Section — Gury-Ballerini, Compendium of Moral Theology (8th ed., 1884)
§ II. On the Obligation of Denying the Sacraments to the Unworthy Who Ask
- General principle. - The Minister is held under grave obligation, speaking per se, to deny the Sacraments to the unworthy, because natural law obliges a dispenser to dispense the goods of the Lord faithfully and according to His will; but 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.
- Special rules. - Rule I. To a public sinner, whether asking secretly or publicly, the Sacrament must 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, p. 3, qu. 80, art. 6. - St. Ligorius, n. 44.
Rule II. To a hidden sinner asking secretly, the Sacrament must likewise be denied; because reverence toward the Sacrament and charity toward neighbor in these circumstances demand this. - St. Thomas, p. 3, qu. 80, art. 6. - St. Ligorius, n. 50. - Salmanticenses, etc.
Rule III. To a truly hidden sinner asking publicly, the Sacrament is not to be denied. The reason is deduced 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. - Thus all with St. Thomas, p. 3, qu. 80, art. 6. St. Ligorius, ibid.
It is confirmed from the Roman Ritual, on the Eucharist, where these things are read: Hidden sinners, if they ask secretly and he (the Minister) has recognized them as not amended, he is to repel; but not if they ask publicly and he cannot pass them over without scandal.
- Questions. - QUESTION 1º. When is a sinner considered PUBLIC OR NOTORIOUS, or HIDDEN; or as asking the Sacrament SECRETLY?
Resp. 1º That one is called a public sinner whose crime or very bad life is commonly known. But if his infamy has not yet come into common knowledge, yet is so known that it can no longer be hidden, he is called a notorious sinner 1; but if danger is absent lest his wickedness become known, he is called a hidden sinner.
1 ** The Author here seems to include notoriety both of law and of fact. For if the discussion is only about the latter, notorious does not differ from public, and indeed in the broadest acceptance of this word. See Reiffenstuel, Lib. 5, Tit. 1, n. 245. But notoriety of law can occur without notoriety of fact; and then he is not known as a public sinner, for example one condemned for some hidden crime by the secret tribunal of the Holy Inquisition.
Resp. 2º A sinner asking secretly is called one who is found alone with the Minister or with a few others of whom deservedly no account is had, such as little boys, etc. Otherwise he is judged to ask publicly.
QUESTION 2º. Must the Sacrament be denied to an unworthy person asking publicly, whose crime is indeed notorious, but not yet public?
Resp. Negatively, according to the more probable opinion, because he cannot yet be called a public sinner; moreover the denial would be liable to various inconveniences. Indeed more probably the Sacrament would not have to be denied even if very many of those present knew the crime, since it is not simply public. - St. Ligorius, n. 45 2.
2 ** The Author alleges St. Alphonsus; but in reality St. Alphonsus discusses another hypothesis. For Gury disputes about a crime which is notorious; but he defines notorious as that which can no longer be hidden. On the contrary St. Alphonsus treats of a sinner whose sin is not simply public, and public (Lib. 6, n. 44) he calls when the crime is notorious.
But to the question whether the sacrament is to be denied to a sinner whose sin is not simply public, but is known to most of those present, but not to all, he responds thus: There are three opinions. The first with Coninck (De Sacram., Q. 80, n. 29) affirms: because relatively to these the sin seems to be public. - The second with Suarez (In 3 Part, Disp. 67, Sect. 5, vers. Dico secundo) and Bonacina more probably denies; because the one asking still possesses reputation relatively to all who are ignorant of his crime. - The third with Diana and Croix (Lib. 6, p. 1, n. 139) says it must be denied if from those present only one or another upright man is ignorant, who is thought not likely to divulge it; and this is sufficiently probable according to what was said Lib. 5, n. 973. But Croix took this last resolution from Dicastillus (De Sacram., Tract. 1, Disp. 3, Dub. 12), and in it nothing is contained except a certain limitation of the opinion of Suarez. Besides, the last words of St. Alphonsus still more evidently show the difference of the question from Gury's question. For it is supposed that among the few present one or another is ignorant of the crime, who is upright, and who is thought likely to preserve the secret. Wherefore the holy Doctor refers the reader to that place where it is asked whether reputation is gravely injured if someone's crime is revealed to one or another upright man. But this condition is sought irrelevantly in the hypothesis of Gury, who supposes that the crime otherwise cannot be hidden.
