Administering in the state of mortal sin

A priest who says Mass in the state of mortal sin is thereby guilty of several grievous sins. He celebrates Mass unworthily, he receives Holy Communion unworthily, and he gives himself the sacrament though he knows that he is unworthy to receive it. Some add a fourth sin, which is committed precisely by handling and administering the Blessed Sacrament in a state of sin. It is probable, however, that this last act, though wanting in due reverence, does not amount to a grievous sin, All the more is it a safe opinion that deacons and subdeacons who exercise their functions in a state of sin do not sin grievously by so doing, nor do Bishops and priests who in sin consecrate or bless pious objects, or preach the word of God.

Divines are not agreed whether a priest would commit one sin or as many sins as he administered sacraments unworthily who in a state of sin should hear many confessions or administer many Baptisms or other sacraments at the same time. If there were moral interruptions between the several sacraments, there would at least be as many sins as interruptions. But if there were no such moral interruption, it is a probable opinion that a priest who at one time administers a sacrament to many only commits one big mortal sin. The sin takes its unity from the fact that he exercises his office on one occasion unworthily, an office which he was consecrated to perform in a worthy manner. It is not, then, necessary for a priest who has sinned by hearing confessions in sin to say how many persons he has absolved; it will be sufficient if he states how often he has heard confessions in mortal sin.

It will be sufficient for a priest who is in sin to make an act of contrition before administering any of the other sacraments, but before saying Mass and receiving Holy Communion it is necessary for such a one to go to confession. The Council of Trent, commenting on the precept of St Paul, “ Let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of that bread,” says that the custom of the Church has always interpreted these words as implying that no one who is conscious of mortal sin ought to approach Holy Communion without sacramental confession, however contrite he may feel. It is, of course, advisable that this should be done before a minister who is in sin administers any of the sacraments, though it is only of strict obligation before saying Mass and receiving Holy Communion.

209. • QUESTION 4º. Does he sin who outside the celebration of Mass ministers the Eucharist in mortal sin?

Resp. Affirmatively, more probably. The reason is that he inflicts a grave injury upon the most holy Eucharist. For although he himself does not act as an efficient cause in confecting the Sacrament, nevertheless he is its dispenser, specially consecrated for this, and he discharges a ministry which immediately cooperates in the sanctification of the soul. - St. Ligorius, n. 35, and others commonly. Nevertheless Lugo, on the Sacraments, D. 8, n. 455, Salmanticenses, tr. 1, c. 7, n. 11, and others probably judge that he sins only venially ⁴.

⁴ ** VV. (p. 929, n. 85) oppose the words of St. Alphonsus (Quaest. Reform., n. 62): In the earlier book the negative opinion was called probable. But here we refute it.

Resp. Therefore the negative opinion could seem probable even to St. Alphonsus. Therefore it is not without reason. But the reasons which moved the holy Doctor to change his opinion were not unknown to others; nor nevertheless did they move those Doctors, the long line of whom the holy Doctor himself recounts (and to whom several others can be added), so that they did not either profess the negative opinion absolutely or call it probable; and no one will deny that among these even the very grave are numbered. What therefore will you finally define? Let the received canons be applied. Since therefore, by the judgment of grave Doctors, grave reasons militate for each side which move to prudent assent, we shall have on each side mere opinion. Yet this difference between the two opinions stands out: that the one suffices through reflex judgment for removing suspicion of grave fault; the other does not suffice for imposing the conscience of grave fault. Among those who, after weighing the reasons of each side, defined each to be probable, it will be helpful to have added the more recent Babenstuber (Tr. 8, Part 4, Disp. 2, art. 4, n. 9), Giribaldi (Tr. 4, De Euch., Cap. 6, Dub. 7, n. 31), Reuter (Part 4, Tr. 1, n. 27), and Struggl (Tr. 9, Q. 1, art. 3, n. 33).

QUESTION 5º. Do they sin who in mortal sin either mediately or immediately touch or carry the Most Holy Eucharist?

