Unlaicized Married Priest

[MaryAgnes]

Turtledove:

I certainly would not deny them Holy Communion, but I would definitely not allow them to be ministers in any Parish where I was Pastor.

Dove

I might be wrong, but given the circumstances of their scandalous invalid marriage, shouldn’t the pastor also address their receiving Communion?

 

[mercygate]

MaryAgnes:

I might be wrong, but given the circumstances of their scandalous invalid marriage, shouldn’t the pastor also address their receiving Communion?

Pray for that pastor. I recently was forced to confront a situation in which a person living in outright contravention of all Church morality and discipline, and supporting dissident “alternate lifestyle” organizations, was brought to my attention (as leader of a faith group) and also to the attention of his pastor. This person was a valued member of the parish council, an EMHC & reader – and the pastor knew of his lifestyle situation.

When I spoke with the pastor, he said, “What am I supposed to do, tell all my EMHC’s who are living in invalid marriages that they can’t serve any more? Don’t you think they will more likely come around if we accept them in love?”

So chances are, the Pastor has his head so far in the sand he doesn’t know what to do with himself . . . Their job is not easy. Pray that they will receive courage and pastoral wisdom to draw men to the fullness of life in Christ.

 

[MaryAgnes]

mercygate:

Pray for that pastor. I recently was forced to confront a situation in which a person living in outright contravention of all Church morality and discipline, and supporting dissident “alternate lifestyle” organizations, was brought to my attention (as leader of a faith group) and also to the attention of his pastor. This person was a valued member of the parish council, an EMHC & reader – and the pastor knew of his lifestyle situation.

When I spoke with the pastor, he said, “What am I supposed to do, tell all my EMHC’s who are living in invalid marriages that they can’t serve any more? Don’t you think they will more likely come around if we accept them in love?”

So chances are, the Pastor has his head so far in the sand he doesn’t know what to do with himself . . . Their job is not easy. Pray that they will receive courage and pastoral wisdom to draw men to the fullness of life in Christ.

But aren’t there liturgical minister “rubrics?”

 

[mercygate]

MaryAgnes:

But aren’t there liturgical minister “rubrics?”

I don’t think “rubrics” is the right word but I get your drift and yes, there are. And they are widely ignored. So pray for this pastor that he will step up and do his dooty. Not pleasant, for sure.

 

[MaryAgnes]

mercygate:

I don’t think “rubrics” is the right word but I get your drift and yes, there are. And they are widely ignored. So pray for this pastor that he will step up and do his dooty. Not pleasant, for sure.

I meant that quite tongue-in-cheek. But thank you for your prayers for our priest–he certainly needs them.

 

[MaryAgnes]

mercygate:

Laicized priests I know had to sign agreements never to minister in ANY way, including reading or teaching in CCD.

Can this be true???
We also have a **laicized priest ** who teaches a Bible Study! Would such a sanction be general or particular to the individual?

 

[mercygate]

Can this be true???
We also have a **laicized priest **who teaches a Bible Study! Would such a sanction be general or particular to the individual?

I believe it’s a pretty broad sanction. It might vary by diocese but another poster on this thread indicated that the sanction was universal. Perhaps cameron_lansing would know.

 

[MaryAgnes]

mercygate:

I believe it’s a pretty broad sanction. It might vary by diocese but another poster on this thread indicated that the sanction was universal. Perhaps cameron_lansing would know.

Thanks! I sent him an email … hopefully a response will be shortcoming!

 

[MaryAgnes]

cameron_lansing:

I hope MaryAgnes has derived sufficient additional courage to contact her bishop.

Although we too are sinners, we have no need of bad example.

I’m getting my courage up … However, this man (unlaicized married priest) was ordained in a neighboring diocese, not that far from here. Should I contact the Bishop of THAT diocese as well as my own Bishop? Since the man is not laicized, isn’t he still bound to obey his former bishop where he was ordained?

 

[midlandchemic]

MaryAgnes:

I’m getting my courage up … However, this man (unlaicized married priest) was ordained in a neighboring diocese, not that far from here. Should I contact the Bishop of THAT diocese as well as my own Bishop? Since the man is not laicized, isn’t he still bound to obey his former bishop where he was ordained?

Ultimately, every priest is incardinated to one bishop. A little legwork would tell you who has oversight of him since he’s not laicized. It’s very possible that the neighboring bishop is the proper authority and is unaware of the circumstances. For your own piece of mind, though, I wouldn’t just send a letter or call and explain to someone down the food chain. Document what can and pull together any supporting evidence. Call and ask for a meeting with the bishop (15 mins should be more than enough), explaining that it’s a highly sensitive matter that requires due discretion. Have everything in writing and well organized for the bishop and put it into his own hands. From personal experience, I can assure you that it is possible to actually get a meeting with your bishop and that something like this, with the potential for scandal, is something that is best left in his personal charge and not delegated to a Vicar.

 

[cameron_lansing]

Can this be true???
We also have a **laicized priest ** who teaches a Bible Study! Would such a sanction be general or particular to the individual?

mercygate:

I believe it’s a pretty broad sanction. It might vary by diocese but another poster on this thread indicated that the sanction was universal. Perhaps cameron_lansing would know.

Not all laicizations involve sanctions because sanctions are connected with a penal process and laicizations do not necessarily involve penal process. Please note that dispensation from the obligation of celibacy is a separate issue from loss of the clerical state. Through the loss of the clerical state, one is deprived of all office, functions, and any delegated power that would have been connected to his status as a cleric (c. 292).

Keep in mind that teaching, lectoring, and ministering Holy Communion are not matters of rights. Deciding who is qualified and appropriate to do what of these pertains to competent ecclesiastical authority for the good of the church.

