After 20 years in religious life, social media influencer priest leaves ministry
Former Redemptorist priest Damián María Montes, known from Spanish TV show “La Voz,” announced he is permanently leaving the priesthood after 20 years of religious life. He cited personal struggles and undisclosed reasons, expressing gratitude for his ministry and intent to pursue education, literature, and cultural work outside the Church. Montes had served as a missionary in India and participated in a controversial event, “La capital del pecado 2.0,” highlighting his public profile. His decision follows a trend of “influencer” priests and religious who have left the ministry, such as Cristina Scuccia and Daniel Pajuelo, indicating a broader pattern of laicization among public Catholic figures.
3 months ago
After two decades of religious service, Spanish Redemptorist priest Damián María Montes announced his permanent withdrawal from priestly ministry, joining a growing list of high‑profile “influencer” clergy who have chosen laicization in recent years. 1 2
Damián María Montes was born in Granada in 1986 and entered the Redemptorist postulancy at 18. He completed his novitiate in Ciorani, Italy, studied at the Pontifical University of Comillas in Madrid, and was sent as a missionary to Kolkata, India before taking perpetual vows. He was ordained a priest in Granada in 2013. 1
Montes gained public attention after appearing on the Spanish version of The Voice, where his performances were widely shared on social media, helping him amass thousands of followers. 1 2
In a video posted to his social‑media channels, Montes said that after “nearly three years of questions, searching, silences, and a profound inner struggle” he had decided to “permanently withdraw from priestly ministry.” He expressed gratitude for his experiences and described the decision as made “at peace and with a clear conscience.” 1 2
He noted that the final years of his ministry had been “very sad and very difficult,” and he kept the specific “compelling reasons” for his departure private. 1
Montes said he intends to focus on “education, literature, poetry, theater, and cultural creations” as avenues for contributing beauty and humanity to the world. He also mentioned the possibility of starting a family and keeping his home open to those who have supported him. 1 2
Montes’s departure is part of a broader trend of priests and religious who have built sizable online followings and later left active ministry. Notable examples include:
These cases illustrate a pattern of clergy navigating the tensions between public visibility, personal struggles, and traditional expectations of priestly life. 1 2
Influencer priests’ laicization reflects modern Catholic vocational challenges
Laicization (reduction to the lay state) of some priests who were highly visible online is often discussed as if it were mainly a “career outcome.” Catholic teaching, however, treats priestly ordination as something far deeper: a real, permanent sacramental configuration to Christ. That is why such cases should be read as a sign not only of individual crisis, but also of broader vocational and formation challenges in today’s culture—and also of the Church’s need to support priests so that they can persevere in their call.
Catholic doctrine insists that ordination confers an indelible character and “sacred power” for serving the Church in Christ. The Church’s own theological work drawing on Vatican II emphasizes that episcopal and priestly ordination insert the ordained into Christ’s priestly mission, enabling them to preach, celebrate the sacraments, and govern according to their role.
A key point for interpreting any laicization is therefore the distinction between:
One canonical-theological study on celibacy reduction cites the principle that once ordination is validly received it “is never made invalid” (CIC 1917’s phrasing preserved in the scholarly discussion).
At the same time, Catholic law recognizes that a cleric reduced to the lay state loses clerical standing and is restricted from exercising certain clerical functions. For example, the same study explains that under CIC 1917, a cleric reduced to the lay state “loses all offices, benefices, clerical rights and privileges” and is forbidden to wear clerical attire/tonsure.
In the Eastern Code (useful for showing the Church’s broader canonical logic), it is stated that after losing clerical state the person loses clerical rights and is “forbidden to exercise the power of order” (with limited exceptions).
Finally, even where clerical status is lost, Catholic law is careful about celibacy: the same study quotes the canon’s principle that “loss of the clerical state does not entail dispensation from the obligation of celibacy,” which is granted only by the Roman Pontiff.
Takeaway: laicization can be real and juridically significant, but it is not a denial that ordination happened. That is why the Church treats these situations as serious discernment cases tied to salvation of souls, fidelity, and truth—rather than as a simple “brand re-positioning” or lifestyle change.
The Second Vatican Council’s renewal of priestly theology exists alongside a difficult human context for vocations. In Pastores Dabo Vobis, St. John Paul II identifies “hopes and obstacles” that affect priestly formation and perseverance. Among them:
The Congregation for the Clergy’s pastoral instruction on parish priests likewise situates ministry in contemporary difficulties such as priest shortages and secularism, urging renewed holiness, prayer, and evangelization as spiritual anchors.
A related formation-focused scholarly discussion underscores how secular culture and shifting patterns of vocation awareness affect seminaries and formation programs, including challenges like changing family attitudes and diminished ecclesial practice.
And a study on priestly “defection” explicitly connects such crises to socio-cultural transformation, noting that the crisis was not “alien” from the socio-cultural changes affecting society today, including among younger people.
Takeaway: if a priest’s life becomes unstable, discernment must consider the full interaction of culture, formation, and spiritual life—not only isolated moral failures or public misunderstandings. Catholic sources portray the issue as vocational and formative, not merely reputational.
The headline theme—“influencer priests”—invites a deeper Catholic question: does modern “public ministry” risk shifting the priest’s role away from the Church’s internal priorities?
The Congregation for the Clergy’s teaching on priests in the early Church and Vatican II addresses precisely a common false opposition: a “missionary” style (social works/evangelization) versus a “cultural” style (sacraments/adoration). The text reports that the conciliar debate “demonstrate[s] the falsehood of such an antagonism,” insisting that in order to be missionary the priest must be a man of God—and vice versa.
It further emphasizes that Vatican II recovered an ancient unity: the primacy of Eucharistic service and also the primacy of the service of the word—joined through “the unity of life” and “pastoral charity.”
This is directly relevant to influencer life because social media can reward what is:
But Catholic priestly identity is not built primarily on “content production”; it is built on Eucharistic and sacramental reality, prayer, communion, and a life-shaped charity rooted in sacramental ministry.
In other words, if a priest’s spirituality becomes detached from Eucharistic fidelity and stable communion—replaced by constant public engagement—then the very unity the Church insists on (word + Eucharist + unity of life) can be weakened.
Vatican II material on priesthood insists that apparent fractures should not automatically be read as doctrine broken. The Congregation’s account says that where people perceive fractures, one should deduce it is “not the line of the Church,” because authentic magisterium and sensus fidei recognize only continuity—possibly with “differing emphases” under contingent circumstances.
That approach does not minimize the seriousness of laicization or the scandal hurt it can cause. It simply locates the problem in what Catholic sources consistently highlight:
The practical pastoral instruction on parish priests is explicit: it treats the priest as a sacramental representative of Christ, calls for prayer and communion, and frames the parish as a Eucharistic community entrusted to the priest for cura animarum, catechesis, vocations, and pastoral care.
And Pastores Dabo Vobis ties formation to helping young people perceive “stable and total service” and points out that the cultural situation can either open or close hearts to vocational ideals.
So, the most faithful Catholic reading of “influencer priests’ laicization” is this: the Church is not reacting to a new theology of priesthood, but confronting the way modern social incentives and spiritual instability can collide with sacramental identity—making discernment and formation (including ongoing support) decisive.
Catholic teaching makes clear that priestly ordination is sacramental and permanent, even when a cleric’s legal status and obligations may change.
At the same time, Catholic sources describe real modern pressures on vocations and priestly perseverance—subjectivism, weakened faith formation under media culture, and the practical stress of priest scarcity—so laicization cases can be read as symptoms of vocational and formative strain that the Church must address with holiness, prayer, and coherent pastoral priorities.