Chapter II: On the Minister and Right Administration of the Sacraments

— Who can be called a Minister of the Sacraments. In the broad sense, anyone who ministers a sacrament at least validly is called a minister of a sacrament: thus a layman baptizing, thus baptized persons contracting matrimony. But properly a minister of a sacrament is one who, having received the power of order, is deputed to confer that sacrament, although perhaps some condition must be added either for the value itself or for liceity. Thus a priest has been ordained for absolving sins; yet he needs jurisdiction in order to confer valid absolution. He has also been ordained for baptizing; yet of itself the license of the Ordinary or pastor is required that he baptize licitly.

Moreover, a minister can be deputed simply, or principally, as though to a proper office, or secondarily and in a supplementary manner. The first is the ordinary minister, the other the extraordinary minister. Thus a deacon is the extraordinary minister of baptism and of the holy eucharist.

— Conditions of Value. On Intention. No faith or probity of the minister is necessary for the value of a sacrament; but, besides the power to be explained afterward, there is required and suffices an intention, or will, at least virtual and absolute, or one equivalent to this, and determined to a certain matter and person, of doing not merely the external ritual act, but the sacrament, or at least that which the Church does or which Christ instituted. Thus holds the common opinion from Trent, session 7, canon 11, against Catharinus, who was content with the will of the external act. No faith or probity is necessary, because the sacraments operate not from the disposition of the minister but from divine power, according to the institution and merit of Christ. - Intention at least virtual is required, because no act human and free in itself proceeds from habitual or interpretative intention, and administration must be done through a human act; virtual intention suffices, because this is referred to free and efficacious will, and because actions done from such a will are imputed as human when they are done by a man who, being master of himself, can impede the efficacy; and, because of easy distractions, indeed the moral impossibility of always having an intention strictly actual, it would have been too hard and full of scruples if actual intention were essential. Concerning the various account of the voluntary, cf. what was said in I, 46. - Absolute intention is required, by which a condition concerning the future is excluded, because, in conditioned administration, there is no will at the moment at which the external sign is placed; but when the condition arrives, the sign or operating cause is no longer had. Nevertheless matrimony must be excepted, because it is made by way of contract and follows the laws of contract. Now contracts can be made conditionally, and, when the condition has been fulfilled, pass into absolute ones. - Finally determined intention is required, lest the will lack an object and, being applicable to no thing or person, be shown vain. Cf. G. Boed, L'intention de faire ce que l'Eglise fait dans le ministre du sacrement (N. R. Th., 1923, pp. 453, 533 ff.).

Therefore one drunk or dreaming does not confect a sacrament, although he previously intended the confection, because the act is not in itself human; nor does the priest who, having bread before him, merely recites the deed and words of Christ consecrating, because he has no intention of the sacrament. Concerning the deed of Athanasius as a boy and of Genesius the mime to whom baptism is said to have been conferred in a play or comedy, it is not sufficiently established historically; but manifestly he effects nothing who intends merely to play. A pagan baptizing must have the intention of performing a rite which, not indeed from his persuasion but from that of Christians, is sacred. But the will of a matrimonial contract suffices in a heretic, even if he stubbornly denies the sacrament of matrimony, because the contract itself is the sacred rite of baptized persons who marry. Indeed, if he does not wish to do what the Roman Church does, or does not wish to confer or receive grace, falsely thinking Catholics to be deceived, the sacrament will be valid, because the will of making a true contract is judged the more powerful; and the general intention of doing those things which Christ instituted prevails over an intention which proceeds from error. If by a prevailing will he did not wish to do what the Roman Church does, the administration would not be valid. Also, because of positive exclusion of the will of doing what the Catholic Church does, Anglican ordinations were null. Cf. Leo XIII, Constitution Apostolicae curae, September 13, 1896. - One distracted while he consecrates or absolves must repeat nothing under condition: the act remains human.

— "He who in the usual way places the actions required for a sacrament cannot prudently doubt concerning the required intention, unless he positively excludes it. The reason: because he wishes to do what he sees others doing, and others are accustomed to similar things" (Lacroix, p. 2, n. 58). Omission of the required intention in a Catholic man "is an almost impossible case" (Ballerini-Palmieri, Op. theol., tr. 10, s. 1, c. 2).

