When a priest stops being a priest: How laicization works.
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 มิ.ย. 2024
- Note: I accidentally used a non-standard spelling of "ecumenical" during the last section of the video. It can take up to two to four hours to export new revisions of an episode, so I decided not to correct it on this one.
This video explains the process by which a cleric can lose the clerical state, and be forbidden from performing the sacraments proper to priesthood.
Sources:
Hebrews 7 (Priesthood in the New Covenant): bible.usccb.org/bible/hebrews/7
CIC Can. 290 (The everlasting character of the priesthood, and the reasons for losing the clerical state): www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iu...
CIC Can. 965 (Only a priest can forgive sins): www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iu...
CIC Can. 862 (Baptism can be done by anyone in an emergency): www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iu....
America Magazine article. August 24, 2020
(Instance of a priest who found out he was not a priest): www.americamagazine.org/polit...
Source to verify that the priest was later ordained (for real this time): directory.aod.org/#/clergy
CIC Can. 1395 (Sexual sins causing dismissal from the priesthood): www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iu...
CIC Can. 291 (the priest has to remain celibate after dismissal): www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iu...
CIC Can. 976 (priests can perform confession in emergency): www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iu...
Canon Law - Dispensations Provide For Flexibility In Church Law (Details about the third case of losing the clerical state): www.chausa.org/publications/h....
Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (Eastern Canons referencing married clergy): www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG1199...
Are priests in the Eastern Catholic Churches permitted to marry? (Prior to becoming a cleric only): east2west.org/sp_faq/married-...
Apologies to Bishop Jacques Habert whose image I used in the thumbnail of this video.
Attribution: Claude Truong-Ngoc / Wikimedia Commons - cc-by-sa-3.0
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
NB: I mistakenly referred to the imprint of marriage as "eternal", while this language is normally only used for describing baptism, confirmation, and holy orders (CCC 698) since their effects persist after death, while the marriage bond is dissolved by death. What I meant to convey (and should have said instead) is that the sacraments of both marriage and holy orders were lifelong and cannot in general be dissolved by the Church, or by any human power.
Very instructional and helpful - Thank you! God Bless 🕊
Thanks 👍
Great video. Thank you and God Bless
Thank you!
Thank you!
Fr. Matt Hood mentioned
Yep.
I always wonder what happens if a priest just completely loses faith… theoretically couldn’t they just leave? Is there any binding contracts they sign that would prevent them from doing so?
They don't sign a secular contract saying they have to remain a priest as far as I'm aware, so there's no coercive force from a governmental perspective. But they would be out of a job, and the Church would take away their faculties. Becoming an apostate of any kind is a good way to merit Hell however, especially a priest.
Yes, a priest can just walk away from the Church………..all this legal stuff is irrelevant to those who see through it as man made rules.
@@bradpaul8576lol
If a priest is incapable of sacramental marriage, how is the vaitican able to grant them the ability to do it at all? Is the sacrament of holy orders not make matrimony impossible, or is it merely a discipline of the cloth?
I think it’s a discipline. St. Paul says himself “Don’t I have the right to have a wife?” and he was an apostle at the time. So the Vatican could allow priests to get married but it just isn’t the discipline and hasn’t been probably since the first century. It’s sorta like married men becoming bishops, that could happen but in church discipline this hasn’t been the case since probably the first or second century. Married men becoming priests is something that has been more common and still happens in Eastern Catholic Churches and with the Anglican Ordinariate so it’s not on the same level as the situations I just mentioned.
Priests are not made incapable of sacramental marriage by the Sacrament of Holy Orders, but by the authority of the church to bind and loose. And as the name implies, the power implies *loosening*.
This is proven by priests in the eastern catholic churches or that convert from anglicanism that licitly say mass while also being married and having kids.
Others provided some good context already, but essentially the answer is yes - it's "merely" a discipline. Marriage doesn't conflict with the essential elements of the sacrament of holy orders. But a pious discipline of the Church that has existed for nearly our entire history is a good and prudent thing to maintain, and it helps the priest grow in Christian perfection and follow the advice of St. Paul.
