The Catholic Church faces a serious problem, much more serious than it seems. It’s not about puritanism or morbidity, but about justice. When talking about dismissal from the clerical state—expelling a priest and disqualifying him for life—it cannot be that the decision depends on whim, sympathy, or the interests of the moment. Without a clear and universal evidentiary standard, ecclesiastical discipline becomes an arbitrary weapon in the hands of whoever wants to use it. Today a priest can be struck down for a private slip-up, and tomorrow another can continue leading parishes while living publicly in concubinage. The contradiction is blatant, and the damage to the Church’s credibility is incalculable.
The Case of José Castro Cea, alias “Josete”
A scandalous example can be found in Madrid with the priest José Castro Cea, known as “Josete”. He appeared in a theater (see the video) recorded for social media, accompanied by his homosexual partner, and there he confessed to having been in a relationship with him for three years and recounted that they met at a sexual orgy. All this, in public, with laughter, lights, and cameras. The facts clearly fit a situation of concubinage with public scandal. The Code of Canon Law recognizes it as one of the causes that can justify dismissal from the clerical state. There are no doubts here: there is explicit acknowledgment, there is publicity, there is scandal. However, the consequence has been none. Absolute silence. Josete continues at the helm of his responsibilities, as if nothing had happened.
The Contrast: The Priest Liquidated for Three Secret Encounters
Meanwhile, another priest, whose full file we have studied at InfoVaticana and who will soon make headlines, was dismissed from the clerical state for three private and inappropriate encounters, in which both parties confirmed that there wasn’t even full intercourse. No concubinage, no public scandal. A slip-up, yes; a sin, certainly; but a discreet, secret fact, without dissemination or notoriety. The result was dismissal from the clerical state and immediate professional disqualification. A completely disproportionate punishment if compared to the passivity in Josete’s case. What was behind it?
The Legal Vacuum That Opens the Door to Injustice
The conclusion is clear: the Church lives in an intolerable legal uncertainty. Priests do not know what is considered public scandal, what is understood by concubinage, or what evidence is needed to apply the most severe penalty a cleric can receive. The legal vacuum turns canon law into a minefield: you liquidate the one who falls badly for a private slip-up; you keep the one with support in office even if he lives in public scandal. Crudely put: any hitman with a clerical collar can use canon law to destroy whoever gets in his way. And that is intolerable.
What to Do to Stop the Arbitrariness?
The Church cannot continue like this. It needs clear definitions of “concubinage” and “public scandal” that leave no room for biased interpretations. It needs solid and objective evidence before applying dismissal: witnesses, documents, public acknowledgment, not mere rumors or suspicions. It also needs to graduate the sanctions: a private slip-up is not the same as concubinage flaunted in front of cameras without shame. And above all, it needs transparency and coherence: the same criteria applied to everyone, without favoritism or reprisals.
Conclusion
The Church must set an example of justice. It cannot punish with severity those who fall into a private fault and, at the same time, look the other way when a priest lives publicly in scandal. That double standard destroys trust, wounds the faithful, and humiliates the clergy itself. The problem is no longer moral; it is legal. Without a single evidentiary standard, ecclesiastical discipline becomes an instrument of arbitrariness. And with arbitrariness, what prevails is not the justice of the Gospel, but the law of the strongest.