S
Santi2
Guest
I must apologise. I meant to say:
If a priest has been stripped off his faculties to publicly celebrate Mass then he would have no business celebrating Mass inside any diocesan Church.
Pro-Gay Priest Condemns Canadian Cardinal for Remarks on Abortion/Rape
- Status
If a priest has been stripped off his faculties to publicly celebrate Mass then he would have no business celebrating Mass inside any diocesan Church.
J
JReducation
Guest
A bishop does not have the authority to laicize a deacon, priest or brother. The bishop has the authority to suspend a secular deacon and a secular priest. He doesn’t even have the authority to suspend a priest or brother who belong to a religious order. Only their superior has that authority.
To laicize you must present the petition to the Holy See. If the pope approves the petiton, it must still go through the Sacred Congregation of the Faith. If Cardinal Levada approves it, then it goes to a tribunal where three judges must vote on it.
You can only laicize a deacon, priest, bishop or religious brother for commiting a crime against Church law. However, a suspension does not require Rome’s approval and is equally effective. You have no faculties to continue your ministry. Nonetheless, if you’re suspended and you belong to a diocese, you may live as a secular man. But if you belong to a religious order, you must continue to live in the religious house, even though you’re suspended. You’re religious vows cannot be stripped, only your faculties to perform a ministry The religiuos oder is stuck with you until such time as you commit a serious crime against Church law or you ask for laicization and the Holy Father approves. If he disapproves, you’re not going anywhere. Many requests by bishops and religious superiors to laicize priests and brothers have been turned down by Pope Benedict. He does not believe in laicizing people that easily. You must fulfill your commitment to the Church. That is his expectation.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JohnT58
Guest
Doebe this this mean to convert? If so, and if it is more in keeping with Lutheran faith and morals, may this is an option for him. He seems unable to reconcile Catholic teaching with his conscience.
Agreed, but maybe he could fulfill his obligations in a role or capacity that doesn’t have such a public profile. Then again, that presupposes obedience, something the priest in question seems to lack.A bishop does not have the authority to laicize a deacon, priest or brother. The bishop has the authority to suspend a secular deacon and a secular priest… Many requests by bishops and religious superiors to laicize priests and brothers have been turned down by Pope Benedict. He does not believe in laicizing people that easily. You must fulfill your commitment to the Church. That is his expectation.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
S
Santi2
Guest
Thank you so much for providing us some reference into how a Bishop would deal with conduct which is contrary to a priestly character and personality.A bishop does not have the authority to laicize a deacon, priest or brother. The bishop has the authority to suspend a secular deacon and a secular priest. He doesn’t even have the authority to suspend a priest or brother who belong to a religious order. Only their superior has that authority.
To laicize you must present the petition to the Holy See. If the pope approves the petiton, it must still go through the Sacred Congregation of the Faith. If Cardinal Levada approves it, then it goes to a tribunal where three judges must vote on it.
You can only laicize a deacon, priest, bishop or religious brother for commiting a crime against Church law. However, a suspension does not require Rome’s approval and is equally effective. You have no faculties to continue your ministry. Nonetheless, if you’re suspended and you belong to a diocese, you may live as a secular man. But if you belong to a religious order, you must continue to live in the religious house, even though you’re suspended. You’re religious vows cannot be stripped, only your faculties to perform a ministry The religiuos oder is stuck with you until such time as you commit a serious crime against Church law or you ask for laicization and the Holy Father approves. If he disapproves, you’re not going anywhere. Many requests by bishops and religious superiors to laicize priests and brothers have been turned down by Pope Benedict. He does not believe in laicizing people that easily. You must fulfill your commitment to the Church. That is his expectation.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
As John mentioned in his post, a disciplinary action would presuppose obedience. What happens though when a Bishop suspends a priest but, his conduct remains publicly defiant? In the secular world, we have a gagging order to employ. I know…it is rather far-fetched to even think of its application in this case, however, is there anything else that the Bishop can do?
My family and I continue to carry you in prayer.
L
Loy
Guest
In the U.S. almost every parish church is entirely legally owned by the ordinary bishop. Under the criminal laws of every state in the U.S., if a suspended priest were to say Mass in a parish church, he would be committing a criminal trespass . Perhaps it’s the same in Canada, I just don’t know.
