Laicized Priest

[CatholicCajun]

My understanding is that he is still a Priest, but cannot administer the sacraments, except in an emergency. My question is why would a priest be laicized in the first place?
Dr. Thomas “Mac” Smith is going to be speaking at a local church and I was hoping someone could shed some insight as to why he is a laicized priest. Thank you.

 

[rwoehmke]

First of all how old is this man? After vatican II many priests were laicized because they wanted to marry. I know several of those and they are god men. After Paul VI it was not quite so easy to become laicized but some still were. More recent laicizations I would want to check into further as some of them will be pedioplhiles.

The other question I would have is as to his topic. Most laicized priests are not allowed to teach, preach, sing in choir, be lectors or EMHCs, rtc. in Church during Mass. What is the venue of his teaching and who brought him in? Many priests who left became counselers, teachers, etc. So being a Dr. he is probably a legitimate teacher on something.

 

[Aquinas74]

My understanding is that he is still a Priest, but cannot administer the sacraments, except in an emergency. My question is why would a priest be laicized in the first place?
Dr. Thomas “Mac” Smith is going to be speaking at a local church and I was hoping someone could shed some insight as to why he is a laicized priest. Thank you.

It could be a number of things. He could have left the Priesthood as many did in the 1970’s to get married. He could have caused grave scandal. Here is what the Code of canon law has to say…

Can. 696 §1. A member can also be dismissed for other causes provided that they are grave, external, imputable, and juridically proven such as: habitual neglect of the obligations of consecrated life; repeated violations of the sacred bonds; stubborn disobedience to the legitimate prescripts of superiors in a grave matter; grave scandal arising from the culpable behavior of the member; stubborn upholding or diffusion of doctrines condemned by the magisterium of the Church; public adherence to ideologies infected by materialism or atheism; the illegitimate absence mentioned in ⇒ can. 665, §2, lasting six months; other causes of similar gravity which the proper law of the institute may determine.

Can. 694 §1. A member must be held as ipso facto dismissed from an institute who:

1/ has defected notoriously from the Catholic faith;

2/ has contracted marriage or attempted it, even only civilly.

§2. In these cases, after the proofs have been collected, the major superior with the council is to issue without any delay a declaration of fact so that the dismissal is established juridically.

 

[Anacharius]

If a Laicized Priest comes across someone who is in DANGER of death, he is bound to hear the person’s confession, thus give absolution. Because he has been laicized, he still posses that supernatural character, but he cannot excercise it as a Priest would that has not been laicized.

 

[bilop]

My understanding is that he is still a Priest, but cannot administer the sacraments, except in an emergency. My question is why would a priest be laicized in the first place?
Dr. Thomas “Mac” Smith is going to be speaking at a local church and I was hoping someone could shed some insight as to why he is a laicized priest. Thank you.

A priest could be laicized because he requests it: i.e. he wants to leave the active priesthood and be free to marry, or because he is being dismissed from the priesthood.

If it is the first, and the Pope has agreed to laicize him, he could be a Catholic in good standing. If it is the latter, something really bad happened, and I’d be wary.

In either case, the man is still a priest. It is just illicit for him to function as one, barring an emergency.

God Bless

 

[EasterJoy]

You might find Jimmy Akin has treated many of your questions:
jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2005/09/expriest_gets_m.html

The Church allows a priest to ask to be laicized because it sometimes is legitimately in the best interests of the Church and the soul of the priest that he be functionally returned good standing within the lay state. The Church may also dispense of a laicized priest’s vow of perpetual celibacy; in that case, the laicized priest may marry. The seal of the priesthood, however, may never be removed. Once a priest has been validly ordained, he is a priest forever.

In order that there be no confusion among the faithful, though, the Church requires that priests who have been laicized refrain from any activity normally open to the laity in which they closely assist in the priestly functions (such as EMHC, for instance). Again, this is done in the interest of both the Church and the soul of the priest. That is why there is no conflict in the Church’s permission that a laicized priest may administer the sacraments in extremity. When a soul in danger of death needs a priest, no other consideration should take precedence.

 

[puzzleannie]

My understanding is that he is still a Priest, but cannot administer the sacraments, except in an emergency. My question is why would a priest be laicized in the first place?
.

first because he requested it, and has been permitted to go through that process after due counselling, discernment and spiritual direction (now feels his true vocation is marriage, or whatever reason).
second, under canon law for disciplinary reasons, for the good of the priesthood, the Church and the individual (pedophile priest one extreme example).

 

[brotherhrolf]

I’ve posted and then I’ve deleted at the last minute several times this afternoon. One of my oldest and dearest friends is that same priest who married DW and I. DW and I stood as witnesses when he had his marriage blessed in HMC.

