What Does it Mean to “Defrock” a Priest?

Posted on May 6, 2010 by canonlawmadeeasy

Q: What does it mean when a priest is “defrocked”?  Sorry but it sounds like tearing his clothes off!  –Jane

A: References to priests being “defrocked” have recently turned up in numerous articles in the newspapers.  Perhaps the most infamous story was the New York Times piece suggesting that Pope Benedict XVI, while still Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) under the late Pope John Paul II, failed to take appropriate action against a notorious child molester here in the US.

Since the authors of such stories generally sound quite knowledgeable about the Church’s procedures for dealing with priests who commit this heinous crime, it may come as a surprise to many readers that the term “defrock” is found nowhere in canon law. Phrases like “defrocked priest” thus are legally inaccurate and amount to nothing more than street-talk!

What writers using such imprecise terminology are apparently trying to reference is the involuntary laicization of a cleric. “Defrocking” refers to the fact that a priest who is laicized can no longer wear the clerical collar that identifies him as a member of the clergy. In this sense, Jane’s hunch that it pertains to his obligation to change his manner of dress is on-track (although no tearing is involved).

We saw in “Can a Priest Ever Return to the Lay State?” that priestly ordination remains valid forever, so a priest will always be a priest (c. 290).  Unfortunately, however, sometimes ordained priests decide, for a variety of reasons, that they no longer can or want to live as priests. In such cases we saw that they can petition the Vatican to be released from the clerical state (c. 290 n. 3). This is often referred to as laicization.

The situation described in that column, however, involved a voluntary decision made by a priest himself. Such a free choice could not be termed “defrocking,” which implies a punitive measure taken against a priest because of objectionable conduct. The more correct canonical term for such a punishment is dismissal from the clerical state. Sometimes this penalty is also termed forced laicization. A priest who is forcibly laicized still remains a priest, since, as we have seen, it is impossible to undo his priestly ordination (c. 1338.2). But he is forbidden from exercising it for the rest of his life.

There is no harsher penalty that can possibly be meted out to a Catholic priest than this. Consequently it is reserved for only the most heinous offenses. In the code there are several different crimes, or delicts, for which dismissal from the clerical state is the severest possible penalty. Canon 1394.1, for example, asserts that a cleric who attempts to marry—the word “attempts” implies that the Church will always consider such a marriage invalid in any case—can under some circumstances be dismissed from the clerical state. Similarly, canon 1395.1 states that a cleric living in concubinage (i.e., living with a woman as if she were his wife), or engaging in some other external sin against the Sixth Commandment, can receive the same punishment if he persists in this offence.

Canon 1387 asserts that a priest who, in the course of hearing a confession, solicits a penitent to commit a sin against the Sixth Commandment can, in more serious cases, be dismissed from the clerical state. And finally, canon 1395.2 notes that a cleric can be dismissed from the clerical state if he commits an offense against the Sixth Commandment with a minor under the age of 16. This last delict, of course, is the crime which justifiably has received so much attention lately in general.

So did the former Cardinal Ratzinger, as Prefect of the CDF, fail in his duty to penalize priests who were found to have sexually molested children? The particular case that recently raised the ire of the New York Times was that of a now-deceased priest from the Archdiocese of Milwaukee. The Times’ writer clearly objects to the notion that Ratzinger failed to dismiss this priest from the clerical state—in other words, to “defrock” him. To better understand the situation, let’s take a look at some of the facts of the case and at what canon law actually requires.

First of all, the priest in question was accused of abusing children as early as 1955. There was no action taken by his Archdiocese at that time to remove him from his position at a school for deaf children, to suspend him from ministry, or still less to dismiss him from the priesthood—so he continued to work in close contact with children for nearly twenty years more, during which time the abuse continued.

Secondly, the CDF in Rome was only informed of the case in 1996—41 years after the first allegations against the priest in question had been made! By that time, the priest-molester was retired, and no longer surrounded by children on a regular basis. The then-Archbishop of Milwaukee petitioned Rome to dismiss this priest from the clerical state, decades after the abuses had taken place. Prior to this 1996 request, the Archdiocese apparently did not impose any sort of canonical penalty on this priest, who served as a parish pastor for many years after leaving the school where the sexual abuse had been ongoing.

