Let dispensed priests play active parish role, Vatican urges bishops

[Santi2]

Let dispensed priests play active parish role, Vatican urges bishops

The Vatican has appealed to diocesan bishops to encourage priests who have left ministry in order to get married to play a more active role in parish life.

In a copy of a letter seen by The Catholic Herald Cardinal Ivan Dias, the prefect for the Evangelisation of Peoples in Rome, placed more discretionary power in the hands of bishops for discerning a dispensed cleric’s involvement with parish life. The letter, dated February 2 2011, was sent to a priest, who had written to the congregation on behalf of an Australian missionary society that is seeking a relaxation of the prohibitions on dispensed clergy.

Cardinal Dias wrote of his confidence that the Vatican’s reforms would enable dispensed priests to lead a more active life in the Church as committed Catholics under their bishop’s guidance. The usual mode of laicisation and dispensation from the priestly vow of celibacy is through a “rescript of the Apostolic See”, meaning a response from the Pope or a sacred congregation granting a favour and the conditions upon which it is granted.
…
catholicherald.co.uk/news/2011/09/29/let-dispensed-priests-play-active-parish-role-vatican-urges-bishops/

 

[Anathama_Sit]

Greetings Santi2,

May I ask why you are confused?

Should not all the laity, of which dispense priests are now a member of, have an increased active role in the Church?

God Bless.
Anathama Sit

 

[Corki]

**The Vatican has appealed to diocesan bishops **to encourage priests who have left ministry in order to get married to play a more active role in parish life.

In a copy of a letter seen by The Catholic Herald Cardinal Ivan Dias, the prefect for the Evangelisation of Peoples in Rome, placed more discretionary power in the hands of bishops for discerning a dispensed cleric’s involvement with parish life. The letter, dated February 2 2011, was sent to a priest, who had written to the congregation on behalf of an Australian missionary society that is seeking a relaxation of the prohibitions on dispensed clergy.

Something is missing here (and it may be good journalism). The Vatican does not “appeal to diocisan bishops” by way of personal letters to priests.

Not only that, the prohibitions are placed by the Vatican at the time of laicization. How does the Vatican ask the Bishops to relax the prohibitions the Vatican placed?

 

[Anathama_Sit]

Greetings to those posting and or reading this thread,

I should have added that the dispensed priests do need to follow all that the Vatican holds for them to do. Other than that, I stand by my orginal comment.

Thanks Corki, without your post, I would not have seen my error.

God bless you Corki.
God bless the rest of you guys too.
Anathama Sit

 

[Alan55]

There are a couple of issues, only some of which are addressed by this policy change.

One is that, under Pope John Paul II, the Vatican was far more reluctant (than under Paul VI) to laicize priests who requested it. As a result, many priests gave up, left the priesthood, and married, despite the fact that they had not been formally laicized.

During John Paul’s half year as Pope, the Vatican has received more than 300 petitions from individual priests. So far he has refused to endorse a single one. By contrast, in 15 years Pope Paul VI got 32,357 requests, granting all but 1,033 of them.
In John Paul’s view, men spend years preparing to take vows, and once they have done so, that commitment should be indissoluble. He spoke of “the inner maturity” and “personal dignity” of “keeping one’s promise to Christ, made through a conscious and free commitment to celibacy for the whole of one’s life.” A priest, he then added, should not seek an “administrative” remedy, as though a matter of conscience were not involved. If John Paul continues his freeze on laicization, says one prelate familiar with Vatican processing, “I am sure that many priests will just walk out as they did in precouncil years.” (Priests who leave without permission and then marry, as many do, are excommunicated.)

Read more: time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,920259,00.html#ixzz1ZkiTE0VO

The second issue is that even priests who had been laicized were restricted in their participation in parish life. They could not:

• Celebrate any of the sacraments except for hearing deathbed confessions. It is especially noted that he can’t give homilies.
• Serve as an extraordinary minister of holy Communion.
• Serve any “directive office in the pastoral field” (e.g., serving as a parish administrator).
• Do anything at all in a seminary.
• Serve as a director or teacher in a Catholic university.
• Teach theology or any closely related discipline (e.g., religious studies, history of theology) in a non-Catholic university.
• Serve a director (e.g., school principal) in a parochial school.
• Serve as a teacher in a parochial school unless he gets the bishop’s permission.
• Live in or frequent places where his status as an ex-priest is generally known, unless he gets the bishop’s permission.

jimmyakin.org/2006/05/what_expriests_.html

I would guess that the restrictions on the lay involvement of former priests applies only to those who have been laicized, and not to those who decided not to even bother seeking laicization because the Vatican under John Paul II was not approving of laicization requests.​

 

[Corki]

There are a couple of issues, only some of which are addressed by this policy change.

I would guess that the restrictions on the lay involvement of former priests applies only to those who have been laicized, and not to those who decided not to even bother seeking laicization because the Vatican under John Paul II was not approving of laicization requests.

Alan,

Is this an actual policy change or just a response to a particular request?

It seems strange that a priest who went through all the right steps would end up with more restrictions than a priest who just left on his own.

 

[Santi2]

May I ask why you are confused?

As well as that which Corki has raised in her post in respect of an “appeal” to the Bishops" by the Vatican, I was under the impression that the norms and procedures, as with all other conditions, with regards to laicised priests remains a confidential matter between the dispensed priest and the Ordinary.

 

[catharina]

Big DITTO.

However, I’ll point out that the “news release” is from
a British publication. It is not a news release from the
Holy See. If such a change comes to pass, I’m certain
we will be informed through the usual channels.
(I.e., through our own individual bishops.)