— If someone has had several contrary intentions, the matter is to be decided from the intention which, after examination has been made, must be judged principal and prevailing.

This is especially to be considered in weighing the force of conditions or clauses which are repugnant to the nature of matrimony.

— Voluntary distraction in the sacramental action itself, although it does not harm the value, is nevertheless a much graver fault than distraction which is admitted during prayer. Nonetheless, with grave danger of notable error excluded, it is only venial. Many, with St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 410, but with others contradicting, except the consecration of the eucharist.

— On Conditioned Administration. 1. Equivalent to absolute, as to the effect, is the placing of a condition which regards an essential element: if you are not baptized, if you are capable, I baptize you; if you truly are sorry, I absolve you. - Wherefore he sins only venially who irrationally places a condition of this kind; but as often as a reasonable doubt, according to the nature of the sacrament, is present concerning such an element, reverence for the sacrament requires that, if it is conferred, it be conferred in no other way than under such a condition.

2. If a sacrament is to be conferred, it is generally gravely illicit, because of connected inconveniences, to place a condition which does not regard an essential element, especially if it is not easily certain. Thus it would be grave for one ordaining to place the condition, "if the one to be ordained is worthy, impeded by no censure or irregularity"; for the consequences of a vain or doubtful ordination are most grave. Canon 942 itself excepts the case of extreme unction to be administered to a sick person concerning whose contumacy in manifest mortal sin there is doubt. For this conditioned administration, by which reverence for the sacrament is cared for, is without inconvenience. Matrimony also is excepted, which, for a just cause, can be contracted under a condition concerning the present or suspensive concerning the future, but not under a resolutory condition.

3. The placing of a condition which regards an essential element does not always suffice to make the administration of the sacrament licit. Thus it is scarcely ever lawful, unless perhaps when better matter is not found for completing the sacrifice, and it is not to be proposed for adoration, to confect the sacrament of the eucharist with doubtful bread or wine.

4. Conditioned administration is to be done, however, with the case just mentioned excluded, if denial of the sacrament exposes a man to danger of grave harm, or deprives him of a great good. And this is especially valid when it does not stand through him that he does not avert the danger or remove the doubt: as if there is question of baptizing a man who is destitute of the senses; of anointing a man who perhaps is dead. But the more necessary a sacrament is to salvation, the more easily conditioned administration will be prescribed, or at least permitted.

5. Of itself it suffices that the condition be conceived mentally. Before the Code, the heresy of rebaptizers caused that, by positive law, pronunciation of the condition was prescribed in baptism. This law is indeed confirmed by no canon, but since it seems to be contained in the Ritual itself, concerning the sacrament of baptism, and liturgical laws are not revoked by the Code unless expressly (cf. c. 2), this obligation must be said to remain.

— On Conditioned Repetition of a Sacrament. 1. Unless the minister is excused by scruples, especially since time for deliberating scarcely suffices for one anxious, it is grave, because of the joined irreverence, to repeat a sacrament under condition when no reasonable doubt concerning the value of the conferred sacrament subsists. - Yet to repeat one word of the form in vain is not judged grave. - But one who is conscious to himself of a depraved custom of uselessly repeating the form or part of the form must strive, under grave sin, which rarely will be committed because of excusing scruples, to amend it.

2. The more necessary the sacrament is, say baptism, or the more harmful its nullity is, say presbyteral or episcopal ordination, the lesser cause suffices for it to be repeated licitly.

3. But when a reasonable doubt stands, the necessity of the recipient or harms to others to be guarded against, for example, when there is question of ordination, impose the obligation of repeating the sacrament. But where there is question of baptism or of ordination, repetition will be licit, although not prescribed, if some apparent reason or authority of Doctors troubles the mind, although the doubt is supported by no intrinsic reason or suitable authority. Cf. Lugo, Resp. mor., l. 1, d. 33, n. 3. Hence c. 732, §2: "But if a prudent doubt exists whether they truly or whether they validly have been conferred," namely the sacraments of baptism, confirmation, and order, "let them be conferred again under condition."