By the time that the former Cardinal Ratzinger first would have heard of this case, the accused priest was in very ill health (he actually died in 1998, before his case had been resolved). It was clear enough that his horrific crimes would not be repeated.

When he learned that his Archbishop was seeking to have him dismissed from the priesthood, the priest-molester wrote a letter to Cardinal Ratzinger. Noting his age and health-issues, he wrote, “I simply want to live out the time that I have left in the dignity of my priesthood.” There is no evidence that Ratzinger ever responded—in fact, we don’t even know whether he ever read the letter himself. We only know that there is no documentation indicating that the Congregation sought to have the priest dismissed from the priesthood, or “defrocked.”

So did the CDF, under its then-Prefect, Cardinal Ratzinger, therefore fail in its duty to forcibly laicize this priest? Not so fast.

It should first be pointed out that the CDF did not even have jurisdiction over clerical sex-abuse cases in the Church until 2001, when Pope John Paul II issued his motu proprio document Sacramentorum Sanctitatis Tutela (available on the Vatican’s website, but in Latin). Prior to that, cases were being handled by diocesan bishops themselves—and unfortunately, as we all know too well, in many cases that meant that they weren’t being handled at all. It is widely understood that it was Cardinal Ratzinger himself who urged this change in procedure, because he was concerned that necessary steps must be taken to properly investigate every allegation of clerical abuse and take action on those which were proven to be true.

In the Milwaukee case, which was sent to Rome five years earlier, the Congregation was only involved because the sexual abuse had happened as the result of soliciting children in the confessional (and thus fell under canon 1387, mentioned above). Since the crime in this case involved a sacrament, the CDF had to be informed. But the actual proceedings against the priest in question had to be initiated by the source that had informed the CDF in the first place, the Archdiocese of Milwaukee. And true, they were in fact initiated—but only decades after church officials there had learned of what had repeatedly occurred at the hands of one of their priests.

This is why the current Archbishop of Milwaukee, Jerome Listecki, stated frankly on Holy Thursday this year that

Mistakes were made in the Lawrence Murphy case. They were not made in Rome in 1996, 1997 and 1998. The mistakes were made here, in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee, in the 1970s, the 1980s and the 1990s, by the Church, by civil authorities, by church officials, and by bishops. And for that, I beg your forgiveness in the name of the Church and in the name of this Archdiocese of Milwaukee…. We hope and pray our actions have become a model for what TO do after decades of what NOT to do.

Sadly, we see here a “good” example of why jurisdiction over clerical abuse cases now belongs to the CDF, and no longer to individual diocesan bishops. For that shift in jurisdiction, the Church can thank at least in part the former Cardinal Ratzinger.

Apart from the Milwaukee case, there are many other examples of this hideous crime being trumpeted in the media all over the world (Ireland and Germany, for example, have recently been rocked by comparable stories). Why aren’t all the priests in these cases being dismissed from the clerical state, or “defrocked”? To find the answer, all we need to do is look closely at the wording of the law.

In every one of the canons cited above, that describe crimes for which the penalty of dismissal from the clerical state can be imposed, this punishment is mentioned only as a possibility. In other words, forced laicization is never a mandatory punishment. Take canon 1395.2, the canon addressing sexual abuse of minors: the law states that the perpetrator is to be punished with “just penalties,” not excluding dismissal from the clerical state if the case so warrants. It is possible to dismiss a child-molesting priest from the priesthood; but it is certainly not compulsory in every single case.

Lest readers begin to wonder whether the Code of Canon Law is too soft on criminals, we can easily make some comparisons here with US criminal law, to put it all in proper perspective. Every single state in this country has a law against premeditated murder—sometimes called first-degree murder, sometimes called something else. In several states, this crime may be punishable by death. But the law never says that every person convicted of this crime must be put to death! This is left to the judgment of either the judge or the jury (depending on the court system), and not all convicted murderers receive the same sentence. There certainly are states where particularly horrendous murderers are put to death, while others are sent to prison for life, and still others are imprisoned for lesser periods. This in no way suggests that in some cases, premeditated murder “isn’t so bad”; murder will, and should, always be one of the most hideous crimes imaginable. But there are circumstances in which reasonable people do conclude that one murder is far worse than another—and sentences are meant to reflect this.

