Chapter IV — On the ministers of the sacraments

I. QUESTION I. Who are the lawful ministers of the sacraments? ANSWER. Man alone, a wayfarer, is a fit minister of the sacraments. Not all, however, but only those who, lawfully ordained in the Church, have the power of administering the sacraments, as all Catholics teach against the Lutherans.

II. QUESTION II. Whether in performing the sacraments an intention is required in the minister? ANSWER. Intention is a purpose of the will by which the minister deliberates to confer the sacrament. Theologians distinguish a threefold intention. One is called habitual, which is a certain prompt facility of operating. Another actual, which is a present application of mind and attention to the work which is in fact being done; for example, a priest while he confers a sacrament actually thinks of conferring it, and in fact intends to administer it. The third at last is virtual, which flows from a preceding act and which has not been retracted by a contrary intention, nor interrupted for a long time.

III. It is agreed among all Catholics that a habitual intention does not suffice for performing a sacrament, nor is an actual one necessary, but a virtual one suffices. Luther taught that ministers confer the sacraments even if they baptize in jest and in play, and betray themselves as buffoons and mimes. This error Leo X proscribed, and at last Trent, session 7, canon 11, defined: If anyone shall say that in ministers, while they confect and confer the sacraments, there is not required the intention at least of doing what the Church does, let him be anathema.

IV. Theologians dispute whether, besides the intention which they call exterior, which arises from words seriously uttered, an interior intention of mind is necessary. Some denied it, contending that a minister validly performs a sacrament while he seriously utters the necessary words, although interiorly he say: I will not perform the sacrament.

V. This opinion I reject. Since either the exterior administration of a sacrament performed according to the rite instituted by Christ makes the sacrament valid by its own nature, every internal intention of the minister being altogether excluded, or not. If the first, then in no way does the administration of the sacraments depend upon the interior intention of the minister. But this is condemned by Trent. If the second, then the minister's intention is necessary. Again, either a minister seriously uttering the form and applying the sacramental matter according to the lawful rite can intend the opposite of that which the Church does, or not. If he cannot, but, the external serious administration being posited, is compelled to will to do that which the Church does, the Tridentine canon is altogether superfluous. For it is in vain enjoined that something be posited which the minister cannot omit. According to the opposite opinion, the external serious administration being posited, the minister necessarily intends to do what the Church does: because this exterior serious administration collides with and routs the contrary internal intention. Therefore in vain does Trent require the minister's intention. But it does require it. Therefore the opposite opinion is false. According to the system of our adversaries the Tridentine canon should have been framed thus: If anyone shall say that in ministers, while they confect the sacraments, a jesting administration suffices and a serious one is not required, let him be anathema. What of this, that Trent, session 14, canon 9, condemned a jesting administration, and by another canon already transcribed requires the minister's intention? Two things therefore the Council necessarily asserts: a serious administration and an interior intention of the minister.

VI. Alexander VIII proscribed the following thesis, no. 30: Baptism is valid conferred by a minister who observes the whole external rite and form of baptizing; but within, in his heart, resolves with himself: I do not intend to do what the Church does. Some answer that the French canonists do not hold as ratified Roman decrees which do not proximately emanate from the Supreme Pontiff. But this answer is futile. Sery, Milante, and Le Drou reply that the thesis is deservedly proscribed, because it is absolute and comprehends every rite, whether jesting or serious. But this answer seems false. There is condemned in this thesis the doctrine by which it is taught that the intention is not required. What then? Do you cavil childishly about the external serious administration, if the proscribed thesis plainly excludes the interior intention of the mind? I should be inept if I drew out this question further. Read Vol. VIII, sole dissertation, chapter 11, where you will find all the sophisms of our adversaries overthrown.

VII. QUESTION III. That a sacrament may be valid, is there required in the minister faith, or the intention of producing the sacramental effect? ANSWER. The opinion of the Church has always been that faith is not required in the minister for the valid conferring of a sacrament, and that it is validly conferred by a heretic and an unbeliever, provided the evangelical rite be observed. In the time of St. Cyprian this truth had not been defined: therefore the holy Martyr refuted the letters of Pope St. Stephen. All likewise confess that the intention of producing the sacramental effects is not necessary in the minister.

