Article II: On the Requisites in the Minister That He May Operate Licitly

Besides those things which are necessary for validity, three things are required on the part of the minister, namely that 1. he be worthy and fit; 2. that he act worthily and rightly; 3. that he confer the Sacraments on the worthy.

1415. Principles. I. In order that the minister of the Sacraments be worthy and fit, there is required first that the CHURCH in some way have DEPUTED him. The reason is that the making and administration of the Sacraments is part of the sacred ministry, which Christ committed to his Church.

But one is deputed either generally or specially: generally indeed for private Baptism in a case of necessity, and for Matrimony; specially, however, for the other Sacraments; for these cannot validly be made except by a consecrated or ordained minister, nor licitly administered (indeed, if Penance is in question, not even validly), unless by a minister endowed with some jurisdiction, at least delegated.

1416. II. For the licit making and administration of the Sacraments there is required that the minister (at least if he is consecrated and ministers solemnly) be IN THE STATE OF GRACE. The reason is that holy things are to be treated holily, and because the minister must be conformed to Christ, whose person he bears and in whose name he operates.¹⁶ "Wherefore" (thus the Roman Ritual) "he will perpetually take care of this, that he conduct life integrally, chastely, and piously; for, although the Sacraments cannot be defiled by the impure, nor the effect impeded by wicked ministers, nevertheless those ministering them impurely and unworthily incur the guilt of eternal death" (cf. n. 583).

1417. From these things it follows: 1. Pastors and other priests upon whom from office it is incumbent to minister the Sacraments are bound always to have themselves prepared for ministering the Sacraments in the state of grace. But if someone, existing in mortal sin, must minister them, he is first bound to elicit an act of perfect contrition; but he is held by no law to confess, except before Communion or the celebration of Mass, according to the Decree of Trent, sess. 13, cap. 7.¹⁷ "But if he has an abundance of a Confessor, and the account of time and place allows, it is fitting to confess." Thus the Roman Ritual (cf. n. 1547).

2. One celebrating Mass in mortal sin commits four mortal sins, because he unworthily consecrates, unworthily ministers, ministers to himself unworthy, and unworthily receives.¹⁸ Yet he sufficiently expresses these in confession if he says: "I celebrated in mortal sin."

3. A priest (or Deacon) ministering the Eucharist in mortal sin sins mortally, because he unworthily places an act by which he proximately concurs toward the sanctification of those communicating. Thus one must hold with Suarez and many against Lugo and others. Yet he does not commit several sins if he distributes Communion to several, because it is one banquet.¹⁹

4. A Confessor commits as many sins as the persons whom he absolves while constituted in mortal sin; because each absolution is a complete judgment. But if he only hears confession, more probably he does not sin gravely, because he does not make the Sacrament.²⁰

NB. See other things n. 1439, on the unworthy MINISTER.

1418. Questions. Q. 1. Whether one sins gravely who, necessity compelling, ministers a Sacrament in mortal sin if he HAS NOT BEEN ORDAINED to it; or, if he has been ordained, ministers it NOT SOLEMNLY?²¹

Resp. The first opinion denies this with St. Thomas; because he does not exhibit himself as a minister of the Church, but aids one suffering necessity. This opinion is indeed probable; but the second opinion, affirming, considered according to reason, seems more probable. The reason is that the obligation of ministering in the state of grace is not derived only from the consecration of the minister, but also from the sanctity of the Sacraments themselves, which must always be handled holily; and indeed under grave obligation, in a grave matter. Moreover, although a minister who is not consecrated does not act in the name of the Church, nevertheless he acts in the name of Christ, cooperating immediately with Him for the sanctification of the soul; whence whoever exercises such an office ought to be endowed with sanctity.¹

Hence, more probably, speaking per se, the following sin gravely: 1. a layman, or a priest, ministering Baptism non-solemnly in a case of necessity, if he ministers in mortal sin; 2. one contracting Matrimony in mortal sin; and since such a person at the same time receives and ministers the Sacrament, he stains himself with a twofold sin.² We have said, speaking per se; for, per accidens, a minister, whether consecrated or not consecrated, is excused if he ministers in mortal sin the Sacrament of Baptism or Penance in necessity, for example if he could not be contrite so quickly, and there were danger that the dying person would depart without Baptism or absolution, as is commonly taught.³

Q. 2. Whether a minister sins gravely who, in mortal sin, exercises other SACRED FUNCTIONS which are not the making or administration of the Sacraments?

