priest who leave to marry

[benedictgal]

Laicization is what is called a “polite fiction” of the Catholic Church. The Bishops have authority to ordain but once validly ordain they do not have the authority to nullify a sacrament.

Can one become unbaptized? It is similiar to this concept. I fyou look at the explaination and arguments put forth by the church for this process, they don’t hold up. (not an opinion but an objective fact) Priests go through the process partly as obedience to the church they serve.

Priests can marry in the Catholic church and faith and as a matter of fact many of them are married by priest friends.

Those priests who no longer have a parish are still priests in all terms and are allowed to administer the sacraments. These sacraments all though considered illicet are completely valid. The Church doe snot have the authority to invalidate a valid sacrament. However, they can remove a priest from the parish, that is well within their power.

Once a priest has left the clerical state, he can no longer administer the sacraments. The only sacrament he can administer is penance, but, it is only under grave circumstance (penitent is near death).

Now, as far as the priest who left to serve as a minister in the Episcopal Church, that is apostacy because he is willingly going against the Church. It is also rather selfish because he pretty much wants to have his cake and eat it, too. It doesn’t work that way. I don’t want to be uncharitable, but, simply taking your toys and playing elsewhere because you don’t like the rules of the game doesn’t justify leaving the Church.

As far as the confection of the Sacrament, what this priest is doing is illicit and invalid because, while he was validly ordained in the Church, the form and matter he is using are not valid. Furthermore, the Church does not recognize the sacraments of Protestant ecclesial communities because of the issue of Apostolic Succession. Remember, too, that this priest may have very well been ordained by the Episcopalian bishop and has promises to that ecclesial community now.

 

[cameron_lansing]

Loss of the clerical state is treated in canon 290:

“After it has been validly received, sacred ordination never becomes invalid. A cleric, however, loses the clerical state: 1º by a judicial decision or administrative decree which declares the invalidity of sacred ordination; 2º by the legitimate infliction of the penalty of dismissal; 3º by a rescript of the Apostolic See which is granted by the Apostolic See to deacons only for serious reasons and to presbyters only for the most serious reasons.”

The ontological character of the sacrament remains in numbers 2 and 3, and in number 1, was held never to have been conferred.

However, authority to regulate the sacraments belongs to the Church. Canon 841 says, “Since the sacraments are the same for the whole Church and pertain to the divine deposit, it is only for the supreme authority of the Church alone to approve or define the requirements for their validity; it is for the same or another competent authority according to the norm of can. 838 §§3 and 4 to decide what pertains to their licit celebration, administration and reception and to the order to be observed in their celebration.”

Those limits of the validity of sacramental actions by laicized priests are set forth in the code by the Roman pontiff, who exercises supreme authority in the Church.

Consequently, apart from danger of death, a laicized priest cannot validly confer sacramental absolution or confirmation. He cannot validly assist at marriage, and in any case, in danger of death or the other situation of canon 1116, the parties contract validly, provided there are no impediments, by themselves through the extraordinary form.

Normally the rescript of laicization is accompanied by a rescript which removes the obligation of celibacy, but the two are separable. If the rescript has removed the obligation of celibacy, then the impediment of canon 1087 which invalidates marriage of those in holy orders does not apply.

If an ordination itself was found invalid, the person acts invalidly in all cases, save the administration of Baptism.

 

[Joyousguard]

The validity of a sacrament and the allowance of the Church to recieve a sacrament are two different issues, although related. The church has the authority to excommunicate but do the have the authority to invalidate a valid sacrament.

This becomes a bit of a grey area. if Christ gave the Church, i.e the disciples, peter, the authority to administer the sacraments, Did He give them the authority to change/invalidate/remove/augment those sacraments as well? Authority over the Sacraments is a broad term. Certain conditions for a sacrament must be met in order for it to be considered valid (matter/form etc). If the validity of the sacrament of ordination stands then if the priest performs the sacraments with the proper matter/form/intent then the sacrament will be valid. The sacrament of ordiantion is not a continously renewed sacrament, that is to say that it does not expire or need to be repeated reagrdless of any circumstances. The sacrament of ordination in itself gives a priest the authority, from God through the Bishop, to adminster the sacraments. Then the validly ordained priest adminsters the sacraments (which must meet the crieria to valid in themselves).

