The minister's attention

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.

In order that a sacrament be validly confected, besides intention these things are required:

I. The minister must place the external rite in a human manner, or by a human act. For it cannot be admitted that Christ instituted a sacrament in such a way that it can be confected by an act which is not human; as if someone wholly drunk or sleeping were to baptize. For the rest, in the case, at least practically, the required intention will also be lacking (St. Alphonsus, VI, 16).

II. The same minister must apply the matter and pronounce the form. If there is discussion of Baptism, this seems certain, both because otherwise the words of the form are not verified, and because the Sacred Congregation of the Discipline of the Sacraments¹ declared Baptism conferred in another way invalid, adding these words: Catholic doctrine holds most certainly that the matter must be placed by one and the same minister and at the same time the form of Baptism must be uttered; otherwise the form I baptize you, I wash you would labor under falsity (St. Thomas, III, q. 67, a. 6, ad 3). The same seems almost certain with regard to Confirmation, Extreme Unction, and Order, considering namely both the analogy with Baptism and the doctrine of theologians and the practice of the Church. There is added that otherwise the moral union in the sacrament does not seem to be sufficiently preserved. Except the sacrament of Penance, whose nature requires the contrary. With regard to the sacrament of the Eucharist, the question cannot be posed. For the rest, note:

1. Different ministers can validly minister a sacrament which consists of parts, if you grant that this occurs; concerning which consult the treatise on Extreme Unction, provided that the individual parts are placed whole by one and the same minister, that is, with their own matter and form. This is clear from what will be said in the treatise on Extreme Unction. Nevertheless, since that is gravely contrary to the rite, it is forbidden under grave obligation outside a case of necessity.

2. Even if a sacrament does not consist of parts, nevertheless several ministers can validly confect one and the same sacrament, provided that each places everything which is required for the sacrament. This is urged first, with regard to other sacraments, from the analogy with the sacrament of the Eucharist, which can certainly be confected by several at the same time. The reason is that the individual ministers do not confect the sacrament except in the person of Christ, and therefore in and with Christ they are one. Then, since the individuals, as we suppose, possess the power of confecting the sacrament and exhibit all the requisites, it does not appear that anything is lacking to the conferral of the individuals (cf. St. Thomas, III, q. 67, a. 6; q. 82, a. 2, ad 2; St. Alphonsus, VI, 120, 232; can. 803). But this also is gravely illicit, except the consecration in the ordination of priests and the consecration of Bishops.

Even if several confect a sacrament, nevertheless it will be one sacrament, because Christ, who is the one principal minister, effects one thing through several (St. Thomas, III, q. 67, a. 6).

3. Finally, one and the same person can confer a sacrament on several at the same time, for example baptize or absolve several. Yet this too is illicit outside a case of necessity (St. Alphonsus, VI, 29).

¹ 17 November 1916 (A.A.S. 1916, p. 479); cf. Roman Ritual, title 2, chapter 1, n. 10.

III. The minister must confer the sacrament on a subject distinct from himself. This is drawn both from the common doctrine of theologians and the constant practice of the Church, and from the form of several sacraments. There is added that Innocent III declared null the Baptism which a certain Jew had ministered to himself in danger of death, adding this reason: "Since there ought to be a distinction between the one baptizing and the one baptized, as is clearly gathered from the words of the Lord, saying to the Apostles: Go, baptize all nations in the name, etc." (St. Thomas, q. 66, a. 5, ad 4; q. 82, a. 4, ad 2).¹ Except the Most Holy Eucharist and Matrimony.

¹ Cf. Decretals, IV, III, 42.