Resp. Some affirm with St. Thomas, who says that all who exercise, from office, the functions of the Order received, from the Bishop even to the Porter, commit grave fault if they are in mortal sin. But others more commonly, and sufficiently probably, deny this with Suarez; and the reason is that, since all the other exercises of Orders, besides the making and administration of the Sacraments, are not proximately ordered to the sanctification of the soul, they do not seem under grave obligation to require the sanctity of those exercising them. Yet these commit venial fault, and indeed the graver, the more their action approaches the ministry of a Sacrament.⁴

Hence: 1. Not improbably several authors assert that he does not sin gravely who, existing in mortal sin, touches the Eucharist immediately or mediately from office, for example by carrying it in procession, or by blessing the people. Yet the opposite opinion of St. Thomas is also very probable.⁵

2. Deacons and subdeacons who, in mortal sin, minister at the altar do not sin gravely, according to a sufficiently probable opinion, even if they minister frequently.⁶

3. A Bishop who, in mortal sin, makes chrism or holy oil does not seem to sin gravely.⁷ Nor does a Bishop or priest sin mortally who, in mortal sin, consecrates a church, blesses sacred vestments or corporals, assists at Matrimony, blesses ashes, lustral water, etc. Thus very commonly against a few.⁸

4. A preacher, preaching in mortal sin, does not sin gravely, as is taught more commonly and more probably. Yet authors commonly do not excuse him from venial sin, on account of some irreverence which is done to the divine word. Nay more, if the preacher inveighs against a vice concerning which he himself is publicly defamed, he does not seem to be excused from mortal sin; because then he gives scandal and impedes the end of doctrine.⁹

1419. Among SACRAMENTAL RITES, some are essential, others only accidental: ESSENTIAL rites are those which Christ the Lord Himself instituted, and without which the Sacrament is invalid. ACCIDENTAL rites are called those which the Church has prescribed for the more fitting decency and splendor of the sacramental action.

1420. Principles. I. There is a grave obligation of observing all ESSENTIAL rites of the Sacraments. This namely is required: 1. by religion; "for it is in a certain way to mock Christ, the author of the Sacraments, to employ, against His institution, signs for conferring grace in His name which He Himself did not assume for this";¹⁰ 2. by charity, because otherwise one's neighbor is deprived of a great spiritual good; 3. by justice, if the Sacrament is requested; for by the very fact that the minister consents to confer it, he tacitly obliges himself to its valid conferral.¹¹

Hence: 1. One ministering sins mortally if he uses false matter or form, or, outside necessity, doubtful matter or form. 2. He also sins gravely when he pronounces the words of the form corruptly, inarticulately, without devotion, if from this he undergoes proximate danger of erring in substantial matters. Otherwise venially, unless scandal or contempt is present (cf. nn. 1405 and 1406).

1421. II. All rites prescribed by the CHURCH, or received by custom, even IN ACCIDENTAL MATTERS, must be observed with diligent care.

The reason is that the Sacraments, as holy things, must be handled holily, and the precepts of the Church oblige in conscience. Whence Trent (sess. 7, can. 13): "If anyone shall say that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, accustomed to be used in the solemn administration of the Sacraments, may either be contemned, or be omitted by ministers according to pleasure without sin, or be changed into other new rites by any pastor whatsoever of the Churches: let him be anathema" (cf. n. 583).

Hence: 1. If the aforesaid rites are omitted or changed from contempt, it is mortal. 2. If from negligence, it is often mortal, when the omission or change is notable, or in a grave matter. But what omission, in individual Sacraments, is to be held notable matter, will be explained below in the proper places. 3. If some ceremony or laudable custom is omitted which is only of counsel, there will per se be no sin.

1422. It is asked: Whether it is of precept to use the ROMAN RITUAL in the administration of Sacraments and Sacramentals?

