Fr. Paul Wickens, Fr. Charles Fiore, William H. Kennedy and I may be wrong but I think Gerry Matatics as well have confirmed that they have seen Fr. Martin's "paperwork" verifying his status. Cardinal O'Connor according to Kennedy tried to put a stop to Fr. Martin's activities and claims but Fr. Martin presented his celebret to O'Connor and that was the end of the issue.
Maybe, but the statement Mr. Kennedy says proves that Fr. Martin was never laicised actually does not. Fr. Martin, Fr. Wickens, Fr. Fiore, and Cardinal O'Connor are all deceased (requiescant in pace), and are not able to show us any documentation. I don't know what Mr. Matatics may have seen. Both the statement from Fr. O"Keefe and the statement from the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life say that Fr. Martin was laicised.
Does it make any sense to be laicized but still demand he remain celibate ?. I'm with Gerard, Fr.Fiore et al.
It is my understanding that the Church never used to dispense priests from the obligation of celibacy, just as bishops are never dispensed today.
Even if he was living with a woman, it could have been a house keeper or something innocent like that.
Absolutely. I only included that because I wanted to quote the entire statement.