Validity Is Not Enough
PART 1
The Vocation and Suitability of Candidates for Holy Orders
Another one of “those phone calls”
They generally come in one of two forms: “Father, there’s a new priest, Fr. So-and-So, saying Mass near my house; is it okay for me to go?” or “We’ve got a chapel, and we’re thinking of hiring Fr. Such-and-Such, who was just ordained by Bishop Peregrinus. Do you think we should hire him?”
These calls are always difficult to handle. The Church is quite obviously in a state of crisis in which faithful Catholics are often called upon to make great sacrifices and travel long distances to have access to the traditional sacraments, sound preaching, and accurate teaching. When good people are traveling for hours to reach Mass, or when they are simply too far from any established mission to go there at all, it is painful to be obliged to disappoint them when a new opportunity seems to present itself. Alas, this is what we priests of the Society of Saint Pius X must often do when confronted with such questions.
The Society’s position on such “independent” ordinations
Despite widespread calumnies to the contrary, the Society of Saint Pius X does not consider itself the “only pebble on the beach.” Especially in the early days of Archbishop Lefebvre’s expansion into the United States, but also to a certain extent today, there were and are numerous sound priests–mostly older–who have been forced out of their dioceses or religious orders through no fault of their own, merely for their refusal to compromise with the modernism which has ravaged the human element of the Church and corrupted the faith of millions. All honor to them, and may they receive the reward of their labors on the Day of Judgment!
However, the question of those priests who have sought out ordination from one of the plethora of “independent bishops” at large in the United States today is much more delicate. Their number is always increasing, and it has increased quite rapidly during late 2008 and early 2009.1 If it were always a question of solid, well-formed, single men, ordained by a bishop who has a stable relationship with them as superior to subject, the situation would be much better than that which we so frequently find.2
Tales from an ecclesiastical House of Horrors
Indeed, there are widespread instances of such ordinations which are simply astonishing. The author knows of two men (one married) who were ordained explicitly to exercise their Orders privately. One bishop offered to ordain two married men the first time he met them. (They declined.) Another bishop is reported to have ordained a twelve-year-old boy. Determined to “have a vocation” regardless of their former superiors’ thoughts on the matter, numerous men who had tried their vocations at established traditionalist seminaries and left before reaching ordination have sought out ordination from “independent” bishops. Worst of all, from time to time there circulate rumors of this or that bishop’s having committed the sin of simony,3 offering the grace of Holy Orders for a fee.
Vigilance–according to the mind of the Church–is the key
Clearly, the sin of calumny is both grave and frequent. Not all such reports and rumors are necessarily true, but the number of confirmed cases of grave abuses of the Sacrament of Holy Orders must make today’s Catholics vigilant. Traditional Catholics are, by and large, fairly vigilant when there is a question of Novus Ordo abuses, but some of them tend to relax their vigilance when it comes to traditionalist abuses.4 This can be extremely perilous.
Scylla and Charybdis
Two main currents of thought compete for the attention of serious Catholics in the midst of today’s crisis. They are opposite extremes, and, not surprisingly, many people vacillate between these extremes. When these currents of thought are described, it is easy to see why balance (or, in other words, virtue) is needed.
On the one hand, when looking at the chaos which reigns in the Church at large, it is tempting to adopt a legalistic attitude: “The modernists have broken all the rules, so we must keep them all to the letter; then we will be fine!” On the other hand, the laissez-faire spirit is also quite enticing: “Rule 2b: The Church is in crisis; therefore, we can do whatever we want!” Both attitudes are deadly. It matters not whether we perish on the shore or in the whirlpool; we shall perish still. Whether we put all of our faith in the letter of “the rules,” absolving ourselves of having to live the Faith integrally, or we regard “the rules” as merely so much window-dressing, we will still end by doing exactly what we want–and by rationalizing our behavior, thus cutting ourselves off from the very possibility of repentance if that behavior is sinful.
