Refusing the sacraments to the unworthy

“ Let a man so account of us,” says St Paul, ‘‘ as of the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God. Here now it is required among the dispensers, that a man be found faithful.”¹ As, then, the administration of the sacra ments is entrusted to the ministers of the Church, they must be faithful to their charge and administer them according to the intention of Christ and the rules of the Church. These rules are chiefly contained in the Ritual and in other liturgical books. The prescribed rites are of grave obligation in serious matters, for the Council of Trent anathematized those who should assert, “That the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, may be contemned, or without sin be omitted at pleasure by the ministers, or be changed by every pastor of the churches into other new ones.”² Ministers are specially required to refuse the sacraments to such as are unworthy: ‘‘ Give not that which is holy to dogs,” said our blessed Lord.³ The minister should have positive reasons for judging that those who ask for the sacraments of Penance and Orders are worthy to receive them. For the dispositions of the subject enter into the substance and validity of Penance, and the duty of seeing that everything is present which is required for the validity of the sacraments belongs to the minister of them. Public officials of the Church are constituted by Orders, and the public good requires that only those who are worthy should be chosen. All lawful subjects who ask for the other sacraments are presumed to be worthy unless it is certain that they are unworthy.

With special reference to the holy Eucharist the Ritual lays down that, “‘ All the faithful are to be admitted to Holy Communion except those who are forbidden for just cause. Those who are notoriously unworthy are to be refused, such as the excommunicated, interdicted, and openly infamous, as are strumpets, those living in concubinage, usurers, wizards, sorcerers, blasphemers, and other public sinners of that kind, unless it is certain that they have repented and amended, and have made satisfaction for the public scandal which they have given ” (Can. 855). However, in the judgement of theologians, it will be sufficient if such public sinners openly go to confession; in this way, according to modern discipline, they will show their amendment and make satisfaction for the scandal which they have caused, unless more is required in special cases by the bishop or by other competent authority.

The Ritual proceeds: “ Let the minister also repel secret sinners when they ask in secret unless he knows that they have amended; but not when they ask publicly, and cannot passed by without scandal.” be In the latter case public injury oe 4 t would be done to the secret sinner, scandal would be given to others, and other inconveniences would follow, if the sacraments were refused; and these reasons justify the minister in co-operating materially with the sin of unworthily receiving the sacraments. Of course, if the minister only knows of the bad dispositions of the subject from sacramental confession, he can make no use of his knowledge out of confession.

¹ 1 Cor. iv 1, 2.

² Sess. vii, c. 13.

³ Matt. vii 6.

It is specially laid down in the new Code of Canon Law and in the synods¹ that the priest should strive to induce all who are going to marry to approach beforehand the sacraments of Penance and the holy Eucharist. If he does not succeed in this, he may nevertheless assist at the marriage even though he knows that one or both parties are not properly disposed to receive the sacrament, for he is not the minister of Matrimony, but only the witness authorized by the Church to assist at it and to bless the parties; to refuse to assist would commonly do more harm than good. Even if one of the contracting parties knows that the other is not in a fit state to receive a sacrament of the living like Matrimony, still he will as a rule be excused from sin in ministering the sacrament to him, because he is not a consecrated minister of the sacrament, and the advantages connected with marriage are a sufficient justification for co-operating materially with the sin committed by the other party by receiving the sacrament in a state of sin.

¹ 1 West., d. 22; can. 1033.

If one who is unworthy were to demand the administration of a sacrament out of contempt for the Faith or to show his hatred for religion, the minister would be bound to refuse it even at the risk of his life. He must protect the sacraments which have been committed to his care from so great an indignity—which indeed would redound on God himself—even at the risk of life. Whether a minister at the risk of his life would be bound to refuse a sacrament to one who was unworthy and who demanded its administration with threats of death in case of refusal, not indeed out of contempt or hatred of the Faith, but for some other reason, is a disputed point among theologians. It is at any rate a probable opinion that the minister would not be bound to expose his life to danger, but that he might administer the sacrament to save himself, as we saw above that he might administer it to a secret sinner to avoid scandal.

