On January 30, 2009, Pope Benedict XVI conceded to the Congregation for the Clergy the Special Faculty to handle and present to the Holy Father for his approval cases of dismissal from the clerical state with dispensation from all obligations including celibacy. Below is the document followed by comments from two transitioned priests. At the bottom under "comments" you will find other interesting reflections from transitioned priests and others about this document. Click on "comments" to share your views.
~
Vatican City, 18th April 2009
Prot. N. 2009 0556
Your Eminence, Your Excellency,
On the 30th January last, the Supreme Pontiff granted certain special faculties to this Congregation. The purpose of this Circular Letter is to present these faculties to all Ordinaries so that the reasoning behind them and the ends which they seek to accomplish are clearly understood in the manner in which they were originally intended.
On the 30th January last, the Supreme Pontiff granted certain special faculties to this Congregation. The purpose of this Circular Letter is to present these faculties to all Ordinaries so that the reasoning behind them and the ends which they seek to accomplish are clearly understood in the manner in which they were originally intended.
The Congregation was moved to write this letter to the Most Rev. Ordinaries by virtue of its ardent desire to honour the mission and person of those priests who, faithful to their authentic priestly identity and mission, think, act and live in a counter-cultural manner in this heavily secularized moment in history, as well as to assist the Successors of the Apostles in their daily task of preserving and promoting ecclesiastical discipline for the benefit of the entire body of believers.
1. The ministerial priesthood has its roots in the apostolic succession and is imbued with sacred power[1] which consists of the faculty and the responsibility of acting in the person of Christ, Head and Shepherd[2]. "The missionary dimension of the priest is born from his sacramental configuration to Christ the Head: this carries with itself, as a consequence, a happy and total adhesion to that which the tradition of the Church has called the apostolica vivendi forma. This consists in participating in a spiritually intense "new life", in that "new style of life" which has been inaugurated by the Lord Jesus and has been lived by the Apostles themselves../..Certainly, a great ecclesial tradition has distinguished the sacramental efficacy from the concrete existential situation of the individual priest, in this way sufficiently safeguarding the legitimate expectations of the faithful. However, this right doctrinal precision takes nothing away from the necessary, indeed the indispensible tension leading towards moral perfection, which must find a place in every authentically priestly heart"[3]. Therefore, priests are called to continue the presence of Christ, the one high priest, embodying His way of life and making Him visible in the midst of the flock entrusted to their care[4]: this is the true source of strength for every pastoral vocation, which is constituted by the lived coherent testimony of one's consecration, nourished by prayer and penitence.
2. All this is particularly important in understanding the theological reasoning behind priestly celibacy, since the will of the Church concerning it finds its expression, ultimately, in that particularly appropriate link which exists between celibacy and priestly Ordination whereby the priest is configured to Jesus Christ, Head and Spouse of the Church. The Church, being the Spouse of Jesus Christ, wishes to be loved in the total and exclusive manner with which Jesus Christ loved her, as her Head and Spouse. Priestly celibacy is, therefore, the gift of oneself in and with Christ to His Church, and expresses the service of the priest to the Church in and with the Lord[5]. Indeed, for this reason the Church has reaffirmed at the Second Vatican Council and repeatedly in the subsequent Pontifical Magisterium the "firm will to maintain the law that demands perpetual and freely chosen celibacy for present and future candidates for priestly ordination in the Latin rite"[6]. Priestly celibacy, as indeed apostolic celibacy more generally, is a gift that the Church has received and wishes to protect, convinced as she is that this is a good for herself and for the world. To this end can.277, C.I.C. states: "§1. Clerics are obliged to observe perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the kingdom of heaven and therefore are bound to celibacy which is a special gift of God by which sacred ministers can adhere more easily to Christ with an undivided heart and are able to dedicate themselves more freely to the service of God and humanity. §2. Clerics are to behave with due prudence towards persons whose company can endanger their obligation to observe continence or give rise to scandal among the faithful. §3. The diocesan bishop is competent to establish more specific norms concerning this matter and to pass judgment in particular cases concerning the observance of this obligation".[7]
3. The Bishop has, among other things, the duty to remind priests of their obligation to perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven, an obligation freely and willing assumed by them at the moment of their ordination. Moreover, the Bishop must always be attentive that the priest is faithful in carrying out his proper ministerial duties (Cf. can. 384, 392). In fact "Bishops, as vicars and ambassadors of Christ, govern the particular churches entrusted to them by their counsel, exhortations, example, and even by their authority and sacred power"[8]. There exists between them and their priests a communio sacramentalis by virtue of the ministerial and hierarchic priesthood, which is a participation in the one priesthood of Christ[9].