The straight and narrow path between the two perils
Bringing these currents of thought to bear upon the issue of priestly ordinations outside the normal channels of dioceses or religious orders in 2009, one can hear the legalists cry out in horror that any ordination could ever take place outside of the letter of the (new) Code of Canon Law.5 Yet, with the normal legal channels of the Church effectively closed to Tradition, one is also faced with the laissez-faire multiplication of the “independent” ordinations noted above. What is the solution?
A wise priest once declared emphatically to the author that “The Catholic religion is the religion of reality.6” One must admit that it is unrealistic to place so much emphasis on the letter of the law when souls are suffering–indeed, dying–from the lack of sound and holy priests made available through the normal legal channels of the Church. Canon Law exists for the good of souls and the good of the Church. Any law which undermines that end ceases to bind the conscience to the same extent that it undermines it. Even if the normal canonical channels do not facilitate the ordination of sound and holy priests for the good of souls, bishops are still capable of ordaining, of setting aside the letter of the law in favor of its purpose–its “spirit.”
However, it is also unrealistic to jettison the entire canonical heritage of the Church simply because the strict application of the letter of the law is impeding the ordination of the sound and holy priests who are so urgently needed for the good of souls. “Canon Law is the accumulated prudence of the Church”;7 circumstances such as the current crisis do not justify going beyond the “mind of the Church” simply because the letter of the law no longer supports its purpose.
“Sentire cum Ecclesia”
The only possible reconciliation between the two perilous extremes of legalism and the laissez-faire spirit–and the only way one can properly evaluate the question of traditionalist priestly ordinations today–is to learn to think with the Church. Fortunately, we are not required to make a long or complex study, nor are we expected to wait for the Holy Ghost to infuse the answers into our minds. The 1917 Code of Canon Law and subsequent legislation on the subject of ordaining priests can still be referenced. Along with examining the principles and practices which flourished before the Second Vatican Council and the crisis of the priesthood, we will be able to apply the accumulated prudence of the Church to the question of ordinations outside the normal channels. In short, we will be able to think with the Church, even if such thinking is painful and complicates answers to “those phone calls.”
The author’s principal aim in this article is to examine what the Church, in her accumulated prudence, requires of a man who is to be ordained. After looking briefly at the requirements for valid ordination–a subject which is of course crucial even if only preliminary–we shall see which positive characteristics the Church seeks in a future priest and which warnings or even prohibitions she makes concerning some qualities which may disqualify an ordinand. In other words, we shall learn not only what makes a man a valid candidate for ordination, but what makes him a suitable candidate–what will make him not only a validly ordained priest, but a sound and holy one. In this way, it will be easier to discover the answers to the questions so often asked in “those phone calls.”
Validity and lawfulness
One of the biggest–and, unfortunately, one of the most common–mistakes traditional Catholics make in questions concerning the sacraments is to confuse the issues of validity and lawfulness. To some, “valid” means “good or pleasing,” and, likewise, “bad or displeasing” means “invalid.” Nothing could be further from the truth. For a sacrament to be “valid,” the only requirements are that a minister capable of conferring that sacrament applies the necessary form to the necessary matter, with the intention of “doing what the Church does.” To put it another way,
minister+form+matter+intention=sacrament.
The sacrament “worked.” Grace was poured out “by the very work.”8 The infant who was an enemy of God because of Adam’s sin becomes the adopted child of God when water is poured over him by anyone at all who has the intention (however confused it may be) of “doing what the Church does” and who says “I baptize you in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” while he is pouring that water. Such baptism is to be presumed valid9 even if it takes place in a bad context.
The Church has established laws for conferring the Sacraments precisely to prevent them from being abused by bad circumstances even though they are valid. Sacraments may certainly be valid but unlawful; what is valid is not always good for souls. “Lawfulness” means either that all of the Church’s laws were followed in conferring a sacrament, or that one or more of them was allowed by Church authorities to be disregarded for a proportionally serious reason, always for the good of souls.10
To illustrate the difference between “validity” and “lawfulness,” let us continue to take the example of infant baptism. Suppose that an infant, the child of Satan-worshippers, was perfectly healthy, but that his pious Catholic grandmother (with every good intention, but no prudence) baptized him secretly while bathing him. Was the baptism valid? As long as she poured water over him while saying, “I baptize you in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” with the intention of “doing what the Church does,” the baptism was certainly valid. The infant is now in the state of sanctifying grace, and he is (at least radically) a member of the Catholic Church. There is an eternal mark in his soul–the character of Baptism. It was valid, so it must be good!
