Article II. On The Faith And Probity Of The Minister

55. Proposition 1. For the valid administration of the sacraments neither faith nor probity (that is, the state of sanctifying grace) is required in the minister.

The truth of this proposition is already evident from what has been said. For since a man bears not his own person but that of Christ in administering the sacraments, which produce their proper effects ex opere operato (and not ex opere operantis), the minister always administers them validly, provided that without a substantial change he applies the form to the due matter, having the intention of doing what the Church does. Moreover, the greatest incongruity would follow if the validity of the sacraments depended upon the faith and probity of the minister. For then a man receiving the sacraments could not have certain confidence concerning his own salvation; for it would always be in doubt whether the minister administering, for example, the sacrament of penance, was in the state of sanctifying grace. A very great many infants also would lose eternal salvation, namely, all those who were baptized by a bad minister. But these things are absurd and repugnant to divine mercy, which wills all men to be saved. Hence St. Thomas rightly says: "In the form of the sacraments a word uttered by a just man does no more than one uttered by a sinner, because the merit of man does not operate there, but the Passion of Christ and the power of God."²¹¹ The tradition and definitions of the Church teach the same.

Tradition. Therefore, from the most ancient times the Church taught that the false faith of the minister cannot destroy the validity of a sacrament. It is exceedingly well known how St. Stephen I, already in the third century, defended the validity of baptism conferred by heretics against St. Cyprian, Firmilian, and other bishops who held the contrary opinion. Pope St. Stephen wrote to St. Cyprian: "If, therefore, any come to you from any heresy, let nothing be innovated [that is, let no sacrament be repeated], except what has been handed down, namely, that the hand be imposed upon them unto penance.... One ought not ask who it is that baptized, because he who has been baptized could obtain grace.... The name of Christ contributes greatly to faith and the sanctification of baptism, so that whoever and wherever he has been baptized in the name of Christ may immediately obtain the grace of Christ."²¹² Above all others St. Augustine defends the Catholic doctrine in many places, for example: "Those whom a drunkard baptized, those whom a murderer baptized, those whom an adulterer baptized: if it was the baptism of Christ, Christ baptized."²¹³ The same St. Augustine, against St. Cyprian, asserts that the custom of not rebaptizing those who, having been baptized by heretics, return to the true Church "was derived from apostolic tradition."²¹⁴ In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries the Waldensians and Albigensians falsely taught that sacraments administered by any bad minister were null. Finally, in the fourteenth century the Wycliffites thought that only those sacraments were valid which were conferred by predestined ministers. But all these errors were proscribed by the Church.

Definitions of the Church. The First Council of Nicaea (a. 325) decreed that the Paulianists returning to the Church should be entirely rebaptized, because they had not at all been baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; on the contrary, the same synod prohibited the Novatians and Cathari from being rebaptized, because their baptism was valid.²¹⁵ The Council of Constance condemns proposition 4 of Wyclif: "If a bishop or priest is in mortal sin, he does not ordain, does not consecrate, does not confect, does not baptize."²¹⁶ The Council of Trent defined: "If anyone says that baptism, which is even given by heretics in the name of the Father ... with the intention of doing what the Church does, is not true baptism, let him be anathema"; and: "If anyone says that a minister existing in mortal sin, provided that he has observed all the essentials which pertain to confecting or conferring a sacrament, does not confect or confer a sacrament, let him be anathema."²¹⁷

²¹¹ Opusc. 18, De forma absolut., c. 3. The Angelic Doctor discusses this matter more broadly in S. theol. 3, q. 64, a. 5, and Contra gent. 4, 77.

²¹² Denz., nn. 46 and 47 (Migne, Patr. lat. 3, 1174 sq.).

²¹³ On John, tract. 5, n. 18 (Migne, l.c. 35, 1424).

²¹⁴ De bapt., l. 2, c. 7 (Migne, l.c. 33, 133).

²¹⁵ Denz., nn. 55 and 56; cf. n. 97.

²¹⁶ Denz., n. 584.

²¹⁷ Sess. 7, can. 4 on baptism and can. 12 on the sacraments in general (Denz., nn. 860 and 855).

