The Diocese of Linz, Austria, has said that a man posing as a priest has been active in the diocese, duping people left and right. Of course with all the liturgical silliness in that diocese (see this Off the Record post followed by this Catholic World Report article for details), it’s understandable that something like this might sneak through.
So what happens when a fake priest celebrates the sacraments? Ed Peters puzzles out the canonical implications for us. The sacraments are invalid, but no sin is imputed who receive them without knowing that. He says that baptisms done according to the rite will not have to be re-done since it doesn’t have to be a priest in order to be valid. Masses would be invalid, of course, as would confirmations. Confessions would also be invalid and those who confessed mortal sins should confess again. As Ed says, the validity of marriages is trickier because of the interplay of form with local canonical and civil legislation.
Such impostors are not unheard of, and in fact you hear about them in the US from time to time. It’s a good idea always to check the background of a priest who seems suspicious, even if your pastor welcomes him. Your pastor could have been duped too. Ed gives several ways to check up on someone who claims to be a priest.
Update: A friend sends the following clarification regarding sacraments by imposters: “But they ARE formally received into the Church, by the profession of faith and aministration of [Confirmation and ]the Eucharist, by an authorized minister of the Church, acting in her name.
And if emergency Baptism is administered (say by a nurse in the hospital), and the person so baptized recovers, he is brought when possible to the church where he is formally received by the authorized minister of the Church (we used to refer to this as “supplying the ceremonies,” whern the anointng with the sacred chrism, the bestowal of the christening robe and the baptismal candle, and the blessing are done).
In the case of the children baptized by this imposter, I’d guess that this rite of reception will be done.”
Technorati Tags: canon law, priesthood, Austria
This is probably too big a question to ask here, but:
An actor on stage performing a stage-baptism of someone is not a valid baptism(I think).
But how is this any different from a man play-acting in the liturgy? (Let’s assume this man is acting not out of a misguided Christian duty, where his intentions while baptizing are rightly ordered, but he’s just acting out of cynicism or something).
I know there’s a principle that the church makes up what is lacking in its ministers, or something to that effect. Is the liturgical context of a “faked” baptism such a compensating instrument?
This difficulty could come up in more sophisticated arguments against, say, apostolic succession. Many would have a hard time trusting that every bishop in the episcopal line since the apostles wasn’t a cynic who was just going through the motions when he ordained his successors.
Intention plays a big part. In a sacrament you have the form, the intent, and the minister of the sacrament.
Baptism and matrimony are unique in that the ministers of the sacrament are not the ordained minister. In marriage the man and woman minister the sacrament to each other.
Basically, in baptism it is not the intent of the person pouring the water that’s important, but the intent of the person being baptized. If it’s an infant then it’s the intent of the parents and godparents who ask for baptism on behalf of the child. As long as the water-pourer follows the form—“In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”—then it is valid.
This is why the Church does not require people converting from non-Catholic Christian churches to be re-baptized in most cases, since most Christians baptize in the name of the Trinity. Where there is doubt they give a conditional baptism.
Gevalt!
In a Diocese which erects a Shrine to Judas anything is possible.
Dom wrote:
“Baptism and matrimony are unique in that the ministers of the sacrament are not the ordained minister.”
I knew that this was true of marriage but this is the first time I’ve heard this in terms of baptism.
If this is true, then what is the bishop/priest/deacon doing when celebrating the rite and saying, “I baptize you…”? Does this not constitute the ordained one immersing/pouring as the minister of the sacrament and the one being baptized as the recipient?
Can you reference your position on this for us?
I said I wasn’t sure of this and was asking priests to write in and correct me or clarify if I’m wrong. Since you’re a priest why don’t you correct it if I’m wrong?
Actually I thought I said it but don’t see it above so I must have lost that phrase in editing. But my question still stands: As a priest why don’t you provide the correction?
Well, as I think you acknowledge, Dom, you didn’t invite clarification or correction in the post as it stood, although I’m certainly willing to accept that this was your intention.
I was blown away by your assertion (as it stood) that baptism and marriage were “unique” in that neither was administered by an ordained person. Given your background in theology, II suspected it was something you simply said too quickly and that perhaps a prod on my part would allow you to see the mistake and make the correction. Although I think your take on “intention” is a little fuzzy I thought that “intention” was what you were probably trying to get at but that you might have got there in too much of a hurry. Perhaps you just tried to address too much material in a short post.
For the record: the ordinary minister of the sacrament of baptism is a bishop, priest or deacon.
Okay, the ministers of the sacrament of matrimony is indeed the couple themselves. The minister of the sacrament of baptism does not have to be ordained, as you imply, in extraordinary circumstances.
Should I put a disclaimer on the blog that no one should come to me for theological explanations, especially when I’m writing hurried responses while traveling?
At this point, I hesitate to say anything, Dom. I certanly didn’t mean to suggest (nor do I think I did) that your theological explanations are not to be trusted. We all make mistakes – I certainly know my own and do my best to acknowledge them.
Actually, I can sort of understand an artist making an work about our “friend” Judas for Ash Wednesday: it could end up as a meditation on our own complicity with those who put our Lord to death, as in the Passion readings on Palm Sunday and Good Friday. (That’s not to justify the thinking behind the particular work Gillibrand mentions.)