Canon law in this respect is similar. There is no such thing as a “minor” sexual-abuse case, for they are all horrific and leave their victims scarred for the rest of their lives. But the fact remains that the circumstances surrounding some are even worse than others, and the punishments inflicted on their perpetrators should and do vary for this reason.

This is why it is so absurd for the New York Times and other secular media sources to criticize Pope Benedict because this or that priest was found guilty of abuse, but was not “defrocked.” It is undeniable that in the past, there were many substantiated cases where no punishment was meted out at all, and nobody in the Church today is suggesting that this was ever an acceptable response to a truthful accusation. But as for those cases where a proper investigation has been made and a cleric has been punished in some other way, journalists have no right to judge whether that cleric should have been dismissed from the clerical state. Only church authorities do.

Why is Google hiding the posts on this website in its search results?  Click here for more information.

Posted in Clergy Issues, Crimes and Sanctions | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on What Does it Mean to “Defrock” a Priest?

Canon Law and Altar Girls

Posted on April 22, 2010 by canonlawmadeeasy

Q: What does canon law say about altar girls?  How did we end up with altar girls after so many centuries without them? –Ginnie

A: The whole issue of permitting girls to serve at the altar has become so ideologically contentious, on both sides of the issue, that it may be difficult to imagine that the whole controversy actually began as simply a question of Latin grammar. While approved translations of the code exist in all the major modern languages, only the Latin text is regarded as the official one.

Canon 230, which ultimately gave us altar girls, is contained in the section of the code dealing with the obligations and duties of the lay faithful, and has three paragraphs. Each contains the Latin word laici, meaning “lay people.” In order to get a complete picture, let’s take a look at each paragraph in turn.

The first paragraph (c. 230.1) states that lay men whose age and talents meet the requirements prescribed by the Bishops’ Conference, can be given the stable ministry of lector and of acolyte (altar server), through the prescribed liturgical rite. Many Catholics in the US may not be familiar with this practice at all, so it merits some discussion.

We all know that lay people can be lectors, who read the readings and psalms at Mass. In many places, this task is performed simply by volunteers. Sometimes the priest who is about to celebrate a scheduled Mass may walk to the microphone a minute or two in advance, and ask if anyone is willing to read.

Similarly, we all are familiar with the notion of altar boys (who sometimes are adult men), who assist the priest during Mass, particularly at the offertory. After some training, and with some routine practice, boys as young as 8 or 10 years old serve in this capacity. Often a parish will put together a monthly schedule, listing which boys are expected to serve at each scheduled Mass.

But canon 230.1 does not pertain to either of these situations! What is it for, then?

This paragraph actually refers exclusively to the practice, which is not seen at all in many places, of officially conferring the ministry of lectors and altar servers on qualified men. Conferral of this ministry is historically tied to the “minor orders” which traditionally formed part of a seminarian’s training to become a priest. “Acolyte” and “lector” were actually orders, which preceded (among others) the orders of “sub-deacon,” “deacon,” and finally “priest.”

Nowadays, seminarians who are preparing to become priests no longer receive these minor orders. The process has been greatly simplified, and today a man technically becomes a cleric only when he is ordained a deacon (c. 266.1).

Since priests-in-training no longer receive the orders of acolyte and lector, canon 230.1 provides the option for a bishop to confer these ministries—no longer called “orders”—on qualified men, whether they are seminarians or not. Note that in this particular paragraph, the Latin is very specific: the term used is viri laici, or lay males. (We looked at the code’s use of the Latin word vir in another context back in “Can Women be Ordained Priests?”) In other words, the wording of canon 230.1 indicates that it does not apply to women. This is entirely consistent with the Church’s position that the priesthood was established by Christ for men only; since the original orders of lector and acolyte used to form part of a man’s journey toward the priesthood, it makes sense that even now, these ministries may be conferred in a stable manner on men and not on women. This practice, which is certainly not common in our country, is a vestige of the traditional orders.

Now look at the following paragraph, canon 230.2. It states that lay people can receive the temporary assignment of lector in liturgical activities. It also notes that all lay people can exercise the roles of commentator, cantor, or other functions.

