Section — Gury-Ballerini, Compendium of Moral Theology (8th ed., 1884)
§ III. On the Faith and Probity of the Minister
- Principles. - I. For the validity of the Sacraments neither faith 1 nor probity, or the state of grace, is required in the minister. This is clear 1º from the practice and perpetual tradition of the Church, which never wished those baptized by heretics and the wicked to be rebaptized. It is clear 2º from the definition of the Church. - Trent, sess. 7, Can. 12, and Can. 4, on Baptism.
1 ** Understand faith here as perfect or Catholic. For some persuasion or notion, at least by which the minister knows that he is carrying out the rite of Christians, seems necessary for having a sufficient intention.
II. But for the licit administration of the Sacraments, faith and probity are required in the minister, at least if he has been consecrated for conferring Sacraments, and confects them solemnly, that is, with the entire rite prescribed by the Church. Therefore he who ministers Sacraments in mortal sin sins gravely; for a minister destitute of faith or wicked inflicts a grave injury upon God and Christ, by treating holy things unworthily and, so far as lies in him, by contaminating them. Moreover, since the Minister of the Sacraments represents Christ the primary Minister, who is the Holy of Holies, and bears His person, it is necessary that he also be holy.
- Questions. - QUESTION 1º. Does a Minister sin gravely who confers in mortal sin a Sacrament for which he has not been specially ordained or consecrated, for example if a woman ministers Baptism in the state of sin?
Resp. Negatively, probably, because the obligation in the Minister of having sanctity does not arise precisely from the sanctity itself of Christ and of the Sacrament according to itself, but from the consecration of the Minister in Order for conferring Sacraments. - Billuart, diss. 5, art. 4. - St. Thomas, 3 p., q. 64, art. 6; and in 4, Dist. 5, q. 2, art. 2; and many others. Nevertheless not a few others affirm; thus Collet, Lacroix, Lugo, etc. But St. Ligorius, n. 32, admits the probability of both opinions; nevertheless he inclines more toward the affirmative 2.
2 ** The second opinion affirming, says St. Alphonsus, seems more probable. But learn whether this opinion can be of use to confessors from the opinions of the Doctors which we have elsewhere described from the same St. Alphonsus (Vol. I, in note to n. 152).
** The opinions of the Doctors indicated in this little note, which St. Alphonsus adopts and inculcates (at the end of the moral system), are of this kind: Nothing ought to be condemned as mortal sin concerning which there is not evident reason, or manifest authority of Scripture (Gabriel Biel). And St. Antoninus: Unless for this there be express authority of Scripture or of a Canon of the Church, or evident reason. - And St. Raymond: Do not be prone to judge mortal sins where it is not clear to you through certain Scripture. Hence the argument: St. Alphonsus, after he had elsewhere taught that both opinions were probable, namely the one affirming and the one denying that grave fault is present in the case, later wrote by opining that the affirmative seems more probable. But a certain opinable greater probability does not suffice according to the holy Doctor, so that in practice the conscience of grave sin be imposed. Therefore that opinion cannot be of use to confessors.
VV. object (p. 927, note 2) that St. Alphonsus in the little work Confessore diretto per le genti di campagna absolutely wrote that spouses who contract in the state of sin commit two sacrileges, the one as ministers, the other as unworthily receiving the sacrament.
Resp. It is a canon that the more obscure places of any Writer are to be explained through the clearer ones. But the Moral Work (Lib. 6, n. 32) most clearly teaches us that as to the second sacrilege the holy Doctor affirms this merely opinably, and that he changed nothing in it, nor therefore departed from this opinion of his, although after that little work had been published he published the Moral Work several times over the course of twenty years. But if someone wishes to contend that the words of that little work are to be taken in a strict sense, this alone could be concluded: that those two places of the holy Doctor do not cohere with each other, and that the meanings of the little work are to be put after those of the Moral Work, since they are opposed to the certain principles of the same holy Doctor.
VV. add (l. c.) that St. Alphonsus attributed to the negative opinion only extrinsic probability, perhaps on account of the authority of St. Thomas, whose suffrage, however, they say, does not effect that it is sufficiently solid, since for the affirmative a notable excess and preponderance of intrinsic reason militates.
Resp. 1º I deny that, according to the mind of St. Alphonsus, that notable excess and preponderance of reason is present for the affirmative. For otherwise he would not have written so temperately and in a manner of one somewhat doubting, it seems more probable.
