Diaconate: An Option For Former Priests?

Just by sample of ex-priests that I know, it wasn't about the faith, it was about the church, namely, the hierarchy. This would be a great research project for CARA. Like the many faithful who have become disenfrancised or alienated, many "ex" priests would like an opportunity to minister in a church of healing and acceptance.

ARG You are quite correct. The issues are beyond the obvious even for those who left to marry. In most cases,this was a secondary reason.

Your question seems to suggest that you think that leaving the priesthood is leaving the church? Most men who left the priesthood are probably still in the church, just more or less active in ministry, and that level of participation largely dependent on either formal or informal responses to their attempts to be involved in ministry.

sevenup,
What is their reason for their "official unofficial policy?"

Is there something just not right about that? I feel former active priests are marked with the scarlet letter. We do good works, but the church wants nothing to do with them.

I realize that it could be done, just pointing out the difficulties.

Practically I don't think it will happen on a large scale because many (but by no means all) who left the priesthood to marry did so without obtaining a dispensation to do so. Those that did obtain the dispensation, or are single (yes that is broader than I first posted) could offer their services to the diocese. Those that married w/o a dispensation, whether canon law is changed or not, will probably not be welcomed in most diocese as many Catholics feel betrayed when Father runs of with Sister (or the parish RE Director, or...)

I am not saying that it is altogether undesirable, just bringing in a reality check.

++++++
What I'm Pondering...

"Those that married w/o a dispensation, whether canon law is changed or not, will probably not be welcomed in most diocese as many Catholics feel betrayed when Father runs of with Sister (or the parish RE Director, or...)"

This is a reality check HT, as you say. This is a real problem too, because this demonstrates a lack of forgiveness and an unChristian response by Catholics to not welcome all former priests back. I am reminded here of the scripture about the Prodigal Son, which I think should be applied to this. We know the Prodigal son erred and we know that what is taught in the parable is forgiveness. If we know this, why is it not followed in the Church but it is preached. Hmm.... that Pharisee appears again, the hypocrite, that enemy of Jesus Christ's teachings of love and forgiveness. The "betrayal" you speak of that "Catholics feel betrayed" is really their own betrayal of Christ's teachings on mercy and forgiveness.

ARG
Strangely, the priest who left without dispensation is in a more acceptable position than one who was dispensed. The dispensed priest is no longer a cleric. The non-dispensed is still a cleric and can walk back in easily. Think through this response carefully. Think through its application to the higher good of religion. Think through the causes of this type of action by the church. Many of those non dispensed priests are victims of the power structure. The care of their souls were cast aside for a number of years. The hierachy knew they were not coming back. What would make them prohibit these men from the full participation in the church? Why do this after several years of granting dispensations to priests who were willing to write the acceptable words to obtain the dispensation? Something to think about-

1) They are not former priests, there is no such thing a priest can be forbidden to exercise his priestly powers, but he remains a priest.

2) He who was shown untrustworthy by his own actions will have a hard time regaining that trust. Would you advocate, I wonder, for a the return of a peodphile priest to active ministry? Surely you must forgive and allow him back... Or you can use a measure of prudence and say that perhaps they would be better of doing administrative work in a monastery, where they would have no opportunity to fall again. Forgiving does not equal forgetting, and though we shouldn't harbor a grudge, it would be wise not to forget the past.

++++++
What I'm Pondering...

I will quote you again: "Those that married w/o a dispensation, whether canon law is changed or not, will probably not be welcomed in most diocese as many Catholics feel betrayed when Father runs of with Sister (or the parish RE Director, or...)"

There is no mention of pedaphile priests there, is there? I was not responding to you about pedaphile priests. But if you are now asking me about pedaphile priests, I would have to agree with part 2 of your comment. But that is not the issue that I was referring to.

"1) They are not former priests, there is no such thing a priest can be forbidden to exercise his priestly powers, but he remains a priest."

