By Nchumbonga George Lekelefac
The year 2023 has been a year of loss of clerical state by some clerics in some dioceses in the Ecclesiastical Province of Bamenda. Witness, that on Friday March 3, 2023, Bishop Agapitus Nfon, bishop of the diocese of Kumba released two letters on the canonical situation of two of his clerics namely Reverend Father George Ngalame and Jean Paul Mwene Mwene.
In the letter, he informed that these two had lost the rights and obligations of the clerical state. Prior to this, on February 20, 2023, Bishop Aloysius Abangaloof the Diocese of Mamfere leased a letter informing the canonical status of Rev. Fr. Dieudonne Akawung Tazisong. In his letter, he notified that the aforementioned priest had been removed from the clerical state.
In the history of the Ecclesiastical province of Bamenda, it has not been common for clerics to lose the clerical state. The first of its kind occurred in the 2000s when Reverend Father Sylvester Nfah of the diocese of Mamfe lost the clerical state. This was the first of its kind in that Ecclesiastical Province. The second priest in the same Mamfe Diocese who lost the clerical state was Rev. Fr. David Fomanka.
Many people in this part of the world have not been used to the loss of clerical state by clerics. This is because a great majority of Christians in this part of the world see the priesthood as a bed of roses, an easy and better life, where one is sure of his three-square meals a day, a car, and a house. In addition, these Christians see the priesthood as a superior life to the lay person’s life. That is why the news of loss of clerical state by some priests went viral and many where wondering why a priest would request to leave the sweet life of a priest.
Most of these Christians fail to understand what priests go through in their daily lives and the many challenges that they face. They have no idea of the reality of priesthood. As far as we know from our research, the Diocese of Buea is the only diocese in this province that has not had a case of loss of the clerical state yet, while the Diocese of Kumbo has had two priests: Rev. Fr. Paul Tar and Rev. Fr. David Tangwa.
What is the Loss of Clerical State?
In the Canon Law of the Catholic Church, the loss of clerical state is the removal of a (cleric): bishop, priest, or deacon from the status of being a member of the clergy. Once this is done, they become lay persons. Our article would like to enlighten our lectors on the subject of loss of clerical state. It is an act by which a legitimate authority takes away from a cleric the lawful use, except for emergencies, of the sacrament power of orders; deprives him of his rights, privileges, and clerical status; and renders him juridically equivalent to a lay person.
Canon Law clearly points out that laicization in no way affects the power of orders, not even those that are clearly of ecclesiastical origin; rather, the action touches on the lawful use of the power of the sacrament of orders. There are three ways in which a cleric loses the clerical state: (a) by judicial sentence or administrative decree that declares the invalidity of sacred ordination; (b) by a penalty of dismissal legitimately imposed for some crime specified in church law; or (c) by a rescript or letter of the Apostolic See. (Cf. CIC 290 and CCEO 394).
While frequently used in the media, the term laicization doesn’t really exist anymore among canonists.Now, when a priest loses his clerical state, either because he requested it or because it was taken from him, he is dismissed from the clerical state because this is a juridical status. He remains in a situation judicially as if he were a layperson.
This is where the term laicization comes from. When this happens, it doesn’t mean that a priest is no longer a priest: the sacrament of Holy Orders isn’t lost; it imprints an ontological sign on the being of the priest that can never be lost. When a priest loses his clerical state, what happens is that the exercising rights proper to the clerical state are prohibited, such as saying Mass, hearing confessions, and administering the sacraments; as are the obligations, such as that of reciting the Liturgy of the Hours and obedience to their bishop.
However, since a man dismissed from the clerical state remains a priest, there are times at which the Church continues to oblige him to act as a priest. For example, if he finds someone in danger of death who asks for the sacraments, even though he is no longer in a clerical state, he must hear (the person’s) confession because the most important thing is the salvation of that person.
It is importance that we do not misinterpret the process to mean a reduction to the lay state.This phrase is not correct because it inaccurately treats laity “in a derogatory way, as if they were lesser. The clerics and laypersons in the Catholic church are equal by their baptism, but different only in function.
If a priest chooses to renounce his clerical state, he is often inserted into society without a problem; but when it comes to those who have been dismissed, it can be a lot harder. There is a canon (c. 1350 §2) establishing that there exists a duty of charity toward them. This means helping them and taking care of them in the measure that the person lets themselves be helped, If an 80-year-old priest is dismissed from the clerical state, where do we send him? Can he find work? He’ll end up living on the street as a homeless man. How long will he last? He won’t last anything. To put a man on the street in this circumstance, unless he has relatives ready to take him in, is practically to kill him.
Since Pastor bonus, a number of practical instructions on processing loss of the clerical state petitions became available. For example, “Documents Necessary for the Instruction of a Case for the Dispensation from the Obligations of Priestly Celibacy” was issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments in April 1991 (CLSA Roman Replies & Advisory Opinions, 1991, 2–4).
