Impersonating a Priest

[ValPal]

The only two sacraments that could potentially be valid are Baptism and Marriage, because the priest is not the minister of the sacrament.

The potential issue with Baptism is that we don’t know the intent of the false priest. On the other hand, if the parents were present and intended the child to be baptized, and the proper words were stated by the priest, this may suffice. A canon lawyer might be needed in this case.

With marriage, lack of form would likely apply. The spouses are the minister of the sacrament, but the Church has chosen not to recognize those marriages, except under certain extraordinary circumstances. It would be up to the Church as to how to handle this specific circumstance.

 

[FrDavid96]

This surprised me, so I did some research and found out that you are correct. Per the Catholic Encyclopedia, the following regards the proper minister(s) of the sacrament of Marraige:

• From the earliest times this fundamental proposition has been upheld: Matrimonium facit consensus, i.e. Marriage is contracted through the mutual, expressed consent. Therein is contained implicitly the doctrine that the persons contracting marriage are themselves the agents or ministers of the sacrament. However, it has been likewise emphasized that marriage must be contracted with the blessing of the priest and the approbation of the Church, for otherwise it would be a source not of Divine grace, but of malediction. Hence it might easily be inferred that the sacerdotal blessing is the grace-giving element, or form of the sacrament, and that the priest is the minister. But this is a false conclusion. The first theologian to designate clearly and distinctly the priest as the minister of the Sacrament and his blessing as the sacramental form was apparently Melchior Canus (d. 1560). *

Meaning that a marraige contracted before an imposter “priest” would still be both valid and sacramental.

Even a validly ordained, legitimate priest must have jurisdiction to witness (“officiate”) a wedding for the sacrament to be valid. Since a real priest requires jurisdiction for validity, naturally an impostor priest cannot validly witness a marriage.

 

[FrDavid96]

First of all, anyone can Baptize. But no they are not invalid in my judgment because although this man was a wolf in sheep’s clothing, the sheep came to him with trust and faithful intent. It is a peculiar situation but you cannot take away that trust and faithful intent from the sheep. In other words men had already confessed to this fake priest and confided their trust in him that their sins would be absolved. They have no idea that he is a fake priest so in the future they would never confess the same sins to a real priest. You can’t take away the forgiveness of sins that they will never confess to another priest because they believe that their sins are already absolved through the fake priest, whom they did not know was fake. That’s just an example.

The Sacraments performed by this fake priest are valid because of the trust and faithful intent that people place within them.

What you are missing here is that absolution is a juridic act of the Church. Only a validly ordained priest with faculties can absolve. No priest (or no faculties) means no absolution. There’s just no way around this.

 

[Monica4316]

Hey everyone,

Watching this show about infamous con-man Fred Brito. Without getting into all the details of his many crimes as a forger, impersonator and whatnot, one of them was to pretend to be a Catholic Priest. Apparently he actually celebrated Mass, did baptisms, marriages, heard confessions, and presided at funerals among other duties of a Priest as well. Obviously he was not ordained and did not have the ability to do any of those things. I know this is a very unique situation but I was wondering, does that mean everything was invalid and the marriage/baptisms would have to be done over, and what about at Mass, were all those Masses invalid despite the intention of the faithful gathered who truly wanted to receive Jesus in the Holy Eucharist? How about Reconciliation? Were those who went to him for confession absolved of their sins due to their intention and contrition?

I was just completely taken aback by the ramifications of such a sacrilegious con perpetrated by this man…

God bless,
Paul

Hi Paul, yes I think the Sacraments would be invalid in this case, and if this man was Catholic, he would be automatically excommunicated for this under Canon Law. What he did is very serious.
Hope that helps! God bless

 

[promethius]

Even a validly ordained, legitimate priest must have jurisdiction to witness (“officiate”) a wedding for the sacrament to be valid. Since a real priest requires jurisdiction for validity, naturally an impostor priest cannot validly witness a marriage.

With all due respect, Father, do you have a source for this assertion? After all, the Catholic Encyclopedia deals with the subject of “who is the minister of marriage” quite extensively and summarily dismisses the necessity of a priest for valid sacramental marriages as erroneous…

While the church, by declaration of Trent, declares any marriage contracted without a priest as sacriligious, nonetheless it does not deny the sacramental nature of such marraiges between Christians.

Other than the Catholic Encyclopedia, however, I don’t have a source, so I’d certainly welcome one that refutes there rather lengthy position on the subject.

 

[FrDavid96]

With all due respect, Father, do you have a source for this assertion? …

Canon 1108.

 

[promethius]

Canon 1108.

I would think that Canon 1116 would have something to do with that, however, insofar as persons getting married would have to go to “grave inconvenience” to do a background check on their priest to determine he was a counterfiet, and, per situation 2, the deception probably lasted at least a month.

Furthermore, the exception in Canon 1116 reveals that, yes, a sacramental marraige may be completed with no minister present.