There is punctuation missing in your sentence and it makes it very difficult to obtain the truth of what you are trying to say. I think you are saying: They are not former priests, there is no such thing. A priest can be forbidden to exercise his priestly powers, but he remains a priest.

What is the point of forbidding a priest to exercise his priestly powers, but at the same time he remains a priest?

About my first point, sorry my typing has suffered recently due to trying to work in posting between work and home repairs/redecorating. Your re-punctuation is indeed what I meant to post. The fact that there is no such thing as an ex-priest is a matter of sacramental theology, "thou art a priest forever, according to the order of Melchesidek." The Church cannot take back what God has bestowed, thus once a priest always a priest. The point of forbidding them to use their priestly power is in cases where they no longer represent the people to God (and vice versa). This is the limbo that priests who decide to leave the priesthood, lawfully or not, find themselves in, hence Fr Jstab's question, and the possibility of returning to ministry.

As to my second point, yes the question about pedophiles is new and thank you for answering it. You agree that the Church should use prudence, forgive but not forget, in one case, but say that is should forgive and forget in another. In both cases I say forgive, but don't forget. If someone left you in the lurch (in any situation: work, a relationship,...), you would desire some stronger sign of commitment before placing your trust in them again. This is what I am talking about (apart from the canon law issues, at your request).

++++++
What I'm Pondering...

Be careful of comparing apples to oranges. A man who has left active ministry to marry is quite different than a convicted felon who has sexually abused children. In the first case however, a priest incurs immediate dispensation and I believe, but am not certain - laitization. Whereas, if a priest is found guilty of peodophila, it has to go through a process.

Certainly, I hope Bishops and laity alike can see the difference. Whether one is percieved as a "former priest" or not, canonical status is important especially as it pertains to whether or not the door is open to the priest being in active ministry again.

I would also question the language and imagery of using the words "priestly powers." It makes it sound like some type of witchcraft. I would suggest using "priestly ministry."

On your first point, you are so right! Priests get that indelible mark on their soul for the sacrament, just like the baptized get. It is so cool that neither of them can be called "former."

Well, yes, that is the level of response of many Catholics, which is sad of course. I do think you are short-changing the numbers that went through the formal process before it was severely curtailed by JPII (because so MANY were requesting it, not because there were so few). I know several priests who left, but not to marry, and not a sexy little scandal in sight. Fortunately they are allowed to carry some water in the church, so the easiiy scandalized have had to grow up a bit. Sometimes it's been interesting to watch those catholics wrestle with their own demons of judgmentalism and ignorance as they gossiped and worried each other.

It won't happen on a large scale, though, you're right about that, and probably won't come up seriously until the bump in those who left has moved on into God's life. The church has its ways to punish, and the church sees this movement out as a betrayal of its status, a slap in the face. It is sad to see the pain for some of these men who worked so long and hard for this vocation and now could so easily and willingly step forward to plug the holes and help many people.

As jstab suggested, too much reality on this one may just be a downer. It's fun at least to imagine how easy it could be to have this group of rich, talented priests return to a more active ministry. But glad you could live with it anyway. Our common ground seems to be thinning out these days.

There would, under the current MANdates of the Church, be "some difficulty" for those who left to marry." I see nothing in the scriptures to validate that an apostle or disciple of the Lord be required to be celibate. Where in the scriptures is it written HT?

It is written in the Scriptures that the Apostles were given the power to bind and loose, and again that it is a desirable thing for those in ministry to be celibate. Of course the problem that I was alluding to, had you actually read my posts here, was not that the married, but that the married while vowed to celibacy. The breaking of the vow, and the defiance that it signifies, would be larger obstacles than the canonical mess that would result.

++++++
What I'm Pondering...

I think it's interesting that the breaking of a vow signifies defiance to you. Only that? In all cases? And is the biggest problem that other people would think that it was 'defiance rewarded' to fix the situation somehow?