L
Loy
Guest
To add to what JReducation said, once a religious order has been canonically established within a diocese, it is extremely difficult for a bishop to canonically remove that religious community (unless it dissolves or leaves voluntarily).
But I still have a question whether or not the bishop may deny permission for a religious priest to say Mass in diocesan church.
J
JReducation
Guest
Yes, a bishop can deny anyone from using diocesan property to celebrate mass. This means that the religious priest is free to celebrate mass in any church or chapel that belongs to his order, but not those that belong to the diocese. The bishop does not have the authority to deny permmission to celebrate mass on religious property.
Religoius orders of men operate as if they were their own diocese. The major superior, whether he is a priest or not, is the highest ranking authority, not the bishoop.
We must obey the bishop when we work for him. Outside of that, we report to our superiors. I beleive that the priest in question is a Jesuit. In that case, he is not being disobedient. The bishop may not like what he’s saying, but he cannot silence him. He can deny him access to diocesan property. If this were a lay person the bishop could silence him by simply denying him holy communion. But he cannot do that to religious. We’re not part of his diocese. We simply live in his diocese. We have permission from the Holy See to be there.
Someone mentioned the crime of tresspassing. Lay Catholics must be very careful when you use the word “crime”. The Catholic Church claims the right to decide what is and is not a crime and when it is and is not a crime. If a suspended priest celebrates mass in a Catholic Church, the law says that this is not trespassing. Therefore, he has committed no crime. It is not trespassing because every baptized Christian, even non Catholics, have a right to enter a Catholic Church. What the priest has done is celebrate an illicit mass. That’s a crime.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
D
doughnut
Guest
I guess that keyword is ‘insidious’…many of these things looked good and morally acceptable, hence when he made that statement, he was probably worried how the common folk like you and I, might be easily misled or hookwinked by the appearances of things.If only this priest was alone in his thinking. Unfortunately, there are far too many other priests and nuns who would agree with him. Father James Martin, S.J. is one scary dude. He wrote this:
" Pope Benedict XVI’s comments last week in Fatima, Portugal, in which he stated that abortion and same-sex marriage were “some of today’s most insidious and dangerous threats” to the common good seemed oddly discordant. The equation of abortion, something that clearly is about a threat to life, with same-sex marriage, which no matter how you look at it, does not mean that anyone is going to die, is bizarre. A good friend of mine, who is gay, recently resigned from a position at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, where he said, with great dismay, that “abortionsamesexmarriage” had become one polysyllabic word among some of his bosses.
Why has same-sex marriage been equated with abortion? Are they really equivalent “threats” to life? If you’re looking for a life issue with stakes as high as abortion, why not something that actually threatens life? Like war? Or the death penalty? Or the kind of poverty and destitution that lead to death? Why aren’t “abortion and war” the most “insidious and dangerous” threats to the common good? Or “war and the death penalty”? Or “war and poverty?” The great danger is that this increasingly popular equation will seem to many as having less to do with moral equivalency and more to do with a simple dislike, or even a hatred, of gays and lesbians. "
insightscoop.typepad.com/2004/2010/05/fr-james-martin-sj-one-of-the-editors-of-america-magazine-has-been-getting-attention-for-some-remarks-he-made-in-a-post.html
Then there is the nun who allowed an abortion at her hospital because the baby threatened the life of the mother. And of course, we can’t forget Father Pleger, who said priests should be able to marry and women should be ordained. And the list goes on, and on, and on …
uch:
it takes alot of fruit for thought before one see how evil can crept among the apparent good; and most of us can be very strongly bind to our own judgement, to the point of unable to accept other views. especially in this modern world, whereby ‘individual opinions & rights’ often supercedes that of others.
I guess a definitive standpoint has to be made, to minimise the detrimental effects that some issues are going to cause.
C
canadianguy1143
Guest
I can’t find any information to confirm or deny this. Do you?
J
JReducation
Guest
I think I saw it on another thread. But I have no idea if it’s true or not. I took the post at face value.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
D
Darryl1958
Guest
A priest who is pro-sin instead of pro-life.
