Article Sixth. On the Obligation of Denying the Sacraments

36. To whom they must be denied. 1. Always, even if it is demanded under threat of death, a sacrament must be denied to an incapable subject, because its administration is intrinsically evil, as being an abuse of a sacred thing and a sacrilegious lie committed by deed.

He is called incapable who is not an apt subject for receiving the sacrament, as if order were conferred on a woman, or baptism on one already baptized. Therefore he who administers a sacrament to an incapable subject frustrates not only its effect, but the sacrament itself.

2. The minister is per se bound under grave sin to deny sacraments to the unworthy.

a. There is especially a twofold reason why the sacraments must be denied to the unworthy: from fidelity: for since the minister is not the lord of the sacraments, he must administer them as a faithful dispenser according to the will of his lord; but it is against the will of Christ that they be dispensed to the unworthy: "Do not give what is holy to dogs, nor cast your pearls before swine."¹ From charity: for the minister himself, who dispenses a sacrament to an unworthy person, cooperates in a most grave sacrilege; and the faithful would suffer grave scandal if they saw the sacraments administered to an indisposed and impenitent sinner. Nevertheless the unworthiness of the one requesting the sacrament must be morally certain: for if there were present only doubt or probable suspicion, the sacrament could be conferred, because in doubt anyone is to be presumed good.

b. The unworthy are first of all heretics and schismatics; therefore cn. 731, 2 has these words: It is forbidden to minister the sacraments of the Church to heretics or schismatics, even those erring in good faith and asking for them, unless first, their errors having been rejected, they have been reconciled to the Church.

Those are also called unworthy, or persons asking for a sacrament unworthily, who are known to be in the state of mortal sin without the will to amend themselves. An unworthy person truly receives the sacrament, although because of the obstacle he does not receive the grace of the sacrament; therefore he who dispenses a sacrament to an unworthy person frustrates its effect, not the sacrament itself. The following number (3) concerns these persons.

Therefore before the dispensing of a sacrament, the minister must have knowledge of the worthiness of the receiver. But this knowledge must not be the same in all sacraments: for in some he must inquire into the disposition of the receiver and judge positively about it, as in the baptism of adults and in penance; but in others it suffices that the disposition of the receiver can be prudently presumed; and it is rightly presumed in those who ask for sacraments, unless their unworthiness is evident. In order and matrimony, moreover, he must investigate the determinate conditions of the subject prescribed by law.

3. Nevertheless, from a most grave cause it is licit to administer sacraments to those asking unworthily. For fidelity in the ministry does not require that sacraments be denied where they cannot be denied without very grave inconvenience; moreover, if cooperation in another's sin is material, it is licit from a proportionately grave cause; but scandal must be prevented.

a. The causes from which it is licit to give a sacrament to an unworthy person are reduced almost to these: alpha. lest the sacramental seal be violated; beta. lest scandal and disturbance of the faithful arise, who, if they were ignorant of the cause of the denial, would be kept from the sacraments, since they too would fear repulse for themselves; gamma. lest danger of death or of an evil morally equivalent be undergone by him who ministers the sacrament; delta. lest he who asks for the sacrament be defamed, whose hidden crime would become known from the denial.

b. Concerning the two causes alleged in the last place, authors dispute whether they suffice so that a sacrament can licitly be administered to an unworthy person. St. Alphonsus (n. 49) and Lehmkuhl² teach that danger to life, or an evil morally equivalent, which cannot be avoided in another way, for example by dissimulation of the sacrament, does not suffice; they judge that it is licit to administer a sacrament to an unworthy person only to prevent public harm, not private harm: for where a sacrament cannot be denied without danger to the life of the one who denies the sacrament, they hold that provision must be made for the reverence due to Christ rather than for the life of the minister. But others think that this cause suffices:³ for since the question is of cooperation, although proximate, in the sacrilege of the receiver, and since charity alone directly forbids cooperation, which of itself does not oblige with grave inconvenience, the cooperation seems licit in order to avoid so great an evil. The same must be said of the fourth cause, where the question concerns only the defamation of him who asks for the sacrament. Nevertheless all warn that it is not licit to administer a sacrament to an unworthy person if it is sought in hatred of the faith or in contempt of religion; and in like manner, in no case whatsoever, not even in danger of death, is it licit to administer a sacrament to an incapable subject.