Innocent XI condemned the proposition that instant and grave fear is a just cause for simulating the administration of the sacraments.¹ From this it follows that not only formal simulation with the intention of deceiving others is wrong, as being a lie in action, but even material simulation of administering a sacrament, whereby the matter or the form of a sacrament is used without the making of the sacrament, is not justified by grave fear. The minister may not give an unconsecrated host to a sinner as Communion, nor fictitiously absolve a penitent even to avoid death. The reason is because by so doing he would abuse a holy rite, instituted by Christ, and thus be guilty of gross irreverence toward God. It is a less sin for a priest to celebrate unworthily than to pretend to say Mass and not consecrate. However, a priest who instead of absolving a penitent who is not worthy of absolution dismisses him with a blessing so as not to betray him to people who are looking on, does not simulate the administration of the sacrament in the technical sense, and he does nothing reprehensible. He does not make an irreverent use of the sacramental sign or of part of it without completing the sacrament, in which the essence of the simulation of the administration of a sacrament consists in so far as it is wrong and has been condemned by the Church.

According to Canon 731, it is forbidden to administer the sacraments of the Church to heretics and schismatics, even though they be in good faith and ask for them, unless they have first been reconciled with the Church after abjuring their errors.

¹ Prop. 29.

8. “Julian, a public sinner about to contract marriage, the banns having already been published, approaches the parish priest, who is hearing confessions, and declares that he does not wish to confess, but to simulate confession, so that he may please the bride. The parish priest denies that he will intervene in the marriage unless he has made a serious confession, since that sacrament requires the state of grace. Thereupon, when the parish priest had gone on to celebrate Mass, while he distributes communion to the faithful, behold, among the other communicants, he sees Julian himself standing there. What will he do? He hesitates, uncertain ... but soon, recalling the precept of the Lord, Do not give what is holy to dogs, he passes the man by. When Mass is finished, Julian, driven by anger, approaches the parish priest, assails him with imprecations, and threatens him with death unless he ministers the Eucharist to him and assists at his marriage. Terrified, the parish priest judges that the precept does not then urge, and he complies with Julian.

Question. What is to be said to the Case?

R. 1. The parish priest of himself acted rightly at first by denying his assistance at the marriage ... because a parish priest cannot assist at the marriage of those who are public sinners. The reason is: 1. because by natural law no one can cooperate in another’s sin, even materially, except for a grave and proportionate cause; 2. because public sinners are unworthy to be admitted to the sacraments. Liguori, 54.

2. The parish priest could have assisted at the marriage of Julian in favor of the bride, if she had not been unworthy, because then he would have had sufficient reason for permitting his sin. Liguori, ibid.

3. He could assist at the marriage when impelled by fear of death, because the parish priest is not the minister of the sacrament, and besides he is excused from the sin of cooperation by a most grave reason. A parish priest can also be excused in a similar Case because of any other very grave inconveniences whatever, whether his own or those of the contracting parties, for example, lest they persevere in sin or in concubinage, etc. Liguori, ibid.

4. The parish priest acted rightly the first time by denying communion to Julian, because, as he himself says, holy things are not to be handed over to dogs, or to the unworthy. But Julian, a public sinner, with no prior penance and no reparation of scandal, is altogether unworthy. Therefore he had to be repelled from communion or passed over.

5. The parish priest afterward acted badly by ministering the Eucharist to Julian, compelled by fear of death. The reason is that any harm whatever cannot compensate for the supreme injury which in the Case comes upon the Most Holy Eucharist. Many contradict, however, with La Croix, book 6, part 1, no. 138, Gobat, Sporer, etc., provided that the sacrament is not sought in hatred of religion. Their reason is that, as they say, if the infamy of an occult sinner publicly asking for the sacrament excuses such administration and repairs the irreverence of the sacrament, why would death to be undergone by the minister not excuse? But the parity must be denied. For a priest cannot publicly deny communion to an occult sinner, not indeed for saving his reputation, but because of other most grave inconveniences which would follow from it, namely the scandals of others, who, although perhaps worthy, would be deterred from Holy Communion, fearing lest they be kept away by the priest out of hatred or imprudence. But these inconveniences are not had in a minister who by fear is compelled to minister communion to a public sinner. Indeed the minister who, in order to preserve reverence for the sacrament, exposed himself to danger of death, would be for edification to the people.” G. 175–177; I. M. 365, 369, 372, 374.

V. Cases. - In the article of death certain cases can occur which present a special difficulty, and which, unless they have been examined beforehand, could not be solved rightly.

