<blockquote><font size="1" face="Arial, Helvetica ,sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Bumfketeer: A rim editor (new hire) came trotting up to me with a proof the other day to question something in a front-page story about those darned priests.<p>The rimrat, in moderate dudgeon, informed me that the story referred to someone as a "former priest," and that according to "canon law" a priest continues to be referred to as a priest, even after getting kicked out of the order. This makes no sense to me. <p> I advised him to sit down, and that these buggerers will continue to be called "former" priests on my watch.<p>Questions: 1. Since when is a rim editor an expert on "canon law?" Doesn't the Vatican have jobs for these people in their PR department?<p>2. Has anyone else ever heard of this nonsense?<hr></blockquote><p>1. No clue.<p>2. I hadn't, so I looked in the Catholic News Service Stylebook on Religion. Your rimmer is at least half right. The proper term depends on whether the priest was laicized or suspended. Excerpts from the stylebook:<p>"Laicization: The process in the Catholic Church by which a priest is returned to the lay state, sometimes as a penalty for a serious crime or scandal, but usually at his request....[laicized priests are barred from all priestly functions and are also dispensed from obligations like celibacy.] "A laicized priest also may be referred to as a former priest or resigned priest...."<p>Suspended priests: "When a priest has been suspended, he is no longer permitted by the church to perform priestly functions .... However, he remains a priest and should be identified as Father. Mention in the story that he has been suspended ...."<p>HTH.
|