Which canon law states this?
Are you talking about a “laicized” priest (aka left the priesthood)?
I too was wondering that but what lead me away from that idea was that this priest was working at a hospice. I suppose he could have been lay staff or a volunteer but assumed (most likely wrongly) that he was the chaplain.
Not so. You are omitting the married priests of many of the Eastern Catholic churches and rites. The Latin Rite is not the whole Church.
Perhaps the man was a legitimately married priest in good standing with his diocese at the time, but was giving Holy Communion to non-Catholics, and was disciplined for it.I too was wondering that but what lead me away from that idea was that this priest was working at a hospice. I suppose he could have been lay staff or a volunteer but assumed (most likely wrongly) that he was the chaplain.
I suppose if that were the case may be the question should be what sacraments can laicised priests administer to those in extremis?
Before my in-laws moved and switched parishes, the Catholic priest at their former parish was a married man who converted from an Episcopalian priest. This was…about 4-5 years ago, if memory serves.
OK if you want to get very technical, let’s.
Agreed! But, if an OP wants a question answered they do need to give sufficient information in order for an appropriate answer to be supplied.
I don’t want to nit pick but we must be precise in the use of language.
That is not my understanding. Although a number of members lamented the creation of an Eastern “ghetto” when the Eastern Christianity forum was created, it is my understanding that the replacement Eastern Catholicism forum is only meant to address issues specific to the Eastern churches. Issues specific to the Western church would be addressed in L&S or whatever other forum is more appropriate. And issues which encompass both East and West are likewise acceptable in L&S.
Then why do it?
I have addressed this issue in Post #8. I prefer Latin Church to Roman due to the perjorative use of Roman Catholic as I am sure you prefer Eastern Catholic to Uniate.
I did it because you were wrong. You chose to use the universal Church title “Catholic Church” instead of the particular Church title of “Latin Catholic Church”.
Fine, then you should have used it.
That is exactly what I was implying.
That is a hazard of frequenting a forum favored by nit-pickers. The best defense is to be precise in your wording. Alternatively, weasel words are helpful - “the only married priests most Americans are likely to run into are converts…”
Unfortunately, I am a scientist. Our English is notoriously poor.
Two issues here: (1) A hyphen is not a very good substitute for a dash; if one cannot insert a genuine dash, it is best to use a double hyphen ("–"). (2) A three-period ellipsis merely indicates an omission, so a fourth period (or “full stop” if you’re Matthew) is required to end the sentence.
Better be careful or you will join the ranks of us nit pickers who request the use of precise language. Something that I find it hard to believe is not necessary in the field of science.
The correct use of scientific terminology is of great importance in science. An equivalent level of expertise that a linguist may have in grammar, lexicography, orthography (of non-scientific terms), punctuation, syntax (although scientific writing does have its own syntax not normally used in everyday English), etc. is not quite so necessary even though useful. We usually also pick up quite a bit of Greek and Latin along the way but it doesn’t make us experts in these languages.