One 1998 report focused on Africa observed that “sexual harassment and even rape of sisters by priests and bishops is allegedly common.”That leaves me with a set of questions for those who understand all of this better than I do myself. If a priest like this remains a frocked member of the priesthood, what is the status of his capacity to perform the rites? What becomes of the faithful who trust that his rites are efficacious?
“When a sister becomes pregnant, the priest insists that she have an abortion,” the report added. ‘‘The sister is usually dismissed from her congregation while the priest is often only moved to another parish — or sent for studies.”
Self-Excommunication
It is my understanding that any priest who does this is excommunicated by his own action.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Certainly it's complex. Matthew 18:20- "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
That would seem to imply that where there is sincere belief and proper reverence, the lord is present, so is the 'priest' essential? I know that for one sacrament at least, in extraordinary circumstances a layperson can administer it- Baptism. Logically, it would seem inconsistent for a just God to punish someone for being fooled by an illegitimate priest when they had no reasonable ability to know otherwise.
This seems related to the Dontatist controversy.
There used to be discussions about this WRT to "whiskey priests" in Ireland, with the understanding that the sacrament was not diminished by passing through an unworthy vessel. I have not heard that discussion in years, however, and don't know if my understanding of it was anything more than a popular oversimplification.
Per the Catholic Encyclopedia, found at New Advent, the interpretation of effects of excommunication is informed by the guideline of "severity as regards the excommunicated, but mildness for the faithful." What this means is that, as long as the faithful does not know that a particular cleric is excommunicated (that is, he hasn't been formally declared excommunicated in a judicial proceeding), the faithful can receive the sacraments from that cleric. Now, the excommunicated cleric starts heaping additional sins on his own head for continuing on as if he had not been excommunicated by his act, but the faithful can rest assured that the sacrament (e.g., communion or baptism) has been validly administered. Now, the sacraments of reconciliation and matrimony require proper jurisdiction to be validly administered in any case (which is why if a priest is visiting another diocese to perform a wedding, he needs permission). I believe in the case of reconciliation, in the case of extreme need, the Church herself provides the jurisdiction which would allow the absolution to be valid (again, mildness for the faithful), but the priest keeps going deeper in sin.
That's a very brief summary of a fairly technical and complex issue. I hope it clarifies somewhat.
Yes, this does seem related to the Donatist controversy.
An explanation I once heard was that ordination changes one ontologically and, even if excommunicated, the changes are permanent.
The Catholic Church recognizes the validity of Eastern Orthodox ordinations and sacraments, for example, since they have maintained a direct line of valid bishops even though they are seen as being schismatic.
I duckducked around for a minute and found this article on the topic: ex opere operato.
To quote:
"This principle holds that the efficacy of the sacrament is a result, not of the holiness of a priest or minister, but rather of Christ Himself who is the Author (directly or indirectly) of each sacrament. The priest or minister acts in persona Christi (in the person of Christ), even if in a state of mortal sin. Although such a sacrament would be valid, and the grace efficacious, it is nonetheless sinful for any priest to celebrate a sacrament while himself in a state of mortal sin."
Good research all. Thank you.
Tom, I'm going to have to start using the term "duckducked"- it's great!
The rites of unholy priests and fake priests are about as efficacious as they were centuries before under the Vatican Whore of Rome.
Matthew 18:20- "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
That would seem to imply that where there is sincere belief and proper reverence, the lord is present, so is the 'priest' essential?
What it implies is that people who worship Bhaal, the Lord, or some other lord, isn't even using "my name", so why would that person whose name you don't know or use, be in the midst of them?
Westerners have this erroneous assumption that they can call upon any god and that the only one that has to answers is the god of Abraham, Isaac, and Jeremiah... hopeless.
None of the sacraments after the First Ecumenical Council, Nicea, has been efficacious or recognized under the Authority of the Divine Counsel. Not a single one. Individual exemptions may have been given but not a single lineage made it out alive since the Apostles died or were scattered.
In order to revive the lineage of discipleship, they must demonstrate something akin to Jean De Arc or Jeremiah's authorization.
This is why at best, the Orthodox and the Vatican schismatics, are at best, human systems of authority, organization, and power. They are not from the Divine Counsel. At worst, they are under the Watchers: the UnHoly Ones.
Post a Comment