III. On the Minister of the Sacraments

Who is the minister of the sacraments? - Christ himself is principally acting in the sacraments; the ministers of the Church are only instrumentally operating in the sacraments. St. Thomas 3 p., q. 64, a. 4, 5. - In matrimony the contracting parties themselves are the ministers. - In the other sacraments, the power of order and jurisdiction is regularly required, excepting the Eucharist, in which no jurisdiction is regularly required. Without the power of order, no sacrament is valid, excepting baptism. Without the power of jurisdiction, the sacrament is valid, excepting the sacrament of penance, which is invalid; but it is conferred illicitly and it is a grave sin if it is conferred without faculty, at least presumed or interpretative, e.g., if a simple priest, not a pastor, administers baptism, viaticum, extreme unction, or a bishop confirms or ordains outside his own diocese. Clement I de Privil.; Trent s. 6, c. 5 de R.; s. 7, c. 10.

Is attention required in the administration of the sacraments? - Attention is the application of the mind to those things which are being done, or it is the act of the intellect by which a man considers that which he does. - For the validity of the conferral of sacraments, no other attention is required except that which is found in every truly human act. Therefore the sacraments can commonly be validly ministered even by a distracted minister, or one thinking at the same time about other business. The reason is that the morality of the act proceeds not from actual attention, but from at least the virtual intention of the one acting. Besides, attention often does not depend on the will of man; but Christ could not require a condition sometime impossible in the minister of the sacraments. - For the licit conferral of the sacraments, such attention is required that every voluntary distraction be absent.

The reason is that the reverence owed to the sacrament requires that it be treated with attention. But voluntary distraction ordinarily does not exceed venial sin, according to the common opinion of theologians, unless someone exposes himself to the danger of gravely erring in the form. Yet more probably and more commonly they except the Eucharist, in whose confection they judge every voluntary distraction a mortal sin because of the greater dignity of the sacrament. But La Croix l. 6, p. 2, n. 443; Mazzotta and others deny this not improbably. Not improbably, namely provided the danger of erring is absent. - St. Thomas 3 p., q. 64, a. 8 ad 3; 4 d. 6, q. 1, a. 2, q. 1 ad 4; L. 14; l. 4, n. 75.

Is intention required in the administration of the sacraments? - Intention is an act of the will tending toward some end, or an act of the will by which someone intends to do or omit something. - For the validity of a sacrament, there is required in the minister some true and serious will at least of doing that which the Church, namely the Catholic Church, does. For those things which are done in the sacraments can be done in diverse ways, and are determined to sacramental action only through the intention of the minister. St. Thomas 3 p., q. 64, a. 8; Trent s. 7, c. 11.

Hence St. Thomas 3 p., q. 83, a. 4 ad 7, says: "The efficacy of sacramental words can be impeded by the intention of the priest." - Yet actual intention is not required, but virtual suffices. The reason is that actual intention, although best and desirable, is sometimes morally impossible; but virtual intention sufficiently flows into the action of the minister, so that this can be called truly human and deliberate. - Habitual intention does not suffice, nor interpretative. The reason is that for a human act some will is required, by force of which the act is placed.

Now neither habitual nor interpretative intention is of this kind: not the first, because it is neither actually elicited by the will, nor, although once elicited, does it persist in some effect or in a series of actions; not the second, because it is neither actually elicited nor ever was actually elicited, but would only be elicited if the mind were thinking about the thing to be done. Suarez d. 16, s. 2; Lugo d. 8, n. 28, 35. "A coerced intention of the minister, or one extorted by fear, also suffices, except in matrimony. Likewise error of the minister about the person of the recipient does not invalidate the sacrament, excepting matrimony." L. 19; E. M.

Note: For casting away scruples in this matter it is to be noted that implicit intention suffices. Hence St. Alphonsus 18 says: "Viva, etc., rightly say that the minister who in the customary way places the actions required for the sacrament, unless he positively excludes the due intention, imprudently doubts about it, because at least he wishes to do what he is otherwise accustomed to do, and what other ministers do. Add that through this, that he recognizes that action to be sacred and not to be placed in vain, he intends in exercise to place it according to its end. Therefore there is no need that the minister by mouth or in heart should say reflectively that he intends to confect the sacrament, but it suffices that he be present in mind and attentively do what he does." And at n. 25 the same holy Doctor says these things: "He ought not repeat the consecration who has brought smaller hosts to the altar, about which, while consecrating the larger, he did not explicitly think, nor uncover them."

If someone intends to do what another schismatic or heretical Church does, if this truly makes a sacrament, it is valid, from Trent sess. 7, de Bapt., c. 4; Sporer n. 121; L. l. 6, n. 21. Hence, the rite of ordination in England having been publicly changed, so that from it there would be excluded the power of consecrating and of offering sacrifice, by defect of intention, indeed by contrary intention, presbyteral and episcopal ordinations performed according to the Anglican rite are invalid. Leo XIII, Const. Apostolicae curae, Sept. 13, 1896.

It is necessary that the intention precede the sacramental action, which takes its force from the intention; i.e., that it be elicited before you begin to apply the matter and to pronounce the form. Therefore, if someone, without the intention of baptizing or confirming, washes or anoints, and immediately after the washing or anointing, having conceived this intention, pronounces the form, he accomplishes nothing. St. Thomas 3 p., q. 64, a. 8; 4 d. 6, q. 1, a. 2, q. 1.

Is internal intention required, or the intention of doing the rite which the Church intends? - Here one intention is internal, another external. Internal intention is had whenever the minister, when he perfects the sacrament, wills to effect that which is to be effected by that sacrament; external intention is had when he seriously performs the whole external rite, and as if as a minister of the Church.