Now, Cannon law are essential rules, regulations and laws that govern the Church. The Gospels, although magnificent, do not really discuss very common issues that the Church would need to deal with. Cannon law is the dealing with those issues in a very structured manner. However, Cannon law has no authority over a sacarament so long as it is valid. This creates a problem for the Church. The only way they can “remove his faculties-- meaning his canonical ability to perform the Sacraments.” is through cannon law. Since cannon law can not reverse/undo a sacrament such as ordination and cannon law cannot undo/reverse the validity of a sacrament given by a validly ordained priest, laicization becomes a legal fiction in which there is no basis. One cannot take away a sacrament and valid sacraments themselves that lead to the validity of other sacraments.

Now, cannon law does allow for a priest to be removed from his parish or from active ministry within the Church itself, however, there is no possible way that the Church can invalidate a valid Sacrament and the valid sacraments that lead from it. Since the ability to adminster the sacraments is given to the priest by the Lord Himself throught the bishop the Church has no authority to stop him from doing so but would in all instances be refered to as a “legal fiction”. Canon Law may state many things but Canon Law has no authority over God and thus they can not remove what God has ordained.

 

[cameron_lansing]

“However, Cannon (*) law has no authority over a sacarament so long as it is valid.”
"Did He give them the authority to change/invalidate/remove/augment those sacraments as well? "

That is the crux of the matter. The Catholic Church believes it has the authority to regulate, define, and determine the sacraments on the basis of divine law. It asserts this in canon 840: “The sacraments of the New Testament were instituted by Christ the Lord and entrusted to the Church.” Thus it considers itself to have the authority to determine the validity of sacraments.

As I noted by referencing canon 841, canon law expresses the determination of the supreme authority in the Church as to the conditions under which a sacrament can be conferred validly.

One may, of course, accept or reject that authority in the Church and the binding force of Church law. I have merely stated what that authority has said, and what that authority has said appears to be rather clear.

(*)One n, please.

 

[benedictgal]

Canon Law may state many things but Canon Law has no authority over God and thus they can not remove what God has ordained.

You have forgotten one very important factor. Jesus, Himself, gave the authority to St. Peter (and his successors) as to how they were to administer the Sacraments. Remember, Jesus said, 'You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church…I give you the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth, will be bound in heaven. Whatever you loose on earth, will be loosed in heaven."

By giving His own authority to Peter and his successors (thereby making St. Peter-and all popes who came after him- Vicar of Christ), Jesus pretty much has bound Himself to the establishment of the authority of the Church and such is ratified by the statement “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth, will be loosed in heaven.” Jesus gave Peter the authority to bind and loosen. This applies to all aspects of the Church.

Peter exercises this authority in Canon Law, in the regulation of Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments and in other matters. The Lord could have meted out this authority any way He so chooses. This is the form He decreed. It is not fiction because He can neither deceive nor be deceived, as the Act of Faith tells us.

You might also do well to re-read Deacon Cameron’s excellent post.

 

[Joyousguard]

That is the crux of the matter. The Catholic Church believes it has the authority to regulate, define, and determine the sacraments on the basis of divine law. It asserts this in canon 840: “The sacraments of the New Testament were instituted by Christ the Lord and entrusted to the Church.” Thus it considers itself to have the authority to determine the validity of sacraments.

Then the Catholic Church is essentially saying they can remove the faculties of a valid sacrament. A valid sacrament is a door that only opens one way.

As I noted by referencing canon 841, canon law expresses the determination of the supreme authority in the Church as to the conditions under which a sacrament can be conferred validly.

True, but once it is confered validly they have no authority to remove what is valid.

One may, of course, accept or reject that authority in the Church and the binding force of Church law. I have merely stated what that authority has said, and what that authority has said appears to be rather clear.

(*)One n, please.

