Does a priest openly living against church teaching affect Mass validity?

[Gorgias]

Well, if the Mass is invalid then of course those in the pews did not fulfill their obligation even if they are under the impression that they did.

This, too, is inaccurate. If – acting in good faith and in the expectation of participating in a Mass – a person attends a Mass that fulfills the obligation, then he fulfills the obligation, period.

Their culpability would depend on a number of factors including their knowledge of the priest’s disposition towards the Mass (for example, if he had stated publically that he doesn’t celebrate Mass with the intention of the Church, then people at that ceremony would be held accountable for missing Mass).

In that case, then they would have known – ahead of time – that participation in the service would not fulfill the obligation. Apples and oranges, with the case at hand.

In the vast majority of cases I would assume that the congregation which attended an invalid Mass would not be held accountable for any sin because it is often difficult if not impossible to discern the intention of the priest; but would not, in the eyes of the Lord, have fulfilled their obligation.

Wrong. Since you’re the one making the assertions, would you be so kind as to quote a Church document that says what you claim here? Thanks.

 

[R_H_Benson]

To quote Fr Z, “B as in B. S as in S.”

Here’s what you said (emphasis mine):

You have no proof that there’s a “greater possibility” of a lack of proper intention – other than the fact that it’s been asserted that he’s in a state of sin. In fact, you explicitly said that there is a correlation! When you assert “there would be a greater possibility”, you’re asserting that there’s a correlation!

Since he is a sinner, you’re suggesting – without a shred of proof – that his Masses may be invalid. If not outright calumny, then certainly rash judgment… :sad_yes:

All I’ve been saying all along is that one could reasonably have the worry that if a priest behaves in a manner so blatantly opposed to Church teaching he may also lack the proper intention for offering a valid Mass. Where your critique of my observation fails is that you have conveniently disregarded my very explicit qualifier that there is no necessary (that’s a pretty important qualifier) correlation between the priest’s open homosexual relationship with the parish organist and the invalidity of the Masses he offers.

I stand by my statement. I don’t appreciate being accused of calumny. I find it very reasonable to have reservations about the validity of a Mass offered by a priest who lives so scandalously, not because of his grievous sins, but because of what his grievous sins tell us about his attitude towards the doctrines of our Church.

 

[R_H_Benson]

This, too, is inaccurate. If – acting in good faith and in the expectation of participating in a Mass – a person attends a Mass that fulfills the obligation, then he fulfills the obligation, period.

So one can fulfill their Sunday obligation to attend Mass by attending something other than Mass? Interesting.

Wrong. Since you’re the one making the assertions, would you be so kind as to quote a Church document that says what you claim here? Thanks.

Here is my rationale:
1.) a Catholic has the obligation to attend Mass on Sunday.
2.) an invalid “Mass” is not a Mass.
3.) If a Catholic attends an invalid “Mass”, he did not attend Mass, and therefore did not fulfill his Sunday obligation.

My source? The precept of the Church that a Catholic attend Mass on Sundays.

As for the bit about culpability, basic moral theology informs us that if one commits/omits an action that is sinful but is unawares by no fault of his own, then he cannot be held accountable for the sin. However, the disordered nature of the act remains regardless of the person’s ignorance of said act; in this case, failing to fulfill the obligation to assist at Mass on Sundays.

 

[Gorgias]

All I’ve been saying all along is that one could reasonably have the worry that if a priest behaves in a manner so blatantly opposed to Church teaching he may also lack the proper intention for offering a valid Mass.

On what basis? If I note that you sin in some way, is it reasonable for me then to run around and tell people that it’s likely that you’re a child molester? Of course not! Unless I have some evidence of the particular charge I’m making, then an assertion that “one sin makes a completely different sin more likely” is completely unjustified (and horribly uncharitable)!

Where your critique of my observation fails is that you have conveniently disregarded my very explicit qualifier that there is no necessary (that’s a pretty important qualifier) correlation between the priest’s open homosexual relationship with the parish organist and the invalidity of the Masses he offers.

Your assertion that it doesn’t necessarily follow doesn’t doesn’t absolve you from your observation (without substantiation) that it more likely follows.

I don’t appreciate being accused of calumny.

Then don’t calumnize others.

I find it very reasonable to have reservations about the validity of a Mass offered by a priest who lives so scandalously, not because of his grievous sins, but because of what his grievous sins tell us about his attitude towards the doctrines of our Church.

In other words, you’re making a judgment outside of any facts. It’s pretty obvious that ‘rash judgment’ is in play here.

 

[Gorgias]

So one can fulfill their Sunday obligation to attend Mass by attending something other than Mass? Interesting.

Technically speaking, the obligation is abrogated. Nice attempt at spin, though.

Here is my rationale:
1.) a Catholic has the obligation to attend Mass on Sunday.
2.) an invalid “Mass” is not a Mass.
3.) If a Catholic attends an invalid “Mass”, he did not attend Mass, and therefore did not fulfill his Sunday obligation.