VIII. QUESTION IV. Whether for the integrity of a sacrament it is required that the minister intend to do what the Roman Church does? ANSWER. The common and true opinion denies it: for it is enough that the minister will in general to do what the Church of Christ does: because this general intention is not impeded by a private error, by which a man believes the Lutheran or Calvinist Church to be orthodox, since the minister acts not as a private person but as a public one, nor can his private error infect the work of God.

IX. QUESTION V. Whether an actual intention is necessary, or a virtual one suffices? ANSWER. It has been said above that a habitual intention does not suffice, nor is an actual one required, but a virtual one suffices and is necessary. How this virtual intention perseveres, and how long it lasts unretracted, can scarcely be explained; but it can be gathered from circumstances at the judgment of prudent men. He who, seized by sleep, drunkenness, or madness, baptizes or consecrates, and so forth, although before he fell into drunkenness he deliberately determined to baptize, does not baptize, does not consecrate: because a sacramental action must necessarily be human; but the action of a drunken or demented man is the action of a man, but not human, as the common and true opinion teaches.

X. QUESTION VI. Is a sacrament valid administered under a conditional form? ANSWER. Either the condition is concerning a past thing, as if thou art not baptized, I baptize thee; or concerning a present thing, as if thou art capable, I baptize thee; or concerning a future thing, as if tomorrow thou shalt have restored another's property, I absolve thee. That the sacrament is valid under a condition concerning a past or present thing, if the condition be true, but not if false, all teach. Under a future condition a sacrament cannot be performed. Since while the matter is applied and the form uttered, the present intention is suspended: if at a future time the condition shall be, then the matter and the form will not be present.

XI. QUESTION VII. Do priests sin mortally who, conscious to themselves of grave fault, administer the sacraments by office? ANSWER. All affirm it, and this St. Paul plainly teaches, 1 Timothy 3: Let them first be proved, and so let them minister, having no crime. And the Council of Trent, session 23, chapter 7, declares that this proving is necessary, so that no one conscious to himself of mortal sin, however contrite he may seem to himself, ought to approach the holy Eucharist without previous sacramental confession; which this holy Synod has decreed to be perpetually observed by all Christians, even by those priests upon whom it lies by office to celebrate.

XII. We say that this sin is mortal. Let the Tridentine Catechism be read, part 2, § 15. He nevertheless who, not by office but with necessity urging, administers baptism while stained with grave fault, whether priest or layman, does not sin mortally, as St. Thomas teaches, III, q. 64, art. 6, reply 3. A priest nevertheless administering the sacrament of Penance even to a dying man ought to elicit an act of contrition, if he be conscious to himself of mortal sin. A priest who celebrates unworthily perpetrates a twofold crime: one, because he confects unworthily; another, because he unworthily receives the sacrament.

XIII. QUESTION VIII. Does a priest sin mortally who, guilty of mortal fault, administers the Eucharist? ANSWER. Fr. La Croix in the place cited, no. 94, with Vásquez, de Lugo, Amicus, Bernal, Sporer, Ilsung, Diana, and others teaches that it is probable that this man does not sin mortally; and at the same time adds that it is probable, according to Suárez, Valentia, Gonet, and others, that he does sin mortally. Fr. Viva, question 1, article 4, no. 4, says: It does not seem improbable which many and grave authors teach … in Diana, that a priest administering the Eucharist in mortal sin does not sin mortally. The Roman Ritual published by order of Paul V decrees these things at no. 1: If therefore a priest shall have been conscious to himself of mortal sin (which God forbid), let him not dare to approach to the administration of the sacrament, unless he first repent in his heart. But if he have opportunity of a confessor, and the reason of time and place bear it, it is fitting that he confess. There is added the Catechism of the Council of Trent, part 2, chapter 1, § 26, where these things are laid down: Pastors and other ministers of the sacraments … ought always to remember that the sacraments never indeed lose the divine power which is in them; but that to those who administer them impurely they bring eternal ruin and death. For holy things (which it behoves to admonish once and again and more often) must be holily and religiously handled.

