In today’s papers is the news that Father John J. Geoghan was killed by a fellow inmate in a Massachusetts prison.
I note the New York TImes called him Mr. Geoghan, not “Father.” I realize he was eventually defrocked, but I thought that defrocking only took alway the ability to use one’s priestly powers, not the status (and title) or being a priest.
Years ago I saw some radical priest on TV who was no longer allowed to do his ting, but he was in a Roman collar and was addressed as Father. In reply to a caller he said he would be a priest until the day he died, but he could no do sacrements.
The Sacrament of Holy Orders can never be erased, as it leaves a permanant imprint of character on the soul of the recipient. However, there are various proceedings under canon law that can lead to the loss of the clerical state; Mr. Geoghan was subjected to one. At that point, he may not wear the collar, hold himself out as “Father,” or, obviously, administer the sacraments.
So the Times had it right. Your TV radical priest had it wrong, assuming he lost the clerical state, as opposed to simply being ordered by his Ordinary or Superior not to act.
To further elaborate from the point of view of the RCC’s code of law:
Being ordained a priest does imprint an indelible mark on one’s soul. Unless the ordination itself was declared anulled becuase it was defective (e.g., the ordinandi was really a woman), a priest is always a priest, metaphysically.
With being ordained a priest, comes an institutional state of being clergy, i.e., the clerical state. This is a legal status as opposed to the theological-ontological state of being sacramentally ordained. The clerical state confers certain privileges and duties upon the cleric and upon the institution. E.g., a bishop must always provide for the care of a clergy member. If the clergyman is destitute, the bishop must provide aid (for room and board, not for legal fees or luxury items). Clergy have a right to the title and dress of clergy and the performance of the sacraments that the law gives to clergy. Bishops have full rights to performance of sacraments. Priests only do so with permission of their bishop.
Short of leaving the clerical state, priests may be censured admistratively by the Bishop, or judicially by a Church tribunal. Bishops can remove the faculites of a priest to perform the sacraments. Bishops can only temporarily remove the right to wear clerical dress and to not use clerical titles. Only a tribunal can impose lasting censures on a priest’s rights within the institution. This is to keep bishops from abusing their authority. A tribunal might permanently censure a priest from the exercise of title, dress, and performance of sacraments. This still does not take away the clerical state and the other rights and duties associated with it.
For there to be a complete loss of all the rights and duties of the clerical state, a priest has to be ‘dismissed’ from that state by a high ranking tribunal (as a censure for something very grave) or by the Pope as a favor to a priest who wants to leave the clerical state. In common parlance this is called ‘defrocking’ and ‘leaving the priesthood.’ Once the dismissal occurs, the priest (who is still theologically a priest and can administer sacraments to someone who is in danger of immediate death) is officially disassociated with the clerical state. He no longer has any of the rights or privileges of the state, and the institution no longer has the responsibilities toward him that they would for a priest in the clerical state.
WRT to current sex abuse scandal, the problem is that a tribunally imposed dismissal has been very rare. Usually, these types of church-criminal legal cases are settled admistratively. Bishops do not have the power to dismiss, they can only remove the priest from active ministry. That’s why there are so many removed priests who still are in the clerical state. Many live like they were dismissed from the state, IOW, they live like lay men. But there are some, like the aforementioned TV priest, who continues to lay claim to his clerical status and wear the clothes and insist on the titles.
In responst to the current scandal, by this Fall (of 2003), all the dioceses in the U.S. will have in place the procedures to actually start trying all these priests removed from active ministry who are fighting their removal. IOW, a criminal court system is being put in place.
The shit will hit the fan, however, when these cases start being tried, for you see, the RCC also has a statute of limitations canon, like state laws do. This means, that all those removed (the overwhelming majority of whom are guilty, although there are a few false claims or trumped up charges) will not be censured by the tribunals. This will force the U.S. bishops to go back on their promise made in Dallas the previous year to remove from ministry all the guilty. Their only recourse then, will be to petition the Pope directly to dismiss the quilty by fiat.