Section II. On the Requisites for Licit Ministration

In order that the minister of a sacrament proceed licitly, first indeed he must minister validly; concerning this there has already been discussion. Then it is required that he minister legitimately, holily, according to the rite, to the worthy, and absolutely or under condition according to the circumstances.

I. Legitimately; namely, it is required that the minister have received from the Church a mission or some jurisdiction, in other words authorization, and that he not have contracted a penalty which deprives him of the use of order. Concerning the jurisdiction required there will be fuller discussion in the treatise on the individual sacraments.

II. Holily, that is, in the state of grace. Now:

1. The obligation of ministering the sacraments in the state of grace is clear from the reverence due to an action so holy. Nevertheless, a necessity excuses which is so urgent that not even an act of contrition can be elicited, for example if absolution must be granted immediately to one dying. For since the sacraments are for men, the harm of one's neighbor to be averted prevails over the reverence due of itself to the sacrament, and thus, when the higher law of charity urges, the irreverence is taken away.

Here, however, it is asked by some whether the minister also is excused who cannot elicit an act of contrition in time without danger of infamy or scandal. Further, theoretically this must be affirmed, because, granted the good will of the minister and his moral inability to repent in time, even the right of preserving reputation and, a fortiori, the obligation of avoiding scandal prevail over the reverence due of itself to the sacrament. But since practically sufficient time for eliciting an act of contrition is available, it can be said that the said excusing cause in fact scarcely exists (St. Alphonsus, VI, 33).

2. As regards the gravity of the obligation, receive the following:

a) The obligation of the state of grace is certainly grave if these three things occur, namely if: 1. the minister is consecrated; 2. he confects the sacrament; and 3. he does this by office, or as consecrated, or solemnly.¹ This is clear from the Roman Ritual, which declares: "Those ministering these things impurely and unworthily incur the guilt of eternal death";² and these words must at least be applied to those of whom we are speaking. So also the Roman Catechism.³ The reason is that grave irreverence is had in this, that someone exercises an act so holy in a state so foul, whether as consecrated and furnished with sacramental grace, or as acting as minister and instrument of Christ and in His name, or with the said titles considered together (cf. St. Thomas, III, q. 64, a. 5, ad 3 and a. 6; St. Alphonsus, VI, 31, 32, 884).

b) It is disputed whether the following sin gravely: 1. a non-consecrated minister who confects a sacrament in mortal sin, namely a layman baptizing and those contracting Matrimony;⁴ 2. a consecrated minister who confects a sacrament, but not by office or not as consecrated, namely a deacon or priest baptizing in a case of necessity. Some affirm, because there is grave irreverence in this, that someone, whether he is consecrated or is not consecrated, whether he acts as consecrated or does not act as such, performs such sublime things in the name of and as an instrument of Christ. Others deny it, and judge that for grave irreverence it is required that someone act by office, and therefore confect the sacrament as public minister of Christ and of the Church. Thus St. Thomas teaches (loc. cit.), nor does St. Alphonsus seem to reject this for practice (VI, 32; Homo Apostolicus, tract 14, n. 6); all things considered, it can be held as practically safe. Likewise, a priest does not sin gravely who, while in mortal sin, only hears confession, yet in such a way that he resolves to elicit an act of contrition before absolution is to be given (St. Alphonsus, VI, 36).

c) It is further disputed whether a priest or deacon sins gravely who, while in mortal sin, does not confect, but only administers a sacrament. This question regards only the distribution of the Holy Eucharist. Further, St. Alphonsus, against many, affirms it, "because," he says, "a priest ministering the Eucharist in mortal sin inflicts grave injury on this sacrament, because, as a minister consecrated for dispensing it, he ministers it unworthily (cf. can. 845). And just as in the other sacraments the minister proximately concurs in the sanctification of those receiving through confection, so here he proximately concurs through dispensation, since the minister of the Eucharist cannot exhibit himself as minister otherwise than through dispensation" (VI, 35). There is added that Nicholas II compares a dispenser in the state of sin to a burning torch, which, while it illuminates others, consumes itself.⁵ Finally, the Roman Catechism favors this opinion.⁶

d) He does not sin gravely who, while in mortal sin, exercises other sacred functions, for example: 1. one who performs the functions of the Diaconate, Subdiaconate, or minor Orders; 2. one who performs consecrations, for example of Sacred Oil, and blessings; 3. one who touches or carries the Holy Eucharist or gives Benediction with the Most Holy Sacrament; 4. a priest who assists at Matrimony; 5. finally, one who preaches while in mortal sin does not sin gravely (St. Alphonsus, VI, 37-40).