IV. The minister must duly unite matter and form, because they must constitute one sign. A moral union suffices, or rather that union by which the words of the form, according to common estimation, affect the matter and so constitute one thing with it (St. Alphonsus, VI, 9). Now:

1. In Baptism, Confirmation, Order, and Extreme Unction it certainly suffices that matter and form coexist in some part of themselves, or that one be begun before the other is completed. Likewise, it seems to suffice that the form be pronounced immediately before or immediately after the application of the matter. The reason is that even on this supposition the words "I baptize you," etc., "I sign you," etc., still seem to signify the actual application of the matter. There is added that the Holy Office several times resolved that the sacrament of the priesthood was not to be repeated in the case in which the Bishop had had his extended hand over the ordinands immediately before the prayer Oremus;¹ likewise in the case in which the ordinand had touched the instruments after the form had been uttered.² These resolutions seem also to be applicable to Baptism, Confirmation, and Extreme Unction. Nevertheless, the reason for doubting with regard to these three sacraments, especially with regard to Baptism, is taken from the fact that the Holy Office on 2 May 1858 declared that Baptism is always to be repeated under condition whenever "after the washing has been wholly completed, the form is pronounced, or conversely, when the pronouncing of the form has been completed, one proceeds to the washing."³ For the rest, a very brief delay would render the sacrament doubtful, but the delay of one Our Father would render it null (St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.). For liceity it is required that matter and form perfectly coexist.⁴

2. In Penance, because it was instituted after the manner of a judgment, a greater interval can intervene.

3. In Matrimony there is always had union of matter and form when the consent of one is placed, the consent of the other not having been retracted; for it has and follows the nature of a contract (St. Alphonsus, VI, 9).

4. In the Eucharist there is discussion rather of the presence of the matter than of its union with the form; here, however, it is required that the matter be physically present, because otherwise the words "this" and "here" are not verified (St. Alphonsus, VI, 9).

¹ 12 September 1877; 30 November 1898; 14 December 1898.

² 17 March 1897.

³ Note, however, that at the time the response was given, the value of Baptism conferred in this way was doubted more than today. Considering this together with the declarations afterwards issued concerning Order, it is permissible to doubt whether the Sacred Congregation, if again consulted, would give the same response.

⁴ Roman Ritual, title 2, chapter 1, n. 8; title 5, chapter 1, n. 18.

V. The minister must use neither matter nor form substantially vitiated. Now:

1. A substantial change of matter is had when a thing is used which, according to common estimation, differs from the thing which the Church uses, as if in Baptism you should use wine instead of water. If, however, the matter is the same thing in reality, either wholly or as to the greater quantity, but is called by a different name and is used for a different use, it is rather doubtfully valid than certainly invalid, as if someone were to baptize with moisture flowing from a vine (St. Alphonsus, VI, 11).

2. A substantial change of form is had when the words, according to common estimation, have a meaning different from that which must be expressed according to the mind of Christ (St. Alphonsus, VI, 11, 221). If the change is made into words which can be taken in a twofold sense, namely a sacramental one and a foreign one, the change is substantial or accidental according as the minister intends the foreign or the sacramental sense; since even in the common intercourse of men an ambiguous sense must be determined by the speaker himself. Besides, it can happen that a change which, considering only the grammatical sense, is substantial, is in fact accidental or substantial according as it proceeds from inadvertence or ignorance, or from a heretical mind. Thus if someone in consecration, from inadvertence, were to say, "Here" in place of "This is My Body," the consecration would be valid; otherwise if he intended the word "here" in the sense of Luther, or adverbially (St. Alphonsus, VI, 110). For the rest, a change of form can occur:

a) By substitution of words, as if in Baptism it were said: I wash you, etc. But it is accidental or substantial according as the substituted words are synonymous or not synonymous.

b) By transposition, as if someone says: I baptize you, etc. This will generally be accidental.

c) By omission, as if in consecration the word for is omitted. It must be seen whether or not an essential word is omitted, namely one by which the due sense is taken away.

d) By corruption, as can happen because of stammering, haste, or inexperience, as if someone says: This is my boby. In the case the change is generally accidental.

e) By addition, as if in Baptism it is said: I baptize you in the name of the Father, who created you, etc. Further, a change of this kind is more easily substantial if what is false is added than if what is true is added; likewise if the change is made with a heretical mind than otherwise.

f) By interruption. Further:

a) Interruption of the words of the form is substantial or accidental according as it is or is not so great that the words before those hearing no longer effect the complete sense intended by Christ.

b) Interruption of the syllables of the same word, if it occurs by the interposition of several words or of one word, as if it were said: I bap- (be silent) -tize you, etc., renders the value doubtful. Otherwise if it occurs by a cough or a similar way and is very brief (St. Alphonsus, VI, 11, 221).

