Laicized priest leading a retreat?

[Tis_Bearself]

If the University is one of those very orthodox ones like Steubenville, I’d be concerned.
If it’s more along the lines of Notre Dame or Georgetown, probably they have all kinds of way more questionable people than a married former priest teaching there.

 

[commenter]

Tis_Bearself:

According to this Jimmy Akin article, leading a retreat doesn’t sound like it’s a prohibited activity,

That would be my ‘take’ as well. Leading a retreat is not a liturgically or ministerial role. so I don’t see why this man cannot do that.

I know of a laicized priest and his wife who teach catechism classes, why would this be much different.

Leading a retreat is providing formation, as compared to information. (Depends on what level of catechetics). Even catechetics is shaky.

Providing formation is definitely riskier, in that it’s much harder to avoid unconsciously falling into your former role. The retreatants need an extra layer of caution and discernment.

I disagree with posters who say it must be ok, since the diocese allowed some practices, for years.

Eek! My diocese is going through Hell right now because some nice people allowed borderline or boundary blurring to go on for years.
Not everything that is techically permissable under canon law is prudent.

 

[Mary888]

he’s been a guest on local radio speaking about the pope’s encyclicals…

There are many lay people who do that already. Did he present himself as a priest or anything like that?

 

[gracepoole]

gracepoole:

he’s been a guest on local radio speaking about the pope’s encyclicals…

There are many lay people who do that already. Did he present himself as a priest or anything like that?

Again, this isn’t a question of what lay people can or can’t do. It’s a question of what a laicized priest is permitted to do.

 

[Brendan]

Leading a retreat is providing formation, as compared to information. (Depends on what level of catechetics). Even catechetics is shaky.

Providing formation is definitely riskier, in that it’s much harder to avoid unconsciously falling into your former role. The retreatants need an extra layer of caution and discernment.

As noted in the Jimmy Akin article, all of that depends on what is included in his “Rescript of Laicization”. That would really only be known to the person and his bishop, but nothing in the common Rescript template would preclude offering a retreat.

Per the standard template, he cannot be an EMHC, cannot act as a Parish Administrator, or teach at a seminary or other university (Theology).

I don’t see where even a general proscription on providing formation would be in the common Rescript.

 

[commenter]

There are many lay people who do that already. Did he present himself as a priest or anything like that?

Technically a person who has been married and annulled four times is a single person now. But really they are in a very different situation than the typical single person. They have more information, more experiences, more good and bad “baggage”. Perhaps more ambiguity.

Likewise, with a laicized priest. Could he give a talk about papal encyclicals to adults? Probably.

Is it prudent for him to do some other activities that laity sometimes do?
Probably not, even if technically permitted.

 

[CilladeRoma]

Is it prudent for him to do some other activities that laity sometimes do?
Probably not, even if technically permitted.

I don’t understand this.

Why not?
So long as the man is not presenting himself as a priest, and is not doing something that is forbidden by his “rescript of laicization” I don’t understand the objections.

If anything, I would think the Church would be happy that a person whom they already educated would want to give back.

Why would anyone think that “punishing” a man who came to the realization that he made a mistake by thinking he was called to ordination, who has gone through the proper channels to become laicized, yet who is still Catholic, is a good idea?

 

[Joe_5859]

My greater concern at the moment is the discovery that he’s teaching at a Catholic university.

Is he teaching something related to theology?

Presuming his rescript for laicization didn’t deviate from the norm, leading retreats does seem like a bit of a gray area. From my perspective, that would fall under “neither may he discharge any leadership function in the pastoral sphere.” A retreat leader seems to me like a leader in the pastoral sphere. But I can see how some bishops might interpret it differently, so I’d probably presume this to be the case, anything to the contrary not withstanding.

I know of one prominent ex-priest who teaches theology at a Catholic college. It doesn’t seem right to me considering the conditions of the standard rescript, but, again, I presume that—since he has been teaching there for decades and his bishop hasn’t publicly stated otherwise—he has the necessary permissions to do so.

 

[jack63]

I thought about this thread further.

My other issue in having a retreat put on by an ex priest is that, in a way, it may take an opportunity away from a Deacon.

Maybe there is really a need for a married man and couple with significant religious training to give a retreat. This is exactly the role of Deacon. They should be training Deacons to do this.

 

[CilladeRoma]

The problem with this is, in many places, there are not many deacons.