C
canadianguy1143
Guest
I spent 2 hours this morning trying to find out. Interesting thing is that the parish he is assigned to can’t be found on any diocesan website. A newspaper article about him states that his parish as St-Joachim de la Plaine in La Plaine, PQ.I think I saw it on another thread. But I have no idea if it’s true or not. I took the post at face value.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=105231be-1e94-4d1e-860f-204a44de0e03&k=93817
The wikipedia site said that the parish was in the Joliette Diocese of Quebec.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Gravel
However, a search of the diocese does not show that parish at all.
Most puzzling.
J
JReducation
Guest
Could the newspaper have gotten the name of the parish wrong? That can happen. Are you sure that it’s a parish? Newspapers sometimes call every house a parish. It can be a retreat house, a religious house or a house of formation. Those would not be listed under parishes. They would be listed under their proper categories. At least that’s the way that the Kennedy Directory that we use in the USA does it. For example, our house is not listed, because it’s not a parish. It’s a free standing religious house with no parish affiliation. The parish is lsited. The house and the parish don’t have the same name, even though they are within a block of each other. Is it possible that this can be the name of the house where he lives, not a parish where he serves? I don’t know how your directory is organized. I’m surprised that the Catholic Directory is made available to the laity, in Canada. It’s not made available to the laity in the USA. Religous orders of men complained about it, because the directory was very confusing. Everytime you transfer someone you have to wait a year to get the person in the right house. People go to the directory to find someone and go knocking at the wrong house.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
E
elts1956
Guest
Not sure of this, but even if this is so, wouldn’t his obligation have to be fulfilled privately? He could not say Mass in public.
J
JReducation
Guest
Fulfilling your Sunday obligation means attending mass, not celebrating mass. Not all priests celebrate Sunday mass. Many attend mass in the pews like everyone else. Priests do not have to celebrate mass, even when they are in good standing with the Church. They may certainly do, if they wish to do so, unless their superior forbids it. That only applies to members of religious orders. Diocesan priests cannot be told not to celebrate mass unless they are suspended.
A suspended priest is still a Catholic. He has been suspended from ministry. He has not been sent away. Because he is a Catholic, he has the same rights as every other Catholic to receive the sacraments, as long as he is in a state of grace.
I’ll give you an example. The priests who were convicted of sexual abuse were suspended. Some were laicized, which does not mean that they become laymen, but that’s another subject. However, these men continue to receive the sacraments. The Church cannot deny them this. They are still baptized Catholics.
The same rule applies to this individual priest. He may not celebrate the sacraments, except in an emergency. But he must be allowed to receive the sacraments. Also, a suspended priest cannot celebrate the mass in private either. Suspension means that you may not celebrate the sacraments, unless there is no other priest available Then you may do so. Even a laicized priest can celebrate the sacraments if there is a need and there is no other priest available. But the term need must be understood. Need means that the faithful would be in spiritual danger if the sacrament were not celebrated.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
E
elts1956
Guest
Thanks for the clarification JR. Wasn’t St. Padre Pio isolated in saying Mass, because his order rejected him, or something like that?Fulfilling your Sunday obligation means attending mass, not celebrating mass. Not all priests celebrate Sunday mass. Many attend mass in the pews like everyone else. Priests do not have to celebrate mass, even when they are in good standing with the Church. They may certainly do, if they wish to do so, unless their superior forbids it. That only applies to members of religious orders. Diocesan priests cannot be told not to celebrate mass unless they are suspended.
A suspended priest is still a Catholic. He has been suspended from ministry. He has not been sent away. Because he is a Catholic, he has the same rights as every other Catholic to receive the sacraments, as long as he is in a state of grace.
I’ll give you an example. The priests who were convicted of sexual abuse were suspended. Some were laicized, which does not mean that they become laymen, but that’s another subject. However, these men continue to receive the sacraments. The Church cannot deny them this. They are still baptized Catholics.