- QUESTION 3º. Must the Sacrament be denied to a sinner when his crime is not public where he asks, but is public elsewhere?
Resp. Negatively, at least more probably; because on the one hand, by ministering the Sacraments to him there is no scandal of others, and on the other hand if it were denied, those inconveniences and harms would arise which come from a denial made to a hidden sinner. - St. Ligorius, n. 46, and others more commonly. But it must be said otherwise if knowledge of that crime will easily come into that place. - St. Ligorius, ibid.
QUESTION 4º. Is it licit to simulate the administration of a Sacrament, lest it be conferred on an unworthy person?
Resp. Theologians distinguish a twofold simulation: one formal, by which the Minister directly intends to deceive; but another material, by which someone does not directly intend to deceive, but is induced to simulate from another motive, for example if he is compelled by grave fear, etc.
I say: It is never licit, not even materially, to simulate a Sacrament. The reason is that every simulation is an injury and grave irreverence toward Christ, whom the Minister mocks by abusing sacred things instituted by Him. - This is also clear from the 29th proposition condemned by Innocent XI, which lies thus: Urgent grave fear is a cause for simulating the administration of Sacraments. But in this condemnation even material simulation is reproved, since in this proposition it is treated specially. - It is clear again from the authority of Innocent III, c. De celebrat. Missae, where it is said that he who fraudulently has presumed to simulate that he consecrates sins more gravely than if he celebrated in mortal sin, because he seems to mock God.
- QUESTION 5º. In what precisely does the simulation of a Sacrament consist?
Resp. Theologians do not agree. Some say that it consists generally in that which can lead those receiving or others into error. More probably, according to the common opinion, it consists in the fictive application of the form to the matter, or in the fictive pronouncing of the form; or only then does simulation seem to be present when that which essentially pertains to the thing which is simulated is fictively placed 3, so that neighbor is necessarily deceived. - Mazzotta, on the Minister, at the end.
3 ** You will say more clearly: when something fictively is placed which pertains to the essence of the sacrament. But this definition differs from the preceding one, which extends much more broadly; for by some fiction an opinion of a conferred sacrament can be induced, even when no form or matter has been applied.
- Hence you will resolve. - 1º A Priest would sin most gravely who in Mass would pronounce the consecratory words over bread and wine while excluding the intention of consecrating. Nor can those 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 altogether omit the words of consecration.
2º A Confessor would sin gravely who would pronounce the words of absolution without the mind of absolving, even if he did this in order more easily to extricate himself from an indisposed penitent who asks urgently for absolution, or even demands it by most grave threats. Several say that in this case a Confessor can say: I do not absolve thee... pronouncing the not so low that it is not heard by the penitent. St. Ligorius, n. 59, judges this not improbable; but the Confessor could then easily pronounce other words or prayers rather than the form of absolution; besides, this case seems almost chimerical.
3º But a Confessor does not simulate the Sacrament of Penance who recites prayers over an indisposed penitent, lest the bystanders notice that he is dismissed without absolution; for it is clear among all that penitents are often dismissed with only a blessing, and sometimes approach the sacred tribunal without the intention of confessing or of completing a confession. - St. Ligorius, n. 59, and others commonly.
4º A Priest sins gravely who gives an unconsecrated host as consecrated even to one knowing and consenting, as sometimes happens to miserable Priests with an accomplice who, for the sake of preserving reputation, approaches the sacred table. The reason is that in this way an unconsecrated host is exposed to the adoration both of those present and even of the knowingly receiving person himself with external reverence, which constitutes external and material idolatry, and therefore something intrinsically evil. - St. Ligorius, n. 61.
5º Nevertheless, according to the common opinion, those who, compelled by grave fear, simulate entering matrimony do not sin, at least not 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 there is no simulation of a Sacrament, but only simulation of a contract. From another side, the error could sufficiently be adverted to from the circumstances, and thus necessary deception would not be present.