In my diocese, we have many, but most are over 75 and not very active in ministry, short of helping out at Mass and the occasional marriage prep/ceremony or funeral/committal service.

Our Ordinary is not a huge fan of the permanent diaconate, and it has shown in the number of men pursuing the vocation.

Again, I am not sure I understand the objections to a former priest still trying to be a “good Catholic”.
It seems to me that more want him “punished”. I don’t get it- why would we want a priest to stay if he is not happy in his vocation?

 

[jack63]

The problem with this is, in many places, there are not many deacons.

In my diocese, we have many, but most are over 75 and not very active in ministry, short of helping out at Mass and the occasional marriage prep/ceremony or funeral/committal service.

Our Ordinary is not a huge fan of the permanent diaconate, and it has shown in the number of men pursuing the vocation.

…Exactly…you’ve nailed my concern and said it better than I could. Your ordinary should just get comfortable with Deacons…in my opinion. Not to be too snarky on the subject, using an ex priest to give a retreat comes across as a “cop out” on the permanent diaconate.

I do understand what you are saying about not wanting to punish an ex-priest who just wants to be a “good Catholic”. It is a tough subject. My concerns have nothing to do with wanting to punish the laicized priest.

 

[CilladeRoma]

Your ordinary should just get comfortable with Deacons…in my opinion. Not to be too snarky on the subject

I agree.
It is especially sad when the Deacons themselves express their concern that they are not be utilized as well as they could because they are “just Deacons”.

My diocese was one the first to embrace the Permanent diaconate when it was reinstated, and at one time we had over 200 Deacons in active ministry. We had a different Ordinary then, and he supported the ministry whole-heartedly. I am sad to say that it is no longer that way.

 

[gracepoole]

My mother lives in a diocese where the diaconate is still completely off the table – no deacons in any parish.

 

[CilladeRoma]

I, personally, think this is a travesty.

Deacons have been a part of the Church since the beginning, and serve a vital ministry.

If I may ask, are you and your Mom both in the US? If so, I am interested in what diocese she live in.

 

[gracepoole]

She’s in a Michigan diocese.

 

[AdamP88]

My question is this: he and his wife have led spiritual retreats at various Catholic parishes. Is this permitted according to the terms of his laicization?

Should be ok. As long as he’s not acting in the role of a priest.
He may still be a devout and faithful Catholic.

 

[CilladeRoma]

I find it very sad that a Bishop would not want to utilize this very important ministry to the Church.
And I feel sorry for the people of this diocese, some of the most profound teachings I have ever received have come from permanent Deacons via homilies and other faith formation programs. In fact, had it not been for a permanent Deacon, I may never have found my way back to the Church.

To me, this slight of Deacons, is clericalism at it’s finest.

 

[Brendan]

I
find it very sad that a Bishop would not want to utilize this very important ministry to the Church.

We don’t know the circumstances of this Bishop, nor the diocese in question. Does this bishop have a seminary where the Deacons can be trained? That is the most common blocker

I was in Diaconate formation for 3 years, and the training is effectively a BA in Philosophy\Theology.

If there is no seminary where this can be done, does the Bishop have enough priests who have the time to devote to teaching the necessary classes, or the monetary means to bring in other professors?

 

[CilladeRoma]

I did a little research, and it looks as if yes, this diocese has a seminary.

Mine does not have a true seminary.
We have a ‘school of ministry & theology’ that is used by lay people and by those in diaconate formation.

This looks more like an “I don’t like them, so I won’t have them in my diocese” situation more than anything. Sad to say.

 

[Joe_5859]

It seems to me that more want him “punished”.

I don’t think anyone is seeking to have these ex-priests “punished.” In the rescript for laicization, the Church prudentially forbids former priests from exercising certain ministries and tasks. There are good reasons for these restrictions, many of which are related to confusing the laity by seeing someone who used to be a priest still take on pastoral and ministerial functions.

I’m sure exceptions can be made, and I would tend to assume that this is the case for any who seem to be violating the terms of the rescript.

I don’t get it- why would we want a priest to stay if he is not happy in his vocation?

I don’t spend a lot of time worrying about it, but I have known people who are bothered by what they perceive to be a double standard. If a married person feels like they are unhappy in their vocation, they don’t have the same sort of “out”. They are counseled to stick with it (except in cases of abuse, of course). And yet (it seems to them), priests can just leave and get married.

Now, I tend to think this is a bit overly simplistic, but I can understand why a Catholic might feel this way.