Doubtfully Valid Sacraments and Their Repetition

26. Principles. Sacraments which imprint a character, baptism, confirmation, and order, may not be conferred again upon a man who has once received them validly; extreme unction cannot be repeated during the same danger of death, nor matrimony during the same marriage; but there is nothing to prevent eucharist and penance from being repeated, except that the Church has prohibited the eucharist from being received twice on the same day.

If someone confers again a sacrament which cannot be repeated, he effects nothing, since the sacrament is simply null; and he who knowingly confers or receives a non-repeatable sacrament sins gravely by the sin of sacrilege; and in the repetition of baptism both he who confers the sacrament and he who receives it incur an irregularity besides, which does not happen in the repetition of confirmation or order.

27. On the repetition of a doubtful sacrament. The following rules must be observed:

1. If the doubt concerning the validity of a sacrament is altogether imprudent and vain, it is not permitted to repeat the sacrament already conferred, and he who repeated it, even conditionally, would commit grave sin: for rashly to repeat a sacramental action contains a grave injury against the sacrament. But a condition, if the doubt is vain, is held as not added.

Wherefore, if after the sacrament has already been conferred, or after the form of the sacrament has already been uttered, a doubt arises concerning its validity which is a merely negative doubt, as if someone only reflexively does not remember that he said or performed the things which pertain to the essence of the sacrament, nothing is to be repeated. Yet for the most part they are excused from grave sin who, because of a vain doubt concerning the validity of the sacrament, are troubled by scruples and, with no time for deliberating, absolve again or again utter the words of consecration.

2. If the doubt concerning the validity of a sacrament is prudent and reasonable, whether the doubt is one of fact or of law, all sacraments can be repeated, and some also must be repeated; but they must be repeated under condition, so that provision may be made for the reverence which is owed to the sacrament (n. 25, 4).

a. All can be repeated: for the danger prudently feared, lest the receiver have to lack the fruit of the sacrament, is a sufficient reason for conferring it anew, since the sacraments are for men.

b. Some must be repeated, namely those which are necessary for the receiver unto salvation, or whose defect redounds to the grave harm of religion or of neighbor. And these sacraments must be repeated even if the doubt concerning their validity is slight only, which is especially true of baptism because of its supreme necessity.

alpha. Sacraments absolutely necessary unto salvation are baptism, absolution for one dying in mortal sin, and extreme unction for a dying sinner deprived of the senses. The good of religion requires that consecration be entirely certain, lest danger of idolatry be introduced. The good of religion and of neighbor requires that the conferral of order be certain, lest sacraments be administered invalidly.

beta. In sacraments there is a doubt of law when, in their conferral, doubtful matter (whether remote or proximate) or a doubtful form was used, concerning which authors, namely, hold opinions on both sides; there is a doubt of fact if it is doubted whether the sacrament was really conferred or in what way it was conferred, namely whether with due matter, form, and intention.

gamma. Whether a sacrament which is not necessary unto salvation, as confirmation, matrimony, or extreme unction where the sick person, being in possession of himself, has already received the other sacraments, must also be conferred again, must be judged from these circumstances: how great the doubt concerning validity is, how great the utility of the receiver is, and how much inconvenience the repetition brings to the minister.

Note. It can happen, however, that sacraments, even those most necessary, can indeed be repeated because of some slight doubt concerning their validity, especially for the greater peace of mind of him who received the sacrament, but that they need not be repeated, because the opinion denying the validity of the sacrament is not truly probable. Thus baptism conferred on the breast can indeed be repeated, but no obligation exists to repeat it. The same must be said of baptism in whose administration water was poured immediately after the utterance of the form; the same of order, in whose conferral the words Receive the power were uttered immediately after the touching of the instruments. It can happen that baptism conferred by a heretic need not be repeated, because there exists no reason for doubting either the right intention or the due matter and form, but that it can be repeated, because a full and evident certainty concerning its validity is not had.¹

¹ Cf. Lugo, Responsa moralia, l. 1, dub. 33, n. 3; Lacroix, l. 6, pr. 1, n. 310 ss.; Lehmkuhl II^11, n. 27 note.

