A reader writes:
Recently a (catholic) parish priest left the church in our town rather
abruptly. About a year later, the community learned why. He has since left
the priesthood and married a teacher who was teaching in that same catholic
school. There have been a lot of questions concerning him .What does the church teach, as far as a priest leaving the priesthood to
marry, and what can we say in response to some of the negativity regarding
this issue?
It depends on the situation.
The Church regards it as a tragedy when a priest leaves the ministry but it recognizes that there are cases in which it is pastorally prudent to allow this to happen. As a result, the Church has a procedure known as laicization by which a priest can be returned to functioning in the Church as if he were a layman.
This means (among other things) that he can no longer celebrate the sacraments apart from emergency circumstances (e.g., hearing the confession of a dying man). There also are restrictions on the kind of public role he can play in parish life (the Chruch doesn’t want such individuals to have too high a profile because of the confusion it can cause the faithful). Laicized priests may, however, be able to marry.
On the other hand, some priests simply abandon their ministry and do not pursue laicization. Some of these then attempt marriage in a civil ceremony, which results in an invalid marriage because the sacrament of holy orders creates an impediment to marriage that must be dispensed if the marriage is to be valid. This applies even if the priest formally defects from the Church. The only way a priest can validly contrat marriage is if he is laicized first.
I’m not sure how to advise you regarding the "negativity" issue. The fact that this gentleman left the priesthood and in a short space of time married a woman who taught at the local Catholic school suggests that there was at least an inappropriate emotional relationship between the two (and possibly more than that) before he left the priesthood. It wasn’t simply that he concluded that he did not have a vocation. There was some kind of malfeasance on his part when he was still conducting his ministry–and that’s assuming that he did pursue laicization and is validly married to her now. (Given what you say, he may not be.)
There is an element of scandal here (in the sense of setting a bad example that may lead others into sin) and a sense of betrayal on the part of those who the priest and the teacher served, and it is natural for people to be negative toward a situation like this.
Excessive negativity, though, is likely to be a passing phenomenon, and I would probably counsel patience regarding it. It is likely to pass with time.
I wonder if the teacher is still teaching at the school? That would keep everything fresh in everyone’s mind. No healing.
Jimmy,
Would the laicization process be made public? In other words, would the local Bishop tell the parish what happened to the priest? If the priest wasn’t laicized and the priest married anyway, could the Bishop confirm that? It would certainly inform the parish on how to react to the newlyweds.
This lack of knowledge is always a problem. I know of several parishioners who are on their second marriages. They receive the sacraments. We don’t know if they have or haven’t received an anullment so I don’t know if a scandal is occuring. How should this be made known?
I know of several parishioners who are on their second marriages. They receive the sacraments. We don’t know if they have or haven’t received an anullment
This can happen in many different scenarios, as you’re pointing out.
The parishoners don’t know whether the priest was laicized.
Fellow parishoners don’t know whether first marriages have been annulled.
Fellow parishoners don’t know whether the couple without children is contracepting or infertile. (I have several infertile friends who are continually chastised by people who just assume they’re contracepting and never consider that they may be suffering infertility. Talk about rubbing salt in the wound!)
In many cases, we may never know the truth. In some cases, the truth may be revealed to us, and we can deal with it when the time somes. But I think that in all cases, we should apply the advice of the Catechism: “To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way” (2478).
Is there any way a priest can stop being a priest — not just leave the ministry through laicization?
Is there any way a priest can stop being a priest — not just leave the ministry through laicization?
All I’ve read says “No” to that. Holy Orders is a permanently soul-altering sacrament, like baptism. That’s why laicization doesn’t take away a priests ability to perform sacramental duties; it’s just illicit for him to do so outside of emergencies.
Part of the scandal of “former” priest married, as I see it, is the fact that they took a vow of celibacy, presumably, which they’re now or were then, violating. So I have a question:
Do parish priests take a vow of celibacy, or just a promise?
Is that vow or promise dispensible?
Does the laicization process dispense the priest from any religious vows or promises he took?
Breier, Jimmy already said “Laicized priests may, however, be able to marry.”
Pha,
That may be the case, but my question is how that can be, considering the priest took a life long vow of celibacy. A bishop can also ordain a baby, validly, but that wouldn’t make it licit. What grounds is there that a priest in the Latin rite can licitly receive the Sacrament of Matrimony?
It’s that which gives “ex”-priests the long-lasting stigma of a deserter, one who’s gone AWOL on his vocation and duty. I know there was a stream of laicizations in the sixties, but I’m told Pope John Paul II curtailed that significantly. In any event, I should think the more one valued the priesthood, the more shocking it would be to see someone abandon it. One should naturally be forgiving, but I’m not sure that means the stigma shouldn’t remain. It may serve a societal and spiritual good.
The Code of Canon Law (for the Latin Church, does not apply to Eastern Catholic Churches) says in canon 277:
Clerics are obliged to observe perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the Kingdom of heaven, and are therefore bound to celibacy. Celibacy is a special gift of God by which sacred ministers can more easily remain close to Christ with an undivided heart, and can dedicate themselves more freely to the service of God and their neighbor.