The same rule applies to this individual priest. He may not celebrate the sacraments, except in an emergency. But he must be allowed to receive the sacraments. Also, a suspended priest cannot celebrate the mass in private either. Suspension means that you may not celebrate the sacraments, unless there is no other priest available Then you may do so. Even a laicized priest can celebrate the sacraments if there is a need and there is no other priest available. But the term need must be understood. Need means that the faithful would be in spiritual danger if the sacrament were not celebrated.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JReducation
Guest
Our order did not reject Padre Pio. However, there is a policy in our order that no priest may ever singularize himself. Our priests are required to blend in with the lay brothers. They are also required to avoid as much contact with the laity as possible.
Padre Pio’s stigmata attracted a great deal of attention. At the time, the order did not know what the cause of the wounds were. Some alleged it was a miracle and others alleged that it was psychological. The case had to be studied.
However, there was a major problem. Padre Pio became very popular among the laity. This made him stand-out from his brothers. He was unable to blend iin. Soon the friary became a circus with people coming from all over to visit Padre Pio. The Superior General ordered him not to appear in public, even for mass. He always celebrated mass in the enclosure chapel. That is, a chapel inside the cloister where the laity is not allowed to enter.
When it was finally decided that the wounds were genuine, then he was given permission to celebrate mass and hear confessions for the laity, provided that he not spend too much time with them. Each person came and went in about 10 minutes. He saw hundreds of people each week and sometimes more. But he was to avoid relationships with the laity. This actually made him very happy. He did not want relationships with the laity. He entered the order to be a Capuchin Franciscan Friar, not a priest.
Saying one mass a day and hearing confessions made him very happy. He loved celebrating mass and hearing confessions. He did not enjoy doing any of the other jobs that priests do. The superior’s restraint actually protected him, because he was never assigned to a parish or any place where he had to spend long periods with lay people.
The only lay people whom he really enjoyed were children. He had a special place in his heart for sick children. He asked for permission to raise money for a hospital. Our superior granted the permission and the hospital was built.
There are too many non Franciscan historians writing about Padre Pio and they don’t understand Franciscan discipline. To them, hiding a friar looks like a punishment. To us, the fact that a superior tells us that it is dangerous for us and the laity to be in contact is a cause of joy. We don’t like that much exposure. We prefer to spend most of our day in prayer or with our own brothers.
But this is not a suspension. Because in this case the person can celebrate the sacraments, but not for the laity or where the laity can see. Padre Pio celebrated mass in the enclosure chapel and the novices enjoyed going to his masses, because he has a wonderful sense of humor and he was an excellent preacher. His holiness came through in his homilies. But they were not meant for the laity until the superior general decided that it was safe.
When people don’t understand the job of a superior, they get confused and call things punishments or by other negative names, when for us, they are part of our life and we don’t think twice about them.
That’s the difference between a religious and a secular person. There are very few things that upset religious men. LOL
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
P
Phemie
Guest
You have to know where to look. The parish does exist but, unless the diocesan website is not up to date, Fr. Gravel is there in a capacity other than pastor.
diocesedejoliette.org/paroiss3.htm#joachim
By his own admission he left politics (but doesn’t rule out a return to it) because “Le Vatican a menacé de me laïciser si je me représentais. Ils ont demandé à mon évêque que dorénavant, on ne m’entende plus! Ce n’est pas très démocratique!”
“The Vatican threatened me with laicization if I ran for election again. They asked my bishop to ensure that I am not heard from again. That’s not very democratic.”
This priest’s thesis was on the birth of Jesus. His argument: Jesus’ conception and birth were not supernatural and Mary’s virginity should be understood in a strictly moral, not biological, sense.
Unfortunately, he’s not the only one to speak out against Cardinal Ouellet’s speech. Two priests from New Brunswick have also spoken to the media and unless they were misquoted, they both said that the Cardinal failed in his capacity as compassionate pastor and that he too quickly cut off the discourse on a question that is much more nuanced than first glance would indicate.
C
canadianguy1143
Guest
Thanks for the research and the links. I had the same website but since I don’t know french that well I had no idea that there was more than 1 page. It would appear that he is not a religious priest then eh?
Living in New Brunswick I would like to know what Priests in New Brunswick who have criticized the Cardinal.
P
Phemie
Guest
They were quoted in yesterday’s “L’Acadie Nouvelle”. I didn’t see anything on the subject in the English newspapers. I also don’t get the entire article since I don’t have a subscription to that paper.
- Status