— That he may administer the sacraments licitly, it is necessary that the Minister:

1. be immune from censure. This is required under grave sin in him who offers himself spontaneously. Insofar as one excommunicated or suspended can administer the sacraments when asked by others because of utility, cf. below, n. 211.

But insofar as by a canonical penalty they are prohibited from exercising order, those become irregular who place an act of it (c. 985, 7°);

2. be immune from irregularity, if there is question of exercising the power of order, unless grave harm excuses;

3. be immune from mortal sin. Some demand the state of grace because of the gravity and sanctity of sacramental action, which is done in the person of Christ and operates sanctity, so that it is most gravely unbecoming to exercise the same in the state of mortal sin. Thus Lugo, De sacramentis in genere, d. 8, n. 150. But others, as Suarez, De Sacramentis, p. 1, d. 10, sect. 4, and St. Thomas himself, as Ballerini-Palmieri think, tr. 10, s. 1, c. 2, locate the grave unbecomingness in this: that a "person specially deputed and consecrated from office to that function," and therefore furnished with special graces and bound by a special obligation to minister the sacraments worthily, without due sanctity acts as public minister of Christ and of the Church in a holy action, such as a sacrament is.

Therefore the latter, contrary to the former, do not condemn every administration in mortal sin as of grave fault, but only the confection and solemn administration of a sacrament for conferring which the minister has been deputed by the very order received.

Hence, according to a probable opinion, they do not sin gravely who, in the state of mortal sin: a) do not confect the eucharist but merely minister it, which Lugo, n. 155, holds against Suarez; b) exercise sacramentals, bless water or nuptials, consecrate altars, churches, vessels, and preach: these actions do not tend proximately to the sanctification of the soul. Yet it would be mortal to consecrate chrism or bless the oil of the sick in mortal sin, because he who constitutes valid matter of a sacrament begins to sanctify; c) a deacon and subdeacon ministering in their own order in the sacrifice, because they confect no sacrament; d) laypersons baptizing in necessity, or conferring matrimony upon themselves: but as recipients, they must be in the state of grace; e) a priest baptizing not solemnly; f) a deacon baptizing solemnly but without commission at least legitimately presumed; with commission, he is in the condition of a minister consecrated for that; h) a bishop conferring minor orders or even the subdiaconate, because it is not certain that these are sacraments.

In this opinion it is more easily explained why he probably sins only by one sin who in one course baptizes, confirms, or absolves several while entangled in mortal sin.

But the state of grace, unless there is question of confecting the eucharist in the celebration of Mass, must not be procured through use of the sacrament of penance: it is enough that with sincere persuasion the minister judge himself contrite. And if there is danger in delay, and he cannot confess or become contrite so quickly, administration will be done without irreverence (cf. Lugo, d. 8, n. 151); but he who foresaw the case and neglected to fortify himself will be culpable in the cause (d'Annibale, III, 248 [6]).

— The minister sins mortally who, in the administration of a sacrament, with danger to its value, abandons the safer opinion (St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 57); or, outside necessity, uses doubtful matter or form. For he treats the sacraments unworthily.

— The minister sins gravely who does not merely dissimulate the administration of a sacrament, which sometimes can be done laudably, but falsely simulates it. Hence proposition 29 among those reproved by Innocent XI: "Urgent grave fear is a just cause for simulating the administration of a sacrament." But here simulation strictly so called must be distinguished from the other, more broadly so called.

Simulation strictly so called consists in a feigned utterance of the form over matter of itself apt. This, unless the circumstances betray that nothing is being done seriously, in which case not even simulation is had, is "a sacrilegious lie, since the minister abuses the sacred thing itself, namely a sacred rite instituted by Christ, as a means of uttering a lie" (Lehmkuhl, II, De Sac. in genere). Proposition 29 must be understood of this simulation alone. Cf. Palmieri, Op. theol., IV, 694.

Simulation more broadly so called is had when, in place of the due form or matter, something else representing the appearance of them is employed. And it is formal or material, according as the deception of another is intended or this merely follows and is permitted. And of itself that deception in religious matters is illicit.

