Last week’s post concluded the discussion on the principles that influenced the 1983 Code of Canon Law, analysed in light of the spirituality of canon law. Today’s post focuses on the dynamics of validity and invalidity in the Catholic Church in light of the spirituality of canon law.
Validity concerns whether an act produces the intended effects or whether the effects actually occur. Liceity concerns the lawfulness of the act, that is, if the law permitted the act. This means that an act can be valid but illicit. However, an invalid act cannot be illicit, because if the act is considered nonexistent, there is no question of whether it complied with the law.
The Church establishes strict rules guiding when an act concerns validity and liceity. Canon 10 reads: “Only those laws must be considered invalidating or disqualifying which expressly establish that an act is null or that a person is effected”.
This means that there must be unequivocal legislative provisions determining the nullity of acts, and that such laws concern matters of great importance for which the public good and ecclesiastical discipline require precisely this type of law. The effects of illegitimate behaviour are particularly grave because they disrupt the community’s juridical relationships. In light of the spirituality of canon law, this is very important because it helps the Church avoid arbitrariness that undermines the efficacy of juridical acts and the celebration of sacraments, thereby hindering the faithful’s journey of holiness.
There are two broad categories where validity plays out: juridical acts (non-sacramental) and sacraments.
A juridical act is a deliberate human act, placed by a legally capable person, in accordance with the law, and intended to produce legal effects recognised by the Church. Canons 124 & 125 establish the criteria for the validity of a juridical act.
First, the act must be placed by a qualified person. Second, the act must include those things which essentially constitute the act itself, as well as the formalities and requirements imposed by law for the validity of the act. Third, the person must have the intention to produce juridical effects from that act. Fourth, the person must not act under duress that the person was unable to resist. There is a presumption of validity once the external elements required for the validity of an act have been placed correctly (Can. 124 §2).
The second category concerns sacraments. The criteria for the valid celebration of sacraments are the matter and form (theological), the recipient of the sacrament, and a valid minister with proper intention (juridical).
The minister’s intention to celebrate the sacrament is particularly important to its validity; otherwise, it is a simulation. Simulation of a sacrament occurs when the internal consent of the mind does not correspond with the action one performs. Simulation of marriage elucidates this. The law reads: “§1. The internal consent of the mind is presumed to conform to the words or the signs used in the celebration of a marriage. §2 If, however, either or both of the parties should by a positive act of will exclude marriage itself or any essential element of marriage or any essential property, such party contracts invalidly” (Can. 1101).
The simulation of other sacraments occurs when the minister celebrates the sacrament in accordance with the liturgical laws, whilst not intending to do so. The celebrant knows that the sacrament cannot even bear fruit ex opere operato because he did not intend to celebrate it. Canon 1379 §5 provides that one who pretends to administer (simulates) a sacrament is to be punished with a just penalty.
Therefore, based on canon 10, an act is invalid when the law explicitly states that failure to observe a requirement nullifies the act. Canon 10 is divided into two. The first category concerns invalidating laws (Irritantes leges) and disqualifying laws (Inhabilitantes leges).
Invalidating laws are those that declare a certain act null if it is not performed in accordance with certain modalities. It can be null due to the lack of constitutive elements or for the lack of certain formalities – e.g., canon 1108 – the marriage of a Catholic is valid only if it is celebrated in the canonical form.
Disqualifying laws are those which establish a person’s incapacity to perform certain juridical acts. When capacity is lacking, the act is nonexistent. For instance, “one who has not received baptism cannot be validly admitted to the other sacraments” (Can. 842). When a quality is lacking, the act is also null. For instance, for a perpetual vow to be valid, a religious must be at least 21 years old and have previously made a temporary profession for at least three years (Can. 658). Only those laws that are expressly designated as such are invalidating and disqualifying. The two adverbs: only and expressly, should be emphasised.
Invalidating and disqualifying laws sometimes require careful interpretation when it concerns ordination and marriage.
For instance, Canon 1024 states: “A baptised male alone receives sacred ordination validly.” Canon 1025 §1 then says: “To confer the presbyteral or diaconal orders licitly, it is required that the candidate, having completed the period of probation according to the norm of law, is endowed in the judgment of his own bishop or of the competent major superior with the necessary qualities, is prevented by no irregularity and no impediment, and has fulfilled the prerequisites according to the norm of cann. 1033-1039. Moreover, the documents mentioned in can. 1050 are to be obtained and the investigation mentioned in can. 1051 is to be completed.”
This means that the criteria for the validity of ordination are being a baptised male and the use of the form of ordination (imposition of hands and consecration words) by one who is validly ordained a bishop. All other things concern the liceity. This means that one who was ordained with an impediment or irregularity was validly ordained but illicitly. The sacraments subsequently celebrated are valid but illicit because the person is irregular for the exercise of orders.
Here, one notes that the Church preferred the term ‘irregular for the reception or exercise of orders’ rather than declaring ordination invalid, because in many cases the impediments or irregularities are occult. If the Church had said so, their ordinations and subsequent celebrations would have been invalid even if the impediments or irregularities were secret, grossly undermining the journey of holiness and salvation of souls.
Contrarily, impediments to marriage make the marriage invalid. It is irrelevant if the impediment was occult or not. The marriage was invalid from the onset. The tribunal only declares that the marriage was invalid.
Another technicality concerns the sacrament of penance. The law requires a faculty, in addition to the power of order, to give absolution validly (Can. 966 §1). This means that the faculty (ability) to celebrate the confession is elevated to the level of validity. Therefore, a newly ordained priest who celebrates the sacrament without the faculty only attempts sacramental absolution. Other priests whose habitual faculties to celebrate the sacrament everywhere have been revoked merely attempt sacramental absolution.
However, canon 976 states that “any priest, even though he lacks the faculty to hear confessions, can validly and lawfully absolve any penitents who are in danger of death, from any censures and sins, even if an approved priest is present.” This is a clear manifestation of the spirituality of canon law because the law grants an exemption to priests without faculty to absolve those in danger of death to ensure that they are not deprived of the opportunity to make heaven.
May God continue to help us🙏🏾
K’ọdị🙋🏾♂️
