Laicized Priests

[mattheus09]

Just a simple question. Why does the Holy See place so many restrictions on ex-clerics? And what is the “scandal” that ex-clerics can cause? And why if they get married, why is there supposed to be less pomp? I support all of the rules, but I just want to understand the meaning behind them better.

 

[Brendan]

Just a simple question. Why does the Holy See place so many restrictions on ex-clerics? And what is the “scandal” that ex-clerics can cause? And why if they get married, why is there supposed to be less pomp? I support all of the rules, but I just want to understand the meaning behind them better.

Holy Orders is an impediment to Marriage. Namely, if a person has recieved the Sacrament of Holy Orders, they are not supposed to be able to marry.

The Pope, and only the Pope, via his universal authority, may give a dispensation to this impediment, but in doing so, the former priest renounces the clerical state.

Thus the priest may not even give the impression that he is excercising a liturgical role that might be performed by clerics.

The scandal would be the presumtion that Holy Orders is NOT an impediment to Marriage, that it is a normal state of affairs.

BTW, this is a concession that causes much grief with the Eastern Orthodox. No Orthodox deacon or priest may enter into Marriage after Holy Orders under any circumstances. They consider the Papal excercise of granting these dispensations to be a violation of Sacred Tradition.

 

[otjm]

The fact of the matter is that many people are scandalized when a priest “drops out”. Part of it may be that people naturally expect someone to keep their promises; and the promises of the priest are certainly solemn ones. In addition, the priest is the spiritual leader, and it is seen as a spiritual abnegation and abdication of that leadership. Priests, of all people, because of the postion they have of spiritual leadership, are exepcted to lead, and part of that leading is living out the vows and promises they have made. Leaving is seen as abandoning all of them - the promisies, the vows, and the people.

As to the rules laicized priests have to follow, they have had a position of spiritual leadership; if they have given it up, then they need to give it all up. Too many of them want to keep their “oar in the water”. Well, if they do, then they should stay priests; if they don’t want to, then they should stop trying to have it both ways - not being a priest, but still teaching and leading spiritually. It may be crude to say “fish or cut bait”, but that goes to the essence of it. Further, it can cause untold confusion if one were known to be a priest, laicised, and seen as perforimg functions that often (although not necessarily) are done by a priest.

As to the pomp - or rather, the quiet marriage; the priest had made a vow/promise of celibacy; he hs been relieved of it, but that is seen as something somewhat at odds with marriage.

 

[brotherhrolf]

I’m torn about this one. One of my oldest and dearest friends is the priest who married us nine months before he left the priesthood. Once he left the priesthood, he moved close to where DW and I had our first rented home. We would often see him waliking with his lady friend in the park near us. This was back in the late 70s and, yes, I was scandalized. Didn’t see him for almost 10 years.

And then he got transferred to the same governmental unit as me. He and I had a long talk about what went on ten years earlier. He left the priesthood in 79 and was not laicized until 89 (it takes that long). DW and I served as witnesses for the (I’m not sure this is the right word) “validation” of his civil marriage in a very private ceremony in the Blesed Sacrement Chapel of his local parish.

He and his wife never had any children. He and his wife have devoted themselves to service of the poor. I recognize and acknowledge the discipline of HMC regarding priestly celibacy but I can tell everyone with clear cut conviction of soul…if we can accept married ex-Episcopalian priests…

Other than that, the turkey is as big a state employee as me and we routinely remind ourselves of this.

 

[Brendan]

. I recognize and acknowledge the discipline of HMC regarding priestly celibacy but I can tell everyone with clear cut conviction of soul…if we can accept married ex-Episcopalian priests…

This is a different issue that accepting married ex-Anglicans.

The Sacraments have an instituted order. Marriage is permitted BEFORE entry into Holy Orders. As Instituted, the Sacrament of Marriage is NOT entered in to AFTER Holy Orders has been recieved.

This is true for all clergy, including converting Anglicans.

To use the example given of a converting Anglican. He is already married, which in not an impediment to the reception of Holy Orders.

