Married priests giving sacraments

[Phemie]

Canon law says even married priests can provide sacraments to persons in danger of death and yet someone told me a married priest was fired from a hospice center for giving communion when his bishop found out.

Can you please comment on this?
Thank you.

There is not enough information available to us to make an informed comment.

Any number of questions come to mind, the first of which is “Is the priest in question a laicized priest?”

As I understand (and I stand to be corrected on that point) a laicized priest cannot be an EMCH so where did he get the Host for giving Communion?

If he is laicized, did he, in fact, celebrate Mass to confect the Eucharist?

Was the patient at the point of death so that this was ‘viaticum’?

 

[laszlo]

There are three kinds of married priests:

• those who were ordained as married men (Eastern Catholics, converting Anglican ministers, some other protestant ministers). They are part of the clergy with all the rights of the priests
• those who were ordained to the priesthood but decided to leave the Church and usually attempted marriage. These are excommunicated from the Church and except for the imminent danger of death are not allowed to give any sacraments. The sacraments are valid but illicit either to administer of receive except the above condition.
• some of this later group reconciled with the church, their excommunication is lifted, but they are put back to the laical status, and thus forbidden to administer any sacrament except for the case of imminent death. Again the sacraments are valid but illicit either to administer or receive except the above condition.

 

[Digitonomy]

There are three kinds of married priests:

• those who were ordained as married men (Eastern Catholics, converting Anglican ministers, some other protestant ministers). They are part of the clergy with all the rights of the priests
• those who were ordained to the priesthood but decided to leave the Church and usually attempted marriage. These are excommunicated from the Church and except for the imminent danger of death are not allowed to give any sacraments. The sacraments are valid but illicit either to administer of receive except the above condition.
• some of this later group reconciled with the church, their excommunication is lifted, but they are put back to the laical status, and thus forbidden to administer any sacrament except for the case of imminent death. Again the sacraments are valid but illicit either to administer or receive except the above condition.

Isn’t there a fourth group who for whatever reason were laicized and released from their vows, without being excommunicated?

 

[ConstantineTG]

I receive Communion from a married priest all the time

 

[JimG]

We’ve had several married priests in my diocese. One served as a pastor of a parish, as well as in other assignments, another was a hospital chaplain. Both were former Episcopal who converted to Catholicism and were accepted for ordination into the Catholic priesthood under the special provisions made by Pope John Paul II. There’s nothing at all wrong with a married priest giving sacraments. That’s why they are priests.

A priest who has left the active priesthood and been laicized, however, is no longer allowed to act as a priest, whether married or not.

 

[laszlo]

Isn’t there a fourth group who for whatever reason were laicized and released from their vows, without being excommunicated?

There are laicized priests w/o previous excommunication. Their legal status is the same: they have the priestly character, so can administer sacraments validly, but it is illicit except the case of imminent death.

Also there is the group of suspended but not laicized priests, with the same legal status: their sacraments are valid but illicit.

For the full picture it had to add, the witnessing a marriage and absolving sins requires actual jurisdiction , so without that the sacrament is invalid.

Here is a recent case

dailyherald.com/article/20101119/news/711209899/

 

[puzzleannie]

Canon law says even married priests can provide sacraments to persons in danger of death and yet someone told me a married priest was fired from a hospice center for giving communion when his bishop found out.

Can you please comment on this?
Thank you.

not enough info
do you mean a married man who after becoming Catholic has been validly ordained as a Catholic priest? there are no restrictions on his faculties.

I assume you mean a priest who has either petitioned for and been returned to the lay state and then validly marriage. No such a person cannot take any public ministry related to liturgy, including extarordinary communion minister, taking communion to the sick and so forth. The person in hospice is not in immediate danger of death, although death may be expected soon, and there should be a chaplain delegated to care for the hospice residents, so they are given last rites before death is imminent.

you also don’t say if this person was someone delegated to bring communion to hospice residents–which is an abuse if he is a former priest–or if he did this on his own initiative. Most important you don’t state if the recipient of communion was indeed in immediate danger of death, or if there was a proper chaplain to care for his needs.

since OP has not come back either he has only a casual interest in the issue, or is not in a position to give actual facts in the case

 

[1Yesusmen]

Hi,
Thank you for your comments. I will try to respond to all your questions here.
Theologically and canonically, once a priest, always a priest. See canon 290, for instance. Irregardless of whether laicization makes a difference, this priest was not laicized. The priest was ordained a Catholic priest in the Roman /Latin Rite, he fell in love without intending to, and married (what God has put together, let no one separate). Yes, he had to leave his clerical position but never left the priesthood.

