Article I. On the Attention and Intention of the Minister

Attention is an act of the intellect, namely the application of the mind to those things which are being done, and it is distinguished as twofold: for one is internal, which is the very advertence of the mind to that which is being done, and another is external, which consists in this, that every external action physically incompatible with internal attention be excluded.

But intention is an act of the will tending toward some end, and it is chiefly divided: 1st. into internal and external, according as some true act of the will exists or only an external action; 2nd. into actual, virtual, habitual, and interpretative, according as the force and quantity of the tendency of the will is diverse according to those things which have been said in the treatise on human acts under n. 5.

I say 1st. Although for the licit conferral of the sacraments so great an attention is required that every voluntary distraction be absent, nevertheless for their validity only that attention is required and suffices which is found in every truly human act. The reason for the first is taken from the reverence owed to the sacrament and from the obligation of avoiding the danger of error. But the reason for the second is that, on the one hand, the Minister of the sacraments must act as a rational being, and on the other, if the act is supposed to be truly human, the agent is already truly judged to act morally, which certainly suffices for the notion of ministry. Hence a Minister even distracted, or thinking at the same time about other business, validly confers sacraments, but he is not without fault, although ordinarily only venial fault, unless he exposes himself to the danger of gravely erring, or, according to the more common opinion, unless there is question of the confection of the Eucharist. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 11 and 14. - Lacroix, lib. 6, part 2, n. 443.

I say 2nd. Actual intention, although best and desirable, nevertheless is not required for the valid conferral of a sacrament, because sometimes it is morally impossible; but virtual intention is required and suffices. It is indeed required, because otherwise a human act could be present by force of habitual or interpretative intention, which surely is repugnant; it suffices, however, because once the virtual influx of the will upon the action of the Minister has been posited, this can and must truly be called human and deliberate. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 16. - De Augustinis, Thesis 17, p. 222.

I say 3rd. § 1. Since all the Sacraments of the New Law, instituted by Christ Our Lord, are the principal means of sanctification and salvation, the greatest diligence and reverence must be employed in administering and receiving them opportunely and rightly (Can. 731).

Question 1. Does only external intention suffice for validly conferring a sacrament?

Resp. Negatively, because although an intention of confecting the sacrament, or of doing what the Roman Church does, is not properly required in the Minister, nevertheless there is required in him the intention of doing what the Church does, and consequently that his action be determined to a sacred rite; but this cannot be done without some internal intention. Besides, it is clear from proposition 28 condemned by Alexander VIII, which is as follows: "Baptism conferred by a Minister who observes every external rite and the form of baptizing is valid, but inwardly in his heart resolves with himself: I do not intend to do what the Church does." Moreover, even if the opinion of Catharinus, which is here rejected, enjoyed some probability, it could be of no use in the administration of the sacraments. Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 21, 22 and 23. - De Augustinis, Thesis 17, p. 228.

Question 2. Is a sacrament valid when conferred with conditioned intention?

Resp. Negatively, if the condition placed is concerning the future; because then, by suspending the intention of the Minister, it prevents the form from being applied here and now to the matter; nor can it afterward be applied, when the condition has been verified, since the matter and form have already ceased to be present. - Except, however, the Sacrament of Matrimony, as will be said in its own place. - But if the condition is concerning the past or concerning the present, and in reality this condition exists, any sacrament whatever will be valid. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 26.

Question 3. Is the conferral of the sacraments with conditioned intention licit, in doubt whether they have been validly conferred?

Resp. Affirmatively, if a sufficient cause is present for placing the condition. The reason is that sacraments are for men, and by conditioned conferral provision is made, insofar as can be done, both for the good of those who receive the sacrament, if perhaps they are capable of it, and also for the reverence of the sacrament. But it is certain that in extreme necessity, where no matter is present except doubtful matter, the Minister not only can, but also is bound under grave obligation to minister the sacrament under condition. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 27, 28 and 29.

Question 4. Must the condition be expressed in words?

Resp. Negatively, and the reason is that it suffices for reverence toward the sacrament if it is conceived in the mind. Indeed, according to some, it is not even necessary to have the condition explicitly and formally in the mind; but it is enough if it is had implicitly and virtually, as he has it who wishes to hear confessions according to the institution of Christ or the intention of the Church; for thus also the reverence owed to the sacrament is sufficiently preserved. Yet it must be added by mouth where the Rubric prescribes this, as in conditioned Baptism, especially if it is conferred publicly, lest, namely, those standing by believe that Baptism is being repeated absolutely and take scandal. Cf. St. Alphonsus, Hom. Ap., n. 3. - Lacroix, lib. 6, part 1, n. 83. - Gobat, tract. 7, n. 272.