It i snot a question of rejection or accpetance but of “can” or “can’t”.

 

[TMC]

Let’s recap. These men chose to serve God, the Church and us. They willingly made a sacrifice that 99.9% of men are not willing to make. They served faithfully for years. Then they asked that they be allowed to put down that burden (the one none of us wanted to carry) and take up another vocation. And for that they receive scorn and derision? They deserve our thanks, not our judgment.

 

[Joyousguard]

benedictgal;3196177]You have forgotten one very important factor. Jesus, Himself, gave the authority to St. Peter (and his successors) as to how they were to administer the Sacraments. Remember, Jesus said, 'You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church…I give you the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth, will be bound in heaven. Whatever you loose on earth, will be loosed in heaven."

That is not what this passage entails. Part of the understanding is that it has to do with the Sacrament of confession and the forgiveness of sins. If we were to take yourexplaianiton, that would infer man has authority over God and heaven and can change it as we see fit and thi sis clearl not the case.

By giving His own authority to Peter and his successors (thereby making St. Peter-and all popes who came after him- Vicar of Christ), Jesus pretty much has bound Himself to the establishment of the authority of the Church and such is ratified by the statement “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth, will be loosed in heaven.” Jesus gave Peter the authority to bind and loosen. This applies to all aspects of the Church.

Again, that would infere that man has control over absolute truth and morality and that is not the case because God is absolute truth and morality and man has no control over God. The passage is much more specific then you think.

Peter exercises this authority in Canon Law, in the regulation of Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments and in other matters. The Lord could have meted out this authority any way He so chooses. This is the form He decreed. It is not fiction because He can neither deceive nor be deceived, as the Act of Faith tells us.

The Lord gave Peter the authority to administer the sacraments but not the authority to invalidate a valid sacrament. Valid sacraments can not be invalidated by any power of man here on earth.

 

[benedictgal]

That is not what this passage entails. Part of the understanding is that it has to do with the Sacrament of confession and the forgiveness of sins. If we were to take yourexplaianiton, that would infer man has authority over God and heaven and can change it as we see fit and thi sis clearl not the case.

Again, that would infere that man has control over absolute truth and morality and that is not the case because God is absolute truth and morality and man has no control over God. The passage is much more specific then you think.
The Lord gave Peter the authority to administer the sacraments but not the authority to invalidate a valid sacrament. Valid sacraments can not be invalidated by any power of man here on earth.

He gave Peter the keys and the authority over His Church. What part of that do you not understand? The administration of the sacraments also involves declaring them invalid when the time arises. How, then, would you use your argument as far as annulments are concerned? If the logic of your argument holds, then, those who have gained annulments from their previous marriages are living in the state of polygamy because the Church has no authority to invalidate a sacrament? In the words of Mr. Spock, “that’s highly illogical.” If the Church can invalidate a previous marriage, then, she does have the authority to act in the manner she does when it concerns priests.

Whether one likes it or not, the Church does have the authority to “discipline” the Sacraments. Calling things fiction appears to me to show a bit of confusion regarding the role of the Church.

 

[Joyousguard]

This is how the understanding of Canon law and how it applies to laicization.

Once a valid scarament is performed it can not under any circumstances be invalidated by anyone other than God. Peter and his disciples were given authority over administarting valid sacraments but nothing about invalidating valid sacraments. If we are to understand the Church teaching correctly, a valid sacrament does not exist for it can be invalidated by the Church.

A sacrament is administered with the power of God through the use of the priest or bishop. If the sacrament meets the criteria for validity it can never ever be invalidated no matter what desires of the Church Hierarchy may be. That would be the equavalent of the Church trying to change the very nature of a tree throught their authority. They can not change the nature of a valid sacrament and undo what has been done. Soon as the sacrament is validly performed it is valid forever unless the Lord Himself sees fit to change it. Soon as the Church introduces laiciztion they immediately set the precedent that in fact a sacrement can be reversed or invalidated which by that very precedent produces the very unpleasant revelation that if a sacrament can be invalidated then any sacrement can be invalidated and any sacrament can be “undone”.