This paragraph addresses the scenario that is most familiar to us: the lector at a given Mass is either an on-the-spot volunteer as mentioned above, or is somebody who is “installed” for a year or so (which incidentally does not constitute the “stable ministry” envisioned by the first paragraph!). When needed, lay people can also lead the singing or read some sort of commentary on the day’s readings—which latter role is not to be confused with actual preaching, since only a cleric may preach (see “Who May Preach?”).

The Latin of this second paragraph is different from that of the first. Here, the word viri is omitted entirely. The word laici, when used by itself, can mean either lay men or lay women, or for that matter a combination of both! Women can, therefore, be given the tasks mentioned in canon 230.2. And they generally are, as most of us can attest; women frequently serve as lectors or cantors or the like. Since this “temporary assignment” bears no resemblance to conferral of the traditional minor orders on seminarians, the Church—under Pope John Paul II, the Supreme Legislator who promulgated the 1983 Code of Canon Law—saw fit to permit women to serve in these liturgical capacities.

Finally, canon 230.3 asserts that when the needs of the Church require it, lay people who do not have the stable ministry of lectors or acolytes as described in the first paragraph, can supply some of their functions, including (among other things) distributing Holy Communion. In practice, we see this rather frequently—in fact, in some places it occurs too frequently, as we saw in “Questions About Eucharistic Ministers,” addressing the often excessive use of lay extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist. The phrase “when the needs of the Church require” limits the role of lay people in such functions to only those times when a shortage of clergy truly calls for the laity’s assistance.

In any case, the Latin of this third paragraph is like that of the second paragraph: it simply says laici, without including the male-only viri. Thus the third paragraph pertains to both lay men and lay women.

So how does all this add up to altar girls?

In 1992, a dubium, or doubt, was submitted to the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts. As we saw in “Do Lapsed Catholics Marry Validly Outside the Church?” this Council has been given the exclusive right and authority to issue authentic—i.e., official—interpretations of all legal documents promulgated by Rome, including the Code of Canon Law. Whenever there is a question raised about the correct way to interpret a given canon, this Council has the final say.

The dubium that was raised was this: does canon 230.2, which mentions lectors, cantors, commentators, and “other functions,” also pertain to the function of altar server?

The Council answered in the affirmative. (All the Council’s authentic interpretations are posted on the Vatican’s official website, but in Latin only, and can be found here.) Regardless of one’s personal preferences, there was no other possible answer to the question, since the whole notion of altar servers as we know them is covered by this paragraph. Were it not for canon 230.2, there would be no canonical justification for the existence of altar boys at all!

The problem, however, is that canon 230.2 mentions not viri laici, but just laici. It pertains not only to altar servers, but also includes other roles which are commonly exercised by women as well as men. Thus the canon cannot be interpreted to exclude the possibility of altar girls.

This is why girls are permitted to serve at the altar as well as boys.

Note, though, that while girls are permitted to serve, there is nothing in the law that requires it. In fact, another document was issued in 1994 on this very subject, this time by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (included in Latin on the same Vatican webpage as the authentic interpretation of canon 230.2). The Congregation noted that each Bishops’ Conference retains the authority to determine how best to implement the use of altar girls, acknowledging that using only boys as altar servers remains traditional. The letter also pointed out that many vocations to the priesthood are fostered among young men who function as altar boys, implying that giving this role to boys is still to be strongly encouraged.

Here in the US, as we know, the Bishops’ Conference declared that the decision to employ girls as altar servers or not is left to the diocesan bishop. Today nearly every diocese in the country permits girls to serve at the altar.

As most of us are already well aware, this has sparked outcry among those who contend that allowing girls to be altar servers is a step toward women’s ordination—something which, as discussed in “Could the Pope Change the Law to Allow Women Priests?” the Church is unable to permit. On the other hand, it was hailed as a giant leap forward by those who see the ban on women serving in church ministries as an antiquated practice, in urgent need of updating.

