Care to weigh in on the issue.
That is nuts. Give a teaching role to a bunch of traitors who broke their vows and violated their faith? And for what? They would only be doing something that informed laymen could do perfectly well.
The real crunch of the priest shortage is the absense of enough priests to say Mass and administer the Sacraments.
Lay Deacons or trained laymen are unable to fill that gap. But they are unable to say Mass or do Confessions. But they want to bring in rogue priests to teach the faith?
This plan is backwards in more ways than one.
And there will continue to be a priest shortage until they finally broom out the dissidents and heretics in positions of power and finish cleaning up the seminaries.
It would be a lot easier just to drop the celibacy rule and let Priests get married.
Two things here: First, their marriage, being valid, is until death. And second, Edeltraut Kleuting, Fr. Kleuting’s wife, is a Third Order Carmelite, not a Carmelite nun. Third Order Carmelites are LAY people who live in the spirit of the order they associate with. In the case of the Carmelites, they seek to live a life of constant prayer and service. They do this within their state of life, so a married woman will continue to live as a married woman.
Does the Prefect of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples have that authority, or has he simply issued a recommendation for the specific issue in Australia?
On the bigger question, I'm not equipped to opine on the potential utility of former priests. I've met only one, that I know of, and he was a new-age flake who would not, in my opinion, have been much use to Catholics.
The potential for scandal seems significant, however. Better discernment of vocations (both clerical and married) and better formation in the demands of the vocation is what is called for, not less emphasis on the importance of one's vows in either state.
Over a hundred years ago, I believe the church had an elaborate “gray area hierarchy” between clergy and the religious orders, and the laity.
This was a structural concept and a good one. For example, an artist could take one of these positions if he was planning a series of artwork or music devoted to the church, which provided him direction, something like commissions, access, and other support that would be difficult for lay persons to get. In exchange, it was his promise that he would deliver a “religiously satisfying” product that was inoffensive and serious.
Today, I can imagine any number of such positions, from caregivers to infirm and elderly clergy, to administrative personnel with access to confidential information. Once again creating a broader gray area between clergy and laity, as a comfortable way for laity to give broader participation.
It probably sounds good on paper, but my sixth sense is telling me this is probably not a good idea, especially in the area of teaching.
I reckon the title is going to get a lot of responses.
Freegards, thanks for all the pings.
First of all, this is a private letter sent to an individual. It is not a magesterial or juridic statement of the Holy See.
Second of all, this is a letter sent by the Prefect of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, not the Prefect of the Congregation of the Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (the proper dicastery to issue such a statement of policy in this area) (note: up to 1988, the CDF dealt with it. Many of the documents pertaining to the subject are still from the CDF).
Third, read what the Herald actually reported the letter as saying: his confidence that the Vatican’s reforms would enable dispensed priests to lead a more active life in the Church as committed Catholics under their bishop’s guidance.
In other words, no controversy, nothing new, but yet the Herald is reporting it as such? WTF?
For those who don't know, the process of dispensing priests is a fairly standard process, although not broadcast that well.
Canon 290 §3 states: A cleric, nevertheless, loses the clerical state…by rescript of the Apostolic See which grants it to deacons only for grave causes and to presbyters only for most grave causes.
The rescript of laicization is boilerplate. It reads as follows (recripts after 1988 would be from the CDWDS):
Rescript of Laicization Prot. N. ___________________ Father __________________, a priest of the (Arch) Diocese of _____________________, has petitioned a dispensation from priestly celibacy. His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, after having received a report on the case from the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on (date, month, year), has granted the request but with the following provisions: 1. The rescript has its effect from the moment of notification made to the petitioner by the competent ecclesiastical authority, and inseparably includes a dispensation from priestly celibacy and, at the same time, loss of the clerical state. The petitioner never has the right to separate those two elements, that is, to accept the first and refuse the second. If the petitioner is a religious, the rescript also contains a dispensation from the vows. Further, the said rescript carries with it, insofar as it is necessary, absolution from censures, not excepting the excommunication which may have been incurred because of a marriage attempted by the parties; it also includes legitimation of offspring. 2. Let notice of the grant of dispensation be recorded in the baptismal register of the petitioner’s parish. 3. With regard to the celebration of a canonical marriage, the norms set down in the Code of Canon Law must be applied. The Ordinary, however, should take care that the matter be discreetly handled without pomp or external display. 4. The ecclesiastical authority to whom it belongs to communicate the rescript to the petitioner should earnestly exhort him to take part in the life of the People of God in a manner consonant with his new mode of living, to give edification, and thus to show himself a most loving son of the Church. However, at the same time, he should be informed of the following points: a) the dispensed priest automatically loses the rights proper to the clerical state as well as ecclesiastical dignities and offices; he is no longer bound by the other obligations connected with the clerical state; b) he remains excluded from the exercise of the sacred ministry, with the exception of those functions mentioned in canons 882 and 892, §2, and, as a result, he may not give a homily. Moreover, he may not function as extraordinary minister in the distribution of Holy Communion nor may he discharge any directive office in the pastoral field; c) similarly, he may not discharge any function in seminaries or equivalent institutions. In other institutions of higher studies which are in any way whatever dependent upon ecclesiastical authority, he may not exercise the functions of director, or office of teaching; d) however, in those institutions of higher studies which are not dependent upon ecclesiastical authority, he may not teach any discipline which is properly theological or closely connected with the same; e) on the other hand, in institutions of lower studies, which are dependent upon ecclesiastical authority, he may not exercise the function of director or the office of teaching unless the Ordinary, in keeping with his prudent judgment and provided that there is no scandal, shall have decided to decree otherwise as far as the office of teaching is concerned. 5. As a rule, the priest who has been dispensed from priestly celibacy, and, all the more so, a priest who has married, ought to stay away from places where his previous status is known. Nevertheless, the Ordinary of the place where the petitioner is staying, after he has listened, insofar as it may be necessary, to the Ordinary of incardination or the major religious superior, will be able to dispense from that clause attached to the rescript, if it is foreseen that the presence of the petitioner will not beget scandal. 6. Lastly, some work of piety or charity should be imposed on him. At an opportune time, however, a brief report should be made to the sacred Congregation on his performance, and, finally, if there should be any wonderment on the part of the faithful, let a prudent explanation be provided. All things to the contrary notwithstanding. From the offices of the S. C. for the Doctrine of the Faith, on the (date, month, year). |
While there are a lot of very common sense restrictions, you will also note that there is a whole bunch that is not excluded.
And I think that this is the point of Cardinal Dias' letter (at least as far as it was reported). And something that utterly escaped Beliefnet and, shockingly, the Herald.
I do not understand how someone leaves the priesthood and remains in the Catholic Church. I realize that we are all sinners and we do very serious things that are against God's laws and that our confessor can forgive them.
I do not understand how we can trust a priest that has turned his back on the priesthood?
I am concerned with all the Catholics that have turned their backs on the Catholic Church and with Catholics that seem to be Catholic in name only “CINO”. I am concerned that many will not be invited to heaven, and I truly hope that they see the Light and return to Jesus as Lord and the Catholic Church.
sounds like one Cardinal in the office wrote one letter to one priest with his personal opinion.
And then that priest released the statement to the press...
another case of the Vatican bureaucrats working against the pope?
Where’s the Vatican letter or a document, I can’t find it.
This is a no go. Period.
Even though I saw the letter referred to was in February, I will contact the Cardinal (he retired in March btw).