Section I. On the Requisites for Valid Reception

For validly receiving a sacrament neither faith nor uprightness is required, as is clear from the sense and practice of the Church, which has always held as valid a sacrament received according to the rite of the Church in heresy. Penance is excepted, for which the good acts of the penitent are required, as will be explained in its own place.

Baptism, however, is required for the other sacraments. This is established, namely, from tradition, that the other sacraments were instituted only for those who through Baptism have been made members of the Church (St. Alphonsus, VI, 79).

Finally, for the valid reception of all the sacraments there is required, at least in adults, intention, that is, the will of receiving the sacrament; concerning which intention we must speak more fully (St. Alphonsus, VI, 80, 139).

I. Necessity of intention. 1. In little children and in the perpetually insane, that is, in those who have never enjoyed the use of reason, no intention is required, but the will of the Church supplies. This is of faith with regard to Baptism,¹ certain with regard to Confirmation and the Holy Eucharist, namely from the most ancient practice of the Church; likewise with regard to Order from the Constitution Eo quamvis tempore of Benedict XIV² (St. Thomas, III, q. 68, a. 9; a. 12, ad 1; St. Alphonsus, VI, 80, 139). Further, little children and the perpetually insane are capable of the sacraments which we have indicated, but incapable of the others (St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.).

2. In adults intention is required, as follows:

a) He who both internally resists the reception of the sacrament and is forced to the external rite, by the consent of all, does not receive the sacrament.

b) He who internally resists the reception of the sacrament, but voluntarily admits the external rite, does not receive the sacraments which do not imprint character. Thus authors commonly teach, relying on this reason: that it is not fitting that the gifts of God be conferred on one who positively does not will to receive them. There is some dispute about those sacraments which confer character, that is, Baptism, Confirmation, and Order. Those few who judge that the latter sacraments are received in the case rely especially on the fact that Innocent III³ declares that it is not absurd to teach that he who fictitiously approaches Baptism, that is, externally consenting but dissenting in heart, receives the impressed character of Christianity. Nevertheless, the more common opinion teaches that even the sacraments which imprint character are not received by one who internally dissents, although he externally consents. The reason alleged is that it seems especially unfitting that sacraments which carry special burdens with them should be received by a subject who does not will to receive them. For the rest, the words of Innocent III, considering their tenor, are of a kind to move anyone little.

c) He who neither consents nor dissents, but holds himself merely passively, much more probably does not receive the sacraments any more than one who positively resists reception; because it is not fitting that the gifts of God be conferred on one who does not positively will to receive them (St. Thomas, III, q. 68, a. 7; St. Alphonsus, VI, 81).

St. Thomas says thus in the cited place: "I answer that through Baptism someone dies to the old life of sin and begins a certain newness of life ... And therefore, just as in order that a man die to the old life there is required, according to Augustine, in one having the use of free will, the will by which he repents of the old life; so there is required the will by which he intends newness of life, whose beginning is the very reception of the sacrament; and therefore on the part of the one baptized there is required the will or intention of receiving the sacrament." And again: "If in an adult the intention of receiving the sacrament were lacking, he would have to be rebaptized; if however this were not established, it would have to be said: If you are not baptized, I baptize you."

With this doctrine of St. Thomas there cannot be reconciled the opinion of those who teach that the will which is required in the recipient is rather that of one not placing an obstacle than of one positively consenting.⁴

Corollary I. He validly receives a sacrament who, from fear, consents to reception; for fear does not take away freedom. Except Matrimony, which is invalid if consent has been extorted by grave fear, as will be explained in its own place.

Corollary II. The question treated concerning the intention of one receiving a sacrament does not regard the Holy Eucharist; concerning this, namely, it is not asked whether it is valid without the intention of the recipient, but whether without the said intention it is received sacramentally, or only materially, so that it does not produce fruit.⁵

¹ Council of Trent, Session 7, canon 13 on Baptism.

² 4 May 1745, article 1.

³ Chapter 3, De Baptismo (III, 42).

⁴ Cf. also, with regard to Baptism, canons 745, § 2, and 752; Roman Ritual, title 2, chapter 3, n. 1; with regard to Penance, Roman Ritual, title 3, chapter 1, n. 24; with regard to Extreme Unction, canon 943; Roman Ritual, title 5, chapter 1, n. 6.

⁵ Cf. the treatise on the Holy Eucharist.

II. Nature of the required intention. 1. In itself actual intention is not required, nor virtual intention, but even habitual intention suffices; interpretative intention does not suffice. I said:

a) Habitual intention suffices, in other words, it suffices that someone positively had it and has not retracted it.¹ The reason is that intention is required in the recipient only so that he may not be said to be sanctified against his will. But this cannot be said of one who enjoys habitual intention. Others except Penance and Matrimony. But as regards Penance, habitual intention suffices insofar as there is question of receiving absolution. It is another question, however, whether the acts of the penitent must be placed from an at least virtual intention, that is, by force of the intention of receiving the sacrament, in other words, whether they must be referred by the penitent, actually or virtually, to absolution.² With regard to Matrimony, which the recipients themselves minister, actual or virtual intention is necessary to this extent: that it is required that consent begin to exist from an actual or virtual intention of contracting Matrimony (St. Alphonsus, VI, 81, 82, 139).

b) Interpretative intention does not suffice, because intention of this kind, at least as it is understood by us (n. 15), in reality has not existed.³

Objection. The Roman Ritual⁴ and canon 943 establish that Extreme Unction is to be conferred absolutely on the sick who, when they were in possession of their mind, at least implicitly asked for it or probably would have asked for it. Therefore with regard to Extreme Unction interpretative intention suffices, or rather a mind inclined toward the said sacrament, which interpretative intention indicates.

