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

[victrolatim]

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.

 

[adamhovey1988]

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.

The sacrament is still valid as long as the words of consecration are still valid has he changed that?
For the other things you may want to go to ask an apologist and I would tell you that I think you need to contact your Bishop

 

[ToeInTheWater]

I don’t have a source available but I have read, that St. Francis of Assisi was asked essentially the same question about an unchaste priest, although this one was having a heterosexual affair.

His response was not only to answer “no”, that the personal sins of a priest don’t affect the validity of the Mass, but to personally visit the priest, not to rebuke him, but to kiss his hands, the ones that distributed the Eucharist. It was this action that led the wayward priest to repent. Interesting tale, seems like something Pope Francis might do.

 

[Neofight]

I don’t have a source available but I have read, that St. Francis of Assisi was asked essentially the same question about an unchaste priest, although this one was having a heterosexual affair.

His response was not only to answer “no”, that the personal sins of a priest don’t affect the validity of the Mass, but to personally visit the priest, not to rebuke him, but to kiss his hands, the ones that distributed the Eucharist. It was this action that led the wayward priest to repent. Interesting tale, seems like something Pope Francis might do.

Its hard to argue with Franciscan wisdom and spirituality, and yes, it does sound like something the Holy Father would say, which might be why he selected the name of that little deacon from Assisi!

 

[InSearchofGrace]

The following from the Catechism tells us the priest in question, if the reported situation is true, is committing a grave transgression of scandal.

OP, please raise the issue to the bishop in charge over that parish. ASAP.
The first poster who replied to you is correct about the validity of the Mass and sacraments, but the next two who replied, based on the extent of their comment, are not appreciating the spiritual harm to members of that parish this priest is causing.

Respect for the souls of others: scandal

2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor’s tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.

2285 Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized. It prompted our Lord to utter this curse: "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."86 Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others. Jesus reproaches the scribes and Pharisees on this account: he likens them to wolves in sheep’s clothing.87

2286 Scandal can be provoked by laws or institutions, by fashion or opinion.

Therefore, they are guilty of scandal who establish laws or social structures leading to the decline of morals and the corruption of religious practice, or to "social conditions that, intentionally or not, make Christian conduct and obedience to the Commandments difficult and practically impossible."88 This is also true of business leaders who make rules encouraging fraud, teachers who provoke their children to anger,89 or manipulators of public opinion who turn it away from moral values.

2287 Anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged. "Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come!"90

 

[Neofight]

OP, please raise the issue to the bishop in charge over that parish. ASAP.
The first poster who replied to you is correct about the validity of the Mass and sacraments, but the next two who replied, based on the extent of their comment, are not appreciating the spiritual harm to members of that parish this priest is causing.

In your haste to speak for me, you entirely missed my point:

I did not address the scandal and the sin. They go without saying.

The OPs question was whether the sacraments administered by a priest who is sinning valid.

They are. Period. Because the sacraments are reflective of the spirit in which they were offered to man by Christ.

While I appreciate your attention to the Church teachings, one should never isolate Church Doctrine, Teaching, Tradition and Law from the teachings of Christ as presented in the Gospel.

Those who do stand in danger of overlooking the gospel message of love, forgiveness and mercy, just as those who stood to stone the adulteress in John’s Gospel, until the words of Christ convinced them to drop the rocks and walk away. In that event, Christ did not deny the woman’s sinfulness, but he still taught us the importance of mercy.

So yes, there appears to be sin and scandal involved, but please do not summarily dismiss my comments as being wrong.

Peace and all good!

 

[Dorothy]

I don’t have a source available but I have read, that St. Francis of Assisi was asked essentially the same question about an unchaste priest, although this one was having a heterosexual affair.

His response was not only to answer “no”, that the personal sins of a priest don’t affect the validity of the Mass, but to personally visit the priest, not to rebuke him, but to kiss his hands, the ones that distributed the Eucharist. It was this action that led the wayward priest to repent. Interesting tale, seems like something Pope Francis might do.

