Article VII. On The Simulation And Dissimulation Of The Sacraments

81. Notion of simulation. Simulation or fiction of the sacraments is an illicit change of the matter, form, or necessary intention, secretly made by the minister, such that the sacrament is null and the recipient is led into error.

Although all theologians agree that the fiction of a sacrament is never lawful, nevertheless they labor greatly in defining it. The definition adduced seems to be good and complete. For just as that act is called fictitious which is outwardly posited as though all things required for validity were present, while in reality it is null on account of an essential internal and hidden defect, so also the administration of a sacrament is fictitious if outwardly all things necessary for the validity of the sacrament are posited in appearance, but secretly the minister introduces an essential defect, such that the sacrament is null and the recipient is led into error. In the definition adduced, however, it is called an illicit change because of the sacrament of matrimony, in which it is sometimes lawful to change the matter, form, or intention. For if someone is compelled by grave and unjust fear to contract matrimony, he can lawfully express consent outwardly while withholding it inwardly. For although from such fictitious consent the spouse, who thinks that he is entering a true contract of matrimony, is led into error, nevertheless there is not present a fiction of the sacrament properly so called, but a fiction of the matrimonial contract. This manner of fictitiously consenting is lawful in the case, both because it primarily concerns the contract and not the sacrament, and because it is a legitimate defense against the atrocious injury of fear unjustly inflicted, as will be said more broadly below in the tract on matrimony.

82. Modes. Simulation or fiction can be performed by the minister in three ways: a) if he secretly employs matter unfit for the sacrament, for example, if in place of the wine to be consecrated he were to place in the chalice another liquid altogether similar to it; b) if he secretly changes the form essentially, for example, if a confessor, in pronouncing the form of sacramental absolution, were to say in an intelligible voice, "I absolve you from your sins," but in a very low voice were to insert the little word "not";³¹¹ c) if he inwardly withholds the intention of administering the sacrament.

³¹¹ St. Alphonsus (Theol. mor., l. 6, n. 59) thinks this mode not altogether illicit, but Gury, Bucceroni, and others call this case chimerical.

83. Principle. Simulation or fiction of a sacrament is never lawful.

This is evident:

1. From proposition 29 condemned by Innocent XI: "Urgent grave fear is a just cause for simulating the administration of the sacraments."³¹²

2. The fiction or simulation of a sacrament is a very harmful lie and a detestable sacrilege. It is a lie because it leads into error one who justly thinks that he is receiving a sacrament; it is a sacrilege because it is an abuse of a sacred thing, for the minister abuses the sacrament in order to lie, if not by words, nevertheless by deeds.

³¹² Denz., n. 1179.

84. Notion of dissimulation. The fiction or simulation of a sacrament differs as heaven from earth from the dissimulation of a sacrament, or rather from the dissimulation of a denied sacrament. Such dissimulation is the positing of a non-sacramental action from which others, not the recipient, erroneously judge that a sacrament has been conferred; for example, a confessor gives a blessing to a penitent to whom he was obliged to deny absolution, and recites certain prayers for the purpose that those standing about may not perceive that absolution was denied; or a priest, according to an arrangement made beforehand, might make the sign of the cross before the mouth of a man kneeling at the Communion rail, who for a grave reason can neither receive Communion nor withdraw from the public Communion table, and would then replace the sacred host in the ciborium.³¹³

In this latter case, however, a very grave cause is required, because the Most Holy Eucharist itself is employed for an end that is indeed good but also for the deception of others; and this seems to include some irreverence. But it would be plainly illicit in this case to give that man, although knowing and consenting, an unconsecrated host, since such a manner of acting would be at least material idolatry, because then this man would at least outwardly adore something which is a vile creature. "For just as he would sin by outwardly adoring an idol, even from fear of death, so also he would always sin by outwardly adoring an unconsecrated host. And he would sin more gravely than if he were to communicate unworthily; as is evident from chapter De homine 7, de celebr. miss., where it is said that the priest who did not consecrate in the Mass would sin more gravely than one who sacrilegiously consecrated and communicated."³¹⁴ St. Thomas³¹⁵ teaches concerning this matter: "An unconsecrated host must in no way be given in place of a consecrated one, because the priest doing this, insofar as it lies in him, causes those who believe it to be a consecrated host to commit idolatry, whether others present or even the one receiving it; because, as Augustine³¹⁶ says: 'Let no one eat the flesh of Christ unless he first adores it.'"

Principle. The dissimulation of a denied sacrament is lawful for a reasonable cause. For it is nothing other than permitting others, who in the case have no right to know the objective truth, to fall into a harmless error.³¹⁷

³¹³ St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor., l. 6, n. 59.

³¹⁴ St. Alphonsus, ibid., n. 61.

³¹⁵ S. theol. 3, q. 80, a. 6 ad 2; cf. Quodlibet V, a. 12.

³¹⁶ In Ps. 158, circa med.

³¹⁷ Cf. St. Alphonsus, l.c., n. 59.

85. Scholion. On probabilism in administering the sacraments. Outside a case of grave necessity it is not lawful to follow a probable opinion, leaving aside the safer one, when the validity of the sacraments is at issue, as is evident from proposition 1 condemned by Innocent XI: "It is not illicit in conferring the sacraments to follow a probable opinion concerning the validity of the sacrament, leaving aside the safer one...."³¹⁸

But I say, first: outside a case of grave necessity. For the sacraments are for men, and therefore whenever the spiritual salvation of a man is gravely endangered, the minister not only can but must administer the sacrament, at least conditionally; for example, he must absolve a man deprived of his senses, although perhaps he is already dead or otherwise indisposed.

I say, second: when the validity of the sacraments is at issue, for if the Church is rightly presumed to supply those things which are required for the validity of a sacrament, the matter stands otherwise. Therefore, for example, in the sacrament of penance it is sometimes lawful to give absolution with probable jurisdiction, which, if it did not suffice, the Church would supply. Likewise, if there is question of a diriment impediment to matrimony introduced by ecclesiastical law, which the Church is able to relax for a legitimate cause, it is sometimes lawful to employ a solidly probable opinion, because then the sacraments are not treated irreverently nor exposed to the danger of nullity. For the whole reason why it is not lawful in conferring the sacraments to employ a probable opinion while leaving aside the safer one is the reverence owed to the sacraments, lest, namely, they be exposed to the danger of nullity without a most grave cause.³¹⁹

³¹⁸ Denz., n. 1151.

³¹⁹ Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor., l. 1, nn. 49-50 and l. 6, n. 57.