Response. I deny the consequence. And indeed the Roman Ritual and canon 943 do not speak of sick persons, faithful, who would probably have willed Extreme Unction, but who would probably have asked for it. But a faithful person who, while master of himself, would probably ask for Extreme Unction also, with sufficient certainty, willed the said sacrament more or less explicitly, just as the request which probably would have place indicates with sufficient certainty a mind inclined toward the sacrament.

2. With regard to the object, the intention of receiving such a sacrament is required, or of receiving what the Church intends through such a rite. But an intention more or less explicit of receiving such a sacrament suffices. A merely implicit intention, as for example the will of using the means of salvation, does not suffice if there is an explicit contrary intention; if no such contrary intention is had, the matter seems doubtful. With these things noted in general, receive the following in particular:

a) With regard to Baptism, the will of embracing the Christian religion suffices for receiving it, at least in danger of death. It is disputed whether the same can be said of the will of using the means of salvation, likewise of attrition or contrition. Many hold this as probable, because there is an implicit intention. But we judge that one must speak thus:

a) It seems it must be denied if there is question of those who reject Baptism at least more or less explicitly; of this kind are Jews, Mohammedans, and many Protestants today. But it seems it must be denied because, besides the fact that it is not proven that implicit intention suffices, explicit rejection seems to prevail over implicit admission.⁵ There is added that the Holy Office on 30 March 1898 declared: "Concerning dying Mohammedans deprived of the senses, one must respond as in the decree of the Holy Office of 18 September 1850 to the Bishop of Perth, that is: If previously they had given signs of wishing to be baptized, or in their present state either by nod or in another way have shown the same disposition, they can be baptized under condition, insofar nevertheless as the Missionary, having inspected all the circumstances of things, has so prudently judged"; which at least proves that it is illicit to confer Baptism on those who reject it, and suggests that such conferral is invalid, because, if validity were posited, at least in extremis it does not seem it should be excluded. There are added canons 752, § 3, and 754, § 3, compared with the Holy Office of 30 March 1898, which seem to require a more or less explicit will. There is added finally that a practice conforming to the contrary doctrine never seems to have existed in the Church (St. Alphonsus, VI, 82; cf. VI, 483). Practically, the contrary opinion can be called licit, but not obligatory.

b) If there is discussion of those who do not explicitly reject Baptism, the probability of the opinion which teaches that the general will of admitting the means of salvation suffices, likewise attrition and contrition, the probability of that opinion, I say, seems rather slight: both because, as we said, canons 752, § 3, and 754, § 3, compared with the Holy Office of 30 March 1898, seem to require that the one to be baptized have signified an intention more or less explicit of receiving Baptism; and because the practice of baptizing those who enjoy only an implicit intention seems truly new in the Church. Practically, however, the contrary opinion seems licit, and, according to circumstances, obligatory.

b) With regard to Extreme Unction, likewise for receiving Viaticum sacramentally, the will of dying Christianly suffices; the same will in danger of death suffices for Confirmation; likewise for receiving sacramental absolution, at least considered by itself alone.

The will of dying Christianly, likewise the will of using the means of salvation, or contrition or attrition, according to the things explained above, do not seem to suffice in those who reject the mentioned sacraments more or less explicitly. With regard to non-Catholics who do not explicitly reject the said sacraments, it is not so proven that the will of dying Christianly, etc., does not suffice for valid reception.

c) With regard to Matrimony and Order, explicit intention is required; since, at least practically, there will not be had an implicit intention which includes the will of entering Matrimony or of receiving Order. There is added that the said sacraments carry special burdens with them, so that for that reason also a general will does not sufficiently contain the will of receiving them (St. Alphonsus, VI, 82).

Question. Whether the conceived intention of receiving a sacrament effects that it is validly received, even if it is ministered to one not master of himself, for example sleeping, drunk, or fallen into insanity.

Response. A few deny it;⁶ but it seems it must entirely be affirmed, both because Innocent III teaches thus with regard to Baptism,⁷ likewise Benedict XIV;⁸ and because intention is not judged restricted unless a restriction is expressly placed, or is drawn from a contrary will once had (St. Thomas, In IV, dist. 6, q. 1, a. 2, sol. 3, ad 2; St. Alphonsus, VI, 81).

¹ Innocent III, chapter Maiores, § Item quaeritur, de baptismo; Instruction of Benedict XIV, Postremo mense, n. 46.

² Cf. the treatise on Penance.

³ St. Alphonsus (VI, 82) and others teach that interpretative intention suffices; but they understand that intention which others call implicit habitual intention. The holy Doctor indeed calls it interpretative intention which was never had; but he intends the one which was never had explicitly, as follows from the context, namely both from the fact that he also calls interpretative intention general, that is, such by which someone implicitly wills the sacrament, and from the fact that he opposes interpretative intention to explicit intention.

⁴ Title V, chapter 1, n. 6.

⁵ It seems to others that in the will of using the means of salvation there is not included the implicit will of receiving the sacrament, but rather a merely conditioned will; in other words, he would will to receive it if he recognized it as a means of salvation; but this condition not being fulfilled, he in no way wills it (cf. Ter Haar, De occasionariis et recidivis, n. 503).

⁶ Roncaglia, De Sacramentis in genere, chapter 5, question 2, response 2; Billuart, De Sacramentis in communi, dissertation VI, article I; Lehmkuhl (II, 65 note) doubts.

⁷ Book 3 of the Decretals, title 42, chapter 3, Maiores.

⁸ Instruction Postremo mense, n. 46.