Resp. It is controverted. There is a threefold probable opinion:

I. The more probable OPINION affirms in each case, because they treat the most holy thing, or the Body of Christ, unworthily. St. Ligorius, n. 35, calls this opinion very probable.

II. The OPINION denies, because no administration of a Sacrament is present here, nor does the matter appear so grave that it induces mortal sin. - Thus Lacroix, n. 101. - Salmanticenses, c. 7, n. 1. - Busembaum. And St. Ligorius says that this is not improbable.

III. The OPINION distinguishes thus: Those touching the most holy Eucharist immediately in mortal sin do indeed sin gravely, but not those touching mediately. The reason is drawn from the very different degree of irreverence between the first case and the second ⁵. Thus Billuart.

⁵ ** But if the opinion of Cardinal De Lugo, concerning which in the preceding q. 4, is not without its probability, this distinction is employed in vain.

57. Exceptions. There are nevertheless excepted cases in which a minister existing in the state of mortal sin does not sin gravely by confecting and administering the sacraments.

a) If he is not a consecrated minister.

Hence a layman existing in the state of mortal sin who administers baptism in a case of necessity does not sin gravely. Thus holds the solidly probable opinion of many doctors; St. Alphonsus, however, calls the opposite opinion more probable,²²¹ because even such a man commits a grave irreverence toward God and the sacrament. Certainly, some irreverence is present, but it is not established whether it is so great as to constitute mortal sin. For the rest, in practice, with all agreeing, a layman administering baptism in a case of necessity does not sin mortally: a) because objectively the gravity of the irreverence committed is not established; β) because there is customarily so great a lack of time that both an act of contrition and sacramental confession are impossible; γ) because ignorance of the obligation to elicit contrition is customarily present. Since the contracting parties are the ministers of the sacrament of matrimony, they do not indeed sin gravely by administering, but by receiving, this sacrament of the living in the state of mortal sin. In practice, according to all theologians, it suffices if such a sinner says in confession: I received the sacrament of matrimony in the state of mortal sin.

b) Even a consecrated minister does not seem to sin gravely if a) in a case of necessity he confects a sacrament in a nonsollemn manner, or β) if time is lacking for obtaining for himself the state of grace (at least through contrition).

The Angelic Doctor, nearly all Thomists,²²² and many others²²³ plainly teach this concerning baptism. Behold the words of St. Thomas:²²⁴ "In the moment of necessity, however, [a priest] would not sin by baptizing in a case in which even a layman could baptize; for thus it is evident that he would not present himself as a minister of the Church, but would relieve the necessity of the one suffering it. But it is otherwise in the other sacraments, which are not of so great a necessity as baptism." Hence, for example, a priest existing in the state of mortal sin does not sin if he ministers baptism or the sacrament of penance to a dying person who would die without baptism or absolution if the priest himself first wished to confess or to be contrite. This doctrine can indeed be confirmed, not incongruously, by an example: It would assuredly be the greatest irreverence if a minister of a king, solemnly deputed to his office, were to appear in filthy clothing before the king. But if the same minister, in a case of great necessity, should suddenly have to serve the king outside the time of his proper service, there would not be grave irreverence, nor would the king be greatly offended, if he appeared in filthy clothing. For then the minister would act not from contempt of the king, but from necessity. Therefore, a consecrated minister who, while existing in the state of mortal sin, administers sacraments in grave necessity does not seem to sin gravely. Nevertheless, since a priest ought to know the sanctity of the sacraments much better than a layman and can much more easily elicit an act of contrition, let him take care, if he is conscious of mortal sin, at least to elicit an act of perfect contrition with the resolve of confessing or, what is much better and safer, to receive sacramental absolution after making confession.²²⁵ But if it is a question of confecting the Eucharist (or receiving it, but not administering it), contrition alone does not suffice, but sacramental confession and absolution are required if a confessor is available.²²⁶ What constitutes the availability of a confessor may be seen below in the tract on the Eucharist (n. 192).