Could the law be changed? Absolutely! We saw in “Are There Any Limitations on the Power of the Pope?” that only those laws which have their basis in divine/natural law cannot be changed. Laws pertaining to altar servers, however, clearly do not fall into this category. It is entirely possible that Benedict XVI, who as Pope is the Supreme Legislator, could choose at some point to reword canon 230 if he sees fit. Assuming that he does not wish to do away entirely with the concept of altar servers, it appears that it would probably be necessary to reorganize canon 230 completely. Simply changing the second paragraph to read viri laici would not do the trick, for that would simultaneously eliminate not only altar girls, but also female lectors, cantors, commentators, and those women serving in any other conceivable liturgical role—and this might perhaps be farther than the Holy Father would wish to go.

No matter what the Pope were to decide, we would as Catholics be duty-bound to obey him. In the meantime, we are required to accept the validity of the current law, regardless of our own personal preferences.

Why is Google hiding the posts on this website in its search results?  Click here for more information.

Posted in Clergy Issues, Holy Mass, Parish Life | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Canon Law and Altar Girls

Can Children Make their First Communion Before their First Confession?

Posted on April 8, 2010 by canonlawmadeeasy

Q: A friend of mine teaches CCD, I think fifth or sixth grade. Mid-year she got a new student who had just moved into town, and she discovered that he had never, ever been to confession! He had made his First Holy Communion in a parish where somehow they were not required to make their First Penance beforehand. How is that possible? Don’t you have to make your First Penance before receiving your First Holy Communion? –Elizabeth

A: In a word, yes, you do.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states clearly that “children must go to the sacrament of Penance before receiving Holy Communion for the first time” (1457). There are very fundamental theological reasons for this. When we receive the Eucharist, as the Catechism points out,

 …we must prepare ourselves for so great and so holy a moment. St. Paul urges us to examine our conscience: “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.” Anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before coming to Communion (1385).

In other words, we Catholics—both children and adults—should always want to be as free from sin as possible before receiving Holy Communion.

It may be objected by some that children are too young to understand what sin is all about, and so it makes no sense for an innocent child to be confessing his “sins.” But the fact is, if a child is deemed ready to receive the Eucharist, it means that he has attained a use of reason sufficient to understand that it is Jesus Who is present in the consecrated Host. (The age of reason was also addressed in “Can Children Receive the Last Rites?”) Children who are simply too young to understand what they are really doing aren’t supposed to be making their First Holy Communion! And it follows that if a child has reached the age of reason, it also means that he is old enough to understand, in at least a basic way, that some actions are right and some are wrong—and that it is good to do what is right, and bad to do what is wrong. Thus every first communicant should have at least an elementary grasp of what it means to sin. And given our fallen nature, the implication is that once a child has reached the age of reason, he has begun to commit some sins.

Does a second-grade child, however, really have to worry about having committed the “grave sin” mentioned in the Catechism? Probably not! But that is not the point of requiring children to make their first confession before receiving the Eucharist. As a rule, pastors, parents, and catechists are not worried that First Communicants may be in a state of mortal sin; but they nevertheless want to teach the children that before receiving Christ Himself, they must get into the habit of examining their consciences and shunning all attachment to sin. After all, if children aren’t taught this practice from the very beginning, when will they ever learn to do it?

As we have seen so many times before in this space, canon law follows theology on this subject. Canon 914 states clearly that both parents and pastors are to see to it that children who have reached the age of reason are properly prepared to make their First Communion—after having made a sacramental confession. There is no room for creative interpretations here. If there are children being permitted to receive Holy Communion before having made their First Confession, the law is being violated. It’s as simple as that.

The same canon also notes that if the pastor judges that a child is too young to understand what is really going on, he cannot permit that child to receive Communion. Note that making this decision is the pastor’s right and obligation! In other words, children do not have an automatic “right” to make their First Holy Communion simply because they have reached the magic age of 7 or 8.

The requirement that children make their First Penance before their First Holy Communion dovetails neatly with the requirement found in canon 989, that all the faithful who have attained the age of reason are required to confess their grave sins at least once a year.  This annual requirement—which is the bare minimum!—was discussed in detail in “Is Confession Still an Easter Duty?” where we saw that technically, if a Catholic never commits any grave sins, he is not required by law to receive the sacrament of penance. Striving for this bare minimum, however, is not necessarily the best practice, which is why canon 988.2 notes that the faithful are encouraged to confess venial sins as well. As far as small children are concerned, therefore, forming in them the habit of confessing their sins, whether grave or not, should then make it all the easier for them to turn to the confessional in their later years, should they have the misfortune to commit grave sin. On a theological note, one can also reasonably hope that the practice of frequent confession, which imparts grace to the penitent, should spiritually strengthen him so as better to resist temptations to mortal sin in the future.