There was no other priest available to provide Eucharist and persons at a hospice are all in danger of death or they would not be at a hospice. Catholics have the right to recieve Eucharist, this priest was asked to provide them and canon law says a priest cannot refuse sacraments when asked by the faithful.

Also, please see canon 1335 which provides for irregular priests to provide sacraments in danger of death situations. The sacraments are so important to Catholicism that provisions allow even irregular priests. Given the above, do you still think the bishop had a right to have him removed from his position as chaplain at the hospice. No one was available to replace him and in fact, 50 thousand churches and 100 thousand missions (per CARA statistics) have no priest.

Thanks again.

 

[CoffeeHound]

There are laicized priests w/o previous excommunication. Their legal status is the same: they have the priestly character, so can administer sacraments validly, but it is illicit except the case of imminent death.

How does the illicit nature of a sacrament impact the individual upon which the sacrament was performed? Specifically, I’m thinking of Reconciliation and Marriage. If you are married by a laicized priest, the marriage would be illicit, but would still be valid?

So if a laicized priest decided to conduct weddings that violated canonical form (for example, a wedding at a country club, or a wedding co-presided by a rabbi) would that still be a valid (albeit illicit) marriage, and how would the illicit nature of the marriage affect the couple?

I’m not asking for myself, but rather because there are many “former” priests running around here that claim “once a priest, always a priest” who then offer couples what the Church refuses them, usually beach weddings or co-presided weddings with an officiant from another faith.

 

[Phemie]

How does the illicit nature of a sacrament impact the individual upon which the sacrament was performed? Specifically, I’m thinking of Reconciliation and Marriage. If you are married by a laicized priest, the marriage would be illicit, but would still be valid?

So if a laicized priest decided to conduct weddings that violated canonical form (for example, a wedding at a country club, or a wedding co-presided by a rabbi) would that still be a valid (albeit illicit) marriage, and how would the illicit nature of the marriage affect the couple?

I’m not asking for myself, but rather because there are many “former” priests running around here that claim “once a priest, always a priest” who then offer couples what the Church refuses them, usually beach weddings or co-presided weddings with an officiant from another faith.

Obviously if canonical form wasn’t observed without a dispensation the marriage is invalid, regardless of whether or not the officiant is a priest (laicized or not). I sincerely doubt that any bishop is going to grant a dispensation for a wedding to be conducted by a laicized priest.

 

[Phemie]

Hi,
Thank you for your comments. I will try to respond to all your questions here.
Theologically and canonically, once a priest, always a priest. See canon 290, for instance. Irregardless of whether laicization makes a difference, this priest was not laicized. The priest was ordained a Catholic priest in the Roman /Latin Rite, he fell in love without intending to, and married (what God has put together, let no one separate). Yes, he had to leave his clerical position but never left the priesthood.

There was no other priest available to provide Eucharist and persons at a hospice are all in danger of death or they would not be at a hospice. Catholics have the right to recieve Eucharist, this priest was asked to provide them and canon law says a priest cannot refuse sacraments when asked by the faithful.

Also, please see canon 1335 which provides for irregular priests to provide sacraments in danger of death situations. The sacraments are so important to Catholicism that provisions allow even irregular priests. Given the above, do you still think the bishop had a right to have him removed from his position as chaplain at the hospice. No one was available to replace him and in fact, 50 thousand churches and 100 thousand missions (per CARA statistics) have no priest.

Thanks again.

Since he wasn’t laizicized, he wasn’t free to marry so any attempt at marriage resulted in an invalid marriage.

I fail to understand how anyone, let alone a priest, in an invalid marriage ever got appointed Chaplain anywhere.

