Vows and Sacraments

[chicago]

The conversation concerning Fr.Francis Mary Stone of EWTN brought an important issue to the forefront. And, while the discussion about his situation, in particular, is clearly closed (so, please, no comments upon it here which would get this thread ended), the larger matter of what, precisely, priestly ordination and vows indicate is an important one to reach greater understanding over.

Numerous people state that a vow is forever and can not be broken or gone against without serious sin.

Others suggest that since a theology exists of celibate priesthood being “married to the Church”, that should any man leave the ministry to marry, he is essentially being aduterous. The comment is made that it would be like a man coming home and telling his wife that he had found another woman who he was leaving her for.

Still, some would argue that the permanence of the sacramental seal of ordination disallows a man turning from ministry without denying his very self, also not unlike walking away from a marital commitment where the two have become one.

But, what of this is a proper understanding and what is taking things out of their unique context? Where are the appropriate, even necessary, distinctions and differences in vows and sacraments here between what a married couple might make and what one with a religious or priestly vocation does? What is the right particular theology as applies to each situation? If it is legitimate to leave one way of life which has been entered into via a sacrament and/or vow, what and why and when is it so? Upon entering into any of these ways of commitment in life, what can and should be expected or allowed in so far as continued commitment or even a change of direction which would require a separation of one’s previous path in life (and seeming vocation) for something else?

 

[augieboo]

Chicago,

You have asked many interesting questions. I hate to be a wet blanket, but there really is nobody on these boards qualified to answer most of them.

Numerous people state that a vow is forever and can not be broken or gone against without serious sin.

Whether any action is or is not a sin is a matter for the confessional. Those who say ‘this is a sin’ or ‘that is a sin’ seem to be pretending to be God. Pretending to be God is probably grave matter, since it seems to conflict with at least the first of the Commandments. Thus a person holding such a view would do well to discuss it in the confessional with a duly ordained priest in order to discover whether holding such a view is, in a particular case, a sin and, if so, repent and receive absolution.

Others suggest … etc.

Others? What others? If these “others” are Popes, or documents of the magisterium, then their suggestions have force. Otherwise the answer is a matter of canon law. Therefore, if these “others” are validly constituted canon lawyers, then we can assume that their suggestions have some basis in truth.

Otherwise, these suggestions are meaningless.

Where are the appropriate, even necessary, distinctions and differences in vows and sacraments here between what a married couple might make and what one with a religious or priestly vocation does?

Except as a matter of curiosity, I can’t really see why the such distinctions matter? Is it likely that a person will choose between marriage and the priesthood (with or without religious life) based on the distinctions among the various vows involved?

What is the right particular theology as applies to each situation? If it is legitimate to leave one way of life which has been entered into via a sacrament and/or vow, what and why and when is it so? Upon entering into any of these ways of commitment in life, what can and should be expected or allowed in so far as continued commitment or even a change of direction which would require a separation of one’s previous path in life (and seeming vocation) for something else?

As a practical matter, a man can walk away from the priesthood at any time, just like the proverbial husband who goes out to buy ice cream and never returns.

If a man wishes to leave the priesthood with permission, he must go through the procedures described in the relevant sections of canon law. The code of canon law may be found here intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_INDEX.HTM

Similarly, if a man has done or is doing something which is so incompatible with the clerical state as to warrant involuntary separation from the clerical state, then whoever makes such a charge must go through the procedures described in canon law.

I have taken a rather quick glance through the code of canon law and compiled those sections which appear to be in some way relevant to your questions. I have attached them to this post as a .pdf file entitled “canon law snippets.pdf”.

Disclaimer:

I am not a canon lawyer. The sections I have referenced may or may not be correct, complete, and/or out of date. They also lack any context in terms of whatever interpretive documents and/or methodologies are used by canonical fora. YMMV. Etc.

 

[chicago]

Chicago,

You have asked many interesting questions. I hate to be a wet blanket, but there really is nobody on these boards qualified to answer most of them.

I don’t know that I entirely agree as we do have numerous posters here who are quite knowledgeable and even experienced in such things, including several who are religious and priests. That said, you are probably accurate in assessing that most of what goes on at these message boards is more conjecture than anything. I do find it a tad surprizing that so many were able to offer such strong opinions over a particular case, yet you alone have thus far responded to the more essential questions of significant underlying value which I highlighted on this thread. I thank you for your effort in trying to enter into the discussion intelligently and moving it forward.

 

[chicago]

Except as a matter of curiosity, I can’t really see why the such distinctions matter? Is it likely that a person will choose between marriage and the priesthood (with or without religious life) based on the distinctions among the various vows involved?

When comparisons are made by some as if the matter is one to one entirely equal, then it is important to ask whether that really is true or whether they are in some ways distinct and unique, in order to understand what we are really dealing with.