I can’t help but refer to what happened to St. Teresa of Avila. She went to confession to a priest who had a mistress. Because of our Lord’s promises to us, He would not tamper with the validity of the sacraments a priest performs.

Eventually the priest was very moved by Teresa’s holiness, and she was able to help him become uninvolved with the mistress.

What is happening in the church mentioned where the priest is living openly in a homosexual affair, and rainbow banners are in the church…something needs to be done pronto about the bad example being set. This is a prime example of how a congregation can become confused and misinformed about Church teaching!

I will pray for that situation.

 

[R_H_Benson]

Based on the behavior of this priest, there is the distinct possibility that he may not have the proper intention saying Mass. This would invidate the Mass. Of course, this is not necessarily the case. The priest’s sins alone would not make the Mass invalid. My point is that if the priest conducts himself in such a manner, there would be a greater possibility that he does not offer Mass with the intention of “doing what the Church does”. So if the Mass was indeed invalid, it would be for this reason and not due to his personal grave immorality. Regardless, your bishop needs to be informed about this immediately.

 

[z_0101]

Based on the behavior of this priest, there is the distinct possibility that he may not have the proper intention saying Mass. This would invidate the Mass.

That’s a grey area there, he may not have the proper intention; however, the laity is acting in good faith. So long as the proper form and matter are used, the Mass would be licit and valid.
I’ll let the “Cannon Lawyers” opine about this…

As to the inaction of the Bishop.
http://wdtprs.com/blog/tips-for-writing-to-bishops-and-to-the-pc-ecclesia-dei/

I would normally say start with the priest; however, his public actions and statements IMHO, based only on the OP’s post preclude this step; thus, start again with the Bishop; however, make sure you send proof of what is happening at the parish. Keep copies. Give the Bishop a chance to inquire, he has many issues to handle.
If you get a negative response then take the next step as outlined in Fr.Z’s blog.

 

[Gorgias]

Based on the behavior of this priest, there is the distinct possibility that he may not have the proper intention saying Mass. … My point is that if the priest conducts himself in such a manner, there would be a greater possibility that he does not offer Mass with the intention of “doing what the Church does”.

Umm… huh?

How do his (purported) sins imply that he does not mean to consecrate the Eucharist? That’s a complete non sequitur. There’s no cause-and-effect here. At the most, you’re attempting to say “since he is a sinner, therefore he also disobeys other Church law.” By that reasoning, all Masses are invalid, since all priests are sinners.

Short of some proof to support your assertion, this is bald-faced calumny. :sad_yes:

 

[ProVobis]

That’s a grey area there, he may not have the proper intention; however, the laity is acting in good faith.

Which is the way I look at it too.

If there are any problems, I’d let the priest and bishop work it out.

 

[R_H_Benson]

Umm… huh?

How do his (purported) sins imply that he does not mean to consecrate the Eucharist? That’s a complete non sequitur. There’s no cause-and-effect here. At the most, you’re attempting to say “since he is a sinner, therefore he also disobeys other Church law.” By that reasoning, all Masses are invalid, since all priests are sinners.

Short of some proof to support your assertion, this is bald-faced calumny. :sad_yes:

Reread my post. That is an absurd assessment of what I wrote. I explicitly stated that his sins have no bearing on the validity of the Mass. I also explicitly stated that there is no necessary correlation between his sins and him having the wrong intention. What I did say is that his blatantly scandalous lifestyle possibly increases the chance of him lacking the proper intention, then left the prudent advice of the OP speaking with the bishop.

 

[R_H_Benson]

Which is the way I look at it too.

If there are any problems, I’d let the priest and bishop work it out.

If the priest lacks the intention the good faith of the laity has no effect on the validity of the Mass.

 

[ProVobis]

If the priest lacks the intention the good faith of the laity has no effect on the validity of the Mass.

So how does one in the pew know whether his participation in that Mass has fulfilled the Sunday obligation?

 

[R_H_Benson]

So how does one in the pew know whether his participation in that Mass has fulfilled the Sunday obligation?

