| ROME, 17 SEPT. 2008 (ZENIT) 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: Pedophiles and Ordination [9-30-2008]
After our Sept. 17 column on the validity of the sacrament of holy
orders with respect to correct intention, a reader suggested a broader
approach. He wrote:
"One of your last question-answer e-mails dealt with the intention of a
sacrament as it affects the efficacy of the sacrament. I have a sidebar
to that question as it relates to giving Communion to infants and
children who might not be at a 'mature' understanding of the sacrament
of the Eucharist.
"You stated: '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.'
"My question is: Why doesn't this relate to infants and children
concerning Communion? There seems to be an inconsistency in the practice
of paedo-baptism and in the non-practice of paedo-Communion. I know that
it was practiced in the West until the Council of Trent at which time it
was formally changed. I also realize that the East (including Eastern
Catholics as well as Eastern Orthodox) still practice paedo-Communion.
Please explain. Also, in your opinion, will this practice in the West
change?"
A complete answer to this question would require a full-blown treatise,
but I believe that rather than inconsistency we could speak of different
theological emphases that have their origin in diverse pastoral
practices.
First of all, I would say that the reason for the Western practice of
delaying Communion until the age of reason is basically a pastoral
decision.
I do not believe that it is possible to make any sound theological
objections to the Eastern practice of administering all three sacraments
of initiation to infants, and it is perfectly coherent from the
perspective of Eastern sacramental theology. Indeed it would be
inconsistent for an Eastern Church to attempt to adopt the Western
practice as initiation is intimately tied to the Eastern concept of
Church and what it means to be a Christian.
The present Latin practice developed over many centuries and is
therefore deeply embedded in the mindset of pastors and faithful alike
as well as being encoded in law. Thus, while I believe that there is no
theoretical reason why the Latin Church could not adopt the Eastern
practice, the probability of this occurring is slight.
Such a change would require deep adjustments in some basic pastoral,
spiritual and social presumptions, many of which have proved to be of
great value in bringing souls closer to God over the centuries.
Among the reasons why the practice of infant Communion disappeared from
the Western Church was the different approach to the sacrament of
confirmation. In the West, the desire to maintain the bishop as ordinary
minister of this sacrament led to its separation from baptism.
For many centuries first Communion was still generally administered
after confirmation, resulting in a further delay in this sacrament.
Until the time of Pope Pius X most children received first Communion
around age 12. After the saintly Pope lowered the age of reception to
around 7, more children began to receive Communion before confirmation.
Another reason was the overall drop in the practice of receiving
Communion itself. The number of regular communicants started to drop
around the fourth century and did not start to pick up again until the
17th. It is hard to think of administering Communion to infants when
their parents received only once a year.
A practical reason was the disappearance in the West of Communion under
both species, making it well nigh impossible to administer the Eucharist
to infants incapable of taking solid food. Communion under both species
was never dropped from Eastern Christianity and it is administered to
newborns under the species of wine.
These are just some of a complex web of causes that have led to the
present practice. Reasons such as the need to ensure sufficient
knowledge of the mystery one is to receive are sound, reasonable and
valid in the context of the lived experience of the Latin Church. But
they are practical and pastoral rather than doctrinal arguments.
|