According to St. Alphonsus,²²⁷ a priest celebrating in mortal sin commits four sacrileges: 1. because he unworthily confects the sacrament; 2. he unworthily receives it; 3. he unworthily ministers it; 4. he ministers it to his own unworthy self. Others, however (Lugo, Ballerini, etc.), teach that there are only two mortal sins, namely, because such a priest unworthily consecrates and unworthily receives the sacrament; finally, Billuart²²⁸ teaches that there is one sin, because all those things are joined in one violated mystery. For practice this controversy is of little importance, since in confession it suffices simply to declare an unworthy celebration.

Corollary. From what has been said it follows that a minister existing in mortal sin sins gravely if, outside a case of urgent necessity, he solemnly baptizes, confirms, celebrates, absolves, confers extreme unction, or confers sacred orders; but not if he assists at matrimony, since the priest is not the minister of the sacrament of matrimony.

²²¹ Theol. mor., l. 6, n. 32.

²²² Cf. Billuart, De sacr. in gen., diss. 5, a. 4; Concina, De sacr. in gen., c. 11, § 5, n. 15; Gonet, Clypeus theol. thom., De sacr. in gen., disp. 6, n. 95.

²²³ Cf. Lehmkuhl, Theol. mor. II, n. 43; Haine, Theol. mor. elem., De sacr. in gen., q. 25; Gopfert, Moraltheol. III, 14.

²²⁴ S. theol. 3, q. 64, a. 6 ad 3.

²²⁵ Cf. Roman Catechism, P. 2, c. 1, q. 17; Roman Ritual, tit. I, on the sacraments in general, n. 4.

²²⁶ Council of Trent, sess. 13, c. 7 (Denz., n. 880).

²²⁷ L.c., n. 35.

²²⁸ De sacr. in gen., diss. 5, a. 4, Corollaries; and De pecc., diss. 2, a. 4.

58. It is asked: 1. How many sins does a minister commit who, while existing in the state of sin, solemnly administers several sacraments?

The theologians do not agree. Noldin²²⁹ teaches: "He commits one sin numerically who in one administration successively confers the same sacrament upon several; thus he who absolves several, baptizes several together, confirms several, or ordains several while in the state of sin." This opinion, however, is commonly rejected. Therefore Lehmkuhl²³⁰ rightly says: "It is commonly established that a numerically distinct mortal sin is said to be committed as often as a sacrament is ministered." The reason is that each sacrament is a thing complete in itself, and consequently as many gravely sinful irreverences are committed as there are sacraments ministered in the state of mortal sin. Hence, although the opinion defended by Noldin and others is not altogether improbable, nevertheless it is much more advisable to confess the number of sacraments administered in the state of mortal sin. And ordinary practice also proceeds thus; this nevertheless admits an exception with regard to the distribution of Communion, concerning which immediately below.

²²⁹ De sacr. in gen., n. 32.

²³⁰ Theol. mor. II, n. 47.

59. 2. Is it a grave sin for a priest or deacon to administer Holy Communion in the state of mortal sin?

The theologians do not agree. St. Alphonsus,²³¹ Billuart,²³² and several others think this to be a mortal sin. The Roman Catechism favors this opinion, saying: "But if it is less lawful for a man contaminated by sins to treat of divine things, how great a crime must we judge to be conceived by him who is conscious in himself of many crimes, and nevertheless does not fear to confect the sacred mysteries with a polluted mouth, or to take them into foul hands, handle them, and offer and minister them to others?"²³³ But Lugo,²³⁴ Sporer,²³⁵ and several others cited by St. Alphonsus,²³⁶ and, among moderns, Lehmkuhl,²³⁷ Noldin,²³⁸ Haine,²³⁹ Genicot,²⁴⁰ and Gopfert,²⁴¹ probably think that there is no mortal sin, because a) in that act the minister does not instrumentally cause sanctifying grace, since it is produced not through the offering of the consecrated host but through its consumption; b) one who distributes the Eucharist is not necessarily a sacred person, for in ancient times laypeople carried it home with them and gave it to themselves and to others in a case of necessity. Since these things are so, this second and benign opinion is truly probable both extrinsically and intrinsically. Nevertheless, since a) it is certainly very unbecoming that a priest who, through his mortal sin, is a member of the devil should touch the most holy body of Christ in the Eucharist, and b) we do not possess trustworthy balances by which the degrees of malice may be weighed, let such an unhappy sinner not dare to distribute the Eucharist before he has recovered the state of sanctifying grace through sacramental absolution or at least through perfect contrition with the resolve of confessing. Nearly all authors, even the defenders of the first opinion, affirm that if a minister existing in the state of mortal sin distributes Holy Communion successively to several persons, he commits only one sin, because there is then only one banquet.