Thus we can see that there are absolutely no grounds, either theological or canonical, for permitting children to receive their First Holy Communion before making their First Penance. While we adults may be convinced that they have never committed any grave sins, it is nonetheless critical to instill in these children an understanding of the importance of receiving Our Lord in the Eucharist with a heart that is as free from sin as can be.

Why is Google hiding the posts on this website in its search results?  Click here for more information.

Posted in Catholic Education, Confession | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Can Children Make their First Communion Before their First Confession?

Can a Priest Administer the Sacrament of Confirmation?

Posted on March 25, 2010 by canonlawmadeeasy

Q: A friend’s husband is going to become a Catholic this year at the Easter Vigil. He wasn’t raised in any faith at all. My friend says that the pastor will administer three sacraments all at the Vigil Mass: baptism, confirmation, and Holy Communion. But what I don’t understand is, how can the pastor administer the sacrament of confirmation? Don’t you have to be a bishop to do that? As a teenager, I was confirmed by the bishop… –Kaitlyn

A: Kaitlyn is understandably confused, because the law regarding the minister of confirmation varies depending on the circumstances. Ironically, the original purpose of these variations was to make the process easier; but the unintended result was that the laws are somewhat involved! Let’s take a look at the different canons regarding the minister of confirmation.

Canon 882 states that the ordinary minister of confirmation is a bishop. In the standard scenario that Kaitlyn mentions (namely, that of teenaged Catholics receiving the sacrament at their parish church), the diocesan bishop himself, or an auxiliary bishop if there is one, normally administers confirmation. In huge dioceses with large numbers of young people, the diocesan bishop occasionally asks another bishop—perhaps a retired bishop with more time on his hands!—to enter the diocese and confirm a group in a particular parish in his place. It is the diocesan bishop’s prerogative, and his responsibility, to ensure that the faithful of his diocese are able to receive this sacrament (c. 885.1), either from himself or another bishop. But note that another bishop can only confirm the diocesan bishop’s subjects if asked to do so; in other words, as canon 886.2 points out, he cannot simply walk into the territory of another bishop and confirm some of the faithful there on his own initiative! The issue of clergy entering a different bishop’s territory was addressed in greater detail in “Can a Bishop Forbid a Priest to Say Mass?”

That same canon 882, however, which tells us the bishop is the ordinary minister of confirmation, adds that a priest is also able to validly confirm someone if he has the faculty to do so. Thus the door is immediately open to the possibility that a Catholic may be confirmed not by the bishop, but by a priest. So when does a priest have the faculty to do this?

Well, this question is answered in the very next canon: canon 883 provides a list of persons who have the faculty to confirm under certain circumstances. These include the very situation to which Kaitlyn refers—the priest who baptizes somebody who is no longer an infant, or admits a baptized person into full communion with the Catholic Church (c. 883 n. 2). This is what we normally see at the Easter Vigil Mass in a typical parish. The pastor either baptizes adults who were never baptized before, like the husband described in the question above; or receives already-baptized non-Catholics into the Church as Catholics, as was discussed in “Do Converts Have to be Rebaptized?” In both cases, the pastor also has the faculty to confirm the person validly himself—the bishop does not need to do it. This is one of those situations where the law was established with the intention of making the practical aspects of the process easier. How could the bishop possibly confirm everybody who becomes a Catholic in his diocese on Holy Saturday without there being tremendous logistical issues?

Note, however, that the Church is not changing its theology simply to make life a little more convenient. Church historians can easily show that there is abundant evidence that traditionally, priests have had the power to confirm. In fact, non-Latin Catholics today are routinely confirmed, not by the bishop, but by their ordinary parish priest. Regular readers might remember “Are They Really Catholic? Part II,” about Catholics who are not of the Latin rite. When these Catholics bring an infant to the parish church for baptism, the priest not only baptizes and confirms the baby, but he even gives the child the Eucharist! In these churches, which are truly Catholic, confirmation has been administered by a priest for centuries. Thus there is nothing particularly innovative or “modern” about it.