56. Proposition 2. For the licit confecting of the sacraments, the state of sanctifying grace is required under grave sin (at least if a consecrated minister solemnly administers sacraments outside a case of necessity).

Hence it is a grave sin to confect sacraments in the state of grave sin, except in the cases just indicated and to be explained below. Thus teach nearly all theologians. The reason, however, is manifold:

It is proved: 1. Not less, but much greater purity is required in the ministers of the New Testament than in the Levites of the Old Law. But the latter were gravely bound to legal purity: "Every man of your stock [namely, Aaron] who shall approach those things which are consecrated ... in whom there is uncleanness, shall perish before the Lord."²¹⁸ Therefore, spiritual purity from grave sin is most fittingly required of the ministers of the New Testament.

2. The Roman Ritual says: "Although the sacraments cannot be defiled by the impure, nor can their effects be impeded by wicked ministers, nevertheless those who minister them impurely and unworthily incur the guilt of eternal death."²¹⁹

3. St. Thomas²²⁰ teaches: "There is no doubt that evil men who present themselves as ministers of God and of the Church in the dispensing of the sacraments sin. And because this sin pertains to irreverence toward God and the contamination of the sacraments, insofar as this lies on the part of the sinner himself, although the sacraments in themselves are incapable of contamination, it follows that such a sin is mortal from its genus."

4. It is in truth most gravely unbecoming that a minister who was solemnly consecrated for worthily confecting the sacraments, but who is now stained with the filth of sin and therefore placed under the power of the devil, nevertheless wishes solemnly to bear the person of the most holy and most pure Christ in confecting the sacraments, and to produce or increase in the soul of the one receiving the sacrament the most excellent gift of sanctifying grace. Yet the minister himself has subordinated that grace to a filthy sin. For such arrogance is worse than if a servant were to present a vessel outwardly dirty for offering precious wine to the friends of the king.

²¹⁸ Lev. 22:3.

²¹⁹ Tit. I, on the sacraments in general, n. 4.

²²⁰ S. theol. 3, q. 64, a. 6.

57. Exceptions. There are nevertheless excepted cases in which a minister existing in the state of mortal sin does not sin gravely by confecting and administering the sacraments.

a) If he is not a consecrated minister.

Hence a layman existing in the state of mortal sin who administers baptism in a case of necessity does not sin gravely. Thus holds the solidly probable opinion of many doctors; St. Alphonsus, however, calls the opposite opinion more probable,²²¹ because even such a man commits a grave irreverence toward God and the sacrament. Certainly, some irreverence is present, but it is not established whether it is so great as to constitute mortal sin. For the rest, in practice, with all agreeing, a layman administering baptism in a case of necessity does not sin mortally: a) because objectively the gravity of the irreverence committed is not established; β) because there is customarily so great a lack of time that both an act of contrition and sacramental confession are impossible; γ) because ignorance of the obligation to elicit contrition is customarily present. Since the contracting parties are the ministers of the sacrament of matrimony, they do not indeed sin gravely by administering, but by receiving, this sacrament of the living in the state of mortal sin. In practice, according to all theologians, it suffices if such a sinner says in confession: I received the sacrament of matrimony in the state of mortal sin.

b) Even a consecrated minister does not seem to sin gravely if a) in a case of necessity he confects a sacrament in a nonsollemn manner, or β) if time is lacking for obtaining for himself the state of grace (at least through contrition).