So He has recieved the Sacraments in the proper, big ‘T’ Traditional order.

If the same Anglican clergyman converted, was ordained a priest, and LATER decided to get married, he would have to be laicized.

As you may remember, I’m studying to be a Deacon ( currently on Sabbatical from my studies due to the birth of our 5th child).

When, God willing, I am ordained, I will still be a married man. If my wife should pre-decease me, I could NOT remarry. That is the function of Holy Orders.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

BTW, this is a concession that causes much grief with the Eastern Orthodox. No Orthodox deacon or priest may enter into Marriage after Holy Orders under any circumstances. They consider the Papal excercise of granting these dispensations to be a violation of Sacred Tradition.

Except for the fact that some Orthodox jurisdictions have/and do ordain men who were Catholic priests who left and got married to the priesthood in their Orthodox Church.

 

[johnnykins]

Except for the fact that some Orthodox jurisdictions have/and do ordain men who were Catholic priests who left and got married to the priesthood in their Orthodox Church.

But they do not consider the Catholic ordination to be valid - so they are only ordaining someone who has married but never been validly ordained before.

 

[Em_in_FL]

Laicization can be correlated to an annulment in many ways…

There are often misunderstandings about the validity of sacraments inferred by that once-priest… but at that time he was acting “in persona Christi”… in the person of Christ… not as he, the man… but as a “priest”…
Laicization simply removes that element of being “in persona Christi”… all previous sacraments inferred by that priest are completely valid.

Does that make sense?

 

[StephenLaurence]

Laicization can be correlated to an annulment in many ways…

Except in one huge one: an annulment says “the sacrament never existed”, while removal from the clerical state (“laicization”) simply says, “you are no longer permitted to act as a priest”. The ontological change that happened at ordination does not go away; but the ability to act “in persona Christi capitus” (as you said) is removed.

(Not that I’m thinking that you’re implying otherwise, but it’s a huge difference…!)

 

[agapewolf]

Laicization can be correlated to an annulment in many ways…

There are often misunderstandings about the validity of sacraments inferred by that once-priest… but at that time he was acting “in persona Christi”… in the person of Christ… not as he, the man… but as a “priest”…
Laicization simply removes that element of being “in persona Christi”… all previous sacraments inferred by that priest are completely valid.

Does that make sense?

I don’t think that is completely true. Ordaination is an indellible mark on the soul, and cannot be changed…including laicization. I believe (and those who knowbetter can correct me if I’m wrong), he is actually still able to do sacraments, just not licitly…or maybe like in danger of death, he can absolve someone after confession. The indellible mark can never be removed. And unless the bishop that ordained the guy was found to be a fake, you can’t go back and declare the ordaination “null”

my question is, if a priest is laicized, then marries, is his marriage a sacrament? (as opposed to a valid natural marriage like between a baptized person and a non-baptized person).

 

[Em_in_FL]

Except in one huge one: an annulment says “the sacrament never existed”, while removal from the clerical state (“laicization”) simply says, “you are no longer permitted to act as a priest”. The ontological change that happened at ordination does not go away; but the ability to act “in persona Christi capitus” (as you said) is removed.

(Not that I’m thinking that you’re implying otherwise, but it’s a huge difference…!)

I don’t think that is completely true. Ordaination is an indellible mark on the soul, and cannot be changed…including laicization. I believe (and those who knowbetter can correct me if I’m wrong), he is actually still able to do sacraments, just not licitly…or maybe like in danger of death, he can absolve someone after confession. The indellible mark can never be removed. And unless the bishop that ordained the guy was found to be a fake, you can’t go back and declare the ordaination “null”

my question is, if a priest is laicized, then marries, is his marriage a sacrament? (as opposed to a valid natural marriage like between a baptized person and a non-baptized person).

You’re right… I misunderstood… sorry for the confusion…

 

[Em_in_FL]

my question is, if a priest is laicized, then marries, is his marriage a sacrament? (as opposed to a valid natural marriage like between a baptized person and a non-baptized person).

