Article IV. On the Obligation of Denying the Sacraments to the Unworthy

I say. The Minister is bound under grave obligation, speaking in itself, to deny the sacraments to the unworthy, both because the natural law obliges a dispenser to dispense faithfully the goods of the Lord, and because it is the positive will of Christ that the sacraments not be conferred upon the unworthy, according to that saying of Matthew, vii, 6: "Do not give what is holy to dogs, nor cast your pearls before swine." - I said, speaking in itself, because in particular cases one must attend to the following:

1st. To a public sinner, whether asking secretly or publicly, the sacrament must be denied; because there is no reason why an exception should be made to the general rule; indeed grave scandal of the faithful would follow from the concession of the sacraments. - Cf. St. Thomas, 3, q. 80, art. 6. - St. Alphonsus, n. 44.

§ 1. Those who are publicly unworthy, such as the excommunicated, the interdicted, and the manifestly infamous, are to be kept away from the Eucharist, unless their repentance and amendment are established and they have first satisfied for the public scandal (Can. 855).

2nd. To a secret sinner asking secretly, likewise the sacrament must be denied; because reverence toward it and charity toward the neighbor demand this in these circumstances. - Cf. St. Thomas, ibid. - St. Alphonsus, n. 50.

§ 2. But secret sinners, if they ask secretly and the minister has known them not to be amended, he is to repel; not, however, if they ask publicly and he cannot pass them by without scandal (Can. 855).

3rd. To a truly secret sinner asking publicly, the sacrament is not to be denied. The reason is deduced from the inconveniences which would follow from the denial of the sacrament: for scandals and disturbances would arise in the Church, and especially the faithful, having been brought into suspicion, would withdraw from them lest they be prohibited from the sacraments. - Cf. St. Thomas, ibid. - St. Alphonsus, ibid. - Lehmkuhl, nn. 38 and seq.

4th. § 2. It is forbidden to minister the Sacraments of the Church to heretics or schismatics, even those erring in good faith and asking for them, unless first, their errors having been rejected, they have been reconciled to the Church (Can. 731).

Question 1. Must the sacrament be denied to a sinner asking publicly, but whose crime, although notorious, because namely it can no longer be hidden, nevertheless is not yet properly public; or, if public, is not so where he asks?

Resp. Negatively, at least more probably, because on the one hand those standing by would take no scandal, or no great scandal, from such administration; and on the other, if the sacrament were denied, those inconveniences and harms would arise which come from a denial made to a sinner who is wholly secret. Indeed the same solution must be given if most of those standing by know the crime and it is not yet simply public. Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 45 and 46.

Question 2. Is it licit to simulate, or at least to dissimulate, a sacrament, lest it be conferred upon the unworthy?

Before an answer is given, it must be noted beforehand what the simulation of a sacrament is and in what it differs from its dissimulation. Now since simulation in general is, as St. Thomas says, "a lie of deed," or the placing of some sign expressing something contrary to that which is had in the mind, it follows that simulation of a sacrament is nothing other than a fictitious placing of a sacramental action, so that outwardly there does not appear the defect on account of which no sacrament is rendered. But it is called a fictitious placing of a sacramental action when matter and form are placed with the intention of not confecting the sacrament. But if the Minister, in acting thus, directly intends to deceive, then the simulation of the sacrament is called formal; if, however, he is induced to simulate from another motive, for example from grave fear, then it will be only material. But to dissimulate a sacrament is to omit some essential part of it, namely matter or form, whether another thing is substituted in its place or nothing is substituted; yet in such a way that this omission or substitution can be known outwardly, and this alone is sought, namely to hide the truth. These things having been noted, now to the question:

Resp. Certainly it is never licit to simulate a sacrament, whether there is question of formal simulation or only of material simulation. The reason is both because to simulate a sacrament is properly to lie, and because to act thus is to abuse sacred things and to mock God Himself; and since an abuse of this kind contains grave irreverence toward the sacrament, he who simulates some sacrament can never be excused from mortal sin. Besides, it is clear from proposition 29 condemned by Innocent XI, which is thus stated: "Urgent grave fear is a cause for simulating the administration of the sacraments." But in this condemnation even material simulation is reproved, since it is treated specially in the proposition. - Nevertheless, contempt being set aside and a just cause being added, it is licit to dissimulate a sacrament. The reason is that in dissimulation no injury is done to the sacrament, because no sacramental action is placed, nor is a lie committed, but only the truth is hidden. - Cf. Viva, on the cited proposition. - Scavini, lib. 3, n. 31. - Ballerini, note (a) p. 145. - Haine, vol. 2, p. 331.

You Will Resolve. 1st. A confessor would sin gravely who pronounced the words of absolution without the intention of absolving, even if he did this in order to extricate himself more easily from a penitent who was indisposed and asking insistently for absolution, or even demanding it by very grave threats. - But a confessor does not sin who, in the aforesaid case, would say: "I do not absolve you" . . . pronouncing the particle not so softly that it is not heard by the penitent; although he would act better if he then pronounced other words or prayers than the form of absolution. Recourse is especially to be had to this means as often as, on the one hand, the penitent is indisposed, and, on the other, those standing by can easily notice that he is dismissed without absolution. Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 59.

2nd. A priest would sin most gravely who in Mass pronounced the consecratory words over bread and wine while excluding the intention of consecrating, both by reason of simulation and by reason of idolatry, by exposing the bread to the public adoration of the faithful. But if the words themselves of consecration are omitted, then, according to some, the sin of simulation would cease, but the most grave sin of idolatry would still remain. And this is the reason why, by Innocent III in cap. de homine, 7 de celebr. Miss., it is said that the priest who has fraudulently presumed to simulate that he consecrates sins more gravely than if he celebrated in mortal sin.

3rd. Likewise a priest would sin most gravely who would offer an unconsecrated host as consecrated, even to one knowing and consenting, as sometimes happens to wretched priests with an accomplice, who approaches the sacred table for the sake of preserving reputation. The reason is that thus the unconsecrated host is exposed to the adoration both of those standing by and also of the very one knowingly receiving it, with external reverence, which constitutes external and material idolatry and therefore something intrinsically evil.

4th. According to the common opinion they do not sin, at least gravely, who, either from grave fear unjustly inflicted or with knowledge of a diriment impediment but under urgent necessity, because, for example, all things are prepared, fictitiously contract Matrimony. The reason is that, consent being lacking, the contract itself is lacking, and therefore also the matter and form of the sacrament are lacking, and consequently there can be no true simulation.