Certainly the bond of subordination between priests and the Bishop concerns the area of the exercise of their proper ministry, which they must exercise in hierarchical communion with their own Bishop. The relationship which exists between the Bishop and his priests cannot, in its canonical aspects, be reduced either to the relationship of hierarchic subordination of public law in the juridical system or to a dependent relationship of an employer to an employee[10]. It is not uncommon to find in society those who, misunderstanding the sacramental relationship of the Bishop to priest, mistakenly perceive it as the same as that which exists between a director of a business and his workforce.
In this type of situation, "since he must protect the unity of the universal Church, a bishop is bound to promote the common discipline of the whole Church and therefore to urge the observance of all ecclesiastical laws" (can. 392, §1) and he must be vigilant lest abuses insinuate themselves into ecclesiastical discipline (cf. can. 392, §2 CIC).
In fact the diocesan Bishop must accompany priests with particular concern, ensuring that their rights are protected (Cf. can. 384). The vast majority of priests live out their priestly identity daily with serenity and exercise faithfully their proper ministry; but, "when situations of scandal arise, especially on the part of the Church's ministers, the Bishop must act firmly and decisively, justly and serenely. In these lamentable cases, the Bishop is required to act promptly, according to the established canonical norms, for the spiritual good of the persons involved, for the reparation of scandal, and for the protection and assistance of the victims"[11]. In this context even the penalty ultimately provided for by the Bishop, "is seen as an instrument of communion that is as a means to restore what is lacking in the individual and in the common good, when members of the People of God act in an anti-ecclesial manner which is criminal and scandalous"[12].
One must make clear, however, that the diocesan priest, who is not merely the passive executor of commands received from the Bishop, enjoys autonomy in making decisions both in his ministry and in his personal and private life. Thus he is personally responsible for his personal actions and for those carried out in the scope of his ministry. As a consequence, a Bishop cannot be held juridically responsible for the acts which a diocesan priest carries out in transgression of the canonical norms, universal or particular. This principle is not new and has always been part of the patrimony of the Church, means, among other things, that the criminal action of a priest, and its penal consequences as well as any eventual payment of damages, is imputable to the priest who has committed the offence, and not to the Bishop or to the Diocese, of which the Bishop is the legal representative (Cf. can. 393)[13].
4. It is reaffirmed that in exercising his judicial function, the Bishop should keep in mind the following general criteria:
(a) Without prejudicing the exercise of justice, the Bishop should encourage the faithful to resolve their differences peacefully and seek to be reconciled at the earliest opportunity, even after the canonical process has begun, thereby avoiding the prolonged animosity to which judicial processes often give rise (Cf. can. 1446 CIC).
(b) The Bishop should observe and require others to observe the procedural norms established for the exercise of judicial power, since he recognizes that these rules are no mere formality, still less an obstacle to be circumvented, but are a necessary means for establishing the facts and for administering justice (Cf. cann. 135, §3 and 391 CIC).
(c) If he receives notice of behaviour which gravely damages the common good of the Church, the Bishop should investigate with discretion, either by himself or through a delegate, the facts and the imputability of the accused (Cf. can. 1717 CIC). When he judges that he has assembled sufficient proof of the facts which gave rise to the scandal, he should proceed formally to correct or admonish the accused (Cf. cann 1339-1340 CIC). Yet when this does not suffice to repair the scandal, restore justice and bring about the rehabilitation of the person, the Bishop should proceed with the imposition of penalties, which may be applied in either of two ways (cfr. cann. 1341 and 1718 CIC)
- by means of a regular penal process in a case for which canon law requires it, given the gravity of the penalty, or when the Bishop judges it more prudent (Cf. can. 1721 CIC);
- by means of an extra judicial decree, in conformity with the procedure established in canon law (Cf. can. 1720 CIC)»[14]
5. However, one must acknowledge that situations of grave lack of discipline on the part of some clergy have occurred in which the attempts to resolve the problems by the pastoral and canonical means, foreseen in the Code of Canon Law, are shown to be insufficient or unsuitable to repair scandal, to restore justice or to reform the offender (Cf. can. 1341 CIC).
This Dicastery, with the intention of promoting the salus animarum, the supreme law of the Church, and responding to the exigencies often sadly experienced by not a few Bishops in their day to day governance, decided that it was opportune to place the aforementioned special faculties before the Sovereign Pontiff for his consideration and on the 30th January last, the Supreme Pontiff conceded to this Congregation:
I The Special Faculty to treat and present to the Holy Father, for His approval in forma specifica and His decision, cases of dismissal from the clerical state in poenam with dispensation from the obligations consequent to ordination, including that of celibacy, of clerics who have attempted marriage, even if only civilly, and who, having been admonished, have not withdrawn from this state, therefore persisting in an irregular and scandalous life (Cf. can. 1394, §1); and of clerics guilty of grave sins against the 6th Commandment (Cf. can. 1395, §§1‑2);
II The Special Faculty to intervene in accord with c. 1399 CIC, either by taking direct action in a case or by confirming the decisions of Ordinaries, were the competent Ordinary so to request, due to the special gravity of the violation of law and the need or urgency to avoid an objective scandal.
