Section — Konings, Theologia Moralis
§ II. On the Obligation of Denying Sacraments to the Unworthy Who Ask
1228. Principles. - I. The Minister is held under grave obligation, per se speaking, to deny Sacraments to the unworthy, because the natural law obliges a dispenser faithfully and according to his will to dispense the goods of the Lord; but the certain will of Christ is that Sacraments not be conferred upon the unworthy, according to that saying of Matthew:1 Do not give the holy thing to dogs, nor cast your pearls before swine.
II. Sacraments, in which the Minister acts the part of dispenser alone, can be ministered to those asking without prior inquiry into their disposition, and can be denied only to those concerning whose unworthiness it is certain. The reason for the first is, because in these he does not act the part of judge, and therefore is not held to inquire. The reason for the second, because each one is presumed good until he is proved evil.
I said: 1° in which the Minister acts the part of dispenser alone. For it is otherwise if at the same time he ought to act the part of judge, and thus in Penance he is held to inquire concerning the acts of the penitent; in the Baptism of adults, concerning consent and dispositions; in Order, concerning the dignity of the one to be ordained; in Matrimony, concerning impediments. 2° concerning whose unworthiness it is certain. But it is certain if a) the crime is certain, or public suspicion concerning it is so vehement that it is equivalent to moral certitude, which cannot be laid aside by a probable reason; b) the penance is doubtful.2
Notes to n. 1228. (1) 7. 6. (2) L. VI. 43. 48.
1229. Special Rules. - I. A Sacrament is not to be ministered to a public sinner, even one asking secretly, not even from fear of death, as St. Alphonsus thinks; because no reason is present why an exception should be made to the general rule; indeed a grave scandal of the faithful would follow. - Except: 1° Penance, unless someone is prohibited from it, for example, on account of reserved censures;1 2° if someone has given a sufficient indication of conversion, such as is Confession made at least before several by one who is not notoriously placed in an occasion or in habitual scandal.2
II. To an occult sinner, asking secretly, the Sacrament is likewise to be denied;3 because reverence toward the Sacrament and charity toward the neighbor in these circumstances entirely demand this.
III. To a truly occult sinner, asking publicly, the Sacrament is not to be denied. The reason is drawn from the inconveniences which would follow from the denial of the Sacrament; for scandals and disturbances would arise in the Church, and especially the faithful, having been led into suspicion, lest they be prohibited from the Sacraments, would withdraw from them. - Thus all with St. Thomas,4 St. Alphonsus.5
Except nevertheless: 1° the Sacrament of Order, from which, on account of the public good, the unworthy man is to be repelled even with his own infamy, if he cannot otherwise be kept away, and this although the offense cannot be proved juridically. Nor is the Bishop obliged to the manifestation of the cause of the repulse, nor does an appeal belong to the one repelled, but only recourse to the Holy See.6
2° Matrimony, if the pastor outside Confession knows some impediment, or knows that the spouses are ignorant of the rudiments of the Faith, and this on account of protecting the legitimation and education of offspring.7
Notes to n. 1229. (1) Scav. T. III. n. 40. (2) L. VI. 44-49. q. Ref. 63. (3) L. VI. 50. St. Thomas, Part 3, q. 80, a. 6. (4) Part 3, q. 80, a. 6. (5) L. VI. 50. (6) Ib. 52. Benedict XIV, de Syn. L. XII. c. VIII. n. 3. 4. (7) L. VI. 54.
1230. Questions. - Query 1° When is a sinner considered public or notorious, or occult; or secretly asking for a Sacrament?
Resp. 1° That sinner is called public whose crime or very bad life is notorious, either by law, or by juridical proof or sentence, or by fact, as if the crime was committed in a public place, or by fame among many, arising nevertheless from sufficient indications.1
Resp. 2° 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 had, as are little children, etc. Otherwise he is considered to ask publicly. (X) p. 414.
Query 2° Is the Sacrament to be denied to an unworthy person asking publicly, whose crime is not simply public, but known nevertheless to most of those present, not to all?
Resp. Negatively, more probably; because he still possesses fame among those few who do not yet know his crime. Except if one or another upright person is ignorant, who is thought not likely to divulge it (n. 519. R. 3°).2 - Hence only then is the Sacrament to be denied to an unworthy person publicly asking, when either his unworthiness is absolutely public (by fame, by law, or by fact), although perhaps known to none of those present; or respectively public, or known to all those present, which very rarely happens in great cities, especially ours, on account especially of the defect of personal knowledge; but it can happen more easily in small places.