1. It often happens that a priest is called to a dying public sinner. In this case the sacraments are not to be ministered to him publicly, especially Viaticum, unless the scandal is publicly repaired; but if this is impossible, it can be brought secretly. And indeed:

a) regularly for ordinary sinners the public bringing of the Eucharist itself is a sufficient retraction or sign that they repent;

b) for great sinners a declaration is to be made by retraction before witnesses;

c) but for those who live in a proximate occasion, e.g., in publicly known concubinage, the occasion must first be removed; but if this is impossible, or if extreme necessity is urgent, absolution and Extreme Unction can be given secretly after a promise of removing the scandal; and communion is to be brought secretly, after a promise before witnesses of removing the scandal as soon as possible.

In a case of concubinage or civil marriage let it be examined whether marriage is not to be contracted for legitimating offspring or for fulfilling a promise; in which case the confessor should know that the Ordinary can dispense from all impediments of ecclesiastical law, excepting presbyterate and affinity in the direct line, can. 1043, and, if time is lacking to have recourse to the Ordinary, the parish priest or the priest himself can also do this, can. 1044.

5. How should the priest act if, arriving with Viaticum to a hidden sinner and hearing his confession, he finds him indisposed?

Haine, Th. M. III, de Euch. q. 43, responds:

The priest a) "should strive altogether to dispose him;

b) If he certainly remains indisposed, because, for example, he does not wish to leave the proximate occasion, or does not wish to promise grave and certainly owed restitution, it is not licit to absolve him.

c) As regards communion, he is earnestly to be induced, after confession has been completed, to declare publicly that he no longer wishes to receive the Eucharist.

d) If he refuses to declare this and wishes to communicate, the Eucharist is to be ministered to him, although indisposed, lest the seal of confession be violated."

To avoid this danger, it will be better that in hospitals or clinical houses the priest, or the sister appointed for caring for the sick, not prepare all things for ministering Holy Communion on his or her own motion, but only after the sick person, having confessed, asks for it; but when the priest is asked, let him uniformly say: ask the penitent whether he wishes to communicate.

2. Commonly it is not expedient to hear the confession of a public sinner unless he has promised amendment and due satisfaction, for if he is unwilling to obey the commands of the confessor, the latter, blocked by the seal, will be held to minister Viaticum to an unworthy person. He will avoid this inconvenience if he does not admit to confession except one who is prepared.

IV. Absolution is to be denied to those who are morally certainly incapable or unworthy. This is altogether certain, since in each case absolution is invalid or at least fruitless; but knowingly and willingly to administer a sacrament in a certainly invalid or fruitless mode is grave sacrilege.

Radically incapable are the perpetually insane, - those not yet baptized, - the certainly dead, - those not knowing the things necessary to be known by necessity of means, - and those who certainly are not morally present.

Those incapable because unworthy are indicated by the Roman Ritual, l. c., n. 23: "Let him not absolve those who are incapable of such a benefit, such as: those who give no signs of sorrow, - who do not wish to lay aside hatreds and enmities - or to restore the goods of another, if they can - or to abandon the proximate occasion of sinning - or in another way to leave sins behind (for example, a depraved habit or sinful art) - and to amend life for the better (for example, by employing necessary remedies), - or those who have given public scandal, unless they satisfy publicly and remove the scandal." To these can be added in a general way all those who do not wish to fulfill a grave obligation known to themselves; or who refuse to confess their sins integrally, unless they are excused from material integrity by a grave reason. For in these or similar cases there is lacking the essential condition required for the validity of absolution, namely, contrition.

Moreover let it be noted that the confessor: 1) before he denies absolution, generally must exhort sinners to contrition so that as far as he can he may dispose them, and if by a fervent exhortation he renders them contrite, he can absolve them; - 2) if he must deny absolution, let him do this only with great charity and kind words, by explaining the reason why he cannot act otherwise and by declaring that he will willingly grant absolution as soon as the penitent is disposed.

St. Thomas III, q. 80, a. 6; q. 81, a. 2.