This is granted along with the derogation from the prescriptions of canons 1317, 1319, 1342, §2 and 1349 CIC, with respect to the application of perpetual penalties, to be applied to deacons only for grave reasons and to priests for the gravest reasons, always requiring that such cases are presented to the Holy Father for His approval in forma specifica and for His decision, and,
III The Special Faculty to handle cases of clerics, who having freely abandoned the ministry for a period of more than five consecutive years and who, after careful verification of the facts, insofar as this is possible, persist in such freely chosen and illicit absence from the ministry, taking this situation into account, to declare then their dismissal from the clerical state, with dispensation from the obligations consequent to ordination, including that of celibacy.
Once the necessary conditions are present, if a Prelate deems it appropriate to avail himself of the foregoing faculties, he should be aware of the following information and procedures.
6. This Congregation has studied the cases of clerics, priests and deacons, who:
attempt marriage, even civilly and, having been warned, have not withdrawn from this state, but instead have persevered in their irregular and scandalous conduct (Cf. can. 1394 § 1);
live in concubinage and commit other grave delicts against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue (cf. can. 1395 §1-2) and who do not demonstrate any sign of mending their ways, despite repeated warnings, nor show any intention to request the dispensation from the obligations arising from Sacred Ordination.
Often in such cases, the penalty of "suspension" and of irregularity, in the sense of can. 1044 §1, 3°15, have not been demonstrated to be sufficiently effective or suitable to repair the scandal caused, to restore justice, and to reform the offender (Cf. can. 1341). In fact, only through dismissal from the clerical state, according to the norm of can. 292 CIC, would the cleric also lose the rights pertaining thereto and would no longer be bound by any obligations of that state.[15]
Hence, His Holiness has deigned to concede to the Congregation for the Clergy the special faculties to:
to handle and present to the Holy Father, for His approval in forma specifica and decision, cases of dismissal from the clerical state in poenam with the consequent dispensation from the obligations consequent to ordination, including that of celibacy, of clerics who have attempted marriage, even if only civilly, and who, having been admonished, have not withdrawn from this state, therefore persisting in an irregular and scandalous life (Cf can. 1394, §1); and of clerics guilty of grave sins against the 6th Commandment (Cf can. 1395, §§1-2).
Such cases must be instructed by means of a legitimate administrative process, always ensuring the right of defence.
With regard to the administrative procedure (Cf. cann. 35-58, 1342, 1720 CIC), such cases are to be instructed only by clerics, and it must be ensured that:
1° the accused is notified of the accusations alleged against him and of the relevant proofs, giving him the opportunity to produce a defence, unless, having been legitimately cited, he has neglected to make himself available;
2° a careful examination is carried out, with the help of two assessors (Cf. cann. 1424 CIC) of all the proofs and the elements that have been gathered, as well as of the defence presented by the accused;
3° a Decree is issued, according to the provisions of canons 1344 — 1350 CIC, if there be no doubts about the delict having been committed and the criminal action has not become extinct according to the provisions of can. 1362. The Decree, issued according to the norm of canons 35 — 38, must contain the reasons motivating it, and have expounded therein, even if only in summary fashion, the reasons in law and in fact pertaining to the particular situation.
7. Moreover, it must always be shown that a situation exists in which discipline has been gravely breached by the cleric, and every attempt to resolve the problem through the pastoral and canonical measures already provided in the Code of Canon Law have not brought about a positive result, and no end is foreseen to this situation, thus causing grave scandal to the faithful and damaging the common good of the Church and Her spiritual mission.
In such circumstances, Ordinaries have often requested direct action from the Apostolic See, or have asked that their decisions be confirmed, in order to deal with these matters with greater efficacy and authority, sometimes even seeking the imposition of perpetual sanctions, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state, should the particular circumstances of a case require it.
Therefore His Holiness has deigned to concede to the Congregation for the Clergy the Special Faculty to intervene in accord with can. 1399 CIC, either by taking direct action in a case or by confirming the decisions of Ordinaries, were the competent Ordinary were to so request, due to the special gravity of the violation of law and the need or urgency to avoid an objective scandal.
This is granted along with the derogation from the prescriptions of canons 1317, 1319, 1342, §2 and 1349 CIC, with respect to the application of perpetual penalties, to be applied to deacons only for grave reasons and to priests for the gravest reasons, always requiring that such cases are presented to the Holy Father for His approval in forma specifica and His decision.