Notes to n. 1230. (1) Ib. 44. (2) Ib. 45. Appendix annotation (X), to n. 1230. q. 19. p. 19. col. 1. Lest on account of notoriety, undeservedly judged to be such, a Sacrament be publicly denied, I have judged it useful to hand down a fuller exposition of notoriety. What the notorious is, in general, was said in n. 522, Resp. 2°. I say that something is notorious by law by juridical proof or sentence. Here proof is understood as full, such as that is called which produces as much faith as suffices for defining controversies; for example, the spontaneous Confession of the accused made in judgment and not revoked; the depositions of two witnesses greater than every exception, etc. - Sentence in this place is understood as definitive, or one which has passed into a thing judged. Something is notorious by fact when it is done so publicly that it cannot be concealed by any tergiversation. As that fact itself is, so this notorious is threefold: namely, notorious of a permanent fact, which continually presents itself to the sight of men, as the concubinage of one who is publicly seen retaining a concubine in his house; notorious of a fact immediately passing or momentary, as heresy publicly uttered; notorious of an interpolated fact, which is done publicly indeed, not continuously, but nevertheless is repeated rather often at intervals, as, for example, drunkenness by a drunkard. That something be notorious by fact, it is required that it be public by reason both of place, which must be public, for example a street, and not some private house; and of time, therefore not committed at night, unless on account of the multitude of those present in the public place where the crime is committed the night seems to be equated to day; and of the multitude of bystanders; for by defect of this the crime perpetrated by day and in a public place could be equated to one admitted at night. Fame, by reason of the notorious about which there is question here, is not that which is called fame of name, "reputation," and about which there was speech in n. 516, but fame among men, which is so called with respect not to the man made infamous, but to those among whom it prevails or is circulated, that which people say or tell; the common talk, report, saying. Therefore the notorious of fame is public insinuation or proclamation, from suspicion indeed alone, yet proceeding from a certain author; and this, in the present matter, not concerning the general quality of some man, that he is good or bad, but concerning some particular fact, for example, that Titius admitted such a crime. Fame of this kind, or fame arisen concerning some particular fact, by reason of its origin can still be distinguished in three ways: 1° As it is the vain voice of the populace and rumor among the people, which has no certain authors nor probable causes or reasons for believing thus, "rumor; hearsay"; 2° As it arises from some malicious, suspect persons, or those seeking their own advantage and utility. Neither the former nor the latter is to be attended to; 3° As it has drawn its origin from persons worthy of faith, grave, and concerning whose advantage there is no question, or, as St. Alphonsus says, from sufficient indications, so that it appears from what reason and cause the fame had its origin; and concerning this fame alone there is speech for the present. Fame accepted in such a way differs from rumor. For fame properly is when the whole city, or neighborhood, or the greater part of a community asserts something; but a community ought to consist of at least ten persons. But rumor is when some smaller part, for instance a half, a third, or a fourth part, speaks thus. Then fame proceeds from a certain author, for instance when it has arisen from certain and honest persons who said among the people that they had seen something and were present; but rumor proceeds from an uncertain author. Resolves. - 1° In order that some crime be held as notorious, and this, as is required in our matter, in the reason of crime or as formally criminal, it suffices, if there is question of the notorious by notoriety of fact, that the fact be permanent or even interpolated. But if the question is about a fact immediately passing or momentary, for example, someone publicly utters heresy, from the very crime publicly perpetrated, from the very fact of heresy uttered, it is not yet established that he who perpetrated the crime, uttered the heresy, admitted the crime in the reason of crime, the heresy in the reason of heresy or as formally evil. Therefore in this case the Sacraments are not immediately to be denied, but inquiry must first be made whether, just as the fact itself, so also the formal malice of the fact is publicly certain. 