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. 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 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. This is why every sacristy should include a "direction of intention " prayer card for the priest to recite before Mass. Linking this to the idea I was attempting to express in my previous posts, the laity cannot always know if the Mass they assisted at was valid. However, in order to decrease the chances of assisting at an invalid Mass, the faithful should seek out holy, obedient priests. Common sense tells us that such priests would be more likely to offer Masses validly.

 

[babochka]

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. This is why every sacristy should include a "direction of intention " prayer card for the priest to recite before Mass.

What purpose would this serve? A priest can say or recite anything, any prayer that he wants. If a priest is feigning his celebration of the Mass, he could and would add this additional hoop if it was necessary. If a priest was celebrating the Mass with proper intention, he does so with or without reciting such a prayer. The laity is in no better position than before.

 

[R_H_Benson]

What purpose would this serve? A priest can say or recite anything, any prayer that he wants. If a priest is feigning his celebration of the Mass, he could and would add this additional hoop if it was necessary. If a priest was celebrating the Mass with proper intention, he does so with or without reciting such a prayer. The laity is in no better position than before.

True, a priest who purposely invalidates a Mass would not benefit from such a prayer. But such prayers of intention have traditionally been placed in sacrisities, so the Church has ascribed to the idea some merit.

 

[commenter]

I don’t have a source available but I have read, that St. Francis of Assisi was asked essentially the same question about an unchaste priest, although this one was having a heterosexual affair.

His response was not only to answer “no”, that the personal sins of a priest don’t affect the validity of the Mass, but to personally visit the priest, not to rebuke him, but to kiss his hands, the ones that distributed the Eucharist. It was this action that led the wayward priest to repent. Interesting tale, seems like something Pope Francis might do.

Keep in mind Pope Francis has, to my knowledge, fired at least 4 bishops because of their behavior. He may have reached out to them to show God’s mercy, before and after their removal, but keep in mind he REMOVED them. (They remain bishops of course, but with no job or authority in the Church).

I would hesitate to jump to conclusions on any given situation. The priest may or may not be homosexual - but I don’t know how people would know that?

Perhaps another man may have stayed at the rectory for a period of time; maybe he needed a place to stay. Again, it may be imprudent in this day and age, if it were to go on; but not sure how that is something the bishop would respond do.

Regarding the banners; before the past couple years many people had “banners” that indicated solidarity with homosexual people, that they are “welcome” here. I think, given the events of the past year, if the banners are still hanging they clearly send the wrong message, it means far more than “welcome” in 2015. If the priest is teaching something clearly unorthodox, try to get a few parishioners to corroborate and communicate to the bishop as close as possible exactly what he said; not just vague comments about him. Again, this would not invalidate his Masses, but it might, perhaps, indicates he should not be a pastor, depending on the nature of what he is doing and saying.

 

[pnewton]

I would hesitate to jump to conclusions on any given situation. The priest may or may not be homosexual - but I don’t know how people would know that?

I guess everything we post here is hypothetical, as we know nothing and have no conclusions to jump to.

Yet in no case is the Eucharist invalid because of the sin of the priest, however grievous. the faithful still may attend Mass to satisfy their obligation and are under no compulsion to delve any deeper into the issue of the validity of Mass offered by a parish priest.

Then the whole situation, if true, is simply a matter to be reported and let the bishop take care of the guy. I believe it important to just stick with the facts though, and not engage in conjecture and assumption when making such a report.

 

[Gorgias]

Reread my post. That is an absurd assessment of what I wrote. I explicitly stated that his sins have no bearing on the validity of the Mass. I also explicitly stated that there is no necessary correlation between his sins and him having the wrong intention.

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

Here’s what you said (emphasis mine):

Based on the behavior of this priest, there is the distinct possibility that he may not have the proper intention saying Mass. This would invidate the Mass. … My point is that if the priest conducts himself in such a manner, there would be a greater possibility that he does not offer Mass with the intention of “doing what the Church does”.

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: