Local priest’s invalid baptism had ripple effect on sacraments, archdiocese says

[MarkRome]

I was just thinking of the fact that a priest or deacon is the ordinary witness to a marriage, and Fr Hood in reality was not a priest.

I was thinking about that too, however, if that’s their reasoning then all the marriages he performed would be invalid but the diocese says that some may and some may not. Their FAQs mention the situation of the engaged couples and almost seems unrelated to Fr. Hood, like it was copied and pasted from another section on the validity of a marriage.

 

[PaulinVA]

Their FAQs mention the situation of the engaged couples and almost seems unrelated to Fr. Hood, like it was copied and pasted from another section on the validity of a marriage.

That struck me, too. It would seem that all of the couples he witnessed would be int he same boat.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

MarkRome:

Their FAQs mention the situation of the engaged couples and almost seems unrelated to Fr. Hood, like it was copied and pasted from another section on the validity of a marriage.

That struck me, too. It would seem that all of the couples he witnessed would be int he same boat.

Somewhat reiterating what I said above, is it not in the Church’s power of binding and loosing, to go back and create a retroactive legal fiction, giving the then non-priest Mr Hood the authority to witness these marriages?

And as for confessions, it may be true that anyone who confessed mortal sins to then-Mr Hood would have to confess them again, if they can remember them, but I have also wondered if their first confession, with the intention of submitting these to the keys of the Church for forgiveness, would suffice. I really don’t know. That would be up to the bishop and possibly the Holy See.

 

[ReaderT]

Anointing of the sick, do-over neither necessary nor possible. That one’s easy.

In Catholic thinking, though, that’s gotta suck for all the people who died without Last Rites, then

 

[ReaderT]

Wait - question.

You believe the dude wasn’t a real priest when all those people confessed to him.

So they weren’t real confessions.

Which means no seal.

 

[VonDerTann]

That, ReaderT, is a absolutely fascinating issue, maybe the most interesting one I’ve seen in a long time.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

He likely doesn’t remember a thing of what they said, all of which was probably mundane beyond words.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

In Catholic thinking, though, that’s gotta suck for all the people who died without Last Rites, then

God would almost certainly provide for them.

 

[VonDerTann]

I suspect that you’re correct - but there’s still be impediments to what could be used against a penitent (as opposed to revealed). For example, I believe legally most states have statutes that formalize the “priest-penitent privilege” where if I confess crime X to priest Y (or any minister,perhaps not a traditional priest)," the priest can’t testify to that in court - and I think that includes situations where, for example, person Y is an undercover cop posing as a priest, which is kind of analogous. There are exceptions - in NJ some years ago a person confessed committing a crime to a minister who also happened to be a state police officer. I think the rationale for allowing the cop to reveal what was said to him was, to paraphrase, “you knew he was a cop, you confessed knowing he’d probably reveal it.” Do I like that result? I dunno; I’d need to study it a bit more carefully.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

ReaderT:

In Catholic thinking, though, that’s gotta suck for all the people who died without Last Rites, then

God would almost certainly provide for them.

//\This precisely.

I really have to think that Almighty God supplied anything that was lacking, in terms of graces received. I would also think this would be especially understandable by one of the Orthodox faith — something about “it is easier for us to say where the grace of God is, rather than where it is not”. (I’m paraphrasing something I read about the Orthodox view of Catholic sacraments. This seems like a very Orthodox thought in general.)

 

[mythbuster1]

The Seal also binds lay persons who overhear a Confession, and applies even in cases where there is no Sacramental absolution. The Seal applies here.

 

[acanonlawyer]

however, if that’s their reasoning then all the marriages he performed would be invalid but the diocese says that some may and some may not.

There could be a few variables at work here that would make some of this (apparent) priest’s marriages (so to speak) valid and others not valid. I don’t really know what the diocese was referring to, though, practically. It is probably best for the diocese to be vague at this point. If couples are still together, they can sort through the issues and, if needed, convalidate.

Fundamentally, though, every marriage where this priest was the official witness would enjoy the favor of the law (be presumed valid): according to all circumstances that people could see, canonical form was being observed. This, at least, is my current opinion…which is subject to revocation/revision/revulsion/etc.

Dan

 

[Phemie]

I was wondering about the marriage of an Orthodox & Catholic couple. I know when the Orthodox person is practicing that would usually occur at the Orthodox person’s church. But do the Orthodox consider it valid as long as a priest receives the consent?

 

[acanonlawyer]

But do the Orthodox consider it valid as long as a priest receives the consent?

I hesitate to make a comment on what the Orthodox would “consider valid.”

Dan

 

[James579]

At Mass this morning at a parish I was visiting, the elderly lay lector (who may have been a nun) took it upon herself to revise the readings in the lectionary. In the first reading, she changed “…shun any brother who walks in a disorderly way” to “shun anyone who walks in a disorderly way.” Next, she changed a verse in the responsorial psalm from “Blessed are you who fear the Lord, who walk in his ways” to “Blessed are you who fear the Lord, who walk in God’s ways.” Clearly, these illicit edits were motivated by a personal desire on her part for inclusive language. I could not help but see the parallel to the Deacon in question changing the formula of Baptism, apparently to match his personal theological understanding, thereby invalidating the sacrament and causing these disastrous ripple effects. The changes in today’s readings were certainly not as monumental, but are fruit of the same tree: a conviction that the words that the Church gives us either in the Scripture readings at Mass or in the Sacraments are subject to individual interpretation and that the priest or layperson is somehow free to “tweak” them if he or she somehow finds them lacking. I would have spoken to the priest, but he is in his last few days at the parish, so my timing would have been off. Perhaps it’s generational: I don’t want to be an ageist, but the younger priests and lay people I have encountered are much less prone to deviate from saying the black and doing the red-this gives me some hope for the future.