XIV. What then do Frs. La Croix and Viva obtrude — grave authors? Who are these grave authors? Are they to be preferred to the Roman Ritual and to the Roman or Tridentine Catechism? These are the grave authors whom we ought to follow, as the Church admonishes us. By right therefore the aforesaid opinion is to be rejected as false. I reckon false also the other opinion of the same Fr. La Croix, who in the place cited, no. 96, asserts that a bishop does not sin mortally who consecrates chrism in mortal sin.

XV. QUESTION IX. Does a priest sin who hears confessions in mortal sin? ANSWER. Someone thinks that he does not sin mortally who in mortal sin begins the form of a sacrament, provided that before the utterance of the last essential part he be in the state of grace. Which here we ought the more to wonder at — the force of speculation or the novelty of the doctrine — let others judge. Does a priest not sin who, polluted with grave crime, begins the sacramental form? Is not one beginning the form a minister of Christ? Why will that beginning not be sacrilegious? While he begins it in mortal sin, he exposes himself to the most grave danger of completing it in mortal sin. Will he in an instant elicit an act of perfect contrition, so difficult? But why do I refute at greater length an opinion collapsing of itself?

XVI. Fr. La Croix contends also that a deacon solemnly administering the Eucharist by office does not sin mortally, though he be in mortal sin. This opinion likewise I repute false, and the opposite St. Thomas teaches in Book 4, distinction 24, question 1, article 3, question 5: But whosoever handles any sacred office with mortal sin, there is no doubt that he does it unworthily. Whence it is plain that he sins mortally.

XVII. Cajetan, Merbesius, Farvacques, Tournely, Bouchat, and Henry of St. Ignatius teach that preachers stained with mortal sin sin mortally while preaching the word of God. This same opinion St. Thomas seems to teach in Book 4, distinction 19, question 2, article 1, reply 2. See Vol. VIII, Book 1, sole dissertation, chapter 11, no. 4.

XVIII. QUESTION X. Whether a minister conscious to himself of mortal sin is bound to confess sacramentally before he administer a sacrament, if there be opportunity of a confessor and no necessity urge of succouring one in peril? ANSWER. Many deny it, especially Fr. Viva, question 1, article 4, no. 4, where he says that it is enough if he be contrite, and that there is no precept of confessing. Is there no precept? Is not this a precept: Holy things must be holily handled? By contrition he is made holy. But perfect contrition is needed. That this perfect contrition is most difficult to a sinner all teach, and especially the Tridentine Catechism, part 2, § 36. And Fr. Viva himself, tract 5, reputes imperfect contrition itself so difficult that he excludes it from the sacrament of Penance. The aforesaid opinion therefore I repute false and adverse to the Tridentine Catechism and to the graver theologians. There is added that contrition does not abolish sin save with the desire of the sacrament. Can this desire be presumed in a minister who, having both opportune time and the opportunity of a confessor, deliberately omits the sacrament? The Council of Trent, session 13, chapter 7, plainly defines that sacramental confession is to be sent before by a priest conscious to himself of mortal sin, however contrite he may seem to himself; and it adds that if opportunity of a confessor be lacking, let him confess as soon as possible. And this is not a counsel, but a precept to be fulfilled at the first opportunity. The opposite Alexander VII condemned, proposition 38. And the Catechism of the Council of Trent, part 2, chapter 4, § 45, in set words asserts this same thing of a priest conscious to himself of grave fault: When we administer or receive the sacraments, sacramental confession is not to be omitted. The same the Roman Ritual made plain, whose words I gave above.

XIX. QUESTION XI. When and to whom ought the sacraments to be administered? ANSWER. Parish priests are bound by divine law to administer the sacraments to their own parishioners, as Trent declares, session 23, chapter 1. In time of plague they are bound to exercise this office with danger of life. Many limit this to two sacraments, Baptism and Penance; but the restriction is unjust. Why ought they not to administer the sacred viaticum and extreme unction? Not only in time of plague, but also of persecution, parish priests are bound to assist their own sheep. Parish priests failing in time of plague, private priests ought, even with danger of life, to administer the sacraments to those in extreme need. And to this above all are the mendicant priests bound, since they are the co-operators of bishops and parish priests, and their auxiliary forces. For to this pertains their institute, and to this end are they fed by the alms of the faithful.

