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

  • Thread starter Thread starter StudentMI
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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? There are also 10 languages that never make the distinction. Are all baptisms in those languages invalid?

I read the diocese’s Q&As and noticed they did not require those who married before the invalidly-baptised-and-therefore-invalidly-ordained priest to cease sexual relations until the sacrament was validly performed. Why would this be?

Father Hood married us before he was validly baptized and validly ordained. Is our marriage valid?

Due to the many different situations that the engaged couple may have been in, this answer may be different for each individual couple. You should speak to your pastor as soon as possible so any steps can be taken to remedy your marital status in the Church, if necessary.

It is important to note that if it is determined that your marriage is sacramentally invalid, you are not guilty of any sin – grave or otherwise – by living as husband and wife in the time since your ceremony. You can be comforted in the fact that God knows that you made every effort to follow His plan exactly for the Sacrament of Marriage.

The Church teaches that to be guilty of a sin, the act must be one that is known, deliberate, and voluntary, which would not have been possible while a couple was completely unaware of the possible sacramental invalidity of their marriage.
 
FiveLinden said:
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?
Click to expand...
Short answer: the Church has the final say.
 
FiveLinden said:
I read the diocese’s Q&As and noticed they did not require those who married before the invalidly-baptised-and-therefore-invalidly-ordained priest to cease sexual relations until the sacrament was validly performed. Why would this be?
Click to expand...
Because the priest isn’t the minister of the Sacrament, the man and woman are the ministers. The priest (or deacon) only has to be present to witness the Sacrament of marriage.
 
MarkRome said:
Because the priest isn’t the minister of the Sacrament, the man and woman are the ministers. The priest (or deacon) only has to be present to witness the Sacrament of marriage.
Click to expand...
This can’t be correct because the diocese specifically indicates that some marriages may have been invalid. I can’t immediately see how this could apply only to some.
 
The diocese could have been mistaken. I’ve heard the same thing about the sacrament of marriage. Or they could be correct. In either case it is for the Church to decide.

A principle of Catholic theology, as I understand it, is that if there is apparent contradiction between two stances the misunderstanding lies in the interpreter, not in the doctrine. We will have to await clarification.

As a classic case of such misunderstanding, check out the case of religious liberty as explicated by the Second Vatican Council. On the face of it there appears to be a rupture between the traditional teaching and the teaching of the Council. However on closer inspection one can see a clear consistency between both positions. Fr Brian Harrison has, to my knowledge and in my opinion, done the best job of explaining this.
 
Last edited:
I think the diocese poorly worded their answer (and I’m basing that solely on your post here - I haven’t read their Q&A). It seems to me a generic “well, anyone’s marriage may or may not be valid, so we’ll sidestep a definitive answer” when what they really meant was that the wedding itself isn’t dependent upon an ordained minister. (It is dependent upon other factors that a non-ordained, improperly trained or ordained person could screw up, so maybe that’s the source of vagueness here.)
 
Regrettable situation owing to an arrogant manipulation of the sacraments.

Fr. Hood laments that he was not even a Christian. Would he not at least have had an implicit baptism of desire? And although the sacraments he celebrated were not valid because of his invalid ordination, they were not spiritually worthless, as Abp. Vigneron said.

If those Masses and confessions by Fr. Hood did not have value ex opere operato could they at least have conferred sacramental grace on recipients ex opere operantis?
 
Neithan said:
If those Masses and confessions by Fr. Hood did not have value ex opere operato could they at least have conferred sacramental grace on recipients ex opere operantis ?
Click to expand...
Well we know God is not bound by the sacraments.
 
FiveLinden said:
This can’t be correct because the diocese specifically indicates that some marriages may have been invalid. I can’t immediately see how this could apply only to some.
Click to expand...
No, what I said is correct. The priest is just the official Church witness to the Sacrament. I am interested as to why some would be valid and some wouldn’t. As CNA said in their article, it comes down to paperwork. Matthew Hood thought he was a priest in the Archdiocese of Detroit. He wasn't even a baptized Catholic
Curious to see what the issue might be.
 
Yes but for example in confession, to prevent someone with scrupulous tendencies from the additional worry about the validity of their priest’s ordination (a defect of which he may not even be conscious of), it may be worth knowing that, due to purity of intention, and proper matter and form, they can be assured of absolution ex opere operantis even with imperfect contrition.
 
That kind of technical detail is above my pay grade. 😁

I do wish the Archdiocese had addressed the issue more generally than simply in the context of Fr Hood. I know my situation was communicated to a bishop and I’m sure others have had the same issue. Perhaps in the future they will.
 
I think what the Diocese was trying to say is that Marriages can be invalid for reasons pertaining to the spouses (as they are the Ministers, for example if they are lying with the vows), but NOT for reasons pertaining to the Priest (as he is just the witness).

In any case, I think a Marriage without a cleric can be illicit, but not necessarily invalid (it would be impossible to determine that however).
 
Well, I thought my situation was the most extreme. I was wrong.

The Priest who presided at our wedding was secretly married! But, our marriage is valid. He ultimately decided to be with his family and was laicized.

My wife says that this is in the realm of “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin”. I don’t think it’s that far, but it is legalistic.

Jesus fulfilled the law and set us free, I thought.
 
StudentMI said:
Jesus did not abolish the law. He said so.
Click to expand...
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.
18. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.

Verse 18 implies we should be following the Jewish law, but we are not.

I’m confused.
StudentMI said:
The Church is the final authority in these matters. Accusations of legalism are unfair.
Click to expand...
I’ll withhold my comment on that.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top