This provides the special faculty of intervening according to the sense of can. 1399 CIC, either by the Dicastery acting directly itself or by confirming the decisions of Ordinaries, whenever the competent Ordinary should request this, in order to apply a just penalty or penance for an external violation of divine or canon law. In truly exceptional and urgent cases, when the offender has no intention to amend his ways, sometimes even perpetual penalties may be imposed.
Such cases must be instructed by means of a legitimate administrative process, always ensuring the right of defence.
8. This Congregation has experience of cases of priests and deacons who have abandoned ministry for a prolonged and continuous time. In these cases, after verifying the circumstances insofar as possible, the persistence of such an illicit and voluntary absence from ministry is ascertained, it was decided that the intervention of the Holy See would guarantee order in the ecclesiastical society and would preserve the faithful from falling into error communis (cf. c. 144) regarding the validity of the Sacraments.
Therefore His Holiness has deigned to concede to the Congregation for the Clergy the special faculty to:
handle the cases of clerics, who have abandoned the ministry by personal choice for a period of more than five consecutive years, and after careful verification of the facts insofar as this is possible, persist in such voluntary and illicit absence, the Dicastery, taking this objective situation into account, may declare the dismissal from the clerical state, with dispensation from the obligations consequent to ordination, including that of celibacy, for the cleric involved.
Such cases, even those pre-existing the granting of this faculty, must be instructed according to the following procedure:
Art. 1 The Ordinary of Incardination may request a Rescript of the Apostolic See by which dismissal from the clerical state is declared, along with the related dispensations from the obligations consequent to ordination, including that of celibacy, for a cleric who has abandoned ministry for a period of longer than five consecutive years, and who after careful verification of the facts, insofar as possible, persists in the voluntary and illicit absence from ministry.
Art. 2 §1 The competent Ordinary is that of the incardination of the cleric.
§2 The competent Ordinary can entrust the instruction of such procedures either in a stable manner, or on a cases by case basis, to a suitable priest from his own or another Diocese.
§3 In this procedure the Promoter of Justice, who has a duty to protect the public good, must always be involved.
Art. 3 The declaration mentioned in Art. 1 can be obtained only after the competent Ordinary, having completed the relevant investigation, has reached moral certainty regarding the irreversible abandonment from ministry on the part of the cleric, from either the declaration of the cleric himself, and/or from the depositions of witnesses, from well founded public knowledge or other indications.
Art. 4 The notification of any of the acts must be made through the postal service or by other secure means.
Art. 5 The instructor, having completed the instruction, should transmit all of the acts to the competent Ordinary with his appropriate summary, expounding his votum according to the objective facts of the situation.
Art. 6 The competent Ordinary should transmit to the Apostolic See all of the acts together with his own votum and the observations of the Promoter of Justice.
Art. 7 If in the judgement of the Apostolic See, supplementary instruction is required, that will be indicated to the competent Ordinary, with directions as to how to complete the "Acts."
Art. 8 The Rescript of dismissal from the clerical state, with the related dispensation from the obligations attendant upon Holy Orders, including that of celibacy, is transmitted from the Holy See to the competent Ordinary, who will provide for making it known in an appropriate fashion.
Art. 9. After the dismissal from the clerical state, in exceptional cases, a cleric who might wish to seek rehabilitation, must present that request to the Apostolic See through a benevolent Bishop.
The sincere desire of this Congregation is that each Ordinary may, in a truly paternal fashion and in a spirit of pastoral charity, undertake to ensure that his most valued collaborators know how to live ecclesiastical discipline as "discipleship", with profound interior motivations, remembering that the daily exertion of "doing" is of little value if there is not the "being in Christ" as an authentic disciple.
Claudio Cardinal HummesPrefect
Mauro Piacenz,Titular Archbishop of Vittoriana Secretary
[1] Cf. VATICAN COUNCIL II, Dogmatic Constitution. Lumen Gentium, nn. 10, 18, 27, 28; deer. Presbyterorum Ordinis, nn. 2, 6; CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, nn. 1538, 1576.
[2] Cfr. John Paul II, Post Synodal Apostolic Exhortation. Pastores Dabo Vobis (25th March 1992) n. 15: AAS 84 (1992), pp. 679-681; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 875; Congregation for the Clergy, Pontifical Council For The Laity, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Congregation for Bishops, Congregation for fhe Evangelisation of Peoples, Congregation for the Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts, Instruction on certain questions regarding the collaboration of the non-ordained faithful in the sacred ministry of Priest, Ecclesiae de Mysterio, (15 August 1997): AAS 89 (1997), pp. 860ff.
[3] POPE BENEDICT XVI, Allocution to the participants in the General Assembly of the Congregation for the Clergy (16 March 2009).
[4] Cf. JOHN PAUL II, Post Synodal Apostolic Exhortation, Pastores Dabo Vobis (25th March 1992), n. 15, l.c. pp. 679 — 681.