Resp. 2º St. Alphonsus indeed brings forth no new reason; but, no otherwise than others, he seeks reasons from the intrinsic nature of the thing. But that from the considered nature of the thing a reason so evident can be taken which suffices for certainly affirming mortal sin, or at least a reason so convincing that it removes solid probability from the opposite opinion, and nevertheless that concerning an intrinsic reason of this kind St. Thomas, Richardus, Sylvester, Cajetan, Dominic Soto, Suarez, Laymann, Coninck, Henriquez, Filliuccius, Reginaldus, Sa, the Salmanticenses, Dicastillus, Becanus, Valentia, Palaus, Escobar, Sporer, Reiffenstuel, Giribaldi, Roncaglia, Ferraris, Mezger, Illsung, Pettschacher, Babenstuber, Struggl, etc., etc., etc., were in some way blind - this will seem sufficiently difficult, indeed also very hard. Therefore whoever, with so many and such great Doctors preceding him, should doubt entirely concerning so great a solidity of the reason brought by St. Alphonsus, indeed should altogether deny it, certainly will not rightly be convicted of any imprudence or rashness.
QUESTION 2º. Does a Priest, or consecrated Minister, sin gravely, who indeed ministers a Sacrament in mortal sin, but not solemnly, for example Baptism without ceremonies in a case of necessity?
Resp. It is controverted, as in the preceding question, and the same authorities and reasons are brought forward for both sides. Hence it must probably be said that he does not sin gravely, because although he is per se consecrated for ministering sacraments, nevertheless he does not act as one consecrated or from office, but only as a layman from charity for helping a neighbor in necessity 3.
3 ** To this response of the Author, VV. (p. 929, n. 84) oppose these words from St. Alphonsus: The opinion (more probable) teaches that, speaking per se... a Priest ministering not solemnly sins gravely by ministering in mortal sin. The reason, etc. Lib. 6, n. 32.
Resp. St. Alphonsus did not write absolutely, more probable, but wrote by opining, it seems more probable; and in the same place he expressly writes absolutely concerning the opposite opinion: This opinion is indeed probable. But if, even according to the judgment of St. Alphonsus himself, it is probable that in the case there is no mortal sin, then according to the very firm principles of the same holy Doctor it is unlawful to impose upon penitents the conscience of mortal sin. Does not St. Alphonsus in the same place report that Concina (whom he himself calls very rigid) says the opinion which denies grave fault is true and common? And do not others agree with Concina, who are heard as no less rigid: Natalis Alexander, Contenson, Habert, Juenin, Collet, etc.? Besides, that, with due reverence preserved for the holy Doctor, his judgment in this question can be set aside neither imprudently nor rashly, has already been shown sufficiently and more than sufficiently in the preceding Note.
QUESTION 3º. Does a consecrated Minister, solemnly ministering in mortal sin, sin gravely if grave necessity urges?
Resp. Negatively, rigorously speaking, namely if the danger is so urgent that it is not permitted to him through time to elicit an act of contrition. But this hypothesis generally must be denied. Moreover a Minister is not to be excused from mortal sin who, conscious of grave fault, can foresee the case of necessity, as a Parish Priest and others who by office must minister the Sacraments, and therefore are held by a special obligation habitually to remain in the state of grace. - St. Ligorius, n. 35, and others commonly.
- QUESTION 4º. Does he sin who outside the celebration of Mass ministers the Eucharist in mortal sin?
Resp. Affirmatively, more probably. The reason is that he inflicts a grave injury upon the most holy Eucharist. For although he himself does not act as an efficient cause in confecting the Sacrament, nevertheless he is its dispenser, specially consecrated for this, and he discharges a ministry which immediately cooperates in the sanctification of the soul. - St. Ligorius, n. 35, and others commonly. Nevertheless Lugo, on the Sacraments, D. 8, n. 455, Salmanticenses, tr. 1, c. 7, n. 11, and others probably judge that he sins only venially 4.
4 ** VV. (p. 929, n. 85) oppose the words of St. Alphonsus (Quaest. Reform., n. 62): In the earlier book the negative opinion was called probable. But here we refute it.
Resp. Therefore the negative opinion could seem probable even to St. Alphonsus. Therefore it is not without reason. But the reasons which moved the holy Doctor to change his opinion were not unknown to others; nor nevertheless did they move those Doctors, the long line of whom the holy Doctor himself recounts (and to whom several others can be added), so that they did not either profess the negative opinion absolutely or call it probable; and no one will deny that among these even the very grave are numbered. What therefore will you finally define? Let the received canons be applied. Since therefore, by the judgment of grave Doctors, grave reasons militate for each side which move to prudent assent, we shall have on each side mere opinion. Yet this difference between the two opinions stands out: that the one suffices through reflex judgment for removing suspicion of grave fault; the other does not suffice for imposing the conscience of grave fault. Among those who, after weighing the reasons of each side, defined each to be probable, it will be helpful to have added the more recent Babenstuber (Tr. 8, Part 4, Disp. 2, art. 4, n. 9), Giribaldi (Tr. 4, De Euch., Cap. 6, Dub. 7, n. 31), Reuter (Part 4, Tr. 1, n. 27), and Struggl (Tr. 9, Q. 1, art. 3, n. 33).