Those who admit the second opinion logically deduce from it that a deacon who carries or touches the most Holy Eucharist, likewise a deacon or subdeacon, and a fortiori the minor ministers serving in a solemn Mass and other sacred functions, do not sin mortally if they are in the state of mortal sin, unless, however, grave contempt is added, which is quite easily present if they exercise those functions frequently or habitually while in mortal sin. St. Thomas might appear contrary to this doctrine, since he teaches: "But whoever handles any sacred office with mortal sin, there is no doubt that he does it unworthily; whence it is evident that he sins mortally."²⁴² But the Holy Doctor in the Summa theologica, where he retracted several opinions which he had maintained in the commentaries, has nothing concerning this matter. Moreover, "sacred office" cannot be taken in a broad sense; otherwise even a porter opening the door or an acolyte carrying a candle would sin mortally if he were not in the state of grace, which seems altogether improbable. Therefore, the Angelic Doctor either took office for sacrament, or understood "mortal sin" as a notorious mortal sin, so that scandal arises from it.

That a preacher who delivers a sacred sermon while in mortal sin does not sin mortally is the more common opinion, nor does St. Thomas contradict it.²⁴³ The same must be said of other sacred functions which ought to be performed by clerics, such as the consecration of a church or vessels, blessings even with the sacrament, etc.²⁴⁴

²³¹ L.c., n. 35.

²³² De sacr. in gen., diss. 5, a. 4, Corollaries.

²³³ P. 2, c. 1, q. 17.

²³⁴ De sacr. in gen., disp. 8, n. 155.

²³⁵ Theol. mor., P. 1, c. 3, n. 172.

²³⁶ L.c.

²³⁷ Theol. mor. II, n. 43.

²³⁸ De sacr. in gen., n. 33.

²³⁹ De sacr. in gen., q. 25.

²⁴⁰ Theol. mor. II, n. 115.

²⁴¹ Moraltheol. III, 14.

²⁴² IV Sent., dist. 24, a. 3, sol. 5.

²⁴³ IV Sent., dist. 19, q. 2, a. 2 ad 2.

²⁴⁴ Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor., l. 6, nn. 38-41.

St. Thomas III, q. 64, a. 5, 6, 9 and 10.

75. Principle I. For the validity of a sacrament, in the minister there is not required faith or sanctity. - The latter is of faith, from the Council of Trent, sess. 7, can. 12; the former, however, is of faith for Baptism from Trent, sess. 7 on Baptism, can. 4, and for the other sacraments is theologically certain from the common consent and practice of the Church, and is deduced from arguments similar to those for Baptism.

It is proved:

1. If faith or sanctity were required, this would be either from the nature of the sacrament and of ministerial power, or from the positive will of Christ. But:

A. Not the first: The sacraments do not operate by the power of the merits or faith of the minister, but by divine power and from the merits of Christ (John I, 33; I Cor. III, 4, 5, 7; I, 13). But these cannot be impeded by the malice of man, even of the minister. Therefore his faith or sanctity is not required from the nature of the sacrament or of ministerial power.

"Ministers," says St. Thomas, "operate instrumentally in the sacraments, because in a certain way there is the same ratio of minister and instrument.... An instrument does not act according to its proper form and power, but according to the power of that by which it is moved. And therefore it is accidental to an instrument, insofar as it is an instrument, whatever form or power it has, apart from that which is required for the ratio of instrument; just as that the body of a physician, which is the instrument of a soul having art, be healthy or infirm.... Whence the ministers of the Church can confer the sacraments, even if they are evil" (a. 5). "Moreover, just as charity pertains to the proper power of man, so also does faith. Whence just as it is not required for the perfection of a sacrament that the minister be in charity..., so the faith of the minister is not required for the perfection of the sacrament; but an unbeliever can provide a true sacrament, provided that the other things are present which are of the necessity of the sacrament" (a. 9).