Corollary. A minister who in mortal sin confects several sacraments in one continuous act commits as many sins as the sacraments he confects. The contrary must be said of him who by one moral action distributes the Holy Eucharist to several. Finally, he who celebrates while in mortal sin more probably commits four sins, namely he unworthily confects the sacrament, unworthily receives the sacrament, unworthily administers the sacrament to himself, and administers the sacrament to an unworthy person, again to himself (St. Alphonsus, VI, 35; vol. I, p. 201).

3. As regards the mode of recovering lost grace, one about to confect or administer a sacrament while constituted in mortal sin can recover grace either by an act of perfect contrition or by confession. If, however, there is question of confecting the Holy Eucharist, Confession is required of itself; this is clear from canon 807, to be explained later. Besides, the confection of this sacrament has its reception annexed to it. Further, he who has sinned mortally cannot receive the Holy Eucharist unless he has first received the sacrament of Penance (n. 179). With regard to the confection of the other sacraments, it is indeed fitting to confess,⁷ but there is no obligation.

¹ The word solemnly, which in the case is commonly used, does not regard external rites, but signifies the same as by office.

² Title I, single chapter, n. 4.

³ Part 2, chapter 1, q. 17.

⁴ Nevertheless, they sin gravely insofar as they receive Matrimony in mortal sin.

⁵ Chapter 5, cause 15, question 8.

⁶ Part 2, chapter 1, question 17.

⁷ Roman Ritual, title I, n. 4.

III. According to the rite, that is, according to the rites prescribed by the Church. Rites, however, are customarily distinguished as essential and accidental, according as they belong to the essence of the sacraments or do not belong to it. Concerning the essential rite, that is, concerning the use of matter and form, there has already been discussion, so that it remains to speak only of the accidental rite. Concerning this, let these things be observed:

1. That there is an obligation of observing the rites is of faith from these words of the Council of Trent: "If anyone shall say that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, customarily used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, can either be contemned, or omitted by the ministers at their pleasure without sin, or changed into other new rites by any pastor of churches whatsoever, let him be anathema."¹ The obligation is likewise drawn from the Constitution Apostolicae Sedi of Paul V,² placed at the head of the Roman Ritual; likewise from canon 733, § 1, which establishes: "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." Yet this does not prevent certain rites from being called directive rather than preceptive; this is drawn both from the words of the Ritual and from the thing itself, as will be noted in its place.

2. The obligation of observing the rites is grave by its genus, so that he sins gravely who neglects the law in grave matter; this is drawn both from the importance of the matter being treated and from the penalties to be inflicted on incorrigible transgressors (cf. can. 2378).

3. Each person is bound to follow his own rite (can. 733, § 2). Now the rite to be observed in the Latin Church is contained in the Missal and Roman Ritual, the Roman Pontifical, the Ceremonial of Bishops, and the Memoriale Rituum.³

Note 1. The sacred oils which serve for administering certain sacraments must have been blessed by the Bishop on the most recent Thursday in the Lord's Supper; and old oils are not to be used unless necessity urges. When the blessed oil is nearly lacking, other unblessed olive oil is to be added, even repeatedly, but in a smaller quantity (can. 734). The pastor must request the sacred oils from his Ordinary and diligently preserve them in the church in safe and decent custody under key; nor is he to retain them at home, unless because of necessity or another reasonable cause, with the permission of the Ordinary (can. 735).

Note 2. The reverence due to the sacraments also requires that they be confected with the decency which the nature of the sacrament demands; to this also belongs due attention. Nevertheless, voluntary distraction is only venial, unless there is added danger of a substantial or at least notable defect. Yet voluntary distraction of a priest during consecration and communion is held by many as grave irreverence, namely because of the eminent dignity of the Sacrifice (cf. St. Alphonsus, VI, 14, 224, 410, dub. 5).

¹ Session 7, On the Sacraments in general, canon 13.

² 17 June 1614.

³ The Memoriale Rituum is a small book of rites given for the City by Benedict XIII (1723) and promulgated for the whole world by Pius VII (1827).

IV. To the worthy. The sacraments can be ministered only to the worthy, at least of themselves. But it suffices that worthiness be established as will be explained below. I said:

1. They can be ministered only to the worthy. He who ministers them to an unworthy person commits: 1. the sin of sacrilege, on account of the irreverent treatment of a sacred thing, that is, of a sacrament; 2. the sin of scandal, on account of cooperation in the sin of one's neighbor (St. Alphonsus, VI, 43).