QUESTION 5º. Do they sin who in mortal sin either mediately or immediately touch or carry the Most Holy Eucharist?
Resp. It is controverted. There is a threefold probable opinion:
I. The more probable OPINION affirms in each case, because they treat the most holy thing, or the Body of Christ, unworthily. St. Ligorius, n. 35, calls this opinion very probable.
II. The OPINION denies, because no administration of a Sacrament is present here, nor does the matter appear so grave that it induces mortal sin. - Thus Lacroix, n. 101. - Salmanticenses, c. 7, n. 1. - Busembaum. And St. Ligorius says that this is not improbable.
III. The OPINION distinguishes thus: Those touching the most holy Eucharist immediately in mortal sin do indeed sin gravely, but not those touching mediately. The reason is drawn from the very different degree of irreverence between the first case and the second 5. Thus Billuart.
5 ** But if the opinion of Cardinal De Lugo, concerning which in the preceding q. 4, is not without its probability, this distinction is employed in vain.
- QUESTION 6º. Do those gravely sin who exercise other sacred functions in mortal sin?
Resp. Negatively; because all other exercises of Orders besides the confection and administration of the Sacraments do not seem to demand sanctity under grave obligation, since they are not proximately ordained to the sanctification of the soul. - Thus commonly and more probably. - Salmanticenses. - Mazzotta, and St. Ligorius, n. 37, says this is sufficiently probable.
QUESTION 7º. Is a Minister held to confess before the confection of a sacrament, if he is guilty of mortal sin?
Resp. 2º But negatively, more probably, if there is question of the other Sacraments; because he is obliged by no law to confession; and therefore it suffices that he elicit an act of contrition 6. - Thus St. Ligorius, n. 34. - Elbel. - Lacroix. - Lugo, etc., against certain others.
6 ** Except, however, if the defect of perfect contrition is clear to him.
- QUESTION 8º. Does he sin gravely who hears confession in mortal sin, but does not absolve?
Resp. Negatively, more probably, because a Confessor by hearing confession does not confect the Sacrament. - St. Ligorius, n. 56, and others commonly against some.
QUESTION 9º. How many sins does a Confessor commit by successively absolving several penitents in mortal sin?
Resp. There is a twofold opinion. For according to others he commits as many sins as persons whom he absolves; the reason is that the individual absolutions constitute so many distinct moral actions, so many complete judgments, and so many Sacraments conferred in the state of sin, and therefore so many sins. - Thus St. Ligorius, n. 30, with others. Yet others think it is one sin. - Thus the Salmanticenses, on Censures, c. 1, n. 182, with others whom they allege; and Lugo, on Penance, D. 46, n. 558, calls that opinion probable 7.
7 ** VV. (p. 929, n. 86) observe that St. Alphonsus (Quaest. reform., n. 53) retracted what he had written before, namely: He commits one sin... if a Confessor in mortal sin successively absolves several confessing persons; but later he wrote (Lib. 5, n. 50, q. 6): More truly Concina... and others teach that as many sacrileges are committed as absolutions he imparts.
Resp. I concede the antecedent; I deny the consequence. Indeed we ought to defer this honor to the holy Doctor, that we never think that he blurted out anything inconsiderately and rashly. Therefore he put forward the prior judgment not without grave reason. Nevertheless, since afterwards he issued another judgment on the same matter, the question now is which judgment is to be preferred. But rather than assume for ourselves the office of judging concerning this question, it seems fitting that we inquire into the opinion of the wiser. But after inspecting the opinions of the Doctors whom St. Alphonsus himself also reports, we find that some stand for the prior judgment of the holy Doctor, others for the later. Therefore this controversy remains in the same condition as before, and furthermore ought to remain so; for St. Alphonsus brought forth no new reason by which the condition of the controversy can be said to have been changed. Therefore the probability which previously favored each opinion must in no way be said to have perished.
But here also that must be observed which we said in the Note to Q. 4: namely, through a reflex judgment we can indeed most safely use in practice the prior and milder judgment of St. Alphonsus; but to use the later and more severe one for imposing a grave obligation is still by no means lawful according to the principles of St. Alphonsus.
- QUESTION 10º. How many sins does he commit who in mortal sin ministers the Eucharist to several persons?
Resp. More probably only one; because he places one moral action: for the individual distributions are held by way of one, and constitute one administration and one banquet 8. - St. Ligorius, n. 35.
8 ** Compare what was said above (n. 209, q. 4), where a twofold opinion was produced concerning the gravity of this fault.