2° In order that, on account of the notoriousness of an interpolated fact, for example in the case of a public customary sinner, a Sacrament can be publicly denied, it is required that perseverance in the evil custom be evident and publicly known. Wherefore the Sacrament is to be conferred if either the custom has been interrupted for a longer time, by the work of the customary sinner himself or even by some physical cause, for example illness, or nothing more has been publicly heard about it for a longer time. 3° The notorious of fame, in order to the denial of a Sacrament, is not to be attended to unless the fame, that is, the public insinuation or proclamation itself, is uniform, solid, constant, and perpetual, that is, not vague, light, or contrary, or, as Canonists have it, shaken by contrary allegations. It can be proved by two witnesses greater than every exception, deposing that they have heard it said so publicly, and indeed by the greater part of the people; for it does not suffice to depose that they heard it said so publicly, since it can happen that one alone said this publicly. Besides, they must express the certain persons, at least two, from whom they heard it, so that it may be known whether these are such that faith can be had in them. Finally, they must assign the probable causes by which the people was induced to believe: for example, because those persons, to whom faith can be had and from whom they heard it, asserted that they had seen it thus with their own eyes. 4° Before how many persons a crime ought to have been committed in order to be notorious by fact, and by how many, especially in a more populous community, it ought to be publicly insinuated or proclaimed in order to be notorious by fame, is defined rather by the judgment of a prudent man than by some general rule; compare nn. 522, 1564. But since this matter in practice is not without difficulty, and the judgment concerning the requisites for the notorious both of fact and of fame is also often arduous, in a matter of as much importance as the public denial of a Sacrament, the Ordinary is to be consulted if time permits; but if time does not permit this and the notoriety is doubtful, the Sacrament is not to be publicly refused. > Notes to appendix annotation - note sequence 1. > > 1 Reiffenstuel, L. 2. T. 19. n. 11. | 2 An apt, legitimate witness greater than every exception is one who can be repelled by no legitimate exception; and if anything differs here from those, it differs only as the comparative from the positive. Reiffenstuel, L. 2. T. 20. n. 7-11. But exception is the same as exclusion, for example of a witness, judge, etc. Id. T. 25. n. 1-5; and it is called legitimate if it is granted by law. | > Notes to appendix annotation - note sequence 2. > > 1 A sentence is said to have passed into a thing judged when it has not been appealed from. Reiffenstuel, L. 2. T. 27. n. 2 sq. | 2 Cf. Schmalzgrueber, T. 10. P. 1. Tit. 1. § 1. | > Notes to appendix annotation - note sequence 3. > > 1 Lib. VI. 44. | 2 Reiffenstuel, Lib. 2. T. 20. n. 387 sq.
1231. - Query 3° Is the Sacrament to 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 they were denied, those inconveniences and harms would arise which proceed from denial made to an occult sinner. - But one must say otherwise if knowledge of that crime is easily about to come into that place.1
Query 4° How ought Pastors to conduct themselves in the celebration of Matrimony of those who notoriously have incurred ecclesiastical censures?
Resp. The Sacred Penitentiary, 10 Dec. 1860, dub. 10: "Care is to be taken with all strength that those bound by ecclesiastical censures be reconciled with the Church in the due manner; but if they refuse to be reconciled, and unless the marriage is celebrated, grave harms seem to be imminent therefrom, the Pastor should consult the Ordinary, who, having considered the account of things and circumstances and weighed all things which are handed down by approved authors, and especially by St. Alphonsus (L. VI. 54), should declare those things which he shall have judged more expedient in the Lord." Namely, according to the Holy Doctor, the Pastor will be able to assist "in order to avoid death, or other graver evils of the community, or of the contracting parties themselves, for example, lest they themselves persevere in sin."
Query 5° Is it lawful 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; another material, by which someone does not directly intend to deceive, but from another motive is induced to simulate, for example, if he is compelled by grave fear, etc.
I say: It is never lawful, not even materially, to simulate a Sacrament. The reason is, because every simulation is an injury and grave irreverence toward Christ, whom the Minister mocks by abusing sacred things instituted by him.
1232. - Query 6° In what precisely does simulation of a Sacrament consist?