Yes… once laicized and dispensated from the obligation of celibacy… you can be married in the church sacramentaly.

 

[m134e5]

Just a simple question. Why does the Holy See place so many restrictions on ex-clerics? And what is the “scandal” that ex-clerics can cause? And why if they get married, why is there supposed to be less pomp? I support all of the rules, but I just want to understand the meaning behind them better.

Because leaving the priesthood is not something to be taken lightly- and they are still validly ordained, they just don’t have priestly faculties (to celebrate Mass licitly, or hear confessions validly- except when the penitent is at the point of death, etc.). When a man becomes a priest, he should have spent many years praying and discerning whether or not the priesthood was what God wanted. When someone- anyone- abandons their vocation- that is wrong. It is scandalous because his former parishioners may see him- who used to be their pastor- their leader- and they see how he has backed out of his vocation. Let their be no mistake- laicization is never a good thing.

 

[Em_in_FL]

Let their be no mistake- laicization is never a good thing.

Ahhh… the joys of personal opinions…

I guess since my own dad was laicized… then married… then we must be a pretty horrible family in your eyes…

 

[otjm]

my question is, if a priest is laicized, then marries, is his marriage a sacrament? (as opposed to a valid natural marriage like between a baptized person and a non-baptized person).

Assuming that both are free to marry, and they do so before a priest and two witnesses, yes, it is a sacrment. Again, assuming that there is no other impediment.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

But they do not consider the Catholic ordination to be valid - so they are only ordaining someone who has married but never been validly ordained before.

Actually some do a “conditional” ordination.

Most Orthodox do not comment on the validly of sacraments outside of their own Churches and those in communion with them.

But if they do not consider Catholic ordination to be valid then why do they get upset, as Brendan says, when the Pope dispenses from the impediment? After all if the ordination was invalid then no impediment is there.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Laicization can be correlated to an annulment in many ways…

There are often misunderstandings about the validity of sacraments inferred by that once-priest… but at that time he was acting “in persona Christi”… in the person of Christ… not as he, the man… but as a “priest”…
Laicization simply removes that element of being “in persona Christi”… all previous sacraments inferred by that priest are completely valid.

Does that make sense?

This isn’t true. Holy Orders leave an indelible mark upon the soul, same as Baptism and Confirmation.

Also a laicized priest may still hear confessions in the case of emergency.

If it was like a decree of nullity then the man was never a priest so any sacraments he would have celebrated would be invalid.

 

[johnnykins]

Actually some do a “conditional” ordination.

Most Orthodox do not comment on the validly of sacraments outside of their own Churches and those in communion with them.

But if they do not consider Catholic ordination to be valid then why do they get upset, as Brendan says, when the Pope dispenses from the impediment? After all if the ordination was invalid then no impediment is there.

I am under the impression that the Orthodox generally adhere to the Cyprian view that those in heresy cannot validly confect a sacrament as opposed to the Augustinian view that Catholics adhere to. I also understand that due to the application of “economy” there is fairly wide discretion as to the stringency under which certain principles, including the validity of sacraments, may be viewed - i.e., in this case the conversion of the Catholic adds the necessary element for validity by the renunciation of heresy (of course that raises the question of how the lack of orthodoxy in the one performing the ordination is dealt with - but the ins and outs of “economy” are as byzantine as one might like.

As to why the Orthodox might be opposed to the Pope’s action, I can only guess - though I think a reasonable guess is that it represents another hurdle to reunion by another “rejection” or “change” from “tradition”.

 

[Brendan]

Yes… once laicized and dispensated from the obligation of celibacy… you can be married in the church sacramentaly.

The collolary is that without the laicization and dispensation, any attempt at marriage would be invalid and non sacramental

 

[Em_in_FL]

The collolary is that without the laicization and dispensation, any attempt at marriage would be invalid and non sacramental

Gotcha… that’s why I said “can be” married sacramentally… not a definite “will be”…

Anyway… I’m not an expert here… just going from personal experience since my dad was laicized… and I know their marriage was sacramental in the church…