3. A substantial change, as one which renders the sacrament invalid, is a grave sin; an accidental change is gravely or lightly forbidden according as it greatly or lightly opposes the use and precept of the Church.

VI. The minister must utter the sacramental form by voice, that is, by the organs ordered to speaking. Therefore vocal pronunciation is required. Besides, at least practically, the pronunciation ought to be audible of itself, because it is doubtful whether pronunciation which of itself is not audible can be called vocal (St. Alphonsus, VI, 414).

St. Thomas III, q. 64, a. 8 and 10.

80. Principle I. For the validity of a sacrament, in the minister, besides power, there is required the intention or deliberate will of confecting a sacrament. - This is of faith from the Council of Trent, sess. 7, can. 11, and can. 4 on Baptism, defined against the Protestants.

It is proved:

1. From Tradition, whose witnesses are Innocent III, the profession of faith for the Waldensians; the Council of Constance, last session, constitution against Wicleff, a. 22; Florence, decree for the Armenians; and Trent already cited.

2. From the Scriptures, in which it is implicitly asserted, I Cor. IV, 1: A priest, in the ministration of the sacraments, is a minister of Christ; but in order that a man be a minister of Christ, he must will to act in the name of Christ and intend what Christ instituted; therefore. The minor is proved:

a) A minister differs from a blind instrument in this, that he is a voluntary agent; whence he must will to use his ministerial power, and thus through his will subject himself to the principal agent: for a human act does not operate beyond the intention of the agent.

b) Similarly, there was given to ministers not a mere deputation but a power (Mt. XXVIII, 18-19; John XX, 21; Luke XXII, 19); but one who has a power can use it or not use it; and therefore there is required in ministers an intention of using their power or of acting in the name of Christ.

Therefore intention is required on the part of the minister.

3. By reason: The placing of matter and form is an indifferent action which can signify various things and be done for various ends: washing, for example, for bodily cleanliness, for health, for play, for mere exercise, for representation alone; therefore it must be determined to one sacramental signification, which will not be done except by the intention of the minister. Therefore intention is also required on the part of the work.

Nor should you say: the external rite is determined by the words of the form; therefore intention is superfluous. - Reply: supposing that the words are pronounced in the name of Christ, in the person of Christ; otherwise they would not have their sacramental signification.

81. Principle II. The required intention is the will, at least virtual and implicit, absolute or equivalent to this, determined to a certain matter and person, of performing the sacramental rite. - It is said:

1. Will; hence one deprived of reason, perfectly drunk, or dreaming, does not confect a sacrament, even if he previously intended this, because he does not act in a human mode, from intention.

2. On the part of the subject: at least virtual and implicit: for an interpretative intention does not suffice, which someone would have had if he had adverted to this or that; nor a merely habitual intention, i.e., one once had and not retracted, for these do not make a human act (I, n. 55) nor influence the constitution of a sacrament. Nor is an actual intention required, which someone here and now has, because this is not always in man's moral power; but a virtual intention is required, by which someone, from the force or influx of a past actual intention, places or continues to place the sacrament.¹ Likewise an explicit intention is not required, by which someone says: I intend to make a sacrament; but an implicit one suffices, contained in another act, as if someone, having been called, goes to the church and, distracted, performs all things required for Baptism.

¹ Among the older authors, virtual intention is sometimes called habitual, as in St. Thomas, a. 8, ad 3; but he understands virtual, for he adds: "from the power of the first intention the sacrament is perfected." Yet to avoid equivocations, the terminology received today must be preserved.