Thus it is certain that it is wicked for a non-consecrated host to be offered as consecrated to someone ignorant; or for someone to celebrate Mass while omitting the form of consecration. Certain other things are permitted for a grave cause: a) lest he manifest to others an indisposed penitent, a priest could pray something and make the sign of the cross, which bystanders will take as absolution: here the denial of absolution is merely dissimulated. Nor does he lie who stands before a confessor to speak about another's business; for he himself has properly spoken nothing with others; b) for avoiding scandal or infamy, in a most rare case, a priest could pronounce the words "The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ" and not offer the host to someone sitting at the sacred table; c) for a grave cause, they permit that a feigned consent be given in Matrimony. If a lie is absent, not even the sacrament is simulated, since the matter and form are contained in true consent.

— He sins gravely or lightly, according to the moment of the matter: a) who pronounces the words of the form corruptly, inarticulately, indevoutly; b) who accidentally changes the matter or form; c) who, contrary to the custom of the Church, without cause changes or omits ceremonies. If this happens from contempt, it will be mortal; if from negligence, it is often mortal when, in a grave matter, it is opposed to a precept strictly such. "In confecting, administering, and receiving the sacraments, the rites and ceremonies which are prescribed in the ritual books approved by the Church are to be accurately observed." Thus c. 733, §1. The words and received usages teach us which dispositions of the Ritual oblige under grave sin, or under light sin; which are merely directive. Thus the rubrics of the Missal within Mass are judged almost all preceptive; outside Mass, the more common opinion holds them as merely directive. Cf. St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 399.

— The obligation of ministering the sacraments can flow from justice or charity.

1. Those who are engaged in a pastoral office, from ordinary or delegated jurisdiction, must, under grave sin and from justice, minister the sacraments to their subjects reasonably asking. For they must from office provide not only for necessity but also for the fitting progress of their subjects. And besides the great detriment which subjects may suffer, the very danger already of turning them away from frequent use of the sacraments makes the sin grave.

The same are bound, in common necessity, such as sinners in general suffer, with grave inconvenience to themselves; but in grave and in extreme necessity of their subjects, even with evident danger of life, since the execution of the office undertaken extends to that point. The degrees of necessity were declared in volume II. Yet it is enough to administer the necessary sacraments with danger of life when, without new danger, other aids cannot be supplied. But the necessary sacraments are: baptism, penance, and, in defect of this or for those who, not yet absolved, are destitute of the senses, extreme unction. If success or necessity is only probable, the obligation for the pastor indeed remains with probable danger of life; it does not seem to stand with morally certain death: as if you seem likely to perish before you reach the infant to be baptized, or you probably presume him to have been baptized, or if an adult can easily elicit perfect contrition, or another is present who can and wishes to furnish that. Cf. Cappello, op. c., n. 67, 3. Wherefore Benedict XIV (Syn., l. 13, c. 19, nn. 2, 6) does not condemn the pastor who, if a suitable vicar assists the sick, reserves for himself the care of the healthy; for it is expedient that someone be at hand whom they will not flee from fear of contagion. A prevailing reason of the common good, as if, with you perishing, the salvation of many would be endangered, can excuse a pastor.

Hatreds also to be avoided against the Catholic Church can prevent you from being obliged or able to provide even for someone's extreme necessity, for instance that of an infant dying without baptism. Cf. d'Annibale, II, 82 (3).

When there is question not of public attack upon the faith, but of sacraments, such as Penance, which are customarily administered by priests with care of souls rather than by prelates, the obligation of mediate prelates is less personal and is regularly fulfilled through others.

Corollaries. a) They sin gravely who often show themselves morose and difficult; who wish to hear confessions of subjects only on a few days within the month, much more those who wish to hear them only in Easter time; who establish inopportune times for the distribution of the most holy eucharist. Once or twice to deny the sacrament to one who is in no necessity is not judged grave.

b) A pastor requested by name must himself minister to the subject, unless he has been impeded, or the subject would willingly go to another. Yet he must not comply with an irrational petition; wherefore, with the sacramental seal saved, he must by no means waste time with a scrupulous person or a little devotee.