86. The office of ministering the sacraments in one who has the care of souls. - Those who have the care of souls, i.e., who by office or by a special title of jurisdiction, whether ordinary (a bishop, prelate of a religion, pastor, and those who are after the manner of a pastor), or delegated (pastors' coadjutors and assistant vicars, according to can. 476, § 6), ought to feed some part of the sheepfold of Christ, are bound under grave obligation from justice, by reason of office, contract, stipend, etc., to minister the sacraments to their subjects. In particular:

1. They are bound under grave obligation regularly to minister the sacraments personally to their subjects as often as they reasonably ask, even for a cause of devotion (can. 467, § 1 and 892, § 1); - unless they themselves are legitimately impeded, or can, without inconvenience to the subjects, minister them through others: yet to deny them sometimes, of itself, is not mortal, because ordinarily the harm can easily be repaired.

Hence a pastor sins gravely who habitually or by custom: a) is slow and difficult in hearing confessions, especially of the sick; or b) takes it ill if some communicate during the week, and makes them wait a long time and thus turns them away from Communion; or c) refuses to carry the Eucharist to the sick, even outside danger of death.

2. In grave necessity, and a fortiori in extreme necessity, they are bound, even with evident danger to life, to minister the necessary sacraments, namely Baptism and Penance (S.C.C., October 12, 1576), and, if they can with the same danger, the Eucharist and Extreme Unction; but if sufficient certitude concerning Penance is not had, they ought to minister Extreme Unction, which would be necessary per accidens.

Yet a pastor can entrust the ministration to others, unless he is expressly and by name required; but he cannot depart from the flock in a time of common danger, for example, plague (S.C.C., December 6, 1576).

3. In common necessity they are bound to minister the Eucharist and Extreme Unction even with grave inconvenience.

87. The obligation of ministering the sacraments in a simple priest. - Other priests, not from justice, but, when those who have the care of souls are lacking, from charity, are bound to minister the sacraments. And indeed:

1. in common necessity, under light obligation, if they can do it without inconvenience;

2. in grave necessity of a neighbor, under grave obligation, with inconvenience not very great;

3. in extreme necessity of a neighbor, or grave necessity of the community, they are bound to minister even with danger of life, provided there is a founded hope of helping and there is not another who may help.

Hence you are not bound, in order to baptize or absolve someone, certainly to expose your life, if you probably must perish before you can carry out your office, as if a little child not yet baptized must morally certainly be suffocated in the flames before you can reach him, because no one is bound to a useless work, or to one prudently presumed such, with grave harm to himself; - or if you probably presume that he is baptized or is not in the state of sin, or also that he can easily help himself through an act of contrition; - or if you, existing in mortal sin, doubt concerning your own contrition; - or if, by your death, the salvation of several others would be endangered.

88. The obligation of denying the sacraments. - Since conditions and dispositions are required for receiving the sacraments validly and licitly, there follows in the minister an obligation not to minister them to the incapable or unworthy. For this of itself is the grave sin of sacrilege insofar as a sacred thing is exposed to profanation, according to Mt. VII, 6: Do not give what is holy to dogs; of infidelity insofar as the minister acts against the office of a good dispenser; and of scandal or cooperation in grave sin. Yet per accidens it is licit on account of a most grave cause, because by an action not evil it is licit to cooperate in another's sin, in order to avoid a greater evil (I, n. 489), namely, to avoid scandal, or the unjust defamation of the one asking, or the illegitimate use of knowledge acquired in sacramental confession.

Hence there arises an obligation of knowing in some way the state of the recipient; and indeed:

1. If there is question of sacraments in whose administration the priest is as a judge, he is bound to inquire concerning the fitness and worthiness of the recipient and to judge from positive indications. Thus especially:

a) in the sacrament of Penance, greater certitude of the dispositions of the recipient is required before the others, since there the minister is truly a judge;

b) in Order, inquiry must be made concerning the knowledge and probity of the recipient, which especially regards the common good of the Church;

c) in Matrimony the pastor is bound to inquire concerning impediments and sufficient instruction;

d) in the Baptism of adults inquiry must be made concerning faith and the purpose of Christian life.

2. For the other sacraments, Confirmation, Eucharist, Extreme Unction, the priest is not bound positively to judge concerning the disposition of the recipient; any faithful person, when he outwardly asks reverently, is presumed worthy, unless the contrary is established.