He and his wife have been our friends for close to thirty years. I am as about a traditonal Catholic as they come. I hope y’all understand that this is coming from the heart…as shocking as it might be…Celibacy is a discipline of the western Church. Maybe I’m just a sentimental old fool but nine months after he presided over our marriage and left the priesthood, X & Y got married civily and rented an apartment in our neighborhood. We saw them walking in the park near our home every afternoon. (You’ld have to have been brought up a traditional Catholic to understand our shock).

Six years later X was hired to work alongside me in my governmental job. OK, it was wierd…one does not grow up in Catholic Louisiana and find the priest that married you and DW as a co-worker…happy everyeone? Bro near …well you know the rest.

Six years later and he had not been laicized. And he agonized…Lord how he agonized.

I’m not going to go any further. My fellow traditionalists can hurl anathema on me but I have no problems with a married priesthood. Our Eastern rite brethren have them and I know that celibacy was a discipline imposed on HMC during the late early Middle Ages and I can tell you why.

 

[Pious_Mat]

My understanding is that he is still a Priest, but cannot administer the sacraments, except in an emergency. My question is why would a priest be laicized in the first place?
Dr. Thomas “Mac” Smith is going to be speaking at a local church and I was hoping someone could shed some insight as to why he is a laicized priest. Thank you.

A laicized priest generally cannot speak at a Catholic Church. In fact, he cannot even teach at a Catholic school unless he obtains special permission from the Bishop.

Based on what Jimmy Akin has to say, this doesn’t seem quite right.

 

[cameron_lansing]

It could be a number of things. He could have left the Priesthood as many did in the 1970’s to get married. He could have caused grave scandal. Here is what the Code of canon law has to say…

Can. 696 §1. . . .months; other causes of similar gravity which the proper law of the institute may determine.

Can. 694 §1. . . .
§2. In these cases, after the proofs have been collected, the major superior with the council is to issue without any delay a declaration of fact so that the dismissal is established juridically.

Aquinas,

Remember that only some priests are religious but not all religious are priests.

The canons you reference have to do with membership in an institute of consecrated life and not the loss of the clerical state per se. They pertain only to the obligations and rights of profession in the institute.

For matter of loss of the clerical state, we would look at canons 290-294.

A religious priest who departs or is dismissed from the institute for some reason does not necessarily suffer loss of the clerical state and he continues to be bound to its obligations until canons 290-294 are applied. They may be applied somewhat contemporaneously.

Unless they are, the religious priest remains in the clerical state. If he wishes to continue in priestly ministry, then we would apply c 693.

The rescript of laicization for a priest will set forth the conditions for any involvement in public ministry or functions in the Church. Although some things can be said in general that would apply to all, we would really have to read the rescript for details. When laicization is sought voluntarily, the conditions are slightly less stringent than those related to involuntary or imposed laicization.

Even though they are in Latin, they make very sad reading, I assure you. The material to be submitted in a request for laicization and dispensation from the obligations of the clerical state is very detailed and extensive.

 

[Aquinas74]

Aquinas,

Remember that only some priests are religious but not all religious are priests.

The canons you reference have to do with membership in an institute of consecrated life and not the loss of the clerical state per se. They pertain only to the obligations and rights of profession in the institute.

For matter of loss of the clerical state, we would look at canons 290-294.

A religious priest who departs or is dismissed from the institute for some reason does not necessarily suffer loss of the clerical state and he continues to be bound to its obligations until canons 290-294 are applied. They may be applied somewhat contemporaneously.

Unless they are, the religious priest remains in the clerical state. If he wishes to continue in priestly ministry, then we would apply c 693.

The rescript of laicization for a priest will set forth the conditions for any involvement in public ministry or functions in the Church. Although some things can be said in general that would apply to all, we would really have to read the rescript for details. When laicization is sought voluntarily, the conditions are slightly less stringent than those related to involuntary or imposed laicization.

Even though they are in Latin, they make very sad reading, I assure you. The material to be submitted in a request for laicization and dispensation from the obligations of the clerical state is very detailed and extensive.

Yes that is a great point. That was the nearest I could find to the information the OP asked for. Thanks for the detailed analysis.

 

[JReducation]

It could be a number of things. He could have left the Priesthood as many did in the 1970’s to get married. He could have caused grave scandal. Here is what the Code of canon law has to say…

Can. 696 §1. A member can also be dismissed for other causes provided that they are grave, external, imputable, and juridically proven such as: habitual neglect of the obligations of consecrated life; repeated violations of the sacred bonds; stubborn disobedience to the legitimate prescripts of superiors in a grave matter; grave scandal arising from the culpable behavior of the member; stubborn upholding or diffusion of doctrines condemned by the magisterium of the Church; public adherence to ideologies infected by materialism or atheism; the illegitimate absence mentioned in ⇒ can. 665, §2, lasting six months; other causes of similar gravity which the proper law of the institute may determine.