Therefore if he has both wills, the sacrament is valid. If he has neither, it is not valid, as if he baptizes or absolves for the sake of jest, Trent sess. 14, de Poenit., c. 9; or for the sake of example or devotion, as if a pastor washes an infant just born, not in order to baptize him, but in order to teach the midwife the rite of baptizing; or if a nurse, while washing a child in the morning according to custom, says: I wash you in the name of the Father, etc. If he has internal intention only, it is still valid, as if someone washes the head of a dying infant, the child of unbelievers, as if making a cleansing or a medicine for him, and meanwhile says in a low voice: I baptize you, etc. If he has only external intention, the question is not yet entirely settled. The first opinion denies it, that is, denies that internal intention is required. The reason is that from Trent there is not required in the minister the intention of doing what the Church intends, but only of doing what the Church does; and therefore it suffices that the minister seriously apply the due form to the matter, as the Church does. Moreover, it seems difficult to admit that the minister can, by a hidden motion of soul, frustrate a rite which he seems seriously to perform in the name of the Church. Hence, if a newly ordained priest, for the sake of practice, were to go through the whole Mass without the intention of confecting the sacrifice, he certainly would not confect it, because both internal and external intention are lacking, for externally he does not present himself as seriously celebrating in the name of the Church. If, on the contrary, he were to celebrate publicly and pronounce the words of consecration, while within himself not willing to confect the sacrifice, he would still confect it. But the second opinion, common and to be held in practice, affirms it. It is proved from Trent sess. 7, c. 11, where there is required the intention of doing what the Church does; therefore the intention merely of seriously applying the form to the matter, as the Church does, does not suffice, for in reality this intention, while the external action is placed, is inseparable from the action; but beyond this there is required the intention of doing the sacramental rite which the Church does; otherwise both Trent and Florence would have required in vain, besides matter and form, the intention of the minister of doing what the Church does. The Church does not perform only the external rite; and therefore the minister who uses the external action alone does not do what the Church does. Hence if it is his purpose, e.g., while consecrating, to consecrate only this host out of two hosts, and not that one; while ordaining, not to ordain those who perhaps are not his subjects; if he absolves under this tacit condition, if you shall restore; he does not consecrate, does not ordain, does not absolve. Likewise, if someone has eleven hosts before him, and intends to consecrate only ten, not determining which ten he intends, he does not consecrate. Therefore external intention does not suffice, but internal intention is required. Moreover, this is established by the same reason by which the necessity of the minister's intention for confecting the sacrament is proved. This intention is necessary so that the minister act not in his own name, but in the name of Christ, bearing his person. L. 23, 26; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 64, a. 8, 10; Benedict XIV, de Syn. l. 7, c. 4, n. 9; l. 8, c. 11, n. 2; E. M.

Does ignorance or error of the minister invalidate the sacrament? - If the minister has at least an implicit and virtual intention of doing what the true Church does, the sacrament is valid, even if by error he thinks his heterodox Church to be the true Church, even if he does not have an explicit intention of confecting the sacrament, provided he does not exclude this intention, even if he does not understand the form, even if he errs concerning the true meaning of the form, e.g., if he thinks these words: This is my Body, signify only the mystical presence of Christ, even if he falsely thinks that either the matter or the form is not suitable, e.g., if someone, in consecrating bread, judges the words, which shall be given up for you, to be necessary and omits them. The reason is that our ignorance or error does not change the truth of the thing. Therefore if sacraments are perfected by three things and only by three things, namely by things, words, and a minister with the intention of doing what the Church does, the truth of the sacrament stands notwithstanding the ignorance and error of the minister. Moreover, if it were otherwise, it would follow that, since Protestants do not believe that a sacrament is effected by matrimonial consent, their marriage would be null, which is false. L. 21, 22; E. M.

Must the intention of the minister be determined to certain matter and person? - Resp. In the affirmative. The reason is: as regards the matter, because otherwise it would remain in a state of indifference; for it cannot be drawn out of that state and determined to the sacrament except through the intention of the minister. As regards the person, because the effect of the sacrament cannot be applied in general, but to some subject; otherwise no application would be made. Namely, according to the nature of the matter at issue, the object or term of the action must be determined; for if, for example, you were to say, I give, but did not determine what, or to whom, you have an act void of all force. - But the Eucharist is to be excepted, which is not confected in a subject, and consequently determination of the person is not required for the validity of consecration.

If the minister has two contrary intentions, which one ought to prevail? - If those wills are simultaneous, the predominant one prevails, namely the one which would be chosen if the impossibility were known. - If among contrary wills one succeeds another, the later one is valid, unless the prior one has revoked, at least virtually, every subsequent will; for then the prior will, provided it is not expressly revoked, certainly prevails. But in these matters, if doubt still remains, the validity of the sacrament will be doubtful. - And this also holds for the application of Masses. L. 24, 784; l. 3, n. 700; Lugo d. 8, n. 121, 123. Cf. V. 1, n. 18.

Is the conferral of a sacrament with a conditioned intention valid and licit? - The condition can regard those things which in some way pertain to the validity of the sacrament; the dispositions of the subject licitly and fruitfully receiving the sacrament; or any other matter. - Licitly, in a case of necessity, a condition can and must be added which regards the validity of the sacrament, if it is doubted, e.g., whether it is water with which baptism is given; whether the dying person to be fortified by extreme unction still lives; whether a sacrament was invalidly received, and therefore is to be repeated. The reason is that the reverence due to the sacrament is safeguarded, as far as possible. And here it must be carefully observed that, if besides this reverence due to the sacrament, something else would have to be guarded against which cannot be guarded against by the condition added, it is not licit to use that condition and therefore to confect the sacrament under that condition. And thus it is never licit to confect the Eucharist conditionally with doubtful matter because of the danger of material idolatry; it is never licit to confer orders with the same doubtful matter because of the very grave inconveniences of an invalid ordination. - Outside the aforesaid case of necessity and doubt, to administer a sacrament conditionally would often be grave, because it would not be without trifling in a grave matter.

A condition regarding the dispositions of the recipient, in conferring the sacrament of penance from an urgent cause, can be added and must be added, lest the sacrament be exposed to nullity. But in the other sacraments it is generally not licit; for, if afterward it is clear that the dispositions were lacking, either someone would have to lack them forever, or the sacraments would be repeated not without scandal. If extreme unction, for example, is given to the sick person under the condition: if you are disposed, i.e., in the state of grace; and the sick person is not then disposed, he is deprived of the sacrament, although afterward he may be disposed and remove the obstacle; and thus sufficient provision will not have been made for his salvation. Generally it is not licit; for at the point of death, when matters are desperate, St. Alphonsus n. 82 says: "if perhaps the sick person has been deprived of his senses, in an act of mortal sin, Viva says probably that extreme unction at least conditionally is to be ministered to him, as we shall also say concerning the sacrament of penance n. 483." And the same Doctor has the same at n. 732, concerning extreme unction.

