Laicized Priest

[DavetheRave]

My wife and I have been discussing the following question:
How is a man that leaves his priestly vows any different than a person that leaves his or her marriage vow (divorce) in the sense of receiving holy communion?

 

[didymus]

My wife and I have been discussing the following question:
How is a man that leaves his priestly vows any different than a person that leaves his or her marriage vow (divorce) in the sense of receiving holy communion?

I would assume that if he has gone thru the proper canonical process he is no different from a married person who receives a decree of nullity.

Even a divorced person who has not received a decree of nullity is not barred from the sacraments as long as s/he has not remarried.

Lastly, I wouldn’t go questioning anyone’s right to receive Communion unless it involves public scandal of some sort.

 

[1ke]

My wife and I have been discussing the following question:
How is a man that leaves his priestly vows any different than a person that leaves his or her marriage vow (divorce) in the sense of receiving holy communion?

Priestly vows are not indissoluable. Marriage vows are.

A laicized priest is still a priest with valid holy orders, which once conferred are indelible.

The *exercise *of the priestly faculties, the vows that priests take, etc, are all matters of Canon Law not Divine Law– they are disciplines only and not inherent to the validity of the Holy Orders.

 

[TantumErgo90]

When a couple get a decree of nullity there are no restrictions imposed on them (except for the care of any children they may have had). When a priest is laicized, he receives a document telling him what he can and cannot do. Usually it says he cannot live in a certain area, teach, or exercise his faculties (except in danger of death). When a priest requests to be laicized and it is granted, he remains in good standing with the Church, even though he has restrictions imposed on him. He is also free to marry. However, if he does not request to be laicized, or it is not granted, he is not free to marry and if he does marry it is invalid.

 

[DavetheRave]

Thank you for your quick responses. Please do not get the wrong impression…This laicized priest is a wonderful man. The gist of my question was if the breaking of a sacramental vow (marriage or holy orders) is handled the same way by the church.

 

[1ke]

Thank you for your quick responses. Please do not get the wrong impression…This laicized priest is a wonderful man. The gist of my question was if the breaking of a sacramental vow (marriage or holy orders) is handled the same way by the church.

The Sacraments are not conferred in the same way.

The Sacrament of Holy Orders is conferred by the laying on of hands by the Bishop. Vows, or no vows, it is the Bishop’s actions that make a man a priest, not the man’s actions or words.

The Sacrament of Marriage, OTOH, is conferred by the couple via the giving and receiving of vows. Therefore, the Sacrament is conferred by the man’s actions and words.

You cannot compare the two sets of vows or Sacraments. They are different in nature.

 

[kage_ar]

Holy Orders are forever, they mark the soul of the man throughout eternity.

Marriage only lasts to death.

 

[cathsem]

This is a good question, but comparing wedding vows to ordination promises is a bit like comparing apples and oranges.

First, keep in mind, one can obtain a civil divorce (and still be married in the eyes of the Church) but for a serious reason (e.g. spousal abuse) not live together anymore. Such a person can still receive Communion because they are not in an objective state of mortal sin, unlike a divorced person who remarries outside the Church who is in an objectively adulterous state because he/she is, in the eyes of the Church, engaged in a conjugal relationship with one other than his/her spouse.

For the ordained, only religious take vows. Diocesan clergy make public promises, which the Church, given the power by Christ to bind and loose, can later dispense. Therefore, a priest may apply to be dispensed from the obligations of celibacy, prayer, and obedience, but will never loose the essential character of the priesthood. He loses only his legal freedom to exercise his priesthood, but remains in good standing with the Church. The only way a laicized priest would be in a situation like a divorced-and-remarried person would be if a priest abandoned his ministry and married civilly. Such an attempted marriage would be invalid according to Canon Law, and he would be living in an objective state of mortal sin.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

I was discussing this this week with someone at my parish. It is important to note that a Declaration of Nullity declares that there was no sacrament from the beginning; and, hence, the parties are not bound by the sacrament. Laicization relieves a priest of his obligations and rights as a priest, but he is still a priest. It leaves his ordination intact. He is a priest forever and can still function as a priest in an emergency.

 

[BobP123]

The Sacraments are not conferred in the same way.

The Sacrament of Holy Orders is conferred by the laying on of hands by the Bishop. Vows, or no vows, it is the Bishop’s actions that make a man a priest, not the man’s actions or words.

For the record, the Sacrament of Holy Orders is actually conferred when a man enters the diaconate, either permanent or as the step before priesthood.