BishopAccountability.org
	Pedophiles and Ordination Zenit September 18, 2008 http://www.zenit.org/article-23640?l=english ROME, SEPT. 17, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university. Q: Is it true that three things necessary to validate any of the seven sacraments are: 1) proper substance, 2) proper form, and 3) proper intentions? If true, could a man who is secretly a "hopeless" pedophile enter and complete the course of study, never having revealed his lifestyle (through deliberate omission), and become ordained? If your answer is "Yes, this is a valid sacrament," then how do we explain the proper intentions requirement? Finally, do you think this scenario has ever come to pass, is the Church legally responsible for his later misconduct, and what is your solution? -- E.N., Penngrove, California A: Our reader is correct regarding the general criteria for invalidating the sacraments. Some other sacraments have added criteria, but these three are common to all. When the Church speaks of correct intention with respect to sacramental validity, the requirement is fairly minimal. It basically means that the person administrating the sacrament and the one receiving the sacrament want to administer and receive the sacrament as the Church understands it. It does not require a full theological knowledge of the sacrament, nor is it necessary to desire all of its specific effects. Thus it is theoretically possible for a non-Christian to validly baptize a person by simply intending to give what Christians give when they perform this rite. This fairly simple concept makes it hard to invalidate a sacrament from the standpoint of intention. To do so requires that at the moment of the celebration the person administrating the sacrament or the person receiving it mentally oppose and deny what externally they appear to accept. There might be cases, however, when other outside factors make it impossible for the persons involved to intend what the Church intends. For example, the Catholic Church does not accept the validity of Mormon or Jehovah’s Witness baptisms for, although the rites are apparently the same, the difference in understanding who the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are make it impossible to intend to act as the Church understands. This rather long premise is necessary in order to understand the answer to the specific question at hand. Could a man who, during formation, deliberately hid pedophile tendencies, or indeed any other condition that would have prevented his ordination, be validly ordained? The answer, sad to say, is probably yes, for the intention required at the moment of ordination is the intention to receive the priesthood. Has this ever happened? Almost certainly yes. In some concrete cases a hidden tendency might produce a spiritual or psychological condition so that the person becomes incapable of really intending what the Church desires when it gives priesthood. This would invalidate the sacrament but is extremely hard to prove. The Church has a special canonical process for judging the question of invalidity of sacred orders, but it is relatively rarely used. Is the Church responsible? There is moral responsibility if any means of revealing this tendency was culpably neglected before ordination, or if it failed to act immediately once the problem became manifest. The Church would not be morally responsible if an astute man was able to overcome these preventive controls which by their very nature are fallible and subject to manipulation. Legal responsibility depends on each country's legal system. Most countries have a concept of civil responsibility in which the Church, just as any juridical person, might be required to pay civil compensation even if not morally responsible for an action of one of its agents. What can be done? I believe that in the last few years the U.S. bishops have put in place a series of vetting measures in seminaries and other institutions in order to assure that those who should never be ordained, effectively don’t reach ordination. This, alongside an increase in the quality of the disciplinary and spiritual life in seminaries, makes for a very uncomfortable environment for anyone attempting to get through six years of formation without a sincere motivation. No system is ever perfect, but the situation has improved greatly and should continue to improve in the years to come. * * * Follow-up: Appropriate Penances After dealing with the topic of penances (see Sept. 2), I wish to address a couple of related questions. An Oregon reader asked: "The last time I went to confession the priest intentionally did not give me a penance. What effect, if any, does this have on the sacrament?" From the point of view of the penitent I believe that there was no negative consequence. For the sacrament to be valid the penitent must accept the penance, that is, he must not refuse to accept it either openly or interiorly. Since this willingness is present in spite of the fact that the priest did not impose the penance, then the person is duly reconciled with God. However, the priest in this case did not act well. Both as representative of Christ and the Church, and fully respecting the faithful's rights to receive the sacraments, he should follow with all delicacy the steps required for a good confession. These duties include imposing a penance (even a light one), for its acceptance constitutes one of the three acts of the penitent that make up the quasi-matter of the sacrament of reconciliation: contrition, confession, accepting the penance. A New York reader inquired: "Recently I read, in a series on the sacrament of reconciliation, that the penance one receives, e.g. three Hail Mary's, removes the temporal punishment incurred by the confessed sins. I had never heard of this before. Is it true?" This is new for me too. While the penance, just like any prayer, will certainly have some effect in balancing out the effect of our sins, I doubt that one could hold that it completely eliminates all temporal punishment due to the sins confessed. If this hypothesis were true, a probable consequence would be to render somewhat useless the Church's doctrine and practice regarding the use of indulgences. In this scenario, the confession would obtain by itself the effect that is sought in carrying out the indulgenced practice. Since Church teachings do not cancel one another out, but rather interconnect in a harmonious whole, I believe that the theory mentioned by our reader does not correspond to sound doctrine. * * * Readers may send questions to liturgy@zenit.org. Please put the word "Liturgy" in the subject field. The text should include your initials, your city and your state, province or country. Father McNamara can only answer a small selection of the great number of questions that arrive.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.