I. The morality of doubtfully valid ministration. 1. Of itself it is illicit to minister a sacrament with doubt about its validity; in other words, moral certainty about the validity of the sacrament is required of itself. The reason is that of itself it is injurious to Christ, the Author of the sacraments, to place the external rite instituted by Him, wholly or at least partially, and indeed in order to constitute a sacrament, with grave danger of not truly constituting the sacrament. There is added proposition 1 condemned by Innocent XI: "It is not illicit in conferring the sacraments to follow a probable opinion about the validity of the sacrament, the safer one being left aside, unless law, agreement, or danger of incurring grave harm forbids it. Hence one must not use only a probable opinion in the conferral of Baptism, priestly Order, or episcopal Order."¹ Therefore of itself it is illicit: 1. to use doubtful matter or form; 2. to minister a sacrament in doubt whether another requisite for validity is present, for example the presence of the penitent due in the sacrament of Penance. Consequently, of itself it is also not licit to minister a sacrament under a condition which, according to what was said in n. 32, renders the validity of the sacrament doubtful (St. Alphonsus, VI, 28, 46).

Note. The moral certainty about validity which is required must be taken more strictly or more broadly according to the diversity of the sacraments; more broadly, for example, for the sacrament of Penance, as will be explained in its place.

2. Accidentally, a sacrament can sometimes, or even must, be conferred with doubt about its validity, namely if on the one hand it cannot certainly be conferred validly, and on the other hand there is a grave reason for conferring it. For since the sacraments are for men, the salvation of men to be procured prevails over the obligation of taking care lest the sacrament be exposed to the danger of nullity. A sufficient reason is present the more easily in proportion as the sacrament is more necessary (St. Alphonsus, VI, 28, 29).

Corollary I. A doubtfully valid sacrament can be conferred if the validity is at least probable and, from the sacrament not being conferred, grave spiritual harm threatens someone. Hence, for example, one doubtfully disposed can be absolved if there is fear lest otherwise he be alienated from the sacraments. But scarcely ever is it licit to consecrate doubtful matter (St. Alphonsus, VI, 28, 29, 432).

Corollary II. In danger of death, even with slight probability about validity, the necessary sacraments must be conferred, namely Baptism and Penance; likewise Extreme Unction, at least if Penance certainly cannot be conferred validly (St. Alphonsus, VI, 103).

¹ Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1151.

II. The mode of doubtfully valid ministration. If a sacrament is ministered with doubt about validity, it must be confected under condition; namely, the reverence due to the sacrament requires that the minister, in a doubt of this kind, protest that he does not will to confect the sacrament if the necessary condition is lacking.¹ Besides, observe:

1. Let the condition be placed on which validity depends, not that on which only the fruit depends. The reason is that a sacrament conferred under a condition on which only the fruit depends, for example, if you are disposed to receive grace, cannot revive; for if the condition is verified, the sacrament is immediately received validly and fruitfully; if it is not verified, it is not even validly received, and therefore cannot revive (n. 11). On the contrary, a sacrament conferred under a condition on which validity depends, for example, if you are capable of receiving the sacrament, is validly conferred if the condition is verified; and if perhaps it is now received without fruit, afterwards, when the due disposition is added, it can revive.

2. It is not required that the condition be expressed by mouth, but it suffices that it be expressed mentally, except in the cases in which, according to the Roman Ritual,² it must be expressed by mouth, namely: 1. in doubt whether the one to be baptized has already been baptized, or whether that which has been born is a human being; 2. in doubt whether the one to be anointed is still living (St. Alphonsus, VI, 29). The reason is that a condition placed mentally suffices for the sacrament truly to be conferred conditionally, in other words, for the intention to be restricted to the case of valid confection. This is confirmed by these words of the Roman Missal: "If he doubts very probably that he has omitted something essentially in the consecration, let him repeat the form at least under a tacit condition."³ Indeed, it is enough to place the condition, whether by mouth or only mentally, implicitly; for example by ministering the sacrament according to the institution of Christ or the intention of the Church.

¹ If doubt about validity is removed by the Church supplying the defect, if it exists, the sacrament must be conferred absolutely. If someone places the condition: if you are disposed, it can seem doubtful whether there is intended a disposition required for the fruit alone or, at least confusedly or predominately, for validity. Hence it is safer not to express the condition in this way.

² Title 2, chapter 1, nn. 9, 22; title 5, chapter 1, n. 14.

³ De defectibus, title 5, n. 2.

We speak of the repetition of a sacrament which is done under this condition, or an equivalent one: If the former sacrament was not conferred, or was not validly conferred; and which therefore effects nothing if the former sacrament was validly conferred. Now:

I. It is illicit to repeat a sacrament under condition if the doubt about the ministration or its valid ministration lacks reasonable foundation. In the case, repetition is gravely illicit, because it is grave irreverence to repeat the sacramental rite without reason. Nevertheless, the scrupulous are excused from sin, at least grave sin; yet they must be seriously admonished to abstain from repeating the form. Likewise, it is venial uselessly to repeat the same word, by which manner of acting Christ is introduced as speaking ridiculously. Stammerers, however, are excused, provided that, as far as can be done, they try to pronounce the words rightly the first time.