It is not licit to add other conditions, and it would be grave. For, if the condition is about the future, the sacrament is null. For it is not valid when the matter and form are placed, because the intention is lacking, nor is it valid when the condition is verified, because then the matter and form are lacking. Matrimony is excepted, which, after the manner of all other contracts, can be celebrated under a condition concerning the future; when this is fulfilled, they are perfected, no differently than if from the beginning they had been entered into purely and without condition. Nor is the aforesaid inconvenience therefore to be feared. For since the consent is referred to the event of the condition, then in reality the contract is perfected, and therefore then the sacrament is made. But if the condition concerns the present or the past, the sacrament is exposed to the danger of nullity; indeed it is null if the event of a condition of this kind cannot be known in a human manner, since the sacraments certainly must be administered in this way; e.g., if you are predestined. - L. 25, 26, 431; E. M.

Is the conferral of sacraments with a conditioned intention always licit, in doubt whether they have been validly conferred? - As regards the sacraments imprinting a character, it is certain that it is licit. C. De quibus 2, de Bapt., where this form is indicated in doubt concerning conferred baptism: If you are not yet baptized, I baptize you, etc. - As regards the other sacraments, it is also licit if a sufficient cause is present for adding the condition. The reason is that the sacraments are for men, and by conditioned conferral of the sacrament provision is made, insofar as it can be done, both for the good of those who receive the sacrament, if perhaps they are capable of it, and also for the reverence of the sacrament. - L. 27, 28; E. M. "It is licit for a confessor prudently doubting whether he has absolved a penitent, to absolve conditionally.

And Tournely, etc., say the same when a child is to be absolved about whom it is doubted whether he is capable of reason. But if someone, judging the penitent to be disposed, were to absolve him conditionally, saying: I absolve you, if you are disposed, they rightly say that he would not sin mortally, but he would not be excused from venial fault, since this would be contrary to the rite of the Church." L. 28.

"It is certain that in the case in which there is extreme necessity of one's neighbor, and no matter is had except doubtful matter, then the minister not only can, but is bound under grave obligation to minister the sacrament to him conditionally. Lugo nevertheless notes that if afterward certain matter is had, and there is opportunity, the sacrament is to be repeated conditionally, if perhaps the first was invalid. Understand this of sacraments which are not repeatable, such as baptism, confirmation, and order." L. 29. As regards the other sacraments there is no special difficulty, since they of themselves do not prevent repetition. And they are to be repeated when prudent doubt is had concerning their validity, and grave harm would follow if they had truly been conferred invalidly. Cf. n. 345.

Must the condition be expressed in words? - Resp. In the negative. The reason is that, for the reverence of the sacrament, it suffices that it be conceived in the mind. Indeed, there is not even need to have the condition explicitly and formally in mind; but it is enough if it is had implicitly and virtually, as he has it who has willed to hear Confessions according to the institution of Christ or the intention of the Church; because thus the reverence due to the sacrament is still sufficiently preserved. Yet it must be added orally and expressly where the rubric prescribes this, as in conditional baptism, especially if it is conferred publicly, lest bystanders believe that baptism is being repeated absolutely; and in conditional extreme unction. Roman Ritual de Sacr. bapt., de Sacr. extr. unct. - L. 29; H. A. tr. 14, n. 3; La Croix 83; Gobat 272; E. M.

In conferring or receiving the sacraments, is it licit to use a probable opinion? - As regards the conferral of sacraments, where their validity is at issue, generally speaking this is illicit from proposition 1 condemned by Innocent XI. The reason is that irreverence would be done to the sacrament; and for the subject there would be danger of harm, especially in baptism because of its greatest necessity, and in order because of the public harm also of others. Consequently it is licit: 1. If necessity is present, or grave utility on the part of one's neighbor. The reason is that the sacraments are for men; nor indeed is there an obligation of rendering to the sacraments more than probable reverence. Cf. 1031. 2. If there is a probable opinion concerning the jurisdiction of the confessor, or concerning the validity of matrimony. The reason is that the Church then supplies by her authority as regards jurisdiction to be conferred on the confessor, and as regards convalidating the contract, if perhaps that contract is null because of an impediment which the Church removes by supplying.

3. When the administration of the sacrament would otherwise be exposed to excessive scruples or difficulties; for otherwise an infant could not be baptized whom the parents assert not to have been baptized, since such testimony is only probable; nor could a penitent be absolved, concerning whose disposition only a prudent probability can be had. L. 57, 633; l. 1, n. 50, 51.

But as regards the reception of sacraments with a probable opinion, if again the validity of the sacraments is at issue, the same must be said, for the same reasons. But in those things which do not pertain to the validity of the sacraments, in sacraments either to be conferred or to be received, the same rule holds as in other laws. For if, while probability stands, other laws are not contemned, certainly, while the same probability stands, the sacraments are not contemned. This is especially true as regards the dispositions of those ministering and receiving. For in these things grave probability is held as certainty. Moreover, both the administration and the reception of the sacraments would continually be exposed to scruples and anxieties of conscience. Wherefore it is sufficient to approach the sacraments, whether to confer them or to receive them, with probable disposition. Lugo de Poenit. d. 14, n. 109; La Croix 105; L. l. 1, n. 32, 48; l. 6, n. 461, 475, 482, 560, 573.

Are faith and probity of the minister required for valid and licit administration of the sacraments? - For the validity of the sacraments neither faith nor probity, or the state of grace, is required in the minister. This is clear 1. from the practice and perpetual tradition of the Church, which never wished those baptized by heretics and wicked men to be rebaptized. It is clear 2. from the definition of the Church. Trent sess. 7, c. 12 de S., c. 4 de B. But for licit administration of the sacraments there is required in the minister faith and probity, at least if he has been consecrated for conferring the sacraments, and confects them solemnly, that is, with the whole rite prescribed by the Church. Therefore he gravely sins who, as a minister of the Church or by force of the order conferred on him, ministers the sacraments in mortal sin. For since of himself and by office he has been constituted for exercising this function, he is bound to exercise it with due disposition and holiness. Wherefore a minister of this kind, lacking faith or wicked, inflicts grave injury upon God and Christ by treating holy things unworthily and, as far as lies in him, by contaminating them. For the minister of the sacraments represents Christ, the primary minister, who is the Holy of holies, and bears his person, and therefore it is necessary that he too be holy.

At least, etc.; for whether this is demanded by the holiness of the office, or also by the holiness of the thing, because the minister of the sacraments represents the person of Christ and holy things are to be treated holily, is not sufficiently clear. - L. 31, 32; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 64, a. 5, 6; q. 82, a. 5; Suppl. q. 36, a. 5; q. 38, a. 2; Lugo d. 8, n. 150; Suarez d. 16, s. 2; E. M.

