Article II. On the Faith and Probity of the Minister

I say. Although neither faith nor probity, or the state of grace, is required in the Minister for the valid conferral of the sacraments, nevertheless it is required, and indeed under grave obligation, for their licit administration, at least if the Minister has been consecrated for conferring them, and confects them solemnly, namely with the whole rite prescribed by the Church. The reason for the first is taken both from the practice and perpetual tradition of the Church, which never willed those baptized by heretics and wicked Ministers to be rebaptized, and from the Council of Trent, sess. 7, can. 12, de Sacram. in Genere, and can. 4, de Baptismo. But the reason for the second is that a Minister destitute of faith or stained by mortal sin inflicts grave injury upon God and Christ by treating holy things unworthily and, as much as is in him, contaminating them. - Cf. De Augustinis, Thesis 16, p. 201.

Question 1. Does a Minister sin gravely who, necessity urging, confers a sacrament in mortal sin, for which he has not been specially ordained or consecrated, or, if indeed he is consecrated, does not act as such or does not minister solemnly?

Resp. Negatively, probably, because the obligation in the Minister of having sanctity does not arise precisely from the very sanctity of Christ and of the sacrament considered in itself, but from the Minister's consecration or deputation for conferring the sacraments. But in the aforesaid cases one acts rather from charity for aiding the necessity of a neighbor than as a deputed Minister. - Cf. St. Thomas, 3, q. 64, art. 6; and in 4, dist. 5, q. 2, art. 2. - Billuart, dissert. 5, art. 4. - St. Alphonsus had taught the negative opinion under n. 34, but afterward in QQ. Reform. turned aside to the affirmative. - Cf. Ballerini, note (a) p. 137; and note (a) p. 138.

Question 2. Does a priest or Deacon sin gravely by ministering the Eucharist in mortal sin?

Resp. Affirmatively, according to the more probable opinion which St. Alphonsus holds. The reason is that he inflicts grave injury upon the most holy Eucharist; for although he himself does not act as an efficient cause in confecting the sacrament, nevertheless he is its dispenser, specially consecrated for this, and he performs a ministry which immediately cooperates with the sanctification of the soul. Yet the opinion of Lugo and the Salmanticenses, asserting that in this case only venial sin is committed, seems probable. But a fortiori the opinion of those who hold that to touch or carry the Most Holy Eucharist in mortal sin is not mortal must be judged probable. Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 35. - Lugo, disp. 8, n. 155. - Salmant., tract. 1, cap. 7, n. 100. - Lacroix, lib. 6, part 1, n. 101. - Ballerini, note (b) p. 138.

Question 3. How many sins does a Minister commit who administers several sacraments in mortal sin, successively indeed, but in one continuous action?

Resp. In the administration of the Eucharist it is easily conceded, even by those who hold that one sins mortally, that only one sin is committed; because the individual distributions must be held as after the manner of one, since they constitute one banquet. But if the discourse is about the administration of Penance, the more common and truer opinion holds that there are several sins, because there are several and distinct judgments. - Nevertheless Card. de Lugo and the Salmanticenses think it probable that one sins only once; and if indeed this is probable, the same, at least from parity, would have to be said of the administration of Baptism and Confirmation. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 35 and seq. - Lugo, de Paenit., disp. 16, n. 558. - Salmant., de Censuris, cap. 1, n. 182. - Ballerini, note (a) p. 140.