The fact of the matter is that once a priest is validly ordained, he is allowed by the power of God the ability to validly perform the sacraments in turn. A valid ordiantion gives the priest the power from God to administer valid sacraments himself. This is the nature of a valid ordination. Once the ordiantion is valid, the church loses any authority over the valid sacrament or the valid adminstration of sacraments.

 

[benedictgal]

A sacrament is administered with the power of God through the use of the priest or bishop. If the sacrament meets the criteria for validity it can never ever be invalidated no matter what desires of the Church Hierarchy may be. That would be the equavalent of the Church trying to change the very nature of a tree throught their authority. They can not change the nature of a valid sacrament and undo what has been done. Soon as the sacrament is validly performed it is valid forever unless the Lord Himself sees fit to change it. Soon as the Church introduces laiciztion they immediately set the precedent that in fact a sacrement can be reversed or invalidated which by that very precedent produces the very unpleasant revelation that if a sacrament can be invalidated then any sacrement can be invalidated and any sacrament can be “undone”.

The fact of the matter is that once a priest is validly ordained, he is allowed by the power of God the ability to validly perform the sacraments in turn. A valid ordiantion gives the priest the power from God to administer valid sacraments himself. This is the nature of a valid ordination. Once the ordiantion is valid, the church loses any authority over the valid sacrament or the valid adminstration of sacraments.

Where are your sources for this? Are you a canon lawyer or is this your own interpretation? Have you read Deacon Cameron’s citations?

Self-intepretation of Canon Law, especially if one is not a canon lawyer, much less a legitimate authority in the Church, can sometimes be very misleading. Furthermore, the Church maintains that if a priest has left the clerical state, then he cannot administer the sacraments (including celebrating Mass). The only thing he can do is administer Penance in the event the penitent is near death.

 

[otjm]

Once a priest has left the clerical state, he can no longer administer the sacraments. The only sacrament he can administer is penance, but, it is only under grave circumstance (penitent is near death).

No, he can administer Baptism too. While it is normally done by a deacon, priest or bishop in ordinary circumstances, anyone - even an atheist - can baptize in extraordinary circumstances.

As far as the confection of the Sacrament, what this priest is doing is illicit and invalid because, while he was validly ordained in the Church, the form and matter he is using are not valid. Furthermore, the Church does not recognize the sacraments of Protestant ecclesial communities because of the issue of Apostolic Succession. Remember, too, that this priest may have very well been ordained by the Episcopalian bishop and has promises to that ecclesial community now.

It would not be invalid if he used a wheat and water host - that is, one with no other substances, and wine. Given that both the Episcopal Church and the Lutheran Church in parts will use the same matter we do, matter is not an issue. Further, if he says the words of consecration as the Catholic Church uses, form has also been supplied. It would be illicit, but not invalid.

It may be a serious sin for him to do so, but his sin does not affect the validity of the consecration. And the issue is not so easily defined as Apostolic Succession; there is the matter of priests being ordained by bishops who do have apostolic succession - and that includes the Orthodox bishops. But the point is irrelevant to the individual being discussed as he was validly ordained a priest in the Catholic Church; aposotolic succession is not an issue herein.

 

[anamchara]

Not exactly sure, but its what I was told by one of them. He was a Scripture Scholar in Rome, and taught the Jesuits there. He did give an adult ed class on Scriture, but he first had to get permission from the Bishop. He was excellent, BTW! Now, both he and his wife are in the Kingdom with the Lord. They died within a year of each other.

Jim

Oh wow, thank you for answering. How sad that he couldn’t teach ccd. He would have been perfect. It’s not every day you get a scripture scholar teaching ccd.

 

[Joyousguard]

benedictgal;3196307]He gave Peter the keys and the authority over His Church. What part of that do you not understand?

So what you are saying is that Peter can change or modify anything he so chooses? That is not the authority he was given and to say such would mean that Peter had sole authority over everything which would reduce Jesus to a figure head. Peter has no authority over what Christ has Himself decalred.