Does a minister gravely sin who confers in mortal sin a sacrament for which he has not been specially ordained or consecrated? - Resp. Probably in the negative, because the obligation in the minister of having holiness probably does not arise precisely from the holiness itself of Christ and of the sacrament according to itself, but from the consecration of the minister in order to the conferring of sacraments. Billuart Diss. 5, art. 4; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 64, art. 6; 4 d. 5, q. 2, a. 2. Yet others affirm it. St. Liguori 32 admits the probability of both opinions; nevertheless he inclines more to the affirmative. Cf. Sporer n. 176; Roncaglia cap. 3, q. 6; Sanchez de Matr. l. 2, d. 6, n. 4. "This question, as the same St. Alphonsus says, l.c., has place only in baptism and matrimony, for it is evident that the other sacraments cannot be ministered except by consecrated ministers." Hence those contracting matrimony in mortal sin probably sin gravely only by receiving the sacrament, not also by ministering it. L. 30; l. 6, n. 884.

Yet even laymen baptizing in necessity, or those contracting matrimony, sin lightly if they are in the state of grave sin. For certainly it is not fitting to bear the person of Christ in the state of sin, and it is fitting that holy things be treated holily.

Does a priest, or consecrated minister, sin gravely who indeed ministers a sacrament in mortal sin, but not solemnly, e.g., baptism without ceremonies in a case of necessity? - This is controverted, as in the preceding question, and the same authorities and reasons are brought forward for each side. Hence it must probably be said that he does not sin gravely, because although he is of himself consecrated for ministering sacraments, he nevertheless does not act as consecrated or by office, but only as a layman from charity for aiding his neighbor in necessity. - L. 32, 884.

Does a consecrated minister solemnly ministering in mortal sin sin gravely, if grave necessity presses? - Resp. In the negative, strictly speaking, namely if the danger is so pressing that time does not permit him to elicit an act of contrition. For since the sacraments are for men, irreverence seems to be absent if, in that necessity of aiding a man, the sacrament is ministered by a sinner. But this hypothesis generally must be denied. For it is sufficient by an interior act of the will to conceive sorrow and detestation of sin because it is an offense against God, which can be done at once. Moreover, a minister conscious of grave fault is not to be excused from mortal sin if he can foresee a case of necessity, as a pastor and others who by office must minister the sacraments, and therefore by a special obligation are bound habitually to remain in the state of grace. L. 33, 86, 617; Lugo d. 8, n. 151; de Euch. d. 9, n. 8; Sanchez d. 207.

Does one who ministers the Eucharist in mortal sin sin gravely? - Resp. More probably in the affirmative. The reason is that he inflicts grave injury upon the most holy Eucharist. For although he does not act as an efficacious cause in confecting the sacrament, nevertheless he is its dispenser, specially consecrated for this, and he performs a ministry which immediately cooperates in the sanctification of the soul. Hence one celebrating and ministering in mortal sin commits four sacrileges: 1. Because he confects the sacrament. 2. Because he receives it. 3. Because he ministers to himself unworthily. 4. Because he ministers the Eucharist in mortal sin. But it is only one action, and therefore it is enough to say that he celebrated in mortal sin. L. 35 and others commonly. Yet Lugo d. 8, n. 155; Salm. tr. 1, c. 7, n. 11, and others probably judge that he sins only venially; because he neither acts in the name of Christ nor himself sanctifies anyone, but as it were transfers the sacrament from place to place. Diana thinks this opinion probable not only if communion is ministered outside Mass, but also if it is ministered in Mass. Tr. 2, de Praec. div. et eccl. sacr. comm., res. 25. St. Thomas Suppl. q. 36, a. 5 ad 4; L. l. 2, n. 46.

Do those gravely sin who in mortal sin either mediately or immediately touch or carry the Eucharist? - There is a threefold probable opinion. The first, more probable opinion affirms in each case, because they treat a most holy thing or the Body of Christ unworthily. St. Liguori 35 calls this opinion very probable. - The second opinion denies it, because there is no administration of a sacrament here, nor does the matter appear so grave that it induces mortal sin. Thus La Croix n. 101; Salmant. c. 7, n. 1; Busemb.; and St. Liguori says this is not improbable. - The third opinion distinguishes thus: those indeed sin gravely who immediately touch the most holy Eucharist in mortal sin, but not those who touch it mediately. The reason is taken from the very different degree of irreverence between the first case and the second. Thus Billuart. But if the opinion of Cardinal Lugo, of which in n. 353 here, is not without its probability, then every difficulty vanishes. St. Thomas Suppl. q. 36, a. 5 ad 4.

Do those sin gravely who exercise other sacred functions in mortal sin? - Resp. In the negative, because all the other exercises of orders, besides the confection and administration of the sacraments, do not seem to require holiness under grave obligation, since they are not proximately ordered to the sanctification of the soul. Thus commonly and more probably. - Therefore they do not sin gravely: 1. Deacons and subdeacons who, in mortal sin, solemnly minister at the altar. 2. Bishops who, in mortal sin, confect chrism or holy oil. 3. A bishop or priest who in mortal sin consecrates or blesses a church, blesses sacred vestments or corporals, assists at matrimony, blesses ashes, lustral water, etc. 4. A preacher existing in mortal sin. - L. 37-40, 747, 767, 889; Lugo d. 8, n. 152 ff.

Is the minister bound to confess before the confection of a sacrament, if he is guilty of mortal sin? - Resp. In the affirmative, if it concerns the celebration of Mass and he does not lack an opportunity for a confessor; because all the faithful about to communicate must premise Confession from Trent sess. 13, c. 7, c. 11. - But more probably in the negative, if it concerns the other sacraments; because he is bound by no law to Confession; and therefore it suffices that he elicit an act of contrition. Yet except the case if the lack of perfect contrition is clear to him. - L. 34, 617.

Does one who hears Confession in mortal sin, but does not absolve, sin gravely? - Resp. More probably in the negative, because the confessor by hearing confession does not confect the sacrament. L. 36.

How many sins does a confessor commit by absolving several penitents successively in mortal sin? - The first opinion is that he commits as many sins as persons he absolves; the reason is that each absolution constitutes a distinct moral action, just as many complete judgments and just as many sacraments conferred in the state of sin, and therefore just as many sins. Thus L. l. 5, n. 50 with others. The second opinion is that he commits only one sin. Thus Salmant. de Censur. c. 2, n. 72, with others whom they cite, and Lugo de Poenit. d. 16, n. 558 calls that opinion probable. The same must generally be said of one who successively, but continuously, confers several sacraments, e.g., baptizes, confirms, or ordains several persons. And indeed, if the sin is taken from the holiness of the office, it is truer that one sin is committed, because one ministry of baptizing, confirming, etc., is exercised. - Busemb. 617.