The Latin Church will only ordain celibate men. (Exceptional provisions are made for a few married men, like former Anglican priests, but they are not the norm.) As long as they function as priests, any attempt to marry after ordination is invalidated by the will of the Church, as expressed in Canon Law, prohibiting priests to marry. (Yes, ordination is a real impediment to marriage.) And, of course, all Catholics are required by moral law to remain chaste according to their state of life.
So vows of celibacy aren’t really required, though promises are made both implicitly and explicitly, because a priest is not actually able to marry as long as he functions as a priest.
However when a priest is laicized and his ministry is terminated, his promises of celibacy may be dispensed by the Church, allowing him to marry.
Why in the world should we stigmatize something the Church provides for and allows? Do we fancy ourselves holier than the Church? More Catholic than the Pope?
Someone who has been dispensed by the Church is neither AWOL nor a deserter. Save those terms for the men who abandon their ministry without the benefit of laicization.
I don’t see any contradiction. The church allows mixed marriages, but still looks down upon them. Similarly abandoning one’s vocation is looked down upon, even if one is ultimately given permission to do so.
The distinction here seems to be what the Church permits, and what it looks with favor upon.
I see a laicization a prudential decision, not a meritorious act of the person being laicized.
As for the AWOL, perhaps the more appropriate term would be coward, or lacking sufficient trust in divine grace. Because that’s what abandoning one’s vocation seems to be, isn’t it? I’d look down on a man who ran out on his wife, even if the marriage was subsequent annuled. Wouldn’t you?
I’m uncomfortable with these situations, but given that I’m a sinner myself, I don’t think I can really justify looking down on these folks. After killing Christ, I’m thinking I’ve got no room to talk.
I would be much more concerned about why someone was laicized (ie, is this person dangerous to kids, etc?).
Furthermore, if somebody got into the priesthood without really doing a good job of discernment or knowing what the Sacrament was about, and then realized he’d become a priest totally ignorantly… well, that’s certainly a good reason to laicize. If a priest gets a woman pregnant, I would far rather have him laicize and marry than stick around. In fact, if someone doesn’t want to be a priest, it’s also probably best he go. So none of this coward and deserter stuff, ne?
I also think it would be wise not to get too nasty on this topic, as there must be a good few people in St. Blog’s who know and care about laicized priests; and you could seriously hurt them by such remarks.
Maureen,
Fairly spoken. And I think we all agree that laicization serves a purpose. As for looking down, or moral judgment, however we call it, it’s certainly appropriate, even for sinners and hypocrites to do. How else do we have more standards, if we don’t have a public morality? We look down on racists, bigots, etc., not in the sense of judging their souls, or asserting some spiritual superiority, but in the sense of taking a horror at what they do, and making that horror publicly known. That’s what creates societal morality. But noone is advocating some sort of shunning, it’s rather being pointd out why a laicization is attended by a sense of scandal.
As for laicization, it seems to me that if agree the priesthood is not a job, then behind every laicization there is something drastically wrong. Just as there are no “happy divorces” I don’t see any happy laicizations either. And I agree that traditionally it was a punishment to limit the damage, not a morally salutary choice for a priest to make.
That’s basically my point, that I don’t see many situations where a priest is doing the right thing by seeking to be laicizated. I understand the church tolerates it, but it seems to me a vehicle to get the bad apples out. It seems to me that no matter how you became a priest, once you’re there you’ve got the grace, just as if you get involved in a hasty marriage, you make have a rougher time of it, but that’s no reason for divorce. And unlike marriage, which often presents compelling abusive, neglectful, or cruel circumstances which often demand seperation or civil divorce, I don’t see those kind of pressures in the priesthood.
And there is nothing nasty in speaking harshly about bad action. A public forum of shared punditry is quite different from a pastoral forum of conversation. A laicized priest is still called to holiness from his present condition, but I think that will only come after some resolution of what brought the person to that state to begin with. Many laicized priests are outstanding examples of Christian virtue, but that’s in spite of the laicization, I think, not because of it.
Regards,
Breier
Could a laicized priest give out communion in their parish? Would they be an ordinary or extraordinary minister of communion. Perhaps this would be too public of a ministry for them.
Just curious.
Good for that guy! There are waayyyy too many gay priests around. Also, people need to stop being babies and deal directly with their problems and quit wishing for magic from on high to deal with their problems! All too often Church speak with fork tongue!
Thank you for dropping by to spew your anti-Catholic bigotry–on a post over 3 years old. But he’s right about one thing: “people need to stop being babies”. One gets the impression he was looking in the mirror when he posted that.
“All too often Church speak with fork tongue!”
Hmm. Even if that were true, I suppose you want her to speak in broken English. 😉
Re: blasto: Dredging up three-year-old posts only to comment on extraneous subjects and still can’t come up with anything brilliant to say? That’s sad for you. How very frustrating it must be for religion-haters to spend their lives struggling to find a way to tear us away from our faith by telling us God won’t help us, when He keeps helping us.