Did Bishop Zavala commit mortal sin

[Savior2012]

Consider two kids have been exposed by Bishop Zavala while he was Bishop many questions arise. Was he a Bishop in constant mortal sin and was any confessions/marriage he performed now invalid?

 

[marty1818]

If he went to confession after committing the sins then he was not in a constant state of mortal sin. The validity of the sacraments are not affected by the holiness or lack of holiness of the bishop, priest, or deacon celebrating them.

 

[CSJ]

Regardless of the Bishop’s or Priest’s condition (state of grace or mortal sin), it does not invalidate the Sacraments that he delivers. A priest can be in a state of mortal sin and still celebrate Mass. You are still receiving the Body of Christ. Character flaws do not impede the Sacraments.

CSJ

 

[Savior2012]

Regardless of the Bishop’s or Priest’s condition (state of grace or mortal sin), it does not invalidate the Sacraments that he delivers. A priest can be in a state of mortal sin and still celebrate Mass. You are still receiving the Body of Christ. Character flaws do not impede the Sacraments.

CSJ

Sorry that is mis information. For example there was a Priest in TX several yrs ago who faked his papers being ordained and the marriages were thus ruled invalid.

 

[Zekariya]

Sorry that is mis information. For example there was a Priest in TX several yrs ago who faked his papers being ordained and the marriages were thus ruled invalid.

CSJ is correct. In the case that you presented the priest wasn’t actually a priest and therefore couldn’t function as a priest.

“Regardless of the [validly ordained] Bishop’s or Priest’s condition (state of grace or mortal sin), it does not invalidate the Sacraments that he delivers.” To say otherwise is the heresy of novatianism.

 

[Savior2012]

CSJ is correct. In the case that you presented the priest wasn’t actually a priest and therefore couldn’t function as a priest.

“Regardless of the [validly ordained] Bishop’s or Priest’s condition (state of grace or mortal sin), it does not invalidate the Sacraments that he delivers.” To say otherwise is the heresy of novatianism.

only half the story;

The state of mortal sin can impeded the sacrements and many times does, as an example being married by the JOP would nullify a Priest to allow confession as the intent afterwards is not to change the existing behavior of mortal sin,

 

[Zekariya]

only half the story;

The state of mortal sin can impeded the sacrements and many times does, as an example being married by the JOP would nullify a Priest to allow confession as the intent afterwards is not to change the existing behavior of mortal sin,

I wasn’t speaking allowing of not allowing sacrament due to impediments. I just meant that a sinful priest can still confer valid sacraments and to state otherwise is novatianism.

 

[Theophorus]

Consider two kids have been exposed by Bishop Zavala while he was Bishop many questions arise. Was he a Bishop in constant mortal sin and was any confessions/marriage he performed now invalid?

The validity of the Sacrament is not based on the worthiness of the priest.
The Church works on the principle of ‘ex opere operato’ that is the efficacy of the Sacraments deriving from the action of the Sacrament itself not the merits or holiness of the priest.

As long as the matter was valid, and the intention to preform the sacrament existed then the sacrament is valid.

Now Celebrating the Sacraments while in a state of Mortal Sin is wrong regardless of who you are but that is another story

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Sorry that is mis information. For example there was a Priest in TX several yrs ago who faked his papers being ordained and the marriages were thus ruled invalid.

I don’t get that. I mean, I do get it… but in a way, I don’t. For example, would that mean that a couple married in such a way who has a child then that child is actually considered “retroactively” born out of wedlock? Does that mean that those poor couples had an illegitimate relationship all along and cannot celebrate their long years of successful and faithful marriage?

Unless I’m mistaken, two Catholics can have a valid wedding even without a Priest or Deacon provided that no Priests or Deacons are available because of a bizarre circumstance (the desert island scenario is often cited, but this might also apply in a time of terrible hardship such as a devastating war)

So if that’s the case, then shouldn’t it make sense to consider the weddings that you mentioned legitimate also?