How many sins does one commit who ministers the Eucharist to several persons in mortal sin? - Resp. More probably only one; because he places one moral action; for each distribution is held after the manner of one thing, and constitutes one administration and one banquet. L. 30, 35; l. 5, n. 30. Cf. 353, where a twofold opinion concerning the gravity of this fault was presented.

What about the obligation of ministering the sacraments? - Those having care of souls are bound under grave obligation from justice to minister the sacraments to their subjects reasonably asking for them. For by undertaking the care of souls they have obligated themselves to this, by a tacit contract entered into with their subjects, from whom they receive support or at least honor. - Therefore they are bound if the common precept of receiving them presses, or if the private necessity or utility of the petitioner requires administration, e.g., if the petitioner foresees some danger, or is in temptation and needs the grace of the sacrament, or if he wishes to exercise devotion suitable to his state, or to gain an Indulgence, etc. - Others, not having care of souls, are not bound to minister the sacraments from justice; yet sometimes they are bound from charity, namely in grave necessity of a neighbor; but without grave proportionate inconvenience of their own. - L. 58, 623, 728, 729.

Who are here judged to have care of souls? - All those who by office, or by a special title of spiritual jurisdiction or delegation, must feed or care for some part of Christ's fold. Therefore such are bishops, pastors, and whoever have a subsidiary care of souls by commission or public function, as are coadjutors or vicars of pastors, chaplains of soldiers, hospitals, etc. Likewise with respect to religious, their own prelates or superiors; with respect to nuns, their chaplains or confessors. L. 58.

Which sacraments are to be ministered in necessity, even with danger of death, whether by those having care of souls or by others? - Those who do not bear care of souls are certainly bound only to minister the sacraments absolutely necessary for salvation, namely baptism and penance, or extreme unction when someone can in no way confess. The reason is that they are bound only from charity alone to aid their neighbor in a most grave danger to salvation. But only the aforesaid sacraments are necessary for salvation. Even those bearing care of souls are, much more probably, bound to minister only the aforesaid sacraments with any danger. The reason is that the other sacraments are not of such necessity that anyone is bound to confer them with grave danger to life. Thus L. 233, 729, relying on the Declaration of Gregory XIII, Oct. 12, 1576, and likewise on the Declaration of the Sacred Congregation of the Council approved by the same Pontiff.

Suarez, on the contrary, affirms that by force of their office they are bound also to minister the Eucharist, which, although not absolutely necessary, nevertheless is very profitable; and it would be a great scandal to the people if a pastor allowed his parishioners to die without viaticum. And several synods have embraced this opinion, and most recently also the Plenary Council of Latin America n. 531. But Benedict XIV, de Syn. l. 13, c. 19, n. 7, 10, calls into doubt the Declaration of Gregory XIII and of the Sacred Congregation of the Council. For the rest, those who bear care of souls are bound to expose their life not only in extreme necessity, but also in grave necessity, while other ministers are obligated to this only in extreme necessity. La Croix l. 3, p. 1, n. 755 seq. - L. 58, 624; l. 2, n. 27; l. 3, n. 389; St. Thomas 2.2, q. 26, a. 5. Cf. 90.

Is someone who is not a pastor bound to expose his life for ministering the aforesaid sacraments with only probability of success or necessity? - The first opinion affirms this "from the law of charity, which obliges one, in equal danger, to expose temporal life in order to save the spiritual life of one's neighbor." L. 624. The second opinion denies it, because it is too hard to require so heroic an act for aiding one's neighbor, unless moral certitude is present either of success or of necessity. Hence you are not bound certainly to expose your life in order to baptize or absolve someone, if you probably must perish before you can fulfill it, or if you probably presume that he has been baptized, or is not in the state of mortal sin, or also can easily help himself through an act of perfect contrition. St. Liguori 624 says that the first opinion pleases him more; adding: "yet if the priest does not know that he is in mortal sin, he is not bound to absolve with danger of life." But l. 2, n. 27, he seems to adhere to the later opinion; and l. 6, n. 728, he seems to require a greater probability for the necessity of the neighbor.

You will resolve: Those having care of souls sin gravely, not only if without reason they deny their ministry, but also if they often show themselves slow and difficult; because in this way they deter the faithful from the sacraments, and the matter comes to the same as if they denied the sacraments. - Yet it is not mortal, to one or another or to the same person once or again, asking apart from necessity, to deny the sacrament of penance or the Eucharist; because the harm can easily be repaired, nor is the subject therefore judged to be gravely unwilling. If subjects ask irrationally, there is no sin. Hence a pastor is not bound daily to spend time with a scrupulous person or with devout little persons, since such frequent Confession is not expedient for them, nor do they themselves have a strict right to such frequent absolution.

If the pastor has suitable vicars, he will not be bound so rigorously to receive the Confessions of subjects; nevertheless he must satisfy the faithful expressly requiring him by name, unless either he is impeded, or the penitents are willingly about to approach another confessor. Generally speaking, those bearing care of souls sin gravely who are unwilling to receive the Confession of subjects except on a few determined days within the month; because they are the cause why the faithful remain long in the state of sin and are kept away from receiving the sacraments. - L. 58.

What about the obligation of denying the sacraments to the unworthy who ask? - Generally and under grave obligation, speaking in itself, the minister is bound to deny the sacraments to the unworthy, because natural law obliges the dispenser to dispense the goods of the Lord faithfully and according to his will; moreover the certain will of Christ is that the sacraments not be conferred on the unworthy, according to that saying of Matthew 7:6: Do not give what is holy to dogs, nor cast your pearls before swine. Roman Ritual de SS. euch. sacr., de Sacr. extr. unct. - Cf. Lugo d. 8, n. 164, 180, 193; Suarez d. 8, s. 2. Indeed, as St. Alphonsus 43 notes, "in certain sacraments, for the minister to show himself a faithful dispenser, it does not suffice if he does not know the petitioner to be unworthy, but further he is bound to have a prudent reason that he is worthy; for in the sacrament of penance, since the disposition of the penitent is altogether required for validity, the minister, as judge constituted for this, must make himself certain about it. Likewise in the sacrament of order, the bishop must have certain knowledge concerning the dignity of the one to be ordained, since for order, as directed to the public good, no one has a right unless he is called by God, as Aaron was. But in matrimony the assisting priest must inquire into impediments, since he is constituted for this by the Church. But in the other sacraments, they are not to be denied to those who live as Catholics, unless the unworthiness of the penitent is established... The reason is that all the faithful have a right to these other sacraments and the ministers are not judges, but dispensers; hence in these they do not have a right of inquiring, but only the duty of dispensing to all who ask, provided they are not positively unworthy." Cf. Decr. Ne temere de Spons. et Matr., S. C. C., Aug. 2, 1907.