In practice, one who places the actions according to custom and does not exclude intention has an implicit intention; a fortiori one who fears whether he has sufficient intention, by this very fact has more than sufficient intention.

3. On the part of the mode by which the will is borne toward the object:

a) Absolute or equivalent to this, i.e., conditioned concerning the past or present: for if, at the moment at which the sacrament is made, this condition is verified, the intention passes into an absolute one and the sacrament is valid; otherwise it is not perfected from defect of intention. But a condition concerning a future contingent thing (for example, if you restore), and also concerning a necessary future thing (for example, if the sun rises), with the mind of suspending the sacrament, renders it invalid: for it impedes the union between the intention of the minister and the application of matter and form, since it suspends the present intention and makes it so that the minister does not have the will of confecting the sacrament in the present; moreover, when the condition has been verified, there also is not then a sacrament, because then matter and form no longer exist.

Matrimony is excepted, which follows the nature of a contract; whence, when the condition has been verified, if consent has persevered, the matter and form of matrimony are present, for they coincide with the persevering intention.

b) Determined to a certain matter, because otherwise it would be indifferent, for example, if someone, knowing there are eleven hosts, wished to consecrate ten without indicating which ones; and to a certain person, because otherwise no application would be made, for example, if someone said: I absolve thee, to two persons.

But it suffices that it be determined to the present person, whoever that person may be; whence a man who is thought to be a woman is validly absolved, and Peter who seems to be Paul. Error concerning the person does not invalidate, unless the minister were to bind his intention to a determinate person; in matrimony, however, error of person is substantial, because the person is the very object of the contract.

4. On the part of the object: of performing the sacramental rite. For the rite of itself is indifferent and can be posited for a diverse end: as sacred or as profane, indeed by playing, or by pretending, without, namely, the will of confecting a sacrament; therefore in order that it be a sacrament it must be determined by the intention of doing the rite as sacramental, or of doing what the Church does,² as the Councils say, or what is done in the Church. This must be explained further.

² The first who used the formula was William of Auxerre, on IV Sentences, On Baptism.

82. Principle III. For the validity of a sacrament, external intention does not suffice, i.e., the intention only of doing the external act; but there is required, at least implicitly, an internal intention of doing what Christ instituted, or at least what the Church does. - Therefore the intention of positing the external act, even seriously and in the habit of a minister, but merely materially (although inwardly someone wills to simulate), does not suffice; this intention they call external, namely from the part of the object, and some have said that it suffices;³ for:

³ It is attributed to Alan of Lille; it was formally proposed by Catharinus, Salmeron, Contenson, Juenin, Natalis Alexander, Serry, Drouin, and others.

a) One who has only external intention, but internally does not have the intention of doing what the Church does, implicitly intends to simulate a sacrament, although not openly; but one who simulates a sacrament, whether openly or secretly, cannot be said to act in the name of Christ.

b) The external act, even one posited in a sacred place by a minister clothed in sacred vestments, can be done for a diverse end: it can be a serious or simulated action, done in the name of Christ or in one's own name, a profane representation or exercise, or a sacred action. Therefore it will not be determined to the being of a sacrament except through an internal intention, consonant with the external act, namely of doing the act formally as sacred, as instituted by Christ and intended by the Church.

This opinion in practice must be altogether held, because the sacraments are to be ministered in the safer way (n. 23); indeed the contrary seems not safe even speculatively, because proposition 28 was condemned by Alexander VIII: "Baptism conferred by a minister who observes every external rite and the form of baptizing is valid, while inwardly in his heart he resolves within himself: I do not intend what the Church does." For although the one who only negatively does not say: I intend what the Church does, but positively does not add: I do not intend what the Church does, has not been explicitly condemned; nevertheless, because he implicitly says this, therefore with Benedict XIV⁴ it is rightly judged that, from the condemnation of the proposition, a grave wound has been inflicted on the opinion which asserts that this suffices.

⁴ On the Diocesan Synod, book VII, 4, 8.

