Latae Sententiae Excommunication for priests
#1
Unless the excusing circumstances outlined in canons 1321-1330 exist, the Code of Canon Law imposes latae sententiae excommunication on the following:

an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic;

So, we see with regularity that many priests are full on heretics, putting them in a state of excommunication. How does this affect the Sacraments that they administer? Wouldn't their ability to hear confessions be invalid? Wouldn't their offering of the Mass be illicit? Why is this any different than with the priests of the SSPX? Shouldn't we as Catholics worry that the priests who we're receiving the Sacraments from are doing so invalidly/illicitly?
Reply
#2
I suppose you should worry. Choose with care where you go to Mass and specially who you confess to.

Its like someone else said here on the forum, Cardinal Mueller is a few decades later at his prediction of massive schism. We're already in a massive schism (and even apostasy in some cases), but in a silent schism.
Reply
#3
I don't think it's easy to tell. Loopholes seem to be present:
1321, 2. A person who has deliberately violated a law or a precept is bound by the penalty stated in the law or that precept; unless a law or a precept provides otherwise, a person who has violated that law or that precept through a lack of necessary diligence is not punished. "

"lack of necessary diligence" ? That could apply to lots of people.

I wonder how many clergy really have the use of reason sometimes? "(6) a person who lacked the use of reason with due regard for the prescriptions of cann. 1324, part 1, n. 2 and 1325; "

C.
Reply
#4
(09-14-2015, 08:57 PM)Cetil Wrote: I don't think it's easy to tell. Loopholes seem to be present:
1321, 2. A person who has deliberately violated a law or a precept is bound by the penalty stated in the law or that precept; unless a law or a precept provides otherwise, a person who has violated that law or that precept through a lack of necessary diligence is not punished. "

"lack of necessary diligence" ? That could apply to lots of people.

I wonder how many clergy really have the use of reason sometimes? "(6) a person who lacked the use of reason with due regard for the prescriptions of cann. 1324, part 1, n. 2 and 1325; "

C.

Even if they have the use of reason, can they be held accountable given the shoddy or down right heretical formation most of them had in seminary?
Reply
#5
I think this is why a lot of canonists don't like the latae sententiae category - it can produce anxiety from uncertainty, and such situations are nothing to mess around with. I think I would agree with getting rid of automatic excommunications - make the bishops do their job and publicly denounce dangerous priests! And the pope should do the same for dangerous bishops! As for dangerous popes...  Sticking tongue out at you
Reply
#6
(09-14-2015, 08:57 PM)Cetil Wrote: I don't think it's easy to tell. Loopholes seem to be present:
1321, 2. A person who has deliberately violated a law or a precept is bound by the penalty stated in the law or that precept; unless a law or a precept provides otherwise, a person who has violated that law or that precept through a lack of necessary diligence is not punished. "

"lack of necessary diligence" ? That could apply to lots of people.

I wonder how many clergy really have the use of reason sometimes? "(6) a person who lacked the use of reason with due regard for the prescriptions of cann. 1324, part 1, n. 2 and 1325; "

C.

Well, you could argue that any heretic lacks the use of reason. Doesn't mean that they aren't a heretic.  I personally don't know how it could be possible for any priest, no matter how terrible their formation, to not know that certain things are against Church law/doctrine. For them to speak/act in a contrary manner and scandalize the faithful is fully deliberate. As long as Latae Sententiae Excommunication exists, you wonder who many priests fall into that category.

When I see Voris going on his tirade against the SSPX for this entire week, I think about the fact that there are probably tons of priests who are excommunicated who administer the sacraments and endanger souls in the process. Why don't we talk about this?
Reply
#7
(09-14-2015, 01:54 PM)GangGreen Wrote: Unless the excusing circumstances outlined in canons 1321-1330 exist, the Code of Canon Law imposes latae sententiae excommunication on the following:

an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic;

So, we see with regularity that many priests are full on heretics, putting them in a state of excommunication. How does this affect the Sacraments that they administer? Wouldn't their ability to hear confessions be invalid? Wouldn't their offering of the Mass be illicit? Why is this any different than with the priests of the SSPX? Shouldn't we as Catholics worry that the priests who we're receiving the Sacraments from are doing so invalidly/illicitly?
I think that as long as they were validly ordained they can validly administer the sacraments and, I thought that the belief that a Priest has to be orthodox in all matters of dogma and in a state of grace was the Donatist heresy.

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

Reply
#8
Would this canon apply (specifically the last part)?

Can. 194 §1. The following are removed from an ecclesiastical office by the law itself:

1/ a person who has lost the clerical state;

2/ a person who has publicly defected from the Catholic faith or from the communion of the Church;

3/ a cleric who has attempted marriage even if only civilly.

§2. The removal mentioned in nn. 2 and 3 can be enforced only if it is established by the declaration of a competent authority.
Reply
#9
It has to be a formal act of apostacy or schism.
Reply
#10
(09-16-2015, 05:52 AM)Pacman Wrote: I think that as long as they were validly ordained they can validly administer the sacraments and, I thought that the belief that a Priest has to be orthodox in all matters of dogma and in a state of grace was the Donatist heresy.

Agreed.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)