To a public sinner, whether asking secretly or publicly, the sacrament is to be denied; because there is no reason why an exception should be made to the general rule; indeed grave scandal of the faithful would follow from the concession of the sacraments. St. Thomas 3 p., q. 80, a. 6; L. 44. But in the case of doubt whether someone has sinned, it is to be conceded; in doubt whether he has done penance, it is to be denied. L. 48. "Yet excepted is a sinner constituted at the point of death,"

L. 44, because everyone is then presumed to wish to dispose himself rightly, and necessity removes scandal, as does the hidden penance itself of the dying person, to be made public by the minister if the sacraments were to be publicly ministered to him. La Croix 143. Very rare is the case in which the denial of the sacraments is extended even to penance. But the obligation is always present, as regards penance itself, of denying absolution to one indisposed.

Likewise the sacrament is to be denied to a hidden sinner asking secretly; because reverence toward the sacrament and charity toward one's neighbor demand this in these circumstances, St. Thomas 3 p., q. 80, a. 6; L. 50, except the case in which the crime was known from Confession; for then it is not even licit for the minister to warn the sinner. And this is forbidden even if the confessor could deny the sacrament under the pretext of other causes. L. 50, 51. - But the sacrament is not to be denied to a hidden sinner asking publicly. The reason is drawn from the inconveniences which would follow from denial of the sacrament; for scandals and disturbances would arise in the Church, and especially the faithful, brought into suspicion lest they be prohibited from the sacraments, would withdraw from them. But he who ministers sacraments to an unworthy person cooperates only materially in his sin, and such cooperation is licit from a grave proportionate cause. Cf. 374. St. Thomas p. 3, q. 80, a. 6; L. 49, 50; Lugo d. 8, n. 176; Roman Ritual de Euch. sacram. - E. M.

When is a sinner judged public, or notorious, or hidden; and secretly asking for a sacrament? - A public sinner is called one whose crime or very bad life is commonly known. But if his infamy has not yet come into common knowledge, yet is known in such a way that it can no longer be concealed, he is called notorious; but if there is no danger that the wickedness become known, he is called a hidden sinner. Wherefore one will still be a hidden sinner if his wickedness is known only to a few who will not manifest it, so that it is withdrawn from common knowledge. - A sinner secretly asking is called one who is found alone with the minister or with a few others of whom deservedly no account is to be taken, as little children, etc. Otherwise he is judged to ask publicly.

Is the sacrament to be denied to an unworthy person asking publicly, whose crime is indeed notorious but not yet public? - Resp. In the negative according to the more probable opinion, because he cannot yet be called a public sinner; moreover denial would be exposed to various inconveniences. Indeed, more probably the sacrament is not to be denied even if most of those present know the crime, since it is not simply public. Except unless the crime is soon to be made public, and scandal of the faithful would consequently have to be feared from the concession of the sacrament. Cf. n. seq.; L. 45.

Is the sacrament to be denied to a sinner when his crime is not public where he asks, yet is public elsewhere? - Resp. In the negative, at least more probably; because on the one hand, in ministering the sacraments to him there is no scandal of others, and on the other hand, if they were denied, those inconveniences and harms would arise which come from denial made to a hidden sinner. But it must be said otherwise if knowledge of that crime will easily reach that place shortly. For it can prudently be feared that scandal of the faithful may arise from the concession of the sacrament. L. 46.

What is required so that the Eucharist can be ministered to a public sinner? - "Laymann, etc., require, besides Confession, some time of good conduct for removing scandal. Possevinus, etc., say that Confession before several persons suffices, provided, Bernal adds, that the penance is shortly to be publicly manifested. And Croix rightly adheres to this opinion when the sinner does not have a proximate occasion of sinning; because one who has publicly confessed is publicly judged amended; otherwise, if the occasion were present and he had not left it. But he who asks secretly, it suffices that he has secretly done penance." L. 47; Roman Ritual de Euch. sacram. - E. M.

Hence, as is clear, one account would have to be taken of a public blasphemer who has already publicly approached Confession in church, or is presumed to have approached; another, however, of a public concubinary who has contracted only civil marriage and keeps his concubine at home, which scandal regularly must first be removed.

Is the sacrament of order to be denied to a hidden sinner asking publicly? - Resp. In the affirmative. "The reason is certain, because he who intrudes himself into public functions for which he is not fit must be repelled even with infamy, because the public good is to be preferred to the private. And that an unworthy cleric, although because of a hidden crime, can and must be repelled, is clear from Trent, where in sess. 14, c. 1 de R. it is said that the bishop can prohibit a cleric from ascending to further orders; and the cleric is bound to obey him, even if ascent has been interdicted by his prelate 'from any cause whatever, even because of a hidden crime, in any way whatever, even extrajudicially.' And it is added that 'no license granted contrary to the will of his prelate, by causing himself to be promoted, shall avail him.' And it is especially to be noted that in that case the bishop is not bound to reveal the cause why he repels from ordination, according to the Declarations of S. C. C., March 21, 1613; April 26, 1668; Benedict XIV, de Syn. l. 11, c. 2, n. 16. But that the bishop not only can, but also must repel the unworthy, although hidden, obvious reason persuades from the same Trent sess. 23, de R., c. 5 and 7, where it is expressly prescribed that the ordaining bishop diligently investigate and examine morals. 'For what purpose, then, must the prelate investigate and examine the morals of clerics, unless to repel those whom he knows to be unworthy?'" L. 52, 69; St. Thomas Suppl. q. 36, a. 1, 3, 4.

Note: "Concerning this matter, says the same holy Doctor 803, bishops in seeking this proof ought not be content with the simple attestation of pastors... but besides, secret information having been taken from other trustworthy persons, they ought to be made certain not only that the one to be initiated has not been bad... but also that he is positively good, etc." Cf. Benedict XIV, Const. Ubi primum; St. Thomas Suppl. q. 36, a. 4 ad 3.

