Laicization and the permanent deaconate

[maverickspaniel]

I was ordained a transitional deacon many years ago. I was never ordained a priest. Eventually I was laicized and married. At the present time I feel the desire to return to the active ministry as a permanent deacon. Is there a process that one who is in good standing with the Church to return to the clerical state and eventually being granted permission to function again as a permanent deacon.

 

[Cruciferi]

Hopefully, you’ll receive some good advice shortly. Never hesitate to contact your Diocese!

 

[EricF]

Following, not because I have anything to add, but beginning a discernment process so this is of interest.

 

[Trishie]

Can. 292 A cleric who loses the clerical state according to the norm of law loses with it the rights proper to the clerical state and is no longer bound by any obligations of the clerical state, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 291. He is prohibited from exercising the power of orders, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 976. By the loss of the clerical state, he is deprived of all offices, functions, and any delegated power.

Can. 293 A cleric who loses the clerical state cannot be enrolled among clerics again except through a rescript of the Apostolic See.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P4Y.HTM

In simple terms
“Removal from the clerical state, on the contrary, is a permanent measure, whereby for a sufficient reason a cleric is from then on juridically treated as a layman.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_of_Clerical_State_(Catholic_Church)

 

[maverickspaniel]

Deacon Jeff,
Thanks for your response to my question. In your experience do you have any experience of someone in my status, wishing to return to the active ministry in my situation. Tom G

 

[maverickspaniel]

Thanks! I am working on that.

 

[FrDavid96]

Exactly the right answers.

Someone asked me to respond here. I’m not sure why. You already provided the relevant answers.

Maybe the message went to me before your response posted? In any case, the right answer was here before I saw this thread.

 

[Charybdis]

Yes, it appears that according to Can. 293, you would have to go to your bishop and director of diaconate formation in your diocese and see whether or not they would support your petitioning Rome. If they agree, then you petition Rome and see what happens.

If not, well…

 

[commenter]

I will say a prayer for the Original Poster, that his situation come out well.
But apart from his own situation, which has its unique features like all our personal lives, it seems like situation with transitional deacons ought to come up far more often than it does.

I realize there is an intense scrutiny, both self scrutiny and by the seminary, before a man ever gets ordained a transitional deacon. But it seems there should have been a fair number of men, before and after the restoration of “permanent diaconate”, who were ordained as transitional deacons but they then determine, perhaps with consultation from their spiritual director should not be priests.

Lets assume there was no marriage, and no huge psychological or spiritual issues that would prevent them from ministry in general. You would think there would have been a lot of deacons, especially 1966 - 1976 when even new priests were leaving in droves, who would have changed their minds. They would now be “permanent deacons”. Why do we never hear about them, or this transitional to permanent deaconate process?

 

[FrDavid96]

…

Lets assume there was no marriage, and no huge psychological or spiritual issues that would prevent them from ministry in general. You would think there would have been a lot of deacons, especially 1966 - 1976 when even new priests were leaving in droves, who would have changed their minds. They would now be “permanent deacons”. Why do we never hear about them, or this transitional to permanent deaconate process?

Actually, not as many as one might think. Transitional diaconate was very short. It would depend on the diocese. There was no minimum time for diaconate (there still is none in canon law, only in national policies). Therefore, a diocese policy might be for a period of just a month, or even a week for diaconate. It was nothing like it is today.

What I’m getting at here is that because diaconate was so short, the chances (just by pure math) that one would stay long enough to be ordained a deacon but then not stay to be a priest are very small.

 

[Blessedwithfive]

This is what I have been told as well. Laicization is very serious and after laicization a priest must attend Mass obligations but can never be an EMHC, Catechist or Lector. I am pretty sure the same is for Deacons as well.

 

[FrDavid96]

This is what I have been told as well. Laicization is very serious and after laicization a priest must attend Mass obligations but can never be an EMHC, Catechist or Lector. I am pretty sure the same is for Deacons as well.

No. That’s not the case.

Every individual priest (when being laicized) is evaluated on his own merit. There are no such restrictions unless they are imposed as a kind of penalty.

It all depends on exactly why the priest is being laicized. If he’s guilty of some impropriety (especially serious ones) then it is likely that such restrictions will be imposed. On the other hand, if he leaves simply because he feels he made the wrong choice earlier, then such restrictions will not be added. It depends on the individual.

Just because laicization is a penalty which can be imposed for offenses does not mean that every laicized cleric is guilty of those offenses. Many are not guilty of anything at all, and as such are not required to suffer any penalties.

 

[Blessedwithfive]

No. That’s not the case.

Every individual priest (when being laicized) is evaluated on his own merit. There are no such restrictions unless they are imposed as a kind of penalty.

It all depends on exactly why the priest is being laicized. If he’s guilty of some impropriety (especially serious ones) then it is likely that such restrictions will be imposed. On the other hand, if he leaves simply because he feels he made the wrong choice earlier, then such restrictions will not be added. It depends on the individual.

Just because laicization is a penalty which can be imposed for offenses does not mean that every laicized cleric is guilty of those offenses. Many are not guilty of anything at all, and as such are not required to suffer any penalties.

That is interesting. I did not know. Thanks for the clarification. I wonder if it has changed. I also was told that Laicization released a priest from the obligation to obey the Bishop and praying the Divine office but not the vow of celibacy and for that you had to petition the Pope and to date, he has not released any priest from the vow of celibacy. Is that true?

 

[Mi_Rose]

A man who had been a transitional deacon applied to become a permanent deacon in our diocese15 years ago or so. His case was taken to Rome and denied.

 

[FrDavid96]

That is interesting. I did not know. Thanks for the clarification. I wonder if it has changed. I also was told that Laicization released a priest from the obligation to obey the Bishop and praying the Divine office but not the vow of celibacy and for that you had to petition the Pope and to date, he has not released any priest from the vow of celibacy. Is that true?

Every individual situation is different. The only common results are those specifically outlined in canon law. But even there, the law provides for a variety of final outcomes.

Yes, the promises of the Divine Office and obedience are dispensed (de facto & de iure) upon laicization.
Yes, release from the promise (not vow) of celibacy is reserved to the Holy See.

Over the years there have been plenty of laicized priests who were released from the promise of celibacy and have married in the Church (validly & licitly). None of the popes (in modern times at least) have refused all petitions.

See canons 290 - 293 “Loss of the clerical state”

 

[Charybdis]

This is very intriguing. If he was ordained as a deacon and then did not continue to the priesthood, he already is a deacon! I’m not sure what Rome would have said to him or denied him. Denied him what?

 

[FrDavid96]

This is very intriguing. If he was ordained as a deacon and then did not continue to the priesthood, he already is a deacon! I’m not sure what Rome would have said to him or denied him. Denied him what?

Presumably, he was laicized, but later petitioned to reverse that (to return to the clerical state).

If he were not already laicized, there would be no need for any petition.

 

[Mi_Rose]

Denied him the permanent diaconate. Transitional deacons are governed by different rules than permanent ones.

 

[FrDavid96]

Denied him the permanent diaconate. Transitional deacons are governed by different rules than permanent ones.

Are you sure about that?

A deacon who wishes to remain a deacon, and not be ordained a priest has a right under canon law to remain a deacon. The law specifically says that he cannot be denied the role of deacon if he decides not to be ordained a priest.

 

[Mi_Rose]

He was not allowed to continue formation to be a permanent deacon. That is all I know. I sure Fr David knows the rules better than I do. I just know what happened in that particular case. There may be more to it than I know.