[otjm]

Indeed, essentially all married men who are legitimately called to a vocation of Orders and possess the ability, the acumen, the virtue, the moral standing, and the faith to do so (also as long as they were not married prior), can receive the Sacrament in both Orthodoxy and Catholicism. (I’m using as many qualifiers as possible here) In Latin Catholicism though, the most a married man can receive is the first stage of Holy Orders, the Diaconate.

Except for those married men who were ministers in their Church before converting to the Latin rite of Catholicism; they can be ordained priests…

 

[rwoehmke]

i know of a former priest who taught (probably still does) RCIA. I had no problem with him being a former priest who left 2 get married, but i did mind his liberal attitude in RCIA - on such things as women becoming priests, etc…
That, to me, is far more grievous a thing than his leaving the priesthood to be married.
As stated in another post, i was once somewhat judgmental about this one priest i met years ago who had married. But now that i’m older and more mature, i look at it this way: I don’t want to live the rest of my life alone and cellibate (though i may have to?), so why should i expect others to necessarily? If a priest is a virgin, leaving the Church to marry is a little more “difficult” to understand … but many priests are not… Some of them just try to stay in the priesthood and have a woman on the side. Some have fathered children… Which is the better route?
I think it is far more Christian for the priest to leave the priesthood and marry rather than have an affair… to me, that is the ultimate hypocracy…
Anyway, i think some Catholics forget that priests are human beings too…
God bless…

My surprise was not that a priest would leave and get married. My surprise was that his Bishop would allow him to be actively involved in parish ministry. That was not the case in my diocese of Superior Wisconsin or in the Diocese of St. Cloud Minnesota. Of course this was more than 25 years ago and both priests were close friends of mine.

 

[BillyT92679]

Except for those married men who were ministers in their Church before converting to the Latin rite of Catholicism; they can be ordained priests…

Well, technically yes, but even then it doesn’t always happen.

 

[otjm]

My surprise was not that a priest would leave and get married. My surprise was that his Bishop would allow him to be actively involved in parish ministry. That was not the case in my diocese of Superior Wisconsin or in the Diocese of St. Cloud Minnesota. Of course this was more than 25 years ago and both priests were close friends of mine.

Don’t presume that the bishop is allowing this. Most bishops have a large number of parishes and have no idea who the voluteers are or what they do. Bishops don’t micro manage.

It is most likely that the pastor allowed it; and we cannot presume that the pastor knows whether or not the laicized individual was prohibited from teaching; and may well not be aware of what he is teaching. However, for whatever fault there may be, it most likely lies with the pastor, if there is fault at all.

 

[distracted]

My surprise was not that a priest would leave and get married. My surprise was that his Bishop would allow him to be actively involved in parish ministry. That was not the case in my diocese of Superior Wisconsin or in the Diocese of St. Cloud Minnesota. Of course this was more than 25 years ago and both priests were close friends of mine.

i don’t understand why a former priest who is now married cannot serve in the diocese as say, RCIA instructor or whatever. What… Should the Church punish him (ostracize him) for getting married? As stated previously, i once thought it was wrong for a priest to do this… but i was very young then & have learned a lot and grown a lot since… That’s not to say my last position is wholly superior to the first, but one thing IS better now: I understand human nature a lot better (from looking at my own); i have more insight into human “psychology” than before, therefore have more understanding/empathy, etc.
I heard something once (I hope i don’t ruin it by not quoting it verbatim), something to this effect: “The height of immorality is to make an exception of yourself.”
If we ourselves cannot or will not consider celibacy (much less practice it) for the rest of our lives, i feel it is very wrong 4 us to expect others to do so…
God bless…

 

[otjm]

i don’t understand why a former priest who is now married cannot serve in the diocese as say, RCIA instructor or whatever. What… Should the Church punish him (ostracize him) for getting married? As stated previously, i once thought it was wrong for a priest to do this… but i was very young then & have learned a lot and grown a lot since… That’s not to say my last position is wholly superior to the first, but one thing IS better now: I understand human nature a lot better (from looking at my own); i have more insight into human “psychology” than before, therefore have more understanding/empathy, etc.
I heard something once (I hope i don’t ruin it by not quoting it verbatim), something to this effect: “The height of immorality is to make an exception of yourself.”
If we ourselves cannot or will not consider celibacy (much less practice it) for the rest of our lives, i feel it is very wrong 4 us to expect others to do so…
God bless…

One of the charisms of teh bishop is his teaching authority; it is extended through ordination to the priests to teach.

