a relative of mine has a husband who was supposed to join the clergy. He just dropped out of the program and married her. Now he's not a priest but a parochial worker. Might be that it is harder to find straight priests because it is possible to just drop out, marry and live a very respectable life. Now if you drop out and come out as gay well that would be a lot more difficult in that kind of community.
But before becoming priest there is a quite long training program (often 5-6 years). Dropping out of it is quite common.
And even after becoming a priest, they can asked to be relieved for their obligations, including celibacy. But in this case they would have to find an other job.
Er, as a Catholic I'd be inclined to dispute this. I know a few ex-priests. One of whom has been happily married for years. Another became a C of E minister and also got married. Another left the priesthood for 17 yrs then eventually came back. My understanding is, its intended to be a lifelong commitment, but it doesn't always work out. A marriage can be annulled in the church if it is thought that one of both parties failed to fully understand what they were promising to each other or fully enter into the promise being a true commitment. That could be the case with ordaining a priest too. As well as the fact that being a priest is an extremely hard job as well as the celibacy requirement so some people come to the conclusion they are unable to fulfil the role properly.
First, divorce is a one-and-done sin. Someone who finalizes a divorce and confesses it is in a state of grace, much as someone who ate steak last Friday and confessed.it.
Now, a laicized priest is in no sin either, unless he attempts to hold himself out as a priest still. A man with a rescript from the Holy See is typically freed from all obligations of the clerical state, and that can and will often include celibacy, so a laicized priest is perfectly eligible for marriage, and perhaps a really good catch.
I'm not sure where you see disagreement. It's not a personal sin for the priest to be dismissed. See #3, by request. Oh sure, a priest may be dismissed as a penalty, for something he did, namely sins such as abuse, but the dismissal itself is not sinful like procuring a divorce. The OP compared laicization to a divorce, and it's nothing like that at all.
Think of it this way: it's not a crime to go to prison, but one will certainly go to prison as the result of a crime.
"Eighty per cent of priests working at the Vatican are gay, although not necessarily sexually active, it is claimed in the book, In the Closet of the Vatican."
While a bishop could arbitrarily excommunicate them, unless they've committed am obvious sin the Church is not going to invite a PR disaster by kicking out super rich members. This group is free to police only gay priests if that's their prerogative, and it'd still be an independent group using their own money.
I'm not talking about excommunication. Also, that penalty doesn't make an organization "non Catholic".
I'm talking about the Church's right to revoke the term "Catholic" which is not infrequently invoked, for example against RealCatholicTV and the National Catholic Reporter. It's not excommunication, just a representation and naming issue.
And I think the term you want is "financially autonomous" because no Catholic individual or group is "independent" unless they are schismatic.
The Catholic Church, of course, cannot trademark or copyright Catholicism or its doctrine, and so in most locales she has no secular legal standing to restrict the use of the word or term "Catholic".
However, the bishop can and will have a say in which Catholic groups call themselves "Catholic" and represent themselves as Catholic groups within the Catholic Church, and so they have ecclesiastical authority to revoke that right of representation. Not a few groups have abused the honor and privilege of the Catholic name, and it's been revoked.
Now also, whether or not a group chooses to cease calling itself "Catholic" is up to the group entirely, and whether they choose to be obedient. The National Catholic Register notoriously brushed off their bishop's concerns and continues to use the name. Others simply rename to something that doesn't contain that word.
It's also the case that the bishop gets to say who can reserve the Blessed Sacrament, and have it in a chapel where Mass is said. For example, St. Joseph Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix had those privileges revoked, along with their Catholic identity, when they performed an abortion. That identity was later restored by the same bishop who revoked it, so it's all good.
Seems to me its possible the priesthood attracts a disproportionate amount of gay men, in which case , not following the celibacy rule is more commonly happening in gay rather than straight relationships? In which case people trying to catch priests not being celibate are going to find "richer pickings" on gay apps. (Sure its still likely driven by homophobia, and its still a horrible thing to do). Basically, many straight men wouldn't even consider the priesthood as they'd think celibacy is impossible and/or undesirable for them. For gay men I'd think its a different calculation. Historically, and still in many societies today, its been considered "unacceptable" to be gay. Therefore, if you're gay, what are you gonna do if you can't be openingly in a gay relationship? In that case, the priesthood might be a safe haven of sorts either if (a) they have a strong faith, some calling to be a priest, and think celibacy is not asking that much given they cannot openly have the relationships that are natural for them, or (b) its tacitly known that there are other gay men in the priesthood, and there are underground relationships going on. As a Catholic, I've met priest(s) that I'd be unsurprised to hear were gay, although, no suggestion they weren't being celibate, and its of no-one else's business IMHO (judge not lest thy be judged). I also heard a story of someone who went to Rome to train to be a priest then left in disgust when basically propositioned by men who were also training to be priests. His disgust was not as I understand from homophobia, but rather along the lines that they were basically using the seminary as a place for finding gay partners , rather than training to serve others as priest , in other words their motivation was completely wrong, and they had no apparent intention to follow celibacy.
I guess because pedo priest abusing altar boys makes for worse publicity than priest dating adult woman and it's double sin (since homosexuality ain't allowed besides sex outside marriage).