89. Rules to be observed in denying the sacraments. - A. The sacraments generally are to be denied:

1. to the incapable or unfit, who, namely, cannot validly receive them, or an adult who does not will to receive them, because in the case there would truly be a simulation of the sacrament, and therefore an abuse of a sacred thing intrinsically evil: thus if someone wished to confer Baptism upon one already baptized or upon one who does not wish to be baptized. But if there is doubt concerning capacity in a case of necessity, let the sacrament be ministered under condition;

2. to a public sinner, for example, one excommunicated by name or notoriously existing in mortal sin, whether he asks publicly or secretly, unless he appears amended with due dispositions; there is excepted, for the sacraments of necessity, the moment of death if he is deprived of the senses and there is at least some probability of due disposition;

3. likewise to a secret sinner secretly asking, provided the minister knows the sin otherwise than from confession, for otherwise the sinner cannot even be admonished outside confession.

B. On the contrary, to a secret sinner publicly asking, or to a public sinner asking in a place where he is not recognized as such and is not foreseen soon to be recognized, if he cannot be passed over without scandal or defamation, Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, and Extreme Unction are to be granted;¹ unless he wishes to receive the Eucharist for positively dishonoring it: for then he is to be repelled as an unjust aggressor of the honor due to the sacrament. But absolution is given secretly, and Order is not given to all; whence they are to be denied to the indisposed.

¹ The aforesaid rules are handed down in the Code of Law, for the Eucharist, can. 855.

But if the sinner asks when only certain little children are present, or those who know the sinner, he is judged to ask secretly, unless they are going to divulge the matter.

According to can. 2197, a delict is public if it has already been divulged, or has happened or is situated in such circumstances that it can and ought prudently to be judged that it will easily be divulged, whether it is notorious with notoriety of law after the sentence of a competent judge or the confession of the delinquent made in court, or with notoriety of fact, when the delict is publicly known and committed in such circumstances that it can be hidden by no evasion and excused by no suffrage of law. Moreover, it can be public either absolutely, if the delict is known quite commonly, or relatively, if it is known by many and those present or by the greater part, without yet having reached the common knowledge of the crowd.

From can. 855, "the publicly unworthy are the excommunicated, the interdicted, and the manifestly infamous," such as publicly known prostitutes or concubinaries, "unless their repentance and amendment is established and they have first satisfied public scandal." To these are to be equated heretics and schismatics, even those erring in good faith, to whom, according to can. 732, "it is forbidden to minister the sacraments... unless first, having rejected their errors, they have been reconciled to the Church."

In doubt concerning the publicity of the delict, the sacrament is rather to be given to one asking openly; in doubt concerning amendment or the retraction of a certainly public delict, or concerning scandal removed, it is rather to be deferred.

Where the unworthiness arises from crime alone, apart from scandal to be removed, it suffices that the sinner be publicly confessed, so that his repentance will soon be divulged. But if amendment or satisfaction or retraction must be made to remove scandal, regularly the scandal must first be removed by removal of the occasion or public retraction, or at least one exhibited in such a way that it can soon be made known; - unless, however, the sinner asks secretly, or scandal can be forestalled in another way.

90. Observations. - 1. To avoid the sacrilege of unworthy reception, it is not licit to simulate the ministration of a sacrament, which is a greater sin, as being a pure sacrilegious lie. To simulate a sacrament is externally to act as if it were a sacrament, so that the absence of the sacrament cannot become known. Whence simulation of a sacrament is the fictitious placing of a rite or apparently sacramental action, so that externally it is signified that a sacrament is being confected or ministered, which nevertheless is invalid because of a hidden defect; because in confecting or ministering the sacrament, at least something essential is changed or omitted, namely, matter or form or due intention. Thus, for example, to minister matter and form without intention, or so to pronounce the words of absolution, to celebrate Mass by consecrating water or by omitting the words of consecration, which also includes danger of material idolatry. Simulation of a sacrament is never licit; whence proposition 29 was condemned by Innocent XI: "Pressing grave fear is a just cause of simulating the administration of the sacraments."