2. Other ministers are bound according to the laws of charity alone: therefore under grave sin in grave necessity of neighbor, but they will be excused by grave inconvenience of their own. With probable danger of life they must administer sacraments absolutely necessary only in extreme or quasi-extreme necessity and insofar as success is morally certain.

N.B. Grave common necessity is deservedly equated to extreme necessity: both because common harm prevails over private harm, and because grave common necessity brings with itself the extreme necessity of many.

— The obligation of denying the sacraments to one asking unworthily also presses the minister, according to the following rules.

1. Religion, lest the sacred thing be profaned; charity, which forbids scandal and participation in another's sin; and fidelity in the entrusted function of dispensation compel the minister prudently to have regard to the worthiness of the one receiving the sacrament.

2. The rules are reduced to two chief heads: a) where the petition is made in secret, the sacraments are to be given to the worthy and denied to the unworthy. For no other reason here occurs of itself to be considered. Except the prohibited use of sacramental secrecy; b) where the petition is made publicly, the publicly unworthy and the manifestly infamous are to be kept away, but not occult sinners. For nothing prevents a public sinner from being treated according to his merit. And it is easily understood why, even after grace has been recovered, the same man cannot ask for the sacrament with detriment to the public good, or before scandal has ceased. Reasons again drawn from the public good, besides the right not to have reputation injured, are most powerful for declaring why occult sinners who ask publicly are not to be repelled. For to bestow the sacrament on one merely unworthy, who of himself, up to the last moment, can make himself worthy by an act of contrition, is not intrinsically illicit, but is material cooperation in another's sin, which reasons drawn from the good of men, for whose sake the sacraments exist, are able to excuse. Now it seems wicked that, from private and fallible knowledge of unworthiness, any minister could afflict the faithful with public disgrace, with danger of hallucination and error from ignorance, levity, or passion of soul. And even if he acted according to the merit of the cause, the minister nevertheless would seem to give and deny the sacraments according to his pleasure, which would furnish occasion for many offenses and disturbances, and would give rise to the gravest scandal of turning the faithful away from frequenting the sacraments themselves.

An insufficient reason for the concession of a sacrament would be sought from preserving the reputation of the one asking. For the unworthy man who dares to approach the sacrament ought to ascribe to himself the harm of reputation arising from repulse. Cf. Cappello, De Sacramentis, I, nn. 72, 76.

Therefore if only a few are present who would not wonder at the matter, the benign rule itself already seems to cease.

Nor should you confuse denial of a sacrament with delay commanded for a just and public cause, as if someone approaches irreverently, or is ordered first to care for cleanliness or decency itself in clothing.

— It remains that we briefly explain the rules themselves.

1. What inquiry into the qualities of the subject is permitted or prescribed to the minister?

a) He who asks entrance into the Church possesses no special right; but the approach to the Church is not open except to those who approach spontaneously and give a founded hope of Christian life. Wherefore before the baptism of an adult, inquiry must be made concerning his consent, knowledge, and competent disposition;

b) Once baptism has been received, a Christian has the right of receiving the sacraments which regard his own sanctification; and the presumption of probity favors him. Wherefore where the minister is not a judge but merely a dispenser, the sacraments are of themselves to be denied to no one living as a Catholic, unless unworthiness is certain. In Penance, on the contrary, the minister, because of the office of judge, must prudently be made more certain concerning the disposition of the penitent.