II. It is licit to repeat the sacraments under condition if both a prudent doubt about ministration, or about valid ministration, exists, and the usefulness of one's neighbor recommends reception of the sacrament.

III. A sacrament must be repeated under condition if there is prudent doubt about the ministration or its validity, and reception of the sacrament is necessary by necessity of means or of precept; even more if the common good requires that the sacrament be certainly conferred validly. Moreover, the more necessary the sacrament is, the more easily a sufficient doubt is present.

Corollary I. The sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and Order are to be repeated under condition if a prudent doubt exists whether they were really conferred or whether they were validly conferred (can. 732, § 1). If it is prudently doubted whether absolution was imparted or rightly pronounced, and the penitent is still sufficiently present, absolution must be repeated if there is question of a penitent constituted in mortal sin; otherwise it can at least be repeated.

Corollary II. Baptism, Order, absolution of one dying, and Extreme Unction conferred on one deprived of the senses must be repeated, even if the reason for doubting the validity of the former sacrament is slight.

Corollary III. It can happen that doubt about the ministration or the valid ministration of a sacrament, even a necessary one, is so slight that it can indeed be repeated, but need not be repeated. Thus, for example, to quiet anxiety Order could be repeated if the words of the form had been uttered immediately after the matter was placed.

Corollary IV. Finally, it can happen that a sacrament can and must be repeated several times under condition, for example that an infant must first be baptized while still existing in the womb; then, when some member has emerged, be rebaptized under condition; finally, once brought into the light, be rebaptized again under condition (n. 93; cf. can. 746, § 3).

200. • A threefold rule is to be established:

I. The Sacraments can be repeated whenever there is a prudent doubt concerning their validity. The reason is that if perhaps the Sacrament were not valid, those who approach to receive it would be deprived of its fruit. But that the prudent fear of so great an inconvenience is a sufficient reason why the Sacrament be repeated is clear from the very well-known axiom: The Sacraments are for men.

II. Sacraments generally cannot be repeated without grave sin when there is not present a prudent doubt concerning their validity. The reason is that they would be repeated without cause, and therefore a grave injury would be inflicted upon them.

III. Sacraments ought to be repeated whenever, upon a prudent doubt having arisen concerning their validity, charity, justice, and religion require it, namely whenever the nullity of the Sacrament, if perhaps it were present, would turn to the harm of neighbor and sometimes to the contempt or irreverence of Religion. But then they are to be repeated only conditionally, so that reverence for the Sacrament may be provided for. - Voit, n. 29 and following. - See St. Ligorius, n. 27 and following.

21. A repeated form can be applied to matter either absolutely or conditionally. The condition is: if the first application of the form was not valid, then the form is applied anew; otherwise it is not. Concerning this repetition the following are to be noted:

a) The form must be repeated absolutely if it was applied to matter certainly unfit, or if the sacrament was otherwise certainly invalid. Therefore, for example, if a priest pronounced the words of consecration over water contained in the chalice, he must (after the water has been poured out and wine poured in) consecrate again absolutely. Thus all authors.

b) If a slight and unfounded doubt arises concerning the validity of a sacrament, it is in no way lawful to repeat the sacrament conferred. But he who nevertheless rashly repeats the sacrament, or repeats the form over the same matter (even conditionally), sins gravely. The reason is that in this way grave irreverence is inflicted upon religion. For if, for example, someone rashly repeats baptism because of a slight doubt, the second baptism would most probably be null, and the one baptizing, by pronouncing for a second time, "I baptize you," says something false. This indeed is gravely irreverent toward religion. Nor is a conditional repetition lawful in that case, because such an added condition, if the doubt is purely negative, is held as not having been added. One who rashly repeated the sacrament of baptism formerly incurred, in addition to the guilt of mortal sin, an irregularity by reason of the offense; but this irregularity no longer exists, since it is omitted in the Code of Canon Law.