The Angelic Doctor, nearly all Thomists,²²² and many others²²³ plainly teach this concerning baptism. Behold the words of St. Thomas:²²⁴ "In the moment of necessity, however, [a priest] would not sin by baptizing in a case in which even a layman could baptize; for thus it is evident that he would not present himself as a minister of the Church, but would relieve the necessity of the one suffering it. But it is otherwise in the other sacraments, which are not of so great a necessity as baptism." Hence, for example, a priest existing in the state of mortal sin does not sin if he ministers baptism or the sacrament of penance to a dying person who would die without baptism or absolution if the priest himself first wished to confess or to be contrite. This doctrine can indeed be confirmed, not incongruously, by an example: It would assuredly be the greatest irreverence if a minister of a king, solemnly deputed to his office, were to appear in filthy clothing before the king. But if the same minister, in a case of great necessity, should suddenly have to serve the king outside the time of his proper service, there would not be grave irreverence, nor would the king be greatly offended, if he appeared in filthy clothing. For then the minister would act not from contempt of the king, but from necessity. Therefore, a consecrated minister who, while existing in the state of mortal sin, administers sacraments in grave necessity does not seem to sin gravely. Nevertheless, since a priest ought to know the sanctity of the sacraments much better than a layman and can much more easily elicit an act of contrition, let him take care, if he is conscious of mortal sin, at least to elicit an act of perfect contrition with the resolve of confessing or, what is much better and safer, to receive sacramental absolution after making confession.²²⁵ But if it is a question of confecting the Eucharist (or receiving it, but not administering it), contrition alone does not suffice, but sacramental confession and absolution are required if a confessor is available.²²⁶ What constitutes the availability of a confessor may be seen below in the tract on the Eucharist (n. 192).

According to St. Alphonsus,²²⁷ a priest celebrating in mortal sin commits four sacrileges: 1. because he unworthily confects the sacrament; 2. he unworthily receives it; 3. he unworthily ministers it; 4. he ministers it to his own unworthy self. Others, however (Lugo, Ballerini, etc.), teach that there are only two mortal sins, namely, because such a priest unworthily consecrates and unworthily receives the sacrament; finally, Billuart²²⁸ teaches that there is one sin, because all those things are joined in one violated mystery. For practice this controversy is of little importance, since in confession it suffices simply to declare an unworthy celebration.

Corollary. From what has been said it follows that a minister existing in mortal sin sins gravely if, outside a case of urgent necessity, he solemnly baptizes, confirms, celebrates, absolves, confers extreme unction, or confers sacred orders; but not if he assists at matrimony, since the priest is not the minister of the sacrament of matrimony.

²²¹ Theol. mor., l. 6, n. 32.

²²² Cf. Billuart, De sacr. in gen., diss. 5, a. 4; Concina, De sacr. in gen., c. 11, § 5, n. 15; Gonet, Clypeus theol. thom., De sacr. in gen., disp. 6, n. 95.

²²³ Cf. Lehmkuhl, Theol. mor. II, n. 43; Haine, Theol. mor. elem., De sacr. in gen., q. 25; Gopfert, Moraltheol. III, 14.

²²⁴ S. theol. 3, q. 64, a. 6 ad 3.

²²⁵ Cf. Roman Catechism, P. 2, c. 1, q. 17; Roman Ritual, tit. I, on the sacraments in general, n. 4.

²²⁶ Council of Trent, sess. 13, c. 7 (Denz., n. 880).

²²⁷ L.c., n. 35.

²²⁸ De sacr. in gen., diss. 5, a. 4, Corollaries; and De pecc., diss. 2, a. 4.

58. It is asked: 1. How many sins does a minister commit who, while existing in the state of sin, solemnly administers several sacraments?

The theologians do not agree. Noldin²²⁹ teaches: "He commits one sin numerically who in one administration successively confers the same sacrament upon several; thus he who absolves several, baptizes several together, confirms several, or ordains several while in the state of sin." This opinion, however, is commonly rejected. Therefore Lehmkuhl²³⁰ rightly says: "It is commonly established that a numerically distinct mortal sin is said to be committed as often as a sacrament is ministered." The reason is that each sacrament is a thing complete in itself, and consequently as many gravely sinful irreverences are committed as there are sacraments ministered in the state of mortal sin. Hence, although the opinion defended by Noldin and others is not altogether improbable, nevertheless it is much more advisable to confess the number of sacraments administered in the state of mortal sin. And ordinary practice also proceeds thus; this nevertheless admits an exception with regard to the distribution of Communion, concerning which immediately below.

²²⁹ De sacr. in gen., n. 32.

²³⁰ Theol. mor. II, n. 47.

59. 2. Is it a grave sin for a priest or deacon to administer Holy Communion in the state of mortal sin?