Can a pastor assist at the marriage of those who are public sinners? - Laymann, Croix, and Lugo affirm. The reason is that the pastor is not the minister of the sacrament, but only a witness; whence, on the one hand, since he is a public minister, he cannot deny his assistance; and on the other, he can licitly assist, since his cooperation is merely material. But others deny it, among whom is St. Alphonsus, unless from a grave and proportionate cause, both because by natural law no one can cooperate in the sin of his neighbor, and because the pastor is bound from justice, from the contract entered into with the community from which he receives a stipend, to attend to the spiritual salvation of his sheep, by turning them away from sins. And immediately the holy Doctor adds, "what we say of the pastor must also be said of the witnesses; yet they would be sufficiently excused from sin if they assisted compelled by grave fear, since they are not bound except from charity to impede sin. But the pastor also can be excused in order to avoid death, or other graver evils of the community, or of the contracting parties themselves, for example lest they persevere in sin." L. 54; E. M.

If one of the spouses is publicly unworthy, can the other enter into marriage with that one, and consequently minister the sacrament to him or her? - Resp. In the negative, if the person is unworthy because he or she is an excommunicate to be avoided, as is clear. - In the affirmative, if the person is unworthy because excommunicated, but tolerated; for the Council of Constance granted indistinctly that the faithful can communicate with tolerated excommunicates. In the affirmative, if the person is unworthy because of some sin, and the other spouse could not recede from the marriage without grave inconvenience. Thus more probably and more commonly. The reason is that the aforesaid administration is by them as ministers not consecrated for this. L. 55; H. A. tr. 14, n. 6. Hence one who contracts with an unworthy person is excused from mortal sin; for he does not sin insofar as he ministers to the unworthy person, because charity alone forbids this, and grave inconvenience excuses, which is scarcely absent, or not even scarcely; nor insofar as he asks from an unworthy person, because that person is a minister not consecrated for this. - Lugo d. 8, n. 226, 230; L. l. 2, n. 60.

What if a sacrament cannot be denied to an unworthy person without danger to life? - It is not licit to give it if it is asked in contempt of Religion or in hatred of the faith, or if it cannot be given without offense of others and scandal. These being removed, there are those who deny it, because it is the greatest irreverence to give what is holy to dogs; and this is licit only for avoiding common harms.

Nor are there lacking those who do not admit even this, since the matter is intrinsically illicit. For profanation of the sacrament is had immediately in the case by its very concession, and, by means of that profanation, escape from death is had. Others affirm it, because in so great a crisis of matters irreverence ceases. Others dispose of the matter by another way; for they teach that it is licit to simulate the administration of a sacrament, except the priesthood; not indeed formally, but materially, namely by substantially changing the matter or form, e.g., if he says: I do not absolve you, or, I will absolve you, or, Do I absolve you? with scandal always removed. Cf. n. seq. But to confer sacraments on the unworthy is not evil of itself. Indeed, Christ gave communion to Judas; who would say that Christ did a thing materially evil? And if it is licit to give a sacrament to an unworthy person in order to protect his reputation, why will the same not be licit in order to protect one's own life? Charity alone forbids cooperating in the sacrilege of the recipient, but charity does not oblige with grave inconvenience.

Properly speaking, however, cooperation is not had in the case, but mere permission. For the whole of that which the minister does is good and holy in itself, which one unworthily receiving the sacrament abuses from his own malice. - L. 49, 59; Lugo d. 8, n. 180, 181; Suarez d. 67, s. 1, at the end; Viva in prop. 29 condemned by Innocent XI, n. 11; Cardenas in the cited prop. n. 53; Lehmkuhl ed. 8, n. 43. Cf. here 375.

Is simulation of a sacrament intrinsically illicit? - Simulation, taken most broadly, is the placing of a sign indifferent of itself to several things, with the foresight that someone is to be deceived, because he will receive it in a sense which is not true. By this it is distinguished from dissimulation, because dissimulation is the omission of every sign when one deservedly ought to be placed. - One simulation is formal, by which the minister directly intends to deceive; another is material, by which the minister does not directly intend to deceive, but, acting from a reasonable and just motive and foreseeing deception, permits it. - Simulation of a sacrament can be either concerning a thing plainly indifferent with respect to the essence of the sacrament, or concerning a thing regarding the very nature of the sacrament. Simulation can be either merely concerning the administration of the sacrament, or concerning the sacrament itself; namely, when someone either places an action by which others can falsely believe there is confection or conferral of a sacrament, or fictitiously places something which pertains to the essence of the sacrament.

Moreover, formal simulation is not licit, not only in the sacraments, but in any other case whatever, because it is a lie of deed. St. Thomas 2.2, q. 111, a. 1. Material simulation concerning a thing that stands plainly indifferently toward the sacrament, that is, toward the administration itself of the sacrament or the essence of the sacrament, speaking in itself, is not illicit, because it is not simulation of the administration of the sacrament, or of the sacrament; nor is another vicious circumstance present, as is supposed. Material simulation concerning the administration itself of the sacrament, speaking in itself, is not intrinsically illicit; for no action is placed which of itself pertains to the essence of the sacrament, and the action which is in reality placed is, as is supposed, an honorable action, although an opinion of the conferral of the sacrament can be induced in others from it. Material simulation concerning the sacrament itself, or an essential part of the sacrament, is altogether illicit. The reason is that it is grave irreverence toward Christ, whom the minister mocks by abusing sacred things instituted by him. Moreover, this is shown from proposition 29 condemned by Innocent XI, in which material simulation is specially treated. And by the Holy Office, Sept. 6, 1628, before the Most Holy, it was cautioned that priests who are compelled by Turks to baptize their children, not so that they may become Christians, but for bodily health, cannot... baptize them by applying matter without form. Benedict XIV, Const. Postremo mense § 21. - L. 59, 62; La Croix 150, 158; E. M.

You will resolve: "If someone, unwilling to confess, enters the confessional and, kneeling, speaks with the confessor about some business, he does not simulate the sacrament, nor does he sin with the sin of lying." L. 60. That action is of itself indifferent; and in it the matter and form of the sacrament are wholly lacking. L. ib. - A confessor would sin gravely who pronounced the words of absolution without the mind of absolving, even if he did this in order to extricate himself more easily from an indisposed penitent who was urgently asking absolution, or even demanding it by very grave threats. Many say that in this case the confessor can say: I absolve you, pronouncing the word "not" so quietly that it is not heard by the penitent. St. Alphonsus 59 judges this not improbable; but the confessor could more easily then pronounce other words or prayers rather than the form of absolution; for the rest, that case seems almost chimerical. - But the confessor does not simulate the sacrament of penance if he recites prayers over an indisposed penitent, lest bystanders notice that he is dismissed without absolution; for it is clear among all that penitents are often dismissed with a blessing alone, and sometimes approach the sacred tribunal without the intention of confessing or of completing Confession. L. 59.

