Drunk Priest in a Bakery Dilemma

  • Thread starter Thread starter DianaCC
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DianaCC

Guest
I heard fascinating dilemma regarding transubstantiation: What if a drunken priest stumbles into a bakery and pronounces the words of consecration over the entire inventory of the shop?

The first thing that will happen is the priest will have committed a sacrilege (in addition to the already-committed sin of consensual intoxication) and probably several other sins and canonical violations. But given his state, can he consecrate? Is this a case of ex opere operato?

Supposing transubstantiation does in fact happen, then the inventory that happens to be valid matter will be transubstantiated, while invalid matter like gluten-free focaccia and white-chocolate macadamia cookies obviously will not. But will both leavened and unleavened valid matter be affected? What about flour, batter, and unbaked dough?

Let’s say the bakery specializes in what just so happens to be valid matter. A significant portion of the inventory is now unsellable. What recourse does the baker have? Since the priest celebrates mass only with the approval of the bishop, can the baker sue the diocese for compensation? Is he required to maintain a lighted candle in the shop 24/7 to signify the Real Presence while it remains? Would it be proper to genuflect on your way in if you’re only there to order a birthday cake? Need there be a holy water font by the door?

May he publish a notice in the parish bulletin describing the event and have people sign up for adoration time slots in the shop? Would he need to secure permission from the local ordinary? Supposing he got it, would it be permitted to profit from the sale of other goods such as cookies to the faithful on their way out? Would it be ethical for people to stop in to make a visit to the Blessed Sacrament without patronizing the business?

After arrangements have been made to transfer the consecrated species, what can be done with it? (I mean, done with *Him *👍) Does it have to be collected by a priest, or can a couple of EMHCs come by and pick it up? Since there’s so much of it, does it have to be transferred in a gold-lined container, or can it be carried in the plastic bins the shop already uses?

After the proper authorities take custody of it, can it be administered to the faithful as preconsecrated hosts in liturgies? What becomes of identifiable crumbs in the trash? Are these to be dissolved in water and deposited in a sacrarium?

I heard this dilemma originated among anti-Catholics for the sake of ridiculing Catholic doctrine, but after thinking about it I realized it’s actually pretty deep and would make a worthwhile discussion for high school religion because it brings up a lot of unexpected issues that most people never think about, some of which strike me as hilarious on account of the sheer incongruity of the situation, and yet intriguing because it puts a lot of our practices, and a lot of the implications of our beliefs, in a new light.
 
I would doubt about the reality of the intent and if there is no true intent the sacrament is not valid and so it is just bread.
 
I would doubt about the reality of the intent and if there is no true intent the sacrament is not valid and so it is just bread.
Is the intent vitiated by the mere fact of intoxication? Because if it is, then wouldn’t he lose the ability to absolve also? And supposing for some reason you wanted to halt a mass, you could shoot the celebrant with a tranquilizer gun and until it wears off he won’t be able to confect the sacrament.
 
The consecration can not be done out side of the Mass.

Also I doubt that much, if anything, inside of a bakery would meet the requirements to be proper matter. The bread can only be made from wheat and water. If yeast is present it becomes illict matter, if anything else is present it becomes invalid matter.
 
IMHO and with no offense intended to the OP but there is just something so not right about this whole thing.

Seems like fodder for foul play by those who would indeed come up with that scenario and for some on these forums just looking for this sort of thing.😦

But that’s just me.🤷

As a former teacher, not the sort of lesson material I’d choose.

You may ask why I bothered to post a reply. The shocking title drew my morbid attention, I admit, and I hoped… well I don’t really know what I hoped.:confused:

I’ll bow out now. Sorry, I’m trying to realize the intent, I know it was purely philosophical.

May the Peace of Our Lord Jesus and His Blessed Mother be with you always.
 
The consecration can not be done out side of the Mass.

Also I doubt that much, if anything, inside of a bakery would meet the requirements to be proper matter. The bread can only be made from wheat and water. If yeast is present it becomes illict matter, if anything else is present it becomes invalid matter.
Actually, it can. It is expressively forbidden, but that means that one can.

So what if its leavened bread? It still be consecrated by a Latin Rite priest.

Also, if anything else is present doesn’t automatically invalidate the matter. As long as the bread is still considered wheat bread, then it is still valid.
 
The consecration can not be done out side of the Mass.
Although gravely forbidden, it can be done outside of the Mass and with only one species. That is why Canon 927 exists.
Also I doubt that much, if anything, inside of a bakery would meet the requirements to be proper matter. The bread can only be made from wheat and water. If yeast is present it becomes illict matter, if anything else is present it becomes invalid matter.
That is not true. Those are the requirements to be licit (i.e., for the priest not to be committing an abuse by breaking the rules), but to be valid matter (i.e., capable of being turned into the body of Christ) it need only be identifiable as wheat bread. As the old De Defectibus put it, “If the bread be not wheaten, or, if wheaten, if grain of another kind be admixed in such quantity that it is no longer wheat bread, or if it be otherwise spoiled, the Sacrament is not confected.” Likewise, Redemptionis Sacramentum explains:
The bread used in the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharistic Sacrifice must be unleavened, purely of wheat, and recently made so that there is no danger of decomposition. It follows therefore that bread made from another substance, even if it is grain, or if it is mixed with another substance different from wheat to such an extent that it would not commonly be considered wheat bread, does not constitute valid matter for confecting the Sacrifice and the Eucharistic Sacrament. It is a grave abuse to introduce other substances, such as fruit or sugar or honey, into the bread for confecting the Eucharist.
 
The consecration can not be done out side of the Mass.