@@CatechesisVids mere was not meant as a denegreation, but an emphasis on the requirements of a sacrement being perpetual not subject to modification. Thanks for the response.
I think only baptism and holy orders leave indelible marks on the soul, but correct me if I'm wrong
I didn't use the phrase indelible mark, but I did describe marriage as "eternal" which is imprecise. I have added a clarifying comment.
Confirmation does as well.
To avoid confusion, you should not use the word character as applied to matrimony. That is a technical theological word applied only to baptism, confirmation and orders.
I didn't use "character" to refer to marriage in this video, only holy orders. But I also believe you are mistaken about the word's usage as the word can be used less narrowly.
@@CatechesisVids you did in the NB retraction. The Church speaks precisely when dealing with such grave theological matters. You use and cite canon law, thus seeking to speak precisely. I do believe you used character in the video.
Character,p in dealing with the sacraments is always specifically used i.e. the sacramental character
Just read the article entitled character in the Catholic Encyclopedia. Prots use is otherwise.
I do want to be as precise as possible, and it's an important reason I cite so many elements of my scripts. However, you are mistaken about the narrowness of the word character. Here it is used in relation to marriage by the pontifical council for the family: www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_20001109_de-facto-unions_en.html
Edit: I see what you mean about Catholic encyclopedia's division. This seems archaic. Words change in meaning and Catholic encyclopedia is very old. The old meaning seems to be very specific to be a synonym with "indelible", but it's not used only in that sense today.
I would argue that the average person wrongly uses the term 'defrocked' and not laicization.
I don't know why I didn't think of that one - the term never really crossed my mind when writing this episode.
As a priest who left ministry myself, basically canceled, I will never apply for laicization. I have not done anything wrong and still have the faculties to celebrate Mass without a congregation. Why in the world would I allow some of the present hierarchy to make a moral decision if I had been called by God to Orders? I would rather live out a life of penance and prayer for the Church that submit myself to this process.
I know everything on the internet is false, but I'm sorry if this is true.
You "left" ministry? Of your own accord? Why?
@@CatechesisVids A very long story that I do not want to put out there on TH-cam, "basically canceled" are the operative words.
Did you get married or something?
@@LaymensLameMan No, I did not.
Baptism and confirmation leaves an indelible mark. Not marriage
I don't think I used that phrase in the video, but I should have made it clearer that the sacrament of marriage is dissolved in a way that is not true of holy orders or baptism. I have added a clarifying pinned comment.
I'm pretty sure God's grace can overcome the mistakes of man such as a invalid baptism. God certainly is omnipotent in every way and in no way would deny His mercy or sacramental graces to a contrite sinner despite the circumstances surrounding the baptism in question. Super easy problem for God to overcome 😅 That being said, sure the Church should take the appropriate steps to properly ordain the priest once awareness has been established. That's just darn right appropriate. But to say that all the confessions heard, blessings, and other priestly functions are invalid......well I think it's safe to bet God was there through all that.
Though the hand of God works always towards good even out of evil, we should not presume upon the unique character of his sacramental grace in situations where the sacraments he instituted are not present due to impossibility; a priest who is invalidly consecrated does not validly confect the eucharist for instance, and so it would be unfitting to say the sacrament of the eucharist persisted or was consecrated in spite of the absence of a minister. However, God might certainly have given special graces of some other sort, according to his own holy will, to those who believed themselves to be receiving the body of Christ - perhaps akin to a spiritual communion in the case of the eucharist.
@@CatechesisVids I understand and appreciate your reply. Seems to make our God a bit small to say his grace is contingent upon the perfect ordination of a priest. What if a person is becoming a priest for vain or egoic reasons? And not with pure intention? That makes the sacrament of marriage void in some cases. So how would we know if a priest has the same purity of heart. Sure cannon law says these things to preserve the integrity of the priesthood as it should! But God is not confined to cannon law. It's the other way around. And certainly His grace can overcome any shortcomings of humans.