The next year the congregation issued “Loss of the Clerical State by a Deacon and a Dispensation from All the Obligations of Ordination” through Archbishop Daniel Pilazczyk, May 11, 1992 (CLSA Roman Replies & Advisory Opinions, 1992, 6–11). Finally, a circular letter was sent on June 6, 1997, to all ordinaries and superiors concerning the laicization of priests and deacons (Origins 27/11, Aug. 28, 1997, 169, 170–172).
Difference from Suspension
The removal from the clerical state differs from suspension. The latter is a censure prohibiting certain acts by a cleric, whether the acts are of a religious character deriving from his ordination (acts of the power of orders) or are exercises of his power of governance or of rights and functions attached to the office he holds.As a censure, suspension is meant to cease when the censured person shows repentance. Removal from the clerical state, on the contrary, is a permanent measure, whereby for a sufficient reason a cleric is from then on juridically treated as a layman.
The effects of the loss of the clerical state
While more attention focuses on the procedures on loss of the clerical state, there are a number of consequences applicable to all three modes. CIC canon 292 and CCEO canon 395 state that one who loses the clerical state is no longer bound by its obligations but also no longer enjoys its rights (cc. 279–289). With the exception stated in canon 976, one who loses the clerical state is forbidden the exercise of sacred orders. It is necessary therefore to examine individual rescripts for restrictions imposed on the departing cleric.
A return to the clerical state
The present law of the Church provides for such a possibility with CIC canon 293 and CCEO canon 398.“A cleric who loses the clerical state cannot be enrolled among clerics again except through a rescript of the Apostolic See.” No further procedures are set forth. As a commentary on this topic, one might consult M. Souckar, “Return to Ministry of Dispensed Priests,” Jurist 54 (1994) 605–616.
Notable historical examples of loss of the clerical state
First, at Napoléon Bonaparte’s insistence, Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord requested laicization in 1802, in order to marry his long-time lover Catherine Grand (née Worlée). Talleyrand was already excommunicated for his part in the Civil Constitution of the Clergy.
Pope Pius VII reluctantly lifted the excommunication and gave him permission to wear secular clothing, which permission the French Conseil d’État interpreted as a laicization. Talleyrand married Worlée, then divorced in 1815, (Cf. Spiegel, Taru (2019-03-02) and lived on as a layman, but on his deathbed in 1838 he signed a document of reconciliation with the Church, prepared by future bishop Félix Dupanloup. Dupanloup then administered the last rites of a bishop to Talleyrand.
Second, Bishop of San Pedro Fernando Lugo requested laicization in Paraguay in 2005 to allow him to run for President of Paraguay. (National Catholic Reporter,November 2, 2012). The Church at first refused, going so far as to suspend him as bishop when he ran for office anyway, but eventually granted lay status in 2008 after he was elected. (Cf.Catholic World News, July 30, 2008).
Third, in September 2018, Pope Francis ordered the laicization of a Chilean priest convicted in 2011 of the sexual abuse of minors. He had previously been sentenced to a life of prayer and penance. (Cf. Catholic News Agency, September, 2018).
Cases of Bishops
First, in 2009, the church laicized Emmanuel Milingo, a former exorcist, faith healer, and archbishop of Lusaka, Zambia, who had already been excommunicated from the church three years earlier. Archbishop Milingo had threatened to form a breakaway church without a rule of priestly celibacy and had himself married. (Cf. Philip Pullella, December 17, 2019).
Second, Raymond Lahey, the former bishop of Antigonish, Nova Scotia, Canada, was laicized in 2012, a year after he pleaded guilty in Canadian civil court to importing child pornography. (Cf.Catholic News Service. May 16, 2012).
Third, Józef Wesołowski, a Polish archbishop who had been a nuncio (papal ambassador), was dismissed from the clerical state in 2014 on grounds of sexual abuse of minors. The Vatican had made criminal charges against Wesołowski related to his abuse of minors and planned to try him, but Wesołowski died in 2015 before a trial could be held. (Cf. Payne, Ed; Messia, Hada August 28, 2015).
Fourth, Theodore Edgar McCarrick, a former cardinal and the former Archbishop of Washington, D.C., was dismissed from the clerical state in February 2019. [Cf. Chico, Harlan, 16 February 2019). McCarrick is the highest-ranked church official to date to be dismissed over the ongoing sexual abuse scandals in the Church. (Cf. D’Emilio, Frances; Winfield, Nicole, February 16, 2019).
Conclusion
Cardinal Christian Tumi noted in an interview with me on October 26, 2020 that it is not the state or status in the church that sanctifies, but it is fidelity to the state that sanctifies. He made this statement to elucidate that what matters is not what state we are in the church: cleric, lay person, but the faithfulness to our state, that is, our way of life. Therefore, what matters is not the loss of the state, but being faithful in whatever state we find ourselves. It is my wish that we will not forget that we are all players in the team in the Church, and that despite our different positions and states, what matters is our faithfulness to what we have been called to, and not our position or status.
Nchumbonga George Lekelefac, Doctorandus, University of Münster, Germany; Europe / USA Correspondent of the SUN Newspaper; Founder/ CEO of Nchumbonga Lekelefac Institute of Research, Documentation, Language and Culture, USA>