2. At least of themselves; because, as if accidentally, the sacraments can be ministered to an unworthy person if there is present a cause by which both the irreverence which is contained of itself in ministration to the unworthy is removed, and cooperation in the sin of one's neighbor is made honorable. Causes of this kind are: violation of the sacramental seal, infamy, scandal, and other inconveniences to be avoided. From these things follow:

a) A sacrament must be ministered to an unworthy person if his unworthiness is known only by sacramental knowledge. For the rest, the following rules hold:

b) The sacraments are to be denied to a public sinner whether he asks secretly or publicly. The reason is that neither scandal nor infamy to be avoided makes the ministration honorable¹ (can. 855, § 1; St. Thomas, III, q. 80, a. 6; St. Alphonsus, VI, 44). A public sinner, however, is one whose crime is notorious either by fact, by law, or by reputation; he is occult as long as there is hope that the crime can be hidden.

c) The sacraments are to be denied to an occult sinner if he asks for them secretly, that is, before the priest alone, or before a few others who do not understand what is being done and will not spread the matter; they are not to be denied if he asks for them publicly. It is said:

a) They are to be denied if he asks for them secretly (can. 855, § 2; Roman Ritual):² the reason is that from denial there does not follow the inconvenience mentioned above (St. Thomas, loc. cit.; St. Alphonsus, VI, 44). Except if the priest knew the state of the sinner from confession alone; for he cannot use knowledge from confession with the burden of the penitent (St. Alphonsus, VI, 51, 658).

b) They are not to be denied if he asks for them publicly (can. 855, § 2; Roman Ritual).³ The reason is that from the fact that a minister could publicly deny the sacraments from private knowledge, the greatest inconveniences would follow: namely, not only the loss of the reputation⁴ of the one asking, but especially disputes, disturbances, scandals, and the danger that many would abstain from the sacraments, namely from fear lest they be kept away by an imprudent or malicious minister (St. Thomas, loc. cit.; St. Alphonsus, VI, 49). Except, however, the sacrament of Order, from which even one occultly unworthy must be kept away (Council of Trent;⁵ can. 970). "The reason is certain, because he who thrusts himself into public offices for which he is not suitable must be repelled, even with infamy, on account of the public good to be preferred to the private good" (St. Alphonsus, VI, 52; cf. St. Thomas, Supplement, q. 36, a. 4). Besides, "it must be noted that in that case the Bishop is not bound to manifest the cause why he repels him from ordination; according to the declarations of the Sacred Congregation of the Council issued on 21 March 1643 and on 21 April 1668, which the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XIV brings forward at length"⁶ (St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.).

If the crime is public in another place, but occult in the place where the sacrament is asked, the sacrament should not be denied unless knowledge of the crime will easily reach there (St. Alphonsus, VI, 46; cf. can. 855, § 2).

d) It is forbidden to minister the sacraments of the Church to heretics, even those erring in good faith and asking for them, unless first, having rejected their errors, they have been reconciled to the Church (can. 731, § 2). It is forbidden both because the sacraments generally cannot be ministered to heretics and schismatics without scandal,⁷ and because ministration of the sacraments to non-Catholics fosters indifferentism.

Insofar as these things are also to be applied to the dying, see in the treatise on Penance and on Extreme Unction.

3. It suffices that worthiness be established as follows:

a) With regard to Baptism of adults, Penance, Order, and Matrimony, the worthiness of the recipient must be established more or less positively, and therefore inquiry must be made into it, as will be explained more fully in the treatise on the said sacraments. Meanwhile consult, with regard to Baptism, canon 752, § 1; with regard to Penance, canons 886 and 888; with regard to Order, canon 973, § 3; with regard to Matrimony, canons 1020, 1021, § 1, and 1033.

b) With regard to the other sacraments, worthiness must be presumed, while unworthiness must be proven in some measure, so that in doubt the sacraments ought rather to be granted. The reason is that all the faithful have a right to these other sacraments, and ministers are not judges but dispensers; whence in these cases they do not have the right of inquiring, but only the duty of dispensing to all who ask, provided that they are not positively unworthy (St. Alphonsus, VI, 43). If, however, unworthiness has been established, amendment must be proven, and sometimes, besides, the satisfaction performed must be established. Concerning this the Roman Ritual has these words: "All the faithful are to be admitted to sacred Communion, except those who are prohibited for a just reason. But the publicly unworthy are to be kept away, such as the excommunicated, the interdicted, and the manifestly infamous: as prostitutes, concubinarians, usurers,⁸ magicians,⁹ sorcerers, blasphemers,¹⁰ and other public sinners of that kind, unless their penitence and amendment are established, and they have first satisfied for public scandal."¹¹ Canon 855, § 1, inculcates the same for the same reason. With these things considered, the following can be drawn:

¹ Roman Ritual, title IV, chapter 2, n. 3.

