Cardinal McCarrick's Status

  • Thread starter Thread starter TomH1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Brendan_64 said:
Would it not be logical that a laicised priest could not validly adminster Confession except in an emergency situation such as a dying man’s Confession and annointing?
Click to expand...
Yeah, that’s what I meant but wasn’t clear on. I think(could be wrong) that a laicised priest hearing the confession of a dying person would be both licit and valid, whereas hearing a confession in a non-emergency situation would be valid but illicit.
 
BoomBoomMancini said:
whereas hearing a confession in a non-emergency situation would be valid but illicit.
Click to expand...
Would it even be valid though? It was regularly said that Confession with an SSPX priest (prior to Pope Francis giving them faculties to do so) was not only illicit, but was invalid.

Does the sacrament of Confession not require jurisdiction from the relevant bishop (or the pope) in order to be valid in non-emergency situations?
 
Last edited:
BoomBoomMancini said:
I think (could be wrong) that a laicised priest hearing the confession of a dying person would be both licit and valid, whereas hearing a confession in a non-emergency situation would be valid but illicit.
Click to expand...
Your first point is correct; a laicized priest with no faculties to hear confession (he’s still a priest but his faculties to hear confession are revoked when he’s laicized) can still absolve, validly and licitly, the sins of a dying person. Canon 976 provides,
Can. 976 Even though a priest lacks the faculty to hear confessions, he absolves validly and licitly any penitents whatsoever in danger of death from any censures and sins, even if an approved priest is present.
Click to expand...
However, your second point about a non-dying person’s confession is not correct. The laicized priest, with no faculty to hear confessions (he’s still a priest but his faculty to hear confessions gets revoked when he’s laicized), cannot absolve that person. Because the priest’s faculty to hear confessions was revoked everywhere, an absolution he grants to a non-dying person is not only illicit, but also invalid by operation of Canon 966 section 1.
Can. 966 §1. The valid absolution of sins requires that the minister have, in addition to the power of orders, the faculty of exercising it for the faithful to whom he imparts absolution.
Click to expand...
See also:

 
Last edited:
thistle said:
Actually there is no full stop after layperson. The poster’s full sentence is “Mc Carrick will be a lay person and do what we, the people do.” That implies that any layperson can hear Confession and anoint.
Click to expand...
Notice the period in your quote, following “do.” Period. Full stop.

I get what you’re saying. On the other hand, you might just admit that you misunderstood what was written, and move on. 😉
Brendan_64 said:
Would it even be valid though?
Click to expand...
Yes.

For a newly-ordained priest to be able to celebrate reconciliation validly, he must first receive faculties. (That’s because reconciliation has a juridic aspect – on behalf of the Church, the priest is offering absolution.) It’s interesting, though – once given, the faculties are not removed, unless they’re removed explicitly. So, in this case, his faculties are being revoked. However, he is still a priest, and so, if there’s a life-and-death situation, the Church would prefer to act in favor of the penitent who needs absolution than acting against the priest whose faculties had been removed. Therefore, in that case (and that case only) does the priest act licitly.
It was regularly said that Confession with an SSPX priest (prior to Pope Francis giving them faculties to do so) was not only illicit, but was invalid.
Click to expand...
That’s because they had never been ordained licitly, and therefore, never received faculties.
Does the sacrament of Confession not require jurisdiction from the relevant bishop (or the pope) in order to be valid in non-emergency situations?
Click to expand...
No. It’s kinda absurd to try to conceptualize an ‘emergency situation’ that would allow for the local bishop or the pope to be consulted in order to grant permission, no?
 
Last edited:
Would mcCarrick be free to marry? Often you hear that one could marry after returned to a laicized state. I’m sure it’s not on the table but cannonically, could he?
 
Last edited:
Canon 291 states that being laicized does not automatically release the priest from the vow of celibacy (unless it was a special case of his ordination being invalid to begin with, which doesn’t apply here).
McCarrick would have to seek and be granted a separate dispensation from that vow in order to marry.
 
Last edited:
Personally to me, this does little in the way of healing. Its like knowing someone got fired. And at his age, well, it just seems so pointless and reactionary instead of proactive. I hope others are dealt with and discovered. I hope vigano is indeed acting in charity and honor and I hope the Pope can lead.
 
I cannot take the credit for that, the bluebooking is on the Vatican Canon Law website and copies over when you cut and paste 😃

It would be a huge hassle to take out all the footnotes and links to be honest because it all comes over automatically.
 
Thank you for the distinction! Yes, in times of emergency, that which is normally illicit is licit. Salvation of souls comes first! I applaud your desire for accuracy! It’s majorly lacking in many,

Best regards!

🙂
 
No. It would be completely null and void. Absolution requires jurisdiction. The Law only supplies this jurisdiction in emergency cases to a priest who lacks proper faculties.
 
My understanding is that some sacraments may still be valid - others not.
 
Holy Orders do not disappear. They create an ontological change which is permanent. Cardinal McCarrick is still an ordained deacon, priest, and bishop.
 
While we must love and pray for our enemies, McCarrick is an enemy of the faith, let’s be clear on that: a wolf in sheep’s clothing, who has used holy orders as a cover to habitually abuse boys and young men.

Pray for him, yes, but as an enemy of the church in our midst.

And first, let us pray for the innocent victims, especially those who were minors at the time and carry with them to this day the psychological trauma that he must have inflicted upon them, whose lives he ruined through his evil and depraved acts.

The victims matter.
 
Last edited:
@vouthon Jesus did not just come for the Jews but also the Gentiles.

“If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”
- Matthew 5:46-48
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top