§ 2. On Denying The Sacraments

As regards the denial of the sacraments, two general principles are set down, and then certain particular applications for the individual sacraments are appended, all those theoretical hypotheses which are no longer practical today being omitted.

75. Principle 1. It is never lawful to administer any sacrament to an incapable subject, such that the sacrament would be not only illicit but also altogether invalid.

The reason is that such an administration is intrinsically evil, as being a most wicked abuse of a most sacred thing. For it is a grave sacrilege directly procured. Hence, even to avoid death, a minister cannot, for example, confer sacred orders upon a woman, confirmation and the other sacraments upon someone not baptized, or give sacramental absolution to someone who certainly does not have sufficient attrition, etc. Although a priest is not the proper minister of the sacrament of matrimony, nevertheless he can never assist at a matrimony which is certainly null, for example, because of the impediment of a prior bond.

76. Principle 2. It is not lawful to administer any sacrament to an unworthy subject except for a most grave cause.

The reason is that a minister is bound under a threefold title to deny the sacraments to an unworthy subject, mindful of that precept: "Do not give what is holy to dogs, nor cast your pearls before swine":²⁸⁵ namely, a) from the virtue of religion, which forbids that a sacred thing such as a sacrament be treated irreverently; b) from fidelity, since the office of administering the sacraments was entrusted to the minister only as a faithful steward and mandatory of Christ, and not as an absolute lord who can do whatever he wills; c) from charity, because from an unworthy administration great harm is caused both to the recipient, who commits a grave sacrilege, and to Christian society, which thereby, at least sometimes, suffers great scandal.

He is called unworthy who lacks some disposition essentially required for the licit reception of the sacrament, namely, either the necessary knowledge or the state of sanctifying grace required for the licit reception of the sacraments of the living. Because of a lack of at least some knowledge of the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation, it is not lawful to administer the sacrament of baptism to an adult,²⁸⁶ as was already said above, I, n. 490. It is said: except for a most grave cause. The reason is that it is lawful to cooperate materially in the sin of another if a grave cause is present. Now, to administer some sacrament to an unworthy person for a grave cause seems to be nothing other than material cooperation in the sin of the one receiving the sacrament. For it proceeds solely from the malice of the recipient that the action of the minister, which in itself is good, becomes evil. This is confirmed by the example of Christ Himself, who, according to the common interpretation of the older exegetes, conferred upon the most unworthy Judas Iscariot the sacraments of the Eucharist and order.²⁸⁷ The action of Christ is our instruction; and therefore the Angelic Doctor says:²⁸⁸ "Christ therefore did not repel Judas from Communion, so that He might give an example that such sinners are not to be expelled by other priests."

²⁸⁵ Matt. 7:6.

²⁸⁶ Cf. Holy Office, January 25, 1703.

²⁸⁷ Several exegetes, especially modern ones, think that Judas did not receive Holy Communion but departed after consuming the Pasch. Cf. Knabenbauer, Comm. super Matth., c. 26.

²⁸⁸ S. theol. 3, q. 81, a. 2 ad 2.

77. The causes for which it is lawful to give the sacraments to the unworthy are:

1. Lest the sacramental seal be violated.

Thus all teach in our times. Older writers indeed thought that a confessor could deny a sacrament because of a crime heard in confession under the pretext of other causes,²⁸⁹ but this opinion is no longer safe in practice, since it renders confession odious and induces a violation of the sacramental seal. Moreover, on November 18, 1682, the Holy Office²⁹⁰ proscribed a similar opinion. Therefore, for example, a confessor is bound to give Communion to a penitent demanding it whom, immediately beforehand, he dismissed without absolution because of the penitent's indisposition.

2. Lest the very person who unworthily requests a sacrament incur most grave infamy from the disclosure of an occult crime.

Hence, for example, a pastor cannot exclude Paul from the celebration of matrimony when he knows privately that Paul has committed fornication and has not yet confessed it. The reason is that by acting thus the pastor would illicitly defame Paul. Nor can it be objected that the lesser of two evils must be chosen and that the defamation of the sinner is a lesser evil than the sacrilegious reception of the sacrament. For, as St. Thomas says: "Although it is worse for an occult sinner to sin mortally by receiving the body of Christ than to be defamed, nevertheless, for the priest ministering the body of Christ, it is worse to sin mortally by unjustly defaming an occult sinner than that the latter sin mortally, because no one ought to commit a mortal sin in order to free another from sin."²⁹¹ Or briefly: Evils are not to be done that goods may come.

3. Lest grave scandal arise among the faithful, who, if they were ignorant of the cause of the denial, would be kept away from the sacraments, since they would fear rejection for themselves also.²⁹²

This case can rarely occur in our days, for either it concerns a public sinner, and then true and well-founded scandal cannot arise because of the sacrament being denied; or it concerns an occult sinner, and then it is not lawful to deny a sacrament to one who requests it publicly, as will be said below.