Oncwe one has asked to be removed from the official capacity of priesthood, then for the sakes of those being taught, it is seen as better that the (ex)priest not be teaching. At least, not teaching the faith.

Does it seem harsh? Undoubtedly. However, if he wanted to exercise the teaching authority given him under the jurisdiction of the bishop, then he should have stayed in the active priesthood. It is a little bit of not having your cake and eating it, too. It is not a punishment, but rather a clear demarcation that he once was an offical representative of the bishop, and is no longer so. Therefore he should not be doing jobs that are the offical perogative of the priesthood. It only leads to confusion.

I may have my own opinions about married priests, but the bottom line is that the Roman rite has a discipline that priests will be celibate. No one becomes a priest until long after they have reached maturity (at least, presumably), and they are expected to make adult decisions, including the decison to promise to be celibate. If they later decide they should not or cannot live a celibate life, they went in knowing the rules. They can’t very well complain that they didn’t understand. It is not punishment; it is simply accepting the reality that they have chosen to leave. Then, leave they should.

 

[distracted]

One of the charisms of teh bishop is his teaching authority; it is extended through ordination to the priests to teach.

Oncwe one has asked to be removed from the official capacity of priesthood, then for the sakes of those being taught, it is seen as better that the (ex)priest not be teaching. At least, not teaching the faith.

Does it seem harsh? Undoubtedly. However, if he wanted to exercise the teaching authority given him under the jurisdiction of the bishop, then he should have stayed in the active priesthood. It is a little bit of not having your cake and eating it, too. It is not a punishment, but rather a clear demarcation that he once was an offical representative of the bishop, and is no longer so. Therefore he should not be doing jobs that are the offical perogative of the priesthood. It only leads to confusion.

I may have my own opinions about married priests, but the bottom line is that the Roman rite has a discipline that priests will be celibate. No one becomes a priest until long after they have reached maturity (at least, presumably), and they are expected to make adult decisions, including the decison to promise to be celibate. If they later decide they should not or cannot live a celibate life, they went in knowing the rules. They can’t very well complain that they didn’t understand. It is not punishment; it is simply accepting the reality that they have chosen to leave. Then, leave they should.

 

[distracted]

distracted:
Thank you for that info, which was very helpful. If that is the official position of the Church (probably is), i accept it; i have 2 since i am Catholic. But i don’t think priests should be condemned by people (either to their face &/or behindtheir backs) because they make the choice to leave.
Also, i would prefer that RCIA be taught by a former priest, who knows probably more than most about the Faith, than someone who… well, I’ve known RCIA instructors who were not orthodox in their beliefs…
Anyway, i sometimes feel (just a feeling!) that the Catholic Church has a somewhat unrealistic approach to this whole business of being human. I mean, people get lonely… they desire to be with someone who loves them. I think women fall in love with priests all the time… Love is a hard thing to resist… As the Bible says, “Many waters cannot quench love…” And why should it be quenched if it is true love??
That is the true question: Is it true (real) love? with all the divorce nowadays, i can see why the Church is slow to grant dispensations… But i feel it should be done on a case by case basis… Also, just a thought, but i think priests probably make better husbands than those who have never been in the priesthood. They definitely know the Scriptures and the Church better than most men… (“Husbands, love your wives…” , “The man who loves his wife, loves himself”, “God hates divorce”, etc…).
I’m running out of time… but thanks for the response…
God bless…

 

[Sam88]

i am wondering why you wish it would never happen?
Are you married?
I’ve been alone a long time and i can understand someone wanting to leave the single state and marry…

I am happily married, and the right marriage is a blessing to any person. But a priest is not in the “single” state, but the ordained state, having taken solemn and permanent vows. Abandoning that by laicization is at the least an admission of a serious error, as is an annullment. In some circumstances it may be appropriate - but if possible it would be better to avoid those circumstances.