Resp. Affirmatively, unless perhaps other rites have been granted somewhere. This is established from the Bull of Paul V, Apostolicae Sedis, of June 16, 1614, in which one reads that the Roman Ritual contains "rites ... which ought to be observed" by all exercising the care of souls.¹² The Sacred Congregation of Rites declared the same thing, on April 7, 1832, and May 23, 1835, saying: "Those books alone are to be employed, and in them only blessings which are conformable to the Roman Ritual; ... nor are other formulas to be employed, provided it is not established that they have been approved by this Sacred Congregation."¹³ Nor is it licit for Bishops to change the prescriptions of the Roman Ritual at will; and if perhaps a Bishop had established changes, this is not a sufficient dispensation for priests (S. R. C., January 10, 1852).¹⁴

We have said unless other rites have been granted somewhere; for the Holy See, for diverse dioceses, has approved Rituals differing in several matters from the Roman Ritual. Moreover, customs according to or beside the law can be retained, as is clear from the Roman Ritual itself and from several declarations of the Sacred Congregation of Rites. But customs contrary to the Rubrics and decisions of the Sacred Congregation of Rites must be eliminated. Yet if abuses are general and inveterate, the Bishop "in correcting these should proceed with all patience and doctrine, and, according to the opportunity given him, should strive to eliminate them in such a way that the faithful suffer no scandal from it." S. R. C., May 9, 1857, to the Bishop of Limburg.¹⁵

Note from the ROMAN RITUAL: 1. "In every administration of the Sacraments the priest is to be vested in a surplice, and over it with a stole of that color which the rite of the Sacrament demands; unless in ministering the Sacrament of Penance occasion, or custom, or place sometimes advises otherwise. 2. He shall also employ at least one cleric, if he has one, or several, according as the nature of the place and of the Sacrament requires, in becoming habit and likewise vested in surplice."

1423. Principles. I. A minister conferring the Sacraments on the UNWORTHY sins gravely, unless from denial graver inconveniences would follow.

The first is clear: 1. from Matthew 7:6: "Do not give what is holy to dogs..." And from 1 Corinthians 4:2: "Here now it is required among dispensers that a man be found faithful." 2. From reason; for a minister who knowingly and willingly would dispense the Sacraments to the unworthy would violate both the virtue of religion, because he would handle the Sacraments irreverently and defraud them of their effects, and the precept of charity, because he would cooperate in the sin of those receiving unworthily. The second follows from what was said on Cooperation; for it is licit, on account of proportionately grave causes, and by giving one's work to a good thing, to cooperate materially in the sins of others. Whence it is licit to minister the Sacraments to one asking unworthily, if this is necessary to avoid scandal, or unjust defamation, or violation of the sacramental seal.

1424. II. The minister ought to INQUIRE concerning the worthiness of the recipient, according to the nature of each Sacrament. Namely, Sacraments are to be distinguished in whose administration the priest is judge, from those in whose conferral he is only dispenser. Of the former kind are Baptism of adults, Penance, Order, and Matrimony with respect to the impediments of Matrimony: therefore for these Sacraments the minister ought, from positive indications, to form for himself a prudent judgment concerning the worthiness or fitness of the recipients. Of the latter kind are Confirmation, the Eucharist, and Extreme Unction, to which Sacraments all have a right who live as Catholics. Whence for administering these it suffices that it is not established to the minister that those asking are positively unworthy.¹⁶

From the preceding principles the following RULES are drawn:

1425. Rule 1. A HIDDEN sinner asking publicly is not to be denied a Sacrament. This is established by the example of Christ, who gave Communion to Judas. And the reason is that in these circumstances Christ is judged to yield His right, both so that the sinner may not lose the reputation to which he has a right, and especially so that many very grave inconveniences, such as scandals, omission of the Sacraments, etc., may be avoided.¹⁷

1426. Rule 2. A HIDDEN sinner, asking secretly, is to be denied the Sacrament until his penitence is established. The reason is that both reverence for the Sacrament and the good of the one asking demand this.

It is said 1. a hidden sinner, namely one whom the minister knows as such from certain knowledge, but outside confession; 2. asking secretly: this happens when the one asking is found either alone with the minister, or only with a few, and of such condition that no attention should deservedly be paid to them, as little children would be; 3. until his penitence is established; but this is established if it is known to the minister that the guilty man has made confession either with him or with another priest, even secretly. Nor is one to inquire whether absolution was given; for, even if the minister himself had denied it, he could not, without breaking the seal, admonish the guilty man, nor, as the truer opinion holds, repel him from the Sacrament under the pretext of other causes.

1427. Rule 3. A PUBLIC sinner, unless he has given sufficient signs of conversion and has removed scandal, is to be denied the Sacrament, whether he asks for it publicly or secretly. The reason is that the divine precept presses: "Do not give what is holy to dogs"; nor is an excusing cause given, as is plain from what has been said.