 

[isaiah_m]

I don’t get that. I mean, I do get it… but in a way, I don’t. For example, would that mean that a couple married in such a way who has a child then that child is actually considered “retroactively” born out of wedlock? Does that mean that those poor couples had an illegitimate relationship all along and cannot celebrate their long years of successful and faithful marriage?

Unless I’m mistaken, two Catholics can have a valid wedding even without a Priest or Deacon provided that no Priests or Deacons are available because of a bizarre circumstance (the desert island scenario is often cited, but this might also apply in a time of terrible hardship such as a devastating war)

So if that’s the case, then shouldn’t it make sense to consider the weddings that you mentioned legitimate also?

As I recall from a few years ago, The Sacrament of Marriage is administered by the spouses to each other with the priest as the Catholic Church’s witness. Unless I am mistaken, the marriages are valid, but not officially recognized by the Catholic Church. In such circumstances I am sure the Catholic Church has a remedy to officially recognize these marriages. A priest’s opinion would be appreciated

 

[promethius]

I don’t get that. I mean, I do get it… but in a way, I don’t. For example, would that mean that a couple married in such a way who has a child then that child is actually considered “retroactively” born out of wedlock? Does that mean that those poor couples had an illegitimate relationship all along and cannot celebrate their long years of successful and faithful marriage?

The answer to all of these questions is no, because both parties BELIEVED their marriage was valid, it was what is called putative, which means that all children conceived therein are not illigitimate and the couple is not guilty of sin. They should, however, have their marraige “fixed” as soon as possible though.

Unless I’m mistaken, two Catholics can have a valid wedding even without a Priest or Deacon provided that no Priests or Deacons are available because of a bizarre circumstance (the desert island scenario is often cited, but this might also apply in a time of terrible hardship such as a devastating war)

So if that’s the case, then shouldn’t it make sense to consider the weddings that you mentioned legitimate also?

I’m not sure in your example that that really is the case… I do believe that the ordained minister and proper form are both vitally required for the administration of the sacrament and that no catholic can be validly married without an ordained minister (or at least a dispensation from canonical requirements).

On that basis, the answer to your question is no, since a catholic couple isolated from a priest cannot get married, neither can a catholic couple whose marraige is presided over by a non-priest… however, even though their marraige is invalid, it is still putative in this case.

 

[puzzleannie]

Consider two kids have been exposed by Bishop Zavala while he was Bishop many questions arise. Was he a Bishop in constant mortal sin and was any confessions/marriage he performed now invalid?

we don’t know and have no way of judging unless by chance his priest confessor participates in this forum, and in any case, he won’t be telling. Even if a priest or bishop were in a state of mortal sin Masses and sacraments he celebrated would be valid. That was settled in the early centuries of the Church, and the issue is being discussed on at least two current threads.

Sorry that is mis information. For example there was a Priest in TX several yrs ago who faked his papers being ordained and the marriages were thus ruled invalid.

that is an entirely different issue, of a person who is not in fact a priest, so is not relevant at all in the current discussion.

we probably had all better spend our time worrying about the condition of our own souls than calling judgment down on those who happen to have their activities reported in the news media.

only half the story;

The state of mortal sin can impeded the sacrements and many times does, as an example being married by the JOP would nullify a Priest to allow confession as the intent afterwards is not to change the existing behavior of mortal sin,

this statement does not even make sense. If a priest were married by a JOP he would no longer have faculties to act as a priest, again a completely irrelevant non sequiter to the current discussion.

I don’t get that. I mean, I do get it… but in a way, I don’t. For example, would that mean that a couple married in such a way who has a child then that child is actually considered “retroactively” born out of wedlock? ?

again a completely irrelevant question and one that does not make sense as stated. The issue is the capacity of a priest to confect valid sacraments, which has nothing to do with the capacity and intent of those receiving sacraments. The husband and wife are the ordinary minister of matrimony to each other, and although the grace of that sacrament would not be available to them if they happened to be in a state of mortal sin at the time consent was exchanged, if all the conditions for valid consent were in place, the sacrament would still be valid, if conducted according to the laws of the Church by two persons free to marry. What has this to do with the OP?

