§ II. On the Intention of the Minister

1216. - Definition. Intention is an act of the will tending toward some end, or an act of the will by which one intends to do or omit something.

Division. It is manifold, namely: 1° actual, virtual, habitual, and interpretative (n. 5. 4°); 2° internal or true, or external, which regards only the external act; 3° determinate or indeterminate, or in a confused way; 4° absolute or conditionated.

Principles. - I. 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 does. - It is clear from Trent.¹

II. Nevertheless an actual intention is not required, but a virtual one suffices. The reason is, because actual intention, although best and desirable, is sometimes morally impossible; but a virtual intention sufficiently flows into the action of the Minister, so that this can be called truly human and deliberate. - Thus all.

III. A habitual intention does not suffice, nor an interpretative one; not the first, because it is neither actually elicited by the will, nor, although sometimes elicited, does it endure in some effect or in a series of actions; not the second, because it is neither actually elicited, nor was it ever actually elicited, but it would only be elicited if the mind were thinking about the thing to be done (n. 5. 4°).

1217. Questions. - Query 1° Is an internal intention required?

Resp. Affirmatively; because, if the Minister should intend only the external act, that act - for example, ablution, which can be referred both to cleansing stains and to baptizing - would not be determined to its being.¹

Query 2° Is there required in the Minister the intention of doing what the Roman Church does?

Resp. Negatively, provided he has the intention, at least implicit, of doing that which the true Church does, even if from error he should think his own heterodox church to be the true Church.²

Query 3° Is there required in the Minister the intention of confecting a Sacrament?³

Resp. Negatively, at least explicitly, provided this intention is not excluded. For it suffices that he intend in general and implicitly to do what the Church does.⁴

1218. - Query 4° Must the intention of the Minister be determined to a certain matter and person?

Resp. Affirmatively. The reason is: 1° as regards the matter, because, as was said above in q. 1°, otherwise it would remain in a state of indifference; for it cannot be drawn from that state and determined to the Sacrament except through the intention of the Minister; 2° 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. - Nevertheless an error in the person does not stand in the way of the validity of the Sacrament, except in Matrimony, or unless the Minister should bind his intention exclusively to a certain person. But even in this case he would validly administer the Eucharist, as is clear.¹

Query 5° Is a Sacrament valid when conferred with a conditionated intention?

Resp. 1° With Matrimony excepted, as being a contract (concerning which later), negatively, if the condition added is either concerning an impossible thing and is seriously added, as: I absolve thee, if thou hast touched heaven with thy finger, because then no intention of absolving is present; or concerning a future contingent thing, because such a condition suspends the intention of the Minister, and prevents the form here and now from being applied to the matter; nor afterward can it be applied, the condition having been verified, since then the matter and form have already ceased to be present.

Resp. 2° Affirmatively, if the condition is either concerning a future necessary thing, and the suspension of the Sacrament is not really intended, because the intention under such a condition passes over into an absolute intention; or concerning a past or present thing, and in fact this exists, because even then a conditionated intention passes over into an absolute intention; but if the condition is not verified, then there is no intention, since it has been restricted to a non-existing condition.²

1219. - Query 6° Is it lawful to confer Sacraments with a conditionated intention, in doubt whether they have been validly conferred?

Resp. 1° As regards Sacraments imprinting character, it is certain that this is lawful. For it is established by Canon Law, where in doubt of Baptism this form is indicated: If thou hast not yet been baptized, I baptize thee, etc.¹

Resp. 2° Also as regards other Sacraments it is lawful, if a sufficient cause adds the condition. The reason is, because Sacraments are on account of men, and, by adding a condition, reverence due to the Sacrament is sufficiently preserved, provided also that the consultation of the Sacrament itself be looked after as much as can be done, and with the good of those who receive the Sacrament, if perhaps they are capable of it, and with reverence toward the Sacrament. - Thus more commonly with St. Alphonsus, against some.² But it is certain that in extreme necessity, where nothing is present except doubtful matter, the Minister not only can, but also is held under grave obligation, to minister the Sacrament conditionally.³

Query 7° Must the condition be expressed in words?

Resp. Negatively. The reason is, because it is enough for reverence toward the Sacrament if it is conceived in the mind. Indeed Gobat thinks that it is not necessary for him who administers the work to have the condition explicitly and formally in mind, but it is enough if it is held implicitly and virtually, as he who wishes to hear Confessions according to the institution of Christ or the intention of the Church has it; because thus also reverence due to the Sacrament is sufficiently preserved. Yet it is to be added by mouth also where the Rubric prescribes this, as in conditionated Baptism, especially if it is conferred publicly, lest, namely, bystanders believe Baptism to be repeated absolutely, and, on account of the sentence, although little probable (and contrary to the Rubric of the Missal), of those who hold that the value of a Sacrament does not depend on the intention of the Minister, but only on the serious conferral of it, it is more right to express the condition also in words.⁴

Note. - 1° More rightly, according to St. Alphonsus, it is held that Sacraments are invalidated by a condition humanly unknowable. - 2° If the Minister has two intentions contrary to each other, and at the same time, the predominant one prevails; and so, whatever uniting incompatibles may have been chosen beforehand, if neither is predominant, the Sacrament does not subsist. - But if they have been successive, the later one prevails, unless the first, not revoked, had virtually excluded any subsequent one beforehand. - If doubt remains, the Sacrament will be doubtful.⁵