It is said 1. a public sinner. But a sinner is called public either absolutely, namely when his unworthiness is certain and notorious to the community, by notoriety of law, or of fact, or of reputation (cf. n. 1199); or respectively, when the unworthiness is known only to those in whose presence the Sacrament is requested. If, therefore, the community, or all those present, know the unworthiness of the one asking, the Sacrament is to be denied. And the same must be said if knowledge of a crime committed in another place will easily come into the parish, or if there already exists so grave a suspicion of it that it is equivalent to moral certainty. More probably, however, it is not to be denied if the unworthiness of the one asking is known only to most of those present. The reason is that such a sinner still possesses his reputation with respect to those who are ignorant of his crime.¹⁸

It is said 2. the Sacrament is to be denied; under this name not only the Most Holy Eucharist is to be understood, but also the other Sacraments, even though the priest is their simple dispenser. Penance alone is excepted, which, since it was instituted for sinners, is never to be denied to anyone, unless perhaps a special prohibition has been made, for example on account of reserved censures, or because the penitent must first make satisfaction or furnish a guarantee of making satisfaction.¹⁹

It is said 3. unless he has given sufficient signs of conversion. For whenever the crime is certain and notorious, the penitence likewise ought to be certain and notorious. But a sufficient indication of conversion is had if a sinner who is not living in habitual scandal makes confession publicly or before several, so that the penitence is shortly to be manifested. It is otherwise if there were a notorious occasion first to be left, or if some retraction to be made beforehand were pressing.²⁰

1428. Let it be noted: 1. Among those who are to be kept from Communion as publicly unworthy are enumerated in the Roman Ritual: excommunicated persons who are notorious, those interdicted, and those manifestly infamous, as prostitutes, concubinarians, usurers, at least those who are public by law or condemned by sentence of a judge, magicians, sorcerers, among whom are fortune-tellers, blasphemers, for example those who are accustomed by writings or words to assail religion and the Church with calumnies, and other public sinners of this kind,²¹ as are

public customary sinners, those notoriously enrolled in condemned sects, actors and actresses exhibiting impious or shameful plays, those rebelling against the legitimate authority of their prelates, etc. To these, moreover, must be added, as is clear, those who are publicly and actually in sin, for example those manifestly here and now drunk, or women so immodestly uncovered that the uncovering is per se mortal.

2. "The Sacraments, if they are to be publicly denied, must be denied in a prudent manner. Whence all things must be avoided by the minister by which either he himself would become liable to the laws punishing defamation, or a greater impediment would be put in the way of the conversion of the unworthy person. Therefore the motives of the denial are not to be publicly explained; wherefore, if the unworthy person approaches the sacred Table with others, the priest should pass him by in such a way that he reveals nothing either by words or by nod. But if during Mass he alone approaches, let the priest remain at the altar, and through another let him inform him that he cannot offer him the sacred banquet, yet without saying why he cannot."¹

With respect to the dying in particular, see n. 1854 in the Treatise on Penance.

1429. Questions. Q. 1. What is to be done IN DOUBT concerning the crime or concerning penitence?

Resp. Distinguish. 1. If the crime is certain and penitence doubtful, the Sacrament certainly is to be denied until penitence is established, because infamy possesses. 2. If there is doubt concerning the crime, the Sacrament cannot be denied, except in the case in which a positive sign of the fitness of the one asking would be required, as was said (n. 1424).

There is excepted: 1. The Sacrament of ORDER, from which an unworthy cleric, even though hidden, must altogether be kept; because he who thrusts himself into public offices for which he is not fit is to be repelled even with infamy, if it cannot be done otherwise, on account of the public good. Thus from Trent (sess. 14, cap. 1, de Ref.).² Nor is the Bishop obliged to manifest the cause of the rejection; nor does appeal belong to the one rejected, but only recourse to the Holy See³ (see n. 1916, q. 2).

