laicization & bishops

We’ve talked about “laicization” and the dismissal of priests from the active ministry, but it might be interesting to dig a little deeper into what the implications are. Back in grade school I learned that three sacraments cannot be repeated, they are conferred permanently. As I recall the image was that they put an “indelible mark or stain” upon our soul, somewhat “like indelible ink”. These sacraments were Baptism, Confirmation and Holy Orders. Their effects were irreversible. I’m not a Graham Greene fan and I’m not suggesting that he is an expert on the details of Catholic sacramental theology, but I seem to remember that this was a basic element in his depiction of the “whiskey priest”. This was a distinction between “ex opere operato” and “ex opera operantis” in traditional theology, a distinction between the work done and the one who did the work.

So it seems that laicization does not deprive the priest of his priestly powers, specifically the power to preside at the celebration of the Eucharist, it merely forbids him to do so. Given that the penalty is usually imposed as a consequence of the priest’s disobedience to an order from a superior, bishop or pope, such a prohibition is unlikely to prevent him from doing what his conscience tells him is
right and lawful. Since the current most common exercise of such penalty seems to be as a consequence of his being identified as a pedophile, one wonders if the main purpose is to shield the church from further charges that its negligence not merely permitted the original crime but also allowed the situation to persist after it knew about it.

Digging a little further into the question one might suggest that since those who continued to enable the abuse by maintaining the abuser in ministry were as guilty, or more guilty, they too should incur the same penalty and also be suspended immediately and laicized if the charges are proven. I am not clear if Rome claims that appointment as bishop or cardinal confers immunity from ecclesiastical penalties, However if Rome can expunge the indelible character of Holy Orders, it should not be impossible to remove a bishop’s mitre.

This offers another explanation of the unwillingness of many bishops to deal with this problem: they are concerned that if they start punishing pedophile priests, their people’s anger and the law’s reach might eventually stretch higher on the tree. It is in fact an instinct for self-preservation. That may explain why Archbishop Martin in Dublin is so proactive in rooting out the problem. Some say he has spent most of his priesthood away from the diocese and doesn’t understand how it is. They are right. He has been abroad and “has no bodies buried” that can be used to deter him. So he can move along without fear or favor.

Rome is not anxious to take the responsibility for removing bishops; there are only so many positions to which one can promote discredited or incompetent prelates and these are filling rapidly, while the funds to maintain them are shrinking. All things considered the possibility of laicizing not only pedophile priests but also errant bishops may need to be considered. And once that step is taken retirements may start coming fast and furiously.