McCarrick May Be Defrocked

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maximilian75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’m pretty sure the Church can impose conditions on laicized priests. They can be barred from volunteering in any teaching capacity in parishes for example. They can be barred from marriage even if no longer serving as a priest. Etc. Not sure if travel restriction is ever done.
 
Of course they can be kept from doing any parish job, and they can be kept from marrying in the Church. They obviously can’t keep the laicized priest from doing anything he wants outside the Church’s span of control - he could get married down at the courthouse or in some other church, he could start his own church as the laicized priest Dale Fushak did.

The Church is not able to control what Mr. Laicized Priest does outside the Church’s control. It could, I suppose, excommunicate him if he did something like get married when he was told not to, but my guess is Mr. Laicized Priest doesn’t care.

It seems likely that some of these laicized guys continued to commit sexual abuse after they became Mr. So-and-so living in a beach apartment in Florida. I remember reading about one who called up one of his former victims, who was now an adult with kids of his own, and wanted to come over and meet the family. If that’s not looking for more victims, I don’t know what is. The Church couldn’t do anything about it at that point.

It seems likely that they will laicize McCarrick but I’ll be interested to know if they somehow work out a way to still keep him confined at the monastery. He probably has substantial financial resources and/or wealthy friends who may not believe the allegations about him or don’t think he did anything wrong. If they laicize him and then he’s seen out living a nice life someplace, it would not be a good thing.
 
Last edited:
graciew said:
They are fake priests , right? Or what?
Click to expand...
The character of Holy Orders is indelible.
They still can confect the Eucharist, absolve sins, etc., but if that’s done without the permission of a Diocesan bishop, it’s illicit (illegal) in the eyes of the Church.
 
Illicit AND invalid in the case of absolution unless a true emergency…as per canon law. A priest can always validly confect the Eucharist, but absolution requires jurisdiction. This is why SSPX absolutions were not generally recognized by the Church until Pope Francis granted their priests faculties during the Year of Mercy.
 
As posted above, they are allowed to do anointing of the sick and to hear the confession of a person in danger of death, and those sacraments are legal and valid.

I would presume they also have the faculties to baptize that any baptized Christian would have, and that those would still apply even if the priest had been excommunicated from the Catholic Church as well as laicized (as he would still be a baptized Christian).

It’s my understanding that if they celebrate Mass, then it would be “valid but not licit” so that the Sacrament would truly have the Real Presence, but the priest would sin by performing an illicit Mass and a Catholic who attended such a Mass with knowledge that he was laicized would sin by participating.
 
Last edited:
Thanks. I asked because here there was a time not too long ago when there were fake priests who charged particularly for weddings which were done outside the premises of a church .And some people are gullible , you know.
But they were real “ fake”, opportunists… can you believe that…? Creativity to make a profit and take people in has no limits…
Our Bishops had to come out and warn people about these “ characters”…
 
Last edited:
FOG said:
Really? Hallelujah?
Fortunately, unlike us, God would rather see the eventual conversion of the sinful instead of judging us at the time of our sins . Perhaps prayers for the Cardinal rather than judgment is what is more appropriate by members of the Church, and leave final judgment to the Almighty.
Click to expand...
We all agree that we would like Cardinal McCarick to come to repentance. However, that is not the issue here. The issue is whether someone who has knowingly and willfully used his office to abuse his fellow priests and parishioners should continue to serve in that office even if by name only.
 
Last edited:
They were validly ordained. Then they got married, and they may or may not have gone through (requested) formal laicize procedure. They list their members in a state by state directory.

They may do “chaplain” type work on cruise ships, etc, maybe other places. They do weddings, etc, and may try to build up a weekly faith community wherever people are angry at the Church, because a parish got closed or…other reasons.
 
FOG said:
Really? Hallelujah?
Click to expand...
It is better that he no longer represents the Catholic Church in any capacity. No one who abuses children should escape consequences in this life, as a matter of divine justice. I seriously doubt there is rejoicing at McCarrick’s actions, and the consequences are the direct result of his actions. It would be a cause of pain to know that children, or anyone, could be sexually abused with impunity.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
It seems likely that they will laicize McCarrick but I’ll be interested to know if they somehow work out a way to still keep him confined at the monastery. He probably has substantial financial resources and/or wealthy friends who may not believe the allegations about him or don’t think he did anything wrong. If they laicize him and then he’s seen out living a nice life someplace, it would not be a good thing.
Click to expand...
As a secular outsider, I hope that the Church does keep some control on him. I realize he is not a young man but, from my perspective, having him be free of any control mechanisms doesn’t exactly make me feel that the Church is really doing it’s best for all (beyond just Catholics) society.
Question…doesn’t Canon law have definitions for these cases? Or are they just guidelines? How much freedom does the Vatican have in their decision?
Thanks!
 
Although if somebody is doing Mass alone, it is rather difficult to enforce.
 
I simply said that it was illicit, nothing in regards to enforcement.
 
Okay- valid, but not licit. In any case, if the accused was a priest under these circumstances, he would be laicized. The man is 88 years old, and maybe he can just stay at the monastary; Rome will decide
 
Last edited:
Well, this ministry and a “monastary” are two very different places…
 
Tis_Bearself said:
40.png
Maximilian75:
(Gabika)
The man is 88 years old, and maybe he can just stay at the monastary;
Click to expand...
Come on, man. It’s highly likely that the monastery, or some of the monks there, have experience or expertise in handling clergy who are commanded to follow a life of prayer and penance. McCarrick is not the first such priest to need such a placement, and he probably won’t be the last.

And by the way, it’s spelled “monastery”.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
If I’m not mistaken the monastery is in close proximity to a school. Surely nothing is “happening”, but this is clear evidence the Church hierarchy does not get it, still, after all the victims and all the horrifying press coverage, these entrenched clerics still do not get it.

Get the man away from even the appearance of impropriety, because the man has lived a life of impropriety.
Any corporation that did something like this would have heads rolling out the door, and we should be better than just any organization.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top