A priest would sin most gravely who in Mass pronounced the consecratory words over bread and wine while excluding the intention of consecrating. Nor can they be excused in good faith who, laboring under crass ignorance and celebrating in mortal sin, simulate consecration lest they become guilty of sacrilege, even if they wholly omit the words of consecration. - A priest sins gravely who presents an unconsecrated host as consecrated, even to one knowing and consenting, as sometimes happens to miserable priests with an accomplice who approaches the sacred table for the sake of preserving reputation. The reason is that in this way an unconsecrated host is exposed to the adoration both of the bystanders and even of the knowingly receiving person himself with external reverence, which constitutes external and material idolatry, and therefore something intrinsically evil. L. 61; St. Thomas Quodl. 5, a. 12. "In the case in which someone cannot dispose himself for Communion, he could sometimes agree with the pastor, in order to avoid infamy or scandal, that the latter say over him only the words: May the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve, etc.; and not present the host, as La Croix 160 admits." L. 61.

According to the common opinion, those who, compelled by grave fear, simulate entering marriage do not sin, at least gravely. The reason is that since voluntary consent is lacking, according to the now certain opinion which holds that the spouses are the ministers of this sacrament, matter and form are lacking, and therefore it is not simulation of a sacrament, but only simulation of a contract. "For the same reason he would not sin by the sin of sacrilege who contracted marriage knowing that he had a diriment impediment." L. 62. Furthermore, it must be noted that although someone then wishes to contract marriage, because of the defect of validity of the contract, in reality he does not contract marriage.

What about the manner of conferring the sacraments? - It is not enough if the minister diligently observes those things which regard matter and form; but he must studiously observe all the laws of Holy Church concerning the administration of the sacraments. Trent sess. 7, c. 13; S. R. C., May 12, 1612, n. 297. Wherefore it is not licit to omit the prescribed ceremonies, and of itself it is grave, apart from the case of necessity. Roman Ritual, de Bapt., at the beginning. But each must use his own rite, whether Latin or Greek, and it is grave. Benedict XIV, Const. Etsi Pastoralis § 2; L. 202, 203; E. M.

Sacred Ceremonies are those sacred actions to be observed in divine offices from the statute of the Church, so that they may be duly performed; whence in sacred functions there is also a master of ceremonies. Not all are, of course, always to be observed by precept, as for example in the private recitation of the divine office; but those which regard the administration itself of the sacraments and the celebration itself of Mass are preceptive, obliging under grave or under light obligation by reason of the matter.

The aforesaid manner of administering the sacraments is contained both in the Roman Ritual and in the Roman Pontifical. But the proper rite is to be observed by a Latin priest and by a priest of an Eastern church. Simple faithful also are bound to observe this rite. Passage from one rite of an Eastern church to the Latin rite cannot be made without permission of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith.

In the Constitution of Pius X Ea semper, XVIII Kal. Jul. 1907, for the Ruthenian rite in the United States of North America, art. 22, it is said: "Ruthenian laity who have established a true and stable domicile in the United States can pass to the Latin rite, provided however that in individual cases permission of the Apostolic See has first been obtained." - In the Decree of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith for the Ruthenian rite in the Canadian region, Aug. 18, 1913, art. 25, it is said: "Passage from the Ruthenian rite to the Latin rite cannot be conceded to Ruthenian laity who have established a true and stable domicile in the Canadian region except by the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith for affairs of Oriental rites, with grave and just causes intervening, to be known by the same Sacred Congregation, the Ruthenian Canadian bishop having been heard." - In another third Decree of the same Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, Aug. 17, 1914, for the Greco-Ruthenian rite in the United States of North America, published in these days in A. A. S. v. 6, p. 458, it is said: "Passage from the Greco-Ruthenian rite to the Latin rite cannot be conceded to Ruthenians, whether temporarily or stably dwelling in the United States of North America, except by the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith for affairs of Oriental rites, with grave and just causes intervening, to be known by the same Sacred Congregation, the Greco-Ruthenian bishop having been heard."

And as in the first two Decrees the celibacy of clerics is explicitly asserted, so in this last most recent Decree for the Greco-Ruthenians, published after the things which precede n. 97 had already been printed, the celibacy of clerics is passed over in silence.

Is the use of the Roman Ritual in the administration of the sacraments a matter of precept? - Resp. In the affirmative. For more than once the Sacred Congregation of Rites declared that only those books are to be used, and only those blessings are to be used, which are conformable to the Roman Ritual, and that others are not to be used, provided it is not clear that they have been approved by this Sacred Congregation. S. R. C., Apr. 7, 1832, n. 2689; May 23, 1835, n. 2725; Jan. 10, 1852, n. 2993. - Some things in the Ritual are preceptive under grave or under light obligation, while some are only directive, according to the nature of the matter, the varied expression of the Rubrics, and the Declarations of the Sacred Congregation of Rites.

A new edition of the Roman Ritual has been approved, declared as typical, to which all other editions must be conformable. S. R. C., June 11, 1913, A. A. S. v. 5, p. 434.

What sacred vestments are required for the administration of the sacraments? - The surplice and over it the stole. Roman Ritual, de Sacram. admin., at the beginning; S. R. C., Jan. 10, 1852, n. 2993; Aug. 31, 1867, n. 3158; March 11, 1871, n. 3237. But in extreme necessity baptism and penance can be conferred without these; indeed also confirmation and extreme unction; La Croix l. 6, p. 2, n. 2116; L. 184, 726. Indeed even viaticum itself without sacred vestments, if it can be done without offense, is not illicit. S. R. C., Feb. 4, 1871, n. 3234; L. 241. But it is not grave not to use the stole in the sacrament of penance, and several deny that not using it in the Eucharist is grave, nor does St. Alphonsus 241 disapprove. The rochet is not a sacred vestment to be used in the administration of the sacraments. S. R. C., Jan. 10, 1852, n. 2993; Jan. 12, 1878, n. 3438; March 23, 1882, n. 3542; S. R. C., General Decree, July 12, 1892, n. 3784; E. M.