If priest in mortal sin

  • Thread starter Thread starter MarcoPolo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MarcoPolo

Guest
I understand extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist are not supposed to receive the Eucharist until the priest does. But what if the priest is in mortal sin and can’t?
 
In Eastern Orthodoxy at least, a priest who is for any reason not allowed to receive, cannot serve. Priests who commit serious sins, even if they confess and repent, and are eventually allowed to receive, can still be forbidden to serve the Liturgy, at least for a while.
 
I have found this on EWTN’s website:

ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur68.htm

Here is a quote from the article:

"**Normally, to celebrate Mass or receive Communion while in a state of mortal sin would be to commit a sacrilege. Yet, the sacrament would be valid; that is, there would be a true consecration and a true sacrifice.

The reason is: Christ is the principal actor of the sacraments, so they are efficacious even when performed by an unworthy minister. As St. Thomas Aquinas says: Christ may act even through a minister who is spiritually dead.

However, a priest who has fallen into mortal sin, but who is unable to make his confession despite his desire to do so, may celebrate Mass for the benefit of the faithful without adding a further sin of sacrilege**."

Mary
 
Thanks both of you. But if the priest was in mortal sin at a mass…would he just skip taking Communion himself and just give it to the extraordinary ministers then? That was the gist of my original quesion.
 
MarcoPolo said:
Thanks both of you. But if the priest was in mortal sin at a mass…would he just skip taking Communion himself and just give it to the extraordinary ministers then? That was the gist of my original quesion.
Click to expand...
No, he would receive anyway. There was a problem in the middle ages where priests in mortal sin would omit the words of consecration so they would not commit sacrilege–Pope Innocent III condemned this as a worse sacrilege (St. Catherine of Siena writes strongly against this too). The reason this is even worse is that in those days the words of consecration were said in a low tone so the faithful usually didn’t know if they were omitted–and thus they were induced into an idolatrous ceremony of adoring bread. Even though the guilt was not imputed to the ignorant faithful, the whole ceremony still amounted to an idolatrous sacrilege.
 
MarcoPolo said:
Thanks both of you. But if the priest was in mortal sin at a mass…would he just skip taking Communion himself and just give it to the extraordinary ministers then? That was the gist of my original quesion.
Click to expand...
A priest who is in mortal sin without any opportunity to confess prior to serving Mass (say he’s the only priest in a remote town or something), can make an Act of Perfect Contrition, which includes the resolve to confess as soon as possible, and receive without committing sacrilege or being in further mortal sin.

Canon Law provides for this situation (can’t remember the section offhand). It is a necessity for a priest celebrating Mass to himself receive, so this is a concession due to the urgency of the situation.
 
MarcoPolo said:
Really? I didn’t know that. Any reference would be much appreciated!!
Click to expand...
GIRM 85 (sorry, not Canon Law):
  1. It is most desirable that the faithful, just as the priest himself is bound to do, receive the Lord’s Body from hosts consecrated at the same Mass
So not only is the priest bound himself to commune, but he must partake of a host and chalice consecrated at that same Mass, not himself taking any consecrated at a previous Mass.

and Canon 916:

Can. 916 A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.

This Canon is obviously directed primarily at priests, since there are few if any occasions apart from being near death, that would be sufficiently grave for any layperson to qualify.
 
MarcoPolo said:
I understand extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist are not supposed to receive the Eucharist until the priest does. But what if the priest is in mortal sin and can’t?
Click to expand...
A celebrating priest MUST receive BOTH forms or he should not be celebrating Mass.
 
LilyM said:
Can. 916 A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.

This Canon is obviously directed primarily at priests, since there are few if any occasions apart from being near death, that would be sufficiently grave for any layperson to qualify.
Click to expand...
Lily and I differ on this. I hold that Canon 916 is not obviously directed primarily at priests but is obviously directed at both priest and laity.

One must read canonical statutes (or any statute for that matter) clause by clause. Thus 916 could be rendered, distributing the disjunction: “A person who is consious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass. . . A person conscious of grave sin is not to receive the Body of the Lord.” Note the use of the word “person” and not “priest” – since the intent of the canon was to apply to both those who celebrate mass (i.e priests) and those who receive communion (i.e. priests and laity).

Archbishop Raymond Burke, an emminent canon lawyer, points out that JPII drew a much needed distingction between Canon 915 (which permits the Church to deny communion) and Canon 916:

. . .the Roman Pontiff clarified the obligation, on the part of the Church, to take action, when a person who remains in grievous and public sin approaches to receive Holy Communion. The obligation in question is distinct from the obligation of the person to examine his conscience regarding grave sin before approaching, which is treated in can. 916.

Now obviously since Canon 915 treats laity, and archbishop is comparing the obligations of 915 and 916, then phrase “the obligation of the person to examine his conscience. . .before approaching” refers to the laity who approach for communion. It appears that Archbishop Burke thinks that canon 916 applies to the laity, and not just secondarily.

Another well respected canon lawyer, Dr. Ed Peters has this to say:

Canon 916. There are lots of mortal sins out there; if you commit any one of them, you’re not supposed to go to Communion. It’s your obligation to stay away. . . “A person who is conscious of [having committed] grave sin is not to . . . receive the Body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession. . .”

This canon only expresses what is already required by moral theology: anyone who is aware of having committed a grave sin of any sort and who has not repented of and confessed the sin must not go to Communion.

Aside from the above two canon lawyers who support my point, the most crucial aspect of my argument is this: nowhere else in tha statutory scheme (thats some fancy lawyerin’ lingo :cool: ) do we find the prohibition for the laity to not take communion in mortal sin. THAT is what 916 is actually doing. It is establishing the rule that we must not take communion when in mortal sin (and while doing so it points out an exception).

If one wants to maintain that 916 applies primarily to priests then one must also say that the prohibition on taking commuion while in mortal sin applies primarily to priests. Obviously, canon law doesn’t intend that. Lily is focusing only on the EXCEPTION and not the real prohibition in 916. The prohibition (and the exception) apply equally to BOTH priests and laity.

Canon law satutes can be a bit tricky, just as state and federal statutes can be. It requires training to properly interpret and apply them.

Now, speaking of applying. If all one wants to say is that the exception in 916, practically speaking, is usually only applicable to priests, that is fine. That is different than asserting that Canon 916 appplies primarily to priests.

VC

P.S. Lily, I hope you don’t mind that I refer to you in the third person throughout this post. I mean no offense. I wanted to avoid rehashing our old argument, but I wanted to give the other position (which I believe to be the right one, of course. 😉 )
 
Verbum_Caro said:
Now, speaking of applying. If all one wants to say is that the exception in 916, practically speaking, is usually only applicable to priests, that is fine. That is different than asserting that Canon 916 appplies primarily to priests.
Click to expand...
So your disagreement with Lily is that she used the word “primarily” instead of “usually”???
 
Nope.

My concern is that the canon 916 itself is not intended primarily for priests, and it would be innacurate to say that. Its also not only “usually” for priests.

It is intended for priests and laity.

(My use of the word “usually” was only in reference to the exception contained in 916. And this was only when speaking of the exception in its practical aspect. Canonically the exception is directed at both priest and laity as well.)

VC
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top