The case of Order and Matrimony is special. For it belongs to the public good that Order not be conferred on one who is feared likely to be an unworthy minister; nor is every cause of unworthiness infamous; nor is repulse made openly, at the altar. Wherefore a candidate who asks for order is judged to permit that a special inquiry be made concerning him, which the conferrer of the function prudently institutes concerning every candidate, and the bishop can, from informed conscience, or because of causes known to himself, even secret ones, deny him ascent. But observe that here worthy reception of the sacrament is not considered, but the worthy exercise of sacred functions. The right conclusion of matrimony contributes very much to the common good of the city and of the Church. Wherefore, besides impediments of divine law, the Church prudently orders the matrimony of the faithful through other impediments and laws, and commits to the pastor, to whom belongs the right of assisting at matrimony, that he diligently investigate, both by the public pronouncement of banns and by private investigation, whether perhaps something stands in the way of the matrimony. He prudently questions the spouses themselves concerning impediments, concerning free consent, especially that of the woman, and concerning sufficient doctrine. But where nothing stands in the way, he is forbidden to deny his presence, which is not that of a minister but of an authorizable witness; indeed, for avoiding greater evils, he must sometimes assist at marriages little to be approved. But the spouses themselves, although they confer the sacrament one on the other, are not ministers of the Church. From charity indeed one must impede the sin of the other, but grave inconvenience excuses them so that they can enter a matrimonial covenant with an unworthy person. Therefore no investigation is made concerning the worthy reception itself of the sacrament except for baptism and penance.

— 2. Who are the publicly unworthy who must be repelled? And how long are they to be kept away?

a) Strictly, publicly unworthy is only he whose present sin or unworthiness is already commonly known; less strictly, he who is not yet infamous, but whose iniquity has notoriety of law because of the sentence of a judge or confession of a delict in judgment (c. 2197, 2°), or can no longer be hidden by any subterfuge. Otherwise he is occult. But he asks a sacrament occultly who asks before the minister alone, or before a few others of whom no account is to be taken.

Therefore publicly unworthy are no longer all, in our regions, who are alleged in the Ritual by way of example, money-lenders, blasphemers, etc.; for, at least from presumed confession, their unworthiness regularly has ceased when they ask for the sacraments. Nor, of themselves, are those publicly unworthy who follow the parties of liberals or socialists: for the account of liberalism and socialism is equivocal, and in some good faith can be admitted. But publicly unworthy will almost always be the notoriously excommunicated, interdicted, prostitutes, concubinarians, those exercising a notoriously illicit profession, or an office prohibited by public decree. Such also are those liberals or socialists who glory in the sacraments received, as though in a motive of impenitence and perseverance in error. Code c. 855 calls publicly unworthy "the excommunicated, the interdicted, and the manifestly infamous."

b) Lest what is holy seem to be given to dogs, the Roman Ritual keeps the publicly unworthy from the eucharistic table "unless their penance and amendment are certain, and they have first satisfied for public scandal." Canon 855 repeats this in almost the same words. Therefore those from whom only amendment must be demanded are to be distinguished from those who besides must give public satisfaction or reparation. Public approach to the sacrament of penance of itself suffices for proving amendment. And that approach can easily be presumed. Others must separate from a concubine, leave a brothel, dismiss an office, or repair public scandal. And if it is commonly certain that someone, notwithstanding confession, has often relapsed, generally he will have to be proved for some time before he is admitted to the holy table. But it will belong to the confessor to warn such persons concerning their obligation, lest they expose themselves to repulse.

c) Indeed, in doubt concerning amendment and satisfaction furnished, it is judged that the eucharist should rather be denied to a public sinner of this kind. Thus from St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 48; d'Annibale, III, 262, and Lehmkuhl, II, 56. On the contrary, where a greater evil is to be feared from denial, all the circumstances are to be weighed, and, if there is opportunity, recourse should be had to the local Ordinary. No one fails to see that the greatest prudence is needed today in our regions.

d) In the article of death, it will be enough that the confessor take care, after a faculty has been sought from the sick person insofar as there is need, that the faithful know the dying man has satisfied, as he could, the obligations present. Yet the sick person's own retraction before two witnesses will be preferable. And if a concubine, or an adulterous party, for example one who after merely civil divorce married another, is staying in the very house of the sick person, the eucharist certainly cannot be brought to him openly.

N.B. The stricter indications of the Ritual, which in our regions are outside use, can be very useful in foreign missions, so that missionaries may know what they can opportunely demand, without excess, from neophytes of little cultivation.

What if one asks publicly whose delict is not yet strictly public, or is public in another place but not in the place where he asks for the sacrament?

Because of the scandal of the faithful to be feared, probably the sacrament is not to be denied unless, because of divulgation soon to happen, a greater offense of the people would arise from the sacrament conceded.