It's not that we make God too small by saying a priest must be baptized to become a priest, we puff ourselves up and make ourselves too large to presume God owes us the sacraments - or that he owes us his grace if we don't follow the rules of his bride the Church. It's just descriptively the kind of thing that holy orders are to say they require baptism. Holy orders presupposes a participation in the life of Christ that involves baptism - one who does not belong to Christ cannot serve as his minister or act in persona christi as a priest does.
I don't entirely know what you mean by egoism here. Being full of vanity would not in itself invalidate either an ordination or a marriage.
@@CatechesisVids I appreciate the reply. I am not in disagreement that baptism is an absolute must for priests or any clergy to properly administer priestly functions. And I am not saying to presume anything. I think it's the Church's duty to preserve the integrity of the sacraments. But she, despite being the bride of Christ, is still really a mess full of messy situations and imperfections. I am only making a point that from the Gospel we are called to have an abundance in trust. I think it's appropriate to trust that God can do great things when we fall short. Conversely to the point about being inflated thinking God owes us the sacraments. I agree that humility is a huge component to receiving God's love and grace but one can also induce scrupulosity by overreacting to a shortfall of people. To say somebody's confession isn't valid can really cause some scrupulosity. So I'm only speaking to the balance of law and the mercy of God. Both are important and should be balanced.
So let me get this straight. A man is ordained to the priesthood and is permanently configured to Christ the high priest with all the sacramental powers which can never be taken away. He then loses the clerical state and is now a layman. So now we have a layman who is still permanently configured to Christ the high priest and retains all his priestly powers. Is he now a layman priest? Where is the Sanhedrin and Pharisees when you need them?
Layman is a legal category in this context. It doesn't mean he in any way loses the sacrament of holy orders, he merely loses the right to use those powers (which are administered by the Pope). Likewise all Orthodox priests lack these same faculties, but they do not recognize the Pope as their sovereign so they ignore the issue.
@@CatechesisVids Since faculties are required for Catholic priests to validly absolve sins, and to validly celebrate the sacrament of confirmation,( when not automatically granted by canon law) and proper jurisdiction is required to validly witness marriage, are you suggesting that these three sacraments among the orthodox are invalid, because they don’t have the faculties or jurisdiction of the Catholic hierarchs?
@@CatechesisVids Getting back to canonical terminology. From an ontological perspective a validity ordained priest can never be a layman or actually return to the lay state. Such terminology denies the permanent ontological change which takes place at ordination. It would be better to say, that the priest is dispensed from the duties, obligations and responsibilities of priesthood, and now assumes the duties, obligation and responsibilities of a layman. This is a far better solution than stating, a priest has been “ reduced to the state of the laity“ which is an ontological impossibility.
You're confusing licity with validity. A priest or bishop can illicitly do things they can validly do. So the sacraments work, but it's a sin to perform them.
@@CatechesisVids I think I understand the difference between licitly and validity. Granted, bishops possessing the fullness of the priesthood, always act validly in regard to sacraments. Priests, however, in certain sacraments ( penance and confirmation) need faculties from the Ordinary not only for licitly, but for validity. My question is since validly ordained Orthodox priests administer both the sacraments of penance and confirmation without Roman faculties, do they do so validly? Perhaps this is above your competency ? However, it does remain an interesting question..
Marriage does not have an "indelible mark", only Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders.
I never said it did. Please read the pinned comment.
I don't think Marriage leaves a mark on the soul. Pretty sure an indelible mark would stop you from getting married a second time after the death of a spouse, and we don't remain married in heaven. Baptism and Confirmation are the other sacraments that leave an indelible mark.
How is an image of creation not leave a mark on one's soul?
The bond is dissolved by death, and this makes it of a different kind than holy orders which I should have made clearer. I've added a pinned comment for clarity.