Pope laicizes breakaway Missouri priest (CNA)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic_Press
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Of course hundreds of new parishioners joined! Faith without cost! Actions without consequences! What’s not to love? :mad: 🤷
 
This strikes me as a formality. What practical differences are there between an excommunicated priest and a laicized priest?
 
Digitonomy said:
This strikes me as a formality. What practical differences are there between an excommunicated priest and a laicized priest?
Click to expand...
I believe that even though an excommunicated priest must not celebrate Mass, he still has the power to turn the bread into the Body, while a laicized priest does not. I could be completely wrong though. I asked this question in the Ask an Apologist section but didn’t receive an answer.
 
This makes me very sad for all the parishioners who have been, and continue to be lead astray by the leaders of the parish and this ex-priest. I will pray for the parishioners to be able to see this fraud for what it is and I will try to pray for the leaders of the parish to return to the Church. (Although praying for the latter may take me a while, because right now I am angry at them)
 
CapIV said:
I believe that even though an excommunicated priest must not celebrate Mass, he still has the power to turn the bread into the Body, while a laicized priest does not. I could be completely wrong though. I asked this question in the Ask an Apologist section but didn’t receive an answer.
Click to expand...
The term laicized is incorrectly used. According to the theoogy of the Church regarding the Sacrament of Holy Orders a cleric (deacon, priest or bishop) is no longer a laity and can never be a lay man. He will always be an ordained man.

In these cases the term is used to mean that the priest has been stripped of his priestly functions and faculties. He cannot validly absolve, except in situations of life and death, he cannot witness valid marriages. Any other sacraments that he celebrates are illicit, but they remain valid, because he is a priest forever.

He is stripped of his status, which in canon law is translated as “state”, but not of the sacrament of Holy Orders.

An excommunicated priest has all the above, plus he cannot receive the sacraments of the Church, because he is not in communion with the Church.

A priest who is stripped of his status, but not excommunicated, is still in union with the Church, but censured. He may approach another priest for confession and receive the eucharist as any lay man would do. That’s how people get the idea of laicized. He has to receive the Eucharist from another priest. He cannot celebrate for himelf, because he no longer has permission to do so. However,if he wishes to disobey, he can celebrate it, but invalidly and runs the risk of excommunicating himself, provided that the threat of excommunication has been added to the sentence.

Hope this helps.

JR 🙂
 
JReducation said:
He has to receive the Eucharist from another priest. He cannot celebrate for himelf, because he no longer has permission to do so. However,if he wishes to disobey, he can celebrate it, but invalidly and runs the risk of excommunicating himself, provided that the threat of excommunication has been added to the sentence. Hope this helpsJR
Click to expand...
Don’t you mean illicitly, rather than invalidly?

Your post overall suggests that excommunication is a more severe penalty than “laicization”. My understanding is that in this case, the priest is already excommunicated. Does this action change anything for the priest?
 
Digitonomy said:
Don’t you mean illicitly, rather than invalidly?

Your post overall suggests that excommunication is a more severe penalty than “laicization”. My understanding is that in this case, the priest is already excommunicated. Does this action change anything for the priest?
Click to expand...
The big difference is that removal from the clerical state (which I think if the right term) is, for the most part, permanent. When someone is excommunicated, he/she just needs to reform, make a good confession and usually ask the Bishop to lift the excommunication. (there are a few that only the Pope can lift and some that pastors can lift) Once you are removed from the clerical state, you have no official position in the Church other than any lay person. When a priest is removed from the clerical state, the documents usually spell out what the priest can and cannot do. Sometimes, they are allowed to marry in the future, often they are not allowed to teach in a Catholic institution.

An excommunication is medicinal for something that has happened in the past. Removal from the clerical state is more about the future of the specific priest.

Oh and while excommunication is always a penalty, removal from the clerical state is sometimes done when there was no wrongdoing at all. It is not itself a penalty but may be the ultimate result of correction.
 
Digitonomy said:
Don’t you mean illicitly, rather than invalidly?

Your post overall suggests that excommunication is a more severe penalty than “laicization”. My understanding is that in this case, the priest is already excommunicated. Does this action change anything for the priest?
Click to expand...
You’re right. That was a typo. It should have said illicitly.

Neither action changes who a deacon, priest or bishop is. He remains ordained until death. That cannot be changed. That is the ontological change effected by the sacrament of Holy Orders.