The administration of the sacraments also involves declaring them invalid when the time arises. How, then, would you use your argument as far as annulments are concerned?

In order for a sacarment to be valid it must meet certain criteria. The matter and form must be present as well as intnet and desire of those intending to recive the sacrement as well as those who are intending to administer the sacrament. Once these “criteria” are met the sacrament becomes valid and incapable of being invalidated. Once a priest is validly ordained his valid ordination encompasses his ability to administer the sacraments as well. Since he himself is validly ordained that meets one of the criteria for a valid sacrament. The sacrament itself must be administered validly (matter/form) as well as the person recieveing the sacrament must do so in proper from for the sacraement to be considered valid. Once all these “criteria” are met the sacarement is considered valid and impossible to invalidate.

If the logic of your argument holds, then, those who have gained annulments from their previous marriages are living in the state of polygamy because the Church has no authority to invalidate a sacrament?

You are throwing around terms much too loosley and liberally. One of my professors in the seminary drilled into us the understanding that theology and theological writings must be very exact and the terms very precise.

An annulment does not invalidate a valid sacrament. An annulment says that a marriage was never valid to begin with. Most times it is for reasons concerning the two people being joined(pressured into the marriage rather then of free will etc etc.)
An annulment does not invalidate a sacrement but say s that the sacarment was never validl to begin with.

In the words of Mr. Spock, “that’s highly illogical.” If the Church can invalidate a previous marriage, then, she does have the authority to act in the manner she does when it concerns priests.

See above. Spock was Jewish too

Whether one likes it or not, the Church does have the authority to “discipline” the Sacraments. Calling things fiction appears to me to show a bit of confusion regarding the role of the Church.

You must be very careful when talking about such theological terms. Theology is a science and one wrong word or misplaced word can change the understanding and truth of the matter completely.

 

[water]

water

He still has his faith in Jesus Christ. He changed religion, to the Episcopal, which at the time, was very close to Roman Catholicism.

Because the Church prohibited it.
Being he was an ordained priest, yes.
Jim

Hi Jim,

From my original reply, I said that he had problem with his Catholic faith - not faith in general. I certainly sure he has his faith in Christ. But one who is leaving Catholic church to be an ordained priest at another Christian faith, one must have problem with his Catholic faith despite of how similar his new faith to the Catholic is.

How I have responded my post so far is based on what understand about the apostolic succession. Am I wrong to say that the Episcopal priest does not have the validity of Apostolic succession because he was ordained at another non-Catholic church?

Or was he an ordained priest at Catholic church but left for Episcopal and still a priest there? Is his ordain still valid though? and how could this be allowed?

You could verify that to help me understand better. If I am wrong about the validity, then it is my fault.

Thanks!

 

[TMC]

This is how the understanding of Canon law and how it applies to laicization.

Once a valid scarament is performed it can not under any circumstances be invalidated by anyone other than God. Peter and his disciples were given authority over administarting valid sacraments but nothing about invalidating valid sacraments. If we are to understand the Church teaching correctly, a valid sacrament does not exist for it can be invalidated by the Church.

A sacrament is administered with the power of God through the use of the priest or bishop. If the sacrament meets the criteria for validity it can never ever be invalidated no matter what desires of the Church Hierarchy may be. That would be the equavalent of the Church trying to change the very nature of a tree throught their authority. They can not change the nature of a valid sacrament and undo what has been done. Soon as the sacrament is validly performed it is valid forever unless the Lord Himself sees fit to change it. Soon as the Church introduces laiciztion they immediately set the precedent that in fact a sacrement can be reversed or invalidated which by that very precedent produces the very unpleasant revelation that if a sacrament can be invalidated then any sacrement can be invalidated and any sacrament can be “undone”.

The fact of the matter is that once a priest is validly ordained, he is allowed by the power of God the ability to validly perform the sacraments in turn. A valid ordiantion gives the priest the power from God to administer valid sacraments himself. This is the nature of a valid ordination. Once the ordiantion is valid, the church loses any authority over the valid sacrament or the valid adminstration of sacraments.

