Let me add one more Canon to the ones I quoted above.
Can. 1336 §1. In addition to other penalties which the law may have established, the following are expiatory penalties which can affect an offender either perpetually, for a prescribed time, or for an indeterminate time:
1/ a prohibition or an order concerning residence in a certain place or territory;
2/ privation of a power, office, function, right, privilege, faculty, favor, title, or insignia, even merely honorary;
3/ a prohibition against exercising those things listed under n. 2, or a prohibition against exercising them in a certain place or outside a certain place; these prohibitions are never under pain of nullity;
4/ a penal transfer to another office;
5/ dismissal from the clerical state.
§2. Only those expiatory penalties listed in §1, n. 3 can be latae sententiae.
Can. 1364 § 1 says: Without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in ⇒ can. 1336, §1, nn. 1, 2, and 3
So an apostate, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication, an excommunication that happens automatically at the point in time that the apostasy, heresy, or schism is committed.
At this point, do you know how they lift an excommunication?
The diocesan tribunal (or the tribunal of a collegial chapter of canons) can lift it, unless the excommunication is declared. If it is declared, the person who made the declaration can lift it. (Can. 508 § 1) (Naturally, if the excommunication is reserved to the Apostolic See, the Apostolic Penitentiary would have to lift it, but those excommunications are rare)
Why? Because an excommunication is a "medicinal" penalty (a censure) -- designed to bring the person back into communion.
Likewise, the penalties that can be applied to clerics, in addition to excommunication, are designed to fix the problem.
The message being sent here is that Cutie is in trouble. He is not to function as a priest or participate in the sacraments. (I can imagine that the bishop has given him some "directions" as well: i.e., stay away from that woman).
But the Archbishop is leaving the door open for him to come back into communion and, perhaps at some point, to operate as a cleric, maybe.
When the Archbishop said, His actions could lead to his dismissal from the clerical state, he is giving a direct threat out of Can 1364 §2. If contumacy of long duration or the gravity of scandal demands it, other penalties can be added, including dismissal from the clerical state. If you take a look at Can. 1336 &Sect; 2, you will see that dismissal from a clerical state cannot be done latae sententiae; i.e., it has to be as the result of an Ecclesial Trial.
So what the bishop is saying is, stop what you're doing, think about it, and come back. We'll forgive you and, if we have good reason to believe that you are truly repentent, we'll give you a chance to exercise your office someplace in the diocese. But if you persist, we will have no choice but to permanently remove you from the clerical state.
Any clearer?
Thank you. So a trial resulting in dismissal from the clerical state would make his restoration as a priest impossible, whereas at this point an avenue for him still exists to restore his faculties?
Why would the Archbishop say to a priest who has broken his vows to the Church, then claimed to accept those vows only to go behind the back of is Bishop and enter into the clergy of another denomination? I can understand forgiving him and wanting him to be able to take part in the sacraments, but not allow him back in a clerical role.
Why would anyone have reason to believe the next time he falls in love with a woman he won’t do the same thing again?