[5] JOHN PAUL II, Post Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Pastores Dabo Vobis (25th March 1992), n. 29, L.c., p. 704.
[6] Ibid.; Cfr. VATICAN COUNCIL II, Decree Presbyterorum Ordinis, n. 16; PAUL VI, Encyclical Letter Sacerdotalis Coelibatus (24th June 1967), n. 14: AAS 59 (1967), p. 662; C.I.C., can. 277, §1.
[7] Cf. CONGREGATION FOR THE CLERGY, Directory for the Ministry and Life of Priests, Tota Ecclesia, (31 January 1994), pp. 57-60.
[8] Vatican Council II, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, n. 27.
[9] Cf. VATICAN COUNCIL II, Decree Presbyterorum Ordinis, n. 7; JOHN PAUL II, Post Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Pastores Gregis (16th October 2003), n. 47 : AAS 96 (2004), pp. 887-888.
[10] Cf. PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR LEGISLATIVE TEXTS, Explanatory Note: Elements to establish the area of canonical responsibility of the diocesan Bishop towards clerics incardinated within the diocese and who exercise their ministry within it (12th February 2004): Communicationes, 36 (2004), pp. 33-38. Cf. also Congregation for the Clergy, Declaration: Quidam Episcopi (8th March 1982): AAS 74 (1982), pp.
642-645.
[11] Congregation for Bishops, Directory for the Pastoral Ministry of Bishops: Apostolorum Successores, (22nd February 2004), n. 44.
[12] John Paul II, Allocution to the Roman Rota (17th February 1979): Insegnamenti di Giovanni Paolo II,(1979/2) p. 412.
[13] Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Explanatory Note: Elements to establish the area of canonical responsibility of the diocesan Bishop towards clerics incardinated within the diocese and who exercise their ministry within it (12th February 2004), in Communicationes, 36 (2004) pp. 33-38.
[14] Congregation for Bishops, Directory for the Pastoral Ministry of Bishops: Apostolorum Successores, (22nd February 2004), p. 68.
[15] Cf. also Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Declaration: Concerning the celebration of sacraments or sacramentals by priests who have attempted marriage (19th May 1997): Communicationes 29 (1997), pp. 17-18.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From Transitioned Priests Henry and Conrad:
Questions have been raised regarding the canonical status of priests who have transitioned from the priesthood. This question is not easily answered but perhaps the following will be helpful. It all falls under “the laicization process”, which is to say, the process by which a priest is, dare we say, as they said before the 1983 code, reduced to the lay state (Now it is called “Losing the Clerical State”). Of course, this “reduction” is only for ecclesiastical purposes and the maintenance of order and control within the institution. It probably doesn’t mean much in the eyes of God, but makes for a power rush for those who perceive themselves as having such authority.
~
The usual way in which a priest obtains an indult of laicization is as follows (an indult is a dispensation granted by the pope; the word is from the same root as “indulge”—breaking away from prescribed law).
~
1) The priest makes his request known to the bishop (the so-called “ordinary”) of his diocese. At this point he is usually asked to resign any ecclesiastical offices that he holds.
~
The usual way in which a priest obtains an indult of laicization is as follows (an indult is a dispensation granted by the pope; the word is from the same root as “indulge”—breaking away from prescribed law).
~
1) The priest makes his request known to the bishop (the so-called “ordinary”) of his diocese. At this point he is usually asked to resign any ecclesiastical offices that he holds.
~
2) The bishop or his delegate interviews the priest with a prepared questionnaire, seeking information about the priest’s background, reasons for the request, etc. About 25 years ago, it was said that dispensations were being granted only to those over 60 years of age who had been in a marriage for at least ten years, or to a priest who was in proximate danger of death. It appears their desire was to save the priest from damnation if he died without this indult. But it is silly to think that this indult has any authority over the Almighty. Since the indult of laicization is granted only for very serious reasons—and apparently the simple desire to get married isn’t a sufficiently serious reason—the priest requesting the indult ordinarily must admit and offer evidence that, at the time of his commitment to be ordained, he was psychologically unfit to make that decision—a rather degrading demand.
2) The bishop or his delegate interviews the priest with a prepared questionnaire, seeking information about the priest’s background, reasons for the request, etc. About 25 years ago, it was said that dispensations were being granted only to those over 60 years of age who had been in a marriage for at least ten years, or to a priest who was in proximate danger of death. It appears their desire was to save the priest from damnation if he died without this indult. But it is silly to think that this indult has any authority over the Almighty. Since the indult of laicization is granted only for very serious reasons—and apparently the simple desire to get married isn’t a sufficiently serious reason—the priest requesting the indult ordinarily must admit and offer evidence that, at the time of his commitment to be ordained, he was psychologically unfit to make that decision—a rather degrading demand.