 

[catharina]

Something is missing here (and it may be good journalism). The Vatican does not “appeal to diocisan bishops” by way of personal letters to priests.

Not only that, the prohibitions are placed by the Vatican at the time of laicization. How does the Vatican ask the Bishops to relax the prohibitions the Vatican placed?

Yes - this “news” is a totally unexplained contradiction of current custom.
If I hear it from an official source, then I’ll believe it.

 

[Anathama_Sit]

As well as that which Corki has raised in her post in respect of an “appeal” to the Bishops" by the Vatican, I was under the impression that the norms and procedures, as with all other conditions, with regards to laicised priests remains a confidential matter between the dispensed priest and the Ordinary.

Greetings Santi2,

I see now. Okay well I just thought to ask.

God Bless.
Anathama Sit

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Greetings Santi2,

May I ask why you are confused?

Should not all the laity, of which dispense priests are now a member of, have an increased active role in the Church?

God Bless.
Anathama Sit

The problem is that such laicised priests are not laity in normal way we understand a lay person. For example they can hear a deathbed confession when no other priest is available. A lay person can not do that.

Once a priest, always a priest.

The Church has just dispensed from following some of the rules and guidelines a priest must follow and when doing so lays out restrictions so that the laity will not get confused as to the role and station in life of the laicised priest.

 

[JReducation]

There is a problem here and I believe it has to do with vocabulary. Laicization does not make a dispensed priest a layman. Do not confuse the two terms.

Laicization means that a deacon, priest or bishop is granted permission to live as a layman. This frees him to receive the sacraments. It does not mean that he becomes a layman. The key is to live “as a layman,” very different from being a layman.

In order to obtain the privilege of laicization the dispensed cleric (deacon, priest or bishop) must give up certain rights:

1. 
   *]the celebration of the sacraments
   
   *]teaching theology
   
   *]serving in any capacity during the liturgy
   
   *]being a catechist or Director of Religious Education
   
   *]serving as spiritual director or retreat master or retreat speaker
   
   holding any position in any diocese, even one that is normally held by a layman, such as an administrator at a chancery, school or parish.
   
   No, it is not the case that a dispensed priest is now a layman. Once ordained a deacon, no cleric can ever be a layman again. There is an ontological change that cannot be revoked. Even those who are dismissed from the clerical state are not laymen. They are forced to live as if they were. To live as a layman is considered a punishment, not a prize.
   
   This article is not saying that any of these restrictions will be dissolved. It says that the bishops are being given discretionary powers. This is new. Bishops could never give dispensed clerics permission to do any of the above. According to this report, a bishop may do so.
   
   Not having seen the actual statement from the Vatican, we have no idea how much discretionary power the bishops have and what the conditions are. If I were a betting man, which I’m not, I’m sure that there are conditions.
   
   Fraternally,
   
   Br. JR, OSF

 

[catharina]

There is a problem here and I believe it has to do with vocabulary. Laicization does not make a dispensed priest a layman. Do not confuse the two terms.

Laicization means that a deacon, priest or bishop is granted permission to live as a layman. This frees him to receive the sacraments. It does not mean that he becomes a layman. The key is to live “as a layman,” very different from being a layman.

In order to obtain the privilege of laicization the dispensed cleric (deacon, priest or bishop) must give up certain rights:

1. 
   *]the celebration of the sacraments
   
   *]teaching theology
   
   *]serving in any capacity during the liturgy
   
   *]being a catechist or Director of Religious Education
   
   *]serving as spiritual director or retreat master or retreat speaker
   
   holding any position in any diocese, even one that is normally held by a layman, such as an administrator at a chancery, school or parish.
   
   No, it is not the case that a dispensed priest is now a layman. Once ordained a deacon, no cleric can ever be a layman again. There is an ontological change that cannot be revoked. Even those who are dismissed from the clerical state are not laymen. They are forced to live as if they were. To live as a layman is considered a punishment, not a prize.
   
   **This article is not saying that any of these restrictions will be dissolved. It says that the bishops are being given discretionary powers. This is new. Bishops could never give dispensed clerics permission to do any of the above. According to this report, a bishop may do so.
   
   Not having seen the actual statement from the Vatican, we have no idea how much discretionary power the bishops have and what the conditions are. If I were a betting man, which I’m not, I’m sure that there are conditions.**
   
   Fraternally,
   
   Br. JR, OSF

1. 
   Amen to that - and thank you, Brother.

 

[Anathama_Sit]

The problem is that such laicised priests are not laity in normal way we understand a lay person. For example they can hear a deathbed confession when no other priest is available. A lay person can not do that.

Once a priest, always a priest.

The Church has just dispensed from following some of the rules and guidelines a priest must follow and when doing so lays out restrictions so that the laity will not get confused as to the role and station in life of the laicised priest.

Greetings ByzCath,

I had forgotten to mention this. Thanks for calling my attention to it. Yes the Indelible Mark of Holy Orders is never erased from the soul of a priest.

Thanks for your post.

God Bless.
Anathama Sit

 

[JReducation]

Yes the Indelible Mark of Holy Orders is never erased from the soul of a priest.

Or a deacon or bishop either. People always think that it’s the priest who undergoes an ontological change. The deacon is also a cleric.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Anathama_Sit]

Or a deacon or bishop either. People always think that it’s the priest who undergoes an ontological change. The deacon is also a cleric.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Greetings JReduction,

I realize this, but as the thread had to do with priests I omitted the deacon and the bishop.

Oh by the way. Happy Feast day.

God Bless.
Anathama Sit