Parish Priest?

bernadette101 · #1 Jun 7, '12, 3:30 am

Hi all!

I am confused at the moment about certain situation that has came to surface for me in my parish. Recently my PP has taken ill, and had to be hospitalised. In his place another priest has been appointed to say Mass on a Sunday and during the week etc. This priest used to be a PP himself(in another local parish), however he is no longer. Years ago he married a priest, who, at the time, was leaving the priesthood, and a woman. As a result of this, he lost his position as PP and can only partake in Mass and such priestly duties if other PP's are out of action, for whatever reason. What confuses me, is why this priest would be allowed to work actively after what he done, but yet he is not allowed to become PP again? Is it something to do with Canon Law?

Thanks, God bless!

Hokomai · #2 Jun 7, '12, 4:22 am

I am sure a Catholic will tell you in clearer terms than I can manage, but I don't think the Church does 'one strike and you're out'.

**1ke** · #3 Jun 7, '12, 5:19 am

This is not something anyone here can answer. There are a number of disciplinary routes your bishop could have taken. He has a lot of lattitude to handle the situation in the way he feels is best.

Tietjen · #4 Jun 7, '12, 5:26 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by bernadette101

Hi all!

I am confused at the moment about certain situation that has came to surface for me in my parish. Recently my PP has taken ill, and had to be hospitalised. In his place another priest has been appointed to say Mass on a Sunday and during the week etc. This priest used to be a PP himself(in another local parish), however he is no longer. Years ago he married a priest, who, at the time, was leaving the priesthood, and a woman. As a result of this, he lost his position as PP and can only partake in Mass and such priestly duties if other PP's are out of action, for whatever reason. What confuses me, is why this priest would be allowed to work actively after what he done, but yet he is not allowed to become PP again? Is it something to do with Canon Law?

Thanks, God bless!

From the Catholic Exchange website:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cathy Caridi, J.C.L.

Once a priest always a priest (see Ps. 110:4); however, there is a delicate distinction that must be made between the metaphysical fact that a man is always a priest once he has been ordained, and the canonical status of a laicized priest. Canon law is in complete accord with theology on this subject. The Catechism states that the sacrament of Holy Orders confers an “indelible spiritual character” on the man who receives it (CCC 1582). Like the sacrament of Baptism, it can never be erased. A baptized Christian can cease to practice his faith, and even publicly deny Christ, but he can never undo his baptism. Priestly ordination works in exactly the same way.

Similarly, canon 290 of the Code of Canon Law states once a man validly receives sacred ordination, the sacrament never becomes invalid. At the same time, however, it is possible for a priest to be released from the duties and responsibilities that are connected to the clerical state (CCC 1583). Practically speaking, this would mean that a priest no longer functioned outwardly as a priest. He would no longer engage in ministry within his diocese or religious institute; no longer celebrate Mass or confer the sacraments; no longer be called “Father” or wear clerical clothing; and no longer be supported financially by the Church. To the world he would appear to be a layman, working at an ordinary job and living the normal life of the laity. Canon law refers to this change as the “loss of the clerical state” (cf. cc. 290-293). Common parlance calls it laicization. When this occurs, and a priest is released from the clerical state, he is still technically a priest, but as canon 292 notes, he may no longer exercise the power of orders. But in theory, if a laicized priest were to say Mass, it would be a valid Mass, since he never loses the ability to celebrate the Eucharist. It would, however, be illicit. It is possible for a priest to receive permission to be once more “re-instated” directly from Rome (c. 293) and would not be ordained again, as he would still be an ordained priest.

triumphguy · #5 Jun 7, '12, 6:20 am

Often we don't have the complete, or even real story.

If this priest has "faculties" then he's fully OK with the Bishop and therefore fully OK with the Church.

**1ke** · #6 Jun 7, '12, 6:54 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tietjen

From the Catholic Exchange website:

The OP is not asking about the priest who got married. She is actually asking about the priest who performed the marriage ceremony for him.

Two entirely different issues.

Tietjen · #7 Jun 7, '12, 7:15 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1ke

The OP is not asking about the priest who got married. She is actually asking about the priest who performed the marriage ceremony for him.

Two entirely different issues.

Oops... Sorry, obviously I can't read without my morning cup of coffee.

annspazz · #8 Jun 7, '12, 8:12 am

Without knowing the whole story, I have heard of priests that have "left the priesthood" and married and became laymen (so to speak..not sure if they can marry in the Catholic Church).

I would think that maybe the Priest in question may have gone again a Bishop's directives in performing the ceremony and is being disciplined. He can still and is required to say daily Mass, but is not given a leadership role as a pastor of a parish.

Used to be that there was one pastor of a parish and several attending Priests to that parish.

JMO

tafan · #9 Jun 7, '12, 9:41 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by triumphguy

Often we don't have the complete, or even real story.

If this priest has "faculties" then he's fully OK with the Bishop and therefore fully OK with the Church.

Likely this is not the case. As others have stated we do not know the whole story, but there are many paths a Bishop can take in discipline action.
The priest in question likely has facilities, but is likely not "fully OK" with the Bishop. Hence the types of duties he can perform are limited.
I know of at least one priest who has not had his facilities removed by the local Bishop, but has been given no parish assignment for years, and only goes and helps out at parishes who need it temporarily. It sounds like a similiar situation to me. I suspect when he helps out at a parish, it is only with the permission of the Bishop (or his disignated vicar).

Evan · #10 Jun 7, '12, 11:02 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by annspazz

Without knowing the whole story, I have heard of priests that have "left the priesthood" and married and became laymen (so to speak..not sure if they can marry in the Catholic Church).

If they do it properly they can marry. My mom's cousin left the priesthood with permission from Rome. After he was properly laicized he then married.

didymus · #11 Jun 7, '12, 4:29 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by bernadette101

Hi all!

I am confused at the moment about certain situation that has came to surface for me in my parish. Recently my PP has taken ill, and had to be hospitalised. In his place another priest has been appointed to say Mass on a Sunday and during the week etc. This priest used to be a PP himself(in another local parish), however he is no longer. Years ago he married a priest, who, at the time, was leaving the priesthood, and a woman. As a result of this, he lost his position as PP and can only partake in Mass and such priestly duties if other PP's are out of action, for whatever reason. What confuses me, is why this priest would be allowed to work actively after what he done, but yet he is not allowed to become PP again? Is it something to do with Canon Law?

Thanks, God bless!

If he officiated at the wedding of a priest who hadn't been properly laicised he certainly violated several Canons -- and above all, giving scandal.

If, as you say, he's limited situations where he would be under another pastor or where no other parish priest that's basically Bishop's judgment that Fr X shouldn't be entrusted with his own parish. Not even a punishment, really, just prudence.

As with any situation, there may be more that we don't know about.

triumphguy · #12 Jun 8, '12, 5:58 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by tafan

Likely this is not the case. As others have stated we do not know the whole story, but there are many paths a Bishop can take in discipline action.
The priest in question likely has facilities, but is likely not "fully OK" with the Bishop. Hence the types of duties he can perform are limited.
I know of at least one priest who has not had his facilities removed by the local Bishop, but has been given no parish assignment for years, and only goes and helps out at parishes who need it temporarily. It sounds like a similiar situation to me. I suspect when he helps out at a parish, it is only with the permission of the Bishop (or his disignated vicar).

OK in the sense that he is able to say a valid mass etc.