~
3) The bishop submits the petition to Rome, along with his own notes and recommendations.
3) The bishop submits the petition to Rome, along with his own notes and recommendations.
~
4) The case is reviewed in Rome and, if sufficiently compelling, is submitted to the pope, who issues the indult, which they claim to be issued under God’s authority.
4) The case is reviewed in Rome and, if sufficiently compelling, is submitted to the pope, who issues the indult, which they claim to be issued under God’s authority.
~
5) The indult is sent, not to the priest, but to the bishop. It does not take effect until the bishop, either personally or through a representative, presents it to the priest and the priest accepts it (the priest may have changed his mind in the meantime!) When the indult has been accepted by the priest, the ordinary advises him of a number of restrictions (not to live in any place where he has served as a priest, not teach in a Catholic school, not teach theology in ANY school, among others). It looks as if this priest is now considered dangerous and the Bishop is afraid he may lead others astray. However, the bishop is authorized to lift these restrictions if and as he sees fit.
~
Bishops are admonished to see to it that the priest is making a mature decision after ample introspection and deliberation. Above all, they are to avoid giving the impression that this is simply an administrative function in which the request is routinely and automatically granted. Priests are to understand the seriousness of the matter and that the indult is not only the action of the Church but that God is supposedly involved as well.
~
The Code of Canon Law provides for three ways in which a priest can be laicized. He can be reduced to the lay state if:
~
1) It can be shown that he received Holy Orders invalidly (extremely rare).
5) The indult is sent, not to the priest, but to the bishop. It does not take effect until the bishop, either personally or through a representative, presents it to the priest and the priest accepts it (the priest may have changed his mind in the meantime!) When the indult has been accepted by the priest, the ordinary advises him of a number of restrictions (not to live in any place where he has served as a priest, not teach in a Catholic school, not teach theology in ANY school, among others). It looks as if this priest is now considered dangerous and the Bishop is afraid he may lead others astray. However, the bishop is authorized to lift these restrictions if and as he sees fit.
~
Bishops are admonished to see to it that the priest is making a mature decision after ample introspection and deliberation. Above all, they are to avoid giving the impression that this is simply an administrative function in which the request is routinely and automatically granted. Priests are to understand the seriousness of the matter and that the indult is not only the action of the Church but that God is supposedly involved as well.
~
The Code of Canon Law provides for three ways in which a priest can be laicized. He can be reduced to the lay state if:
~
1) It can be shown that he received Holy Orders invalidly (extremely rare).
~
2) If he is living in concubinage or has engaged in seriously scandalous behavior or has abandoned his ministry for a period of at least five years, in which cases competent authority can impose the laicization. Recently new procedures were put in place by the Vatican for streamlining this route to laicization (though they do not apply in cases involving pedophilia, which require special procedures). Formerly, a bishop wishing to laicize such a priest was required to invoke a judicial trial in his tribunal; now, he can laicize such priests through a speedier and simpler administrative process, while, however, respecting the priest’s right to due process. This form of laicization is commonly referred to as “defrocking the priest,” and is enacted as a penalty for what the Church considers to be the priest’s crimes against the clerical state, in order to safeguard the clerical office, disavow the behavior and encourage other priests to avoid such behavior.
2) If he is living in concubinage or has engaged in seriously scandalous behavior or has abandoned his ministry for a period of at least five years, in which cases competent authority can impose the laicization. Recently new procedures were put in place by the Vatican for streamlining this route to laicization (though they do not apply in cases involving pedophilia, which require special procedures). Formerly, a bishop wishing to laicize such a priest was required to invoke a judicial trial in his tribunal; now, he can laicize such priests through a speedier and simpler administrative process, while, however, respecting the priest’s right to due process. This form of laicization is commonly referred to as “defrocking the priest,” and is enacted as a penalty for what the Church considers to be the priest’s crimes against the clerical state, in order to safeguard the clerical office, disavow the behavior and encourage other priests to avoid such behavior.
~
3) The priest desires to be dispensed from the obligation of celibacy and removed from the clerical state, thus making him, for legal (canonical) purposes, a layman.
~
There is no provision in canon law for automatic laicization, for whatever reason or cause. However, if a priest gets married (attempts marriage, in the Church’s view, which presumes to act with God’s authority), he is by that fact automatically suspended. This forbids him to act in the role of a priest. It takes away any faculties he may have enjoyed, such as assisting at marriages or hearing confessions. Thus, in effect, it is somewhat like laicization. One major difference, however, is that the priest is not dispensed from the obligation of celibacy, nor is he removed from the ranks of the clergy. He must first, by requesting to be laicized, offer homage to Church authority and recognize God’s subjugation to this authority. Only then can he receive the sacraments.