I said, however: one who rashly repeated; for if someone, agitated by a scruple although one not so well founded, repeats the form of a sacrament for greater security, he generally does not sin gravely, for every intention of dishonoring God is absent; on the contrary, the form is repeated on account of the honor of God and the salvation of the one who receives the sacrament. This case can easily occur if a confessor, greatly fatigued from a prolonged hearing of confessions, sometimes does not remember that he pronounced the form of absolution. Then it is lawful secretly to pronounce absolution again under condition; for neither does scandal arise, nor is irreverence inflicted upon religion, because in other cases also it is lawful to pronounce absolution over sins already remitted on another occasion. Nevertheless, all persons (and especially the scrupulous) ought diligently to labor that empty repetitions of the sacramental form be avoided. For if someone, knowing himself to have such a habit of repeating, does not diligently strive to put it away, he is not excused from sin. This sin indeed is objectively grave, because these superfluous repetitions are irreverent toward religion. Nevertheless, I would not dare to say that in such a case each repetition made without sufficient foundation is a mortal sin, unless grave scandal and a depraved intention are present. For experience establishes that these useless repetitions are made without sufficient freedom and deliberation on account of scruples and other reasons.

Note. When there is question of sacraments very necessary for salvation, for example, of baptism, of the absolution of a dying man existing in mortal sin, or of extreme unction for a dying sinner deprived of his senses, then even with a slight but real doubt it is lawful to repeat the sacraments under condition.⁵⁸ The reason is that which has already been adduced more often: the sacraments are for men. Likewise, it is lawful to repeat the sacrament of order when a slight but real doubt concerning its validity exists; for the greatest harms would arise if someone not rightly initiated into the priesthood were to celebrate Mass, hear confessions, and discharge the other priestly offices.

c) If a prudent doubt exists whether the sacraments were in fact conferred or were conferred validly, they are to be conferred again under condition. Thus the Code of Canon Law, c. 732, § 2. The reason is always the same, because the sacraments are for men. For Christ, moved by the greatest mercy, instituted the sacraments for our salvation. Therefore, He will in no way be offended if someone, when a serious doubt exists concerning the validity of a sacrament conferred, repeats it for greater security. Indeed, Christ Himself requires that the sacraments then be repeated under condition, lest men be deprived of such great goods or exposed to such great dangers. Whenever a sacrament doubtfully conferred is repeated, the conditional form, of which there will immediately be discussion, must be employed.

⁵⁸ Cf. below, on the repetition of baptism for converts from heresy, n. 139.

22. Notion. A conditional form is said to be one which is uttered under a condition expressed either in words or at least in the mind, namely, that the minister does not intend to confer the sacrament unless all things required for its validity are present. The conditional form is employed: a) in the repetition of a sacrament, for example, "If you are not baptized, I baptize you, etc."; b) in the first conferral of a sacrament if, namely, there is an insoluble doubt concerning some essentially required condition, for example, a confessor absolves a man deprived of his senses, concerning whose death there is doubt, saying: "If you are alive, I absolve you, etc."

23. Reason and manner of the conditional form. The reason why the conditional form is employed is the reverence due to the sacrament. For in this manner the minister protests that he in no way wills to administer the sacrament in the name of Christ if an essentially required condition is lacking. It readily appears to anyone considering the matter that in every administration of the sacraments the form is in some manner conditional, because the minister always has the implicit intention: I confect the sacrament, provided all necessary things are present. Sometimes the condition added must, according to the prescription of the Ritual,⁵⁹ be manifested in express words, namely, in baptism and extreme unction. In baptism it is to be said: "If you are not baptized, I baptize you, etc."; in extreme unction the priest is to say: "If you are capable, through this holy anointing, etc." In the other sacraments it suffices to express the condition in the mind alone.

⁵⁹ Tit. 2, c. 1, n. 9; tit. 5, c. 1, n. 12.

24. Liceity. As a general rule for the licit practice of a conditional form it is customary to adduce: It is lawful to confer a sacrament under condition whenever, if conferred absolutely, it would be exposed to the danger of nullity, but if absolutely denied, it would deprive a man of a great good or thrust him into a great danger of eternal salvation.

The condition added is either concerning the present, the past, or the future.

1. It is almost never lawful to add a condition concerning the future; indeed, all sacraments (except matrimony) thus conferred are null.⁶⁰ The reason is that the duty of conferring the sacrament here and now by the application of form to matter is incumbent upon the minister; but he arrogantly assumes to himself a power which he does not have if he wills to suspend the effect of the sacrament until after a future condition has been fulfilled. Hence a sacrament conditionally conferred in this manner is null now and in the future. For now the minister does not have the intention of fully administering it; but in the future there is no longer the moral coexistence of form and matter which is essentially required for the validity of the sacrament, as is evident from what was said above. Matrimony, however, contracted under a condition concerning the future becomes valid after the condition has been fulfilled. This occurs on account of the special nature of matrimony, which is a contract. For since the sacrament of matrimony is completed by the very fact that the legitimate consent of the contracting parties is manifested, this sacrament begins to exist if, after the future condition has been fulfilled, the same consent perseveres. For the most part, however, conditional marriages of this kind are illicit.⁶¹