 

[MNathaniel]

Next, she changed a verse in the responsorial psalm from “Blessed are you who fear the Lord, who walk in his ways” to “Blessed are you who fear the Lord, who walk in God’s ways.”

At least she didn’t do what I’ve heard some stubborn people do (not in a lectionary context, thank goodness) and announced: “… who walk in Her ways.” And then tried to argue for why it’s ‘good’ to use feminine pronouns for God and how this is an important type of activism to correct an erroneous cultural misunderstanding about God and gender.

(Typically this type of person will save the ‘She/Her’ pronoun for when they think it’s arguable that the Person of God in question is the Holy Spirit.)

Again, I haven’t heard it from the pulpit (thank God). But I have heard it from stubborn older ladies inside a Church building, during Church services. Like, from the pews, talking over the pronoun the priest and everyone else uses in a prayer, and loudly substituting ‘She/Her’ instead.

Agreed with you that it’s “fruit from the same tree”. There’s a certain spirit been prowling around for a good many years now. Though like you I agree that I see a movement against this spirit, by younger people, that encourages me.

 

[johnnykins]

From the CCC
1623 According to Latin tradition, the spouses as ministers of Christ’s grace mutually confer upon each other the sacrament of Matrimony by expressing their consent before the Church. In the tradition of the Eastern Churches, the priests (bishops or presbyters) are witnesses to the mutual consent given by the spouses, but for the validity of the sacrament their blessing is also necessary.

If one party were Eastern Catholic, validity could be an issue.

I agree the Archdiocese was less than clear…but potentially validity could be an issue…

 

[1cthlctrth]

This shows why priests and deacons need to follow the rules, instead of inserting their own wording.

 

[Edmundus1581]

FiveLinden:

In another thread I questioned whether the Vatican was correct, as the word ‘we’ in English can have the meaning ‘I’ when used by a monarch or similar person. As the priest stands in the place of Jesus, King of Kings, surely ‘we’ would be the correct formal English?

Short answer: the Church has the final say.

True, as a “good enough” and also final answer.

To which one could add that the clerics who ruled on this in Rome can be trusted to know canon law, sacramental theology, and the English language well enough to give the correct answer and much better than any of us here, so it’s not just an argument from authority but there’s also the very highest probability that it is correct.

Still, @fivelinden’s question has perked my curiousity.

Whenever the royal “we” is used in English it’s in a narrowly defined and well understood way. I note that it is also used in some other spheres. When the monarch (or another approved user of it) says “we” it’s understood that though the decision is theirs they are speaking for the office they hold, and hence for the body which that office governs.

For whatever reason the Church requires “I baptise you” in English, to indicate that it is the person themself baptising the infant. It is not the Church or even Christ the King of KIngs (as per fivelinden), it is the individual person. So if that person says “we” then they are not personally baptising the infant, and their choice of word indicates that is what they intend. I think it likely that the priest here is saying “we” indicating himself, the parents, and perhaps others assembled for the baptism. Such priests typically like to downplay their clerical role (and in this case, also their personal role).

The case is almost identical to the formula for absolution. “I absolve you” is required. “We (myself, the Church, Christ,…) absolve you” would be invalid.

So, the words I and We are not interchangeable, even if the royal we can be used by an individual.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

At Mass this morning at a parish I was visiting, the elderly lay lector (who may have been a nun) took it upon herself to revise the readings in the lectionary. In the first reading, she changed “…shun any brother who walks in a disorderly way” to “shun anyone who walks in a disorderly way.” Next, she changed a verse in the responsorial psalm from “Blessed are you who fear the Lord, who walk in his ways” to “Blessed are you who fear the Lord, who walk in God’s ways.” Clearly, these illicit edits were motivated by a personal desire on her part for inclusive language. I could not help but see the parallel to the Deacon in question changing the formula of Baptism, apparently to match his personal theological understanding, thereby invalidating the sacrament and causing these disastrous ripple effects. The changes in today’s readings were certainly not as monumental, but are fruit of the same tree: a conviction that the words that the Church gives us either in the Scripture readings at Mass or in the Sacraments are subject to individual interpretation and that the priest or layperson is somehow free to “tweak” them if he or she somehow finds them lacking. I would have spoken to the priest, but he is in his last few days at the parish, so my timing would have been off. Perhaps it’s generational: I don’t want to be an ageist, but the younger priests and lay people I have encountered are much less prone to deviate from saying the black and doing the red-this gives me some hope for the future.

I think it most certainly is a generational thing. It seems as though many of the people who came of age in, just ballparking it here, the 1940s, 50s, 60s, and 70s, went “buck-wild” when even the possibility of liturgical “tweaking” emerged as from nowhere — vernacular liturgy and rites seem to have been the catalyst, it’s awfully hard to “tweak” Latin — and may have been so traumatized (or whatever the word would be) by pre-Vatican II practices, that they were (and are) just itching to make their own little changes at will. Younger people, who have no living memory of a Church that, some say, was scary, oppressive, and overbearing, aren’t traumatized like that, and aren’t predisposed to rebel against it. I have heard all kinds of horror stories from people of that generation, and there is a certain stripe of them, that is just as pleased as punch with liberal theology and informal, freeform worship.