~
Dismissal from the clerical state and dispensation from the obligation of celibacy are treated as distinct issues. A priest can lose his clerical status (for example, by being “defrocked”) without being released from his obligation of celibacy (though the streamlined procedures cited above seem to be designed to dispense from celibacy as well), because the Church desires to continue to have authority over the priest’s sexuality. However, when a priest is released from his vow of celibacy by way of dispensation — and this is what is usually sought — he is also by that very fact removed from the clerical state, because the Church, usually, insists on celibacy within the clerical ranks.
~
Excommunication is an entirely different matter. The purpose of excommunication is to draw the person toward repentance and reconciliation. Automatic excommunication (latae sententiae) is restricted to those situations that are explicitly named in the Code of Canon Law (e.g. breaking the seal of confession, abortion, assaulting a priest, desecrating the Sacred Species, etc.) The list includes nothing about, for example, a priest getting married without a dispensation from celibacy.
~
It would certainly be nice if the dispensed priest were given some kind of rite of passage, during which he could be thanked for his years of service to the Church, etc., but the hierarchy probably deems this imprudent because it might encourage other priests also to leave. It is too bad that the dispensed priest becomes a pariah of sorts—someone who couldn’t “cut the mustard” and “walk the line.” Often the priest is perceived as losing his faith. For most of them, however, leaving the priesthood was in response to a maturing faith that could no longer accept a Church claiming such authority over themselves and over God. From the Church’s point of view, he leaves in shame, and should be seen by the faithful as leaving in shame, so that other priests will be discouraged from leaving. However, the majority of people served through his ministry still respect him and even feel compassion for him, especially with respect to the heavy yoke of celibacy that the Church lays on his shoulders. Normally, 80% or more of the laity wish the transitioning priest well and are saddened to see him leave. Statistics have repeatedly shown that they would prefer that celibacy became optional for the priest and that their pastor could remain with them as a married priest.
3) The priest desires to be dispensed from the obligation of celibacy and removed from the clerical state, thus making him, for legal (canonical) purposes, a layman.
~
There is no provision in canon law for automatic laicization, for whatever reason or cause. However, if a priest gets married (attempts marriage, in the Church’s view, which presumes to act with God’s authority), he is by that fact automatically suspended. This forbids him to act in the role of a priest. It takes away any faculties he may have enjoyed, such as assisting at marriages or hearing confessions. Thus, in effect, it is somewhat like laicization. One major difference, however, is that the priest is not dispensed from the obligation of celibacy, nor is he removed from the ranks of the clergy. He must first, by requesting to be laicized, offer homage to Church authority and recognize God’s subjugation to this authority. Only then can he receive the sacraments.
~
Dismissal from the clerical state and dispensation from the obligation of celibacy are treated as distinct issues. A priest can lose his clerical status (for example, by being “defrocked”) without being released from his obligation of celibacy (though the streamlined procedures cited above seem to be designed to dispense from celibacy as well), because the Church desires to continue to have authority over the priest’s sexuality. However, when a priest is released from his vow of celibacy by way of dispensation — and this is what is usually sought — he is also by that very fact removed from the clerical state, because the Church, usually, insists on celibacy within the clerical ranks.
~
Excommunication is an entirely different matter. The purpose of excommunication is to draw the person toward repentance and reconciliation. Automatic excommunication (latae sententiae) is restricted to those situations that are explicitly named in the Code of Canon Law (e.g. breaking the seal of confession, abortion, assaulting a priest, desecrating the Sacred Species, etc.) The list includes nothing about, for example, a priest getting married without a dispensation from celibacy.
~
It would certainly be nice if the dispensed priest were given some kind of rite of passage, during which he could be thanked for his years of service to the Church, etc., but the hierarchy probably deems this imprudent because it might encourage other priests also to leave. It is too bad that the dispensed priest becomes a pariah of sorts—someone who couldn’t “cut the mustard” and “walk the line.” Often the priest is perceived as losing his faith. For most of them, however, leaving the priesthood was in response to a maturing faith that could no longer accept a Church claiming such authority over themselves and over God. From the Church’s point of view, he leaves in shame, and should be seen by the faithful as leaving in shame, so that other priests will be discouraged from leaving. However, the majority of people served through his ministry still respect him and even feel compassion for him, especially with respect to the heavy yoke of celibacy that the Church lays on his shoulders. Normally, 80% or more of the laity wish the transitioning priest well and are saddened to see him leave. Statistics have repeatedly shown that they would prefer that celibacy became optional for the priest and that their pastor could remain with them as a married priest.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From transitioned priest John Horan:
An Open Letter to Cardinal Hummes
Eminence Claudio Cardinal Hummes, O.S.F.
Dear Cardinal Hummes:
Congratulations on the new responsibility you have just taken on. This past April, Pope Benedict XVI granted you the power to dismiss from the priesthood and release from the obligation of celibacy, priests who are living with women, who have abandoned their ministry for more than five years or who have engaged in seriously scandalous behavior. I am one of those you will be dismissing - not for the scandal part but for the woman part.