XX. QUESTION XII. Are the sacraments lawfully administered to the unworthy? ANSWER. All deny it, and this Christ expressly forbids: Give not that which is holy to dogs. To a hidden sinner nevertheless publicly asking, the sacraments are not to be denied, just as Christ the Lord did not deny the Eucharist to the faithless Judas. But to a sinner asking secretly they ought to be denied, unless he give signs of penitence. But to public sinners the sacraments are to be denied both privately and publicly: as to comedians, to mimes, to women players or harlots, to female dancers in the theatres, to public concubinaries, to usurers, to adulterers.

XXI. Some contend that this doctrine is true ordinarily, but not if fear of death should threaten: for then, they say, the sacraments are to be administered, unless they be asked in hatred of the faith or in contempt of religion: because, say the cited authors, the precept of which we treat is not merely negative, but resolves into an affirmative one of prudently dispensing the sacraments. Good heavens! Does prudent zeal for preserving life therefore prescribe that the sacraments be administered to public sinners who seek the priest's throat unless he administer? Is that not a merely negative precept — Give not that which is holy to dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine? All things therefore being regarded, the opinion recounted is to me false.

XXII. QUESTION XIII. Is it lawful to simulate the administration of the sacraments? ANSWER. Simulation is twofold. One express and formal, by which another's deception is directly intended; the other material, which is made for a just cause, by permitting another's deception. Formal simulation all condemn. Concerning material simulation some formerly disputed, whose opinion Innocent XI condemned, who condemned this thesis 29: Urgent grave fear is a just cause of simulating the administration of the sacraments.

XXIII. Fr. Claude La Croix, Book 6, part 1, no. 133, teaches that the thesis was justly condemned as being indefinite and abstracting from formal or material simulation: for he says: But whether the condemnation ought to be extended to material simulation cannot be gathered from the words of the decree. Hence the authors are divided: for some hold that it ought not to be extended to it; on the contrary, that it ought to be extended, Gormaz contends at length. Behold how true it is that pontifical decrees are not rarely eluded by the benefit of a single little distinction. Was it ever disputed among the casuists concerning formal simulation? If you say yes, then such casuists maintained that formal deception is lawful, which no one even of the heathen philosophers asserted. If you deny it, then it is beyond dispute that the condemnation of the thesis comprehends material simulation, concerning which alone the casuists disputed. Therefore from the words of the pontifical decree, whether Fr. La Croix will or no, material simulation is expressly condemned.

XXIV. QUESTION XIV. Is it lawful to seek the sacraments from an unworthy minister? ANSWER. When it is certainly established that a minister is unworthy, it is not lawful outside the case of necessity to seek the sacraments from him, when he is not the parish priest or one appointed to administer the sacraments. If he be the parish priest, or one bearing his place, it is lawful for parishioners to seek the sacraments from him, even though he be known as evil. If nevertheless an upright minister were at hand, by title of charity the sacraments would have to be sought from this one, not from that.

XXV. In a case of extreme necessity, namely in the article of death, it is lawful to seek from heretics, schismatics, and those cut off from the Church the two sacraments of Baptism and Penance, as was declared by Trent, session 14, chapter 7. That the sacraments may lawfully be sought from an evil but tolerated minister, grave necessity suffices — say, of fulfilling the paschal precept, when nevertheless no upright priest is at hand. For in such a case the petitioner affords no occasion of sinning, but only consults his own eternal salvation.

XXVI. Concerning the ceremonies of the sacraments, and of those things which are called sacramentals, see Vol. VIII, sole dissertation, Book 1, chapter 14, where you will find all these things explained at length; and here for brevity's sake I omit them, because graver matters press to be explained, and I fear prolixity.