Section I. The Attention and Intention of the Minister

While administering a sacrament the minister should attend to what he is doing and remember that he is engaged in a religious function. If he voluntarily allows his mind to wander on other and profane matters, he is guilty of irreverence toward God for whose worship the sacraments were instituted and should be administered. This irreverence, however, is not grave in itself, probably not even if a priest is voluntarily distracted during the consecration in Mass, so that voluntary distractions while administering the sacraments are only venial sins. Attention, then, or advertence of the mind to what is being done, is not necessary for the validity of a sacrament; only three things are necessary for its validity, as we saw above —the matter, the form, and the intention of the minister to do what the Church does.

Intention is an act of the will directing an action to a certain end. Divines distinguish between an actual, a virtual, an habitual, and an interpretative intention, wishes here and now to administer When a minister a sacrament, he has an actual intention to perform the rite. If he had such a wish and in consequence set about his task, but became distracted while administering the sacrament, he has a virtual intention. An habitual intention is a wish to do something, which wish has not been retracted but which does not issue in action. An interpretative intention is a wish which would be conceived if one thought of it, but for want of thinking of it is not elicited.

An intention of some sort in the minister is necessary for the validity of a sacrament; the Council of Trent anathematized anyone who should say that there is not required in ministers while they make and confer the sacraments at least an intention to do what the Church does.¹ Now the Church by her ministers and through the sacraments baptizes, confirms, absolves from sin, and so forth; so that the minister while making a sacrament must intend to baptize, confirm, absolve. However, it is not necessary to have an actual intention of doing this; distractions cannot always be avoided, and always to have an actual intention while engaged in conferring the sacraments would be an impossible requirement. Nor would an habitual intention suffice, for it does not exist while the action is put, nor has it any effect upon the action. Much less would an interpretative intention be sufficient. It remains, then, that a virtual intention is necessary and sufficient in the minister while he makes a sacrament.

¹ Sess. vii, c. 11.

Ambrosius Catharinus, Salmeron, Contenson, and other theologians thought that an intention to perform the external rite of a sacrament, even if the minister internally expressly withheld his intention to do what the Church does, would be sufficient for the validity of a sacrament. Such an intention to perform the merely external rite while internally withholding the intention to baptize, absolve, and so forth, is called an external intention, ‘The common opinion is that such a merely external intention is not sufficient, but that an internal intention or a positive wish to baptize, absolve, and so forth, is necessary for the validity of the sacrament. On December 7, 1690, Alexander VIII condemned the proposition that Baptism is valid when it is conferred by a minister who observes all the external rite and form of Baptism but inwardly in his heart makes this resolution, ‘‘ I do not intend to do what the Church does.” This decree would seem to settle the matter, for it seems to have been directed against Fr. Farvacques, O.S.A., who, in a little book published ten years earlier, had defended the opinion of Catharinus and Salmeron. A few theologians even subsequently to the decree of Alexander VIII have defended the same view, on the ground that the decree was aimed at the Lutheran error which asserted the validity of the sacraments even when administered in joke. No Catholic, however, defended the Lutheran doctrine at the time, and it had already been condemned by the Council of Trent. We must, then, at least say with Benedict XIV that the condemnation of the above proposition inflicted a serious blow on the opinion of Catharinus, and no theologian of note now defends it. The Church does not merely apply the matter and form when ministering the sacraments, but by means of those external rites she intends to do what Christ instituted the sacraments to effect—that is, to baptize, to absolve, and so forth. An intention, then, to do this—to baptize, to absolve, or an internal intention—is necessary for the validity of a sacrament.

It is not sufficient for the minister while making a sacrament to have a vague intention of conferring it on somebody or other, or of taking and applying some matter in general for the making of the sacrament. The intention must be definite in its scope and object, otherwise there is no reason why this matter should be taken rather than that, or why one person should be benefited rather than another. An intention, therefore, to absolve anyone in a crowd who may need it, or to consecrate five hosts out of a larger number on the altar would not be effective.

Neither ignorance nor mistake on the part of the minister about the nature or effect of a sacrament makes it invalid. Baptism conferred by one who knows nothing of its nature, or by one who denies baptismal regeneration, is valid, provided that the three essential elements of the sacrament are not wanting.

Difficulties may arise from the fact that a minister while making a sacrament had mutually contradictory intentions. Thus an heretical priest while saying Mass may have the intention to do what Christ instituted but not to offer sacrifice, as he denies that Mass is a sacrifice. In this and in similar cases divines give the following rules for discovering whether the sacrament is effected or not. When the contradictory intentions are present in the mind at the time of making the sacrament, that will prevail which is the stronger, and that is the stronger which would be chosen by the minister if he realized the contradiction. So that, in the example given, the heretical minister will actually say Mass if the intention to do what Christ instituted be the prevailing and stronger one; he will not say Mass if his intention not to offer sacrifice is the stronger. When the contradictory intentions follow one another, the last will ordinarily prevail, unless the former revoked all subsequent intentions.

Except in case of necessity the minister of a sacrament may not use probable opinions with reference to what belongs to the validity of the sacrament. As we saw when treating of the matter and form, it would be against the reverence due to the sacraments, against justice, and against charity, if the minister exposed the sacraments to the danger of nullity through following a merely probable opinion. He is bound to follow the safer opinion when he can do so in what relates to the validity of the sacraments. In questions, however, which only touch the lawfulness or the integrity of the sacraments, and when the Church supplies what is wanting in order that the sacrament may be valid, which she sometimes does, as we shall see later, there is no reason why the minister should not use probable opinions. The same doctrine applies also to the recipient of the sacraments.