You may be technically correct that the individual remains a “priest for life”, and that if he were to peform Sacraments they may be illicit but valid. That does not mean that the priest cannot be laicized and released from his vows. The Canon is pretty clear, look at Canon law 1708 - 1712.

But I think you have a bit of a twist in your understanding of what it means to be a priest. Priests do not have power that is given them by God to perform Sacraments. The power in all of the Sacraments is God’s power. It is the Holy Spirit, not the priest, that effects the transubtantiation. It is God, not the priest, that forgives sins. It is the Spirit, not the priest, that washes away original sin. Its not like the priest has super powers and can perform these Sacraments whether God likes it or not.

As to the validity of Sacraments from a laicized priest, my understanding is that the Church teaches that if everything else is in order – intent, form, matter – that God will not withold the Sacrament and punish the penitent or the parishoner merely because the priest has been laicized. Whether intent exists is a pretty big question if the priest is laicized, especially if the recipient of the Sacrament knows it.

But I go back to my first post on this issue. Are we going to further beat up these men that have given what they have to give? The tired soldier is back from the front and our response is “get your butt back out there so I can go back to my life of comfort?”

 

[whatevergirl]

Well I’m not as judgmental as you are.

Yes, they made vows, and they believed they could live up to those vows.

However, people change and events come into your life, where you may find yourself forced to make a life changing decision.

In the case of these priest, they all believed they could live up to the vows.

OH and BTW, the one who became an Episcopal priest. He was ordained in the days when it was tradition, that families would send at least one of their sons, usually the youngest, to the priesthood. He entered the seminary, during high-school. He never had a chance to date, or be much around girls. Did he really act freely, when he made his vow of celibacy? Maybe not and who are we to judge?

Jim

Those are good points–as I was reading through the thread, I was hopeful someone would give more details. Thank you.

 

[Joyousguard]

TMC;3196446]You may be technically correct that the individual remains a “priest for life”, and that if he were to peform Sacraments they may be illicit but valid. That does not mean that the priest cannot be laicized and released from his vows. The Canon is pretty clear, look at Canon law 1708 - 1712.

That is the whole issue at hand, the fact that the Canon is based on very bad Theology. Thank God the protestsants don’t care too much about Catholic Canon law and don’t look into this matter because this debate would damage the Church greatly.

But I think you have a bit of a twist in your understanding of what it means to be a priest. Priests do not have power that is given them by God to perform Sacraments. The power in all of the Sacraments is God’s power.

I made that clear several times I believe. Th epower comes from God and the priest is considered and intemidiary. Believe me, I would never mistake this point.

It is the Holy Spirit, not the priest, that effects the transubtantiation. It is God, not the priest, that forgives sins. It is the Spirit, not the priest, that washes away original sin. Its not like the priest has super powers and can perform these Sacraments whether God likes it or not.

No confusion on my part here in any way.

As to the validity of Sacraments from a laicized priest, my understanding is that the Church teaches that if everything else is in order – intent, form, matter – that God will not withold the Sacrament and punish the penitent or the parishoner merely because the priest has been laicized.

God will not punish for something that can not exist.

Whether intent exists is a pretty big question if the priest is laicized, especially if the recipient of the Sacrament knows it.

many priests accept laicization out of obedience and not to say that there was a lack of intent on their part at their ordiantion.

But I go back to my first post on this issue. Are we going to further beat up these men that have given what they have to give? The tired soldier is back from the front and our response is “get your butt back out there so I can go back to my life of comfort?”

I don’t quite follow your point here, if you could rephrase or expand upon.

 

[beckycmarie]

Well I’m not as judgmental as you are.

A pretty ironic statement, don’t you think?

 

[Joyousguard]

One of the major issues at hand is the fact that this whole laicization is based on canon law which is based on very poorly organized and argued theology. This is a sleeping dragon just waiting to hurt the church in some way as soon as it gets out and builds up momentum. The way the theology of laicization is argued, not only will it affect ordination and the preisthood but it will have devstating results on the rest of the sacraments as well.