JR 🙂
 
Corki said:
The big difference is that removal from the clerical state (which I think if the right term) is, for the most part, permanent. When someone is excommunicated, he/she just needs to reform, make a good confession and usually ask the Bishop to lift the excommunication. (there are a few that only the Pope can lift and some that pastors can lift) Once you are removed from the clerical state, you have no official position in the Church other than any lay person. When a priest is removed from the clerical state, the documents usually spell out what the priest can and cannot do. Sometimes, they are allowed to marry in the future, often they are not allowed to teach in a Catholic institution.

An excommunication is medicinal for something that has happened in the past. Removal from the clerical state is more about the future of the specific priest.

Oh and while excommunication is always a penalty, removal from the clerical state is sometimes done when there was no wrongdoing at all. It is not itself a penalty but may be the ultimate result of correction.
Click to expand...
But as I posted above, the cleric does not become a lay man. He is a cleric. He is removed from the state as has been rightly described above. In the event of an emergency you can go to him for confession and absolution and he can do it with validity. But it has to be a life and death situation.

Another way to look at this is an imposed dispensation. In the case when the dispensatio is imposed, there is a very small chance that you can ever return to the active clerical state. If the dispensation is sought by you, you may change your mind or circumstances may change and you may request to return. The former may also request to return, but he has to prove himself.

JR 🙂
 
I find it interesting that the news was broke about the laiczation by Bishop James Johnson of the Diocese of Springfield and not a bishop of the archdiocese of St Louis, where St Stanislaus Kostka Catholic Church is located. By tradition and church law Bishop Johnson does not have jurisdiction in St Louis.

I also find it interesting that Archbishop Burke was transferred to the Vatican after he lost his civil lawsuit against St Stanislaus and he is now being countered sued by the St Stanislaus Parish Corporation as well as being sued by members of his (Archbishop Burke’s) former diocese (Diocese of LaCrosse) for mishandling diocesian funds.
 
Br_Mark said:
I find it interesting that the news was broke about the laiczation by Bishop James Johnson of the Diocese of Springfield and not a bishop of the archdiocese of St Louis, where St Stanislaus Kostka Catholic Church is located. By tradition and church law Bishop Johnson does not have jurisdiction in St Louis.

I also find it interesting that Archbishop Burke was transferred to the Vatican after he lost his civil lawsuit against St Stanislaus and he is now being countered sued by the St Stanislaus Parish Corporation as well as being sued by members of his (Archbishop Burke’s) former diocese (Diocese of LaCrosse) for mishandling diocesian funds.
Click to expand...
I don’t know if I would use the word interesting. Sad is probably better.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Br_Mark said:
I also find it interesting that Archbishop Burke was transferred to the Vatican after he lost his civil lawsuit against St Stanislaus and he is now being countered sued by the St Stanislaus Parish Corporation as well as being sued by members of his (Archbishop Burke’s) former diocese (Diocese of LaCrosse) for mishandling diocesian funds.
Click to expand...
I’m not quite sure what you are getting at here. What exactly do you find “interesting” about the Vatican wishing to have one of the greatest Archbishops of our time serve the Church from a higher level? I feel you are suspecting something sinister, which I find highly insulting to our Holy Father. Please - clarify for me, I hope I’m wrong in how I interpret your comments.

~Liza
 
Br_Mark said:
I find it interesting that the news was broke about the laiczation by Bishop James Johnson of the Diocese of Springfield and not a bishop of the archdiocese of St Louis, where St Stanislaus Kostka Catholic Church is located. By tradition and church law Bishop Johnson does not have jurisdiction in St Louis.
Click to expand...
I am not surprised that Bishop Johnston announced it. Fr. Bozek was a priest of the Missouri Diocese of Springfield-Cape Girardeau, and under the jurisdiction of the bishop there. When Bp. Leibrecht was still bishop of that diocese, Bozek left without the bishop’s permission, and against Bp Leibrecht’s directive, and went to St. Louis. Never was a transfer approved by either the bishop of Springfield-Cape Girardeau or the archbishop of St. Louis. So, Fr. Bozek was never properly a priest of the Archdiocese of St. Louis, being there illicitly and in defiance of both bishops. Never was he assigned by any bishop to the dissident St. Stanislaus parish. He was there in defiance of lawful Church authority from beginning to end.

Bishop Leibrecht retired and Bishop Johnston was appointed his successor. So it was entirely proper for Bishop Johnston to make any announcement concerning a runaway priest of his diocese.
 
And regarding the lawsuits against Archbishop Burke, as we’ve seen in Connecticut, some of the Church’s worst enemies claim to be Catholic. I wouldn’t give any credence to those lawsuits.
 
Please pray for this priest. He not only jeopardizes his own soul, but that of those who follow him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top