Also I doubt that much, if anything, inside of a bakery would meet the requirements to be proper matter. The bread can only be made from wheat and water. If yeast is present it becomes illict matter, if anything else is present it becomes invalid matter.
What if the wheat and water happened to be the only things present, and there was no yeast?

Furthermore, what is this “proper” matter you speak of?

What if he held a mass inside the bakery whilst drunk?
 
I dont even think the bread needs wheat. a priest in our area needs a gluten free host for every mass. I know this because when I serve a mass for him he always tells us ahead of time. I also know that some of our parisioners need them, too.
 
I dont even think the bread needs wheat. a priest in our area needs a gluten free host for every mass. I know this because when I serve a mass for him he always tells us ahead of time. I also know that some of our parisioners need them, too.
Gluten-restricted hosts are made from wheat. They are made to the point where the gluten is no longer detectable by laboratory testing, but the manufacturers caution that they may not be entirely gluten-free.
 
I dont even think the bread needs wheat. a priest in our area needs a gluten free host for every mass. I know this because when I serve a mass for him he always tells us ahead of time. I also know that some of our parisioners need them, too.
In addition to what EasterJoy (correctly) says, it is also possible that your parish is using invalid, gluten-free wafers which cannot be consecrated. Not long ago I contacted a bishop of a diocese I won’t name because a parish was advertising on its website that gluten-intolerant people could get wafers made of potato or rice flour. (Problem fixed, BTW.) So it is not outside the realm of possibility that your parish is using improper matter and ought to reform their practice. As then-Cardinal Ratzinger wrote for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 2003, “Hosts that are completely gluten-free are invalid matter for the celebration of the Eucharist.”
 
Gluten-restricted hosts are made from wheat. They are made to the point where the gluten is no longer detectable by laboratory testing, but the manufacturers caution that they may not be entirely gluten-free.
I would hope that they’re not gluten-free, because if there’s no gluten then it’s invalid matter because it’s no longer wheaten bread.
 
A priest getting drunk and stumbling into a bakery so blind that he thought he was in a church saying Mass is hilarious? You have a weird sense of humor.

The priest consecrates only what he intends to consecrate. If you have a Mass at a stadium with 100,000 people, the hosts consecrated do not all have to be on the altar, but the priest does have to have intended to have consecrated them all. What he doesn’t intend to consecrate is not consecrated.

Therefore, he has to be sober enough to have this intention. He is not a consecration machine. Yes, ex opere operato, and a sacrament is valid though the priest is a scandal, but the priest’s free human consent is required. Just as you aren’t married if you get married drunk, to the point that though you said the words, you didn’t give your true consent, just so the Eucharist is not valid if the priest does not give consent to what he’s doing. If he doesn’t even know where he is, surely he is not sober enough to have the required intention.

Let us say, though, that he does have this intention and possesses enough sobriety to perform consecration with awareness of what he’s doing. Maybe he’s totally sober but willfully doing this. What then? The matter that is valid would be consecrated, and the matter that is not valid would not be. For instance, if a priest intends to consecrate wine but does not realize it is spoiled, the wine is not consecrated. He wouldn’t realize that until he tried to consume it; hence, why there are directions in the rubrics for what to do in this case. Likewise, if he had the wine without permission, it would still be consecrated. Illicit, but valid.

Considering the whole situation would be illicit, surely there would not be adoration or visitation by the faithful allowed. If it were possible, the area would be roped off, the sacred species would probably be treated as if they had been dropped, which is to say water would be added until the eucharistic species no longer subsisted and the presence of the Lord would be gone, and what remainded of what had been the eucharistic species would be disposed of properly.

As for the cost, the Church and the priest would be liable as for any other civil offense the priest committed. The bakery would not be legally bound to release the bread for disposal as the Church sees fit, and so the Church would be at the mercy of the bakery’s cooperation. There wouldn’t be a legal way to compel cooperation, even though there be a sacrilege.

Really, this is like asking what the Church would do if this priest had an affair with every woman in the village and fathered children with all of them. It would be a hideous offense. The solution the Church would like and thinks is the most moral is not the Church’s to demand. It would be awful beyond describing.
 
I would hope that they’re not gluten-free, because if there’s no gluten then it’s invalid matter because it’s no longer wheaten bread.
That is not correct. Think about it: Have you ever seen white hosts? The wheat germ was removed, but they were still wheat hosts, right? Well, just as you can make valid matter from white flour with the wheat germ removed, you can remove the gluten from wheat flour and what remains after you remove the gluten is still the fruit of the wheat stalk and you can make valid matter from it. It is not 100% whole wheat, but it is 100% wheat, so it is still OK.
 
In addition to what EasterJoy (correctly) says, it is also possible that your parish is using invalid, gluten-free wafers which cannot be consecrated. Not long ago I contacted a bishop of a diocese I won’t name because a parish was advertising on its website that gluten-intolerant people could get wafers made of potato or rice flour. (Problem fixed, BTW.) So it is not outside the realm of possibility that your parish is using improper matter and ought to reform their practice. As then-Cardinal Ratzinger wrote for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 2003, “Hosts that are completely gluten-free are invalid matter for the celebration of the Eucharist.”
I stand corrected.

It turns out that hosts with 0.01% gluten have enough gluten to be valid matter according to the Church and are also low enough in gluten to be “perfectly safe” for most celiacs. According to calculations, a celiac would have to consume over 200 hosts in a day to go into the currently-estimated danger zone.

benedictinesisters.org/bread/low_gluten.php
 
That is not what the CDF has ruled on this question, though.
You’re right. If 0.01% of the gluten remains, however, that is sufficient for the resulting product to be not just “a wheat product” but what the Church defines as “wheat bread.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top