Breaking a vow that one could seek to be lawful excused from, yes I find that to always be an act of defiance. I hope that there were better motivations, but he act remains one of defiance.

I am not against some reconciliation, but I merely noted that it would be difficult (for both sides) and therefore unlikely.

++++++
What I'm Pondering...

Well, actually, I actually did read your post. Didn't it also say in the scriptures somewhere that we should not make any vows? This "defiance" that you speak of may be of the sort that God intended. Have you considered it was not defiance as you judge it in its appearances, but something else that God intended for the priest who married?

If the Apostles were given power to bind and loose, it would be better for them to loose forgiveness and bind everyone to God's mercy and forgiveness. But, I guess that is too liberal a thing for them to do? ... And despite Jesus' teaching that "we will be judged according to the way we judge".... So, if we judge unmercifully then, we will be judged unmercifully is how I read the scriptures. On the other hand, if we judge with mercy, we will receive mercy from God.

I'd be worried about my salvation if I were a judge in judgment against others and bind them to such harsh judgment as unforgiveness. Jesus said in the scriptures "Judge not lest you be judged." If one takes only a snippet of the scriptures to benefit their power over others, to loose and bind over and above everyone else, the entire reading of the Gospels makes no sense.

So, according to what I have read in your post the breaking of the vow to celibacy and the "defiance that it signifies" is "larger obstacles than the canonical mess that would result." Was such a defiance against God, or was it from God?

Your post of course is your opinion, but does not really resolve anything. What should the priest who married do then is the question I post to you? Should he be thrown out of the Church and not allowed back in? What do you think that Jesus Christ would do and want done in this case if He were walking the earth right now? Would he focus on the "sin" or would he emphasize forgiveness as an example for the Apostles and disciples to follow? Wouldn't he also say as He said in the Gospels "not all may accept this teaching" regarding celibacy.

I am not against celibacy for Priests, but it really is not something that Jesus made a commandment either to be bound and loosed on everyone in the priesthood. As you know, I prefer Jesus over any institution even though that may be too liberal for you to understand.

"Your post of course is your opinion, but does not really resolve anything."

I agree that it does not really resolve anything (right back at you, btw). So I want to focus on your questions for now.

"What should the priest who married do then [snip]?" "Should he be thrown out of the Church and not allowed back in?" "Wouldn't he also say as He said in the Gospels "not all may accept this teaching" regarding celibacy?"

I think that those who married after receiving a dispensation have any road open to them, given that the Church allows it. I think it is a question that the Pope and bishops have given thought to, so perhaps a revision of canon law will open more doors. Until then, they are married, their primary duty has become their family, and any way that they can help in the parish should be appreciated.

Obviously I don't think anyone should be thrown out of the Church, I do think that those who have broken their vows to marry have obstacles to full communion, but I believe it ought to be possible for each them to rectify their situation with the Church and their wife. Once reconciled, I think that the same set of rule should apply as with those who were released from their vows.

Jesus also said that the teaching on the Eucharist would be too difficult for many, but nevertheless He commanded that we eat His Flesh and drink His Blood. Just because a teaching could not be accepted by many does not mean that it is wrong. Jesus' commands are precisely where the Apostles and their successors authority to bind or loose is limited.

++++++
What I'm Pondering...

BTW, as for understanding preferring "Jesus over any institution", I am very familiar with this concept, it is one of the foundations of Protestantism and its logical consequence, non-denominational-ism. It fails to recognize that this institution was founded by Jesus, guaranteed by Him to persevere (even against the gates of Hell), and that it would be guided by the Holy Spirit. If you trust Jesus, why don't you trust when He founded the Church?

Let me re-phrase the question then to, "If, in accordance with the Canon Law and the practice of the Church, wouldn't it be great if those who leave the active ministerial priesthood could function in the capacity of permanent deacon?"

Here Today, I can always count on you to split Hairs Today! Can't we just IMAGINE for one brief moment!!!