²⁸⁹ Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor., l. 6, nn. 51 and 658. The text which is adduced from St. Thomas (IV Sent., dist. 9, q. unic., a. 5, sol. 1) for this opinion is not so clear. Moreover, the Angelic Doctor manifestly teaches the contrary in S. theol. 3, q. 80, a. 6, saying: "But if they are not manifest sinners, but occult, Holy Communion cannot be denied to them when they request it."

²⁹⁰ Denz., n. 1240.

²⁹¹ S. theol. 3, q. 80, a. 6 ad 2.

²⁹² Thus Noldin, De sacr. in gen., n. 36.

78. Scholion. Older and modern authors dispute greatly whether danger of death or a similar evil threatening a priest is a sufficient reason for giving a sacrament to an unworthy person. Whatever may be said concerning the theoretical probability of the affirmative or negative opinion, this case is scarcely possible today. For in the sacraments of matrimony and penance this case cannot occur: not in matrimony, because the priest is not the minister of this sacrament and is not forbidden sometimes to assist passively at the matrimony of a public sinner, as will be said below; not in penance, because a man unjustly threatening death or another grave harm to a confessor would receive the sacrament not only unworthily but invalidly. Now, it is never lawful to administer a sacrament to an incapable person, as was said above.

Likewise, this case can scarcely, or indeed cannot at all, occur in the other sacraments. For if these threats of death or another evil are public, they are customarily made out of hatred of the faith, contempt of religion, or with great scandal to the people, and then the priest ought rather to undergo death than yield to such hatred or contempt. But if the threats are occult and the sinner is occult, then the public petition must be yielded to. An occult petition, however, will scarcely ever occur. St. Alphonsus,²⁹³ Peter de Ledesma,²⁹⁴ Concina,²⁹⁵ and Lehmkuhl²⁹⁶ deny that the administration of a sacrament is lawful from fear of death; but Lugo,²⁹⁷ Sporer-Bierbaum,²⁹⁸ Ballerini-Palmieri,²⁹⁹ Genicot,³⁰⁰ D'Annibale,³⁰¹ and Noldin³⁰² affirm it.

²⁹³ Theol. mor., l. 6, n. 49.

²⁹⁴ Summa de euchar., c. 12, concl. 2, dub. 3.

²⁹⁵ De sacr. in gen., c. 12, n. 12.

²⁹⁶ Theol. mor. II, n. 59.

²⁹⁷ De sacr. in gen., disp. 8, n. 181.

²⁹⁸ Theol. mor. III, P. 1, c. 3, n. 188.

²⁹⁹ Opus theol. IV, n. 689.

³⁰⁰ Theol. mor. II, n. 122.

³⁰¹ Summula Theol. mor. III, n. 264.

³⁰² De sacr. in gen., n. 36 (3).

79. Practical rules.

1. The sacraments, matrimony excepted, must be denied: a) to a public sinner, concerning whose amendment there is not sufficient certainty; b) to an occult sinner requesting them occultly.

2. The sacraments must not be denied, but must be given, to an occult sinner requesting them publicly.

A public sinner is considered to be one whose crime is truly scandalous and notorious with notoriety either of law or of fact, that is, one who either has been convicted of a great crime in a public judgment or, in the place where he requests the sacraments, is so notoriously criminal that he is known by a great part of the people. Heretics or schismatics, even those erring in good faith, are equated in this matter with sinners public by law; it is not lawful to administer the sacraments to them unless, after first rejecting their errors, they have been reconciled to the Church.³⁰³ Thus at least outside the danger of death. Those also are to be kept from the sacraments as public sinners who actually and publicly are in the state of mortal sin, for example, those who are manifestly drunk here and now, and women so immodestly dressed that this immodesty is truly scandalous and mortally sinful.

An occult sinner is held to be one whose unworthiness is known to one or a few discreet persons.

A petition for a sacrament is public if it is made in the sight of several persons; but it is occult if it is made before the minister alone or before a few others who do not perceive the denial of the sacrament, so that no infamy arises therefrom.

With these things noted beforehand, the first part of the first rule is easily explained. For the Roman Ritual,³⁰⁴ with which canon 855, § 1 of the Code of Canon Law agrees, determines: "Those publicly unworthy are to be kept from the Eucharist, such as the excommunicated, the interdicted, and the manifestly infamous [such as prostitutes, concubinarians, usurers, magicians, diviners, blasphemers, and other public sinners of that kind], unless their penance and amendment are established and they have first made satisfaction for the public scandal." From these words it appears that a public sinner, although rightly absolved from sins, cannot at once be admitted to the public reception of Communion unless he has first repaired the scandal given. In what determinate manner this scandal is to be repaired must be established after all the circumstances of persons and places have been considered. In practice it is often better first to consult the bishop concerning this reparation of scandal. Holy Communion can be administered occultly to every sinner sincerely amended and rightly absolved. Thus at least according to the present discipline of the Church.