B. Nor is it required by the positive will of Christ, as is proved from perpetual tradition. This is evident:

a) from the disciplinary controversy between St. Cyprian and St. Stephen, Roman Pontiff: the former, according to the custom introduced by Bishop Agrippinus, one of his predecessors, rebaptized those baptized by heretics and schismatics, because he held these sacraments as invalid; against him St. Stephen, invoking the common usage of the Church, forbade rebaptizing, indeed threatened St. Cyprian with excommunication;

b) from the dogmatic controversy, held in the fourth century, between St. Augustine, whom the whole Church approved, and the Donatists, who held as invalid the sacraments conferred by sinners, at least public ones;

c) from the Councils of Arles (314), can. 8; Nicaea I (325), can. 8 and 19; and Constantinople I (381), can. 7, which command that certain heretics be admitted without rebaptism; from the Council of Carthage I (348) and Laodicea, can. 78; Constance, sess. 45, a. 4 against Wicleff, and a. 22 of the profession of faith for the Wicleffites and Hussites; likewise from the decrees of Innocent III in the profession of faith for the Waldensians; of John XXII against the Fraticelli; of Eugene IV in the decree of union.

2. If no one without interior faith and sanctity validly conferred the sacraments, there would be perpetual uncertainty and anxiety of salvation among the faithful.

Let it be noted that the sacrament of Penance, outside the moment of death, is invalidly ministered by schismatics and heretics, not from defect of faith but from defect of jurisdiction.

76. Principle II. For the liceity of the confection and ministration of a sacrament, in the minister there is required the state of grace; indeed he commits the mortal sin of sacrilege who, in the state of mortal sin, a) as minister, b) acting from the office to which he was consecrated, c) places a sacramental action by which he ministerially sanctifies. - This is certain.

It is proved:

1. From the Roman Ritual, which expressly asserts this, tit. I, n. 3 and 4:

"Since in the Church of God nothing is held more holy, or more useful, and nothing more excellent, or more divine, than the Sacraments instituted by Christ the Lord for the salvation of the human race, the Pastor or any other Priest to whom their administration belongs must remember above all that he handles holy things, and that at almost every moment of time he ought to be prepared for the office of so holy an administration. Wherefore he will perpetually take care to conduct his life uprightly, chastely, and piously; for although the Sacraments cannot be stained by the impure, nor can their effect be impeded by depraved ministers, nevertheless those who minister them impurely and unworthily incur the guilt of eternal death. Therefore the Priest, if he is conscious to himself of mortal sin (which God forbid), must not dare to approach the administration of the Sacraments, unless first he repents in heart; but if he has the availability of a confessor, and the consideration of time and place permits, it is fitting that he confess."

2. From reason: It is a grave irreverence toward God and the sacraments to be an unclean instrument of God for producing most holy effects; for right order demands that the deputed minister, by reason of his office, be conformed both to the Lord, according to Lev. XIX, 2: Be holy, because I am holy; and to the sanctity of the thing which he perfects. Namely, he commits irreverence who in the name of Christ acts with God for the salvation of men, while he himself is an enemy of God.

Whence St. Thomas: "There is no doubt that evil men presenting themselves as ministers of God and of the Church in the dispensation of the sacraments sin. And because this sin pertains to irreverence toward God and contamination of the sacraments, insofar as it is on the part of the sinner - although the sacraments according to themselves are uncontaminable - it follows that such a sin from its genus is mortal"¹ (a. 6).

¹ Insofar as it is on the part of the minister himself, says Cajetan, that action is stained, since it is treated as profane, not as sacred. One who sacrilegiously eats the Body of the Lord does not discern it from other foods but receives it as profane food, says Paul; the same happens in one ministering unworthily.

But when one of the three aforesaid conditions is lacking, the gravity of the sin is not proved with sufficient certitude; nevertheless it is venial, because to exercise a sacred office in the state of sin always includes some irreverence.