¹ Matt. 7, 6.

² Cf. Theologia moralis, II, n. 43 (n. 59).

³ Lugo, disp. 8, n. 181; Sporer-Bierbaum III, pr. 1, n. 188; Gobat, Experientia theologica, tr. I, n. 274; Ballerini-Palmieri IV, n. 689; D'Annibale III, n. 264; Genicot, Theologiae moralis institutiones, II, n. 122.

37. Rules. From these principles now flow the rules which must be observed in the administration of the sacraments, especially of the eucharist, if at any time a public or hidden sinner asks for it, whether publicly or secretly.

a. A public or notorious sinner is called one whose delict is commonly known, or at least is already known to so many persons that it can no longer be concealed. A hidden sinner is called one whose crime will not become known, and therefore one whose crime is known either to the priest alone or only to a few; and he is called hidden so long as there is hope that his crime can be concealed. Moreover, a crime can be absolutely public, if it has already come to the common knowledge of men, or relatively public, if the greater part of those present know it. He is said to ask publicly who asks before others, and secretly who asks before the minister alone or a few others, of whom nevertheless no account is to be taken, as little children.

b. In three ways a crime can be absolutely public: alpha. by publicity of law, or through the sentence of a judge; beta. by publicity of fact, if the crime was committed publicly; gamma. by publicity of reputation, if the rumor of the crime has been spread in the place and at the same time vehement indications of the committed crime are present.

1. The sacraments must be denied to a public sinner, whether he asks secretly or publicly: for in this case no reason exists for conceding the sacraments; moreover, grave scandal would be prepared for the faithful.

In order to prevent doubts which can arise in applying this rule, the following must be noted:

a. If the crime of the one asking is absolutely public, the sacrament must be denied, even if among the men present many are present who are still ignorant of the crime; for a public sinner has already lost the right to reputation.

b. If the crime of the one asking is relatively public, the sacrament must be denied whenever among those present there are only a few who are still ignorant of the crime; but it must not be denied if many are present who are still ignorant of the crime, even if on the other hand many also are present who have knowledge of the crime, because the one asking for the sacrament has not lost the right to reputation in relation to those who are still ignorant of the crime.¹

c. If the crime of the one asking is not known in the place where he asks for the sacrament, it must be denied where knowledge of the crime will shortly come even to that place: for the irreverence of the sacrament and scandal of the faithful must be prevented rather than a slight acceleration of defamation; but if it will not come there, or only after a long time, the sacrament must not be denied: for the one asking is compared to a hidden sinner asking publicly.

2. The sacraments must likewise be denied to a hidden sinner asking secretly: for in this case each reason set forth above is valid, unless his crime is known from confession: for because of the sacramental seal a sacrament must never be denied because of a crime heard in confession.

3. The sacraments must not be denied to a hidden sinner asking publicly, lest he be defamed and lest the faithful, who because of a hidden crime would fear repulse for themselves also, be kept away from the sacraments.

a. From the first rule there must be excepted: alpha. the sacrament of penance, to which not only must he be admitted who seriously asks for it, but per se anyone also must be absolved who is judged disposed. Moreover, beta. the sacrament of matrimony must be excepted, for contracting which the Church, for most grave reasons, admits both heretics and public sinners.

b. Therefore, in order that a public sinner can be admitted to the sacrament of the eucharist, it is not enough that he be worthy or disposed, but in addition it is required that his worthiness be known to others, for avoiding the scandal of others. Nevertheless, in order that his worthiness become known to others, some time of good conduct is not required; rather, it suffices that he has confessed publicly before others who will soon make known his amendment. Wherefore, once confession has been publicly made, he can ordinarily also be admitted publicly to holy communion immediately; indeed, even if he has not confessed publicly, he can ordinarily be admitted immediately to holy communion, unless it is evident that he has not confessed, because confession made can and must be presumed. Yet if public scandal which still endures must be removed by a public sinner, whether because he is in an occasion of sinning, or because he has spread impious doctrine, etc., ordinarily it must be required of him that by retracting the doctrine or removing the occasion, etc., he remove the scandal before he approaches holy communion, unless he wishes to communicate secretly or can prevent the scandal of the faithful in another way.