No! This newly-baptized child has practically no expectations of being brought up as a Catholic. He is (secretly and unknown even to himself) a member of Christ, but he will, in all likelihood, be raised as a Satan-worshipper. Satan-worship is bad enough in itself, but Satan-worship as carried out by a baptized person is a great abomination. This child, if he ends up in hell, will suffer more keenly because of the eternal mark of Christ in his soul. His baptism was valid–no doubt about it–but it was not lawful.
Why? Because the Church’s law forbids the baptism of infant children of unbelievers except when they are in danger of death. The Church’s “accumulated prudence” tells us that such baptisms usually have the long-term result of harming the souls of these children rather than helping them, and, consequently, Catholics are forbidden to baptize the healthy children of unbelievers. Many more such Church laws exist–for the Sacrament of Baptism and for all of the others–because Holy Mother Church wants to ensure not only that the Sacraments “work,” but that they are fruitful in souls.
Since the Church has established laws for the (at least hopefully) fruitful administration of the sacraments, it behooves all sacramental ministers to follow those laws for the good of the souls to whom they are ministering. They must be concerned not only with the validity of the Sacraments they confer, but with making sure that they are lawful.
The same principle holds true in the conferring of Holy Orders, and, in fact, Holy Mother Church is even more concerned, so to speak, with the validity and lawfulness of Holy Orders because this sacrament has such a far-reaching influence on souls.
The priest must not receive Holy Orders for himself primarily, but for others. His ministry will influence untold numbers of souls–for good or ill–and the Church, following St. Paul’s exhortation, will not allow bishops to “impose hands lightly on any man,” lest they “be partaker in other men’s sins.”11 The Church considers the personal responsibility of an ordaining bishop for a new priest’s soul and for the souls that the new priest will influence–again, for good or ill. She has thus made some fairly stringent guidelines, through her “accumulated prudence,” for the lawful conferral of Holy Orders, and anyone–whether bishop or ordinand–who lightly sets these guidelines aside is imprudent, to say the least.
Sad experience has shown what great havoc imprudent ordinations can wreak at every level: from individuals and families to parishes and dioceses, even to the Church and civil society at large. A prudent consideration of these laws, established by Mother Church for the good of all her children, can help serious Catholics in our time to avoid the disasters which follow in the train of imprudent, unlawful ordinations.
(To be continued.)
1 One such bishop is reported to have ordained no fewer than 17 men to the priesthood during that time period.
2 There are other factors involved, such as sedevacantism, which we need not address in this article, but which certainly have a bearing on the situation.
3 See Acts 8:9-29.
4 One of the most frequent questions about “independent” ordinations, “Is he validly ordained?” misses the point entirely. In this view, if he is a priest, he is a good priest by definition, regardless of the abuses which his ordination may have entailed. This attitude discloses an extreme lack of vigilance, along with a curious form of legalism (“But it’s valid!”) mingled with a laissez-faire spirit (“We’re home free! No need to inquire further.”)
5 Consider the attempts to pressure the Society of Saint Pius X not to confer any ordinations in Germany earlier this year.
6 Rev. Fr. James Buckley, a priestly collaborator of the Society of Saint Pius X in the 1990’s.
7 Thanks to Rev. Fr. James Doran for this elegant and lapidary definition, from his course of Canon Law at St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary, Winona, Minnesota.
8 ex opere operato”
9 See the response of the Holy Office concerning marriage cases, December 28, 1949 (Dz. 2304). The (rebuttable) presumption is for the validity of baptisms conferred by people with confused or even wrong intentions, as long as the valid form and matter are used.
10 “The Sacraments are for men,” is a theological axiom.
11 I Tim 5:22.
Current Issue
