Doubtful Annulment to Holy Orders Could Invalidate Holy Orders?

[Geremia]

Can a Catholic man who has had an annulment receive Holy Orders? What if the annulment was doubtful or granted imprudently; could that also invalidate his reception of Holy Orders? Thanks

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Can a Catholic man who has had an annulment receive Holy Orders? What if the annulment was doubtful or granted imprudently; could that also invalidate his reception of Holy Orders? Thanks

If a decree of nullity is granted, it is granted.

Also marriage is not an impediment to Holy Orders.

 

[runningdude]

If a decree of nullity is granted, it is granted.

I’ve wondered about this, and this seems as good a place as any to ask, while hopefully relevant to the topic, but can a decree of nullity be issued in error? Can bribery or corruption affect the awkwardly stated validity of the nullity?

Also marriage is not an impediment to Holy Orders.

Since being married alone won’t prevent the ordination from occurring, and since clerical celibacy is assumed, I’d image that if the marriage were still valid do to an erroneous declaration of nullity (if that is possible), the priest would at least not run afoul committing adultery.

The wife, however, would be in a difficult position, and if the annulment were overturned (again if such a procedure exists), then the priest might be dismissed from the clerical state. However, his ordination would remain, but he’d be forbidden from celebrating the sacraments except in the case of emergency.

mostly speculation on my part though

 

[Geremia]

I’ve wondered about this, and this seems as good a place as any to ask, while hopefully relevant to the topic, but can a decree of nullity be issued in error? Can bribery or corruption affect the awkwardly stated validity of the nullity?

If you had evidence for that, I think you would be morally bound to present it to the tribunal. And, yes, I do think annulment decisions could be overturned; am I right?

 

[Just_Lurking]

And, yes, I do think annulment decisions could be overturned; am I right?

This is correct.

Can. 1643 Cases concerning the status of persons, including cases concerning the separation of spouses, never become res iudicata.

 

[puzzleannie]

Can a Catholic man who has had an annulment receive Holy Orders? What if the annulment was doubtful or granted imprudently; could that also invalidate his reception of Holy Orders? Thanks

if it was doubtful that is why there is an appeals process. If it passed through that process, it could still have been appealed to Rome. If if was finally granted who has doubts? certainly not the Church. If there were doubts on the part of someone in a position to know all the facts, why has not that person come forward during the annulment investigation?

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

If a decree of nullity is granted, it is granted.

Also marriage is not an impediment to Holy Orders.

Br. David,

It would be more helpful if you supplied the end of that last sentence: “. . . in the Eastern churches.” Marriage is, after all, an impediment in the Latin Church.

Can. 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;

 

[runningdude]

Br. David,

It would be more helpful if you supplied the end of that last sentence: “. . . in the Eastern churches.” Marriage is, after all, an impediment in the Latin Church.

Can. 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;

The “impediment” of marriage would make the ordination illegal (illicit), however the sacrament of holy orders would still be validly conferred.

And as I said before, the discovery that the priest were in a valid marriage may very likely lead to his dismissal and laitization (sp?), but this won’t “undo” the ordination, but simply prohibit him from performing the sacraments under almost all normal circumstances.

 

[The_Old_Medic]

Married men can be, have been, and will be ordained in the Latin Rite of the Roman Catholic Church. There are literally thousands of men that either have been, or ARE married, that have been ordained in the Latin Rite.

In some cases, these are former Ministers in churches that are reasonably closely related to Catholic teaching.

BUT, what many do NOT realize is that a married Latin Rite Catholic man can be ordained, if both he, and his wife, swear that they do not have married relation, that they agree to live apart from each other permanently and that the wife is adequately provided for, so that the man will have no financial or moral obligation to his wife.

While rare, this has happened, and it still could be used to admit a man to Ordination as a Priest.

And by the way, Holy Orders also includes married Deacons.

As tho an annulment, that would never be a bar to Holy Orders. An annulment is a decision by the Church that no valid marriage ever took place, so the person is NOT considered to have ever been validly married.

Yes, and annulment can be overturned, if it was not validly granted. If either party fakes information, misleads the tribunal, etc., then they have committed a Sacriledge, and added another Mortal Sin to their soul. This is NOT something that one should fool around with.

However, if a “third party” were to submit information to a tribunal, that turned out to be incorrect (or even willfully wrong in some cases), that person has also committed a grave sin.

If you know for a FACT, without any doubt at all, that one party either withheld information or submitted wrong information, you are obligated to provide proof of that. BUT, you had better be on VERY firm ground, and not just providing your opinion, or your own soul is at stake.

 

[Brendan]

Br. David,

It would be more helpful if you supplied the end of that last sentence: “. . . in the Eastern churches.” Marriage is, after all, an impediment in the Latin Church.

