The ability to confect the Eucharist is not dependent upon the relative sinless state of the priest. This concept goes all the way back to the third century when there was a controversey about the baptisms of heretics, and whether or not they (the baptisms done by heretics) are valid or such people needed to be rebaptised. It was decided that they don’t.
The same concept applies here. It isn’t the man, by his own power who confects the Eucharist rather it’s the power of God. The personal state of the priest in question is irrelevant. This is the way it needs to be understood really; after all if it took a certain level of holiness to confect the Eucharist then we would have a severe shortage indeed. Same with baptisms. It’s the power of God at work in the Sacraments not men.
And yet blatant, unrepentant sin in the lives of those in authority in the church, disqualifies them from serving in that position.
That’s GOD’S decision, not ours.
Well, let’s look at the typical reaction on the part of Catholics to men like Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, and Ted Haggard.
They’re castigated and their ministries are discredited and sometimes, there’s jail involved.
Yet when a Catholic priest molests boys, he’s still allowed to perform mass, as long as his intent is pure. After all, he’s just human like the rest of us, nobody is perfect, and once a priest, always a priest.
The RCC hierarchy went out of its way to protect many or most of those molesters, shifting them from congregation to congregation.
Kind of a double standard, there, when Catholics excuse sin in their midst and damn others for it.
The personal state of the priest in question is irrelevant.
That is a very shaky statement...in order for the Eucharist to be valid, there must be:
proper form
proper matter
and a proper intention of the confecting priest
Of course, we can’t know the intention of any priest, including renegades, but there it is...