I have taken a rather quick glance through the code of canon law and compiled those sections which appear to be in some way relevant to your questions. I have attached them to this post as a .pdf file entitled “canon law snippets.pdf”.

Disclaimer:

I am not a canon lawyer. The sections I have referenced may or may not be correct, complete, and/or out of date. They also lack any context in terms of whatever interpretive documents and/or methodologies are used by canonical fora. YMMV. Etc.

Thanks much. Ready access to such provisions is, indeed, worthwhile and helpful. Though what I am asking is really something at a deeper level than merely, “What is the law?” I am trying to get at the underlying philosophy and reality of the thing so that it might be better understood in its essence.

 

[augieboo]

Okay, well, now that we have all that preliminary stuff out of the way…

I am trying to get at the underlying philosophy and reality of the thing so that it might be better understood in its essence.

I’ll start with just a few things that I’m certain of. Beyone that I’ll have to do some research. Please note that I’m not always certain about the exact language one should use to express an idea, so I’m only going for the gist of things here.

[1] The real work in any sacrament is done by God. Human beings have the authority to speak trigger words under various circumstances, but the effect is all God.

Marriage

Basically, any two baptized Catholics of correct age, etc., by virtue of their baptism, have the authority to speak the words which God has promised will result in the conferal of the sacrament of matrimony. (I’m leaving aside the issues of mixed and/or non-Catholic marriages as well as the issue of witnesses, etc, for the sake of my own sanity.) Since God never lies, whenever two such persons speak the appropriate words, they become married. But the key point is that it is God who does the work!

Ordination

A bishop, by virtue of Apostolic Succession, has the authority to speak the words which God has promised will result in the conferal of the sacrament of holy orders. Once again, since God never lies, whenever a bishop speaks the appropriate words, the person over whom they are spoken becomes a priest. Once again, the key point is that God does the work here as well.

[2] The effects of certain sacraments are permanent. I am different now than I was before I was confirmed. At that time I was different than I had been prior to my baptism. Similarly, both marriage and holy orders leave a permanent effect upon those who receive these sacraments.

[3] Since God does the work in any sacrament, no sacrament can be “undone” by any human power.

[4] Since God does the work in any sacrament, and since both marriage and holy orders permanently affect the person receiving them, and since no human being can undo the work of God, there is no way to undo any marriage or holy orders. In order to “get out” of either sacrament, one must prove that it never in fact happened.

To prove that a sacramental marriage never existed, a person must petition for a declaration of nullity, (a so-called “annulment”), under cannons 1671-1707.

Similarly, in order to show that he was never ordained, a man must petition for a Declaration Of Nullity Of Sacred Ordination under cannons 1708 - 1712.

A person who leaves a marriage without obtaining a declaration of nullity may never marry in the Church.

Can. 1085 §1 A person bound by the bond of a previous marriage, even if not consummated, invalidly attempts marriage.
§2 Even though the previous marriage is invalid or for any reason dissolved, it is not thereby lawful to contract another marriage before the nullity or the dissolution of the previous one has been established lawfully and with certainty.

Similarly, a man who leaves the priesthood without obtaining a declaration that his ordination was null may never marry.

Can. 1087 Those who are in sacred orders invalidly attempt marriage.

This all leads me to a rather tough conclusion regarding a hypothetical priest who decides he needs to “discern” whether to remain a priest or run off with a woman. Unless he is prepared to prove that his entire life as a priest has been a mistake, a collosal waste of time, a veritable fraud upon those to whom he has been ministering all those years, he’s just fooling himself.

At least that’s how it seems to read to me.

 

[chicago]

Similarly, a man who leaves the priesthood without obtaining a declaration that his ordination was null may never marry.

I’m not aware of any sort of declaration of nullity of ordination. There is a dissolution of the clerical state and requirements associated with it, but the essential character of priesthood is understood to remain.

This all leads me to a rather tough conclusion regarding a hypothetical priest who decides he needs to “discern” whether to remain a priest or run off with a woman. Unless he is prepared to prove that his entire life as a priest has been a mistake, a collosal waste of time, a veritable fraud upon those to whom he has been ministering all those years, he’s just fooling himself.

At least that’s how it seems to read to me.

I think that you are misreading the nature of the clerical state and its associated promises, confusing it with an indellible character conferred by the sacrament.

This does, however, get at the crux of my question in some ways and shows forth the need for greater clarity between all of these things.

 

[augieboo]

I’m not aware of any sort of declaration of nullity of ordination.

I wasn’t either, but here it is:

BOOK VII : PROCESSES
PART III : CERTAIN SPECIAL PROCESSES
TITLE II: CASES FOR THE DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF SACRED ORDERS

Can. 1708 The right to impugn the validity of sacred ordination is held by the cleric himself, or by the Ordinary to whom the cleric is subject, or by the Ordinary in whose diocese he was ordained.

