Last week’s post examined the delict of administering the sacraments to those prohibited. Today’s post considers the unlawful exercise of the sacred ministry. Canon 1389 states: “A person who, apart from the cases mentioned in cann. 1379-1388, unlawfully exercises the office of a priest or another sacred ministry, is to be punished with a just penalty, not excluding a censure.” Canons 1379 – 1388 concern the administration of sacraments and have been discussed in previous posts.
The Dicastery for Legislative Text affirms that canon 1389 is “a broad category, open to very different delicts, which include violations of the preceptive liturgical provisions on the manner and conditions of celebrating the sacraments, the use of formulas other than those permitted in the liturgy”. Strictly speaking, since it concerns the exercise of functions of the sacred ministry and, therefore, exclusive to clerics (cf. Lumen Gentium, 31-32), this delict is not open to the non-ordained. However, generally, it can include those who abuse the ministries, such as lectors, acolytes, and catechists. Hence, the canon uses the term ‘person’ instead of ‘cleric’.
The first category of delicts concerns unlawfully celebrating the sacraments or sacramentals when prohibited. Examples include granting general absolution without fulfilling the required conditions, administering ecclesiastical funerals when prohibited by law, and assisting at marriage without the permission of the parish priest or local ordinary.
First, canon 961 §1 provides that general absolution can only be given when
“1°danger of death threatens and there is not time for the priest or priests to hear the confessions of the individual penitents; 2°there exists a grave necessity, that is, given the number of penitents, there are not enough confessors available properly to hear the individual confessions within an appropriate time, so that without fault of their own the penitents are deprived of the sacramental grace or of holy communion for a lengthy period of time. A sufficient necessity is not, however, considered to exist when confessors cannot be available merely because of a great gathering of penitents, such as can occur on some major feastday or pilgrimage.”
Canon 961 §2 provides that the diocesan bishop judges if the conditions are present and determines cases of such necessity. Since the circumstances at adoration grounds do not meet these canonical requirements irrespective of the number of penitents, any priest who grants a general absolution has committed the delict.
Second, the Church recognises that people with certain behaviours undermining their communion with the Church can repent before death. Consequently, the law provides that notorious apostates, heretics, and schismatics (cf. Can. 1184 §1, n.1; Can. 751), those who, for anti-Christian motives, chose the cremation of their bodies (cf. Can. 1184 §1, 2°), and manifest sinners who cannot receive an ecclesiastical funeral without public scandal to the faithful (cf. Can. 1184 §1, n. 3) are denied funeral rites “unless they gave some signs of repentance before death” (Can. 1184 §1). As an ecclesiastical funeral is only a sacramental, canon 1185 provides that funeral mass is also denied to those who have been excluded from Church funerals.
Previously, Church practice considered those living in irregular matrimonial situations as public manifest sinners, denying them ecclesiastical funerals according to the norms of canon 1240 of the 1917 Code. However, in a 1973 circular letter, the then Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith derogated from this canon prohibiting denial of religious funerals to them if “they retain their adherence to the Church and give some sign of repentance, provided that public scandal to the other faithful is avoided”. The letter also encouraged pastors to mitigate any possible scandal by illustrating the meaning of Christian funerals as an appeal to the mercy of God and as a testimony of the community’s faith in the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.
The third example is assisting at canonical marriages without jurisdiction. Canon 1108 §1 states, “Only those marriages are valid which are contracted in the presence of the local Ordinary or parish priest or of the priest or deacon delegated by either of them, who, in the presence of two witnesses, assists”. Therefore, a priest who assists at marriage without permission lacks jurisdiction to assist validly at marriage. Apart from the invalid marriage contracted, the priest, if he maliciously did so, also committed the delict of unlawful exercise of the ministry.
A second category concerns liturgical misconduct and abuse, such as allowing lay persons to preach the homily or not following the liturgical rites as prescribed.
Although canon 766 provides that the laity (which includes seminarians) may be allowed to preach in a church or oratory if certain circumstances warrant it, canon 767 §1 provides that the homily (the reflection after the gospel at mass) “is reserved to a priest or a deacon”. Although the diocesan bishop can dispense from a disciplinary law for the spiritual good of his faithful (cf. Can. 87 §1), in 1987, the Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of the Code confirmed that the diocesan bishop could not dispense his subjects from this law. Using a lay interpreter during the homily in places with a language barrier does not constitute the delict. Speech made by a lay person at other times at mass also does not constitute the delict as long as it does not substitute the homily.
In the “Directory for Masses with Children”, published on 1 November 1973, the then Congregation for Divine Worship stated: “With the consent of the pastor or rector of the church, nothing forbids one of the adults who is participating in a Mass with children from speaking to the children after the gospel reading, especially if the priest finds it difficult to adapt himself to the mentality of children. In this matter the norms issued by the Congregation for the Clergy should be observed.”
Considering that this document was issued in 1973, and the Code of Canon Law in 1983, followed by the authentic interpretation in 1987, this privilege appears to be abrogated. The Code of Canon of Eastern Churches of 1990 reemphasises that the homily is reserved for the priest and deacon (cf. Can. 614 §4 CCEO). On 15 August 1997, eight dicasteries of the Holy See, including the then Congregation for the Clergy, jointly issued an instruction titled, On Certain Questions Regarding the Collaboration of the Non-ordained Faithful in the Sacred Ministry of Priest. The document reads:
“The homily, being an eminent form of preaching…also forms part of the liturgy. The homily, therefore, during the celebration of the Holy Eucharist, must be reserved to the sacred minister, Priest or Deacon to the exclusion of the non-ordained faithful, even if these should have responsibilities as “pastoral assistants” or catechists in whatever type of community or group. This exclusion is not based on the preaching ability of sacred ministers nor their theological preparation, but on that function which is reserved to them in virtue of having received the Sacrament of Holy Orders. For the same reason the diocesan Bishop cannot validly dispense from the canonical norm since this is not merely a disciplinary law but one which touches upon the closely connected functions of teaching and sanctifying.”
Another instance is a lay person administering the sacrament of baptism when the ordinary minister (bishop, priest, and deacon) is not absent or impeded, and there is no danger of death (cf. Can. 861 §2). Canon 862 also states, “Except in a case of necessity, it is unlawful for anyone without due permission to confer baptism outside his own territory, not even upon his own subjects.”
Violating liturgical provisions in celebrating the liturgy is another example of the delict. Here, it extends to using formulas other than those permitted in the liturgy and other liturgical aberrations and abuse.
Since the delicts covered in canon 1389 are generic, the law does not specify a penalty. Based on the nature and circumstances of the offence, the Ordinary decides on the punishment to impose, not excluding the suspension of the cleric.
May God continue to help us🙏🏾
K’ọdị🙋🏾♂️