77. Corollaries. - From the foregoing it follows:

1. A minister in the state of sin a) solemnly baptizing commits mortal sacrilege; b) baptizing privately is not proved to sin mortally, because he does not act from office, as minister, but as any Christian; c) a fortiori if a midwife or layperson baptized in a case of necessity.

2. One ministering in the state of sin Penance, Extreme Unction, Confirmation, or Order sins mortally, because he always presents himself as minister. Yet he would not sin if in an unforeseen case time did not remain for eliciting an act of perfect contrition, or for confessing before he administers a sacrament which cannot be deferred. This is extremely rare, because almost always at least some moment of time remains.

3. A priest who confects the Eucharist in the state of mortal sin sins gravely; but he who only distributes it is not proved with certitude to sin mortally, because the distribution of communion is not a sacramental action causing grace and sanctifying, but merely applying the sacrament, nor is it an action strictly ministerial, because one offering communion is not in the strict sense a minister acting from intention in the name of Christ.

4. A pastor assisting at marriage in the state of sin does not sin mortally, because he is not the minister of the sacrament. Contracting parties in the state of sin sin mortally insofar as they receive the sacrament unworthily, but not insofar as they minister, because they are not ministers specially constituted.

5. Those are not proved to sin mortally who in the state of sin a) exercise the diaconate, subdiaconate, or minor orders; or b) perform sacramentals or blessings; or c) confect the chrism of Confirmation or the oil of the sick; or d) hear confession but do not absolve, or before absolution become contrite; or e) transfer the Holy Eucharist, or lift it from the ground, or bless the people with it; or f) touch corporals, chalices, relics, etc.; or g) preach, unless by reason of scandal if they are public sinners. The reason is that all those actions do not tend proximately to the sanctification of the soul.

78. Observations. - 1. One who in the state of sin ministers several sacraments without interruption probably does not commit as many sins as there are sacraments, because they constitute only one morally single action, one ministration.

2. A minister conscious of mortal sin must, before he ministers a sacrament, dispose himself for grace, either by confession, which is more advisable, or by perfect contrition, for the eliciting of which it suffices to apply moral diligence. But if there is question of confecting the Eucharist, since at the same time it must be received, by the precept of the Church he is bound first to confess, however contrite he may seem to himself (Council of Trent, sess. 13, c. 7, and C.I.C., can. 807).

3. According to the Roman Ritual, cited place, the pastor or any other priest to whom by office the administration of the sacraments belongs is bound always to keep himself prepared to minister them in grace; whence even if in a case of necessity he does not sin mortally by ministering a sacrament, nevertheless he will sin because, by not repenting, he exposes himself to the danger of ministering the sacraments unworthily or in the state of sin. The same is to be said of priests for whom occasions of ministering are ready at hand, such as those who minister in large hospitals or camps or parishes. The same is to be said of midwives, but under venial sin.

4. Besides the state of grace, there is regularly required in the minister: both that he have the legitimate faculty of administering the sacrament, by which he is deputed by the Church to this, or due ordinary or delegated jurisdiction or license, because the ministration of the sacraments of itself is the office of a pastor; and that he not be specially prohibited from this by censure, irregularity, or another impediment.

79. Cooperation in illicit ministration. - Since good dispositions in the minister are required for licitly ministering the sacraments, there follows in the recipient an obligation, from charity and religion, not to receive them except from a worthy minister, so that both scandal, by asking for the sacrament, and cooperation in irreverent ministration of the sacrament, by receiving it, may be avoided. - And indeed he sins gravely:

1. Who asks for or receives a sacrament from one who is going to minister it invalidly or doubtfully, because this is directly to induce or to cooperate in an intrinsically evil action.

2. Who asks for or receives from a heretical or schismatic minister, because this would be communication in divine things; the case of extreme necessity is excepted for Baptism and Penance, and, if this is lacking, for Extreme Unction, unless however this would be held as a profession of heresy or schism (I, n. 755).