My source? The precept of the Church that a Catholic attend Mass on Sundays.

So, you substantiated #1. Good start. The rest falls apart, though.

 

[R_H_Benson]

On what basis? If I note that you sin in some way, is it reasonable for me then to run around and tell people that it’s likely that you’re a child molester? Of course not! Unless I have some evidence of the particular charge I’m making, then an assertion that “one sin makes a completely different sin more likely” is completely unjustified (and horribly uncharitable)!

On the basis that an ordained Priest of Jesus Christ is living in an openly homosexual relationship in blatant disregard for the teachings of the very Church to which he has pledged his life. I’m not making any groundbreaking assertions. I am merely observing, that to me, such a priest would throw up ample “red flags”. ** I would not fault anyone for staying away from such a parish, nor for questioning this priest’s motives, nor the very validity of the Masses he offers because if he disregards such a fundamental Church teaching, breaks his vow of celibacy with another man and speaks of it openly during Mass, then it is certainly reasonable to doubt whether he has the proper intention of making present the Body and Blood of Our Lord in the offering of the Holy Sacrifice. ** Accuse me of whatever you like.

Your assertion that it doesn’t necessarily follow doesn’t doesn’t absolve you from your observation (without substantiation) that it more likely follows.

I don’t know what more I can say to you about why I find it reasonable to think that it is indeed “more likely” to follow than it would be from a holy, obedient priest. ** It is just common sense.
**

Then don’t calumnize others.

I am not speaking in absolutes. I am speaking of reasonable possibilities based on the description the OP provided.

In other words, you’re making a judgment outside of any facts. It’s pretty obvious that ‘rash judgment’ is in play here.

I am making a reasonable observation based on the parameters described by the OP. As I said, accuse me of whatever you like.

 

[R_H_Benson]

Technically speaking, the obligation is abrogated. Nice attempt at spin, though.

I didn’t spin anything. I just pointed out that one can’t fulfill his obligation without attending Mass. That is a true statement.

So, you substantiated #1. Good start. The rest falls apart, though.

The argument follows. And invalid “Mass” is not a Mass. But please do elaborate.

 

[Gorgias]

On the basis that an ordained Priest of Jesus Christ is living in an openly homosexual relationship in blatant disregard for the teachings of the very Church to which he has pledged his life.

Which proves that he’s a sinner. And, which does not in any way prove anything else about the man.

I’m not making any groundbreaking assertions. I am merely observing, that to me, such a priest would throw up ample “red flags”.

Fair enough. However, it does not give you the right to say “he probably does X and Y and Z, too.”

I would not fault anyone for staying away from such a parish

Nor would I. However, I would fault someone for making disparaging remarks about him in matters that are unrelated.

breaks his vow of celibacy with another man

Actually, it’s impossible for a man to break a vow of celibacy with another man. Celibates are those who are unmarried. On the other hand, if the OP is accurate, he’s guilty of a different sin.

** It is just common sense.
**

One does not prove anything by ‘common sense’; especially when it’s not sensible.

I am not speaking in absolutes. I am speaking of reasonable possibilities based on the description the OP provided.

And in doing so, you are committing (at the very least) rash judgment. QED.

 

[R_H_Benson]

Which proves that he’s a sinner. And, which does not in any way prove anything else about the man.

But I never claimed to have proved anything. I am claiming that one could have reasonable reservations.

Fair enough. However, it does not give you the right to say “he probably does X and Y and Z, too.”

I don’t know what the probability is. But I personally wouldn’t take any chances.

Nor would I. However, I would fault someone for making disparaging remarks about him in matters that are unrelated.

I didn’t make any disparaging remarks about him.

Actually, it’s impossible for a man to break a vow of celibacy with another man. Celibates are those who are unmarried. On the other hand, if the OP is accurate, he’s guilty of a different sin.

In a broad sense, celibacy can refer to general abstinence from sexual activity.

One does not prove anything by ‘common sense’; especially when it’s not sensible.

I’m not trying to prove anything.

And in doing so, you are committing (at the very least) rash judgment. QED.

I disagree. I believe it to be reasonable.

 

[Gorgias]

In a broad sense, celibacy can refer to general abstinence from sexual activity.

You weren’t talking broadly: you were talking about the specific promise that a priest makes. It’s “celibacy”, which is the specific state of being unmarried.

I disagree. I believe it to be reasonable.

Have a wonderful evening. May no one ever presume you to be a greater sinner than you are.

 

[pnewton]

All I’ve been saying all along is that one could reasonably have the worry that if a priest behaves in a manner so blatantly opposed to Church teaching he may also lack the proper intention for offering a valid Mass.

If such a belief is reasonable, then what is the reason? If it is only that sin somehow correlates to a theological disbelief in the Real Presence, I can only say that I do not agree or understand with such a reason, or assumed correlation.

 

[R_H_Benson]

You weren’t talking broadly: you were talking about the specific promise that a priest makes. It’s “celibacy”, which is the specific state of being unmarried.