² Title IV, chapter 1, n. 9.

³ Title IV, chapter 1, n. 9.

⁴ This reason is not adequate, because the reverence to be shown of itself to the sacrament prevails over the private good of the reputation of the sinner, who, as is supposed, is not of good will; but it does not prevail over the common good.

⁵ Session 14, on reform, chapter 1; Session 23, chapters 5 and 7.

⁶ De Synodo, book 12, chapter 8, n. 2.

⁷ Holy Office, 20 July 1898 (Collectanea, n. 2012).

⁸ That is, those judicially convicted as such.

⁹ That is, those who publicly practice true and certain magic.

¹⁰ That is, those who from a spirit of impiety are accustomed by mouth or writing to utter injurious things against God, against the Saints, or against the Church.

¹¹ Title IV, chapter 1, n. 8.

Corollary I. If unworthiness arises from sin alone, generally it suffices that the sinner has confessed publicly; indeed, the very approach to the Holy Eucharist seems generally to suffice that he be judged amended. If, however, a public sinner of this kind, notwithstanding confessions and communions, does not cease falling back into the same habit, and the relapse is notorious, then the ministration of the sacraments should be deferred for some time, so that amendment may be sufficiently proven, unless now particular signs of amendment appear, as can occur especially on the occasion of a Mission.

Corollary II. If someone has publicly lived in a proximate occasion; likewise, if some resignation of office, or retraction, or satisfaction must be imposed, for example if someone has performed a wicked office, or has publicly enrolled in a wicked society, or has spread pernicious errors, or has publicly and unjustly stripped another of reputation, generally the occasion must be abandoned or the other obligation fulfilled before the sinner is publicly¹ admitted to the sacraments.

Corollary III. If someone has been publicly excommunicated, or has notoriously adhered to a heretical sect, before he communicates he must be reconciled with the Church in the external forum and absolved from the censure.

Corollary IV. If the crime is doubtful, the sacrament should not be denied, unless nevertheless someone is so suspected that by charity he is bound to remove the suspicion. If the crime is certain, but penitence doubtful, the sacrament should be denied, because penitence is not established; which the Roman Ritual cited above and canon 855 require (cf. St. Alphonsus, VI, 48).

Corollary V. If a doubt remains whether the sacraments must be denied to someone, the Ordinary should be consulted; or, if there is not time, after the sacrament has been granted, recourse should be had to him for the future.

For the rest, if the sacraments are to be denied, one should proceed most prudently. As far as can be done, the sinner should be warned in time, so that the request itself may be forestalled. If the matter does not succeed, the denial should be made without disturbance. The ordinary circumstances are especially regarded by the things said above; concerning the things to be observed in urgent danger of death there will be discussion in its own place.

Finally, here it is customary to ask whether the minister can administer a sacrament to an unworthy person in order to avoid harm threatening himself, for example death. Some affirm, provided that the one asking can here and now validly receive the sacrament and does not ask for it in contempt of God or of religion. They affirm this because there is had only material cooperation, which is licit for a cause of this kind. But with St. Alphonsus (VI, 49) it seems it must be denied; since the conferral of a sacrament on an unworthy person, and this in the supposed circumstances, carries with it so great an injury to the sacrament that it does not seem it can be admitted for averting private harm from the minister, but only for preventing inconveniences that would follow for the community from the denial (St. Alphonsus, VI, 49). As we already noted above, the adequate reason why it is permitted to confer a sacrament on an occult sinner is not the avoidance of infamy for a contumacious sinner, but the inconveniences which would arise for the community from the denial (St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.).

¹ Of themselves, the sacraments can be ministered at least secretly to all who are truly penitent, but according to the Sacred Penitentiary (1856) it is not fitting "to admit to secret participation in the sacraments those who have not made retraction, on account of the scandal of the weak, who can believe that the penitent has persevered in obstinate pertinacity."

V. Absolutely or conditionally, according to the circumstances. The sacraments are to be conferred absolutely if there is no serious doubt about validity; otherwise under condition. Yet he who, being certain of validity, places a condition, seems of himself to sin only lightly, because grave irreverence is not evident.