I agree, in terms of what the consequence should be.
But the consequence of the sin, be it large or small, is a separate question from whether or not a sacrament performed by a priest who is in a state of sin (again, regardless of the sin) is valid. According to Catholic theology, the sacrament is valid. The reasoning is that it is Jesus performing the sacrament, not the sinful priest.
Non-Catholic example. a Baptist pastor is engaged in an adulterous affair. He has not repented of his sin. At church one Sunday, he baptizes a new believer. Does the baptism "count"? Does it depend at all upon the spiritual state of the pastor? Or is the belief of the one being baptized the important thing?
It is the same thing with the Catholic sacraments. It is the state of the recipient that matters -- as far as validity goes -- not the state of the priest.
That the sacrament is valid doesn't change the fact that the priest is a sinner and should repent and sin no more (for everyday sin) or be removed from the priesthood entirely (for things like pedophilia).
That God can act through (and often despite of) sinners is evident from scripture. Pharaoh is an example from the Torah, and Judas from the gospels.
That depends on what you are talking about. For a valid Baptism of an adult, faith is required of the baptised.
But for the Eucharist, it is valid independent of the sin of the priest or recipient. By virtue of the actions of the priest.
A priest in a state of sin does harm to himself and a recipent in a state of sin does harm to himself as well. But onjectively the sacrament is valid.
Just a small point.
SD
Hey. Your talking to a guy who doesn't think his own Catholic baptism is valid. :-)
I never said baptisms and communions weren't valid. Those are between the recipient and God. I said get the perverts out as soon as possible. Simple as that.