You heard Fr. Malachi address this point? His answer was that according to the wishes of bishop where he had taken up residence no priest who had been laicized was allowed to present himself as active clergy{or be called Father or to dress in religious garb}. I am confused now, as I thought Malachi Martin was not laicized? From your earlier post: "Just to clarify, he didn't leave the Church. He was a Jesuit and when he saw what was happening in that order and in the Church after Vatican II he requested to be released from his vow of obedience. He also asked to be released from his vow of poverty because he would then need to earn a living. His requests were granted by the Holy See. He retained his vow of chastity and he died in good standing. He was never forcibly laicized or ejected from the Church." Praetorian, Tuesday at 2:26 PM Report
Sorry for any confusion Sam. In my earlier post I said that he was not forcibly laicized. He left the priesthood by his own request. He was not stripped of his faculties as a repercussion of bad behavior. Any priest who leaves active service is laicized. That word merely means entering civil life. Merely being laicized is not in and of itself disgraceful. It is from when a priest is forcibly laicized against his will and stripped of his faculties by a Bishop that it gets a bad name. To be laicized simply means to leave the active clerical state. It does not mean one ceases to be a priest. Once a priest always a priest. In fact Fr. Malachi Martin even still performed priestly duties such as hearing confessions, etc. from time to time with the Bishop's permission. So he was not "laicized" in the "normal" sense of the word. Here is a more formal description: In the Catholic Church, a bishop, priest, or deacon may be dismissed from the clerical state as a penalty for certain grave offenses, or by a papal decree granted for grave reasons. This may be because of a serious criminal conviction, heresy, or similar matter. A Catholic cleric may also voluntarily request to be removed from the clerical state for a grave personal reason.[2] Voluntary requests are by far the most common means of for this loss, and the most common reason is to marry: Latin Church clergy must as a rule be unmarried.[2] A priest may also seek to be removed from the clerical state voluntarily because he disagrees with major policies or doctrines of the church and wishes to dissociate himself from those policies.[citation needed] Removal from the clerical state is sometimes imposed as a punishment (Latin: ad poenam),[3] or it may be granted as a favor (Latin: pro gratia) at the priest's own request. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_of_Clerical_State_(Catholic_Church)
If someone disagrees with major policies or doctrines of the Church then that makes him no longer Catholic That adds to the murkiness
The answer to your questions is here: https://catholicexchange.com/can-a-priest-ever-return-to-the-lay-state The Catechism states that the sacrament of Holy Orders confers an “indelible spiritual character” on the man who receives it (CCC 1582). Like the sacrament of Baptism, it can never be erased—a baptized Christian can cease to practice his faith, and even publicly deny Christ, but he can never undo his baptism. Priestly ordination works in exactly the same way. Similarly, canon 290 of the Code of Canon Law states bluntly that once a man validly receives sacred ordination, the sacrament never becomes invalid. As David says in his question, once a priest, always a priest. A cleric can never become a layman again. At the same time, however, it is possible for a priest to be released from the duties and responsibilities that are connected to the clerical state (CCC 1583). Practically speaking, this would mean that a priest no longer functioned outwardly as a priest. He would no longer engage in ministry within his diocese or religious institute; no longer celebrate Mass or confer the sacraments; no longer be called “Father” or wear clerical clothing; and no longer be supported financially by the Church. To the world he would appear to be a layman, working at an ordinary job and living the normal life of the laity. Canon law refers to this change as the “loss of the clerical state” (cf. cc. 290-293). Common parlance calls it laicization. Why would a priest lose the clerical state? It can be imposed upon him, as the most serious penalty for a priest who has committed an ecclesiastical crime, but that does not take place very often—nor should it. Ordinarily, it happens because a priest voluntarily requests it. For any number of reasons, he may conclude that he cannot continue living the life of a priest. Ideally, of course, the realization that it will be impossible to live and work as a priest for the rest of one’s life should be reached when a man is still a seminarian, during the years of theological study and spiritual formation leading up to his ordination. But sometimes life simply doesn’t work that way. Various combinations of emotional and health issues, deaths and other events within the priest’s family, and of course the immense stress of being constantly overworked while feeling unappreciated may lead a priest to reach this decision after he is already ordained and engaged in priestly ministry. When this occurs, and a priest is released from the clerical state, he is still technically a priest, but as canon 292 notes, he may no longer exercise the power of orders. Since this is what the priest is requesting anyway, there is usually little fear that he will violate this restriction. But in theory, if a laicized priest were to say Mass, it would be a valid Mass, since he never loses the ability to celebrate the Eucharist. It would, however, be illicit. (The difference between an invalid act, and an act that is valid but illicit, was discussed in greater detail back in the October 18, 2007 column.)
My point is very simple I do not need to like Fr Malachi Martin whiCh is not his real name, to be a Catholic I do not need to extol his writings I am free to question his motives and actions and writings on this forum and anywhere else
No I am serious. These are the same reasons Fr. Martin asked to be released from his vows. Not because he did not believe any Catholic doctrines. He was a good man and played an important part in my conversion. You can have your opinions about him, but I will defend him from any untrue statements that would tarnish his reputation. You apparently don't know much about him and yet you are saying derogatory things. I don't understand that. Don't listen to him, fine. But don't throw out allusions that he may be a dissenter from the Catholic faith. That is not true or charitable.
I am saying that he has a murky and questionable life and I am not alone in saying/thinking it I am not in the least inclined to delve into his works He may very well be a good man I am glad that he has influenced your conversion I do not believe I have said anything derogatory about him I am not a fan And many on this forum seem to be So I have taken the unpopular route of saying my feelings in print here I think it is important for people to feel free to dissent from some of the power-driven arguments presented here And as a member of this forum has said a couple of times: good people dont go to Heaven Holy people do We can argue that point but only God knows who is going where But I think I can boil it down to : I don’t feel drawn to know more about him Glad you have found something in him
I am not sure what exactly happened here HH, but I will let it drop as I know you are a good and devout Catholic and a continued back and forth will not be good for either of our souls. I am sorry for any inadvertent upset I may have contributed to. That was honestly not my intent. I was merely trying to clarify when asked information about Fr. Martin. God Bless HH. Truly.
Please take the time to read and ponder on the above and on the Ottaviani Intervention. Let me put this question out there: Let's imagine that up to this moment in time we had been celebrating only the Traditional Latin Mass, and we now learn that the pope had invited Protestants to a church council to formulate a new mass, one that would be pleasing and acceptable to Protestants (who reject the belief in the Real Presence), and that the Council Fathers had objected to the new mass because: How would you respond?
I understand that Malachi Martin left his order because he was upset with what was going on in the Jesuits. I just hope that other good Jesuits such as Fr. Mitch Pacwa do not ask to be laicized as Malachi Martin did. And by the way, I will not address Malachi Martin as Father. I think his bishop was right about that, as Malachi Martin had himself addressed as Dr.
Of course I get it I never meant any ill will at all either I guess ftom now on every one will know where we each stand on dr M Martin
I lived through this Sg So did many members on this forum If you feel this strongly then the TLM is for you Make haste
As he is deceased, and once a priest always a priest, I choose to use his honorific title, but it is perfectly understandable that some might not choose to. I agree with you I hope that Fr. Pacwa and other good priests do not leave, but we will just have to see what will happen in the future. Things are changing so rapidly now I think they may be forced out at some point. Time will tell.