This is not the only scenario in which a priest who is not a bishop can confirm. As canon 884.1 notes, the diocesan bishop can, if necessary, grant the faculty to administer the sacrament of confirmation to a priest in a specific instance. Imagine, for example, that a bishop is driving to a rural parish in his diocese in order to confirm a group of young parishioners. En route, his car breaks down, and he is trapped in the middle of nowhere, with no way to make it to the church on time! The bishop can, in these circumstances, phone the parish and give the faculty to confirm to the pastor or some other priest(s) there. He/they would, therefore, validly confirm the persons who were expecting to receive the sacrament at the hands of the bishop that day.  Such a grant, however, would apply only to that one particular occasion—it would not, in other words, give the priest(s) the power to validly administer the sacrament to others in the future.

There is yet another situation in which a priest can administer the sacrament of confirmation: canon 883 n. 3 states that in danger of death, the pastor of the dying person, or any other priest who happens to be available, can confirm. It is true that in actual practice, when a priest is ministering to a dying Catholic, the sacrament of confirmation is usually not high on the priority-list. The chief concerns will always be to ensure that if at all possible, a dying adult receives the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist (which is known as Viaticum when received on one’s death-bed, for the last time, cc. 921-922), and last rites. If an unbaptized adult is dying, the priority will be to baptize him if he has shown that he desires this (c. 865.2). But if it is known that a dying Catholic has not yet been confirmed, any priest at all can administer this sacrament validly as well. In fact, this is the one instance where it is both valid and licit for a priest who happens to be in the territory of a bishop who isn’t his superior, to administer the sacrament of confirmation without the bishop’s knowledge or consent (cf. c. 887)! When someone is at death’s door, many of the Church’s normal procedures and requirements are simply tossed aside, as his spiritual well-being in his final moments should, and does, take precedence over anything else.

Thus we can see that the Catholic convert in Kaitlyn’s question will quite rightly receive the sacrament of confirmation from the pastor of his parish at the Easter Vigil. While the diocesan bishop is the ordinary minister of this sacrament, there are numerous situations in which the sacrament is validly conferred by a priest.

Why is Google hiding the posts on this website in its search results?  Click here for more information.

Posted in Clergy Issues, Confirmation | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Can a Priest Administer the Sacrament of Confirmation?

Do Converts Have to be Rebaptized?

Posted on March 11, 2010 by canonlawmadeeasy

Q: My coworker is in an RCIA program, and is going to become a Catholic at Easter. She was raised Presbyterian. She told me that she doesn’t need to be baptized in the Catholic Church, because she already was baptized in her church. That doesn’t sound right to me, because when my own father became a Catholic years ago, he had to be rebaptized, even though he had been baptized as a child in the Episcopal church. Is the RCIA instructor right about this?  –Dave

A: Canon 845.1 couldn’t be clearer: the sacraments of baptism, confirmation and holy orders cannot be repeated. This is because by their very nature, they imprint a character on the recipient, which after its conferral can never be taken away. There is an amusing-yet-sad story told about the Roman Emperor Julian the Apostate (331-363 A.D.), who had been baptized a Christian but later renounced his faith, reinstituted the worship of the pagan Roman gods and goddesses, and persecuted the Christians who resisted.  Having been told that baptism imprinted a special mark upon his soul, Julian sat in the bath and tried vainly to scrub that mark off of himself, in an attempt to undo his Christian baptism. But the fact is that it simply cannot be done.

That’s also why canon 864 notes that every unbaptized person, and only an unbaptized person, can be baptized. If a person has already been baptized, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to try to do it again, because it cannot be done again. (This is why the term “rebaptize” is canonically meaningless.)

So what would happen if, say, a priest were to go through the entire baptismal ceremony and perform what he believed to be a valid baptism, on a person who had in fact been baptized before? The answer is simple: nothing. If the priest and family truly didn’t know that the person had been baptized before—let’s say a nurse in the hospital where he was born had baptized him because it seemed that he might die, and had never told the family what she had done—they would of course be acting in entirely good faith. But the ceremony would have no spiritual effect at all. The conferral of the sacrament would be invalid, a concept that was discussed at length back in “Marriage and Annulment.”