Can. 1709 §1 The petition must be sent to the competent Congregation, which will decide whether the case is to be determined by the Congregation of the Roman Curia, or by a tribunal designated by it.

§2 Once the petition has been sent, the cleric is by the law itself forbidden to exercise orders.

Can. 1710 If the Congregation remits the case to a tribunal, the canons concerning trials in general and the ordinary contentious trial are to be observed, unless the nature of the matter requires otherwise and without prejudice to the provisions of this title.

Can. 1711 In these cases the defender of the bond has the same rights and is bound by the same duties as the defender of the bond of marriage.

Can. 1712 After a second judgement confirming the nullity of the sacred ordination, the cleric loses all rights proper to the clerical state and is freed from all its obligations.

There is a dissolution of the clerical state and requirements associated with it, but the essential character of priesthood is understood to remain.

That’s the point I’m trying to make. But I’m not sure you understand the implications of this.

Unless the ordination is declared null, then, as you put if “the essential character of priesthood is understood to remain”. Which means that unless the ordination is declared null, a man can give up or lose his right to function as a priest in the Church, but he remains a priest nonetheless.

I think that you are misreading the nature of the clerical state and its associated promises, confusing it with an indellible character conferred by the sacrament.

Not at all. What I’m saying is that, once a man has made the promises and been ordained, the clerical state itself is indellible. This is clearly what the Catechism teaches.

VII. The Effects of the Sacrament of Holy Orders

The indelible character

1581 This sacrament configures the recipient to Christ by a special grace of the Holy Spirit, so that he may serve as Christ’s instrument for his Church. By ordination one is enabled to act as a representative of Christ, Head of the Church, in his triple office of priest, prophet, and king.

1582 As in the case of Baptism and Confirmation this share in Christ’s office is granted once for all. The sacrament of Holy Orders, like the other two, confers an indelible spiritual character and cannot be repeated or conferred temporarily. (Cf. Council of Trent: 1 DS 1767; LG 21; 28; 29; PO 2.)

1583 It is true that someone validly ordained can, for a just reason, be discharged from the obligations and functions linked to ordination, or can be forbidden to exercise them; but he cannot become a layman again in the strict sense, (Cf. ⇒ CIC, cann. 290-293; ⇒ 1336 # 1 3, ⇒ 5, ⇒ 1338 # 2; Council of Trent DS 1774) because the character imprinted by ordination is for ever. The vocation and mission received on the day of his ordination mark him permanently.

 

[chicago]

That’s the point I’m trying to make. But I’m not sure you understand the implications of this.

Unless the ordination is declared null, then, as you put if “the essential character of priesthood is understood to remain”. Which means that unless the ordination is declared null, a man can give up or lose his right to function as a priest in the Church, but he remains a priest nonetheless.

Not at all. What I’m saying is that, once a man has made the promises and been ordained, the clerical state itself is indellible. This is clearly what the Catechism teaches.

We’re talking past each other. Both of us agree that the essential character of priesthood is ultimately irrevokable. But this is distinct from whether the “priest” must inherantly remain true to everything required by the original clerical state which was given at the time of ordination if he is dismissed from that state. For instance, your citation that a priest may not marry is a matter of canon law binding those who are actively in orders (or who do not recieve the proper dismissal and permissions upon leaving ministry.) But it is not essential to the character of his priesthood because of ordination alone. If it were, then the Church would not marry laicized priests (if you’ll allow for the common usage of this term here, noting the fact that the indellibleness of the sacrament obviously remains), as she often does. Nor would she ordain married men, even to the deaoncate. So, again, I return to the need for distinctions which need to be made between what the “sacrament” does, and what promises or vows demand. And, further, how these are akin or different from what occurs with the Sacrament of Matrimony.

It might make a good topic of dissection for the likes of Jimmy Akin, actually.

 

[augieboo]

your citation that a priest may not marry is a matter of canon law binding those who are actively in orders (or who do not recieve the proper dismissal and permissions upon leaving ministry.) But it is not essential to the character of his priesthood because of ordination alone. If it were, then the Church would not marry laicized priests … as she often does.

In the words of Homer Simpson, DOH!

I thought that any ex-priest who married had received a declaration of nullity in regard to his ordination. I guess I figured that when it became so easy to get a declaration of annulment for a marriage a similar situation occured in regard to nullity of ordination.

Now I think I can approach your original question a bit more intelligently.

So, again, I return to the need for distinctions which need to be made between what the “sacrament” does, and what promises or vows demand.

I think I have it for this one! It’s not a distinction between what the sacrament does and what promises or vows demand, per se. It is a distinction between what the sacrament does and what the Church – specifically, canon law – requires.