From what has been said it follows how wrongly those confessors act, or at least how incautiously they speak, who say to a penitent: "I give you absolution under the condition that you will leave this occasion of sinning; otherwise your absolution is invalid." A confessor can indeed say: "Unless you seriously promise me that you will leave the occasion of sinning, I cannot grant you absolution." But if the penitent has seriously promised this here and now, the confessor must give absolution absolutely, without any condition.⁶²

2. A sacrament conferred under a condition concerning the present or the past is valid if the condition is verified; otherwise it is null. For example, if a confessor says to a dying man deprived of his senses, "If you are alive, I absolve you," the absolution is valid if that man (otherwise disposed) is still alive; otherwise it is null. The reason is that the intention of the minister, the union of form and matter, and the other required dispositions of the penitent are present.

⁶⁰ Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 6, n. 26.

⁶¹ Cf. below in the treatise on matrimony, n. 661 sqq.

⁶² Cf. below in the treatise on penance, n. 332.

25. Scholion. On the origin of the conditional form. The conditional form (expressed in words) does not seem to have been in use during the first seven centuries;⁶³ but the conditional form conceived in the mind alone was always in use, because there were always doubtfully valid sacraments and therefore sacraments to be repeated. The first mention of an expressed conditional form is found in the eighth century in Benedictus Levita.⁶⁴ The compiler, however, took this capitular from the statutes of St. Boniface in the Council of Liptina, statute 28,⁶⁵ where it is prescribed: "Those concerning whom there is doubt whether they are baptized or not are by all means to be baptized without any scruple with these words only: I do not rebaptize you, but if you are not baptized, I baptize you in the name of the Father, etc." Similar things were prescribed in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries by Alexander III and Gregory IX. From the thirteenth century the conditional form prevailed in all the churches of the Latins. At first it was employed only in the sacraments which imprint a character, especially in baptism and order; later it was employed also in the other sacraments, for example, in penance. Therefore, from the constant usage of the Church it is now established that the conditional form is lawful.

⁶³ Cf. Billuart, De sacr. diss. 1, a. 6, appendix 2; Concina, De sacr. diss. unic., c. 6; Benedict XIV, De syn. dioec. l. 7, c. 6, n. 1.

⁶⁴ Capitularium collect. l. 2, n. 184 (Migne, Patr. lat. 97, 770).

⁶⁵ Migne, l.c. 89, 823.

St. Thomas III, q. 63, a. 6.

65. Thesis. Three sacraments imprint character. - This is of faith from the Council of Trent, sess. 7, can. 9, defining the doctrine already explicitly affirmed by the Council of Florence, decree for the Armenians.

It is proved:

1. From Tradition, which acknowledges only Baptism, Confirmation, and Order as altogether unrepeatable, because these sacraments inhere in us and remain; but the external sacrament does not remain nor is it in man; therefore the res et sacramentum remains. But the res et sacramentum which perpetually signs man is character. Therefore.

2. From theological reason: Character is imprinted by those sacraments by which man is deputed to a special office of public worship. But this is not done by Penance and Extreme Unction, which are instituted against the accidental defect of sin; nor in Matrimony, which deputes to a domestic office; nor in the Eucharist, which does not order man to something more perfect, but is itself the end and consummation of all things. Therefore only in Baptism, Confirmation, and Order, by which man is deputed to divine things from office, either to receive them, or to defend them, or to minister them.

66. Observation. - Through the character of Baptism, man is consecrated as a servant of Christ and a member of the Church, and receives the passive power of sacramentally receiving all sacred things whatsoever.

Through the character of Confirmation he is consecrated as a soldier of Christ, and receives a power partly active, of professing the faith of Christ from office, partly passive, of more fittingly receiving other sacraments and especially Order.

Through the character of Order he is consecrated as a priest of Christ and leader in the Church, and receives the active power of confecting and ministering the sacraments.

Whence, just as Christ is king, prophet, and priest, so in the Church of Christ endowed with the threefold power of Christ, through Baptism we are configured to Christ the king, insofar as we are made His servants; through Confirmation we are configured to Christ the teacher and prophet, when we are marked as soldiers of the faith which He Himself taught; through Order we are formally configured to Christ the priest and are made His ministers and dispensers of the mysteries of God.