I was talking about his unchaste behavior with another man by which he broke his vow of celibacy in the sense that celibacy also includes abstinence from all sexual activity. But you are right - I did not use the proper terminology.

Have a wonderful evening. May no one ever presume you to be a greater sinner than you are.

I am sorry that we could not see eye to eye on this issue. Have a good evening.

 

[R_H_Benson]

If such a belief is reasonable, then what is the reason? If it is only that sin somehow correlates to a theological disbelief in the Real Presence, I can only say that I do not agree or understand with such a reason, or assumed correlation.

You would have no qualms with attending Mass at a parish bedecked with rainbow streamers, knowing that the organist, who begins to play the “Sanctus”, is in a homosexual relationship with the man who is just about to make Present the Body and Blood of Our Lord? You have no problem believing that, with the notes of the organ played by his homosexual lover still ringing in his ears (for he has no doubt elected to use EP II), this priest is now going to confect the Most Blessed Sacrament with every intention of the Holy Roman Church? Personally, I see ample reason to question the soundness of his theology and his intentions.

 

[Gorgias]

celibacy also includes abstinence from all sexual activity.

For a celibate person, abstinence from sexual activity would fall under ‘chastity’.

 

[Gorgias]

You would have no qualms with attending Mass at a parish bedecked with rainbow streamers

Non sequitur. Doesn’t address the question of the validity of the Eucharist.

knowing that the organist, who begins to play the “Sanctus”, is in a homosexual relationship

Again, non sequitur.

You have no problem believing that, with the notes of the organ played by his homosexual lover still ringing in his ears (for he has no doubt elected to use EP II)

Yet again, non sequitur.

And, during Ordinary Time, EP II is a valid choice… since we’re in a discussion about validity.

Not the best choice, mind you… but a valid one.

this priest is now going to confect the Most Blessed Sacrament with every intention of the Holy Roman Church?

If his intent is to confect the Eucharist as the Church does, then it would be valid. You haven’t presented any information that would indicate that his intention is otherwise… except that he is a sinner. Like every other priest.

Personally, I see ample reason to question the soundness of his theology

Non sequitur. Unless, of course, you can provide proof that he does not believe in the Church’s theology of the Eucharist.

and his intentions.

You’ve provided nothing that demonstrates his intentions; only disparaging remarks about his person. Honestly… this is pretty egregious. :sad_yes:

 

[R_H_Benson]

For a celibate person, abstinence from sexual activity would fall under ‘chastity’.

I know I chose the wrong terminology and I clarified that several posts back. However, chastity is a necessary aspect of celibacy. So if one violates chastity, one also violates celibacy. Regardless, there is no need for a winky face.

 

[R_H_Benson]

Non sequitur. Doesn’t address the question of the validity of the Eucharist.

Again, non sequitur.

Yet again, non sequitur.

And, during Ordinary Time, EP II is a valid choice… since we’re in a discussion about validity.

Not the best choice, mind you… but a valid one.

If his intent is to confect the Eucharist as the Church does, then it would be valid. You haven’t presented any information that would indicate that his intention is otherwise… except that he is a sinner. Like every other priest.

Non sequitur. Unless, of course, you can provide proof that he does not believe in the Church’s theology of the Eucharist.

You’ve provided nothing that demonstrates his intentions; only disparaging remarks about his person. Honestly… this is pretty egregious. :sad_yes:

Hopefully some other posters will weigh in, as you and I are clearly in disagreement. Once again, I’m not trying to prove anything. Based on the OP’s description of the situation, there is nothing that can convince me not to have doubts about this priest. You continue to act as if I am asserting absolutes and I am not. I don’t know what he believes about the Eucharist, but based on what I do know, I am uncomfortable with being confident that his theology and intentions are sound. That’s all. I am sorry that you disagree with me. And as a side note, the EPII comment was a joke. I know it is valid. But it is overused.

 

[R_H_Benson]

Honestly… this is pretty egregious. :sad_yes:

Well, if it’s my last night on CAF, at least I enjoyed our debate.

 

[adrift]

Here’s the short of the situation. There is an area parish where the pastor is openly homosexual and living in the rectory with the organist (he has made reference to it himself in sermons). The church is decorated in rainbow streamers and there are some very unorthodox things promoted there. I’ve been there myself once and never returned. I am concerned because I have family members in the territory of the parish who are unable to travel elsewhere. Are the Mass and sacraments still valid if the priest is defying church teaching by his lifestyle choice?Also, the Bishop has been informed on this particular situation by multiple people including a fellow priest.

Donatism is a heresy which was taught by Donatus, bishop of Casae Nigrae, that the effectiveness of the sacraments depended on the ministers state of grace. If such were the case, no one could ever be sure that they received any sacrament.

 

[ProVobis]

Personally, I see ample reason to question the soundness of his theology and his intentions.

The state of a priest’s soul, if that’s what you’re discussing, has no bearing on validity. De Defectibus is clear on this. (I believe it’s even printed in the 62 Missal.)