It is a big job you have taken on. World wide, there are many thousands of us and, to add to the challenge, most bishops have no idea who or where we are. We have been on the “pay no mind” list for such a long time that tracking us down will be quite a headache.
I have seen your picture on Wikepedia. You seem like a kind man and your vitae demonstrates that you have Doctor of the Church quality brains. You clearly have some iron in your soul as demonstrated by your advocacy for homeless, indigenous people and your stance against the dictatorship in Brazil. But you have been away from parish work for a long time and prolonged exposure to the curia can cause cataracts. I am appealing to your kindness, brains and iron.
First off, understand that this project is a matter of paperwork, a re-organizing of files in cabinets, a clearing of the priesthood balance sheet. It has nothing to do with protecting the good of the church, avoiding scandal or getting things right in the eyes of God. God knows the Catholic Church has a good deal of work in those areas, but releasing thousands of us from the obligation of celibacy should be about around 10,000th on the Vatican to do list.
Secondly, some historical context needs to be established. You may not realize it, but the Vatican has zig-zagged for years about laicizations. Under Paul VI when large numbers were leaving, there was a fairly straightforward, but slow process. John Paul II pursued a much harder line, apparently in the belief that he could stem the tide by making laicizations virtually impossible. It didn't work. The unintended consequence was to diminish the credibility of the process. In his later years, he switched to a strategy wherein a petitioner had to lie, and state that he never really had a vocation at all. Most of us could say that we had a genuine vocation to priesthood, but not to celibacy. Now, Pope Benedict has done a complete about face. Forgive us if we are a little confused but the Vatican has changed its
strategies like most of us change socks.
I left the Vatican priesthood during the late 1980’s when the church was NOT granting formal dispensations from the obligation of celibacy. During my “exit interview” with Cardinal Bernardin he said that I could apply for a dispensation, but it would not be granted until I was much, much older. I remarked that the Vatican was playing hardball. He agreed, but his eyes told me that he had no stomach for such silly tactics. (By the way, what SHOULD be on the Vatican “To Do” list is to put Joe Bernardin on the canonization track.)
So, let’s be clear. In the 1980’s the Vatican would not grant that which was asked for and now, 20 years later, will take that which has not been offered. In light of this context, please be careful about tossing out phrases like “abandon our ministry.” This revisionist bit of history is a lie, pure and simple.
I am no ecclesiastical prognosticator, but I have to believe that you are on anyone’s short list for Pope. The Congregation for Clergy is a big job and this chance to clean up the sacerdotal balance sheet is litmus test of the first degree. But you should know that it is only important in Vatican circles and in diocesan offices. Everywhere else, Catholics find it funny and upon deeper reflection, really quite infuriating.
I will give you an example. My wife and I have been in a civil marriage for the last 19 years. We couldn’t get married in the Catholic Church because I didn’t have a dispensation the Vatican wouldn’t give. Our marriage has been full of consensual sex. When my wife found out that our sex, in the eyes of the Vatican, was causing serious scandal, she laughed right out loud. “Our lawn is a scandal”, she said. “Our consensual sex is a sacrament.” I fear most women married to ex-priests will not, like my wife, find this particularly funny. They will instead fume and wonder out loud why the Holy See has such a hard time seeing real scandal and such an easy time manufacturing fake scandals.
This notion that our church will become “leaner and purer” are concepts best applied to cuts of meat and not the Church of Jesus. Cardinal Hummes ,if your kindness, brains and iron could only understand how absurd this all is to all of us, if only you could muster up a real giggle about these forced dispensations, you would surely make a terrific Pope.
Best Wishes,
John Horan
Ordained; May 13, 1981
Left the Vatican Priesthood; June 10, 1988
For those of you who would like to drop Cardinal Hummes a line, here is his
contact information:His Eminence Claudio Cardinal Hummes, O.S.F.
Official web site: http://www.clerus.org
Mailing Address: Palazzo delle Congregazioni, 00193 Roma, Piazza Pio XII, 3
Telephone: 06.69.88.41.51 Fax: 06.69.88.48.45.
John Horan, a former Chicago priest, recently retired from Chairperson of
WEORC. John is currently directing two Chicago charter high-schools.
WEORC is an association of priests, religious women and men who have moved
from full time ministry in the Church to other work. More information can be
found at: www.weorc.blogspot.com.
~
For more information about priests leaving the priesthood see www.leavingthepriesthood.com.
If you have any questions or comments about the laicization process, please click on “comments” below to share your thoughts.
The Laicization Process blog was developed by transitioned priests Henry and Conrad. Conrad was granted a licentiate in Canon Law in 1985.