Dissimulation or concealment differs from simulation of a sacrament, not indeed of the sacrament but of the denied sacrament. This consists in doing externally something other than a sacrament, which has a certain likeness with it; whence it is the substitution of another rite for the sacramental rite, or the placing of a non-sacramental action, by which neither the external appearance of a sacrament is present nor does it seem that a sacrament is confected or ministered, but nevertheless the denial of this can be hidden from those standing by. Thus, for example, to give a blessing in place of absolution, at least if the penitent is not deceived thereby; to say the formula of communion, "The Body of the Lord," etc., and pass over the consenting sinner; to go to the confessor or enter the confessional. Now, sometimes, when a just cause is present, it is licit to dissimulate the denial of a sacrament, not indeed directly so that one's neighbor may be deceived, but so that the truth may be hidden.

Let it be noted that matrimony, because it follows the nature of a contract, is licitly contracted fictitiously on account of grave fear: this is not simulation of a sacrament, because matrimony extorted by fear cannot be a valid sacrament; indeed it is not even true simulation of a contract, because from the circumstances the fiction can be understood by all. Whence it is only dissimulation of denied consent.

2. To minister a sacrament to an unworthy person, who asks it by threatening death or an equivalent evil, is certainly illicit if it is asked in hatred of the faith or contempt of religion; and also more probably if for another reason: for such asking is positively injurious to the sacrament and, as it were, an invasion of the honor and reverence due to the sacrament, with which the minister by yielding would proximately cooperate; and from this evil only mediately would there follow the good effect, namely, escape from death.

Question 1. Must the sacrament be denied to a sinner asking publicly, but whose crime, although notorious, because namely it can no longer be hidden, nevertheless is not yet properly public; or, if public, is not so where he asks?

Resp. Negatively, at least more probably, because on the one hand those standing by would take no scandal, or no great scandal, from such administration; and on the other, if the sacrament were denied, those inconveniences and harms would arise which come from a denial made to a sinner who is wholly secret. Indeed the same solution must be given if most of those standing by know the crime and it is not yet simply public. Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 45 and 46.

Question 2. Is it licit to simulate, or at least to dissimulate, a sacrament, lest it be conferred upon the unworthy?

Before an answer is given, it must be noted beforehand what the simulation of a sacrament is and in what it differs from its dissimulation. Now since simulation in general is, as St. Thomas says, "a lie of deed," or the placing of some sign expressing something contrary to that which is had in the mind, it follows that simulation of a sacrament is nothing other than a fictitious placing of a sacramental action, so that outwardly there does not appear the defect on account of which no sacrament is rendered. But it is called a fictitious placing of a sacramental action when matter and form are placed with the intention of not confecting the sacrament. But if the Minister, in acting thus, directly intends to deceive, then the simulation of the sacrament is called formal; if, however, he is induced to simulate from another motive, for example from grave fear, then it will be only material. But to dissimulate a sacrament is to omit some essential part of it, namely matter or form, whether another thing is substituted in its place or nothing is substituted; yet in such a way that this omission or substitution can be known outwardly, and this alone is sought, namely to hide the truth. These things having been noted, now to the question:

Resp. Certainly it is never licit to simulate a sacrament, whether there is question of formal simulation or only of material simulation. The reason is both because to simulate a sacrament is properly to lie, and because to act thus is to abuse sacred things and to mock God Himself; and since an abuse of this kind contains grave irreverence toward the sacrament, he who simulates some sacrament can never be excused from mortal sin. Besides, it is clear from proposition 29 condemned by Innocent XI, which is thus stated: "Urgent grave fear is a cause for simulating the administration of the sacraments." But in this condemnation even material simulation is reproved, since it is treated specially in the proposition. - Nevertheless, contempt being set aside and a just cause being added, it is licit to dissimulate a sacrament. The reason is that in dissimulation no injury is done to the sacrament, because no sacramental action is placed, nor is a lie committed, but only the truth is hidden. - Cf. Viva, on the cited proposition. - Scavini, lib. 3, n. 31. - Ballerini, note (a) p. 145. - Haine, vol. 2, p. 331.

XX. QUESTION XII. Are the sacraments lawfully administered to the unworthy? ANSWER. All deny it, and this Christ expressly forbids: Give not that which is holy to dogs. To a hidden sinner nevertheless publicly asking, the sacraments are not to be denied, just as Christ the Lord did not deny the Eucharist to the faithless Judas. But to a sinner asking secretly they ought to be denied, unless he give signs of penitence. But to public sinners the sacraments are to be denied both privately and publicly: as to comedians, to mimes, to women players or harlots, to female dancers in the theatres, to public concubinaries, to usurers, to adulterers.