Concerning the alcoholic priest and Mass, two points:  When the alcoholic priest consumes the Precious Blood he does not violate his sobriety, because substantially, it is not wine, but only retains the 'accident' of wine.  Likewise, during the ablutions the priest does not violate his sobriety, simply because if he mixes a few drops of wine with water, and once the water absorbs the drops of wine, the substance is still substantially water, not wine.

As to Mustum, I too have my doubts.  I have never known a traditional priest to use Mustum, but have heard of some NO priests using it. NO priests constantly must call their sobriety dates into question, because if there is not a valid consecration, then they violate their sobriety dates by drinking wine. 

.

I don't think the problem has anything to do with how long a person can say he's gone since he consumed alcohol. I think it's more like, if someone with a strong craving for alcohol consumes a little bit, he is possessed by a strong desire for more. So, a priest like this will be filled with desire for drink every time he says Mass.

I think in the past a priest with this problem would use a lighter sort of wine, and use only a tiny amount.

I'm curious why the "diocese" doesn't say exactly what happened, though. I suspect they were using de-alcoholized wine, which is definitely invalid. I'm a little curious they're worried about it at all, though. There are a lot of strange aspects to this story.

.

I don't think the problem has anything to do with how long a person can say he's gone since he consumed alcohol. I think it's more like, if someone with a strong craving for alcohol consumes a little bit, he is possessed by a strong desire for more. So, a priest like this will be filled with desire for drink every time he says Mass.

I think in the past a priest with this problem would use a lighter sort of wine, and use only a tiny amount.

I'm curious why the "diocese" doesn't say exactly what happened, though. I suspect they were using de-alcoholized wine, which is definitely invalid. I'm a little curious they're worried about it at all, though. There are a lot of strange aspects to this story.

Good point.  The book Alcoholics Anonymous, written in 1939, identifies the alcoholic as the "allergic type," which definition fits.  In its normal state alcohol is a depressant, but for the alcoholic it acts as a stimulant.  When the alcoholic consumes alcohol there is a physical and mental obsession which take place, which does not happen in the normal drinker.  But I have known priests (even traditional ones) who have used normal wine at consecration, and have not had the obsession afterwards.  But to your point, the priest can either use a lesser amount or a lower alcohol content. 

But alcoholism is unlike other allergies in two ways:  there is no physical manifestation of the allergy, e.g. the man allergic to peanuts has his face swell up when he eats peanuts.  This does not happen with the man who consumes alcohol.  Secondly, there is a substitute for peanuts - eat something else, something you are not allergic to.  For the alcoholic there is no substitute.  The man allergic to vodka is not going to sit in a chair and say, "oh well, I am allergic to vodka, hand me peanuts."  This is why typically an alcoholic needs a support network to refrain from alcohol.   

To me this doesn't sound like three parishes in one city had priests who had an alcohol problem;  that's just too high a percentage.  It sounds more like priests I've known who thought themselves a wine connoisseur who brought in their flavour of the month wine.

In his letter, Naumann ordered all clergy to “immediately discontinue use of all wines that have not been specifically produced to meet the requirements for sacramental usage.” Naumann noted that a number of readily available products that “contain additives such as elderberry extract, sugars, alcohol, etc.” are invalid matter for the Mass. Thus, their use would also mean that the Mass is invalidated.

My problem with this whole thing is that Masses were declared invalid.  Did people then not fulfill their Sunday duty?  What about receiving Holy Communion?  Did the invalid matter for wine negate the matter of the host? 

Continuing, he noted that the situation had been thus for many years, stating that, “for any number of years all Masses were invalid and therefore the intentions for which those Masses were offered were not satisfied, including the obligation pastors have to offer Mass for the people.”

All those graces ...LOST!

Do you realize we're talking about Novus Ordo services?

Yes this bishop is talking about NO but I was thinking of valid old priests who may have also used  questionable matter and maybe even trad priests whose seminary instruction was weak.  I was  lamenting the loss of graces if we are deceived without ever knowing it.

Just buying a bottle of wine at the store and using that would be perfectly valid, if it's what you would normally identify as a bottle of wine. That stuff is generally prohibited from having any additives put into it.

Are you sure about that?  I know places sell "Sacramental Wine" so is there a difference?

Here's an interesting article on Sacramental wine, penned in '43:

https://archive.org/details/sim_homiletic-pastoral-review_1943-06_43_9/mode/1up

I never knew all that rigamarole was involved in the making of wine.  I thought it was just pretty much press the grapes, strain out the unwanted bits, bottle it, and wait for it to ferment, and that clarifying agents such as isinglass were a modern concession to consumer sensibilities.  Shows how much I know.  As the saying goes, we are all ignorant, just of different things.

There does seem to be a conflict here between the article and the use of mustum, though AFAIK the Church traditionally allowed it.  It may be a Clintonesque situation of "it depends on what the meaning of the word mustum is".  If mustum is some new concept, I'd be interested to know that too.