Resp. Theologians do not agree. Some say that generally it consists in this, that it can lead those receiving or others into error. More probably, according to the common sentence, it seems to be present only when something is put fictively which pertains to the essence of the Sacrament, so that the neighbor is necessarily deceived; and thus they distinguish simulation from dissimulation, which is had when the fiction or defect is exterior and, per se speaking, can be recognized, as, for example, if in the confection matter or form is not placed, but something else is substituted in its place, so that something other than the Sacrament is done. This dissimulation is lawful from a licit cause, since thus truth alone is hidden, and the Sacrament is not treated irreverently, scandal, contempt, intention of deceiving, etc., being excluded. (Cf. the number immediately following, 1233. 6° and 8°.) Hence the C. S. O., if ever it happened that infidel parents offered infants for Baptism, not so that they might become Christians, but so that they might be preserved from certain diseases, never permitted the pouring of water without the utterance of the form, so that the parents might thus desist from importunate prayers, since "Baptism is the gate of all the Sacraments and the profession of the Faith, and can in no way be feigned."1
1233. Resolves. - 1° Among those who, as publicly unworthy, are to be kept away from Communion, the Roman Ritual enumerates excommunicates, interdicted persons, and the manifestly infamous, as harlots, concubinaries, usurers (at least public by law, or condemned by sentence of a judge), magicians, sorcerers (among whom fortune-tellers also are to be held), blasphemers (as also are to be held those who by writings or words are accustomed to assail God, or the Saints, or Religion and the Church with calumnies). "But as often," says Kenrick,2 "as the exterior composition of the body denotes a humble soul, it can be had as a retraction of those things which one has contumeliously uttered"), and other public sinners of this kind, such as public customary impenitents, those publicly known as enrolled in some condemned society, actors and actresses exhibiting impious or base plays. - "Public sinners," says Kenrick,3 "who resist the legitimate authority of their prelates, or behave badly with grave offense of the faithful, are unworthy to be admitted to the Eucharist; but whenever the manner of acting, even if unjust, can be extenuated from error of mind or some other reason, it is better to repel no one approaching, but to leave him to the judgment of God and of the confessor." - Nor are all those to be barred who have publicly committed some grave sin, since scandal is regularly removed by Confession made or presumed. Yet, as is clear per se, those are to be barred who are publicly and actually in sin, for example, those manifestly and here and now drunk, or women so immodestly denuded that the denudation is mortal per se (n. 295. 11°).
2° To a public sinner, even one dying but nevertheless still master of himself, the Sacraments are to be denied, unless he repents not only before God, or in Confession, but also before men, unless perhaps the matter has been erased by oblivion. But this penitence before men ought to be exhibited outside Confession, and in such a way (for example, before witnesses), that it can come to the knowledge of others. Cf. Rit. Rom. on the Communion of the sick.
3° If Sacraments are to be denied publicly, let them be denied in a prudent manner. Hence all those things must be guarded against by the Minister by which either he would become liable to laws punishing defamation, or a greater impediment would be put in the way of the conversion of the unworthy person. Hence the motives of the refusal are not to be publicly exposed; and the priest, as he is assisting at the Sacred Table with others, should pass by without signifying anything either by words or by a nod. But if he comes alone during Mass, the priest will remain at the altar, announcing to the unworthy person through another that he may go away, but not why.
4° A priest would sin most gravely who in Mass should pronounce the consecratory words over bread and wine while excluding the intention of consecrating. Nor can those be excused by good faith who, laboring under crass ignorance and celebrating in mortal sin, simulate Consecration lest they become guilty of sacrilege, even if they omit the words of Consecration altogether.
5° A confessor would sin gravely who should utter the words of absolution without the mind of absolving, even if he were doing this in order to free himself more easily from an indisposed penitent instantly and importunately asking absolution, or even exacting it by most grave threats. - Several say that in this case a confessor can say: I do not absolve thee..., pronouncing the word not so softly that it is not heard by the penitent. St. Alphonsus does not judge this improbable;4 but the confessor could more easily pronounce other words or prayers rather than the form of absolution; moreover this case seems to be almost chimerical.
6° A confessor, however, does not simulate the Sacrament of Penance when he recites prayers over an indisposed penitent, lest bystanders perceive that he is dismissed without absolution; for it is established among all that penitents are often dismissed by only a blessing, and sometimes without the intention of confessing or completing the confession they approach the sacred tribunal.5
7° A priest sins gravely who offers a host not consecrated for a consecrated one, even to a person knowing and consenting, as sometimes happens to miserable priests when an accomplice, who is a woman, comes to the Sacred Table to save reputation. The reason is, because thus a host not consecrated is exposed to adoration both by bystanders and by the one receiving herself knowingly with external reverence, which constitutes external and material idolatry, and therefore something intrinsically evil.6
8° Yet according to the common sentence they do not sin, at least not gravely, who from grave fear simulate entering Matrimony. The reason is, because since voluntary consent is lacking, according to the sentence now certain, which holds that spouses themselves are the ministers of this Sacrament, matter and form are lacking, and therefore there is no simulation of the Sacrament, but only of the matrimonial contract. Otherwise the error could be sufficiently perceived from the circumstances, and thus deception would not necessarily be present.
Notes to n. 1233. (1) Anal. J. P. Ser. 2. col. 1807. (2) Tr. XVII. 37. (3) Tr. XVII. 37. (4) L. VI. 59. (5) Ib. (6) Ib. n. 61.