The other part of the first rule is expressed in this manner by the Roman Ritual and the Code of Canon Law:³⁰⁵ "If occult sinners request [Holy Communion] occultly and the minister knows that they have not amended, let him repel them." The reason for both parts is that from a sacrament being denied to a sinner requesting occultly or to a public sinner, no defamation or other grave inconvenience follows. On the contrary, the sinner receives a salutary admonition, and the sacrament is protected against an attempted irreverence.

The second rule is not only manifestly contained in the Roman Ritual and in the Code of Canon Law,³⁰⁶ but also follows clearly from the causes enumerated above, on account of which it is lawful, indeed necessary, to administer a sacrament to the unworthy. For from the denial of the sacrament there would then follow great infamy for the petitioner and scandal to the people.

³⁰³ Code of Canon Law, c. 731, § 2.

³⁰⁴ Tit. 4, c. 1, n. 8.

³⁰⁵ Tit. 4, c. 1, n. 9; c. 855, § 2.

³⁰⁶ L.c.

80. Applications to the individual sacraments.

1. Concerning the baptism of infants who are born of Catholic parents, there is neither difficulty nor obstacle. But infants of non-Catholic, and especially Jewish, parents are not to be baptized, except in danger of death, unless the parents promise all things necessary, as will be said more broadly below, n. 128. Baptism cannot be given to an adult, outside the danger of death, unless his good disposition is positively established.

2. Confirmation cannot be conferred except upon one whose worthiness is morally and positively established. The bishop, the minister of confirmation, customarily requires testimony concerning the worthiness of the person to be confirmed, either from the pastor or from another legitimate superior.

3. The rules given above pertain especially to the administration of the Eucharist. That the Eucharist is publicly requested by a public sinner occurs in our days especially in two cases: a) if a Catholic man, in contempt of the laws of the Church, enters a mixed matrimony and permits the non-Catholic education of the offspring; what must be done before such a man is admitted to the sacraments will be said below in the tract on matrimony, n. 784; b) if someone lives in notorious concubinage and now, being situated in grave illness, requests Viaticum. In this case the sacrament is not to be granted unless the scandal has first been removed. The sick person is therefore bound either to cast the concubine out of the house or to marry her before he receives the sacrament.

4. The sacrament of penance is never to be denied to a man rightly confessed and contrite. But the confessor can, and indeed must, require that the penitent perform all those things which are required for sufficient disposition, and notably the prior removal of scandal, of a proximate voluntary occasion, and of a censure that may have been incurred. Sacramental absolution can and must be given, at least conditionally, to every dying baptized adult, even a heretic, who is deprived of his senses, unless it is manifestly established that he rejects this sacrament. The reason is that such a dying person is customarily situated in extreme spiritual necessity, in which it is lawful to administer even a doubtfully valid sacrament.

5. Extreme unction, since it is administered only to a man existing in danger of life, must not be denied to one sincerely requesting it, explicitly or at least interpretatively. If, however, the sick person is in possession of his mind, he must first promise a serious amendment of life and the other things necessary according to the precepts of the Catholic Church.

6. According to the truer opinion, the sacrament of order can never be administered to an unworthy person, since he, even if occultly unworthy, is altogether to be kept from orders.³⁰⁷ Therefore St. Thomas³⁰⁸ teaches that it does not suffice that the prelate be ignorant that the one to be ordained is in sin, "but it is further required that, according to the measure of the order ... more diligent care be applied, so that certainty may be had concerning the quality of those to be promoted." Following the Council of Trent,³⁰⁹ canon 970 of the Code of Canon Law determines: "The proper bishop or major religious superior can, for any canonical cause, although not at his mere pleasure, even an occult cause and even extrajudicially, forbid his clerics ascent to orders, without prejudice to the right of recourse to the Holy See, or even to the general moderator if it concerns religious whose ascent the provincial superior has forbidden." The reason is that the sacrament of order unworthily received causes the greatest harms both to the cleric himself and to the whole Church.

7. A priest can more easily assist at the matrimony of a public sinner, since he is not the minister of this sacrament but only a qualified witness. Therefore, to avoid greater evils, the Church permits a pastor, with certain precautions observed, to furnish assistance at the valid matrimony of a public sinner.³¹⁰ This matter will be discussed more broadly below in the tract on matrimony. Likewise, for a most grave cause the Church permits a Catholic party to contract matrimony with a non-Catholic or sinful party.

Note. If any sacrament must be denied, it is always necessary to proceed with the greatest prudence and humanity, so that all may perceive clearly that the priest was unwilling to offend anyone, but intended only the honor of religion and the salvation of souls.

³⁰⁷ St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor., l. 6, n. 52.

³⁰⁸ Suppl., q. 36, a. 4 ad 3.

³⁰⁹ Sess. 14, c. 1 de reform.

³¹⁰ Code of Canon Law, c. 1066.