 

[PJD1987]

Doesn’t the Church recognize marriages that weren’t in a Catholic Church? Like if a married couple converts to Catholicism, they don’t have to get “re-married” in the Catholic Church do they?

 

[anp1215]

Doesn’t the Church recognize marriages that weren’t in a Catholic Church? Like if a married couple converts to Catholicism, they don’t have to get “re-married” in the Catholic Church do they?

Yes, the Catholic Church recognizes marriages between non-Catholics, as long as there were no impediments. If a validly married non-Catholic couple decides to convert, they do not have to have a convalidation; they are already validly married, and, if both are baptized, sacramentally married too.

This is different than the situation in the thread though.

 

[dochawk]

With respect to Fr. David, it appears to me that a western marriage would indeed be valid for innocent parties (but how would innocent parties end up in front of this priest? They should be getting married in the bride’s parish, normally, and would presumably know who the priests there are . . . )

Canon law specifies how the priest will witness for a licit wedding. Until the 1970s revision, the priest didn’t even have to ask for them–finally closnqg an ancient abuse in which the couple would break in, wake the priest, and exchange vows while he came to . . .

In the East, there would be no marriage, as a priest is necessary to confer, rather than witness. When an EC is putatively married by a real deacon, it is invalid; a fake priest the certainly wouldn’t validly crown . . .

hawk

 

[zab]

With all due respect, you have unjust judgment. You simply don’t deprive the innocent of their faith for the sake of the actions of a false shepherd. If he mislead the sheep into sinning then that would be a separate matter; however, if it was the sheep’s intent to exercise their faith through the sacraments that this false priest mocked then they are absolutely valid in regards to the sheep. That is right judgment.

There are two people present in the sacraments. The shepherd and the sheep. Just because one is absent (the shepherd) does not invalidate the sacrament received by the sheep, when the sheep believes that the shepherd is present. And that is exactly what happened in this case.

You don’t punish the believer because the wolf dressed in sheep’s clothing.

" As for the other sacraments, his baptisms would almost certainly be valid, for one need not be in Holy Orders to perform a baptism (CCC 1256). Confirmation, on the other hand, would be invalid (1983 CIC 882) and, because it is a “character-imprinting” sacrament that can only be administered by a priest (1983 CIC 845 § 1), it would have to be administered anew. Confessions, too, though not character-imprinting, would also be invalid (1983 CIC 965) and at least those relating mortal sins should be repeated at one’s earliest opportunity.** In the meantime, the good faith shown by one confessing sins to a person honestly believed to be a priest would, one may be sure, be respected by God.** Dr. Edward N. Peters*, *Canon Lawyer

 

[FrDavid96]

I would think that Canon 1116 would have something to do with that, however, insofar as persons getting married would have to go to “grave inconvenience” to do a background check on their priest to determine he was a counterfiet, and, per situation 2, the deception probably lasted at least a month.

Furthermore, the exception in Canon 1116 reveals that, yes, a sacramental marraige may be completed with no minister present.

Look, with all due respect here. You don’t have any idea what you’re talking about. You might not be aware of this, but this topic is actually covered in the seminary and it’s something that priests must know. We just don’t do google searches to learn canon law.

When a validly ordained, legitimate priest attempts to officiate at a wedding without having proper jurisdiction (or delegation) the marriage is invalid.

 

[FrDavid96]

With respect to Fr. David, it appears to me that a western marriage would indeed be valid for innocent parties (but how would innocent parties end up in front of this priest? They should be getting married in the bride’s parish, normally, and would presumably know who the priests there are . . . )

Canon law specifies how the priest will witness for a licit wedding. Until the 1970s revision, the priest didn’t even have to ask for them–finally closnqg an ancient abuse in which the couple would break in, wake the priest, and exchange vows while he came to . . .

In the East, there would be no marriage, as a priest is necessary to confer, rather than witness. When an EC is putatively married by a real deacon, it is invalid; a fake priest the certainly wouldn’t validly crown . . .

hawk

You’re a lawyer. Read the law.

The marriage would not be valid if it’s officiated by an impostor. It would not even be valid under civil law because the “officiant” signing the marriage certificate would be committing fraud by claiming to be a Catholic priest. There is just no way that such a marriage can or would be considered valid by the Church.

Yes, the Church allows for marriages celebrated in the presence of witnesses alone, but only under certain circumstances. An impostor priest isn’t one of those.

The “solution” here (at least for the couple) would be a radical sanation.