 

[pig_boy]

Priests, no matter if they are laicized or suspended or excommunicated or in full, active communion always are Priests. Once that change is effected through the Sacrament, the man cannot then embrace the Sacrament of Matrimony since the man already received the transformative grace of Orders.

I’m trying to understand this as well but this statement seems to be incorrect. In the first, you state they are always priests. In the second, you say once the change is effected, the individual cannot embrace the Sacrament of Matrimony. Are you saying the change is reversed by being laicized? What happens that allows the individual to marry?

 

[Em_in_FL]

I know of 3 priests that have left to get married…

One of them being my own father.
It took a full two years for the laicization process… once that came through they were married in the church.

My dad still contributes a LOT to the church. He’s one of the heads of the RCIA program at our parish!

Just my personal story.

 

[Brendan]

I’m trying to understand this as well but this statement seems to be incorrect. In the first, you state they are always priests. In the second, you say once the change is effected, the individual cannot embrace the Sacrament of Matrimony. Are you saying the change is reversed by being laicized? What happens that allows the individual to marry?

Holy Orders does two things. First of all, it make a permanent mark on the soul of the recipient (Baptism and Confirmation do the same thing)

A priest is always a priest in the same sense that a person who is Baptized can never be made unbaptized.

The second part is the priest is granted certain Authority. This comes from the Bishop directly and from Rome indirectly. This is the Authority to say Mass, hear confessions etc…

That Authority is removed (mostly)* when the priest is laicized.

Their soul still has the mark of the priesthood upon it, but it has no authority to perform priestly functions.

• • Rome has granted laicized priests the authority to hear confessions and grant absolution in ‘life and death’ situations - if a laicized priest is at a crime scene, for example, and someone is seriously shot and in danger of death, the laicized priest may hear their confession.

 

[pig_boy]

Holy Orders does two things. First of all, it make a permanent mark on the soul of the recipient (Baptism and Confirmation do the same thing)

A priest is always a priest in the same sense that a person who is Baptized can never be made unbaptized.

The second part is the priest is granted certain Authority. This comes from the Bishop directly and from Rome indirectly. This is the Authority to say Mass, hear confessions etc…

That Authority is removed (mostly)* when the priest is laicized.

Their soul still has the mark of the priesthood upon it, but it has no authority to perform priestly functions.

• • Rome has granted laicized priests the authority to hear confessions and grant absolution in ‘life and death’ situations - if a laicized priest is at a crime scene, for example, and someone is seriously shot and in danger of death, the laicized priest may hear their confession.

So Holy Orders is not an impediment to marriage, only the authority granted by the bishop precludes marriage? This seems odd to me. How can an individual have a permanent mark placed on their soul, but then be allowed to marry? What is the difference between a laicized priest and one who is in active ministry? It has to be something greater than the authority granted by the bishop. Otherwise, it would seem to be that the bishop could grant authority to an active priest to get married.

 

[distracted]

If a priest were to request and be granted laicization, and furthermore were to request and be granted dispensation from his oath of celebacy (a separate issue), then he would not be guilty of sin in entering into a Catholic marriage. Nevertheless, this is a unfortunate circumstance that I wish would never happen, and which probably indicates a failure in that person’s pre-ordination formation. Each case must be judged individually however, and I am certainly not qualified to be the judge.

Granting of such requests is not automatic of course, but I imagine that such a request would almost always be granted if the petitioner persisted after counseling and a suitable period of time for discernment.

If a priest were to attempt a marriage without laicization and dispensation from vows, then that marriage would be invalid and he would certainly be in grave sin. That could perhaps result in excommunication, but more importantly it could have eternal consequences for his soul.