Cajus, a young priest, is to say the solemn Mass on Holy Thursday. Because a large number of people wish to receive Holy Communion at that Mass, Cajus takes a great many small particles and folds them in an extra corporal and places them on the altar, beside the chalice, and on the regular Mass corporal. At the offertory and at the consecration, he unfolds the corporal so that he may see the particles, and he directs his intention to them. Shortly after the consecration, he sees a small particle lying on the floor beside him. In his confusion he picks it up quickly and lays it on the consecrated particles beside the chalice. After a few moments, however, he begins to doubt whether the particle was consecrated or not. It may have fallen to the floor just before the consecration. Still, he thinks he would have noticed it sooner had it fallen before the consecration. He does not know what to do.

If the particle was not consecrated, he can not distribute it with the others without committing an act of material idolatry, and depriving some one of the communicants of Holy Communion. He can not distinguish this particle, however, from the others, and the people are waiting to receive Holy Communion. Cajus asks the Mass-server if he knows when the particle fell to the ground; the Mass-server does not know. In this dilemma the young priest distributes all the particles in Holy Communion.

Now we ask: 1. Was it right to use two corporals at the Mass? 2. What is to be said about Cajus's mode of procedure with regard to the doubtful particle?

1. In the Rubrics of the Mass, mention is made of only one corporal to be used at Mass, namely the one that is spread under the chalice and on which the large host is laid. If small particles are to be consecrated during the Mass, they are to be laid on this corporal, "ante calicem," or they are to be put into a second consecrated chalice, or other holy vessel, which is placed on the corporal of the Mass behind the chalice of the Mass, "retro post calicem" (Ritus eel. Missam. ii. 3). A second corporal is unknown to the Rubrics. Therefore, when many small particles are to be consecrated, a ciborium should be provided, or a second chalice. In case there is no ciborium or chalice, the small particles should be placed on the Mass corporal, in front of or on the side of the chalice. The use of a second corporal, to hold the small altar breads, is contrary to the Rubrics, and could be justified only in a case of real necessity, when no ciborium or second chalice is to be had, and the small particles are too numerous to be placed on the Mass corporal. Even in this case, it were better to make one corporal out of the two, by unfolding both on the altar, and allowing one to overlap the other a few inches. This would be much better than folding the small particles in a second corporal and placing them thus folded on the Mass corporal.

2. Regarding Cajus's conduct, we remark:

1. When Cajus picked up the small particle from the floor, he should have kept it separate from the other particles, and consumed it before or with the first ablution. That was the only correct thing for him to do.

2. Once the doubtfully consecrated particle was mixed with the consecrated particles, and its identity lost, Cajus should not have given Holy Communion with any of the particles, but should have put them all into a ciborium or chalice and reconsecrated them all. "sub conditione" at another Mass.

3. If that was impracticable, as it was on Holy Thursday, because there would be no other Mass on that day, Cajus should have removed some of the small particles from that place where he laid the doubtful host and placed them in a ciborium to be consecrated at another Mass, "sub conditione," and then given Holy Communion with those that remained. For, in picking up the particle from the floor, and placing it with the others, Cajus could be morally certain just about where he placed it, and by removing the particles from that particular region, he would be morally sure that he had removed the doubtful particle. If the consecrated particles remaining did not suffice for the faithful, they might be broken. The inconvenience of breaking them would not be a sufficient reason for giving Holy Communion with doubtfully consecrated particles.

4. Strictly speaking, there remains still another way of removing the danger of material idolatry and doubtful Holy Communion. To give the communicant two sacred hosts is forbidden, when it is done "devotionis causa."

That it is forbidden in the present instance can scarcely be maintained. By so doing all danger would be removed. Of course, the sacred particles would not suffice in that case, but they might be broken in two, and two broken particles given to each communicant, taking care that the broken pieces given to each communicant be not parts of the same host.

In order to secure himself against the danger of giving two pieces of the same host to the same communicant, the celebrant would have to divide the particles into various fragments; some into two pieces, some into four pieces, etc., and give the communicant a half and a fourth part of a host.

5. It can not be denied that circumstances may arise where it would be practically impossible to divide the particles, as mentioned under No. 4 or even as under No. 3.

Therefore, we will venture to remark, as a final solution of the difficulty, that it is more than probable that the particle picked up off the floor was a consecrated host. The likelihood that it was not is very meager. Therefore, the likelihood of giving Communion, in the present instance, with an unconsecrated host, is likewise very small; so small, in fact, that a priest would be justified in exposing himself to it in order to extricate himself from so embarrassing a situation. Nor does he do any one an irreparable injury by thus exposing them to the very slight danger of communicating under unconsecrated species. Nor would the small danger of exposing himself and the faithful to commit an act of material idolatry be a sufficient reason for abstaining from distributing all the particles in Holy Communion.

