Note: This document is available for downloading in Document Library at the Corpus Forum - filename: rescript.pdf

Recent issues of CORPUS REPORTS have provided valuable materials on the process for dispensation from clerical obligations commonly referred to as laicization. Robert Kippley’s article in the Nov/Dec 2001 issue “Was Ordination A Mistake?” very capably challenged the requirements, spirit and methodology of current process. The Jan/Feb issue provided samples of the petitioner and witness questionnaire as well as a sample final rescript. I have been invited to offer a further reflection on this matter from the perspective of a person who recently went through the procedure primarily in order to protect my wife’s position as a lay employee in the Church.

The term “laicization” itself has its complexities in that the cleric who applies for this dispensation is not only “reduced” to the lay state but is further restricted by the many curbs included in the final rescript from participation in liturgical roles or teaching positions that are open to lay  persons. In effect, the dispensed cleric becomes a sub–laymen by restricting access to roles in the faith community given not only at ordination but much earlier at baptism.

Although the dispensed priest is clearly no longer an active member of the clerical state, this process does not alter the fact that he has been ordained and continues to be a priest ontologically. As expressed in correspondence from my chancery: “The concept of ‘clerical state’ is used to express the ability of the church to release a priest from the obligations and the corresponding privileges of priesthood, while at the same time recognizing that he remains a priest forever.” In fact he is not only allowed but required by canon law, (cfa.canons 976 and 986) to provide priestly ministry for those in danger of death. The teachings of the Council of Trent are very clear on this and the permanence of the priestly state has never been challenged theologically or canonically. Current Vatican officials have used a very narrow interpretation for the “pastoral emergencies” when a resigned or dispensed priest may appropriately respond using his sacramental powers, but the fact that they continue is accepted by all. Regardless of whether church officials endorse such activity as proper, they concur that sacramental actions by resigned priests are valid even though they may be technically illicit or improper.

Under Pope Paul VI there was a very humane and pastoral procedure for obtaining a dispensation from clerical obligations. The applicant basically indicated that he could no longer continue his commitment to celibacy, and in a rather simple process received a dispensation in a process that typically took a total of about six months. Under those terms a large number of priests obtained dispensations and felt accepted and reconciled with the Church. The stricter and many would say rather harsh policy under John Paul II has understandably discouraged many men from applying. The official explanation for the shift to more stringent standards is a concern that a number of priests who were dispensed under the earlier procedures later changed their minds and requested reinstatement.
This appears to be a relatively rare occurrence here in the U.S. and a questionable justification for such a significant revamping.

As indicated by Father David Hynous, OP, a canonist, in his commentary on this matter in The Clergy Procedural Handbook , there are two distinct approaches that can be followed in seeking a dispensation depending on the applicant:

1. Priests who long ago abandoned the priestly life, cannot withdraw from their current state and wish to sanate it.
2. Cases of those who should not have received priestly ordinations because: they lacked due sense of freedom or responsibility; competent superiors were not able, at the proper time, to judge whether the candidate was truly fit to live a celibate life.

These categories are much more restrictive than criteria used in the time of Pope Paul VI. To quote Father Hynous: “Since the petition is being granted under the title of justice, it is necessary for the petitioner to establish the reasons why he was not either free or mature enough to accept the obligations of priesthood and celibacy. It is not sufficient to state simply that he was unable to accept the celibate life. He must give details and specific events that establish his inability to commit himself…” This is the crux of the point made in Kippley’s article, “Was Ordination A Mistake?”

The process under John Paul II is very similar to the annulment procedures used for marriage. In effect, the earlier choice must be shown to be flawed in a way that compromised it. Just as many divorced people object to a procedure that denigrates their earlier marriage and attacks its validity, many resigned priests object to a procedure that picks apart the authenticity of their earlier commitment.

We see, therefore, that John Paul II did not simply “slow down” the processing of dispensations from clerical obligation but altered very significantly the standards for the process itself. Many find the current procedure punitive rather than pastoral. In my case, I applied initially shortly after my resignation from active ministry in 1984.

[ more... ]