— Can the minister because of fear of death give the sacrament to an unworthy person?

By no means, if the sacrament is sought in contempt of religion. With contempt excluded, the matter is disputed. Palmieri, t. 4, n. 689, and d'Annibale, III, 264, permit the conferral, because it is not intrinsically illicit; Lehmkuhl, II, 53, denies it, because the good effect, or the life preserved for the minister, follows not equally immediately, but by means of the profanation of the sacrament. But since the very conferral of the sacrament is not yet its profanation, for the recipient could dispose himself by interior contrition, and since profanation has for its cause not indeed the action of the minister but the disposition of the recipient, Palmieri seems to have resolved the case rightly. Thus also Cappello, I, 71. St. Alphonsus adhered first to the benign opinion, then to the stricter.

— Exclusion of Heretics and Schismatics. Not indeed from the general rule by which sacraments are to be denied to the unworthy, but from the proper account of their separation from the Church, which possesses the sacraments as its own good, "it is forbidden to minister the sacraments of the Church to heretics or schismatics even erring in good faith, unless first, their errors rejected, they have been reconciled to the Church" (c. 731, §2).

This rule gives place to no exception when there is question of persons in good health. It is indeed circumscribed, with the text itself attended to, to those who have the age at which formal reconciliation is demanded by the Church, that is, who have completed 14 years of age (Holy Office, November 1878 and March 8, 1882, in Coll. de P.F., ed. 1, nn. 660 and 1680; ed. 2, n. 1566). But reverence owed to our sacraments will command that even adolescents of a lesser age be kept away if they are foreseen afterward to be going to adhere to a non-Catholic sect.

Nevertheless the necessity of consulting, in danger of death, the salvation of a soul permits that the sacraments of necessity, strictly or broadly so called, namely penance and extreme unction, be administered to dying non-Catholics, at least conditionally, if they are destitute of the senses, or, if present to their senses, if they seem prudently to be left in good faith. And one destitute of the senses will be helped more certainly by extreme unction than by sacramental absolution, because it does not require acts of the subject as the quasi-matter of the sacrament. Yet scandal or wonder of the people must be guarded against, if extreme unction cannot be ministered sufficiently secretly.

Nor does there stand in the way a particular response of the Holy Office, May 17-20, 1916, and published only in a diocesan periodical, by which it was denied that these sacraments could be conferred on material schismatics constituted in the article of death and in good faith asking either absolution or Extreme Unction, but it was required "that, in the better way in which it can be done, they reject errors and make profession of faith." For that response gives a general rule concerning schismatics alone, with whom one can more easily sin by a certain indifferentism, and who, because of the very petition, seem able rather conveniently to be brought to abjuration of errors; nor does it contemplate the case in which, dangerously for the eternal salvation of the soul, good faith would be disturbed.

— In the administration of the sacraments, the proper vestments to be used are stole and surplice, but not the rochet, which is an insignia of canons and is distinguished from the surplice by lesser breadth and narrow sleeves.

The stole is not to be used except in the confection of sacraments and sacramentals, and in functions for which its use is prescribed by the Roman Ritual. In the act of preaching it is not used except in places where such use is in force.

— Canon 736 also prescribes gratuitous administration of the Sacraments, forbidding that for any cause or occasion, whether directly or indirectly, the minister ask anything for the administration of sacraments except the offerings defined by the provincial Council or by a meeting of the bishops of the province and approved by the Holy See.

Nevertheless offerings admitted by custom seem able to be received. Thus Cappello, I, 96, arguing from c. 463, §1, concerning Pastors, which, because of parity of reason, he extends to others.

— I. Valid administration of the sacraments. 1. Besides power, in the minister there is required and suffices an intention at least virtual, absolute or without a future condition, with matrimony excepted, of doing not only the external rite, but also the sacrament, or at least that which the Church does or which Christ instituted.

From several contrary intentions the prevailing one resolves the matter. Voluntary distraction of the minister does not harm the value, but is a venial sin among the graver ones, especially if there is question of consecration.