Things get murkier, however, when a person wants to become a Catholic, and there is some uncertainty about whether he was already baptized before or not. This situation is perhaps more common than many would think! Let’s say that we have a person who was told years ago by family members that he had been baptized as an infant, but a baptismal certificate is nowhere to be found. It may be that he was baptized by a family member in an emergency—canon 861.2 notes that in cases of necessity, any person with the correct intention may baptize—and thus there is no record of the baptism in any church registry. Perhaps his parents had left the faith, and his grandmother had secretly baptized him in private. Or it may be that the family members are not getting the story straight, in which case he is in fact not baptized at all! What is a pastor to do in such a situation?

Canon 869.1 has the answer. If there is a doubt as to whether a person has been baptized or not, and the doubt cannot be resolved even after investigating the matter, the person is to be baptized conditionally. This means that baptism is to be administered, with the acknowledgement that if the person has already been baptized, it will have no effect. In such cases the Church is erring on the side of caution. Better to perform a second, unnecessary and ineffectual baptismal ceremony, than to fail to baptize the person at all!

This is why, incidentally, an abandoned infant is to be baptized, unless for some reason it is clear that he has been baptized already (c. 870). If perchance he has been baptized before, the second ceremony will not change a thing; but if he has not been baptized, it of course will have full effect.

But what do we do with someone from a non-Catholic Christian faith who wants to become a Catholic?  Normally he can provide a baptismal certificate from his own church—but is it enough?

As a general rule, it is. The Catholic Church has long taught that the one baptizing needn’t profess the Catholic faith in order to baptize validly.  It is enough that he (or she) intends to do what Christ commanded—namely, to free the person from original sin and incorporate him into the Church—and uses a valid form for the administration of the sacrament. In fact, the baptizer doesn’t even need to be a Christian. Imagine, for example, a woman giving birth in a hospital to a sick baby who is in danger of death. If she were to request a Jewish nurse to baptize the baby, that nurse would validly do so, so long as she used the correct formula and intended to do what the Church requires (even if she weren’t too sure exactly what that was!).

For this reason, the Church acknowledges that baptisms performed by Lutherans, Methodists, Episcopalians, and the bulk of the other mainstream protestants are valid. It is true that there are some religious communities, like the Mormons (discussed in “Marriage Between a Catholic and a Non-Catholic”), whose baptism the Catholic Church does not accept as valid, because it has determined that for theological reasons there is a significant defect in the intention of the minister. We have also seen, in “Inclusive Language and Baptismal Validity,” that if a non-Catholic religious community is using a theologically defective formula during the baptismal ceremony, the Catholic Church rejects it as invalid. But otherwise, unless there is some specific reason to question the validity of the baptism in a particular case, the Catholic Church regards most protestant baptisms as valid.

Consequently, when a protestant wishes to become a Catholic, the pastor who will receive the person into the Church looks into the circumstances of that person’s baptism, and decides whether there are any grounds to doubt its validity. If not, canon 869.2 states clearly that the person is not to be baptized again.

This is no doubt why Dave’s Presbyterian coworker will be received into the Catholic Church on Holy Saturday without being baptized by the Catholic pastor. It sounds like everything is being handled completely in accord with the law.

What about Dave’s father, the former Episcopalian who eventually became a Catholic and was baptized again by a Catholic priest? We have no way of knowing what the circumstances were, or when or where this all took place. It is true that, in days long gone, it was a common practice to baptize conditionally all those protestants who wished to enter the Catholic Church, just to be on the safe side. It may be that the pastor was playing it safe; or it may be that for some particular reason, he had cause to question the validity of the baptism. In any case, conditionally baptizing anybody and everybody who wants to become a Catholic is definitely not the correct practice nowadays.

Thus we can see that there is no inconsistency between the reception into the Catholic Church of Dave’s Episcopalian father and his Presbyterian coworker. If the Church considers it necessary to baptize a non-Catholic Christian conditionally, it will do so. But otherwise, one baptismal ceremony, whether Catholic or not, is quite enough.

Why is Google hiding the posts on this website in its search results?  Click here for more information.

Posted in Baptism, Canonical Issues Involving Non-Catholics | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Do Converts Have to be Rebaptized?