I agree with Mrs. Shea!
I’ve spent the last couple of days sleeping off a flu and catching up on email, so I apologize to Mark and others who asked for not weighing in sooner on this subject. Basically, it involves a Boston reporter who is trying to spin the situation in order to lay the blame on Rome. Anyway, Mark Shea provides the background to this controversy along with the general opinion of his lovely wife at the following URL: From the “Must. Get. Scoop!” Department of Snap Judgments
Mark, I’ve read this over a couple times, and while I’m not exactly sure what to make of it (without the entire context of the letter I’m guessing at snippets) I also tend to agree with your wife. From what I’m able to understand, it appears that this order is being given on the assumption that the priest has been defrocked.
In short, it appears that this applies not to a priest in active ministry, but a priest who has now been reduced to the lay state that is being asked to “to live away from the place where his previous condition is known.” Notice how it does not specify “parish” but “place”, which would imply town, county, region or local geographical area. This is standard in these cases. Subsequently, the Holy Father then states: “The local [superior] . . . is able to dispense from this clause of the decree if it is foreseen that the presence of the suppliant will cause no scandal.”
Basically, as your wife points out, the context seems to be that the abuser-priest has been reduced to the lay state, and can therefore no longer exercise ministry. (Although I would assume in keeping with canonical tradition that certain restrictive exceptions are made when there is danger of death — ie the defrocked priest comes across someone dying in an auto
accident on the side of the road.)
I should also point out that this is a standard request when a priest is reduced to the lay state, regardless of the reason for the reduction to the lay state, or whether or not the reduction is voluntary on the part of the priest. Thus I would assume that the word “his condition”, in keeping with canonical Tradition, refers to his laicization, and not to the crime which led to his laicization. Again, this is pretty standard canonical jargon when a priest is laicized.
Nevertheless, the local ordinary charged with executing the decree is given the option of dispensing from the clause requiring the defrocked priest to move away, if it is forseen that no scandal will arise. For example, unlike a small town where everyone knowns everybody, this is not possible. On the other hand, Boston is a large enough city where a laicized priest can just lose himself in the crowd and attend a parish across town without anyone ever having known he was priest. He can then live out his faith in the pew as a simple Catholic, without engaging in any ministry and without anyone ever knowing he was once a priest.