In a recent publication a priest gives his opinion upon the repetition sub conditione, of Baptisms administered, in cases of necessity, by lay persons, midwives particularly, and what the procedure should be in such cases. The theoretical principles are, briefly: the priest must inquire how the lay Baptism was administered when he will find one of three cases to be the fact:

(a) The Baptism was without doubt administered validly, and then he must not repeat it, but merely supply the ceremonies according to the ritual; or

(b) The Baptism was beyond doubt invalidly given, and then he certainly must baptize the child; or he finds

(c) Neither validity nor invalidity of the Baptism is certain, one is as doubtful as the other, and then he must re-baptize the child sub-conditione: Si non es baptizatus.

But what about the practise? For this the priest quoted gives two rules:

1, In any case it is not allowed to re-baptize, even sub-conditione, until after inquiry has been made about the validity of the Baptism given.

2. It is not necessary to make a thorough inquiry, if the midwife, physician, or other person, is known to the priest, and if from previous questioning he is sure of her or his correct administration of Baptism, a brief question will suffice then in order to shape his mode of action accordingly.

Will this mode of procedure always and everywhere be correct?

Above all, the inquiry sub 1 required will be superfluous in every case where the person is not a Catholic. In reference to this LEHMKUHL writes (Theol. Mor., II, p. 17): “Therefore, for America I plainly think that sufficient certainty of Baptism duly conferred can never be had, unless perhaps in an individual case you have Catholic witnesses wholly worthy of belief.... Indeed, unbelief, or even carelessness among non-Catholics of good faith, grows more from day to day in such a way that the same must now be said almost everywhere.”

Inquiries will be superfluous, furthermore, in the case of “madams” or other persons who are reliable neither religiously, morally nor personally, and their claim to have administered Baptism correctly need not be heeded. Such persons are likely to knowingly deny mistakes, in order not to be embarrassed before priests and sponsors. But even in the case of other persons not very well instructed, one can not depend upon even the most careful inquiries with the certainty required for the first and most necessary of the Sacraments. In almost every instance they will claim to be quite sure of having administered Baptism correctly, as it will appear to them impossible to make a mistake in such a simple thing as Baptism. All those trifles, however, that are sufficient to render Baptism uncertain, and to make necessary its repetition, that need the vigilance even of the trained priest, those are often fatal to lay-Baptisms. They escape the notice of lay persons and even by minute examination can not always be ascertained. It is somewhat of a task to ascertain from the average midwife (or physician, etc.) if she or he used natural water? If she made correct use of the correct formula? What of the intention, of corruptions of the baptismal formula, of leaving out words? Errors will easily occur in the hurried, or careless, administration of. lay-Baptism, without attracting attention of the lay person administering the Sacrament, and without possibility of detection afterward. These “trifles” suffice, according to theologians, to allow Baptism to be repeated conditionally. Who, then, will find fault with the priest who, in the case of the average midwife, or other lay person, only insufficiently instructed, omits all examination because he can not depend upon the answers, and without further ceremony re-baptizes conditionally to make sure that each infant shall validly receive Baptism? An exception is to be made, and Baptism need not be repeated, if correct lay-Baptism is attested by an eye and ear witness, whose knowledge and conscientiousness are a safe guarantee for his statement. But where is such testis omni exceptione major likely?

If the midwife, physician, or other lay person, is God-fearing, conscientious, and well instructed about the details of the administration of Baptism, about intention, matter and form, and application, if it be known, furthermore, that even under the most difficult circumstances this person gives lay-Baptism correctly, with composure and presence of mind, then the priest, as is said sub 2 above, need not again and again put the same questions to this person, in every case of lay-Baptism administered by her, or him, only to receive the same answers. But even with such persons the diligens examen required by theologians has a purpose, saltem, prout adjuncta ferant (LEHMKUHL, Theol. Mor., II, p. 16).

One should particularly inquire whether it was a special case, whether there were extraordinary circumstances. If the priest then finds no special reason for conditional re-Baptism, he will omit it. But even with such well instructed, reliable persons, this should not become the rule. The omission of re-baptizing must rather be the rare exception. This is plainly prescribed by the Congreg. de Propag. F., dato September 8, 1869 (LEHMKUHL), that, namely, children baptized by lay catechists are not re-baptized quibusdam “except in cases” where it is possible that no probable doubt whatsoever arise concerning the validity of the Baptism, although these lay catechists are examined at least once a year as to their reliability. In this matter applies the principle that “the Baptism should rather be repeated than not spent at all” (GOEPFERT).