“How could this sort of thing happen?” Good question. Yes, the local pastor has an obligation to verify the credentials of a visiting priest. Still, it’s not impossible for someone to impersonate a priest–obviously not since it has happened. Somebody just didn’t cross all the T’s and dot all the I’s…

 

[FrDavid96]

" As for the other sacraments, his baptisms would almost certainly be valid, for one need not be in Holy Orders to perform a baptism (CCC 1256). Confirmation, on the other hand, would be invalid (1983 CIC 882) and, because it is a “character-imprinting” sacrament that can only be administered by a priest (1983 CIC 845 § 1), it would have to be administered anew. Confessions, too, though not character-imprinting, would also be invalid (1983 CIC 965) and at least those relating mortal sins should be repeated at one’s earliest opportunity.** In the meantime, the good faith shown by one confessing sins to a person honestly believed to be a priest would, one may be sure, be respected by God.** Dr. Edward N. Peters*, *Canon Lawyer

And an “invalid” confession means that there is no absolution.

 

[zab]

And an “invalid” confession means that there is no absolution.

Yes, that is what it means. But you should take into consideration the rest of what the canon lawyer said. What if the person died suddenly after confessing mortal sins to a person whom he honestly thought was a Catholic priest? What if a person never learned that his confession was invalid?

 

[FrDavid96]

Yes, that is what it means. But you should take into consideration the rest of what the canon lawyer said. What if the person died suddenly after confessing mortal sins to a person whom he honestly thought was a Catholic priest? What if a person never learned that his confession was invalid?

Taking that into consideration still does not mean that the absolution was valid–it was an invalid attempt. Read the quote you posted from Dr P— again.

 

[ValPal]

Hi Father,

I see where the confusion is coming from with the marriage issue. It is also something that I have never understood. The point some people are making is the spouses are the ministers of the sacrament, not the priest, nor anyone else. It would seem on the surface that the spouses intending to get married an stating so would suffice for marriage. Further confusing people is the fact that there are certain extreme circumstances where a priest need not be present.

Some people can’t wrap their head around by a imposter priest being present the marriage is invalid, but in other (though extreme) circumstances a priest doesn’t even need to be present. The former is invalid, but the latter isn’t. Addressing this issue would clear up the confusion. Thanks in advance.

 

[zab]

Taking that into consideration still does not mean that the absolution was valid–it was an invalid attempt. Read the quote you posted from Dr P— again.

I read it and understood it the first time. It was I who highlighted the word "invalid". My post was directed to a certain person’s comment. It in no way implied that confession to an imposter priest was valid.

 

[Just_Lurking]

For those who were “married” by the impostor priest, it is possible that their marriage may have already been radically sanated by the bishop without their knowledge. Note the following in these instructions on the radical sanation process (from here):
4. Notification: When the petition is granted, the submitting minister will normally inform the Catholic party(ies), who is/are then free to return to the Sacraments. In certain cases, however, serious reason may exist for not advising the parties of the sanation. Examples of such cases are: a minister’s lack of proper delegation, or discovery of an undispensed impediment. If neither party is to be informed of the sanation, this is to be noted on the rescript (by checking the box at the very bottom of the petition form).

 

[FrDavid96]

Hi Father,

I see where the confusion is coming from with the marriage issue. It is also something that I have never understood. The point some people are making is the spouses are the ministers of the sacrament, not the priest, nor anyone else. It would seem on the surface that the spouses intending to get married an stating so would suffice for marriage. Further confusing people is the fact that there are certain extreme circumstances where a priest need not be present.

Some people can’t wrap their head around by a imposter priest being present the marriage is invalid, but in other (though extreme) circumstances a priest doesn’t even need to be present. The former is invalid, but the latter isn’t. Addressing this issue would clear up the confusion. Thanks in advance.

Sure.

The couple is the minister of the Sacrament of marriage. At the same time, they express their consent in the presence of the official representative (under other circumstances, we would usually say “minister”) of the Church. In other words, it’s not sufficient all-by-itself fo the couple to express their consent to each other. They must do so in the presence of someone who can legitimately represent the Church.

This representative of the Church is usually the pastor—but of course, can be any bishop/priest/deacon delegated by the pastor (either the pastor of the diocese or the pastor of the parish). In unusual circumstances, such as a severe priest shortage, the Church allows the local bishop to appoint a layperson to be that official representative. In very extreme cases the couple can marry “in the presence of witnesses alone” but when that happens, keep in mind that the Church (through canon law) is still appointing those “witnesses alone” to be the representatives of the Church. The key point here is that the officiant must receive the couple’s consent, on behalf of the Church.

In the case of an impostor priest, we’re not dealing with the type of “unusual situation” that the Church envisions when allowing for a marriage before witnesses alone. Unless we’re writing an elaborate fiction novel here, the impostor priest would be “officiating” at a ceremony where it is possible for the proper pastor (or his delegate) to perform the ceremony.

The other issue is that we need to keep in mind that whether the officiant is a cleric or is a layperson, in either case, that person is an official representative of the Church; and someone who is an impostor cannot possibly be considered an official representative.

That’s the missing piece here when we’re talking about an impostor priest. The officiant at a Catholic wedding must be appointed (either by office such as pastor, or by delegation, or by the law itself) to do so. Without being an official representative of the Church, the marriage is not a valid one; since an impostor cannot receive the couple’s consent on behalf of the Church.