2. MATRIMONY, at which the pastor is prohibited from assisting, for example if outside Confession he has known some impediment, as will be said in its place. Yet he can be excused, even though the contracting parties are publicly unworthy, if he assists in order to avoid death or grave evils of the community, or of the contracting parties themselves, for example lest they themselves persevere in sin, e.g. in civil marriage.⁴

Q. 2. Whether fear of DEATH or INFAMY can excuse a minister if he confers a Sacrament on the unworthy?

Resp. 1. "The first opinion affirms, provided the Sacrament is not demanded in hatred of the faith, or in contempt of religion. The reason is that, if the infamy of a sinner publicly asking for a Sacrament excuses such ministration and repairs the irreverence toward the Sacrament, why ought not death or infamy to be undergone by the minister excuse him?"⁵

2. But the second opinion, to which St. Alphonsus adheres, denies; because the adequate reason on account of which the Sacrament is not to be denied to a hidden sinner is not that his reputation be preserved for him, but especially, except in the case of Matrimony, that "grave inconveniences be avoided which would follow from it, namely scandals of others, by which, if a priest could publicly deny Communion on account of a hidden crime, perhaps even the good would be deterred from the reception of Communion, fearing lest because of hatred or imprudence they might be cast away by the priest, etc. But these inconveniences and scandals certainly do not intervene in a minister who would be forced by fear to minister a Sacrament to an unworthy person; indeed it would be an edification to the people if, in order to preserve reverence for the Sacrament, he exposed himself to the danger of death."

Q. 3. Whether it is licit to SIMULATE or DISSIMULATE a Sacrament, lest it be conferred on the unworthy?

Note beforehand. 1. SIMULATION of a Sacrament is had when the minister places its matter and form, or the form alone, without the internal intention of making the Sacrament. It is distinguished into formal and material. Formal is that by which the deception of another is directly intended; material is that by which the deception of another is only permitted. 2. DISSIMULATION of a Sacrament is said to be had when the fiction or defect is so exterior that it can be known of itself: as, for example, if the matter or form of the Sacrament is not placed, but in its place something else is substituted, so that something other than a Sacrament is done.

Resp. 1. It is never licit, not even materially, to SIMULATE a Sacrament. The reason is that every simulation inflicts a grave injury on the Author of the Sacraments, by abusing sacred things instituted by Him. Hence Innocent XI proscribed this proposition: "Urgent grave fear is a cause for simulating the administration of a Sacrament." Say the same concerning reception, because the same reason applies.

Resp. 2. It is licit, for cause, to DISSIMULATE a Sacrament, provided this is done apart from contempt, scandal, intention of deceiving, or another evil circumstance. The reason is that then neither is sacrilege committed, since the sacred sign instituted by Christ is absent, nor a lie, since deception of neighbor is neither intended nor necessarily had; only the truth is hidden, which, when a just cause accedes, all with St. Thomas permit⁶ (cf. n. 1181).

1430. From these things you resolve: 1. It is never licit to utter the words of absolution over one indisposed, or the words of consecration over bread without the intention of consecrating, or to omit the consecration during the celebration of Mass. Nor similarly is it licit to give to one approaching the sacred Table, even one knowing and consenting, a host not consecrated in place of a consecrated one. The reason is that in this case, "although indeed a Sacrament is not simulated, which is not there, nevertheless bread is exposed to the adoration of those standing by and of the recipient himself, who, just as he would sin externally by adoring an idol, even from fear of death, so also would sin externally by adoring an unconsecrated host; and he would sin more gravely than if he communicated unworthily."

2. It is licit for a confessor to pray over one indisposed and to impart a blessing to him, lest his indisposition be disclosed to the others; for this is not an abuse of a sacred thing, since no sacramental thing is placed; nor a lie, because either of itself or from the circumstances the action can be explained, and only for a grave cause is the error of others permitted. Likewise, one can, without simulation, approach the confessional, kneel, and speak about a matter. Likewise, in the case in which someone cannot dispose himself for Communion, it is licit for him, to avoid infamy or scandal, to agree with the priest that the latter only pronounce over him the words: Corpus D. N. J. C., etc., without giving a host; because then a Sacrament is not simulated.

Finally, neither is it illicit for spouses, on account of grave fear, for example of infamy or scandal, to simulate the external celebration of Matrimony; for where voluntary consent is lacking, there the matter and form of the Sacrament are lacking: whence indeed the contract is simulated, but the Sacrament is not simulated.⁷

Note. On the OBLIGATION which a pastor has of ministering the Sacraments, it will be said in the Treatise on the Clerical State (n. 2271). See what has already been said, nn. 485 sqq. and 491 sqq., with respect to the obligation of charity by which other priests are bound.