Judged upon these principles those diocesan precepts that impose the obligation of invariable re-Baptism of children baptized by lay persons are fully justified. Circumstances, such as lack of instruction, indifferentism, etc., may prevail so generally, that notwithstanding the most searching inquiries there will in individual cases be reason for doubt, and hence for a repetition of Baptism. Such diocesan practise does not contradict dogma. It will always except individual cases in which the validity of lay-Baptism is proved beyond doubt. If, for instance, a priest has, in case of danger, provisionally baptized a newly born infant without the prescribed ceremonies, it would never occur to anyone, nor be required by any diocesan decree, that there must also be a conditional re-Baptism. The “priest baptizing,” so Scherer says in his Manual of Canon Law, “is not obliged, according to present practise, to engage in any lengthy examination about the validity of a lay-Baptism, he may rather presume its invalidity. The assertion that such indiscriminate re-baptizing of lay-baptized children contracts irregularity is not supported by the law.”

Fr. Neuhold.

Case.—Sylvia, an infant who appeared to be at the point of death, was baptized hurriedly by her mother, Camilla. In after-years mother and daughter often spoke together about this Baptism and gradually they became convinced that it had not been administered validly. They mentioned the matter to Sergius, their pastor, and were by him admonished to put the matter from their thoughts, as he felt satisfied that the Baptism was valid. But they continued to importune him to repeat the Baptism, and as he saw the matter was preying seriously on their minds, he finally consented to baptize Sylvia sub conditione.

Question.—1. Can the sacrament of Baptism be repeated without sacrilege?

2. Are there any penalties decreed against Rebaptizers?

3. Did Sergius act rightly in yielding to the request of Sylvia and Camilla?

Solution.—1. In the Tridentine Profession of faith it is stated that Baptism, Confirmation and Orders cannot be reiterated without sacrilege. These sacraments imprint an indelible character on the soul, and consequently when they have been once rightly administered, their further valid reception becomes impossible. The attempt to confer or to partake of them anew would be nothing but a hollow mockery on the part of minister and recipient. The case is different when one of these sacraments has been administered invalidly; for when a sacrament has not been really received, there can be no question of reiteration. Indeed, since Baptism is necessary for salvation, it not only may, but must be, repeated whenever a previous Baptism was either certainly or probably invalid. In the former case the Baptism should be reconferred absolutely, in the latter case, conditionally (S. C. P. F., 17 Apr., 1777).

A Baptism is to be considered as probably invalid when there is real reason for doubting whether some essential requisite of the sacrament was wanting, eg., when doubtful ‘matter or form has been used. If anxiety arises that is not supported by any good reason, as happens with scrupulous persons whose vain fears make them uncertain about their actions and intentions, it should be dismissed from the mind as unworthy of attention. Only doubts that are objective and well founded ought to be considered. To repeat Baptism, Confirmation or Holy Orders, even conditionally, because of doubts that are plainly insufficient, would be a sacrilege for the same reason that an absolute iteration is a profanation of sacred things.

It may happen, though, that a ratio dubitandi, while real, is yet very slight. Such a doubt does not impose itself on the judgment of a prudent man, yet is he not obliged to reject it, especially in a matter of such vital import as the validity of Baptism. Hence some grave authorities hold that a troublesome scruple of which the conscience cannot rid itself, provided it be not altogether unreasonable, is a sufficient reason for repeating sub conditione a necessary sacrament such as Baptism.

2. Formerly one who solemnly and publicly rebaptized, and also the person who knowingly submitted to rebaptism, incurred irregularity, which prevented the reception of higher orders. But this irregularity has been abolished. In the list of irregularities given in the new Codex this one does not appear, and hence according to the general principles of the Codex it must be considered as abolished.

3. Sergius was not justified in baptizing Sylvia, if he did so merely to gratify a whim indulged by her and her mother. If he felt no doubt about the first Baptism, his duty was plain. The desire to please or even to relieve distress would not justify him in carrying out a farcical simulation of the sacrament or in attempting to baptize one who to his knowledge was already baptized.

However, the persistent fears of Camilla and Sylvia about a Baptism administered hurriedly and under circumstances that might easily lead to error leave some room for. doubt. If Sergius, on second thought, decided that their reasons, although slight, were not clearly absurd, he could, with a clear conscience, repeat the Baptism, although, of course, he was not obliged to do so. Whether he was guilty of sacrilege, then, will depend on whether he acted in bona fide or in mala fide.