As you all know we have been dealing with the laicization of Eddie Shoback, former priest in the Scranton Diocese.
I have been trying unsuccessfully to learn about the process of laicization. I understand that the indelible mark on their souls remain, and that they can still confect the Eucharist, although illicitly. And that they must offer confesson and absolution to a dying person in case of an emergency.
Here's my question if the above is true.
What makes you think that a former priest would even bother to follow the rules after being dismissed from the priesthood? I mean if they were busy diddling little boys in the sacristy or whatever illegality they were engaged in, what from their past behavior gives you reason to believe they would bother to offer confession and absolution?
I'm just askin'.
It also seems presumptious on the Church to be like "we're dismissing you from the priesthood, but if someone might be dying in front of you, you must hear their confession."
I just hope I dont fall down nearly dead in front of Shoback, who knows what part of my body he might want to give "absolution" to!
Have a nice weekend!
4 comments:
The rules for laicization are predicated on the fact that most priests who do so have asked to be laicized & thus want to remain in good standing in the Catholic Church.
In situations like this, it would depend on the person as to how well he obeyed the rules.
Now you're gettin' to the interesting stuff!
Anyway these are my thoughts, and those alone. Because as you know I'm far from any authority on the Catholic religion.
But first, it does seem contradictory. They are back to "lay" status yet at the same time still have the holy stamp of priestly magic/holiness (don't know what word to use) on their soul. So the still have the same power as rightful priests...yet aren't supposed to be using it? I guess? So I guess he could wander around his house baptizing things, but it'd be "illegally" I guess by...what, church standards? It's confusing to me too. I get it, yet at the same time...don't see the point of it so much. I guess they can't take away the priest-magic but once he's laicized he's not allowed to use it.
Except if someone's dying in front of him. Hmmm. Yeah you're right, that is weird. I guess since he took his oaths as a priest he is still obligated in some way, even if it's in saving a dying soul, but for the most part he's barred from using his priest-ness.
And as for what you said about following rules...eh, that's kind of subjective. just because the priest couldn't control his 'urges' or decided to be manipulative and sin and abuse his power...at the same time he might still be really into Catholicness. I can see those two things being separate. People do wrong things but it still doesn't mean the moral code and rules they chose to follow (and break) would change or be obsolete to them. It'd have to be on a case-by-case basis though I think, as far as the priest's motive behind both his bad actions and even becoming a priest in the first place. If he became a priest JUST to abuse his power or do the pervy stuff...then I'd agree with what you're saying. Otherwise, nah, the rules and all might still be important to him. Do you kinda see my point?
Now I'm just babbling. And I hope this post isn't somehow offensive to anyone lurking around...lol...
- L
You are an unbelievabely hostile and vulgar individual. I cannot believe the complete lack of charity and insensitivity in your commentaries. I have been reading your blogs and am completely disedified by almost everything you have to say. Remember, the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, both incarnate and spiritual. This body is made up of fragile members like YOU and ME. I think your work would benefit from a bit more charity and concern for the struggles of others. Feel free to e-mail me. I am a seminarian for the diocese. My e-mail address is jtudgay@gmail.com.
Thanks,
Jeff Tudgay
Hi Jeff, Thanks for stopping by.
You may find this hard to believe, but you are not the first person to come by and tell me I suffer from a lack of charity.
If having a lack of charity means that I am not willing to let a pedophile priest get away with preying on the innocent souls he was supposed to help save, then yeah. I have no charity.
Because in my world truth trumps charity and always will.
I know you are a seminarian, and I wonder if you realize a few things.
You do realize that if you receive Holy Orders the kinds of people you will come into contact with, right? People who will hate you because of what and Who you represent? There will be sinners seeking absolution, ‘hostile and vulgar’ individuals, confessing all manner of terrible sins.
I hope you are kinder to them than you were to me.
I'm a sinner. I’m not the one trying to be a priest.
If the personal attack you posted here is any indication, you might want to seek out another line of work.
Because when it comes to changing hearts and minds you might need more than a bit of practice.
Maybe I‘ll see you at Mass tomorrow. I’ll be praying for you.
And in the future, please follow my rule which was plainly listed in the comment box and on my main page under 'Welcome!' "If you break the rules of gentlemanly engagement, (ie, be nice and courteous) then I will blacklist you." I will never insult or call visitors to my blog names while we engage each other in the comment box. And I certainly won't stand for it when the derision is directed at me. Engage me, don't insult me.
God Bless.
Post a Comment