Can. 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;

It is a simple impediment, which means that it affects licitity, not validity (which was what the OP was asking).

The man in question would have been validly ordained. The ontological change to his soul would have occurred.

 

[OraLabora]

Br. David,

It would be more helpful if you supplied the end of that last sentence: “. . . in the Eastern churches.” Marriage is, after all, an impediment in the Latin Church.

Can. 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;

Note the last words “permanent diaconate”. Br. David’s statement is factually correct in the Western Church as well, since a permanent deacon does receive holy orders.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Br. David,

It would be more helpful if you supplied the end of that last sentence: “. . . in the Eastern churches.” Marriage is, after all, an impediment in the Latin Church.

Can. 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;

This is a discipline and can, and has, been dispensed from.

An impediment can not be dispensed from and renders the sacrament invalid.

A man who has an annullment that is later over turned but was ordained does not have the Sacrament of Holy Orders invalidated, it would have been illicit.

 

[Geremia]

Can. 1643 Cases concerning the status of persons, including cases concerning the separation of spouses, never become res iudicata.

Wow, it really does say that. Suppose a priest’s annulment could be reversed, could that shed doubt on whether transubstantiation at the masses he has celebrated actually occurred?

 

[Brendan]

Wow, it really does say that. Suppose a priest’s annulment could be reversed, could that shed doubt on whether transubstantiation at the masses he has celebrated actually occurred?

No, all it would mean is that the priest is married. He would still be a validly Ordained priest.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Can a Catholic man who has had an annulment receive Holy Orders? What if the annulment was doubtful or granted imprudently; could that also invalidate his reception of Holy Orders? Thanks

No it cannot. A married man can definitely receive Holy Orders. Celibacy is not a pre-requisite to receiving Holy Orders.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I’ve wondered about this, and this seems as good a place as any to ask, while hopefully relevant to the topic, but can a decree of nullity be issued in error? Can bribery or corruption affect the awkwardly stated validity of the nullity?

Since being married alone won’t prevent the ordination from occurring, and since clerical celibacy is assumed, I’d image that if the marriage were still valid do to an erroneous declaration of nullity (if that is possible), the priest would at least not run afoul committing adultery.

The wife, however, would be in a difficult position, and if the annulment were overturned (again if such a procedure exists), then the priest might be dismissed from the clerical state. However, his ordination would remain, but he’d be forbidden from celebrating the sacraments except in the case of emergency.

mostly speculation on my part though

A priest cannot be dismissed from the clerical state just because his annulment was overturned. Come to think of it, all these should appear on his Sacramental record. If the person willfully concealed any information, then yes that will be the grounds for his dismissal. He will still be a priest, albeit a laicized one.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Br. David,

It would be more helpful if you supplied the end of that last sentence: “. . . in the Eastern churches.” Marriage is, after all, an impediment in the Latin Church.

Can. 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;

Its a legal (canonical) impediment, but it does not affect the validity of the Holy Orders. Protestant Ministers who receive an indult to continue as priests never received valid Orders as Protestant Ministers. But they are still ordained validly into eh Roman Catholic priesthood.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Wow, it really does say that. Suppose a priest’s annulment could be reversed, could that shed doubt on whether transubstantiation at the masses he has celebrated actually occurred?

He is a valid priest. Marriage does not invalidate Holy Orders Therefore all Sacraments are valid granting he has the necessary faculties and/or good standing with the Church all these time.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

It is a simple impediment, which means that it affects licitity, not validity (which was what the OP was asking).

The man in question would have been validly ordained. The ontological change to his soul would have occurred.

Yes, of course. Br. David’s statement was just false on its face. I’m not saying he was trying to misrepresent the case, because he likely meant it was not a diriment impediment (which category does not exist for orders); I simply don’t like letting things like that hang in the wind.

Note the last words “permanent diaconate”. Br. David’s statement is factually correct in the Western Church as well, since a permanent deacon does receive holy orders.

And yet despite the exception for permanent deacons, it remains the case that marriage is an impediment to orders. Like I said, it’s not a diriment impediment, but to unqualifiedly assert that marriage is not an impediment to orders is to make a statement that is unqualifiedly false.

 

[manualman]

The restriction against married men being ordained to the priesthood is primarily a disciplinary one. There are good theological arguments for it, but not ones rsing to the level that would make a married man invalid matter for ordination.

Tribunals are NOT infallible and can issue a decree of nullity in error. But that is irrelevant to the OP question. If the (unkowingly) married man is later ordained a priest, he IS a priest at that point. No need to sit in the pew and worry that you aren’t receiving the Eucharist at his masses.