The term “laicization” is used loosely in common practice but canons 290 and 291 are particularly salient.

The infliction of the penalty of dismissal from the clerical state legitimately imposed is presented in c. 290, 2º. A judicial proceeding involving a tribunal of three judges is required, among other things. This is properly styled as dismissal from the clerical state.

The proper use of the term "laicization"is treated in c. 290, 3º, and involves a rescript from the Apostolic See. A rescript is a reply in response to a petition. This rescript is only granted to deacons for grave causes and presbyters for most grave causes. Such a rescript dispenses the deacon or priest from the obligations of the clerical state. Normally these are voluntarily sought by petition.

However, in recent years, there have been situations of imposed laicization. Bishops with certainty of proof of some serious offense by a cleric have directly approached the Apostolic See, even without the knowledge of the cleric, and effectively bypassed the provision of canon 290, 2º above. The Holy Father himself then laicized the cleric.

I have consulted several rescripts of laicization in translation. These were published and made available to canonists after all identifying information was expunged from them.

I will post the typical scenario shortly.

 

[cameron_lansing]

cameron_lansing:

… the typical scenario…

The dispensed priest was excluded from the exercise of sacred ministry (the emergencies of canons 976 and 986 § 2 being excluded), of discharging the extraordinary ministry of distributing Holy Communion, giving a homily or performing a “directive office” in the pastoral field. He was forbidden from functioning in seminaries, or other institutions of higher studies which depend on ecclesiastical authority. In the case of institutions of higher studies which did not depend on an ecclesiastical authority, he was not to teach any discipline either properly theological or closely connected with it.

Now in the case of institutions of lesser studies which depend on ecclesiastical authority, such as a parish program might involve, he was prevented from directing or teaching, “unless the ordinary, according to his prudent judgement and with scandal removed, should judge to decide otherwise with regard to the role of teaching.”

Part of another rescript provided for this relevant ban and also mentions a typical restriction on residence and liturgical functions:

“5. e) in institutions of lesser studies which depend upon ecclesiastical authority, he cannot discharge a directive function or the office of teaching a properly theological discipline. A dispensed priest is bound by the same law in teaching religion in institutions of this type which do not depend upon ecclesiastical authority. f) by this very fact, a priest dispensed from priestly celibacy and, all the more, one who joined in marriage must not live in places where his previous condition is known, nor can he function anywhere in the service of a lector or acolyte or for the distribution of eucharistic communion.”

But then it continued: “6. The Ordinary of the diocese of the petitioner’s domicile or the place where he is staying, on the basis of his prudent judgment and properly informed conscience, after having heard any interested parties and given consideration to the circumstances, can dispense from some or all of the clauses given above under letters e and f.”

Rescripts for dispensed deacons normally do not mention restrictions on residence or liturgical functions. Finally, remember that laicization as well as penal dismissal sever the bonds of incardination, that is, the legal and spiritual attachment to a diocese or religious institute or personal prelature. It thus falls on the ordinary of the petitioner’s residence to determine, if the rescript gives him that power, whether or not he will dispense from those certain restrictions above.

But when laicization has been imposed or dismissal from the clerical state has been imposed there will probably be greater restrictions. The rescript of dismissal I consulted allowed the ordinary to dispense from the restriction on residence, provided no scandal would arise (and here that’s a judgment call the bishop has to make even though later events might cause second guessing). However, it did not provide for the ordinary to dispense from the prohibitions as in “5. e)” above.

All of that having been said, one would have to consult an individual rescript for details.

But it would be possible, and would seem likely, in MaryAgnes’ case of a dispensed priest teaching Bible Study, that the diocesan bishop in which a properly laicized priest lives has sized up the situation and permitted him to teach. Remember that this man did go through the proper channels and is in the good graces of the Church. We don’t know the circumstances of his laicization and don’t have the right to know them. He does have a right to protect his privacy and to a good reputation.

In the case at hand about the unlaicized priest, the bishop of the diocese in which the man is conducting these functions should be approached.

 

[MaryAgnes]

cameron_lansing:

Not all laicizations involve sanctions because sanctions are connected with a penal process and laicizations do not necessarily involve penal process. Please note that dispensation from the obligation of celibacy is a separate issue from loss of the clerical state. Through the loss of the clerical state, one is deprived of all office, functions, and any delegated power that would have been connected to his status as a cleric (c. 292).

Keep in mind that teaching, lectoring, and ministering Holy Communion are not matters of rights. Deciding who is qualified and appropriate to do what of these pertains to competent ecclesiastical authority for the good of the church.

The term “laicization” is used loosely in common practice but canons 290 and 291 are particularly salient.

The infliction of the penalty of dismissal from the clerical state legitimately imposed is presented in c. 290, 2º. A judicial proceeding involving a tribunal of three judges is required, among other things. This is properly styled as dismissal from the clerical state.

The proper use of the term "laicization"is treated in c. 290, 3º, and involves a rescript from the Apostolic See. A rescript is a reply in response to a petition. This rescript is only granted to deacons for grave causes and presbyters for most grave causes. Such a rescript dispenses the deacon or priest from the obligations of the clerical state. Normally these are voluntarily sought by petition.

However, in recent years, there have been situations of imposed laicization. Bishops with certainty of proof of some serious offense by a cleric have directly approached the Apostolic See, even without the knowledge of the cleric, and effectively bypassed the provision of canon 290, 2º above. The Holy Father himself then laicized the cleric.

I have consulted several rescripts of laicization in translation. These were published and made available to canonists after all identifying information was expunged from them.

I will post the typical scenario shortly.

Thanks John, for the great explanation and for the scenario … I’m still digesting all it says, but I do appreciate your thoroughness and prompt reply!

Blessings!