 

[puzzleannie]

if the priest failed to obey canon law in leaving the priesthood he is not married at all.

he can, like any other priest who is objectively in a state of mortal sin, validly confect the sacraments so anyone who receives from him receives the Eucharist, but any and all priestly functions he attempts are illicit, which in itself is another grave dereliction of canon law. Unless there is a real danger of death–think 9/11, evacuees from a disaster, war time etc–he cannot licitly act in any priestly capacity.

with regard to marriage there is also the issue of the civil law permission to witness marriages, and for priests that may be dependent on their canon law status. If they have lost the permission of their bishop or religious superior then unless they have taken steps with the civil law authority to get such permission they can neither licitly in canon law, nor legally in civil law witness marriages.

OP still has not answered the question about the hospice patients, are they in immediate danger of death? no? yes?

why on earth is this person allowed to function as a chaplain at all? someone who is in possession of the facts should report this to the diocese so a legitimate Catholic chaplain can be appointed to serve the pastoral needs of the residents.

 

[PbloPicasso]

Obviously if canonical form wasn’t observed without a dispensation the marriage is invalid, regardless of whether or not the officiant is a priest (laicized or not). I sincerely doubt that any bishop is going to grant a dispensation for a wedding to be conducted by a laicized priest.

This is correct. The marriage could not be valid considering that the ordinary must approve it. Technically speaking, the priest does not marry the couple. They are making vows in front of an official witness of the ordinary in the Church of the particular diocese. In reality the sacrament is bestowed on the couple by the couple, not the Church. However, I’m sure there’s more concerning priestly blessings that help the marriage. This is why confession before and communion during the ceremony are strongly recommended or required (from what I understand). This entire thing confused me many years ago and a priest in my confusion advised me to get a civil marriage and when I get to my regular diocese to have it convalidated. That bad advice actually damaged my faith in the Church so much that I left for many years before learning from other converts to Catholicism form my Protestant faith.

Unless the person in the hospice was actually dying at that particular moment he should have contacted the priest on call. My question expands to how could a priest without faculties be a Chaplain anywhere? Maybe he misrepresented his status as a priest to the employer, resulting in termination. Is that possible?

 

[PbloPicasso]

Since he wasn’t laizicized, he wasn’t free to marry so any attempt at marriage resulted in an invalid marriage.

I fail to understand how anyone, let alone a priest, in an invalid marriage ever got appointed Chaplain anywhere.

That is my question as well.

 

[Spirithound]

The priest was ordained a Catholic priest in the Roman /Latin Rite, he fell in love without intending to, and married (what God has put together, let no one separate). Yes, he had to leave his clerical position but never left the priesthood.

If he has no clerical position, he has no ministry.

There was no other priest available to provide Eucharist and persons at a hospice are all in danger of death or they would not be at a hospice.

“Danger of death” really means like you’ve got an hour left. Most people in hospice are not that.

Given the above, do you still think the bishop had a right to have him removed from his position as chaplain at the hospice. No one was available to replace him and in fact, 50 thousand churches and 100 thousand missions (per CARA statistics

Yes, the bishop has the right to govern his diocese as he sees fit. Furthermore, your diocese does not have 50,000 churches without a priest.

 

[Spirithound]

How does the illicit nature of a sacrament impact the individual upon which the sacrament was performed? Specifically, I’m thinking of Reconciliation and Marriage. If you are married by a laicized priest, the marriage would be illicit, but would still be valid?

So if a laicized priest decided to conduct weddings that violated canonical form (for example, a wedding at a country club, or a wedding co-presided by a rabbi) would that still be a valid (albeit illicit) marriage, and how would the illicit nature of the marriage affect the couple?

A priest needs faculties to celebrate Reconciliation and Marriage. If he does not have faculties, he cannot celebrate those sacraments validly.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

How does the illicit nature of a sacrament impact the individual upon which the sacrament was performed? Specifically, I’m thinking of Reconciliation and Marriage. If you are married by a laicized priest, the marriage would be illicit, but would still be valid?

So if a laicized priest decided to conduct weddings that violated canonical form (for example, a wedding at a country club, or a wedding co-presided by a rabbi) would that still be a valid (albeit illicit) marriage, and how would the illicit nature of the marriage affect the couple?