2. No faith or probity of the minister is necessary.

3. If an added condition concerns an essential element, it brings in no doubt concerning the value; and it must be added when, notwithstanding the danger of nullity, the spiritual necessity or utility of the recipient counsels administration of the sacrament. Of itself it is enough that the condition be conceived mentally; nevertheless in baptism it must be expressed. But it is never lawful to confect the eucharist with doubtful bread or wine, with the case indicated in n. 184 excepted.

It is generally gravely illicit, because of connected inconveniences, to administer a sacrament under a condition which regards a non-essential element, especially if it is not easily certain. Except matrimony and extreme unction conferred on a sick person concerning whose contumacy in manifest mortal sin there is doubt, because reverence for the sacrament is thus cared for without inconvenience.

4. Conditioned repetition of a sacrament without reasonable doubt concerning the value of the conferred sacrament is objectively gravely illicit because of the joined irreverence; but the more necessary the sacrament is, the more harmful the nullity, the lesser cause permits repetition. But when reasonable doubt stands, the necessity of the recipient or harms to others to be guarded against impose the obligation of repeating the sacrament.

II. Licit administration. - 1. It requires a minister: a) immune from censure. Nevertheless, unless he is one to be avoided or judicially condemned or declared, one excommunicated or suspended can accede to one asking for a sacrament. In danger of death the faithful can ask absolution from any excommunicated person; and, if other ministers are lacking, also the other sacraments and sacramentals; b) immune from irregularity, if there is question of exercising the power of order, unless grave harm excuses; c) immune from mortal sin, and this under grave sin, at least when there is question of the confection and solemn administration of a sacrament, for conferring which the minister has been deputed by the very order received.

2. It forbids under grave sin that, without necessity of the faithful, a sacrament be exposed to danger of nullity: it is an unworthy treatment of the sacrament.

3. It forbids under grave sin simulation of a sacrament, which is had strictly when the form is feignedly uttered over matter of itself apt: it is a sacrilegious lie. Simulation broadly so called, by which, in place of the due form or matter, another thing representing the appearance of them is employed, of itself indeed is illicit in religious matters, even if the deception of another is merely permitted. Nevertheless it is lawful for a grave cause to give consent feignedly in matrimony.

III. Administration is owed from justice, to subjects reasonably asking, by those who from ordinary or delegated jurisdiction are engaged in pastoral office. And those who often show themselves morose and difficult would sin gravely. In common necessity, they are bound with grave inconvenience to themselves; in grave and extreme necessity of their subjects, they must, even with evident danger of life, administer the necessary sacraments, unless they are excused by a prevailing common good.

The obligation of a mediate prelate to minister parochial sacraments is less personal, and regularly is fulfilled through others.

Other ministers are bound according to the laws of charity.

IV. Administration is prudently to be denied to the unworthy, because of religion, charity, and fidelity in the entrusted function of dispensation. Wherefore, where the petition is secret, the sacraments are to be given to the worthy and denied to the unworthy, with sacramental secrecy saved. But where the petition is made publicly, only the publicly unworthy and infamous are to be kept away. For the occult unworthy person, with whose sin the minister merely materially cooperates, cannot be repelled without danger of error and of public offense, which would turn the faithful away from the sacraments.

Is the one asking worthy: this is to be inquired into before baptism and sacramental absolution. Is he fit: this is examined before ordination, just as before matrimony investigation is made lest something stand in the way. For the other sacraments, the baptized person asking is presumed worthy.

Today the publicly unworthy are the notoriously excommunicated, the interdicted, and the manifestly infamous. But they are to be kept away until their penance and amendment are certain, and they have first satisfied for public scandal. In the article of death, the retraction of the sick person before two witnesses is preferable, although it is enough that the faithful know the dying man has satisfied the present obligations as he could.

Heretics and schismatics also are to be repelled, even those erring and asking in good faith (c. 731, §2), except in the necessity of danger of death.

Can the minister because of fear of death give the sacrament to an unworthy person? This is controverted, but seems to be admitted when it is not asked in contempt of religion.

V. Sacraments are to be administered gratuitously, except for offerings duly defined.

VI. The vestments to be used in the administration of sacraments and confection of sacramentals are of themselves stole and surplice.