Laicized priest leading a retreat?

  • Thread starter Thread starter gracepoole
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
CilladeRoma said:
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.
Click to expand...
There is definitely a variety of opinions among bishops (and other Catholics) on this. I suppose that is to be expected seeing as how the concept of having “permanent” deacons has only resurfaced since Vatican II.
 
Joe_5859 said:
If a married person feels like they are unhappy in their vocation, they don’t have the same sort of “out”.
Click to expand...
Yes they do, it is called divorce.
A married person who divorces has no restrictions put on them as to how they can serve in the Church.
The only time restrictions come into play is if said divorced person tries to remarry without the benefit of having the first union annulled.
 
Joe_5859 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Ambiguity seems to be the dominant theme in the world, and in parts of the Church. There needs to be common sense solutions that respect the rights of former priests, and former married persons, but also the rights of the Catholic community.

We have so many who have a poor understanding of sacraments or Holy Orders in particular, let alone gray areas. We have so many gray areas now, let’s not afford more.
 
I wonder how many people would even be aware that the retreat leader was a laicized priest. Think about someone who was an associate in your parish 5 or 10 years ago. When you mention him do you have to explain who he was or “you remember him, he’s the one who sang so well” or whatever quality describes him.
 
Such a man is certainly allowed to lead a retreat. I would have grave doubts or concerns about the content of the retreat or the sincerity behind it. Look, Catholicism is not a one-trick pony. There are thousands of retreat leaders and masters.
 
I don’t see anything said in this thread which would lead to any questions about either the content of any retreat he gives, or sincerity in giving it. Being laicized has nothing to do with sincerity about the faith.
 
I don’t think that it is appropriate that he should be a spokesman for the Catholic Church.
 
How is dicussing papal encyclical “speaking for the Church”? Anyone, even a non-Catholic, can read and have opinions on something. As long as he is not presenting his opinions as Church teaching, what is the problem?

This thread baffles me. I know a few priests who have been laicized. All of them are still Catholic, and some of them are active in various ministries, all approved by our Ordinary. I do not understand why there is any controversy about this. If the Bishop allows it, and the man is not presenting himself as a priest or teaching heresy, what is the problem?
 
CilladeRoma said:
. I know a few priests who have been laicized. All of them are still Catholic, and some of them are active in various ministries, all approved by our Ordinary. I do not understand why there is any controversy about this. If the Bishop allows it, and the man is not presenting himself as a priest or teaching heresy, what is the problem?
Click to expand...
First, I’m not sure how you know that the bishop approves of ALL ministries they are involved in. The US bishops are going through struggling now. They may choose not to risk a major media attack.

In my diocese there are even current priests that the anti Catholic media has on speed dial, hungry for juicy comments. Do you think the bishop has control of his ex priests?

There’s a difference between what is technically permissable, and what’s prudent. I have no doubt many ex priests feel a very strong need to do ministry of some kind. Decisions on ministry should be made based on the needs of the people, however.
 
Last edited:
otjm said:
Being laicized has nothing to do with sincerity about the faith.
Click to expand...
This is a huge assumption here, which may be true in some cases, possibly most. It’s hard to know which ones.
 
The only assuming going on here is the assuming that the laicized priest in question is doing something nefarious and that the Ordinary of the Diocese and the Pastor of said Church are unaware of him, his service or his intentions.

The document that the OP says should prevent said man from doing what he is, in fact, says no such thing, as it states, with the exception of a few things, what a laicized priest can/cannot do falls to the discretion of the Bishop.

If there is a concern, it should have been brought up with the Pastor who invited the man to give the retreat and/or the Ordinary.
 
CilladeRoma said:
The only assuming going on here is the assuming that the laicized priest in question is doing something nefarious and that the Ordinary of the Diocese and the Pastor of said Church are unaware of him, his service or his intentions.
Click to expand...
I really don’t think anyone is assuming something nefarious is going on. I took the OP to simply be polling the crowd to see if this seemed right to others. I think it’s an honest question. Leading a retreat is a pastoral activity (which is mentioned in the rescript). Teaching at a Catholic college (assuming he is teaching something in the field of theology) is even more specifically mentioned in the rescript.

Now, what this means for this individual former priest, no one here can really say. And I agree it’s between he and his bishop. But I can understand why someone would wonder about it.
 
My comment about assuming was related directly to @commenter reply to @otjm
 
Last edited:
The issue is that he is not a layperson. He is a priest, but a priest who is forbidden from acting in a priestly function. The rules about what a layperson and a laicized priest can do are different.
 
Some more thoughts…there was a thread here a while ago where a man asked essentially what is like to be a priest until you get married. Does it work out? Is it viable? People appropriately asked him whether he’d been on a rigorous discernment process etc.

Here is the thing though. You can have as rigorous discernment process and psychological tests as possible, but the questions being asked in this present thread are probably more important to many men’s decision. If a man discerning the priesthood sees that laicized priests don’t have to move, still do some level of ministry (i.e. retreats), and still find employment with the Catholic church based on their religious knowledge and experience, then it is a completely viable choice simply to become a priest until you get married. In fact, it may help you find positions and make you more competitive than a Deacon or other lay minister.

…And this shouldn’t be the case. Men should make a sincere decision. They should really struggle. The Holy Spirit should use these sincere decisions to shape the ministry of priests and deacons in the future. It may come across as a laicized priest is being punished or an example is being made of him, but this isn’t the case. In the other thread that the OP referenced with the laicization documents, there was a number quoted as 25,000 priests laicized in the US. There has got to be a uniform way to manage this.
 
Every man I know who has gone through the process of laicization has gone through the proverbial wringer. Emotionally and spiritually.
It was not a decision made in haste or without consulting the Bishop, the Priest personnel board or a spiritual director. It was indeed a process.
 
commenter said:
This is a huge assumption here, which may be true in some cases, possibly most. It’s hard to know which ones.
Click to expand...
One big indicator would be if the man is still going to Church on a regular basis and attempting to live the life expected of a lay Catholic.

The would be a BIG sign that they are sincere about their Faith.
 
Angannas said:
The issue is that he is not a layperson.
Click to expand...
At his point he IS a layperson. He is no longer in the clerical or religious state. Yes, he retains the sacramental mark of the priesthood, but he is a layperson as the Church understands it.
 
Except he’s not permitted to do everything that lay people can do in the Church. So there is a difference practically speaking.
 
gracepoole said:
Except he’s not permitted to do everything that lay people can do in the Church. So there is a difference practically speaking.
Click to expand...
No disagreement. As I mentioned above, what he cannot do would be spelled out in his Rescript of Laicization. The common template for which was posted near the beginning of the thread in an article by Jimmy Akin.

I did not see where leading a retreat was prohibited.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top