83. Corollaries. - Since implicit intention suffices, hence:

1. There is not required an explicit intention of that which the Church intends, namely, of confecting something sacred, or a sacrament, or of producing its effect.

2. Nor is faith in Christ, the Church, or the sacrament required; but whatever the minister's opinion may be concerning Christ, concerning the sacrament and its efficacy, he ministers validly provided that he wills to perform the rite which the Church performs, and which by her is held as sacred, even if he himself thinks it to be nothing: "for because the Church does something, therefore consequently and implicitly he intends to do something, although not explicitly," says St. Thomas, on IV Sentences, d. 6, q. 1, a. 3, sol. 2, ad 1.

3. Nor is an explicit intention required of doing what the Roman Church does, but a general intention of doing what the true Church does, whatever the minister may think of that Church; whence a heretic, by willing what his own Church does, which he falsely thinks to be true, implicitly wills what the Church of Christ and the Roman Church does.

4. Nor is an express thought about the Church required, but the intention of doing something which identically the Church does suffices, for example, what is commanded in the Gospel, what Christians do, what is asked by the one requesting: thus baptized persons minister the sacrament of matrimony which they are ignorant to be a sacrament of the Church.

5. Indeed even if the minister has two contrary intentions, for example, of doing what Christ instituted but not what the Church does, what the Church does but not what the Roman Church does, of celebrating matrimony but dissoluble or not a sacrament, of making a sacrament but not of giving grace; the sacrament is valid, provided that the general intention of doing what the Church in fact does is predominant and prevails over the intention proceeding from error, i.e., provided that this is the intention which, according to his actual disposition, the minister would choose if he knew that both could not stand together at the same time.

But if each were equal, nothing would be operated, for one would destroy the other; but if there were doubt about this, the sacrament would be doubtful.

84. He sins gravely from defect of due intention:

1. Who ministers a sacrament without intention, or under a future condition suspending the intention, because it is not a valid sacrament, but a simulation and mockery of it.

2. Who ministers under a hidden condition extrinsic to the sacrament, whether it is unknowable in a human way, for example, if you are predestined, if God sees that you will die this year; or whether it is knowable, for example, if you are fasting, if you have recited the Rosary; because from the very placing of the condition there arises doubt concerning the validity of the sacrament, and hence he exposes himself to the danger of doing nothing and of frustrating his neighbor of the sacramental effect; and on the other hand there can be no reason for such ministration. Indeed to some, among whom is St. Alphonsus, Theologia Moralis, book VI, n. 28, it seems more probable that a sacrament confected under a hidden condition unknowable in a human way is invalid, because "since God has committed the administration of the sacraments to the cognition and will of men, a condition cannot be placed which cannot fall under human cognition."

3. Who without grave cause ministers under a hidden condition concerning the present or the past and intrinsic to the sacrament, or from its nature required for its value, so that doubt concerning the value does not arise from the very placing of the condition: for he plays in a most grave and most holy matter, because he incurs the danger of making the sacrament null, and thus inflicts irreverence upon Christ and exposes his neighbor to great harm.

On the contrary:

A. It is licit if a sufficient cause is present, such as is generally had when the sacrament here and now is necessary or very useful and cannot be had as certainly valid:

a) if a serious doubt arises whether a sacrament which cannot be repeated was conferred or validly conferred, or whether the confessor absolved the penitent; then let the sacrament be ministered under the condition: if you are not yet baptized, absolved, etc.;

b) if there is doubt whether a capable subject is had, for example, whether a child confessing matter of mortal sin is possessed of reason, whether one deprived of the senses wishes to receive the sacrament or is still alive, whether the one to be absolved repents, whether the fetus is a man; then let the sacrament be ministered under the condition: if you are capable;

c) if there is doubt concerning the validity of the matter or form, for example, whether this is water, or concerning the power of the minister: for doubt concerning the power of the minister, or concerning his jurisdiction for the sacrament of Penance, renders the matters and forms doubtful; then let the sacrament be ministered under the condition: if I can.