Dear Bro. Ignatius,

I am writing to support your statement about Mr. Martin's laicization, by offering some additional information to you readers about laicization. I don't know the details about his specific case, but I will write about laicization in general. If you believe that my remarks are not helpful to your readers then fell free to trash this message. You wrote:

"As for his laicization, the Vatican says, "In 1965, Mr. Martin received a dispensation from all privileges and obligations deriving from his vows as a Jesuit and from priestly ordination." [Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, 25 June 1997, Prot. N. 04300/65].

If you think I am making this up, please contact the Congregation and ask them referring to the above citation. As a laicized priest Mr. Martin was no longer clergy.

He was returned to the lay state, even though ontologically a priest is always a priest, but a priest is not always clergy. Thus Mr. Martin could no longer be called "Father", he could not convect the Sacraments except in an emergency danger of death situation of someone, and could not perform solemn exorcisms. To do any of these things would have been illicit and would have constituted rebellion on his part.

Also laicized priests are not to be in the public eye without specific permission. I do not know if Mr. Martin had that or not.

These things about what a laicized priest can or cannot do are not my opinion, but are outlined in Canon Law. "

All I want to add is this: Laicization, that, in Canon Law, is formally called "dismissal from the clerical state", is something that can happen either as a punishment imposed by the competent ecclesiastical authority or at the cleric's request, also by a decision of the competent authority.

While the Sacrament of Holy Orders remains with the laicized priest forever (a priest is a priest forever), the affiliation to the clerical state can be revoked by (or voluntarily relinguished to) the authority of the Church. It is a matter of discipline an Canon Law.

The Church, who admits someone to the clergy, has the power to dismiss that person from the ecclesiastical state. The dismissed priest, altough a priest in the Hierarchy of Holy Orders, loses his rank as a priest in the Hierarchy of Jurisdiction, and becomes a layman.

The priest that is dismissed (by request or by punishment) from the clerical state is no longer a cleric, and he is bound by Church law under pain of sin and of ecclesiastical offense NOT to exercise the power of Holy Orders, not even privately, except to aid someone in danger of death. He can no longer be called Father, wear the ecclesiastic vestments or exercise any power or authority over the faithful.

The statement from the Vatican makes it clear that Mr. Martin was laicized. The vow of obedience is essential to the belonging to the clergy. If Mr. Martin, either at his own request or otherwise, was dispensed from such vow, then it is clear that this was laicization.