Whether the parish priest can assist at the matrimony of those of whom both, or one, is a public sinner.

The parish priest assisting as witness at the matrimony of those of whom at least one is unworthy cooperates in the sacrilege which is committed by contracting; but he does not administer the sacrament. But this cooperation is material; therefore it can be permitted from a just cause. But a just cause is the good of the contracting parties, the good of the innocent party, and the good of the community. Whether one of the contracting parties can administer the sacrament to the other, who is unworthy, will be stated in its own place.

¹ Ballerini-Palmieri IV, n. 688; Lehmkuhl, Theologia moralis, II, n. 39, 3 (n. 55).

38. On the simulation of the sacraments. Definitions. 1. Simulation in general is the fictitious placing of a sign, or it is the placing of an action which signifies something other than what the agent has in mind. Simulation of a sacrament is the fictitious placing of a sacramental sign, or it is the placing of a sacramental action without the sacrament being confected. A twofold simulation is distinguished: formal, by which the foreseen deception of others, who think that a true sacrament is confected, is intended; and material, by which the foreseen deception of others is only permitted.

2. From simulation of a sacrament there must be distinguished dissimulation of a sacrament, which is the placing of a non-sacramental action in those circumstances in which others falsely judge that a sacrament is conferred. Dissimulation is accustomed to have place for the end that denial of the sacrament may be hidden either from the receiver himself or from others.

a. Therefore he simulates a sacrament: alpha. who applies the matter and form of a sacrament without the intention of confecting the sacrament; beta. who employs matter invalid because of a hidden defect; gamma. who over matter utters an invalid form; and (because of analogy) delta. who presents to one about to communicate a host not consecrated as though consecrated.

b. He does not simulate but dissimulates a sacrament: alpha. who dismisses an indisposed penitent with only a blessing, lest those present notice that he is dismissed without absolution; beta. who, by arrangement with one about to communicate, only utters the words Corpus D. N. I. Ch., but does not give the sacred host to him, but immediately places it back in the ciborium, which can licitly be done from a grave cause;¹ gamma. a penitent who enters the confessional and speaks with the confessor about another matter, or asks from the confessor only a sacred blessing, when he is not disposed for making confession.

¹ Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 61.

39. Principles. 1. It is never permitted to simulate a sacrament, whether formally or materially, not even to avoid danger of death, since any simulation, even material simulation, is in itself and intrinsically evil.¹ For simulation, even material simulation only, is an abuse of a sacred thing instituted by Christ solely for sanctifying man; therefore it is a most grave injury inflicted on Christ. Moreover, he who simulates a sacrament commits a sacrilegious and gravely harmful lie. But if simulation is committed in confecting the eucharist, others are also induced to material idolatry; and if it is committed in distributing the eucharist, there intervenes indeed no simulation of the sacrament, but nevertheless an inducement to material idolatry.

Wherefore it is never permitted, in order to avoid a sacrilegious communion, to present a host not consecrated, not even to one knowing and consenting; nor is it permitted, in order to avoid a sacrilegious celebration, to utter the words of consecration without the intention of consecrating: for the simulation itself is a graver sin than sacrilegious communion or celebration.²

2. It is licit to dissimulate a sacrament from a just cause: for in dissimulation, since matter and form are lacking, no injury is inflicted on the sacrament, but only the deception of the neighbor concerning the administration of the sacrament is permitted, which can be licitly done from a just cause, for example, to avoid infamy or scandal.

In hearing confessions it sometimes happens that, after a simple blessing has been given and certain prayers recited, denial of absolution must be hidden from others, lest the seal be broken and lest the penitent be defamed because his unworthiness is betrayed. Indeed, St. Alphonsus (n. 59) judges that the very form of absolution can be uttered in a low voice by interposing not, namely: I do (not) absolve you, etc.

¹ This proposition (29) was condemned by Innocent XI: "Urgent grave fear is a cause for simulating the administration of the sacraments."

² Cf. Viva, Theses damnatae, on prop. 29 condemned by Innocent XI, n. 7; Bucceroni, Casus conscientiae^5 (Rome: Typogr. august., 1904), n. 109, 10.