 

[promethius]

this statement does not even make sense. If a priest were married by a JOP he would no longer have faculties to act as a priest, again a completely irrelevant non sequiter to the current discussion.

Erm… this seems backwards to me… if an ordained man attempted to become married, it would not be his ordination which was somehow “invalidated”, but rather that his marriage would be false (non-valid) and therefore he would incur a state of mortal sin, but not lose his priestly faculty outright like that…

 

[Savior2012]

we don’t know and have no way of judging unless by chance his priest confessor participates in this forum, and in any case, he won’t be telling. Even if a priest or bishop were in a state of mortal sin Masses and sacraments he celebrated would be valid. That was settled in the early centuries of the Church, and the issue is being discussed on at least two current threads.

that is an entirely different issue, of a person who is not in fact a priest, so is not relevant at all in the current discussion.

we probably had all better spend our time worrying about the condition of our own souls than calling judgment down on those who happen to have their activities reported in the news media.

this statement does not even make sense. If a priest were married by a JOP he would no longer have faculties to act as a priest, again a completely irrelevant non sequiter to the current discussion.

Are you for real? A Bishop has two teenage kids, covers it up and you say oh well its just , “who happen to have their activities reported in the news media”.

OK

 

[puzzleannie]

Are you for real? A Bishop has two teenage kids, covers it up and you say oh well its just , “who happen to have their activities reported in the news media”.

OK

so what, did Jesus come down and appoint you judge? or me? The OP did not ask about the morality of the reported actions, but about the condition of the soul of that individual, something no one here has the right to comment or speculate about.

 

[Godfollower]

puzzleannie;8799912:

we don’t know and have no way of judging unless by chance his priest confessor participates in this forum, and in any case, he won’t be telling. Even if a priest or bishop were in a state of mortal sin Masses and sacraments he celebrated would be valid. That was settled in the early centuries of the Church, and the issue is being discussed on at least two current threads.

that is an entirely different issue, of a person who is not in fact a priest, so is not relevant at all in the current discussion.

we probably had all better spend our time worrying about the condition of our own souls than calling judgment down on those who happen to have their activities reported in the news media.

this statement does not even make sense. If a priest were married by a JOP he would no longer have faculties to act as a priest, again a completely irrelevant non sequiter to the current discussion.

again a completely irrelevant question and one that does not make sense as stated. The issue is the capacity of a priest to confect valid sacraments, which has nothing to do with the capacity and intent of those receiving sacraments. The husband and wife are the ordinary minister of matrimony to each other, and although the grace of that sacrament would not be available to them if they happened to be in a state of mortal sin at the time consent was exchanged, if all the conditions for valid consent were in place, the sacrament would still be valid, if conducted according to the laws of the Church by two persons free to marry. What has this to do with the OP?

Are you for real? A Bishop has two teenage kids, covers it up and you say oh well its just , “who happen to have their activities reported in the news media”.

OK

I’m with Annie on this one. Assuming the media reports to be true, it sounds like the bishop committed a grave sin of some sort – which one, we don’t know. Did he marry her prior to being ordained, or did he attempt to marry her after being ordained? Did he never bother marrying or attempting to marry her at all?

We don’t know the answers to these (and other) important questions, and they affect the entire debate. If he was married first, then I believe that his ordination was illicit but valid. If he was ordained first, then his marriage (if there is one) was invalid (compare Canon 1087 (“Those in sacred orders invalidly attempt marriage”) with Canon 1042 (“The following are simply impeded from receiving orders: (1) a man who has a wife, unless he is legitimately destined to the permanent diaconate”)).

So, not knowing what happened in what order, we simply aren’t in a position to opine about the effects of his actions (assuming that the actions are what we think they are).

But, based solidly in Catholic theology, we can say that – assuming the bishop’s ordination as a priest in 1977 to have been valid – any sin committed by him thereafter is irrelevant to the validity of any sacraments he performed or witnessed.