The theologians do not agree. St. Alphonsus,²³¹ Billuart,²³² and several others think this to be a mortal sin. The Roman Catechism favors this opinion, saying: "But if it is less lawful for a man contaminated by sins to treat of divine things, how great a crime must we judge to be conceived by him who is conscious in himself of many crimes, and nevertheless does not fear to confect the sacred mysteries with a polluted mouth, or to take them into foul hands, handle them, and offer and minister them to others?"²³³ But Lugo,²³⁴ Sporer,²³⁵ and several others cited by St. Alphonsus,²³⁶ and, among moderns, Lehmkuhl,²³⁷ Noldin,²³⁸ Haine,²³⁹ Genicot,²⁴⁰ and Gopfert,²⁴¹ probably think that there is no mortal sin, because a) in that act the minister does not instrumentally cause sanctifying grace, since it is produced not through the offering of the consecrated host but through its consumption; b) one who distributes the Eucharist is not necessarily a sacred person, for in ancient times laypeople carried it home with them and gave it to themselves and to others in a case of necessity. Since these things are so, this second and benign opinion is truly probable both extrinsically and intrinsically. Nevertheless, since a) it is certainly very unbecoming that a priest who, through his mortal sin, is a member of the devil should touch the most holy body of Christ in the Eucharist, and b) we do not possess trustworthy balances by which the degrees of malice may be weighed, let such an unhappy sinner not dare to distribute the Eucharist before he has recovered the state of sanctifying grace through sacramental absolution or at least through perfect contrition with the resolve of confessing. Nearly all authors, even the defenders of the first opinion, affirm that if a minister existing in the state of mortal sin distributes Holy Communion successively to several persons, he commits only one sin, because there is then only one banquet.

Those who admit the second opinion logically deduce from it that a deacon who carries or touches the most Holy Eucharist, likewise a deacon or subdeacon, and a fortiori the minor ministers serving in a solemn Mass and other sacred functions, do not sin mortally if they are in the state of mortal sin, unless, however, grave contempt is added, which is quite easily present if they exercise those functions frequently or habitually while in mortal sin. St. Thomas might appear contrary to this doctrine, since he teaches: "But whoever handles any sacred office with mortal sin, there is no doubt that he does it unworthily; whence it is evident that he sins mortally."²⁴² But the Holy Doctor in the Summa theologica, where he retracted several opinions which he had maintained in the commentaries, has nothing concerning this matter. Moreover, "sacred office" cannot be taken in a broad sense; otherwise even a porter opening the door or an acolyte carrying a candle would sin mortally if he were not in the state of grace, which seems altogether improbable. Therefore, the Angelic Doctor either took office for sacrament, or understood "mortal sin" as a notorious mortal sin, so that scandal arises from it.

That a preacher who delivers a sacred sermon while in mortal sin does not sin mortally is the more common opinion, nor does St. Thomas contradict it.²⁴³ The same must be said of other sacred functions which ought to be performed by clerics, such as the consecration of a church or vessels, blessings even with the sacrament, etc.²⁴⁴

²³¹ L.c., n. 35.

²³² De sacr. in gen., diss. 5, a. 4, Corollaries.

²³³ P. 2, c. 1, q. 17.

²³⁴ De sacr. in gen., disp. 8, n. 155.

²³⁵ Theol. mor., P. 1, c. 3, n. 172.

²³⁶ L.c.

²³⁷ Theol. mor. II, n. 43.

²³⁸ De sacr. in gen., n. 33.

²³⁹ De sacr. in gen., q. 25.

²⁴⁰ Theol. mor. II, n. 115.

²⁴¹ Moraltheol. III, 14.

²⁴² IV Sent., dist. 24, a. 3, sol. 5.

²⁴³ IV Sent., dist. 19, q. 2, a. 2 ad 2.

²⁴⁴ Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor., l. 6, nn. 38-41.

60. Scholion. On immunity from censures and irregularity. For the licit administration of the sacraments there are further required: a) due jurisdiction or license; b) immunity from censures and irregularity. Sacraments administered without these conditions are nevertheless valid (except penance in certain cases and matrimony). A fuller doctrine concerning all these things will be given below in the tract on the individual sacraments, censures, and irregularities.