3. Who asks for or receives from a censured minister who is to be avoided, unless in danger of death, and indeed for all the sacraments, if other ministers are lacking (can. 2261, § 3).

4. Who asks for or receives from an evil minister, unless there is a reasonable cause of necessity or utility, and unless there is question of Holy Communion, which does not exceed venial sin. - But to ask from a tolerated minister, who is not in the state of sin, is not a sin.

Let it be noted: a) It does not suffice that the minister be held evil from conjectures or empty rumors; but his malice must be morally certainly established; wherefore it does not suffice that someone know that he sinned mortally, for example yesterday, since today he can be supposed amended, unless it is certainly established that he is habitual or is remaining in a voluntary proximate occasion.

b) Since another's malice harms no one in his own right, hence to ask a sacrament from an evil minister is licit, and sometimes obligatory, if a just cause is present, especially if another who can or will minister is lacking (can. 2261, § 2). Any reasonable cause whatever suffices, even a slight one, if there is question of a tolerated minister who from office is bound to minister, as when a parishioner wishes to receive the sacraments according to Christian custom (a. 6, ad 2); if there is question of other ministers, a cause sometimes graver is required, such as, according to St. Alphonsus, Theologia Moralis, book VI, n. 89: 1. if the precept of confession or communion presses; 2. if from delaying reception danger of sin threatens; 3. if otherwise you must remain in mortal sin; 4. if a jubilee to be gained occurs (or a plenary indulgence in a place where these would be rare); 5. if you wish to apply Mass for a deceased friend; 6. if otherwise you must long be without communion or a skilled director.

Question 3. How many sins does a Minister commit who administers several sacraments in mortal sin, successively indeed, but in one continuous action?

Resp. In the administration of the Eucharist it is easily conceded, even by those who hold that one sins mortally, that only one sin is committed; because the individual distributions must be held as after the manner of one, since they constitute one banquet. But if the discourse is about the administration of Penance, the more common and truer opinion holds that there are several sins, because there are several and distinct judgments. - Nevertheless Card. de Lugo and the Salmanticenses think it probable that one sins only once; and if indeed this is probable, the same, at least from parity, would have to be said of the administration of Baptism and Confirmation. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 35 and seq. - Lugo, de Paenit., disp. 16, n. 558. - Salmant., de Censuris, cap. 1, n. 182. - Ballerini, note (a) p. 140.

I. Fr. La Croix, Book 6, part 1, no. 102: “It must be said … that he does not sin mortally who in mortal sin begins the form of a sacrament, provided that before the utterance of the last essential part he be in the state of grace; and whatever Aversa and others say to the contrary.”

IV. Fr. Jerome Llamas in his Method, part 1, chapter 1, § 5, and part 2, chapter 2, § 11, in Leander of the Most Holy Sacrament, part 1, tract 1, disputation 6, question 8: “For the administering of other sacraments, nay even of the sacred Eucharist to be given to others, we do not believe that the precept of contrition obliges: because he who administers a sacrament in mortal sin does not place an obstacle to grace … therefore it is not a new fault, since he who gives the sacrament is not the one receiving it.” Granados in the same place reputes this opinion probable.

XXVI. The same in the place cited, no. 72: “For from the aforesaid it is established that a priest who, the Mass having been begun in good faith, recalls himself guilty of a mortal fault, ought to elicit an act at least of what he reckons contrition. But now if he cannot, or find that act very difficult to himself, what shall he do? He cannot confess, he is by no means able to be contrite, to leave the Sacrifice begun is most difficult on account of the infamy resulting to him. What therefore remains to be extorted from a soul so affected? I judge it probable, from the opinion of some, that this man will not sin mortally if with such a conscience of mortal sin, and with such sorrow as he can then elicit, he continue the Mass, consecrate, and communicate. So Vásquez, On the Eucharist, disputation 207, chapter 1, no. 34; Hurtado, disputation 9, On the Eucharist, difficulty 1; de Lugo, On the Sacraments, disputation 9, section 1, no. 8. The reason is, because the precept of communicating worthily does not seem to bind the faithful so strictly as to compel a priest with so great disgrace to himself to depart from the sacred rite begun. But then such a priest will not acquire grace, yet nevertheless will not sin.”