 

[Cristiano]

I wasn’t speaking allowing of not allowing sacrament due to impediments. I just meant that a sinful priest can still confer valid sacraments and to state otherwise is novatianism.

I think that you are mixing heresies. You are talking about Donatism, Novatianism is about not accepting apostates back into the Church.

 

[Savior2012]

I’m with Annie on this one. Assuming the media reports to be true, it sounds like the bishop committed a grave sin of some sort – which one, we don’t know. Did he marry her prior to being ordained, or did he attempt to marry her after being ordained? Did he never bother marrying or attempting to marry her at all?

We don’t know the answers to these (and other) important questions, and they affect the entire debate. If he was married first, then I believe that his ordination was illicit but valid. If he was ordained first, then his marriage (if there is one) was invalid (compare Canon 1087 (“Those in sacred orders invalidly attempt marriage”) with Canon 1042 (“The following are simply impeded from receiving orders: (1) a man who has a wife, unless he is legitimately destined to the permanent diaconate”)).

So, not knowing what happened in what order, we simply aren’t in a position to opine about the effects of his actions (assuming that the actions are what we think they are).

But, based solidly in Catholic theology, we can say that – assuming the bishop’s ordination as a priest in 1977 to have been valid – any sin committed by him thereafter is irrelevant to the validity of any sacraments he performed or witnessed.

The fact the Bishop had two kids, ignored and covered up their existence is well beyond a religious problem in terms of a technical mortal sin and red tape theology as a scape goat, its more about common sense.

What we do know is when the Bishop had kids he should of made every attempt to be a Father to his own children and resign. Instead he chose power and fame by continuing to be a Bishop.

 

[Godfollower]

The fact the Bishop had two kids, ignored and covered up their existence is well beyond a religious problem in terms of a technical mortal sin and red tape theology as a scape goat, its more about common sense.

What we do know is when the Bishop had kids he should of made every attempt to be a Father to his own children and resign. Instead he chose power and fame by continuing to be a Bishop.

Power and fame? Really? The average person wouldn’t recognize a Catholic bishop if he ran straight into him. And bishops don’t exactly wield a lot of power.

Again, if the reports are true and a Catholic bishop had two kids in a secret life, that’s a serious problem.

We’re just saying that it wouldn’t affect the validity of any sacraments he performed or witnessed.

And none of us is in a position to speculate publicly about the state of a particular person’s soul. Maybe he committed a sin, maybe not; and, if he did, maybe it was mortal, maybe not; and, if it was, maybe he has been forgiven already, maybe not. This isn’t an issue of technicalities; we simply don’t have the facts to speculate publicly about a specific person’s activities.

We just don’t know.

But – assuming him to have been ordained validly as a Catholic priest – the sacraments he performed are also valid, regardless of the state of his soul.

 

[Savior2012]

Almost comical.

The Bishop admitted he has two teenage kids and resigned. But Gee but you don’t know if it is a sin to have two kids while a Bishop, ignore their existence, not be a Dad to them and lie about it for over a decade. You don’t know if thats a sin? Hmmmm.

Good Lord, no wonder the RC church had a cover up with young boys being molested, but hey we don’t know if that was a sin either now do we???

Power and fame? Really? The average person wouldn’t recognize a Catholic bishop if he ran straight into him. And bishops don’t exactly wield a lot of power.

Again, if the reports are true and a Catholic bishop had two kids in a secret life, that’s a serious problem.

We’re just saying that it wouldn’t affect the validity of any sacraments he performed or witnessed.

And none of us is in a position to speculate publicly about the state of a particular person’s soul. Maybe he committed a sin, maybe not; and, if he did, maybe it was mortal, maybe not; and, if it was, maybe he has been forgiven already, maybe not. This isn’t an issue of technicalities; we simply don’t have the facts to speculate publicly about a specific person’s activities.

We just don’t know.

But – assuming him to have been ordained validly as a Catholic priest – the sacraments he performed are also valid, regardless of the state of his soul.