 

[distracted]

distracted:
The thing is: people change. Sometimes they change a lot, especially the older they get… & no one can predict the future. It seems highly unreasonable to expect a 25-yr old man entering the priesthood to never change in his perspective and/or his desires, etc. He may be sure at that young age that he wants to be a priest and maybe he will remain one for a long time, maybe even “forever”. But then, another thing that no one can predict is that wonderful experience of meeting some very special person, that one who seems to have been made for us.
I myself have met a lot of special persons… I chose to remain celibate and see what God would do in these romantic situations. In other words, i waited & let God choose a spouse 4 me. It didn’t seem like He approved of most of them because i am still unmarried… But i have met this kind of special someone… thought/felt i couldn’t live without him… That was a few years ago & i am still living without because, well, it’s a long story… However, the point i am trying to make is that sometimes you meet someone you do not feel you can live (or be happy) without. It occurs 2 me that God himself puts these kinds of feelings into our hearts…
If i could make one point in this post it would be this: The Church is awesome and wonderful. But God is above the Church…

 

[BillyT92679]

So Holy Orders is not an impediment to marriage, only the authority granted by the bishop precludes marriage? This seems odd to me. How can an individual have a permanent mark placed on their soul, but then be allowed to marry? What is the difference between a laicized priest and one who is in active ministry? It has to be something greater than the authority granted by the bishop. Otherwise, it would seem to be that the bishop could grant authority to an active priest to get married.

Think of it as a kind of hypostatic union (for lack of a better phrase). Holy Orders makes a man an alter Christus distinctly and completely. He acts *in persona Christi, *literally in the personhood of Christ. A married man in the East or a celibate in the West becomes fully united with the Lord with Orders. The action of saying Mass, absolving sinners, Chrismating (or in the Latin West with Bishops) Confirming is what a Priest is. Without the legitimate authority the Priest is an empty vessel. Judas was always a Bishop, even after he betrayed, but he obviously forfeited his Apostolic rights. Receiving Matrimony ex post facto would be the equivalent of the Lord Himself getting married after He began His ministry. (or getting married at all for that matter).

 

[distracted]

Think of it as a kind of hypostatic union (for lack of a better phrase). Holy Orders makes a man an alter Christus distinctly and completely. He acts *in persona Christi, *literally in the personhood of Christ. A married man in the East or a celibate in the West becomes fully united with the Lord with Orders. The action of saying Mass, absolving sinners, Chrismating (or in the Latin West with Bishops) Confirming is what a Priest is. Without the legitimate authority the Priest is an empty vessel. Judas was always a Bishop, even after he betrayed, but he obviously forfeited his Apostolic rights. Receiving Matrimony ex post facto would be the equivalent of the Lord Himself getting married after He began His ministry. (or getting married at all for that matter).

i don’t think a priest getting married is anything remotely like our Lord getting married. Jesus was God. Yes, he was human also, but priests are ALL human (with God living in them). Jesus was also a virgin. Not all priests are…
I’ve been celibate 4 a long time… and it is a struggle… I don’t feel being single is my vocation forever… though God knows… If i have 2b celibate 4 the rest of my life, so be it. But i don’t think that’s what God wants… and i frankly don’t understand how anyone can be celibate forever… Just my thoughts/feelings, for whatever they are worth. God bless…

 

[CathMass]

I read in a rather conservative Catholic magazine about some cleric who married after leaving the priesthood. They said he was excommunicated and the excommunication could never be lifted. So I guess according to the magazine the priest is perpetually excommunicated.

 

[otjm]

I read in a rather conservative Catholic magazine about some cleric who married after leaving the priesthood. They said he was excommunicated and the excommunication could never be lifted. So I guess according to the magazine the priest is perpetually excommunicated.

This might be an excellent example of why you might want to try changing your reading material. Assuming that you have correctly stated what they said (and I do), they are not in any way communicating what the Church does. In other words, you seem to be reading something that is not true to the Magisterium.

There is no such thing as an excommunication that can never be lifted. One of the purposes of an excommunication is to bring the one excommunicated to the most clear understanding that they are out of sync with the Church, so that they can be brought back in to communion.

There is only one unforgiveable sin in the Bible and that is, in its essence, the sin of refusal to accept the Holy Spirit; that is, to refuse to be forgiven.

Getting married without being laicized doesn’t fit that definition.

Find some reading matter that expresses what the Church actually teaches.

 

[BillyT92679]

I read in a rather conservative Catholic magazine about some cleric who married after leaving the priesthood. They said he was excommunicated and the excommunication could never be lifted. So I guess according to the magazine the priest is perpetually excommunicated.

Marriage after leaving the Priesthood is not grounds for excommunication. It does mean the man can no longer practice Orders.