And, further, how these are akin or different from what occurs with the Sacrament of Matrimony.

As we both agree, the sacrament makes the guy a priest forever. The Church requires that a priest be celibate in order to be allowed to function as a priest. But this requirement is not sacramental, it is merely disciplinary. Thus there is no sacramental bar to the marriage of a priest.

In the case of the sacrament of matrimony, exclusive, lifetime chastity, (with the spouse), is part of the sacrament itself. This is laid down by Christ himself, i.e., “what God has joined…” etc.

It might make a good topic of dissection for the likes of Jimmy Akin, actually.

Funny you should say that…

What Ex-Priests Can & Can’t Do
(Jimmy Akin)

For a while I’ve been meaning to do a post on what former priests who have been laicized are and are not allowed to do, since questions come up about this periodically.

The place where the rules are spelled out, somewhat surprisingly, is not in the Code of Canon Law or any other universally-binding piece of law but in a document that is issued to each priest as he is laicized.

That document is known as a rescript of laicization, and one is issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for each priest who is laicized. What it says on that rescript is what that priest is allowed to do or not do.

This does not mean that they cut different deals with different priests. Instead, it seems that they base the rescripts on the same template (kind of like a form letter) and basically lay down the same rules for each priest who is laicized.

In the below-the-fold part of this post, I’ve reproduced what I’m given to understand is the standard rescript of laicization that was implemented in 1980 and that, with minor modifications, has been in use ever since.

(The minor modifications would concern things like the name of the current pontiff, the fact that the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is now called just the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and updating the numbers of a couple of canons that allow laicized priests to hear deathbed confessions, since the numbers are different in the 1983 Code than they were in the 1917 Code).

The main do’s and don’ts that pertain to how the priest is to conduct himself on an ongoing basis are found in sections 4 and 5 of the rescript and can be summarized as follows:

1. He can’t celebrate any of the sacraments except for hearing deathbed confessions. It is especially noted that he can’t give homilies.

1. He can’t serve as an extraordinary minister of holy Communion.

1. He can’t serve any “directive office in the pastoral field” (e.g., serving as a parish administrator).

1. He can’t do anything at all in a seminary.

1. He can’t serve as a director or teacher in a Catholic university.

1. He can’t teach theology or any closely related discipline (e.g., religious studies, history of theology) in a non-Catholic university.

1. He can’t serve a director (e.g., school principal) in a parochial school.

1. He can’t serve as a teacher in a parochial school unless he gets the bishop’s permission.

1. He shouldn’t live in or frequent places where his status as an ex-priest is generally known, unless he gets the bishop’s permission.

By extension (though there are some doubtful cases), anything a laicized priest is not forbidden to do in his rescript is something he is permitted to do.

for more jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/05/what_expriests_.html

 

[Pious_Mat]

If a priest’s ordination was declared null, then wouldn’t every mass he ever said have been invalid?

 

[chicago]

If a priest’s ordination was declared null, then wouldn’t every mass he ever said have been invalid?

Probably, yes, in the strict sense. Though this would likely be a case where. “The Church Supplies.”

The reality, of course, is that it is probably pretty rare for a priest’s ordination to be considered “null” as this would require an extreme situation. When priests are laicized, however, their ordinations are not being declared null. It is a different matter. Which is why I find it important that we make these distinctions and find clarity in understanding how the Sacramental character of Holy Orders differs from that of Matrimony.

 

[chicago]

As we both agree, the sacrament makes the guy a priest forever. The Church requires that a priest be celibate in order to be allowed to function as a priest. But this requirement is not sacramental, it is merely disciplinary. Thus there is no sacramental bar to the marriage of a priest.

In the case of the sacrament of matrimony, exclusive, lifetime chastity, (with the spouse), is part of the sacrament itself. This is laid down by Christ himself, i.e., “what God has joined…” etc.

Right. And the “promises” which a priest makes to his bishop (such as chastity, which in the Latin Church is most often understood as celibacy for a single or widowed man) can be dispensed.

Now, there still remains the issue of “vows” which a religious might make (whether perpetual or permanent.) They are not sacramental in nature, but if a vow is stronger than a mere promise, who can break it, how can it be dispensed, under what conditions? And if a “vow” relates more closely (if not sacramentally) to the kind of thing which a couple makes in contracting marriage, in what ways is a religious vow (of chastity, in paricular) similar or distinct in its requirement of endured fidelity?

Perhaps some of the members of religious orders on board could help us reach a better understanding of this here.

Funny you should say that…

for more jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/05/what_expriests_.html

Thanks for Jimmy’s link. I’m quite familiar with it. In fact, that post is one of the reasons why I thought of this being a good query for him to slice apart and comment upon. Still, you’ll note, that the concerns I am raising are quite distinct than the question he is here answering.