I’m not asking for myself, but rather because there are many “former” priests running around here that claim “once a priest, always a priest” who then offer couples what the Church refuses them, usually beach weddings or co-presided weddings with an officiant from another faith.

I have an amateur interest in canon law but am not a professional canon lawyer so a certain amount of what I am going to say is speculative.

In the Latin Catholic Church the ministers of the sacrament of marriage are the bridegroom and the bride not the priest. So, a laicised priest could not validly administer the sacrament of matrimony - priests don’t administer this sacrament. A priest (or a deacon) is necessary at marriage, but to witness the marriage on behalf of the Church not to administer the sacrament. Therefore, I think the problem that you’re going to run into if you use a laicised priest is that he no longer has the authority to witness marriages on behalf of the Church and the grounds for invalidity are going to be the defect which arises from lack of canonical form.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Could be wrong (probably am as no one else has raised this issue) and can’t think which section of the Code to look in. Don’t priests who attempt to marry incur excommunication or am I getting confused with attempting marriage is an impediment to ordination.

Anyway this priest has certainly disobeyed the Church’s discipline. The Bishop certainly has the right to grant/withhold faculties and determine priests’ assignments.

 

[The_Old_Medic]

The REAL problem is that this is something that you “heard”.

There is no way to discuss this with any degree of accuracy, when none of us, including the poster, know what the case is about.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Hi,
Thank you for your comments. I will try to respond to all your questions here.
Theologically and canonically, once a priest, always a priest. See canon 290, for instance. Irregardless of whether laicization makes a difference, this priest was not laicized. The priest was ordained a Catholic priest in the Roman /Latin Rite, he fell in love without intending to, and married (what God has put together, let no one separate). Yes, he had to leave his clerical position but never left the priesthood.

The priest is not married if he has not been laicized. He is livnig in an adulterous affair as Holy Orders are an impediment to marriage.
Can. 1087 Those who are in sacred orders invalidly attempt marriage.
So as you can see your quote of scripture (what God has put together, let no one separate) is invalid as the priest is not married in the eyes of God.

There was no other priest available to provide Eucharist and persons at a hospice are all in danger of death or they would not be at a hospice. Catholics have the right to recieve Eucharist, this priest was asked to provide them and canon law says a priest cannot refuse sacraments when asked by the faithful.

This can be a matter of debate. We have a priest who lives with us who has been one hospice since May. So just the fact that somone is in hospice does not mean that they are in immediate danger of death.

For reference can you provide the exact canon that states that a priest cannot refuse the sacraments when asked.

Also, please see canon 1335 which provides for irregular priests to provide sacraments in danger of death situations. The sacraments are so important to Catholicism that provisions allow even irregular priests. Given the above, do you still think the bishop had a right to have him removed from his position as chaplain at the hospice. No one was available to replace him and in fact, 50 thousand churches and 100 thousand missions (per CARA statistics) have no priest.

This man should have been removed when he attempted marriage.
Can. 1394 §1 Without prejudice to the provisions of can. 194, §1, n. 3, a cleric who attempts marriage, even if only civilly, incurs a latae sententiae suspension. If, after warning, he has not reformed and continues to give scandal, he can be progressively punished by deprivations, or even by dismissal from the clerical state.

§2 Without prejudice to the provisions of can. 694, a religious in perpetual vows who is not a cleric but who attempts marriage, even if only civilly, incurs a latae sententiae interdict.
So according to Canon 1394 §1 this priest has been automatically suspended from his priestly state and can not celebrate any of the sacraments publiclly.

To be a Catholic chaplain one must be a priest in good standing, which this priest is not.
Can. 564 A chaplain is a priest to whom is entrusted in a stable manner the pastoral care, at least in part, of some community or special group of Christ’s faithful, to be exercised in accordance with universal and particular law.

He has violated his promises of obedience and celibacy he gave to his bishop at his ordination. That is if he is a secular priest. If he is a religious priest then he has violated his vows which is just as bad. A religious priest must be both lacizied and released from his vows by the Vatican before he can attempt a marriage.