Can. 694 §1. A member must be held as ipso facto dismissed from an institute who:

1/ has defected notoriously from the Catholic faith;

2/ has contracted marriage or attempted it, even only civilly.

§2. In these cases, after the proofs have been collected, the major superior with the council is to issue without any delay a declaration of fact so that the dismissal is established juridically.

This canon is not about the priesthood. It is about religious life. There is a difference between being a consecrated religious and a priest.

A priest can be suspended and even excommunicated. He cannot be returned to his lay status. Once a priest always a priest.

A priest is dispensed from his priestly obligations. The term laicized is a misnomer. You cannot turn a cleric into a layman, because you cannot undo the sacrament of Holy Orders.

Any priest who receives a dispensation from the Church may perform any functions that any lay person in the Church can perform. They can be lectors, Eucharistic Ministers (they are not extraordinary because they are ordained deacons too), they can perform other ministries.

Many priests also have doctorates in theology. The academic degree has nothing to do with the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Therefore, they go from Fr. to Dr. In fact, you must have a PhD, DD, STD or some other doctorate to be ordained a bishop. You cannot be ordained a bishop if you are not a Doctor.

If a man is both a priest and a religioius he must seek a double dispensation. He must first be dispense from the vows that bind him to religious life. When that comes through, he is automatically a secular priest (as are all diocesan priests). After he is dispensed from religious life, the dispensation from the priesthood follows quickly if he has asked for both.

Some men who are religious and priests ask for a dispensation from religious life, but not from the priesthood. If the dispensation is approved, they become secular men and remain priests. To receive the dispensation from religious life a religioius priest must find a bishop who is willing to incardinate him into his diocese. Once the bishop agrees to do so, the religious superior must consent. After the religious superior consents, the priest begins a five-year probation living as a secular priest. After five-years, the bishop and the religious superior discuss whether the priest may remain outside of the religious order. If they agree, his vows are dispensed. He is a secular man for the rest of his life, but still a priest.

If either the bishop or the religious superior decided that the individual is does not have a vocation to be a secular man, he must return to the religious order where he was five years ago.

If he fails to return to the order, he is automatically excommunicated. There are no appeals. By Canon Law, the Superior General has the last word on whether a member of a religious order can leave or not. The Holy See or the Pope does not hear appeals except for Franciscans, Benedictines, Augustinians, Dominicans, Carmelites, Cistercians, Jesuits and Trinitarians, because these orders are exempt from the authority of any bishop. They answer directly to their Superior General, their Founder and the Pope.

But to answer the original question, a priest never returns to being a lay man. He is always a priest, even if he leaves in scandal, such as those who were accused of child abuse. If the ordination is valid, the Sacrament of Holy Orders is valid.

Priests who leave under such scandalous circumstances are suspended infefinitey. But can grant absolution in cases of life and death.

Priests who leave in good standing with the Church, can return to the life traditionally lived by most lay people. This is where the confusion of terms comes in. They live as lay people, but they are not lay. They are dispensed priests. A dispensed priest who is single or widowed can return to the active priesthood if a bishop will receive him and Rome approves.

All of these rules apply to deacons as well, becaue deacons are members of the clergy.

JR

 

[SacredHeartFan]

My understanding is that he is still a Priest, but cannot administer the sacraments, except in an emergency. My question is why would a priest be laicized in the first place?
Dr. Thomas “Mac” Smith is going to be speaking at a local church and I was hoping someone could shed some insight as to why he is a laicized priest. Thank you.

Isn’t he the one who is having the “visions” in Washington, LA?

 

[Howard_Roark]

I’m all for thinning the herd. If they want out, let 'em out - but what’s missing is the understanding that they are expected to

move away to a different parish and (even better) diocese
become regular invisible lay people
stay that way

just like this…person (you don’t know how hard it is to remain respctful), however, many of them find they jumped the gun, then they want back into the pastoral role. This, as they say, is bad juju.

 

[SacredHeartFan]

Isn’t he the one who is having the “visions” in Washington, LA?

If it is, that would be the reason! He preach’s these visions even though the church does not reconize them.

 

[JReducation]

I’m all for thinning the herd. If they want out, let 'em out - but what’s missing is the understanding that they are expected to

move away to a different parish and (even better) diocese
become regular invisible lay people
stay that way

just like this…person (you don’t know how hard it is to remain respctful), however, many of them find they jumped the gun, then they want back into the pastoral role. This, as they say, is bad juju.

The Sacrament of Holy Orders can no more be taken away than the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation. It doesn’t work that way.

The individul has ben ontologically changed, whether he is a deacon, priest or bishop. This is why the Church does not grant dispensations easily.