XI. QUESTION VII. Do priests sin mortally who, conscious to themselves of grave fault, administer the sacraments by office? ANSWER. All affirm it, and this St. Paul plainly teaches, 1 Timothy 3: Let them first be proved, and so let them minister, having no crime. And the Council of Trent, session 23, chapter 7, declares that this proving is necessary, so that no one conscious to himself of mortal sin, however contrite he may seem to himself, ought to approach the holy Eucharist without previous sacramental confession; which this holy Synod has decreed to be perpetually observed by all Christians, even by those priests upon whom it lies by office to celebrate.

XII. We say that this sin is mortal. Let the Tridentine Catechism be read, part 2, § 15. He nevertheless who, not by office but with necessity urging, administers baptism while stained with grave fault, whether priest or layman, does not sin mortally, as St. Thomas teaches, III, q. 64, art. 6, reply 3. A priest nevertheless administering the sacrament of Penance even to a dying man ought to elicit an act of contrition, if he be conscious to himself of mortal sin. A priest who celebrates unworthily perpetrates a twofold crime: one, because he confects unworthily; another, because he unworthily receives the sacrament.

XIII. QUESTION VIII. Does a priest sin mortally who, guilty of mortal fault, administers the Eucharist? ANSWER. Fr. La Croix in the place cited, no. 94, with Vásquez, de Lugo, Amicus, Bernal, Sporer, Ilsung, Diana, and others teaches that it is probable that this man does not sin mortally; and at the same time adds that it is probable, according to Suárez, Valentia, Gonet, and others, that he does sin mortally. Fr. Viva, question 1, article 4, no. 4, says: It does not seem improbable which many and grave authors teach … in Diana, that a priest administering the Eucharist in mortal sin does not sin mortally. The Roman Ritual published by order of Paul V decrees these things at no. 1: If therefore a priest shall have been conscious to himself of mortal sin (which God forbid), let him not dare to approach to the administration of the sacrament, unless he first repent in his heart. But if he have opportunity of a confessor, and the reason of time and place bear it, it is fitting that he confess. There is added the Catechism of the Council of Trent, part 2, chapter 1, § 26, where these things are laid down: Pastors and other ministers of the sacraments … ought always to remember that the sacraments never indeed lose the divine power which is in them; but that to those who administer them impurely they bring eternal ruin and death. For holy things (which it behoves to admonish once and again and more often) must be holily and religiously handled.

XV. QUESTION IX. Does a priest sin who hears confessions in mortal sin? ANSWER. Someone thinks that he does not sin mortally who in mortal sin begins the form of a sacrament, provided that before the utterance of the last essential part he be in the state of grace. Which here we ought the more to wonder at — the force of speculation or the novelty of the doctrine — let others judge. Does a priest not sin who, polluted with grave crime, begins the sacramental form? Is not one beginning the form a minister of Christ? Why will that beginning not be sacrilegious? While he begins it in mortal sin, he exposes himself to the most grave danger of completing it in mortal sin. Will he in an instant elicit an act of perfect contrition, so difficult? But why do I refute at greater length an opinion collapsing of itself?

XVI. Fr. La Croix contends also that a deacon solemnly administering the Eucharist by office does not sin mortally, though he be in mortal sin. This opinion likewise I repute false, and the opposite St. Thomas teaches in Book 4, distinction 24, question 1, article 3, question 5: But whosoever handles any sacred office with mortal sin, there is no doubt that he does it unworthily. Whence it is plain that he sins mortally.

38. The command of Trent made to a priest sacrificing of necessity in mortal sin, that he confess as soon as possible, is a counsel, not a precept.

XXXVIII. Fr. Viva, question 2, article 2, no. 3: “Whether he who is certain of a mortal sin committed, but doubts positively whether he confessed it, so that he has a probable reason that he confessed it, and probable also, nay more probable, reasons that he did not confess it, is bound to confess it? I answer likewise negatively with the common opinion of the Doctors whom Martin Perez cites against Coninck, in Diana.”