The same applies to religious who make solemn vows.

If a priest feels that he has made a mistake in requesting for a dispensation, the law of the Church is that as long as he is in good standing with the Church he may request to be received by a bishop or a religious order. Such requests are seriously considered, of course, because the Church doesn’t want to deal with the same thing again in a few years. But it is not unheard of.

We had a man in our parish who was both a religiuos and a priest. He had received a dispensation from religious life and from the priesthood. A year later he changed his mind. The religious order did not have to take him back, becauese canon law exempts them from this obligation, but the bishop had to, because he was in good standing with the Church. Upon petition the the Congregation on the Clergy, there was no legitimate reason for not activating him again. The Church cannot deny anyone the right to exercise the Sacrament of Holy Orders unless they have been suspended or excommunicated.

For example, the priests of SSPX are suspended. The Church can lift the suspension if they leave the SSPX. Once they leave, they are again in good standing with the Church.

As to whether a man must leave his diocese when he is dispensed, the Church cannot legally demand this. By canon law you are a citizen of the diocese in which you live and the diocese in which you were baptized. As a Catholic, you have a right to belong to the local Church (the diocese).

However, many dispensed deacons, priests and bishops prefer to move to another area just to get a fresh start, because it is a change in lifestyle, even though they are still priests and will die as deacons,priests.

Religious orders usually encourage those priests and brothers who have left them to maintain the contact and will often offer them employment in the ministries of the order, as long as they are in good standing with the order and the Church. If a person is validly dispensed from the priesthood and the religious vows, there is nothing to be ashamed of.

Most bishops tell their secular priests who are dispensed, that if they are ever in a condition to return to active ministry to come back. We have to distinguish between someone who receives a dispensation and someone who commits a major infraction.

A dispensation is not a matter of scandal. Those who are scandalized are generally scandalized because they do not understand the concept of dispensation or that a cleric remains a cleric forever.

In religious orders with solemn vows, the vows are reactivated as soon as the person is in a state that he or she can live them again, such as widowed without other obligations. Many people do not know this. Such persons are excloustrated, but are in vows again. This means that they live outside of the religious house, but are bound to all the disciplines and rules of their order, unless it was specified in the dispensation that the dispensation if for life. The key is in the wording of the dispensation.

JR

 

[Howard_Roark]

Uh huh. I think most of that is common knowledge.

However, when Fr. Flaky wants to marry the Nun he hired as DRE, or the choir director (happens an awful lot around here), and the Church accomodates him, he’s supposed to CEASE being a source of scandal.

Rarely do they actually cease.

Usually, they try to worm their way back into the life of their former parish, or into a teaching position. We have several examples around here. Former priests who teach RCIA or do other functions. THEY ARE a source of scandal.

 

[JReducation]

Uh huh. I think most of that is common knowledge.

However, when Fr. Flaky wants to marry the Nun he hired as DRE, or the choir director (happens an awful lot around here), and the Church accomodates him, he’s supposed to CEASE being a source of scandal.

Rarely do they actually cease.

Usually, they try to worm their way back into the life of their former parish, or into a teaching position. We have several examples around here. Former priests who teach RCIA or do other functions. THEY ARE a source of scandal.

You’re right. It is a little uncomfortable and maybe these couples would be better off beginning their new lives in another area.

That being said, the Church does not consider scandal that which is not a sin or lead others to sin. If the individual’s involved have received dispensations, they are in good standing with the Church. If a parish can use their services, the Church does not disapprove of using them. The fact that a man is no longer a priest or a religious or both, does not mean that he does not know what he is doing.

If he’s a good theologian, then he’s a good theologian and there is no ban on him teaching religious education or even theology at a seminary.

If the man is a former member of a religious order, the religious orders and religious congregations encourage their former members to remain close and even to work alongside with them. They make excellent associates because they know the mission of the religious community, its charism and its rules. It also helps the individual, because it allows him to remain in contact with his spiritual roots.

I am not denying that it is an awkward situation for lay people in the parish. But you must remember, if you’re talking about a former religious, religious orders of men exist for the sanctification of the Universal Church, the sanctification of the religious and the sanctification of the people they serve, in that order. When they can use one of their former members to meet those goals, they will try to do so as long as it does not lead people to sin.

If people wag their tongues, this is not the fault of the pastor or the dispensed religious or priest. People often wag their tongues for many reasons. People also have to learn not to gossip. Those of us who know how this works should help by explaining it to those who do not know.

JR

 

[CatholicCajun]

Isn’t he the one who is having the “visions” in Washington, LA?

Yes, I was sent a flyer and did not know what a laicized priest was.

 

[drafdog]

Why are you delving into the private life of another? There is a decided lack of courtesy reflected in this sort of question. Didn’t your mother teach you better?

Matthew